THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #38 ~ May 13, 1999

"It takes two to speak the truth, ---
             one to speak,
             and another to hear."

                     Henry David Thoreau 1817 - 1977

Correspondents: John Allen (66),  Lee Johnson (54),
 Jim Bobo (56), Sandy Bronson (Bomber Spouse),
 Leonard Huesties (70), David Rivers (65), Jon Berry,
 Dick Harris (49), Marriem (Sampson) Bradford (68),
 Geoff Rothwell (71), Bob Hodgson (61),
 Anthony H. Tellier (57)

Please send all replies to: THE_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com

                               ~~~~~

Of All We Are: We are he who is concerned about the
 effect of the media on the attitudes and actions of our
 youth.  We are she who is concerned about the cost of
 living and the price of gas and solutions offered that
 really might not work. We are those who are
 wondering if our children or grand children will be sent
 to fight in a current or future war.  We are she who
 is a Victim's Advocate in Littleton Colorado, holding
 the hand of a young man who is weeping because the
 girl he had taken to homecoming last fall has just been
 murdered in a high school massacre.  We are all of this
 and so much more. We are scattered all around the
 world but we are gathered together here.  We are
 Richland Bombers.  We are family.

                              ~~~~~

From: John Allen (66)
Reply-To: miles2go@cheerful.com
Subj: We Reap What We Sow

Tuesday, 20 April, 1999 - This afternoon in Littleton,
 Colorado, the sorry EXAMPLE of a very large
 segment of "adult" America arose to help murder
 several of America's youth. Here's how.

There can be no question that the student killers in the
 latest High School massacre had previously introduced
 weapons through the doors of their school.  Neither
 can there be any question that many other students
 were aware of that fact.   But how many of these
 students told their parents and/or school authorities of
 the situation?  My guess is that, while all who knew
 SHOULD have been doing exactly that, very few if
 any actually did.

AND WHY NOT?  Consider this.  Together with a
 natural reluctance to break faith with their own age
 group, today's teenagers are just now emerging from a
 serious, year-long "education" in NOT snitching on
 their friends; and it has been hammered into their
 brains by a tremendously large percentage of American
 adults, including the likes of Geraldo Rivera, Jay Leno,
 Alec Baldwin, Senators Charles Schumer and Robert
 Toricelli, and Congressman Charles Rangel - just to
 name a very few of the glitteratti involved. The lesson
 is quite simply that, if you see a friend doing something
 seriously illegal or dangerous, or if a friend
 wants you to participate in such activity, you should
 remain silent at ALL cost.   The "PRIME
 DIRECTIVE" which  may not be violated is, "Never,
 EVER Snitch on a  Friend."

"BUT," you say, "I don't remember any such education
 being given to my child.  I would never have permitted
 such a thing, much less participated in it."  Oh,
 REALLY??   Try to remember the following sequence
 of events.  Linda Tripp was recruited by Monica
 Lewinsky to participate in federal felonies (specifically
 Perjury and Obstruction of Justice), and Tripp decided
 to protect herself and her family by making audio tapes
 of a very small portion of her conversations with
 the person asking for her participation.   For her good
 citizenship; for doing nothing more than her DUTY
 under the law, she has been thoroughly and tenaciously
 eviscerated in our homes and gathering places, AND
 on national television during the last 15 months.  Do
 we really believe our children were NOT taking notice
 of this example set by so many of their primary role
 models (read that "parents") AND their "gods?"   If
 we  as adults want to protect our children and promote
 their good citizenship, we must finally rid ourselves of
 yet another of our MANY conveniently rationalized
 child-raising philosophies called "Do as I say, not as I
 do."  I can already hear the renewed liberal cries for
 more gun legislation, but a less popular, more difficult
 and time consuming, and less "feel good" solution, is
 the insertion of just plain "good EXAMPLE" into the
 mix of parent/adult behavior.  If we want our children
 to learn to protect themselves by informing on friends
 who introduce the instruments of their very death into
 our schools, we CANNOT at the same time
 demonstrate the opposite example.  To defend the
 current president, many so-called adults have resorted
 to attacking whistle blowers like Linda Tripp, but is
 defending a popular and charismatic president for his
 atrocious personal behavior worth the life of even one
 of our children?  And how "adult" is the behavior
 which beats a woman down by additionally castigating
 her for her physical appearance?  I began this rant as a
 discussion of example, and because example IS the
 most effective way to influence and protect our
 children, is it so much to ask of ourselves that our
 example be good? Or, in our current state of societal
 "progression," have such concepts (like too many of
 our children) become passť?

                       John Allen ('66)

                              ~~~~~

From: Jim Bobo 56
          darjim@uswest.net
Subj:  Registering for Continued Service

Thanks, Al, for all the great  work.  I'd like to continue
 receiving the SANDBOX please!

   --- Jim Bobo

                             ~~~~~

From:   Sandy Bronson
             sbronson@kctera.net

Subject: Gas Relief

       This "gas boycott" of one day only will not make
any difference at all.  You will have to buy the same
amount of gas the next day.  Who thought this up
anyway?????

   Yes....this is poor Richard Bronson's (59) whiny wife.

                                 ~~~~~

Subj:   If We Were One Little Village
Forwarded by::     Lee Johnson (54)
                           Beeg Byte@aol.com

If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of
 precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios
 remaining the same, it would look like this:
       There would be:

        57 Asians
       21 Europeans
       14 from the Western Hemisphere (north and south)
        8 Africans

       52 would be female
       48 would be male

       70 would be non white, 30 white
       70 would be non Christian, 30 would be Christian
       89 would be heterosexual, 11 homosexual

       6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's
 wealth, and all 6 would be citizens of the United States

       80 would live in substandard housing
       70 would be unable to read
       50 would suffer from malnutrition
       1 would be near death, 1 would be near birth
       Only 1 would have a college education, and
       1 would own a computer

When one considers our world from such a
compressed perspective, the need for both acceptance
and understanding becomes GLARINGLY apparent.

                                ~~~~~

From:  Leonard Huesties (70)
           1len@gte.net
Subj:   Re-Subscribe

 Al, Sign me up: Thanks.

                               ~~~~~

From:   David Rivers (65)
           NeverTowed@aol.com
To:     THE_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com
:          The Weapons and Mind Sets of War

Referring to Geoff  Rothwell's (71) comment: << WE
 BEAT the Germans and Japanese with conventional
 weapons >> Wow...I can't believe I'm reading
 this stuff from people who are old enough to know
 better..."peace, love and conventional weapons"  You
 don't "beat" the Japanese, the Vietnamese or any other
 eastern "enemy" (past tense) with conventional
 western anything.  The Japanese were not going to
 surrender..."beaten" or not.  We found the same thing
 in Vietnam.  Yes, I'm a Viet.-vet...USMC, RVN
 1967-68.  The only way to deal with the eastern mind
 is through eastern thinking and acting accordingly.
 When we ran into something we couldn't deal with, we
 would call in the ROK Marines...they knew what they
 were up against and acted as the enemy did... it
 worked very well.  Of course there were various
 political reasons for using the Bomb...but anyone who
 thinks that American lives weren't saved, just has to
 look at his fingers and toes and start counting.  Wars
 in which only fighting men and women die went out
 with...gee was there ever such a thing?  I really don't
 think so...I'm very sorry that civilians had to die to end
 that war, but it had to end and it wasn't going to end
 by slugging it out from island to island.  I served with
 a lot of guys that had been in the islands during WWII
 and believe me, we'd still have been doing it the old
 fashioned way for a very long time before it would
 have ended.  We did it...we won...get over it!

David J. Rivers ('65; S/sgt. USMC 1966-1970; B.S.,
 M.Ed.,J.D.)
                                ~~~~~

From::   Dick Harris (49)
            Harris1621@aol.com
Subj:    The Greatest Generation

        For some interesting reading, some of you
 might enjoy Stephen Ambrose's "D-Day" and Tom
 Brokaw's "The Greatest Generation."  Many of us can
 relate to some of the situations that Brokaw relates
 and we can once more be thankful for all the sacrifice
 during W.W.II and the reasons we were in Richland.
 We need to be alert to opportunities to keep more
 recent generations from rewriting that history!

        A couple of my Rotarian friends have come up
 with what I think is a great project for our community.
 Taking a lead from the work of Brokaw in "The
 Greatest Generation," they have created a project
 involving both the Wenatchee and Eastmont High
 School English Honors classes and the North Central
 Washington Museum.  The project involves these
 students with members o the community who lived
 their lives during the Great Depression and World
 War II.  The students are interviewing many of these
 persons and getting their stories and recollections
 down on paper and tapes in a program called "Honor
 By Listening!"  What a learning experience for these
 kids!  Although I consider myself having benefitted
 from all the contributions of this  generation and not
 having contributed very much, the student that
 interviewed me listened to amazement as I recounted
 our family's experience of coming to Richland for that
 very special and important work.  I also told her that
 we were the Beavers, before becoming the Bombers!

                        Dick Harris (49)

                                ~~~~~

From:   3berrys@yvn.com (Jon & Kristy Berry)
To:     THE_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com (THE SANDBOX)
Subj:   Re-Subscribe

I would still like to receive further editions of the
Sandbox please.

Thanks
Jon Berry

                               ~~~~~

From: Marriem (Sampson) Bradford `68
          Mbradf1301@aol.com
Subj:  Here in Littleton

I am a Victim's Advocate here in Colorado and the last
 week here has been the most heart wrenching
 experience of my life.   I have so enjoyed this Alumni
 site but as I was holding the hand of a young man who
 was weeping because the girl he had taken to
 homecoming last fall, had died Tuesday at the high
 school, I couldn't help but think thirty years from now
 what memories he will have?   I know that the happy
 memories will be there, but I'm sure they will be
 tainted with all of this sorrow.

Hug your kids and grandkids and any kid who needs to
 know he or she is loved.  Please say a prayer to
 whomever it is you pray to for the healing to begin,
 here in Littleton, Colorado and the rest of the country
 and the world.

           Marriem (Sampson) Bradford     '68

                              ~~~~~

From:   Geoff Rothwell (71)
            rothwell@leland.Stanford.EDU
To:     THE_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com

I thought you all might be interested in my response
to Richard Lapchick's Op-Ed in the LATimes
(see www.latimes.com, search for Lapchick for the
original)

To the LA Times,

It is apparent from Richard Lapchick's defense of
 athletes (May 3, 1999) that he never experienced "Jock
 Abuse." As a straight-A student under 100 pounds
 throughout junior high, I was physically abused by
 athletes almost everyday.  Most of the physical abuse
came during PE  (Physical Education classes) either on
the mat, in the  gym, on the field, or in the locker room.
 I had my  wrist broken, the wind knocked out of me,
 my nose  blooded, and deodorant sprayed in my eyes.
 I was  slapped, hit, smashed, punched, pounded,
 pushed, and  intimidated.  My gym teacher watched
 and laughed,  thinking that this abuse would "make me
 a man" and  "put hair on my chest."  Much of this
 abuse was not  done by varsity athletes, but by those
 that didn't make  the varsity teams.  They were
 frustrated with a star  system that made them feel
 substandard and I was an  easy target.

I was confused, as were my talented, non-athlete
 classmates.  We were the brightest kids in school and
 received praise from our individual teachers, but
 received no support from the school as a whole or
 from the social hierarchy that permeated it. Some of us
 found refuge in our studies and became college
 professors.  Some of us were marginalized, became
 drug addicts, and died.  But none of us understood
 how to change a social hierarchy with athletes on the
 top of the social order.

Lapchick proposes a program that reenforces this
 social order.  Of course, the average student respects
 the varsity athlete because the athlete is at the top of
 their social system.  Unfortunately, this order
 marginalizes students who are not athletic.
 Talented students wonder how a country that
 specializes in science and technology can produce a
 school system where they are "nerds," "eggheads,"
 and  "four-eyed gooks."

While employing student-athletes to prevent violence,
 school teachers and administrators need to
 de-emphasize athletics as the primary route to social
 success.  Schools need to reward all students for their
 accomplishments, not only the athletes.  Education and
 extra-curricular activities should help students develop
 all their talents.  Until middle schools, junior highs,
 and high schools encourage a more balanced student
 social structure, some marginalized students will abuse
 themselves or take out their frustrations on their
 classmates.

Geoffrey Rothwell teaches economics at Stanford
 University.  (Class of '71)

                               ~~~~~

Subj: Re-Subscribe.
         Bob Hodgson (61)
         Absozark@aol.com

         Please subscribe.

                               ~~~~~

Subj:    THINK TWICE - At Least!!!

From:   John M. Allen
Reply-to:       miles2go@cheerful.com
To:     THE_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com

Monday, 26 April 99 - In a few short months (four at
 most), the hierarchy of the Democratic Party is going
 to begin steering Democrats and undecided voters
 AWAY FROM the best candidate the Democratic
 Party has had to offer since Adlai Stevenson.  (For all
 you youngsters, Stevenson ran twice against
 Eisenhower in the fifties and later served as UN
 Ambassador under Kennedy.)   Voters will be told that
 the country cannot survive without the "experience"
 and "tested leadership" of Albert Gore, and all of that
 propaganda will be pure HOGWASH.   There is
 another, MUCH BETTER CHOICE available and his
 name is BILL BRADLEY.   I encourage you all to
 actually think about him before you allow yourselves
 to be led down a primrose path.   I won't tell you that
 Al Gore is the kind of man Bill Clinton is, but I will tell
 you he is NOWHERE NEAR the kind of man Bill
 Bradley is.   Bradley IS what Clinton has only
 pretended to be for his disgraceful six plus years in the
 White House.  To begin with, Bradley is an
 extraordinarily brilliant and gifted human being, not
 just a man with the ability to memorize.  After
 graduating with honors from Princeton University, he
 was not only awarded a Rhodes Scholarship as was
 Clinton, but Bradley spent his time in England
 studying, and UNlike Clinton, he actually graduated
 from Oxford.   After a storied career in professional
 basketball during which his NY Knicks won a World
 Championship with him as a starter, Bradley spent 18
 years in the US Senate representing the State of New
 Jersey.  Unfortunately for BOTH Bradley and Gore,
 their two personalities are roughly equivalent to a
 fence post, but it can only be hoped that Americans
 have finally come to the realization that, regardless of
 political party, the ability (and inclination) to charm the
 pants off of a large segment of female America, is
 NOT the primary qualification we should be looking
 for in our presidential candidates.

It can be justifiably argued that since his departure from
 the US Senate, Al Gore has in no sense been a leader
 but merely a follower.  It's the job of VP as much as
 the man, but you can be sure Gore hasn't blown his
 nose without first asking for Clinton's "OK."  It can
 further be said that he has been more than a little
 hypocritical with his practiced oratory about his sister's
 death from smoking induced lung cancer, while fiercely
 supporting tobacco growers for some years thereafter.
 And finally, it can be argued that he was a little too
 easily led by Der Schlickmeister down the path of
 highly questionable financial practices during the '96
 campaign.   Nevertheless, Al Gore is NOT a sociopath
 as is Clinton.   The point is, do you Democrats want to
 offer America chopped liver or filet mignon for a
 presidential candidate.   On the one hand you've got a
 man who is untarnished by scandal, a Rhodes Scholar,
 an NBA Champion, an 18 Senator and, oh, by the way,
 an Olympic Gold medal winner in 1964.  (I almost
 hesitate to say it, but the guy is even an Eagle Scout.)
 Finally, perhaps his most powerful qualification for the
 Presidency is that HE IS NOT A LAWYER.  On the
 other hand, you've got Al Gore.  It shouldn't even be
 close.   I am still proud to say that, although I had to
 write in his name, I did vote for Bill Bradley for
 president in November of 1980.   Since that time, my
 political views have changed and I might not vote for
 Bradley again in a general election, but if he should be
 elected president in 2000, I could be certain that this
 decent and supremely qualified Democrat would never
 make me gut wrenchingly nauseated by his very
 presence in the White House.   I certainly can't say that
 about the current occupant.   Wouldn't it be inspiring
 for a change to have two candidates running for
 president where each was the best his party had to
 offer and not just the next in line for the job?   Among
 Bradley and a couple of the possible Republican
 candidates, America could be assured of having a truly
 top notch individual sworn into office on January 20,
 2001.

---John  Allen ('66)

                                  ~~~

From: Anthony H. Tellier (57)
Tony_Tellier@compuserve.com
Subj: Kosovo: How Do We Get Out?

(Regarding a question asked about an exit plan
 when considering the sending of ground  troops
 into Kosovo.)

  Don't go in ...

A. H. Tellier
Yuma, AZ USA

                               ~~~~~

Thank you, everyone, for your excellent contributions
 to this issue of THE SANDBOX.  There is much here
 for all of us to think about, talk about, and if you
 should feel so inclined, even to pray about.  We are
 living in a time when things can happen very quickly
 for good and for bad.  We are all an important part of
 this world scene and the open dialogue we can share
 here is very unique, very special and very important to
 all of us as we live and work and love, cope with, and
 enjoy the challenges of each day.  We all share a truly
 unique Richland Bomber heritage  You are among
 friends here, so don't keep your thoughts to yourself.
 We'd all like to hear from all of you frequently, about
 your hopes, your dreams,  your earnest concerns and
 your current activities.  Thanks to all who have sent in
 your kind comments also, during our re-subscription
 process.  I'll be sharing some of those comments with
 you in future  issues of The SANDBOX.

Please remember to address all your contributions to
 the new SANDBOX MAILING ADDRESS
                            WHICH IS:

                       THE_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com
     
                 See you next time!
                 Al Parker (53)
                 Your collector of thoughts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         -38-