The SANDBOX
                        Issue # 54
                      March 12, 2000

    "This above all: to thine own self be true, 
    And it must follow, as the night the day, 
    Thou canst not then be false to any man."

               ---Shakespeare's Hamlet

                              ~ ~ ~

              This Weeks's Contributors
        And What They Are Talking About:

    Mari (Leona Eckert)Leahy (65) Talks About
 Smoking, and Who's to Blame.
                        
     Marc Franco (66) discusses Dick Epler's
 Reasoning regarding presidential nominees

     Ron Richards (63) responds to Mike Cram
 about tearing down the Snake River dams..

    Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy  (65) talks to Patty
 Stordahl (72) about potential candidates.

     Patty Stordahl (72) gives her take on credit cards
   and pin numbers.

      GasOut 2000  - What do YOU think?

                                ~ ~ ~

       Issue #54 of The SANDBOX salutes:
               The Class of 1954!
 
 Check the following Internet location for Class 
 of '54 names, E-mail addresses and Personal
 Pages on the Web!  Chances are, someone there
 would like to hear from you!
                                                
     http://richlandbombers.1954.tripod.com/

     You can also add you own E-mail address
 to that page if you are a '54 grad and haven't
 already done so. You may also volunteer to take
 over maintenance of that site.

                               ~ ~ ~

From:    Mari (Leona Eckert)Leahy (65)
             Me12147@aol.com

To Mary (Ray) Henslee (61). RE: Stop the
 Madness. You say your own father died from
 smoking thirty-eight years ago, at the age of 57.
 You follow that with, it has never entered my
 mind to blame anyone but him for his death. 

It is amazing to me that you can be so positive
 about what and who caused your own father's
 death. I would imagine that he had smoked for
 what - twenty, maybe thirty years, before his
 death? Personally, I can't recall much information
 being available on the hazards of smoking during
 that era. Granted, HE chose to smoke. HE
 wasn't aware that the cigarette companies were
 deliberately adding stuff to their product to help
 addict their customers. In HIS time, probably
 75% of the adult population smoked. Many
 things may cause cancer or emphysema. Just
 read the papers any day of the week to find the
 newest culprit. Hope you cut out hot dogs when
 they claimed they could cause cancer. Milk,
 eggs, and cheese too. Granted, you are saying
 we are a society too eager to sue, to avoid
 responsibility for some of our own actions, but I
 found your example pretty cold-hearted and
 unsympathetic. There are times when companies
 need to be held accountable for their
 irresponsibility. Many have died from cancer,
 who smoked. There are many who died from
 cancer who never smoked. 
Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy (65)
                                ~ ~ ~ 

  Marc Franco Respects Dick Epler's Reasoning.

From:   Marc Franco (66)
Reply-to: mfranco@sttl.uswest.net (Marc Franco)

As one of the liberals in this forum, I would like
 to congratulate Dick Epler on what I thought
 was an outstanding letter about the candidates. I
 mention that I am a liberal, because from other
 notes that I have seen from Dick, I have
 considered that he is a moderate conservative. 
 (If I am wrong, Dick, forgive me.)  I thought it
 was a thoughtful and well-reasoned letter,
 and in several of his points that he was warning
 to beware of, I saw myself.  I had been
 planning to vote for McCain in this primary, and
 at this late date, I probably still will - if not
 McCain, then Bradley. But Dick raised
 many good points, and I need to think about them.

   I do have one question. Dick mentioned that
 McCain might "repeat" some of Clinton's
 "catastrophic mistakes." This is actually an
 excellent point. We have probably all read about
 McCain's temper and his shooting from the hip -
 certainly the groundwork is there for later BIG
 mistakes. However, other than the Monica
 situation, what "catastrophic mistakes" are you
 referring to, Dick? Clinton has certainly made
 errors, but offhand, other than Monica, I can't
 think of other total screw ups that are much
 different than what any other president has done.

                      -Marc Franco (66)

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj:   About Tearing Down the Dams
From:   Ron Richards
mailto:G1A1S1@aol.com

To Mike Cram:

     Your Sandbox submission raises an interesting
 point regarding silt.  But the reduced silt load
 resulting from the deposition of the silt in the
 dam reservoirs also causes several other large
 problems.  For one, it clears up the river water to
 the point where downstream anadromous fish
 migrants become easier pray for the predator fish
 and birds.  A major problem - as evidenced by
 the relatively large salmon runs which
 corresponded to the increased silt loads in the
 lower Columbia following the eruption of Mount
 St. Helens.

 Mike, it's O.K. to be in favor of dam breaching
 even if you live in the Tri-Cities.  On February
 17, I attended the Corps hearing in Pasco to
 testify in favor of dam removal and I lived
 through it.  And there were a number of very
 impressive presentations made in favor of dam
 breaching by Hanford employees whom I assume
 are still alive.

 The opponents' comments were primarily
 based on the usual fear factor regarding loss of
 jobs.  They tried to portray breaching as
 "extreme" and something that should only be
 done as a last resort. Well folks, with the really
 extreme likelihood that the fish runs will go
 extinct if the lower Snake River dams remain in
 place, the "extreme"  thing to do is to leave the
 dams in place.  Less than 30 sockeye salmon
 returned last year, out of a run that used to
 number in the hundreds of thousands.  If
 breaching should only be done as a last resort,
 when should that resort be taken?  When there is
 only 1 sockeye salmon left?  That would be
 interesting.

 And there is no need to fear the loss of jobs.  
 Think back to when the community "leaders" in
 the Tri-Cities opposed the Hanford Cleanup
 tooth and nail in the late 70's.  You heard the
 same argument.  These "leaders" finally got
 smart and began supporting the cleanup in the
 early eighties.  They have been thriving off that
 ever since.  The same would occur with dam
 breaching - except there would be a more
 tangible result.

Ron Richards ('63)

P.S.  As I was standing in line to register to
 testify at the Corps hearing, I had a rather lively
 discussion with a rather redneck rancher from
 Benton City.  In the course of that conversation
 he made the comment that he hoped the fish
 would go extinct because he then would no
 longer be required to keep his cattle out of "his"
 creek.  Although none of the people who I heard
 testify at the hearing in opposition to dam
 breaching made that same assertion, extinction
 would be the obvious result of the delay tactics
 that they were espousing.  One must wonder
 how many of them harbor the same basic hope as
 my rancher friend from Benton City does.

                                ~ ~ ~
Subj:   Presidential Candidate Choices 
From:   Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy (65)
            Me12147@aol.com
 
Responding to Patty Stordahl (72)

President Colin Powell and Vice President Alan
 Keyes, or Jessie Jackson and Alan Keyes???
 Please - have a heart.

Of ALL the candidates running this election year,
 there is only ONE that has lived his life in the
 service of his country. He may have a temper
 (who doesn't, occasionally?), and he may not
 have been able to accomplish all that others feel
 he should've by now. No other candidate though,
 has already given so much of himself to his
 country and is still willing and able to do much
 more. He has EARNED the right to run for
 president. More than I can say for any of the
 other candidates. 

           Mari (Leona Eckert) Leahy  (65)

[At this point, Mari, (or anyone else), what do
 you think about the idea of McCain running as
 an independent?

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Credit Cards & Pin Numbers
From:  Patty Stordahl (72)
    DZIGNRITE@aol.com

Regarding Pin numbers for CC purchases over
 the Internet.  All another pin number does is lulls
 us into a false sense of security.  When every day
 local high school kids can hack their way into the
 CIA & FBI files and God knows where else. 
 This does not even include the professional bad
 guys who hack into business files over the net for
 a living.  Nor will it take care of the people who
 look through your garbage to find old billing
 receipts that get carelessly tossed out.

The truth about credit card use is that if you once
 give it out even at the store you are subject to a
 dishonest employee and you are no longer safe. 
 You take your risks.

I do love the convenience of the monster in my
 wallet, but I use it as seldom as possible and
 when I do have to reserve a car or flight or hotel
 I try to get the name of the person I give my
 number to.  I cannot even bring myself to call
 into QVC on diamonique night.  Now that is a
 hard one for me.  As for pin numbers and
 banking on line or purchasing randomly, though
 convenient I vote, When at all possible, keep
 your transactions local.  I would no more put my
 personal information on the net than I would put
 it on the sendBOX.  By the way.  I still like the
 name Sand Box better.  

Keep a tight grip on your wallet and never trust
 your computer to safe guard your information. 

Now what do you all feel about taxing the
 Internet businesses?  Free non taxed E.
 Commerce?  Is this good business sense or just a
 way for huge billion dollar industries to force
 higher local and state and federal taxes on the
 little guys?  If they do not pay for the use and
 transactions, who will?  

Regarding political integrity, or political honor
 isn't that what we would call an oxymoron?

Patty Stordahl (72)

                            ~ ~ ~

Moderator's Note: "Pin" numbers, (personal
 identity numbers), do not appear on credit card
 slips that are tossed into the garbage.  A pin
 number authorization requirement absolutely and
 unequivocally would have kept a total of $3,300
 from being fraudulently charged against credit
 cards stolen from me.  One fraudulent charge
 was made at a local tire store; the other by
 telephone to a mail order computer company in a
 different state.

It is very true that some sales receipts, carelessly
 handled, will give away your full name, 16 digit
 account number and expiration date. An
 unscrupulous predator, some whom I have
 witnessed prowling through garbage cans, 
 ATM waste baskets, and automobiles, looking
 for that information, will then be able to look up
 your name and address in the phone book, if you
 are listed there.  If your listed address is the same
 as your credit card billing address, voila!, the
 criminal mind has everything needed to start
 milking your credit card at will.  They can do it
 on the telephone.  They  can do it on the
 Internet.  They can even do it in the local tire
 store, if they are clever enough and the sales
 clerk is careless enough. How do I know?  It
 happened to me.  A pin number authorization
 requirement would definitely have stopped this
 particular criminal dead in his tracks.  He would
 have had no way of knowing what that pin
 number was.  Luckily, I saw that $2000 worth of 
 computers were billed to me on my credit card
 statement before they were shipped.

The tire store "bought" the story from someone
 impersonating me over the telephone, saying I
 was giving permission for a person with a
 different name and address than me to make
 purchases against my account.  He could not
 have pulled that off if a pin number 
 authorization number had been required.

Pin number security works with cash
 disbursements and is always required by the
 banks. It will work with products and services as
 well.  It would also keep kids from "sneaking"
 their parent's credit cards as "proof" of age,
 in order to check out areas normally reserved for
 so-called "adult" tastes.  The "pin number" can
 be invisible to both vendors and banks by
 making that number electronically transmittable,
 but illegible and unprintable at any point along
 the way.

That's how passwords work.  Your Pin number
 should work the same way for you when you are
 buying merchandise just as it does when you
 are "buying" cash.  You punch the number
 yourself, into the terminal, the telephone, or
 onto your computer screen.  Regardless of what
 your pin number is, if others see it all, all they
 see is something like: "****." Banks require
 personal identity numbers in order to protect
 their own interests when they are "selling" 
 cash.  Vendors and Credit Card holders deserve
 the same kind of protection the banks have
 always insisted on reserving for themselves.   

Regarding using Sendbox@aol.com as The
 Sandbox mailbox:  The name of this forum
 continues, as always, to be The SANDBOX.
 Sendbox@aol.com was chosen as The
 SANDBOX mailbox only because another  
 person or organization was already using The
 SANDBOX name @aol.  So, you Sendbox your
 SANDBOX entries to me, and I Sendbox the
 SANDBOX back to you.  That is how
 Sendbox@aol.com became the place you send it
 to, as well as the place I send it from.
  
                               - ap -

How's this?? You can also now use the address:
sandbox@richlandbombers.com

                               ~ ~ ~

          GasOut 2000 - Will It Work?

Several have written and forwarded messages
 advocating that, as done on April 30,1999, a
 "gas out" be staged across Canada and the U.S.
 to bring the price of  gas down.  Many feel that
 was an effective tool then.  Following this
 paragraph is the "gist" of what is being
 proposed. Rather than republish that "forwarding
 effort" here, we'd be interested in comments in
 your own words as  to whether you are in favor
 of participating, and why you think it may or
 may not be effective in helping to bring down the
 rapidly escalating price of fuel at the pumps. 
 Also, what about heating oil prices? How is all of
 this affecting you,  personally, or your line of
 work?

Here's what's being proposed:

 Do not buy any gasoline from APRIL 7, 2000
 THROUGH APRIL 9, 2000.  Buy what you
 need  before the dates listed above, or after,
 but try not to buy any during the GAS OUT.

What do you think?  Can this be an affective tool?

                                 ~ ~ ~ 

Thanks to all the contributors to this issue of
The SANDBOX. Send all your comments, ideas and
personal experiences you'd like to share to:

Sendbox@aol.com
OR 
sandbox@richlandbombers.com

   Remember: What you Say is What You Get!

                                ~ 54 ~