The SANDBOX 
             Issue #69  - Part A - July 2, 2000
        Ideas - Opinion - Personal Experience

       http://www.bigfoot.com/~The_Sandbox
          E-mail: The_Sandbox@Bigfoot.com


Look who's Talking Today!

     "With the Fourth of July rapidly approaching
 it's  good to reflect on its real meaning and the
 sacrifices others have made for our benefit"

             - Linda Reining Pitchford `64

     "Do we blame the incumbent for all the ills of
 society, or is it really ourselves and what we
 have allowed ourselves to become?  What ever
 happened to responsible citizens?  Have we not
 abrogated responsibility for litigation?"

          -Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") `54

     "I have major problems with "liberals" who
 have no real principles, and "conservatives"
 whose real agenda is to control the lives of
 others."

                       - Anna Durbin `69

     "On occasion there is some purpose served in
 restating an idea or position so that it might
 reach those who missed it initially, or perhaps
 give others who may require it, a better
 understanding of the original point."

                     - John Allen `66

Also in this issue:
          
      Pulse Polls submitted by Gary Behymer (64)

                 ~  -  ~  -  ~  -  ~  -  ~
                          
Because of space limitations in Issue ‘68 the
 Class of `68's Home Page wasn't given the
 attention it deserved. There you will find:


The Class of 1968 Motto -  
    "If there is not a path, we shall make one."
Class of 1968 Song - "The Impossible Dream" 
Class of 1968 Colors - Silver and Purple 
Class of 1968 Flower - The Rose

To get to the `68 Home Page, go to:
    All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
    When you click on 1968, you will find:

Class Roster, E-Mail Links, Both grade school
 and Col-Hi Pictures of `68 grads.  Also: Class of
 1968 Missing Classmates, Memorial Page, A
 page honoring veterans, "History - Before the
 Bomb," Manhattan Project Certificate, and more.

                            ~ ~ ~ ~

Issue #69 of The SANDBOX salutes:

                      The Class of 1969

To get to the `69 Home Page, go to:
    All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
    When you click on 1968, you will find:

Grade School Pictures, In Memory of, Classmates 
Home Pages. Missing Classmates Birthdays, Class 
Roster, E-Mail Roster...

CLASS Quote: Some men see things as they are
 and ask, "Why?" I dream things that never were
 and say, "Why not?"

                    -Edward Kennedy

Class "Flower" Gardenia
Class "Colors" Olive Green, Peacock Blue, 
and Silver

Class "Feelings"

SOMEWHERE
There's a place for us,
Somewhere a place for us;
Peace and quiet and open air
Wait for us somewhere.

There's a time for us,
Someday a time for us;
Time together with time to spare,
Time to learn, time to care,
Wait for us somewhere.

                           ~-~-~-~-~-~

Here's More of
                     What We're Talking About Today:

[Normally the Sandbox publishes the Original
 Ideas, Opinions and Personal Experiences of
 RHS/Col-Hi alumni, friends and family.
 Today we take exception to our normal protocol
 in order to recognize the tremendous sacrifice
 made by so many who were willing to risk
 so much, including their very lives, in order
 to build a nation in which freedom could
 endure.  This freedom includes the very precious
 freedom of personal expression we are privileged
 to share here.  -ap]

Subj:   Freedom Is Never Free
From: Linda Reining Pitchford (64)
Wabbithabit@aol.com
To: The SANDBOX

With the Fourth of July rapidly approaching it's
 good to reflect on its real meaning and the
 sacrifices others have made for our  benefit. So, I
 thought I'd pass this along.

Article Forwarded:

Have you ever wondered what happened to the
 56 men who signed the Declaration of
 Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as
 traitors and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary 
Army, another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or
 hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.  Eleven
 were merchants, nine were farmers and large
 plantation owners; men of means, well educated. 
 But they signed the Declaration of Independence
 knowing full well that the penalty would be death
 if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and
 trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the
 British Navy.  He sold his home and properties
 to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British
 that he was forced to move his family almost
 constantly.  He served in the Congress without
 pay, and his family was kept in hiding.  His
 possessions were taken from him, and poverty
 was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of
 Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett,
 Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr.,
 noted that the British General Cornwallis had
 taken over the Nelson home for his
 headquarters.  He quietly urged General George
 Washington to open fire.  The home was
 destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties
 destroyed.  The enemy jailed his wife, and she
 died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as
 she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their
 lives.  His fields and his gristmill were laid to
 waste.  For more than a year, he lived in forests
 and caves, returning home to find his wife dead
 and his children vanished.  A few weeks later, he
 died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
 Such were the stories and sacrifices of the
 American Revolution.  These were not
 wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians.  They were
 soft-spoken men of means and education.  They
 had security, but they valued liberty more.

Standing straight, and unwavering, they pledged: 
 "For the support of this declaration, with firm
 reliance on the protection of the divine
 providence, we mutually pledge to each other,
 our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

They gave you and me a free and independent
 America.  The history books never told you a lot
 about what happened in the Revolutionary War. 
 We didn't fight just the British.  We were British
 subjects at that time and we fought our own
 government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for
 granted, but we shouldn't.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of
 July Holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's
 not much to ask for the price they paid.
 Remember:  Freedom is never free!

I hope you will show your support by please
 sending this to as many people as you can.  It's
 time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT
 a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than
 beer, picnics, and baseball games.

 Forwarded by:  - Linda Reining Pitchford (64)

                               ~ ~ ~

   End of Part A, The SANDBOX, Issue #69

                           ~-~-~-~-~-

The SANDBOX - Issue #69 - Part B
July 2, 2000

Subj: Re: Dick Epler's `52 comments in Issue #68
From:   Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") `54
bobs@proaxis.com

Dick, I just gotta say that for the most part you
 made a believer out of me, but, when you put
 society's ills at the feet (of clay) of "Slick Willie"
 I draw the line.

I imagine that people back the 18th century
 felt the same way when they heard about
 Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings.  And in
 the early part of the 20th century, probably much
 the same was said over the antics of Warren
 Gamiel Harding.  I know, Warren didn't do "it"
 in the Oval Office, but instead he used a
 convenient cloak room down the hall.

I often wonder if any of this would have happened,
 had not "Tricky Dick" done the Watergate thing. 
 Would certain right-wingers been so zealous in
 their "witch-hunt" to find evil doings by
 whichever Democratic president sat in the White
 House.  They probably tried with "St." Jimmy
 Carter, but I guess lusting in one's heart isn't bad
 enough.

You realize, of course, that none of this would
 have come out had not these people been out for
 Clinton's hide.

Do we blame the incumbent for all the ills of
 society, or is it really ourselves and what we
 have allowed ourselves to become?  What ever
 happened to responsible citizens?  Have we not
 abrogated responsibility for litigation?

You and I are of an age to remember corporal
 punishment in school, where the "board of
 education" was applied to the "seat of learning." 
 And our parents did not complain about it, or
 take the matter to court.  If we screwed up in
 school and got punished for it, that was all in the
 learning process.  And, what's more, we probably
 had to make a "trip to the woodshed."
It may not be "right" by today's standard, but it
 certainly met the constitutional requirement for
 swift justice.  And, for you "boomers," we
 didn't consider it "cruel and unusual"
 punishment.  You took your licks and went on
 with life.  And our parents were not threatened
 by some governmental child-welfare agency
 either.  Although some "shrink" would have us
 as abused children.  I don't know about you,
 Dick, but I didn't feel abused.

All in all, I think the whole impeachment business
 was more of a political get even for something
 that previously happened.  I know certain liberal
 Democrats tried to blame Eisenhower for the
 excesses of the junior Senator from Wisconsin. 
 But McCarthy was more of a product of the
 time, and most certainly an opportunist of the
 first water.  He may have been one of Ike's
 crosses to bear, but he was not of Ike's doing.

      -Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj: Responding and Asking: 
           Which Statute?  Which Social Scientist?
From:   Anna Durbin `69
golddurb@libertynet.org 

Dear John:  I fear that the following paragraph is
 another fallacy attempting to support a weak
 argument.  I am trying not to use loaded attack
 words, but I really want to know what is the
 statute to which you are referring.  I am not
 aware of one.  When you tell me that one, I will
 have worked on an answer to your question.  

Anna Durbin quotes the following paragraph from SANDBOX Issue #68:

  >THE MOST DAMAGING FACT surrounding
  Clinton's lying during the Jones sworn
  deposition is that, NOT ONLY was he the man
   who signed the law that allows for a plaintiff's
   attempt to establish a defendant's pattern and
   practice of sexual behavior, it was Clinton
   himself, AS president, who PERSONALLY
  WROTE that section of the law for inclusion
  before he would consent to sign it.  He
  undoubtedly never believed that he would be
  caught by his own legal work, but such
  incredible arrogance is a common failing of the
  common criminal.  So the obvious question, to
  which I have never seen a good answer, is: 
  "When any President of the United States, for
  the most self-serving of  reasons, is caught dead
  to rights conniving to violate a federal law
  which he has personally written, how can that
  NOT be a direct and significant threat to the
  country's belief in, and adherence to, the 'Rule of
  Law'?"  Please,  somebody, don't tell me what
  other presidents or politicians may have done;
  just answer that one question directly.<

Dear Dick:

        What "social scientists" are you referring to? 
 What this says in plain words is that anyone who
 "hates" (subtext "disagrees with?") conservatism
 is a pervert.  Although I think of myself as a
 progressive person, I do like true, honest
 conservatives who believe in the individual's
 right to autonomy, and not in the government's
 right to be in our homes, bedrooms, and limiting
 the robust expression of our opinions.  I have
 major problems with "liberals" who have no real
 principles, and "conservatives" whose real
 agenda is to control the lives of others.  

       I am afraid that Clinton is not your culprit, as
 flawed a human being as he is.  Who owns this
 media that has come to have such influence over
 us and our children?  The mega corporations and
 the mega rich.  I think we need to turn off the
 TV more and not patronize the movies which
 purvey these views.  My sister is afraid to go into
 Philadelphia because she watches the evening
 news which has led her to believe that only
 young black killers inhabit it.  The media's
 sensationalism has produced a more racist
 society which believes it is solving its problems
 by locking up the largest number of people in the
 world, more than China, at the same time as we
 destroy instead of build up the public education
 system which in the past made us the most
 innovative country with the biggest chance at
 upward mobility in the world. Corporate
 executives are rewarded with stock options for
 getting rid of loyal workers instead of rewarding
 loyal workers.

        Masterfully made as it was, I don't think
 American Beauty should have been best picture. 
 Its stereotypic view of most adults did not really
 contribute a reasoned discussion of the human
 condition and the motivations of human beings. 
 My daughter rented it and then left it for me to
 watch, and I was glad I hadn't paid to see it at a
 theater.  I was sorry she had and had additionally
 patronized the video.  I can appreciate its
 teenaged alienation point of view, but I don't
 think it was done by what I would call  
 responsible adults.  Of course, I would not
 censor it.  However, I would also not glorify it. 
 Cider House Rules had a more layered    
 presentation of the mixed good and bad of
 humans that influence their choices or what they
 see as necessities.

Durbin Quotes Epler in the following paragraph:

>Social scientists tell is that the real "haters" of
> conservatism, a relative minority to be sure, all
> seemed to have had a bad experience,
> somewhere in their past, with a church, a
> parent, or the schools, where they were
> severely chastised for some sort of immoral
> behavior, generally of a sexual or violent
> nature. To these people, Clinton is a legitimate
> hero! Through his administration, Clinton has
> carefully crafted a number of policies designed
> to minimize the constructive influence of
> parents, church, and schools, on our children
> (most recently showcased by the Elian
> incident). At long last,
> these "victims" have a prominent advocate to
> assure them that there is no right or wrong
> because context is everything. If your intentions
> are good, or your needs real, then the result is
> justifiable (even murder). The fact this applies
> only for those in control of the nation's judicial
> and enforcement machinery is lost on them.
> And so our TV and print media are increasingly
> devoted to incidents involving these "victims"
> of Clinton's legacy and I KNOW that bothers
< all my intellectual friends.

>                      - Dick Epler (52)

        George W. and his dad are certainly not
 "uneducated commoners." They are moneyed
 aristocracy that went to Yale.  And don't delude
 yourself, Reagan's government was run by elites. 
 I have to say, the Republicans have had more
 than their share of sanctimonious hypocrites. 
 Newt Gingrich and Livingston decrying the
 President's morality while committing the same
 acts?  Give me a break.

       I say keep up the good work, Marc Franco.  

                       - Anna Durbin '69

                                 ~ ~ ~



From: --John Allen `66

Reply-to: miles2go@cheerful.com

June 16th, 2000

On occasion there is some purpose served in
 restating an idea or position so that it might
 reach those who missed it initially, or perhaps
 give others who may require it, a better
 understanding of the original point.  First let me
 say that when I write something for "The
 Sandbox," simply by the act of attaching my
 name, I consider that I am accountable for what I
 have written.  I readily concede that any idea or
 opinion I may offer has been influenced by others
 who, by their words (written or spoken) and/or
 their actions (positive or negative), have
 helped bring me to a certain point of view.
 However, once I attach my name to an opinion, I
 consider myself solely accountable.  By
 "accountable," I mean, in part, that I will not
 attempt to diffuse or dilute FULL responsibility
 for my opinions by informing you, the reader,
 about which members of my family, which of my
 friends, or what percentage of the American
 electorate I perceive to be in agreement with
 me.  WHO CARES??  Those little factoids are
 entirely irrelevant to an opinion or to being
 "accountable" for it.  I fully expect that with
 some regularity, I will not be in the "Mainstream
 of American Political Thought" (that is to say, a
 member of the herd), and that not everyone will
 bow to my "Word come down from the
 mountain."  If you happen to be one of those
 who cares to disagree with some point of view I
 have expressed, and you find that you are
 inadequate to the task without also having to
 hurl some insult, or other form of personal attack
 in my direction, well............I defend your First
 Amendment Right to do exactly that.  My pledge
 to you however, is that I will no longer be down
 there in the mud pit with you.  If I should choose
 to respond to an opinion from one of your future
 submissions, you have my word that I will not
 only NOT be leveling any personal attack in the 
 process, I will not be mentioning your name for
 any purpose whatever.  Late last year, I
 concluded that this is the best way to avoid
 becoming quickly mired in infantile, public
 name-calling contests.  I challenge/encourage
 all of you to take this path as well, but whether
 or not you do, I hope this clears up any
 misunderstandings that may have existed about
 my pledge, my challenge, or my accountability
 concerning submissions to "The Sandbox."

              ---John Allen (Class of `66

Pulse Polls
>From Gary Behymer (64)

******************************************
Political items of interest.

ANOTHER PULSE POLE, please take the time to vote.

Mark Booker forwarded me this Pulse Poll about
the Hanford Reach.  I would  encourage everyone
to take the pole, as of June 10, 2000.  74.2 percent
are in favor of   the Hanford Reach being desig-
nated as a national monument and and 25.8 percent
are against the Hanford Reach being designated
as a national monument.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/hanfordreach/index.html
*****
Here is another 'pulse poll' concerning the removal of
dams to save fish.

http://www.wweek.com/html/newsall.html


                       ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

                                - 69 -