The SANDBOX
            Issue Number 70 - July 9 - 2000
        Ideas - Opinion - Personal Experience
                 What's Happening Today

               "There is no wealth but life."
                John Ruskin, 1819 - 1900
                           Essay iv, 77

                      ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~

Look Who's Talking today!

      "I almost always enjoy reading Dick's letters,
 even though we almost never agree. I enjoy
 reading George Will for the same reason- I almost
 never agree with him either, but his positions are
 always well- mapped out and very articulate."

                     - Marc Franco `66

        "The two words "Article Forwarded" should
 set off alarm bells.  The admonition at the end to
 send the message to everyone you know should
 set off the air raid sirens."

                       - Jerry  Lewis `73

        "Only 5 more months to put up with him and
 if the good people of New York send his wife to
 the Senate woe be unto all of us."

                       - Steve Carson `58

        "One example which goes to prove Buckley's
 point might be all those genius scientists at the
 Los Alamos National Weapons Lab who have
 been "too smart" to be bothered with security
 procedures for the safeguarding of our nuclear
 secrets."

                    - John Allen `66

                   ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~

      The SANDBOX, Issue #70, Salutes
                 The Class of 1970!

To get to the 1970 Home Page, go to:
    All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
    When you click on 1970, you will find:

Reunions past & present, "Missing," "In Memory,"
 Class of 70: Years '57 - '69, and 30th Reunion
 Info, (coming up soon!)

Many of you will enjoy the 20th reunion slide
 show on this site!.  I'm impressed once again with
 the fact that so many Col-Hi/RHS grads did the
 whole think together, K through 12!

                           ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~

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

Subj:   Reply to Dick Epler: Views on Clintonism
From:   Marc Franco (66)
Reply-to: mfranco@sttl.uswest.net

I almost always enjoy reading Dick's letters, even
 though we almost never agree. I enjoy reading
 George Will for the same reason- I almost never
 agree with him either, but his positions are always
 well- mapped out and very articulate. That's how I
 feel about Dick's letters. There are some things in
 your letter, Dick, in the #68 edition, that I did not
 quite agree with. I suspect that I have not
 explained myself as well as I would like to- not the
 first time, unfortunately. If I did not make myself
 clear to you, then surely I left other people
 confused as well.

     You compared my use of the term "Clinton
 Hater" with that used by Hillary, as a deflection of
 criticism of Clinton. Actually, Dick, I had intended
 no such thing. I meant exactly what I said. For
 example, I often listen to KVI radio here in the
 Seattle area. KVI is easily the most right- wing
 Conservative sounding board in the entire area.
 (Conservatives often claim that the Media is all
 liberal and that there is no one out there to
 represent their views. Actually, there are numerous
 Conservative columnists and talk- show hosts- it's
 not hard to find them. On the other hand, I
 certainly would not argue with the fact that the
 Media is mostly liberal. ) Anyhow, I sometimes
 listen to Michael Savage, who I consider to be
 basically rabid. Among the nicer things that he has
 said about Clinton is that he (Clinton) has left us
 only one step short of being like Nazi Germany.
 That, to me, is nutty stuff. There are many, many
 more savage comments from him and from other
 similar talk- show hosts. These people are Clinton-
 haters. 

    There was a political rally here in Seattle a few
 years ago, and Hillary was the speaker.
 Conservatives in the crowd weren't just booing,
 they were yelling- "Kill the bitch!" and other
 genuinely nasty  comments that have no place in a
 supposedly two- party system. These people are
 certainly Clinton- haters. There is at least one
 contributor to this board- everybody knows who it
 is- who does not just disagree with Clinton- he
 makes frequent comments such as comparing
 Clinton and his people to rats scurrying in the
 garbage dump on a Saturday night. This goes well
 beyond normal political criticism, and as such,
 cannot be taken seriously. This person is a Clinton-
 hater.

     I have never had a quarrel with people who do
 not like Clinton. There are lots of things to dislike,
 and not just the Monica affair. But I absolutely
 distance myself from those people similar to the
 ones I have just mentioned, who simply are too
 rabid for normal discussions. It's possible to
 disagree with somebody without hating him. You
 mentioned the Reagan haters, for example.
 Actually, I don't remember the degree of hate for
 Reagan being anything near what there is for
 Clinton- but maybe I'm wrong there. I just don't
 remember. However, I was certainly one of the
 ones who did not care for Reagan- I found many
 of his policies to be simplistic. But not for a second
 did I "hate" the man. He was still my President. I
 think that was true for most people. And I actually
 think it is true for most people today. Many
 people, including myself, do not approve of
 Clinton and cannot wait for his term to be finished.
 But we simply do not go along with the more
 extreme members of the population in their hate-
 filled diatribes. I was definitely not trying to
 emulate Hillary in my use of the term "Clinton-
 haters." 

    Later in the letter, Dick, you mentioned that until
 Clinton came along, there were no school
 shootings, no athletes choking their coaches, etc.
 Dick, that may well be true, but I think it is a real
 stretch to pin that on Clinton. Your comment is
 absolutely accurate when you said that Clinton has
 helped to legitimize bad behavior. One would have
 to be blind to not be aware of that. But to go from
 "bad behavior" to shooting up schools and pinning
 that on Clinton is a connection that I really do not
 accept. We were heading in those directions
 anyhow. I really suspect that Latrell Spreewell did
 not first look to see what Clinton was doing before
 deciding to choke Carlesimo. The USA has always
 been one of the most violent countries in the
 Western World. What Clinton has done is certainly
 not helpful. But do we really think that without
 Clinton in office, there would have been no school
 shootings, no disaffected postal workers shooting
 up their offices, etc? That Clinton has legitimized
 bad behavior- yes. That he can be blamed for acts
 of radical criminal behavior- no.

    I must also protest your comment that liberals
 have a fear of a return of Reagan government, and
 so we will vote for any Democrat against any
 Republican. I can't speak for other people, but I
 will vote for anybody who will support abortion
 rights, gun control, strong defense, and a fair
 foreign policy. In the primaries here in this state in
 March, I voted for McClain over Bill Bradley, who
 I also liked quite a bit. When George Bush Sr. won
 the Presidency in 1988, I had no problems with
 that. By any standard, Bush was a highly qualified,
 intelligent, experienced candidate. When the
 Republicans took over the Congress in 1994, I
 actually told the leading Conservative on this
 board that I welcomed the take- over by the
 Republicans, because the Democrats had been in
 control for too long, and I did not think that was
 healthy for anybody. There should always be a
 little give- and- take. The point of all these
 examples is that I do not think it to be a fair or
 accurate statement that liberals have a fear of a
 Republican government. All people vote for what
 they want- if the "wrong" people win, then they
 simply wait it out, as we all are for Clinton right
 now, and hope for better results next time. 

    Finally- this letter is way too long- you
 mentioned that the Elian incident was one of 
 numerous methods by which Clinton has weakened
 the constructive influence of parents, schools, and
 churches. Maybe you could amplify on that in the
 future. It is unclear to me how he has done that,
 other than through his own misbehavior. However,
 I would like to say that I agreed with the Elian
 decision. Conservatives, of all people, have always
 preached "family values", as if nobody else had
 any. It has now been made clear that family values
 only extend to non- communist cultures. In other
 words, if WE agree with the home government,
 then family values are important. Otherwise, take
 the kid away from his only parent, and let him
 grow up right, by gosh. I disagree with the concept
 in general- I think parental rights should Always
 take precedence, assuming the parent is a good
 parent. However, many Americans are simply
 ignoring the concept that many people in the world
 do not exactly think that America is the greatest
 place in the world to raise a child. Easy access to
 guns, low educational standards, high crime rate
 compared to other similar countries, etc. There are
 numerous reasons why letting Elian's father have
 back his own child were correct. Possibly one may
 not agree with this. That's ok- but to automatically
 assume that because one doesn't  agree with
 something, then Clinton is screwing up our
 society- well, I just don't want to go there. I have
 said many times on this board- Clinton has made
 tons of mistakes, but he has also done some nice
 things as President. Not all of the mistakes are
 crimes against Nature- some of his policies are
 simply things we don't agree with, and that's all. 

    Dick- this letter was way too long- but I felt a
 need to explain myself better than I apparently had
 before. If you- and anybody else- are still reading
 after all this time, then I hope that my positions are
 a little more clear than they were before. Thanks
 for your careful reply to my earlier letter.


                     - Marc Franco (66) 

                                 ~ ~ ~

From:   Steve Carson (58)
SteveNitro@aol.com
Subj: Reply To Bob Carlson

Much of what you say is true and can not absolve
 William J. Clinton of debasing the Presidency. A
 BJ in the Oval Office is NOT the total indictment
 of this person.  I don't like him, I don't like the
 influence he has had on my Grandchildren, I don't
 like the impact he has had on society, fostering a
 very deep mistrust of government, and I don't like
 his socialist policies.  He has damaged his family,
 the institution of marriage and the rule of law in
 our great country.  Only 5 more months to put up
 with him and if the good people of New York send
 his wife to the Senate woe be unto all of us.

                      - Steve Carson (58)  

                                 ~ ~ ~

Subj: Articles Forwarded Should Set Off Alarm
         Bells and Air Raid Sirens
From:   Jerry  Lewis `73
jlewis@owt.com

Quoting from Sandbox #69A:
   "Subj:   Freedom Is Never Free
    From: Linda Reining Pitchford (64)
    Wabbithabit@aol.com

   "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?"

The two words "Article Forwarded" should set
 off alarm bells.  The admonition at the end to
 send the message to everyone you know should
 set off the air raid sirens.

While the article is not totally false, it is overly
 simple and plays loose with the facts. My
 favorite debunking site, The Urban Legends
 Reference Pages, calls it 'turning history into
 glurge'. Read the whole thing at: 
http://www.snopes.com/spoons/glurge/declare.htm 
There are references at the bottom and another link
 that debunks some of the posting at 
http://www.stanardgroup.com/talk/_disc1/00000358 .htm

If people want to send messages to their entire
 address list celebrating our independence and
 about how our freedoms derive in part from the
 sacrifices of the revolutionary time, a simple
 sentence or paragraph would be better than this
 kind of pablum.
 
         - Jerry  Lewis  *  jlewis@owt.com  * 
           http://www.owt.com/users/jlewis/

                              ~ ~ ~

Subj:   SMART ENOUGH???
From: John Allen `66
miles2go@cheerful.com

June 30th, 2000

During the next several months, much will be
 made by loyal Democrats about the perceived
 intellectual prowess of Vice President AlGore in
 relation to that obvious mental midget, Gov.
 George W. Bush of Texas.  In that regard, I
 would like to make a few points which you will
 likely NOT hear on ABC, CBS, NBC, the
 Clinton News Network or the late night talk   shows.

First, if the Democrat Party had been overly
 concerned about the intelligence of their
 candidate and/or the next President of the United
 States, they would be nominating Bill Bradley,
 legitimate Rhodes Scholar, instead of AlGore.

Secondly, let me quote the eminent conservative
 intellectual, William F. Buckley, who once said,
 "I would sooner be governed by the first two
 thousand names in the Boston telephone
 directory than by the faculty of Harvard.  The   
notion that the smarter you are, the better your
 judgment is, is simply exploded by experience."  
 One example which goes to prove Buckley's
 point might be all those genius scientists at the
 Los Alamos National Weapons Lab who have
 been "too smart" to be bothered with security
 procedures for the safeguarding of our nuclear
 secrets.  Another example might be an allegedly
 brilliant president who thought he was "too
 smart" to get caught fooling around with a White
 House intern in the Oval Office, and, as a result,
 has squandered over two years of his presidency,
 not to mention his place in history.  If you are
 unable to think of countless other examples from
 your own personal experience, then you just
 haven't been paying attention on your journey
 through life.

Finally, if you simply cannot separate yourself
 from the elitist attitude that a person must
 possess a certain IQ or grade point average
 in order to keep company with you, OR merit
 your vote for president, then you might want to
 chew on the fact that, grade wise, George W.
 Bush actually did BETTER as an undergraduate
 at Yale than AlGore did at his roughly equivalent
 Divinity School.  Further, it is an infrequently
 mentioned fact that Bush also earned an MBA
 from Harvard Business School.  While it is true
 that AlGore went on to graduate from the
 prestigious Vanderbilt Law School, many would
 consider it a plus that Bush is NOT a lawyer.  To
 be sure, Bush will neither be asking the American
 people to fathom what the meaning of  "is" is,
 nor insulting our intelligence with the "no
 controlling legal authority" or "itsy bitsy bladder"
 defenses for highly questionable campaign
 finance activities.

              ---John Allen (Class of '66)

                               ~ ~ ~

Questions and Answers:

Subj:   THE.SANDBOX.website
From:   LMckn21142@aol.com
To: The_Sandbox@bigfoot.com

Q: I wish to subscribe to The Sandbox. 
 Please advise how?  Linda McKnight (65)

A: You just did it, Linda.  You're subscribed!

             The_Sandbox@bigfoot.com

                              ~ ~ ~

Thanks, everyone for all your comments. Drive
 safely and use lots of sun block when you're out
 there waterskiing on your bare feet!

Coming soon to a screen near you: More
 comments from Bob and Dick and Marlene and
 Paul and that "ain't all."  Perhaps we'll also be
 hearing from you!

           -Al Parker (53) 
           Your SANDBOX Actuator
            (Or something like that.)

                               ~ 70 ~