The SANDBOX
                Great American Conversations
                    With The Alumni of RHS
                   Issue 96 October 23, 2000

"You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"
         - Steven Wright

Contents:

      Stranger Than Fiction
      Mary Ray Henslee (61)

      Not Revising History
      Jim Moran '86

      Loved and Accepted
      Carol (Carson) Renaud (60)

      Apropos of nothing
      Bob Carlson (Mike Clowes) '54

      Tolerance and the Homosexual Issue
      Robert W. Epler (80WB)

      Kind Words and Comments
      Steve Carson (58)

      -------------------------------------------------

Subj:    Stranger Than Fiction
From:  Mary Ray Henslee (61)
Mah@satx.net

When, during an interview, Gore stated that Tipper
 was a Psychology major and that he was her
 biggest project, no truer words have ever came out
 of his mouth.  His behavior is becoming
 increasingly puzzling, especially since it is
 reminiscent of behavior he was criticized for
 during past campaigns.  I think that it is becoming
 more apparent everyday just why Clinton picked
 Gore for his running mate. 

Just like the repeat offenders who fill our prisons
 and the child who never listens, Gore continues his
 pattern of unacceptable behavior no matter how
 many times he is admonished by the press and his
 own inner-circle.  Why???  He brought Winifred
 Skinner (the can lady) to the October 3, debate
 knowing that her multimillionaire son had already
 talked to the press and set the record straight. 
 Why???  Why bring her in any case???

>From reports coming out, we are finding out that
 Gore's sighs and facial contortions were not
 spontaneous, but planned.  They are strategic sighs
 and facial contortions also used in past debates to
 distract and discredit his opponent.  Why would
 anyone deliberately do something while they are
 running for the President of the United States that
 could be construed as immature and stupid, unless
 they are immature and stupid?  The Wall Street
 Journal's website http://www.wsj.com has an
 editorial about Gore's sighs and facial contortions
 during past debates with Bill Bradley and others. 
 Click on Opinion for some interesting editorials
 that tell it like it is. 

>From reports coming out, we are finding out that
 Gore's lying and exaggerating reach back to his
 campaigning days during the 80's.  Memos have
 been posted on http://www.drudgereport.com that
 were written by his campaign managers to him
 during past campaigns advising him to stop lying
 because he was going to be caught, yet he
 continues to this day.  Why???  Clinton's lies to
 cover up his transgressions were understandable. 
 It is understandable for a politician or anyone to
 legitimately misquote a mundane fact or figure. 
 Exaggerated pledges are to be expected during a
 campaign.  Bizarre, inexplicable and unwarranted
 lies such as Gore's are unprecedented and
 unfathomable.  His do or say anything to get
 elected attitude shows a profound disrespect for
 the American people and for the office for which
 he is running. 

We are being conditioned by the biased media and
 the Gore campaign to question Bush's intelligence. 
 Hello?  Now we can add Projection to Gore's
 psychological profile.  

I don't know about anyone else in this forum, but
 Gore scares the living daylights out of me.  And,
 what scares me even more is that the polls indicate
 that half of the voters plan to vote for this man. 
 How many lies does this man have to tell and how
 bizarre does his behavior have to get to sway these
 voters.  Some voters may not be taking Gores's lies
 seriously, but our allies and adversaries will.  Ten
 years ago this man would never have gotten as far
 as he has.  Go figure? 

I have never gotten into politics very much before,
 but this is one election where we have a candidate
 that would be so bad for this country that it is hard
 not to speak out and it is becoming increasingly
 harder and harder to understand staunch Gore
 supporters.  This election is a very good example
 of why people who blindly embrace party
 propaganda rather than consider the candidate's
 character and platform should not vote.  In my
 opinion, not voting is an honorable choice for
 people who don't care about politics enough to
 stay informed.  This election is too close and too
 crucial to vote haphazardly.  If you haven't already,
 I urge you to educate yourself on the individual
 candidate's positions, record, and value system. 
 When you are armed with the facts, then go to the
 polls in November and vote your conscience.

 My thoughts for the day for what they are worth.

                   October 9, 2000
                  Mary Ray Henslee (61)

                             ~~~

Subj:   Not Revising History
From:  Jim Moran '86
jpmoran@cyberhighway.net

Reply to Steve Carson.

No, I am not revising history, but it is common
 knowable that government revenue was one
 (amongst many) reason which helped in the
 repealing of the 18th amendment.  I site the
 following from Encarta;

"In the U.S., a major shift in public opinion
 occurred during the early years of the Great
 Depression, when opponents could argue
 persuasively that Prohibition deprived people of
 jobs and governments of revenue and generally
 contributed to economic stagnation...."
      -"Prohibition," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98
       Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft
       Corporation. All rights reserved.

I could sight many other sources but I haven't the
 time.

Also, if the issue is mobility then, how do so many
 other industrialized nations become "mobile" with
 so much less energy?  The alternative is mass
 transit.
                  Always thinking critical.
                    - Jim Moran '86

                              ~~~

Subj:   Loved and Accepted
From:   Carol (Carson) Renaud (60)
Carolyn.Renaud@PSS.Boeing.com

To:  Linda Merrill Hendley (64)

Linda - I must respond to your response to my
 Brother, Steve Carson.  His son, Chuck, 
 absolutely was loved and accepted by the entire
 family.  Don't believe for one moment that Steve
 or Chuck's siblings or any other member of the
 extended family ever shut him out.

Just because "they" say there is a part of the brain
 that makes a person gay doesn't mean it should be
 brought into the mainstream and accepted as
 normal.  I loved my nephew and was very sad that
 we lost him to AIDS.  I know that there is a
 growing population of heterosexual females getting
 AIDS.  However, male or female, gay or straight, I
 believe the majority of AIDS cases are
 BEHAVIORALLY caused.  God help the
 innocent (health care workers, babies born with
 AIDS, etc.) who contract the disease through no
 fault of their own.

Gay?  Fine - that's your chosen lifestyle.  But,
 please for the sake of us all, protect yourself and
 your partners.

             - Carol (Carson) Renaud (60) -

                               ~~~

Subj:   Apropos of nothing
From:   Bob Carlson (Mike Clowes) '54
bobsown1@hotmail.com

Apropos of nothing-

    Which is my sentiment regarding a certain
 website we were directed to in the last issue.  It is
 like the campaign, boring and lacking wit and
 humor.

    With regard to the antigay measure here in
 Oregon, one of the major ideas of the proponents
 of this measure is that "certain" teachers in the
 public schools are "promoting" AIDS awareness as
 a part of their courses on sex education (a dirty
 word in and of itself).  It would seem that AIDS
 awareness is blatant promotion of homosexuality
 because "they" started this epidemic.

    O.K. And typhoid was started by some woman
named Mary, right?

    It is this kind of thinking that I have been railing
 against in these pages.  The closed mind is a
 wondrous thing to behold.  It will accept no
 truths other than its own.  That's is why we live on
 a flat earth, supported in space by four giant
 elephants.  What holds the elephants up is not to
 be contemplated by the mere mind of man.

    We can no longer afford to be an insular society. 
 We haven't been able to be one since Teddy's
 Great White Fleet sailed around the world way
 back when.  We cannot afford to shut out ANY
 member of our species (Homo Sapiens).  This, of
 course, will mean the demise of homo erectus (but
 hasn't that already happened)?  Wouldn't it be
 better to run this planet headlong into the asteroid
 than to kill each other off, individually, by acts of
 uncaring malice?

    Well, that's my opinion, and I'm welcome to it.

           -Bob Carlson (Mike Clowes) '54 -

                             ~~~

Subj:  Tolerance and the Homosexual Issue
From:  Robert W. Epler (80WB)
ERosebud5@aol.com

I have read the recent Sandbox submissions
 concerning homosexuality and feel compelled to
 add my two cents worth.  Whether it's worth two
 cents is a matter of opinion of course.  There has
 been an overwhelming move by the media and
 schools to promote homosexuality as being no
 different from race or having blond hair.  That
 acting out as a homosexual is no different from
 having brown skin.  It's something you are born
 with and so naturally should be met with tolerance
 and respect.  Some feel it should even be
 celebrated as an example of human diversity.  In
 this endeavor, the media and schools have
 succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  But is this
 a good thing?  There are unquestionably good and
 intelligent people on both sides of the debate.  We
 have read both sides in this forum.  But I ask, more
 to the point, is tolerance toward destructive sexual
 behavior a good thing?  Whoah!  Did I just call
 homosexual behavior destructive?  I argue that it is
 most decidedly so.  As are many other sexual
 behaviors, including heterosexual promiscuity, sex
 with children and many more.  Let me ask this as
 well: Are adults that are legitimately attracted to
 children born that way?  And if so, should it also
 be tolerated?  Understand that I am only equating
 the two issues to make a point.  Many folks out
 there are attracted sexually to more than their
 spouse.  Would it be good for society to act on this
 attraction because most of us are born with these
 desires?  After all, it's natural. Therefore, isn't it
 just another example of our celebrated diversity? 
 My point is, plainly, that we need to channel our
 God given sexuality in a positive and healthy
 direction.  And this is where the schools come into
 play.  Lately, there has been a move in health
 classes across America to display homosexuality as
 something that should not be discouraged.  While,
 at the same time, health statistics plainly show that
 homosexual behavior and sex outside marriage is
 bad for society in the form of disease, mortality,
 abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and the breakup
 of families. I don't know how anyone can use the
 latest health statistics to argue anything else.  So
 we must ask ourselves, why are our health
 educators not teaching against something that
 contributes to bad health, increases mortality, and
 spreads disease and death?  Yes, there are
 exceptions, but it's a little like playing Russian
 roulette.  But back to my question, why not simply
 teach that some behaviors are bad for your health
 and well being?  Do you think part of the answer
 may lie in religion and the Bible in particular? 
 Many out there want to say it is a religious issue
 because the Bible condemns such behavior.  They
 want to turn it into a holy war or something.  It is
 wrong to argue on such grounds because most
 Americans don't believe the Bible to be the
 infallible word of God.  If you question this, take a
 look at the creation-evolution debate and take note
 of where most people stand.  But common ground
 can be found in the science and health issue.  But
 even then, some argue that our scientists simply
 need to find the cures for the diseases and social
 ills resulting from such behavior.  All we need is
 the cure from the results of sin (destructive
 behavior).  But for those who believe there is a
 cure to be found, other than in Jesus Christ, I only
 advise that while you're waiting, we agree to start
 teaching against behaviors that may quite possibly
 lead our children into physical and mental
 destruction; whether it be of a homosexual or
 heterosexual nature. And lest I be misunderstood, I
 am not arguing in favor of hating and hurting folks
 who make bad choices.  Lord knows I've made
 plenty.  I believe such people need to be loved and
 helped toward making positive choices.  And that
 is what tolerance is all about.  I'm grateful to my
 parents, Dick(52) and Lynn(52), and the fine
 schools in Richland in the 60's and 70's for helping
 me to make positive and healthy choices
 throughout my adult life.  

                Robert W. Epler ('80WB) 
                            ~~~

Subj:   Kind Words and Comments
From:   Steve Carson (58)
SteveNitro@aol.com

For Lynn-Marie Hatcher (68), Linda Merrill 
Hendley (64) and Jimmie A. Shipman (51)

Thank you all for your comments and kind words. 
 There is good thinking in your comments and I am
 still against the schools being involved in the
 promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle.  

                     Steve Carson (58)
                     Chicago, IL 

                             ~~~

Thanks for your contributions, everyone. Many
 more to come.  If you've sent an entry recently and
 haven't seen it in The SANDBOX yet, please be
 patient.  Your voice will soon be heard!

                       - Al Parker (53) -
                        Shippenville, PA 
                        Your Sandbox Host
                                 
              THE SANDBOX is Animal Cruelty Free. 
               Definitely not tested on animals!

                               - 96 -