Welcome to The Richland Alumni SANDBOX
                       Issue # 5 ~ November 8, 1998

Submit your Vet's Day Thoughts and Memories for a
special edition of THE SANDBOX to be published November 11.
To help all of us feel more at home regardless of where
in the world we are today, here is Richland's current
Weather Outlook:

SUNDAY MORNING, 11/8: mostly cloudy with a chance for
rain mainly in the  morning. Highs in the mid and upper
40s. West wind 10 to 20 mph.

SUNDAY NIGHT  11/8: Partly cloudy. Lows 25 to 30.

MONDAY 11/8: cloudy. Highs near 50.    West wind 10 to 20 mph.

Subject:  Lewinkski
From:  Joe Large'
Dear Sandbox,

Just wanted to paraphrase some comments my wife made
about this whole thing.  She read for a while, the
"Starr" Report and saw this:

1.  The president had been asked if he had ever had
Sex, with Monica Lewinsky.  In his comment, he had said
"No" due to the fact that he had never had
"Intercourse" with her.  The interpretation of "having
sex" apparently involved intercourse. So, in that
interpretation his answer would have been correct. He
had not had "sex" with her.

Who in their right mind (Monica) would hold on to a
stained dress for months and months, especially if you
had been the willing, consenting 2nd party!?

2.  Which one of us, when caught in an act of
"Immorality" such as what the president was caught in,
wouldn't want to somehow attempt to save their marriage
and their position instead of seeing their life
instantly go down the tube.

What he did was wrong, but I can understand his desire
to not see his marriage end in a shambles.  The best
thing he could have done was to stay away from the
little bedhopping, power-hungry tramp:  she had vowed
that she would "sleep her way to the top"!

I, too, vote for censure.  If we convicted the
President for having "sex," we'd also have to convict
John F. Kennedy for bedding down Marilyn Monroe, J.
Edgar Hoover for being a transvestite and cross-
dresser, and Franklin D. for having an affair.  There
would also be a lot of other people in power who would
be convicted, i.e., Teddy Kennedy for one.

Bad personal choices are not necessarily a crime.
Lying can be, but not in this case, at least not in the
regards of Impeachment. I doubt that this could be
compared to an act of Treason.  Do you?

Joe Largé
From: jvache@lawschool.gonzaga.edu (James M. Vache)

Hi, all.  I can't resist a few comments about
impeachment, having just "played" Henry Hyde in a mock
Judiciary Committee hearing here at my school.  I was a
close watcher of the Nixon matter, and have followed
the current controversy from the perspective of one who
teaches American politics, criminal law and
constitutional law. I must say that my personal opinion
waivers back and forth. But, besides that, I would like
to point out a few issues that in my judgment need
clarification. First, the meaning of the term
"...Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors" is not entirely clear from the historical
record. Perhaps the best careful exposition of the
meaning and intent of the Founders is found in Raoul
Berger's book, Impeachment. The book was written just
before the Nixon matter broke and explores quite
carefully the historical origins of the term, as well
as devoting short chapters to several impeachment
proceedings, including that of Pres. A. Johnson. As a
lawyer, I would take a common interpretive approach,
and say that "high crimes and misdemeanors"must be of a
like kind to Treason and Bribery given the word "other"
in the phrase.

You may recall that one of the charges laid on Pres.
Nixon was that he violated criminal laws associated
with income tax evasion. The House committee did not
send that one forward to the House, in part, I thin
because there was considerable doubt about whether
criminal tax evasion was a H C or M.

Second, it is accurate to say that the standards for
impeachment are (mostly) political, but since so far
the House Committee and Judge Starr seem to be focused
on the alleged crimes of the President, one would think
that some judgment should be made as to whether
"crimes" as defined by the Federal criminal code were
committed by the President or more properly whether
such crimes could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
From what I have seen of the evidence, which is
admittedly not a complete look, this is far from clear.
It is the reason, I think, why the preliminary report
of the Committee Counsel suggests that instead of
bribery, a lesser crime of lying under oath is what is
at issue. Similar problems of proof would come up in
proving obstruction, etc.

Again this is not to say that the House must find
criminal behavior to impeach, but rather to say that if
the premise is that the President committed crimes,
then we ought be fairly careful in reaching that
conclusion. Of course, the House could impeach without
finding such crimes.

It certainly did so in the case of A. Johnson, as well
as several federal judges. It could also decide not to
impeach even if there was clear evidence of criminal
behavior. The interesting question to me is how far we
are going to import criminal law standards into the
impeachment process. The introduction of  the Special
Prosecutor suggests that there has been attempt to
channel the impeachment process by criminal law
standards, but I think that is a mistake. (I have
thought from the beginning that the case upholding the
law was badly decided). On the other hand, if an
impeachment becomes purely a partisan political
excercise, as it did with A. Johnson, then we are at
peril of turning to a Parliamentary form of government,
certainly not what the Founders anticipated!

Another thing I am interested in is the tendency, not
seen here yet, but common in our paper at least, to
conclude that if anyone even slightly defends Pres.
Clinton, that person is a moral pariah. It seems to me
that one could quite appropriately conclude that the
whole set up has been a fairly partisan political
process in the guise of a legal one, and that if that
is so, even tho. the Pres. is a cad, a bounder, etc.,
it is not appropriate to impeach. Also, I think that
those who claim that if a boss did this, s/he would be
fired immediately have not read the Title VII cases
that I have read... Though the behavior is morally
indefensible, it is probably legally defensible. I
don't mean to suggest that a person who had consensual
intimate relations with a subordinate could not be
fired, but rather that firing that person would not
fall into the realm, necessarily, of being compelled by
the law. Once again, I think there is a confusion
between the legal and the moral. Not all immoral
behavior is punishable by legal  action, thank
goodness, or we would all be in jail. Well, maybe not
some of the CK kids I went to school with....

This week end I was reading a fabulous analysis of the
Iran-Contra affair, fairly balanced, written by a
journalist with the London Economist. It reminded me
that the whole issue of expecting "moral leadership"
from the President is quite problematic, particularly
in an age where there are no secrets. How many of us
have changed our minds about Wilson, FDR, Ike, JFK
based on revisionist analyses of their disordered
private lives? And, if  we want moral paragons in the
White House, we had better be sure to strike Harding,
among others from the rolls entirely, to name just one.
Part of the problem here is being consistent when the
rules of the game have changed dramatically.  Pres.
CLinton's biggest political mistake was his hubris in
not recognizing this to be the case.

Thanks for letting me play in the Sandbox....I have
been tempted to jump in on  a few other issues, and may
yet do so. I am interested eventually in talking about
the classism that pervaded Richland in the good old
days....Jim Vache , '64.

From: Ron Richards, G1A1S1@aol.com
To: Rod Brewer:

       Right On, Rod!  When you can't attack Clinton on
his policies, attack him on his character.  When you
can't argue the issues with Clinton's supporters, just
attack their character, too.  It's real mature, Rod,
and its bound to prevail all the time.

Ron Richards ('63)
From:   margelt@3-cities.com (Marguerite (Groff) Tompkins)

RE: Elderly with driving licenses -

My first entry to the Sandbox -   Normally, I'm not
into controversy, but this is something I feel very
strong about. However, I need to explain why I feel so
strong, even though I'm nearing the age when I may or
may not have driving difficulty. I only hope when the
time comes that I'm willing to do what I'm suggesting
be done for others.

During the last several years of my mom's life she had
severe dementia.  She continued to drive far beyond
when she should. I knew her driving was atrocious, but
there was nothing I could do about it.  It wasn't until
she had an at-fault accident that I found it was her
3rd..  Within a span of 18 months, she had a total of 5
at-fault accidents, the last one totaling her car and a
young teenager had minor injuries.  My then she was 80.
I went to the Department of Licensing and told them
about it and begged them to recall her license.  The
man I talked to said something about the strong senior
citizen lobby and how they couldn't take her license
that easily.  My question was what would they do with a
younger person who had 5 at fault accidents in an 18
month period. He couldn't answer me.  Mom's insurance
company was canceling her insurance; the cancel date
was 3 days after the she totaled her car.  With her
dementia she was in total denial about the number of
accidents (she couldn't remember most of them) and
always blamed the last one on the kids in the pickup
she rear-ended.  She even bought another vehicle
(without my knowledge) and was able to get insurance
(very expensive).  In the meantime, I talked to the
Richland Police Department and they promised to do
something. Mom's doctor even sent a letter to the
state, telling them of her dementia and her inability
to drive, citing the accidents she had caused.
Eventually mother received a letter from the state
saying they were doing "random" testing of licensed
drivers and she was to come in and take the written and
driving tests.  I was not aware of this.  She tried the
written test 3 times without passing - then gave up.
Shortly after that she moved into a Senior Retirement
home and she allowed me to sell her van.  She was 81
before the state finally sent a letter asking her to
send them her license. By that time I was basically in
charge of her life and received her mail.  I had the
license and mailed it to them.  But I was angry. My
mother changed lanes without looking - she ran stop
signs -she pulled out in front of people - she was a
terrible driver.  As a result of dealing with my
mother, I believe strongly that all states should have
mandatory retesting of all senior citizens, starting at
age 70 or 75.  If I'm still driving at that age, I
wouldn't mind being tested.  Sometimes we aren't aware
of our own driving problems. My mom sure wasn't,
despite the accidents.  They were always "the other
person's fault."  If I think I'm a good driver, then I
shouldn't be afraid to prove it to the state.

An additional argument for testing the elderly, there
was the accident in the Tri-Cities - Easter Day, 1997,
that killed a young boy and left his mom and sister
with lasting injuries and emotional scars.  An elderly
man, driving the wrong direction on a 4 lane divided
highway.  Then just recently the elderly women that
pulled out in front of a van - injuring several people.
This isn't just local -it's happening all over the
country.  I just thank God that mom finally stopped
driving before she killed someone.

From:   jeperry@supersat.net (JIM PERRY...)
To:           Adamstreet@aol.com

Hi to all Bomber's, in a study we have been doing and
as I look back over my years, we all grew up knowing,
the pledge of allegiance to the republic for which we
stand, yet somehow we have all slipped into letting our
Government tell us we are a democracy, which stands for
mob rule.  Borrowed a 1828 Webster's Dictionary, which
does explain the difference.  We had several lawyers
from our class and some judges too, but appears they
too followed mob rule than to stand up for what we all
should still believe in.  Of course now with the laws
the way they are we can be arrested for not being
politically correct, isn't that a hoot from our growing
up years.  Thank you for listening.
     Eva (Clark) Perry - Jim & Eva

From:  RMat683939@aol.com  (Bombed Bob, class of '64)

Well, the call goes out.  I can't remember just how to
fix the spring held wooden clothes pin strike anywhere
wooden match shooter anymore.  I tried to remember last
week over at a friend's house to impress the boys, but
I failed to pull it off.  I took one side out and
reversed it upside down, it looked good but wouldn't
cock.  I must call upon other gray matter deposits.
There must be someone out there that can refresh my
memory and get me in the spotlight again. Bombed Bob 64

TALKING POINT:  Should the Mushroom Cloud Go Away?
From: Jenny Loper Buchanan (87)

Comments from a Bomber Guest Book:
I've heard a vicious rumor that there's an anti-cloud
sentiment going around.  Does anyone know if it is true
that the school is getting rid of anything involving the
mushroom cloud?  Please let me know if you've heard
anything - any thoughts on a protest/petition?
PROUD OF THE CLOUD   Class of '87

(Remember...  the more you send in, the more often you
will receive opinions, ideas, and interesting comments
from other Bombers all over the world!)
ISSUE #6, planned for Nov. 11: Your Comments or Ex-
periences that make Vetran's Day meaningful (or not) to
you. Is Veteran's Day a worthwhile American Holiday?

ISSUE #7:  Anything you want to talk about PLUS a
review of an Article by Historian Richard Pierard, Col-
Hi Classs of '52, published in Christian History
Magazine.  Dr. Pierard, Professor of History at Indiana
State University, takes a personal look at the
beginning of the atomic era and Christians' involvement
in it.

your comments to:  Al Parker, Adamstreet@aol.com