THE SANDBOX
              Issue #17 ~ December 23, 1998

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Col-Hi / RHS Alumni and Participating in The SANDBOX Today:
Ron Richards (63), William L. Porter, Marc Franco (66),
Gary Behymer, John M. Allen (66), Darwin Perkins (69),
Tony Tellier (57), Richard Epler) (52).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top News Story:  
First Cold Wave Of Season Rolls Across U.S.
Richland Weather Today: "Mostly sunny and continued cold.
Highs 15 to 20. Light and variable wind.  
Tonight: Increasing clouds by morning. Cold with lows 10
to 15. Light and variable winds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:  G1A1S1@aol.com  Ron Richards (63)
Subj:   Re- Tony Sharpe Remarks

I can't really add much to what you're saying, Tony
Sharpe. Just keep it up!  Since November 3rd, the score
is 2 Republicans, 0 Democrats.  Can you name the
Republicans? Do you know who is winning?

---Ron Richards ('63), Marc Franco) (66),
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj:    RE: And so did yo mama
From:   mfranco@uswest.net (Marc Franco) (66)

Tony Sharpe made several sharp comments (no pun
intended) about a letter I wrote, and I would like to
reply. An earlier writer had made the comment that most
people would agree that a Republican president would
have resigned by now, given similar circumstances. I
replied to that letter by stating that there is no
evidence of any kind that a Republican president would
resign at all. Nixon didn't resign until after there was
absolute tons of evidence against him, along with the
tapes, and the Judiciary committee had voted the
Articles of Impeachment. Unlike the case today, there
was no doubt in Nixon's case that the Senate would have
convicted him. Thus, he resigned. I also said that
Reagan was guilty in the Iran- Contra affair, but did
not resign.

My point was, then, why would anybody think that a
Republican president would have resigned any faster than
Clinton, since none of them had done it yet.

Mr. Sharpe responded to these comments by saying that I
was using the classic  Democrat apologist line and the
classic Democrat defense. WHAT defense, Mr. Sharpe? I
don't recall making any defense at all for Clinton. I
thought that I had said quite clearly (but obviously not
clearly enough) that Clinton lied, we all know he lied,
and that nobody should forgive him for that. It is not
clear to me how that ranks as a defense of Bill Clinton.

Possibly you could explain that. I did continue to say
that the Republicans are hypocrites in this case because
when Oliver North lied to the Congress, he was hailed as
a hero. Mr. Sharpe, you said that you remember no
evidence that Oliver North lied.

Well, North himself stated that sometimes lies are
necessary (I do not remember the exact wording at this
point ten or 12 years later), his secretary Fawn
something or other said that sometimes lies are
necessary so that people do not find out things that
they are not supposed to find out,. and Henry Hyde
himself said that not all lies should be considered
equal. You seemed to think it important that Clinton
lied under oath (well, it IS important, actually. )
However, I'm pretty sure that when people testify before
Congress, they must also take an oath of some sort. I
may be wrong on that, and maybe somebody can correct me.
I do know that it is not normally considered good,
except by the Republicans in this case, to lie before
Congress.

Was there evidence? Well, yes, there was- and the
comments of North, Fawn, and Henry Hyde would certainly
indicate that, yes, North lied- making him a hero,
because he had done all his illegal activities in
service of his country.

I'd like to ask you a question, Mr. Sharpe. IF North did
lie before Congress, as most people are aware that he
did- would you agree then that the Republicans were
hypocritical, as I claimed? We don't need to argue about
whether or not he did lie- but IF he lied, are the
Republicans now hypocrites?

Finally, you scoffed when I said that I vote
independent, and basically said I was a closet Democrat.
I am quite glad you corrected me on that. I had had the
naive idea that just because I routinely vote for both
Democrats and Republicans, depending on the candidate,
that meant that I was independent. I do appreciate your
setting me straight on that. In reality, it must be that
if anybody dares to find blame on both sides, instead of
just on one side, in this mess, then he must be
Democrat.

Marc Franco
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj:    Re: Impeachment, what its done for me.
From:    William L. Porter
Mail To: William.Porter2@PSS.Boeing.com 

At my level, nothing has changed with the impeachment of
the president on two counts. Even if he is removed or
left in office, nothing has changed. Not even my
confidence in our system of government has changed. The
poor need feed, the homless still need shelter. My day
to day life has not changed. I am not walking around in
an outrage at any group of people. I am not trying to
out manure, I mean manuever, someone elses argument to
justify my position. I am aware of the situation from
the newspapers, TV and radio, but I have not read the
complete text of the Jones trial, the grand jury, or
even contemplated the legal definitions to see if a line
has been crossed. Even if I had studied all this in
depth, what would it matter. I accepted the decision of
ballot for our representation in the House and the
Senate. Constitutionally these are the people who must
make the decisions, first on the legality, and 2nd on
whether any acts reach the level of removing the
president from office!

Even if you have read and studied all the documents,
your analysis is not of consequence to the decision. You
can debate the system of justice and its viability, but
as far as guilt or innocence, that is not your decision.
It is our duly elected representatives and how they
interpret the laws and the constitution. You can voice
your outrage at the actions of an individual and you can
also tell the facts you know. You can let it affect your
life, if you want. You can let it diminish or
bolster your faith in the system. But as soon as people
start inserting irrelevant crap into the discussion, I
start to question the person blabbering, not the process
or even the president. The question is not 'what does
this tell our children', the question is not 'the
character of the president', the question is not
'whether the confidence of a constituent has been
shaken'. I'll trust the checks and balances of the
system, over any concocted half logic pronounced by
another person.

My opinion is, there are a lot more helpful things we
all can spend our time, energy and emotions on.
Sometimes I get the image of a bunch of people sitting
on hill over looking a tragic accident in progress,
discussing the merits of the accident and whose at
fault, while the victims get no assistance. It isn't
because of Bill Clinton's sexual activities that a child
is dying of cancer, but it is our fault if the people
who are working on the cure become distracted by us. I'm
not saying ignore the whole proceedings, but at least I
try to keep it from creating rancor or confusion and try
to place my emotional energy to productive use.

Now, I must go deal with the guilt from spending the
time writing this note, instead of actually doing
something directly productive.

I shall now turn my attention to doing the dishes.

William L. Porter 965-6999 MS 6M-FE
"The right to suffer is one of the joys of a free
economy" -Howard Pyle, aide to Pres. Eisenhower
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj:    Re: e-thepeople
From:    Gary Behymer

Try this site.... e-thepeople http://www.e-thepeople.com

[Ed. Note: e-thepeople introduces their site as "your
channel for action and discussion about the issues that
concern you most."  This free, nonpartisan service is
the fastest, essiest way to be heard by any one of
140,00 local, state, and federal officials serving 7,000
towns and cities across America."]

So there you are.  Another place to go, another way of
letting people who are in positions to make changes know
how you feel about things.  Maybe you can make a
difference in your city, your county, you state.  Maybe
this is another vehichle through which you can help to
build a better, more positively interactive America.

We just ask one thing, please, while you are doing that.
Please CC copies to Adamstreet@aol.com  for publication
in The SANDBOX, TOO! Make you impact really count!  -Al
Parker]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj:    THE MASTERS OF PARTISANSHIP
From:   miles2go@cheerful.com (John M. Allen) (66)

Since the beginning of this long Jones vs.
Clinton/Lewinsky nightmare, liberals have been screaming
bloody murder that Conservatives are acting with pure
partisanship and, as a result, the whole process is
unfair, illegitimate, a conspiracy, a coup d'etat and
blah, blah, blah.  During the impeachment vote last
Saturday, 28 Republicans voted "no" on Article II and 81
Republicans voted "no" on Article IV.   These numbers
equate to 12% and 36%, respectively, of their
membership's vote on those two articles.  HOWEVER, no
more than 5 Democrats voted FOR any article of
impeachment.  Given the overwhelming evidence in this
case that the President lied under oath, it is simply
not credible that a pitiful 2% of Dems could have voted
a "conscience" which said the President was not guilty
of the offenses specified in the articles.  This lack of
credibility is most clearly demonstrated by the language
in the Democrat-sponsored (read that, "White House
sponsored & written") censure measure where the
President was called every negative thing under the sun
except the one thing the text, taken in its entirety,
cried out for; "guilty of impeachable offenses."

This kind of hypocrisy reminds me of one particular
conversation I had with my favorite liberal Bomber Alum.
If I had a nickel for every time he has used some
combination of the words "right wing" and  "extreme," I
would be truly wealthy.  But one day I proposed to him
that if there WERE such things as right wing extremists,
by definition there must ALSO be left wing extremists,
and I challenged him to name five liberals who would fit
that category.  It was truly humorous to watch him
stutter and stammer as he failed to name even one.
Surprise, surprise.

(I might add that this conversation occurred BEFORE
January 21, 1998.)

Behavior like this goes a long way toward pointing out
the true political problem we are currently suffering
through.  The truth is that ONLY within the last three
weeks, have the Republicans in the House of
Representatives learned to accept the fact that they
have been in charge of the House for almost four years.
The Democrats haven't even come close to accepting that
they HAVEN'T been in charge for that same period.  If
the Dems lose this impeachment and removal battle, they
will have lost the last of the three institutions they
controlled when Clinton took office, and that prospect
is something even a "Lewinsky Party" would have a
difficult time swallowing.  So this is a life and death
political struggle for the libs, and the fire is fueled
by their basic belief that only the Democrat Party truly
cares about America and Americans.  In general, they
believe that Conservatives are, at their core, wealthy,
uncaring, essentially evil people who want to starve
young children (remember the school lunch debate) and do
all the other unspeakable things Democrats have
fabricated in their never-ending attempts to demonize
the opposition.  And if Conservatives don't happen to be
wealthy, then they must surely be the worst of all
things; devout Christians.  In this contorted view of
the political world, you need to understand that "evil"
and "devout Christian" are most often NOT mutually
exclusive terms.

Somehow, I can't avoid believing that if 89% of inside
the beltway reporters didn't vote Democrat, press
coverage of these Democrat themes would be significantly
different and consequently their acceptance by the
American public would be significantly reduced.

But that's really a whole 'nother submission to the
SANDBOX.

John Allen ('66)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj: Conservatives and Liberals Don't Think The Same
From:      Darwin Perkins (69)
Reply To:  dperkins@3-cities.com

Just another note on the discrepancy of thought between
liberal & conservative views...

It appears to me that when conservatives argue it's
about right vs wrong.  There is a 'right' for each
situation, likewise, there is also a 'wrong' for the
situation.  When liberals argue it appears to be good vs
evil argument, where libs are declared as good and all
else is evil.  That means that any action, right or
wrong, that supports 'good' is, by definition, 'good'.

Project those thought processes on the current
democrat/republican debates and their arguments become
much clearer.  For the democrats, the fact that Clinton
may have lied is not the issue.  He's overwhelmingly
popular, he's at the head of the party and the country.
Anything that supports and continues his presidency is
'good'.  For the republicans, the fact that Clinton may
have lied is the central issue.  No one, including the
President, can or should be allowed to willfully break
the law without accountability.

This also means that the possibility of convergence on a
solution is

near zero.

 --Darwin Perkins (69)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj:    Re: Manhatten Project
From:   Tony_Tellier@compuserve.com (Tony TELLIER) (57)

 But I never knew our Manhatten Project was so WIDELY
offensive.

??????

Not that I have ever heard ... lived in Conn., Ohio,
Phx, ... most people figure that it was war and was was
waged.

Period.  No tears.  No problem.

Tony Tellier (57)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj:    YAC - yet another contribution
From:   depler@pdx.oneworld.com (Richard Epler) (52)

To: Al Parker
 You know, it's funny.  All my life, I've been able to
ignore newspapers and talk show hosts.  But for some
reason, I find it hard to ignore the SANDBOX. *sigh* See
the following:

Re:   The Crimes of Nixon and Other Republicans
Fm:  Dick Epler (52)
For:  Marc Franco (66)

I hope this is not a mistake, Marc, but since we both
consider ourselves to be non-partisan, and are both
Bombers (reasonable people), I'll try to respond to some
of the issues your raised in SANDSTORM #15.

You should know that some of your concerns, Marc, are
shared by Cheryl Simpson-Whitaker (64), so I consider
you to be in good company.  I learned some things from
Cheryl.  I hope to learn from you as well.

You asked about my assertion that, under the same
circumstances, a Republican President would have
resigned early.

The reason is deceptively simple: what Clinton did
violates the core beliefs of most Republicans.  Key
members of the Republican Party would have forced the
issue, even though Democrats might have supported such a
president, much as Clinton is now supporting Livingston.

Most Republicans tend to be doers.  As such, they feel
strongly about the rule of law and about those in
responsibility flaunting immoral behavior.  No
organization can function effectively when such behavior
is condoned.  Just think about your own work environment
to visualize how such behavior by your boss might affect
you and the rest of your organization.  Iím sure you see
the problem.

Core Democrats, on the other hand, tend to have a lawyer
mentality.  Typically they are NOT doers.  The media
tells us that core of the Democratic party is Hollywood
(think Alec Baldwin), the New York intellectuals (think
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Prof.), and black America
(think Jesse Jackson).  These people tend to use the
worst of the legal profession's machinations to go after
all those who "don't support the right policy."  They
have continued to distort the historical record
regarding both Nixon and Reagan.

These days, itís hard to find anyone that admits to
voting for Nixon, but in 1972 he won in one of the
greatest landslide victories in history.  Recent
scholars such as Ann Coulter have gone back to study the
original documents and have provided a little more
balanced account along lines that I remember:

First of all, Nixon really wasn't a bad guy.  He may not
have been all that likable, but he wasn't evil.
Contrary to popular opinion, Nixon didn't know about or
approve of the Watergate break-in.  He didn't even know
the people who were involved. The tapes have Nixon
referring to the break-in as "it was so dumb -- tying it
to us is an insult to our intelligence."  Later,
however, after he discovered the burglars were hired by
the Committee to Re-Elect the President, he got himself
in trouble by trying to cover-up their actions.  Near
the end of July 1974, the Rodino committee drafted three
articles of impeachment.  By today's standards, only two
would be considered impeachable: Lying to the American
people (on TV, but not under oath), and obstruction of
justice when he tried to invoke an executive privilege
to not release the tapes.  The third article charged
that Nixon allowed one part of the investigation to be
delayed for two weeks Ė certainly not an impeachable
offense today.

Most agree it was the tapes that brought Nixon down.
And it was the House Republicans who forced Nixon to
release transcripts of the tapes, right after the
Saturday Night Massacre, by refusing to oppose
impeachment until he did.  That was nine months before
the Supreme Court ruled against executive privilege and
the audio tapes were finally released.  Most of Rodino's
report, assisted by Hillary Rodham and Bernie Nussbaum,
was written before the final tapes were available.  The
report concentrated on the actions of Nixon's
subordinates, arguing that Nixon "condoned, acquiesced-
in, or failed to prevent" their illegal acts.  In
contrast, none of the Articles of Impeachment against
Clinton target the illegal actions of his subordinates.
Nor should they.

Although I must say, no President should be able to hire
an endless stream of questionable characters (those
unable to get a security clearance) to do illegal work,
and then claim he knows nothing about their misbehavior.

Regarding Reagan, you may be right that his
administration has the record for the most indictments.
I could believe that. My, how the Democrats hated
Reagan's policies.  But the Clinton administration
surely has the record for the most convictions.

Generally, Republicans don't like to indict unless they
have a clear legal basis to convict.  This is a big
problem for Clinton now, even in the Senate.  Having
principle and law on your side can be quite compelling.

A major concern of many, however, is the seeming
hypocrisy of the Republicans in calling Clinton immoral.
A few things: First, the Republicans who believe our
President should be more moral than Larry Flint, are the
so-called Christian Right.  Other Republicans, who have
been "caught with their pants down" are the moderates.
No hypocrisy here.  The moderate Republicans are little
different than the moderate Democrats.

Secondly, and more importantly, we need to recognize
that even moderate Republicans don't openly flaunt their
marital infidelities.  This is not unlike Clintonís
don't ask, don't tell policy.  But when "outed," these
Republicans tend to deal with the problem without
resorting to aggressive lying (think wag-your-finger
sort of lying).

Third, without getting into specifics, Clintonís
extramarital affairs are more involved with "weird sex"
than in any meaningful man-woman relationship. This is
not a good example for our children.  Moreover, we all
know this behavior is NOT the same as the examples cited
by Democrats of Hyde, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt,
and Jefferson (don't know about Livingston). Clinton
exhibits all the characteristics of a sexual predator
(consensual, of course).  No one believes that of Hyde,
et.al.

While I dislike that our children often bear the brunt
of the infidelities of their parents, I realize that's
just a fact of life these days Ė people can become
temporarily confused or even fall out of love. On the
other hand, having our President become the poster child
for weird sex is a different thing entirely.

When discussing controversial issues, Marc, most of us
probably need to be more specific to be clearly
understood. I realize I'm often not specific enough.
Maybe that's because I depend too much on our common
Richland heritage. What I've written today didn't
address all your questions and may not have changed your
mind but it seemed important to make the effort.

But now I'd like something from you.  My biggest concern
is that we need to find a way to defend the Democratic
Party without defending Clinton or his actions. Iím
convinced that tearing down past Presidents and/or the
Republican Party wonít do it. So how shall we do it? We
canít talk about foreign policy. We might want to talk
about the economy, but much of that has been the work of
the Republican Congress (it frustrates Republicans that
Clinton takes credit for their traditional economic
policies). Clintonís social policy, though laudable in
some ways, hasnít led to any real reduction in the
welfare class.  We now seem to have a permanent class of
ďvictimsĒ that depend on Government subsistence Ö and it
continues to grow.  Right now, we can afford it, but
thatís not the point. Better to make people productive
and give them back their pride.

I voted Democratic for many years.  In my view, it
wasnít me that changed, it was my party. Right now, I
donít know how to defend the party of Alan Dershowitz
and Larry Flint.  Actually, Jesseís not so bad and Alec
is just Ö well Ö a little crazy.

Marc, if you, or any other Bombers, have an answer Iím
sure many like myself would enjoy reading it.  I ask
only that you are specific and remember that youíre
writing for the unemotional right.

-- Dick Epler depler@pdx.oneworld.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  -17-