THERE'LL BE SOME CHANGES IN THE WEATHER 
                 AND SOME CHANGES IN YOU. 
                   THIS COULD BE THE START 
                       OF SOMETHING NEW! 

WELCOME TO 1999 AND ISSUE #19 OF THE SANDBOX! 
               January 1, 1999 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Arthur Roberts (??), Ray Wells, (54), 
Tony Sharpe (63), cami Riddell (85), 
Jim Doyle (49), Barb Barron (50), 
Robert McCullough (65), Vince Bartram (62) 
Norma Loescher (53) 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
To share your Ideas, Your Opinions, Your Inspirations,
And Your Retorts with other Richland Bombers Around The
World: ReplyTo: THE_SANDBOX@hotmail.com

        SEND US YOUR PREDICTIONS FOR 1999! 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Regarding the (non binding) poll indicating whether you
favor a constitutional amendment to require the
castration of future United States Presidents prior to
taking the Oath of Office: The survey results at the
moment are running at just about a 70% approval rating
in favor of future Presidents retaining their virility.
(Quite similar to the current approval rating of the
President's performance now.) 

Is this synchronicity, or what?  No further reports are
planned regarding this survey unless significant changes
occur in current trends.  The margin for error in this
survey is calculated at plus or minus 99%. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Arthur Roberts, fluffdry@hotmail.com, writes: 

I predict the following headline will appear in 1999: 

HILLARY PUSHES CLINTON INTO OCEAN NEAR HILTON HEAD. 

On the following day, Clinton will call a press
conference and proclaim:  "SHE WAS TRYING TO SAVE ME
FROM A SWARM OF KILLER BEES."

75% Of the country will believe him. 

-Arthur Roberts 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Subj:  Snappy Answers to Stupid Democrat Sound-Bytes 
From:   ray@transcribing.com (Ray Wells) (54) 

Are you tired of the lame answers offered by your
favorite Republican when Democrats make impassioned
pleas for Bill Clinton's right to harass women and break
laws?  Here is a handy guide of snappy answers to use
when the Democrats bring up those twisted sound bytes
that are supposed to persuade us to let Bill Clinton off
the hook. 

(1) This is just about a president having a private
affair. 

This is about the right of a president to molest
innocent American women, attack her with taxpayer-paid
attorneys if she dares to complain, and lie under oath
when she finally gets her day in court.  Those are the
rights Democrats are fighting for. 

(2) This is just about sex. 

Rape is just about sex, robbery is just about money,
murder is just a misunderstanding. 

(3) Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski testified that they
didn't have sex and nobody told her to lie. 

So, if they both lie, that makes it the truth? 

(4) According to his personal definition of sex, he
doesn't think he lied.  So therefore, he didn't lie. 

You mean a criminal now has the right to re-define his
crime?  What a novel legal concept!  "I didn't steal the
money, I borrowed it.  I didn't rape her, I borrowed
her.  I didn't kill him, your honor, his head hit my
baseball bat." 

(5) He may have committed perjury, but he shouldn't be
impeached. 

Tell me, what crime can a president commit? 

(6) Does this rise to the level of impeachment? 

Gee, let's see, perjury, obstruction of justice, witness
tampering, abuse of power. Impeachment?  This rises to
the level of jail. 

(7) The economy is doing great. 

So, the better the economy, the more crimes he can
commit?  If we get 5% growth, do we allow a president to
knock off a liquor store? 

(8) We need his leadership. 

It's impossible to lead the country when you can't
follow the laws of the land. 

(9) A panel of historians say he should stay in office. 

A panel of liberal historians from liberal colleges who
love liberal presidents. 

(10) Distinguished professors say he shouldn't be
impeached. 

The only thing distinguishable about them is their blind
love of the Democratic party...and Karl Marx. 

(11) We should forgive Clinton... 

I can forgive the bus driver who goes over the cliff
with a busload of kids.  But I'll take away his license. 

(12) This will put the country through hell. 

When a president breaks the law, the country goes
through hell. 

(13) This will damage the nation. 

Oh, so just let the president keep breaking the law.
That's better? 

(14) The Republicans caused this. 

Bill Clinton caused this. 

(15) Republicans are just being partisan. 

Democrats are defending a law-breaking president from
their own party.  Who is being partisan? 

(16) This is part of a Great Right-Wing Conspiracy. 

The Republicans couldn't organize a barbecue. 

(17) The Rodino hearings were fair. 

Rodino was canned because he was blatantly partisan.
Fortunately, the 1970's Republicans were willing to
punish a law-breaking president from their own party.
The 1990's Democrats are defending a law-breaking
president from their own party. 

(18) Hillary has shown what a strong woman she is. 

If Hillary were a strong woman, she'd have left him.
She is a horrible role model for young women. 

(19) Other nations are laughing at us. 

Other nations don't take baths.  Other nations let their
leaders rape women.  Other nations kill citizens who
dissent.  Other nations suck.  America is the greatest
nation on earth because we all obey the same laws. 

(20) The polls show most of the nation wants him to stay
in office. 

The polls didn't support the civil rights laws, either.
Should we revoke them? 

(21) Last election, the people spoke and told us they
don't want impeachment. 

Bill Clinton wasn't running in the last election.  And
if anyone paid attention, there was a 13% swing of women
voting towards Republicans. 

(22) Republicans shouldn't impeach while our troops are
in harms way. 

Bow Wow Wow. 

(23) Instead of impeachment, we should censure. 

Censure?  For Bill Clinton, that's a checkered flag!
Censuring a president isn't even in the Constitution.
But since when does a Democrat read the Constitution? 

(24) Maybe something a little tougher than censure... 

A little tougher than censure?  OK.  We'll make him
stand in the corner during recess.  That's tougher than
censure. 

(25) A president shouldn't be above the law, but he
shouldn't be below the law. 

OK.  Then give him the same punishment all Americans get
when they commit perjury, sixteen months in jail. 

(26) 40 million dollars and all we have is this? 

If Clinton told the truth, this investigation would have
cost a couple hundred bucks and box of pizza. Besides,
that 40 million dollars also got 16 indictments and 5
convictions for Whitewater. 

(27) He's sorry. 

He's sorry he got caught. 

(28) He apologized. 

He hasn't admitted his crime. 

(29) He is a popularly elected president. 

So was Nixon. 

There are your snappy answers to stupid liberal
soundbytes. Use them well.  Use them often.  But above
all, use them. 

--Ray Wells 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Subj:    Reason and Logic vs Emotion 
From:    tonys@citylinq.com (Tony Sharpe) 
To:        Ron Richards ('63) and Marc Franco ('66) 

Nice comments Ron, I just wanted to know that you were
reading these wonderful editorials.  I like it when my
team is up 2-0.  Guess that makes me a Republican, not
quite the same son of a Hanford Construction, blue
collar, Democrat family of the 1960's.  Of course the
Democratic Party of today sadly bears no resemblance to
what the party stood for then. 

Marc, please excuse me for implying that you were a
"closet Demo" since you seemed to be defending Mr.
Clinton by pointing the finger at other Republicans.  I
guess what I fail to understand is what Ollie North,
Fawn Hall and Iran-Contra have to do with the
Impeachment of Wm Clinton for lying under oath and
obstruction of justice.  Did I misunderstand your
independent analysis of the facts regarding our
President's misconduct, and after looking at those facts
with reason and logic, you agree that he should have
been impeached? 

With regard to whether a Republican President would have
resigned under similar circumstances, the record is
clear. Richard Nixon resigned just before the articles
of impeachment were voted by a Democrat majority on the
Judiciary Committee, and at the urging of many of his
fellow 

Republicans. 

If Republicans were hypocrites, Bob Livingston would
still be speaker of the house I suppose.  If I were a
Democrat, I wouldn't be proud to have Larry Flint as the
poster boy of my party offering a MIL to anyone who
could dig up dirt on any Republican Congressman.  Maybe
Steve Forbes, a magazine publisher and Republican,
should offer 2 MIL to see how many more Ted Kennedys
there are on the Demo side of the aisle. 

By the way, there is absolutely no evidence that Ronald
Reagan was "guilty"  in the Iran-Contra affair.  Oliver
North was hailed as a hero because he refused to allow
the Democrats who were driving the inquiry to implicate
the President in that affair and thus smear his
presidency. 

Marc, I sincerely hope you are an Independent who votes
for both Democrats and Republicans in equal numbers,
since neither party truly represents your ideals and you
find "equal' fault with both sides. My problem is that,
on balance, there is no one in the Democratic party that
reflects my Ideals for our Republic, and therefore I
call myself a Republican 

Tony Sharpe ('63) 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Subj:    Different Views OK. -  Demeaning Not. 
From:    Cami Riddell Addkisson (85) 

I have been reading many of the opinions here on the
President.  I would like to tell Mike Cook that I
completely agree with what he said.  I think about all
the money and time that has been spent on this and then
I think about the homeless children and those at
Christmas dinner who had nothing to eat.....  To John
Northover I would like to say that I have written to my
Senator and Congress Representative.  By the way John, I
have a Master's degree and do happen to read quite a lot
thank you.  You are welcome to your opinions, but please
do not demean others who happen to have a different view
than you.  Is this the type of example you were talking
about setting for our children and grandchildren? 

Cami 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Subj:   Some people may be turned off... 
From:  Jim Doyle (49) and Barb Barron Doyle (50) 
Mail: Elyodmij@aol.com

Some people may be turned off by the political
discussions. I wonder how many of them are in the 70%
Clinton approval group.  I'd like to see you take that
poll.  We keep up on everything going on.  We read all
the East Coast newspapers and magazines on the net.
Those that are canceling The Sandbox because of the
"boring" political discussions probably fall within the
70% national poll of Clinton supporters.  I find these
polls questionable.  New York City and Los Angeles
doesn't represent the nation and I'm convinced these are
the only places polled. 

--Jim & Barb Doyle 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
From:     Robert McCullough (65) 
Mail To:  rlmccull@bentonrea.com 
Subject: Business of the Nation 

A lurker here coming out into the open.. Have enjoyed
reading the thoughts and opinions on here.   Now I have
got something to say. 

There has been talk about putting this Clinton thing
behind us and moving on to the business of the nation..
Ummmmm.....  I was under the  opinion that following the
constitution was the business of the nation.   If I am
not mistaken, the business of impeachment is a part of
the constitution.   Thus, beings the full House has
passed two Articles of  Impeachment on to the Senate, it
is the business of the Country being  taken care of.   I
am of the feeling that what is taking place is very
important business (of our Country). This is what is
known as checks and balances of our three parts of
government.   This is the system that was  wisely set up
by the framers of the constitution.   It is in the
constitution to keep all branches of the government in
check.   What  foresight the had when writing this. 

The other thought I keep having running threw my mind is
why would a  person that claims that he did not  do
something wrong that is impeachable ask for a censure?
Why would he have all his people out asking for a
censure? Wouldn't you think that if you knew you were
right and that you felt that there was not enough votes
to convict you by the jury (Senate) that you would
demand that the trial take place.   Seems a little weird
to me that if one felt innocent that you would ask for
some sort lesser punishment if you could not be
convicted. 

Well there are my rambling thoughts. 

Rob McCullough 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Subj:   What Is Being Missed? 
From: "Vince Bartram"  

To those that wonder what they are missing. 

How about objective evidence (sometimes known as the
facts)? 

--Vince Bartram 62 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Subject: Susan McDougal 
From:     Norma Boswell (53) 
Reply to: boswelln@owt.com 

Regarding #9 on Ray Well's list against President
Clinton: I watched Susan McDougal as she was interviewed
by Geraldo Rivera a few days ago after she was released
from prison.  Her attitude toward Ken Starr was hostile,
but for President Clinton she declared steadfast loyalty
and support.  That lady looks like she fears NO ONE!  If
I understood her correctly, she said she was offered
everything short of a trip to Hawaii to testify against
President Clinton. When she refused, she was given
solitary confinement in a 5 x 7 jail cell.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Subj:    Makes Monica Look Like Small Potatoes 
Date:   12/30/98 5:06:17 PM PST 
From:   ray@transcribing.com (Ray Wells) 
To:       THE_SANDBOX@hotmail.com 

FYI, from Ray Wells (54) 

In an Article written by Will Lester  Copyright 1998
The Associated Press Wednesday, December 30, 1998; 2:08
p.m. EST 

House Says China Deal Harmed U.S 

To quote the article in part: 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- United States technology deals with
China, including some with military significance, harmed
national security, a House committee concluded
unanimously today. 

"These transfers are not limited to missile satellite
technology, but cover militarily significant
technology," said Rep. Christopher Cox, chairman of a
special House committee investigating military and
commercial deals with China." 

[Note: Because this is a copyrighted article we will not
be able to quote the entire article here, but the
article did go on to reveal that this committee's
investigation was conducted in a bipartisan manner to
find whether national security was compromised, and
whether decisions to transfer technology were influenced
by campaign contributions.  Further, this copyrighted
Associate Press Article stated that the congressional
committee is making 38 recommendations for legislation
and executive action to remedy a situation that it found
has hurt national security.  It is planned that more
details and unclassified portions of the report should
be made public as soon as possible.] 

[The article discusses the concerns of many that
valuable military technology allegedly flowed to China
as part of commercial satellite deals in which U.S.-
built communications satellites were put into orbit on
low-cost Chinese rockets.] 

All quotes and references are from article referred to:
 Copyright 1998 The Associated Press 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
That's it for this issue of THE SANDBOX, folks. Share
your opinions, Your Feelings, Your Ideas and News About
YOU with all of us! Please include your class year in
all contributions.

Thanks! 
                     -19-