THE SANDBOX Issue #21 ~ January 6,  1999 

     106th CONGRESS CONVENED 1/6/99 

"'Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus, 
Another thing to fall.  I not deny, 
The jury, passing on the prisoner's life, 
May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two 
Guiltier than him they try." 

--MEASURE FOR MEASURE / Shakespeare 
Express and Share YOUR Ideas, YOUR Opinions, YOUR 
Inspirations, YOUR Adventures, YOUR Retorts with other 
Richland Bombers All Around The World! 
Today's guests: 
Gene Trosper (84), Patty Stordahl (72), 
Tony Sharpe (63), Steve Carson (58), 
William Porter (68, Dick Epler (52), 
John Northover (59), Ray Wells (54), 
Kathy Hills (67), Mack Brand (64) 
From:  Gene Trosper (84) 
Mail To: 
Subject: FIRST SANDBOX RECEIVED / Various stuff 

I just received my first copy of the SANDBOX and I 
want to give kudos to those who organize and distribute 
it.  I have two e-lists I operate myself and I can testify 
it does take a little effort to pull everything together. 

I have already noticed some strong opinions regarding 
our nation and the state of the presidency.  What a 
leap from the strong opinions expressed in RHS that 
concerned such things as math tests, proms, teachers 
and what to wear for school! 

I am personally torn on the Clinton issue.  On one hand, 
I do not appreciate the invasion of privacy that has 
been ongoing in this matter, (bedroom matters shouldn't 
be meant for public consumption), but I also believe he 
should be taken out of office....not for his affair, but 
for his constant violation of the Constitution. It 
saddens me our elected representatives cannot see 
the big picture and only focus upon the sordid filth 
that attracts television ratings, increases their poll 
numbers and sells headlines. Perhaps if Americans 
became a bit more selective and rid themselves of 
the Jerry Springer mentality, politicians and the 
news media would drop this tabloidism we have 
come to expect. 

I haven't given up on America yet...I still hold some 
hope that we can turn this mess around.  But the only 
way we can do so (in my opinion) is to: 

1.  Get our personal lives in order first. 

2.  Resist the urge to pry into other people's business 
if what they are doing isn't hurting anyone else. 

3.  Quit trying to politicize everything under the sun. 
We need to de-politicize and get local. 

4. Teach our kids (and ourselves) the meaning of 

5. Teach our kids (and ourselves) to respect the 
property of others. 

6. Quit looking for freebies in life and realize the 
best things are those which are earned. 

7. Realize it's okay to be different and NOT have to be 
one of the crowd. 

It's tough to live by these 7 rules...I struggle sometimes 
myself.  When I was growing up, the things my parents 
tried to instill didn't always register, but then, most 
kids can be like that.  The examples were laid before 
me as a child, but I didn't LEARN them until I made 
mistakes.. trial and error.  People want it easy (it sure 
beats the 10 hour shifts I work 6 days a week!) and 
that's why this nation has became the way it has, 
(at least, I am convinced of it). 

Oh well, I have begun to ramble on...but perhaps this 
will fuel some thought. Just don't get me involved 
in a political discussion though! : ) 

Take care, everyone. 

-Gene Trosper (84) 

Great reading but I am interested to know what people 
think regarding the stock markets & predictions for 
1999 in the economy.  We all know Clinton will play it 
out to the end.  We will all have to write our congressmen 
& promise NO Votes for any one who allows him to stay. 
Get on with what is important for 1999. 

Hey What do you guys think of Marc McGuire? 
He was winning votes for the best American in 1998. 
Great guy. 

-Patty Stordahl 
From: (Patty Stordahl) (72) 
For: Steve Carson. 

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Short and to 
the point. I would like to here your points of view 
on other issues. Clinton has won.  I am sick of what 
taxes are being spent but, to Hell with the hungry, 
homeless, and deprived in our countries.  UP with 
the flag and bury our heads in the sand.  Why can't 
our leaders listen to U.S. the people if we have so 
much CLOUT???  We don't have any power without 
making a powerful statement as a unified nation. 


-Patty Stordahl 
From: Tony Sharpe  (63) 
Mail To: 
Subject: Who Are Dem Republicans? 

To: Ron Richards: 
Were the 2 Republicans that you mentioned were 
"on the board," Eppler and Wells, or were you 
referring to Gingrich and Livingston? I know that 
the business of our nation is possibly the looser at 
this point, but I also believe that our constitution 
is very important, and that no man is above the law, 
not even and most especially, the chief law 
enforcement officer of this land. 

To: Mark (66) and Mike (70) Franco, I presume 
you are brothers, and  both are children of the 
good Doctor? Didn't you live in the Richland Village 
for a time in the late 50's on McMurray St.  If so, 
there was a time when I mowed your lawn, and 
doing the back yard was the "pits" because of 
all the toys I had to move to get the job done. If 
I am correct, do your folks still live in Richland? 

Tony Sharpe (63) 
From:     Steve Carson (58) 
Mail To: 

For Patty Stordahl 

Your contribution in today's' SANDBOX sounds like 
a description of the human condition.  As screwed up 
as it gets our system of government is still the best in 
the world.  Unlike other systems of government, we 
have the chance to correct our politicians every two 
years and the chance for a real clean sweep will 
come in November of 2000.  As Americans we have 
much to be proud of.  We need to educate and 
energize the younger generations who's money 
our politicians are spending. 

Have faith and work like Hell to influence your 

Steve Carson (58) 
From: William L Porter 
Subject:  Evidence and License 

Tony Sharpe wrote: "By the way, there is absolutely 
no evidence that Ronald Reagan was "guilty" in the 
Iran-Contra affair."  You should also be aware that 
Clinton is not a perjurer, only an alleged perjurer. 
The license you take to call Clinton a perjurer is 
the same license others take to call Reagan guilty 
in the Iran-Contra Affair. 

William L. Porter 

"The right to suffer is one of the joys of a free economy" 
-Howard Pyle, aide to Pres. Eisenhower 
From:  Richard Epler (52)  ( 

For the Francos -- Marc (66) & Mike (70) --- 
I don’t know if Marc and Mike are brothers or cousins, 
but they both write with a great deal of sincerity and 
I often find myself agreeing with them – until they 
introduce the personal aspects of the men they use to 
illustrate their points (Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, and 
North).  Where we might agree on many things, our 
respective liberal/conservative viewpoints, so embodied 
by Clinton, etc., seems to demand a response based 
more on personalities than substance. 

The Franco’s seem to consider themselves moderates 
with a liberal bent, which means they don’t have to be 
concerned with the ideology of either party.  While 
they may deplore bad behavior, (lying and such). 
They see little difference in the behavior of the 
members of either party.  Nevertheless, they feel 
compelled to support the policies of the Democratic 
Party, which they feel are more compassionate than 
those of the Republican Party. I can’t really disagree 
with these sentiments as far as they go.  The problems 
begin, however, when we bring personalities like 
Clinton and Nixon into the picture. This leads to 
arguments no one can win, since in each case, 
compassionate liberals are thinking image while 
unfeeling conservatives are thinking substance. 
Liberals defend image, while conservatives 
defend substance. 

Alternately, liberals attack policy, while conservatives 
attack character. As “cool hand Luke said:  “what 
we have here is a failure to communicate.”  On a 
fundamental level, most prominent Republicans DO 
have strong character, but often have image problems 
(but not always -- Reagan and North made for good PR). 
In contrast, most prominent Democrats have good image, 
but often have poor character (but not always -- Jimmy 
Carter’s character was OK). 

When Republicans identify the Democratic Party with 
Larry Flint, they’re associating Flint’s character with 
that of Clinton, both with respect to a penchant for 
weird sex and with their common interest in destroying 
the Republican Party.  Clinton’s official defenders 
don’t dispute the association.  Instead, core demos, 
like Carville, Dershowitz, Baldwin, and Jesse Jackson 
develop emotional themes to attack the Republican 
Party (“they’re gonna kill your babies”).  We might call 
this demagogy without substance, but the sad fact is – 
in TV land – it’s quite effective. 

By the way, NO prominent Republicans are identified 
with Louisiana’s David Duke.  Of course, politics in 
the South are a little different and party affiliations 
are not the same as in the rest of the country.  In the 
deep South, there are many more Democrats than 
Republicans who identify with Duke’s policies.  I’m 
afraid the old-time politics of George C. Wallace 
(prominent Alabama Democrat) still resonate with 
many Southerners. 

While I understand Marc’s assertion that Republicans 
are no more likely to resign than Democrats, I stand 
by my original statement that ***given the same 
circumstances as Clinton*** prominent Republicans 
must resign (like Livingston).  The American people 
wouldn't' allow an immoral Republican to use the Clinton 
defense.  However, when policy is the issue, Marc is 
right, no Republican would resign.  Not Reagan and 
certainly not a Marine like Oliver North. 

A couple of other things.  First, there IS a difference 
both in the nature of lies and in the manner of lying. 
Marc is right when he says Oliver North lied to 
congress, but he is wrong when he says there is no 
difference between North’s lie and Clinton’s lie. 
Much later, after North was given immunity, he 
admitted lying to a congress that was embroiled 
in a policy dispute with Reagan.  North says he 
lied to protect the lives of field operatives, who 
would likely have been killed had the details of 
the operation been revealed.  That’s a lot different 
from Clinton lying to protect his personal image. 
(No one believes Clinton lied to protect his marriage 
to Hillary, do they?).  And when North lied, he didn’t 
embellish it; he tended to use simple yes or no answers. 
None of Clinton’s aggressive, wag-your-finger, type of 
lying.  That story, incidentally, has Hollywood producer, 
Harry Thompson, coaching Bill on how to “sell the lie” in 
hopes of discouraging further inquiry … can anyone 
disagree that this type of lying is a blatant attempt to 
obstruct justice?  Whereas North’s lie was to protect 
American lives! 

Second, although John Kennedy and Bill Clinton have 
similar sexual appetites, I suspect John would have had 
the good grace to resign if outed.  As I recall, John was 
not overly enamored with himself to the exclusion of 
the Nation’s interests.  Understand, the world was very 
different when John governed and he had every right to 
expect the press would respect his privacy and so the 
risks he took seemed acceptable.  Bill, on the other 
hand, knew well the lesson of Gary Hart and still 
decided to chance what he knew to be an 
unacceptable risk.  Most agree, that was incredibly 
stupid.  Clinton jeopardized not only his Presidency 
but also his Party – all for a few moments of sexual 
gratification (no personal feelings for the lady(s)). 
Clinton may yet get away with it but only at great cost 
to the Nation … not just now but far into the future. 
Who cannot sympathize with the Democrats assertion 
that the cost of bringing justice to the Clinton affair is 
obscene – all because the man has no character or 

The Franco’s main argument seems to be that there’s 
no difference between the two political parties.  They 
argue that both promote lying, the obstruction of 
justice, and the abuse of power.  The Franco’s have 
a point. Surely, there’s never been a politician who 
couldn’t be accused of such things, some fairly, some 
not.  Further, Marc has it half right when he asserts “… 
Republicans are being hypocrites because they seemed 
to consider lying under oath to be a crime only if they 
did not agree with the reason for the lying.“  Yet, I 
would argue that there IS a difference in the two 
parties and it is precisely that difference that 
resolves the apparent hypocrisy. 

While core Republicans believe all perjury, abuse of 
power, etc., are crimes, the circumstances and manner 
of the crime is nevertheless important.  Committing a 
crime to protect your personal image is worse than that 
committed to protect lives.  One is impeachable; the 
other is not.  Core Democrats, on the other hand, are 
primarily concerned about public policy, and so use 
similar logic to argue that Clinton’s crimes are not 
impeachable because his policy is more correct than 
that of the Republicans (who are gonna kill your 
babies)!  This is an important difference.  When Marc 
implies it is the job of both parties to attack each other, 
he’s right, but only to the extent it’s done within the 
framework of the Constitution.  Policy differences must 
be settled at the ballot box.  The Democrats attempt to 
reprogram the electorate to fit the characteristics of 
their President is irresponsible. 

The Democratic Party today has a serious problem. 
While no responsible Democrat wants such a reckless 
man to continue in the most powerful office on earth, 
at the same time, they can’t afford the prospect of the 
Republicans gaining enough power to screw up their 
voting base.  What if the Republicans got enough 
power to implement policies that would eliminate the 
welfare class?  Policies where parents and children 
could decide on schools that teach in terms of a child’s 
individual strengths?  Where all people, young and old, 
could take responsibility for their own health and 
retirement?  In such a world, character and policy 
substance would matter more than image … and the 
Hollywood inspired Democratic Party would be at a 
disadvantage … but hopefully only temporarily. 

Most of our political discussions in the SANDBOX 
have focused on image and personalities to the 
exclusion of character and policy.  By now, it should 
be obvious these kinds of arguments can’t be won. 
If I have the time, my next contribution to the 
SANDBOX will attempt to change that by providing 
a different framework for addressing several 
political issues, such as Education, Social Security, 
Medical Care, Welfare, and the Military.  Of course, 
they’ll all be highly controversial (;-). 

Thought for the day: Be careful what you reward, 
because you’re sure to get more of it. 

-Dick Epler 
From:    John Northover  (59) 

IN response to: Cami Riddell Addkisson (85) 

First: I simply stated a fact.  MOST PEOPLE IN THIS 
COUNTRY ARE IGNORANT!!!! That is the result of not 
reading.  Not reading causes cultural illiteracy. It does 
not matter whether you have a degree in cell-see-ous or 
faren-height ... ignorance knows nothing.  That is not 
demeaning ... it is a very sad fact.  AS a result of that, 
most of the people in this country do not understand or 
can not understand the harm this country will suffer if 
Clinton is allowed to continue in office. 

Second: I did not say any thing about having any kind 
of degree being related to ignorance.  So, do not try to 
wrap you self in a 'masters degree.'  That particular piece 
of paper will only get you through a better employment 
door ... just try and take it to some coffee shop and see 
how many cups of coffee you can get.  I would be willing 
to bet that you know people that have degrees in 
something or another and you have wondered ... 'How did 
they ever .... ???'  And since you have wondered, I would 
be willing to bet another fiver, that there are people out 
there wondering how a person named 'Cami' could ever 
get a masters degree...which both you and I know is 
stoo-pid.  Getting a degree, intelligence and ignorance 
are separated by a very thin line and in many cases 
blend quite naturally. 

Third: All those people I speak of are pointing their 
fingers at themselves, saying "NOT ME, I ARE 
INFOMATED!!" ... and one of them might be ME!  ... 
oooOOOOHHH No, Mister BILL the fly is calling!!!! 

Fourth: I am not quite sure how I 'demeaned' anyone. 
You can only demean someone that has standing, rank, 
position that is above some low point. Those individuals 
that I spoke of are at the lowest point and cannot be 
demeaned.  Demeaning someone means, degrading 
them, demoting them, to debase someone, to deprive 
of standing or rank or position.  I did not do that. They 
have done that to themselves. 

Fifth: A difference in 'view' has never been a concern 
for me. As long as that 'view' is based upon learned fact. 
In fact, when the facts bear out a differing position I 
am as wishi-washa as any one and will change views in 
the blink of an eye.  However, with my bi-focal viewing 
frames I can be very bi-perperlexious. 

Fifth: Some of my very best friends are ignorant ... and 
yes, I can be arrogant, which is only a few mis-typed 
letters away from ignorant ... and that may well be where 
the twain met. 

Sixth: If 'Ignorance is bliss' ... let me be b-lighted!! 

Seventh: Ignorant people do not recognize themselves!!! 

Yours in perpetual confusion, 

-John Northover 
From:  Ray Wells (54) 

For Vince Bartram's request for objective (factual) 
evidence: Not even leading democrats are denying that 
Clinton lied to the Grand Jury (Perjury), nor are they 
denying that Clinton tried to conceal evidence 
(Obstruction Of Justice).  In this country, people are 
in jail for having done this for the same reasons as the 
president.  Where in the Constitution does it say the 
President Of The United States is above the law -- and 
if there is something wrong with the law, shouldn't the 
law be changed, and all those jailed people be pardoned, 
along with the president? 

For Norma Boswell's assessment of Susan MacDougal's 
interview: If Susan has no damaging truth to withhold, 
then why did she refuse to testify -- what could her 
personal consequences possibly be?  Ergo, if it 
waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably 
a duck.  Or maybe she just wanted to enjoy the 
experience of being in jail 

--Ray Wells 

Kathy Hills Krafft (67) 
Reply To: From:> 
Subject: Take me OFF the list! 

Take me off the "Sandbox" list.  It's full of Hillary 
Clinton-haters, (insecure "old" white guys afraid of 
intelligent women), who need to "get a life."  Don't want 
to waste my e-mail space with such useless paranoid 
#?!#! Thanks for nothing. 
                      ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 
Subj:  BS 
From: (Mack Brand) (64) 

Just a comment on all the hot air being passed through 
the self-righteous conservative sphincters on this forum: 
pretty revealing, eh?  Now, take me off the list, please. 
I had enough of this kind of petty BS growing up there; 
sure don't need it smelling up my In Box. 

Mack Brand 

1.   Should we "disembargo" Cuba? 
2.   Does The Executive Order process give to much 
"legistlative" power to the president? 
3.   Should professional football reinstate Instant Replay? 

"We must not make a scarecrow of the law, 
Setting it up to fear the birds of prey, 
And let it keep one shape, till custom make it 
Their perch and not their terror." 

--MEASURE FOR MEASURE  \  Shakespeare 
That's it for this issue of The Sandbox, folks. 
My personal thanks to everyone who has contributed 
to this issue of THE SANDBOX.  And a word of advice 
to all our readers:  "If we aren't talkin' about what 
YOU wanna talk about, WHO are YOU going to blame?" 
See ya next time! 

--Al Parker 
Sandbox Coordinator