THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #30 ~ February 17 1999 

    Now that the trial is over, T.S. Eliot (1888 - 1965) 
                     Just might have said: 

   "A way of putting it-- not very satisfactory; ... A 
    paraphrastic study... Leaving one still with the 
    intolerable wrestle With words and meanings." 

Traffic Stopper:  On Thursday, Feb 18, 1999 
A rally to "Save The Dams" Will Be Held On The 
Cable Bridge Between Kennewick and Pasco 
between the hours of 5 PM and 7 PM. 
 RHS/ColHi Alumni Speakers of The Day: 
Marc Franco (66), Joe Ford (63), 
Ray Wells (54), John M. Allen (66), 
John Northover (59), Dick Epler (52), 
Willard Ule (73), Gail Cherrington (56), 
Alan Porter (67), Patty Stordahl (72), 
Dustin Rector (88), 
The Sandbox Is: A SHARING of Your Ideas, Your 
Opinions, Your Experiences and Your Responses 
To Richland Alumni All Over The World! 
Marc Franco (66)  
Subject: No witnesses 

Ray Wells made the comment that it is the Democrats 
 and liberals who are opposed to calling witnesses for 
 the impeachment trial. Unfortunately, he is quite 
 correct. As opposed as I am to this entire waste of 
 taxpayer money, etc., I have been quite irritated about 
 the Democrats stating on the one hand that they do 
 not see the need for calling witnesses, and on the other 
 hand stating that they see nothing new coming in the 
 trial, so why have the trial. Well, if they refuse to call 
 witnesses, then of course there will be nothing new. 

                Marc ('66) 
 From: "Joe Ford" (63)   
CC: "Kathy Rathvon"  
Subject: Government business 

Old Richlanders (and some not so old) --- 

I vote with Kathy Rathvon, the voice of reason and 
 sanity, in regard to the charade underway in DC. 

Whatever Clinton did or did not do, he has the great 
 majority of our country's support. Anthony Lewis, 
 journalist for the New York Times, has made a cogent 
 argument worth reading. As a librarian, I should be 
 able to give you a better citation, but you might start 

The point of his comments are that the Clinton-haters 
 have had him in their sights for years, and have spent 
 millions in pursuing him. What they found at the end of 
 the day that was even remotely actionable was that he 
 was involved with a young woman, and that they could 
 likely make him uncomfortable with that piece of news. 
 Four years, and $50 million, and it came down to 

And so, in their pursuit, they've wasted our time, and 
 worse, their time. We pay them to take care of critical 
 business; health care, education, Social Security, 
 foreign affairs and national defense. Instead, they've 
 diminished themselves, the Government, and our trust 
 in them. Clinton, whose political skills I admire, had 
 already diminished himself. 

End the farce, before it descends into tragedy. 

Two predictions: The hard right will begin blaming 
 ordinary citizens for their lack of zeal, shortly after 
 Clinton is acquitted. Those of us who have little 
 stomach for kangaroo courts will become responsible 
 for Clinton. The Republican party, which should be 
 angling to attract those of us who have become more 
 cautious in our middle age, will, instead, lurch further 
 to the right seeking to purify itself. 

Back to business. 

Best to all. 
--Joe Ford ('63) 
Subject:  Executive Order 
From:   Ray Wells (54) 
To: (Richard Epler) 

Dick, I think you came out in favor of executive orders. 
 After reading this I'd like to know if you would 
 reconsider.  Ray 
>From Rush Limbaugh's Web Site: 

Below is the latest Clinton Executive Order (13107) 
 that will become effective January 10, 1999, UNLESS 


It will place the actions of all government within the 
 United States under the review and veto of the United 
 Nations (See Section 4 (c)(iii). 

The only way to stop it is by beating the drums. I spoke 
 with Congressman Cox's office 12/23/98. They were 
 not aware of it!!! Help me to get the word out! 
 THIS ORDER!!!!!!!!!!! 

From: "John M. ALLEN"  
Subject: Pay Back, OR Just Too Late?? 

To all my Democrat "friends" who were SOOOO 
 outraged at the incredibly scurrilous behavior of the 
 Speaker of the House two years ago, how many of you 
 even bothered to notice the complete vindication given 
 him last week by no less than the one and only 
 legitimate agency of the Federal Government charged 
 with investigating his alleged criminal/unethical 
 activities.   Oh, the unbiased National TV media 
 covered the story......for about a day and a half; to 
 which they will all proudly point in future as proof of 
 their unbiased coverage of national politics, but this 
 amounts to the page 22 retraction of an initial Front 
 Page Story of accusation in a newspaper.   How many 
 days in late 1996 and early '97 was this the lead story 
 on every major network and on the Front Page of 
 major newspapers across the land?   And further, 
 Bonior was the hammer that kept pounding Gingrich 
 and eventually caused him to have to pay a $350,000 
 "fine" to the House as repayment for costs of the 
 investigation for which he (Bonior) was primarily 
 responsible.   Will Bonior now be repaying Gingrich 
 out of his pocket for the money Gingrich was 
 erroneously assessed? Democrats, liberals, and 
 so-called independents who contribute to the 
 SANDBOX, please explain to me why this should 
 NOT happen.   Perhaps Mr. Bonior should even be 
 censured for his Left-Wing Extremist, PARTISAN 
 WITCH HUNT that has been completely rejected and 
 refuted by the Internal Revenue Service.  It cost an 
 honorable man a good part of his reputation, and no 
 matter how many letters like this one are written in the 
 future, most Americans will remember Gingrich as an 
 unethical criminal who cheated on his taxes. 

The problem with this and so many other situations in 
 Washington D.C. is that if you're a liberal Democrat, it 
 doesn't really make any difference if what you say is 
 true.   It only matters that you say it and that it gets 
 repeated incessantly; the truth be damned. 

---John M. Allen ('66) 
FROM: John Northover (59)  
Subject: Y2K Hysteria .... ??? 

Mr. Sandbox... 

I Am Sending this as a Possible Sandbox Entry.  Do 
 Not Know What People Are Doing, in Their 
 Personal Lives,  to Get Through the Y2K Thing, 
 but Thought this Would Be Useful Information.  I Will 
 Leave it to You, Whether You Feel it Should Be 
 Included.  No Problem with Me Either Way. 
A Naval Message with Possible ... Good Info ???   I 
 Have Stripped the Headings and All the Secret Stuff, 
 So I Will Not Have to Kill Anyone!!!  Sorry about the 
 Capital Letters ... but the Navy Only Operates With 

[No problem re the capital letters, John.  I enlisted 
 WordPerfect to diminish the shouting a bit by lower- 
 casing  all but the first letter of each word. -Al] 

[Note to Sandbox Subscribers: Because of the length of 
 this comprehensive evaluation of Y2K problems, 
 preparations completed or under way, testing already 
 done and things you can do concerning Y2K, this 
 information "package" will be continued over the 
 course of more  than one Sandbox issue, possibly 
 three or more.  This is one of the most thorough and 
 "official" evaluations I have seen so far of anticipated 
 Y2K problems, what is being done throughout industry 
 and government and what you, personally, can do to 
 meet the Y2K challenges ahead. - Al P.] 

Subj/guidance on Year 2000 (Y2K) Related Issues// 
 Rmks/1. It Is Important That We Provide Our Sailors 
 with Sound, Useful Information on the Potential 
 Impact of Y2K on Their Personal and Professional 
 Lives, as Well as the Lives of Their Families. 

2. The Year 2000 (Y2K) "Millennium Bug" Is 
 Becoming an Increasingly Popular Subject for the 
 "Talking Heads" of the World as Mass Media Focus 
 On Possible Y2K Disruptions and Extremists Predict 
 Catastrophic Social Breakdown. Additionally, an 
 Increasing Number of Entrepreneurs and "Scam 
 Artists" View Y2K as an Opportunity to Capitalize on 
 Fear and Uncertainty for Personal  Profit. 

3. This Is the First in a Series of Messages Prepared by 
 the Navy Office of Information (CHINFO) Addressing 
 How Sailors Can Expect Y2K to Affect Various 
 Aspects of Both the Domestic and the Military 
 Infrastructure.  Commanding Officers and Officers in 
 Charge Should Ensure Widest Possible Dissemination 
 Of this Information via Plan of the Day (POD), 
 Command Newspaper, Familygram, Site TV, Daily 
 Quarters, Captain's Call and Other Appropriate 

4. The Following Information Is Drawn from a Variety 
 of Private Sector and Official Sources Including 
 Commercial News Media Products. This Information 
 Is Considered to Be Reliable, but Not Necessarily 
 Authoritative, as No One Can Predict Future Events 
 With Complete Certainty. This Particular Message 
 Addresses Only a Few of the Wide Array of Y2K 
 Topics. Future Messages Will Continue to Address 
 Other Areas in More Detail. Together, this Series of 
 Messages Should Provide a Current, Comprehensive 
 Database of Y2K Information. Look for Additional 
 Information about Y2K Related Issues to Be 
 Communicated on a Regular Basis Through Navy 
 Internal Media Such As All Hands Magazine, 
 Navy-marine Corps News, Direct to Sailor and Navy 
 News Service. Y2K Information Is Also Available 
 Through [various] Navy Web Sites: 

A. Y2K Bug--general/background: 
Q1. What Is the Year 2000 Challenge and How Did it 

A1. The Year 2000 Challenge Potentially Affects Any 
 Digital Computer System, Equipment or 
 Product That Uses Date Information. It Arises from 
 The Nearly Universal Practice in Academia, 
 Government and Business of Using Two Rather Than 
 Four Digits to Designate the Calendar Year 
 (E.g.,Dd/mm/yy).  It Also Has Its Roots in the 
 Common Practice of Using Two Digits to Shorthand 
 References To the Year (Just as People Commonly 
 Refer to "The Class of '99'" Instead of The "Class of 
 1999"). This Common Practice Can Lead to Incorrect 
 Results Whenever Computer Systems, Software or 
 Microchips Perform Arithmetic Operations, 
 Comparisons or Data Field Sorting Involving Years 
 Later than 1999. Non-compliant Systems May 
 Interpret 00 as the Year 1900, 01 as the Year 1901, 

From:   Dick Epler (52) 
ReplyTo: (Dick Epler 
Subj:   Lessons of Impeachment 

I  suppose the biggest lesson from the Clinton 
 Impeachment is NOT that "it's over," but rather that 
 it's just the beginning. This trial seems to be paving the 
 way for an entirely new phase of American Politics. 

Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, but the Senate 
 trial wasn't so much about Clinton as it was about 
 consolidating party power. The Repubs have some, the 
 Demos want it … all of it, if possible. And the 
 Constitution and associated Oath of Office be damned. 
 After the votes were counted, it was interesting to 
 listen to the justifications offered to dismiss. Though 
 all agree that Clinton is guilty as charged, most of the 
 Democrats assert that the offenses aren't impeachable, 
 while the Republicans contend that the offenses, 
 though impeachable, weren't proven as given by the 
 Senate's trial record. Of course, the Republicans (Lott) 
 were willing accomplices in crippling the trial process 
 (no live witnesses) and in tying the hands of the house 
 managers (no new evidence) so that a proper trial 
 record couldn't be built for the voting process. Neat, 
 eh? Everybody's covered, politically. 

The end result, however, is clear. We are no longer a 
 "nation of laws." The "great experiment" is dead. In 
 the United States, as in the rest of the World, the "rule 
 of men" dominates the "rule of law." I suppose we've 
 been moving in this direction for a long time now, but 
 the Clinton trial has removed any doubt that remained 
 and for that alone, the trial was important. While I 
 worry that our nation is now more susceptible political 
 corruption, we may yet be able to fix it before another 
 Clinton comes along ... so long as we recognize the 

But first, we need to clear up one very important point. 
 The "Clinton lesson" has very little to do with his 
 sexual indiscretions. As Ray Wells (54) likes to point 
 out, Clinton has committed (and continues to commit) 
 a good many more serious offenses than his abuse of 
 women. How Starr decided on the Lewinsky strategy 
 has bothered me from the beginning. At the time, I 
 rationalized his choice as being the easiest to prove, 
 which, though true, became irrelevant. In hindsight, 
 many say that Starr is a political neophyte who failed 
 to realize that such charges would be mischaracterized 
 as only "lying about sex," thereby serving as more of a 
 political vindication than as anything serious enough to 
 warrant impeachment. 

There are other, perhaps more insightful, 
 interpretations. Some foreign correspondents, who, 
 unlike our own press, don't have the problem with 
 access to Washington news sources, make some 
 interesting observations. They point out that Starr is 
 pretty much a product of the system. He has never 
 been an "independent" counsel. Starr is a former 
 chief-of-staff at the Justice Department and his team in 
 Washington is dominated by fellow Justice Department 
 insiders. Moreover, he has relied primarily on the FBI 
 (another Clinton-tainted agency) for most of the 
 investigative work. The point here is NOT that these 
 people are corrupt themselves, but rather that they are 
 most assuredly NOT independent. Anybody that was 
 able to survive Clinton's purge of the Justice 
 Department and the FBI, in 1992, has to know that the 
 key to survival depends on being able to ignore the 
 most serious offenses of the Executive office. 

That's another thing that has bothered me from the 
 beginning. When Clinton took office in 1992, one of 
 the first things he did was to fire all the senior 
 prosecutors at the Justice Department. Next he did 
 something no other President has ever done. He fired 
 the director of the FBI, a NO-NO, since that office is 
 appointed for 10 years (to ensure political 
 independence). But since the press was silent, I guess 
 we all assumed it was OK. In retrospect, these two 
 acts effectively gave Clinton direct control of most of 
 the Government's investigative machinery and thereby 
 cleared the way for him to ignore any laws he wished, 
 something he continues to do even today. 

Many point out that this couldn't have happened 
 without the complicity of the press. I hesitate to say 
 that we don't have a "free press" any more, but with 
 the pressures of advertising, political pressure groups, 
 circulation numbers, Nielsen ratings, and the like, I 
 know our press has nowhere close to the integrity it 
 once had. More honest reporting now seems to come 
 from a guy with modem connected to the net (Matt 
 Drudge) and from foreign correspondents than from 
 anything our national media puts out. Consider that in 
 recent days, the Washington Post has been caught 
 feeding media intelligence to the White House 
 counsel's office and that NBC Television is sitting on 
 an interview with an Arkansas woman (Jane Doe #5) 
 who was allegedly raped by Clinton. These are only 
 two instances of a "pressured press." 

So now let me ask: What do you think YOU could do 
 if you ran an office with a annual budget of 
 $1,770,000,000,000 (1.77 trillion dollars), had no 
 political opposition to speak of, had a spin-control 
 machine that the media loved, which, coincidentally, 
 allowed you to pretty much ignore the Constitution 
 and the law of the land? I suspect there are quite a 
 number of people out there with an answer to this 
 question. At least one investment journal believes that 
 Steven Spielberg is interested. Hmmm … could be. 
 Interesting how American Politics has changed in the 
 last few years. 

Dick Epler (52) - Mt. Vernon, Oregon 
From: (Willard Ule  M.D.) (73) 

When I wrote last I mentioned the simple minded, well 
 with our help they got something right. "We find 
 William Jefferson Clinton not guilty" even though it 
 took millions of dollars and longer than it takes to 
 bear and deliver a child. we were able to get the right 
 result.  The only thing I fear is a repeat performance, 
 God help us if I am right. We may find ourselves in the 
 middle of a war. I feel it would be the marks of all civil 
 war's. It would be the conservatives against the rest of 
 us as we would be forced to protect ourselves against 
 Moral Displacement. this would be when others 
 morals dis-place our basic civil rights.  may we 
 remember that it happened before. when we had our 
 last civil war. Let us be of more common sense this 

            THANK YOU MUCHLY 
                  LATER  "DOC" 
From: Gail Cherrington Hollingsworth (56) 
Subject: Re: Trivia questions 

 Not sure you are asking for us to send you these 
  answers, but just in case you are, here are mine: 

[Note to readers— since Gail is giving the answers here 
 to triva questions asked in Sandbox #29,  You can, just 
 for fun,  in the privacy of your own home, ask 
 yourself, or whoever is home with you, what the 
 questions are.  (You know, like in Jeopardy.) Or, you 
 can play the same game with Patty Stordahl's set of 
 answers further on. -ap] 

     1. Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr and 
 George Harrison 
     2. Have I...... (not sure about that one) 
     3. It's Howdy Doody time. 
     4. Melt in your mouth, not in your hand. 
     5. WonderBread 
     6. Cassish (sp?) Clay 
     7. When you brush your teeth with Pepsodent. 
     8. Maynard J. Krebbs. 
     10. Nada-nothing 
     11. A little dab 'll do ya. 
     12. over 30. 
Thanks, was fun ... 

Gail Cherrington Hollingsworth 
From: "Alan Porter" (67)  
Subject: Food for thought 

Thanks for the trivial questions I answered all but one. 
 Now I'd like to answer Ray wells 5 questions. I belong 
 to group 3 - those who believe in the rule of law. It is 
 important to note that there can be legitimate 
 difference of opinions on just what the rule of law is in 
 this case. As I have stated previously I do not believe 
 that Clinton should have been impeached because it 
 does not rise to an impeachable offense and I believe 
 that the senate followed the rule of law - thanks to 
 moderate republican senators.  Since I find myself in 
 group 3 I also feel that group 3 is the best group. For 
 questions 3 and 4 my best answer is - the strength of 
 this country is the diversity of opinions and actions, all 
 four groups add some strengths and weaknesses. 
 That's the purpose of a democracy is to acknowledge 
 and respect the differences. we need liberals and 
 conservatives and moderates. Even it I do find it hard 
 to understand why a person would want to be a 
 conservative I do believe it is important to have some 
 of them around. I just hope that my vote can keep 
 them from getting everything they wish vote for. So 
 Ray, lets encourage people to disagree and to continue 
 to cast their votes and to express their opinions. 
 Thanks for the questions. 

Alan Porter (67) 
From: Patty Stordahl (72) 
Subj: Regarding Trivia 

[Editor's note: Patty is supplying the answers here.  All 
 you have to do is remember the questions.  Kind of 
 like jeopardy.  But keep on reading.  She has more to say!] 

1. MaCartny Lennon Star Harison 
2. "Oh My!" 
3. "It's Howdy Dudey Time!" 
4. melts in your mouth, not in your hands! 
5. Wonder bread 
6. Cassius Clay 
7. when you brush your teeth with pepsodent ( I still do) 
8. Maynard G. Krebs 
9. Mouse 
10.birthday suit ( nothing at all ) 
11. A little dab will do ya 
12.  Regarding Bob Dylan, my memory fails me on only 
 two words,  to my recollection Bob sang almost 
 exclusively about lack of government or society trust. 
 Please help me on this one. 

Also to the one who interprets freudian dreams. 
 Contact me. 

Any one know the where abouts of RHS Mr. Stevens, 
 Mr. Nash or Mr. Vandenberg? What ever became of 
 the Skinners? They had a great club going in High 
 school for the Afro American students to increase 
 visability & awareness.  I remember Belinda but was 
 not really close to her. What is she doing now?  I 
 would imagine a governmental office or a leader 
 whereever she is.  Meryl Husties?? Jessica Allen? 
 Karlyn Jerrish?  Randy Woodby? Keith Brown, Bill 
 Church. List goes on & on but these are ones I have 
 not  seen or heard of in a long while.  Most every one 
 else still is in the loop somewhere out there.  Densows 
 drugs just came into conversation with a group of us 
 Friday night.memories of J P Harris's visits to pick up 
 his parents scripts. He couldn't remember the name of 
 the pharmacist back in the 60's any one out there 
 remember?  JP only remembered he was the nicest guy. 
 JP says that when his dad passed away, he inherited a 
 really unusual gift.  His dad was the town lock smith & 
 kept a spare key to every job he ever did & marked the 
 key with the address & name of each client.  The gift 
 was, the huge safe that holds ventrally every original 
 key to government houses in Richland as well as every 
 time the same address had a new lock added & key 
 made he added it to the original key ring.  Pretty 
 scarey huh.  Great thing that John Paul is very trust 
 worthy.  Wonder if Richland has a museum that would 
 be interested it this collection? have a great Valentines 
 day every one. 

— Patty 
From: Dustin Rector (88)  
Subject: Millennium Bug and other Y2K thoughts 

Darwin Perkins: 
For somebody offering no proof about what you're 
 claiming, you're awfully confident. I guess the work 
 you did was pretty minor. 

Personally, I'm planning for 2 weeks of no power (I 
 figure if not Y2K, one day the Big Quake's gonna hit 
 and then we will REALLY need 2 weeks of food 

At this point, I'm mostly worried about 2 things: 
 Cascade failure. Back in the late 80's a power company 
 had on their books that a customer owed them .001 
 cents. Rounding off, for several months they sent a 
 bill for $0.00. When they threatened to turn it over to a 
 collection agency, the confused customer wrote a 
 check for $0.00. This crashed the Federal Reserve and 
 sent a hiccup through the nation's banks. 

The lesson is: 99% of the banks have a good handle on 
 this, I'd guess 99% have probably built in some solid 
 testing software to reject checks dated 1/1/1900, and 
 that sort of thing. But all it takes is one bank to have 
 missed one thing, and it's error could echo through the 
 system. If  we have one power company, one traffic 
 signal timer, one airplane, one coal train, one 
 distribution company all choke, the waves could get 
 really rough real fast. 

My main concern, though, is other countries. Russia 
 has just begun to discover that it has a problem. Their 
 military is already experiencing starvation, missed 
 wages, desertion, and a high rate of suicide. I don't 
 know if we have much to worry, maybe it'll just 
 implode and the soldiers will return home and be 
 producing members of society. 

The big worry is if security will stay in place around 
 (nuclear/missile) weapons. 

I've heard that while Russia isn't as dependant upon the 
 PC as we are, almost all are fairly old systems, which 
 means what few systems use the computer almost 
 certainly need work to keep running. 

Has anyone heard what China's situation is? How 
 about our closer neighbors to the north and south? 

-Dustin Rector 
 KwikNotes: From Gary-: " Dancing Like Nobody's 
 Looking was just forwarded... I did not write it." 
 From Mary to Gary- "Hi Gary. I just read the 
 "Dance..." and loved it...Are you familiar with the 
 Kathy Matter song that uses those lines?  If you like 
 Kathy Matter, you'd  like the song. Thanks for sharing 
 the message.  I think we all need to be reminded of 
 things like that occasionally." 

Trivia:  Did you like the trivia questions?  More are 
 planned for next time. If you have some trivia you'd 
 like to send along for future issues, please do so. 

Table Topics: Not sure what you want to talk about? 
 Well, then, here are some ideas for you: What do you 
 think about the following: 

1.  A "Save The Dams" rally is planned to be held on 
 the Cable Bridge between Pasco and Kennewick on 
 February 18 between 5 and 7 PM.  Are any of you 
 going to go?  Please write and tell us your impressions 
 if you do.  What do you think?  Should we start 
 breaching (tearing down) the dams that provide 
 power, irrigation navigation and recreation on the 
 Snake and other rivers in Washington and Idaho in 
 order to try to save the native salmon runs?  There is a 
 very strong effort being mounted by forces in favor of 
 having the dams removed. Is that something you favor, 
 or not? 

2.  What do you think about the policy of "social" 
 promotion in school?  Does it serve the student? 
 Does it serve society? 

3..  Should gun makers be sued? 

4..  Where do you plan to be as 1999 turns into 
 the year 2000? 

See you next time! 
That's all for today's Sandbox, folks.  Say what you 
are longing to say today and send it right away to: 

        -- Al Parker, Gatherer of Your Thoughts