The SANDBOX 
                Issue #68    June 24, 2000
        Ideas - Opinion - Personal Experience

      http://www.bigfoot.com/~The_Sandbox
         E-mail: The_Sandbox@Bigfoot.com

  
    "I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."

             - Samuel Butler 1835 - 1902


Look who's Talking Today!

     "In those wonder years of our youth, before
 our  "rich uncle" decided to get out of the
 landlord  business, and actually allowed the
 "serfs" to buy their own houses; the only way
 one could live in either Richland or North
 Richland was to have the "head of the house"
 working for, (in those days), the A.E.C., G.E., or
 any of the other contractors, subcontractors, or
 [others] ... supplying goods and services to
 the community.  Loose your job, loose your
 house, very feudal."

     - Robert Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54


     "NOT ONLY was he the man who signed
 the law that allows for a plaintiff's attempt to
 establish a defendant's pattern and practice of
 sexual behavior, it was Clinton himself, AS
 president, who PERSONALLY WROTE that
 section of the law for inclusion before he would
 consent to sign it."

                      - John Allen `66

     "...it seems to me that the single unifying
 sentiment most thinking American's will
 remember about Bill Clinton is his success in
 legitimizing bad behavior."

                       - Dick Epler `52

                             ~ / ~ / ~

The SANDBOX, Issue #68 Salutes:

               The Class of 1968

(More about the `68 web site, next Issue)

                       ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~

Here's more of what we're talking about today:

Subj:   Did We Live In Feudal Times?
From:  Robert Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") `54
karylc@juno.com

Re: Remarks of Verla Farrens Gardner `61

In those wonder years of our youth, before our
 "rich uncle" decided to get out of the landlord
 business, and actually allowed the "serfs" to buy
 their own houses; the only way one could live in
 either Richland or North Richland was to have
 the "head of the house" working for, (in those
 days), the A.E.C., G.E., or any of the other
 contractors, subcontractors, or those merchants
 supplying goods and services to the community. 
 Teachers, policemen, firemen, doctors and
 nurses were also included in this category. 
 Loose your  job, loose your house, very feudal.

The low crime rate was due to an unemployment
 rate of 0% (at least amongst adults).  There  was
 a rumor in my day that a portion of the Bomber
 football team was subsidized by employment at
 Johnny's Minute-Man Service Station in   Uptown.

Yes, we did feel safe at night.  There was no
 "criminal element" in town; they lived in Pasco
 or Kennewick.  And I think that feeling lasted for
 sometime well after the "Village" became
 self-governing.

Were we privileged to live in such an
 environment?  You "betcher bippy."  But there
 was a benign underlying reason:  "A good
 worker is a happy worker."  How to you keep
 them happy after spending a day in the desert? 
 Provide a safe home environment, also somewhat
 feudal in concept.

We may not like the product our fathers
 produced, but it was a necessary one.  I know
 ends don't justify the means.  Once in a while you
 have to do something that makes you proud of
 the work and effort you put into it, but not too
 happy with the result of your work.

I don't know if any of this makes any sense.  And
 it may all be a generational thing.  Those of us
 who were born before the war (WW II) and
 remember it, look at life a little differently than
 those who were born during or after and have no
 memories of it.

     - Robert Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj:    AN INSIGNIFICANT "PERSONAL MATTER?"
From:    
Reply-to: miles2go@cheerful.com

June 15th, 2000

I truly sympathize with those who are unable to
 keep straight the reasons why many Americans
 are so incensed by Bill Clinton's distant
 relationship with the truth.  Many are not
 politically disposed to believe the facts about the
 man, so they really don't spend much time
 looking for them, but it is fair to say that the
 number and complexity of Clinton's
 transgressions challenge the mental prowess of
 even the most ardent political junkies.  The
 following three paragraphs are a succinct but
 accurate explanation why his lying in the matter
 of the lawsuit brought by Paula Corbin Jones,
 was not some inconsequential "personal matter"
 which should have been dismissed by the US
 Senate.

Federal law governing lawsuits like the one
 brought against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones,
 allows the plaintiff (Jones, in this instance) to ask
 questions of the defendant (Clinton) about his
 sexual history in an attempt to establish that the
 defendant has demonstrated a pattern and
 practice of sexual behavior which supports the
 allegations of the plaintiff.  Thus, having been
 informed about Clinton's dalliances with
 Monica Lewinsky the night before his sworn
 deposition, the Paula Jones attorneys questioned
 the President during that deposition about his
 relationship with the young intern.  The   workplace
 relationships between the two women and 
 Clinton at the time of his alleged transgressions
 were effectively identical, and the Jones attorneys
 hoped to show that Clinton had a  pattern and 
 practice of preying on women in the
 workplace who were extraordinarily junior to
 him.  In both situations, the women were at the
 bottom of the organizational chart and Clinton
 was the chief executive (Governor of Arkansas
 for Jones and President of the United States for
 Lewinsky).  In fact, the women were so low in
 the pecking order that both situations were
 identical to those which the National
 Organization for Women (NOW) had previously
 described as being tantamount to rape.  Prior to
 this case, it was NOW's contention that due to
 the gross disparity in workplace power, no true
 consent on the part of a woman in such a sexual
 predicament, is even possible. Kathleen Willy
 was yet another "low on the totem pole" woman
 whose testimony the Jones attorneys hoped
 would demonstrate Clinton's pattern and practice
 as a sexual predator.  It was Clinton's
 UNTRUTHFUL testimony during this Jones
 deposition (Dec '97) that later prompted
 Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright to find him
 in contempt of court and fine him $93,000.  That
 fine was, of course, in addition to the more
 than $700,000 that Clinton ultimately paid Paula
 Jones to settle her lawsuit.  Clinton and his
 attorneys never contested the contempt citation
 for what should be obvious reasons.  It is this
 same Jones deposition testimony, in addition to
 his testimony before the Starr Grand Jury,
 which has caused disbarment proceedings to be
 brought against the President in Arkansas; the
 state which holds his law license.

THE MOST DAMAGING FACT surrounding
 Clinton's lying during the Jones sworn deposition
 is that, NOT ONLY was he the man who signed
 the law that allows for a plaintiff's attempt to
 establish a defendant's pattern and practice of
 sexual behavior, it was Clinton himself, AS
 president, who PERSONALLY WROTE that
 section of the law for inclusion before he would
 consent to sign it.  He undoubtedly never
 believed that he would be caught by his own
 legal work, but such incredible arrogance is a
 common failing of the common criminal.  So the
 obvious question, to which I have never seen a
 good answer, is:  "When any President of the

United States, for the most self-serving of
 reasons, is caught dead to rights conniving to
 violate a federal law which he has personally
 written, how can that NOT be a direct and
 significant threat to the country's belief in, and
 adherence to, the 'Rule of Law'?"  Please,
 somebody, don't tell me what other presidents or
 politicians may have done; just answer that one
 question directly.

There is undoubtedly some quark of truth to the
 Liberal excuse that Clinton lied to protect his
 family, but considering his consistently
 careless sexual history, that thought must have
 been well astern his other considerations.  For
 example, can you imagine what a judgment
 against him at trial would have totaled if had he
 told the "whole truth" during the Jones
 deposition.  The unmitigated fact is that by lying,
 Clinton knowingly, willfully and arrogantly
 attempted to deprive Paula Jones of her
 constitutional right to "due process," and to set
 himself above the "Rule of Law" which is the
 keystone of the American experiment.  (It is that
 same "Rule of Law" about which Clinton, his
 Attorney General, and his personal mouthpiece,
 Greg Craig, spoke with such reverence during
 the Elian Gonzales fiasco.)  And what were the
 high and honorable motivations for Clinton's lies? 
 The MAN wanted to avoid enormous financial
 loss, and the President, AS president, wanted
 to avoid swift and certain political annihilation. 
 Remember, his own poll taken the night before
 he looked the nation in the face to lie about his
 behavior said that, at that moment in time, he
 could not survive politically if he admitted his
 oval office carousing, and his lies about it while
 under oath.  Bill Clinton has now lied to so many
 people about so many different things, the most
 amazing fact of the 21st Century to date, is that
 anyone still believes him about anything.  Of
 course, thousands of Americans still send money
 to Jimmy Swaggert.

Beyond any doubt, P.T. Barnum had it right.

I hope I have enlightened those who still suffer
 confusion regarding this admittedly complicated
 matter.

                - John Allen (Class of '66)

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj: Clinton's Legacy
Dick Epler (52)
depler@ortelco.net

I rather enjoyed Marc Franco's replies to Barbara
 Doyle and Andrew Eckert (SandBox #66)
 regarding Clinton's legacy. Marc's response
 seemed eminently reasonable and obviously
 written by a very thoughtful man. Most of my
 liberal friends have expressed similar arguments
 in the past (not so much today). In these pages,
 Marc's defense of Clinton has never wavered. To
 paraphrase: "Clinton's transgressions are only
 about his personal life and are being blown out of
 proportion by right wing ‘haters,' but on balance,
 Clinton has been good for the country."
 Recently, however, I have detected a shift in
 intellectual sentiment that wasn't reflected by
 Marc … and I'm a bit surprised.
 
The use of the pejorative term "Clinton Hater" is
 now recognized by most as a ploy adopted by
 Hillary and the White House to deflect criticism
 of Bill and so I was surprised to see Marc's use
 of the emotionally-loaded "hate" word. Of
 course, Marc might point out that Reagan
 supporters talked about Reagan haters but the
 difference is that, in those days, Reagan's brand
 of Americanism inspired a great deal of genuine
 hate from the left and the term was an apt
 descriptor. The genius of Clinton has always
 been to adopt much of what resonated about
 Reagan to his own needs … and in that, Marc is
 half-right: most conservatives hate the strategy,
 if not the strategist himself. While there may be
 Clinton haters, I doubt if Barbara is a Clinton
 hater in the same way Rosie O'Donnell is a
 Reagan hater.

Marc has consistently questioned the differences
 between Clinton and other Presidents, implying
 that all have used power in similar ways. But
 that's never been the issue. With Clinton, it's not
 just the use of power; it's the way he's used
 power to achieve unconstitutional results outside
 of domains of National and Presidential
 prerogatives. His disregard of the Constitution is
 unmatched by any other President.
 
Putting that aside, however, it seems to me that
 the single unifying sentiment most thinking
 American's will remember about Bill Clinton is
 his success in legitimizing bad behavior. In my
 mind, that will always be his legacy. In the last
 eight years, our nation has undergone a major
 paradigm shift regarding acceptable behavior.
 Indeed, many Americans are increasingly
 convinced that deep down humanity is rotten to
 the core and that now, with increased prosperity,
 but without the restraints of law and religion,
 people naturally revert to the most obnoxious
 behavior imaginable.
 
Unfortunately, the Clinton Presidency has
 brought us to this point with a great deal of help
 from the intellectual elite, the media, and the
 entertainment industry. Consider that, before
 Clinton, we didn't have school shootings; we
 didn't have our athletes and coaches choking
 each other; we didn't celebrate "hate crimes;"
 national defense was strong and morale was
 high; and we certainly didn't have as much
 explicit and deviant sex in our music and movies.
 This is not progress. History tells us that these
 trends do not bode well for civilization, for
 which the cornerstones have always been a
 healthy respect for law along with a consistent
 moral compass.
 
I'm sure Marc knows this, as do all of my
 intellectual friends, but they have big problem.
 Unstated by most is their fear that we could
 return to Reagan's brand of Americanism. And
 so, they feel justified in defending Clinton's
 Presidency and in strongly supporting almost any
 democrat against any republican. Their
 justification is a belief that a strong centralized
 government run by elitists will know best how to
 allocate the nation's resources and wealth. The
 idea of a un(der) educated commoner running
 the government (like Reagan or George W.) is
 anathema. The intellectual elite generally doesn't
 trust ordinary people to know what's good for
 them.

The bigger problem, however, is that even in the
 Democratic Party intellectuals are a minority.
 The media and entertainment industry dominate
 and have a far different agenda. Many worry that
 if the Republicans get into power they will be out
 of a job. It's far easier to sell sex, violence, and
 raunchy comedy than anything based on the
 more intelligent aspects of humanity. A President
 that might encourage a return to higher values
 would be a significant danger to the employment
 of many in the industry today.

Nevertheless, the reason sex and violence sell so
 well is that most of us find it all so fascinating
 and the notion it might go away seems like a loss
… admittedly a BIG loss for the young, but
 probably not so much for the older generations.
 We all know, intuitively, that it is our
 impressionable young, and our defenseless old,
 who suffer the most damage from increased
 levels of sex and violence.

Social scientists tell is that the real "haters" of
 conservatism, a relative minority to be sure, all
 seemed to have had a bad experience,
 somewhere in their past, with a church, a parent,
 or the schools, where they were severely
 chastised for some sort of immoral behavior,
 generally of a sexual or violent nature. To these
 people, Clinton is a legitimate hero! Through his
 administration, Clinton has carefully crafted a
 number of policies designed to minimize the
 constructive influence of parents, church, and
 schools, on our children (most recently
 showcased by the Elian incident). At long last,
 these "victims" have a prominent advocate to
 assure them that there is no right or wrong
 because context is everything. If your intentions
 are good, or your needs real, then the result is
 justifiable (even murder). The fact this applies
 only for those in control of the nation's judicial
 and enforcement machinery is lost on them. And
 so our TV and print media are increasingly
 devoted to incidents involving these "victims" of
 Clinton's legacy … and I KNOW that bothers all
 my intellectual friends.

                      - Dick Epler (52)

                                ~ ~ ~

                                 - 68 -