A Clintonologist responds.

What's happening in our readers' forum.
Feb. 7 2003 11:44 PM

Duck and Cover? Duck and Rabbit.

Clintonology is all about appearances.

(Continued from Page 2)

I promise: it's perfect: Responding to Nick Schulz's plea that ordinary golfers not spend big bucks on new clubs, bolend3 rallies the troops here:

Duffers unite! And support your local golf pro. $1500 in lessons will do you more than $1500 in clubs.

While Eeyore1968 hews to Ty Webb'stheory that the real opponent is oneself here:

the whole quest to improve one's golf game through better equipment misses the point of the endeavor. The goal is to be a better golfer, not to artificially produce a lower score. Even if golf clubs do shave strokes off, you haven't gotten any better when you use them.

Gentlemen, let's broaden our minds: It probably had zero to do with my pathetic plea for more Movie Fray fraying, but there is an excellent thread, primarily between macbob and rob_said_that, debating the absence of "Jack" moments in Nicholson's About Schmidt—there's a list of the best Jack explosions and a serious underlying question: To what extent does a star's persona-creep alter our expectations of a particular performance, even when the star is an actor of Jack's caliber? ... 11:55 p.m.

82_horizontal_rule

Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2002

Show and Intel: Fred Kaplan argues that Colin Powell's UN show and tell could be very dangerous to U.S. intelligence operations. Many in the Fray think the Bush administration owes the American people an explanation, even at some risk to the intelligence apparatus. JackD points to an antidemocratic impulse at the heart of the administration's wariness:

The notion that proof sufficient to satisfy "lay" obsevers is too difficult a burden for the administration to have to meet belies the essence of our system. Lay people elect the President. ... Lay people, ultimately, decide whether or not governmental policies are deserving of support. If you can't convince lay people of the wisdom of what you want to do, you can't do it.

Or, as Retief puts it here:

The people in our intelligence agencies who collect this data may have "the ability to keep collecting data" at the top of their list of priorities. That doesn't mean that it should be at the top of the president's.

Publius disagrees and kindly begins his post with something like a lede: