March 24, 2008

Hillary Abroad

As I've argued here on several previous occasions, Hillary Clinton's pretence that she was a serious foreign policy player during her husband's administration is simply laughable. Now her White House schedules have been released, prompting the New York Times to publish a piece that demonstrates that she was an important player in precisely zero foreign policy areas.

And the courageous, unintentionally hilarious, headline the NYT gives this? Clinton's Schedules Offer Chance to Test Assertions. Well, yeah, that's one way to put it.

24 Mar 2008 04:13:55 | 2008, Clinton

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Wouldn't it be easier to just lock-up the kids? The latest salvo in the War on People of Smoke: Displaying cigarettes in shops could be banned under government plans being considered in a bid to reduce smoking and discourage children from starting. Ministers are also considering tougher controls on vending machines in pubs and restaurants. A public consultation due to start within months will call for the public's opinions on these issues. Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said it was "vital" to teach children that "smoking is bad". "If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I'm willing to do that," she said. Whatever next? I suppose there's little point in arguing that Ms Primarolo is in no position to determine whether or not "smoking is bad"*. Equally, I defy you to find a single teenager who has walked into a corner shop a non-smoker and left it a smoker because they could see some cigarettes on display behind the counter. Have these interfering busy-bodies nothing better to concern themselves with? Silly question... *UPDATE: By which I don't mean to dispute the obvious medical consequences of smoking (though most smokers do, of course, actually escape a "smoking-related" death). But even so, what is...
PREVIOUS POST
How to appreciate a train-wreck How do you measure a truly awful movie? Joe Queenan explains: To qualify as one of the worst films of all time, several strict requirements must be met. For starters, a truly awful movie must have started out with some expectation of not being awful. That is why making a horrific, cheapo motion picture that stars Hilton or Jessica Simpson is not really much of an accomplishment. Did anyone seriously expect a film called The Hottie and The Nottie not to suck? Two, an authentically bad movie has to be famous; it can't simply be an obscure student film about a boy who eats live rodents to impress dead girls. Three, the film cannot be a deliberate attempt to make the worst movie ever, as this is cheating. Four, the film must feature real movie stars, not jocks, bozos, has-beens or fleetingly famous media fabrications like Hilton. Five, the film must generate a negative buzz long before it reaches cinemas; like the Black Plague or the Mongol invasions, it must be an impending disaster of which there has been abundant advance warning; it cannot simply appear out of nowhere. And it must, upon release, answer the question: could it possibly...

alex massie

Search

My Online Status

Recent Comments