We don't have these. We have the Speech from the Throne. We get to be told, not have an explanation given to us. Ours are never remembered as we know to expect them to be diverted from, losing their value faster than an new car driven off the lot.
But we Canadians watch these things southern - though I didn't as there was an episode of House to watch on Global. [I am really starting to get into House even though the plots are incredibly formulaic. Hugh Laurie is doing the best acting on TV and carries the entire thing on his back. Without him it would look like a rerun of the 1970s show Emergency.]
Anyway, Gary wanted a group project on the State of the Union speech last night. I was going to keep these limited to Canadian topics but what the heck. Just remember that the strict manners rule (as opposed to the everyday mild manners rule) applies. No debate and certainly no personal slagging. State positively what you think with links to support your thought and graciously observe upon the positive statements of others. References to your own college degrees in an effort to persuade will lead to ridicule.
So what talking points to start it off?
- What is it with conservatives? When in doubt, start waving a green banner? What wizards in the back room thought this environment thing would be an easy issue to take control of?
- Iraq. Even the most loyal admit it has gone real sideways. Even the new General in charge says it might work out over time. Aside from partisanship, is there anything in the speech that give any hope that the administration knows what it is doing?
- I love how the body language in a state of the union evening is dissected:
And there were lines that got little support from Mr. Bush’s own side of the aisle. When he pledged to uphold the “tradition of the melting pot,” the Republican House leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, grimaced and clapped just once. When Mr. Bush went further and vowed “comprehensive immigration reform” — code words for the plan the House rejected the Senate approved last year — two top House Republicans, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Adam Putnam of Florida, stayed seated, hands quiet...Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York cast a disapproving eye on those who stood, including Senators Joseph I. Lieberman and John Kerry. And while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat forward in her seat and nodded as he described the increase in troops, Republicans who have criticized the plan, including Mr. Warner, stayed off their feet. Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine sat stone still. Across the aisle, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa shuddered and shook his head, and Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York tipped his head back and stared at the ceiling.
In Canada the best we could expect from a Speech from the Throne is a tally of who stayed awake.
¹ But talk about House, too, if you like.
Comments
cm - January 24, 2007 10:09 AM
House is now one of those shows that I'll watch if I think of it but won't set the vcr for. Now, if it was all Hugh Laurie for the hour, I might be more inclined to tune in. Although Wilson can stick around as well.
gr - January 24, 2007 10:29 AM
'But it could ultimately mean a tax hike for many who are covered by their employers'
from cnn.money http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/23/pf/taxes/health_proposal_effect/?postversion=2007012322
The president offers a 2 sided plan for health insurance, both of which have difficulties for poor-middle earners. On the one hand, tax breaks would be given to the unisured, presumably then they could buy health insurance and get the break. I wonder how many uninsured folks have the money up front, and can wait a year for a tax break? In my own recent experience, my wife and I qualified for state run health insurance, for working people with incomes below 33 thou a year. Glad to have it to cover a transition between jobs, but the price every month for a couple earning under 33 cost 25-40 percent of our take home pay at that time. A big chunk, and that was the affordable plan from the state!
Secondly, as quoted above, people with health insurance may become taxed on it. Again, how does this help low-middle income folks? Sounds like a whole lotta pain, both sides of this plan.
To be constructive and offer a solution: health insurance and its cost, and the lack of insurance for such a large number of Americans means we need a program that covers everybody, period. If we can afford billions for Iraq, we can afford this.
Gordo - January 24, 2007 11:09 AM
I have no modeical excuse for being snarky, so I'll talk House. I managed to win the Season 2 DVDs from Joe-FM last week. :-D For joining their silly online club. Whoo Hoo!
Chris Taylor - January 24, 2007 11:12 AM
I'm recusing myself from this one since I aggressively ignore both State of the Union addresses and <i>House</i>.
I have nothing but goodwill towards Hugh Laurie, though I think his best work was done alongside Stephen Fry.
Gordo - January 24, 2007 11:42 AM
Gary, there are many people up here who simply do not understand the semmingly pathological fear of universal health care in the US. Per capita health-care spending in the US is among the highest in the world, yet there are so many who have no coverage. It's inscrutable.
gr - January 24, 2007 11:53 AM
An article I read last year in the New Yorker, sorry, I can't find the citation, gave the history. After 1950, health insurance was a new idea, and US doctors did not want gov't interference, telling them what to do, and therefore private insurance thrived. The irony, naturally, is that health insurers here have, metaphorically, now taken a stranglehold on what doctors can and cannot do, or for procedures and medications they will pay for. Further, the bureaucracy of insurance companies drives costs up.
Bottom line, it seems like a bad idea having FOR-PROFIT private companies watching out for shareholder value at the expense of patients.
(as for critics of Canada's system: hey, at least it is a system---nothing scarier than having absolutely NO health insurance).
gorthos - January 24, 2007 2:21 PM
I like Hugh Laurie but like Chris, in a proper English speaking role, along side Stephen Fry. I have however never seen House. I am pretty fickle with TV and as an almost rule, if a show is popular, I guess that I wonl't like it and thus stay back unless convinced otherwise.
Also, I don't ever watch our OWN thrown speech let alone the US one. I just read snippets when I am interested in a certain topic that has been leaked aforehand.
I do note that the little bit I heard of Herr Bush earlier today sounded nervous and ever so slightly beaten.
Alan - January 24, 2007 2:29 PM
I should just link to Michael's links on the SotU speech.
Alan - January 24, 2007 4:55 PM
This is the last time I listen to Gary about a group project topic.
gr - January 24, 2007 5:12 PM
I had fun!
You should never listen to me, you've known me long enough to see the truth in that.
lrC - January 24, 2007 5:19 PM
AIUI employer-provided health insurance in the US took off during WWII as a means of increasing compensation to workers while wage controls were in effect. In short, health insurance (like other benefits) is just a part of the pay packet over which the employee has no (or little) direct spending control. The proposed change would level the accessibility playing field (people who have no access to employer-provided health insurance would gain the equal ability to buy health insurance with pre-tax income), and would remove the full taxpayer (ie. including people with less or no coverage) subsidy to people with extravagant health insurance plans. Both are indisputably measures which increase fairness and equality of opportunity.
Chris Taylor - January 24, 2007 5:19 PM
It wasn't a lousy idea, but it really depends on the audience's commitment to political "appointment television".
Apparently G.W.'s drawing power is low. But then you could have guessed that from all his failed pre-war coalition-building overtures to the U.N.
Maybe around the end of the year you could hold an Easlakia vs. Weslakia grudge match. Even though I know us westerners are heavily outnumbered. On second thought I guess that would be a little too close to me, Flea and Dave vs. everyone else.
Alan - January 24, 2007 5:26 PM
Hey - "an Easlakia vs. Weslakia grudge match". That is a great idea. We should have teams of five debate the given issue as a counter-format to the collaborative group project thing. Picking teams will be ahead of time adding to the anticipation as well as the dedication to the day's commenting. Others can sit on the sidelines typing "boo" and "yea!" all day.<p>Brilliant. You can be captain of the Weslakia team for the first one. There could even be picking of teams like elementary school sports. I have think about this one...
Alan - January 24, 2007 5:26 PM
Ringers? One out of five non-jurisdictional ringers?
Alan - January 24, 2007 5:29 PM
Note - the map showing Easlakia and Weslakia"<p><center><img src="http://www.genx40.com/images/2006h/easlakia.JPG"></center>
gr - January 24, 2007 5:37 PM
I was thinking grudge match, in a cage with chainsaws, chains, and nailguns.
cm - January 24, 2007 5:42 PM
Really, gr, just where do you think you're hanging out? GenXtremeat40?
Chris Taylor - January 24, 2007 5:43 PM
Don't forget the collapsible tables and chairs. What's a grudge match without those? And Michael Buffer.
Alan - January 24, 2007 5:49 PM
Like a digital version of this.
cm - January 24, 2007 5:53 PM
I'll bring the first aid kit.
lrC - January 24, 2007 6:11 PM
Oops. Turns out the proposed deduction is fixed, not a cap (ie. it is a refundable tax credit for anyone who purchases health insurance individually or through an employer's plan). The US treasury guys estimate that it would amount to an income tax cut for the bottom 4 income quintiles and an increase for the uppermost one.
Gorthos - January 24, 2007 9:38 PM
Go Easlakia!
Until we move my awful in-the-sticks dialup is currently giving me a sweet 12.2 kb/s so I am prevented from my normal online gaming, thus, debate by comment is coolness. Be aware I would of course dress the part of my gaming persona for such debates down to the glowing jeweled staff and my elven armour.
Alan - January 24, 2007 9:49 PM
That depends entirely on if you get picked for the Easlakia five aka "The Easlakia Easlakers."
Gorthos - January 24, 2007 11:48 PM
Oh I know. Its like that reverse psychology used in elections "when we win next week, we will put a chicken in every pot"