If you're subjecting yourself to the C-in-C's fraught relationship with the English language too, incidentally, you might take a wistful glance at today's New York Times op-ed on the desirability of going back to a written State of the Union report.
Julian Sanchez | January 31, 2006
If you're subjecting yourself to the C-in-C's fraught relationship with the English language too, incidentally, you might take a wistful glance at today's New York Times op-ed on the desirability of going back to a written State of the Union report.
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|1.31.06 @ 9:22PM|#
Whether its Bill Clinton waiving his pen around threatening to veto an already doomed healthcare plan or George Bush giving another boring speech, these things are a stupid waste of time and have got to go. Even Reagan couldn't give an interesting State of the Union. I stopped watching them several years ago. Life is just too short.
|1.31.06 @ 10:42PM|#
just put it on C-SPAN, where it belongs.