He explained why he is against the Teacher's union, but he didn't convince me he is for the kids. He basically said, "by ensuring the teacher's union is stripped of it's current power, kids will get a better education." Where is the correlation between these two points? His speach showed a no nonsense, don't mess with me kind of leadership (which clearly appeals to you), but his logic was vague and incomplete.
The Blog: A compendium of thoughts on politics, world affairs, economics, pop culture and social issues, from the center right perspective of me a University of Virginia graduate who spent a career in the world's greatest Navy keeping my mouth shut about politics and social issues (ok, publicly keeping it shut). Those days are over! I've also invited a few friends to join in, so pull up a chair and chime in where you will. Keep it clean, civil, concise and relevant.
The Fish: The fish is a "coat of arms" for the blog, symbolizing three formative influences in the life of the blog founder. The first is his experience at the University of Virginia--symbolized most importantly by the fish itself, or a caricature of a "Wahoo", the fish we have acquired as an informal nickname. Additionally there is the sword, the sword of a Cavalier. It is not wielded in a threatening manner, as this is a civil blog. But it is there, should it be needed. Secondly, there is the influence of 21 years in the Navy--symbolized by the anchor on the Wahoo's fin (and again, the sword) . Finally, there is the bowler, tuxedo, and monocle, symbols of a refined, intellectual conservatism, or what I seek to encourage here.
The Policy: I take FULL responsibility ONLY for what I write. I do not take responsibility, nor will I be held responsible, for what my guest bloggers write or for what those who offer comments write. I will occasionally exercise my right to edit/delete both blog posts and comments if they do not meet my view of what clean, civil, concise and relevant mean.
5 comments:
I love that fat bastard.
I love the guy too, but doesn't he strike you as taking a little too much glee in being combative? I still think Mitch Daniels is our man.
He's combative, he's passionate, he is emotionally connected to what he is doing, and he did not go to Harvard law.
He explained why he is against the Teacher's union, but he didn't convince me he is for the kids. He basically said, "by ensuring the teacher's union is stripped of it's current power, kids will get a better education." Where is the correlation between these two points? His speach showed a no nonsense, don't mess with me kind of leadership (which clearly appeals to you), but his logic was vague and incomplete.
It's a 4:42 clip. I suspect he's made that case elsewhere.
Post a Comment