This “apology” for Texas is clear, blatant propaganda, and could be a textbook case for student analysis. I’ll just point to a couple of the really obvious points of interest and let the student winkle the others out for themselves, mmmK? 😉
Here’s a sample:
After citing one Texas political loon and another would-be politician with some strange views (though she shows more historical literacy than the writer does), the writer says, “You might gather from this that Texas K-12 schools leave a lot to be desired.” Now, while the wannabe pol was, at the time of the writing, running for (not sitting on) the Texas State Board of Education, which is also responsible for the Texas university system the writer praises, the other pol has nothing at all to do with Texas education. Both of these “proofs” are irrelevant.
And in this, and further rags on the Texas K-12 schools, the writer includes nothing to support his statement about the poor state of K-12 education in Texas.
But of course, despite having the nation’s largest ratio of non-English-speaking (mostly illegal) immigrants, Texas public schools actually rank in the top third nationally, much better than the writer’s home state of Oklahoma, or bastions of his Blue State views such as Illinois and Wisconsin.
[Note: for those who have been paying attention in the past, I do also believe–note, statement of opinion only :-)–that Texas pubschools are in a horrific state, BUT that state is certainly better that more than 2/3 of the rest if the country’s states.]
So, argument by assertion. Irrelevant “facts” and no recognition of contradicting facts. Pure hand waving.
Next up: Sneers at the UT Austin bell tower being lit orange with every athletic triumph. . . morphing into sneers at Texas law allowing students to carry firearms on campus, in class.
Historically illiterate or simply deliberate propaganda? The guy knows all about the importance of the UT Bell Tower, and rants on about athletics vs. academics using it as an emblem of misplaced priorities, then sneers at Texas Law allowing self-defense on campus. The connection is strangely drawn. Some students actually fought back against Charles Whitman in the 1966 Bell Tower shooting spree. *meh* That was 1966. Of course it was too far back to mean anything to the dork writing the article. Probably. Still, the strained evolution from the sneering at the “oranging” of the Bell Tower for inconsequentials, to his lefthanded presentation of guns in the classroom, plain and simple propaganda. Argument by statement with no substance.
With those two samples to go on, I leave it as an exercise for the student to strip out other elements. Have fun!
