Rachael
Farris wrote a blog back in May of
2012 telling Austin citizens to vote for Charlie Baird for Travis
County District Attorney. The blog was obviously written strictly as
a way to get votes for Charlie Baird, with the use of what I am
calling confusing misdirection.
Rachael's
blog in its entirety offers only one argument. “CharlieBaird will work to solve the problems that lead to so muchdestruction within our community.” The only problem is that the
blog is around 600 words, and that one argument is in the last 100.
Having said that you might think maybe the first 500 words are hard
facts supporting this argument. Sadly that’s not the case. Now
having said that, you might think maybe the first 500 words are mere
conjecture, in an attempt to support that argument. Oddly enough no.
The first 500 words amounted to an eloquently written story of the
horrors and tragedy of east Austin living. The content wasn't even loosely related to the man. The only reference made to Charlie
Baird in the entire blog is the quote above.
The
blog was more of a lesson in morals, and being active in a struggling
community. Its almost like reading a paper without a thesis, that
demands something of you upon the conclusion of reading it. It doesn't make sense to write a blog with the goal of gaining votes
for Charlie Baird, and then not mentioning him at all, except to say
to vote for him. If the blog had purpose it would have offered some
facts to support why someone should vote for him, or at the very
least make some sort of claim.
The
last time I saw such an empty request to vote for someone I was
watching Napoleon dynamite. Vote for Pedro!
No comments:
Post a Comment