G.I. Guarantee Watch: Ladner’s Zany, Zen-y Emails

by David Safier

 On Saturday, I received the Goldwater Institute letter telling me Matthew Ladner's statement that there is a "1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio" is OK ("bureaucrat accurately describes many of the employees in question"). A few days earlier, I sent Ladner an email asking him a question.

If bus drivers are bureaucrats, I asked, aren't teachers "bureaucrats" as well using your broad definition of the term? And if they are, shouldn't you say all school district employees are bureaucrats?

I thought that was a tough one for Ladner to answer. After all, how can a bus driver be more bureaucrat-like than a teacher? So either he has to claim his definition of "bureaucrat" isn't broad enough to include teachers even though it includes bus drivers — a clear absurdity — or he has to admit that he's making a false distinction by separating school district employees into 2 distinct categories: teachers and bureaucrats.

[Note: you can read the entire email exchange below the fold. For now,
I'm summarizing my comments and including Ladner's complete replies.]

Ladner must have thought it was a tough one as well. Here is the entire text of his first email answering my question:

All baseballs are balls, but not all balls are baseballs.

Really. That's the whole thing. It's the only time I've ever been tempted to say, Ladner is a man of few words.

I replied, "Sorry, I'm not smart enough to figure out your meaning from the zen koan," and I asked for a genuine, logical answer to my question. Here is his second reply, in full:

Zhiqu teaches: When you're deluded, every statement is an ulcer; when you're enlightened, every word is wisdom.

That's it. A desperate attempt to avoid the question with a non-answer.

I replied, "Wow, Matthew, for once, you really have nothing, not even an attempt at a logical comeback," and once again I asked him to answer my simple queston. Ladner's email #3, in full:

It's just adorable when you try to be aggravating. Do it again!

In my reply, I wrote, "I repeat what I said in my last email. I honestly think you've got nothing." Here is Ladner's email #4, in full:

Socrates teaches that the beginning of wisdom is to know that you know nothing. So I don't presume to know that you are simply trying to waste my time with this, but I strongly suspect it.
 
Arizona's private schools employ more than three teachers for every non-teacher. Arizona's public schools have a ratio of close to one to one. This is a topic for serious consideration and debate. What you are doing strikes me as an attempt to avoid serious consideration and debate.

Notice the attempt to change the subject to another line of attack, one which Darcy Olsen employed twice, on TV and radio, last Thursday. I replied, in part, "All I'm asking for is a straight answer to a direct question." Ladner's email #5:

These are not my definitions, but rather those of the dictionary. If you look up the words bureaucrat, bureacracy and official, you will see that everyone who works for a government agency fits within those definitions.

Aha! That's almost substantive. I replied, "And therefore, teachers are bureaucrats? Finish your thought." Ladner's 6th and final email:

Read the dictionary and decide for yourself Grasshopper.

Wow. To repeat: Wow. In the thousands of words Ladner and I have exchanged on this blog, he has used circuitous and questionable logic, but never has he simply ducked the question.

My conclusion: This is a question Ladner didn't expect, one that pretty much destroys his basic "1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio" concept, so he didn't dare answer it.

Read the complete email exchange below the fold.

Here are the unedited emails in the exchange (complete with a few instance of poor proofreading on my part).

Safier, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Matthew.

One question before I receive the official letter telling me, I imagine, that you did not make an error.

Using your very broad definition of bureaucrat, can you explain to me why you would include a bus driver and not a teacher? I'm not looking for your personal logic here. I'm looking for a reason why a teacher should not be considered a bureaucrat based on your broad reading of the definition.

Using your interpretation of the meaning "bureaucrat," the passage I quoted should read: "The National Center for Education Statistics reveals that of the 104,630 employees at Arizona school districts, and they're all bureaucrats."

David

Ladner, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:43 PM

All baseballs are balls, but not all balls are baseballs.

Safier, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Matthew.

Sorry, I'm not smart enough to figure out your meaning from the zen koan.

If someone who drives students in a bus can be considered an "official" and therefore a bureaucrat, how can you argue that someone who teaches students in a classroom is not also an "official" and therefore not a bureaucrat? Using the "very broad" definition that includes a bus driver, food service worker or maintenance person, there is no way you can be consistent and say, "according to my very broad definition of 'bureaucrat,' teachers don't fit the definition."

Sorry. It doesn't work. If you can explain the distinction using logic, fine. Otherwise, you're just dodging the question.

David

Ladner, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Zhiqu teaches: When you're deluded, every statement is an ulcer; when you're enlightened, every word is wisdom.

Safier, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:59  PM

Wow, Matthew, for once, you really have nothing, not even an attempt at a logical comeback.

Teachers, bus drivers, maintenance workers, food service workers — either they're all bureaucrats, or none of them are. And your evasion — not once, but twice — shows you know I'm right.

David

Ladner, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:06 AM

David-
 
It's just adorable when you try to be aggravating. Do it again!

Safier, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Matthew.

I have to say, your last three come-backs are unlike anything I've ever seen from you, in a Daily Email, a personal email, a comment on BfA, a television interview or a quote used in a newspaper article. You've always had an argument, a point, a refutation, a fact — something.

I say this honestly. I think for once you are completely stumped. You can't figure out a way to use your definition of "bureaucrat" to include bus drivers and exclude teachers. If you could, you would rush in with your argument.

I repeat what I said in my last email. I honestly think you've got nothing.

David

Ladner, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM

David-
 
Socrates teaches that the beginning of wisdom is to know that you know nothing. So I don't presume to know that you are simply trying to waste my time with this, but I strongly suspect it.
 
Arizona's private schools employ more than three teachers for every non-teacher. Arizona's public schools have a ratio of close to one to one. This is a topic for serious consideration and debate. What you are doing strikes me as an attempt to avoid serious consideration and debate.

Safier, Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Matthew.

All I'm asking for is a straight answer to a direct question:

If bus drivers are bureaucrats by your definition, are teachers bureaucrats as well?

I haven't seen you address that question directly, yet it seems like a straightforward question, with a simple, direct answer: Yes or No, followed by an explanation of your reasoning.

David

Ladner, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:47 AM

These are not my definitions, but rather those of the dictionary. If you look up the words bureaucrat, bureacracy and official, you will see that everyone who works for a government agency fits within those definitions.

Safier, Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:53 AM

And therefore, teachers are bureaucrats? Finish your thought.

Ladner, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Read the dictionary and decide for yourself Grasshopper.

Safier, Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:14 PM, from Safier

Matthew.

If I read the dictionary using your broad definition which includes a bus driver as a bureaucrat, then a teacher is also a bureaucrat. That is the only way the definition is consistent.

Do I have it right? All I'm asking is for you to let me know if you agree with that interpretation.

David

Ladner, no reply.