G.I. Guarantee Watch: Please, Mr. Postman, part 2

by David Safier

Still no snail mail response from the Goldwater Institute. Which leads me to wonder what surprises Starlee Rhoades' letter will hold for me — if I get one.

And I should get one. Because Starlee Rhoades began her first letter with:

"We appreciate your enthusiasm for spirited public discussion . . ."

And she ended with:

"We appreciate your active interest in our research and look forward to continued dialogue."

And all I'm asking for is an answer to a simple question: What does "many" mean in her sentence:

"We believe the term bureaucrat accurately describes many of the employees in question and is a fair use of the term."

As I see it, Rhoades' responses will probably fall into one of 3 general categories:

1. A full on acceptance of Matthew Ladner's statement that Arizona's school districts have "an almost 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio." To do that, she'll have to accept Ladner's assertion that "Bureaucrat" means, as it is defined in the Free Online Dictionary, "an official in a bureaucracy." And "Official" means "a person who holds a position in an organization, government department, etc., esp a subordinate position." And since a bus driver holds a position in a school district, by Ladner's logic, a bus driver must be an official, and therefore a bureaucrat.

No one with a working knowledge of English would consider a bus driver either an "official" or a "bureaucrat," of course, but since G.I's sole mission is to push its agenda, pretty much anything goes if they can get away with it.

2. An admission that people like bus drivers, maintenance workers and food service workers can't reasonably be called "bureaucrats." The problem here is, the "almost 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio" statement would come tumbling down. By rights, G.I. would have to honor its research guarantee and admit to error on its website. Ladner and Darcy Olsen would have to use a different wording for their "1-to-1 ratio" assertion, like teacher to non-teacher, which would not be nearly as effective, because it doesn't leave the same impression of an administratively top-heavy educational system.

That's not an attractive option.

3. A combination of hedging, ducking and dodging to avoid choices 1 and 2. G.I. practices the art of obfuscation on a daily basis, so they know how it's done. And if Rhoades can get away with it, she'll avoid a foolish acceptance of Ladner's absurd statement and still won't admit he made an error.

I doubt Rhoades will resort to the faux Zen koan like Ladner's at right, but she might hope a felicitous turn of phrase will allow her to escape without answering my question directly.

The problem with that approach is, I'm a pretty careful reader myself, and my mentor, Dr. Word, earned his PhD in obfuscation deconstruction.

Or maybe she's figure out another option, I don't know.

I'm hoping the letter will appear in my mailbox tomorrow.

"Please Mr. Postman. C'mon, deliver the letter, the sooner the better."