Another Reduction in Government Lobbying
One issue we have talked about here before is the pervasive and unfortunate practice of governments hiring lobbyists to lobby other governments, usually for more aid or more authority to raise taxes. As if to celebrate Josh’s and my visit to the St. Louis city Board of Aldermen this morning (for the simple purpose of attending a meeting of that body, which we had never done before), the Post-Dispatch is reporting that the board cut money for the police department that would have been used to hire a lobbyist.
I commend the board for this. The police commissioners have other St. Louis–elected officials, not to mention their own standing as police officials, to engage legislators in Jefferson City. They don’t need to spend taxpayer dollars doing that. (And I say this even though I agree with the police board regarding the local control issue, which the Post article suggests was the rationale for hiring a lobbyist in the first place.)
Local officials who need assistance at the state or federal levels have their own respective elected officials and their staffs to help them. I have nothing against private organizations or individuals hiring lobbyists, but governments should not spend tax money in efforts to get still more tax money.
Unbelievable. Now we have the equivalent of a paid lobbiest, a paid propagandist, David Stokes, saying in essence that only his ‘bought and paid for’ propaganda about lobbying is somehow acceptable. You should feel sort of ridiculous right now.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 30, 2009 @ 3:13 p.m.
You still have literally no idea what you’re talking about, Joseph. I emphasize: *literally* no idea.
Your constant tactics of resorting to ad hominem insults, straw men, and evasion makes it seem as though you’re consistently using this article as an instruction manual in how to argue when the facts aren’t on your side.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 30, 2009 @ 3:56 p.m.
Fact: you are paid to provide one side of an issue at best and to distort both sides of an issue at worst. You are a propagandist. We, the citizens of St. Louis, need to be made aware. As long as you continue to accept money to distort, you will be revealed.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 30, 2009 @ 6:51 p.m.
Of course you will attempt to distort and deny these simple truths. That is what you are paid to do.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 30, 2009 @ 6:54 p.m.
Incorrect. We are paid to present the facts, whatever they may be. As you’ll see when we release our forthcoming review of the economic literature regarding charter schools, the numbers aren’t uniformly rosy. But people need accurate, unbiased information about both the good and the bad. That’s exactly what we provide.
If you’re so desperate to discredit us, all you have to do is demonstrate that the research we’ve released is inaccurate. You can’t do it, because we strive for the strictest standards of truth and accuracy — and this fact constantly shows in our work.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 30, 2009 @ 7:02 p.m.
Great. I see for once you plan on presenting both sides of an issue. I am curious as to the balance your boss who pays you to present one side of an issue will allow. The key word here is bias, not specific inaccuracies. The distortion is created by propagandists such as yourself through the presentation of part of the story, rather than any genuine attempt to create a balanced presentation of the facts.
If you really cared about the truth, you would do so. But of course you do not care about the truth so much as whether or not you can forward your employers’ agenda. It is to be found in every paid piece of propaganda the “Show-Me-Institute” designs.
Being America, you certainly have the right to propigate your myths, distort the truth, and present only one side of an issue. You also certainly have the right to propagandize your propaganda, labeling yourselves sympathetically to be freelance writers, policy analysts, policy advisors, etc. You also have a right to put clever labels on your organization such as ‘think tank’. The fact remains: You are paid money to provide our community with garbage as fact. It really stinks. People in the know have smelled your odor since your inception. Since you would like to deceive all the rest of the good folks that you are providing them with the unbiased truth, I am going to continue to let them get a good whiff of the taint.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 30, 2009 @ 8:18 p.m.
Persons without paid agendas provide facts, whatever they may be. Not paid propagandists who are compensated for lowering their bosses’ tax bill.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 30, 2009 @ 8:32 p.m.
You love to attempt to eliminate the truth in my statements about who you are and why you are offering our good citizens of St. Louis your ‘opinions’. And I notice you deny that you distort the truth. There is one fact I notice you don’t deny, but simply avoid. Perhaps you do this because you don’t take the time to pick up a dictionary. Perhaps you ignore it because you want to avoid the truth. The fact is that you, Eric D Dixon, are a paid propagandist.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 30, 2009 @ 8:45 p.m.
“I am curious as to the balance your boss who pays you to present one side of an issue will allow.”
Our donors pay us to present all of the facts in whatever issue area that we research. Every time. That’s what we’ve presented from our inception, and that’s what we’ll present next time.
Again, do you have an example of distortion in our published research? Find an example. Just one. Go ahead.
“There is one fact I notice you don’t deny, but simply avoid. Perhaps you do this because you don’t take the time to pick up a dictionary. Perhaps you ignore it because you want to avoid the truth. The fact is that you, Eric D Dixon, are a paid propagandist.”
You should know as well as anybody else that this word has multiple meanings. One of them, “The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause,” is probably what you have in mind. But this is not what we do. We publish our opinions, but those opinions are based on the facts that we research, and the opinions we publish don’t necessarily align with our own interests.
For instance, when I wrote about the economic impact of smoking bans. I don’t smoke, and I don’t like being in smoky rooms. Nevertheless, I oppose smoking bans. I’d love it if I never smelled another cigarette, but economic freedom and the maximization of aggregate personal utility is more important. That opinion of mine runs contrary to my own interests, yet I published it all the same. Why? Because the truth is more important than my own interests. If you’d like more examples of Show-Me Institute writers advocating policies that run counter to their own interests, just let me know. There are plenty of examples to choose from.
So, we don’t even meet the basic, “neutral” definition of “propaganda.” But that’s not the definition you had in mind. The word as it’s commonly used has this definition: “information which is false or twisted”
We don’t do that, either. Our research is accurate and unbiased, and you have not demonstrated otherwise. You won’t, because you can’t.
Most of your ranting here has been based on your own ignorance, which is easily understandable. You don’t know anybody who works at the Show-Me Institute, so you have no experience with our principled integrity. But the fact that you keep trying to make authoritative pronouncements about things for which you demonstrably lack knowledge is just embarrassing for you.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 30, 2009 @ 9:31 p.m.
The fact that you, Joseph Gnatek, a paid employee of the Saint Louis School District, keep repeating things does not necessarily make them true. Eric and others on this site may be required to be nice to you, but I am not in the employ of the Show-Me-Institute. In fact, I’m a lowly government employee, just like you.
But, unlike you, I understand that words actually mean things. I got that little lesson from an English teacher worth her salt. When you continuously use the wrong words to propagate your position…well, it either means you are ignorant or simply being deliberately obtuse.
One can always forgive ignorance. What cannot be forgiven is willful ignorance. You, as a high-school English teacher, should understand this.
You call Eric and others who work for the Show-Me-Institute paid propagandists. As far as I can tell, they have always been up-front about what their position is and from whence their paycheck comes. But you, Joseph Gnatek of the Saint Louis School District, have never really bothered to identify yourself. If Eric is a paid propagandist, what does that make you, Joseph Gnatek of the Saint Louis School District?
I’ve never really gotten myself spun up about the issue of school choice. However, when push comes to shove, I will always land on the side of personal choice. And when that happens, Joseph Gnatek of the Saint Louis School District, well, you can spin all the asinine rhetorical games you wish. However, it would behoove you and your ilk to just get the hell out of my way.
One more thing. Please stop referring to children as “our” children. They are not. You own no portion of my children or their future. They are their own agents, under my protection. I know it is hard for you to believe, Joseph Gnatek of the Saint Louis School District, but there are plenty of people in this world who will have no part of your collectivism.
Had you come to these forums in a polite manner befitting a learned teacher of English, I and others would have been happy to talk with civilly. Not only have you committed nearly every logical fallacy known, you have done yourself and your cause a disservice with your behavior. I see you for what you are, Joseph Gnatek of the Saint Louis School District. For me, that’s all that matters.
Good day to you, sir.
Comment by Justin M. Stoddard — May 30, 2009 @ 9:44 p.m.
You can call it what you want, Justin Stoddard. But when a group that misidentifies itself with buzzwords professes to create factual articles and distorts the truth for money and political purpose they are propagandizing. I wrote in a prevous posting that I was a teacher in the St. Louis School District, though that makes little difference when I am commenting as an uncompensated citizen. I am not paid to publish articles promoting the district I work for. There is a clear difference between the reasons my views are presented.
I firmly believe that this group should be exposed, since they neatly and cohesively deceive the citizens of this city that they are something that they are not. Evidently you disagree. So be it. There are many others who agree that this organization is a bastardization of our American values; they believe as I do that it is wrong to ‘buy’ influence over public policy through deception.
As to the question of my use of ‘our children’, your comments show an utter lack of understanding of community. Community includes caring about members of our community. I obviously don’t and didn’t profess the ‘ownership’ of any child in the sense you used it in. I did use it to stress an important point. This group is not a member of our community in any sense that is about caring. Their motives are the support of a single ideology (with which you obviously agree) through the use of persons paid to espouse only one viewpoint. They are obviously stacking the deck through the use of propaganda designed to sway people into believing something other than the whole truth. Perhaps you believe that is good. I do not agree.
As to whether I did any harm to any cause, I will leave to anyone who cares to read what I have written. For the most part, I have simply stated that this is a group of paid propagandists, which they are. Perhaps you also need a dictionary?
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 30, 2009 @ 11:20 p.m.
You keep using buzzwords like “deceive” and “deception.” Perhaps you need a dictionary? I challenge you to demonstrate a single instance of deception in our research.
You sound so confident that this should be an easy task, right? Demonstrate that your claim is true.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 30, 2009 @ 11:28 p.m.
No dictionary needed, Joseph Gnatek of the Saint Louis School District. As I stated earlier, I actually had an English teacher who was worth a damn.
And, please, don’t let’s play any more rhetorical games, Joseph Gnatek. As a paid employee of the Saint Louis School District, you obviously have a singular monetary stake in this argument. What will you do, Joseph Gnatek, if the good people of Saint Louis actually have a choice in where they can send their kids?
I understand perfectly well, Joseph Gnatek, what community is and what it is not. Above all, community is the voluntary association of free individuals. A community is where I choose to interact with you or purchase your services upon my own free will and volition.
There are several very good words to describe the type of involuntary association you champion, Joseph Gnatek. Your dictionary can help you if you’re at a loss. And, let’s not be disingenuous, Joseph Gnatek. Ownership of my children is exactly what you profess. Why else would you oppose the free choice of parents to school their children. Whether or not you profess it means little to me. Your actions speak well enough.
As for your last point: Again, and I state it plainly, just because you ignorantly repeat a word over and over again, ad infinitum, does not make it true.
Comment by Justin M. Stoddard — May 30, 2009 @ 11:44 p.m.
Justin, just because you ignorantly refuse to look at a dictionary to understand concepts such civil, community, distortion, deception, and propaganda doesn’t make what I said false.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 31, 2009 @ 2:28 a.m.
Hey, Joseph, how about documenting your false claims? Provide some evidence. Just one tiny shred of evidence.
You’re the only person practicing deception here.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 31, 2009 @ 2:41 a.m.
Joseph, again, I was taught the subtle uses of the English language by those in the know. It’s a basic skill any English teacher worth his chops should understand.
You are correct about one thing. My actions (or inaction) have absolutely no impact on the validity of your statements. Don’t put this back on me, Joseph Gnatek, paid employee of the Saint Louis School District. You’re quite capable of being wrong with or without my intellectual curiosity of what lies within the dictionary you are so fond of referencing.
Every one of those words you mentioned; civil, community, distortion, deception and propaganda have been defined for you numerous times. I am quite positive I stand on the correct side of this, Joseph Gnatek.
The argumentative equivalent of plugging your ears, yelling LA LA LA LA LA with the occasional name calling does little to advance your position.
I await your substantive response.
Comment by Justin M. Stoddard — May 31, 2009 @ 2:57 a.m.
Justin Stoddard, I am truly sorry that you don’t understand that this discussion is not about “charter schools” any more than it is about the personal insults hurled toward me by you: I hope you “actually had an English teacher who was worth a damn,” but I never made comments of this nature to anyone. It also does not center on your lack of understanding of the English language.
The fact is this discussion centered on an ‘opinion’ article by a paid propagandist. I don’t believe that you understand the meaning of the word propaganda. The fact is it is interpreted and used in a variety of ways. The way in which I choose to use the word is a quite common one. It means “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person”. This group is actively engaged in this activity.
Perhaps you would like me to use their ‘words’ for what they do, but I don’t believe that they describe their purpose any more than you feel propagandists describes what they do. The fact that they are propagandists is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many people in our community.
These propagandists are, in our opinion, a scourge on our society and need to be identified for what they are. I don’t believe I ever mentioned that they should be silenced or that they are not permitted to voice their ‘bought and paid for’ opinions or ideology as long as it is within the law, but I do believe personally they should not be permitted to interfere with public policy as they do. We certainly could create laws to do so.
In the meantime, when I hear the voices of propagandists who I believe endanger our community, I will identify them. You are certainly free to have a completely different opinion.
What this discussion does center on is the hypocrisy of a paid propagandist speaking of a lobbiest as though they are two different things. Perhaps you could refer to my original comments.
You certainly are permitted to believe differently. When your message is not lost in your childish behavior, I do respect it.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 31, 2009 @ 7:46 a.m.
Eric D Dixon, What evidence needs to be shown, other than what you have admitted: that you are paid a salary to do what you do. As I previously mentioned, your unfair impact on public policy is a scourge on our society. I believe what you do is wrong. You present numerous articles that present one position in a promotional effort to fit in with your bosses’ ideology. You are paid money to present a one-sided view, your bosses’ view, of this world. This action naturally deceives many people who are unaware of who you are. You present your information in a deceptive package with deceptive labels and one-sided conclusions. I believe you should be identified for what you are.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 31, 2009 @ 9:12 a.m.
Joseph Gnatek, are you not a paid employee of the Saint Louis School system? As a paid teacher of the Saint Louis school system, are you not a member of the Saint Louis teacher’s union? Again, I ask, Joseph Gnatek, what will happen to you personally if parents are allowed the personal freedom to actually choose what happens to their kids? Will you be out of a job, Joseph Gnatek?
Your language is very telling, Joseph Gnatek. In your response to me, you state: “These propagandists are, in OUR opinion, a scourge on our society and need to be identified for what they are.” (Emphasis mine). For whom do you presume to speak, Joseph Gnatek?
I personally know of hundreds of people you do not speak for, Joseph Gnatek. And, I’m just one person. I tangentially know of thousands upon thousands you do not speak for. Do you claim to speak for all citizens of Saint Louis or rather just your union? Do you speak for “our” children, Joseph Gnatek, or the union that protects your job?
I appreciate several of your generous concessions, Joseph Gnatek, to wit: “You are certainly free to have a completely different opinion” and “You certainly are permitted to believe differently.” The status of my free will was completely in doubt until you reassured me. Thank you, Joseph Gnatek.
It doesn’t matter to me anymore how you choose to use words, Joseph Gnatek. Your complete and utter misunderstanding (willful misunderstanding?) of the English language is not at stake here. This boils down to an argument for or against freedom. What scares you more, Joseph Gnatek; regular people choosing for themselves what they want out of life, or you loosing your job as a result of that choice?
I can certainly understand wanting to protect your job, Jospeh Gnatek. What I cannot and will not abide is protecting your job at the cost of other people’s personal freedoms. You will always loose on that point, Joseph Gnatek. Once you realize that, you will cross over from being the union shill you are to just someone who has a differing opinion.
Comment by Justin M. Stoddard — May 31, 2009 @ 12:05 p.m.
The Show-Me Institute takes pains to present not only a comprehensive set of relevant data in every single publication it releases, but also to present diverse sets of views in other ways. For instance, when we printed three separate editorials about Proposition M last fall, each taking a vastly different position.
Even on this very blog, we’ve published ongoing debates in which authors take alternate sides on many different issues.
In short, we take ideas seriously, and we advance no opinions but our own, based on the data that we’ve researched. As you’ll note on every page of this blog, it says, “The views expressed by each contributor to this blog are those of that contributor alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Show-Me Institute.”
That’s because the Show-Me Institute has no views. It only has the views of its scholars, which are a varied and diverse bunch.
You’re wrong, Joseph. You’re incorrect. Entirely and completely incorrect. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Your comments are filled with bluster and false accusations and not one shred of evidence for your position.
I repeat: You have not supplied a single piece of evidence substantiating your accusations.
And you won’t do it, because you can’t. You know that I’m right.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 31, 2009 @ 12:26 p.m.
Eric and Justin- The definition came from Merriam-Webster and is the most common usage. Yeah I’m in the union, Justin. I have never been to a meeting and take no active role in their agenda. They negotiate my salary and work conditions and that is all.
You guys just don’t get it and maybe never will. I will continue to call attention to what I know is the truth. Good Day, Fellas
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 31, 2009 @ 2:24 p.m.
Oh, and Justin- I understand the damage evidently done to your ego about the definitions. Evidently that is why you justified your childish antics concerning the use of “our children” and refusing to look at the dictionary. You must have been quite embarassed by your lack of knowledge and felt somewhat ill at ease. Your little tirades have not spoken well of your character, today. I suggest you spend a bit more time honing your skills in a discussion.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — May 31, 2009 @ 2:47 p.m.
Even your “neutral” definition of “propaganda” doesn’t accurately represent what we do at the Show-Me Institute. We present true, comprehensive, accurate data not to help an institution, a cause, or a person, but in order for Missouri’s residents to have a more complete picture of the effects of public policy and make their own decisions about how to utilize those facts. We don’t lobby, and we don’t sponsor legislation. We present facts and invite all experts and members of the public to scrutinize them.
Even though we don’t meet that “neutral” definition of propaganda, you keep using the word in the hopes that people will understand it as meaning “information which is false or twisted.” And this equivocation on your part is why you’re the only person in this discussion presenting information that is false and twisted. You’re the propagandist that you claim me to be.
You can’t find distortions in our research, because there are no distortions to be found.
All you have to do is provide one shred of evidence for your false accusations. What are you waiting for?
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 31, 2009 @ 2:48 p.m.
Ah…the “you don’t get it and maybe never will” statement. Well played, Joseph Gnatek, well played indeed.
Since I assume you’re leaving us, I’ll just summarize for everyone else.
Show-Me-Institute staff member: Hey, here some research that shows school choice might actually work.
Joseph Gnatek: You’re all just paid propagandists! You’re a scourge on society.
Show-Me-Institute staff member: Um, if we’ve made a mistake, we’d be glad to correct it. Please point out what we’ve missed.
Joseph Gnatek: Propagandists! Propagandists! Propagandists! You’re hurting our children. You take money for your cause!
Show-Me-Institute staff member: Here are several independent studies backing our position. In fact, here’s a study from the United States Government.
Joseph Gnatek: Why would anyone listen to propagandists like yourselves? Propagandists!
Justin M. Stoddard: You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Joseph Gnatek: You’re ignorant but I’m willing to allow you to believe what you want to believe.
Eric D. Dixon: Please provide just one shred of evidence that what we do is propaganda. Here, I’ll provide several more pieced of documentary evidence to the contrary.
Joseph Gnatek: Propagandist!
Justin M. Stoddard: Don’t you work for the Saint Louis School District? Won’t your pay be affected if school choice is implemented?
Joseph Gnatek: You just don’t get it. I’m taking my ball and going home.
Seriously, if this is any indication of how you teach your students, it’s no wonder why parents are electing to leave the city in droves for for county or private schools. I’m not speaking figuratively here either. People are literally leaving the city in droves with their kids in tow. You can blame as much of that as you want on “paid propagandists” Joseph Gnatek, but you only have your school board and your union to thank for that.
I know it disturbs you that there are people in this world who dare stand up against your form of collectivism. I know you have no frame of reference in which to debate these people. I understand that you believe that anyone who thinks differently than you must be on the take. As I said before, ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. It is easily correctable, if you have the courage to face it. Willful ignorance, even in the face of hard factual evidence, IS something you should be ashamed of, Joseph Gnatek.
Comment by Justin M. Stoddard — May 31, 2009 @ 2:50 p.m.
Justin-
Not only don’t you have a clue, you continue to act like a child.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — June 1, 2009 @ 4:38 p.m.
Joseph, your comments have been all bluster and ad hominem attacks — no facts or substance. You’re the childish one here.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 1, 2009 @ 5:12 p.m.
Joseph, really? After 24 hours, that’s all you could come up with? What’s next, the classic “I’m rubber, you’re glue” argument? Seriously, if my 10 year old daughter debated like you, she and I would be having a serious talk about her education or lack thereof.
This is the third time you’ve called me childish and the second time you’ve said I don’t “have a clue”. I will remind you once again, Joseph Gnatek, that just because you repeat something ad nauseam, does not make it true. You’re the one who has built his entire case on ad hominem attacks. From the very beginning you’ve done absolutely nothing to bolster your argument by way of factual deduction. Logic completely escapes you.
You can understand my incredulity, can’t you Joseph Gnatek? By your own admission you “graduated with highest honors in college” and “chose to work in SLPS, even though I had numerous other offers”. And yet, you completely and epically fail to grasp not only basic logic, but subtle (and not so subtle) usage of the English language. For God’s sake, man! You’re a high-school English teacher! As such, you’ve had countless hours of training in the classroom; and yet, the best you can come up with is “Not only don’t you have a clue, you continue to act like a child”. Seriously?
I want you to understand this, Joseph Gnatek; I have a couple very close friends who are public high-school teachers. Friends whom I love dearly. As you can probably guess, we do not agree politically. We sometimes even have discussions about school choice and charter schools. The difference is, they are able to shore up their positions with well reasoned, rational arguments. Those reasons have yet to sway me, but we still remain the best of friends.
But, not you, Joseph Gnatek. No, it’s all bluster and ad hominem attacks with you. It really is my hope that people Google this discussion sometime in the future and think twice about sending their precious children to any school where you might be teaching. In fact, I want you to continue this conversation. You’re the best argument for charter schools I’ve ever come across.
Comment by Justin M. Stoddard — June 1, 2009 @ 6:04 p.m.
It may interest Mr. Gnatek to learn that discovering that something “is propaganda” does not make it, thereby, untrue.
Some propaganda has positive truth value; other propaganda, negative truth value.
And of course much propaganda is made up of, primarily, the weight of emotion, and does not directly concern truth.
As I learned from Aldous Huxley when I was still a teen, propaganda is everywhere, and on all sides of most issues.
So no characterization of an argument “as propaganda” can prove that the argument is wrong. One has to use public standards of logic and evidence for that. This has not changed since the time of the Sophists, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
Now, I readily admit, it is possible that a person who argues badly, basely, is nevertheless correct. It is possible, even, that a sorry case like Mr. Gnatek is right, and the Show-Me folk are wrong.
But Mr. Gnatek has offered no reason to believe this. Mr. Dixon has offered data, and calm argument. As a person who tries to engage in civilized discourse, my judgment is leaning towards Mr. Dixon.
I’ll admit, though, that I, by my very nature, already lean towards the Show-Me line. To be convinced that a subsidized monopoly provision of an important service would work better than more competitively provided services, I would need quite a bit of evidence as well as rational, astute, and calm argumentation. I assume Mr. Gnatek, by engaging in the precise opposite, really only hopes to convince people as deeply committed as he is to the current, badly run schooling system as well as who are as contemptuous as he is of respectable rhetoric.
Comment by twv — June 2, 2009 @ 2:47 p.m.
One can simply look at your website, not your blog, to find literally hundreds of articles published that show one side of an argument. This is a fact that anyone who looks can see. I believe there is plenty of substance for you folks who insist on belaboring the moot point that there is no evidence. Interwoven with presented portions of research that support whatever point you are trying to make are flip comments designed to influence. For what purpose have you folks created these articles?
I really don’t care to debate much here. You are right. It shouldn’t be my job, nor is it my agenda to point out what anyone who pays attention to what your organization does on your website should be able to see. But it does seem that I should at least make people aware that you are an effort to slant information. I believe that what you do should be controlled by laws that reveal who you actually are rather than your label.
I think the funniest thing of all is that you continue to argue a lie. So be it. Perhaps it will make more people aware of who you are. I guess that is a good thing.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — June 3, 2009 @ 8:45 p.m.
We operate from a general philosophical framework — the fact that we advance market solutions is in our mission statement. We wouldn’t be interesting in advancing those solutions, though, if we didn’t have solid evidence that they work.
This is where your definition of “propaganda” fails. Our research considers all facts available, and we reach conclusions about policy based on analyzing those facts. If we don’t think a particular market solution would work well for a particular policy, we say so very clearly and delineate the reasons why.
So, our goal is not to advance an ideological viewpoint, whatever the evidence may be. Our scholars have a varied assortment of ideological viewpoints that generally coalesce on the idea that markets are valuable and tend to work well, and they have reached these views because the facts have persuaded them. We *love* it when people take issue with particular data or methodology, because it gives us a chance to reconsider our viewpoints and hopefully achieve even more refined, accurate analysis.
I think what you’ve demonstrated here, though, is that you have an ideological viewpoint that’s absolutely entrenched, despite the fact that it’s not based on data or logic. We hope to be corrected, because if somebody *can* correct us, they should. If we’re wrong about our data or methodology, we *should* change our conclusions, and we’d be happy to do so. On the other hand, you’ll cling to the same dogma you started with regardless of any evidence that may demonstrate that you’re incorrect — because your viewpoint wasn’t based on evidence in the first place.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 3, 2009 @ 9:59 p.m.
I’m heartened to see that you’ve given up on the ad hominem attacks, Joseph. However, I must still take issue with the thrust of your argument. As far as I can tell, the Show-Me institute has offered a great deal of third party information explaining why charter schools may be a good idea. Even if we completely disregard the basic argument over fundamental human rights (the right to choose how to educate your children), the economic argument is persuasive.
I would certainly be willing to listen to, and civilly debate a reasoned, well thought out argument of why charter schools are not a good idea.
You see, this is generally how the market place of ideas works, Joseph. From what I’ve gleaned about you so far, I am quite certain that my political and economic ideas differ greatly from yours. Knowing that may help me form a retort to what you have to offer, but it does not give me license to attack you directly.
For example, let’s say I was talking to someone about the forced redistribution of wealth (something I oppose) with an individual who worked for the Socialist Party of America. The thrust of my argument would not be, “Well, of course you think that, you’re a socialist”. I would attack the argument directly. I would list out, point by point, why the idea of forced redistribution is a horrible idea. I would do so in a cogent, systematic way by citing sources, facts, history, etc. I certainly would not propose that we need to have laws in place to silence such an organization.
Though I would fully expect the other person to disagree with me, I will not have reduced myself by engaging in personal name calling. This is precisely the problem I’ve had with you all along, Joseph. You’ve never attempted, even once, to attack the idea of school choice. I get the feeling that you’ve encountered a group that you vehemently disagree with politically and you lashed out. But, really, Joseph, hasn’t there been too much of that going on these past 10 years, on all sides of the political spectrum?
I mentioned earlier that you may not have the frame of reference in which to debate your cause with the people on this blog. That is certainly understandable, since free-market economics and personal liberty is something not clearly understood by many people in this country, whether you call yourself liberal or conservative. I think you’ll find that the people at the Show-Me Institute and other think tanks of the like are not the partisan hacks you make them out to be.
Comment by Justin M. Stoddard — June 3, 2009 @ 10:51 p.m.
Look, I am not interested in debating anything. As I have mentioned, I merely want other people who arrive at your propaganda to be aware. End of story. If you consider it to be a personal attack to say what you are, I would suggest you quit deceiving people for a living.
Comment by Joseph Gnatek — June 6, 2009 @ 6:47 p.m.
You’ve clearly shown that you’re not interested in facts or data at all — just slinging accusations and insults, then clearing out as though you’ve proved something.
In fact, every time I’ve asked you to substantiate your accusations that Show-Me Institute research is somehow inaccurate or distorted, you’ve ignored me. Do you know why I keep asking you anyway? It’s not because your clear lack of interest in actual data shows that you’ll never even bother to try, but because I’m thoroughly acquainted with our methodology and published work — and I have complete confidence in its accuracy.
So, again I remind you that your accusations are false. You’ve never made even the slightest attempt to demonstrate that there is any element of deception in our work. Cheap shots and insults may be the way you do things in SLPS, but we have a higher standard at the Show-Me Institute.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 6, 2009 @ 9:52 p.m.
I think I finally understand, now. I was laboring under the false impression that you did want to debate. That’s why I was completely befuddled by all your obfuscation, double-talk, obtuse mental acrobats, and general rat-crazy insanity.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I see now (that you’ve finally come clean about your motives) that your only intent is character assassination. I’ll hand it to you, Joseph Gnatek, you don’t allow yourself to be reasoned out of any position you’ve unreasonably cornered yourself into. I’ve seen Chinese Propagandists with less steadfastness than yourself. Congratulations!
But, a word of advice. Why not change things up a bit? Come on! It’s fun to shake up the insults every once and awhile. Take a hint from our good literary pal, Cyrano de Bergerac. I mean, if you’re going to engage in the practice of argumentum ad personam, at least make it interesting. Here’s an assignment. Get your thesaurus out and list all the synonyms for the word “propagandist”. After that, find some good, stinging adjectives and adverbs to use. Now, here’s the hard part. Instead of just throwing those words out Jackson Pollock style, put them in a, you know, coherent sentence.
For example: The Show Me Institute is a fomenter of capitalist lies and deceit. Their right-wing, running-dog hegemony must be exposed for what it is! Teachers of the world, unite!
Meh, I admit, it’s a little stilted. But, I’m sure a high school English teacher who graduated with honors could come up with something better. But, based on your performance so far, I’m not so sure.
And that, Joseph Gnatek, is how you engage in ad hominem attacks. I can only hope that one day you’ll take what I’ve taught you, go forth in this wild, crazy world and use this sacred knowledge responsibly.
But, don’t drive angry, Joseph. Don’t drive angry.
Comment by Justin M. Stoddard — June 6, 2009 @ 10:15 p.m.
I need business cards
Robert Vroman
Ideological Propagandist
Comment by vroman — June 12, 2009 @ 2:10 p.m.