Rebane's Ruminations
December 2013
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

‘A Future of Failure?: The Flow of Technology Talent into Government and Civil Society’ was just published by Freedman Consulting, a progressive policy consultancy run by former staffers of Democrat administrations.  This important report was sponsored by the MacArthur and Ford Foundations, organizations that are much in tune with leftwing causes and central planning.  It recognizes failures – most notably healthcare.gov – by all levels of government to understand, incorporate, and operate systems that have a high technology component.

The report is timely, given what has happen and what portends for Americans as the federal government continues to stumble and bumble in such efforts to inject themselves more and more into our lives and fortunes. Through extensive interviews with government and “civil society” (i.e. NGOs and non-profits) officials and management, the authors conclude that governments are woefully lacking in STEMM (they add ‘medicine’ for the extra ‘M’) knowledge and expertise.  RR readers will not be surprised by any of the factual aspects and even most of the conclusions in the report. 


As an erroneous example of this, they blame the healthcare.com fiasco on such shortcomings.  While their overall premise is correct, they err here because the disastrous development of that website and its IT back end had little to do with government managers’ understanding of STEMM.  What they didn’t have were the most basic skills in structuring and executing a procurement program.  The disciplines they lacked and failed to exercise would have caused them to equally screw up everything from the building of a barn to buying trucks for the military.  And indeed, these civil servant types, appointed and hired, have demonstrated such ineptitude for as long as memory serves.  That is a prime reason why it is common knowledge to all but the hard Left that government should be entrusted with as little as absolutely necessary to serve the common weal.

But back to the report.  Given the bent of the report’s authors and sponsors, their ginger treatment of established and systemic government ineptitude is understandable.  For example they observe that the reason qualified STEMM people leave government in droves and opt for private industry is that for-profit companies “may” provide higher compensation, a more stimulating work environment, and advancement based on merit.  No $h!t Red Ryder.

In spite of such softballing, the report is well written and accompanied by informative tables and graphics.  Its key findings that explain government IT related failures are summed as –

•    The Current Pipeline is Insufficient (not enough people are being educated/trained in IT and STEMM fields while our students continue to “slip” – more here),
•    Barriers to Recruitment and Retention Are Acute (no competent practitioner wants to work with C students managed by double dummies),
•    A Major Gap between the Public-Interest and For-Profit Sectors Persists (it seems that the private sector fosters “a culture of innovation, openness, and creativity that (is) seen as more appealing to technologists.”  Gasp!),
•    A Need to Examine Models from Other Fields (Yep, about time they try finding out what work is like where the motto on the wall is something other than ‘CYA all the way!’),
•    Significant Opportunity for Connection and Training (they mean connecting and being trained in the thinking and ways of dispensing largesse from government on high),
•    Culture Change is Necessary (correct, but well-nigh impossible in environments that worship stasis, eschew risk, and depend on altruistic ‘go along to get along’ behavior).

All that being said and done, this report should be viewed as an intra-progressive communication that seeks to explain a continuing and now growing stream of government failures in a world becoming ever more technology dependent.  It doesn’t and can’t come right out and say that things are as they are because such bureaucracies with perverse embedded feedback systems can only be tolerated by people who are either scheming climbers or stupid and/or ignorant.  The basic message of this remarkable document reinforces the fundamental progressive precept that a growing gush of proactive public policies, based on central planning by an expanding government, are required to deliver an acceptable quality of life to Americans.

Posted in , , , , ,

266 responses to “‘A Future of Failure?’ – A Timely Progressive Lament”

  1. George Rebane Avatar

    Gentlemen – the etymology of ‘woman’ has a number of threads acceptable to people of various origin theory beliefs. I may have missed something, but I haven’t detected any RR commenter to believe is the literal interpretation of creation as described in Judeo-Christian scripture.
    Life’s evolution on earth has promoted species that are mono-sexual, bisexual, and even tri-sexual in the sense that a mediating critter has to get involved in making progeny. So it is difficult for me to follow the debate here, almost as difficult as it appears for the debaters.
    It seems that science has several acceptable/debatable explanations of how gender specialization came about to promote procreation and sustain the so adapted species. But then, maybe that discussion is a bit too staid, and we can continue the exciting search for Adam’s missing rib.

    Like

  2. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Why thank you Mr. Frisch. I knew that post would get ya. Yep, that got you good. Sticks in the craw don’t it? My Christmas present to you, the gift that keeps on giving.
    No pictures of Sandra Day. I respect her too much. First woman to graduate from Stanford Law and even took time off during her career to raise her children. Sandra Day may not be a Superwoman, but she sure is a super woman. Now Ruthie is just an object, simply a boy toy.

    Like

  3. Ben Emery Avatar

    Bill,
    To go even further than what you have shared. These are some summaries from a book written by Bart Ehrman “Misquoting Jesus”. I read it when it came out, I guess in 2005 or so. It seems much longer than that but I’m hitting middle age rather hard these days and time is starting to get real blurred. Mr Ehrman was an evangelical Christian in every sense but through his devotion and study came to the conclusions in the book.
    “Conclusion: Changing Scripture: Scribes, Authors, and Readers (pp. 207-218). ‘The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it’ (p. 207). The changes in the New Testament make it impossible to believe that God inspired the original words.”
    Faith is a personal relationship with God or Truth or whatever we want to call what cannot be expressed in words or pictures. Some choose Christianity others choose different path to their own personal relationship with God or Truth. I LOVE the fact that people have faith and belong to different churches. At the local level faith based houses are amazing and provide very important services from the spiritual to serving the needy a bowl of soup. The problem I have with religion is when one form of religion imposes itself upon others.
    Here is an interview with Bart Ehrman
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

    Like

  4. Ben Emery Avatar

    George,
    Would you agree with either of these statements?
    Woman means “out of man”
    or
    The word “woman” means “from man”
    27 December 2013 at 11:30 AM

    Like

  5. Ben Emery Avatar

    Todd,
    Do you read the Bible as literal or figurative?
    If you want to discuss a topic it is a two way street. I will give one more answer in hopes to start the process. I do not consider myself an expert on Christianity in any sense. What I am an expert in is my faith in God and how the teachings of Christ fit into that faith. Just like you I am entitled to my interpretation of the Bible.
    If pressed I would say I was raised Catholic but do not consider myself Christian. I married into a very overt evangelical Christian family and it has been good experience on both of our parts. I go to services, join in on prayers, respect Christian observances/ rituals, and have even helped with my youth minister brother in law Awana camps.

    Like

  6. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: George Rebane | 28 December 2013 at 10:30 AM
    Just for the record I was not disputing the origin of women; I was disputing the definition of the word ‘woman’. Considering the narrowness of that topic my observation that Todd is full of beans holds true.
    And also for the record, there are at least two and probably three ‘creation’ stories in Judeo-Christian scripture; one where Adam and Eve are created in God’s image (either literally or spiritually) simultaneously after the creation of the heavens and earth, one where Adam and Eve are created in series after the creation of the heavens and earth (10th century BC); and one in which the heavens and earth and man and woman exist simultaneously sans a timeframe.
    Which just goes to show you that these things are really should not be considered literally, but rather as a mythos, or set of stories to think about, to learn from, to draw inspiration from, to guide us in living a moral and just life, rather than a literal history.

    Like

  7. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1050am – Sorry Ben, I am too ignorant on origin of languages to take a position on such a limited set of choices. In any case, I don’t believe there is any evidence that the female member of any species sequentially derived ‘from’ or ‘out of’ its male member(s). I take questions like that to hew to a pre-scientific version of the creation narratives that still give comfort to many.
    As a Christian (self-avowed, not necessarily accepted by the establishment), I believe that Man is among the transcendent critters in this universe, and that God has revealed to us enormously more about the cosmos since the Renaissance than S/he/it revealed to more primitive peoples before that epoch. And these revelations continue today at an increasing pace. (For more, please see the ‘Religion’ and ‘Science’ sections of RR.)

    Like

  8. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    BenE, either you are or are not a Christian. You seem to keep one toe inside the church doors to save your soul? Too funny.
    BillT, you did a great job on the discussion of interpretation of words. I was simply pointing to the origin of the word and it is my research that says woman means “out of man” based on the rib. Frisch does his Wiki and namecalluing amd marginalizes himself as a person with little gray matter once again.
    BenE never answers the questions but he always fills in our side in a discussion.
    George, I think the libs her took something I said earlier and started this divergence. It is not about a definition of the word but its origins.

    Like

  9. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Well, this is proof positive that Adam was not from the Deep South. No Southern Boy worth his grit would ever give up a rib.

    Like

  10. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 27 December 2013 at 11:30 AM
    Show us where ‘woman’ is defined as or has a word origin meaning ‘from man’ please.

    Like

  11. Ben Emery Avatar

    Todd,
    Do you want to try and discuss theology or not?
    I answered your two first questions, now answer my first question before we continue.
    I have not told you what you think or what you should think in this discussion. Just answer the question,
    Do you read the Bible as literal or figurative?

    Like

  12. Ben Emery Avatar

    George,
    28 December 2013 at 11:27 AM
    I refer you to the comment 27 December 2013 at 11:30 AM.
    Those were definitive statements made to me by Todd Junivall. He was challenging my assertion that the term ‘man’ has more to do with human beings than gender.

    Like

  13. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Woman is a relatively new word in the English lexicon. You see it in Middle and late Old English as wyfman, which was an expression of how the wife belonged to the husband. It was later shortened, as we tend to do in English to just “Wyf”(pronounced Weef) or “Wif.” Chaucer preferred to use “Wyf” in case you were interested, which you probably aren’t.
    Anyhow, there is no mistaking the etymology woman has explicitly stating that the woman belongs (as in property) to the man; as “coming from him” which was slightly more esteemed than his cattle or pigs. And prior to the word woman, there was just a man’s wife or “wyf.”
    On a related note, long before post-modern feminist lexical cart tipping of the 1960s, “man” was considered gender neutral. It was neither masculine nor feminine. People were just “men.” (Our revisionists minds must avoid the temptation to project our values into 9th Century English) But then again, we didn’t invent left and right shoes until the 17th-ish Century.
    It is generally excepted that the division of men and woman (“wee man” and “woe man” are seen in early Renn literature) into distinct English nouns happened in the late Middle English period with the Liberal reforms brought about by the impending Renaissance.

    Like

  14. Ben Emery Avatar

    Todd,
    I will use the refusal to answer the first question a sign of conceding victory to me in, The Great Debate Of Theology 2013! To funny.
    Oxford English Dictionary
    theology (n.)- the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
    woman (n.)- an adult human female.
    man (n.)- 1. an adult human male.
    man (n.)- 2. a human being of either sex; a person:

    Like

  15. Ben Emery Avatar

    Todd,
    Now to address another ridiculous comment.
    “either you are or are not a Christian. You seem to keep one toe inside the church doors to save your soul? Too funny.”
    What part of this don’t you understand?
    “If pressed I would say I was raised Catholic but do not consider myself Christian.”
    If death came to my door tomorrow I would die a non Christian believer. Something might change over time but I doubt it.
    Our family is the melting pot or tossed salad of America.
    My dad’s family who am extremely close with are Portuguese/ Spanish Catholics (Grandmother) with Anglican/Episcopal English (Grandfather). My dad’s family were raised mostly catholic and they all went to Catholic schools.
    This one will really make your head spin. My mom’s family is Ukraine Jew (Grandmother) with Irish Catholic (Grandfather).
    My parents raised all of us with the understanding that there was a God and it was up to us to find the correct path to that relationship.
    I respect the faith of others to the point it is individual and personal (extended to immediate family) but will push back any religion once it is forced upon others.
    Just as in any institution once a religion reaches a certain size the incentives shift to self preservation instead of the original mission/ vision.
    I consider tolerance a major tenet of the teachings of Jesus, which I find ironic when Christians tell me my faith is wrong while I am accepting theirs.
    Have a good New Year’s.

    Like

  16. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Damnit Ben. You never said your got Portagee blood in ya. This changes everything. Sad day. This might be a deal breaker to our blossoming relationship.

    Like

Leave a comment