3 ms·

Jennifer is a smart, dedicated gal who has been working on this problem since the Obama administration. I _very_ briefly worked with USDS on the DoD-VA hand-of

Jennifer is a smart, dedicated gal who has been working on this problem since the Obama administration. I _very_ briefly worked with USDS on the DoD-VA hand-off of medical records (the very early stages of trying to fix that train wreck), which had very clear bipartisan support at the time. It was not for lack of political will, nor severity of problem, nor through incompetence that the effort struggled. Most people, from the whitehouse to the hill, very much wanted veterans to stop dying or killing themselves on the waitlist. And yet, there was no smooth path. I saw a very brief glimpse of the problem and understand that there is a whole iceberg under the water line. She has been dedicated to the problem for years. I would listen to her and give her a whole lot of benefit of the doubt about the politics of it all, regardless of your political tribal affiliation. Some times you have to set othodoxy aside.

xbar 2y ago
[flagged]
julianeon 2y ago
The disconnect here is that, if I hadn't read the article, I would assume Jennifer was saying "Elon Musk may be the hero we need, the outsider who can finally reform the bureacracy." But a careful reading shows she isn't really saying that. There is some polite language in her tone and an unwillingness to antagonize unnecessarily. If you put 2 and 2 together, then, she's saying that the most likely outcome is that Elon Musk won't be able to reform the government either (but good luck to him, hope something good comes out of it, etc).
- derbOac 2y ago
  I'm not sure if this is controversial but here's my take: if your thesis can be so completely misunderstood on a cursory reading of a topic like this, it's either poor writing, or you're not writing in good faith, and are engaging in a kind of plausible deniability with regard to an unpopular opinion. For me, the underlying problem with the piece (which I did read) is that it seems to accept and run with the basic idea that DOGE etc is about government reform rather than lack of accountability and self-serving grift. The tone in general is something like "well this is what you get for ignoring the need for government reform, a sort of monstrous crude reformer" rather than calling out the fundamental problems with conflict of interest and mismanagement afforded by further problems with lack of public accountability. It seems to me to have the same basic problems in ethical reasoning as blaming the victim arguments, although the contours are different. I'm generally someone who is for deregulation in a lot of government, but that's not what we're seeing with DOGE. The problems are not about the orderliness of the disruption, it's about the nature of it and the ultimate actual goals of those involved, which are not in the public interest. Government reform in this particular case, in my opinion is just a fraudulent cover story for blatant grift and self-serving financial and social aggrandizement. No con artist is open about what they're doing; there's always a cover story, which is the nature of the thing. This piece at least indirectly supports that fraud by accepting its motivations and methods — if not its tact and pleasantness — at face value. It's either poorly written to me, or disingenuous.

xbar 2y ago

[flagged]

julianeon 2y ago

The disconnect here is that, if I hadn't read the article, I would assume Jennifer was saying "Elon Musk may be the hero we need, the outsider who can finally reform the bureacracy." But a careful reading shows she isn't really saying that. There is some polite language in her tone and an unwillingness to antagonize unnecessarily. If you put 2 and 2 together, then, she's saying that the most likely outcome is that Elon Musk won't be able to reform the government either (but good luck to him, hope something good comes out of it, etc).

derbOac 2y ago
I'm not sure if this is controversial but here's my take: if your thesis can be so completely misunderstood on a cursory reading of a topic like this, it's either poor writing, or you're not writing in good faith, and are engaging in a kind of plausible deniability with regard to an unpopular opinion. For me, the underlying problem with the piece (which I did read) is that it seems to accept and run with the basic idea that DOGE etc is about government reform rather than lack of accountability and self-serving grift. The tone in general is something like "well this is what you get for ignoring the need for government reform, a sort of monstrous crude reformer" rather than calling out the fundamental problems with conflict of interest and mismanagement afforded by further problems with lack of public accountability. It seems to me to have the same basic problems in ethical reasoning as blaming the victim arguments, although the contours are different. I'm generally someone who is for deregulation in a lot of government, but that's not what we're seeing with DOGE. The problems are not about the orderliness of the disruption, it's about the nature of it and the ultimate actual goals of those involved, which are not in the public interest. Government reform in this particular case, in my opinion is just a fraudulent cover story for blatant grift and self-serving financial and social aggrandizement. No con artist is open about what they're doing; there's always a cover story, which is the nature of the thing. This piece at least indirectly supports that fraud by accepting its motivations and methods — if not its tact and pleasantness — at face value. It's either poorly written to me, or disingenuous.