Tagged: Jeffrey Pinhey
Why organizations use consultants
Contrarian reader and consulting engineer Jeffrey Pinhey considers the pros and cons of using consultants, and the media’s treatment of the Dexter government:
So you are just getting around to the realization that the media are not going to be pro-NDP anything unless they are in opposition? I am no member of any of these “parties” (my parties are a lot more fun) but it sure seems obvious that the Herald is holding Darrell Dexter to a higher set of expectations that any other Premier has been in some time, even to the point of somehow twisting things to the point of blaming him for the indiscretions of members of the other parties. It almost seems like the last government’s lack of accountability is now the NDP’s fault?
This latest lack of interest in the truth around what that $43,000 actually paid for is just another example. I am sick and tired of the media going on about consultants doing work for government. What percentage of the words in a typical run of the Herald were actually written by their full time staff? Organizations hire consultants to do things they can’t do that well themselves, because they don’t do it all the time, the amount of work is above their own capacity to do in the tie required, the work is a specialized area of knowledge, and/or it is simply more cost effective.
This hiring of consultants to justify decisions that have already been made, and only releasing those studies that support the party line, has got to stop, though.
All we like sheep – feedback (updated)
A cautious Contrarian reader writes:
A friendly caution about taking pictures inside the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority pre-board screening area: If noticed, likely to attract unwanted security attention.
Noted — but isn’t this just further evidence that the real purpose of security theater is not to keep Canadians safe but to buttress the puffed-up functionaries charged with upholding these useless, colossally wasteful procedures?
Left: Stanfield International Airport 7 a.m., October 15. The security queue extends past the Clearwater Seafoods kiosk to the Air Canada check-in counter. Right: Half and hour later, inside the CATSA security zone.
The overwhelming evidence is that airport searches do not make us safer, but they make us more sheep-like. For more discussion of the witless “security” precautions we have accepted since 9/11, see:
Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic Magazine account of the ease with which smart terrorists could thwart airport screening.
John Mueller’s Foreign Affairs article contending that there reason there have been no attacks since 9/11 is that “that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.”
A Foreign Affairs panel discussion of Mueller’s thesis: “Are we safe yet?”
James Fallows’s many sensible contributions to the national “security” debate: “Declaring Victory,” “A Nation of Ninnies,” ” The End of 9/11,” and “Civilize Homeland Security.”
Ben Friedman on The War on Hype: “Conventional wisdom says that none of us is safe from terrorism. The truth is that almost all of us are.”
The blog, Crypto-Gram newsletter, and articles of security guru Bruce Schneier, who coined the term, “security theater.”
Nova Scotia could contribute to the reversal of this craziness by easing up on the intrusive “security” fooferah that has infested provincial public buildings.
Update: Contrarian reader Jeffrey Pinhey writes:
In Rome, earlier this year, I was screened very carefully getting into a security area. Once in, I was able to buy a large, heavy glass bottle of olive oil with a nice long handle… I mean neck. I then was allowed to just carry this on to the plane with me as carry on. This was a significant weapon, at least the equal of a box cutter, even without breaking it and having the sharp glass. Yet they took away a tiny hat pin from a little old lady.
