<< May 2007 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31


RSS feed

Check out some
of my travel photos...

www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from cartoonist2006. Make your own badge here.

Random Thots is brought to you by Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist at the Hamilton Spectator, in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Website: mackaycartoons.net.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

LINKS
MACKAYCARTOONS.NET
MacKay's cartoon archive
Who is Graeme MacKay?
MacKay's Photo Album
MacKay's Blog
MacKay's miscellaneous caricatures
Canada Gallery
Ontario Gallery
Hamilton Gallery
USA Gallery
World Gallery
Iraq Gallery
Stephen Harper Gallery
Paul Martin Gallery
Sheila Copps Gallery
MacKay's old comic strip
Buy a MacKay reprint
Add a cartoon to your blog
See my old list of links
Tips for aspiring cartoonists

BLOG ENTRIES

Custom Search
Inaugural Front Pages
Judging Presidents
Presidential Gathering
2008
2008 Review
The Ignatieff Era
RIP: Stephane Dion
Wreckless Coalition
U.S. Day of Decision
Election Prediction
'08 Federal Election HQ
Election Whining
ACEC Banff Convention II
ACEC Banff Convention
Canada at the Olympics
Cartoon Clichés
Radovan Karadzic
Zimbabwe's Mugabe
The Bay Sell Off
The New Yorker Controversy
Hugs for Hamilton
Green Shift
George Carlin
Apology to Natives
Hillary Clinton
Holmes on Harper's Home
Know Your Famous Cartoons
Harry Stinson Strikes Back
Pope Benedict's Red Shoes
Trevor Garwood-Jones
Germany and Afghanistan
Parallel Shepherds
A Cougar Cartoon
Ye Olde Pot and Kettle cliche
Clinton and Obama VS. Canada
The Great Bagel War Part II
Vote for me
Afghanistan and Petty Canadian
The Montreal Bagel Challenge
Ken Dryden visits
The Manley Report
Save the Lister Block
Campaign 2008 Begins
Editorial Cartooning Q&A
2007
Cartoon year in Review: Canada
Cartoon year in Review: Ontario
Cartoon year in Review: Hamilton
Spelling disasters and Isotope
Jean Chretien and Global Warming
The Chocolate Cartel
Karlheinz Schreiber goes to Ottawa
Remembrance Day Confusion
Ottawa Halloween
Editorial Cartooning 101
Dion in the dog house
Gore gets a cold shoulder
The day after the election
Election Endorsement
Hitting the nail on the head
Ivor Wynne neverendum
Greg Sorbara, Puppetmaster
John Tory: Up Close
Mulroney vs. Trudeau
Canadian War Museum Bombing
Gridlock: Hammercab
Alas & Alack
The Cold War Then and Now
Death of a Cliche
Le Tour de Farce
The Games of Hamilton
The Anti-Editorial Cartoonists
Life and its Lessons
The 50th AAEC Convention
Onward Ho...
Front Pager
Rahimi Benefit Review
The Pope's Driving Commandment
Elizabeth May at the Spec
The Advance of Balsillie
McGuinty comes to work
The Rahimi Family Benefit
Feedback from a school tour
Are the politicians crazy?
Picking the ripest of the crop
From a Global Warming Skeptic
MacKay in China
Not so bright light bulbs
Green Stuff
Boris Yeltsin
Killed Cartoons
The Theatre of City Council
Presenting your caricature
Attack Ads
Attracting the french audience
Drawing on the world
Creating a combo cartoon
YouTubing Animation
Budget Day Revision
Roll up the rim rant
St. Patrick's Day
Pipe Dream Capital of Canada
Our Anglican at Lambeth
Ad Parodies
One year of Caledonia
Drawing Terrorists
David Suzuki Event
Groundhog Day
A Hamilton East Cartoon Chronology
Roy Carless Book
The Greens conquer cartoons
Bollywood Dalton
From the mailbag
Nice Way to Start the Year
2006
A Year in Review II
A Year in Review
Cartooning Stephane Dion
Stephane Dion
Farewell Paul Martin
Stan Keyes Weighs in?
Missing the boat
Turkey time
Outrage and Congratulations
Worth Repeating: Justin Trudeau
Harper and the Chinese
Evolution of a cartoon
Raising the Hammer on Satire
Failing to Predict an Upset
Executing a Hanging
Income Trust Glaze Over
A lefty rant... against guess who?
Rant, Rant, Rant...
Oh Puh...lease
Iraq's Turning Point
Caledonia Cartoon Outrage
Drawing from life
The Ups and Downs of Stan Keyes
Caledonia Freedom March
Retraction and Distraction
Conservative Environmentalism
Municipal Disgrace
Lib. leadership by the numbers
Drawing on the Liberal Leaders
Cartooning in 2006: Reuse, Recycle
Low Points: Cartooning
Pinning down the issue du jour
Pete and Condi's Pictou Coffee
NDP Stupid Gas
Happy Anniversary
The loosened tie of Dalton McGuinty
Joanna Chapman
Cartooning the Crocodile Hunter
Canada's Buffoon Leader
Cartooning the Future
...And another Pet Peeve...
Icicle Lights Rant: 2006 Edition
"Entertainment Tonight" news
What the?
A Three Cartoon Day
Fairy Tale Series
Blogging Who's Who
Fun with Logos
Measured cartoon
Floyd Landris' Package
Advanced drawing
The August Long Weekend Monday
MacKay's Atlas of the world
A coffee rant
Common Cliches, and Metaphors
The new Dalton McGuinty Gallery
Conference Tables
Dalton Assad? Bashir McGuinty?
Scene of a newspaper
The Pot God of Hamilton
Not so nuanced on complainers
A nation of complainers
Ticat Critics
France versus Hamilton
Peeing up a storm
Pope Cartoons
The background on backgrounds
What to draw when politicians
Jumping the Shark
What to draw?
World Cup Disconnect
The Lister Saga
Still recovering after Denver
A half baked Cartoon
Sex, drugs, and watering down
 Local Cartoons
The joys of Photoshop cheating
Blog Rejig
Anger Management
Pushing the Envelope
Who's Dog the Bounty Hunter?
Heightened Editorial Sensitivity
Go ahead and 'Bite Me'
The Beginning

My 5 year old daughter's art work. "Jasmine" - I think it's fantastic.


If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:



rss feed



Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Are the politicians in this city out of their minds?!

Don't let the decision makers of Hamilton destroy one of the few architectual icons in the city. In the past I haven't been so kind to our poor City Hall, as this 1998 editorial cartoon illustrates. But over the past few years I've learned to appreciate it better and better despite it being neglected and allowed to fall apart by negligent politicians. It needs upgrades, it needs some scrubbing, surrounding features need to be changed or renovated, but most importantly -- it needs a lot more love by Hamiltonians and its politicians.

    

Here are my reasons for why we need to save Stan Roscoe's City Hall:

-- Hamilton can't afford a new City Hall. This is a choice between renovating at $69 million, or rebuilding from between $115 to $150 million. The extra amount to rebuild is money the city doesn't have -- that is unless they add it on our already high property taxes which they most certainly will do.

-- We've been down this road before. City Council voted to go with renovations beginning in 2005. Work has already begun and contracts have been made to continue what was decided upon several years ago. There are more important issues to deal with.

-- It was designated as a heritage building on May 9, 2005. That means most, but not all, of the buildings' heritage features will be maintained during a costly renovation. Any decision by council to demolish the building is going to be met with litigation.

-- The elected politicians of Hamilton never received a mandate by voters to tear down City Hall as it was never raised as an issue in the last election. While it might sound hokey, a City Hall is more than just an ediface, it is like a legislature, or a Parliament, or an icon that belongs to the people, not by the politicians who work there on a day to day basis.

-- The replacement will be an on-the-cheap, unstylish monster. Ask yourself this: has there been any civic building constructed in this city over the last 25 years which really stands out as an attractive architectural marvel? Is the 21st century style of the new Federal Building or the Juravinski Addition any better than the 1950's International meets modernist Style of our current City Hall? Have a look at this website to see some of the monsters built in Hamilton over the past 50 years.

-- As a further point to make on a rebuilt City Hall one really has to wonder if such a new structure is going to stimulate development and people friendliness around the building as Mayor Eisenberger suggests. That's highly doubtful given the 5 lane Main Street highway directly in front of City Hall. The only way pedestrian traffic will increase is if the city commits itself to radically altering the flow of vehicular traffic in the area, and that simply isn't going to happen in a place like Hamilton.

-- Is it really in our best interests to demolish a building and fill a landfill up with the refuse at a time when we've been talking about saving the planet and doing our part to reduce, reuse, and recycle? It seems pretty irresponsible to do such a thing with a building that was intended to last several lifetimes, not just a 47 year span.

Admittedly, the building ain't a pretty sight these days. The white marble is blackened, the grey forecourt looks horrendously shabby and the council chambers above the entrance has the appearance of a frat house thanks to interior renovations which ignore how it appears on the outside. Do the necessary restoration to return the once handsome building to what it once was. And finally, never let what represents the heart of this city whither away to resemble an embarassing dump.

Posted at 12:16 am by Graeme_MacKay
Comment (1)  

Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Picking the ripest of the crop

When picking fruit a grower has to know when the time is right to pick. Likewise for cartoonists the trick to drawing a good cartoon is to be timely -- being careful not to get a cartoon out too early and ahead of an anticipated event, and not to get out too late after an issue has passed being part of the public discourse.

Yesterday was one of those days (almost any Monday) when I struggled to decide what topic I was going to draw on and it wasn't until the middle of the afternoon that I began to embark on the subject of Queen Elizabeth's visit to George Bush's White House. When you consider my deadline of 5:00 in the afternoon that's not a lot of time.

When I sat down with the Ed board at 10:30 am yesterday I told them I was considering 1 of 2 options; a cartoon about the election of Nicholas Sarkozy as the new President of France; Or, a cartoon on the news that Hamilton councillor Sam Merulla was considering running as a candidate in the upcoming provincial election -- something he promised in last years' local election he wouldn't run in. Figuring neither of those topics really mattered to Spectator readers I changed course.

Time ticked by and Aha! David Radler was testifying before the Conrad Black trial in Chicago! Throughout the morning and afternoon the news networks were following every minute detail of the event, David Radler looking very tanned, David Radler being sworn in, Conrad Black coldly eyeing his nemesis and alter ego as he took the witness stand -- gripping stuff -- if you're a journalist. Do readers really care all that much about Radler's first day at the Conrad Black trial? I think the jury's out on that, and even they are dosing off.

There was a lot of hemming and hawing by me yesterday before I thought I'd do something on the Queen in the USA. Compared to Sarkozy, Merulla or David Radler does the Queen's visit really matter much to readers? None of them really do, there are just some days when the pickings are slim.

Posted at 09:11 am by Graeme_MacKay
Comment (1)  

Monday, May 07, 2007
From a Global Warming Skeptic

A nice little rant by a local writer on today's Op-ed page as a counter to the reams of newsprint devoted earnestly and often eye glazingly to doing something about global warming, climate change and blah blah blah. It's sure to rankle the greennecks out there. I've already overheard one of the greener reporters in the newsroom chew out the Op-ed editor author for running this article. Bravo to Tom Langdon!

A critical look at the 'disciples of doom'
What are the agendas of climate activists?
by Tom Langdon

Enough already! I've had it up to here with the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki telling us the world is going to end next week.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe diatribes delivered by people that have no expertise in a field of study as complex as this one.

If you think I'm off base, look up Suzuki's degrees and you will find he has degrees in biology and zoology and at one time was respected by his peers for his knowledge in those fields.

However, he does not have a degree in climatology.

Perhaps that's why he refuses to publicly debate a real climatologist and prefers to just present a one-sided view through speeches to the converted and through interviews with the media who hang on his every word as if he were the Almighty Himself (or is it Herself?).

At least Suzuki is a Canadian and as such has a right to criticize what he perceives as shortcomings by the various governing bodies in this country.

Gore, on the other hand, is a foreigner who thinks he has a right to come here and say all manner of outrageous things about our governments' actions. Talk about an unwelcome guest.

His slick little movie (An Inconvenient Lie?) certainly has grabbed the attention of lots of people and caused the federal opposition parties to suddenly forget every other problem this country faces and come out screaming for changes that could drastically affect our way of life.

Good grief, does nothing else matter anymore? What do you think is Gore's real motive? Is it absolute altruism? Does he really believe all the stuff he preaches? If so, why does he live in such a large mansion that sucks up power like there's no tomorrow? Shouldn't he shut it down and find some more modest accommodation in keeping with what he is recommending to everyone else? By the way, when was the last time you trusted your life to a politician?

Let's take a moment and ask some uncomfortable questions (for some people anyway).

* Why has the mantra quietly changed from "global warming" to "climate change"? Is it because the real educated climatology experts have seriously shot down that claim?

* What is the dreaded "climate change" anyway? Well, I think there is a better, simpler word for it. It's called weather and it happens all the time. This is a living planet and as such is constantly changing. For it to stop changing would mean the planet was dead for heaven's sake.

* Why shouldn't we eliminate carbon dioxide? Isn't it poisoning our world? Well, what do you think plants breathe in? Carbon dioxide. And what do they breathe out? Oxygen. We consume the oxygen that comes from plant life. If the plants are deprived of what they need, what will happen to them? They will suffer and ultimately die, of course. And what happens then? We're next. And so is every other creature on this Earth.

* If we grow lots of corn to produce ethanol, won't that be a big help?

Well, yes it would reduce our dependency on a finite resource, but there are important questions here, too. What about the poor nations that depend on our excess food production to keep from starving? What about the forests and jungles that of necessity would have to be cut down to make way for the huge corn crops that would be needed? What happens to all the creatures that live in those forests and jungles? Don't they have a right to live, too? And how much more energy would be needed to actually create the ethanol from the corn?

* Why shouldn't we try to clean up our environment? We should, absolutely, and the sooner the better. But the problem is not so much carbon dioxide as it is chemical pollution, sulphur dioxide and particulates.

In my humble opinion, our resources would be far better spent on finding ways to clean up the chemicals that truly are the threat to our very existence and on finding ways of creating products that can be easily and totally recycled.

Our waterways and the very air we breathe are under serious attack, not from carbon dioxide, but from all the other things that spew from our chimneys and leach from our dump sites. For years the automotive industry was rightly pilloried for causing pollution, but to their credit they are today building vehicles that are quantum leaps ahead in emission given off.

On the other hand, we have the short-sighted example of a provincial government that won't install scrubbers on the stacks of generating stations because they won't stop carbon dioxide!

Hello! Are you politicians listening to yourselves?

There is also the spectre of the fallout to the economy if we blindly follow the disciples of doom. Some claim the new jobs created in "green industries" would make up for the ones lost in other places. Let's be realistic here ... It ain't gonna happen, people!

And what if one of those lost jobs is yours? How will you and your kids and your family feel about that? Will you just shrug your shoulders and say it's OK because it's all for the good of the world, because David Suzuki and Al Gore said so? Good luck to you.

So the bottom line is this. Let's jump off the bandwagon for a bit and really think this thing through. Let's look at it with clear heads and not be swayed by rhetoric coming at us from so many directions. Let's think about what the real problems are with this old world to which we cling so tenuously. Let's try to find out the real motives behind some people's agendas.

In other words, let's try to prove that common sense is not yet dead.

Tom Langdon lives in Ancaster.

Posted at 12:25 pm by Graeme_MacKay
Make a comment  

Tuesday, May 01, 2007
MacKay in China

I should go easy on Peter MacKay, afterall, we are family. Rather than being slapped for bringing up a few less notable aspects from cousin Peter's past I'm instead being confronted by a letter writer who saw a lot more than innocent ridicule against Canada's Foreign Minister.

"Racist, racist, racist. Spectator, you've sunk to an all-time low, propagating racial stereotypes. Not funny",

emails Alyson Luckett of Hamilton, only a couple hours after it was printed. I'm trying to figure out what racial stereotypes I've propagated. Can anyone help?

Posted at 09:13 am by Graeme_MacKay
Comment (1)  

Monday, April 30, 2007
Not so bright light bulbs

A case of how the mania around all things green has caused politically expedient governments to appear as though they're doing good for the environment, when in fact, the opposite may be true. Here's an article from this past weekend's Financial Post:

The compact fluorescent light bulb nightmare
by Steven Milloy

How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light bulb? About US$4.28 for the bulb and labour -- unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about US$2,004.28, which doesn't include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favour of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).

According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter's bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges' house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state's "safe" level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter. The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a "low-ball" estimate of US$2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began "gathering finances" to pay for the US$2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn't cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.

Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as US$180 annually in energy costs -- and assuming that Bridges doesn't break any more CFLs -- it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.

The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.

It's quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about five billion light bulb sockets in North American households, we're looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges' bedroom.

Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in, our homes. These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs.

As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a "highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children" and as "one of the most poisonous forms of pollution."

Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury-thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the United States, under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.

And let's not forget about the regulatory nightmare in the U.S. known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with endless litigation over such cleanups.

We'll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.

Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury-thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the United States, under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.

And let's not forget about the regulatory nightmare in the U.S. known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with endless litigation over such cleanups.

We'll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.

As each CFL contains five milligrams of mercury, at the Maine "safety" standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.

Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Yet governments (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) are imposing on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill? - Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk-science expert and advocate of free enterprise, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

As each CFL contains five milligrams of mercury, at the Maine "safety" standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.

Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Yet governments (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) are imposing on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill? - Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk-science expert and advocate of free enterprise, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Posted at 09:38 am by Graeme_MacKay
Comments (3)  

Next Page