Dalton McGuinty gave is full backing to Stephane Dion's Green Shift policy the other day as he embarked on the summer recess from the Ontario legislature. McGuinty expressed his support despite the fact that he leads a province heavily reliant on manufacturing to drive the economy and provide jobs which will be subjected to a shift of billions in taxes on the carbon dioxide producing industries should Dion form the next federal government. Dion's risk to himself and his party means McGuinty can endorse it and not do anything (as per usual as is the case with McGuinty's dismal environmental record) until Dion surprises everyone and gets elected.

Of course McGuinty isn't the first guy in charge of a government to be all talk and no action, and Dion isn't the first guy wanting to lead a government with a lot of talk and the promise of action. Al Gore as we all know has been a tireless advocate of doing something about Climate Change, despite not doing much about it while in office or campaigning for President. Onetime environmental laggard Jean Chretien has always boasted about signing on to the Kyoto Accord despite conveniently ignoring the obligations. And Just recently the former British PM was pleading leaders of the G8 to bridge the chasm on climate change. So easy it is to talk the talk when out of office. But even while he was PM, Tony Blair spouted similar pleas promising to lower carbon dioxide emissions to 20% when in fact witnessing increases during his time in office.

So as Stephane Dion begins his gruelling coast to coast sale of the Liberal Party's Green Shift carbon tax plan, Dalton McGuinty can relax and enjoy the summer months to come complaining about how the Harper government isn't doing enough to stop climate change while feigning belief that Dion's plan will be warmly endorsed by the Canadian public.

Admittedly, I arrived at work this Monday morning a bit out of sorts. It's the first Monday in the summer, news is flat, I'm down on the quality of work I've been doing recently, so basically, I wasn't in much of a mood for cartooning today. Apparently this afflicts people in other jobs all the time, but for me it's a rare thing. I like cartooning - usually. But today following a period of melancholy, I decided to shake things up a bit - to test my boundaries more than usual. Forget about drawing something on Stephane Dion's Green Shift carbon tax or on Hamilton's LRT proposal, I thought. The gruel was thin in this morning's reports and I couldn't pin down a newsy subject that was worthy of cartooning on... except for the passing of the great comedian George Carlin:

Perhaps to little surprise this cartoon was spiked. I went into drawing this thinking it had a chance since newspaper editors often enter into heated discussions regarding the appropriateness of printing swear words. I suppose in this case the very act of making people think of the words I'm alluding to is too hot for print in a family newspaper, even though they were the very words which audiences expected to hear George Carlin utter whenever he took to the stage.

George Carlin was arrested for speaking these words before an audience back in the early 1970's, and even after it went to the Supreme Court, the words were deemed obscene and to this day remain unmentionable on American network TV. Still, he was a pioneer of pushing the envelope on a vast array of touchy subjects and legions of comedy writers thereafter were able to expand the boundaries of expression thanks to the trail blazing of comedians like George Carlin.

In a perfect world the editorial cartoonist should be able to use his little rectangle on the Editorial page to state what ever opinion he wants to draw on the same way a comedian uses a microphone to state whatever opinion he wants to say. The fact is there are limitations on both professions of satire with examples ranging from the no-no of drawing an Islamic prophet to the taboo of uttering the "n-word" in a comedy club. Making people think dirty words in this particular mainstream daily family orientated daily newspaper is apparently another no-no. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing because I simply don't have the energy to argue my freedom of expression over this cartoon all the way to the Supreme Court, or more realistically the Editor-in-Chief.

As a father of two little girls I'm like any other well meaning parent protectorate shielding their ears and eyes from the dirty words and images of society and teaching them not to say any of those words if they happen to get through the filters. (I'm not exactly an advocate of swearing anyway, as it would take the severing of a limb or a similar calamity before anyone would hear me drop the f-bomb.) Eventually, my kids will learn that the inappropriateness of swearing is as mythical as the existence of Santa. When they move on in later years to their jobs be they in retail stores, factory floors, or seated at boardroom tables, they'll hear how George Carlin's 7 dirty words have become an ingrained component of English dialogue.

What is it with the English speaking world that swearing is so tolerable and pervasive in conversation off the record but so taboo when in print or when recorded? Does this go on in other world languages? My impression is no, but who knows? What I do know is that making people think of bad words in an editorial cartoon is a taboo. Fine - lesson learned, now back to drawing boring politics cartoons...and... rest in peace George Carlin.

-----------------------------------------Update-----------------------------------------

Related to the issue of tribute editorial cartoons, Daryl Cagle asks on his cartoon blog why so many cartoonists drew George Carlin arriving at the pearly gates even though he was an avowed Atheist. He should've asked why cartoonists keep doing pearly gates cartoons everytime some personality dies. Pearly Gates cartoons are lame.

Recently discovered is this ancient stone engraving which may very well be the first pearly gates cartoon in the history of mankind. From a cavern from the western flank of Arabah valley in Jordan:

My heart fell when I opened The Spec and saw Graeme Mackay's cartoon poking fun at Prime Minister Stephen Harper's apology to our aboriginal brothers and sisters for the crimes committed against so many in the residential schools scandal.

It was a good day to witness our elected leader state, publicly and without reservation, his regret for the harm caused. He stated loudly and clearly he was sorry. He spoke of the horrors and fear, the beatings and the abuse, and his revulsion that these horrid acts had been committed.

In a rare moment of truth, the opposition also spoke their apologies and from the floor of the Commons for the first time ever, aboriginal leaders and those representing the abused, accepted the apologies without condition.

I felt proud and yet still hopeful that many would see what happened, and though hurt and scarred for probably a lifetime, would know that this could and should be the first of many healing steps toward a peaceful and caring co-existence as true neighbours in this great country.

— Brenda Bianchi, Hamilton

* * * * *

The same day your sister paper, the Toronto Star, runs an editorial entitled Why the Apology Matters to Us All, in relation to the apology to be delivered by the Prime Minister for residential schools, your newspaper runs an editorial cartoon. I could use various adjectives to describe the cartoon ranging from cynical to disgusting, but the worst of it for all Canadians, both aboriginal and nonaboriginal, is your effort to trivialize the apology even before it is given. Shame on you.

Michael Dingwall, Ancaster

* * * * *

I agree, I was a bit harsh to Stephen Harper in that cartoon. (Actually, it was one of those days when I couldn't bear to look at the editorial page. ) My concern is that the Tories have been doing an awful lot of apologizing in the past couple of years for past sins and I have had some doubts about the sincerity. I suppose I assumed cynical Canadians would share my skepticism of a sincere apology from a Prime Minister who isn't one to exhibit compassion beyond Conservative policy statements and smacking down Opposition politicians. Yesterday's House of Commons ceremony proved to be above politics and may very well serve as a symbolic building block to reconciliation between native aboriginals and the rest of Canada.

Here's my less cynical view of the apology: