Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – November 4, 1998
Editorial Cartoon, #hamont, HSR, transit, bus, Hamilton
Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – November 4, 1998
Editorial Cartoon, #hamont, HSR, transit, bus, Hamilton
Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday August 1, 1998
An outwardly confident Bill Clinton insisted yesterday he is looking forward to telling his story in the Monica Lewinsky investigation and pledged to testify “completely and truthfully.”
But the U.S. president received ominous reports later in the afternoon that FBI forensic scientists had discovered a “definable stain” visible to the naked eye in a dress Lewinsky has claimed contains a sample of Clinton’s semen.
Television news networks said the FBI determined the discovered stain was sufficient to warrant further testing, which could take another few days, to determine whether it is seminal fluid, and if it can yield definitive DNA evidence.
Earlier, Clinton seemed unconcerned about the investigation that could cut short his presidency. Waving off a cacophony of shouted questions from reporters at a White House event, Clinton smiled broadly while holding up his hands to forestall reporters.
“Wait, wait, wait, wait, ” he said. “No one wants to get this matter behind us more than I do.
“I am looking forward to the opportunity, in the next few days, of testifying. I will do so completely and truthfully. I am anxious to do it.”
The president’s advisers have been apprehensively awaiting any news of the forensic tests ever since Lewinsky turned over the garment to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr as part of her immunity deal shielding her from prosecution.
And it is likely to renew discussions inside the White House on what the president should say Aug. 17, when he is questioned by Starr on videotape from the White House for showing to the grand jury.
Many political analysts have suggested that the popular president could still survive if he admitted to the affair with the former White House intern and that he lied about it on television and in the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit in January.
But if he continues to deny the affair against overwhelming evidence, Clinton risks a perjury charge that could lead to impeachment hearings in Congress.
In his brief statement to reporters yesterday, Clinton refused to answer shouted questions about what version of “the truth” he will testify to.
“I would advise him to tell the truth and let’s get this story behind us, ” said Lanny Davis, a former White House counsel and one of Clinton’s staunchest defenders. Davis did not specify, however, whether the president should admit the affair.
Lewinsky’s soiled dress is potentially the most dangerous evidence against the president because it would elevate the evidence to the realm of science, rather than a test of credibility between the president and Lewinsky.
The latest report of the FBI testing potentially sets the stage for Starr to request a court order compelling the president to submit a blood sample so it can be matched to the months-old stain on the intern’s dress.
While Starr is under no legal obligation to reveal the results of the tests, which could be completed within days, most believe the president will be informed about those results before he gives his testimony.
If the stain turns out not to be the president’s seminal fluid, Lewinsky’s dress will give a boost to Clinton’s story that there was no sexual relations, while further undermining Lewinsky’s credibility.
Should DNA be retrieved from the dress, however, the physical evidence could be catastrophic to the president, who might be forced to admit the affair and ask forgiveness.
The other option is to testify to the grand jury that no affair took place and risk the consequences, including impeachment. (Hamilton Spectator, C3, 8/1/1998)
By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday November 6, 1997
There is a risk that Canada and the United States are treading water, and at risk of losing ground, in cleaning up the Great Lakes . The world’s largest freshwater ecosystem is cleaner and healthier 25 years after the signing of a landmark pollution control agreement in 1972. But much of the progress that’s been achieved could be squandered. Governments are cutting environmental budgets, weakening pollution laws and enforcement, and there’s reason to worry that politicians will become indifferent to a problem that defies easy solution.
The apathy that often relegates the Great Lakes to the bottom of the political totem pole is hard to understand. Some 37 million people live on either side of the Great Lakes . They draw heavily on Great Lakes water for their drinking water, recreation, fishing, manufacturing and many other uses. The stakes are extremely high. The economy and quality of life in the Great Lakes Basin hinges on the condition of this irreplaceable resource.
There can be no complacency about past achievements — a fact that was driven home to government officials who gathered in Niagara Falls last weekend for the 25th anniversary of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Three environmental groups issued a joint report which criticized governments on both sides of the border for allowing massive amounts of toxic substances to be released into the ecosystem every day.
The watchdogs found that while a few successes have been achieved in reducing the threat posed by DDT, PCBs and some other toxic chemicals, governments are moving too slowly in accomplishing the goal of zero discharge in the agreement. Progress has been especially slow in phasing out chemicals that result in the generation and release of dioxins and furans, which pose some of the most serious threats to life. The risks to human health remain ominous. An American scientist reported on one study showing that children of women who ate Lake Ontario fish before they were born stand a chance of having lower IQs and other learning and behavioural problems later in life. Lakewide management strategies and remedial action plans for pollution hotspots are generally proceeding at what the environmentalists describe as a glacial pace. Only one of 43 areas of concern, Collingwood Harbour, has been delisted in the past 10 years.
To be sure, there are encouraging signs. The Double-crested Cormorant, a large fish-eating bird, has made an incredible recovery after being devastated by toxic chemicals. There are now more cormorants on the Great Lakes than at any time in recorded history. But the threats to the Lakes are daunting. Dangerous levels of pollution which harm humans, fish and wildlife should never be accepted as the price of progress and prosperity.
Governments must show leadership by making a renewed commitment to the ingredients of past success: cleanup plans supported with the necessary funding, an insistence on strong laws with strict enforcement, and timetables to phase out the use and production of toxic chemicals that put everyone at risk. The disturbing fact is that many politicians are, of late, going in the opposite direction. They are making short-sighted decisions which will come back to haunt this generation, and the next. Political and business leaders must accept their responsibility and mobilize an effort in which we all do our fair share to protect the Great Lakes. (Source: Hamilton Spectator editorial)
The Hamilton Spectator — Saturday, September 6, 1997
“Great drawings — and he’s local.” That was our first reaction when freelance artist Graeme MacKay, then of Ancaster, started sending his caricatures to The Spectator in early 1995. Their use became more frequent until this summer, MacKay was brought on staff as editorial cartoonist to brighten our Opinion Page with his fine, funny, often biting cartoons.
It’s been a long apprenticeship. Born in 1968, MacKay grew up in Dundas, he was always something of a “news geek” and he was the kid who never stopped doodling. He would draw his teachers and classmates, a sure way to win a chuckle or two. In Grade 4, he drew the whole class, and ran off photocopies for them all, on demand. He also attended junior art classes at the Dundas Valley School of Art in the late 1970s.
Perhaps fitting for a future editorial cartoonist, Graeme went to work as a butcher, at the University Plaza Miracle Mart. But he was cut out for a different future.
At the University of Ottawa from 1987 to 1991, he submitted cartoons to the student newspaper, The Fulcrum, and went on to become the graphics editor. In 1992 he went to Europe with sketchbook in hand and honed his skills. But he also put in time as a bacon butcher at luxurious Harrod’s department store in London.
After returning to Canada in 1994, he worked for the Ancaster News and began submitting cartoons to other newspapers, with growing success. A close call with a sawblade in 1996 convinced him to abandon butchery and devote all his time to cartooning, moving to Toronto to do it. He has since been published in major daily newspapers across Canada plus the Chicago Tribune and Denver Post.
As The Spectator’s full-time editorial cartoonist, MacKay hopes “Hamilton is mature enough to laugh at itself.” He intends to provoke and make a point, but mainly, he hopes to be funny.
He’s also convinced that if he’s done his job well as a cartoonist, he won’t ever have to explain his work.
“I prefer to keep my mouth shut and let my pen do the talking.”
Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday August 15, 1997
The real danger at Ontario Hydro isn’t Candu reactors. The greater risk is in accepting at face value what the provincial government and the Crown corporation’s board of directors say about the troubled utility.The government and board of directors seem to want Ontarions to believe that the problems at Hydro’s nuclear division are in hand. President Alan Kupcis has sacrificed himself, which is appropriate under the circumstances. Managers have been let go, and more heads will roll in the days to come, says Hydro board chair William Farlinger. Seven reactors are being closed and Hydro will improve its performance beginning right away. The inference seems to be: Carl Andognini’s explosive report has exposed the rot in Hydro management, and we can rest assured problems in the nuclear power generating system are being dealt with.
But the truth is that some of the most difficult, sensitive questions about Hydro’s abysmal performance have yet to be answered or, in some cases, even asked.
– Where was Hydro’s board of directors during the years nuclear division management was growing more isolated and ineffective?
To date, the only board member to acknowledge responsibility is Kupcis, who was also chief operating officer. What about the remainder of the board? Were they unaware of the growing problem? Did directors know of the situation, and fail to act? Some of what was uncovered in the scathing review of Hydro’s nuclear operations is new, but other problems are longstanding and have been aired publicly.
Either the board of directors knew about the problems and didn’t act, or it was asleep at the wheel. Either way it’s remarkable and disturbing that this board is being allowed to continue operating the public utility. As corporate governance analyst Richard Finlay says: “The board has to assume responsibility for the enormity of the disaster that has occurred on their watch.”
At the same time as the Harris government oversees the rebuilding of management, it should put in place a capable board of directors. Traditionally, many Hydro board seats have been patronage appointments. Clearly it’s time that changed.
– Should Ontario Hydro reduce or eliminate its nuclear component over time?
When it comes to things nuclear, there are few objective opinions. Thanks to Hydro’s mismanagement, the anti-nuclear lobby has ammunition
for the foreseeable future in its quest to shut down the nuclear industry, but much of what we’ll hear from both camps in the months to come is nothing more than propaganda. Yes, there is reason to question the extent to which Ontario relies on nuclear power. Waste disposal costs, environmental threats, and lingering questions about effective long-term mainten ance on Candu reactors combine to throw a long shadow over the future of nuclear power. That said, most of the evidence points toward the Candu reactors being safe and efficient if properly maintained. Contrary to what some environmental groups claim, there is no immediate danger from nuclear operations if they are properly managed.
The government and private sectors should use this occasion to launch a research and development campaign to test alternate power generation methods with an eye to reducing Ontario’s reliance on nuclear power. Fossil fuels are not an alternative.
– Should Ontario Hydro be privatized?
No. We’re not confident that the private sector will regulate nuclear power properly, and there’s no evidence that the Harris government has the political will to insist on effective regulation. In any case, it’s unlikely a private sector investor would be interested in the financial swamp that is Hydro’s nuclear division.
That said, it’s obvious the time has come to end Ontario Hydro’s monopoly. The government should plan now to allow private sector power generating companies to compete with Hydro. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)