Adventure

Saturday June 24, 2023

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday June 24, 2023

Deep Water Rubber Necking Will Always Thrill Some, Despite Safety Concerns

July 13, 2021

The recent tragedy involving the Titan submersible has reignited the debate around deep-sea tourism safety. While calls for stricter regulations are expected, enforcing them across international waters poses challenges. The incident was an outlier, as most deep-sea excursions have been incident-free for over 60 years. Although safety is crucial, deep sea rubber necking will continue to be sought after by thrill-seekers with means.

The absence of regulations in international waters makes implementing safety measures difficult. Industry experts support certification for submersibles, but passing and enforcing regulations globally is complex. Responsible submersible operators prioritize safety, exploring natural phenomena at depths of 500 meters or less. It’s vital to distinguish between such operators and OceanGate’s unconventional decision with the Titan.

News: OceanGate Was Warned of Potential for ‘Catastrophic’ Problems With Titanic Mission  

Despite the tragedy, the allure of deep-sea exploration remains. Future expeditions may include submarine tours to view the Titanic and Titan debris. While safety regulations should be enhanced, the limitations in international waters must be acknowledged. Rather than focusing solely on oversight, improving operations and responsible practices should be prioritized within the submersible industry.

The families affected by the Titanic disaster express their disdain for exploring their loved ones’ resting place. Their emotional pleas remind us of the tragedy. However, responsible and respectful expeditions can offer valuable historical insights.

Deep sea rubber necking will always captivate some individuals, and the fascination with exploring iconic shipwrecks will persist. Balancing regulation and the freedom to explore the depths is a delicate task. As technology advances, we must ensure future expeditions prioritize safety while continuing to ignite our curiosity about the wonders hidden beneath the waves. (AI) | Also printed in the Toronto Star.

Letters to the Editor, The Hamilton Spectator, June 28, 2023 

Letters to the Editor

Cartoon was an affront

If the editorial cartoon in Saturday’s Spec was meant to be humorous, it failed miserably. Maybe staff forgot that five people perished in a completely avoidable tragedy.

If the cartoon was meant to inform or entertain, again it missed the mark. The cartoon is in fact an affront to the memories of those who died.

The Spec has of late been very conscientious about holding various public institutions to account, but this cartoon makes all of that seem artificial and shows your true colours.

Jack Coruzzi, Brantford

Cartoon nailed it

MacKay’s Saturday cartoon was brilliant and spot on. Adventure tourism gets headlines for billionaires who cost the public millions, while 500 refugees died in an accident on the Mediterranean, and hardly a word was uttered. We live in a shameful society that needs to be called out by satirists like MacKay.

Rhonda Hilton, Burlington

 

 

Monday May 15, 2006

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Monday May 15, 2006

Who’s minding the store?

Last week’s game of political dodge ball over the unionizing of city carpentry work was more evidence of a city hall malaise that should have Hamilton taxpayers incensed.

It’s not just the potential cost of this screw-up that’s troubling, though that aspect is deadly serious. The more exasperating problem is the culture of listlessness that, on too many days, seems to characterize municipal government.

In the carpentry issue, city councillors and managers failed to realize a union drive was taking place until it was too late — even though someone, somewhere at City Hall had been properly notified about it. Has anyone heard about communications protocols? How about accountability?

We now learn that the union monopoly over the city’s carpentry work, much of which was contracted out, could suck as much as $10 million a year from public coffers.

Guess whose pockets that will come from?

This debate is not about the merits of unions. It is about competency levels in a billion-dollar-a-year corporation called the City of Hamilton. Who’s running the ship, watching out for the public? The mayor? The city manager? Council? Staff? Hamiltonians should demand answers.

This debacle is the latest tile in a pattern that is unflattering.

Just last week councillors were startled to learn that a $14.5-million blue box contract with a private vendor has never been signed — after three years. There may well be good reasons for this, such as ongoing negotiations. But surely council — the corporation’s board of directors — should be kept apprised of such an important file as waste recycling.

Last month it was revealed that, for 10 years, city officials never conducted the mandatory annual performance review of Hamilton airport, a critical player in the city’s economic development, and which is contracted out to private operator TradePort.

The city of Hamilton is a big operation with thousands of employees. As with any large workplace, a certain percentage of things “fall through the cracks, ” and many dedicated people toil in thankless anonymity on tasks and projects that are well done. This spring’s rollout of the green cart program, for example, didn’t happen by accident. Many hands made it a success.

None of those facts, however, undo the expectation of accountability at both the political and staff levels. Public servants answer to the public. Government bureaucracies are often accused of lacking a sense of urgency, of being more concerned about surviving than thriving.

An unfair characterization of life down at City Hall? Given the nature and cost of the carpentry blunder, many furious Hamiltonians will think not and will want to know who is taking responsibility for this shocking disregard for public money in a city so strapped for cash. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial, A16, 5/15/2006)