evolution

Friday February 4, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday February 4, 2017

The Johnson Amendment, Which Trump Vows to ‘Destroy,’ Explained

When President Trump told an audience of religious leaders on Thursday that he would ‘destroy’ the Johnson Amendment, he declared his intention to sign a bill that would fundamentally alter a major aspect of the church-state divide that has been a constant in American politics for generations.

But what exactly is the Johnson Amendment?

It is one of the brightest lines in the legal separation between religion and politics. Under the provision, which was made in 1954, tax-exempt entities like churches and charitable organizations are unable to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate. Specifically, ministers are restricted from endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit. If they do, they risk losing their tax-exempt status.

Considered uncontroversial at the time, it was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican. Today, however, many Republicans want to repeal it.

Back when Lyndon B. Johnson was a senator from Texas, he introduced the measure as an amendment to the tax code in 1954. Like many things Johnson did, the goal was to bludgeon a political opponent, in this case a rival in a primary who had the backing of nonprofit groups that were campaigning against him by suggesting he was a communist. Though there was no church involved, according to PolitiFact, churches were covered by the bill as well.

Mr. Trump promised he would work to repeal the Johnson Amendment as part of his extensive outreach efforts to religious conservatives, a group that took a long time to warm to his candidacy. Eliminating the measure has been a goal of the right. Conservatives have argued that it violates the protections of free speech and free exercise that the First Amendment extends to houses of worship. Courts have not agreed.

Speaking of the implications of a repeal last year, Jerry Falwell Jr., the prominent evangelical leader and Trump supporter, said it would “create a huge revolution for conservative Christians and for free speech.” (Source: New York Times) 

(Colourized and adapted from an earlier version)

 

Friday February 24, 2012

By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator, Friday February 24, 2012

Tougher rules expected for older drivers

Ontario’s transportation minister expects drivers with dementia will face tough new rules within the year.

The province’s aging population — with an increase is cognitively impaired drivers — will make road safety a “top priority,” said transportation minister Bob Chiarelli.

“I think we need to accelerate our attention to it,” Chiarelli said in an interview.

“I believe we are doing that and I would be surprised if in the next six months to a year we didn’t initiate some enhancements to it.”

In the wake of a Star series on drivers with cognitive impairment, Chiarelli predicted there will be a “tightening across the board” of the system that allows many seniors with dementia to drive unchecked.

The ministry is considering making the following changes: better training for family doctors on reporting cognitively impaired patients who drive; more rigorous on-road testing of senior drivers; and the introduction of graduated licensing for some seniors who, like teenage drivers, would not be allowed to drive at night or on 400-series highways.

Ontario is one of the last jurisdictions in North America that has not embraced “degraduated licences” for seniors. This would put limits on seniors with diminished eyesight in the dark or nerves that can’t handle highway speeds.

In the interview, Chiarelli said he has heard both good and bad things about that approach but is open to exploring it here. (Source: Toronto Star) 

August 13, 2007


A colourized version of the original drawn July 12, 2002

The Globe and Mail writes in a tongue in cheek editorial today on the death of a cartoon cliche thanks to some recent paleontological findings conflicting with long established theories of evolution. It must be the silly summer season when Canada’s national newspaper opines about anthropology, even more so when it’s suggested cartoonists will lose an over used cliche of a fish evolving through different stages of simian characteristics until it ends up resembling a human.

Will Science eventually destroy every cliche device known to cartoonists? Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Here are a couple of my own evolution cliche cartoons


The above one’s from March 5, 1998


This one’s from December 5, 2001.