power

Tuesday August 15, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday August 15, 2017

Under pressure, Trump condemns neo-Nazis, supremacists and KKK: ‘Racism is evil’

President Donald Trump denounced the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis by name Monday and announced that the Justice Department has launched a civil rights investigation into the killing of a counterprotester at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend as he sought to tamp down mounting criticism of his initial response to the violence.

June 9, 2016

“Anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held accountable,” Trump said in brief remarks to reporters in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, where he returned after a week of vacation in Bedminster, N.J. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms the egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America.”

Trump added: “Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to all that we hold dear as a nation.”

The statement came two days after he failed to specifically condemn the white supremacist rally after a woman was killed and as many as 19 wounded by a driver who reportedly espoused racist and pro-Nazi sentiments and had taken part in the “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville.

On Saturday, Trump condemned “the egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides,” sparking sharp criticism from Democrats, civil rights proponents and some Republicans for failing to single out and condemn the white supremacists who sparked the violence.

On Monday, Kenneth C. Frazier, CEO of Merck, said in a tweet that he was resigning from Trump’s American Manufacturing Council, saying he was doing so “as a matter of personal conscience” and that “America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal.”

Trump had been under increasing pressure to call out the groups by name after his previous remarks bemoaning violence on “many sides” prompted criticism from fellow Republicans as well as Democrats. (Source: National Post) 

 

SaveSave

Wednesday May 10, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 10, 2017

The Spectator’s view: A mayoral veto is just musing, but …

March 24, 2017

You had to know that when Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger used the word veto, hackles would be raised. Not all hackles equally, mind you. Reaction on social media was more mixed, with some actually seeing merit in the mayor’s observation. But in the minds of many — see today’s letters — Eisenberger may as well have suggested doing away with council entirely and running the show himself.

http://www.mackaycartoons.net/yahoo_files/2012/huh2012-01-12.html

January 12, 2012

Let’s be clear: the mayor was musing, no more. The province would have to change the municipal act to enable something like a veto, and there is no appetite for that. Eisenberger knows that and said as much.

He was trying to make a point, and it’s one worth discussing. Hamilton city council, like many others, is a dichotomy in many ways. You have 15 councillors who are elected by citizens of the ward they represent. Then you have the mayor, who is elected by the community at large. In that respect, the mayor has a mandate from the entire city, while councillors have a mandate from their ward constituents only.

March 10, 2011

Ward councillors justifiably feel great responsibility to respect the will of the people who elected them. They zealously guard the interests of their ward. That’s parochial politics, and it’s not always a bad thing. But what happens when what’s best for the city overall butts up against the interests of ward councillors?

LRT is an example. Councillors for the wards most heavily impacted by LRT construction and disruption are solidly behind the project because they see its overall benefit to their wards and eventually the city overall. Citizens in other wards don’t agree. They don’t see any direct benefit so don’t support the project. (Though it’s hard to fathom how some don’t see assessment growth and new commercial tax revenue as overall benefits.)

May 11, 2009

Another example: ward boundaries. Looking at the big picture, it’s hard to argue against redrawing boundaries so all citizens have roughly equitable representation. But such changes are trouble for ward-heeling councillors whose wards might have to change for the greater good. And so, we spent thousands on consultants, ignored their work and ended up kicking the can down the road.

Eisenberger’s point was that there must be a better way. Councillors elected at large instead of by ward? A mix of both? A board of control, or “executive committee” as its called in Toronto? A mayoral veto with appropriate checks and balances to prevent abuse?

October 14, 2003

As noted earlier, the discussion is academic. But maybe it shouldn’t be. The current system certainly has its share of drawbacks, although it generally works. But would it be so bad to study, perhaps even pilot, an experiment in doing local government differently? And why not in Hamilton, a city where challenges are overshadowed by ever-growing potential? (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

 

Thursday November 19, 2015

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator - Thursday November 19, 2015 Fact Check: Will the return of the long-form census save money? The voluntary process actually cost an additional $22 million. Making it mandatory will actually make it less expensive, (and) it will be on budget and on time." -- Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains The Trudeau Liberals, in one of their first acts in government, brought back the long-form census. Bains proclaimed the decision wouldn't cost taxpayers anything more than what is already budgeted for the 2016 census. Indeed, the minister, who oversees Statistics Canada, said taxpayers are likely to save some cash with the return of the mandatory, long-form census. Will Statistics Canada save money with the return of the mandatory questionnaire? Spoiler alert: The Canadian Press Baloney Meter is a dispassionate examination of political statements culminating in a ranking of accuracy on a scale of "no baloney" to "full of baloney" (complete methodology through this link). http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact-check-will-the-return-of-the-long-form-census-save-money-1.2654881 This one receives a finding of "a little baloney" -- it is largely accurate about the mandatory census costing less than the voluntary survey, but there are details missing that would help determine the actual savings figure. The government will save money because the mandatory survey is less costly to administer than the voluntary version, experts say. "There are at least a couple of significant reasons why there would be savings" Fellegi said. "I mean, not gobs of money, but savings." The savings start with the number of people hired to help with the census. For the 2016 census, Statistics Canada is hiring 1,400 people for the data centre that processes responses. Statistics Canada needs all those bodies to handle answers and followup with Canadians who don't fill in the form either because they didn't want to, forgot to, or mi

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday November 19, 2015

Fact Check: Will the return of the long-form census save money?

The voluntary process actually cost an additional $22 million. Making it mandatory will actually make it less expensive, (and) it will be on budget and on time.” — Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains

Thursday, September 19, 2013The Trudeau Liberals, in one of their first acts in government, brought back the long-form census.

Bains proclaimed the decision wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything more than what is already budgeted for the 2016 census. Indeed, the minister, who oversees Statistics Canada, said taxpayers are likely to save some cash with the return of the mandatory, long-form census.

Will Statistics Canada save money with the return of the mandatory questionnaire?

Spoiler alert: The Canadian Press Baloney Meter is a dispassionate examination of political statements culminating in a ranking of accuracy on a scale of “no baloney” to “full of baloney” (complete methodology through this link).

This one receives a finding of “a little baloney” — it is largely accurate about the mandatory census costing less than the voluntary survey, but there are details missing that would help determine the actual savings figure.

The government will save money because the mandatory survey is less costly to administer than the voluntary version, experts say.

“There are at least a couple of significant reasons why there would be savings” Fellegi said. “I mean, not gobs of money, but savings.”

The savings start with the number of people hired to help with the census. For the 2016 census, Statistics Canada is hiring 1,400 people for the data centre that processes responses.

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator - Tuesday November 17, 2015 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Canada will "do its part" in the military fight against ISIS, but remains committed to withdrawing warplanes from the mission. During a news conference at the G20 summit in Antalya, Turkey, Trudeau said Friday's attacks in Paris will not prompt the government to reverse course on a plan to pull out Canada's fighter jets. Instead, Canada will step up training of local troops, he said. "I know that Canada will continue to, and be seen to be continuing to, do its part in the fight against this terrorist scourge," he said. The Liberal platform during the campaign for the recent federal election committed to end the combat mission and "refocus" on training local forces in Iraq. Trudeau said that commitment remains, but he has not set a timetable for when Canada will withdraw from the U.S.-led air combat mission. "We made a clear commitment in the campaign to stop the bombing mission by Canadian jets and replace it with a role for Canada that is still a serious military role, but leaned more towards training of local troops to be able to bring the fight directly to ISIL," he said, referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). "That's the commitment we made very clearly throughout the campaign and we have a mandate to do that." On Sunday, two of Canada's fighter jets were involved in a strike against an ISIS fighting position in Iraq, according to the Department of National Defence. The G20 leaders released a joint statement at the G20 summit, calling the attacks in Paris "an unacceptable affront to all humanity" and reaffirming solidarity in the fight against terrorism as a major priority. The statement says counterterror actions must be part of a comprehensive approach that includes fighting radicalization and recruitment, hampering terrorist movements and preventing terrorists from exploiting the internet. "The direct or ind

Statistics Canada needs all those bodies to handle answers and followup with Canadians who don’t fill in the form either because they didn’t want to, forgot to, or misplaced it. Doug Norris, who spent nearly 30 years at Statistics Canada, said the agency will need fewer bodies with a mandatory survey going to fewer homes.

“Followup is extremely expensive,” Norris said.

The return of the mandatory long-form census is likely to cause some savings over at Statistics Canada. Just how much is tough to say. For that reason, the statement of savings has “a little baloney” — the statement is mostly accurate, but more information would be helpful to determine how much the agency will save.

There could also be wider economic benefits from the return of the long-form census: Better quality data could reduce costs for municipalities and school boards, for instance, when it comes to planning for future growth, said Kevin Milligan, an economist at the University of British Columbia.

And Charles Beach, a retired economics professor at Queen’s University, said that kind of data is worth it even if the 2016 census ends up costing more than the 2011 version. (Source: CTV News)

 

Tuesday August 25, 2015

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator - Tuesday August 25, 2015 The Growing Power of the PMO In 2006, Stephen Harper rode into Ottawa with a mandate to clean up the ethical wreckage of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. The Conservative Party leader moved quickly as the prime minister of a minority government. He banned corporate and union donations, and lowered the individual donation limit to $1,000. He toughened federal lobbying rules, created the Parliamentary Budget Office and gave additional powers to the Ethics Commissioner. His goal, he said over and over, was to return accountability to Ottawa. And he did that, to a degree. His reforms have helped bring the federal government up to date on important issues of political financing and budget oversight. Not surprisingly, though, Mr. Harper failed to target the real source of OttawaÕs accountability crisis. As the trial of Mike Duffy has reminded us, the greatest threat to responsible government in Canada is none other than the Prime MinisterÕs Office. Over the past 40 years, the PMO has morphed into a parasite on the body of Parliament that prospers by sucking the democracy out of its host. The court-documented efforts by Nigel Wright, the former chief of staff to Mr. Harper, to control the Senate from inside the PMO are outrageous only because they have been exposed by Mr. DuffyÕs lawyer. The real scandal lies below the surface, where the PMO uses its toxic tentacles to neutralize every part of government that might compete with it for power, so that today we are ruled by an imperial prime minister, unaccountable to anyone or anything. Do not blame Mr. Harper alone for this. The expansion of the PMO began under Pierre Trudeau, and every prime minister since then has been responsible for increasing its malignant grip on Parliament. Brian Mulroney was the first to name a Òchief of staffÓ and elevate that person above the principal secretary who was, up till then, the highest unelect

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday August 25, 2015

The Growing Power of the PMO

In 2006, Stephen Harper rode into Ottawa with a mandate to clean up the ethical wreckage of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. The Conservative Party leader moved quickly as the prime minister of a minority government. He banned corporate and union donations, and lowered the individual donation limit to $1,000. He toughened federal lobbying rules, created the Parliamentary Budget Office and gave additional powers to the Ethics Commissioner.

His goal, he said over and over, was to return accountability to Ottawa. And he did that, to a degree. His reforms have helped bring the federal government up to date on important issues of political financing and budget oversight.

Not surprisingly, though, Mr. Harper failed to target the real source of Ottawa’s accountability crisis. As the trial of Mike Duffy has reminded us, the greatest threat to responsible government in Canada is none other than the Prime Minister’s Office.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013Over the past 40 years, the PMO has morphed into a parasite on the body of Parliament that prospers by sucking the democracy out of its host. The court-documented efforts by Nigel Wright, the former chief of staff to Mr. Harper, to control the Senate from inside the PMO are outrageous only because they have been exposed by Mr. Duffy’s lawyer. The real scandal lies below the surface, where the PMO uses its toxic tentacles to neutralize every part of government that might compete with it for power, so that today we are ruled by an imperial prime minister, unaccountable to anyone or anything.

Do not blame Mr. Harper alone for this. The expansion of the PMO began under Pierre Trudeau, and every prime minister since then has been responsible for increasing its malignant grip on Parliament. Brian Mulroney was the first to name a “chief of staff” and elevate that person above the principal secretary who was, up till then, the highest unelected authority in the PMO. Jean Chrétien relied on the protective coating of the PMO to shield himself from direct responsibility for the sponsorship scandal, just as Mr. Harper is now doing in the Duffy affair. (Continued: Globe & Mail)