Raise the Hammer

Good points, but I wouldn't contstrue a few posts by internet users who don't use their real names as 'blowing up in his face'.

Well, since the only people paying attention to this are internet users who don't use there real names... we have to judge Maheshes letter based on how it went over with them.

I just hope that Mahesh doesn't take this the wrong way. I am on his side here. The fact is that the Spec has the letter and so does Andrew Dreschel and if he wants to at any time, he can produce that letter in the next column and really destroy Mahesh's credibility. Mahesh, as much as he hates to admit it, needs the Spec on his side if he wants to win this. An endorsement from the Spec is gold. It is validation. It could also be the thing that puts him over.

But it's kind of tough to do that when you're spending the next few months fighting off a mistake. Just ask Mel Lastman.

"An endorsement from the Spec is gold. It is validation. It could also be the thing that puts him over."

An endorsement from the Spec didn't let DiIanni win in '06.

Thank You Rene, Appreciate your comments!! I am on your side too:-)

My best with your new publishing career. Hamilton needs many more new voices of change like your.

I am sure in this new venture, you too will discover soon that there is no right way or the wrong way. There is the "way of truth", and "the way of spin".

If you stick on either of these two ways long enough -- change does happen.

Change we all desire for sure will not come from a shining knight riding into town to crush evil and bring prosperity to all. In all probability, it will come from persistent attempts to lift the underbelly of domineering ways - to investigate what really is hiding underneath.

To get on this often messy road - asking the right questions is as important as framing critical issues.

On Prosperity and Hamilton -- what are your views on Jay Robb's new article in the Spec: "Breaking down economic segregation. Is moving poor people out of the lower city an acceptable anti-poverty strategy?" -- coming on the heals of "Code-Red" which has managed to stigmatize an area of the core that had already started to heal itself, primarily through citizens efforts after being ignored for decades by the city.

Look forward to your valuable views on this, and your on-going critique of my campaign.

Best, Mahesh P. Butani

An endorsement from the Spec is gold. It is validation. It could also be the thing that puts him over.

There was virtually no chance Mahesh would have got any serious attention from the Spec as he doesn't fit into their pre-set narrative. I do think his initial response to the column was a misstep, but it's not like he had much to lose. At this point, if the Spec continues to marginalize him as they did with the McKay cartoon, it could backfire as they will start to look like bullies, and as remember noted, their endorsement of DiIanni was unsuccessful. They are an important component of the local media scene to be sure, but they don't have nearly the clout they used to, and it's largely because people have become skeptical of their motives and associations, and no longer take anything they print at face value.

Here were the results from the last election:

Michael J. BALDASARO 4520 3.61%
Larry DiIANNI 53658 42.84%
Fred EISENBERGER 54110 43.21%
Diane ELMS 9459 7.55%
Steve LEACH 1250 1.00%
Gino SPEZIALE 1274 1.02%
Martin S. ZULINIAK 968 0.77%

(source: City of Hamilton website)

Note the margin of victory between Eisenburger and DiIanni. It was less than 500 votes. The difference maker was that Eisenburger was already known and that DiIanni was despised in Dundas. Dundas has more than 500 people there. He was three-term alderman until 2000 and quit his campaign for mayor in 2003 until he was elected in 2006. He even ran for MP in Hamilton East.

Mahesh Butani is not known beyond the blogosphere and he needs to be known if he wants to be elected. That is the difference here. Spread those wings, Mahesh.

so you're the reason this idiot is commenting on everything? thanks

The difference maker was that Eisenburger was already known and that DiIanni was despised in Dundas.

That is a very simplistic analysis. The main thing that pushed Eisenberger over the top was the fact that he refused to accept corporate and union donations, whereas DiIanni made the surprising decision to accept them even after the illegal contribution fiasco of the previous election. Not only did the Spec endorse DiIanni, but from the minute the illegal contributions came to light, they waged a concerted campaign to minimize them and absolve DiIanni of any responsibility, which Dreschel continues to this day. Clearly the citizens of Hamilton were more repulsed by the inordinate influence of sprawl developers on the politics of our city than the Spec and DiIanni had calculated.

Much is made of the relative narrowness of Eisenberger's victory as though this diminishes his mandate, but we forget that DiIanni went into the election with the enormous bully pulpit of incumbency, a significantly larger war chest, and the clear support of our only daily print outlet. Yes, Eisenberger's political experience gave him the gravitas that our media require, but the fact that he squeaked out a victory at all is an enormous achievement and a clear rebuke to politics and spin as usual.

Rene,

Mr. Butani has busted the gates of the citadel on Frid wide open.

He may have dirt on his shoes and even blood on his knuckles from this. This comes with the territory of bringing real change, the very condition you all have been dreaming of for long.

It is up to the smarter ones among you to now storm inside and reclaim your city from top down.

The dumber ones among you will be spending the next four months pissing outside the wide open gates and peering into the citadel, while advising Mr. Butani and holding seminars on the methods of opening doors.

Smarten up Hamilton. Smarten up Rene, change will not come to your city by being a smart ass writer. It will come by removing the stranglehold that your media has had over your lives.

Mr. Butani wrote a petulant letter accusing a columnist of racism without offering a lick of evidence. The only thing bloody about him is his nose.

"Eisenberger's integrity play is already backfiring. Di Ianni's campaign struck back with charges of improprieties around Eisenberger's campaign website and accusations that Eisenberger stole Di Ianni's safe communities platform. The Glass Houses rule is in full effect in this campaign cycle.

If Eisenberger has nothing to offer but an already-questionable claim to integrity, then why should voters bother switching at all?

Agree with him or not, at least Di Ianni has a visible track record with some accomplishments on the issues around which he has defined his mayoralty: the Red Hill Expressway, the Aerotropolis, the Hamilton Harbour clean-up, and downtown revitalization.

A vigorous debate over the city's future would only benefit everyone, regardless of one's political beliefs. Now, in place of that debate, we'll be subjected to another month of sniping and bickering around the margins.

The best we can hope for in the coming weeeks is that one of the other candidates - Michael Baldasaro, Diane Elms, Steve Leach, Gino Speziale, or Martin S. Zuliniak - will step forward into the breach with some coherent ideas about what Hamilton needs."

http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/333/

TD,

This is what we call a smart ass writer.

Does it matter whether the blood is on his knuckles or his nose? Or who accused whom of what? The important thing is he has forced the Gates to the citadel on Frid open for you.

Like we said earlier. You can hang outside and piss around the issue of racism which he did not accuse your favorite columnist of, or you can storm inside and force the change your city deserves.

He did present substantial evidence not once but twice. Could it be that you don't know how to read your own city?

What everyone is forgetting is that accepting campaign donations from unions and corporations is not illegal; in fact it is completely legal and done throughout the world. Eisenberger's surprise victory had very little to do with the fact that he didn't accept campaign donations from unions or corporations. His victory came about because Di Ianni was consistently attacked for 3 years and unfortunately people glossed over the facts and just read the headlines. The Spec doesn't have a bias, they just think that someone running for mayor should have experience in the political realm. The only two people from the last election that fit that description was Di Ianni and Eisenberger, so they focused solely on those two and will do the same in this upcoming election unless other 'qualified candidates step forward'.

Like him or not, as the previous commenter noted, Di Ianni accomplished a lot for this city.

As long as we’re lathering up over media bias, you may recall CATCH Hamilton riding DiIanni with a singular vengeance for the two years leading up to the election, both on their website and in the pages of the VIEW weekly. It certainly seemed like they were angling for Eisenberger, but in fact were so caught off guard by Fred’s dark horse win that they slipped into a post-coital coma:

Nov 2005 = 26 updates
Dec 2005 = 8 updates
Jan 2006 = 25 updates
Feb 2006 = 14 updates
Mar 2006 = 23 updates
Apr 2006 = 15 updates
May 2006 = 15 updates
Jun 2006 = 14 updates
Jul 2006 = 16 updates
Aug 2006 = 13 updates
Sep 2006 = 17 updates
Oct 2006 = 16 updates
Nov 2006 = 9 updates
Dec 2006 = 4 updates

Neither VIEW nor CATCH, from what I can surmise, reported much of anything about the election. No analysis of what happened or how it transpired, no investigative profile of the new leader. And you could argue that the group has often extended white-glove treatment to this mayor.

All hail the all-powerful View and CATCH! DiIanni and the small, feisty independent Spec didn't stand a chance against their awesome power and influence!

I <3 you highwater! thanks for my belly laugh of the day (I'll overlook that whole feeding trolls thing just this once).

You'll notice Praise the Hummer stops counting the month Di Ianni after loses the election.

"The Spec doesn't have a bias, they just think that someone running for mayor should have experience in the political realm. The only two people from the last election that fit that description was Di Ianni and Eisenberger, so they focused solely on those two and will do the same in this upcoming election unless other 'qualified candidates step forward'. Like him or not, as the previous commenter noted, Di Ianni accomplished a lot for this city." (Jim).


Jim,

If experience in the political realm is all that is required of your mayor - You'll have had nothing but the most experienced politicians that any city in North America can possibly have; many with 2, 3, 4 or 5 terms.

So, how come you'll continue to struggle with poverty, employment, growth, corruption, civic inclusion, pollution etc.

Could intelligence be the quality you'll really need in your mayor for a change, instead of experience?

When I look at the all potential candidates I am not impressed, irrelevant of whom the Spec. or any other sponsors...Mostly because we don't have a council that works for the best interest of the City as a whole...When one takes a good look in the past 10 to 20 years....what has really changed...This City is still stuck in the mud.

"You'll notice Praise the Hummer stops counting the month Di Ianni after loses the election."

Purposefully so. I was just illustrating the standard pace for months during the year prior to the election. In the six weeks after the election there were all of 10 posts. (I spared RTH readers a more thorough accounting of the foibles of CATCH reporting, which is often its own worst enemy.)

My point being that CATCH (and many others) were so focused on defeating DiIanni that they never considered that their fondest wishes might come true, hence the speechlessness after the the Eisenberger win. I'm not saying that CACH/VIEW are more powerful than the Spec, but they do reach an audience that does include voting age adults, and in considerably larger numbers than local blog pundits (awesome though you are). CATCH itself not so much but they do get reprinted in VIEW, which gives them 40,000 copies every week (contrast this with a site like The Hamiltonian, which is more politically mature but it has drawn 100,000 hits since January 2009).

Or maybe there was some sway from the now largely forgotten Eisenberger social media campaign, which probably didn't electrify anyone but might have made him more relatable among first-time voters.

I don't think you can discount the influence of any of these factors. Anyone's guess, really.

Maybe if people got out and actually listened and meet who is running either for mayor or city councillor, then how can one make an informed decision.

I have met some of the people running, the incumbants and well someone of them have really good ideas, they will never get endorsed by the old boys club, here in the city, so it is up top the people to research and find who aligns with your particular interests.

If people want change, then the status quo needs to be broken.

"You can hang outside and piss around the issue of racism which he did not accuse your favorite columnist of"

a) I'm no fan of Dreschel. On the contrary, I think he's a terrible journalist and a pretty mediocre writer to boot. Nevertheless,

b) "Your aversion to coloured people shines right through here my friend."

In Mahesh's second post, he defined "aversion" to mean "a feeling of repugnance" or "settled dislike". Please, please, will someone tell me how the heck this isn't an accusation of racism? Or do I have to link to the dictionary definition of repugnance?

It's not like it's some petty insult. If Dreschel's column said Mahesh thought white people were repugnant, would you be singing the same tune?

c) He didn't "force the gates" of anything open. He wrote, as I said, a petulant letter. I'm sure the Spec is quaking in their boots.

Comment edited by TD on 2010-05-18 20:37:13

Somehow I enjoy that there's a total of five people in an uproar over this.

Meanwhile the only thought on every other Hamiltonian's mind is the price of gas tomorrow morning.

File this under snooze.

^Yet here you are commenting on it...

You can sift the archives for editorial bias, but if nothing else, CATCH has caned this council with less gusto they did the last. Por ejemplo:

First two Larry years (02/22/04-12/31/05)? 409 posts
First two Fred years (01/01/07-12/31/08)? 249 posts

That kind of scrutiny would have a way of informing the debate, if not shaping it to some degree. View and CATCH may not be all-powerful, but they do/did wield a modicum of influence. As does RTH. As does The Hamiltonian. As does Mayday. As does H Magazine. Certainly enough to sway or ignite a few hundred, in the right conditions maybe even a few thousand votes. And in the matter of the 2006 election, that might have played a part. Discounting it is to discount the value of grassroots activism and independent media, is it not? Privileging the Spec above all others is a mistake in my estimation. Aspiring politicians need to stop making excuses and start making their own luck.

^ Sleepy typo:

First two Larry years (*02/22/04-12/31/05)? 409 posts
First two Fred years (01/01/07-12/31/08)? 349 posts

And yeah, all of this seems like a tempest in a teapot. Pass the scones and raspberry jam.

For a guy who hasn't even declared yet, Di Ianni is sure catching everyone's attention...and maybe McKay was right...Fred is quaking in his boots!

Is there an "aversion to coloured people" in Hamilton?

Maybe this will help you decide for yourself…

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Kiely, this is about a specific accusation against a specific person, not about whatever general systemic bias may be present in Hamilton at large. Please don't move the goal posts, it's disingenuous.

Just presenting a topic for discussion TD. Do you have a problem with that?

I made no mention of this supporting or proving any specific accusation. I'm perhaps guilty of trying to put Mahesh's comments in some sort of context. If you feel that is disingenuous, frankly I don't care.

I trust intelligent people will get the point.

Original money quote:

So look around you: have your actions over the last decades given birth to anything of substance in this city which can make your children honestly proud?

A fractured and polarized community; mismanagement of public affairs; budget deficits; spiraling infrastructure deficits; wayward spending; high taxes; poverty and unemployment at its highest levels; public mistrust of politicians; nepotism, racism and divisiveness; a dying media business; and unaccountability and lack of transparency in municipal affairs are the only true legacy projects built under your watch.

He's not calling Dreschel a racist, he's saying the way the mainstream has been doing business in Hamilton has produced "nepotism, racism and divisiveness" and the other ailments he talks about. Seriously, can anyone really argue with this? I mean look around.

Yeah he also said Dreschel has an 'aversion to coloured people' and I agree that's way over the top unfair -- but I don't think it's the heart of what he's trying to say. Shame really because it undermines an otherwise great rant.

I don't know if he intended to call Dreschel a racist, but he did, because that's what those words mean. It's unfortunate, because it is a great rant, but his name-calling is indefensible - especially coming from a mayoral candidate. It's not a very good place to start if you're trying to combat nepotism, racism and divisiveness, is it?

It's unfortunate, because it is a great rant, but his name-calling is indefensible - especially coming from a mayoral candidate. - TD

Just to be clear TD, I am not defending that.

Just to be clear myself, I'm not even saying he's wrong. I'm saying that in the absence of evidence, and in the context of this election, it's in poor taste and disrespectful. It also lends credence to Dreschel's column, as no serious contender for the mayoral office would write such an ill-conceived sentence - although there's no question Dreschel still behaved unfairly.

Yeah, the folks who run this place are nearly all white, with the occasional exception celebrated mostly as camouflage. What's worse, however, is that so many are incompetent, quick to camouflage their failures as success.

Other than the bakery (which is a slaughter-house sent away to rethink its raison d'etre) what industry has the Red Hill Creek Expressway brought to Hamilton, please? Where are the new hotels of downtown Hamilton? Where's the long list of inquiries eager to locate at Aerotropolis? Was the west-harbour waterfront acquired, conceived and rebuilt in 3 years?

I wish Mahesh were better spoken and a better political strategist but in this city, inexperience is a plus.

Yeah, the folks who run this place are nearly all white...

...and nearly all male.

It's pretty scary how Hamilton doesn't even notice their lack of female leadership - despite the few notable female leaders they have produced.

However, that should change as the single-income, working-class norm continues to change and jobs continue to diversify.... cultural expectations and females who are used to leadership should follow.

Academia is already a notable exception in several fields.

Judging from election turnouts, I think there are a lot of people who don't care about politics, full stop. That's scary. Not to discount gender equity, but the see-saw of reproductive organs installed in council chambers is secondary in many ways. I'm sure there are women out there who would be able to prove themselves capable of the same laziness, myopia and ineptitude as the current council. Wouldn't necessarily make city politics any better.

I think 40% of Hamilton's MPPs are female. That percentage was 60% until the 2007 election, when three female Liberal MPPs bailed out, presumably to avoid the unpleasant optics of a predictable drubbing at the polls: single-term name candidates Jennifer Mossop and Judy Marsales, and multi-term pro Dr. Marie Bountrogianni. Broadcast journalist Nerene Virgin bid for Mossop's seat but lost to NDP candidate Paul Miller. NDP MPP for Hamilton Centre Andrea Horwath, a graduate of council chambers, is Ontario NDP Leader. She would have faced off against Marsales but instead made short work of Liberal opponent Steve Ruddick.

One quarter of Hamilton MPs are female: it's just NDPer Chris Charlton. But MP David Christopherson's Liberal opponent in Hamilton Centre was a woman, Helen Wilson. (In addition to the tactical error of running as a Liberal, she campaigned using a 416 phone bank, not an especially suave choice.)

As far as municipal seats go, just 9 of 48 candidates in the 2006 election were female, but they seem like they had respectable showings in virtually every race they entered.

Ward 2: Judy MacDonald-Musitano and Dawn Lescaudron were runners-up to name candidate Bob Bratina.
Ward 6: Nathalie Xian Yi Yan was the runner-up to incumbent Tom Jackson.
Ward 10: Mary Ray was runner-up to incumbent Maria Pearson
Ward 12: Julia Kollek was narrowly edged out by meta-incumbent Russ Powers
Ward 15: Judi Partridge was runner-up to incumbent Margaret McCarthy

Omit the incumbents heft and potentially a third of council would be female. Although still mostly white. As well, 10 of 22 school trustees appointed through the 2006 election were female.

Running campaigns is always a good start to equal representation. Was it Woody Allen who said that 90% of success is just showing up?

Praise the Hummer said,
"I think there are a lot of people who don't care about politics, full stop"

Perhaps it's not that the don't care but rather they are not exposed to local politics. It would be interesting, for example, if once a week, a one hour program was initiated on local TV. ch.11, as part of the news, reviewing major issue, including debating the pros and cons; discussing poverty, how the City functions, and issues in up-coming council meetings, etc...etc...This would be more beneficial than Hebbies & Skulley's rants...

"I'm no fan of Dreschel. On the contrary, I think he's a terrible journalist and a pretty mediocre writer to boot. Nevertheless,"

“…Please, please, will someone tell me how the heck this isn't an accusation of racism?

“… Please don't move the goal posts, it's disingenuous." “…his name-calling is indefensible - especially coming from a mayoral candidate. It's not a very good place to start if you're trying to combat nepotism, racism and divisiveness, is it?”

“Just to be clear myself, I'm not even saying he's wrong. I'm saying that in the absence of evidence, and in the context of this election, it's in poor taste and disrespectful. It also lends credence to Dreschel's column, as no serious contender for the mayoral office would write such an ill-conceived sentence - although there's no question Dreschel still behaved unfairly.”--(TD)


TD,

We sincerely apologize if anything we said got you so bent out of shape over this. That was not our intent. Now you are all over the place.

Having served in more countries than you possibly care to know, we have seen more human misery and suffering being veiled over by media spin than we wish you will ever get to see in your lifetime.

Mr. Butani gave two concrete examples of the "odious opaque veil" being put on him by Dreschel. So, how do you explain Dreschel's behavior from three years back, when as Mr. Butani's mentions in his response, that Dreschel even back then completely ignored his major contribution to the music hall pier 8 project and other works? Was Mr. Butani running for mayor back then too?

We happened to see Mr. Butani’s referenced link to his redesign of Pier 8 only on the Hamiltonian site, and which does not show up here on his response on this site.

If you have missed it completely, here it is:
http://s265.photobucket.com/albums/ii216/hamilton2-0/Pier%208%20Hamilton/

We showed this link to our dear friend who is a celebrated Canadian architect. He was totally shocked to see these images for the first time. He was very familiar with this project, which he said was part of a design competition among three cities and was well exposed in the media for months. He was in total awe of Mr. Butani's design and revenue ideas, and swore that he had never seen this design till now, and was wondering why Hamilton had not presented this more striking and viable design in its bid?

So TD, what do you think Dreschel’s reasons were for demeaning Mr. Butani, not once but twice? Could this have anything to do with the tendency to put an odious opaque veils on others based on personal preferences?

What can be construed here is a case of discrimination. Not just against Mr. Butani, but also against other candidates running for office who have been intentionally ignored by Dreschel and his so called news organization.

Now can you see where one can go with this, when the doors of the Citadel have been busted wide open?

“According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination”.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention.

“Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as: “...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

“Institutional racism is the differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society. When the differential access becomes integral to institutions, it becomes common practice, making it difficult to rectify. Eventually, this racism dominates public bodies, private corporations, and public and private universities, and is reinforced by the actions of conformists and newcomers.”

Well known Canadian Human Rights & Labour lawyer Ms. Mary Cornish points out that, “In law, one does not have to intend to discriminate. Findings of discrimination are based on discriminatory outcomes, not on intent”.


So TD, what exactly is your definition of Mayoral in our times?

Someone who touts buzz words from having political experience, while destroying the well being of the entire community and its eco-systems? Or someone who makes you all warm and fuzzy with charm, and ends up hanging onto any public office they can get their hands, on for decades?

What exactly is the context of this election that is different from the previous four that you’ll had?

You are fortunate to have someone who is not afraid of bringing change in your city, even before he has been elected to do so. Do you see what we see from here?

After seeing that you had Mr. Butani targeted in your sights on a banal spin issue which you created, we got very interested and read many of his writings here and on Hamiltonian and Hallmark.

For crying out loud son, we seriously think you are as blind to truth as your dilettante journalist who has exposed his aversions one too many times here.

"Having served in more countries than you possibly care to know, we have seen more human misery and suffering being veiled over by media spin than we wish you will ever get to see in your lifetime."

"For crying out loud son"

Your ignorant assumptions and patronizing attitude detract all credibility from your arguments, so I see no reason to address them. Remember, you do not need to intend to discriminate in order to do so.

Is that the royal "we" OutOfTowners?

^My guess is OutOfTowners is Maheshes partner.

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

My guess is OutOfTowners is Maheshes partner.

Mahesh's business partner is also of Indian descent, so if your guess is accurate, then I'd say he's a pretty good judge of how systemic racism stifles creativity and economic activity in this city.

12 divided by 3 in Hamilton is 7.
All immutable laws stop functioning here.
No common math problems are solved by genius in this city, only by strains of deception.

Let us all start by agreeing that on some level or another
NONE of the mayoral candidates are without questionable
integrity, whether it's stealing from campaign dollars, lying, cheating or simply being an abusive bastard at home.

It's only going to be a person who has broken all sorts of rules
repeatedly and managed to come out on top who will have the
balls/confidence to aim at this particular job with hopes
of actually winning. It's a sure thing that they'll have to
break many more rules and hope to either not get caught or ride
them out in future. This is the only real pre-requisite for this job.
So only a skilled, leathery sort would apply for this job!

This is the most racist craphole place I've ever lived in, and
I've lived on all continents by now. The old boys' network lives
strong here, and one of the ugly strongholds on this gentle earth where all the pretty, little immigrants who have had to pass a high educational point system to get here use their doctorates and postgraduate degrees to serve their countrymen gas and coffee and bag our groceries. Talk about ensuring elevated education on a new type of legalized slavery. Canada should be ashamed of itself.

I'd personally like to see a dark-skinned person in office because I know that nothing CAN stay the same after that. And if change is what we're after, why not give the crap-disturbing, thought-provoking Butani a fair shot. He's got as many deep secrets and
dark corners as the rest of them. He writes well and really wants to prove himself. Since we did not want him being a full-fledged architect when he got here, why don't we let him serve us in an ultimate service role which at least pays well and doesn't smell like gasoline all the time. We'l be picking him apart and insulting him the whole time, so he'll deserve his pay.

Dreschel, do you really get to decide for the voters in this half a million people, the order in which these candidates stand? That's a lot of gumption to elevate yoursef to such lofty status that you, without the vote of any people but the few who hired you, have decided what to print on their behalves. As a member of that group, you don't speak for me. And if what you are writing is simply opinion, then anyone can have your job. Don't really need credentials for what you're spewing, do you?

This is all crap. Give the new guy a shot. We already know what the rest of them can do (yeah, right). Butani will at least shake things up and Hamilton needs to wake the hell up instead of sleeping through all its possibilities for another 50 years. Butani is more likely the voice for the people who are actually living here now. A colourful multicultural people who want Hamilton to be a living organism not a decaying one.

Crap