justcaws.com

Apparently Cody Rasmus is a very talented player. He can feel free to demonstrate some of that talent anytime now.

Recently Jeff Blair of the Globe&Mail poured cold water on the idea that the Blue Jays will offer major long term contracts to coveted free agents this winter. Apparently A.A. is to continue making miracles happen on the cheap.

If this team ever wants to make the jump back into relevance in this city and the league for that matter, it has to spend the cash. There has been a noticeable uptick in Blue Jay enthusiasm this year, but that will fall off a cliff if big market Toronto fans sees rich Rogers ownership running the team like the poor KC Royals.

Rogers spend $120 million or say goodbye to recent followers and any goodwill. Sports Illustrated had it right when it said that the Jays are a team that CAN and should spend the money.

Hey Guelph City Hall would you mind storing my daughter’s soiled diapers for an extra week?

Apparently you believe it’s not too much of an inconvenience to parents of young children. Maybe it’s time you did your part for the environment.

Picking up smelly trash once a week use to be a basic service you could count on your local municipality to do. No longer here in Guelph.

This past month the city cut back the collection of many items including diapers and sanitary products to every other week from the regular weekly collection.

This might be understandable if the city was in a budget hole or the tax base was eroding. Not so here in Guelph. Budgets are increasing each year along with our perennial property tax hike.

The problem lies in this city not making their core services a funding priority. Environmental rebate programs and recycling centres can have a place for city that wants to label itself “Green”. But they can’t be funded at the expense of core services.

Without an understanding of what its priorities should be – I guess I should not be surprised when the city announces funding for an advanced toilet training pilot program for newborns.

Potty humour aside – getting it wrong happens. But on this issue the city is demonstrating irresponsibility and contempt for many Guelph residents.

I find in the last few years the NFL has replaced horse racing as the betting fancy for North American sport enthusiasts. It’s like Sunday at the track. Betting on the game has become old hat with fantasy player pools becoming the new way to play.

What this has done is create a situation where fans seems to cheer for a result rather than team. This may not have an impact tv ratings, but ticket sales in soft markets could suffer.

Therefore my conspiracy prediction for this season is that these “soft” market teams will have play-off win-loss records by season end.

The Ontario Liberals plan to to provide employers with a tax credit of up to $10,000, in return for hiring skilled, recent immigrants is a divisive job creation scheme. Governments should create across the board tax and regulatory reforms that will allow business to flourish and create economic prosperity for all. 

No one disputes that skilled immigrants should be in jobs they are qualified to do. Nobody wants a  skilled Doctor driving a taxi cab. But this problem is caused more by regulatory obstacles than a lack of will by employers to hire qualified individuals.

Criticize this plan and Liberals will label you anti-immigrant. Fortunately, I believe many independent voters won’t fall for this obvious trap. They will see this plan for what it is – another misguided Dalton job creation scheme that pits winners vs. losers.  A change of leadership is needed in this province that understands that you listen to the needs of everyone and provide economic opportunity for all.

Anybody who thought the Jays are ready to contend next year have to be disappointed with their play of late. Was hopeful they could take the step of moving beyond the Rays this year. Guess this is still going to be a long process.

************

Everyone once in awhile an artist comes along that I find especially annoying – Keesha is that artist.(No you don’t get a dollar sign in your name from me)

*********

Must admit I found Lady Ga Ga’s new look a little disturbing last night at the MVA’s – she does know how to change it up though.

Finally the Blue Jays are getting new uniforms next year. The current logo and design are awful. If you win two World Series and have had the proud tradition of the Jays you don’t need to keep changing your logo every few years – in pro sports it’s a cheesy way to re-brand your team. Leave this to the teams with no sense of history. The odd tweak to modernise is fine, but proud franchises shouldn’t change a successful brand.

You don’t need to be the Yankees to keep your team look timeless. Look at the Atlanta Braves - they have kept their look pretty much the same since they met the Blue Jays in the ’92 World Series. 

Since the Jays are changing again – let’s hope they can finally get it right. To do that they first need to go back to the original style font for all numbers, names etc.. Next the old logo should be put back into place as the Blue Jays baseball logo. This logo should not appear on the uniform – but should be the franchise brand – just like the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox for example.  The  Jays logo (which has their tradional font style) are shown below along with other baseball team logos.

The logo on the hat does give the team the opportunity to sport a new look, but there are rules. A traditionalist would have the first letter of the team’s city on the cap. Notice none of the team logos from above appear on their caps. My suggestion would be to put a T in the original Blue Jays font over a red Maple Leaf, similar to the Maple Leafs Inter-county Baseball team’s logo.

The uniform itself in terms of size and design isn’t that big a deal as long as the template remains the same – think Leafs recent sweater update with the laces at the collar.

So ok Blue Jays you now have the justcaws new look and design rules to live by – stick with it.

Now that we have re-designed the new uniform it’s time to get back to the play-offs! In the MLB that means spending the money! To compete in the AL East each year the ante is 100 million. Thankfully the Jays are in the 5th largest market in North America and can easily spend the dough. The fact that they haven’t since Labatt’s lost control of the team is the main reason the Roger’s Field (who plays baseball in a centre) is half empty most nights.

During the Championship years the Jays were leaders in team payroll. Top free agents were signed and added for pennant runs. This high roller attitude spoiled fans in Toronto and most won’t return until they see evidence that the Blue Jays are in it to win it. That means no more Roy Halladay or Delgados going elsewhere like we are some small market team. Toronto is a world class city that wants a world class team – this isn’t Baltimore.

Part of the reason the Bills have not been a hit in Toronto is because Toronto fans don’t t want to share a team with another city – particularly Buffalo – sorry Buffalo – but it’s true.

So that’s why I am encouraged to see Blue Jays President Paul Beeston back in charge. He understands the market and he will make the Blue Jays a financial plus in the Rogers ledger. To do so he will have to convince Rogers to spend the money. I believe he already has that assurance – otherwise he never would have comeback.

Beeston’s sharp eye for talent promoted Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos. This shrewd move is already paying huge dividends as the team continues to acquire and develop young top notch talent.

But judgement day for the Blue Jays organiztion is coming soon. They have said they intend to increase the payroll going forward. Talk is cheap – as will be the selling price of the team be if they don’t.

Yes, I know I am not shy about sharing my beefs with City Hall, but I also like to offer and discuss possible solutions. Yes, I am against the City of Guelph giving people tax funded rebates to replace their large tank toilets.  My main complaint is that I don’t believe people are or should be motivated by a city rebate to throw their old toilet into the landfill. Motivation should come from the desire to reduce their water consumption to help out the environment and their wallet.   Much to wife’s chagrin, I will tell you that we have an old, giant tank toilet.  Years ago, my water guilt took over and I placed a large inflated water bag in the tank to greatly reduce the amount of water required for the toilet to properly operate.  

If the City is hell bent on spending money on conservation initiatives it would seem providing a free water tank displacement bag would be a much cheaper way of reducing water use. It also will stop perfectly good toilets from being needlessly thrown into landfills.

Recently, I tweeted about my displeasure that my child’s diapers are now going to be picked up once every two weeks starting in September 2011. This is unacceptable. I understand the desire from the City to avoid diapers and other sanitary products from “contaminating” the compost found in green bags. But leaving residents to hold soiled diapers for two weeks is unfair. If you think I am whiner on this – then you hold on to my diaper bags during the heat of the summer. All this plan is going to do is cause more illegal dumping that nobody wants.

If sanitary products can be bagged separately from bio-degradable waste at source, surely the garbage trucks could be fitted to accommodate.  Otherwise weekly clear pick up outside the winter months will be required.  

Yes, my accommodation could cost more, but the City could use the money saved from scrapping its rebate program.  I don’t have all the answers, but either does City Hall, so let’s hear some of your cost effective solutions.

Remember, it takes engaged citizens to make a city great.    

Glad to see Warren Buffett step up with his recent comments.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-15/buffett-urges-congress-to-raise-taxes-on-coddled-billionaires.html.

While I do believe in tax cuts directed to the middle class here in Canada, the tax system in my birth country has become completely out of whack.

It is heartening to see such a prominent business leader clearly explain using his own tax situation as an example of how disproportionate the American tax burden has become.

Don’t throw me in with the Robin Hood tax the rich crowd either though. I believe in a balanced,
progressive approach, where sufficient funds are raised for the good of society while still providing incentive for wealth accumulation.

Striking that balance requires trust. It is lost when tax dollars are not spent in a judicious manner and are directed toward items that are no longer seen by the majority as being in the public good. A lack of trust on behalf of the electorate that money will be spent wisely causes a natural knee jerk reaction to cut taxes.

What voters need to do is look beyond the rhetoric and see what programs they want and what they are willing to spend to run them. Those jurisdictions that have spent beyond their means and accumulated debt, most also factor repayment in their equation.

As Canadians we shouldn’t be too smug about our fiscal situation compared to the U.S.. Ours is certainly better at the moment. But at least the U.S. is finally starting to have an adult conversation about what they want to pay for and how much they are willing to spend. 2012 should be an election of significant consequence in America’s future.

When was the last time we had one of those in Canada?

While playing with my two boys recently, I realized why the U.S. elects a national Republican Government more often than not.  When my youngest doesn’t get his way playing in the backyard he throws a fit and holds up the game until his older brother or I cave in and he gets his way.  Usually, I will just tell him ”tough” and end the game. But sometimes I must admit due to the enjoyment of playing the game and the time it can take to set up, the desire for peace wins out over justice. Unfortunately, caving only emboldens my five year old to choose chaos over compromise.

I notice this same approach seems to work for the Republican party. If it doesn’t get its way and win power, they go into full suck mode and will go against any move that might make the governing Democrats look good. Even if that means going against what is in the best interest of the country. That is of no concern to them.  The only thing that does matter is getting back in power. If that means following  their scorched earth playbook to the end – so be it.

Look at this debt crisis – the Democrats under Obama – put entitlement spending on the block,  and came off their position for the good of the country.  The Republicans wouldn’t even budge on tax reform to close loopholes in a tax system that all parties agree, is out dated, unfair, and inefficient. It is clear they wanted no deal – they wanted Rome to burn.  Now with the S&P downgrade – its burning baby.  Republicans are like the back -up quarterback who is thrilled to watch his team’s offense tank under the first stringer, hoping it gets him off the bench.  

It pains me to paint all Republicans with this negative brush, but I am still waiting for a sane member of that party to break ranks for the good of their country.  I respect discipline, but destructive stubbornness is a whole other matter.  Every prudent observer has urged that a balanced approach is needed for the U.S. to solve its fiscal mess.  The tax levels in that country are low – really low. The United States is one of the least-taxed countries in the developed world. They pay much lower taxes than any other G7 country. You don’t have to give up your Conservative principles to see that balance has been lost. You do however have to believe that government still plays an important role in a democractic, progressive society.

Now the G.O.P. has made a scene and stopped the game and everyone is taking notice.  But don’t expect Republicans to be punished in 2012. Most of the American public sees their nonsense for what it is, but lacks the will to punish them because they want to get back to playing the”game” of getting the economy back on track. That means putting the Democrats where they usually sit as the as the reasonable opposition who when push comes to shove will do what is best for the country.

It isn’t the fair thing to do, but unless the American public makes a sharp left turn ideologically – it is how the U.S. may eventually move forward from this mess.

A system of checks and balances only works with reasonable elected officials who have the country’s best interest at heart. If that has now become an antiquated notion, than so are two year election cycles.

A recent column in the Economist Magazine indicates that one of the major implications of global warming will be the migration of millions people from soon to be un livable areas to regions that are able to cope with rising global temperatures.

No resource of course has the impact of damming a place un livable than a lack of fresh water.

Under this scenario Guelph’s water conservation initiatives don’t seem just, but rather greedy and small minded.

In Southern Ontario we have access to vast amounts of fresh water in the Great Lakes. Communities surrounding them have tapped into these great treasures to grow their communities and provide clean, reliable drinking water for generations.

Communities near Guelph have recognised that you can’t stop growth and progress and have made plans to utilise Lake Erie in order to provide for their growing, vibrant communities.

Guelph has decided to in effect cap it’s growth by not investing in developing its water infrastructure. This strategy seems to be endorsed by Guelphites, who want to limit any population expansion. Under this approach the City can tell the province it can’t grow any further because it doesn’t have enough ground water to support increased provincial population targets.

Many support this plan by killing any talk of water pipe expansion and pushing water conservation. The fact that this will come at huge cost to Guelph’s economic growth seems to be of little consequence to a workforce made up of a large percentage public-sector workers. New enterprises and jobs that come with them will be told to go elsewhere with Guelph’s not open for business sign on the lawn.

The other consequence of water conservation is the negative impact it will have on those who cannot migrate to Guelph and enjoy its bounty.
The number of displaced people is only going to grow dramatically with climate change. While other communities around Guelph are getting ready for this increased demand – Guelph ignores the incoming waves.

Conserving a precious resource like fresh water is the right call when it is in scarce supply. But conservation becomes selfish hoarding when you choose not to develop infrastructure to access to abundant water supplies the world needs.

When the world arrives on Guelph’s doorstep with their cup empty – I want to be able to invite them in. I don’t want to tell them that they may have better luck next door because we didn’t want to grow up.

One of the reasons property taxes in Guelph keep going up at alarming rates is that City staff are never going to recommend to Council that they can do more for less. It’s in their self interest to ask Council for department budget increases for more staff and resources. Since they are full-time experts and handle the day to day management of their programs – part-time City Council members usually go along with their requests. It’s tough to go against what City Staff recommends because the choice is usually presented to Council in a very one sided manner where you would be labelled uninformed if you dared to go against the “experts” wishes.

GREGORY CAWSEY

As I did my federal taxes this past week, I was happy to see a modest decline in my taxes this past year.

The ‘Harper hundred’ given every month for each of my boys under six has helped — even though it is taxable — and the fitness credit was of some benefit.

Of course this little tax relief at the federal level is more than eaten at the local level, which has been the case for sometime now no matter what party is in office.

Lately, my federal taxes continue to go down, the provincial taxes stay the same and my municipal taxes keep going up. No wonder my issue is with the level of government that keeps taking more of my money.

Now let me say I’m not one of these ultra right- wing zealots who scream every time a local politician spends more of their money. I am well aware of the downloading of services that the municipality now needs to pay for. I also believe in some income redistribution to meet city goals for the greater good.

But with that also comes the expectation that I want to see my elected officials being cognizant that they have to spend within their means.

I’m not sure if that has been the case here locally, but that’s the great thing about living here in Guelph. I don’t need to feel guilty if I’m not doing enough for the environment or contributing enough to community-based social services. All I have to do is remind myself that I pay Guelph property taxes and reflect on how much I have given and will continue to give.

Debating the merits of where our property tax dollar goes however, is not my current focus of concern.

What bugs me is the new rationalization for the annual property tax increase — that it has to be raised to keep up with inflation.

I heard this from the mayor of Toronto, David Miller, who wrongly indicated there would be no property tax increases in that city, only a cost of living increase.

I have heard that same argument given here, but the last time I checked, the annual cost of living has been running much lower than annual property tax increases.

What makes things worse is that every time they reassess my property it goes up in value, so I am getting hammered on both ends of this calculation.

I’m sure my situation isn’t unique. In fact, I haven’t heard of anyone who has had their home reassessed at a lower price.

So if the tax pie keeps getting bigger each year, why the annual tax hikes at a greater rate than inflation?

Some say it’s needed to pay for all of the city’s growth, but growth if managed properly should pay for itself.

So the only possible conclusions that can be drawn are that our local politicians have managed our city’s rapid growth poorly or they are unable to say no when it comes to increased spending.

My guess is that it has been a combination of the two.

But before we look to criticize our local government, we do need to look in the mirror.

Voter turnout and media attention is greatest for a federal election and lowest for municipal. Yet, the issues that will affect us most in our day-to -day lives are decided at our local city hall. If we don’t take our local politics more seriously and urge each other to get involved, then the branch of government that is growing in importance and taxing us more and more suffers.

Whether it is on Parliament Hill or your local city hall — the best thing and the worst thing about democracy is that people get what they deserve.

As the baby boomer’s fade into the sunset – there are a number of issues that Canada will have to finally decide upon. Many of theses items have been left on the back-burner because they represent change – something stability craving, conservative boomers try to avoid. So what are the issues – here are just a few:

• Getting rid of the Monarchy – when Charles becomes the King of Canada  look for this issue to come up
• North American Perimeter – this issue is just starting to gain traction – but wait till the issue of a common currency is first addressed for the real debate to begin
• Election Reform – the “past the post” system has survived challenges in the past – but with changing demographics reforms might actually take place
• Widespread use of Biometrics – starting to take hold – look for more uses as our population skews younger and less adverse to these security measures
• Native Issues – anyone who has studied or just seen the state of too many native reserves in this country knows the deplorable living conditions present in such a rich country like Canada.  Having a comprehensive review of this file has been necessary for awhile but it will take political will – a younger generation more concerned with injustice or compassion could make it a priority.
• Two-tiered healthcare – with boomers soon to be using our universal healthcare system at an alarming rate – reforms will be necessary to avoid every dollar collected in tax going into healthcare spending
• Agricultural Subsidies – the developed world including Canada use these to prop of our Farmers and keep them profitable so that are domestic food sources are protected. Of course this goes against free trade and severely hurts the economies of poorer countries around the world. A younger generation – may feel less threatened on this issue and may move to a more level playing field for countries that can produce food in greater abundance and at a lower cost.

These are just a few off the top of my head – feel free to add your own or make a comment. I will add more later as well.

I had the following column published in the Guelph Mercury – June 2008. As the city begins the budget process for 2011, I thought I would post it again.

Recently, Councillor Karl Wettstein the chair of city’s finance, administration, and corporate services committee asked city taxpayers for help to avoid an “unacceptable” 6.5 per cent property tax hike next year.

Well like any other taxpayer in this city, I have some thoughts on the matter.

First, let’s get beyond the whining about the downloading of social programs and services from the province to the city.

Yes, that was a misguided decision by the previous Tory regime in Ontario, but the policy hasn’t been substantially reversed by the current government, so it’s time to deal with this reality. Doing so will mean that cuts have to be made, but any educated voter should know that it’s not the fault of council and city hall.  They have been given the jurisdiction to fund programs without the proper financial support from the province. That doesn’t mean, however, that this gives council and city staff the licence to pass the cost onto the municipal taxpayer through continued, annual tax increases.

So sharpen your pencil, city hall, and make cuts – we won’t hold you accountable.

But if you do nothing but pass the costs on, that shows ineffective leadership and you will be held to account.

Where specifically can you cut?

How about charging for all parking, or returning bus service to previous levels? When you are in a budget squeeze you can’t do both. Besides, the two plans contradict one another when it comes to the environment. The city wants to increase bus service to every 20 minutes to encourage people to take public transit, but the city offers two-hour free downtown parking, which makes it easier to take the car. Talk about sucking and blowing at the same time. Right now we can’t afford either option.

When you are in a budget crunch, you can’t cut your revenues, increase spending and remain solvent. If you want to attract people downtown, have businesses stay open beyond the supper hour. In terms of increased bus service, I think this is a fantastic idea, but can only be put in place if the city can afford to do it — which it can’t.

I would like to retrofit my house with the latest in environmental friendly products, but I can’t afford the upfront cost, no matter how much savings can be amortized down the line.

The other area to look at is increasing community user fees.

Taxpayers like myself are already getting a tax break on their kids’ sport fees from the federal government. So a fee increase only takes back the discount that parents have been getting.

Our budget crunch will mean that all fees will have to be increased. This only makes sense in times of inflation.

The greater tax pool has subsidized low fees for too long and now it is time for users to pay the true cost.

We also need to have a taxpayer protection plan put in place that permanently limits tax increases to minimum levels — one per cent or two per cent).

That would force future municipal governments, regardless of political leanings, to work within their means.

Also, let’s hope our local elected officials don’t play us for fools again with the annual bait and switch game.

In recent years the city has floated a high tax increase only to hear the public yell and scream. The large increase was never going to happen, but it makes a lower increase more palatable and makes people think their elected officials made some tough choices to reduce the budget.

In reality, all we are left with is a delay of fiscal prudence and another unacceptable tax increase.

So council and city staff, enough with the excuses –anything higher than a two per cent increase and you haven’t done your job.  Start cutting and making the tough calls. If the voters get mad — and they will — just remind them your hand was forced on this.

If they continue to complain, tell them to vote accordingly in the next federal or provincial election.  It’s time for showing leadership and spending within our means. Anything else is unacceptable.

Looks like another Leaf season is going to wither on the vine. While I am not blind to this team’s deficiencies – I do think they are underachieving. With the talent on the ice they should be 10-12 pts. better than they are and fighting for a play-off spot.

For this reason, I thought they should have fired Wilson 25 games ago. Now, they’re too buried in the standings to make a run. That would probably make some say there is no point in firing the coach at this point in the season. Usually I would agree – but not with the caustic Wilson leading this team. Keeping him on for the rest of the season would be a big mistake.

Wilson’s negative attitude is no fit for a young Leaf club. He’s killed the confidence of Kadri and now Gustavsson. Wilson continually calls out his young players for poor play. All this has done is ice a team that looks uptight and plays not to lose -which is a sure fire way not to win.

Wilson is a good coach – his record and time in the game prove this.  He is just the wrong coach at the wrong time for the Leafs. An interim guy who can rebuild the confidence of the team is needed right away.

For anyone still following this team, firing Wilson can’t come soon enough.

 The redevelopment plan at the corner of Stone/Gordon sure has caught the attention of this city and its residents. This isn’t surprising when you consider that an out of town developer wants to replace an existing hotel with two twin towers of 16 and 14 storeys, next door to mature family neighbourhood.

 As expected, most of the vocal reaction to this project has been negative. There have been a few whispers that this project is the type of growth Guelph should embrace as part of a move to increase the density of housing development within the city’s core. While I support increased city intensification to reduce sprawl – this is not the project to embrace.

 If you are against this development – get in line. A full gallery at last Monday’s City Council meeting and two well attended community events opposing this redevelopment are proof that the developer – Abode Varsity Living, has awakened the spirit of civic action for which Guelph is known. 

 So far, the opposition has been primarily concerned with height and density of the building. The fact that Abode is seeking ten amendments to the city’s official plan certainly has sparked resistance as well. While these are certainly valid concerns – I believe the greatest damage this development inflicts upon the neighbourhood is a significant drop of property values. This drop will not come from the size of building – but who lives in it.

Adobe by law cannot discriminate against non-students who may want to live in the buildings. The University of Guelph has indicated that it is no longer building residence due to limited growth and demand. So, it seems rather inevitable that this project over time will move from student purpose to one that is made available to anyone who can pony up the rent. The affordable housing units that this project will soon become will certainly devalue the property values of nearby homes.

Saying that you are against the size and scope of a building is certainly a more popular argument to make than saying you don’t want certain people living next to you and bringing down the neighbourhood. Focusing on the size of this development however, is only going to get you a smaller building.  But in the end a building half size of the original, is still not going to add any value to the area.

I believe the overwhelming size of this project is a red-herring and that it’s the builder’s intention to pull the ol’ bait and switch on the City of Guelph and its concerned residents. I doubt the builder has any intention to build a residence of the scope proposed. Hence, the reason it hasn’t done an exhaustive study on the impact of such a large project. The City has been left to order a bunch of reports and complete the due diligence that should have been done by the builder. 

I am confident the city will reject this redevelopment on its own merits. My concern is what changes will take place and what the final project might look like.

Arguments against the redevelopment should focus on rejecting this development for reasons that cannot be accommodated regardless of the final size and scope of this project.  

Pollution of all kinds, security concerns, decreased property values, and the fact that the development has no connection with the University of Guelph are just a few reasons for the city to soundly reject any version of this plan.

When changes are eventually made to this proposal and the final scaled down proposal is brought forward, Council should keep in mind that the site in question is not just any piece of property.  This corner is a gateway to our beautiful city.

It neighbours beautiful, mature family homes that represent the perfect mix of development and green space that sets this city apart. Disrupting this balance for the purpose of intensification would compromise Guelph’s values and standards which are the foundation of this great city.

I am hopeful the recent shootings in Tucson, Arizona will generate a ground swell of support for increased restrictions on the use of assault weapons in the U.S. where I was born. While I could easily go along with a complete ban of all guns – I know politically that will never happen. Too many argue that law-abiding citizens have the “right” to own a gun. While I do not agree with this viewpoint, I can and do respect the position. If people want to use guns for sport or believe they must carry a weapon for the protection of themselves or their families – I get that.

What I don’t get, is the opposition to reasonable limits placed on easy access to guns – specifically automatic weapons. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum surely we can find common ground in keeping guns and automatic weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. The shooter in Tucson was kicked out of College and needed a mental health clearance to get back in. Yet he can go to a Sportsman Warehouse and buy a semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun with ease. Does the right of an American to own a gun supersede the right to an education? The answer is no, but a background check system full of loopholes and an ineffective database have made access to dangerous weapons all too easy for the mentally ill.

To join the U.S. Army you need to go through an exhaustive process that the Tucson killer did not pass. I would like a similar process that includes a condition of mental health, before any civilian is cleared to carry any assault weapon. Of course, you may question any civilian’s sanity who wants to carry an Uzi. In all seriousness, rather than focusing on banning guns we need to strengthen the requirements of ownership.

Gun control measures have been muted by the gun lobby who oppose any restrictions that interfere with their right to bear arms. Democracies, however, place restrictions on behaviour all the time for the safety and well being of society. Illegal drugs are a perfect example where we have laws in place to restrict a dangerous product from being used by otherwise law-abiding citizens. We also don’t hand out driver’s liscences to those who pass a background check – we test for competence.

For me, I see the pro-gun crowd and the pro-pot activists as one in the same. While they probably would not have each other as facebook friends, they do share very similar libertarian beliefs. They both want the “state” to leave them alone and not interfere with what they believe are their inalienable right to their product. It’s the role of the moderate and rationale majority to keep these two groups in check. In the U.S., one has to wonder – where are those people who pursue efforts for the common good?

Yes, I have heard the argument that increased gun control laws won’t have any impact because guns are readily available on the “street”. That maybe true, but that doesn’t mean society should allow easy, legal access to a dangerous product. We don’t do it for illegal drugs such as cocaine – so how is it perfectly legal to sell semi-automatic weapons to anyone walking off the street? Keep in mind also, that the recent high profile multiple gun murders in the U.S. (Tucson, Virginia Tech) are ones where the killer(s) didn’t get their guns and ammo on the street, but at legitimate retail outlets.

It is true that no matter what restrictions you place on weapons that people can never be completely safe from unbalanced individuals bent on killing their fellow man. The recent tragic incident of a Toronto police officer who was killed by a mentally ill man driving a snow plough proves this. But at least in this case his rage only caused the loss of one courageous soul and not multiple victims. Few things bring greater carnage than a crazed killer with an automatic weapon spraying rounds of ammo into a crowded area.

I love my country of birth. But its gun culture and a lack of political will to enact common sense regulation to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill undermine its standing in the eyes of the world.

It also makes me very glad that I have dual citizenship and can call Canada my home.

I have never hidden the fact in past posts and comments that I am big supporter and admirer of U.S. President Barack Obama.

I find him an inspirational figure whose politics and viewpoints are for the most part in line with my own.

Many might find that surprising since in Canada I consider myself a Conservative (in Ontario anyway) and tend to hold many right of centre views. People who have lived in the States or follow its politics are not surprised however.

The reason is that the political spectrum in the U.S. is much further shifted to the right than in Canada. Or Canada is shifted more to the left. Take your pick.
On major issues from healthcare to gun control there is major difference to where the middle ground falls in these two countries.

This reality makes it perfectly understandable for a person to be a viewed as a right-wing Conservative in Canada and a bleeding heart liberal in the U.S..