Saturday, January 17, 2026
When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames
When Common Sense
Goes Up in Flames
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
By any measure, what happened in Switzerland a couple weeks ago is a human catastrophe. A room filled with young people full of promise was turned into a scene of lifelong grief. Families shattered. Futures erased. Survivors left with horrible scars.
Authorities will do what they must. Investigators will trace the ignition point. Building inspectors will scrutinize ceiling materials, fire exits, sprinkler systems, and renovations. Prosecutors will decide whether criminal negligence was involved. All of this matters. We should insist that regulations are enforced, and that those who ignored them are held accountable.
But more troubling than regulatory failure, this was also a failure of common sense.
That night, someone thought it was a good idea to set off flaming champagne sparklers in a crowded, enclosed space. Not outdoors in open air. But inside, with people packed shoulder-to-shoulder. That decision set in motion consequences that will echo for decades.
And the truly chilling truth is this: it will happen again.
After every nightclub fire, warehouse inferno, or stadium stampede, we say “how could anyone have allowed this?” And yet, it happens again. Because novelty and spectacle overpower judgment. Because risk feels theoretical.
We like to think safety is something others provide. But real safety begins between our ears.
When was the last time you didn’t do something because your analytical internal voice said, “This isn’t smart”?
A snowstorm is rolling in. You’ve been waiting months for that weekend getaway. The hotel is booked. The car is packed. Do you pause? Or do you say, “We’ll be fine” as icy roads turn highways into high-speed skating rinks?
Your smoke detector hasn’t chirped in years. You can’t remember the last time you changed the battery. You assume it’s working.
There’s no carbon monoxide detector in the house. You’ve meant to buy one. But it keeps getting bumped to next weekend.
Your barbecue sits against the siding of your home. You know embers can blow. You know vinyl melts. But you’ve done it a hundred times without incident—so why move it now?
Your phone buzzes while driving. You glance down. Just for a second.
These are not rare behaviors. They are risks that get normalized. Most of the time, nothing happens. And that’s what makes them dangerous.
The tragedy in Switzerland was not caused by mystery physics. It was not an unforeseeable freak accident. Fire and sparks in confined spaces have been setting buildings alight since long before electricity was invented. Every firefighter knows it. Building codes reflect it. Insurance companies price it.
So what possessed someone to light flaming devices indoors? The answer is brutally simple: the same human instinct that tells us, “It’ll be fine.”
The heartbreaking reality is that many of the victims in Switzerland were young. They did not light the flame. They were simply there, trusting.
If there is anything to be salvaged from grief on this scale, it is a renewed commitment to thinking ahead and to pausing in the moment.
The families of victims are living with terrible grief. Our hearts are with them. But sympathy is not enough. If we truly honor the victims, we must change how casually we flirt with danger.
I’ve written about fireworks before, and I am not a fan. It is beautiful what they do in the night sky with ever more sophisticated displays. But without caution and common sense, there will be more horrible accidents.
In celebrating life’s joys, let’s choose to marvel at the things that will keep us alive, not make us dead.
Today, the Courts Drew a Line — and Every Canadian Should Pay Attention
Today, the Courts Drew a Line — and Every Canadian Should Pay Attention
Today, January 16, 2026, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal confirmed something that will go down in Canadian History: the federal government overstepped its authority when it invoked the Emergencies Act, and it has now lost its appeal.
Two courts have now reached the same conclusion. The legal threshold for declaring a national emergency was not met. Existing laws were already available. And the extraordinary powers used by the federal government were not justified under Canadian law.
This decision is not symbolic, academic, or merely historical. It goes to the heart of how much power a government can claim over the lives of its citizens — their money, their mobility, and their fundamental rights — when it decides dissent has gone too far.
I write this not just as an observer of the courts, but as someone who stood on Parliament Hill during the convoy protests. I watched rows of faceless, nameless, hired force advance — not against criminals or terrorists — but against citizens. Ordinary people. Truck drivers. Families. Protesters. It was terrifying. Not because of chaos in the streets, but because of what it revealed: how quickly a government can turn the very institutions meant to protect the rule of law into instruments of enforcement against its own people.
This was not policing under ordinary law. It was authority emboldened by emergency powers — powers that bypassed normal safeguards, accountability, and restraint. And it was not just force. It was language.
Canadians were openly demeaned by their own government. They were labeled a “small fringe.” They were described as “unacceptable.” The country was asked, publicly, whether we should “tolerate” them. That moment should chill anyone who values a free society.
When a government stops speaking about its people as citizens and starts speaking about them as a problem to be managed, the next steps are rarely gentle. This was not leadership under pressure. It was moral distancing — and it made what followed easier to justify.
What followed was exclusion. Canadians were told where they could and could not go. They were barred from boarding planes and trains. They were turned away from restaurants, workplaces, and public spaces. They were separated from family, from livelihoods, and from normal life — not because they had committed crimes, but because they did not comply.
Mobility, participation, and basic freedoms were transformed into conditional privileges. All of it was framed as temporary. All of it was described as necessary. All of it was enforced with certainty and zero tolerance for dissent.
The Emergencies Act allowed the government to freeze bank accounts without warrants, pressure financial institutions into acting as enforcement arms, and collapse the line between lawful protest and punishable dissent. Canadians were told there was no alternative.
They were also told, repeatedly and unequivocally, to “get the shot to protect others,” that it would “stop with you,” that it was “safe and effective,” with no room for discussion, no acknowledgment of uncertainty, and no tolerance for questioning. These assurances were delivered with moral certainty and enforced with social, professional, and financial consequences.
Over time, many of those claims were softened, revised, or quietly walked back. But the damage had already been done. Trust was broken — not because people asked questions, but because they were punished for asking them.
The courts have now said what many Canadians felt instinctively: the legal justification for this level of state power simply was not there. The situation did not meet the definition of a national emergency, and the government crossed a constitutional line.
This ruling matters to every Canadian, regardless of where they stood on the convoy. Because if governments can declare emergencies when faced with disruption, political pressure, or inconvenience, then none of our rights are as secure as we assume.
Financial security becomes conditional. Protest becomes permission-based. And the rule of law becomes selectively applied.
And this pattern does not stop at the federal level.
We are seeing the same logic take hold in municipalities across the country. When an elected councillor steps out of line, asks uncomfortable questions, or challenges spending and decisions, the response is increasingly punitive rather than democratic.
Dissent is not debated — it is disciplined. Pay is suspended. Sanctions are imposed. Integrity commissioners, meant to safeguard ethical governance, are increasingly weaponized as enforcement tools rather than impartial arbiters.
The message is unmistakable: comply, or be punished. Fall in line, or be silenced — financially, professionally, and reputationally.
This is not accountability. It is control by process. And it mirrors, at a smaller scale, the same impulse that drove the misuse of emergency powers at the federal level.
The federal government appealed this ruling because it wanted the courts to defer — to accept its judgment without meaningful scrutiny. The court refused.
That refusal matters. It reaffirmed a core democratic principle: governments do not get to be the final judge of their own power.
This case is not about liking or disliking a protest. It is about whether Canadians live under laws — or under emergency declarations invoked when authority feels challenged.
I stood on Parliament Hill and saw how quickly that line can blur.
Today, the courts reminded the government that it does not sit above the law.
And that matters more than ever.
Financial Strategy Maximize Your RRSP Return Through Asset Location
One More Year to Grow - How Rushed the High School System Really Is
One More Year to Grow - How Rushed the High School System Really Is
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
The Ontario high school system is simple; attend school for four years, earn thirty credits, and graduate. However, it’s a system which comes with constant stressors, especially as the years come to an end and students are forced to choose what’s next. The decision between college, university, and the workforce can be stressful, in addition to choosing a specific school, program, and career to focus on. It’s overwhelming, and unavoidable as a teen in modern day. However, there used to be a solution engraved directly into the school system. There used to be a thirteenth grade.
From 1984 to 2003, Ontario high schools offered Ontario Academic Courses, (OLC), an academic year for students attending a University in the upcoming years. It focused on advanced coursework, university-level expectations, and post-secondary requirements. In the early 2000s, it was phased out due to budget cuts, other provincial education systems, and the emerging credit-based graduation model. With the end of grade 13 came the start of our new education system; a system of less time, less preparation, and less options.
Although the one additional year may seem insignificant, it can make or break a student's future. Additional time to prepare can change the schools a study applies to, or the field of study they pursue. An extra year allows space to reflect, explore, and grow before making decisions that can shape an entire life path.
I am a student who constantly overthinks and attempts to plan for the future, despite my confusion regarding my path. Every time I reflect upon it, I leave with a different plan for myself. A year ago, I wanted to pursue law, and six months ago I wanted to be a journalist. Now, I’m stuck with indefinite ideas revolving around social sciences and government, with no clear direction. In another year, I may want to teach, perform, or even enter the sciences. As I experience new things, my goals shift, leaving final decisions worrisome. I worry about choosing the wrong path, spending time and money on something completely useless.
I know I am not the only teenager who is petrified by the thought of making a definite decision. It seems almost silly to ask students as young as sixteen to decide what
they want to do for the rest of their lives. Many students simply do not have the time, maturity, or exposure to make such permanent choices with confidence.
Most unprepared students choose whichever path appears most convenient, rushed by the urgency of the system. When unsatisfied, individuals may leave programs or attempt to change their plans again, wasting money, time, and certainty in the future.
Within the current education system, it is difficult to fit all required courses for post-secondary pathways, let alone those I wish to take for my own learning. An extra year would provide the opportunity to take additional academic, practical, or exploratory courses. These classes could prepare students for real-world essentials such as finances, parenting, or civics. It’s what is necessary to prepare students for both post-secondary education and post-secondary life, for both academic and personal development.
While it is still possible for students to take an extra year of high school, doing so often comes with unwanted stigma and judgment. Terms such as “super senior” or “victory lap” are looked down upon, viewed as a waste of time and resources. Teens are turned away from this solution, which is why a structured system is so important. It wouldn’t come with stigma, but with understanding and support otherwise inaccessible.
Reintroducing a thirteenth grade, or the Ontario Academic Courses, would address these issues and more. It would reduce judgement, last-minute decisions, and unprepared students leaving high school. It would significantly decrease personal stress for students, and leave families confident they made the right choice. It would lead to less students switching educational programs or drop out of post-secondary education altogether. It would be one more year for students to grow, and that year would make all the difference.
Is It Legal!!! And Or Fair?
Is It Legal!!! And Or Fair?
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
I just saw a REEL on Facebook of Tito-Dante Marimpeitri outside of City Hall in downtown Oshawa. It is easily the twentieth video I have seen of him since he declared his intention to run for Mayor of Oshawa on January 1st. I have never seen him on Facebook or in REELS prior to making this announcement and it’s obvious he intends to post something everyday to try and stay top of mind with the voters and show the residents that he covers all areas and all topics.
I guess my question is, what happens after the election? Win or lose does he intend to keep this level of engagement up? If not, then what a farce this is. If so, where will he find the time?
I have to say that it’s more than a little annoying that these local politicians get elected, disappear from the public view, collect a paycheck, and won’t take or return a phone call, or email. Then, when we’re in an election year, they seem to pop up everywhere. Like they are literally coming out of the woodwork. Shameful. Oshawa residents deserve better than that.
Why don’t we have some sort of accountability system for these local politicians? That is something that needs to be seriously considered going forward.
I am seeing every single Councillor for all the wards front and centre with their motions, observances, statements etc…Where have they been for the last three years? And in some cases, seven years.
I don’t find it engaging, I find it contrived, obvious, and insulting. Surely, we can do better than this.
Our current council is made up of several people who are quite literally collecting a paycheck for nothing more than the fact that they got elected! They have no intention to move on, nor do they do this city any good. Career politicians are what they call those types.
They didn’t come in with any real credentials, and they have nothing to go to when they leave so the plan is just to run, election after election and hope they slide by. That may work for a period of time and in certain places, but I have a feeling that the residents of Oshawa are ready for something new. Their charitable spirits have been stretched to the limit, and they are hungry for change.
Not talk of change and the quaint catch phrases that actually mean nothing, but real change, the kind you can’t help but notice when you walk downtown. Yes, I do think change is coming and it might be prudent for some of the current Councillors to polish up their resumes. 
Twice Bitten
Twice Bitten
By Wayne and Tamara
My fiancée cheated on me. We dated in college and broke up because she cheated on me and I found out. That was five years ago. Since then we’ve been together off and on. We are best friends to the core and love spending time together.
We got back together last December and got engaged in April. A quick engagement, but we know everything there is to know about the other and can’t imagine not being in each other’s life. We are both 27 and, I thought, ready for marriage.
Well, three weeks ago she went to an environmental conference in France. We emailed each other every day until last week. Since then I’ve received two emails, both short and missing her normal upbeat tone. I knew something was up.
So I went into her email account yesterday, which was completely wrong of me. I couldn’t help myself. From a heart-wrenching note to her best friend, I learned she cheated on me with a 35-year-old Englishman at the same program. She is not sure she loves him but has serious doubts about marrying me.
I love her, but at the same time I am absolutely furious. The worst part is I must wait another week to see her. Her family loves me and will be so upset with what she has done. Can this be fixed? Can we move past this and stay engaged?
Anthony
Anthony, when you notice a mole changing color and shape, you go to a doctor to see if it is malignant. That’s what you did when you went into your fiancée’s email account. You had reason to be suspicious, and you discovered your suspicions were correct.
Five years ago you were offered a chance to learn a lesson. If you had mastered it, you might be married to the right woman now. But as an old cliché says, when we don’t master a lesson in life, it keeps coming back at us until we do.
Wayne & Tamara
Marshmallow Man
I made a big mistake. I’ve been with my girl for awhile now, but on vacation a week ago I got caught up in the excitement with my buddies. I ended up playing a game of strip poker with two of my guy friends and two girls they know.
Nothing happened other than the game itself. I refused to have physical contact with either of the girls, and over the course of a few days I came clean with my girlfriend. I have so much remorse and would never do anything like this again. Is this repairable? Is what we had lost forever?
Holt
Holt, in a famous experiment 4-year-olds were shown a marshmallow and told if they waited 20 minutes before eating it, they would get a second marshmallow. Then their behavior was recorded.
When the children turned 18, researchers checked to see how they were doing. The children who waited were discovered to be more confident, trustworthy, and reliable, and they had much higher test scores. The lesson? Impulsivity often forecasts a grim future.
Your girlfriend knows when someone is in a relationship with a person they love, that person walks with them wherever they go and whatever they do. Now she is trying to decide whether an experiment with 4-year-olds forecasts her future with you.
Wayne & Tamara
Job Seekers: Visibility Is Not Vanity; It Is a Strategy
Job Seekers: Visibility Is Not
Vanity; It Is a Strategy
By Nick Kossovan
The question "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" was posed by the Anglo-Irish philosopher George Berkeley to reflect on the concept of perception: is a sound only a sound if it’s heard by someone?
Think of Berkeley's question as a job seeker: If employers don't know of your existence, do you exist? When you take the view that billions of people don't know you exist a recruiter or hiring manager, being aware of your existence is, to a degree, intimate knowledge. Being known, now easier than ever thanks to social media and the Internet, attracts opportunity. Visibility isn't about ego. It's not about chasing likes, being flashy, or striving to go viral. It's about proactively and publicly providing ongoing evidence of how you can be a value-add to an employer that'll enhance their profitability.
When you consistently show up—sharing your ideas, perspective, progress, milestone achievements, and especially your wins—whether on LinkedIn and other social media platforms, by giving speeches, publishing blog posts or articles, appearing on podcasts, or volunteering your experience and skills for a cause you believe in—you open doors. Consistent visibility shows ambition and purpose, indicating to employers that you're committed to your career.
Post an insight every day. Share articles with your thoughts. Post constructive comments on posts from people in your industry, profession, or companies you'd like to join. Make it a daily habit to reach out to 1 - 3 people, especially those you've neglected to keep in touch with, offering value such as offering to make an introduction, without asking for anything. Every interaction you initiate with someone, whether online or in person, builds your visibility.
Visibility happens in two ways:
1. 1-to-1 engagement with people who—this is key—are working in the industry or profession you want to be in, and
2. At scale in places where people working in your industry or profession gather, such as conferences, workshops, association meetings, and, of course, social media (e.g., LinkedIn groups).
Today, increasing your visibility starts with optimizing your LinkedIn profile, which many job seekers overlook. Profiles without a profile picture, a banner, or an 'About' summary
that tells a compelling career story or quantifies the impact they had on their employers are common. By optimizing your LinkedIn profile—doing what many don't—you improve your visibility and discoverability—whether you appear in searches by recruiters, hiring managers, and those within your industry and/or profession looking to connect with like-minded people—which gives you a competitive advantage.
To increase the visibility and discoverability of your LinkedIn profile:
· Make sure your headline captures your value. ("Marketing Manager | 2024 Delivered 200% Traffic Growth via SEO & Content | Data-Driven Digital Transformation" or "Sales Director | 2024 Revenue: $6.5M+ | Building Strong Client Relationships")
· Use the keywords and language employers use to describe your ideal role.
· Quantify your impact on your employer's profitability. (This is key! Employers aren't hiring 'nice to have' employees.)
· Join groups, write posts that start conversations, comment on posts, and make connections.
A fully optimized LinkedIn profile serves two purposes by providing:
1. Human decision-makers with assurance, and
2. LinkedIn's algorithm the information it needs to determine whether you're a good match.
A common oversight among job seekers is failing to extend their visibility beyond LinkedIn. LinkedIn isn’t the only place recruiters, employers, and professionals hang out online. Publishing articles on blogging platforms such as Medium or Substack, sharing insights, and engaging in professional discussions on platforms with dedicated groups, such as Reddit, Quora, Slack, or Discord, help build a digital footprint that establishes your credibility and reinforces your expertise. You don't have to become a prolific content creator. Your goal is to curate an online presence that gets you noticed and communicates that you're an authority or subject matter expert (SME) in your industry or profession, which'll lead recruiters and employers to discover you and understand your value.
Even today, as deep as we are in the “digital age,” your visibility needs to be the most potent outside the digital world. I never understood how someone could be a project manager, accountant, marketing director, supply chain analyst, or [whatever] for 15 years without having cultivated a professional network. With the surge in bad actors and AI-generated applications, it’s increasingly common for recruiters and employers to avoid posting job openings and instead rely on referrals from employees, colleagues, mentors, and professional peers, thereby considerably broadening the hidden job market.
As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, job opportunities are all around you; the caveat is that they’re attached to people. If those in your immediate circle—family, friends, neighbours, acquaintances—don’t know you’re looking for a job and the value you can offer an employer, then when they become aware of an opportunity, they won’t think to mention you or pass it along to you. Visibility is a currency that puts you in a category of your own (not in the crowd) and pulls back the curtain to expose the job opportunities all around you. Telling everyone you know and meet that you’re job searching can significantly speed up your search.
Karmageddon 01.17.26
Karmageddon
01.17.26
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
There are moments in politics when you can simply feel that change is coming—and that change needs to come. In many cases, it is healthy for the electorate when mayors or senior politicians serve a couple of terms and then move on, whether to the private sector or to other pursuits. Renewal matters. No position better illustrates public fatigue with elected office than that of mayor. We will never see the likes of Hazel McCallion again—someone who was not only embraced by the electorate but who also never needed “strong mayor” powers. She was a strong leader, plain and simple, and she governed with the clear will of council behind her. Mayors have a best-before date. Councillors don’t. With the incredible powers now granted to strong mayors, it is more important than ever that we see new leadership and new ideas after eight years. I firmly believe term limits—similar to those in the United States—should be implemented in Canadian municipalities. Looking across Durham Region, we can see examples of what to do—and what not to do. Ajax Mayor Shaun Collier will not be seeking re-election after two terms. His time in office was marked by real accomplishments in the Town of Ajax and by consistent leadership, often with strong majority support from council. Oshawa Mayor Dan Carter is also retiring after two terms, having governed one of the most challenging municipalities in the region. Oshawa carries a heavy social-services burden while also serving as Durham’s industrial hub—no easy task for any mayor.
Elsewhere in Durham, with the exception of Clarington, municipalities have relatively new mayors and are moving forward with fresh agendas and updated strategic plans. That brings us to the curious case of Clarington. Adrian Foster is now seeking a fifth term, making him the longest-serving mayor in Clarington’s history. He announced his intention to run again months ago—during a televised council meeting, no less—which struck many as odd and inappropriate.
It is hard to ignore the areas where Clarington has taken a sharp and troubling turn: extreme taxation, questionable service expansions, and priorities that no longer reflect what residents actually want—particularly around recreation and the continued failure to build arenas.
Recent reporting by the new online publication Clarington Current has highlighted serious breakdowns in communication between the municipality and other levels of government, including unprofessional and disrespectful treatment of the local Member of Parliament’s office.
We have also learned of Clarington staff being reprimanded by judicial bodies for punitive and hostile behaviour toward constituents. That is not an isolated issue—it is a collapse of leadership. When staff culture deteriorates this badly, responsibility rests at the top. This is what happens when people remain in power too long—egos grow unchecked, accountability disappears, and a circle of enablers emerges. We see it in certain staff behaviours and in municipally funded external bodies, including the Clarington Board of Trade, where legitimate concerns are not addressed professionally but instead met with personal attacks or legal threats. I can feel change coming. And when it comes, it will not stop at the mayor’s office. It will ripple through the entire organization and through the satellite bodies funded by taxpayers. This upcoming election—the first under the strong-mayor system—will expose opportunists at a whole new level. Watch closely as loyalties shift, backs are scratched, and distance is quietly created from the current administration. Frankly, I can’t wait.
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CANADA ARE ERODING AND IT’S TIME TO TAKE ACTION
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CANADA ARE ERODING
AND IT’S TIME TO TAKE ACTION
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CANADA ARE ERODING and our governments are about to face a political tsunami they alone are responsible for. At the same time, there appears to be a growing public awareness of the threat to private property in this country – resulting from court decisions and government legislation, particularly in British Columbia where indigenous claims are involved. We are now facing a real and very direct threat to our economy, our living standards, and our peaceful society.
Men like Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations published in 1776, have tried to capture the fundamental reasons why some countries prosper while others fall so far behind, and they include culture, religion, resources, and geographical advantages. But at the end of the day there appears to be one explanation that modern-day economists keep returning to time and again - private property rights.
Almost everyone who has taken the time to study the matter agrees that private property is a necessary condition for long term prosperity. As Adam Smith himself wrote, “Commerce and manufactures can seldom flourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property.”
A private property right necessitates the exclusive authority to own, use and transfer an asset. Each of these characteristics plays an important role in economic growth. When citizens are allowed to use an asset however they wish, they’re incentivized to put it to its most productive use, again adding to a nation’s overall wealth. And most importantly, when they have the ability to transfer it to others on mutually agreeable terms, it tends to be reallocated to those who can create the most value out of it. That’s important.
I have had had legal title to land and buildings in my lifetime, and I enjoyed a degree of confidence in having ownership of those assets. I harbored a willingness to maintain them, invest in them, and to see their value increase. All of that adds to a stock of private capital in this country that allows us to become more productive and therefore wealthier as individuals and as a society.
This doesn’t happen by accident, but rather it is the direct result of a set of laws and institutions structured to ensure that property rights are unambiguous - so that it’s easy to determine who owns what - and widespread, so that rights are enjoyed by everyone and not just a select few. These are not just theoretical considerations. Decades of economic research demonstrate that private property is all-important for a nation to truly flourish in all its aspects.
In his study of more than 1,000 years of economic development, Dutch historian Bas van Bavel documents a recurring pattern. From Northern Italy, to Iraq, to the Dutch Republic, secure property rights led to economic growth and prosperity, and conversely, when property rights were eroded, economies stagnated or even declined.
In extensive fieldwork throughout Latin America, Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto found that when private property rights are well recognized, owners are able to breathe new life into otherwise “dead” capital, turning it into collateral for loans and investment, leading to real increases in living standards.
In their Nobel Prize-winning work, economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson point to the “natural” experiment on the Korean Peninsula. While the two Koreas share similar histories, culture, and natural resources, the South has instituted well-defined, secure and general private property rights while the North has attempted to centrally plan a communist state with almost no protection of individual private property. While their incomes were once comparable, South Koreans now earn about 26 times what their North Korean neighbours earn.
Here in Canada, we must make ourselves aware of the broader implications of weakened private property rights. Recent court decisions and legislative initiatives by governments appear to be promoting a sort of new, collective Aboriginal rights and land-title reality that overrides existing property ownership. If Canada’s longstanding tradition of strong property rights protection continues to be eroded like this, our long-term prospects for peace and prosperity will certainly be put at risk. That is an unescapable reality.
This Canadian-made property upheaval has two distinct sources. The first is Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The second is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). British Columbia is particularly susceptible to both, but the rest of the country is not immune from them either. What is very important for readers of this column to remember is that the Courts control Section 35, but it is our elected representatives that control whether UNDRIP applies in their various jurisdictions throughout Canada.
Section 35 was the basis of the recent Cowichan decision from the B.C. Supreme Court in which Aboriginal title, the court said, is “prior and senior” to fee simple property. Seriously, this actually happened. The B.C. law that eventually enacted UNDRIP now forms a part of the NDP government’s socialist mandate to make agreements granting title and/or management rights to specific Aboriginal groups over specific territories. That is absolutely frightening and a recipe for civil unrest in the years to come.
Over on the east coast, in New Brunswick, Wolastoqey First Nation claimed the western half of the province, including large tracts of land owned by seven private companies. In 2024, those companies brought a motion to be released from the claim. The Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick dismissed the action against them, but not because the claim for their land could not succeed. Striking the claim against the private defendants “does not mean that the Aboriginal group will be denied the possible remedy of repossessing [the defendants’] land,” the judge wrote. Where the Aboriginal claim is made out, the court could instruct the government to expropriate private property from its owners and hand it over to the Aboriginal group.
All of this began in 2021 when the federal Liberal government under Justin Trudeau passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which legally obligates the Canadian government to ensure its laws are consistent with that Declaration. Now we’re beginning to pay the price for yet more Liberal Party stupidity. 
Nuclear Energy and Industrial Revival: Why Durham Region Matters More Than Most Canadians Realize
DESPERATE MOVE…
DESPERATE MOVE...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
Whitby Council has called on the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to remove the GST/HST from all newly-built or substantially renovated homes purchased from the builder as primary residences in Ontario.
This in my opinion is a sign of desperation by Whitby. 1st. Who ever came up with this does not understand the bigger picture. The problem with affordability is not the HST. The problem is the prices in comparison to incomes. This move by Whitby shows the lack of desperation and leadership. 2nd, If Whitby is so concerned over affordability. They should have pressured the builders to drop prices... After all. I am sure you can run a type of auction mentality when it comes to who can build where. NO instead the municipality attempts to make the problem political instead of economic and beneficiary to those suffering at the hands of over priced developers and mortgage companies.
Staff was directed to send the resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada, Federal Ministers of Finance, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, and to the Premier of Ontario and Ontario Ministers of Finance, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Whitby MP and MPP, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and to all municipalities in Ontario. In Whitby’s desperation... they forgot to cc. To God himself. These type of move by municipalities showcase the lack of Leadership.
Roy in my opinion has to go.
The current GST/HST rate on new homes in Ontario is 13 per cent, which adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical home.
The existing federal and provincial HST rebates on new homes purchased from the builder are limited by purchase-price thresholds, with most new homes in Ontario priced above the level required to qualify for meaningful relief, thereby limiting their effectiveness in improving overall housing affordability, a town statement pointed out. With this said. You can write all the letter you want to the Feds and they will surely use it for toilet paper as the builders are within the rules of the game set out by the Feds.
Then the real beef should be with the builders that inflate prices in order to stay above the threshold.
The federal and provincial governments have proposed new GST/HST rebates only for first-time homebuyers purchasing from the builder a newly built or substantially renovated home.
In other words. It favor no one. Specially new home buyers.
According to research conducted by the Ontario Homebuilders’ Association, first-time home buyers currently represent approximately 5 per cent of the new home market.
Once again. Whitby’s attempt are nothing but an attempt to politically grandstand during an election year.
Here is my suggestion if I had the priviledge of being elected.
1st. Cap home values in the municipality. You don’t like it go build some other place.
2nd. All builders would have to pay a community surcharge for future affects of their developments. Make them pay for destroying our municipalities. They want to make money. So should we.
3rd. The government is forcing municipalities to build, build, build. They put all kinds of pressure and up to incentives. This is wrong.
In order to lead we must play within the rules...
We can’t win as a single municipality. We must learn to work with the rules stipulated.
In this case. The problem with housing is not so much availability as it is affordability. Who can affor a million dollar income on one salary?
Who can afford the down payment? Who can afford the taxes and all the other things that go along with a mortgage and home ownership? Then if this stand true. What is the real reason of sending a meaningless letter to the Feds to get rid of the HST.
It has no purpose other than a political move during an election year.
This bringing me to my point. We must get rid of all incumbents and start fresh. Most on most councils are either careered politicians, pension fluffers and or sitting on the top of their personal achievement mountain. Look where most of them end up working after politics. We need to elect people from the business community. Front line soldiers that know the value of a dollar. Someone that can be atoned to the harsh economy. I know that if I had won in 2022. I would have kept taxes at zero increase during my administration. I would have cut waste all around. If you can run a business you can run the corporation of any municipality. Let’s stop electing those that have no real life business savvy.
Saturday, January 10, 2026
THE NEW ‘ LA COSA NOSTRA’
THE NEW
‘ LA COSA NOSTRA’
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
‘La Cosa Nostra’, our thing in Italian. A phrase that the FBI during the American New York mob era in 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, found out to mean. “How is our business going.” The mob an Italian cultural system of taking care of their own and taking care of what they deem business became known world wide. It touched all that the government wished they could. They operated with rules and strict code. A system that proved to generate millions of dollars and as such. It had to generate systems to legally launder it. Much like what is taking place today with the Ukraine.
Back to the mob. The FBI, along with numerous international agencies, uncovered the "Pizza Connection" money laundering scheme through meticulous, long-term investigative efforts including extensive surveillance, undercover operations, analysis of thousands of phone calls, and international collaboration.
The investigations, which spanned over four years in the 1980s and involved agents across multiple continents, utilized a variety of techniques to dismantle the complex Sicilian Mafia operation that laundered an estimated $1.6 billion in heroin profits. Something that was crippling society.
Crucial intelligence was initially provided by FBI agents who had infiltrated the Bonanno crime family in 1976 and set the case in motion.
Authorities conducted round-the-clock physical surveillance on key players across multiple countries. Investigators traced and analyzed thousands of telephone calls, often made from remote public pay phones to avoid detection. The case was a massive multi-agency and multi-national effort, involving law enforcement from the New York Police Department, DEA, U.S. Customs, and international authorities in Italy, Switzerland, Spain, and many other countries. This cooperation was vital for tracing the flow of drugs and money across borders.
A mountain of records and evidence was gathered and analyzed to track the illicit cash profits as they moved through a web of banks and brokerages in the U.S. and overseas.
The FBI applied the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute to attack the criminal organization as an ongoing enterprise, which allowed for a more comprehensive case targeting the entire structure rather than isolated incidents.
These combined efforts allowed the agents to prove that the pizza parlors were being used as fronts for a vast heroin distribution network and subsequent money laundering operation, leading to the conviction of all but one of the final 19 defendants, including top boss.
The connection between the mob and pizza joints isn't just a stereotype; it's rooted in reality, with Mafia families historically using legitimate-looking businesses like pizzerias as fronts for money laundering, drug trafficking (famously in the "Pizza Connection"), and other illegal activities, while some former mobsters later opened pizza places as a legitimate venture, like Michael Franzese with Slices Pizza. Pizza itself came from Naples, Italy, and became popular in America, but its association with crime stems from Italian-American organized crime using these popular, cash-heavy spots for illicit operations. Pizza shops, like other small businesses (laundromats, restaurants), were perfect for cleaning dirty money by mixing illegal profits with legitimate earnings. During the mob years, the system was being used to infiltrate society with a hidden agenda. Money. Today, with the religious over tones shown on the media. One can say that laundering money to fund socio-political causes may not that be far out.
Take for example - ethnic cleansing, not "ethenic laundering". Ethnic cleansing is the systematic and forceful removal of a particular ethnic, racial, or religious group from a given territory by a dominant group to make the area ethnically homogeneous.
Is this not what we are witnessing today by all these immigrants all of a sudden opening up business and taking over industries much like restaurants and pizza joints, laundry mat? Interesting parallel that in theory could be the fuel for secret agendas much like the Mob did years prior. Have you been at any Tim Horton’s? Or tried to order a pizza locally? What makes the most work force?
Wether it is money, ethnic or other. Money is the root of operations... Money is what is needed to make the system operate. In the Italians it was raw profit through sheer force. In this modern new wave it is about preserving religious agenda and the conquer of civilization in the name of a God. Should we alarmed? Should we not be persecuting as they did with the Italians?
What do you think?
Revival of the Canadian National Defence: A Test of National Seriousness
THE DECLINE AND FALL OF A CANADIAN GREEN PARTY THAT NEVER WAS…
THE DECLINE AND FALL OF A CANADIAN
GREEN PARTY THAT NEVER WAS…
PUBLISHING A BOOK REVIEW is a pleasant and worthwhile task, as it allows me to share an intellectual debate brought about by the hard work and dedication shown by the author. Last week I looked at a volume penned by well-known journalist Kenneth McDonald, entitled ‘His Pride Our Fall: Recovering from the Trudeau revolution.’ It felt particularly worthwhile because McDonald was able to remind us of Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s radical vision for this country, setting out in detail the root causes of what would eventually become the most significant economic and social decline Canada has ever seen. I am, of course, referring to the disastrous decade of Liberal Party rule that took place between 2015 and 2025 under the direction of Pierre’s son and political heir, Justin.
This week I decided to delve into a sort of tell-all memoir published late last year by Mark Leiren-Young. In addition to his being a Canadian author, playwright and filmmaker, he decided in 2019 to accept a starring role in a real-life political farce by choosing to become a campaign manager for the Green Party. His book entitled, “Greener Than Thou: Surviving the Toxic Sludge of Canadian Ecopolitics” is a personal reflection on all that he believes went wrong with the movement and its inner circle.
In one of my earlier columns I outlined the absolute futility of supporting any of Canada’s fringe parties within today’s political reality, as we’ve essentially evolved into a more tolerable two-party system. That was no more evident than in early 2025 when voters from coast-to-coast decided the New Democrats were nothing more than a relic of the Soviet era, and that only a handful of Green candidates deserved more than a few hundred votes.
One of those Greens with his head still above water was Kitchener Ontario’s Mike Morrice, an incumbent MP who was ultimately defeated by over 66% of the total number of ballots cast. That left Elizabeth May as the sole-surviving eco-warrior and purveyor of political fiction who still serves as the Green Party MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, a post she has held onto since 2011.
Leiren-Young describes Ms May as the Green’s heart, soul, and supreme leader for life, and it’s easy to see why - however he pulls no punches in his assessment of her failure to understand the limitations of her Western-based fringe movement. “In 2024 … Greens worldwide pleaded with U.S. Green leader … Jill Stein to drop out of the race so that people who loved the planet could cast ballots for Kamala Harris and help defeat Donald Trump. “One of those worldwide Greens was Elizabeth May. “I asked a once high-powered Green, forgive the oxymoron, how that argument didn’t apply to Elizabeth, who was pulling support from the NDP and Liberal candidates who stood between Canadians and a Conservative government ... I got a shrug. “That person was convinced neither Elizabeth nor her ‘cult’ of Canadian Greens could spot a contradiction.”
Leiren-Young suggests anyone totally committed to environmental causes would have seen that as a pretty straightforward equation. “You line up behind the party with the best shot at defeating the guy saying drill, baby, drill. “But it turns out the Greens, who are supposed to be on the side of the angels, are just on the side of the Greens.”
It gets worse - and better, depending on your point of view: “Many books you read come with the proviso that all persons are fictional and any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental. “My disclaimer is that the Green Party of Canada is purely fictional. “This became clear when Elizabeth took her first walk in the snow in 2019, announced her resignation, and neither of her party’s two sitting MPs stepped forward to replace her. “That sure seemed like a vote of non-confidence in Team Green. “Inexplicably, the party also took deputy leader Jo-Anne Roberts out of the running by declaring her interim leader. Next came an exhausting eight-ballot leadership race that vaguely resembled a high school environmental club’s version of The Hunger Games. “The winner, Annamie Paul, imploded within weeks, losing a by-election in Toronto Centre and leaving the Greens as the only federal party without its leader in Parliament.”
As one might expect, Elizabeth May is now back at the helm as sole leader of her fringe movement. While the so-called ‘party’ ratified a co-leadership model in February 2025, her co-leader at that time, Jonathan Pedneault, resigned shortly after the 2025 federal election.
As to that fellow Mike Morrice in the Ontario riding of Kitchener Centre, his prospect of recognition beyond the usual cabal of local eco-warriors and Marxist sympathizers appears doomed according to Leiren-Young, who reminds us that, “A new leadership race was announced in 2022. “Once again, there was a young Green MP serving in the House of Commons whom one might think the party would anoint. “I could have offered a free slice of Pizza-Pizza to anyone who could name the MP and rest assured, no one who wasn’t in his riding, or picking up a pay-cheque from the Green Party, would be able to collect.”
As it happens, during that leadership race, almost no-one threw their hat into the ring. In fact, party president and long-time Indigenous affairs critic Lorraine Rekmans resigned, declaring, “The dream is dead.” Her scathing three-page exit letter said, “It seems to me there is no vision for a better future … but only an effort to look back and settle old scores, while the planet burns.”
As Leiren-Young recalls, just before the 2025 election, the party magically rewrote its rule book, deciding it needed a co-leader after all. Mike Morrice, was appointed. The hope was that co-leadership status would gain Mike some national coverage and help him hold his riding... neither of which happened. “The party finally installed Jonathan Pedneault as co-leader. He arrived just in time to not represent the party on the federal debate stage - the Greens were deemed irrelevant and not invited to participate. Jonathan resigned his co-leadership after finishing fifth in an unwinnable riding in Montreal.
There’s so much more detail in his book ‘Greener Than Thou: Surviving the Toxic Sludge of Canadian Ecopolitics’ that it makes me wish I had a full page for my column. For the time being, I’ll give the last word to the author himself as he helps put an end to any illusions regarding the Green Party’s future. “I needed to share my misadventures as a Green insider … I’d taken notes, downloaded emails, texts, and memos, and, in honour of Jody Wilson-Raybould, the greatest leader the Green Party of Canada never had, recorded a few calls. Then, to make sure I was as accurate and fair as possible, I interviewed former party insiders who not only were insistent that the Greens were a cult, but that it was far more dysfunctional than I’d ever imagined.”
You would do well to heed his words come the next election. A vote is a terrible thing to waste. 
Toronto Taxes, Trades, and Political Conviction
Karmageddon
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
Toronto Taxes, Trades, and Political Conviction
This week, Toronto’s tax-and-spend Mayor Olivia Chow proposed a 2.2 percent tax increase.
Let me put a few things into perspective about Toronto taxes. Toronto homeowners do not pay anywhere near the level of property taxes that residents in the 905 do—largely because of repeated provincial bailouts over the years. That said, I do have to tip my hat to the Rob Ford years and especially the John Tory years, when tax increases were at least manageable and predictable. Now, everyone knows I am a fiscal conservative—not a socialist—but I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. Take, for example, what I consider one of the greatest trades in history, right up there with the Manhattans selling Manhattan Island for beads and trinkets, or when the New York Yankees picked up Babe Ruth from the Boston Red Sox.
In my opinion, one of the greatest political trades ever pulled off was Mayor Chow successfully uploading the Don Valley Parkway’s asset replacement and ongoing maintenance costs to the Province of Ontario. These costs are absolutely enormous. Frankly, I was surprised this move didn’t receive far more pushback from other politicians, given that taxpayers across the rest of Ontario are now on the hook for infrastructure that was previously the responsibility of the City of Toronto. So what did the province get in return?
Silence.
Silence on the Ontario Place mega-project—and quiet support from the City of Toronto. No project has meant more to the Premier than Ontario Place and its spa, and it clearly mattered enough that he was willing to assume all the costs of the Don Valley Parkway to secure that political peace. This was a massive win for Mayor Chow. In fact, I initially thought this deal might even result in a smaller tax increase for Toronto residents. Instead, much of the money saved from DVP asset replacement and maintenance appears to have been redirected into new social programsexactly as the mayor promised she would do.
To her credit, Mayor Chow was upfront about her intentions. She said she would expand social programs, and she said taxes would go up. She won the support of the electorate, and with strong-mayor powers, she now has the authority to implement her agenda.
While many fiscal conservatives like myself may strongly disagree with her priorities, I do respect the fact that she is doing exactly what she said she would do. Credibility and accountability matter. The real problem in politics isn’t ideological disagreement—it’s when politicians tell voters one thing and then do the opposite. We’ve seen this locally before. During the debate over the Durham-York Energy-from-Waste facility, then-Councillors Foster (now Mayor Foster) and Wu were vehemently opposed to the incinerator—until they were re-elected. After that, they supported incineration.
That is where trust breaks down.
The moral of the story is simple: I would rather have someone in public office— even if they’re not of the same political stripe as me—who stays true to their convictions and to the public, rather than someone who tells a bold-faced lie to get elected.
Now, with Trump-era tariffs once again impacting our economy, and growing pressure to double—or even triple—the size of the Durham incinerator, let’s hope we have politicians across Durham Region who actually stand by what they say.
Because convictions don’t mean much if they disappear the moment the votes are counted.
If Toronto Can Hold the Line, Why Can’t Pickering or Durham Region?
If Toronto Can Hold the Line, Why Can’t Pickering or Durham Region?
At a time when families are struggling to keep up with the cost of living, one question keeps coming up at the kitchen table: why are municipal taxes rising faster than inflation?
Toronto — Canada’s largest city, (our next door neighbour) - with aging infrastructure, enormous service demands, and a far more complex budget than most municipalities — has proposed a 2.2% tax increase, roughly in line with inflation. Yet here in Pickering, residents are being asked to absorb a 3.5% increase at the City level, with the Region of Durham proposing increases that could reach as high as 6.04%.
That disparity deserves scrutiny.
Inflation is often used as the justification for tax increases. When costs rise, governments argue, revenue must rise too. But if inflation is the benchmark, then why are some municipalities managing to stay close to it — while others far exceed it?
Pickering residents are not receiving income increases of 3.5% or 6%. Seniors on fixed incomes are not seeing their pensions adjusted to match these numbers. Young families are already stretched by mortgage payments, rent, groceries, fuel, and utilities. Every additional percentage point matters. The issue is not whether municipalities face financial pressure — they do. The issue is how those pressures are managed and who is expected to carry the burden. Toronto has made difficult choices. It has prioritized restraint, examined spending, and acknowledged that affordability is not an abstract concept — it is a daily reality for residents. If Toronto, with its scale and complexity, can hold a proposed increase to 2.2%, then smaller municipalities and regions must explain clearly why they cannot.
Too often, higher tax increases are treated as inevitable rather than as a last resort. Instead of asking, “How do we control costs?” the question becomes, “How much more can residents absorb?” That is the wrong starting point. Municipal government is closest to the people. It is where residents feel financial decisions most directly. That proximity comes with a responsibility to be disciplined, transparent, and honest about trade-offs. It also means being willing to say no — to expansions, to discretionary spending, and to growth plans that outpace infrastructure and affordability. When City and Regional increases are combined, the total tax impact on Pickering residents becomes significant. Residents don’t experience these increases in isolation; they experience them all at once. City, Region, school boards — it all comes from the same household budget. If inflation is the standard, then governments should be expected to justify every dollar above it. Not with slogans, not with generalities, but with clear explanations of what is driving costs and what alternatives were considered.
Affordability is not a talking point. It is the difference between staying in a home or selling it. Between managing and falling behind. Between trust in local government and growing frustration. If Toronto can aim for restraint, Pickering and Durham Region owe residents a clear answer to a simple question: why can’t we? Taxpayers deserve nothing less.
When Fear Takes Over Our Thinking
When Fear Takes Over Our Thinking
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
People keep asking me the same question lately.
What is going on with people?
They do not ask for it. They ask if they are tired. They ask it confused. They ask it the way someone asks when they no longer recognize the room they are standing in. I heard it at the coffee shop. I hear it while waiting in line. I hear it from people who voted left, right, and some who stopped voting at all. Different people, same feeling.Something feels off. I think part of the answer is fear. Not fear of war or hunger, but fear of a person. Fear of a name. Fear of what that name has come to represent. Say the name Donald Trump and watch what happens. Some people tense up. Some laugh in that nervous way people laugh when they are uncomfortable. Some get angry before the sentence even finishes.
That reaction is not thinking. It is emotion grabbing the steering wheel.People joke about Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is not a real illness. No doctor can diagnose it. But as a way to describe behavior, it fits better than many want to admit.
This is not about disagreeing with Trump. That is normal. That is politics.
This is about fear so strong it shuts down logic.
I want to be clear. I am not punching down. I am not calling people stupid. I am talking to people who are scared, even if they would never use that word themselves.
Fear makes good people act in strange ways.
When people are afraid, they stop listening. They stop weighing facts. They sort the world into teams. Good side and bad side. Approved opinions and forbidden ones.
That is where we are stuck.
A good example came out of Venezuela.
People were freed from a brutal system. Real people. Real families. People who lived with fear, prison, and violence. When they were released, they celebrated. You could see it on their faces. Relief. Joy. Hope.
You would think that would be one of those moments where everyone pauses and says, at least something good happened.
But many people did not.
Instead, they got angry. Not at the dictatorship. Not suffering. But at the fact that Trump had anything to do with it.
That should stop us in our tracks.
If people who were tortured are smiling, and people watching from safe homes are angry, something has gone wrong.
That is not a value. That is pride mixed with fear.
Some people have built their whole identity around hating Trump. If he does something good, even once, it feels like admitting it would crack their worldview. So they refuse. They say it does not count. Or it was fake. Or it was evil somehow. Anything except saying, yes, that helped people.
Fear does that. It makes good news feel dangerous.
We see the same thing here in Canada. If you question taxes, spending, or the direction of the country, some people do not argue back. They label you. They call you Maple MAGA or Mega Maple. Same idea, different flavour.
It is meant to shut you up.
I have met people called Maple MAGA who have never worn a red hat, never attended a rally, and never cared much about American politics at all. They just voted Conservative. Or questioned government spending. Or asked why groceries cost so much. That is it. But now, disagreeing with Liberals or the NDP gets you lumped into a cartoon version of something you are not. It becomes a shortcut. No discussion needed.
Calling someone Maple MAGA is treated like calling them racist or dangerous. It sounds serious. It sounds moral. But most of the time, it is just a way to avoid answering hard questions.
That is not a debate. That is fear wearing a mask.
The strange part is watching people defend governments that are clearly hurting working Canadians, just because those governments are not Conservative. High taxes get explained away. Missed promises get ignored. Waste gets shrugged off.
Fear makes people excuse things they would never excuse otherwise.
In the United States, people were told that obvious problems did not matter as long as Trump was gone. Questioning that made you the problem. Not the policy. Not the results. You.
That is not healthy for any country.
Here is the part that matters.
You can dislike Trump and still admit when something works. You can support him and still criticize him. Most normal people live in that middle space. Quietly. Without shouting.
Trump helped move peace talks that others could not. That does not make him perfect. It makes those moments real. Pretending they never happened does not make you moral. It just makes you dishonest. Fear has turned politics into a team sport where cheering matters more than outcomes. Where being right matters more than people being free.
I am not saying people who think this way are evil. I am saying they are overwhelmed. Afraid of being wrong. Afraid of losing control. Afraid of what happens if the story they were told does not hold up.
That fear is powerful. But it does not have to run things.
We can still talk. We can still disagree without hating. We can still say, I do not like him, but that helped. Or I voted Conservative, but they got this wrong.
That is what grown ups do.
Calling names will not save Canada. Screaming will not fix the United States. Fear will not build better leaders.
Thinking will.
If hearing Trump’s name makes your heart race or your jaw tighten, it might be worth asking why. Not to change your politics, but to get your balance back.
Politics should not steal your peace.
This is not about worshipping anyone. It is about staying grounded. About not letting fear turn you into someone who roots against freedom just to stay consistent.
People are not crazy. They are overloaded. And overloaded people sometimes forget how to breathe.
That is what is going wrong today.
And the good news is, we can slow it down if we choose to.
How You Prepare Now Will Define Your 2026 Job Search
How You Prepare Now Will
Define Your 2026 Job Search
By Nick Kossovan
"By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail" - Benjamin Franklin
Once again, we've stepped into a New Year, provoking reflection and contemplation, which is a good thing. People rarely take the time to assess where they are in their various life journeys and ask whether, regarding their health, relationships, finances, career progression, or, if they're job searching, their job search, they need to make adjustments. (I don't believe we're on one singular "life journey." Rather, our lives consist of divergent paths that often feel like forced adhesion.)
Most job seekers still approach their job search as if it's 2005, applying to jobs online—the equivalent of playing the lottery—naively expecting their resume will get them an interview. They overlook the fact that they're competing against younger, more skilled, more qualified, and hungrier candidates.
By all indications, the 2026 job market will be cutthroat and unforgiving. A Wall Street Journal "heads up" article, Companies Are Outlining Plans for 2026. Hiring isn't one of them, by Chip Cutter, doesn't hold back that job seekers will face a job market characterized by fierce competition, and for those employed, especially those whose jobs don't directly influence their employers' profitability, job security will feel like a fragile illusion.
Whether currently unemployed or employed, in which case, as I pointed out, they can be summoned to an HR meeting at any time, those unprepared for job searching in an unforgiving job market will quickly realize that only those who not only have the skills and experience but also know how to position themselves as someone who'd be a value add to an employer's profitability, are getting hired. Therefore, before jumping into the 2026 job market, take some time to prepare for what you'll be up against.
Clean up your digital footprint.
The 2025 job market marked a clear shift from the aggressive hiring of previous years to a more deliberate, selective approach. A critical part of an employer's "selective approach" is reviewing a candidate's digital footprint. Fair or not, recruiters and employers will Google you to determine whether you're interview-worthy. If you're applying for jobs you're qualified for but aren't getting interviews, your digital footprint may be the reason. Although there may be other reasons you're not getting interviews, a controversial online presence is a common one. Spend a few minutes scrolling
through LinkedIn, and you'll see that many job seekers post content driven by ego without considering its negative impact on their job search.
Delete any posts, especially those criticizing an employer's hiring practices, as well as comments and pictures that could put employers off. If you've been heavily active on social media, posting about your job search frustrations, using a service like Erase.com or MineOS to clean up your digital footprint can be a good investment. Moving forward, commit to posting comments that showcase the value you'd add to an employer's profitability, rather than publicly demonstrating your inability to control your emotions.
Let go of any sense of entitlement you have.
A sense of entitlement is a job seeker's biggest enemy. It's why many job seekers are constantly frustrated and angry. The belief that employers owe you a job, a certain lifestyle, or even a living is unrealistic.
Letting go of entitlement will significantly improve your job search prospects. An entitled attitude is a major red flag for employers, suggesting a lack of humility, limited teamwork potential, and unreasonable expectations about compensation and responsibilities.
Adopt a mindset that focuses on what you can contribute to employers, not on what you expect them to give you.
Start speaking in numbers.
The majority of job seekers offer only opinions about themselves, rather than numbers that quantify the impact they had on their employer's business; hence, they don't get interviews—employers don't hire opinions; they hire results.
Update your resume and LinkedIn profile to include numbers that quantify your contributions to your employer's business. Did you generate revenue, create savings, introduce efficiencies, increase production, reduce waste, etc.?
Today, employers hire only candidates they believe will positively impact their profitability. Therefore, make sure your resume and LinkedIn profile clearly illustrate, using quantifying numbers as the most efficient way, how you enhanced your employer's profitability.
Refresh your LinkedIn profile with a new headshot and banner. If you don't have either, add them.
Job searching in 2025 is all about being visible and, more importantly, trustworthy. I still see LinkedIn profiles without a headshot. Why? A LinkedIn profile without a headshot is suspect; it suggests you're not a real person, that you're a fake profile.
No headshot = "What's this person trying to hide?"
Noteworthy: LinkedIn profiles with a headshot receive 14x more views than those without one.
Besides a profile headshot, a LinkedIn banner is crucial when job searching, as it serves as your professional storefront, significantly boosting visibility, signalling your intent to recruiters and employers, building trust, and providing instant branding that helps you stand out. Head over to Canva and browse their free-to-personalize LinkedIn banner templates.
Begin your 2026 job search with intention, not by continuing what hasn't been working for you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)