FOR LOVE OR MONEY

FOR LOVE OR MONEY By Wayne and Tamara I’ve been married twice and think I was a good husband. Shortly after my son was born, my first wife started staying out until the wee hours. I cared for our two young children while she prowled for men. She became hostile anytime I objected, and screamed at me in front of our children. At the urging of her family, I divorced her and now have my children most of the time. My second marriage ended when I found my wife having relations with the frozen food deliveryman. The truth is neither of my wives loved me. They liked my earning potential, but they did not love me. In any case, reading websites promoting affair-repairing services, I wondered why infidelity was such a deal-breaker for me. Was I simply a less evolved, less forgiving type? I know in my day-to-day existence I am not a grudge holder. I couldn’t put my finger on why, after finding my wives were cheaters, I had no desire to reconcile. You articulate the reasons very well: the desire to be loved to the exclusion of all others, and an aversion to having to remain ever vigilant in the future. Your view makes so much sense to me. Gil Gil, emotion used to be considered the poor cousin of reason, but contemporary neuroscientists now see our emotions as part of how we reason. Our emotions evolved over eons for a purpose. Just as revulsion at the sight of maggots tells us not to eat the meat, so the soul sickness we feel at discovering infidelity is intended to protect us. Your follow-up letter, below, may reveal the source of your problems. Wayne & Tamara Rest Of The Story After my second divorce and a period where I wanted to be alone and take care of my kids, I went on a date. I really like this woman, and we became close. I was honest about my kids being a big priority, and she seemed fine with that. After four months and hearing she loved me and was so happy, she came to me one night and broke up, citing her trepidation about being in a relationship with a guy with young children. I was saddened but thanked her for her honesty. Two days later I called to return the books she loaned me. She was not home so I left a message I would leave them on the porch, wrapped up. When I got to her house, she was home and invited me in for coffee. She then asked for a hug and tried to kiss me. I excused myself and said goodbye. Two weeks later she began emailing, saying how hard this was and how her heart was breaking. The last email included her photo in a revealing, see-through dress. After one email from her describing how compatible we were, I asked if she wanted to still be a couple, as I had strong feelings for her. She said no, due to my obligations to my kids. Why on earth does she keep emailing me? Gil Gil, this woman is offering you a choice. “You can have what I’m offering in the photo, or you can have your children. But you can’t have both.” Women who exude sexuality may offer excitement, but excitement is not fidelity or love. When a woman uses her sexuality to get what she wants from you, believe she will use it on other men as well. Ask yourself if that is not the story of your two marriages. Sex may be your Achilles’ heel. If you confuse unvarnished sexuality with the sexuality which flows from love, or if you unconsciously use money to generate female interest, that may explain your problem with women. You want to know why this happened to you before, and it appears you are in the midst of doing it again. Wayne & Tamara

Bubble Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure

Bubble Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure By Murray Lytle Are Canadians less adventurous than they once were? It’s hard to argue otherwise. Alexander Mackenzie was only 24 when the North West Company named him chief fur trader at Fort Chipewyan, in what is now Alberta. A few years later, in 1789 he traveled north along what is now known as the Mackenzie River to become the first European to reach the Arctic Ocean overland. Four years later he crossed the Rocky Mountains and was the first European to reach the Pacific Ocean, beating Americans Merriweather Lewis and William Clark by a full dozen years. In 1898, Martha Purdy arrived in Dawson City to escape a failed marriage and make her fortune in the Klondike Gold Rush. It was while climbing the notorious Chilkoot Pass that she discovered she was pregnant with her third son. She later remarried and, as Martha Black, was the second woman to be elected to Canada’s Parliament. She was also a successful entrepreneur, second woman elected to Canada’s parliament and a world-renown expert on wild flowers. Canadian history is filled with tales such as these. Explorers, soldiers, settlers and other restless souls who endured great hardships and did great things. There is a natural sense of awe that arises when retelling such lives filled with adventure. To our modern selves, they appear as fascinating aberrations, gifted men and women with unusual appetites for risky or dangerous undertakings. Their willingness to set out into the unknown strikes us today as thrilling, unnerving and more than a bit foolhardy. But while their accomplishments may be striking, they lived in more adventurous times. Today society shrinks from adventure and the unknown. Through a combination of practical circumstances, changing social standards and dramatic shifts in individual risk tolerance and government behaviour, present-day opportunities for adventure have been drastically curtailed. How can Canadians get that sense of adventurousness back? “An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered”, G.K. Chesterton once wrote. “An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered.” There is a case to be made that adventures are simply harder to come by these days. There are no more blank spaces left on maps, and hence no places for modern-day Mackenzies to discover. The omnipresence of the Internet and GPS similarly makes it almost impossible to get truly lost anymore. And if you do, help is usually close at hand. Beyond these practical limitations, however, it seems incontestable that society today is less interested in promoting, facilitating or participating in adventurous life experiences. No one talks of running away with the circus or joining the French Foreign Legion anymore, even in jest. According to Statistics Canada, twice as many Millennials are still living at home as was the case with previous generations. And if any of these young adults do go away, it’s more than likely to be an adventure-less ‘gap year’ holiday between graduate degrees recorded in minute detail on Snapchat and Instagram. The perpetual childhood of today’s younger generations contrasts sharply with the youthful accomplishments of past eras. William Wilberforce, for example, was elected to the British Parliament at age 21 and then proved instrumental in ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade. His friend William Pitt became Prime Minister at 24, and spent his career fighting the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who became a general at 24. Quite a lot can be accomplished when one starts early. Other factors that limit the availability of adventure in our post-modern era include the suffocating impact of the welfare state. When Mackenzie left his family home at 15 to become an apprentice in the fur industry, it was because he had little choice. He needed to make his way in the world as a teenager. The same urgency applied to Black when she decided to escape a failed marriage by travelling to the Yukon. With no government to hold your hand, adventure follows. Popular culture in earlier eras also did its bit as well by celebrating explorers and adventurers as celebrities in the same manner that we laud singers and athletes today. Just as adventure was once regarded as a social virtue to be admired, today society aggressively enforces the opposite expectation – that it is our duty to avoid risk at all costs. In their 2021 book The Coddling of the American Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and lawyer Greg Lukianoff take a close look at the impact of a creeping safety culture on the behaviour of younger generations. Children, the authors observed, are now deliberately shielded from any sense of risk or uncertainty. How can anyone – young boys most of all – learn about the world around them when school principals announce at the onset of every snowfall that “All snow must stay on the ground.” The ideal of adventure and resilience has been replaced by a debilitating sense of fragility and risk avoidance. So is the dream of looking over an untravelled horizon that animated people like Alexander Mackenzie or Martha Black completely dead in the 21st century? Not exactly. Adventure should properly be considered a spirit, not a place. It is driven by a powerful mixture of curiosity, necessity and an openness to experiencing new things. And it can be found wherever uncertainty reigns. Today, that might entail travelling to strange lands, meeting new people or even engaging in uncomfortable discussions about whether Alberta should remain part of Canada forever. Wherever the unknown lies, adventure can be found.

Some Job Seekers Are Beginning to

Some Job Seekers Are Beginning to Acknowledge the Advantages of AI-Led By Nick Kossovan Increasingly, I'm hearing from readers who prefer AI-led hiring over the traditional human-led process. In all fairness, most of my readers tend to be early adopters of technology rather than fighting the inevitable. They cite several distinct advantages: · Elimination of unconscious human bias: AI evaluates your data, not your pedigree. · 24/7 scheduling flexibility: You interview on your schedule, not the hiring manager's. · Standardized questioning for all candidates: All applicants are measured by the same yardstick. · Elimination of "mood-based" interviewer variability: You won't be disadvantaged because a hiring manager is having a bad day. · Reduced social performance anxiety: No awkward small talk or trying to read a stranger's poker face. · Ability to interview in a comfortable, private environment: Full control over your surroundings. · Focus on objective data rather than "cultural fit" stereotypes: Pivot away from "clique" hiring. · No interruptions or leading questions: You get a fair shot at making a "Why I should be hired" case. · Privacy from immediate judgment regarding physical appearance: Your words and metrics carry the weight, not your outfit or non-verbal cues. This isn't just an anecdotal whim; it's a measurable reality. A large-scale field experiment led by researchers Brian Jabarian of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and Luca Henkel of Erasmus University Rotterdam, involving roughly 70,000 applicants, found that 78 percent of candidates preferred AI job interviews to human interviews. The pearl-clutching needs to stop. Humans have always gravitated toward the consistency of machinery over the unpredictability of their fellow humans. We swapped the village blacksmith for the precision of the assembly line because we wanted a product that worked every time, not just when the craftsman was in a good mood. We traded the bank teller for the ATM because it's available 24/7 and processes your transaction without judgment. Job interviews are no different; they're business transactions in which the human element is invariably the weakest link. When your candidacy is evaluated by an AI, you receive a standardized experience. Every candidate is asked the same questions, in the same tone, and assessed against the same metrics. Let's be honest: a human interviewer gets tired, hungry, or bored by the fifth candidate of the day. They rely on "gut feelings" to make hiring decisions. AI doesn't have a gut. It doesn't get hungover, it doesn't watch the clock, and it doesn't care where you went to school. AI-driven hiring processes make your skills the only currency that matters. Critics—most often frustrated job seekers—argue that AI lacks "empathy." My response: Good! Whether a candidate can debug legacy code, calculate inventory turnover ratios, or optimize supply chains doesn't require empathy; it requires objective assessment. Lindsey Zuloaga, VP of Data Science at Pattern, noted in HireVue's official industry breakdown, Decoding AI in Hiring: Unveiling Facts and Myths, published in September 2023: "AI in the hiring process allows for a more consistent and objective evaluation of candidates, focusing on job-relevant skills rather than the unconscious biases that often cloud human judgment." Furthermore, AI-led interviews offer a level of convenience that human schedules can't match. You can record your interview at 10:30 AM on a Sunday without using a "sick day" or playing calendar tag with a recruiter. AI has streamlined the hiring process to respect job seekers' time, something most human resources departments have long forgotten how to do. Let's be honest: the outcry against AI hiring is largely rooted in bruised egos. Job seekers want to feel "seen" and "heard," but corporate hiring isn't group therapy. If your objective is a paycheque and a role where you can deliver measurable value, it shouldn't matter whether the initial gatekeeper is a line of code or a human. Readers of The Art of Finding Work know my position: you're a one-person business offering a solution-based service. Professional service providers don't complain about the procurement software clients use; they navigate it to land the contract. Complaining about AI-led hiring isn't a strategy; it's an unproductive temper tantrum. It's like a horse-and-buggy driver shouting at a passing Model T. You can yell all you want; the use of AI isn't slowing down. AI-led hiring isn't a passing fad. Talent acquisition is increasingly using it because it's cheaper, faster, and, most importantly, provides data-backed results. Employers define what's "fair," not the job seeker. If employers believe AI helps them identify candidates who'll meet their KPIs and stick around for a while—there's no empirical data proving otherwise—they'll use it. For the anti-AI crowd: Whether a company uses AI in its hiring process isn't your decision. Understand that AI isn't swayed by superficial details; therefore, job seekers must emphasize measurable accomplishments, which few do. Treat your applications and AI-driven interviews as a technical audit. Employers don't owe job seekers a "human touch." They owe it to themselves to find the best candidate for their business (keywords). If employers believe AI can help them find that candidate, who's a job seeker to take issue with that? Of course, once you pass through the AI gauntlet, you'll still have to deal with a human; all the advantage AI gave you up to that point goes out the window. That's the hiring process today.

Who Decides What Art Really Is Anymore?

Who Decides What Art Really Is Anymore? By Dale Jodoin Walk through almost any downtown today and you will run into something called “art.” Sometimes it is beautiful. Sometimes it makes people stop and think. Other times people stand there wondering how it ended up funded, displayed, and protected from criticism. That is not an insult. It is a real question many ordinary people are asking. What exactly is art anymore, and who gets to decide? Years ago the word artist brought certain images to mind. A painter over a canvas. A sculptor shaping stone. Somebody is making pottery by hand. A musician spending years learning an instrument. A poet writing from heartbreak or experience. Even if people did not personally like the work, they could usually see the skill and effort behind it. Today the definition feels much wider. One person types words into AI software and creates a stunning image in seconds. Others place random objects into a gallery and call it an installation worth thousands of dollars. Somebody splashes paint across plywood while critics praise it as a deep expression. Meanwhile a man making handmade leather goods in his garage may never once be called an artisan. A mechanic rebuilding a classic car engine with creativity and precision is rarely invited to arts festivals. A woman writing poetry online that touches thousands of people may never receive a grant or public recognition. So where is the line now? That question makes some people uncomfortable because art has become strangely protected in modern society. The moment somebody questions whether something is truly art, the reaction can become defensive very quickly. People are told they simply do not understand creativity or culture. But ordinary people are allowed to ask questions, especially when taxpayer money is involved. Cities across Canada, including Oshawa, spend public money every year on grants, installations, festivals, and arts programs. Some programs are valuable. Community pottery classes, painting workshops, music programs, and theatre groups can bring people together in meaningful ways. The problem is many residents never even hear about them. Most people do not know where the funding goes, who receives it, or how certain projects get selected. Sometimes it feels like the same small circles approving each other while the public stands outside the conversation. That creates frustration. People begin wondering whether art has become less about community and more about politics, connections, and social groups. Modern art is also tied heavily to identity and ideology now. Conservatives celebrate one kind of expression. Progressives celebrate another. Activist art gets praised in some places while traditional work gets ignored. In other circles modern abstract work is mocked while realism is treated as the only “true” art form. Everybody seems to have their own definition. Maybe that has always been true. Art has always been subjective. One person sees emotion in a painting while another sees nothing at all. One person hears poetry that changes them while another shrugs and walks away. But what feels different today is how stretched the word has become. The label “artist” now covers almost everything. If everything is art, does the word still carry meaning? That is not an attack on AI either. AI art raises fair questions. If somebody uses imagination and detailed descriptions to create an image through technology, is that really less creative than abstract painting? Some people say yes because software produces the image. Others argue the human idea behind it matters most. There is truth on both sides. Photography faced similar criticism when cameras first became common. Traditional artists once argued photography was not real art because the machine captured the image. Today photography is accepted almost everywhere as an art form. AI may eventually follow the same path. Still regular people see contradictions. A carpenter building a handcrafted table is called a tradesman. Somebody arranging objects inside a gallery is called an artist. A welder creating functional work is labour. A welder shaping metal into abstract forms is culture. Who decides which one receives praise, grants, and public attention? Critics? Committees? Universities? Social trends? Money? Sales complicate things even more. Some people argue art proves itself through value. If buyers are willing to spend thousands then clearly it matters. But popularity alone has never been proof of quality. Fast food sells more than gourmet meals. That does not make it better cooking. The same applies to culture. Sometimes art becomes important simply because influential people say it is important. Galleries promote it. Critics praise it. Institutions fund it. Eventually many people become afraid to question it because they do not want to sound ignorant. Meanwhile talented local creators often remain invisible. There are painters quietly working in apartments. Craftsmen building furniture by hand. Musicians performing for tiny crowds. Seniors teaching carving, pottery, sewing, and woodworking after decades of experience. Most will never receive headlines or grants. Yet many ordinary people would probably connect more deeply with their work than with another abstract steel structure sitting in the middle of a public square. Maybe that is the real issue. Not whether modern art is fake. Not whether AI counts. Not whether abstract work matters. The real problem may be that communities no longer feel included in the conversation. Art became something discussed inside committees, institutions, and cultural circles while ordinary people drifted further away from it. People want art they can connect to. They want open events, public discussions, and community festivals where culture feels shared instead of managed from above. Maybe art is not dying at all. Maybe the definition has simply become so broad, so political, and so protected from criticism that regular people no longer feel welcome inside it. And when that happens the word itself begins losing weight. Not because creativity disappeared. But because too many people stopped asking the simplest question of all. What actually makes something art?

Karmageddon

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE Wesleyville: Ontario's Nuclear False Prophet? A Mr. X-Files column on nuclear economics, procurement reality, and political signalling By John Mutton | Chairman, Ontario Nuclear New Build Council Ontario is absolutely serious about nuclear expansion. That is undeniable. The province has approved four small modular reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. It has moved ahead with major refurbishment and expansion at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. And it has publicly directed Ontario Power Generation to explore new nuclear generation at Wesleyville in Port Hope. But the key question is this: Is Wesleyville a real project - or simply political signalling? That is where the argument becomes powerful, because this is not an anti-nuclear argument. It is a pro-reality argument. It is about economics, procurement reality, financing structure, and whether a government announcement is the same thing as a bankable project. The Core Thesis - There are three entirely different economic models at play in Ontario's current nuclear conversation. Project Why It Works - or Does Not Yet Work. Darlington SMRs Smaller modular design lowers capital exposure and construction risk. Bruce Expansion Massive existing infrastructure plus a private partnership structure. Wesleyville No proven economic model yet. 1. Darlington SMRs Are Not Traditional Nuclear This is the critical distinction. The province learned painful lessons from the original large-scale reactor procurement discussions at Darlington years ago. I remember when Ontario was procuring for the possibility of a new 1,000 megawatt reactor at Darlington. The cost came in way too high. Traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear requires massive up-front capital. It carries huge financing exposure. It involves decade-plus timelines. And it creates catastrophic political risk if budgets explode. That is precisely why small modular reactors became attractive. The BWRX-300 model at Darlington is being sold politically and financially as modular, repeatable, factory-based, faster to deploy, and cheaper per unit of construction risk. The province can justify the first units because the site already exists. The transmission exists. The workforce exists. The regulatory framework exists. And Ontario is trying to establish itself as the North American SMR leader. Darlington is not just a power project. It is an industrial policy strategy. 2. Bruce Is a Completely Different Animal - Bruce is economically unique. Why? Because it is already one of the largest nuclear sites in the world. It already has massive transmission infrastructure. It has an established skilled labour ecosystem. And, importantly, it operates under a partnership and private capital structure that spreads risk differently than a pure OPG government megaproject. That is the point many people miss. Bruce is not a clean-sheetgreenfield nuclear build. It is expansion of an already mature nuclear ecosystem. That dramatically changes the economics. 3. Wesleyville Has None of Those Advantages - This is where the 'false prophet' line lands hard. Because Wesleyville currently appears to have no approved reactor technology, no defined financing structure, no committed industrial partner, no finalized transmission plan, no announced procurement model, and no public capital estimate that survives scrutiny. What exists right now is exploratory consultation, impact assessment work, municipal engagement, and political messaging. That is not the same thing as a financeable nuclear project. Wesleyville may sound impressive. It may sound strategic. It may sound like the next great chapter in Ontario's nuclear story. But without the economics, the procurement structure, the risk allocation, and the capital partner, it remains a concept wrapped in a press release. The Killer Point - If Ontario could not economically justify another traditional 1,000 MW reactor at Darlington years ago - at an existing nuclear site - why would a far riskier greenfield project suddenly work at Wesleyville? That is a devastating economic question. Because Darlington already had nuclear zoning, nuclear workforce, supply chain, grid integration, public acceptance history, and operational expertise. If that struggled economically, then Wesleyville becomes difficult to explain unless the province eventually deploys SMRs there too, Ottawa absorbs major capital risk, or taxpayers subsidize the project heavily. And that is the part that has to be said out loud. Nobody should confuse a possible future site with a real nuclear project. Nobody should confuse long-term energy optionality with a funded, risk-allocated, procurement-ready build. And nobody should pretend that Wesleyville is in the same category as Darlington or Bruce unless the underlying economics are explained. The Political Reality - Wesleyville may also serve another purpose: strategic optionality. Governments often announce potential projects, future sites, exploration frameworks, and long-term nuclear corridors because electricity demand forecasts are rising. Electrification is accelerating. AI and data centres are exploding. EV manufacturing is growing. And Ontario wants to signal long-term supply confidence. That does not necessarily mean shovels are coming soon. In fairness, there is nothing wrong with long-term planning. Ontario should plan. Ontario should secure future energy options. Ontario should protect potential generation sites. Ontario should examine whether future nuclear could fit into the grid. But planning is not procurement. Exploration is not financing. A press release is not a project. And a political signal is not a business case. Mr. X Closing Darlington is real. Bruce is real. Wesleyville today looks more like a concept wrapped in a press release. Until somebody explains the economics, the financing, the procurement structure, and who carries the risk, Wesleyville may be Ontario's nuclear false prophet. That does not mean Wesleyville can never become real. It means the burden of proof is on the people promoting it. Show the technology. Show the financing. Show the partner. Show the transmission solution. Show the procurement model. Show who carries the risk. Show why this site works when even a 1,000 megawatt reactor conversation at Darlington could not survive the cost reality. Until then, Wesleyville is not Darlington. It is not Bruce. It is not yet a project. It is a promise. And in politics, promises are cheap. Nuclear is not.

Praise the Pollinators

Praise the Pollinators by Larraine Roulston ‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’ “Spring is here, and with it, a renewed opportunity to take action for nature.” —The Sierra Club Canada. This year, National Pollinator Week is celebrated on June 22-26. Pollination occurs when butterflies, moths, wasps, bats, hummingbirds, and bees seek food and shelter on plants. Pollination also happens through the activities of some snails, beetles, flies, snails, mosquitoes, slugs, birds, and ants. Life in a beehive is one of the marvels of nature. These insects work as a team and always put the well-being of the hive before themselves. Of the thousands of bees in a honey bee colony, only the queen lays eggs. In the summer she can lay 2000 eggs a day. Those eggs hatch into white, legless young. Caring for them is the job of young adult bees. These young bees also build comb from the wax that they secrete from special glands in their bodies, clean the hive, make honey, feed and clean the queen, guard the hive, and help ventilate it by beating their wings. As they age, they leave the hive to collect nectar and pollen from flowers. The nectar is turned into honey which, together with pollen, feeds the colony. Bees breathe through 10 pairs of spiracles on the sides of their body. Their five eyes detect light, sense the presence of a predator, and make bees brilliant navigators. Allow some dandelions, daisies, and clover to flourish on your lawn. These are especially great for the bees in early spring. Avoid bee-killing pesticides. Use only natural pesticides and fertilizers. Ladybugs, spiders and praying mantises will naturally keep all of nature’s populations in check. When a monarch caterpillar is ready to become a butterfly, it climbs onto a safe place. The skin begins to split along the back forming a green chrysalis that pushes the old skin away. The chrysalis twirls and whirls, attaching itself to the sticky pad that the caterpillar had previously spun. Finally, it stops moving and anchors itself in place. Hanging upside down, the caterpillar pulls itself up into the shape of a ‘J’. The chrysalis then hardens into a jewel-like jade with gold trim and spots. For 10-14 days the transformation takes place and a beautiful butterfly can be seen through the chrysalis shell before it emerges. Eventually, the chrysalis begins to split down the front, and a monarch butterfly with small wings and a big abdomen swings out. Within minutes the new butterfly pumps liquid from its abdomen into the veins of its wings. The butterfly also uncoils and coils its proboscis repeatedly, in order to knit the two pieces into a solid straw-like tongue used to sip flower nectar. It is now ready to soar and begin its life as a monarch butterfly. Truly, this is one of the great natural phenomena of the insect world. On Insects: “The little things that run the world.” —E.O. Wilson 1987: American biologist, naturalist, and author.

TWO ZEROS EQUAL ONE... ONLY IN CANADA

TWO ZEROS EQUAL ONE... ONLY IN CANADA By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Are we not only becoming a third-world country, but also a nation with no real leadership qualities? You look at the Feds, and it does not matter who is doing the driving — the Canadian quality of life is not improving. Then there is the sunken NDP with their “we are the people” rhetoric, and the PCs, whose leader cannot even win his own riding. Locally, so far for Mayor of Oshawa, we have Tito-Dante Marimpietri and Jim Lee, another fellow council person. Tito has been in politics forever and a day, but what has he accomplished? How has he contributed to the quality of life in Oshawa? What is his biggest accomplishment? If zero comes to mind, you are not too far from the truth. I openly asked him to please disclose his accomplishments during his terms in office. Then you have Jim Lee. He won an election and has done nothing for the people in his ward — and I am one of them. I have never seen him either at my residence or at my office. But I did see him at a hearing with the former mayors, manager, and their brown-nosers friends attempting to attack a local small business. It appears that this first-time councillor sold his soul to the “good old boys club” and thinks he has a chance at the big pay increase. Here is a guy who, in my opinion, does not need to be in politics. He is not a leader, but a good follower. Then again, we just finished two terms with a former drug addict and home less mayor. Look at our downtown. It is a reflection of the type of leaders we elect to office. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against either man. I think their efforts as elected officials were wasted. I had great expectations for Lee, but he sold out and became just another municipal shadow at City Hall. He accomplished nothing for his constituents in his ward. Taxes kept going up. Quality of life keeps going down. Where was Lee, at least making it look like he cared?Any town hall meetings? No. Any attempt at working with those in the community who have real hands-on experience with the real issues affecting his ward? No. Just another big fat “zero.” Then, for those mathematicians among us, we taxpayers have to choose from two zeros to make one leader. Is there anyone out there from outside council who can take the helm?Have we not learned that when we keep voting from the same public toilet, we get shitty leadership?Is our down town not a testament to this fail ure to vote someone in from out side the municipal toilet bowl? Then we complain when our taxes go up every year. We com plain when we cannot pay them. Don’t blame them. Blame yourself for voting in by-products from the same public toilet, then wonder ing why you keep eating shit. It is your fault. We keep paying for their bad decisions, yet we expect different outcomes. People, wake up. We have a very unique opportunity to make a dif ference this year. It is up to every single taxpayer to vote for candi dates who are not incumbents. They had their chance and have proven that they failed to improve our quality of life. Vote — and vote for real leader ship. Soon coming.

Alberta Separation and the Shadow of Foreign Influence

Alberta Separation and the Shadow of Foreign Influence by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East One of the more sensitive — and increasingly unavoidable — questions surrounding Alberta separatism is whether foreign actors could exploit, amplify, or influence the movement for their own geopolitical or economic interests. There is, at present, no public evidence of a coordinated foreign conspiracy directing Alberta separatism. Most grievances expressed by Albertans are real, domestic, and rooted in longstanding political and economic frustrations within Canada itself. To dismiss the movement as “foreign manipulation” would be both inaccurate and politically counterproductive. However, modern geopolitics teaches an important lesson: foreign powers do not need to create divisions to exploit them. They merely need to magnify existing fractures. Canada is not immune. Around the world, democratic societies have experienced attempts by external actors to influence public opinion, deepen polarization, weaken institutional trust, and encourage fragmentation movements. Examples range from a complexity of Western and Russian disinformation operations in Europe and the United States to foreign online interference surrounding Brexit, Catalonia, and various populist movements across the West. The strategic logic is straightforward. Large, resource-rich, politically stable democracies become weaker when internally divided. In Canada’s case, Alberta is not just another province. It is central to: · continental energy security, · agricultural production, · petrochemical supply chains, · pipeline infrastructure, · and North American trade networks. Any prolonged constitutional instability involving Alberta would inevitably attract international attention and potentially foreign opportunism. Several possible vectors of influence deserve serious consideration. First is information warfare. Social media ecosystems allow foreign actors to anonymously amplify anger, conspiracy theories, anti-federal narratives, or anti-democratic sentiment. Algorithms reward outrage. Polarization spreads rapidly. Small fringe narratives can suddenly appear mainstream through coordinated amplification campaigns. Canada has already witnessed foreign interference concerns related to elections, diaspora communities, and online influence operations. It would be naïve to assume that separatist tensions would be ignored by hostile or opportunistic external actors. Second is economic influence. Global energy competitors may quietly benefit from Canadian paralysis. If Canada remains internally divided and unable to build pipelines, export infrastructure, refineries, or coherent energy policy, competitors gain market share. The irony is profound: while Canada debates how to restrict or delay its own energy sector, geopolitical rivals aggressively expand theirs. Third is political fragmentation itself. Foreign governments often prefer dealing with weakened or internally divided democracies because fragmentation reduces strategic coherence. A Canada consumed by constitutional disputes becomes less influential internationally, less economically competitive, and less capable of projecting unified national policy. This does not mean every separatist argument is illegitimate or manipulated. That would be irresponsible and unfair to many Albertans who sincerely believe Confederation is failing them. However, it does mean Canada must approach the issue with maturity and vigilance. There is another danger as well: the temptation by political actors to weaponize accusations of foreign influence domestically. If every Western grievance is casually dismissed as foreign-backed extremism, Ottawa risks deepening alienation even further. Citizens who already feel unheard will become even more distrustful if their concerns are portrayed as disloyal or externally driven. Democracies weaken when governments stop listening to legitimate regional frustrations. At the same time, separatist movements themselves must exercise caution. Once movements become emotionally charged and digitally mobilized, they can attract extremist elements, conspiracy networks, and opportunistic outside actors who care little about Alberta but much about destabilization. This pattern has appeared repeatedly in international politics. The solution is therefore neither paranoia nor complacency. Canada requires stronger democratic resilience: · improved transparency regarding online influence campaigns, · better civic literacy, · stronger national institutions, · more balanced regional representation, · and a renewed sense of national purpose. Most importantly, Canada must reduce the conditions that make fragmentation narratives attractive in the first place. Countries confident in their institutions and fairness are harder to destabilize. The deeper issue remains domestic, not foreign. Albertans are not imagining their frustrations. Western alienation has existed for generations. Economic grievances, regulatory tensions, and regional political imbalances are genuine policy issues requiring serious national dialogue. Foreign actors can amplify a fire. However, they cannot ignite one where no combustible material exists. Ultimately, the Alberta debate is less a story about foreign influence than about Canadian cohesion. External interference becomes dangerous only when internal confidence has already weakened. Canada’s greatest protection against foreign manipulation is not censorship, fear, or political labeling. It is national unity built on fairness, mutual respect, and economic realism. It is creating a federation where every region believes it has a meaningful stake in the country’s future. Let’s hope that the Canadian political establishment finds a way to safeguard the unity of Canada in a very dangerous geopolitical environment.