Showing posts with label #Central. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Central. Show all posts
Saturday, May 23, 2026
SAME FEES CLEARER STATEMENTS
The Awkward Reality of Inheritance
Dead and Gone…
The Awkward Reality of Inheritance
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
One of the strangest tensions that shows up after somebody dies has almost nothing to do with the death itself. It comes later. The funeral is over, the casseroles have stopped arriving, the relatives from out of town have flown home. Things are quiet again. And then somebody mentions the will. Or the house. Or a ring nobody is sure what to do with. The room changes. Most families do not go looking for a fight. If anything, the opposite. People get careful, almost too careful. You hear things like, "I don't really care about any of it," or, "whatever everybody else thinks is fair is fine by me." A lot of the time they mean it, or at least part of it. But you can still feel the air tighten the second money enters the conversation. Money and grief just do not sit well together. Talking about finances too soon feels disrespectful, even though the paperwork does not wait. And inheritance has never really been only about money anyway.
The minute things start getting decided, the old family stuff comes back. Quietly. Sometimes nobody notices it is happening. One sibling did most of the care-giving for years while another lived three provinces away. One kid got helped out financially in their twenties and everyone remembers, even if nobody says so. People keep score without meaning to. It is not always greed. Usually it is something underneath - fairness, feeling overlooked, an old hurt that was there long before anybody died. I have talked to families who couldn't believe how emotional things got over stuff that wasn't even valuable.
A watch, a ring, or an old chair nobody had sat in for years. One family nearly fell apart over a recipe box. Somebody says, "no, you take it, really," and somebody else says, "no, it should stay with you," and then everybody starts choosing their words a little too carefully because nobody wants to look like the one who actually wants it. That awkwardness - more people know it than admit it. Wanting something does not make you greedy. Objects hold stories, and one person looks at an old dining room table and sees an old dining room table. Somebody else looks at it and sees thirty years of Christmas dinners. The house is its own thing. A lot of parents quietly assume one of the kids will want to keep it. Sometimes none of them do. Not because the house didn't matter, life just looks different now. Adult kids live in smaller places, different cities, different financial situations than their parents had at the same age. A three-bedroom in a town nobody lives in anymore is not always a gift. Selling the family home can feel like the right call and a small heartbreak at the same time. Both can
be true. The hard part, I think, is that the paperwork moves on its own schedule and the feelings move on theirs, and the two are almost never lined up. People do not always handle that gracefully. It would be a little strange if they did. The families who come out of this okay are not always the ones who avoided every disagreement. They are the ones who figured out, somewhere along the way, that the relationships mattered more than any single decision. That sounds obvious written down. It is much harder in the room, with forty years of history sitting in there with you. I would not want my family judged on how they acted during a few of the worst weeks of their lives. People behave in ways that aren't really them during a stretch like that. Most families find their footing again eventually. The conversations just stay awkward longer than anybody expects.
Job Seekers Stop Fighting Business Realities Employers Want to See the Potential ROI of Hiring You
Job Seekers Stop Fighting Business Realities
Employers Want to See the
Potential ROI of Hiring You
By Nick Kossovan
Every second you spend on LinkedIn “raising awareness” about how the hiring system is supposedly broken or ranting about unicorn-hunting recruiters is a second you’re choosing to stay unemployed. Employers don’t care about your grievances; they have a business to run within the constraints of economic realities. By publicly and privately resisting the transactional realities that keep businesses and economies alive, you’re not being a martyr; rather, you’re showing employers you’d be difficult to manage. The employer-employee relationship is more asymmetrical and transactional than ever, and completely indifferent to your personal needs. Getting hired requires refraining from playing the oldest unproductive game of all—making excuses for why you’re a victim—and instead showing employers how you can contribute to their profitability.
Increasingly, I see job seekers who treat their job search like a shopping list for their lifestyle and expect employers to be their parents. Before they've proven—shown their track record of accomplishments and results—how they'll add value to the employer's bottom line or solve their problem(s), they demand remote work, six-figure salaries, and unlimited vacation.
Employers aren’t responsible for your chosen lifestyle. Employers aren’t charities; it’s not their concern that your rent went up, your car insurance doubled, or that you “believe” you work better from a beach in Mexico. An employer is a profit-seeking entity that has a fiduciary responsibility to its current employees and shareholders. Therefore, if you’re not showing employers quantifiable numbers for how you’ve generated revenue, reduced costs, or removed risks for your past employers, you’re just noise, similar to the noise chacma baboons make when arguing, which describes most job seekers. Even if you spend five percent of your day fighting the following variables, you’re leading equity. Accept them—don’t deny them—pivot and keep moving forward.
The Economy- The economy is indifferent to your bills. Inflation and interest rates are macroeconomic constants; complaining about the “cost of living” during a job search, or the reason you deserve a raise, is a rookie mistake that signals entitlement rather than value. Employers pay for the ROI of a role, not the cost of your lifestyle. You’re responsible for your financial management; the economy will not adjust to fund your personal overhead.
AI and Automation Disruption - CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to replace expensive, inefficient human processes with streamlined technology. This isn’t an inhumane act; it’s just business. In the emerging economy, you’re either the employee leveraging AI to deliver 5x the value, or you’re the overhead to be phased out. As a job seeker, instead of mourning the “old ways,” show employers how you can leverage the “new ways.”
“Unfair” Hiring Processes - Nepotism and favouritism have always existed and will always exist, as every human is biased in some way or another. You can’t change the “who you know” culture of a company you don’t own, hence referrals always get priority. Your best move is to create a resume, envision a “Master Value Document,” and a LinkedIn profile so compelling that being “well-connected” is no longer your competitors’ only advantage. If you can’t be the nephew, become the person who’s too valuable to overlook.
Aging - The ‘ageism’ shield is for those who refuse to adapt. Employers don’t fear your age; they fear your overhead and your inability to learn. Pivot from ‘seniority’ to ‘certainty.’ Offer employers, indisputably, the proven reliability that a 27-year-old can’t fake. If you market yourself as a relic, don’t be surprised when you’re treated like one.
Change is Inevitable -In his 1973 book, Reflections on the Human Condition, Eric Hoffer wrote, “In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” Nostalgia doesn’t pay the bills, and ‘experience’ is a trap if not accompanied by constant evolution. If you can’t explain to your interviewer what you’ve done to rebuild your skillset over the last 12 months, you’re a dinosaur waiting for the asteroid. Rather than just ‘handling’ change, employers want to see that you thrive on it and are willing to master the tools that are terrifying many of their employees.
The Golden Rule - If there's one business reality that's pointless to oppose, it's the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules. If you want to dictate your employment terms, start your own business. Until then, you're playing the employer's game on their turf by their rules. It's not necessary to like the employer's rules, but you must abide by them, especially during their hiring process, to be hired.
Arguing with business realities has the consequence of you always losing. Essentially, you are telling yourself comforting lies, or buying into comforting lies being told, to make yourself feel better about not getting what you want. Public outbursts on LinkedIn aren’t the answer. The only thing such behaviour does is signal to employers that you are unable to manage your emotions, making you a high-risk hire.
Resisting business realities is why many job seekers are experiencing prolonged unemployment; your best job search strategy is to refrain from complaining and focus on proving to employers that you can contribute to their profitability.
Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags
Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies.
Two Very Different Price Tags.
Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags. There is something happening across Ontario that taxpayers need to start paying very close attention to. Policing in Ontario is no longer just about policing. It has increasingly become about massive capital infrastructure empires. Across the province, police headquarters and policing campuses are becoming larger, more architecturally elaborate, more consultant-driven, and dramatically more expensive than what many other jurisdictions across Canada and the United States are building.
Meanwhile, provinces like Alberta appear to have taken a far more pragmatic and operationally focused approach. And taxpayers should be asking why. The Ontario “Police Campus” Model In Ontario, modern policing infrastructure increasingly resembles institutional corporate campuses. Large headquarters. Massive administrative wings. Architectural showcases. Integrated civic complexes. Multi-phase expansions. Endless consultant studies. New buildings replacing perfectly functional older buildings.
The result? Hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs that ultimately land on the backs of
property taxpayers.In some municipalities and regions, police infrastructure has evolved far beyond what is operationally necessary and has entered the realm of prestige
infrastructure.
Taxpayers are told:
- the buildings must be state-of-the-art, - the facilities must be consolidated, - the campuses must be future-ready, - and every department must be centralized under one roof.
But few people ever ask the obvious question:
Does this actually improve policing outcomes enough to justify the cost?
Because operational policing and expensive real estate are not necessarily the same
thing.
Alberta’s More Practical Approach
By contrast, Alberta has historically appeared to maintain a more practical model. Not flashy. Not over-designed. Not campus-oriented. Just functional policing infrastructure.
More emphasis appears to be placed on:
- operational efficiency, - practical deployment, - adaptive reuse, - phased modernization,
- and maintaining functional buildings longer.
In many Alberta communities, policing facilities still resemble what policing
facilities were traditionally intended to be:
working operational buildings.
Not monuments.And importantly, Alberta’s approach often appears far closer to the American municipal model.
Across much of the United States, police departments commonly continue operating
from: - upgraded legacy facilities, - industrial-style buildings, - phased retrofits, - decentralized operations, - and lower-cost modernization programs.
The emphasis is often:
“Does the building function properly?” —not— “Does the building impress people?”
That difference matters. The Cost Explosion Problem Ontario taxpayers are now living through an era where virtually every public-sector institution appears to believe it requires: - a new headquarters, - a major expansion, - a flagship campus, - or a transformational capital project. Police. Municipal administration. Libraries. Transit facilities.
Public works yards. Health facilities. Everything becomes bigger. Everything becomes more expensive. Everything becomes consultant-driven.
And taxpayers are expected to quietly absorb the consequences through:- higher property taxes, - increased debt, - development charges, - and long-term operating costs.
The problem is not policing itself.
The problem is whether Ontario has lost sight of the difference between operational
necessity and capital ambition.
Bigger Buildings Do Not Automatically Mean Better Policing This is the uncomfortable conversation many politicians avoid. A larger headquarters does not necessarily reduce crime. A newer building does not automatically improve response times.
An architecturally impressive campus does not inherently make communities safer.
Good policing is ultimately about: - leadership, - deployment, - accountability, - staffing, - training, - community trust, - and operational effectiveness. Not marble floors and oversized atriums.
Taxpayers Need To Start Asking Hard Questions
Before approving another massive police capital project, Ontario taxpayers should
be asking: - Can existing facilities be modernized instead? - Can phased retrofits achieve the same result? - Is consolidation actually necessary? - Are administrative expansions excessive? - Is the architectural scope reasonable? - How does this compare to Alberta or U.S. jurisdictions? - Are we building for operational need—or institutional prestige?These are not anti-police questions. They are pro-taxpayer questions. And in an era of affordability crises, exploding property taxes, and infrastructure deficits, they are questions that desperately need to be asked. Because somewhere along the way, Ontario appears to have drifted from practical
policing infrastructure toward institutional empire-building.
And taxpayers are paying the bill.
Mark Carney’s Canada: A Nation-Building Moment or an Over engineered Dream?
Mark Carney’s Canada:
A Nation-Building Moment or an Over engineered Dream?
by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC
FEC, CET, P.Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
By any historical measure, Prime Minister Mark Carney is attempting something rare in modern Canadian politics: the reintroduction of national ambition.
For decades, Canadian governments have largely managed decline, mitigated crises, and distributed incremental benefits while avoiding large-scale structural reform. Politics became administrative rather than transformational. The great nation-building projects of earlier generations — the railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway, the energy megaprojects of the postwar era — gave way to cautious managerialism.
Carney appears determined to reverse that trajectory.
His emerging vision for Canada is sweeping: a “One Canadian Economy,” a revitalized defence-industrial base, Arctic sovereignty, national infrastructure corridors, energy expansion, critical minerals, AI leadership, and a strategic reduction of dependence on the United States. It is, in effect, an attempt to reposition Canada for a harsher, more fragmented world. The real question is not whether the ambition is admirable.
It is whether the Canadian state still possesses the institutional muscle, political cohesion, and economic discipline to execute such a vision.
That is far from certain. Canada today suffers from a dangerous contradiction. It remains one of the world’s most resource-rich and educated nations, yet its productivity growth has stagnated for years. Major infrastructure projects take decades. Interprovincial trade barriers remain embarrassingly entrenched. Defence procurement is notoriously dysfunctional. Housing costs have become corrosive to social stability. Energy debates have become ideological trench warfare rather than strategic planning.
Meanwhile, the geopolitical environment has changed dramatically.
The comfortable post-Cold War era is over. The United States is becoming more protectionist and transactional. China is increasingly assertive. Europe is rearming. Supply chains are fragmenting. Arctic competition is accelerating. Economic security and national security are becoming inseparable. Carney understands this reality perhaps better than any Canadian prime minister in recent memory. His background as a central banker and global financial figure gives him an unusually international perspective on the forces reshaping the world economy. Unlike many traditional politicians, he appears to grasp that Canada can no longer rely indefinitely on geography, American protection, and commodity luck. That recognition alone is strategically important. His emphasis on defence industrialization and Arctic sovereignty is particularly overdue. Canada has spoken about the North for decades while underinvesting in the actual capabilities required to defend it. As climate change opens Arctic routes and great-power competition intensifies, sovereignty can no longer exist primarily through rhetoric. Similarly, the effort to break down internal trade barriers and create a more integrated national economy addresses one of Canada’s least discussed structural weaknesses. It is absurd that goods, credentials, and labour often move more easily across the Canada-U.S. border than between Canadian provinces. Carney is also correct to emphasize energy abundance rather than energy austerity. Canada’s future competitiveness will depend on access to reliable, affordable, large-scale energy. AI infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, mining, electrification, and defence production are all extraordinarily energy intensive. A serious industrial strategy requires a serious energy strategy.
In that sense, Carney’s shift toward a more pragmatic approach — including openness to pipelines, nuclear expansion, hydroelectricity, and critical mineral development — reflects political realism rather than ideological purity. Yet enormous risks remain.
The first is implementation. Canada’s political culture has become deeply proceduralized. Large projects are slowed by overlapping jurisdictions, regulatory duplication, litigation, consultation fatigue, and political fragmentation. Announcements are easy; execution is difficult. Governments increasingly measure success by funding commitments and press conferences rather than physical completion. A nation-building strategy without state capacity becomes theatre. The second risk is fiscal overreach.
Carney’s instincts favour activist government and strategic public investment. Properly targeted industrial policy can indeed work, particularly in sectors tied to national security and technological leadership. But governments also have a long history of subsidizing politically attractive failures. Canada cannot borrow indefinitely to compensate for weak productivity growth. If public spending expands faster than economic output, the country risks higher debt burdens, inflationary pressures, and declining competitiveness.
The third challenge is political cohesion. Canada is increasingly regionally polarized. Energy policy divides provinces. Housing pressures differ dramatically across cities. Western alienation remains real. Quebec protects its autonomy aggressively. Building a coherent national economic strategy in such an environment is extraordinarily difficult.
The irony is that Carney’s vision may require exactly the kind of national unity that contemporary Canada struggles to sustain.
And yet, despite these risks, there is something refreshing — even necessary — about a Canadian government once again speaking the language of long-term strategy rather than short-term political management.
Countries do not drift into prosperity or sovereignty. They build them deliberately.
Canada has often behaved as though its success were inevitable: protected by geography, blessed by resources, and anchored beside the United States. However, the emerging global order is less forgiving. Nations that fail to modernize their infrastructure, industrial capacity, energy systems, and defence capabilities may discover that comfort can evaporate surprisingly quickly. Carney’s wager is that Canada still has the capacity for renewal. He may be right. However, if this agenda is to succeed, Canada will need more than vision statements and industrial strategies. It will require faster decision-making, institutional reform, fiscal discipline, regulatory modernization, and political courage sustained over many years.
In other words, it will require Canada to rediscover not merely ambition — but execution.
That is the true test of the Carney era. Are you ready to step up and help make it happen?
Saturday, May 16, 2026
There’s No One Medical Truth
There’s No One Medical Truth
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
Advice has a habit of changing. One decade, eggs are dangerous. The next, they’re back on the plate. Butter was once a villain. Now it’s got its place. Coffee? Bad, then good, then possibly essential – depending on which expert you ask. It leaves people wondering: if the science is so clear, why does it keep shifting?
Medicine has never been one unified story. Believing that can lead you badly astray.
This is an opinion column, and for over 50 years, a lot of what’s been shared has rubbed the medical establishment the wrong way. That’s because there has been little patience for hypocrisy and groupthink. If something doesn’t make sense – in medicine, politics, or anything else – you might read about it here.
All things in life are shaped by human nature. Bright ideas compete. Smart people argue their cases. Institutions defend themselves. And when a belief becomes widely accepted, questioning it can be problematic.
Yet history shows that today’s “settled science” often becomes tomorrow’s revision.
Part of the problem is that we talk about medicine as though it were a single, consistent approach. It isn’t. Around the world, and across time, very different models of health have developed. Some focus on drugs and surgery. Others emphasize nutrition, environment, or the body’s internal balance.
Even within modern Western medicine, there are competing schools of thought. And they don’t always ask the same questions or look at the same evidence.
Take something as simple as vitamins. Most of us were taught vitamins are there to prevent deficiency diseases. A little vitamin C to avoid scurvy. Enough vitamin D to protect bones. Just enough to get by.
But some researchers have asked a different question: what happens if the body is given not just “enough,” but far more, under careful supervision? Could higher levels change how the body functions under stress or illness?
That idea makes many experts uncomfortable. Yet it reflects a broader truth about biology: the dosage matters.
A cup of coffee can sharpen your mind. Ten cups will do something very different. The same principle applies throughout the body. Substances that are helpful at one level can behave in entirely different ways at another.
There’s another layer to this as well. The body doesn’t operate one chemical at a time. It works as a complex network – systems interacting with systems. Nutrients, hormones, and enzymes influence each other in ways that are still not fully understood.
Some approaches to medicine look at these interactions closely. Others study one factor at a time, because that’s easier to measure and test. Neither approach is inherently wrong. But they can lead to very different conclusions.
And that’s the point.
When experts disagree, it’s not always because one side is foolish or uninformed. Often, they are simply looking at the problem through different lenses, asking different questions, using different methods, and defining success in different ways.
Unfortunately, once a particular way of thinking becomes dominant, it tends to crowd out alternatives. Medical training, research funding, and professional reputation all reinforce what is already accepted. Over time, that can make the system less open to new or unconventional ideas.
The Gifford-Jones mantra has been to push back against that tendency. It means you should be cautious about believing that any one voice speaks for all of science.
When you hear a confident medical claim, it’s worth asking a few simple questions. What exactly was studied? What wasn’t? Are there other experts who see it differently? And if so, why? These aren’t the questions of a cynic. They’re the habits of an informed consumer.
Are Oshawa Events Becoming Pay to Park Festivals?
Are Oshawa Events Becoming Pay to Park Festivals?
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
You can usually tell when a city starts losing touch with regular people. It rarely happens all at once. It starts with little things. A fee here. A fine there. A new rule that sounds harmless inside a meeting room but feels very different once families actually have to deal with it.
Now some Oshawa residents are beginning to wonder if that is exactly what is happening at the city’s waterfront. Starting this year, more public events and activities have started being pushed toward Lakeview Park and the lakefront area. Concerts, cultural festivals, food trucks, weekend gatherings, and family celebrations are becoming more common near the water. Even the long running Labour Day event many people connected with Memorial Park has now shifted toward the lakefront area. And residents are noticing something else.
A lot of these changes appear to be happening after the Oshawa City Council gave city staff more authority to decide where events should be held throughout the city.
That decision may have made organizing events easier on paper, but some residents now wonder if it is slowly concentrating too much activity at the waterfront while creating new parking headaches at the same time.
On paper, the lakefront probably looked like the perfect choice.
The lake is beautiful. The sunsets are incredible. During the summer, families fill the waterfront trails while kids ride bikes and people sit near the shoreline eating ice cream or watching boats drift across Lake Ontario. The problem is not the lake. The problem is what comes with it. Parking. And for many residents, that problem is starting to leave a bad taste in their mouth. Because while more events are moving toward the waterfront, parking restrictions and permit enforcement already exist in many nearby areas. Residents without Oshawa parking permits or lakefront stickers can face fines depending on where they park.
City officials will likely point out that residents can apply for parking passes through City Hall, and technically that is true. The passes are meant to help Oshawa residents access waterfront parking throughout the year. But many people already know how these things usually go. Something that starts free today often becomes another fee tomorrow.
And even if the pass remains free, residents still have to take the time to go through City Hall, apply for it, wait for approval, and keep renewing it. For busy working families, seniors, or people already juggling daily life, that becomes one more thing added onto an already stressful system. That raises a pretty uncomfortable question. Are Oshawa events slowly turning into pay to park festivals? People already pay taxes to support public spaces like Lakeview Park. Property taxes continue climbing year after year while families struggle with rising grocery prices, gas costs, rent, mortgages, hydro bills, and insurance. Now imagine packing the kids into the car for a public event and spending half the evening wondering whether there will be a parking ticket waiting when you get back. That changes the entire mood . Nobody drives to a community celebration hoping to play parking roulette. And this issue goes much deeper than parking tickets.
For years, Oshawa spread events throughout the downtown core and Memorial Park area. During festivals, families walked downtown streets, grabbed coffee, visited restaurants, and stopped in local stores. Downtown businesses benefited from the crowds and the city centre felt alive. Now more and more activity is being concentrated near the waterfront. That may sound good inside planning meetings at City Hall, but real life works differently. Lakeview Park already gets crowded on warm weekends. Add thousands of extra people during large public events and parking quickly becomes stressful. Parents drag strollers, coolers, lawn chairs, and tired children across long distances. Seniors struggle to find close parking spots. Visitors from outside Oshawa often have no idea where permit zones begin or end.
Some people risk it anyway. Others simply stop coming. And that is the real danger. A visitor does not remember the music, fireworks, or food trucks if the last thing they see is a parking ticket tucked under the windshield wiper.
People talk. Families post complaints online. Social media spreads bad experiences fast. Once a city develops a reputation for making events stressful or expensive, it becomes very difficult to reverse public opinion. That should concern everybody because these events matter to Oshawa. Summer festivals bring tourism money into the city. Vendors, musicians, artists, restaurants, and food trucks all depend on strong attendance. Community events create energy. They bring people together during a time when many families already feel isolated and financially exhausted. But attendance only stays strong when people feel welcome. Right now, many residents are not demanding special treatment.
They are asking for common sense. If the city wants more events at the waterfront, then parking during major celebrations should be simple, clear, and affordable. Maybe there should be temporary free parking during large public events. Maybe parking enforcement should ease during holidays and festivals. Maybe signs should be larger and easier for visitors to understand before they unknowingly park in restricted areas. Because right now, many people simply do not know the rules. And confusion creates frustration.
Families are not angry because of one parking ticket. They are angry because everything now feels like another bill. Families are already cutting back on restaurants, entertainment, vacations, and weekend outings because life costs too much. Community events were supposed to be the affordable escape. A place where ordinary people could still bring their children, relax for a few hours, and enjoy the city they already pay taxes to support. That is why this issue matters more than some officials may realize. This is not really about parking spots. It is about whether public spaces still feel public anymore. The waterfront belongs to the people of Oshawa. Community celebrations belong to the people too. Once residents begin feeling nervous, confused, or financially punished for attending public events, something important starts breaking between the city and the public.
Maybe Oshawa officials are not trying to hurt attendance. But this is exactly how attendance slowly gets hurt anyway. Not through one giant decision. Through dozens of small frustrations that slowly teach families it is easier to stay home than deal with the hassle. And once people stop showing up, the crowds shrink, local businesses lose customers, the music gets quieter, and the spirit of a city slowly fades one empty parking spot at a time.
POLICING COSTS ARE OUT OF CONTROLWhen Did Public Safety Become a Luxury Item?
POLICING COSTS ARE OUT OF CONTROL
When Did Public Safety Become a Luxury Item?
Across Ontario, municipalities are being crushed under the weight of rising policing costs.
Every year, local councils are told the same thing: policing budgets must increase, capital projects are essential, and taxpayers simply have no choice but to pay more. And every year, taxpayers are expected to quietly accept it. But at some point, someone has to ask the uncomfortable question:
How did policing become one of the largest and fastest-growing financial burdens on municipal governments?
Across Ontario, municipalities are now facing police budgets that consume enormous portions of their annual operating budgets. New headquarters, satellite facilities, specialized units, fleet expansions, technology upgrades, and administrative growth have all become normalized.
Meanwhile, taxpayers are struggling with inflation, mortgage payments, rent increases, food costs, and property taxes that continue to rise year after year.
The disconnect between municipal reality and taxpayer reality has never been greater.
What makes this even more frustrating is that when we compare policing infrastructure models in parts of the United States, we often see a completely different philosophy. Many American jurisdictions continue to operate effectively out of older but functional buildings. Resources are directed toward frontline policing rather than monumental capital projects designed to resemble corporate campuses. In Ontario, however, it increasingly feels as though every growing municipality requires a brand-new police palace complete with massive construction budgets, expensive land acquisitions, and long-term financing obligations that taxpayers will carry for decades. Nobody is arguing against public safety.
Strong policing matters.
Communities deserve professional officers, effective emergency response, proper training, and modern investigative capabilities. But there is a difference between responsible investment and unchecked expansion.
Municipal taxpayers deserve transparency.
They deserve to know:
• Why costs continue escalating far beyond inflation.
• Whether all capital projects are truly necessary.
• Whether alternative service delivery models have been explored. • Whether existing infrastructure can be modernized instead of replaced.
• Whether administrative growth is outpacing frontline service needs.
Most importantly, they deserve elected officials who are willing to ask hard questions instead of automatically approving every increase placed before them.
The problem is that too many councils are afraid to challenge policing expenditures publicly. The moment anyone asks legitimate financial questions, they risk being accused of being “anti-police,” which is both unfair and intellectually dishonest.
Fiscal accountability is not anti-police. Taxpayer protection is not anti-police.
Demanding efficiency is not anti-police. In fact, ensuring that police services remain financially sustainable is one of the most pro-community positions any elected official can take.
Because if municipalities continue down the current path, policing costs will increasingly crowd out other essential services: • Roads and infrastructure. • Recreation. • Housing initiatives. • Community services. • Economic development. • Transit. • Long-term capital planning. And taxpayers will continue paying more while receiving less elsewhere.
Ontario municipalities are entering a dangerous financial era where operating costs are rising faster than taxpayer capacity. Councils cannot continue pretending that unlimited growth in every department is sustainable.
Everything must now be examined through the lens of affordability and long-term sustainability. That includes policing. The public deserves honesty. The public deserves accountability. And the public deserves elected officials with enough courage to ask whether the current model is truly sustainable before taxpayers are pushed beyond the breaking point once again.
The Strait of Hormuz Crisis Is Canada’s Strategic Wake-Up Call
Saturday, May 9, 2026
2026 It Is Our Year
2026 It Is Our Year.
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
2026 is the year for change.We have suffered for too long at the hands of incumbents who change nothing except their own pay increases every year. These are the same people who continue to raise our taxes by an average of 3% to 9% annually. Has our quality of life improved? Are we better off?
Personally, I don’t mind paying my fair share of taxes, as long as I see the quality of life in our community improving. That is not the case.
Inner politics and squabbling have to stop. Poor decisions that we, the taxpayers, end up paying for have to stop. Millions of dollars are being wasted without any consultation with the public. Fifty million dollars to extend an Oshawa hockey rink that costs taxpayers, on average, around $600,000 a year to maintain. A downtown park Oshawa never needed — millions spent there. The Broadbent Park project, to the tune of $30 million, is, in my opinion, a waste of taxpayer dollars. Not to mention the $10 million spent on the Rotary Pool — an outdoor pool in Canada that can, at best, only be used four months of the year.It does not make
economic sense.
The question remains: Why do voters keep electing the same old faces?
Are we to assume that those who come out to vote are simply voting based on name recognition? Scary.
How do you explain electing someone like Dan Carter for a second term?
The man allowed the
downtown to fall.
We need new ideas and new leadership. We need to open the doors at city halls across the region.
Too many municipalities have become police states. Police states created by the incompetence of elected officials who, instead of dealing with difficult situations properly, would rather use force and issue trespass orders.
City hall and municipal offices should be inviting places — civil places that encourage dialogue. Staff must act as staff, not as enforcers for elected officials.In some cases, they have become persecutors through policy and bylaw enforcement.
This has to stop.
Councillors need to get back to basics and deal with constituents in a humane and respectful manner. It should never be a “them against us” mentality.
Answer your phones. Visit your constituents. Host town halls to stay connected with the realities of the community.
2026 is about change.
Are you ready?
The World We Live In Now: A Test of Nerve and National Purpose
The World We Live In Now:
A Test of Nerve and National Purpose
by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC
FEC, CET, P.Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
The world we live in now is marked by uncertainty, acceleration, and growing instability. Nations are confronting simultaneous geopolitical, economic, technological, and social transformations, all unfolding at a speed that challenges governments and institutions alike. This is not simply another difficult period in international affairs. It is a transition into a new global reality.
The assumptions that shaped the decades following the Cold War are steadily eroding. For years, many Western societies believed globalization would naturally expand prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and reduce the likelihood of major conflict. That optimism has faded.
The recent conflagration in Europe shattered the illusion that large-scale war in Europe belonged to the past. Instability in the Middle East continues to threaten global security and economic stability.
Meanwhile, the strategic competition between the United States and China is evolving into the defining geopolitical contest of the twenty-first century—extending beyond military power into trade, artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and access to critical minerals.
The international system is becoming more fragmented, more competitive, and less predictable.
For middle powers such as Canada, geography alone no longer guarantees security or prosperity. The Arctic is emerging as a zone of increasing strategic importance. NATO allies are demanding stronger burden-sharing. Supply chains once considered dependable have proven vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and global disruptions. At the same time, democracies themselves are under pressure from political polarization, disinformation, and declining public trust.
Yet the challenges facing nations today are not only external.
Domestically, many Canadians feel the social contract itself is under strain. Housing affordability has become one of the defining issues of our time. Young families increasingly question whether home ownership remains achievable
Healthcare systems are struggling with shortages, long wait times, and burnout among professionals. Infrastructure expansion often moves at a pace that no longer matches demographic and economic realities.
Canada also faces a productivity challenge. Despite vast natural resources, technological potential, and a highly educated population, the country continues to struggle with regulatory complexity, internal trade barriers, and slow project approvals.
The world we live in now rewards speed, coordination, and strategic focus. Unfortunately, democratic systems often move cautiously precisely when decisiveness is required.
Overlaying all these pressures is the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence and advanced automation. AI is not simply another technological innovation. It represents a transformational force capable of reshaping labour markets, military operations, education, public administration, and the very nature of information itself.
For the first time in history, societies must confront the possibility that machines may outperform humans across a growing range of intellectual tasks. This creates enormous opportunities for innovation and growth, but also profound risks related to employment displacement, surveillance, cybersecurity, and social cohesion.
Governments are racing to adapt, yet regulation consistently trails innovation. Citizens are exposed daily to manipulated information, synthetic media, and increasingly sophisticated forms of digital influence.
Truth itself is becoming contested terrain.
And yet, despite these pressures, this period should not be viewed only through pessimism. History demonstrates that disruption can also produce renewal and reinvention. Nations that emerge stronger are those capable of recognizing reality early and responding with strategic clarity rather than complacency.
For Canada, this moment demands serious reflection about national priorities.
First, defence and national security must once again be treated as core responsibilities of the state. Investments in military readiness, Arctic sovereignty, cybersecurity, and defence industrial capacity are no longer optional. Credibility among allies matters in an increasingly dangerous world.
Second, Canada must address its internal economic fragmentation. Provincial trade barriers weaken competitiveness and productivity. A truly integrated Canadian economy would strengthen national resilience at a time of rising global uncertainty.
Third, infrastructure development must become a strategic national mission. Energy systems, transportation corridors, housing construction, telecommunications, and digital infrastructure are all interconnected components of economic sovereignty. Countries that fail to modernize will gradually lose investment and talent.
Fourth, education and workforce development must adapt rapidly to technological transformation. Future competitiveness will depend not only on resources, but on the ability to train highly skilled workers capable of operating in advanced technological sectors.
But beyond economics and policy lies something equally important: civic responsibility.
Democratic societies cannot function effectively without a shared sense of purpose. One of the greatest dangers facing modern democracies is the gradual erosion of trust—in institutions, expertise, and sometimes even in one another.
History reminds us that nations endure difficult periods not simply because of government programs, but because citizens themselves maintain confidence in the larger national project.
Canada has faced moments of uncertainty before. During the world wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, and more recently the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadians demonstrated resilience, adaptability, and a willingness to work toward common objectives despite political differences.
That spirit remains essential today.
The world we live in now does not permit complacency.
It requires leadership capable of thinking strategically rather than electorally.
It requires institutions prepared to modernize rather than simply preserve outdated systems.
And it requires citizens willing to engage seriously with the challenges of our time instead of retreating into cynicism or division. This is not an era that rewards passivity.
It is an era that demands competence, resilience, and national purpose.
How do you think we can achieve that? And what can we as individuals do to help?
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING THE MIND OF A MAD MAN OR A GENIUS
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING
THE MIND OF A MAD MAN OR A GENIUS
Joe Ingino coined (and popularized) the phrase “I live a dream in a nightmare world.”He uses it as his personal tagline/signature at the top or bottom of nearly all his newspaper columns, blog posts, social media writings, and publications. It appears consistently in his work for the Oshawa/Durham Central Newspaper and related outlets.
Key Details:It functions like a branding motto for his commentary series (often called the “‘I Live a Dream in a Nightmare World’ series”).
No credible evidence shows the exact phrase being used before Ingino adopted it — searches for earlier uses turn up nothing significant.
He has referenced it for years in his role as editor/publisher, making it strongly identified with him locally in the Durham Region / Oshawa area.
In short, it’s his signature catchphrase — he created and popularized it through his extensive writing.
"I live a dream in a nightmare world" is Joe Ingino’s personal motto and signature tagline. Meaning (as used by him)It expresses a personal philosophy about navigating life in a flawed, often chaotic or disappointing reality:"I live a dream" — He pursues ideals, optimism, personal vision, integrity, and what should be (e.g., better community standards, accountability, common sense in politics and society). "in a nightmare world" — Acknowledges that the actual world around him frequently feels broken, corrupt, hypocritical, or nightmarish — filled with declining standards, political failures, social issues, media problems, and human shortcomings.
In essence, it captures the tension between aspiring to something better while being grounded in (and commenting on) a imperfect, frustrating reality. He uses it at the top or bottom of almost every column, post, and article as a framing device for his often critical, outspoken commentary on local Oshawa/Durham issues, politics, society, and human behavior. It functions similarly to how other writers or commentators use a recurring slogan to brand their worldview — part idealism, part realism/cynicism. Ingino has not given one single "official" paragraph-long explanation, but the phrase consistently appears alongside his critiques of the world as it is versus how he believes it should be.
Here are clear examples of Joe Ingino’s philosophy, drawn directly from his columns and writings. His core outlook — captured in “I live a dream in a nightmare world” — contrasts personal idealism, traditional values, and calls for accountability against what he sees as a hypocritical, declining, and unfair society.
1. Human Nature, Hypocrisy, and Societal Decay“We are nothing but animals with the fortunate ability to communicate and socialize like no other animal. ... The difference in humans is in the way we interact and live in a system of hypocritical beliefs that hamper our success in life. ... We go for the first 20 years of our lives living a code of ethics and morals that slowly ravels with the realities of living in a society that rewards unfairness... governed by laws that oppress and prosecute the innocent. ... Good people that live a dream in a nightmare world of constant struggle.”
Philosophy takeaway: Society starts with good intentions and moral upbringing but erodes into hypocrisy, where systems reward the wrong behaviors and punish or exploit the good.
2. Loss of Traditional Values and “Salvajes” (Wild/Savage) Society. In a column on why peace is difficult, Ingino contrasts his childhood in Uruguay — where people upheld social norms, civic duty, religion, and nationalism to avoid being “Salvajes” (those living wild without rules) — with modern multiculturalism and declining standards:He argues that mixing cultures with lower standards has turned society into a “jungle of uncivilized beings.” Strong unified culture, fear of God, and strict codes once built strong nations; today’s lack of these leads to fragmentation and lowered standards.
Philosophy takeaway: Strong societies require shared values, discipline, and higher (often Western/traditional) standards. Without them, we regress into chaos.
3. Criticism of Local Politics and Leadership Ingino frequently attacks Oshawa/Durham politicians as opportunists lacking business experience, focused on pensions or vendettas rather than results. Examples:He calls for removing most of Oshawa council, criticizing them for downtown decay, high taxes, crime, and homelessness while ignoring taxpayers.
Downtown councillors are labeled inexperienced “punks” or “dream catchers” who fail businesses and residents.
Philosophy takeaway: Leaders must have real-world credentials and put people first. Most current ones are ineffective insiders who worsen quality of life.
4. Optimism vs. Harsh Reality (The Motto in Action)He pairs sharp critiques with motivational closers like:“Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret or Sorrow. — ONE DAY AT A TIME —”
This reflects living ideally (“the dream”) while confronting daily struggles (“the nightmare”). Overall Themes in Ingino’s Philosophy Idealism vs. Reality — Pursue better standards, accountability, and common sense despite corruption and decline.
Traditional Values — Hard work, personal responsibility, strong families, unified culture, and moral codes (often tied to religion or nationalism).
Anti-Hypocrisy — Calls out systems, politicians, and society for pretending to help while failing or exploiting good people.
Local Populism — Strong focus on practical improvements in Oshawa/Durham: lower taxes, safer streets, pro-business policies, and competent leadership.
His style is blunt, opinionated, and repetitive — using his newspaper platform to voice what he sees as common-sense truths ignored by the establishment. This aligns with why some observers note a populist or “Trump-like” flavor in his approach, though he is very much his own local character. Over all it appears that some may see him as a mad man is proven to be a respected genius in his community and his profession.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ARE COMING AND VOTERS NEED LONG MEMORIES
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ARE COMING
AND VOTERS NEED LONG MEMORIES
Ontario’s municipal elections are coming this October, and if there was ever a time for voters to wake up, pay attention, and hold politicians accountable, this is it.
Municipal government impacts your life more than almost any other level of government. Property taxes. Roads. Water. Development. Infrastructure. Emergency services. Housing approvals. Garbage collection. Recreation. Your local government touches virtually every aspect of your day-to-day life.
And yet municipal elections continue to have embarrassingly low voter turnout.
People complain about taxes. They complain about traffic. They complain about overdevelopment, poor planning, endless delays, lack of accountability, and political insiders running the show.
But then election day comes, and many either stay home or vote based on name recognition, slogans, or empty campaign promises.
That has to stop.
The public needs to start paying close attention not just to what candidates say during campaigns — but to what they actually do once elected.
Because far too often, politicians campaign one way and govern another.
In Clarington, residents have seen this firsthand.
Many will remember the statements made by Mayor Adrian Foster and Councillor Willie Woo regarding the incinerator issue before election campaigns — only for positions to later shift once elected and in office. Whether one supported or opposed the project itself is almost secondary to the larger issue: public trust.
When elected officials say one thing to secure votes and then proceed in a completely different direction afterward, it damages confidence in the democratic process.
And once trust is broken, it is very difficult to rebuild.
This election cannot simply be about personalities, signs, slogans, or social media photos.
It needs to be about accountability.
Voters need to ask difficult questions:
Has this person been accessible to the public?
Have they answered tough questions?
Have they been transparent?
Have they voted consistently with what they promised?
Have they demonstrated integrity over time?
Have they represented the people — or protected insiders and political allies?
And perhaps most importantly:
Do they deserve another term?
Not every incumbent should be removed. Some elected officials work extraordinarily hard for their communities. Some are accessible, honest, responsive, and accountable. Those individuals deserve recognition and, where earned, reelection.
But others have built careers on carefully crafted talking points, selective memory, political maneuvering, and saying whatever is necessary during campaign season.
The public needs to stop rewarding that behavior.
Democracy only works if voters have memories longer than campaign flyers.
This October, the electorate must do three things:
First — get out and vote.
Second — pay close attention to who is running and what they truly represent.
And third — stop re-electing politicians who have repeatedly misled the public or demonstrated questionable integrity over time.
Municipal politics should not be a lifetime appointment.
If elected officials lose the trust of the people, they should lose the privilege of governing them.
The ballot box is the ultimate accountability mechanism.
Use it.
Fun on Empty: Making Memories on a Tight Budget
Fun on Empty: Making Memories on a Tight Budget
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
Raising a family when money is tight can quietly break your spirit. Not all at once. It happens in small ways. You say no to dinner out. No to the movie. No to the weekend trip. No to the new restaurant everyone is talking about. After a while, you start feeling like the bad guy in your own house. Then friends talk about going away with their family, or trying some place where the menu looks like a car payment. You smile and say, “I have to work.” That sounds better than saying, “I can’t afford to take my family.” That part hurts. Nobody wants to say it out loud. But here’s the truth. A tight budget does not mean your family has to live a small life.
Across Canada, more families are feeling the squeeze. People are working long hours and still going to food banks. Seniors are counting every dollar. Parents are choosing between gas and groceries. It’s not rare anymore. It’s everyday life for a lot of people. And yet, something else is happening too. People are learning how to live differently. Not louder. Not flashier. Just smarter.
Take a picnic. It sounds simple. Maybe even a bit boring. But it works. Stop at a grocery store. Grab buns, some deli meat, maybe a bit of fruit. Skip the expensive drinks and mix your own. Pack it into a bag or a cooler. Bring a blanket, or whatever you have, and head out. I remember watching a dad once, sitting on a park bench, quietly counting change before walking back to his kids with a couple of drinks. The kids didn’t notice. They were too busy laughing, chasing a ball, falling over themselves in the grass. To them, it was a great day.
Give it ten minutes once you’re there. The air feels different. The pressure eases. It’s not about what you spent. It’s about being present.
In a place like Oshawa, there are more options than people think. Parks, open fields, trails. They’re there for everyone. You just have to use them. The same goes for sports. You don’t need a ticket to enjoy a game. Local leagues are everywhere. Baseball, soccer, cricket, and more rugby. Just show up. Stand near the fence or sit on the grass. Watch. Cheer a little.
Lacrosse is another one people forget about. Fast, tough, and exciting. Many local games are open to the public. The same goes for school sports. Places like Ontario Tech University and Durham College often have games and events, especially in the summer. Bring your own food. A couple of sandwiches. Some drinks. You sit there together, and for a while, nothing else matters.
Transit can open things up too. Not everyone drives, and gas adds up fast. A simple bus ride can take you somewhere new. A different park. A lake. A spot you forgot about. If there’s water nearby, even better. Bring a towel. Let the kids swim if it’s safe. Sit back and take it in. Those are the moments that stay.
And don’t overlook what’s already around you. A pickup soccer game. Kids playing baseball. A cricket match in a field. You don’t need to join. Just being there can make you feel part of something again.
Local newspapers and city websites are worth checking too. They list events most people skip past. Small festivals. Community days. Local gatherings. Many are free or low cost. You just have to look.
Here’s something that matters more than most people realize. Kids don’t measure their childhood by how much money you spent. They measure it by time. By attention. By whether you showed up. You can spend a lot and still miss that. Or you can spend almost nothing and get it right.
That doesn’t mean things are easy. They’re not. Working hard and feeling stuck is frustrating. Prices go up. Pay doesn’t always follow. It wears people down. But inside that, there’s still a way forward. For seniors, it might mean asking for a discount and not feeling bad about it. For families, it might mean choosing fast food over a sit down place because tipping just isn’t possible. For others, it might mean skipping one thing so you can enjoy something else.
You start to see your city differently. Not as a place full of things you can’t afford, but as a place full of things you can still enjoy. And that changes things. Money can be short. The fridge can be thin. The bills can sit on the table like they own the place. But your kids don’t need rich parents to have good memories.
They need time. They need laughter. They need a parent who still tries, even when things are hard.
A sandwich in the park can matter. A bus ride to the lake can matter. Watching a free game can matter. Taking pictures on your phone can matter. Because one day, your kids may not remember what you couldn’t buy. They’ll remember that you showed up.
And that is how a family finds a way to have fun on empty.
Here's the Feedback You've Been Asking For
Here's the Feedback You've
Been Asking For
By Nick Kossovan
There's a common refrain among job seekers: "I want feedback!"
Whether it's third-round ghosting, automated rejections, or total silence, job seekers wonder what they're doing wrong and crave answers to improve their chances of getting hired.
Two doses of reality:
1. Employers don't owe job seekers feedback. 2. No two recruiters or hiring managers assess candidates the same way. Feedback is highly subjective and seldom universally applicable.
Employers aren't career coaches, mentors, or educators. They're business entities with open positions designed to solve specific problems. Employers operate in a litigious society—a fact job seekers conveniently ignore. Providing candid feedback opens a door that corporate legal departments want triple-bolted. A disappointed candidate with a sense of entitlement is likely to misinterpret "culture fit," prompting them to file a frivolous lawsuit. From an employer's perspective, assisting a stranger with their job search is neither their obligation nor will it pay off in terms of time spent. Conversely, legal disputes can have devastating consequences. Employers who reject candidates without explanation aren't being disrespectful; they're engaging in risk management. As Lars Schmidt, the founder of Redefine Work, puts it: “Hiring is not a democratic process; it is a risk-mitigation exercise.” Expecting a company to risk legal action just for your "professional development" isn't just naive; it's a glaring sign of the entitlement that's likely keeping you unemployed . Since recruiters and hiring managers rarely provide meaningful feedback, which, as aforementioned, is understandable, here's some candid, assumptive feedback to help you improve your chances of getting hired. Consider this a professional courtesy.
Your Digital Footprint is Controversial
Private and professional identities are no longer separate. Employers will review your LinkedIn profile and activity, and Google you to determine if you're interview-worthy. Getting into digital fistfights, posting impulsive rants, bemoaning that "nobody will hire me," and employers don't know how to hire guarantees you won't be invited to an interview.
You Didn't Show How You'll Make Money for the Employer
Employers don't care about your past responsibilities. If your resume and LinkedIn profile don't clearly show how you influenced your previous employer's profitability—by either making or saving money—and you don't communicate that in interviews, you haven't made a business case for why you should be hired.
You Didn't Proofread for Spelling, Grammar, and Typos
If you can't be bothered to proofread the one document meant to market your professional worth, why would an employer trust you with their business? A single typo signals a lack of attention to detail—one of the most critical soft skills in any role. Misusing "their" instead of "there" is enough reason for a hiring manager to reject you.
Your Use of AI Is Obvious Employers are overwhelmed with "AI-slop." If your resume sounds like it was written by an uninspired robot, employers will notice. The issue isn't using AI itself; it's neglecting to edit the output. By all means, use AI to help draft your resume and cover letters, but ensure you edit, edit, edit until the result is not only accurate but also reflects your authentic voice.
You Aren't as Qualified as You Think Self-awareness is a scarce trait. As a job seeker, you must acknowledge that there's always someone younger, more qualified, or hungrier than you. You might have "the skills," but how do they stack up against your competition? You aren't being judged in isolation; you're being compared to other candidates who are just as qualified—if not more so.
Your Verbal Communication Skills Are Below Average "If you can't communicate, it's like winking at a girl in the dark—nothing happens. You can have all the brainpower in the world, but you have to be able to transmit it. And the transmission is communication." - Warren Buffett
I can't think of any job where verbal communication skills don't matter. If you can't articulate your thoughts clearly and concisely in an interview, good luck getting hired.
TIP: Use the Situation-Action-Result (SAR) framework instead of just listing facts. By giving your answers, a "beginning, middle, and end," you make them far more memorable.
You're Overqualified Overqualification is a valid concern for employers. For one, you're a "flight risk." Hiring managers are right to assume that an overqualified candidate will quickly become bored, prove difficult to manage because they "know better," or quit the moment a better-paying offer arrives. From an employer's standpoint, an overqualified candidate isn't a safe long-term investment.
You Have No Professional Visibility If you aren't visible in your industry, you lack what employers value most: credibility. We live in a world where success often depends on "who you know"; consequently, being unknown drastically limits your career. It's reasonable for employers to expect candidates with 10 to 25 years of experience to have cultivated both a visible personal brand and a professional network.
You're Not Likeable (the definitive feedback an employer can't give)
Hiring managers hire candidates they like; thus, the truism: likability outweighs skills and experience. If you're arrogant, cold, or socially awkward, your background is rendered null and void. Being the person the hiring manager actually likes is your greatest competitive advantage. Therefore, improving your likability is often the best job search strategy you can adopt.
Dreamers…
Dreamers...
By Wayne and Tamara
I moved in with my boyfriend five months ago. We've been friends for two years, but only started being romantic a few months before I moved in. We have the same values and want the same things: starting a co-op, starting a family, running a farm, and promoting a better economic system.
Big, big dreams! I've known him to be all the things I wanted in a partner—strong, supportive, and optimistic. But almost as soon as I moved in he started to fall apart. He's in university with straight A's, but this term he's been sleeping in, missing class, and failing to concentrate on his homework. He says his intestines feel like razor blades when he tries to study.
He spends most of his time playing computer games. He misses buses, forgets to call people, and doesn't know what day it is. He says most days he wakes up not wanting to be alive. He is far from the optimistic, outgoing guy I've always known.
I told him I'm leaving because I don't want to be with a man who can't get his life together. He wants me to be patient because this isn't his normal state. The only reason I'm asking for advice is because my intuition tells me better days are coming and I need to see the big picture. Part of me says leave, because if he's this way now, how will he be when there are kids and a farm to run? The other part says wait it out and don’t make a hasty decision. I don't know what to do. Alesha
Alesha, your boyfriend is playing video games instead of doing homework. He misses busses and can’t remember the day of the week. That sounds like classic avoidance behavior. Avoidance behavior occurs when we have something we don’t want to face up to. It’s a defense mechanism and it can be totally unconscious.
The best thing he can do is get a physical exam to rule out physical causes, then see a therapist to get to the root of his malaise. But what is best for you?
You have a dream and you want to change the world. You would like to hold on to him because that’s easier than finding someone else. But it doesn’t look promising. If you want to link his behavior to anything, link it to moving in with him. That suggests he doesn’t share your dream. The status quo effect, not intuition, may explain why you want to stay. That term is used by psychologists to describe a common decision-making strategy. Faced with a choice, most of us look for reasons allowing us to do nothing while refusing to accept reasons which compel us to change. In Chekhov’s short story “The Darling,” a young woman puts on the identity of each man she is with. Married to a theatre owner, her life revolves around the theatre. After he dies she marries a timber merchant and becomes engrossed in the timber business. Again a widow, she shares the aspirations of her next man, a veterinarian.
Just as there are women who tell a man “your dream is my dream,” so there are some men who do the same thing. But time reveals the truth. You don’t need your own “darling.” You need someone who shares your passion. As a goal-oriented person, your relationship may feel like a failure but it isn’t. Dreams have to be tweaked to make them work. Seldom can they be realized in the exact form we imagined in our head. Working toward your dream, you will come in contact with others working toward the same dream.
Your boyfriend hopes things will get better by doing nothing. That’s not a good strategy for either of you. Both of you need to take action, though action is apt to send you in opposite directions.
Wayne & Tamara
The Easiest Thing To Fix in A Struggling Healthcare System
The Easiest Thing To Fix in A
Struggling Healthcare System
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
The Easiest Thing to Fix in a Struggling Healthcare System
No country has it perfect. But a few give us envy. Switzerland combines universal health coverage with rapid access and strong patient choice. People are required to buy private insurance, but the system is tightly regulated, and wait times are generally far shorter than in Canada by comparison.
The Netherlands is another standout. It has universal coverage, strong primary care, and insurers compete within strict public rules. It ranks high for patient satisfaction and access. Germany is praised for its social insurance model – broad coverage, quick specialist access, and a large hospital network. Singapore is admired for efficiency and outcomes. It spends far less of GDP on health care than many Western countries while maintaining excellent results, though its system relies more heavily on personal savings and individual responsibility. Among Nordic countries, Denmark is praised for integration and digital health systems, while Sweden is respected for quality but can struggle with wait times.
Canada adheres to the principle of universal access. No one should go bankrupt because they got sick. But universal coverage is nothing to celebrate if you can’t see a doctor. And Canadians are frustrated by access delays, and increasingly, by service quality too.
In the U.S., money talks. Those with means can get world-class care. For those without insurance, and there are many, it’s a lot harder and the statistics tell a grim story.Regardless of where in the world, or socioeconomic status, no senior citizen should wait 14 hours in emergency with a fractured wrist. No individual with chest pain should sit in a hallway because there are no beds. No one should have to wait eight months to see a specialist, only to be told they need another referral because the original one expired while waiting.
We hear promises of “transformational reform” when parts of our systems breakdown. Yet patients continue to experience delay, frustration, and the sense that no one is in charge.
What’s the one thing we could easily fix? That would be communication.
What drives people to frustration is often not the illness itself but feeling invisible inside the system. Even when right in the middle of it.
Medicine has become highly technical, but healing still begins with a person looking you in the eye and explaining what is happening. Patients want two things from a physician: competence and caring. They hoped for the first, but they remembered the second. And caring means diligent communication – in both directions, with give and take, until there is a common understanding. Hospitals measure everything – wait times, readmissions, staffing costs, infection rates. All important. But do we measure whether families are actually informed? Whether discharge instructions are understood? Whether patients know who is responsible for their care?
Imagine if every emergency department had one person whose sole role was to keep patients and families informed. Not to provide treatment, but to explain delays, next steps, and realistic expectations. There is an old saying in medicine: “Cure sometimes, treat often, comfort always.” We seem to have forgotten the last part. Comfort is not a complex concept. It is clarity. It is dignity. It is the assurance that someone sees you not as a chart number, but as a human being who may be frightened and trying to make sense of what comes next.
Can communication alone fix health care? Of course not. But if we are looking for the easiest place to start, it may be right there. For a lot of things in life, it might help to lay it out. “Here is what is happening, and here is what happens next.”
The Decisions Families Regret Later
The Decisions Families Regret Later
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
One of the things people do not always expect is how certain decisions can return to them weeks later, long after the funeral itself is over. Everything may have gone smoothly. People may have said the service was beautiful. Life around the family may already be starting to move normally again. Then someone is driving home from work, or sitting quietly at the kitchen table one night, and a thought comes back that hadn’t been there before. “Maybe we should have slowed down a little.” I have heard different versions of that sentence more than once. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand that this kind of second-guessing is more common than people realize. It usually is not about whether something was large or small, expensive or simple.
Most of the time it seems to come from the feeling that a decision did not fully feel like theirs once everything became quiet again. I remember speaking with one family who kept coming back to a visitation they had extended at the last minute because they felt pressure from people around them. Nothing terrible happened. In fact, most people attending probably thought it was the right decision. But afterward, one of the family members admitted it never really felt like what they wanted in the first place. They had simply been trying to avoid disappointing anyone while emotions were high and everyone was weighing in. That part of funeral planning can be harder than people expect. You are not only making practical decisions. You are trying to balance emotions, personalities, traditions, relationships, money, exhaustion, and grief all at the same time. Under those conditions, people sometimes drift into decisions instead of consciously making them. And later, when things settle down, they start looking back over certain moments more carefully. What I have noticed is that people rarely seem troubled afterward by choices that genuinely reflected the person who died, even when those choices were very simple. A quiet gathering. A small room. Coffee and sandwiches afterward instead of something formal. Those things tend to sit peacefully with people when they feel honest. The choices that seem to linger are often the ones that felt slightly disconnected from reality while they were happening. The upgrade nobody really cared about. The extra expense that felt uncomfortable from the beginning. The attempt to satisfy too many opinions at once. Sometimes the regret is not even about the money itself. It is about the feeling that the family lost confidence in their own instincts somewhere in the middle of everything. If I were gone, I think that is what I would want my family to protect most — not the appearance of getting every detail exactly right, but the ability to stay connected to what genuinely felt meaningful to them. People outside the immediate family often move on more quickly than we expect. The family does not. They are the ones who sit with the emotional memory afterward. They replay conversations. They remember moments differently. Sometimes they carry guilt over things nobody else even noticed at the time. Grief can distort perspective that way. A family can handle everything thoughtfully and still find themselves wondering later whether they could have done something differently. That does not necessarily mean they made bad decisions. More often, I think it reflects how deeply people want to do right by someone they loved.
If I could leave one thought for my family, it would simply be this: do not measure yourselves against perfection afterward. There is no version of these moments where every decision feels completely certain. What matters more is whether the choices felt sincere once the noise around everything faded. Because eventually it does fade. And when it does, people usually remember far less about the details than they think they will.
What stays with them is the feeling of the experience itself, whether it felt pressured or peaceful, honest or performative, connected or disconnected. If I were gone, I would want my family to carry peace from those days, even if they still carried sadness too. Next week, I will write about something many families are surprised by afterward: why guilt can appear even when they believe they handled everything the best they could.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)