The Myth of Splitting the Vote And Why I Chose to Stand Up

The Myth of Splitting the Vote And Why I Chose to Stand Up By Councillor Lisa Robinson We’ve all heard it before: “Don’t split the vote.” It's the line the political establishment uses to scare good people into supporting bad candidates. But let’s be honest—this is nothing more than a tactic to keep you locked into a broken system, one that no longer serves the people it was meant to represent. The truth is, there’s no such thing as splitting the vote when your vote never truly belonged to a party in the first place. Your vote is yours. It belongs to your conscience, your values, and your future—not to strategists in Ottawa or party insiders trying to control the outcome. The past few years under Liberal leadership have been nothing short of disastrous. Taxes are up. Food prices have skyrocketed. Gas is unaffordable. Our small businesses have suffered. Families are stretched thin, seniors are being left behind, and young people are losing hope. This government has bled us dry while smiling for the cameras—and they have the nerve to ask for four more years? And now, in Pickering–Brooklin, they’ve parachuted in a Liberal candidate who doesn’t even live here—she lives in Markham. Let that sink in. She doesn’t share your streets, your schools, or your struggles. But she wants to represent you? On the other side, we have the so-called Conservative candidate—also not from Pickering. Not even from Durham. Dropped in from elsewhere, with no skin in the game, no history with our people, and no understanding of what we’ve been through. And worst of all? This same individual pushed vaccine mandates on innocent people—including marginalized communities—forcing people to choose between feeding their families or complying with a political agenda. How could anyone support that over someone who has been in the trenches with you—fighting, sacrificing, and standing firm when it mattered most? That’s why I chose to run for the People’s Party of Canada. Because I know what it means to stand up—when it’s hard, when it’s costly, and when you’re standing alone. If I didn’t step forward now, I would never be able to look myself in the mirror. I’d be betraying everything I believe in—and everyone who put their trust in me. This isn’t about ego. It’s about principle. It’s about truth. It’s about doing everything in my power to give you a real voice in a system that has tried again and again to silence people like us. I’ve faced council censorship. I’ve gone without pay for nearly a year. I’ve been smeared and attacked because I dared to expose corruption, speak honestly, and refuse to be bought or bullied. And I’m still here—because I refuse to quit on you. They’ll say I’m splitting the vote. I say I’m offering the only real choice. Because when your options are a Liberal who doesn’t live here, has ruined our economy, made life unaffordable and a so called conservative who pushed mandates on your children, the question isn’t “Why vote for me?” The real question is: Why on earth would you vote for them? Your vote is your voice. And it’s time to use it not out of fear—but with boldness. With courage. With the conviction that we, the people, still hold the power in this country. They can try to divide us. They can parachute in strangers. But they can’t stop the truth. And they can’t stop a people who are finally ready to rise. I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor, A True Conservative MP Candidate for the People’s Party of Canada

Do we need municipal government?

do we need municipal government?

By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States You always hear... Democracy is failing society... Democracy is under siege. When in reality Democracy is the vehicle that allows the people to elect someone to office. Traditionally, the electorate selected candidates based on credentials and stature in the community. People they could trust to work in their best interest. This worked well for hundreds of years as long as it was a communal mentality. In today's modern society it still works fine as a vehicle for selecting representatives. The problem is the quality of representative is what has become questionable as most of those elected do not have life experience, the academic qualification and or intellect to be able to make the decisions that they are faced once in office. So what do we have. Wasted tax payers money. Little or no representation. Think about this. When was the last time you ran into your local or regional council member? Do you even know who they are? Then how is it they are representing you? Do you know the issues? Do you know what is happening in your community? If you answered ‘NO’, to any of the above. Then you proven my point. Modern day municipal government is a waste of money. We have no representation. Unfortunately, those elected may not even have the answers. As they depend on staff recommendations and peer opinion. Not on hard sound decision making based on common sense and rational thinking. Look at Oshawa. They spend millions of taxpayers dollars to erect a park next to a park. The ED BROADBENT park next to Lakeview. Is that sound, rational planning? Or wise expenditure on behalf of the taxpayers. This is one example. Now you can’t blame those elected? As they have clearly proven they have no clue what they are doing. It has become so bad... that most of the municipalities across Durham have shut down public access to the municipal offices. The public is so fed up that out of desperation they see municipal government as the enemy. Oshawa, a municipal fortress with three levels of security. Civic, police and a 2 million dollar para-military security firm that primarily protects the mayor and council members from taxpayers. Is this what we pay our taxes for? Don’t think so. But let’s not blame the incompetent we elected in office as they do not have the life experience and or intellect to deal with the general public. Once elected they employ a hit and miss approach towards matters. What we need is to vote based on credentials. Life experience. Imagine how much we the taxpayers would save with just a regional government. We need to get government back to the people and out of the hands of incompetents.

Job Seekers: Consider How You Are Interpreted

Job Seekers: Consider How You Are Interpreted By Nick Kossovan People—hiring managers, recruiters, receptionists, your network, human resources—are what carbonates the job search experience. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that how you're interpreted (read: perceived) is the deciding factor in whether your networking efforts bear fruit, whether you're referred, whether you move along in the hiring process, and whether you're ultimately hired. This truism echoes the cautionary words of American rapper and actor Jaden Smith: "Be careful with how you make the world perceive you because they'll perceive you like that for the rest of your life." Undeniably, image is everything. Yet, many job seekers fail to manage their image effectively and wonder why they're stuck in a lengthy job search. Basically, interpreting someone involves attributing meaning to information, which could be visual (how the person is dressed, physical mannerisms, the car they drive, what they're eating, how they keep their work area) or auditory (accent, use of slang, lexicons, profanity, pronunciation). We do this constantly while communicating, which is why communication is messy. For an employer to whittle down a stack of applications to the one they'll hire, they must interpret what they know and see, making judgments that sometimes lead to accusations of bias or "ism." According to philosopher Hannah Arendt, identity is formed through public actions; we become who we are based on how others see us. Thus, "people treat you as they see you." Be mindful of the impression you make on others, remember: · Image is everything! · How you make someone feel is everything! Since your image and how you make your interviewer(s) feel significantly influence your job search success, knowing what isn't a 'good look'—what turns off employers—is essential. Based on my observations, most job seekers either don't know what isn't a 'good look' or don't care about how they're perceived by employers. What isn't a 'good look' Publicly Bashing Employers: It's common knowledge that employers scrutinize a candidate's online activities to determine whether they're interview-worthy, which is why it amazes me how many job seekers bash employers. Do they believe employers will read their "frustrations" and say, "He's right! Let's change everything we've been doing"? Publicly bashing employers is like biting the hands you want to feed you. Why go on a platform like LinkedIn to malign those who could potentially help you? Publicly bashing employers shows poor judgment and a lack of emotional control. Sloppy Self-Presentation Apicius, a 1st-century Roman gourmet, famously said, "We eat with our eyes first." This principle applies when meeting someone for the first time. It's human nature to assume a person's outward appearance reflects their inner qualities. If there's ever a time to look your best, it's during a job search. Also, presenting yourself well extends beyond your appearance; your resume, LinkedIn profile, and social media activities contribute to the overall impression of who you are. Typos, vague results, poor grammar, and inappropriate social media posts turn employers off. Aggressive Communication Many job seekers often confuse assertiveness with aggression, possibly due to a prevalent sense of entitlement. Assertive communication expresses needs and opinions directly and respectfully, while aggressive communication prioritizes personal needs at the expense of others. I view assertiveness as a two-way dialogue, whereas aggression feels like a one-way proclamation. Aggressive communication leads to the aforementioned employer bashing and having a standoffish attitude with interviewers as if they're the enemy. In contrast, assertiveness means being clear about what you want while considering the employer's needs. The easiest way to expedite your job search is to focus on how you can solve an employer's problems and align your communication accordingly. Job seekers should aim to communicate from a "What can I do for you?" perspective rather than a "What's in it for me?" stance. Lack of Manners and Social Skills Although manners and social skills have declined, they are still crucial for career success. Lacking these skills makes you less likeable (read: affects how others feel about you). I've yet to meet a hiring manager who hires someone they don't like. Good manners facilitate relationships, which are vital to career success. Ignoring social cues or failing to read a room can lead to misunderstandings and hinder relationship-building. How people receive your message, what they remember about you, and how they feel afterward matters. At some point, everyone feels that how they're being interpreted is holding them back. When that happens, it's in your best interest to figure it out. If you feel unappreciated or misunderstood, look in the mirror instead of blaming "the world." You control your destiny through how you present yourself and how you communicate. Nobody is owed acceptance. While it’s contrary to the popular advice to "be yourself," that assumes 'yourself' is someone people actually like—a dangerous assumption—because your physical appearance and actions are what others use to interpret you, perception management is crucial to job search success; therefore, care as much, if not more, about how others perceive you than how you perceive yourself. The phrase "perception is reality," attributed to American political strategist Lee Atwater, echoes throughout an employer's hiring process; therefore, what employers see about you is your responsibility. ___________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

A NEW FORM OF ‘REPRESENTATION’ WITHOUT ELECTION? APPOINTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO MUNICIPAL COUNCILS

A NEW FORM OF ‘REPRESENTATION’ WITHOUT ELECTION? APPOINTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO MUNICIPAL COUNCILS By Dean Hickey THE FRAMEWORK FOR OUR CANADIAN STYLE OF GOVERNANCE from our federal parliament to our local and regional councils is based on democracy, not only in principle but in all its consequences. Canadians elect their representatives directly, and for the most part at regular intervals to ensure accountability. In this regard, you and I are the ultimate authority, and our collective interests remain a perpetual influence throughout our communities as we find ourselves surrounded by the incessant drumbeat of political propaganda. This decade has so far seen several attempts made to water down that democratic process among local municipal councils, and in particular, Toronto City Hall. Some among that august body of decision makers have recently formed the opinion that the affairs of their community may be better served by adding an unelected member of city council. At a recent meeting of their Executive Committee - which is chaired by Mayor Olivia Chow - a motion was brought forward by the Mayor that would see Toronto’s City Manager look into opportunities to ‘deepen meaningful representation of the Indigenous community in City decision-making… including through advisory bodies and other mechanisms.’ Those ‘other mechanisms’ are seen by many Toronto councillors as an attempt to add one or more members of council who would be appointed based on their ancestry, without having been given a mandate by the electors. It will be convenient at this stage to consider a little more clearly the nature of this proposal and how it might ultimately affect other councils within the province, including that of the city of Oshawa. Let us suppose such a change is eventually approved by the provincial government, under whose authority this issue rests. Our attention must first be directed to the degree to which land use and planning may be affected. The Reconciliation Action Plan created and approved by Toronto City Council strives to establish what they see as ‘collaborative decision making within many divisions whose work impacts Indigenous Peoples, land and water.’ There’s the first challenge, and one that will undoubtedly give rise to conflicts over what constitutes Indigenous lands, whether subject to Treaty disputes or not. Consider; every Oshawa council or committee meeting begins with a rather lengthy Land Acknowledgement statement, which among other things, seeks to recognize ‘our role in addressing the negative impacts that colonization continues to have.’ Those are strong words, and it is not unreasonable to suggest major decisions on residential and commercial developments could be challenged by appointed members whose mandate, some would say understandably, may include a focus on leveraging their ability to halt certain projects. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario makes reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a foundation for building relationship agreements. There’s the second challenge, being the potential for appointed councillors to bring the specter of international law to bear on local decisions. Municipalities do not have full access to information on Crown-Indigenous relations, nor do they have the financial resources or the capacity to assume any responsibility in that regard. Enhancing Indigenous civic engagement is certainly a positive step, however the prospect of bringing the debate directly into a city council chamber is unwise and unfair to all concerned. Consider this; Oshawa’s Safety & Facilities Services committee recently recommended to Council that the Open Air Burning Bylaw be amended to allow for ‘Sacred Fires’ which is a reference to a typical ceremonial fire of deep spiritual and cultural significance to many Indigenous Peoples. The staff report includes a reference to, among other things, the United Nations when recommending that such open air burning be exempt from the City’s Fire Permit process. Further consultations were made with the City’s Diversity, Equity and Reconciliation Division, specifically the Indigenous Relations Advisor. The City of Toronto already recognizes Sacred Fires, however they still require appropriate documentation to be submitted to their Fire Services to initiate a site safety review, as these fires are known to sometimes burn for days on end. Residents have a right to be concerned as to what appears to be the complete absence of due diligence on the part of the City of Oshawa to include the necessary safety provision requirements over Sacred Fires. The proposed exclusion from the Fire Permit process may reasonably be seen as over-zealousness on the part of the Diversity gang whose staffing level was in fact increased by Mayor Dan Carter in his latest budget. It is that kind of pressure that results in bad policy decisions, and the prospect of appointing one or more unelected members to any city council to potentially further advance such ideas is wrong. Circling back to the City of Toronto, a spokesman for the Ford government had this to say when asked about the ongoing efforts by Mayor Chow and her closest colleagues to appoint unelected members to council: “People have the right to elect their representatives. We will always support that right.” Daniel Tate, from the watchdog group IntegrityTO had this to say: “It’s really concerning that a taxpayer-funded committee thinks it’s appropriate to invent unelected council positions based on identity.” As to the final results of this debate, time alone will tell, however now that the issue is being studied, debated, and reported on by the media, you can rest assured this affront to democracy will someday be approved, and as with so many changes at the municipal level, city councils across Ontario will rush to step in line to enact similar policy changes in their own municipalities. Last year, Hamilton councillors voted down a similar proposal that would have seen their city become the first to have unelected members of council. At the time, councillor Tom Jackson offered up these words, which one can only hope will resonate with others, including Oshawa councillors, “I will not support the exploration of adding a non-elected seat. Imagine the supreme, ultimate honour of an Indigenous person… running for elected office… and winning” That is exactly how it works in a democracy.

A Canadian Federal Election to Remember

A Canadian Federal Election to Remember by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As expected, Canada's 45th general election got underway Sunday March 23rd, with the party leaders vying to become Canada's next Prime Minister, each positioning himself as the best candidate to strengthen Canada's economy and stand up to United States President Donald Trump. Canadians will vote and the campaign will close on April 28th, making it one of the shortest campaigns (37 days) allowed by legislation. Liberal Leader Mark Carney triggered the campaign by visiting Governor General Mary Simon and asking her to dissolve Parliament. Speaking outside Rideau Hall following that meeting, he said he is offering solutions instead of anger and division. "It's easy to be negative about everything when you've never built anything; when you've never had to make a payroll," he said. "Negativity won't win a trade war." Right out of the gate Carney promised a one-point cut to the middle class tax rate and said an election is necessary to show a strong response to American economic threats. The Liberal leader, who has yet to serve as an MP, will seek election in the Ottawa riding of Nepean. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre launched his campaign an hour before Carney addressed media, saying he plans to restore the promise of Canada and tackle affordability issues that he blames on elites. "Our nation is more divided than ever before, because the Liberal, radical, post-national, borderless and globalist ideology has weakened our nation," Poilievre said in Gatineau, Que., overlooking Parliament Hill. "Now, desperate for a fourth term, Liberals have replaced Justin Trudeau with his economic advisor and handpicked successor, Mark Carney." Poilievre said he will bring down the cost of living and fix the immigration system while supporting a strong military. Recent polls have suggested the Liberals and Conservatives are in a neck-and-neck race and the comfortable polling lead the Conservatives enjoyed for more than a year has all but evaporated. The NDP, which was tied with the Liberals a few months ago according to many surveys, has watched its support plummet. President Trump has threatened to economically coerce Canada into becoming a U.S. state, implementing some debilitating tariffs and promising others in response for a shifting set of policy changes ranging from fentanyl flows to dairy quotas. The new tariffs proposed by the United States are to hit Canada in just a few days, on April 2nd. It will be an exiting election with many unknowns and dynamics. Both leaders of the main parties willing to govern are untested in previous elections. Mark Carney the Liberal party leader has never had an elected position. On the other hand, Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative party, is a politician by trade with a long record of political involvement, but other experience. We will have to see how the campaign evolves, because it is an important election in a tormented world. Canadians need to leave woke issues and need to be united to face an uncertain future. Canadian identity must be preserved and we must be proud to be Canadians as never before. At this point Canada as a nation needs to be patriotic and proud of its past and its history, in order to face the black clouds of political menace from our previously trusted friend and neighbour. But let us go a little back in time. In ways no one could have understood at the time, the summer of 2015, has turned out to be a momentous one for Canada and Canadian politics, and the reverberations are only being fully felt now, nearly a decade later. I remember the election of 2015 very well. It was an election to be lost by the Conservative party lead by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They approached it in a very unusual way and failed to identify the real threat, which was the Liberal party, reduced to third party status at the time. Unfortunately, many of the staff running the 2015 election campaign are still involved in senior positions in Pierre Poilivre’s campaign, and prone to commit the same fatal mistakes that lead to the loss of the 2015 election. In the summer of 2015, one of the significant events might have seemed to be an announcement made by the leader of the Liberal Party in downtown Ottawa. Still four months away from becoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau stood before television cameras at the Château Laurier and presented a platform for sweeping political reform, including a categorical commitment to change Canada's existing electoral system. In reality, at about the same time, a more seismic event occurred. On Fifth Avenue in midtown Manhattan, dismissed by many politicos as insignificant at the time, a former reality TV star announced that he was running to be president of the United States. He said "drugs" and "rapists" were streaming across the American border with Mexico. He promised to build a wall. He said the United States was being "ripped off" by the rest of the world and that it didn't have "victories" anymore. He vowed to "make America great again." It was Donald Trump. In the years that followed, the United States had multiple opportunities to decisively reject Donald Trump’s ideas. But last fall the majority of Americans chose him to be their president for a second time. For Canada, the first four years of a Trump presidency were a time-consuming challenge. The scramble to maintain an open economic relationship with Canada's largest trading partner necessarily became the Trudeau government's top priority. At the time it was still possible to believe that those four years were a strange anomaly and that America would, after four years of Trump, snap back to normal. Joe Biden's victory in 2020 seemed to confirm that. However, the four years of Biden's presidency now seem like the last gasp of a world that no longer exists. Well, two months into the second four years of Trump, the threat to Canada now seems existential. The first time around, Trump talked about tearing up the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, he threatens to erase the border an "artificially drawn line," in his words between our two countries. Whoever is prime minister after April 28th will have to contend with this unsettled and unsettling new reality. He will have to fight a continental trade war. He will have to negotiate with an American president who openly pines for annexation. He may soon face a national or global recession brought on by a global trade war. He will have to make urgent decisions about domestic economic policy, resource development, national defence and international engagement. Being aware of the challenges the next Prime Minister must face, it is up to you to decide which contender is best qualified to be Prime Minister. So never before has it been so important for you to get involved. Canada’s future is at stake!

Who Really Controls What We See and Hear?

Who Really Controls What We See and Hear? By Dale Jodoin Have you ever wondered who decides what news we hear every day? Who chooses what stories show up on TV, in newspapers, and on the internet? Many people think the news is always honest and tells the truth. But that’s not always the case. In Canada today, the truth is often hidden, and the people who control the news are not doing it to help regular Canadians—they’re doing it to keep their power. In Canada, a lot of newspapers and news websites get money from the government. That means the people we vote for—like the Prime Minister and his team—are giving money to the same people who write the news. This is a big problem. When someone gives you money, they expect something in return. It’s just like if someone paid you to say something nice about them. Would you still tell the truth if that truth made them look bad? Many news reporters today don’t want to upset the government because they might lose their funding. So instead of reporting the real news, they write stories that make the Liberal government look good—even when it’s not. You may have seen polls on TV or online that say the Liberal Party is ahead in the election. But if you ask your neighbors, your parents, or your teachers, they might say something different. So who’s right? The truth is, polls can be used to trick people. They might only ask certain groups of people or only show numbers that make one side look better. Right now, even though many Canadians are unhappy with the government, the news still says the Liberals are winning. Why? Because the people running the news are being paid by the government and their friends. The people who are paying to keep the Liberals in power are not strangers. Many of them are Liberal insiders, union bosses, and people connected to the NDP. These are people who already have power, and they want more. They don’t care if regular Canadians are struggling. They want to control the money, the rules, and the choices Canadians are allowed to make. Unions used to be about helping workers. A long time ago, they fought for fair pay and better working conditions. But today, many big unions care more about their own leaders than the workers they are supposed to protect. They spend millions of dollars supporting the government, even when the government isn’t doing what’s best for the country. Why? Because it helps them keep their power. It doesn’t stop at the news. The government also controls what kids learn in school. They decide what books you read, what topics are taught, and what is said in the classroom. Some kids are not even learning how to think for themselves anymore. They are being told what to think. When you only hear one side of the story over and over, you start to believe it—even if it’s not true. That’s how the government uses teachers and schools to make sure young people grow up believing whatever they are told. If you try to ask questions or think differently, some people might call you names like “far-right” or “dangerous,” just because you want the truth. When people start thinking for themselves, it scares those in power. That’s why the media and government often try to divide us. They tell us to be angry at certain groups. They say if someone disagrees with the government, they must be a bad person. They use words like "racist" or "extremist" to try and shut people up. This makes people afraid to speak their minds. They worry they’ll lose friends or get in trouble for asking honest questions. In a free country, this should never happen. Young people today live on the internet. They use phones, computers, and social media every day. The government knows this. That’s why they try to control what we can see online, too. They say it’s to “protect” people, but really it’s to control what stories are told and what voices are heard. If someone posts a video or article that goes against the government’s message, it might be taken down or hidden. That’s not freedom. That’s control. And the more we let it happen, the worse it will get. If we want to be free, we have to be brave. That means standing up for the truth, even when it’s hard. It means asking questions, thinking for ourselves, and not believing everything we hear on the news or read online. It means supporting real people who care about Canada—not just the ones who want power or money. It also means knowing that we might lose friends or even upset family members. But freedom is more important than being liked by everyone. If we don’t speak up now, the next generation may grow up in a country where no one can think for themselves. This isn’t a wild story or a made-up idea. This is the world we are living in right now. If the government can pay the news to lie, if unions and insiders can buy power, and if kids are being taught not to ask questions—then we are not as free as we think. We need to be careful. We need to be strong. And most of all, we need to stay free.

What Happened to the Sesame Street We All Know and Love?

What Happened to the Sesame Street We All Know and Love? By Dale Jodoin For over 50 years, Sesame Street has been a staple of children’s television, teaching generations of kids their ABCs and 123s. From Big Bird to Elmo, the show became more than just entertainment—it was an educational tool that shaped childhoods around the world. But something is happening to Sesame Street, and it has left many wondering: can we ever get back the version we all loved? The Big Change at Max The biggest shock came in December 2024, when Warner Bros. Discovery announced it would no longer produce new Sesame Street episodes for its streaming service, Max (formerly HBO Max). The decision came as part of a shift in focus—Max wants to cater more to adult and family content, moving away from children’s programming. This means that after Season 55, which premieres in January 2025, the show will need a new home. While older episodes will still be available on Max until at least 2027, the future of new seasons is uncertain. The producers of Sesame Street are now searching for another platform willing to take on the beloved show. But even if it finds a new home, will it still be the same show? A Different Sesame Street for a Different Time Fans have noticed that Sesame Street has changed over the years. The original show, created in 1969, was built around short, engaging segments with colorful puppets, music, and real-life lessons. It featured diverse characters, catchy songs, and a sense of community that felt natural. Parents and kids could watch together, and both enjoyed the humor and lessons. In recent years, however, the show has shifted. Some say it has become more about pushing messages than simple, fun education. The storytelling has changed, and some beloved characters have been altered or even disappeared. Season 56 is expected to move further away from the traditional magazine-style segments and adopt a more narrative-driven format—which could mean fewer classic skits and more scripted episodes. The question many are asking is: why fix something that wasn’t broken? Is Sesame Street Going Woke? Critics argue that Sesame Street has become more focused on political and social agendas than just teaching kids the basics. The show now includes discussions about complex topics that many parents feel aren’t appropriate for young children. Some believe the show is trying too hard to cater to small groups instead of sticking to the broad, welcoming appeal that made it great. The show has always promoted kindness, diversity, and understanding, but today’s version feels more like a lesson in activism than in learning how to share cookies like Cookie Monster. Parents who grew up watching Bert and Ernie’s silly antics or Oscar the Grouch’s grumpy but loveable personality now feel that the show has lost its charm. This shift raises concerns: is there still room for the classic fun that made Sesame Street a success, or is it now just another platform for “modern” messaging? Where Will Sesame Street Go Next? With Max cutting ties, the big question remains—who will pick up Sesame Street? The show could move to another streaming service like Netflix, Disney+, or Amazon Prime. But those companies might demand even more changes, further shifting Sesame Street away from its original feel. The public broadcasting model that made Sesame Street famous has also faded. Once upon a time, PBS aired the show for free, reaching millions of kids across North America. But with its shift to paid platforms like HBO, access to Sesame Street has been harder for many families. If the show moves again, will it become even more exclusive? Some are hopeful that a new network will bring back the old charm. Others worry that no matter where it lands, the show will never be the same again. Can We Bring Back the Old Sesame Street? Many long-time fans would love to see Sesame Street return to its roots—where lessons were simple, fun, and relatable for all kids. But in today’s world, entertainment is no longer just about entertaining. Many shows, including Sesame Street, are trying to meet modern expectations instead of keeping things light and fun for everyone. Is there still a place for classic Sesame Street, where Big Bird and Grover go on silly adventures, and Oscar complains about everything but still has a heart of gold? Can Sesame Street go back to focusing on numbers, letters, and life lessons instead of deeper political themes? Some believe that if enough people speak up, Sesame Street could find a way to balance the old with the new. Others fear that those days are gone forever. A Future Full of Questions No matter what happens, Sesame Street has left an undeniable mark on pop culture and education. The question is: will it continue to be the beloved show for all, or just another program that only appeals to a select few? For now, all we can do is wait and see where Elmo, Cookie Monster, and the gang end up next. But one thing is certain—Sesame Street will never be forgotten, even if it doesn’t look the way we remember.

THE GOLDEN SODA

THE GOLDEN SODA By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Articles Published Columns in Canada and The United States Ah, who has not been victim of a good Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola soda on a cold summer day. The two soda cartels that control the flow of soda across the world. A monopoly made from a 100 year long brand battle. Today, Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola control most of the canned soda. Most brands and most flavors. The two entities have become corporate giants employing millions of people. My question at large. How is it that a 2 litre bottle of Coke or Pepsi retails for more than 2 litres of gasoline? Are we to assume that producing soda from tap water is more expensive then refining crude? Are we to assume that there is that much demand for soda over oil that the cost for a soda is in some cases double. Gas prices today. $1.40/litre. Soda prices $1.50/litre. Why are we paying such premium prices for soda. This is an example of corporate greed. The root of why food prices are what they are. Being a life long business person. I see what they are doing. In business we always look for opportunity. In the case of soda. No one regulates the cost. The final price. These corporations can charge what they want as they are not affected by economies as other corporation may be. But, don’t let that fool you. You will soon see that these corporations come out public. Belly aching on how ‘tariffs’ are affecting the cost of cans they use and they will pass yet another increase to a litre of soda. We live in a run away economy. Regulations are set only to benefit corporation and in part give them opportunity to increases prices. Look at the relation between transportation, manufacturing or producing any particular item and the fluctuation of it’s final price. Gas goes up. Our products go up. Gas goes down. The prices for that same product stay the same. I like to call it the sling shot affect. There always has to be a justification for increasing rates... but no real reason for lowering them. Look at gas. One day it is $1.70. In the morning it is $1.40. Next day $1.80. The following morning $1.45. Companies slowly increase rates without the consumer really realizing it. I just came back from the United States. Within the same City. One gas station had $2.49/gallon. Another down the street $3.59. There is no justification. Same gas station. Soda gouging is out of control. We can’t boycott as for some soda is like gasoline for a car. We are nothing but blinded modern day slaves. Subjected to the will and punishment of corporations.

Canadian Politics on the Ropes

Canadian Politics on the Ropes by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East A turmoil is washing across North America. The Trump administration has embarked on a tariff war that is causing grave concern in Canada. The resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in early January ignited a Liberal leadership contest won by Mark Carney in early March. Mr. Carney is a former Governor of the Bank of Canada and of the Bank of England. With no political experience, he is now the Prime Minister of Canada in a very sensitive political and economic situation, especially with regard to relations with the United States. In the meantime, his becoming leader of the Federal Liberal Party and consequently the Prime Minister of Canada seems to have produced a real tsunami in the polls; reversing the fortunes of the Liberal Party. In December 2024 the Conservative party led by Pierre Poilievre had a commanding advantage of 20 points over the Liberal Party and what looked like an almost certain chance to form the next government. However, this advantage in the polls has suddenly evaporated, as there is a new game in play to determine who will form the next government of Canada. A new National Post-Leger poll shows that 42 per cent of Canadians now say they plan to cast a ballot for Mark Carney’s Liberals, while 39 per cent say they intend to vote for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives. It is a stunning recovery in the polls for Carney’s Liberals. Support for the party, which has governed since 2015, had plummeted over the last year. The Conservatives held a significant lead, suggesting an election would lead to Liberal decimation in the House of Commons and a Poilievre-led supermajority. The Conservative Party now faces a Liberal Party Leader with substantial credentials and work experience both in public service and private business. A Prime Minister who has not held an elected position previously, is also unprecedented in Canadian history. Not since 1984 has a Prime Minister been elected who wasn’t an MP. While John Turner was not a sitting MP when he became prime minister, he had previously served as an MP. He became Liberal Party leader and prime minister in June 1984 but did not win a seat in Parliament until the September 1984 election. There do not appear to be any recent precedents for such a situation in Australia, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom. The Canadian public seems to have reacted to these dynamic and rapid succession of events, and the results are astonishing. With an election call expected within days, before the prorogation of the Parliament expires on the 24th of March, a new national poll shows the Liberals leading the Conservatives by three points. Certainly, the Conservative party will have a difficult time in the weeks leading up to the next federal election. To win, they need to change gears and adapt to this new reality. However, considering the advisers and the inner circle of the leader, they are unlikely to have either the imagination or the tools to make the necessary dynamic and useful changes. I base this opinion on the fact that Mr. Pollievre is surrounded by the same people who lost the 2015 election for Stephen Harper, and subsequently for Andrew Sheer and Erin O’Toole as well. After years of promising to axe the carbon tax, Conservatives watched in obvious horror as Prime Minister Mark Carney did it for them on his first day in office. They could have chosen to take a victory lap here. They could have celebrated the elimination of a policy they had attacked with enormous amounts of political time and resources, and moved on to the far more pressing matters at hand. Instead, they threw a collective temper tantrum. Maybe Mark Carney is not as inexperienced on the political scene as some people have assumed. Mr. Carney’s decision to zero-out the consumer carbon tax with the stroke of his prime ministerial pen is starting to look like a well-laid trap his opponents jumped into, headlong. Melissa Lantsman, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, a former staffer, has suggested that “he’s pausing it for the election so he can trick you into believing it’s gone.” Former CPC leader Andrew Scheer, also lacking in all but political experience, described this move as “a con,” apparently all part of his “Carbon Tax Scam.” Finally, Pierre Poilievre got into the act, putting the cherry on top, with the accusation that, “After 9 years of battling for a carbon tax, do you really trust the Liberals not to bring it back? Dream on.” The trauma of watching their signature campaign pledge enacted by their new opponent reverberated throughout the Conservative universe. Really, the Conservative Party needs to change its approach, like yesterday. Changing their approach is the only way they can possibly secure victory. We will soon see if they are capable of the changes needed to focus on the real issues generated by the adversarial relations developing with Canada’s Southern neighbour. Pierre Poilievre needs to realize that the biggest political danger for him might be on the Canada-U.S. file, which has taken on an understandably existential dimension over the last few months. In an election that will be fought over who can best protect Canada’s economy from President Trump, Pierre Poilievre needs to find reliable ideas to put to Canadians, in order to win. Here is the question: will he be able to do so in the short period of time available? Otherwise, he will go down in history as a Don Quixote,”tilting at windmills” Let us hope for the best.

PRESERVING OSHAWA’S PAST THE FIGHT TO SAVE THE CITY’S CULTURAL HERITAGE

PRESERVING OSHAWA’S PAST THE FIGHT TO SAVE THE CITY’S CULTURAL HERITAGE By Dean Hickey MANY OSHAWA RESIDENTS WERE SADDENED to see the demolition of Cowan House, one of the city’s oldest surviving examples of early Georgian architecture, in the summer of 2022. The property, across the street from city hall, has now been cleared and construction is set to begin on a 16-storey, 172 unit condominium. Heritage Oshawa is a municipal advisory committee that was formed for the purpose of advising City Council on all matters relating to preserving the city’s cultural heritage, including buildings and structures. Prior to the sale and demolition of Cowan House (circa 1858), the committee recommended that it be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Anglican Church which owned the building opposed such a designation, and was ultimately supported by a majority of city councillors. A similar loss of one of Oshawa’s last remaining pre-confederation homes occurred at a property on Thornton Rd. N. where no less than seven new dwellings have been built in place of what was a gothic-style residence built in 1840, and once the home of Edward French, an early Oshawa merchant, as well as Joseph Gould who, for many years was a Justice of the Peace and a Commissioner of the High Court of Justice. Such history within the community is worth preserving, not only in archival documents and photographs, but in the form of houses and other buildings that provide a visual guide as to our collective past. Presently, there are two properties that have been the subject of debate over whether re-development or what is now known as ‘adaptive re-use’ should take precedence over heritage preservation. City councillors decided early last year to designate the century-old former Harmony Public School and to pursue the matter all the way to the Ontario Land Tribunal if necessary, despite objections from the property owners who want to tear it down for a proposed development. A similar appeal process is currently under way for Robert McLaughlin House, located on Simcoe St. N. not far from the city’s downtown. This property fell victim to arson and a gaping hole has been visible in the roof for a number of years as the battle between city hall and the property owner drags on. Among my examples, we have two properties lost, one that may very well be saved from the wrecking ball, and one that will likely not survive the appeal process in its current state of disrepair. Mixed results to be sure, however the struggle to preserve future at-risk properties continues. I had occasion to chat with well-known Oshawa resident Robert Bell, who is also a member of the Heritage Oshawa committee, and we discussed all manner of ongoing preservation efforts within the city. His interest began many years ago when he represented his church as they were seeking to have their property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. That was in 2012, and since that time he has been an active participant in a process which at times has been rewarding, and at others certainly less so as demolitions occur in spite of the committee’s efforts. When asked about the highs and lows of trying to save Oshawa’s history, my friend was sanguine in his reply, “I’m an eternal optimist, always trying to see something good in everything, and I never take things personally.” He went on to add, “I give advice only, and it’s important to remember that I am not an ultimate decision maker when it comes to the fate of historic properties.” All the while telling me he wasn’t in a position to speak on behalf of Heritage Oshawa, Robert was able to identify one preservation effort that he felt illustrated both positive and negative elements; that being the renovations to the 1929 Genosha Hotel building located at 70 King St. E. “The building had long since been designated, and proposals to do something with the property came and went over the years, with many people in the community simply looking forward to the day such an ‘eyesore’ would be pulled down” he said. “I felt lucky to be on the Heritage Committee when the building was finally gutted and its exterior fully restored, as we were permitted access that enabled us to see the transformation close up.” My friend described this project as a perfect example of what he says should be done, meaning a successful adaptive re-use. However, along with the obvious enthusiasm at urban renewal, there are always detractors, which Robert says is unhelpful. “During the process, as I saw the interior of the Genosha taken down to its structural elements only, there were some who felt the need to comment on social media that the place was nothing more than a ‘fire trap’ and of little value to anyone” he said. We shared a laugh as to what could possibly burn in a structure that by that time had been reduced to brick and steel. Of course, the building is now an architecturally significant condominium with a major food court at street level, but that doesn’t take away the memories my friend has when it comes to the naysayers. “It was troubling, because comments were circulating on Facebook that effectively hurt the entire community, with some saying - there’s Oshawa spending money on a fire-trap, a piece of garbage - and that is such a negative outlook in the face of those who were trying to do some good.” Circling back to the issue of Cowan House and its unfortunate demise, we discussed what I suggested was a missed opportunity to create a sort of ‘heritage district’ by preserving the entire block bounded by Simcoe, Athol, Centre, and Bagot Sts. within the very heart of the city. As it happens, Oshawa has only one such designation, that being the collection of wartime buildings at the airport. My further concern was the loss of most buildings that stood prior to the year 1900, however my friend was quick to say “You must remember that 19th century Oshawa was not a big place, and most of that is in our downtown.” As to the city’s future and all that might be done to save its built heritage only time will tell, but as long as there are dedicated volunteers ready to do what is necessary, Oshawa residents can look forward to seeing much of their built history remain for generations to come.

Sudden Surge of Fake Patriotism in Pickering

Sudden Surge of Fake Patriotism in Pickering By Lisa Robinson For over six months, I have been advocating for a simple but meaningful change—playing the national anthem before council meetings. I have also pushed for a motion that government buildings should only fly government flags, ensuring that we stand united as Canadians under one national flag, rather than dividing ourselves with symbols that cater to personal ideologies. Yet, despite my efforts, these proposals have been met with resistance from the very people who now drape themselves in the flag, claiming to be the champions of “Team Canada.” What changed? Donald Trump and tariffs. Suddenly, my council—who previously scoffed at these ideas of national unity—has discovered a newfound love for Canada. Councillors who once dismissed patriotism as outdated or exclusionary are now grandstanding about Canadian values, not because they believe in them, but because they see political advantage in aligning themselves with anti-Trump sentiment. And let’s talk about the Mayor's childish behavior here. Mayor Ashe himself told me directly that the reason he refused to move forward with my motion to play the national anthem was “not because of the message, but because of the messenger.” That’s right—he admitted that it wasn’t about whether the idea was good or meaningful—it was about who suggested it. That kind of petty, ego-driven decision-making is not just unprofessional—it’s undemocratic. Now, suddenly, the Mayor is reversing course. Why? Because it fits the new “Team Canada” narrative. He’s not doing this because it’s the right thing to do—he’s doing it because it’s politically convenient. And it’s not just Pickering. The Region of Durham is now also rushing through a procedural bylaw change to play the national anthem before meetings. This isn’t about patriotism—it’s about optics. It’s about riding the wave of anti-Trump sentiment and capitalizing on the idea of national unity for political gain. Let’s be clear—real patriotism is not performative. It’s not about reacting to a news cycle or using Canada’s name as a prop in political theater. It’s about consistent dedication to our country, its principles, and its people. That’s why I proudly brought the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights into our offices. That’s why I have pictures outside my office showcasing my favorite places in Pickering—because I genuinely love this city and this country. That’s why I continue to push for policies that reflect unity, not division. Meanwhile, some councillors continue to treat their offices like personal billboards, displaying flags that do not represent the people of Pickering as a whole, but rather their own political agendas. These same individuals resisted my efforts to establish true symbols of unity—yet now they want to pose as defenders of Canadian interests. The hypocrisy is glaring. Patriotism isn’t a costume you put on when it’s politically convenient. It’s not a temporary reaction to trade disputes. It’s a steadfast commitment to the values that make Canada strong—freedom, unity, and national pride. And no amount of performative flag-waving from my council colleagues will change the fact that their sudden enthusiasm for “Team Canada” is nothing more than a hollow, self-serving act. And if Mayor Ashe and the rest of council truly believe chairing meetings and listening to the public is such a burden, I’ll gladly take that off their hands. I’d happily chair every meeting myself if it means giving the people of Pickering the respect and voice they deserve. That’s real leadership. That’s real service. That’s real patriotism. It’s time we stop pretending this is about unity and start calling it what it is: political theatre. The people of Pickering deserve leaders who stand up for Canada because they believe in it—not because it’s suddenly popular. I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor

The Home Business

The Home Business By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist For the last few weeks, I have been writing about the redecorating and updating underway in my eighty-year-old house. At the moment, we are waiting on materials to be able to carry on, so I decided to take a break from that and talk about a question that was posed to me by an acquaintance a few weeks ago regarding running her small business from her home. My friend, Marsha, was hoping to open a home-based bakery type of business in Oshawa. She wondered if it would matter what type of home she lived in and if she could operate her home business form any area of the city. Although I am a realtor, I focus on residential real estate therefore my knowledge of commercial real estate is limited. I did have some experience of a personal nature though. The experience as it turned out was completely irrelevant in her case because it was too old. I recalled back in the early 80’s when I was living in Scarborough, I had just had my daughter, and I was home everyday with her while my husband was at work. I had always loved to bake, so I had thought to myself that I might like to operate a small baked goods business where I would make things throughout the day, and they could be picked up or delivered in the evenings. The first order of business was to call the health board to get a home inspection. The fellow came about a week after I made the appointment to have a look around. Although the house was impeccable, I was told that I could not get a license to operate because the was no separation from the rest of the house as far as the kitchen went. The business at that time had to be in a commercial space, a residential space was not permissible. Fast forward forty years. Now with the Dine Safe program and relaxed licensing criteria, many people are safely operating wonderful home-based bakeries. There definitely are rules and regulations to be followed. Licenses must be obtained, and premises are monitored and inspected on a regular basis to keep your green operating status. It seems much of how we operate today has changed to suit the need as is always the case. So, If you’re thinking about opening a home-based business of any kind, I would suggest calling the city. There are several different types of licenses you can apply for. The inspectors still come out to deem your space appropriate or not for whatever you intend to do. There are applications to fill out and fees to pay but for many, it’s a wonderful opportunity to work for themselves, and make a great contribution to the community by providing a service that many may want. If you have any questions that you would like answered please drop me a line here at the paper and I’ll be happy to address them.

Four Types of Value to Offer Employers

Four Types of Value to Offer Employers By Nick Kossovan Many job seekers won't like the following: When you're not selected for an interview, for subsequent interviews, or hired, chances are the hiring manager didn't think you'd be a value-add to the company. When a hiring manager considers a candidate, especially during the interview phase, they ask themselves four essential questions: 1. Can this person do the work? 2. Can this person be relied on and trusted? 3. Will this person fit in and not be a disruptor? 4. Will this person add value to the business? The fourth question is the determining factor; thus, knowing how to pitch your value is paramount to expediting your job search and propelling your career upward. At a certain point in your career, everything becomes sales. Convincing your boss, or their boss, that your idea makes sense, explaining how a project will pay off, helping employees understand the benefits of a new process, etc. All these activities are sales-like, requiring showing value (read: what's in it for them) to achieve the desired "Yes!" A job search is essentially orchestrating a sales process via job search activities like writing your resume, crafting a cover letter, creating and regularly updating your LinkedIn profile, networking, and, of course, interviewing, which is a sales meeting where you close the sale. If your aspiration is to have a meteoric career and to lessen job search frustrations—which you’ll inevitably conduct multiple times throughout your career—then you'd greatly benefit from mastering the key components of sales: an appealing value proposition, a compelling narrative, and supporting facts and data to establish trust. If there's anything that resonates with hiring managers, it's a value proposition. However, most job seekers fail to convey the value they can provide to an employer and expect to be hired regardless. The key to success in today's fiercely competitive job market is to clearly communicate how you'll add value to one or more of the following factors that contribute to a company's success: Revenue Generation "Never take your eyes off the cash flow because it's the lifeblood of business." - Sir Richard Branson. The king of value-adds a candidate can offer is revenue generation. Revenue is a company's earnings before deducting operating expenses; hence, it sustains its existence. Demonstrating a proven record of generating revenue for your previous employers is a powerful tool in your job search toolkit. The more clearly you can articulate how you'll contribute to the employer's profits, the more likely you'll be hired. An example would be a sales manager who increased sales by 30% in a year by implementing a new CRM system. When interviewed, they present documents (e.g., reports)—evidence—that contain specific data points, such as the percentage increase in sales and how they achieved it through targeted marketing strategies. In other words, they show their revenue-generating skills, analytical skills, and understanding of market dynamics instead of simply "telling." Worth noting: With all the bad actors in the job market making exaggerated claims about their skills and experience, providing evidence in the form of supporting documents is a strategic approach to gain your interviewer's trust while answering the aforementioned second question about your trustworthiness. Savings The ability to create savings is a significant value-add. After generating revenue, a company's primary objective is to monitor its expenses and, when necessary, reduce them without sacrificing quality. Imagine a project manager who cut costs by 20% through renegotiating contracts with suppliers and improving workflows. When interviewing, they provide details on specific initiatives they undertook, such as implementing a more efficient project management tool that resulted in fewer hours lost. Presenting these metrics—offering evidence—via supporting documents highlights their ability to save money and reflects their resourcefulness and strategic thinking. Innovation Business survival requires staying relevant to an ever-changing economic and business landscape and fickle consumer demands; hence, employers gravitate to candidates who demonstrate outside-the-box thinking and innovation. Consider, for instance, a marketing professional who designed and executed a successful social media campaign that significantly raised brand awareness. During the interview, discuss their creative process, the tools they used for analytics, and the impressive results, such as a 50% increase in engagement and a measurable boost in website traffic, which they provide evidence to support. By demonstrating their innovative mindset, they demonstrate their value and potential to drive future growth. Leadership Individuals who can inspire and lead teams to achieve common goals are rare and, therefore, are highly valued by employers. Regardless of the position you're applying for or interviewing for, effectively communicating your leadership skills will make you a strong candidate. Think of a team lead who spearheaded a project necessitating cross-departmental collaboration. When interviewed, they share STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) stories about how they managed diverse teams, resolved conflicts, and motivated, illustrating their leadership style. Additionally, they share anecdotes explaining how their leadership improved team performance and morale, resulting in quantifiable results, such as an increase of 15% in productivity. Ultimately, you want to shift the conversation from "Why should we hire you?" to "How will you help us succeed?" Focusing on showcasing your value will significantly increase your chances of landing the job. ___________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

The Three Examples Of Persuasion In And Out Of My House And How They Are Impactful

The Three Examples Of Persuasion In And Out Of My House And How They Are Impactful by Kadin McElwain: As a society, we are used to seeing methods of persuasion on a regular basis. Whether it be the standard commercial for KFC’s new Cheetos Chicken Sandwich or your mom trying to convince you to do the dishes tonight after dinner, persuasion is a major part of our culture. This idea makes me reflect on elements of persuasion that I see in and outside of my house when I’m doing my routine for the day. More specifically, I think of three examples that apply to not only me, but society as a whole. These examples are the television set, the billboard, and the radio. These three examples are not necessarily the main persuaders, but they are distributors of persuasion, which makes them complicit in the persuasion cycle. The television, billboard and radio are normally used to advertise a good or service a company is trying to sell you. These tactics could be something as simple as a catchy jingle made for a donut shop or something as complex as a statue of a cow painting a billboard message that urges you to go to the chicken sandwich restaurant to protect them from being turned into burgers. Looking at our textbook, we know that persuasion “should take into account the rich complex of verbal, nonverbal, and contextual cues found in interpersonal encounters” (Gass and Seiter, p. 32). The three items listed take all three of these concepts into account, with the television and radio being the most prominent, as they use audio and visual cues in their commercials to persuade you to buy the product being advertised. One notable example of this in the sense of the radio is a lost 1954 radio advertisement for Southern Maid Donuts featuring Elvis Presley, which featured the jingle “You can get them piping hot after 4PM” (Blazeski, 2017). This company used the radio and one of the biggest stars at the time to convince consumers that their donuts were the best. In the sense of the television set, the persuasion mediums that are used are video and audio, as seen in many commercials. In the sense of the billboard, the persuasion mediums used would be print and the occasional QR code that people can scan to head to the social media page of the company. Finally, in the sense of the radio, the persuasion medium used would be the audio medium. These three items give companies the platform to persuade consumers to buy their products and/or that their product is better than the other brand. Additionally, thanks to the rise of social media, all three of these platforms allow even more companies to persuade consumers to buy their products or services, whether it be through a QR code leading to the social media page, a DM from a company discussing their product, or even getting some influencers to promote their product with just the click of a button. But what kind of tactics are used by both the companies and the distributors of persuasion to make their point? Three of the most notable persuasion tactics that we see used in all three persuasion distributors are pathos, ethos, and logos. Going back to the 1954 Southern Maid Donuts radio advertisement, the element of ethos can be seen, or heard in this case, through the use of a celebrity endorsement, more specifically, Elvis Presley. In the sense of the billboard, a notable example of the pathos element is in Lego’s three-part “Violence, Drugs, Sex” series, which uses the emotional appeal of wanting to protect your child to convince parents not to let their child watch too much television. In the sense of television, the notable example of logos used is the infamous “15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on car insurance” advertisements from GEICO, which hypes up the savings people can receive on their insurance if they switch over to them. All three persuasion channels allow companies to use pathos, ethos, and logos to persuade consumers to buy their product or service for one reason or another. To conclude, the three items I chose that use persuasion are the television set, the billboard, and the radio. These items aren’t necessarily the persuaders, but they are rather the persuasion distributors for companies looking to sell a new product or service. These companies not only use audio, video, and elements of social media to make their point, but also use logos, ethos, and pathos to persuade the consumers to buy the good or service that they are selling. Our culture is defined by persuasion. But we just need to be aware and pay attention to the types of persuasion.

Dominoes

Dominoes By Wayne & Tamara I am the father of two children and a husband for 12 years. I love my son and daughter dearly, but my relationship with my wife has been suffering for years. In fact, it has evolved into more of a business relationship than a marriage. There is no passion between us. Sex is rare and mutually sans emotion. I wouldn’t call it miserable, but we argue every day and don’t treat each other with the love we each deserve. I’ve been a committed and faithful husband even though my marriage has left many emotional needs unmet. We are best friends with another couple who also have two young kids. Since the day I met her, I’ve suppressed an attraction which grew stronger as I got to know her wonderful personality. After years of secretly fighting off the mutual passion and frequent flirting right in front of our spouses, we both gave in. She would describe her marriage exactly the same as I do. My relationship with my wife was rocky even before we got married, but I thought I loved her and figured we'd grow closer together as we aged and had kids. Now I know what love really feels like. We agreed one day we'd probably end our marriages, if not for the kids. Knowing our vision may be clouded by the excitement of this long anticipated romance, we've agreed not to talk about taking action for one year. We can't stand to be apart. We’ve spent several nights and days together in hotels. In fact, we've had more sex together in three months than in our own marriages over 10 years! The lying and deceit is hard to think about. We don't feel we’re “that kind of people," but we’ll do almost anything to be together. Strangely, neither of us feels much guilt about the cheating. In fact, we both avoid sex with our spouses due to reversed guilt feelings. We engage in risky behavior and talk about the I-don't-care-if-we-get-caught feelings trickling through our minds. We know what could happen if we get caught. If this relationship continues to grow and we take action, we want it to be on the right terms and at the right time. You hear from many people involved in affairs. When you read my words, what are your thoughts, opinions, and observations? Evan Evan, we often hear stories like yours. They start with a snare. Before you were born the snare was set by people who claim there is a fix for every relationship. You thought a rocky relationship could be fixed with a wedding, and a rocky marriage could be fixed with a couple of kids. Somehow that seemed logical to you at the time, though it’s a little like trying to fix indebtedness by taking on more debt. But that echo in your head—every relationship can be fixed—allowed you to irrationally go forward. So if the fix to bad dating is marriage, and the fix to a bad marriage is children, then the fix to spare your children divorce is adultery. Children are little animals who can sniff out anything. That is meant in the most positive way. They are masses of energy and life. They move on absolute base instinct. They aren’t tricking themselves or performing skullduggery on themselves. They are like the doe in the woods. I smell humans. I smell unhappiness. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are fooling our kids. You said yourself you are engaging in risky behavior which may be found out. If the children don’t learn the details, the minimum they will learn is marriage is conflict. And if they learn the details, who knows what they will learn. And how will that affect their future? It’s just going farther down the rabbit hole, because there isn’t a fix for a marriage which should not have occurred. Wayne & Tamara SEND LETTERS TO: Directanswers@WayneAndTamara.com Wayne & Tamara are the authors of Cheating in a Nutshell and The Young Woman’s Guide to Older Men—available from Amazon, Apple, and booksellers everywhere.

Ban Foods Causing Fatty Livers in Young Children

Ban Foods Causing Fatty Livers in Young Children By W. Gifford-Jones MD and Diana Gifford How many parents know this shocking fact? The American Liver Foundation reports that 10 percent of young children have fatty degeneration of the liver. It’s due to horrid food consumption practices, too much sugar and fat, leading to childhood obesity before the age of 10! Once fatty liver disease takes hold, there is no medication to cure it. Only immediate lifestyle changes can slow its progression. Among the culprits are large cereal corporations that persuade children to eat sugary cereals. This at a time when obesity and type 2 diabetes have reached pandemic proportions. An economic report shows treating obesity costs North Americans $147 billion dollars and diabetes $412 billion yearly! So, why are medical professionals and politicians totally inept at ending this catastrophic medical disaster in children? Studies show obese children become obese adults. Just look around. We are all witnesses to the phenomenon. Everyone must ask, what has happened to our society? For instance, surgeons are used to seeing large amounts of fat when operating on adults with diseased organs. Patients need to know that this excessive fat increases the risks for surgery complications due to the length of the operation, requiring increased time for anesthesia, greater chance of a surgical error, and increased risk of post operative infection and pain. But when young children are the innocent victims of excess weight gain from poor lifestyle, it is to the great shame of our society. Instead of complacency, this injustice should get the adrenaline flowing! How many times must it be made clear? Heart disease is not the number one killer. Rather it’s obesity. Don’t forget that viral diseases like COVID-19 killed millions but lasted just three years! Obesity kills year after year! And it’s associated with serious and costly medical complications. One would think that this would make media headlines flash in red. For a start, health authorities should ask some piercing questions to the executives of food corporations. They should know that a major contributor to obesity in children is the excess sugar in cereals marketed heavily to them. These same cereals lack fiber, an ingredient that would provide dietary bulk, signalling to the stomach a sense of lasting fullness and supporting healthy digestion. The government should then ask why food companies add honey and other additional sweeteners. The executives will respond that kids like sugary calories, and if they don’t add sugar, they will lose business to their competitors. Regulators should put an end to it. One, limit how much is allowed. Two, educate the public about the consequences of eating junk. The government should devise other ways to reduce the unhealthy poundage of North American society. New synthetic drugs to treat obesity and Type 2 diabetes are already causing complications in adults and should not be used in children. Better nutrition and proper exercise do not kill, involve lessons of responsibility, and should always be the preferred path to a long, healthy life. When people continue to make bad choices for societal wellbeing, the government needs to take action. Rampant obesity and diabetes are blaring the call. Remember, type 2 diabetes is a leading cause of blindness, kidney failure, heart attack, and leg amputation. Sad prospects for obese children. Food companies must face legislation to stop children form suffering later problems. Family need step bathroom scales and use calorie counters to avoid the huge calories in some foods. Everyone should use their legs more often. Don’t hold your breath to see the name Gifford-Jones appointed Common Sense Health Czar. But were it to happen, there would be no obese children. Legislation would be passed. Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive our weekly e-newsletter. For comments, contact-us@docgiff.com. Follow us Instagram @docgiff and @diana_gifford_jones

An Effective Nuisance Bylaw

An Effective Nuisance Bylaw By Maurice Brenner Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering While the majority of residents in Pickering and thoughtful and respectful when disposing of litter, unfortunately there are those who do not, and their disrespect for our communities has resulted in bags of garbage thrown on public and private properties. Not only is it unsightly but potentially causes damage to the environment. On a regular basis , I receive numerous calls, as well as seeing numerous posts on Social media from frustrated residents demanding the Municipality do something to stop this practise and clean up the garbage. The solution however can not be just solved by Municipal Government, it takes a collective approach and partnership with residents. Many will ask, what’s the point?, even if we report what we see there is no enforcement and no consequences. I believe that the City of Pickering’s recent anti-littering campaign is a step in the right direction. By establishing a marketing campaign that will engage with residents and stakeholders in an effort to create greater awareness of the negative impacts of littering and a call for the majority to be the eyes on the street to report the minority who litter is a good start. Coupled with a new and effective nuisance bylaw, reporting can and will have consequences for those who litter. But what’s the use you may be thinking, no one is ever charged. In the short period that the nuisance bylaw has been implemented, City staff have already inspected over 115 bags of garbage, looking for anything that can identify the source that has littered the City. Currently 15 cases are before the Courts with charges having been laid and others in the works. While together we can and will step up to clean up public streets, there will always continue to be those who are not deterred by the risk of consequences, our message to those who continue to disrespect our City is clean up your act or face the consequences. YOU WILL GET CAUGHT. Watch for my next column as we tackle speeding on our Roads

What if I Told You Ageism Doesn't Exist?

What if I Told You Ageism Doesn't Exist? By Nick Kossovan When you read the title of this column, where did your focus and mental energy immediately go? What if, when job searching, instead of obsessing about all the things you can't control—biases, economic factors, the job market, employer’s hiring process—you focused on what you can control, such as creating and maintaining a professional network, tailoring your resume and cover letter for each application, managing your digital footprint, and cultivating a positive mindset. Wouldn’t this be a more effective approach to your job search? Every job seeker I encounter seems fixated on what they can't control. LinkedIn has become an echo chamber of pity, dominated by posts vilifying employers, giving unsolicited advice to employers who'll never read it, and venting about ageism, being overqualified, or ghosting. Participating in these discussions doesn't reflect well on you when employers check your profile to evaluate whether you're interview-worthy. You're likely familiar with the quote attributed to theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." This emphasizes the importance of accepting situations you can’t change and directing your energy towards what you can influence. As a job seeker, you can't control: Someone's Biases: Do yourself a favour; stop trying to control the beliefs and behaviours of other people. Whether it's age, ethnicity, or any other characteristic, you can't change how someone perceives (read: interprets) you. Biases are a fact of life, and dwelling on them only drains energy. Speaking of biases: Why do people fail to recognize their own biases but see them in others? The Economy and the Job Market: Yes, economic downturns, market fluctuations, industry trends, government policies, and global events contribute to the job market landscape, but you have no influence over them. My advice is to say to yourself, "It is what it is," and turn your attention elsewhere. The Hiring Process: Employers own their hiring process. You can't control how an employer structures their hiring process, accesses candidates, or how long they take to make a decision. Since no two employers hire the same way, job searching is unpredictable, leading to frustration if you let it dominate your mindset. I often see the unpredictability of hiring; what one employer views as a positive might be seen as a negative by another. For example, hiring manager A might determine, based on the level of your previous job and/or your age, that you're overqualified and, therefore, will soon become bored and leave. Conversely, hiring manager B might perceive you as a potential role model for younger employees, in addition to bringing a wealth of knowledge and experience. Subjective perception, the basis for creating bias, plays a crucial role in hiring decisions. Company Culture: You're either a fit or you're not. Trying to contort yourself in hopes of appearing to be someone who'll "fit in" is pointless. If you get the job but can't be yourself, you won't be happy. Hiring managers know their company's culture much better than you, especially its nuances; hence, trust them if they determine you won't be a good fit. Past Experiences: What's done is done. If there's anything to learn from a mistake, do so and move on. Dwelling in the past only creates unnecessary anxiety. As a job seeker, you can control: Creating and Maintaining a Professional Network: Your professional network is your lifeline in terms of job search and career advancement; thus, it's the most influential factor in your job search. Given that the correlation between networking and job search success is common knowledge, you undoubtedly know the primary benefit of networking; access to unadvertised opportunities. I highly recommend reading Never Eat Alone by Keith Ferrazzi. Tailoring Your Resume and Cover Letter: Each job application should feel personalized, highlighting your skills and experiences that directly relate to the position you're pursuing. "I applied to over 700 jobs in three months" isn't a flex. As far as job searching is concerned, submitting two quality applications daily is significantly better than the 'spray and pray' method that most job seekers resort to. Your Digital Footprint: Be mindful of your online presence. Your social media activity reflects your professionalism. A messy digital footprint is a red flag to employers, just as not having one makes you appear out of touch. Practicing Interview Skills: The best hack I know for honing your interview skills is to have more conversations with family, friends, acquaintances, and strangers and ask more open-ended questions ("How did you spend this past weekend?" "What made you decide to become an accountant?" "What's your go-to restaurant?"). The more comfortable you become having conversations, the better you'll perform in interviews, which are essentially a conversation. Maintaining a Positive Mindset: Your attitude impacts your job search. Control your mindset by practicing mindfulness and gratitude. Focus on what you can achieve, not on what you believe is holding you back. Another book recommendation: Rewire Your Mindset: Own Your Thinking, Control Your Actions, Change Your Life! by Brian Keane. As in life, what you focus on determines where your energy goes; therefore, choose your focus wisely. ___________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

My Old House - Part Five

My Old House - Part Five By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist What a difference a door makes! So, last week we left off with the living room having been painted with six coats of soft yellow paint, and a new door being installed in the kitchen. I cannot tell you what a difference the door has made. I never realized just how much light is blocked by the steel or wood make up of a door until now. The model I chose is a single full glass door going out to the backyard. It has a roller shade built in between the glass panes. The amount of light streaming through this door is quite impressive. I have a lot of plants in the kitchen so needless to say they are loving this. It’s one of those things where I think to myself, I wish I had done this earlier but of course we don’t know until we know. With the door installed in the kitchen, that room is now complete. The coastal theme though, is proving to be a little harder to pull off than I had originally thought. The entry hall is the beautiful seafoam green; the living room was going to be green to match but at the last minute I went with the yellow of the kitchen to match that side of the room. That may have been a mistake. A mistake that will unfortunately cost me a few hundred dollars to correct. I need to get this right. I was afraid to go with three separate colours for the hall, the living room and the kitchen which are all open onto each other. I thought it would be too much and not look good. I am thinking differently now though. I absolutely love corals, and I am now thinking that I want to put coral in the living room. A big part of the problem when it comes to the living room is the window in the middle of the room. The window itself is only 22 inches wide. It’s tiny and looks ridiculous in the living room so to offset the look, I went out and purchased a longer curtain rod and extended the rod and have the curtains full and extended to about 4 to 5 feet. Trying to find curtains that go with a coastal look is not easy. Most coastal looks incorporate sheers for that flowy, breezy look which I, by the way love. I cannot do that here though because you would then see the wall on either side of the 22-inch window and it would look ridiculous. Right now, I have blue drapes with white sheers in the middle to go nicely with the yellow walls. That said, the look is a classic look not a coastal look. So, now I have 2 different themes going on in the living room and it is clear that I am in a bit of a pickle. I’m really not sure what my next move will be to try to get the look I am going for. Hopefully the weekend will bring inspiration.