Showing posts with label Chisu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chisu. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2026
Dead and Gone… Are You Sure It’s Covered?
Dead and Gone…
Are You Sure It’s Covered?
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
There is a question many families ask, often quietly - sometimes sitting together after everything has already happened. “Would it have been easier if this had already been arranged?”
They are usually talking about prepaid funeral plans. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand what those plans actually do - and what they don’t. From the outside, prepaid arrangements sound simple. You make decisions ahead of time. You pay in advance. When the time comes, everything is taken care of.
In some ways, that is true. But like many things connected to funerals, the details matter more than people expect.
A prepaid plan is not always a single thing. Some plans lock in specific services and prices. Others simply set aside funds that will be used later. Some are guaranteed. Others depend on how costs change over time. Those differences are not always obvious at the beginning. I have spoken with families who believed everything had been taken care of, only to discover later that certain items were not included. Not because anyone did something wrong. But because the plan did not cover everything they assumed it would. I’ve seen the look when they realize it wasn’t as clear as they thought. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel steady enough to ask one simple question: “What exactly is included?” Not just generally. Line by line.
Does the plan include transportation? Paperwork? Staff services? Facilities? Is it tied to a specific funeral home? Are third-party costs included, or will those be separate later? Those questions matter more than the label “prepaid.” There is another part that can be confusing. Portability. Many prepaid plans are connected to a specific provider. If someone moves, or if the family prefers to use a different funeral home, transferring the plan is not always straightforward. Sometimes it can be done. Sometimes there are limitations. If I were gone, I would want my family to know where the plan applies - and what happens if circumstances change. I would also want them to understand something that is not always talked about directly.
A prepaid plan can reduce decision-making. It does not remove it completely. Even when arrangements are set in advance, the family still makes choices when the time comes. Dates. Timing. Small details that were not part of the original plan. I have seen families feel relief knowing certain decisions were already made. I have also seen families feel unsure about whether to follow the plan exactly, or adjust it.
If I could leave one quiet message, it would be this: Do not feel bound by a plan in a way that adds pressure. A prepaid arrangement is meant to guide, not to create stress. There is also the financial side. Many people choose prepaid plans to protect their family from rising costs. In some cases, guaranteed plans do lock in pricing. In others, the funds set aside may not keep pace with future costs.
If I were gone, I would want my family to understand whether the plan is guaranteed, or simply a contribution toward future expenses. I would also want them to know where the funds are held. In Ontario, prepaid money is typically placed in trust or backed by insurance. That structure exists to protect families. Still, it is reasonable to ask how the plan is funded and how it will be accessed when needed.
If I could leave one practical suggestion, it would be this: If a prepaid plan exists, review it. Not just once, and not just when it is purchased. Look at it again over time. Make sure it still reflects what is wanted.
And make sure someone else knows it exists. Because a plan only helps if the people who need it can find it and understand it. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel supported by whatever had been arranged - not surprised by it. Preplanning can be a gift.
But its value depends on how clearly it is understood.
Next week, I will write about something many families hesitate to start: how to have a conversation about funeral wishes without it feeling uncomfortable or overwhelming.
Could Air Travel Be Any Worse?
Could Air Travel Be Any Worse?
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
Air travel isn’t what it used to be. “Getting there” is no longer half the fun. It’s an exercise in survival. We’ve achieved incredible feats in aviation. Yet somehow, we’ve lost our way when it comes to intercontinental travel.
Flying back to Toronto from Tokyo, I looked with envy at the business class seats as I shuffled with many other annoyed passengers to the back of the craft. Then, with everyone seated, an allergic reaction to something caused serious trouble for a flight crew member, delaying departure for two hours. We sat there at the gate, squished in, wishing, praying, we were somewhere else.
It’s a conundrum. Because travelling is important. I’m convinced the world would be a better place if we all had more experience making friends in faraway places. For one thing, it’s a lot harder to bomb, starve, or otherwise destroy the lives of people if you have shared time together and truly understand each other.
Is there anything we can do to reverse the dehumanizing trajectory of air travel?
Airlines might be more motivated, frankly, if more people were dying as a result of their service. But deaths on flights are rare – around 1 per 5 million passengers. Remarkably, I’ve been on an international flight where this happened. We made an emergency landing in Rome, resulting in an all-night international dispute about which country would be responsible for the deceased. Trust me, you don’t want someone to die on your flight.
Maybe more of us almost dying would be the ticket. But I’m not sure, because we have already become our most indecent selves as it is. And the airlines don’t seem to care. They jam us into impossibly cramped spaces. They serve horrendous food. I’ve seen flight attendants ignore people calling out for water, or mercy, in the rare moment they pass by.
Aviation technology has made it easier to fly across the planet. But never have we all been more miserable doing it.
Physically, what happens to your body when you fly? Fluid builds up in the lower legs due to lack of movement, water retention from salty food, and lower cabin pressure. Dry cabin air causes dehydration. Jet lag disrupts sleep, digestion, and mood. Infections spread readily. Pressure in the ear and sinus cavities can be intense at take-off and landing.
It’s all bad, but not bad enough to counter the economic forces driving efficiency considerations. Corporations crush social well-being, even as they pretend to care about it.
Passengers leave decent behaviours at the airport check-in curb. We cope by ignoring each other. We glue our eyes to screens. We get anxious and annoyed with every inconvenience. We don’t acknowledge the person sitting right beside us as we recline our seat into the face of the person behind us.
My flight home was made worse by turbulence that prevented the crew from providing service. We eventually got a meal, but no drinks, precisely when a little alcohol might have eased the frustration.
On the bright side, research shows it is possible to offset unhealthy circumstances with healthy behaviours. For example, following up with exercise, healthy meals and hydration, and social time with friends can blunt the negative effects of long flights, drinking excessively, or missing sleep.
I have little hope flying is going to get any better. But if travel can increase empathy and broaden perspective, then perhaps that’s why, despite cramped seats, lost luggage, and endless lines, millions of people keep boarding airplanes every day. Somewhere on the other side of the discomfort is the reward of discovering the world.
Bans Versus Boundaries Finding a Solution to Teenage Social Media Usage
Bans Versus Boundaries
Finding a Solution to Teenage Social Media Usage
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
Social media is something engraved into the lives of billions of people around the globe, practically unavoidable in daily life. These platforms have many benefits, as they are an accessible tool for connection, communication, entertainment, and self-expression. Despite these benefits, it also presents many challenges and consequences, especially for young users. Adolescents continue to engage with social media, despite the obvious consequences, and they will continue using it unless meaningful and strong actions are done to prevent it.
For teens, social media is more than just an app, it’s part of a shared routine. It offers instant connection with friends and a sense of belonging; when an individual cuts off social media, it can feel isolating, as they are also cutting off the connection. At an age where these simple relationships feel critical, easy connection seems almost essential, and social media provides that. Additionally, it acts as an easy booster for self-esteem, as likes, comments, and shares can feel incredibly rewarding. Social media also provides easy, endless entertainment through short-form content, which can feel difficult to step away from. It is a quick source of dopamine, influencing individuals to rely on it as an instant mood-booster.
These benefits often blind teens from the consequences of social media, which are otherwise hard to ignore. Heavy social media use is often connected to increased anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, and an overall increase in stress among teens. The online world is one of highlights and perfection, which creates an unrealistic standard which teens struggle to meet. They doubt their appearance, experiences, or talents simply because they don’t mirror the content behind the screen. This pressure and comparison negatively affects mental health for individuals of all ages. Additionally, the algorithms which control these platforms are designed not just for entertainment, but entrapment, as they hope to keep users scrolling for as long as possible. Without noticing, teens easily lose hours of their days online, ruining their mood, mental health, relationships, and overall well-being.
These consequences are not new, and not unknown. For years, psychologists have been worried about the impact of social media, especially on adolescents. The new research isn’t about the issue, it’s about the solution. Recently, governments around the world have begun to respond, each with different ideas of how to save teens from the addictive media. Countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom are introducing social media bans for youth, only allowing individuals above a certain age to create accounts. While this is a step forward, it does not seem to be a total solution. Enforcing total bans or age limits is practically impossible, and many teens will find ways to bypass restrictions.
Some countries, such as Brazil and France, are focusing on tighter regulations instead of a total ban. Governments and tech companies have implemented stricter rules regarding data privacy, parental controls, and company accountability. This recognizes the unavoidable role social media has on modern life, and understands that completely removing it is unrealistic. It hopes to decrease the unavoidable consequences while still allowing young people to benefit from online connection. However, even these regulations may be difficult to maintain, and will not solve the problem entirely.
One of the biggest challenges with digital limitations, whether they be a total ban or a partial restriction, is that they are easy to get around. This is not the first time social media apps have tried to limit users or content, as they have previously included birthday verifications or screen time limits. They have existed for years, yet most teens find loopholes and continue scrolling. In fact, restricting something too heavily often makes it more appealing for a young audience.
As the guidelines and controls get more intense, so will the attempts to overrule them. Ultimately, social media is not entirely good or entirely bad, even for adolescents. It can be used as a platform for connection and expression, or one of comparison and anxiety. While it has many real risks for young users, a complete ban altogether is unlikely to be a solution, as it sacrifices the many benefits, and may fail at reducing teen usage. A more effective approach may lie in balance. This includes implementing partial restrictions, holding companies accountable, and educating young users about online habits. As social media continues to evolve and further integrate itself into daily life, society must also adapt to ensure it remains a safe and positive space for the younger generations. 
According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre
According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre
By Bruno Scanga
Financial Columnist
In 2023 there were over 62,000 reported fraud victims. Seniors in Canada are getting bilked out of more than $500 million every year. It is estimated that as many as one in five seniors have lost money to fraudsters and most don’t report it.
Even though seniors today may be mentally sharper than ever, they are still the con artists’ favorite target because they generally have more disposable cash and are often more trusting.
Also, with our population living longer, there are more elders in their 80’s and 90’s who are vulnerable because they live alone, have a certain level of memory loss and can be confused or frightened by slick scammers.
Scam artists try their tricks on all age groups, but some of their cons they focus on seniors.
Here are a few common scams targeting seniors:
Grandchild-in-trouble – Henry gets a call from what sounds like a grandson asking for some urgent financial help. Apparently traveling far from home, he needs bail money or emergency car repairs and asks for a wire transfer.
In a nasty new twist, crooks knew some things about the grandchild and used a software tool to impersonate their voice. They were told their grandchild had been kidnapped and demanded payment of ransom. Cunningly, the crooks earlier called the grandchild on their cell phone, impersonating the phone carrier, and asked them to turn it off for a maintenance check.
Protection – Wire payment or Bitcoin is the dead give-away. Never send money before confirming the grandchild’s whereabouts and call police.
Phony bank official – Anne was bilked out of more than $15,000 when she thought she was helping her bank catch a thieving teller. She was instructed to withdraw a large sum of cash from her account and deliver it to the ‘bank official’ at a mall in her neighborhood. He was well dressed and assured her that the funds would be deposited back to her account. Anne was told not to tell her bank because they didn’t want to tip-off the teller, and he was able to get her to make two more withdrawals.
Protection – Do not give any personal information to someone claiming they represent your bank. Call the police.
Scareware – Shortly after David and Gail got their first computer; a message appeared on their screen telling them it was infected with a virus. They were invited to download a program for a small charge, giving the fraud artist their credit card information.
Protection – First thing, have Internet security software from one of the big-name providers installed. Set it to update regularly and ignore the phony pop-up messages.
Job Ads Without Salary Information Are Business Opportunities
Job Ads Without Salary Information
Are Business Opportunities
By Nick Kossovan
LinkedIn is flooded with job seekers complaining that many job ads don't mention salary. While their frustration is valid, publicly criticizing the lack of compensation transparency wastes mental energy and doesn't look good to recruiters and hiring managers.
Do complainers genuinely believe their posts and comments will influence employers, who aren't spending their time on LinkedIn reading comments—except perhaps when assessing a candidate's LinkedIn activities to decide if they're interview-worthy—to overhaul their hiring process?
Controversial digital footprints negatively affect job seekers more than they realize. While you're free to say, or write, what you want, you're not free from the consequences of what you say.
I understand that work isn't a hobby, and pay is important. However, in fairness to employers, there are many reasons why they might choose not to include compensation details in their job ads or ask applicants for their salary expectations, a few being:
· Seek candidates motivated by fit over money. While this line of thinking contradicts why people work, it's understandable that employers want workers who are enthusiastic about the job, not just the paycheck.
· Avoid salary questions from current workers. It's common for employers to have salary disparities among their employees.
· Avoid wage wars with competitors. Employees who contribute measurable value to their employers' profitability are often on the lookout for higher pay, especially in higher-level professional circles.
· They'll get stuck at the top of the salary range. If a candidate is offered a starting salary near the lower end of the range, they might feel disgruntled before even beginning the job.
· More diverse applicants. In some cases, salary isn't listed because the employer is willing to pay even more for a truly exceptional candidate. From personal experience, I know that salary ranges are meant for average applicants, but if an ever-so-rare 'must-hire' candidate comes along...
Whether you agree with the reason(s) or not isn't the employer's concern, nor is it their concern that omitting salary details in job ads can seem like a power move to pay as little as possible—an unsubstantiated narrative that job seekers tend to promote.
The employer's closed-door reasoning for not including salary in their job postings isn't the job seeker's concern. It's because job seekers are hyper-focused on what they can't change, which, in this case, having employers list a salary or a small gap between the minimum and maximum salary pay range in their job posting, that they're overlooking a huge business opportunity.
Stay with me; what I'm about to explain will require a shift in your mindset—letting go of any limiting beliefs you might have about employers' motives, along with any frustrations and anger you have towards them, which recruiters and hiring managers can sense.
Employers whose job postings don't mention compensation often (no guarantee) are willing to negotiate salary; a skill most job seekers lack and, for some reason, refuse to learn. My advice: Name your salary expectation and stick to it!
I've never accepted a job where I wasn't comfortable with the salary; consequently, I've never been the employee who constantly complains about not being paid enough. Whenever a recruiter or employer contacts me, which, thanks to my writing of The Art of Finding Work, occurs frequently, I make it a point to inquire within the first five minutes what the compensation plan is, where the job is located, and how the role fits with the employer's bottom line. (Is the job essential to the employer's success or just a 'nice to have'?)
Growing up, I was taught that employees are free agents providing services; essentially, each employee operates as a business of one. I came to understand that an employee doesn't own their job; their employer does. This understanding led me to adopt the view that by making my salary requirement non-negotiable—rather than having expectations or desires like most job seekers—I controlled my salary, not the employer.
By waiting for an "offer" from the employer, you give them too much leverage. State your salary requirement, and see what happens. "But Nick, what if I'm too expensive?" Do you want to work at a job where you're constantly feeling underpaid? You deserve to feel satisfied with your salary. Don't be salary-guilt-tripped or salary-benchmarked.
Your attitude should be: "Yes, I may be expensive; however, here's how I can impact an employer's bottom line."
You probably noticed that I’ve overlooked the crucial part of securing the salary you want, which most job seekers fail to do. You must justify your compensation request (salary, paid time off, benefits, paid sick days, perks, bonus, profit sharing, etc.) by demonstrating the value you can bring to an employer’s profitability. As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, job hunting is a sales activity, and interviews are sales meetings based on the core sales principle: features tell, benefits sell.
There'll always be job postings without salary information, or with a ridiculously large salary range. How you react—how you spend your mental energy—is a matter of choice. You can get frustrated, angry and publicly condemn employers, which, as mentioned, hurts your job search, or say to yourself, "I'm a business of one! I’m going to prove my worth and name my salary!"
Breaking: Canada Facing a Growing Repair Skills Crisis
Breaking: Canada Facing a Growing Repair Skills Crisis
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
Across Canada, a quiet problem is starting to appear in neighbourhoods, small towns, and even large cities. It is not a dramatic crisis that makes the evening news. There are no flashing lights or emergency sirens.
But the signs are there if you look closely.
A loose fence that never gets fixed. A deck board curling up after winter. A broken gutter hanging for months. A small repair that once took an hour now waits for weeks.
For many Canadians this may seem like a small issue. But behind these small problems sits a much larger concern. Canada is slowly losing a generation of people who know how to repair things. The country is entering what many trades workers quietly call the repair gap.
For decades, the backbone of home repair in Canada came from the Baby Boomer generation and the group sometimes called Generation Jones. These Canadians grew up in a time when fixing things was normal. If something broke, you did not replace it. You repaired it. Many of these skills started in school. High schools once had strong shop programs. Students learned woodworking, metal work, basic electrical work, and small engine repair. They learned how to measure, how to cut properly, and how to work safely with tools. Those lessons did not end in the classroom.
At home, young people often watched their parents repairing the family car, patching roofs, fixing lawn mowers, or rebuilding a broken fence. It became part of daily life. Many people took pride in knowing they could solve their own problems.
For that generation, fixing something yourself was more than saving money. It was a point of pride. It showed independence and responsibility. Today many of those skilled homeowners are retiring. Some are selling homes they have cared for over forty or fifty years. Others are moving into smaller houses or retirement communities. Some are simply no longer able to climb ladders or handle heavy tools. As they leave those homes behind, a new generation is moving in. But many younger Canadians did not grow up with the same training.
Generation Z, the group now entering adulthood, grew up in a different education system. Over the past few decades many schools removed shop classes. Wood shops closed. Auto repair programs disappeared. Welding programs were reduced or eliminated. The focus shifted heavily toward computers, testing, and university preparation. Technology became the future.
Young Canadians today are extremely capable with digital tools. They can build websites, edit video, manage social media businesses, and troubleshoot computer problems quickly.
But digital skill does not always translate into practical repair ability.
Ask many young homeowners how to repair a loose railing or replace a faulty switch and the answer is often the same. They were never taught. This is not a criticism of the younger generation. It is the result of education choices made over many years. When governments removed practical training from schools, they removed a key path where young Canadians learned how to work with their hands. The effects are now being felt across the country.
Canada is currently experiencing shortages in many skilled trades. Electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics, appliance repair technicians, and construction workers are in high demand.
In some communities it can take weeks to schedule basic repair work.
Part of this shortage comes from retirement. Many experienced trades workers are leaving the workforce at the same time.
Another part comes from a lack of new workers entering those trades.
To fill the gap, many companies are turning to skilled immigrants who already have strong repair and construction experience. These workers arrive from countries where trades training remains a major part of education.
They bring valuable knowledge and strong work habits. Their work helps keep homes maintained and infrastructure running.
In many cases they are filling jobs that currently do not have enough Canadian workers.
However, their presence also raises an important question.
Why did Canada stop preparing its own young people for these roles?
Many experts believe the answer lies in the slow disappearance of trade education in schools. Over time shop programs were considered outdated or unnecessary. Education systems focused more heavily on academic pathways and university preparation.
The result was a generation highly trained in digital technology but less experienced in hands on repair. There is another factor making repairs more difficult today.
Modern products are often designed in ways that prevent easy repair. Phones contain sealed batteries. Appliances rely on locked software systems.
Even farm tractors sometimes require special computer tools before repairs can be made.
This has led to a growing public movement known as the right to repair.
Supporters believe that if consumers buy a product, they should have the ability to repair it themselves or choose an independent repair shop. They argue companies should provide access to parts, manuals, and software tools needed for repairs.
Farmers, mechanics, and small businesses across North America have strongly supported the right to repair legislation. They argue it restores independence and reduces waste.
Canada has begun discussing these laws, but many advocates believe stronger action is needed. Beyond legislation, there is growing discussion about rebuilding trade education.
Many educators and industry leaders now support bringing back practical training in schools. Modern shop programs could teach woodworking, electrical basics, mechanical repair, and construction skills alongside digital technology. This approach would not replace academic education. Instead it would balance it.
Not every student needs to become a trades worker. But every student should understand basic repair skills that help them maintain their homes, vehicles, and equipment. Those skills also support local economies.
When repairs happen locally, money stays in local communities. Hardware stores benefit. Small repair businesses grow. Local trades workers find steady work.
Rebuilding these skills could strengthen both the economy and community independence.
The discussion now moves beyond education alone. Citizens across Canada can raise this issue with city officials, provincial representatives, and federal leaders. They can ask for stronger support for trade schools, apprenticeship programs, and right to repair laws.
Public policy often begins with public conversation.
Canada was built by people who understood how to build and repair the world around them. Those practical skills helped create strong homes, reliable infrastructure, and resilient communities. Many Canadians believe those skills should remain part of the country’s future. The challenge now is making sure the next generation has the opportunity to learn them.
Because once the last of the old fixers finally put down their tools, someone else will need to pick them up.
Mr. X Files: Walkable Communities and Unshakeable Freedoms
Mr. X Files: Walkable Communities and
Unshakeable Freedoms
There has been significant debate recently regarding "15-minute cities." Depending on the perspective, the phrase represents either sensible urban planning or something more concerning. In truth, the concept is neither new nor controversial when viewed through the lens of traditional urban design.
The core idea is simple: residents should be able to access everyday services—groceries, parks, schools, and shops—within a short walk or bike ride from home. This planning reduces traffic, strengthens local businesses, and improves quality of life. Many historic Ontario towns were built this way long before the term was coined, with homes and services existing in close proximity.
The current controversy stems less from urban planning and more from a decline in public trust. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of extraordinary federal powers, such as freezing bank accounts, raised serious concerns about the extent of government authority. These concerns regarding civil liberties and the foundational trust between citizens and government must not be dismissed.
It is important to clarify that municipal planning policies for walkable neighbourhoods are not intended to restrict movement or control daily lives. Local governments manage infrastructure and services; they do not control citizen mobility or possess the authority to interfere with personal finances.
To restore confidence, the path forward must combine good planning with strong protections for civil liberties. Governments must reinforce the principles of freedom of movement and financial security. This means establishing clear legal safeguards ensuring that no government can freeze a citizen's bank account without a court order tied to a criminal conviction or formal legal proceeding.
When civil liberties are legally protected, debates about urban planning can focus on their true purpose: building convenient, healthy, and vibrant communities. Walkable neighbourhoods are about expanding choice, not limiting it. Residents should be able to walk to a park or local shop while remaining free to travel and live without government interference.
Good communities are built on both thoughtful planning and personal freedom; one should never come at the expense of the other. By strengthening the protections Canadians expect for their financial and civil liberties, discussions about neighbourhood design will become far less divisive. Our goal should be simple: communities that are easy to live in and a country where freedoms remain firmly protected.
GIBERSON SHOULD STICK TO THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY PRIMARILY ‘THE CIRCUS’
GIBERSON SHOULD STICK TO THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
PRIMARILY ‘THE CIRCUS’
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
Who is that Gumby of Giberson... How do people get elected to office with little or no real life experience. For those that read my column on a regular basis will know how critical I am of politicians. Oshawa was a beautiful place. A peaceful and affordable place to call home.
I been your Editor for the past 30 plus. I have seen administration come and go. Unfortunately, quality of life has been deterioration at an alarming rate. The downtown our pride and joy had been handed over for the past 10 years to a city councillor with little or no life experience at best a third rate musician. At the region for the same downtown ward. We have an ex-educator/actor... One would think we would vote in a local business person. Someone with a title and or proven track record.
Well, Derek Giberson had almost 10 years to do something and has done nothing. Worst, he is indirectly/directly responsible for the open drug use and drug trade in our city core.
Just this past week as to pretend he is doing something. Giberson posted on line:
Derek Giberson is with backdoor mission in Oshawa. (Same Mission that is responsible for allowing a the dispensing and consumption of narcotics from it’s property.)
Another Housing Townhall, another night with over 100 people in Oshawa showing up because they believe things can be better. The undeniable truth is that the status quo is failing too many people: workers, seniors, students... so many who have been caught in this housing affordability crisis. (THIS GUY IS INSANE... ‘THE STATUS QUO’. Did he forget that he is the one that was elected to do something about it. No, instead he attempts to pass the responsibility of others... This is the same guy that does not return his city newspaper messages and or many of his constituents. But 2026 is an election year and he is once again attempting to sell pipe dreams...) And the brilliant Dr. Carolyn Whitzman showed us with evidence and clarity the policies failures and government inaction at all levels that got us here. Yes, the brilliant.... Carolyn Whitzman is a Canadian urban planner, community activist and author. Another words... A pipe dream maker. He continues in his post - But we also got to imagine what different could look like. Giberson and his pipe dreams have to go. We need real leaders that will improve the quality of life for all and keep our taxes at ‘0’. People commented on his post...
Don Rockbrune Did you have a representative from the provincial government there to explain what they are doing to fix the system? It largely is a provincial issue that directly affects municipalities…. THE ANSWER IS NO. OUR LOCAL MPP AND MP NO WHERE TO BE FOUND.
Michelle stated... So Derek barely answers emails or calls from his constituents, yet suddenly, just a month and a half before his municipal campaign starts, he’s holding a town hall?
Give me a break. Giberson has been known to attack using taxpayers time and money local businesses on bogus allegations. He has so many failures under his belt that local merchants throw him out of their businesses. This is the same GUMBY that allowed the waste of 10 million dollars on a downtown park.
HE HAS TO GO. VOTERS DON’T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE.
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Dead and Gone… Who Actually Makes the Decisions?
Dead and Gone…
Who Actually Makes the Decisions?
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
After someone dies, there is a moment that families rarely talk about. It doesn’t happen during the first phone call. It doesn’t happen when the paperwork begins. It usually happens quietly, around a kitchen table. Someone asks, “So… what would he have wanted?”
If I were gone, I would hope my family would not feel pressure in that moment. But I know how easily it can happen.
Funeral decisions sound practical from the outside. Burial or cremation. Service or no service. Where. When. How.
But underneath those choices is something more complicated. Who gets to decide?
Many people assume there is a clear answer. Sometimes there is. If someone left written instructions, or prepaid arrangements, that simplifies things. Often, though, there are only conversations half remembered. “I think he said he didn’t want a big fuss.” “Didn’t she once mention cremation?”
“I’m not sure. We never really talked about it.” Grief has a way of amplifying uncertainty. If I were gone, I would want my family to know this: there is rarely a perfect answer. In Ontario, the legal authority to make funeral arrangements usually follows a next-of-kin order. A spouse. An adult child. A parent. But legal authority and emotional authority are not always the same thing.
Sometimes the person with the legal right to decide feels overwhelmed. Sometimes siblings disagree. Sometimes one family member wants something traditional, while another wants something simple.
Those disagreements are rarely about money. They are about love. About memory. About what feels respectful. I have spoken with families who later told me the hardest part was not the paperwork or the cost. It was trying to interpret what someone would have wanted without being completely sure. If I could leave my family one instruction, it would not be about burial or cremation. It would be this: Talk to each other gently. No single decision defines a life.
A modest service does not mean less love. A simple cremation does not mean less honour. A traditional burial does not mean someone was pressured. What matters most is that the people left behind feel united, not divided.
Sometimes that means compromise. Sometimes it means one person stepping back and saying, “What feels right to you?” There is another quiet truth most families discover. Even when someone leaves detailed instructions, the living still carry the emotional weight.
You can follow a plan perfectly and still feel unsure. That is normal. If I were gone, what I would want most is not a particular type of arrangement.
I would want my family to feel steady with one another. I would want them to choose something that reflects our values - without feeling judged by anyone else’s expectations.
Funeral decisions are not about creating something impressive. They are about creating something honest.
Next week, I will write about something families rarely discuss ahead of time, but often struggle with afterward: how long grief lingers once the service is over - and why that part can be harder than the arrangements themselves.
Statins, Side Effects, and the Silence About Choice
Statins, Side Effects, and
the Silence About Choice
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
There’s a common organizational saying: structure drives behaviour. In institutional theory, it’s called path dependence. Once a structure or pattern is established, it becomes self-reinforcing. This is a problem in medicine. Researchers and specialists become deeply immersed in their own areas of expertise. They network within tight knowledge clusters. They protect their territory. And when they train recruits, they filter out possible solutions to problems before deliberation even begins.
This is the story – or an important part of a complex story – of the commitment by so many experts to statins in the treatment of heart disease.
A large meta-analysis recently published in The Lancet and reported in the British Medical Journal concludes that most of the side effects listed in statin leaflets – memory loss, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, erectile dysfunction – occur no more often in those taking the drug than in those taking a placebo. Regulators are now considering changes to product labels. Experts speak of “powerful reassurance.” We are told confusion has gone on long enough.
But here’s the question: reassurance for whom?
I am not lambasting the research. Randomized trials involving more than 120,000 participants deserve respect. If the data show that many feared side effects are less common than thought, then provide consumers with that information.
What I object to is the triumphal tone and the relentless march toward medicating ever larger swaths of the population without an equally forceful message about personal responsibility and informed choice – choice that includes information on treatment options that go beyond pharmaceutical drugs.
Seven to eight million adults in the UK already take statins. If guidelines are followed to the letter, that number could climb to 15 million.
And what is the public message?
Not: “Let’s first talk about your waistline, your diet, your blood pressure, your exercise habits, your smoking.”
Not: “Let’s see what happens if you walk briskly for 30 minutes a day.”
Not: “There are safe, effective, natural alternatives to the drugs.”
Instead, it is: “Don’t worry. The pills are safer than you think.”
That is not prevention. It’s pharmacological management.
Doctors complain that “negative publicity” has led patients to refuse statins or stop taking them. They suggest that switching between different statins reinforces “misinformation.” But perhaps patients are not irrational. Perhaps they are wary. And in today’s pharmaceutical marketplace, where billions are at stake, wariness is not a character flaw.
When a study funded by a major heart foundation reassures us that side effects are minimal and uptake should increase, skepticism is healthy. Not cynical. Healthy.
Yes, cardiovascular disease is a leading killer. Yes, lowering LDL cholesterol reduces risk. But medicine has drifted from treating disease to treating risk scores. The new threshold recommends considering statins for people with less than a 10% ten-year risk of cardiovascular disease. Think about that. We are medicating people who are, statistically speaking, unlikely to have an event in the first place.
And what do we tell them about the other levers they can pull?
Lifestyle changes can reduce cardiovascular risk by 30%, 40%, sometimes more. Weight loss lowers blood pressure and improves blood sugar. Exercise raises HDL cholesterol and reduces inflammation. A Mediterranean-style diet lowers cardiovascular events.
But lifestyle medicine takes time. It requires conversation, follow-up, and motivation. A prescription takes 30 seconds.
The pharmaceutical industry thrives on expanding definitions of risk and broadening treatment thresholds. That is the business model. But physicians are not supposed to be extensions of that model. They are supposed to be educators and advocates.
When the dominant message is “don’t worry, just take the pill,” they fail in that role.
Today’s approach to Debt?
When Employers See Your Value, Job Market Disconnects Disappear
When Employers See Your Value, Job
Market Disconnects Disappear
By Nick Kossovan
When it comes to my The Art of Finding Work columns, none of what I write is theoretical for me. It took me about 20 years into my career to grasp the importance employers place on value-add. Before this realization, I intellectualized my experience, which was of no value to an employer.
I believe two main factors significantly contribute to why job seekers struggle in a job market that, although highly competitive, is still hiring, though not as easily or quickly as they feel entitled to.
1. Having grown up overprotected and overindulged, with parents and teachers constantly telling them, "everyone wins," many job seekers never had to fight for anything and therefore aren't mentally prepared to compete for a job.
2. Intellectualizing their experience.
Many job seekers hold the naive belief that their “experience” and “credentials” should be enough to get them hired; in their minds, they don't have to prove how they contributed to their former employers' profitability. Ultimately, much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers stems from job seekers failing to articulate how they'll contribute to an employer's bottom line—not framing their value.
When job searching, your worth needs permission. You don’t decide your worth; employers do, which they determine based on how they perceive what your value or potential value to their business is. Your worth to an employer isn’t a given, nor is it a matter of self-opinion. Proving your worth is your responsibility.
An employer assessing a candidate’s worth is no different from making a large purchase or investment. If an employer sees value, which, as I mentioned and is worth repeating, is the jobseeker’s responsibility to demonstrate, in hiring a candidate (an ongoing expense), such as they’ll generate revenue, save money, or remove risks, they’re more likely to hire that candidate, provided they feel the candidate will mesh with their company culture, the team they’ll be working with, and will be manageable.
Understandably, employers look to hire low-risk candidates, defined by:
· Having a track record of delivering measurable outcomes.
· Coming across as someone who won’t be a disruptor (you’ll make things easier, not harder).
Employers aren’t interested in your experience per se; they’re interested in the value you added to your previous employer’s profitability, which you ideally will add to their business. Approaching your job search with “Here’s what I do” triggers the question, “So what?”
· "I'm fluent in Tagalog." · "I'm proficient in Excel."
· "I managed a help desk." · "I'm creative."
· "Results-driven leader with a proven track record."
Due to their intangibility, employers no longer take self-promotion statements, which are usually grandiose, or opinions about oneself, seriously. I’ve lost count of how many candidates talk a good game about themselves, but upon further due diligence (an assessment test, completing an assignment, asking ‘Tell me a time when’ questions), it became clear that talking a good game was their primary skill.
Recruiters and hiring managers scan resumes and LinkedIn profiles for numbers and context, not soft skills or empty phrases. Results outweigh opinions. Employers are only interested in hiring candidates who can deliver results. When was the last time you made a purchase—remember, hiring is equivalent to making a purchase—without considering the expected result(s)?
· In 2025, secured $1.5M in new business contracts by targeting businesses that serve Toronto’s Filipino community.
· Created a custom automated Excel template that cuts the time to generate weekly sales analysis reports by 80%.
· Implemented Zendesk AI Agents, reducing IT support’s average daily call volume from 850 to 680, a 20% decrease.
· Launched Wayne Enterprise’s new anti-frizz shampoo by producing and posting 20 engaging 30-second videos on its social media channels, resulting in a 28% increase in conversion rate over the previous launch, a colour-enhancing shampoo.
· Managed a $10M annual capital expenditure budget spanning 4 divisions. Achieved 15% savings in 2025 through vendor renegotiations.
Shifting from “What do I want to say about myself?” to “What evidence can I provide that I’m the solution to this employer’s problems?” will create “connects” between you and employers rather than disconnects. Reflect on how your skills have led to measurable outcomes.
The candidates who are getting hired aren’t the ones who are shouting the loudest or checking off all the proverbial boxes. The candidates employers are having conversations with are those they believe can effectively solve the problems the role is meant to address.
For an employer to view you as a solution worth paying for, they need to see evidence that you have solved problems for your previous employers. Position yourself around the employer’s problems and needs—What employer wouldn’t want to increase their profitability?—not your resume.
Every day, job seekers tell me or post on LinkedIn, complaining about how employers hire, as if that’s a smart job-search strategy (it isn’t), that they have years of experience and expertise, yet their applications go unnoticed. No acknowledgments. No conversations. It’s their ego talking. Job seekers expecting employers to merely value their “experience” and “expertise” without providing evidence of how they impacted their previous employer’s bottom line are the ones creating much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers, and then ironically complain about “the disconnect.” 
Freedom On Trial
Freedom On Trial
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
There is a new kind of tension in Canada right now. Not the loud kind that blows up in a comment section. The quiet kind that sits in your gut when you read the next federal bill and think, wait, can they really do that?
People are worn down. Prices are up. Trust is thin. When trust is thin, government power feels heavier. You hear it in plain talk from people who never cared about politics. They are saying, I keep my head down now. I do not post that stuff anymore. I do not want to be the one they make an example of.
That last line is the warning. Behaviour is changing.
The bill lighting up phones and church meetings is Bill C 9, the Combating Hate Act, introduced in September 2025. Ottawa says it targets hate, intimidation, and harassment, and protects access to places like churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and community centres. Most Canadians agree nobody should be threatened while walking into a house of worship.
The fight is about what else gets pulled in, and what becomes criminal when definitions get stretched.
Bill C 9 proposes changes to hate propaganda and hate crime rules in the Criminal Code. The part that has faith communities on edge is tied to removing a long standing defence that protects good faith discussion of religious subjects. In simple terms, that defence has been a legal shield for religious teaching and debate, even when a topic is sensitive, even when the message is unpopular.
That matters because religion is not only comfort. A lot of it is moral claims. Right and wrong. Sin and forgiveness. Marriage. Family. Human nature. Those topics will always offend someone. In a free country, offence is not supposed to equal crime.
When the legal line gets blurry, people stop talking. Not because they plan harm. Because they do not trust how the line will be drawn later, who can file a complaint, or what happens when a sermon clip goes online.
And in 2026 everything goes online.
A phone in the back pew. A short clip. A caption added by someone else. A few angry comments. Then the pile on. Context disappears. Tone disappears. Even a quote can be treated like a personal attack.
Some people say, if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. That is not how modern life works. Words are messy. Sarcasm gets read as threat. A hard opinion gets labelled harmful. A quote gets treated like intent.
Here is the fear Canadians are talking about. A country can slide into punishing speech, not only violence. The fear is not only a fine. It is a police file. A court date. A lawyer bill. A criminal label. A job that suddenly goes cold when your name gets searched.
And yes, people talk about jail.
It sounds extreme until you look at other countries that already charge people over online speech. Canadians keep bringing up England because it shows how “we are targeting harm” can become “we are prosecuting messages.” In the UK, some offences cover online messages judged grossly offensive, and convictions can bring penalties, including jail time. That is why Canadians ask, are we heading the same way?
Bill C 9 also lands in a country where online harms proposals keep returning. Ottawa and regulators have been pushing for stronger rules that pressure platforms to reduce exposure to certain content. The goals sound fine. Protect kids. Stop threats.
But the mechanics matter more than the slogans.
If platforms face legal duties and penalties, they protect themselves first. The safest move is to delete fast and wide. More removals. More automated filters. Less tolerance for blunt debate. Less patience for context.
That is how lawful speech gets squeezed without a judge. Private companies become the gatekeepers because they do not want trouble. Even if you never get charged, you can still get shut down. Your post disappears. Your reach drops. You get a warning that explains nothing. Then you stop posting, because it is not worth the headache.
Now add the specific worry for churches. If legal protections around good faith religious discussion are narrowed, it is not hard to picture more complaints aimed at sermons, Bible verses, flyers, youth talks, even a pastor answering a question after service. The fear is not that pastors want to harm anyone. The fear is that a broad law plus a complaint driven culture equals trouble.
A lot of Canadians already watch their words at work. Now they fear they will have to watch their words at church too. Once a church starts preaching like it is scared, something has changed.
Ottawa will say these bills target hate, not honest debate. But laws do not live in press conferences. They live in definitions and enforcement. They live in how police, prosecutors, regulators, and platforms interpret them over time. They live in what gets labelled hate, and who gets to decide.
Here is a basic test any reader can use.
Do these laws focus tightly on direct threats and real violence, with clear language that protects lawful speech? Or do they drift into punishing ideas, moral claims, and unpopular opinions?
Once the state starts managing ideas, it rarely stops at the first target. Language broadens. Enforcement gets uneven. The safest move for ordinary people becomes silence.
If Ottawa wants trust, the answer is not vague speech law. The answer is tight language, clear limits, and strong protection for lawful expression, including religious expression, even when it offends someone.
If you care about free speech, do not sleepwalk through this. Read what Bill C 9 changes. Watch whether Parliament removes the good faith religious defence. Ask your MP one direct question. Can Canadians speak honestly about religion, morality, and politics without fearing a police file, or worse?
Because once fear becomes normal, freedom shrinks quietly, and you notice it only after your voice is already gone.
Building A Culture Of Control
Building A Culture Of Control
As a Pickering City Councillor and the only elected official in Durham Region to attend the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) Drone as First Responder (DFR) Pilot Project community information night on Thursday, February 26, 2026, at the Education and Training Centre in Whitby, I witnessed firsthand the presentation of this program—already live and operational across our region.
No other municipal or regional representative was present, underscoring my ongoing commitment not only to the residents of Pickering but to the broader Durham Region. Unlike my counterparts, I serve without compensation, driven purely by a dedication to transparency, accountability, and protecting the freedoms of those I represent.
Durham Regional Police have launched one of Canada's first Drone as First Responder programs, with police-grade drones—manufactured by the American company Skydio—which will be docked strategically across the region. These are not recreational toys; they are advanced systems capable of launching and hovering over an incident scene in approximately 60 seconds—long before ground officers arrive. A drone could be filming your street, recording video, and transmitting live feeds at police discretion.
I must commend our Durham Regional Police Service—they are among the finest in the country, dedicated professionals who put their lives on the line daily to keep our communities safe. Their innovation in emergency response is admirable, but this program represents a slippery slope. Once we cross the line into expanded surveillance without ironclad safeguards, it's hard to turn back. History shows that tools introduced for "emergencies" often expand in scope, eroding privacy inch by inch.
Officials describe the program as a tool for emergencies and "operational incidents"—a term so vague and broad that deployment ultimately rests on police judgment. This raises serious questions: What if Quebec-style curfews returned, as we saw during COVID lockdowns? Could drones patrol neighborhoods to enforce compliance, monitor who is out after hours, or track individuals? During lawful peaceful assemblies—protests, marches, or community gatherings—might they hover overhead under the guise of "operational need" for situational awareness? We have already seen police drones deployed at large events elsewhere in Canada, and the potential for mission creep is undeniable when guidelines are this open-ended.
Consider the Million March for Children here in Durham a couple of years ago—a lawful assembly of parents and caregivers advocating for their kids. There was disturbing talk from City Hall, including straight from Mayor Ashe himself, questioning whether these protesters were "good or bad people." What would it take for DRPS to cross that line today? If a Chief Administrative Officer from any Durham municipality claimed they feared for their safety due to a legal protest, would drones be launched to surveil the participants? This isn't far-fetched; it's the logical extension of discretionary aerial monitoring in a region already leaning toward overreach.
Authorities assure us there is no facial recognition in use today. Yet footage can be recorded, stored, and subject to review. That data persists indefinitely. As artificial intelligence advances, future tools could analyze archived video for identification or patterns—especially with policies that evolve over time. Closer to home, Ontario Tech University is actively researching AI-coordinated drone swarms, where multiple drones operate autonomously. (Durhams Drones can also work autonomously together). Internationally, we see examples like China—the most surveilled country in the world—employing such technology for public monitoring and crowd control. Durham's program is not hypothetical; docks are installed, drones are flying, and the initiative is underway.
The community information night—featuring live demonstrations, discussions on privacy, and opportunities to meet operators—came after the fact. The decision to deploy was made without prior public consultation or meaningful input from residents. We were presented with a fait accompli: the program is here, now come learn about it.
This is not merely about faster emergency response; it is part of a broader pattern in Durham Region where policies increasingly tilt toward centralized oversight and data accumulation. Coupled with other initiatives—like the hate reporting line, essentially a snitch line allowing neighbors to anonymously report on neighbors or anyone for offensive comments, jokes, or perceived slights—it contributes to what can only be described as a culture of control. One where wide discretion allows surveillance tools to proliferate, personal privacy erodes incrementally, and meaningful oversight arrives only after implementation.
Durham residents deserve better. Is our region becoming a testing ground for always-on aerial monitoring? Are we comfortable with footage of our neighborhoods, homes, and families being captured, retained, and potentially integrated into more sophisticated systems down the line? Shouldn't citizens have had a real say before drones began launching over our streets, rather than being informed post-launch?
Public trust is built on transparency and genuine engagement, not retroactive briefings. I urge Durham residents to demand answers: full disclosure of deployment criteria, public access to flight logs, strict limits on data retention, and independent oversight to prevent overreach. Attend future sessions, contact your representatives, and voice your concerns. Our freedoms are not automatic—they require vigilance.
The truth matters. Let's keep pushing for it, together, before this "pilot" becomes permanent reality.
63 Million Insults And Our Mayor Thanks Them...
63 Million Insults And Our
Mayor Thanks Them...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
What is wrong with Oshawa.... It has got so bad that even the Generals Hockey Team management has publicly asked that fans bathe before attending games as some have complained that Oshawa fans stink. Even though management retracted the statement. It STILL STINKS.
That they would make such a statement public in the first place...
But they are not to blame as we do suck and we do stink... as how can any one thank GM for
investing 63 million when they are responsible for our Oshawa’s economic demise. For the loss of over 30,000 good paying jobs. For the decay in quality of life in Oshawa.
Not to mention the environmental mess they have left Oshawa. Yes, folks. “They Have Left”,
as anyone that thinks GM has any influence on our local workforce as they once did... has to go get their heads checked.
The days when GM workers could buy a house, a car a cottage and be able to send their kids
to University are long gone. This recent announcement is a total insult to Oshawa and all it’s Citizens. Yet, we have our phantom Mayor drop to his media knees and thank GM as if they are doing something great for Oshawa.
In reality GM use of the lands they so claim they own.... That they
rightly pay taxes on. According to record. GM was awarded those lands for as long as they produce cars in Oshawa.
Once GM pulls out or stopped producing cars. Those lands default back to the City of Oshawa.
This means we the taxpayers own those properties that are worth billions of dollars. Unfortunately in many cases an equivalent price tag for environmental clean up goes with it.
Then you ask. Why is GM tossing us a token.... Simple. GM by
putting those lands as their ownership possess great financial gain.
If they loose title. This means a loss to the company books. Not
to mention the possibility of having to clean the polluted lands.
It makes business sense to cut a cheque for a few millions to keep
the status quo and keep draining Oshawa. No one can say that they are not producing cars.
I can tell you one thing. Oshawa has no leadership. Thank God
that Carter is not coming back. The danger is that if a guy like Titto as he is being groomed to replace “yes” man Carter with “Si” man Titto. We are in for the economical spiral of our lives. You can be assure our taxes will continue to skyrocket and our quality of life slip to new lows.
You wonder... how can I make such bold statements... Well think of this way. Titto has sat on council for what 20 years. What has he contributed. I live in his ward. I have yet to see him in my office or at my residence. He does not even return phone calls. I am his City Newspaper and he does not return calls. Imagine how he treats the average taxpayer.
In 2026 we need to clean out the old and bring in the new. Guys
like Giberson, Kerr, Mckonkey, Neil don’t belong in politics as all
they done for Oshawa is sit on their hands and contributed little or
nothing. Giberson a third rate musician and before politics a dead
beat. How can you expect anything. Kerr an actor... self professed teacher and Mckonkey a realtor... They are and were over their heads when it comes to dealing with million dollar decisions. Giberson and Kerr had 2 terms to clean downtown and they done nothing. If I am wrong. I publicly challenge them to prove me wrong by writing a letter to the editor with their accomplishments. Councillors like Nicholson, Chapman, Lee... They should have never been politics. Nicholson is distant voice that is not representative of the people of Oshawa. Chapman, should have done the honorable thing and retired. He is not management material and as his leadership qualities... I bring to question as he has done nothing to improve the quality of life in Oshawa. He should know better. As for Lee. I am so disappointed. He has truly done nothing for his ward and he truly does not belong in politics.
Then what is left. Gray and Marks. If we have to pick an incumbent for Mayor...and the choice is Titto vs Gray. My money is on Gray. As for Marks. He has potential but sits watching the political storms come and go and is restrained from making a difference. The one guy with potential... 62 Million, please ....
Canada’s Defence Strategy Is a Start — However, Parliament Must Finish the Job
Saturday, February 21, 2026
The Slow Death Of Something GREAT…
The Slow Death Of Something GREAT...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
What is it with humanity? No, matter what it is. The cycle of life is always the same. No matter the cause, purpose or other. Things come together for a common good and end up ruined, destroyed and or dead.
I say this with great liberty due to the fact that if anything history lessons are our indicators for our future. The Mayan, the Inca, Roman Empire, Vikings and so on...
Yet, we keep making the same mistakes time and time again. These mistakes come to fruition due to greed, ignorance and in many cases as Freud would assume a hyper extension of ego.
The ego is the conscious, organized part of the psyche that mediates between unrealistic, impulsive desires (the id) and the moral constraints of reality (the superego).
The superego is the ethical, moralizing component of personality in Freud's structural model, acting as an internal conscience that strives for perfection, guilt-free behavior, and societal conformity. With the understanding of these concept one can begin to appredicate failure in just about every system ever created by man.
We as human have a flaw in our psychic. It is as if we set up ourselves to fail.
Look at the history of the Internet for example. An electronic invention that revolutionized humanity.
I remember in it’s early stages. NO, one had computers and even less internet.
The technology was reserved for higher education and government institutions. I remember bringing the internet to Durham. I could not give it away. I approached all municipal government. They did not want it due to cost of updating their outdated computers.
During the early days, there were no browsers and no social media. ICQ was one of the first communication platforms. People could actually chat in live time. The internet during those days was self governed. People acted with respect and with civility. There was no commercialism. All operated on dial up modems with limited bandwidth.
Then came the introduction of very primitive browser. This opened the door to commercialism. People would sell books, booklets and self help books.
One of the first to appear online as a business was small companies like PayPal. Companies that offered the ability to make transactions over the internet.
This flooded the internet with porn site for pay. Online casinos running illegally. With the sudden surge in commercial interest online. The Google, Yahoo and many other browsers began investing millions in the development of their browsers.
Offering a platform for start up, home, and small businesses to sell their wares. Then the Amazon, Craig List and the like.
This realization of being able to make millions if not billions was the begging to the end of the internet. Today, the internet is nothing short of a commercial public toilet.
Flooded with all kind of tracking devices that produce millions of pop up windows offering you all kinds of merchandize.
The once internet that self governed and a marble for human communications has become a social public toilet.
Superegos - expressing all kinds of misinformation that set patterns of information controlled by governments through further misinformation. The old belief use to be. The most successful governments are those that can keep their population ignorant of the facts and fighting among themselves.
The internet is such arena. Now compounded by a false labeled Artificial Intelligence. We are doomed, as there is nothing intelligent about an artificial system set by our ignorance. AI is nothing but a new browser. A browser that can compose information faster than any human. This is not intelligence. This is just a show of our ignorance. The internet is slowly coming to it’s end.
Misinformation, over saturation of commercialism and the human need for interaction will soon deem the net absolete.
AI should be best labeled Artificial Ignorance of the facts.
A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections
A Voice Before the Vote
A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
Canadian elections affect every citizen within our country, from a political activist to a non-voter adult to underaged teenagers. Whether or not an individual casts a vote, their decision has a lasting impact, whether or not it was intentional. Every vote counts, affecting our public laws, social rights, and much more. With upcoming municipal and provincial elections, I am left considering these politics, even if I am not yet at the age to vote.
Many individuals choose not to vote, which is an unintentional political decision with consequences of its own. Choosing not to participate does not mean stepping outside of politics. Instead, it means allowing others to decide on your behalf. It is practically equivalent to voting for the most popular party in your region, even if you don’t align with their beliefs. When citizens stay home on election day, policies can shift in directions that may not represent the majority, strengthening extremes, reducing accountability, and implying that citizens are disengaged from important issues. In political elections, silence is one of the biggest statements, but in a way few people realize.
Although every generation experiences a lack of voting interest, I believe it is most prominent in younger generations. Many young voters feel disconnected from our political systems, believing they are outdated or unresponsive to their issues. Young voices are rarely taken seriously, fueling the decline in political interest. Modern youth are often the most passionate about social change, yet they step away from politics because they feel unheard and misrepresented.
Another reason young adults often step away from voting ballots is a lack of education in civic affairs. In high school, it is mandatory for grade 10 students to take half a semester of civic education, spanning about two months. In these months, students are taught the absolute basics of voting and major parties, however it doesn’t go in depth about the importance, major issues, or even party members. After that, high school provides no further opportunities to learn about politics, leaving individuals confused and uninterested. This often leads to a lack of voting or misinformed voting, as young people often mimic the actions, and votes, of those around them.
Lastly, young people experience the feeling there is nobody to properly represent their values. Every level of government has different candidates and parties, however when it comes to provincial and federal elections, there are only a few options to choose from. From the major parties, it feels impossible to decide which party fits personal values the best, which is what decreases voting interest.
What I'd expect, and what most other teenagers would expect from a politician is transparency, accountability, and priorities. I would want someone who listens and acts on what they hear, and who is willing to admit mistakes instead of avoiding responsibility.
A good politician should focus on long-term solutions rather than the short-term popularity we see from many political figures today. Most importantly, I would expect them to genuinely care about the well-being of the people they serve, not just during election season when they think it will gain them popularity.
One solution I know other countries have implemented is mandatory voting, especially on federal elections. This idea has many flaws, however I think it could prove beneficial if misinformation and educational issues are first combatted. This system would increase voting from all demographics, and create a system which includes the perspectives of many more individuals. However, it takes the opinions of those who have done no research or have no interest in our politics, making the system inherently flawed.
Overall, I think the main solution to the issue with a low voter turnout, especially among young adults, is a lack of proper education. It can be difficult to understand politics in the maze of internet misinformation, especially without interesting civic classes in secondary schools. Young voters often see politics as something which they can not control, something that does not apply to them, or something that avoids their issues, causing individuals to lose interest.
Friday, February 20, 2026
What Does the Price List Actually Tell You?
Dead and Gone…
What Does the Price List Actually Tell You?
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
When someone dies, families often hear a new term very quickly. The price list. It sounds simple enough. A document with prices. Clear. Straightforward. But if I were gone, and my family was sitting across from someone reviewing a funeral home’s General Price List for the first time, I would want them to know this. A price list can be helpful. It just doesn’t tell the whole story.
In Ontario, funeral homes are required to provide written pricing information. That matters. Families should not have to guess. The list outlines professional fees, transportation, facilities, vehicles, merchandise, and optional services. On paper, it looks organized. Almost clinical. Grief rarely is. Most price lists are divided into sections. There is usually a basic professional fee. There may be transfer charges. Preparation fees. Facilities and staffing for visitation or ceremony. Casket and urn options. Items most families have never purchased before and may never have thought about until that moment. If I were sitting with my family in that room, I would want them to understand something simple. Not every line on that page applies to them. A price list shows what is available. It does not automatically reflect what a family will choose. And that is usually where uncertainty starts to creep in. Two funeral homes may present similar looking documents, yet the final totals can differ. One may bundle services together.
Another may separate them. One may include certain third party costs in its estimate. Another may list them separately. Without context, the differences can feel bigger than they actually are. If I could leave my family one practical suggestion, it would be this. Ask which items are required and which are optional. That question alone can change the tone of the conversation. If a family is choosing direct cremation, for example, many line items simply do not apply. There may be no visitation. No chapel service. No hearse. No cemetery coordination. Those services remain on the list because they are part of the funeral home’s full range of offerings, not because they must be selected. A price list is meant to inform. Still, in the middle of grief, even straightforward information can feel heavy. I would also want my family to know it is completely reasonable to take that document home. To read it more than once. To compare it with another.
To ask for a written estimate that reflects the specific choices being considered, not just the full menu. No family should feel rushed to decide from a single sheet of paper. There is another detail families sometimes discover later. A funeral home’s price list may not include cemetery fees, clergy fees, obituary notices, or flowers.
Those costs often sit outside the funeral home itself. If that is not explained clearly, the final number can come as a surprise. Clarity rarely comes from the document alone. It comes from asking questions and taking a little time. If I were gone, what I would want most is for my family to feel comfortable speaking openly about cost without embarrassment.
Talking about money at a time like this can feel uncomfortable, but it does not diminish love. It simply helps prevent confusion. The purpose of a price list is not to pressure anyone. It is there to show what exists. What families choose from it should feel thoughtful, not hurried. Next week, I will write about something many families quietly wonder about after a death. What government benefits may be available, and how those programs actually work in Ontario.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)