Showing posts with label Duher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duher. Show all posts
Saturday, March 1, 2025
Facts and Myths about Kidney Stones
Snowflakes
Snowflakes
By Wayne & Tamara
This one is on behalf of my best friend. My friend feels her mother-in-law is a terrible grandmother who falls far short of her expectations. She adores dogs and shows them more love and affection than her own grandchildren. My friend often compares this woman to her own mother who dotes on the children.
Sometimes my friend tells her mother-in-law directly what she thinks of her, and she cries. Her husband does not feel his mother is a loving grandmother, but he loves his mum and wants a peaceful life.
Coincidentally I have a similar setup with my in-laws. They have more time for animals--dogs, cats, and goats--and show them more love and affection than their grandchildren. They are more inclined to help the needy, like handicapped and poor people. However, my husband and I accept it is their choice to live as they wish, and we are always polite and respectful to them. I've encouraged my children to accept them as they are, which they do.
We made a lot of effort to fit in with my husband's family over the past decade, but now are less interested as it is only one way. We visit a few times a year, but that is not an issue as we live 100 miles away. We're expected to call from time to time, but conversations are restrained as we honestly don't have interest in each other's lives.
I ask questions like, Have you been to a goat show lately? But they ask none in return, not even How are the children? That's just how they are. I feel my friend is competing with her mother-in-law, trying to prove she's bad and her mum's better. What do you suggest? Once again my friend is due to tell her mother-in-law how disappointed she is in her.
Sybil
Sybil, there is a translation of Lao Tzu by Witter Bynner which contains these words. "As the soft yield of water cleaves obstinate stone, so to yield with life solves the insoluble…. But this unworded lesson, this easy example, is lost upon men."
You've learned to expect no more from your in-laws than they are prepared to offer, and that is the mark of a wise person. In addition, your children accept them on their own terms. This is a boat not to rock.
Your friend is attempting the impossible. She has an idea of the ideal grandmother, and she is determined to make her mother-in-law conform to that ideal. It's like trying to hold back the tide or make the wind obey. She should be grateful her children have one grandmother who meets her expectations.
Those children are going to spend their lives dealing with a variety of people in a real world. They need to accept reality and understand people for who they are. That is a far more valuable practice than expending energy trying to make people conform to our mental image. This is one area where supporting your friend does everyone a disservice.
Wayne & Tamara
A Zealot
My husband's brother wrote a letter to my husband a few years ago. The letter stated that my husband was soon to die--he has heart problems--and should make his peace with the Lord. This brother-in-law is a religious fanatic, but I think he was out of place writing the letter.
My husband laughed it off, but I cannot get over it. We will be seeing this brother-in-law at a wedding next month. How should I handle this?
Wilma
Wilma, Winston Churchill said, "A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." Your husband understands this, and that is why he laughed it off. If you confront your brother-in-law at the wedding, you will look ridiculous. People will excuse him because he doesn't know better, but they will wonder, what's your excuse?
Wayne & Tamara
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.
According to Job Seekers, There Is a Surge in “Isms.” Is It True?
Job Search:
According to Job Seekers, There Is a Surge in “Isms.” Is It True?
Five hundred applicants (conservative estimate), one hire:
· 500:1 ratio
· 0.2% chance of getting hired
Regardless of your education, skills, experience, and whom you know, job searching today is akin to betting against the house. The 499 who didn't get hired will likely say:
· "I'm over 45, so it must be ageism."
· "I'm green, so it must be racism."
· "I identify as [whatever], so it must be [whatever]."
· "I don't fall into a DEI category, so it must be reverse racism."
Rare is the job seeker who'll say, "I could have done a better job applying/interviewing."
In most cases, job seekers reach for the "I'm a victim!" card (read: excuse) as the reason they weren't selected for an interview or hired. With all the rejection going around these days, self-professed career coaches who never provide empirical data and offer only selective anecdotes (details are never given) exploit the vulnerability of job seekers by telling them what they want to hear—it's not their fault, employers are bad people looking for unicorns and rockstars—as a ploy to sell their "service."Actions and inactions have consequences, especially when job hunting. Based on my observations and conversations, people rarely consider the consequences of their actions or inactions and rather blame circumstances—everyone but themselves—for why they're not achieving success.
What you eat today will affect you tomorrow.
Not returning a phone call immediately could mean a lost opportunity.
Nowadays, the sense of entitlement among job seekers is so prevalent that it's fueling an often expressed and seen anger: "I'm not getting what I deserve!" "I'm not getting what I want!" Anger frequently results in false pride and an overinflated belief in your worth—the job market determines your worth, not your opinion of yourself—which is extremely difficult to overcome.
We are all born into this world to make our own way; nothing is promised, including health, safety, food, shelter, happiness, love, or a job.
Then there's social media, which does one thing exceptionally well—actually, "too well;" it amplifies voices, opinions, and narratives. The result? A toxic echo chamber that can make it seem like everyone is a victim of something—ageism, sexism, racism, etc. While many 'isms' are undeniably true, you've no influence in changing them. Dwelling on isms distracts you from finding a job. As a job seeker, you're in the finding a job business, not the changing how employers hire advocacy business.
Since your mindset directly influences your attitude and behaviour, having an "I'm a victim!" mindset is unproductive and damaging to your job search efforts. Blaming external factors, which you most likely can't quantify, for your job search frustrations will not bring you closer to finding a job. Job seekers who play the victim card become passive observers of the job market instead of taking action to change their job search strategy.
A victim mentality or a sense of entitlement turns employers off and will be evident when interviewing. An experienced recruiter or hiring manager can spot entitlement or a f*ck you attitude right away. Employers prefer proactive, resourceful candidates who take responsibility for their actions. Rather than focusing on the alleged amount of isms out there, here are three pieces of advice:
1. Let go of any sense of entitlement you may have.
If you do nothing more than lose any sense of entitlement you may have, you'll be further ahead than most job seekers. Employers—the world—don't owe you anything! Network relentlessly—reach out to contacts, attend events, and engage on LinkedIn. Embrace rejection as a learning tool; analyze what went wrong and adjust your job search strategy. Cultivate resilience; setbacks are part of achieving a goal journey. Finally, focus on what you can contribute to employers rather than what you want an employer to give you.
2. Take full responsibility for your actions and inactions.
Acknowledging that your actions and inaction are the ultimate contributing factor to your job search success is crucial. Instead of blaming external factors, control what you can influence.
· Are you applying to the right jobs and companies? (My advice to all job seekers: Don't look for a job; look for your tribe! Seek employers who'll welcome you.) · Does your resume and LinkedIn profile showcase the tangible results you've achieved for your employers, backed by numbers or simply your opinions? · Are you actively seeking out opportunities and networking?
"Actions have consequences... first rule of life. And the second rule is this - you are the only one responsible for your own actions." - Holly Lisle, American writer.
3. See yourself as a solutions provider.
Focus on articulating how you can solve problems for an employer. By envisioning yourself as a solutions provider—"How can I help this employer?"—you cultivate a proactive approach to your job search. When job hunting, your greatest asset is your mindset. Yes, ongoing systemic isms issues exist and affect your job search. However, allowing isms, which I repeat, you can't do anything about to influence your job search is pointless. Don't let those with an entitlement mentality convince you there are a host of "isms" preventing you from getting a job and divert your energy and focus from getting a 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
Saturday, February 22, 2025
Parachuted Candidates, Power Plays, and the Erosion of Democracy
Parachuted Candidates, Power Plays, and the Erosion of Democracy
By Lisa Robinson
As Canada heads into the upcoming federal election, a disturbing trend is emerging across all levels of government—one that undermines the very foundation of our democratic system. In many municipalities, including Pickering-Brooklin, candidates are no longer being chosen by the people but are being parachuted in by centralized selection committees. This top-down approach strips local party members of their right to a genuine nomination process and replaces grassroots democracy with backroom deals.
In Pickering-Brooklin, the candidate selection committee has already imposed its choice on the community, leaving voters with zero say. Adding insult to injury, the chosen candidate doesn’t even live in Pickering or Brooklin. How can someone who has no real connection to the community’s needs and values be expected to represent its interests in Parliament? This blatant disregard for local representation is not only undemocratic—it is symptomatic of a broader systemic decay.
The erosion of democracy does not stop at the federal level. Our municipal governments are increasingly engaging in political power plays that further undermine our right to self-governance. In Pickering and other cities across the country, municipal officials are lobbying the provincial government to amend the Municipal Act, thereby granting themselves the authority to remove elected officials who dare to challenge the status quo. This alarming trend threatens to concentrate power in the hands of a few, making it easier to silence dissent and erase accountability.
When the mechanisms for selecting representatives and holding them accountable are manipulated by political insiders, our entire democratic process is put at risk. Local nomination contests have historically been a cornerstone of community engagement, ensuring that elected leaders truly reflect the concerns and aspirations of their constituents. But when candidates are parachuted in and local voices are muzzled by legislative changes, we are left with a system where power is not derived from the people—it is imposed upon them.
This is not just a problem of policy; it is a direct assault on our democratic ideals. The practice of choosing candidates without the input of local party members, combined with efforts to strip elected officials of their ability to represent their communities effectively, signals a dangerous move towards centralized control.
The creeping erosion of local democracy is a harbinger of a future where power is consolidated away from the voters and into the hands of political elites, who operate in secrecy and with minimal accountability.
The implications are profound. When decisions about representation are made behind closed doors, the trust that citizens place in their government is shattered. Our democracy—the very system designed to ensure that power is distributed equitably among the people—begins to crumble from within. This trend is particularly evident in our own backyards, where communities like Pickering are witnessing first-hand how democratic processes are being subverted by both federal party policies and municipal power plays.
The future we are hurtling toward is not one where Canadians have a meaningful say in their government. Instead, it is a future in which our representatives are selected not by the people, but by political insiders, and where elected officials can be unceremoniously removed for daring to disagree with those in power. This is not the Canada we want. Democracy is failing us at every level—from the federal corridors of power to the municipal councils that once served as the bedrock of local representation.
The time to confront this assault on democracy is now. We must shine a light on these practices, expose the backroom deals, and demand accountability from those who would strip away our rights. While the candidate for Pickering-Brooklin has already been imposed upon us and legislative moves are underway to further erode local control, we cannot remain silent. Our democracy is in peril, and unless we wake up to this grim reality, the future of local representation will be decided by power brokers far removed from the people they claim to serve.
Canadians deserve better. The future of our nation depends on restoring genuine democratic processes and ensuring that every vote, every voice, and every community truly matters. The time for change is overdue, and the fight to reclaim our democracy has only just begun.
I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor
NOW IT IS YOUR CHANCE
NOW IT IS YOUR
CHANCE
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
This week will hopefully bring some positive change. I have been doing this job for over 30 years. In such a role. I hear all the concerns from all kinds of readers.
The main one for most is quality of life. People in general are tired of having to work and pay all kinds of taxes. Only to see their quality of life slowly erode.
Politicians don’t care. Try contacting your local municipal elect. Good luck. Try to call your MPP. Good luck. French is notorious for not returning phone calls. Yet, there she is out on the campaign trail making all kinds of promises and making claim of achievements thatare few and petty at best. The question before us is not the person. Instead, its about her accomplishments and what has she done to improve your quality of life.
I think she has had her two terms to improve the quality of life in Oshawa and she has failed. We have a never ending number of people living in the street. Open drug use is at an all time high.
Where is our provincial MPP. Sitting in her office playing politician.
WHAT HAS SHE DONE FOR YOU?
I am running in this provincial election as your change. I am not a politician. I am a local business person. Someone like you. Working hard to feed my family. I am a local business person that know first hand the value of a dollar. I know what it means to want a good solid community life. I have been a member of every service group as per the banner to the left. I talked to you the people and live your pain. I want good quality of life. Clean Oshawa. An Oshawa that is inviting and full of life. I want to bring to Oshawa prosperity. I can tell you that I may not have all the answers. But I have a solid proven business track record for the past 30 years of service to Oshawa. I will bring you solutions to real Oshawa problems. No more going through the motions. Pretend and make excuses. No more spewing statistics and hope that they stick.
I can promise you results. I can promise you the improvement of Oshawas quality of life.
I can assure you that my interest will not be maintain my position for another term...nor that I have an income.
As a matter of fact. I will donate my wages to programs in the city until Oshawa quality of life improves..
I will assure that my wages go directly to making Oshawa a safe and clean City. Can French say that? Can any of the candidates make such statement and commitment. All I am asking is for you to give me the opportunity to serve you and restore Oshawa to the jewel it has always been in the Durham crown. Thank you.
Canada Flag Day 2025
Canada Flag Day 2025
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
In February when the Canadian winter really settles in, we have something great to celebrate and be proud of it. Something, which made us a nation to be cherished and respected. I actual circumstances with dark clouds on our suzerainty the 60th anniversary of the Canadian Flag has a new meaning that of the unity o all Canadians.
You have seen it proudly flying throughout the country. Maybe you have waved a paper hand flag on Canada Day, or worn it as a pin on your jacket. Maybe you have even sewn one on to your backpack and travelled the world! Regardless of where you see it, the National Flag of Canada stands out both at home and abroad as one of the most striking and recognizable symbols representing Canada.
February 15 is Flag Day in Canada, the annual day on the calendar where we mark the first raising of the “new” Canadian flag, the Maple Leaf, on Parliament Hill in 1965.
While the quest for a national flag for Canada dates back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the flag as we know it today emerged from the major social transformations during the 1950s and 1960s in the lead up to the 100th anniversary of Confederation in 1967.
In 1960, Lester B. Pearson, then Leader of the Opposition, declared that he was determined to solve what he called “the flag problem.” To Pearson, this issue was critical to defining Canada as a unified, independent country. As the newly elected Prime Minister in 1963, Pearson promised to resolve the question of a new national flag in time for Canada’s centennial celebrations in 1967.
A parliamentary committee was created and given a 6-week deadline to submit a recommendation for a national flag. Debate within the committee was fierce, divided between those who wished to retain the symbols that tied Canada to its colonial history, and those who wanted Canada to adopt its own symbols for the future. This period was known as the Great Flag Debate.
The legendary Flag Debate has seen two respected Canadians making their points, the great John Diefenbaker – who wanted Canada to keep
using his beloved Red Ensign – and the equally great Lester Pearson, who wanted Canada to turn a new page with a flag distinctly our own.
While most Canadian historians and commentators have consistently criticized Mr. Diefenbaker for his stand and the long debate on the issue in the House of Commons, this actually helped all Canadians eventually accept the change. Canadians who feared such a radical change in symbols felt that their voices had been heard. While they feared the switch to a new national symbol, they had witnessed Mr. Diefenbaker fight for their cause and this in turn, helped in the end to cement the Maple Leaf in its earliest years.
One of the more well-received designs considered by the parliamentary committee was proposed by George Stanley, Dean of Arts at the Royal Military College (RMC) in Kingston, Ontario. Inspired by RMC’s own flag, Stanley recommended a design featuring a single, stylized red maple leaf on a white background with 2 red borders.
On October 22, 1964, the committee voted in favour of Stanley’s single-leaf design. Two months later the House of Commons approved, followed shortly after by the Senate.
Let’s review the history of the Canadian flag for a moment. The flag that was first raised on February 15, 1965, the flag that has made us all proud as Canadians to have our own beloved Maple Leaf centered Canadian flag.
Several different flags were used in Canada before our current National Flag. Since the first days of European presence on Canadian soil, flags of European homelands, such as France, have been displayed. The flags of British North America used in colonial Canada showcased ties to the British Empire. Both before and after Confederation in 1867, Canada used the United Kingdom’s Royal Union Flag, commonly known as the Union Jack.
Another British flag used in Canada was the Red Ensign. While it was officially a naval flag used by Canadian ships starting in the 1890s, the Canadian Red Ensign — a combination of the Union Jack and the shield of Canada — had been used unofficially both at sea and on land since the 1870s and was widely recognized as a national symbol.
During the First World War, the Canadian Red Ensign became a popular patriotic emblem.
Canada in Crisis:Nation Demands an Election Now
Canada in Crisis:Nation Demands an Election Now
By Dale Jodoin
Canada finds itself at a political crossroads. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has resigned as Liberal leader but remains in office, awaiting the selection of his party’s next leader. In the background, one name looms large—Mark Carney, handpicked by Trudeau to take over. However, a major issue remains: Carney is not an elected MP, and Canadians do not want him as their next leader.
This situation creates a constitutional and democratic dilemma. Trudeau, though he has resigned as party leader, must continue serving as Prime Minister until a successor is chosen. The problem? The people do not want Carney, and they do not want the Liberals to choose their next leader behind closed doors. The demand for an immediate general election is growing louder.
Trudeau Resigns, But Stays in Power—For Now
Despite stepping down as Liberal leader, Trudeau remains Prime Minister in a caretaker role, with full control of the government until an election is called. This means he still wields power, but his authority is weakened as his own party scrambles to find a replacement.
Under Canada’s parliamentary system, a Prime Minister cannot simply walk away. There must be a transition of power, either through a leadership race within the party or by calling a general election. Since Trudeau has resigned, the Liberals will eventually choose a new leader, but that does not mean that person automatically becomes Prime Minister.
This process typically allows time for leadership campaigns and party votes. However, in this case, Trudeau's preferred successor, Mark Carney, has already been unofficially selected. But with no elected seat, Carney cannot simply walk into the role of Prime Minister. That decision belongs to the people of Canada.
Mark Carney: The Leader Nobody Asked For
Despite being widely respected in financial circles, Carney lacks democratic legitimacy. Unlike previous Prime Ministers who had served as MPs before taking office, Carney has never been elected by the Canadian people. His only claim to leadership is that Trudeau wants him to take over.
This has sparked outrage among voters. Canadians are not willing to accept an unelected leader chosen in the backrooms of the Liberal Party. If Carney truly believes he is the right leader, he must first win a seat in Parliament. But the greater issue is clear: the people do not want another Liberal government at all.
Canadians Want an Election, Not a Liberal Replacement
While the Liberal Party will eventually select a new leader, that decision should not be made without input from the people. Trudeau’s resignation is a clear sign that the country is demanding change. However, if the Liberals are allowed to install a new leader without holding an election, it would be a direct insult to democracy.
Here’s why an immediate election is the only fair option:
The Liberals Have Lost Public Trust – Trudeau’s resignation is proof that his leadership has failed. Canadians should have the right to decide if they want the Liberals to remain in power at all.
Mark Carney Has No Mandate – Carney is a Trudeau appointee, not a leader chosen by the public. The people must have the right to vote on whether he should lead the country.
Canadians Are Tired of Backroom Politics – Letting the Liberal Party decide the next Prime Minister without an election would further damage faith in the political system.
What Happens Next?
As it stands, Trudeau remains in office as a sitting MP and interim Prime Minister until a new leader is chosen. But even after the Liberals select a leader, they do not have an automatic right to form a government. The Governor General has the power to call a general election if there is enough pressure from the public or Parliament.
If the opposition parties and Canadian voters make their voices heard, an election can be forced sooner rather than later. The choice is clear—let the people decide their next government, not the Liberal Party.
Trudeau’s resignation signals the end of an era, but the fight for democratic accountability is just beginning. The only legitimate way forward is for Canada to hold an election immediately. The idea of Carney sliding into leadership without voter approval is unacceptable.
The people have spoken—they do not want Carney, and they do not want another unelected Liberal government. It’s time for an election. Let Canadians decide their future.
Saturday, February 15, 2025
I Can’t Afford to Be a Patriot Because of the High Cost of Food
I Can’t Afford to Be a Patriot Because
of the High Cost of Food
By Dale Jodoin
I Can’t Afford to Be a Patriot Because of the High Cost of Food
Patriotism is a powerful thing. It’s the belief in one’s country, the pride of being part of something greater. But in today’s Canada, patriotism is becoming a luxury—one that fewer and fewer people can afford.
The cost of living has skyrocketed. The middle class is shrinking. The elderly, the working poor, the young people trying to start their lives—everyday Canadians—are being crushed under the weight of taxes, inflation, and government policies that seem more interested in ideology than survival. Because of eight years of Liberal government, backed by the NDP, prices have gone through the roof for everyone. Their green tax has made it impossible for people to live the way they used to. Groceries, gas, heating—everything costs more, and there is no relief in sight.
What does it mean to be a patriot when you can barely afford to live?
No Room for Fresh Produce in the Budget
A woman in her fifties walks into the grocery store, her list short but her worries long. She used to be able to fill a cart with fresh vegetables, local dairy, and quality meats. Now, she picks up a cucumber, looks at the price, and puts it back.
The irony stings—Canada grows some of the best produce in the world, but she can’t afford to buy it. Instead, she settles for imported fruits and vegetables from Mexico and China. They’re not as fresh, not as nutritious, but they’re cheaper.
“I thought I’d always be able to afford good food,” she murmurs. “I never imagined it would come to this.”
A Young Worker Forced to Buy Foreign
A young man just starting out in the trades needs work boots. He’s landed his first real job, and he’s eager to contribute. But when he checks the price of a Canadian-made pair, he feels sick—over $300, more than half his paycheck before taxes.
He wants to support local businesses. He wants to wear something made in Canada. But he can’t afford it. Instead, he buys boots from a Canadian retailer that imports them from China.
“I didn’t want to, but what choice do I have?” he says. “I need boots to work, and I don’t have the money for the good ones.” It’s an ugly truth—many who declare themselves patriots, who say they buy only Canadian, unknowingly (or unwillingly) support foreign manufacturing because their wallets don’t give them a choice.
Elderly Couple Forced to Choose Between Food and Heat
In a small home, an elderly couple sits at their kitchen table, the room colder than it used to be. They’ve lived here for decades, paid their taxes, and contributed to their community. But as property taxes increase and their fixed income stays the same, every month becomes a battle of choices.
Do they pay the heating bill? Or do they buy enough groceries to last the month?
The old man fights back tears. He eats less so his wife can eat more. She notices.
“We worked all our lives for this?” she whispers.
The Gas Prices That Keep a Single Mother from Earning
A single mother wakes up before dawn, ready for another long day. She has a part-time job but relies on Uber to make ends meet. Every night, she calculates whether the cost of gas is worth the extra fares.
It’s not just gas—it’s insurance, maintenance, and the price of everything going up. But without her car, she has no way to make the extra money her family needs.
She looks at her earnings after another night on the road, subtracting the cost of fuel. Barely enough.“I’m doing everything I can,” she says. “But it’s never enough.”
The Dollar Store Economy
More and more Canadians are finding that the only place they can afford to shop is the dollar store. Discount shops, bargain bins, and clearance sections have become the grocery aisles of the working class. Gone are the days of filling a cart with fresh meat, dairy, and produce. Now, they rely on canned goods, processed foods, and whatever is on sale.
And when they shop at grocery stores, they see another problem—shrinkflation. Prices are rising while portion sizes shrink. A loaf of bread that used to last a week now barely makes it through a few days. A box of cereal that once served a family is now half the size but double the price. “They’re charging more and giving us less,” a father of three says. “But we can’t do anything about it.” But now, things have gotten even worse. There are Canadians who can’t even afford to be dollar store people.
The 2 Million Who Rely on Food Banks
The situation is so dire that over 2 million Canadians now rely on food banks just to get by. These are not just the homeless or the unemployed—many of them are working families, retirees, and even professionals who simply cannot keep up with the rising cost of living.
Food banks, once a safety net for the most vulnerable, have become a necessity for the middle class. People who never imagined they would need help—who spent their lives paying taxes, working hard, and believing in the Canadian dream—now stand in line, waiting for a bag of food to get them through the week. “I was raised to believe that if you worked hard, you’d be okay,” says a father of two. “But here I am, picking up a food hamper because my paycheck doesn’t cover everything.”
The Government Says It Cares—But Does It?
Politicians claim to fight for the middle class. They make speeches, shake hands, and promise relief. But while they debate, real Canadians are drowning.
The Prime Minister, the NDP, even so-called conservatives—they all claim to care. But what have they done? The unions fight for their members.
The wealthy fight for their tax breaks. The fringe groups fight for their causes. But who is fighting for the everyday Canadian?
The Patriotism Paradox And here lies the greatest irony: many of those who call themselves patriots, who say they “buy Canadian” and “support local,” don’t even realize that most of their purchases come from overseas.
The hat that says “Proud Canadian”? Made in China.
The t-shirt with the maple leaf and the word “Patriot” across the chest? Stamped with “Made in Bangladesh.” The boots, the clothing, even the flags waved at Canada Day celebrations—so many of them come from foreign factories because it’s simply too expensive to buy Canadian.
People don’t do this out of disloyalty. They do it because they have no choice.
No End in Sight
There’s no light at the end of the tunnel. The cost of everything continues to rise—housing, food, fuel, taxes. And while politicians sit in their comfortable offices making decisions that push people further into despair, real Canadians are left behind. The ones who suffer the most are the people who once built this nation. The workers. The farmers. The elderly. The middle class. There is no relief. No hero comes to save them. Just another winter of impossible choices. Another year of tightening belts that are already suffocating.
The dream of being a proud, patriotic Canadian still burns in their hearts. But in their empty wallets and cold homes, they wonder—can they still afford it?
Everyone knows somebody like them. A friend, a neighbor, a family member. These are the stories of real Canadians. And the saddest part? Their struggles are getting worse.
Making A Difference
Making A Difference
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
Everyone likes to complain. But far from few actually stand up against all odds and do something about it. We are upon a call to action by our Provincial elect. Out of the blue Ford calls and election as to expect to solidify the seats of conservatives across the Province. A bold move, that test the will of taxpayers at large. By now you all may be aware that I put my name forth Ontario New Blue Party as your Oshawa candidate.
If we learned anything from the recent U.S. elections. It is time to put new blood in office. Stop electing - re-electing careered politicians that once they get in they sit on their hands.
The U.S. took the right lead. Elect someone from outside the establishment. A successful business person with a proven business track record. Someone that knows the value of a dollar and the commitment to sacrifice in the name of humanity.
As a candidate. I will not profess to know everything. But what I know I know it well. I may not have all the answers. But I have the solutions to real problems founded on experience. this is why I am running. We have millions of dollar coming to Oshawa through the Province and in my opinion they are wasted.
The sitting NDP MPP has let jobs slip out of Oshawa and is content with token jobs in return. The MPP in my opinion is not approachable, arrogant and ignorant of the billions of dollars sitting on the side lines wanting to come to Ontario. To Oshawa.
For the past 4 years she has yet to return a phone call to her local City newspaper. French as the City of Oshawa candidate has never visited me or any local business that I know off to ask what our needs may be from the Province.
I think it is time to stop the waste of tax dollars we are paying this MPP and elect someone that has first hand experience in the downtown. Someone that has brought to Oshawa the only successful shop local campaign as seen by the many signs posted on local downtown shops. All I am asking for an opportunity to serve you. I will not promise you anything but instead deliver the assurance of working with the municipal government to put and end to people living on the street. I will deliver good paying jobs by approaching developers, business owners and the right type of industry to come to Oshawa. I will aggressively look for funding to better all aspects of Oshawanians. I will develop special partnerships, sponsorship with corporations and those directly involved in finance to assure that our downtown may thrive again. To get rid of crime by working with DRPS for more funding. I will work hard to influence an Ontario balanced budget. I will assure every citizens that all calls will be answered and returned. I promise to bring government back to you. To uphold decency and dignity. To protect our identity and bring back economic pride to Oshawa. Now it is your choice.
You have a choice to make a positive difference in your life.
Pickering's Public Forum turns into a racist, pornographic nightmare!
Pickering's Public Forum turns into a racist, pornographic nightmare!
By Lisa Robinson
On Wednesday February 12, 2025, which was meant to be a transparent, inclusive discussion on our Climate Adaptation Plan for all ages degenerated into an unmitigated horror show. Instead of fostering meaningful community dialogue, the City of Pickering’s virtual Open House became a stage for racist slurs, repeated displays of swastikas, and graphic pornographic content—images that no one, especially an event for all ages, including children should ever be forced to endure. The flagrant failure of City staff is at the heart of this atrocity. With full control over the meeting, they did nothing to immediately shut down the broadcast. By neglecting to disable participants’ microphones and cameras, they provided a free rein for these perpetrators to spread hate, and explicit disgusting pornographic content, leaving our community exposed and traumatized. I can honestly say that I will never be the same after witnessing such a disturbing and deeply traumatizing event.
As if this horrific incident were not enough, the hypocrisy of the City of Pickering has reached a new low by launching a calculated attack on my integrity. Recently, they have been trying to falsely accuse me of “aiding and abetting harassment” solely because I publicly condemned hateful remarks made on a podcast. Let me be absolutely clear: I denounced a hateful remark both in an email to my colleagues and live on his podcast, repeatedly stating that I do not condone what the host said or any form of violence. To further clarify, I never even heard the remark because I was taken off the podcast the time it was made, and the announcer explicitly declared that his words were entirely his own and not reflective of my views. Again, I want to be clear – I have never met this person before. I had no prior knowledge of them, no connection, no relationship of any kind before that podcast. I simply participated as a guest, unaware of what they would say or do. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is false. The absurdity of twisting my decisive, public denunciation into grounds for an investigation is a deliberate act of public mischief—a manufactured narrative designed solely to silence me and try to remove me from Council for consistently speaking the truth and calling out the corruption that I have witnessed during my tenure.
If the City of Pickering is so quick to claim that I was aiding and abetting harassment—an act over which I had absolutely no control and one that I condemned publicly—then it is only logical that they should be thoroughly investigated for aiding and abetting racist slurs, hate symbols, and the distribution of pornography. Their failure to secure a safe space during the meeting, by not disabling participants’ cameras and microphones, allowed these heinous acts to occur. Yet, instead of acknowledging this gross negligence, the Corporation of the City of Pickering is busy fabricating false narratives and even pressured me into removing video evidence that serves the public interest. Not only have they not even issued an official apology to me or anyone else who witnessed this appalling incident, but they are also desperately trying to suppress the truth about what really happened. This is nothing short of a cover-up, a sham attempt to shift blame away from their own undeniable failures.
I call for immediate answers. Who was responsible for moderating the meeting, and why was it not shut down the moment hate speech and explicit content erupted? Which members of leadership were aware of these events—and when did they finally act? Will the same unfounded legal standards now being used to target me be applied to those whose gross negligence allowed this atrocity to occur? I am not only traumatized by what I witnessed but I am also appalled by the lengths to which our City’s leadership will go to suppress the truth.
Our community deserves a safe, respectful public forum and leaders who take responsibility, not ones who attempt to rewrite history to deflect their own failures.
A police investigation is now underway, and I will not rest until every individual responsible for this disgrace is held accountable. The City of Pickering must stop shifting blame and begin addressing its own gross negligence for the sake of transparency, accountability, and the wellbeing of our community.
I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor!
Employers Are Not in the 'Give a Chance Business'
Employers Are Not in the
'Give a Chance Business'
By Nick Kossovan
Many job seekers become frustrated and angry because they believe employers should take a chance on hiring them. Most job seekers fail, or refuse, to grasp that hiring is a critical business decision involving an investment of their time, money, and trust—the stakes are high. Great hires can propel a team forward, while bad hires can create setbacks, disrupt a company's culture, and waste resources.
When a hiring manager assesses a candidate, they're not just asking, "Can this person do the job?" they're also asking:
· Will this person stick around?
· Will they be manageable?
· Will they fit into the current team and culture?
· Will I regret hiring this person six months from now?
A common phrase among job seekers is "Give people a chance." Expecting employers to take a chance on you and blaming them when they don't displays a sense of entitlement. Employers aren't in the business of giving chances. Business survival requires being risk-averse. Minimizing hiring risks is in a business's best interest. In this respect, it's the job seeker's responsibility to demonstrate why the reward of hiring them outweighs the risk.
The job market is a battlefield where there are many job seekers who, admittedly, out of desperation, are, to put it mildly, "not playing fair." An employer's hiring decision isn't merely about filling a vacancy. The person hired will, to some extent, affect their bottom line, team chemistry, and long-term goals. I've seen, as you likely have, how hiring the wrong person can lead to productivity losses, decreased morale, and budget wasting. You can't fault employers for selecting employees cautiously; you would, too, if you owned the business.
On the other hand, employers can be regarded as 'givers of low-risk chances.' No matter how much due diligence an employer does to mitigate hiring risks, they're still taking a chance—a risk—on the candidate who they deemed to be the most qualified, will deliver the results the business needs, and will fit their culture. Despite employers designing their hiring process in ways they believe will mitigate hiring risks, hiring people doesn't come with any guarantees. The best an employer can do is hire the candidate they believe poses the lowest hiring risk.
Most job seekers focus on demonstrating their skills and experience but fail to consider how they might appear as a hiring risk, such as:
· Being underqualified or overqualified
· Posting negative comments on social media
· Exhibiting a sense of entitlement
· Having a lengthy employment gap
· Holding several short-term jobs
Applying for a job involves being compared to everyone else who applied. Put yourself in the employer's shoes. If you received over 500 applications for a Sales Director role, whom would you find "less risky"?
Candidate A: Has had four jobs in seven years.
Candidate B: Has been at their current job for 14 years.
Candidate A: Has a complete LinkedIn profile (profile picture, banner, completed sections) showing the measurable value they've brought to previous employers.
Candidate B: Has an incomplete LinkedIn profile.
Candidate A: Was referred by an employee.
Candidate B: Applied online.
Candidate A: Includes a compelling cover letter.
Candidate B: Doesn't include a cover letter.
It's the job seeker's responsibility to prove that they're worth taking a hiring risk on. You should approach your job search strategically, showing that you are not just another candidate, but one who can add measurable value to the business, such as increasing revenue, reducing costs, or solving problems. With so many qualified job seekers in the job market, why would an employer opt for a candidate with perceived risks?
If you believe employers should "give you a chance," you're setting yourself up for disappointment, leading to frustration and anger. Instead, flip the script and show employers that you're a low-risk hire who will add value to their business.
Here's how:
Build a Strong Resume and LinkedIn Profile: Numbers are the language of business; speak it! Use numbers to demonstrate your past successes and value. Employers hire results, not unsubstantiated opinions.
Leverage Networking: A warm introduction will significantly reduce the perceived risks of hiring you. Contact people in your professional network who are connected to the employer you're applying to or may know someone connected to your targeted employer. (It's a small world.)
Prepare for Interviews: Don't just respond to questions; prepare thoughtful questions for your interviewer, thus showing enthusiasm and engagement.
Follow-Up: Few job seekers send thank-you notes after interviews; therefore, doing so sets you apart. A thank-you note shows initiative, reiterates your interest, and, most
importantly, gives you an opportunity to address any concerns raised during the interview.
As for cultural fit, I believe in being yourself and letting the chips fall where they fall. Don't contort yourself, as self-proclaimed career coaches advise job seekers to try to "fit in"; if the employer doesn't see you as a fit, why would you want to join?
Employers don't owe you a chance; they owe their business and existing employees the lowest hiring risk they can find. It's on you to show employers that hiring you is a low-risk decision they won't regret making.
_____________________________________________________________________
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
How Clutter Causes Problems
How Clutter Causes
Problems
By W. Gifford-Jones MD and Diana Gifford
Have you ever walked into a home, or even a single room, and wondered, "How do these people live in such a mess?" Collecting and holding onto too much stuff causes many problems – economic, social, and emotional. It is not a common way to assess your health. But having a look at your home is an interesting diagnostic tool.
“Cluttering” can be expensive. About 11% of American households rent a storage unit at an average monthly cost of $85. Nearly half of self-storage customers rent for a year or more, costing over a thousand dollars!
Some nationalities are more compulsive about clutter. For instance, Germans and Swedes seem less inclined to pile up unused things. The Swedes have a saying that stresses you should not leave a mess for others to clean up. They call it "death cleaning".
Studies show that clutter breeds emotional chaos for some people. A study at Princeton University showed that with too much stuff around, the brain is unable to process information well. Another study from the University of California revealed that clutter can have an adverse effect on hormones. For instance, women who live with a mess did not show the normal decrease in the stress hormone, cortisol, that usually occurs during the course of a day. Moreover, they experienced an increase in depressed mood. In some cases, living in a mess means social isolation stemming from the embarrassment of friends not able to get in the door for all the mess.
A messy home can also lead to falls. Getting older is a dangerous process. Seniors are less agile, and vision deteriorates. Tripping over a mess can cause a fractured hip or other serious injuries.
For messy households, there is nothing like the workload that comes when parents move into retirement homes. This topic doesn’t feature in my new book about Healthy Retirement Residence Living, but that’s my oversight. Fortunately, my own family does not have this problem, but the tales are legendary of families who must sort through room after room of “stuff” collected over a lifetime.
If you’ve decided it's time to get rid of clutter, there’s good news. Decluttering does make people feel psychologically better. It provides a sense of accomplishment and well-being. Equally important, decluttering gives people a sense of personal control, lowering stress.
If getting rid of clutter is good for you, why don't more people do it? There are lots of reasons. Are people too busy? Is there just too much stuff? Does procrastination win?
Just as a voyage of a thousand miles begins with the first step, the best thing is to just get started. Set small goals, so you don't become overwhelmed before you even begin.
Experts in decluttering offer sage advice. Sort your things into three broad categories, “Keep, Discard, and Maybe”. Then repeat with the "Maybe" stuff as many times as needed.
Break the work into small chunks of time. Spending 30 minutes on one task is enough, so you don't get overtired or bored and say, "What's the use?"
Remember that deciding to clean up a mess means the clutter has to go somewhere. This is a time when you can make less fortunate people happy. Donate clothing, electronics, books, furniture, and other items to The Salvation Army, Goodwill, and other charitable organizations.
Hmm. I can just hear my wife saying, "So Giff, when are you going to toss out those old shoes?" But like old wine, I find it hard to say goodbye to old shoes.
They remain on my "Maybe" list.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
Saturday, February 8, 2025
PICKERING FORWARD
PICKERING FORWARD
By Maurice Brenner
Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering
Having attended the PICKERING FORWARD Planning Department Open House Townhall as part of the Policy Development for a New Pickering Official Plan on February 6th at the George Ashe CC, this transformative session was nothing less than impressive. About 40 members of communities from across Pickering turned out and took part in meaningful discussions that focussed on sustainability and the natural environment.
Some of the key highlights raised by residents stressed the importance of protecting community character along the Kingston Road corridor. Things such as wide multi-purpose
Bvds that are pedestrian friendly, with regard for architectural design controls that enables a blend of structural forms. Another important item, was the need to better understand the impact of removing all trees during development through an environmental lens to ensure appropriate mitigating options are explored.
As Pickering continues to move forward with growth in Central Pickering, the redevelopment along Kingston Road and infill, I will do my utmost to bring these and other important items to the table always keeping in mind, that what ever we do today will impact tomorrow.,
During the coming weeks PICKERING FORWARD will launch its next phase of this implant policy review of our Official Plan. And while there was some scepticism that voices may not be heard, the Planning Team assured them that everything was on the table and deemed important.
To learn more about PICKERING FORWARD, check out www.pickering.ca/Pickeringforward 
Canada’s Border Crisis: China, Fentanyl, and the Failure of Leadership
Canada’s Border Crisis: China, Fentanyl, and the Failure of Leadership
By Sami Parvez
Canada’s Border Crisis: China, Fentanyl, and the Failure of Canada's border policies have been criticized for being too lax, particularly under the Liberal government. In recent years, under the Liberal government, policies have become more relaxed. In July, after Canada accepted over 5,000 refugees from Gaza, U.S. Senators expressed concerns, warning that the policy could provide individuals with potential ties to terror groups easier access to the United States. Immigration Minister Marc Miller dismissed these concerns as “categorically false,” adding that “Canada only issues refugee travel documents to individuals deemed legitimate refugees after a separate assessment process."
Canada wouldn’t have taken any action if there were no concerns about tariffs. Canadians owe gratitude to U.S. President Donald Trump for threatening tariffs on Canadian products, which prompted Ottawa to get serious about the illegal flow of drugs into the country, illegal border crossings, and the misuse of Canada's relaxed visa system for temporary residents. In fact, Canada has a long history of fentanyl arriving in Vancouver from China, but authorities have taken no concrete action to address the issue in the past.
After a phone call with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Feb. 3, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to pause proposed tariffs on Canada for 30 days—on the condition that Canada strengthens border security to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking. In response, Trudeau committed to deploying 10,000 front-line personnel, appointing a "Fentanyl Czar," designating Mexican cartels as terrorists, and signing a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, when he was Liberal leader in 2013, famously said he “admires China because of its dictatorship,” sparking significant discussion in Canada, particularly among Chinese-Canadians who fled China for their safety from the Chinese Communist regime.
In 2019, two Chinese scientists working at Canada's top infectious disease lab in Winnipeg, Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng, were dismissed due to concerns about their connections to Chinese military researchers and sharing of sensitive information. While they were red-flagged, fired, and sent back to China, the Liberal government did not take significant public action or raise the issue directly with China at the time.
When the opposition brought up the matter in the House of Commons, Trudeau accused them of being racist and spreading anti-Asian sentiment.
“The rise in anti-Asian racism we have been seeing over the past number of months should be of concern to everyone,” Trudeau told the House on May 26, 2021, in response to then-Tory MP Candice Bergen's questions regarding reports that two Chinese scientists at Canada's top infectious-disease laboratory in Winnipeg had been collaborating with Chinese military researchers.
In October 2024, the RCMP dismantled what authorities described at the time as “the largest and most sophisticated fentanyl and methamphetamine drug superlab” in Canadian history, located in Falkland, B.C. According to the police, “the combined fentanyl and precursor chemicals seized could have amounted to over 95.5 million doses, with an estimated $485 million in potential profit.”
The recent drug bust underscores the need for stronger border security and law enforcement. It also highlights the role of foreign actors in Canada’s crime problem. Award winning investigative journalist Sam Cooper has raised concerns about China’s involvement, claiming that Chinese military links to criminal networks are fueling money laundering and drug trafficking.
“There are very deep concerns that Canada is being used by China in a very sophisticated economic and truly criminal way,” Cooper told The Daniela Cambone Show.
“Chinese military was directly involved with these underground Chinese criminal networks that were facilitating this massive money laundering which tied into fentanyl, cocaine, (and) money moving around the world. So, drugs are coming in through Vancouver right then spreading across Canada and getting down into the United States.”
Yet, despite mounting evidence, neither Prime Minister Justin Trudeau nor his main rival, Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre, has directly named China as a key player in Canada’s fentanyl crisis. Trudeau’s government has also failed to strengthen oversight of Canada’s ports, particularly the Port of Vancouver—a well-documented entry point for Chinese fentanyl shipments. Instead of prioritizing the safety of Canadians, Trudeau continues to shield Beijing from accountability, placing diplomatic ties above national security.
Poilievre has vowed to crack down on fentanyl traffickers if elected, saying, "I will lock up fentanyl kingpins and throw away the key. It’s like spraying bullets into a crowd—even if you don’t aim, you will kill people. The penalty should be the same as murder. I will pass mandatory life sentences, so fentanyl kingpins never get out of jail and stop killing our kids."
While his tough-on-crime approach resonates with many, he has yet to address who is ultimately responsible for flooding Canada with this deadly drug. Without tackling the source of the crisis, enforcement alone may not be enough.
It’s time for strong leadership that puts Canada first. Ottawa must invest more in law enforcement and defence to ensure better protection with more boots on the ground. There must be zero tolerance for foreign interference, and our borders must be fully secured. No one should enter Canada illegally, nor should money laundering or the drug trade thrive. Canada needs patriotic leadership that prioritizes national sovereignty and puts Canadians above all else.
Criminals must face stricter punishments, and foreign citizens who break the law should be deported immediately. Their assets should be seized, and those born outside Canada must be returned to their country of birth without exception. Canada must uphold the rule of law, and rule breakers should not be tolerated. It’s time to reinstate tougher penalties to ensure justice and security.
Truths Job Seekers Conveniently Ignore
Truths Job Seekers Conveniently Ignore
By Nick Kossovan
"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality," - Ayn Rand, Russian-born American writer, Atlas Shrugged (1957)
Acknowledging current job market realities is imperative for job search success. Clinging to comforting narratives while ignoring hard truths will not change how employers operate, especially regarding their respective hiring process.
Most job seekers conveniently ignore the following seven uncomfortable truths, which, if they accepted, would expedite their job search.
1. There's always someone younger and hungrier than you.
When it comes to "job search truisms that suck," this is at the top.
Job searching is a competition against other candidates, AI, automation, low-cost overseas labour, and the advantages of using contractors and freelancers. Achieving success in this competitive landscape requires being hungrier than your competition, as winning typically demands a strong desire to prevail.
I view "someone younger and hungrier" (and more skilled) as a call to action. While you can't "youth appeal," you can lessen its influence on hiring decisions by:
· Assuring employers you're relevant—not "dated"—that you keep up with technology, social media's ebbs and flows, and ever-shifting social norms.
· Demonstrating you can work autonomously. (read: you'll be easy to manage)
· Cultivating professional relationships that can vouch for your value to an employer.
· Establishing you don't have a sense of entitlement—the Achilles heel of most job seekers.
2. You don't own your job; your employer does.
The phrase "my job" is an oxymoron. Layoffs illustrate that the job belongs to the employer, yet many job seekers chase the illusion of job security.
My take is an employee is renting their job until they no longer want the job or their employer requires their services. Job seekers would shorten their job search by adopting a renter's mindset. In other words, don't look for what doesn't exist—a permanent employment situation.
Renting is primarily about having a roof over your head; therefore, we tend to accept, within reason, "less than ideal" (e.g., neighbourhood, kitchen layout, bathroom size). The motivation to buy a home is to build equity, which, as you know, is more challenging, expensive, and requires a long-term commitment. When job searching, think of yourself looking for a rental situation; looking for a job that meets your immediate income needs is a quicker route to landing a job than looking for your "ideal work situation."
3. What you show is what an employer will know.
Employers hire results, not opinions.
Most resumes and LinkedIn profiles are merely lists of opinions; hence, they fail to attract opportunities. Vague claims like "I'm a team player" lack substance. You must quantify: "I was part of a 12-member sales team with a $6.5 million quota." Numbers, the language of business, illustrate your impact and make you a more attractive candidate.
4. You don't define your worth; employers do.
A sense of entitlement fuels the obsession with being paid what you're worth.
Basic economics: A product or service's worth is largely determined by how well it solves a customer's problem, meets their needs, and compares with competing products.
As I mentioned, when job searching, you're competing against candidates who are younger and hungrier than you. Thus, they're willing to work for a lower wage to get their foot in the door, gain experience, and prove themselves. The reason many job seekers experience a lengthy job search is because they possess an inflated sense of their value to employers and overlook their competition.
5. Employers are moving away from remote jobs.
Their company, their rules.
It's no secret that many companies, such as Starbucks, Amazon, Meta, Walmart, and Trump mandating federal workers return to the office full-time, are ending the remote work setup during COVID, which gave white-collar workers a taste of the privilege of working from home.
From what I'm observing and hearing, abuse of working from home is prevalent; hence, I agree with employers having their employees RTO and employees having to manage their workdays as they did pre-COVID.
For a faster job search, be open to working onsite. If WFH is a non-negotiable 'must-have,' be prepared for a lengthy job search as the number of WFH opportunities is rapidly shrinking.
6. Your LinkedIn profile and activity on LinkedIn matter more than your resume.
What has more visibility, your resume, which is only seen by those you give it to, or your LinkedIn profile, which anyone can view 24/7/365?
Given how influential your LinkedIn profile can be to your job search and career, I find it surprising that I still see profiles that scream, "I'm not serious about my job search or career!"
With all the information and guides available it's inexcusable not to create a fully optimized LinkedIn profile that'll attract opportunities.
7. Your likability supersedes your skills and experience.
Hiring managers don't hire candidates they don't like; hence, likability is a job seeker's biggest asset. While your resume, cover letter and LinkedIn profile job will get you interviews, the success of your interview will be primarily determined by how likable you are; therefore, being likable is a trait (read: skill) worth fostering.cover letter that may (but is not guaranteed) encourage the hiring manager to contact you, then how badly you want the job becomes questionable.
_____________________________________________________________________
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
Sunday, February 2, 2025
A human tragedy that must never happen again
A human tragedy that
must never happen again
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
As we deal with a new conflagration in Europe and its many victims, we need to reflect for a moment on the human tragedy of cataclysmic proportion that happened during WW2, and hope that this kind of thing will never happen again. On May 8, 1945, Winston Churchill announced that the Allies had secured Victory in Europe. Later that year, Japan would finally surrender, and World War II would end.
It is hard to believe that in 2025, we will mark the 80th Anniversary of the end of World War II; a tragedy that was the most devastating event of the last century. This war was the deadliest military conflict in human history. An estimated 70 to 85 million people perished in it; or about 3% of the world population in 1940. The World War II conflagration saw very high civilian casualties. Civilian deaths totaled 50 to 55 million. Of this, the victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing numbered close to 25 million. Around 17 million perished as victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators, and 7.6 million were victims of the communist rule in the Soviet Union.
The ferocity of Nazi killings was motivated by the idea of ethnic cleansing. These racially motivated crimes included the persecution of Roma and the handicapped, the murder of Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, as well as political prisoners, religious dissenters, and homosexuals, adding to the number of innocent victims of war. In January 1942, top Nazi leaders convened in the outer lakeside Berlin suburb of Wannsee to outline the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe”, without regard for geographic boundaries.
In total, 11 million Jews would be targeted for extermination. Without a whimper, the thirteen officials signed off on the ‘Final Solution’. The minutes would record their decision to ‘cleanse the German living space of Jews in a legal manner’. This marked the darkest seminal moment in a series of events that would see the murder of 6 million Jews, an abhorrence beyond comprehension in our modern, comfortable lives. The Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II.
Entire families, old men and women and young children were killed in the Nazi extermination camps by ferocious and inhumane methods.
According to Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) researchers, 2,830,000 Jews were murdered in the Nazi death camps (500,000 in Belzec; 150,000 in Sobibor; 850,000 in Treblinka; 150,000 in Chelmno; 1,100,000 in Auschwitz and 80,000 in Majdanek. In the Nazi occupied territory of the USSR the Nazi Einsatzgruppen killed another 1.4 million Jewish people by mobile gas chambers and mass executions.
Eighty years ago, on 27 January 1945, Soviet soldiers from the 60th Army of the First Ukrainian Front advanced into Poland and liberated Auschwitz. There, amid mountains of corpses, they discovered about 7,650 men, women and children, starving, stricken by disease, barely living. They also found hundreds of thousands of personal effects, and 700 tons of human hair. These broken human beings were among the handful of survivors of the 1.3 million people who had passed through the gates of Auschwitz.
In November 2005, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 27 January 1945, the day on which Auschwitz was liberated, as International Remembrance Day to mark the tragedy of the Holocaust. It commemorates the genocide that resulted in the deaths of 6 million Jews and 11 million others, by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.
It urges every member nation of the U.N. to honour the memory of Holocaust victims, and encourages the development of educational programs about Holocaust history to help prevent future acts of genocide. It condemns all manifestations of religious intolerance, incitement, harassment or violence against persons or communities based on ethnic origin or religious belief. The International Day in memory of the victims of the Holocaust is thus a day on which we must reassert our commitment to human rights. We must also go beyond remembrance, and make sure that new generations know this history. We must apply the lessons of the Holocaust to today’s world. After the horrors of the 20th century, there should be no room for intolerance in the 21st. The only way to honour the memory of the Holocaust is to turn remembrance into the promise of a better future. Preserving and transmitting the memory is a duty towards those who lost their lives, and towards our children. In commemorating the dead, we are inspired by the triumph of the human spirit given us by those who survived.
"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." Winston Churchill
A nation that does not know nor understand its history, is dangerous. Life’s paradox is that often it is those things, most important to us, that we have a tendency to take for granted.
We are fortunate as Canadians, whether by birth or by choice, to enjoy political, economic and religious freedoms. To live in a nation in which faith coexists with reason, free academic inquiry, a free press and independent judiciary is a blessing and we need to preserve it.
And yet support for democracy is diminishing. We are defined most by our values and our beliefs, the way we relate to one another and see our place in the world. We are shaped by our heroes and villains, our triumphs and failures. The way as a people we have faced adversity and how we will face the inevitable adversities that are coming. How we respond to them will shape our future. Nations, like people, face ‘moments of truth’.
There are moments in history which challenge our very survival and values. Well led, we emerge stronger, more resilient. Under poor leadership, we may suffer lasting damage. Six million Jews were murdered in an act of unspeakable genocidal barbarism. So too were homosexuals, Roma, the disabled and political dissidents.
In a world grappling with the mass movement of people, the persecution of political, ethnic and religious minorities, the push for euthanasia and a generational struggle against resurgent religious extremism, we must remind ourselves not only of why we fought wars but also what human kind is capable of, and the circumstances that lead to it.
Today we live in vast ignorance of the decisions we make and that are made for us, facing extraordinary global uncertainty and immense technological change.
No human being, no Canadian who believes in the dignity of man, of freedom and democratic principles, should ever allow the Holocaust to be forgotten through neglectful indifference; that the events, the people, their lives and stories, become distant strangers. These heinous events and those who survived them teach us many things. Most importantly they inspire us to have the moral courage, irrespective of personal consequences, to act on what, in our hearts, we know to be right.
“It is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it.” ? Henry Kissinger
Are we ready to do it right?
Exposing More Lies & Corruption: The Truth About Pickering’s Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT)
Exposing More Lies & Corruption:
The Truth About Pickering’s Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT)
By Lisa Robinson
Today, I’m speaking out because I’m tired of the lies, manipulation, and deceit coming from some council members and city staff. What happened during the January 13th Executive Committee meeting is a prime example of why trust in government continues to erode.
During that meeting, staff recommended implementing a 4% Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) on hotels and motels in Pickering. They justified it by claiming that 'many' municipalities had already adopted the tax, but here’s the truth: only 15 out of 444 municipalities have done so—that’s just 3.4%. Calling that 'many' is not only inaccurate, it's a lie designed to manipulate public perception. That kind of intentional distortion is corruption, plain and simple.
I asked our Director of Economic Development, Mr. Fiaz Jadoon, whether hotels and motels had been consulted. He assured me that they had and claimed there were no significant concerns. Based on that assurance, the vote passed 6-1 and was set to return to Council on January 27th. I of course, was the dissenting vote.
But here’s where it gets worse. At the January 27th Council meeting, I asked the same question again. This time, Mr. Jadoon once again claimed that all hotels had been consulted. I pushed back because I had done my homework—and I had a different answer. Only then did the Mayor finally admit, reading from what looked like a script, that the higher-ups at our biggest hotel—Great Canadian Gaming—had not been consulted and even confirmed they were not on board with charging this new tax.
So let me ask you: Why did the Mayor allow this lie to continue? Why didn’t the truth come out until I exposed it? If I hadn’t challenged them, that false information would have stood as fact.
And this isn’t the first time this has happened. When I was first elected, Mr. Jadoon claimed that businesses along Kingston Road had been consulted about development plans. Once again, I did my research, and once again, I discovered that it was a complete lie.
This pattern of dishonesty is not a mistake—it’s deliberate. And that’s why I keep asking questions and pushing back. Because if I don’t, who will?
Thankfully, Councillor Cook seconded my motion to send this tax proposal back to staff for proper consultation. But let’s be clear: two members of Council actually voted against delaying the vote, even after knowing our largest hotel was not supportive.
The Mayor, Councillor Nagy, and Mr. Jadoon all argue that a 4% tax increase is insignificant, but when combined with other taxes, it totals a 17% increase—a significant burden on businesses and consumers, especially when people are already struggling to make ends meet.
Lying to the public to manipulate outcomes is corruption. And I won’t stand by and let it happen.
I’ve already lost three months of pay for daring to say that corruption starts at the top. And here we are—proof that it does. I am Councillor Robinson, 'The People’s Councillor,' and I will continue to fight for transparency, honesty, and the people of Pickering.
I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor
FORD’S $189M ELECTION GAMBLE: A BID FOR POWER, NOT THE PEOPLE
FORD’S $189M ELECTION GAMBLE:
A BID FOR POWER, NOT THE PEOPLE
By Sami Parvez
Ontario Premier Doug Ford has called an early provincial election, citing the need for a stronger majority amidst threats from Trump’s tariffs. However, the reality seems different — with his party already leading strongly in the polls, Ford appears eager to capitalize on this political advantage. Like many politicians intoxicated by power, whether prime ministers or premiers, they often seek to extend their rule indefinitely. Many politicians often prioritize political gains over taxpayer interests.
On January 28, Ford met with Lt.-Gov. Edith Dumont to dissolve the Ontario Legislature and call an early provincial election, costing taxpayers $189 million. The election will take place on Thursday, February 27, making it Ontario’s first winter election since 1883.
For the past year, there had been speculation that Ford would call an early election, and he never ruled it out. Finally, he called the election, and taxpayers will pay the price. The $189 million could be better spent on healthcare, addressing the housing crisis, or supporting homeless individuals.
According to Feed Ontario, A hunger-relief organization and advocacy group focused on ending hunger and poverty through fresh food delivery, innovative programs, and research-driven change through research and advocacy, "40% of food banks have reduced the amount of food they provide, and half have been forced to cut wrap-around services amid record-high demand and resource shortages. There was a 25% increase in the use of food banks in Ontario compared to 2023, marking the eighth consecutive year of growth."
Ford’s Progressive Conservative Party already holds a large majority, with 79 out of 124 seats. Despite this, he is still not satisfied. This is not about securing a larger majority but about keeping his job for the next four years. For the past nine years, the Liberals have been in power at the federal level, but they are now trailing their main rivals, the Conservatives, by over 20 points in the polls. Ford isn’t willing to take any risks, anticipating that the federal Conservatives will likely secure a majority in the next election. If they falter during their first term, his government could suffer the consequences in 2026 if the election remains on its fixed date.
"When the tariffs hit, it affects the media, it affects manufacturing, it affects every single sector in this province," Ford told reporters on Jan. 24.
"So you better pray that we get elected, because I'm going to protect everyone's job, including the media's job."
Ford presents himself as the only leader capable of dealing with Trump. He attacked his main rivals, NDP Leader Marit Stiles and Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie, during a campaign-style news conference in Brampton, Ont., on Jan. 24.
Mocking his opponents during a Jan. 24 news conference, he said: "Imagine Bonnie Crombie or Marit Stiles sitting across from President Trump negotiating a deal. It would be an absolute disaster. And God help us if that ever happens."
According to polling aggregator 338Canada.com, if an election were held today, the Progressive Conservatives (PC) would win a historic 45% of the vote, securing 99 seats. The Ontario Liberals would follow with 26% of the vote, earning 8 seats, while the NDP would capture 21% of the vote and 14 seats. The Ontario Greens are projected to receive 6% of the vote, winning 2 seats. Additionally, an independent candidate could also secure a seat in the Ontario Legislature.
“Right now, President Trump has put uncertainty to every single Canadian, a lot of other countries around the world, and this isn’t going to happen overnight. It may not happen Feb. 1, I’m sure something’s coming, but this is going to be a battle for the next four years, and I want to make sure that I have a strong mandate to outlast President Trump,” Ford told the media after the writ was dropped on Tuesday Jan. 28.
Ontario opposition leaders accuse Ford of calling an early election for political gain, arguing that it is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money on the on the first day of election campaign on Wednesday, Jan. 29.
We should be here at Queen’s Park, working across party lines to show strength through unity in the face of Donald Trump’s threats. Instead, Doug Ford has called an election, abandoning the people of Ontario when they need him the most,” Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said in a speech at Queen’s Park on Wednesday,
“Clearly, Doug Ford cares more about his job than he does about yours.”
“We are here today because Doug Ford doesn’t care about you. Because he has decided to spend $175 million on an election we don’t need, rather than spending that money on getting you a family doctor or on anything to make your life a little easier,” Crombie said in Barrie on Wednesday, slamming Ford for calling an early election in a key riding the Liberals aim to flip from the PCs.
In her campaign launch in downtown Toronto on Wednesday, NDP Leader Marit Stiles mocked Ford’s ability as a negotiator.
“Doug Ford as our negotiator, are you kidding?” Stiles said. “Time and time again, Doug Ford has shown he can’t negotiate his way out of a paper bag.”
Ford is using the threat of Trump’s tariffs as an excuse for calling an early election, even though U.S. President Donald Trump has stated that Canada cannot prevent the tariffs set to take effect on Feb. 1. This makes Ford’s justification for spending $189 million on an unnecessary election even weaker.
Ontarians need stronger government support to secure necessities such as food, healthcare, shelter, and economic stability. They don’t want one person to cling to power indefinitely. Ontarians deserve better governance, true leadership, and greater accountability. It’s time for the government to put citizens’ well-being ahead of political gains. Ford's decision proves he is more focused on power than on addressing Ontario's real crises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)