There’s No One Medical Truth

There’s No One Medical Truth Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Advice has a habit of changing. One decade, eggs are dangerous. The next, they’re back on the plate. Butter was once a villain. Now it’s got its place. Coffee? Bad, then good, then possibly essential – depending on which expert you ask. It leaves people wondering: if the science is so clear, why does it keep shifting? Medicine has never been one unified story. Believing that can lead you badly astray. This is an opinion column, and for over 50 years, a lot of what’s been shared has rubbed the medical establishment the wrong way. That’s because there has been little patience for hypocrisy and groupthink. If something doesn’t make sense – in medicine, politics, or anything else – you might read about it here. All things in life are shaped by human nature. Bright ideas compete. Smart people argue their cases. Institutions defend themselves. And when a belief becomes widely accepted, questioning it can be problematic. Yet history shows that today’s “settled science” often becomes tomorrow’s revision. Part of the problem is that we talk about medicine as though it were a single, consistent approach. It isn’t. Around the world, and across time, very different models of health have developed. Some focus on drugs and surgery. Others emphasize nutrition, environment, or the body’s internal balance. Even within modern Western medicine, there are competing schools of thought. And they don’t always ask the same questions or look at the same evidence. Take something as simple as vitamins. Most of us were taught vitamins are there to prevent deficiency diseases. A little vitamin C to avoid scurvy. Enough vitamin D to protect bones. Just enough to get by. But some researchers have asked a different question: what happens if the body is given not just “enough,” but far more, under careful supervision? Could higher levels change how the body functions under stress or illness? That idea makes many experts uncomfortable. Yet it reflects a broader truth about biology: the dosage matters. A cup of coffee can sharpen your mind. Ten cups will do something very different. The same principle applies throughout the body. Substances that are helpful at one level can behave in entirely different ways at another. There’s another layer to this as well. The body doesn’t operate one chemical at a time. It works as a complex network – systems interacting with systems. Nutrients, hormones, and enzymes influence each other in ways that are still not fully understood. Some approaches to medicine look at these interactions closely. Others study one factor at a time, because that’s easier to measure and test. Neither approach is inherently wrong. But they can lead to very different conclusions. And that’s the point. When experts disagree, it’s not always because one side is foolish or uninformed. Often, they are simply looking at the problem through different lenses, asking different questions, using different methods, and defining success in different ways. Unfortunately, once a particular way of thinking becomes dominant, it tends to crowd out alternatives. Medical training, research funding, and professional reputation all reinforce what is already accepted. Over time, that can make the system less open to new or unconventional ideas. The Gifford-Jones mantra has been to push back against that tendency. It means you should be cautious about believing that any one voice speaks for all of science. When you hear a confident medical claim, it’s worth asking a few simple questions. What exactly was studied? What wasn’t? Are there other experts who see it differently? And if so, why? These aren’t the questions of a cynic. They’re the habits of an informed consumer.

Middle Man

Middle Man By Wayne and Tamara I'm torn about how to handle this. My 23-year-old daughter got engaged last November. This weekend she and her fiancé visited us. Yesterday I sat down at my computer and her fiancé’s email was still open. In the sent mail I found pictures of his ex-girlfriend wearing nothing but a partially-open robe. This email is one he sent to himself in January. I’m no prude, but I think if nothing else this was stupid on his part. It would cause a major issue if she discovered it. Best case, they're pictures from years ago, and he simply wanted to keep them. Worst case, she is still sending him photos. I’m thinking of confronting him, and if he’s honest with me, then I’ll bury this. But if he lies, I will make him come clean with my daughter. I don't want to cause a problem where there isn't one, but I don't want to ignore something that may be a real issue. Leo Leo, one of the failings of honest people is they expect dishonest people to think as they do. The liar and the victim of the lie have a huge difference in perspective. If your daughter’s fiancé is actively involved with his old girlfriend, he has no reason to tell you the truth. If you talk to him, you should expect the same answer—denial—whether he is telling the truth or lying. The easy way out is to say nothing and pretend you never saw the photos. But the power to keep quiet is not something you have. It is better for your daughter to know now rather than knowing later. She is the one you have a relationship with. When you see someone breaking into your neighbor’s house and don’t tell your neighbor, who are you siding with? The thief. This young man brought consequences on himself. You will always have this in your head when you deal with him. You can’t stop your daughter from making mistakes, but you can give her the information you now possess. Talk to your daughter, alone and soon, in a calm and collected manner. Carefully tell her, “If something came of this, and I didn’t tell you, I would be kicking myself forever. I don’t have the knowledge to know what this means, but I saw something which hurt me because it may hurt you.” Then trust her to do the right thing. Wayne & Tamara Suspicions I work for a small company. Since I have been on board our very young owner has made accusations, but today was the worst. He was getting ready to leave and next to me was a check from one of our customers. It was similar in color to the ones I cut and he signs. He wasn't gone 10 minutes when I got a phone call, asking me why I signed one of our checks. I was dumbfounded then looked around and saw the customer’s check. I told him what he had seen and assured him I do not sign checks because I'm not authorized. There was great hesitation in his voice, and since then he has been rude and snappy with me. Meghan Meghan, your boss “saw” something he didn’t see. Rather than be disproven, he wants to defend himself and carry around the idea he wasn’t wrong. Perhaps he’s under stress, sensitive about his authority, or likes to bully others. Perhaps he is suspicious of others because he knows himself to be untrustworthy. Whatever the case, you have to protect yourself. Document the date and time of the phone call and details about the check involved. Explain to others what happened. In the meantime, act absolutely above board and professionally. If you think your job is in danger, act like your job is in danger and take steps to find a more welcoming workplace. Wayne & Tamara

In a Sea of AI-Slop, Authenticity is the Currency That'll Get You Hired

In a Sea of AI-Slop, Authenticity is the Currency That'll Get You Hired By Nick Kossovan I've said it before, and I'll say it again: job seekers are often their own worst enemies; an obvious example is how they utilize AI lazily. By mass-applying and copying-pasting AI output to their prompts without editing, job seekers hoping for shortcuts and to lessen their job search efforts are flooding employers with what amounts to 100% Grade A AI-slop, creating an irony similar to drowning in a flood caused by leaving the taps running to see if the drains work. Job seekers flood employers with resumes and cover letters they didn't even write for jobs they aren't qualified for, adding to the deluge of applications and forcing employers to increasingly aggressively use ATS software to filter them, which job seekers complain about. Do job seekers not think that their misuse of AI wouldn't have consequences? When job postings receive 1,200 applications within six hours—95% of which are clearly AI-generated—recruiters and hiring managers don't look harder; instead, they rely more on the very technology job seekers are trying to outsmart because job seekers have made it nearly impossible to find a genuine person in the digital flood they're causing. What does "AI-slop" look like? It's word salad that tries to say everything and yet says nothing. I see it every day, resumes claiming the job seeker's a "visionary leader leveraging synergistic solutions," yet failing to list a single actual result you've delivered. Cover letters that recycle the company's 'About Us' page like reconstituted paper pulp. In an article titled How AI Slop Took Over Hiring and How to Sound Human Again, published by Artisan Talent, Katrina Kibben, CEO of Three Ears Media, states bluntly: "Faster doesn't mean better; it means faster. AI is replicating trends and problems into these new resumes because their training data is a sample of old information that wasn't good to begin with." Simply put, when you lazily use AI to "help" you with your job search, you become just like all the other job seekers who also lazily use AI. Two types of AI misuse are job search killers: 1. Mass Applying. Increasingly, job seekers are using AI tools to auto-tailor their resume and apply 24/7 to job postings the AI finds on job boards and company websites. While their resume(s) incorporate keywords effectively, they lack a clear career trajectory, relevance, and, most importantly, proof that they've positively impacted their previous employer's profitability. It's unlikely that a resume like this would pass an employer's ATS; however, if a human were to lay eyes on it, the lack of "value-add" would be glaring. 1. Ghostwriter. AI tools are widely used by job seekers to write what they think is the perfect cover letter and to answer screening and knock-out questions. As well, job seekers are employing 'whispering bots' during video interviews. Perhaps one day AI will be able to mimic your personality, problem-solving, and strategic thinking; however, as of right now, it can't. Mike Wolford, author of THE AI RECRUITER: Revolutionizing Hiring with Advanced GPT-Powered Prompts, noted: "We've gained infinite words but lost specificity—and that's why everything, from resumes to job posts, sounds the same." Employers hire candidates they believe will serve their self-interests; therefore, not using AI lazily and showing employers evidence of your value to your previous employers is the best job search strategy a job seeker can adopt. Here are three examples of comparing "AI-slop" against high-impact, human-written value: · AI-Slop: Managed a customer service team and ensured high levels of customer satisfaction through effective leadership. · Human Value-Add: Managed a 45-agent inbound call centre operation averaging over 50,000 calls per month. In my first 6 months, I reduced average handle time by 12% and increased first-call resolution from 78% to 89%. · AI-Slop: Improved internal workflow and organizational efficiency by collaborating with cross-functional departments. · Human Value-Add: Eliminated redundancies in procurement workflows to save $240,000 annually and accelerated by 15% project turnaround. · AI-Slop: Experienced in growing sales and market share through strategic outreach and maintaining strong relationships with stakeholders. · Human Value-Add: Generated $1.2M in new recurring revenue through targeted B2B acquisition, which expanded regional market share by 8% in 2025. In a job market flooded with AI-slop, a well-written, results-oriented resume is a revolutionary act. Refusing to use AI lazily gives you a competitive advantage. While the job seekers you're competing against are prompting AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Teal, trying to sound 'professional,' your job search strategy should be identifying an employer's specific pain points and proving, quantitatively based on past performance, how you have the skills and experience to address them. Next time you're angry at the job market, ask yourself how much AI-slop you're contributing to employers' inboxes. Recruiters and hiring managers aren't searching for someone who can "beat the machine." They're looking for the person who'd be a value-add to their profitability, who's serious about their career and is willing to put in the effort that a machine can't replicate. Every time you copy-paste an AI-generated response, you're basically saying, "I don't care enough about this role to write three original sentences." If you don't care, then don't expect employers to care about hiring you.

POLICING COSTS ARE OUT OF CONTROLWhen Did Public Safety Become a Luxury Item?

POLICING COSTS ARE OUT OF CONTROL When Did Public Safety Become a Luxury Item? Across Ontario, municipalities are being crushed under the weight of rising policing costs. Every year, local councils are told the same thing: policing budgets must increase, capital projects are essential, and taxpayers simply have no choice but to pay more. And every year, taxpayers are expected to quietly accept it. But at some point, someone has to ask the uncomfortable question: How did policing become one of the largest and fastest-growing financial burdens on municipal governments? Across Ontario, municipalities are now facing police budgets that consume enormous portions of their annual operating budgets. New headquarters, satellite facilities, specialized units, fleet expansions, technology upgrades, and administrative growth have all become normalized. Meanwhile, taxpayers are struggling with inflation, mortgage payments, rent increases, food costs, and property taxes that continue to rise year after year. The disconnect between municipal reality and taxpayer reality has never been greater. What makes this even more frustrating is that when we compare policing infrastructure models in parts of the United States, we often see a completely different philosophy. Many American jurisdictions continue to operate effectively out of older but functional buildings. Resources are directed toward frontline policing rather than monumental capital projects designed to resemble corporate campuses. In Ontario, however, it increasingly feels as though every growing municipality requires a brand-new police palace complete with massive construction budgets, expensive land acquisitions, and long-term financing obligations that taxpayers will carry for decades. Nobody is arguing against public safety. Strong policing matters. Communities deserve professional officers, effective emergency response, proper training, and modern investigative capabilities. But there is a difference between responsible investment and unchecked expansion. Municipal taxpayers deserve transparency. They deserve to know: • Why costs continue escalating far beyond inflation. • Whether all capital projects are truly necessary. • Whether alternative service delivery models have been explored. • Whether existing infrastructure can be modernized instead of replaced. • Whether administrative growth is outpacing frontline service needs. Most importantly, they deserve elected officials who are willing to ask hard questions instead of automatically approving every increase placed before them. The problem is that too many councils are afraid to challenge policing expenditures publicly. The moment anyone asks legitimate financial questions, they risk being accused of being “anti-police,” which is both unfair and intellectually dishonest. Fiscal accountability is not anti-police. Taxpayer protection is not anti-police. Demanding efficiency is not anti-police. In fact, ensuring that police services remain financially sustainable is one of the most pro-community positions any elected official can take. Because if municipalities continue down the current path, policing costs will increasingly crowd out other essential services: • Roads and infrastructure. • Recreation. • Housing initiatives. • Community services. • Economic development. • Transit. • Long-term capital planning. And taxpayers will continue paying more while receiving less elsewhere. Ontario municipalities are entering a dangerous financial era where operating costs are rising faster than taxpayer capacity. Councils cannot continue pretending that unlimited growth in every department is sustainable. Everything must now be examined through the lens of affordability and long-term sustainability. That includes policing. The public deserves honesty. The public deserves accountability. And the public deserves elected officials with enough courage to ask whether the current model is truly sustainable before taxpayers are pushed beyond the breaking point once again.

The Catty vs The Crabs In A Bucket The New And Very Dangerous Mental Health Threat

The Catty vs The Crabs In A Bucket The New And Very Dangerous Mental Health Threat By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 We constantly hear about the problems surrounding mental health. It has become so complex that professionals often stop diagnosing properly and instead opt for multilayered diagnoses. At one time, it was simple: the patient suffered from either a neurosis or a psychosis. Today, with the acceptance of almost anything and everything, all behavior is allowed and accepted. Being mentally ill is sometimes portrayed as fashionable or even praised as the new normal. Society has lowered standards and forced acceptance of what is obviously not normal. As a result, today we have a confused population — a group of “catty” individuals and “crabs in a bucket” lashing out at anyone who looks at them differently. This impedes the advancement of civilization.People who hate or resent the success of others are commonly called haters or envious and jealous individuals. These people often suffer from insecurity and deep-seated mediocrity, using negativity to make themselves feel better about their own lack of achievement. A common phrase describing this behavior is “crabs in a bucket,” referring to people who try to sabotage or pull down anyone attempting to succeed, preventing them from escaping the group’s collective mediocrity. Key Reasons for This BehaviorInsecurity and Comparison: Seeing someone else succeed highlights their own perceived failures, making them feel threatened or inferior. Gluckschmerz: While “schadenfreude” means taking pleasure in another person’s failure, “gluckschmerz” refers to the frustration or pain experienced when witnessing another person’s success. People who celebrate or derive pleasure from the failures of others are often described as experiencing schadenfreude — pleasure derived from another person’s misfortune. These individuals may also display traits associated with: SadismNarcissismBullying behavior within their own social circles Reaction Formation: A defense mechanism in which someone expresses the opposite of their true feelings — for example, falsely cheering another person’s failure while internally feeling jealousy. Sycophancy: Using false praise to gain favor, sometimes encouraging poor decisions or failures in others to advance one’s own position.Patronizing Behavior:Offering excessive or insincere praise after a failure in order to make someone feel incapable or small. Catty Behavior: Often used to describe people who sit on the sidelines and take pleasure in the failures of others. The “woke” movement is, sadly, viewed by many as a flagship example of this phenomenon. The internet, with its anonymity and fake accounts, has become a breeding ground for these types of individuals and for the spread of this kind of toxic behavior.

The Strait of Hormuz Crisis Is Canada’s Strategic Wake-Up Call

The Strait of Hormuz Crisis Is Canada’s Strategic Wake-Up Call by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Every time tensions rise in the Strait of Hormuz, Canadians watch images of naval deployments, oil tankers, missile exchanges, and diplomatic ultimatums as though these events belong to another world. They do not. What happens in that narrow maritime corridor between Iran and Oman has direct implications for Canada’s economy, national security, inflation, trade, defence posture, and geopolitical relevance. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically important waterways on Earth. Roughly, one-fifth of global petroleum consumption passes through it. Major energy producers in the Gulf depend on it to export oil and liquefied natural gas to Asia, Europe, and global markets. Even the mere possibility of disruption immediately affects international energy prices. Markets react not only to war itself, but to uncertainty, fear, and perceived risk. When Hormuz becomes unstable, gasoline prices rise in Toronto and Vancouver. Shipping insurance costs increase. Airlines face higher jet fuel expenses. Food transportation becomes more expensive. Inflationary pressure spreads across the global economy. Stock markets fluctuate. Supply chains tighten. The consequences eventually reach Canadian households, manufacturers, farmers, and consumers. But beyond short-term economics lies a much larger issue — one that Canadians have avoided confronting for too long. The Hormuz question is ultimately about whether democratic nations are prepared to secure their own economic survival in an increasingly unstable world. It is also about whether Canada is prepared to recognize its own strategic importance. For years, Canada has treated energy policy largely as an internal political dispute instead of understanding it as a matter of national and allied security. Successive governments have often approached pipelines, LNG facilities, ports, and resource development defensively, apologetically, or through narrow regional lenses. Meanwhile, authoritarian states and unstable regions continue to dominate critical segments of global energy supply. A major Hormuz crisis would expose the risks of that approach overnight. The reality is simple: when global instability rises, countries look for reliable partners. Stable democratic producers suddenly become indispensable. Canada is one of the few nations in the world with the combination of resources, institutional stability, engineering expertise, environmental standards, and geographic scale necessary to play such a role. This should fundamentally reshape Canada’s national conversation. Canadian energy infrastructure is not merely an economic matter. It is strategic infrastructure. Pipelines, ports, LNG terminals, rail corridors, refineries, electrical grids, and Arctic transportation routes are now directly tied to global geopolitical stability. In many ways, infrastructure has become the modern equivalent of national defence preparedness. Projects such as LNG Canada on the Pacific coast are therefore far more significant than many Canadians realize. Canadian LNG exports can help allies reduce dependence on unstable energy corridors and authoritarian suppliers. European countries learned painful lessons after the ongoing conflagration in its eastern border regarding overreliance on geopolitical adversaries for energy security. Asia faces similar vulnerabilities regarding Hormuz. Canada has an opportunity to become part of the long-term solution. That does not mean abandoning environmental responsibility. On the contrary, Canada can demonstrate that responsible democratic energy production under rigorous labour and environmental standards is preferable to dependence on regimes where transparency, accountability, and environmental protections are weak or nonexistent. The global transition toward cleaner energy will take decades, not years. During that transition, democratic energy suppliers remain essential for global stability. The same logic applies to Canada’s vast critical mineral reserves. Modern economies and military systems increasingly depend on lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, uranium, and rare earth elements. Canada possesses many of these resources in abundance. Strategic competition in the coming decades will increasingly revolve around secure supply chains for both energy and advanced technology. A Hormuz crisis would reinforce another uncomfortable reality: globalization alone cannot guarantee security. For years, Western democracies assumed that economic interdependence would reduce geopolitical conflict. Instead, the world is entering a period of renewed great-power competition, regional instability, cyber conflict, strategic coercion, and supply-chain vulnerability. Energy chokepoints such as Hormuz demonstrate how interconnected and fragile the global system has become. Canada must adapt accordingly. - That adaptation includes defence policy. The Royal Canadian Navy has previously contributed to coalition operations protecting maritime security in the Gulf region and elsewhere. Canadian naval personnel have earned respect internationally for professionalism and operational effectiveness. Future crises may once again require allied maritime patrols, escort missions, surveillance operations, or deterrence deployments to ensure freedom of navigation and protect international commerce. Yet Canada’s military readiness challenges are increasingly visible. Procurement delays, aging equipment, personnel shortages, and insufficient naval modernization weaken Canada’s ability to contribute meaningfully to collective security. If Canada wishes to maintain influence within NATO and among democratic allies, it must rebuild strategic credibility through sustained investment in defence, Arctic sovereignty, cyber resilience, and maritime capability. This is not militarism. It is realism. A country that benefits enormously from global trade cannot assume that others will indefinitely guarantee the security of international shipping routes and economic stability without meaningful Canadian contributions. At the diplomatic level, Canada still possesses valuable assets. Historically, Canada has often functioned as a constructive middle power capable of coalition-building and pragmatic diplomacy. In moments of heightened international tension, balanced diplomacy matters. Canada can work with NATO allies, Gulf states, Asian democracies, and multilateral institutions to support de-escalation and stability. However, diplomacy without strategic weight eventually loses influence. Statements alone do not stabilize energy markets or protect maritime corridors. Nations are respected internationally when diplomacy is supported by economic capability, credible defence commitments, and national coherence. A Hormuz crisis would also force Canada to confront broader questions about productivity, national unity, and long-term strategic planning. Canada remains blessed with enormous advantages: abundant resources, freshwater, agricultural capacity, technological expertise, Arctic access, strong institutions, and multicultural social stability. Few nations possess such a combination of strengths. Yet too often Canada behaves like a country uncertain of its own purpose. At a time when many democracies face political polarization, demographic pressures, supply-chain instability, and geopolitical fragmentation, Canada should position itself as a pillar of democratic resilience and strategic reliability. That requires confidence, investment, and a willingness to think beyond short-term political cycles. The Strait of Hormuz may seem geographically distant from Canadian daily life, but its lessons are immediate and profoundly relevant. Energy security is national security. Economic resilience is strategic resilience. Infrastructure is geopolitical power. Defence preparedness supports prosperity. Stable democracies cannot afford complacency in an increasingly unstable world. Canada should stop viewing itself merely as a spectator observing global crises from afar. The world increasingly needs secure energy suppliers, reliable allies, stable democracies, advanced engineering capacity, and responsible resource producers. Canada possesses all of those attributes. The real question is whether Canadians are prepared to recognize and act on their country’s potential for strategic importance before the next global crisis forces them to the sidelines.

The World We Live In Now: A Test of Nerve and National Purpose

The World We Live In Now: A Test of Nerve and National Purpose by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The world we live in now is marked by uncertainty, acceleration, and growing instability. Nations are confronting simultaneous geopolitical, economic, technological, and social transformations, all unfolding at a speed that challenges governments and institutions alike. This is not simply another difficult period in international affairs. It is a transition into a new global reality. The assumptions that shaped the decades following the Cold War are steadily eroding. For years, many Western societies believed globalization would naturally expand prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and reduce the likelihood of major conflict. That optimism has faded. The recent conflagration in Europe shattered the illusion that large-scale war in Europe belonged to the past. Instability in the Middle East continues to threaten global security and economic stability. Meanwhile, the strategic competition between the United States and China is evolving into the defining geopolitical contest of the twenty-first century—extending beyond military power into trade, artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and access to critical minerals. The international system is becoming more fragmented, more competitive, and less predictable. For middle powers such as Canada, geography alone no longer guarantees security or prosperity. The Arctic is emerging as a zone of increasing strategic importance. NATO allies are demanding stronger burden-sharing. Supply chains once considered dependable have proven vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and global disruptions. At the same time, democracies themselves are under pressure from political polarization, disinformation, and declining public trust. Yet the challenges facing nations today are not only external. Domestically, many Canadians feel the social contract itself is under strain. Housing affordability has become one of the defining issues of our time. Young families increasingly question whether home ownership remains achievable Healthcare systems are struggling with shortages, long wait times, and burnout among professionals. Infrastructure expansion often moves at a pace that no longer matches demographic and economic realities. Canada also faces a productivity challenge. Despite vast natural resources, technological potential, and a highly educated population, the country continues to struggle with regulatory complexity, internal trade barriers, and slow project approvals. The world we live in now rewards speed, coordination, and strategic focus. Unfortunately, democratic systems often move cautiously precisely when decisiveness is required. Overlaying all these pressures is the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence and advanced automation. AI is not simply another technological innovation. It represents a transformational force capable of reshaping labour markets, military operations, education, public administration, and the very nature of information itself. For the first time in history, societies must confront the possibility that machines may outperform humans across a growing range of intellectual tasks. This creates enormous opportunities for innovation and growth, but also profound risks related to employment displacement, surveillance, cybersecurity, and social cohesion. Governments are racing to adapt, yet regulation consistently trails innovation. Citizens are exposed daily to manipulated information, synthetic media, and increasingly sophisticated forms of digital influence. Truth itself is becoming contested terrain. And yet, despite these pressures, this period should not be viewed only through pessimism. History demonstrates that disruption can also produce renewal and reinvention. Nations that emerge stronger are those capable of recognizing reality early and responding with strategic clarity rather than complacency. For Canada, this moment demands serious reflection about national priorities. First, defence and national security must once again be treated as core responsibilities of the state. Investments in military readiness, Arctic sovereignty, cybersecurity, and defence industrial capacity are no longer optional. Credibility among allies matters in an increasingly dangerous world. Second, Canada must address its internal economic fragmentation. Provincial trade barriers weaken competitiveness and productivity. A truly integrated Canadian economy would strengthen national resilience at a time of rising global uncertainty. Third, infrastructure development must become a strategic national mission. Energy systems, transportation corridors, housing construction, telecommunications, and digital infrastructure are all interconnected components of economic sovereignty. Countries that fail to modernize will gradually lose investment and talent. Fourth, education and workforce development must adapt rapidly to technological transformation. Future competitiveness will depend not only on resources, but on the ability to train highly skilled workers capable of operating in advanced technological sectors. But beyond economics and policy lies something equally important: civic responsibility. Democratic societies cannot function effectively without a shared sense of purpose. One of the greatest dangers facing modern democracies is the gradual erosion of trust—in institutions, expertise, and sometimes even in one another. History reminds us that nations endure difficult periods not simply because of government programs, but because citizens themselves maintain confidence in the larger national project. Canada has faced moments of uncertainty before. During the world wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, and more recently the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadians demonstrated resilience, adaptability, and a willingness to work toward common objectives despite political differences. That spirit remains essential today. The world we live in now does not permit complacency. It requires leadership capable of thinking strategically rather than electorally. It requires institutions prepared to modernize rather than simply preserve outdated systems. And it requires citizens willing to engage seriously with the challenges of our time instead of retreating into cynicism or division. This is not an era that rewards passivity. It is an era that demands competence, resilience, and national purpose. How do you think we can achieve that? And what can we as individuals do to help?

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING THE MIND OF A MAD MAN OR A GENIUS

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING THE MIND OF A MAD MAN OR A GENIUS Joe Ingino coined (and popularized) the phrase “I live a dream in a nightmare world.”He uses it as his personal tagline/signature at the top or bottom of nearly all his newspaper columns, blog posts, social media writings, and publications. It appears consistently in his work for the Oshawa/Durham Central Newspaper and related outlets. Key Details:It functions like a branding motto for his commentary series (often called the “‘I Live a Dream in a Nightmare World’ series”). No credible evidence shows the exact phrase being used before Ingino adopted it — searches for earlier uses turn up nothing significant. He has referenced it for years in his role as editor/publisher, making it strongly identified with him locally in the Durham Region / Oshawa area. In short, it’s his signature catchphrase — he created and popularized it through his extensive writing. "I live a dream in a nightmare world" is Joe Ingino’s personal motto and signature tagline. Meaning (as used by him)It expresses a personal philosophy about navigating life in a flawed, often chaotic or disappointing reality:"I live a dream" — He pursues ideals, optimism, personal vision, integrity, and what should be (e.g., better community standards, accountability, common sense in politics and society). "in a nightmare world" — Acknowledges that the actual world around him frequently feels broken, corrupt, hypocritical, or nightmarish — filled with declining standards, political failures, social issues, media problems, and human shortcomings. In essence, it captures the tension between aspiring to something better while being grounded in (and commenting on) a imperfect, frustrating reality. He uses it at the top or bottom of almost every column, post, and article as a framing device for his often critical, outspoken commentary on local Oshawa/Durham issues, politics, society, and human behavior. It functions similarly to how other writers or commentators use a recurring slogan to brand their worldview — part idealism, part realism/cynicism. Ingino has not given one single "official" paragraph-long explanation, but the phrase consistently appears alongside his critiques of the world as it is versus how he believes it should be. Here are clear examples of Joe Ingino’s philosophy, drawn directly from his columns and writings. His core outlook — captured in “I live a dream in a nightmare world” — contrasts personal idealism, traditional values, and calls for accountability against what he sees as a hypocritical, declining, and unfair society. 1. Human Nature, Hypocrisy, and Societal Decay“We are nothing but animals with the fortunate ability to communicate and socialize like no other animal. ... The difference in humans is in the way we interact and live in a system of hypocritical beliefs that hamper our success in life. ... We go for the first 20 years of our lives living a code of ethics and morals that slowly ravels with the realities of living in a society that rewards unfairness... governed by laws that oppress and prosecute the innocent. ... Good people that live a dream in a nightmare world of constant struggle.” Philosophy takeaway: Society starts with good intentions and moral upbringing but erodes into hypocrisy, where systems reward the wrong behaviors and punish or exploit the good. 2. Loss of Traditional Values and “Salvajes” (Wild/Savage) Society. In a column on why peace is difficult, Ingino contrasts his childhood in Uruguay — where people upheld social norms, civic duty, religion, and nationalism to avoid being “Salvajes” (those living wild without rules) — with modern multiculturalism and declining standards:He argues that mixing cultures with lower standards has turned society into a “jungle of uncivilized beings.” Strong unified culture, fear of God, and strict codes once built strong nations; today’s lack of these leads to fragmentation and lowered standards. Philosophy takeaway: Strong societies require shared values, discipline, and higher (often Western/traditional) standards. Without them, we regress into chaos. 3. Criticism of Local Politics and Leadership Ingino frequently attacks Oshawa/Durham politicians as opportunists lacking business experience, focused on pensions or vendettas rather than results. Examples:He calls for removing most of Oshawa council, criticizing them for downtown decay, high taxes, crime, and homelessness while ignoring taxpayers. Downtown councillors are labeled inexperienced “punks” or “dream catchers” who fail businesses and residents. Philosophy takeaway: Leaders must have real-world credentials and put people first. Most current ones are ineffective insiders who worsen quality of life. 4. Optimism vs. Harsh Reality (The Motto in Action)He pairs sharp critiques with motivational closers like:“Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret or Sorrow. — ONE DAY AT A TIME —” This reflects living ideally (“the dream”) while confronting daily struggles (“the nightmare”). Overall Themes in Ingino’s Philosophy Idealism vs. Reality — Pursue better standards, accountability, and common sense despite corruption and decline. Traditional Values — Hard work, personal responsibility, strong families, unified culture, and moral codes (often tied to religion or nationalism). Anti-Hypocrisy — Calls out systems, politicians, and society for pretending to help while failing or exploiting good people. Local Populism — Strong focus on practical improvements in Oshawa/Durham: lower taxes, safer streets, pro-business policies, and competent leadership. His style is blunt, opinionated, and repetitive — using his newspaper platform to voice what he sees as common-sense truths ignored by the establishment. This aligns with why some observers note a populist or “Trump-like” flavor in his approach, though he is very much his own local character. Over all it appears that some may see him as a mad man is proven to be a respected genius in his community and his profession.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ARE COMING AND VOTERS NEED LONG MEMORIES

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ARE COMING AND VOTERS NEED LONG MEMORIES Ontario’s municipal elections are coming this October, and if there was ever a time for voters to wake up, pay attention, and hold politicians accountable, this is it. Municipal government impacts your life more than almost any other level of government. Property taxes. Roads. Water. Development. Infrastructure. Emergency services. Housing approvals. Garbage collection. Recreation. Your local government touches virtually every aspect of your day-to-day life. And yet municipal elections continue to have embarrassingly low voter turnout. People complain about taxes. They complain about traffic. They complain about overdevelopment, poor planning, endless delays, lack of accountability, and political insiders running the show. But then election day comes, and many either stay home or vote based on name recognition, slogans, or empty campaign promises. That has to stop. The public needs to start paying close attention not just to what candidates say during campaigns — but to what they actually do once elected. Because far too often, politicians campaign one way and govern another. In Clarington, residents have seen this firsthand. Many will remember the statements made by Mayor Adrian Foster and Councillor Willie Woo regarding the incinerator issue before election campaigns — only for positions to later shift once elected and in office. Whether one supported or opposed the project itself is almost secondary to the larger issue: public trust. When elected officials say one thing to secure votes and then proceed in a completely different direction afterward, it damages confidence in the democratic process. And once trust is broken, it is very difficult to rebuild. This election cannot simply be about personalities, signs, slogans, or social media photos. It needs to be about accountability. Voters need to ask difficult questions: Has this person been accessible to the public? Have they answered tough questions? Have they been transparent? Have they voted consistently with what they promised? Have they demonstrated integrity over time? Have they represented the people — or protected insiders and political allies? And perhaps most importantly: Do they deserve another term? Not every incumbent should be removed. Some elected officials work extraordinarily hard for their communities. Some are accessible, honest, responsive, and accountable. Those individuals deserve recognition and, where earned, reelection. But others have built careers on carefully crafted talking points, selective memory, political maneuvering, and saying whatever is necessary during campaign season. The public needs to stop rewarding that behavior. Democracy only works if voters have memories longer than campaign flyers. This October, the electorate must do three things: First — get out and vote. Second — pay close attention to who is running and what they truly represent. And third — stop re-electing politicians who have repeatedly misled the public or demonstrated questionable integrity over time. Municipal politics should not be a lifetime appointment. If elected officials lose the trust of the people, they should lose the privilege of governing them. The ballot box is the ultimate accountability mechanism. Use it.

Fun on Empty: Making Memories on a Tight Budget

Fun on Empty: Making Memories on a Tight Budget By Dale Jodoin Columnist Raising a family when money is tight can quietly break your spirit. Not all at once. It happens in small ways. You say no to dinner out. No to the movie. No to the weekend trip. No to the new restaurant everyone is talking about. After a while, you start feeling like the bad guy in your own house. Then friends talk about going away with their family, or trying some place where the menu looks like a car payment. You smile and say, “I have to work.” That sounds better than saying, “I can’t afford to take my family.” That part hurts. Nobody wants to say it out loud. But here’s the truth. A tight budget does not mean your family has to live a small life. Across Canada, more families are feeling the squeeze. People are working long hours and still going to food banks. Seniors are counting every dollar. Parents are choosing between gas and groceries. It’s not rare anymore. It’s everyday life for a lot of people. And yet, something else is happening too. People are learning how to live differently. Not louder. Not flashier. Just smarter. Take a picnic. It sounds simple. Maybe even a bit boring. But it works. Stop at a grocery store. Grab buns, some deli meat, maybe a bit of fruit. Skip the expensive drinks and mix your own. Pack it into a bag or a cooler. Bring a blanket, or whatever you have, and head out. I remember watching a dad once, sitting on a park bench, quietly counting change before walking back to his kids with a couple of drinks. The kids didn’t notice. They were too busy laughing, chasing a ball, falling over themselves in the grass. To them, it was a great day. Give it ten minutes once you’re there. The air feels different. The pressure eases. It’s not about what you spent. It’s about being present. In a place like Oshawa, there are more options than people think. Parks, open fields, trails. They’re there for everyone. You just have to use them. The same goes for sports. You don’t need a ticket to enjoy a game. Local leagues are everywhere. Baseball, soccer, cricket, and more rugby. Just show up. Stand near the fence or sit on the grass. Watch. Cheer a little. Lacrosse is another one people forget about. Fast, tough, and exciting. Many local games are open to the public. The same goes for school sports. Places like Ontario Tech University and Durham College often have games and events, especially in the summer. Bring your own food. A couple of sandwiches. Some drinks. You sit there together, and for a while, nothing else matters. Transit can open things up too. Not everyone drives, and gas adds up fast. A simple bus ride can take you somewhere new. A different park. A lake. A spot you forgot about. If there’s water nearby, even better. Bring a towel. Let the kids swim if it’s safe. Sit back and take it in. Those are the moments that stay. And don’t overlook what’s already around you. A pickup soccer game. Kids playing baseball. A cricket match in a field. You don’t need to join. Just being there can make you feel part of something again. Local newspapers and city websites are worth checking too. They list events most people skip past. Small festivals. Community days. Local gatherings. Many are free or low cost. You just have to look. Here’s something that matters more than most people realize. Kids don’t measure their childhood by how much money you spent. They measure it by time. By attention. By whether you showed up. You can spend a lot and still miss that. Or you can spend almost nothing and get it right. That doesn’t mean things are easy. They’re not. Working hard and feeling stuck is frustrating. Prices go up. Pay doesn’t always follow. It wears people down. But inside that, there’s still a way forward. For seniors, it might mean asking for a discount and not feeling bad about it. For families, it might mean choosing fast food over a sit down place because tipping just isn’t possible. For others, it might mean skipping one thing so you can enjoy something else. You start to see your city differently. Not as a place full of things you can’t afford, but as a place full of things you can still enjoy. And that changes things. Money can be short. The fridge can be thin. The bills can sit on the table like they own the place. But your kids don’t need rich parents to have good memories. They need time. They need laughter. They need a parent who still tries, even when things are hard. A sandwich in the park can matter. A bus ride to the lake can matter. Watching a free game can matter. Taking pictures on your phone can matter. Because one day, your kids may not remember what you couldn’t buy. They’ll remember that you showed up. And that is how a family finds a way to have fun on empty.

Here's the Feedback You've Been Asking For

Here's the Feedback You've Been Asking For By Nick Kossovan There's a common refrain among job seekers: "I want feedback!" Whether it's third-round ghosting, automated rejections, or total silence, job seekers wonder what they're doing wrong and crave answers to improve their chances of getting hired. Two doses of reality: 1. Employers don't owe job seekers feedback. 2. No two recruiters or hiring managers assess candidates the same way. Feedback is highly subjective and seldom universally applicable. Employers aren't career coaches, mentors, or educators. They're business entities with open positions designed to solve specific problems. Employers operate in a litigious society—a fact job seekers conveniently ignore. Providing candid feedback opens a door that corporate legal departments want triple-bolted. A disappointed candidate with a sense of entitlement is likely to misinterpret "culture fit," prompting them to file a frivolous lawsuit. From an employer's perspective, assisting a stranger with their job search is neither their obligation nor will it pay off in terms of time spent. Conversely, legal disputes can have devastating consequences. Employers who reject candidates without explanation aren't being disrespectful; they're engaging in risk management. As Lars Schmidt, the founder of Redefine Work, puts it: “Hiring is not a democratic process; it is a risk-mitigation exercise.” Expecting a company to risk legal action just for your "professional development" isn't just naive; it's a glaring sign of the entitlement that's likely keeping you unemployed . Since recruiters and hiring managers rarely provide meaningful feedback, which, as aforementioned, is understandable, here's some candid, assumptive feedback to help you improve your chances of getting hired. Consider this a professional courtesy. Your Digital Footprint is Controversial Private and professional identities are no longer separate. Employers will review your LinkedIn profile and activity, and Google you to determine if you're interview-worthy. Getting into digital fistfights, posting impulsive rants, bemoaning that "nobody will hire me," and employers don't know how to hire guarantees you won't be invited to an interview. You Didn't Show How You'll Make Money for the Employer Employers don't care about your past responsibilities. If your resume and LinkedIn profile don't clearly show how you influenced your previous employer's profitability—by either making or saving money—and you don't communicate that in interviews, you haven't made a business case for why you should be hired. You Didn't Proofread for Spelling, Grammar, and Typos If you can't be bothered to proofread the one document meant to market your professional worth, why would an employer trust you with their business? A single typo signals a lack of attention to detail—one of the most critical soft skills in any role. Misusing "their" instead of "there" is enough reason for a hiring manager to reject you. Your Use of AI Is Obvious Employers are overwhelmed with "AI-slop." If your resume sounds like it was written by an uninspired robot, employers will notice. The issue isn't using AI itself; it's neglecting to edit the output. By all means, use AI to help draft your resume and cover letters, but ensure you edit, edit, edit until the result is not only accurate but also reflects your authentic voice. You Aren't as Qualified as You Think Self-awareness is a scarce trait. As a job seeker, you must acknowledge that there's always someone younger, more qualified, or hungrier than you. You might have "the skills," but how do they stack up against your competition? You aren't being judged in isolation; you're being compared to other candidates who are just as qualified—if not more so. Your Verbal Communication Skills Are Below Average "If you can't communicate, it's like winking at a girl in the dark—nothing happens. You can have all the brainpower in the world, but you have to be able to transmit it. And the transmission is communication." - Warren Buffett I can't think of any job where verbal communication skills don't matter. If you can't articulate your thoughts clearly and concisely in an interview, good luck getting hired. TIP: Use the Situation-Action-Result (SAR) framework instead of just listing facts. By giving your answers, a "beginning, middle, and end," you make them far more memorable. You're Overqualified Overqualification is a valid concern for employers. For one, you're a "flight risk." Hiring managers are right to assume that an overqualified candidate will quickly become bored, prove difficult to manage because they "know better," or quit the moment a better-paying offer arrives. From an employer's standpoint, an overqualified candidate isn't a safe long-term investment. You Have No Professional Visibility If you aren't visible in your industry, you lack what employers value most: credibility. We live in a world where success often depends on "who you know"; consequently, being unknown drastically limits your career. It's reasonable for employers to expect candidates with 10 to 25 years of experience to have cultivated both a visible personal brand and a professional network. You're Not Likeable (the definitive feedback an employer can't give) Hiring managers hire candidates they like; thus, the truism: likability outweighs skills and experience. If you're arrogant, cold, or socially awkward, your background is rendered null and void. Being the person the hiring manager actually likes is your greatest competitive advantage. Therefore, improving your likability is often the best job search strategy you can adopt.

The Easiest Thing To Fix in A Struggling Healthcare System

The Easiest Thing To Fix in A Struggling Healthcare System Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones The Easiest Thing to Fix in a Struggling Healthcare System No country has it perfect. But a few give us envy. Switzerland combines universal health coverage with rapid access and strong patient choice. People are required to buy private insurance, but the system is tightly regulated, and wait times are generally far shorter than in Canada by comparison. The Netherlands is another standout. It has universal coverage, strong primary care, and insurers compete within strict public rules. It ranks high for patient satisfaction and access. Germany is praised for its social insurance model – broad coverage, quick specialist access, and a large hospital network. Singapore is admired for efficiency and outcomes. It spends far less of GDP on health care than many Western countries while maintaining excellent results, though its system relies more heavily on personal savings and individual responsibility. Among Nordic countries, Denmark is praised for integration and digital health systems, while Sweden is respected for quality but can struggle with wait times. Canada adheres to the principle of universal access. No one should go bankrupt because they got sick. But universal coverage is nothing to celebrate if you can’t see a doctor. And Canadians are frustrated by access delays, and increasingly, by service quality too. In the U.S., money talks. Those with means can get world-class care. For those without insurance, and there are many, it’s a lot harder and the statistics tell a grim story.Regardless of where in the world, or socioeconomic status, no senior citizen should wait 14 hours in emergency with a fractured wrist. No individual with chest pain should sit in a hallway because there are no beds. No one should have to wait eight months to see a specialist, only to be told they need another referral because the original one expired while waiting. We hear promises of “transformational reform” when parts of our systems breakdown. Yet patients continue to experience delay, frustration, and the sense that no one is in charge. What’s the one thing we could easily fix? That would be communication. What drives people to frustration is often not the illness itself but feeling invisible inside the system. Even when right in the middle of it. Medicine has become highly technical, but healing still begins with a person looking you in the eye and explaining what is happening. Patients want two things from a physician: competence and caring. They hoped for the first, but they remembered the second. And caring means diligent communication – in both directions, with give and take, until there is a common understanding. Hospitals measure everything – wait times, readmissions, staffing costs, infection rates. All important. But do we measure whether families are actually informed? Whether discharge instructions are understood? Whether patients know who is responsible for their care? Imagine if every emergency department had one person whose sole role was to keep patients and families informed. Not to provide treatment, but to explain delays, next steps, and realistic expectations. There is an old saying in medicine: “Cure sometimes, treat often, comfort always.” We seem to have forgotten the last part. Comfort is not a complex concept. It is clarity. It is dignity. It is the assurance that someone sees you not as a chart number, but as a human being who may be frightened and trying to make sense of what comes next. Can communication alone fix health care? Of course not. But if we are looking for the easiest place to start, it may be right there. For a lot of things in life, it might help to lay it out. “Here is what is happening, and here is what happens next.”

Group Insurance Will Look After me, Won’t It?

Group Insurance Will Look After me, Won’t It? By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Sally has been working for the same company for over twenty years. About a year ago, she was given a new group benefits booklet because her employer had switched insurance companies. Like most people, she put it aside and intended to read it when she “had the time.” Sally was just diagnosed with terminal cancer and made the time to read her group booklet. She was upset to learn that the life insurance coverage with the new insurer was only one times annual earnings. The previous coverage had been two and a half times annual earnings. Peter had a serious lung infection and spent several weeks in hospital for treatment. He also stayed at home for over a month to recover from his illness. Peter was shocked when he tried to claim disability benefits from his group insurance plan. His employer had been having money problems and had not paid the premiums on the group policy. His claim was denied because the policy had lapsed. Steve is about to retire and wants to continue his group coverage. He learned that there are no provisions for him to continue any coverage at all under the group plan. All he can do is convert the life insurance coverage to a personal plan. The new rates, however, are very high and Steve can only afford a small amount of life insurance. Many people sail through life thinking that their group coverage at work will take care of their needs. Group benefit plans treat all employees the same, regardless of individual needs. Some coverage amounts may be determined by income, but a single worker with the same earnings will get the same benefits as a married employee with children. A group employee insurance plan is a contract between an employer, union or association and an insurance company to provide protection for the employees or members. The only right an employee or member has under the plan is to name a beneficiary for certain insurance proceeds because they are not a party to the contract The group plan can be changed at any time. An employer may decide to switch insurance companies, reduce coverage, or cancel it completely. The insurance company can change the policy on the renewal date, which can increase the premiums, reduce the coverage or refuse to renew altogether. With the average age of the workforce at an all-time high and increasing claims under most plans, premiums are steadily increasing. Employers are taking a closer look at employee benefits and making whatever changes they can to control costs, which too often comes as an unpleasant surprise for employees. For Sally, Peter, and Steve, it is too late to do much, if anything, about their situations. The answer is to view group insurance as a temporary job-associated perk and get personal life and disability insurance now. Once acquired, you will have policies that you control, policies you can convert, assign, change plan or amount, or even cancel, when and if you choose. You just cannot rely totally on our employer, the government or family and friends to look after you. Look after your own future is a rule we should all follow so we can control our future. As cost should be a consider peace of mind and security are also major factors to keep in mind. A good plan is a plan to succeed no plan is a plan to fail!

When Other People Start Weighing In

Dead and Gone…

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a point where the circle around a family starts to widen. It doesn’t happen all at once, but over a day or two, word spreads, calls are made, messages go out, and people begin to reach in. Friends, extended family, neighbours, people who have been through something similar before. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand that this is a natural part of what follows. People care, and most are simply trying to be helpful in the only way they know how. But something else begins to happen at the same time. As more people enter the conversation, more opinions begin to surface. Suggestions are offered, sometimes gently, sometimes more directly. Someone shares what they did when they went through it. Another mentions what they think is expected. Someone else focuses on keeping things simple, while another leans toward something more traditional. None of this comes from a bad place, but when it all starts to arrive at once, it can be harder to sort through than people expect. I have seen families reach that point, even if they don’t say it out loud. The decisions are still theirs, but the space around those decisions starts to feel more crowded. It becomes less about choosing what feels right, and more about trying to reconcile everything that has been said. That can create a kind of pressure that doesn’t come from any one person, but from the accumulation of voices. It can leave people second-guessing themselves before they’ve even had a chance to think things through together. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel steady in that moment. Not closed off, not unwilling to listen, but grounded enough to recognize the difference between hearing someone out and feeling like they need to follow what’s being suggested. It’s reasonable to take in ideas. It’s reasonable to consider what others have experienced. But it’s also reasonable to step back and ask, quietly and honestly, what feels right for the people who are actually making the decisions. One of the things that makes this more complicated is that people tend to speak from their own experience. They remember what mattered to them, what felt meaningful at the time, what they wish they had done differently. Those reflections are real, and they often come from a good place, but they don’t always translate in the same way for another family. Every situation is different, and what brought comfort to one person may not carry the same meaning for someone else. I have spoken with families afterward who said this part surprised them. Not because they expected people to stay silent, but because they didn’t realize how much outside input could influence the way they were thinking. Some found themselves leaning in a direction that didn’t quite feel like their own, simply because it had been suggested more than once. It wasn’t intentional, but it was noticeable once they stepped back and reflected on it. If I were gone, I would want my family to trust themselves enough to come back to each other before making any decisions. To take a moment, even briefly, to ask what feels right between them, without the noise of other opinions layered on top. That doesn’t mean ignoring people or shutting anyone out. It simply means recognizing that the final decisions don’t belong to the wider circle. They belong to the people closest to the situation. In the end, what tends to stay with families isn’t what others thought they should do. It’s how they felt about what they chose. Whether it reflected the person they lost, and whether it felt honest to them in the moment. If I were gone, that’s what I would want for my family - not certainty, not perfection, just a sense that what they decided felt like their own. Next week, I will write about something that often becomes clearer once that space settles again: how to recognize which decisions truly matter, and which ones don’t need to carry as much weight.

Meeting Them in Their Game

Meeting Them in

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Video games have a reputation – and not a good one, at least among parents. For years, I kept my distance. “Brain rot” some experts say. I’ve said it myself, often and with conviction. I’ve worried as my four children have grown up, eyes glued to screens. But over the recent holiday weekend, I caved. My now adult children – gamers, all of them – convinced me to join them. When I sensed their genuine excitement at the possibility that I might finally enter their world, how could I refuse? The game was Minecraft, where players explore, build, and survive in a blocky, pixelated universe. Think digital Lego meets wilderness survival, with a dash of engineering. Before I could begin, however, there was the small matter of getting set up. This, I discovered, was no small matter. Out came an assortment of computer equipment that had been gathering dust in closets. A screen, keyboard, and headset. I was instructed to wear ear pods underneath the headset so that I could simultaneously hear a voice chat on my phone and the game’s audio through the computer. There followed a symphony of muting and unmuting on the phone, on the computer, and on the headset. I was assured not to worry. “We’ve got this,” they said. I did not. But soon enough, there I was: seated, wired, and ready. My grown children, now giggling playmates, were scattered across three different cities, with one just down the hall. Yet we were all together in the game. I could literally see their characters running circles around me. Then the real test began. “Click here, Mom.” Easy enough. Except that was merely the beginning of what felt like a neurological stress test. First, I had to grasp perspective. With the click of a button, I could switch from seeing the world through my character’s eyes to viewing my character from the outside. Then came movement. To walk, I had to use the W, S, A, and D keys with my left hand while my thumb hovered over the space bar to make me jump. My right hand controlled the mouse, which required sliding, clicking left and right, and scrolling with the middle finger. This was no walk in the park. My brain and coordination were being tested. At one point, I was tasked with making an iron pickaxe. “Simple,” they said. Except it wasn’t. First, you need to get wood for a handle. Then you must craft a furnace. Next, the mining, for coal and iron ore. Then comes the crucial insight: coal goes in the bottom of the furnace, iron ore in the top. The game requires players to use reason, but I would have been helpless without my kids telling me how to survive. There was laughter. Lots of it. Belly-bursting laughter. There we were: a family spread across distances, connected by technology, having a blast. But I was thinking about the health benefits. Mental agility, hand-eye coordination, memory, and perhaps most importantly, social connection. Most researchers don’t focus on games like Minecraft; they use cognitive-training tests that miss the elements found in the family fun I’m talking about. So they report modest improvements in attention, reaction time, and memory. But my guess is that a little bit of Minecraft among people of my generation goes a long way in boosting cognitive flexibility, spatial reasoning, and the wholesome happiness factor. Will I play again? I’m counting on it. Much as I love a good book or a quiet walk in the woods, I’m intrigued by the potential for games like Minecraft to keep me sharp as I age.

Collateral Damage

Collateral Damage By Wayne and Tamara I am writing during a trying time in my life. I am a 35-year-old mother of three children and just recently lost my husband. My siblings and I have been dealing with an alcoholic mother since we were born. There were harsh and horrible memories, but I believe we have all forgiven her. My father who did not drink, but worked two full-time jobs, divorced her when the youngest of us kids was a teenager. My mother has gone through ups and downs ever since. Two years ago she was arrested again for drunk driving. After realizing she’d be facing prison time, she attempted suicide many times. The worst time my mother landed in intensive care for a week on a respirator, unconscious, while her children, sister and brother sat vigil by her bedside. We were told if paramedics arrived 10 minutes later she would have died. Each time she attempted to kill herself, she called one of us kids to let us know and say goodbye after taking all the pills. Well, she ended up doing the time assigned by the court and came out at first a calm and happy person, but she wasn’t given her old job back. She has a fear of working in public, so she won’t take a cashiering job close enough to walk to. As a result she is about to be evicted from her apartment. Since I lost my husband, who was also an alcoholic, I’ve found a cheaper apartment for myself and my children. It has an extra bedroom I’d like to use as a playroom. My uncle offered my mother a place to stay, but she says she doesn’t like his rules. She is demanding to move in with me. She still drinks and has mood swings that explode at the drop of a hat. I don’t believe it would be good for my children so I told her no. I told her to stay with her brother. She told me not to consider her my mother anymore. Her last words were, “I’ll never hate you, but I’ll never speak to you again.” I feel guilty, but I also know my children come first. They are still dealing with their father’s death, as it happened just four months ago. I feel hurt and angry my mother cannot understand what she is doing to me at such a painful point in my family’s life. Marti Marti, you cannot comprehend why a drunken woman doesn’t understand what she is doing to your family. For people not raised in an alcoholic household that is not even a question. They would be astonished if your mother didn’t attempt to destroy your family’s life. When you were young, your mother prepared a cocktail for you and your siblings. She mixed normal with what is normal only in alcoholic households. One result is you can say “I married an alcoholic” as casually as another woman might say, “I was raised Lutheran, so I married a Lutheran.” Every aspect of your life, and now it appears your children’s lives, has been affected by alcohol. You say your kids come first. That’s only believable if you eliminate alcoholism from their home life. That you feel guilty about not bringing your mother into your home suggests you haven’t grasped the full extent of her abuse. Legal and medical professionals who deal with people like your mother couldn’t help her. You can’t either. But you can get professional help to grow past the trauma you were raised in. The last thing you want to do is replicate the horror of your childhood for your children. Living under your uncle’s rules may be the last chance your mother gets to put her life in order. Her life suggests families need to move away from saving the drunkard to saving the six or 16 lives around the drunkard which are being mutilated. Wayne & Tamara

7 Expectations Job Seekers Need to Let Go Of

7 Expectations Job Seekers Need to Let Go Of By Nick Kossovan Expectations are resentments in the making. Many job seekers today enter the job market with an inflated sense of entitlement, expecting employers to prioritize their self-interests over their own. Instead, they're experiencing a fiercely competitive environment where emotions are decimated, and proving your value to an employer's profitability is your only currency for getting hired. The sooner you realize that the world owes you nothing—not a job, not a reply, and definitely not a career built around your "passions"—the sooner you'll start working strategically on your job search. Success doesn't come from expecting what you think you deserve, which, as I mentioned, is nothing; it's achieved by what you're willing to accept—akin to Rocky Balboa's "You gotta be willing to take the hits!"—by maintaining a more resilient mindset than the job seekers you're competing against, who, for the most part, are busy whining about employers' hiring practices. Job search success in today's job market requires a disciplined focus on what you can control and an indifference to what you can't. It's imperative to let go of the following expectations: Expectation of Communication Silence is communication. You submitted your résumé, had a second interview, and then silence. Ghosting is no longer a breach of etiquette; instead, it's become a social norm. Today, recruiters and hiring managers conservatively receive over 500 applications per role and therefore need to rely on technology that reduces candidates to data points. Silence isn't poor manners or unprofessional; it's the message. Socially or professionally, ghosting is regarded as an efficient way for someone to let you know they've moved on, and you should do the same. Expectation of Feedback In a litigious society like ours, expecting feedback is naive. An employer giving feedback to a candidate they didn't select risks liability issues. In an era of 'strip-mall lawyers' looking for a payday, a single wrong word about 'culture fit' can lead to a discrimination lawsuit. A prudent strategy to avoid giving candidates ammunition for a lawsuit is to refrain from providing feedback to rejected candidates. Expectation of a Fast Hiring Process Corporate bureaucracy is a slow, grinding machine, and the cost of a bad hire, both culturally and financially, is exorbitant. As bad actors flood the job market with AI-generated résumés and exaggerated qualifications, employers are conducting more due diligence than ever. "Hiring is not a democratic process; it is a risk-mitigation exercise. Companies would rather leave a seat empty for six months than fill it with a liability." — Lars Schmidt, Founder of Redefine Work. If you're frustrated by waiting, remember that the employer cares about protecting its culture and bottom line, not your bills. Expectation You Don't Have to Sell Yourself The belief that your "experience" speaks for itself is a form of laziness. Job searching is a sales activity; an interview is a sales meeting. Your résumé isn't a trophy case; it's a marketing brochure. It's not what you did that matters to employers; it's what you can do for them by the end of the next quarter. Unless you clearly explain in your résumé, LinkedIn profile, and especially during interviews, how you'll positively impact the employer's business to make it more profitable, you should expect a lengthy job search. Expectation of Human-Only Reviews Complaining about Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) is like complaining about the weather; it's pointless and changes nothing. AI is a necessity for companies to sift through the thousands of mostly unqualified applications they receive. "AI isn't the enemy of the job seeker; it is the filter for the unprepared. If you can't speak the language of the machine, you'll never get the chance to speak to a human." — Jan Tegze. When the application process shifted from a handshake to an online portal, the "human touch" vanished. It's what it is. The Expectation of Guaranteed Networking Help No one is obligated to help you. Today, thanks to digital fatigue and heavy workloads, a stranger owes you nothing; someone you've neglected to stay in touch with owes you even less. When you haven't consistently added value to a relationship, don't expect to receive a favour when you need one. With a sense of entitlement widespread, most job seekers think pestering strangers and people they've lost contact with for "a job" counts as networking. Don't be that job seeker! Having expectations of others is more than just a recipe for chronic resentment and anger; it's a self-imposed hindrance that anchors you in a victim mentality. You can't change how a recruiter, hiring manager, or anyone else behaves, and quite frankly, it's not your responsibility to try. Your only job is to manage your own behaviour. The biggest obstacle between you and a paycheque isn't how employers choose to hire or being ghosted; it's your expectations. Conducting a job search with the expectation that employers will acknowledge your potential, without any effort on your part, to boost their profitability or hire you on your terms, is why many job seekers are frustrated and angry. The most effective job search strategy a job seeker can adopt is to lower their expectations of what's out of their control to nearly nothing and expect more from themselves.

When Procedure Becomes a Weapon at Clarington Council

When Procedure Becomes a Weapon at Clarington Council In theory, municipal democracy runs on rules. In practice, it runs on whether those rules are applied consistently — or selectively. And lately, at the Municipality of Clarington Council, the line between the two is starting to blur. The Illusion of Order You’ll often hear references to Robert's Rules of Order — the gold standard of meeting procedure. It sounds reassuring. Structured. Fair. Democratic. But here’s the truth most residents don’t know: Clarington doesn’t actually run on Robert’s Rules. It runs on its own Procedural By-law, under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001. Robert’s Rules are, at best, a guideline of last resort — not a free pass for improvisation. So when they’re invoked loosely, or selectively, something else is happening. The Referral Motion Loophole Let’s talk about referral motions — the procedural equivalent of “send it back for more work.” On paper, these motions are simple: - Where is the matter going? - When is it coming back? That’s it. They are not supposed to be: - A second debate on the issue - A political soapbox - A workaround to revisit arguments already made But at Clarington Council, something different is unfolding. When “Where and When” Becomes “Whatever You Want” Repeatedly, we’re seeing: - Members speaking at length on the substance of issues - Arguments being re-litigated during referral motions - The Chair allowing broad commentary far beyond procedural scope And here’s where it gets uncomfortable: That latitude is not always applied equally. Some are cut off. Others are given the floor. Same motion. Different rules. Why This Matters (More Than You Think) This isn’t about technicalities. It’s about control of the meeting. Because when procedural rules are bent: - Debate can be extended or suppressed at will - Outcomes can be influenced without formal votes - Certain voices can be amplified — others muted That’s not governance. That’s procedural engineering. The Real Rule Being Broken Let’s be clear — this isn’t about misquoting Robert’s Rules. It’s about something far more serious: Inconsistent application of the Procedural By-law And under Ontario law, that raises real questions: - Are decisions being made fairly? - Is the process transparent? - Is the Chair exercising discretion — or bias? Because once rules become flexible depending on who is speaking… They stop being rules at all. The Consequence No One Talks About Here’s the part they won’t say out loud: When procedure is applied inconsistently, it creates: - A record of procedural unfairness - Grounds for formal complaints - And in extreme cases, exposure to legal challenge That’s not political theatre. That’s administrative risk. So What Happens Next? There are only two paths forward: 1. Apply the rules consistently - Limit referral debate to process - Enforce scope equally 2. Continue down the current path - And accept that the legitimacy of decisions will be questioned Because once the public starts to see the pattern… They don’t unsee it. The Bottom Line Procedure is supposed to protect democracy. Not be used to shape it. And at Clarington Council, the question is no longer whether the rules exist. It’s whether they’re being used as a framework — or as a tool.

MOM - ‘WHEN I GROW UP I WANT TO BE A REFUGEE…’

MOM - ‘WHEN I GROW UP I WANT TO BE A REFUGEE...’ By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States I have seen firsthand the economic struggles many people are facing today—from those on the brink of eviction for unpaid rent, to families losing their homes to financial institutions unwilling to grant even a short extension. Across the country, the overall quality of life appears to be declining. Concerns about crime are rising, and the number of Canadians experiencing homelessness continues to grow at an alarming rate. This week, an announcement drew attention: Pickering to host an accommodation site for asylum seekers.According to Durham Region, a former hotel in Pickering is being converted into temporary housing for asylum seekers. The federal government has provided funding for the purchase of the property; however, neither the total investment nor the projected operating costs have been publicly disclosed. The site will serve as the Durham Reception Centre.Let me be clear—I have no issue with immigration. I am an immigrant myself. I came to this country with the same goal shared by many others: to build a better life, respect the laws of the land, and contribute meaningfully to Canadian society.I recall being asked as a child what I wanted to be when I grew up. My answer never changed. I was inspired by the uniform of the RCMP and the idea of serving a country that had given my family so much. To contribute to that legacy felt like both an honour and a responsibility. Today, however, I sometimes question whether that same sense of purpose is as widely shared. Canada has long been a nation built on diversity, but it has also relied on a shared commitment to integration, mutual respect, and civic responsibility. Increasingly, there are concerns about whether that balance is being maintained. At the same time, local governments are making significant financial commitments—such as the reported $7 million allocated toward a reception centre in Durham Region. This raises difficult but important questions: how do we balance support for newcomers with the urgent needs of Canadians who are struggling to afford basic necessities like food and housing? Behind these issues are real people—our neighbours, our families, our fellow citizens. These are conversations worth having, and perspectives worth sharing.