Showing posts with label Duher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duher. Show all posts
Saturday, August 15, 2026
Stay Grounded with a Blueberry Bush
Stay Grounded with a
Blueberry Bush
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
When the weight of the world feels too heavy, I find solace in going back to the basics. I look for something wholesome and dwell on it, or better, nurture it. In this instance, it was a roadside stand and a basket of blueberries that caught my attention. How wonderful to uncover the stories and possibilities of this little fruit, each one borne of an ovary of a single flower. Wholesome indeed.
Most people still know, one hopes, that blueberries were only wild food not so long ago. Indigenous peoples across North America gathered and preserved them. One traditional name, “star berry,” refers to the tiny five-pointed star at the blossom end of the fruit.
Just over a century ago, a New Jersey woman set blueberries on the course of a commodity food. Elizabeth Coleman White was the daughter of a cranberry farmer at Whitesbog in New Jersey's Pine Barrens. In 1910, she read a paper by Frederick Coville, a botanist investigating blueberry cultivation. Coville had discovered that blueberries required acidic soil, explaining why they flourished naturally in the Pine Barrens.
White hired local woodsmen to search the surrounding countryside for bushes producing high volumes of large and sweet berries. The finders were paid for promising plants, and some varieties eventually carried the names of the people who discovered them. The Rubel variety was named for Rube Leek, who found the original wild bush.
By 1916, a collaboration between White and Coville resulted in the first commercial crop of cultivated highbush blueberries.
Today, there are sophisticated blueberry-breeding programs around the world. Researchers are developing varieties that can tolerate heat, resist disease, survive shipping and, perhaps most importantly, withstand mechanical harvesting. Blueberries have traditionally required hand-picking because ripe fruit is easily damaged. Now breeders are trying to produce berries firm enough to be harvested by machines, while remaining attractive and delicious to the consumer.
Scientists are now using DNA markers to identify desirable traits. The best blueberries that Elizabeth White's workers selected by walking through the woods are now being selected with genetic information.
Blueberries provide fibre, vitamin C, vitamin K and manganese, along with anthocyanins – the plant compounds responsible for their deep blue-purple colour. These nutrients are what make the blueberry stand out as a good choice to support cardiovascular and metabolic health.
If you have a sunny patch of garden, it’s possible to grow your own bush. And breeders are making it easier to select the variety that suits your local conditions. Blueberries need acidic soil, along with good drainage and plenty of sunlight. An inexpensive soil-pH test from a garden centre can tell you whether your soil is suitable. If it isn't, a raised bed with properly prepared soil may be the easier route. With the right conditions, a blueberry bush can produce for decades.
Not everyone has a garden, of course. Frozen blueberries are an excellent alternative, with most of the nutritional value staying intact.
And there’s an additional benefit of having blueberries at hand. It’s a simple test for how well you are looking after your teeth. Eat some blueberries, then brush and floss your teeth. After swishing water in your mouth, if you spit out little bits of blueberry, it means there’s more work needed to clean between your teeth and around gums after meals. If you take the blueberry test regularly, you’ll keep your own teeth for a lifetime. Plus, you’ll get the benefit of general good health that comes when oral health is maintained.
This is the time of year for pre-ordering plants from nurseries for pick-up or shipping next Spring. I have put in my order.
14 Bare-Knuckle Questions to Ask Your Next Interviewer That Show You Mean
14 Bare-Knuckle Questions to Ask Your
Next Interviewer That Show You Mean
Business
By Nick Kossovan
When asking your interviewer questions, the first rule is: don't ask pointless "what's in it for me” questions; focus on role-defining questions that show your primary goal is to contribute to the employer's success and to assess whether you align with the company and your prospective boss. While compensation, benefits, and perks matter, your priority should be establishing a mutual fit, not chasing money or paid time off. Most job seekers act like they're a suspect in an interrogation room defending their resume. This passive behaviour stems from misunderstanding the core nature of an interview. An interview isn't a test; it's a business meeting between two parties evaluating whether reaching a deal makes sense.
When your interviewer asks if you have questions, they're shifting the power dynamic to you. 95% of candidates squander this opportunity by following advice from self-proclaimed career coaches and HR-approved platitudes. They ask what a typical day looks like, why the interviewer enjoys working there, or about promotion timelines. Safe questions signal you're looking for a comfortable place to park yourself, offering no evidence that you're serious about driving business results. As a job seeker, aim to stand out. Eliciting candid, unscripted responses is an effective way to do so. Sharp hiring managers—I count myself among them—want pragmatists who understand that business runs on results, not feelings. Asking questions that demonstrate your grasp of operational realities sets you apart from candidates who lack the backbone to ask tough questions.
Here are 14 bare-knuckle questions to ask your next interviewer to show you're committed to contributing to the company.
Interrogating the Operational Reality
1. "Every department has a fire. What's the burning issue in this role that the job description glossed over?" Job descriptions often serve as sanitized PR handouts. Identifying what's truly broken before committing to a fix saves everyone time.
2. “Let’s skip the honeymoon phase; if I’m hired, what’s the single biggest headache I’ll face?”
Asking this signals you're not expecting a cakewalk and want a clear view of the operational realities.
3. "What did the last person in this role do or fail to do that reshaped your expectations for this position?"
This question cuts through ambiguous job descriptions and pinpoints the specific mistakes you're expected to avoid.
4. "Let's assume we're sitting here a year from now and I've knocked it out of the park. What tangible business problem did I solve?" Pressing your interviewer to define measurable success helps you assess whether it's achievable given your skills and experience.
5. "What's the biggest political roadblock in this department that frequently delays projects?"
Denying that every office has politics is amateurish. Asking this question shows you can and, more importantly, are willing to navigate organizational landmines.
Evaluating the Internal Culture
6. "Every company touts its great culture, yet no culture is perfect. What's the most frustrating cultural norm a new hire must adapt to?" Sidestepping standard recruiting rhetoric reveals the unwritten rules and internal friction you'll encounter.
7. "If I asked your main competitor [better yet, name the employer's main competitor] about your company's biggest operational weakness, what would they say?"
Asking this signals that you care about market share and competitive threats, setting you apart from candidates who focus solely on daily task management.
8. "When projects fail here, as they do everywhere, how does leadership manage the fallout?"
Observing your interviewer's reaction to this question reveals whether the executive team prioritizes accountability or self-preservation.
9. "When people leave this department, what's the most common reason they leave?"
Probing turnover patterns brings underlying retention problems to light, so you don't unknowingly walk into a toxic department.
10. "When was the last time this company took a hit to the bottom line to uphold its stated values?" Anyone can print a mission statement. This question prompts your interviewer to demonstrate that the company stands by its principles under financial pressure.
Reading Your Interviewer's Mind & Closing
11. "You've been here for a while. What was the biggest disillusionment you encountered during your first six months, and why did you stay?" Lowering your interviewer's guard encourages them to share an honest, personal assessment of the firm.
12. "What do I need to do in this role to make your job easier?"
Asking this shows you understand that your primary role as a hire is to relieve your manager of pressure.
13. "How long do you realistically expect it to take for a new hire in this position to generate more value than they cost?" Asking tough business questions like this positions you not as an expense but as a revenue generator or protector.
14. "If I accept this role, what's the one mistake I could make in my first 90 days that would be hardest to recover from?"
Showing you anticipate make-or-break pitfalls proves you possess foresight and respect probation for the trial by fire that it is. These 14 questions are high-risk, high-reward. An insecure would-be boss will find them intimidating; thus, you dodge a bad-boss bullet, which is a good thing. However, a true leader, someone worth working for, will sit back, smile, and recognize (read: respect) that the person in front of them is operating from a position of strength
Are Canadians Paying More to Build a Stronger Canada?
Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin
Are Canadians Paying More to Build a Stronger Canada?
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
We Built the Housing. Where Do We Put the Cars?
More housing is needed. But when we put more people into smaller spaces, the cars, school traffic, and charging problems do not simply disappear.
Come home tonight and look down your street.
Not at the houses. Look at the cars.
Maybe there are two in a driveway, another at the curb, and one squeezed in front of a neighbour's house. Perhaps visitor parking is full.
Now think about that street five or ten years ago.
Something has changed.
Cities across Canada and the United States need housing. Apartments are going higher. Townhouses are being built closer together. More people are living on the same amount of land.
We need those homes.
But families have changed too.
Housing costs mean adult children may stay home longer. Several generations can live together. Working adults may share a rental because living alone costs too much.
Four adults can easily mean three or four cars.
Give that household one parking space, and the other cars do not vanish.
They go somewhere.
Usually, that means the street.
Now picture 3:15 outside a school.
Parents arrive for pickup. Cars line the curb. Someone stops near a roundabout. Another driver tries to turn around on a dead end street. A homeowner is trying to reach the driveway.
Then add a delivery truck, garbage truck, snowplow, or emergency vehicle.
Suddenly a street that worked perfectly well for years feels completely different.
People get frustrated. Neighbours blame neighbours. Bylaw gets called.
But maybe we are blaming the wrong people.
Planners face a real problem. Governments want more housing, land is expensive, and parking takes space and money.
Ontario has removed minimum parking requirements near major transit stations as part of its effort to lower housing costs. The province has said an underground parking space in a new development can cost as much as $100,000.
That deserves to be part of this conversation.
Some rental developments also encourage transit use, including programs that can make taking the bus or train more attractive.
Good idea, when it works.
But not everybody works nine to five. Some people work nights, carry tools, or travel between communities.
A transit option only replaces a car if it can take someone where they need to go, when they need to get there. Then comes another question. Electric vehicles.
Natural Resources Canada recognizes that people living in apartments and other multi unit buildings can face problems getting access to home charging. The federal government has supported work aimed at improving charging for buildings without individual driveways or garages. So why are we not planning for that before construction?
Without proper charging, residents are left searching for practical places to plug in. That can lead to cords, questions about electricity, and arguments over who can charge where.
Some high density developments work very well. Put housing near good transit, stores, schools, and jobs, and fewer cars may be needed.
The problem is not density.
The problem is pretending every neighbourhood works the same way.
A downtown apartment beside frequent transit is different from a townhouse development where most residents drive to work.
Some places need more parking. Others need better transit, visitor spaces, or EV chargers.
There is no magic number.
But there had better be a plan.
A parking ticket cannot fix a planning decision made five years earlier. Neither can two neighbours arguing beside a blocked driveway.
So tonight, look down your street.
Count the cars. Look at the school corner. Look at the roundabout. Look at the driveways.
If you're already thinking, “I know exactly what he's talking about,” then this problem has already reached your neighbourhood. Build the apartments. Build the townhouses. Build the homes people need. Just remember something basic.
When we build housing for more people, we also have to build a community that can handle them.
Housing does not end at the front door.
Neither does good planning.
How do you rob a thief?
How do you rob a thief?
By Tom Reimer
Metalex Security
Question: How do you rob a thief? wouldn’t that be nice if we could turn the tables, give those greedy, good for nothing, self entitled, thieving buggers a taste of the pain that is being inflicted on thousands of victims every year. I bet they would be furious, “how dare someone take my precious possessions that I have gained through all of my thieving ways” yah I’m talking to you, Sly and all your despicable brothers in arms.
It all comes down to time, 5 seconds is all it takes to kick in a door, break or, crawl through a window that is unlatched or even worse left wide open, “the window of opportunity” in our last episode we provided some simple and extremely effective means to “FORTIFY” the most popular point of entry, the front entrance, I’m confident that we have eliminated the threat and Sly has used up at least a couple of minutes, he knows that he created some noise and attention! But still determined, So, what’s next?
Well, let’s at least get out of the field of vision, the side of the house has in most cases another door, this is where the builder has provided a laundry room and quite often tucked in behind the garage. If this is not fortified it may fall victim to a heavy kick or two so let’s get out that toolbox and use the same defence mode for this door, a couple of “Guardian Flip Latches” extra long screws for the hinges and an extra long strike plate and screws on the lock side!
Now, that window beside the door, great for providing natural light in a dark corner of the house and also easy to crawl through, after making more noise on the second door with no success, Sly is still motivated and pumped up on adrenaline, two more minutes consumed but still determined to get what he wants, he grabs the chair or garbage can that’s conveniently left at his disposal and he’s in, well at least we have taken 4 of the average 8 to 10 minutes that a burglary takes according to “Stats Can” Its interesting to me when I think of home security I think of engineering standards, you need to test any product by breaking it first, putting it through extensive pressure, bending it until it breaks simply to find out the “breaking point” building it up to the point of resistance, then, providing a strength multiplier and that is your “fail safe” limit. Exactly the same principle applies to home security!
If you could continue to provide sufficient resistance to all points of entry you will come to a point that Sly will buzz off! in this case we took away 4 minutes of the precious 8 needed and you still suffered a loss, 4 minutes of hell! you have been violated!
Now in some cases it may not be your front door that is the first point of entry, if you back on to a school yard or a wooded area then, Patio doors, family room windows and the basement may be the preferred point of entry. On my next episode to the world of resisting Sly and his cohorts, we will go back to that laundry room window, look at “Target Hardening” that point of entry and then move on the forest and school yard dwellers. The answer to the question, how do you rob a thief? Simple, you take away their time!
Not on my watch, Sly. stay tuned!
Municipal Elections Aren't About Left or Right - They're About Getting It Right
Municipal Elections Aren't About Left or Right -
They're About Getting It Right
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
As we move deeper into a municipal election, I think we need to remind ourselves of something that is becoming increasingly lost in today's political environment:
Municipal government should be about the good of the community - not party politics.
I have met candidates in this election who would probably describe themselves as being on the right. I have met candidates from the left. I have met centrists. And I have met others who simply don't fit comfortably into any political box.
In my view, some of the strongest candidates are the ones who don't start the conversation by asking whether an idea is conservative, liberal, left-wing or right-wing.
They ask a much simpler question: Is it good for our community? That is the kind of thinking municipal government desperately needs. Fiscal Responsibility Is Not a Political Ideology
There are people across the political spectrum who possess an excellent sense of fiscal responsibility. You don't need a Conservative membership card to understand a balance sheet.
You don't need a Liberal membership card to understand infrastructure. And you don't need an NDP membership card to care about social programs. In fact, perhaps municipal government works best when councillors leave their party cards at the door. Every person elected to council has a responsibility to treat taxpayers' money prudently. That isn't right-wing. It isn't left-wing. It's responsible government. But fiscal responsibility also doesn't mean cutting everything in sight. Quite the opposite. The purpose of controlling spending is to ensure that we have the financial capacity to properly fund the things municipal government is actually responsible for delivering.
Fiscal Responsibility and Social Responsibility Can Coexist
This is where I think our political conversation has gone badly off course. Some people have been conditioned to believe that fiscal responsibility and social responsibility are competing philosophies. They aren't. A municipality can be fiscally disciplined while also caring deeply about its residents. We need good roads. We need bridges and sidewalks. We need safe drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. We need fire protection and emergency services. We need parks, recreation and community infrastructure. And municipalities have important responsibilities connected to housing, transit and social services, particularly at the regional level. These things cost money. A lot of money. And if municipal governments continually expand into discretionary programs and activities while their core infrastructure deteriorates, eventually something has to give. Usually, it is the taxpayer. Review What Government Is Actually Doing That is why I continue to advocate for a comprehensive services and mandate review. Put everything municipal government does on the table. Ask what is legislatively required. Ask what is essential to the operation and safety of the community. Ask what delivers measurable value to residents. And then have the courage to ask another question:
What are we spending money on that municipal government does not need to be doing?
That doesn't automatically mean eliminating every discretionary service. Some discretionary programs provide tremendous community value. But every dollar should have to compete for priority. If a program is consuming taxpayer dollars while roads, bridges, fire services, housing responsibilities or other essential infrastructure are underfunded, council should be prepared to reconsider that spending. And here is the part people sometimes miss:
Saving money in one area can allow us to spend more where people genuinely need it.
A services review isn't necessarily about spending less. It is about spending better.
If we eliminate programs that no longer make sense and redirect those dollars into infrastructure, housing, emergency services, recreation or social programs where municipalities have genuine responsibilities, we can simultaneously become more fiscally responsible and more socially responsible.
The Best Candidates Challenge Their Own Side Media and social media have increasingly conditioned people to line up on one side or the other. Left versus right. Conservative versus progressive. Us versus them. Municipal government cannot afford that mentality.
The candidates who have impressed me most during this election are those prepared to challenge the conventional thinking of whichever political camp they may personally come from.
A fiscally conservative candidate should still be able to say: "This social program is necessary, it is working, and we should properly fund it."
A socially progressive candidate should be equally capable of saying: "This program isn't working, it isn't a municipal priority, and taxpayers shouldn't continue paying for it."
That isn't abandoning your principles. That is leadership. Fix the Roads and Strengthen the Social Fabric There should be nothing contradictory about wanting excellent infrastructure and strong social infrastructure. There should be nothing contradictory about demanding value for taxpayers while protecting vulnerable residents. And there should be nothing contradictory about reducing unnecessary spending while increasing investment in services that actually matter. That is what mature municipal government looks like. The next generation of municipal leaders should not be elected because they perfectly represent the political left or political right. They should be elected because they understand budgets, infrastructure, community needs and the responsibility that comes with spending someone else's money.
They should understand that every dollar wasted on yesterday's political pet project is a dollar that cannot repair tomorrow's bridge, support a housing initiative, improve a park, replace aging infrastructure or strengthen an essential service. Leave the Party Cards at the Door
Municipal councils don't need ideological warriors. They need problem solvers. They need people willing to examine every program, every service and every expenditure without first asking which political tribe will applaud the decision. Fiscal responsibility without social responsibility can lose sight of the people government exists to serve. Social responsibility without fiscal responsibility eventually becomes financially unsustainable. Good municipal government requires both. So as voters evaluate candidates in this election, perhaps the question shouldn't be: Is this candidate left-wing or right-wing? Perhaps the better questions are: Can they manage our money? Do they understand what municipal government is responsible for?
Will they protect our infrastructure? Will they care for the people who genuinely need municipal services? And will they have the courage to stop spending money on things that no longer make sense? Those are not left-wing principles. They are not right-wing principles. They are community principles. And municipal elections should ultimately be about one thing:
Not left. Not right. Moving our community forward.
Kars On Where!!!
One of the most important responsibilities
One of the most important
responsibilities
By John Meloche
Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering
One of the most important responsibilities of municipal government is also one of the least glamorous: taking care of the infrastructure taxpayers have already paid for.
Roads, sidewalks, culverts, storm sewers, catch basins, bridges and public facilities all have a lifecycle. We can maintain them while they are still in reasonable condition, rehabilitate them before they fail, or wait until deterioration becomes so serious that full replacement is required.
Those choices do not cost taxpayers the same amount of money.
Pickering's own 2025 Asset Management Plan makes the challenge clear. It reports that 51 per cent of the City's road-corridor assets, measured by replacement value, are rated poor or very poor. Collector roads have an average Pavement Condition Index of 54, while local roads average 48 — both classified as "Needs Improvement." Approximately 60 per cent of local roads are rated poor or worse.
The financial consequences matter just as much as the condition ratings.
The City's modelling estimates that proactively maintaining and rehabilitating roads could potentially avoid approximately $5.6 million annually compared with allowing those roads to deteriorate until replacement becomes necessary.
That is an important lesson in fiscal responsibility.
Maintenance is not simply an expense. It is a cost we either manage today or risk paying much more for tomorrow. Sometimes refusing to spend a dollar at the right time creates a much larger bill later.
To be fair, Pickering is investing significant money in infrastructure renewal. The City's approved 2026 Capital Budget totals approximately $73.2 million, with nearly $48.7 million classified as infrastructure renewal. That includes $5.25 million for road rehabilitation, along with major investments in culverts, stormwater systems, erosion protection, municipal buildings and other aging infrastructure.
So the argument should not be that Pickering has no infrastructure plan. It does.
The more important question is whether the pace of investment matches the condition of the assets.
Stormwater infrastructure is another example. Residents rarely think about catch basins, storm sewers, culverts, channels and stormwater ponds until something stops working. Yet failures can contribute to standing water, flooding, erosion, property damage and expensive emergency repairs.
Pickering is funding stormwater projects, including pond cleanouts, culvert replacement and restoration work. At the same time, the City's Asset Management Plan acknowledges that budget limitations have contributed to deferred maintenance and delayed stormwater upgrades.
That tension deserves serious attention.
The Asset Management Plan estimates that Pickering requires approximately $61.7 million annually for sustainable capital renewal while sustainable funding going forward is estimated at roughly $28.8 million — leaving an annual infrastructure funding gap of approximately $32.8 million.
We cannot simply pretend that gap does not exist.
Pushing necessary work into the future is not fiscal conservatism. It can simply mean passing a larger invoice to the next taxpayer.
My approach is straightforward: maintenance first.
Council should use real condition data, prioritize infrastructure according to risk, extend the useful life of assets taxpayers already own, aggressively pursue available outside funding and ensure that growth pays its appropriate share of growth-related infrastructure.
Residents should also be able to clearly see what is being repaired, why it is a priority, and what delaying that work could ultimately cost.
Pickering is going to keep growing, and growth will require new infrastructure. But growth cannot come at the expense of properly maintaining what generations of taxpayers have already built.
Responsible government is not always about announcing the next big project.
Sometimes it is about having the discipline to protect what we already own.
WHEN THEY CAN'T CONTROL YOU, THEY TRY TO CONTROL YOUR REPUTATION
WHEN THEY CAN'T CONTROL YOU, THEY TRY TO CONTROL YOUR REPUTATION
Character assassination is not an accident. It is a strategy — and it only works on people who have stopped thinking for themselves.
There is a pattern to how toxic people operate, and once you have seen it up close you can never unsee it.
First, they try to manage you. They want your vote, your silence, your cooperation. When flattery does not work, they escalate to pressure. When pressure does not work, they escalate to procedure — the meeting, the complaint, the process, the finding. And when even that fails to bend you, they arrive at the last tool they have.
If they cannot control what you do, they will try to control what everybody thinks of you.
This is the point people miss. The smear is not the beginning of a conflict. The smear is the admission of defeat in the conflict. It arrives only after every other method has failed. Nobody bothers to destroy the reputation of someone they can already control. They only reach for your name when they have run out of ways to reach for you.
And notice how it is done. Not with an argument. Never with an argument — because an argument can be answered, and an answer might persuade someone. Instead, they reach for the labels that cannot be argued with, the words designed to end the conversation rather than start one. Words that make people afraid to be seen standing near you, let alone standing with you. That is the whole point. It is not aimed at your record. It is aimed at everybody else's willingness to hear your record.
THEN THERE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE TRUTH
Here is the harder part, and the part I had to make peace with.
You can correct the record. You can produce the transcript, the minutes, the recording, the receipt. You can put the full quote next to the clipped one and let anyone with eyes compare them. And there will still be people who are absolutely determined to misunderstand you.
Not unable. Determined.
Because for some people, your guilt is useful. It justifies a vote they already cast, a friendship they do not want to re-examine, a comfortable arrangement they would rather not look at too closely. The truth would cost them something, so they decline it. No amount of evidence competes with an incentive.
So stop auditioning for their approval. You cannot reason a person out of a conclusion their interests depend on, and every hour spent trying is an hour stolen from the people who actually are listening. Correct the record once, plainly, for the honest onlooker — then get back to work. The determined misunderstander is not your jury. Your neighbours are.
THINK FOR YOURSELF — IT IS THE WHOLE BALLGAME
Now let me say something hopeful, because I did not write this to complain.
Every one of these tactics — the label, the whisper, the pile-on — depends on one thing, and one thing only: a crowd that will not stop and check. A rumour has no engine of its own. It runs entirely on borrowed judgment. It moves only as far as good people are willing to carry it without asking a single question.
Which means the remedy is not complicated, and it does not require a lawyer, a committee, or a title. It requires a citizen who pauses long enough to say: who told me this, what exactly did she say, and who benefits if I believe it?
That pause is one of the most powerful things in a free society. It is where mobs go to die and where self-government begins. There is nothing brave about agreeing with the room; the room does not need your help. But a person willing to say "wait a moment — I would like to see that for myself" is doing the actual work of citizenship, and doing it in the only place it can be done, which is between their own two ears.
Group-think asks almost nothing of you, and that is exactly what makes it so expensive. Every time we go along to get along, we hand a little more oxygen to the very people who are counting on us not to look. And every time one of us checks, that flame gets a little smaller.
So do not take my word for it. I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Read the record. Watch the meeting. Ask the question you have been told is impolite to ask. Trust your own eyes over anybody's summary — including mine.
Because a town full of people who think for themselves cannot be run by people who count on them not to. And that, in the end, is not a slogan. It is a safeguard — and it belongs to you.
Saturday, August 8, 2026
When Standing Up Makes You Sick
When Standing Up Makes You Sick
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
It was like opening a time capsule when I met up with my college roommate after 35 years. We laughed about our good times together and recalled all the confidence we had about our futures at age twenty. Then the conversation turned to our children, and she told me about her daughter's long struggle to obtain a diagnosis of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS.
Once that diagnosis became clear, it is easy to point to a distinguishing symptom. For people with POTS, standing upright triggers a debilitating racing of the heart. But for the 2-3 million people in North America estimated to have the condition, figuring it out is no easy job.
Experts are not sure why, but it’s a condition that tends to strike young women, aged 15-35, most often from comfortable, and white, families. This fits my roommate’s situation. It may be that POTS could be found in other segments of society, but neither patients nor doctors are making the connection.
The root cause of POTS lies in the body’s remarkable automatic control system – the autonomic nervous system – which manages heart rate, blood pressure, circulation, digestion, and temperature control.
When we stand, gravity pulls blood toward our legs. A healthy nervous system immediately responds. Blood vessels tighten, the heart adjusts, and enough blood continues to reach the brain.
In someone with POTS, that response does not work properly. The body struggles to maintain circulation when upright, and the heart often speeds up dramatically to compensate.
The result can be dizziness, fatigue, weakness, exercise intolerance, difficulty concentrating, and a pounding heartbeat. Some sufferers feel better when they lie down – but not all. When the autonomic nervous system is out of whack, all bets are off.
Historically, and to date, many patients have struggled to find an explanation. Because routine heart tests and blood work may appear normal, some are told their symptoms are due to stress or anxiety.
During the American Civil War, physician Jacob Mendes Da Costa described soldiers who suffered from racing hearts, fatigue, chest discomfort, and poor exercise tolerance. The condition became known as “soldier’s heart.” Although it was not the same diagnosis as POTS, researchers believe these individuals may have had problems involving the autonomic nervous system.
Over the decades, doctors continued to encounter patients who became ill when upright. But it was not until the 1990s that researchers formally described and named POTS.
Scientists now understand that POTS is not one single disease. Different patients may have different underlying causes. In some, nerves that regulate blood vessels may not function properly. In others, there may be abnormalities involving the immune system, blood volume, or the body’s response to infection.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented attention to POTS. Some people recovering from COVID developed persistent symptoms including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and exercise intolerance. Researchers began investigating whether viral infections could trigger autonomic disorders in susceptible individuals.
Although POTS is often associated with younger people, it can occur at any age. In older adults, symptoms may be mistaken for medication effects, dehydration, heart problems, or the normal challenges of aging.
For my roommate and her daughter, and similar to many other families, it was a long and frustrating journey to the diagnosis of POTS. Ultimately, it took a team of specialists at the Mayo Clinic to design and initiate a four-week intensive program of physical, mental, and behavioural changes to daily routines that enabled them to return to normal life.
With better knowledge about what’s going on, there comes an appreciation for the extraordinary things the human body does, even when just standing up.
Canada’s Nuclear Industry Is Losing Strategic Direction
Saturday, July 25, 2026
Bridging Retirement Income Gaps
Bridging Retirement Income Gaps
By Bruno Scanga
Financial Columnist
What happens if you retire before you’re officially "supposed" to? Whether you’ve decided to "hang up your boots" early or life "threw you a curveball", retiring before age 60 or 65 could leave a bit of an income gap.
That’s because you can’t fully tap into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) until you’re at least 60, and Old Age Security (OAS) doesn’t kick in until 65.
So, how do you pay the bills during those bridge years without surrendering a fortune to the taxman? It all boils down to looking at the big picture.
Instead of stressing about a single year, your goal should be to manage your taxes over your entire lifetime.
Think of these "gap years" as a special transition window where you get to creatively design your own income stream.
Here’s a game plan that may work for most people:
Lean on your RRSPs First - If you don’t have much employment income coming in right now, your RRSPs can be your best friend.
Yes, any money you pull out of an RRSP is taxable. However, since your overall income has dropped, withdrawing the money now means you’ll be taxed at a much lower rate.
There’s a highly strategic reason to do this, too. If you leave your RRSP completely untouched, letting it grow into a massive nest egg by the time you turn 71, it legally must be converted into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF).
Once that happens, the government forces you to make minimum withdrawals every single year.
If your account has grown too large, those mandatory withdrawals will be massive, and they’ll be heavily taxed. By proactively "melting down" your RRSP during your low-income gap years, you effectively flatten out your lifetime tax bill.
You might even want to make a calculated withdrawal at the end of the year just to take full advantage of your basic personal tax exemption.
Leave Your TFSA Alone - While it might be tempting to pull money from your Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) because it won’t trigger an immediate tax bill, try to hold off. It’s usually much better to keep your TFSA intact to use as an emergency fund for sudden, unexpected expenses.
Furthermore, TFSAs are fantastic vehicles for transferring wealth to your family, because they can be passed down to the next generation completely tax-free.
The Power of Patience with CPP and OAS - Just because you retired early doesn’t mean you should immediately claim your government pensions. In fact, there can be significant benefits to waiting until you’re 65, or even 70, to take your CPP.
Delaying these benefits guarantees you a significantly higher, inflation-protected payout for the rest of your life.
Ultimately, it’s all about pacing yourself and orchestrating your streams of income mindfully.
While you wait for your government pensions to reach their maximum value, use your RRSPs to bridge the gap. Then, once your CPP and OAS cheques finally start rolling in, you can slow down your RRSP withdrawals–keeping your retirement comfortable and your taxes firmly in check.
Keep your option open and ask questions before you make any change or commitments to withdrawing any funds. 
Test Of Time
Test Of Time
By Wayne and Tamara
I have been lucky in life, growing up in nice neighborhoods, going to good schools, with parents who are very successful financially. I am about to finish my bachelor’s degree and work full-time at a good job. I am 20 and things are going great.
My wonderful boyfriend is 22 and has been less lucky. He was raised by an amazing single mother who has worked two jobs to support her four children; they are from a low-income, mostly Latino community, where the schools are poor. As a result, life has been harder for him. Unlike my parents who have given me money to save, he has had to work full-time, often living paycheck to paycheck. Because of this he had been out of school but just started working on his degree again. My boyfriend and I couldn’t be happier. We are living together and know that we want to spend the rest of our lives together. We can’t imagine it any other way. In fact, we are treating the economic downturn as a great opportunity and are hoping to buy a small house at the end of the year. The problem is my parents consistently make nasty remarks about him and our relationship. They say he’s riding my coat tails, taking advantage of me, and once we’ve cohabitated long enough, will take half of what I have. The things they say come off as classist and even racist, and my mother and father know these remarks hurt me deeply. Should I tell my parents to take a hike?
Keely
Keely, you can’t imagine your life without your boyfriend, but at 20 you can’t imagine a world with rotary telephones. At 40 you won’t be able to imagine what you did at 20. Let’s take a step back and try to decide if it’s fair to tell your parents to take a hike. A universal characteristic of humans is that we prefer our own group to other groups. As primatologist Frans de Waal says, “Identification with the home team comes easily to group animals like ourselves.” We might call this preference prejudice, but ultimately it is grounded in our biology. Aside from this innate preference, how might things look to your parents? They know marriages of young people are the marriages most at risk. At 20, you are five or six years below the average age of women marrying in the U.S. That is cause for concern. In addition, almost everyone getting divorced thought they were marrying for life. Everything has gone well in your life so far. It’s hard to imagine things not going well. But statistically speaking, you are on a lucky streak. You have been shined on. Research shows all of us are more likely to believe bad events will happen to someone else, not us. We don’t doubt your boyfriend’s sincerity, but from your parents’ point of view, he has every reason in the world to want you. You are a shining star. He may genuinely think he loves you, but the package is so attractive it may have him dazzled. On your part, your parents may wonder if you are confusing admiration and altruism with love.
Parents fear for their children, and you are scaring them. They see you buying a house and his whole family moving in. They see you responsible for five lives and the whole trajectory of your life plummeting. Do 20 plus years of nurturance and raising you mean nothing? No, they count for a lot. Some people your age have found the one for them. Only time will tell. It is fair to tell your parents to stop with the racist remarks, but telling them to take a hike is going too far. If you are right about your boyfriend, if he is everything you claim he is, his deeds and character will in time win them over. Wayne & Tamara
Who Do You Think Owns the Hiring Process?
Who Do You Think Owns the Hiring Process?
(Hint: It's Not the Job Seeker)
By Nick Kossovan
Desperation-monetizing career grifters, better known as self-proclaimed career coaches, sell the comforting fiction that the job seeker is at the centre of the hiring process. They peddle platitudes such as "interviewing the company" and "knowing your worth" to keep their predatory billing engines humming. It is a seductive, fragile illusion of control, but a dangerous one to believe. What these grifters never acknowledge is that the hiring process is the employer's exclusive prerogative.
The employer owns their business; hence, they own their hiring process—designing it as they see fit—and make the final decisions. The job seeker, who bears none of the financial or operational risk that the employer is responsible for, is in no position to dictate how an employer should hire or what constitutes "being qualified."
Behind the polite performance of the interview, your interviewer is seeking clinical answers to the questions bouncing around in their head:
● Are you qualified or overqualified? (Being overqualified comes with many hiring risks.)
● Are you a fit? (No manager wants to police a culture clash.)
● Are you someone they can trust?
● Are you someone whom they believe? (You aren't just talking a “good game.”)
● Are you teachable?
● Are you someone who'll be easy to manage?
● Are you someone who'll stick around, or will you bolt the moment the going gets tough?
● Can you be relied on, or are you fragile and will ask for a mental health day because it's raining?
● Are you a team player or will you utter the toxic phrase, "It's not my job”?
How you describe yourself on your resume or in an interview is nothing more than your curated opinion of yourself. Employers don't hire opinions. They don't care that you self-identify as a "motivated self-starter" or a "dynamic leader." They hire predictable results. This is why you must show quantitative metrics, such as average deal size, contract renegotiation savings, budgets managed, revenue growth, audience reach, or customer retention rates, to support your claims. Employers hire candidates they believe will protect, and ideally enhance, their profitability without disrupting workflows or upsetting the current team.
This is where the divide between the perpetual job seeker and the successful candidate widens into a chasm. Vague job seekers get ignored. Specific ones get hired.
When you use vague, generalized language, you're expecting hiring managers to do the heavy lifting of figuring out what you actually do and the value you bring. This expectation is a form of passive entitlement. Hiring managers and recruiters are not in the business of solving riddles. A vague resume says, "I'm a hardworking communications professional." A specific resume says, "I managed a team of four to deliver three provincial marketing campaigns that increased inbound leads by 22%." Specificity removes the guesswork, replaces opinion with evidence, and respects the employer's time.
While the final decision always rests with the employer, you are far from powerless. You can't force an employer's hand, but you can heavily stack the deck in your favour. Your qualifications are for the employer to judge, but how you're perceived by recruiters and hiring managers is entirely your responsibility.
Tilting the odds in your favour starts with mastering three foundational pillars that shape how you're perceived.
The first pillar is your professional image and digital footprint. If your resume piques an employer's interest, they'll Google you and scrutinize your LinkedIn profile and online activity to determine whether you're interview-worthy. If your online presence is non-existent, inconsistent, or worse, controversial, you're not getting called. Make no mistake, in 2026, curating and maintaining a clean, professional, and consistent digital footprint is required to get green-lighted for an interview.
The second pillar is profitability. Every hire is an investment, and in business, investments must yield a return. The employer must believe you'll deliver results that positively impact their bottom line. Whether you're in sales, operations, or administration, your job is to show how your presence either makes the company money, saves the company money, or optimizes the time of those who do.
The third and final pillar is proving you're a low-risk hire. Hiring's an expensive, time-consuming, and risky endeavour. A bad hire can disrupt team morale, hurt productivity, and make the decision-maker look bad, a fear that shouldn't be underestimated. Hiring isn't about finding the perfect candidate; it's about risk mitigation. Because the hiring process is a process of elimination, recruiters and hiring managers actively look for reasons to eliminate you. As a job seeker, your job is to present yourself as reliable, adaptable, easy to manage, and resilient, making you a safe bet to hire.
The job market is an employer's market by design; an asymmetrical relationship in which those writing the paycheques dictate the terms. Always has been, always will be. Accepting this structural reality isn't a capitulation; it's a calibration. Once you've abandoned the illusion of control over who gets hired and focus entirely on managing your image, demonstrating you'll positively influence the bottom line, and lowering hiring risk, you'll stop being a job seeker begging for a job and become the candidate employers can't afford to miss out on.
Don't Let Your Gunpowder Get Wet
Don't Let Your Gunpowder Get Wet
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
The greatest threat to democracy isn't always found at the ballot box.
Sometimes it's found in the council chamber.
Every election brings hope. New candidates knock on doors, attend debates, and make promises to the people they hope to serve. They speak passionately about lowering taxes, fixing neglected infrastructure, improving public safety, protecting neighbourhoods, increasing transparency, or restoring common sense to local government.
The voters listen. They compare ideas. And then they choose.
Election night is not simply about replacing names on office doors. It is about giving citizens a voice through the people they elect. But for too many newly elected representatives, something changes after they're sworn in. The campaign signs come down. The congratulations fade. And then the pressure begins.
"Be a team player." "That's just how we've always done things." "Don't rock the boat."
"Vote with the group."
Those four phrases have quietly silenced more elected officials than any opponent ever could.
Democracy was never intended to produce obedient followers. It was designed to elect independent thinkers. There is an enormous difference between cooperation and conformity. Cooperation means listening, debating, compromising when appropriate, and respecting opposing views.
Conformity means surrendering your convictions simply because the majority expects it.
That is not leadership. That is political intimidation wrapped in polite language.
The public did not elect you to become another vote in someone else's bloc. They elected you. They chose your judgment. Your experience. Your courage. Your willingness to ask difficult questions when everyone else has become comfortable. Perhaps the greatest danger in municipal politics is something I call the slow surrender. It doesn't happen overnight. One vote here. One compromise there. One issue you decide isn't worth fighting. One uncomfortable question left unasked. Until one day you look back and realize the person sitting in that council chair no longer resembles the candidate who stood on doorsteps asking for the public's trust. History has taught us an important lesson.
Mob rule has never been a reliable substitute for principled leadership.
The majority can be right. The majority can also be wrong. That is why democracies require independent representatives—not rubber stamps. The easiest vote in politics is the one everyone else is casting. The hardest vote is the one your conscience demands.
If you were elected because you promised to protect taxpayers, then protect taxpayers.
If you promised to improve infrastructure, fight for infrastructure. If you promised accountability, demand accountability.
Never apologize for keeping the promises that earned you the confidence of the voters.
There will always be pressure to fit in. Pressure to stay quiet.
Pressure to stop asking difficult questions. Pressure to avoid making colleagues uncomfortable. Ignore it.
The people who elected you did not send you to town hall to become popular inside the building. They sent you there to represent the people outside it. Remember this every time you're asked to support the team. Your team isn't the voting bloc. Your team isn't the political establishment. Your team isn't the group sitting beside you around the council table.
Your team is the taxpayer who believed your word meant something.
This October, many new councillors will walk into municipal offices for the first time.
My message to each of them is simple. Don't let your gunpowder get wet. Stand your ground. Ask the difficult questions. Challenge bad ideas—even when they're popular. Vote according to your principles, not according to pressure.Because if the people wanted another member of the old majority... They wouldn't have elected you.
Canada’s Food and Energy Security Is Now a Matter of National Survival
BELL WORST CUSTOMER SERVICE
BELL WORST
CUSTOMER
SERVICE
By Joe Ingino
I have an open question to corporate Canada. Primarily to Bell and Rogers.
Have you lost your sense of customer service? Have you no concern for your customers?
Let me explain: Bell and Rogers apply the same care towards customers.
They don’t. It appears that in their world. It is all about profit. All about saving money and making billions.
Sadly we all pay. We are all subject to their tyrant policies and their ridiculous policies.
The other day I had to call BELL. The general phone number takes you right to accounts receivable.
An automated system does not welcome you as a customer. But instead reads you the riot act.... ie: It asks you to authenticate yourself. It claims it is for the clients security, (bull).
Once you wasted five minutes... it tells you it is looking up your account. Then it gives you your balance and asks how you like to pay.
I was calling for billing cause they over charged me... After the initial 10 minutes wasted with the automated system.... telling me that most of my concern can be dealt with some online automated system.... It gives you the option to press a key for a live person.
As this happens. The automated system tell you that you are being recorded for your safety and that of the BELL “Specialist”. You got to be kidding me.
In this particular case. After a 15 minute wait. I got this very rude woman. “Hi, my name is Petra, your BELL specialist. Could I have your name.” I tell her. Joe Ingino. She then proceeds to say, “Hello, Mr. Joe. (Mr. Joe!!!! I thought proper syntax: Mr. followed by last name) May I authenticate your account for your security?” I told her. I already did. Why did BELL waste 20 minute authenticating me if I had to do it with her. She rudely tells me, “I am sorry Mr. Joe, but that is BELL policy”. I openly asked her. Where is this call center? She said, “India”. I explained that I was over charged and wanted to talk to someone about it.
She then said, “Oh, Mr. Joe. I am going to have to transfer you to a customer service specialist. Please hold. There may be a bit of a wait.”
Another 20 minutes. Here come Abri on the line.
With a heavy accent that was barely deciphered. She does not even identify herself. It was as if I was calling down to Loui’s bar and grill.
I asked her is this BELL? She then identified herself. She was so rude and unprofessional. I asked her where in the world was this call center. She said,”Morocco”. She then proceeds to ask me to authenticate myself once again. I told her this was the third time. She pretty much answered, “I don’t care that is our policy”. Super rude. I had no choice so we authenticated once again.
She then listened to my concern. She agreed there was an over payment... and she outright asks me. “What do you want me to do about it.” I was shocked.
I asked her that she had horrible customer service skills. She did no seem to care. I then told her. It is your job to deal with customers is it not?
I then requested she transfer me to someone in Canada as I was not impressed by her customer service skills.
She then openly admits. “I am sorry but there is no one in Canada that can help you. No one in Canada wants to work for what they pay us here in Morocco.”
I was shocked. This is a BELL employee?
This truly pissed me off. How dare BELL farm out jobs that Canadians desperately need. All in the name of not having to pay benefit and taxes.
We the consumers pay top dollar for cheap services. I say cheap.... because phone lines once they are laid out there is little or no real maintenance other than the usual interruptions. So then why are we paying a premium every month for something that has 10% value of what you are paying.
Well, I guess the Golden Goose that lays the Perennial egg, generally means lasting for a long time, enduring, or constantly recurring. In everyday contexts, it describes situations, problems, or habits that happen repeatedly or exist continuously.
Then the question remains.... Why are we paying top dollars to BELL?We as consumers have become to complaisant. We surrendered our ability to question. Bell/Rogers have caught on... and they charge what they want and set their own policy to dictate protocol. Pay or get cut off. Pay, pay, pay as you have no real choice. They are one of the same
We are in a tax emergency
Saturday, July 18, 2026
Au Naturel
Au Naturel
By Wayne and Tamara
Ever since my boyfriend and I moved in together, things have gotten complicated. We rarely have sex anymore. I don't know what “rarely” means to anyone else out there, but let's just say I'm feeling rejected. Now it's a few times a month, sometimes more, sometimes less. When we saw each other once a week, he was all over me.
I thought when we lived together, we'd have more sex, not less. When we do, it's great. I know I love it, and he seems to be into it, so I'm having a hard time understanding his reluctance. Over the past months, I've tried in various ways to entice him, seduce him, or propose a quickie if he's busy. Just as often, I give him his space.
I bring it up in a gentle way. "Wouldn't it be great if we made a little more time for each other? We could start here," uttered in the bedroom, with a smile and playful tone. His response is always something like, "I need to pull another all-nighter for tomorrow's work deadline, and sex makes me want to fall asleep. And hey, remember last week, when we went two days in a row? Hey, hey, not bad!"
Then he'll hug me guiltily and be off again to work in the dining room. Maybe we have different libidos. He was a virgin until we met; not to say all late-bloomers have low sex drives, but maybe there's a reason he waited so long to do the deed.
As for me, I'm not exactly a man-eater, but I've been in a sexual relationship before and I love that aspect of connecting. The last thing I want is for sex to be an obligation. Maybe I'm asking too much, and the idea that young happy couples sleep together more than once a week is a media myth. Who knows? All I truly know is how I feel: humiliated, inadequate, and scared.
About a week ago, after he rebuffed me so he could work again, I checked the history on our computer. Turns out he'd been up all night, watching documentaries and reading news--which has nothing to do with his job. I almost wish it had been porn, which would suggest he's horny, just not about me. Instead, it's pure intellectual research.
I confronted him in a calm manner, but he said he reads the Internet to stay awake as he works. I get that, we're the multitasking generation. But still, since then, he's been online almost every night, for hours and hours, reading about everything under the sun. Except sex.
I have told no one. Everyone thinks we're happy. My single friends envy us, and my married ones tell us to milk pre-marriage while we can. My dad calls him "Romeo." I would love to try therapy for both of us, but he rejects the American idea of "outsourcing" mental health care to strangers.
Is this a phase, or is he just not that into me?
Paris
Paris, if you buy a house in the wrong location, remember one thing. It will always be in the wrong location. Licensed professionals cannot make all relationships work, and we doubt this is even a mental health issue. He is simply different from you.
People who are right for us should be right for us in their natural state. If we want people to be authentic, we can’t continue in a relationship with someone who has to alter themselves so much they are not themselves anymore.
If he acquiesces to your wishes, the changes are not likely to be permanent, and two things may follow. You will come to disrespect him, and he will realize you don’t love him for who he is. At that point he will scream, “Enough!” That may happen before the wedding, after the honeymoon, or after the two kids are born.
Wayne & Tamara
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)