Showing posts with label Durham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Durham. Show all posts
Saturday, April 11, 2026
Dear Fellow Canadians
Dear Fellow Canadians
By Bruno Scanga
Financial Columnist
According to Statistic Canada, over $10,000,000,000 was donated from 5,000,000 Canadians to charity in 2019. All these donations are eligible for a non-refundable tax credit.
By using Life Insurance, you can increase your overall charitable donation benefiting a cause that really means something to you. Donating funds to the Canada Revenue Agency through taxation just doesn’t provide the same legacy.
Enhance Your Charitable Giving Using Life Insurance
Below are two structures that allow you enhance your donation to the charity of your choice and potentially pay less tax.
Personally Owned Life Insurance: Purchase a Life Insurance policy where you are the owner/payor of the policy with your chosen charity as the beneficiary.
Policy growth is tax-free increasing your overall donation. When you die the charity receives the death benefit tax-free. Your estate receives a tax credit of up to 100% of net income for both the year of death and the year immediately preceding it. You have access to the cash value during your life as the owner of the policy.
Can change the beneficiary at any time.
Charity owned Life Insurance:
Purchase a Life Insurance policy and make the charity the owner and beneficiary. You pay the premiums. Every year you receive a tax credit in the amount of the premium paid. Maximum donation credit is 75% of net income per year while living. Unused credits can be carried forward up to 5 years. Charity has access to cash value and they control the policy.
Using Life Insurance, you have enhanced your charitable contribution by 33.42%.
The option you choose is dependent on your income tax situation and where you want to use the non-refundable tax credit (annually or at the time of death). With both options, the legacy that you can provide a charity has been significantly increased.
If this is something that resonates with you, please reach out to discuss enhancing your
legacy.
Practicing Water Conservation
Practicing Water Conservation
by Larraine Roulston
‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’
After reading that the Colorado River is experiencing severe low water levels, it’s a reminder that Canadian waters need our safeguarding. If you haven’t already begun, by making small changes to conserve water in your home, your water bills will be lower as well.
The family chefs can become water efficient when rinsing fresh produce. Place these foods in a bowl of water rather than running the tap. Add a little salt or vinegar and let the vegetables sit for several minutes to help remove pesticide residue.
Vegetable stock that is used to create soups can also be poured over oats to make porridge or used to boil rice. Save pasta water to thicken soups.
Allow frozen foods to thaw in the fridge rather than immersing them in running water, unless the instructions on the package state otherwise.
Run your dishwasher when full. If washing dishes by hand, rinse them first in a bowl of warm water to keep your soapy water clean and hot. Soak sticky pots and pans overnight.
Cooking with a steamer or pressure cooker uses less water than boiling veggies in a pot.
Place a jug of water in the fridge so that you don’t have to run the tap for a cold drink.
Aerators can be installed on faucets. They will mix air with water which reduces the flow rate without water pressure being compromised. Be on the lookout for leaks and dripping pipes.
Opportunities also exist in the bathroom by simply turning off the sink’s tap while shaving, brushing teeth, and soaping hands.
Taking showers with cooler water saves energy and has been noted to boost muscle recovery, increase circulation and energy levels.
Installing low-flush or dual-flush toilets and water-saving shower heads will reduce water usage.
In the laundry room, wash full loads in cold water. If you are able to catch rinse water, use it to wash matts, slippers, or to wipe floors. Wear clothes more than once, thus reducing the amount of laundry.
Use a bucket of water rather than a hose to wash the car. Strive for low maintenance landscaping that includes native plants. Replace some grassy areas with a ground cover.
Obtain a rain barrel. Water your lawn with grey water. Retain water in your garden by composting and placing mulch around plants.
Watering your garden in the early morning reduces evaporation loss and prevents fungal growth by allowing leaves to dry.
Sweep walkways, steps, and driveways rather than using a hose. When using a hose, control the flow with an automatic shut-off nozzle. Avoid water toys that require a constant stream of water.
If going to a spa, take your own robe and towels. It’s such a waste to see these being washed after a single use. Small challenges and awareness! These simple acts will help retain our waterways.
When Labels Become Identity: A Warning We Should Not Ignore
When Labels Become Identity: A Warning We Should Not Ignore
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
Have you noticed how quickly people are labeling each other now? It shows up in conversation, online, and in how people describe who they are. It may seem harmless at first, even helpful, but it carries a risk that should not be ignored. Because once labels take hold, judgment follows. There are no official cards being handed out in Canada.
No one is lining up to receive papers that define them. But in a different way, something similar is starting to appear. Labels are being worn openly, almost like identity cards.
Not in your wallet, but in how you present yourself and how others decide where you belong. That should give people pause. History has shown what can happen when societies begin sorting people into fixed groups. In the Soviet Union, citizens were classified by class. Worker. Farmer. Enemy.
These were not just labels. They shaped lives and limited opportunity. In the People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution, people were judged by family background. Good class or bad class. Those labels followed individuals for years and often defined their future. Most Canadians would agree those systems went too far. And today, there is no formal version of that here. But the warning is not about what exists on paper. It is about what is forming in practice.
The shift begins quietly. Words like privilege and victimhood are used more often. People are grouped before they are understood. In many cases, the goal is to address real issues such as inequality and fairness. Those are important conversations.
But something changes when the focus moves from helping people to defining them. The label comes first. The individual comes second. Critics say the New Democratic Party reflects this shift, with messaging that focuses on groups defined by disadvantage or privilege. Supporters call it fairness.
Critics say it risks turning people into categories first, citizens second. That concern is part of a wider shift, not just one party or one idea.
And that is where the warning becomes clear. Because once a society becomes comfortable assigning identity based on group, it becomes easier to assume things about the person in front of you. It becomes easier to judge. It becomes easier to divide. A man standing in line at a grocery store is not thinking about labels. He is thinking about the price of food. But in the wider conversation, he may already be placed into a group before anyone knows his story. That is where the disconnect begins.
Across communities, people are saying similar things in plain language. I just want to be treated fairly. I work hard, but I feel judged before I even speak.
No one sees my situation. These are real voices. Some, especially men of European background, say they feel they are being viewed through the lens of the past rather than their own actions. They hear conversations about history and feel that weight placed on them, even though they had no role in those events.
At the same time, others point out that history still shapes the present. Access to jobs, education, and opportunity has not always been equal. Ignoring that would also be a mistake. Both realities can exist at once. You cannot inherit guilt.
But you can inherit circumstances. The problem begins when those realities turn into fixed labels. Because labels are simple. Too simple. They reduce complex lives into single categories. They overlook effort, struggle, and personal story. They replace understanding with assumption.
And once that happens, something changes. Trust weakens. Conversations break down. People stop listening to each other. History shows that this kind of shift does not happen overnight. It builds slowly. One label at a time. One assumption at a time. That is why this moment matters.
Most people in Canada still see themselves as Canadian. They are not thinking in categories. They are focused on daily life. Paying rent. Buying groceries. Raising their children. Trying to move forward.
Many newcomers feel the same way. They are grateful for the opportunity to be here. They want to work, contribute, and build a stable life. That is the quiet majority. But there is also a smaller group that pushes these ideas more strongly. They speak loudly about identity and categories. They try to define people before those people can define themselves. That is where the concern grows. Because once people accept labels without question, they begin to see others through them.
And that changes how people are treated. It changes how decisions are made. It changes how a country sees itself. The danger is not in recognizing problems. The danger is in deciding who a person is before you know them. Because that decision can be wrong. It can be unfair.
And it can close the door to understanding before it even begins. This is why the idea of a modern card system, even as a metaphor, matters. Not because cards exist. But because the thinking behind them can grow quietly. And when it does, it shapes everything. It shapes language. It shapes judgment. It shapes how people treat each other. So this is the warning. Be careful with labels.
Be careful when you apply them to yourself.
Be careful when you apply them to others. Because the moment you decide who a person is before you understand them, you step into something dangerous. And that danger does not stay in one place. It spreads through conversation, through assumption, through everyday life. Until one day, the label matters more than the truth.
Canada works best when people are judged as individuals. Not as categories. Not as assumptions. Just people. So stay aware. Watch how people treat you. Watch how you treat others. Because the real danger is not the label. It is the moment you stop questioning it.
FACT vs FICTION SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
FACT vs FICTION
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
By Maurice Brenner
Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering
There has been a lot of discussion about intensification across Pickering from Altona Road to the Brock, triggering concerns raised about the impact it will have on our aging limited infrastructure and already congested roads.
While it’s fact that Pickering Planning has processed or is actively reviewing (33) development proposals that collectively include (103) towers exceeding seven storeys in height. These proposals represent a mix of high-density mixed-use buildings, retirement residences, long-term care facilities, and a hotel.
It’s also fact, that these proposals are at various stages of the planning and building permit approval process, ranging from the initial review of Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment applications, to projects that have received planning approvals, only a limited number are under construction with several towers currently on hold or inactive.
In the spirit of transparency , City Planning Staff at my request prepared a breakdown of the current status of towers in the development approval process:
-On hold / inactive development proposals (16 towers)
-Appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (20 towers)
-Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment under Review by the City (30 towers)
-Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment approved by Council (19 towers)
-Site Plan Applications under review (11 towers)
Of this total, only (7) Building permits have been issued and are currently under construction.
The following towers have received all required planning approvals and building permits and are currently under construction:
• Two high-density mixed-use towers by CentreCourt at Shops at Pickering City Centre.
• Two high-density towers by Chestnut Hill Developments at Universal City (UC6 & UC7).
• Two mixed-use high-density towers by Tribute at the VuPoint project.
• One 15-storey long-term care facility proposed by Southbridge Healthcare, which was approved through a site-specific enhanced Ministers ’Zoning Order
Contrary to the belief that Pickering is on the verge of becoming a concrete jungle, only (7) of the (103) proposed towers are currently under construction. Of these, (6) are for high-density mixed-use developments located in the City Centre, while the remaining tower is for a 15-storey long-term care facility proposed by Southbridge Healthcare on Valley Farm Road.
While additional towers may proceed in the future, City staff anticipates that up to (11) more towers could be constructed over the next 5 to 10 years. Development of the remaining towers is long-term and uncertain, and will depend on many external factors that caused the current condo market to crash, and unlikely to recover for many years.
These same developers that saw yesterdays boom as a winning lottery ticket will need to find new ways that meet the new realities of today and into the future.
Friday, April 3, 2026
LEADING THE LIFE YOU WANT
Leading the Life
You Want
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
There’s something quietly heartbreaking about waiting too long to start living the life you might have had all along.
An 83-year-old reader wrote to me recently. For decades, this person lived with social exclusion, low self-esteem, and fear. Then, just last year, they did something about it. They signed up for modern line dancing at a local community centre. I don’t know if it was a decision taken after a lot of soul searching, or if it was a whim, something more frivolous. But the same result, either way. Everything changed. Some things were evident right away. Others came over time, and they were physical, mental, emotional, and social. Enough for the reader to report, with a sense of regret, “It makes me want to start life over again… and do things differently. Better. With more enjoyment.”
That last line lingers.
It invites the question. Why do people wait? Not everyone does. Hopefully not long-time Gifford-Jones readers. But my suspicion is that a lot of people do. They wait until retirement to travel. They wait until illness to value health. They wait until loneliness becomes noticeably painful before reaching out. They wait for permission to be a little bit different than everyone has come to expect. Well, guess what? That permission is not coming.
Years ago, I heard a story about a young man who didn’t know what he wanted to do with his life. He asked an older, wiser fellow for advice. The answer was stark. “Go to the beach. Sit there. Look at the ocean. And don’t come back until you know.”
The suggestion to go away and think deeply about it sounds absurd in today’s lightening-paced, hyperconnected world. But it’s not that hard to do, in fact. Just put the phone down and shut away any other distractions. Schedule time for focused thinking in blocks of two or three hours. Set up a spot for thinking – someplace not too comfortable, but attractive. Then go there and do your thinking – for as many sessions as it takes. You’ll figure something out soon enough.
And then you have to go for it.
We don’t give ourselves the time or the discomfort needed to think clearly about what we want. We fill every quiet moment with noise and distraction. And so the years pass, not in crisis, but in drift.
Research in psychology has long shown that novelty and social connection are powerful medicines. Trying something new. Even something as unassuming as line dancing can stimulate the brain, improve balance and cardiovascular health, and reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression. It’s not just about the activity. It’s about stepping outside the box quietly built around ourselves. At 83, you can still change your life. At 63, you can still change your life. At 23, you can still change your life.
The difference is how much time you have left to enjoy it. But if you are at the older end of the spread, you know it’s not all about duration. Quality of experience, even if flirting, can last a lifetime, even retroactively.
So here’s the drill. Take a step. A small one is enough. Sign up for something. Call someone. Go somewhere. And if you truly don’t know what you want? Find your own “beach.” Sit quietly. Think deeply. And don’t get up until you know.
I did just this upon the passing of my father several months ago. And now I’m writing this column. It’s an intensely high-quality weekly experience that I hope will last for a long time.
The Quiet Majority: When Survival Replaces Voice
The Quiet Majority:
When Survival Replaces Voice
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
I am a columnist . I deal in facts, not noise. And here is a hard one to sit with. Most Canadians are not part of the fight you see every day.
They are trying to survive.
That is not a slogan. That is the reality showing up at kitchen tables across this country. Bills stacked. Phones buzzing with payment reminders. People doing the math in their heads before they even get out of bed.
Something has shifted. You can feel it. This is not just about politics anymore. It is about pressure. The kind that builds slowly, then all at once. The kind that makes people pull back from everything except what keeps them afloat.
Rent is high. Food costs more than it should. Gas prices jump without warning. One week it feels manageable. The next, it does not. A simple drive to work turns into a quiet stress you carry all day. People are not arguing about big ideas. They are asking simple questions. Can I afford groceries this week.Can I fill the tank. Can I keep the lights on. That is where the country is sitting right now.
And while that is happening, something else is going on at the same time.
There are voices with time, energy, and support pushing hard for attention, for change, for recognition. Some of that is fair. Some of it is needed. But it is loud. Constant. Hard to ignore.
And then there is everyone else.
The majority. They are not pushing anything. They are not organizing. They are not showing up to every debate. They are working. Raising families. Looking after aging parents. Trying to hold their lives together. They are not silent because they do not care. They are silent because they are overwhelmed. That difference matters. When you are stretched thin, you do not take on extra weight. You drop what you can. And for many Canadians, what gets dropped is the larger conversation.
Not out of anger. Out of survival. But silence has consequences.
When the majority steps back, the conversation does not stop. It shifts. The loudest voices fill the space. Policies get shaped. Narratives get built. Decisions move forward. And the people who stepped back look up one day and think, when did this happen That is where the unease starts. It is not loud anger. It is something quieter. A feeling that things are moving without you. That your daily struggle does not count the same way. That your problems are too ordinary to matter.
Because being able to pay your bills is not seen as an urgent policy. But it is urgent to the people living it. Look at the systems people rely on.
Education is under strain. Parents worry about what their kids are learning, but also about what is missing. Classrooms are stretched. Teachers are doing what they can, but it feels like something is slipping. Then there is health care. This is where the fear turns real.
People are afraid to go to the hospital. Not because they doubt the people working there, but because they know what they might face. Long waits. No doctors available. Hours that turn into a full day sitting in a chair, watching the clock.
And it is worse when it is not you.
It is your father struggling to breathe. Your wife is in pain. Your child with a fever that will not break. You sit there, waiting, hoping nothing gets worse before someone can help.
That stays with people. It changes how they think. It changes what they fear.
So when another debate starts, when another issue demands attention, people look at their own lives and think, I cannot carry that too. That is how the quiet majority is formed. Not by choice. By pressure.
At the same time, there is a growing push to tell people how they should think, what they should say, what they should support. Even when the intention is to help, the delivery can feel forced. That creates a quiet resistance. People do not argue. They do not protest. They step back further.
They nod, stay polite, and return to their lives. But here is where it gets dangerous. When the majority steps away, even for good reason, it leaves the direction of the country in fewer hands. Not necessarily bad hands, but fewer. That is how imbalance grows. A small group, driven and active, can shape the path. A large group, tired and silent, can lose its influence without even noticing. And over time, that gap widens.
The country starts to feel unfamiliar, not because it changed overnight, but because most people were not part of the change as it happened. That is the quiet shift happening right now.
It is not loud. It is not dramatic. It is slow.
And that is what makes it harder to see.
Most Canadians are not extreme. They are not hateful. They are not looking for conflict. They want stability. They want fairness. They want a chance to live without constant pressure closing in on them. They wake up tired. They go to work. They come home and try to make things work again the next day.
If you listen, really listen, you hear the same line everywhere.
I do not have a problem with anyone. I just want to live my life.
That should mean something.
But right now, it is getting lost.
Because systems do not respond to quiet. They respond to pressure. So the people who are struggling the most, the ones holding everything together, are also the ones least heard.
That is not just unfair. It is risky.
A country cannot stay balanced if its majority is too tired to take part. It cannot stay steady if the people carrying the weight feel like they are not part of the direction. Eventually, something gives.
Not all at once. Not with a bang.
But slowly. People disconnect. Trust fades. The sense of shared ground weakens. And when that happens, it becomes harder to bring things back together.
This is not about picking sides.
It is about recognizing what is happening before it goes too far.
The quiet majority is not the problem.
But if it stays quiet for too long, it may not recognize the country it helped build.And by then, speaking up will feel a lot harder than it does today.
Mr. X Explains the Development Charge Paradox
Mr. X Explains the Development Charge Paradox
A comprehensive Ontario municipal finance white paper on Development Charge rates, housing supply, and long-term fiscal sustainability
1. Introduction
Ontario municipalities rely on Development Charges (DCs) to fund growth-related infrastructure. While intended to ensure that growth pays for growth, Development Charges can unintentionally suppress development activity when set beyond optimal levels. This paper explains the Development Charge Paradox using an adapted Laffer Curve framework.
2. Ontario Development Charge Framework
Development Charges are governed by Ontario’s Development Charges Act and implemented through municipal background studies. Recent reforms, including Bill 23, reduced recoverability, introduced mandatory discounts, and constrained indexing. These changes increase development sensitivity to DC rate decisions.
3. The Development Charge Paradox
At a Development Charge Rate of zero, Development Charge Revenue is also zero. As rates increase, revenue initially rises. Beyond an optimal point, higher DC rates suppress housing development faster than per-unit charges increase, resulting in declining Development Charge Revenue.
4. Equal Revenue, Unequal Outcomes
The curve demonstrates that the same Development Charge Revenue can be achieved at two different Development Charge Rates. A low-rate, high-growth environment produces strong housing delivery and assessment growth. A high-rate, low-growth environment produces stagnation, even if short-term revenues appear similar.
5. Benefits of Lower Development Charge Rates
Lower Development Charge Rates improve project feasibility, accelerate housing starts, support missing-middle and rental housing, and broaden the long-term municipal tax base.
6. Risks of Development Charge Rates Set Too Low
If Development Charge Rates are set too low, municipalities may face infrastructure funding timing gaps. These risks can be managed through capital phasing, debt financing, and improved growth planning rather than suppressing development.
7. The Optimal Development Charge Rate
The peak of the curve represents the optimal Development Charge Rate. At this point, Development Charge Revenue and housing delivery are maximized simultaneously, aligning municipal revenue objectives with housing supply goals.
8. Laissez-Faire
Economics and Necessary Government Intervention
Development Charge policy should generally follow laissez-faire economic principles, allowing market forces to determine pricing, supply, and investment decisions. However, where Development Charges are reduced to stimulate housing delivery, a degree of targeted government intervention is necessary to ensure that these reductions are reflected in housing prices rather than being absorbed entirely into developer margins.
9. Consequences of Excessively High Development Charge Rates
Excessively high Development Charge Rates delay or cancel projects, encourage land banking, shift growth to other municipalities, and ultimately reduce Development Charge Revenue.
10. Long-Term Municipal Fiscal Impacts
Development Charges are a one-time revenue source, while property taxes are recurring. Municipalities that prioritize long-term assessment growth over short-term DC maximization achieve greater fiscal sustainability.
11. Conclusion
The Development Charge Paradox demonstrates that higher Development Charge Rates do not guarantee higher revenue. Optimal outcomes occur when Development Charges balance infrastructure funding with housing supply, economic vitality, and long-term municipal prosperity. 
Canada’s Housing Crisis Is Now a Test of Leadership
Canada’s Housing Crisis Is Now a Test of Leadership
by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC
FEC, CET, P.Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
Canada’s housing crisis is no longer a market fluctuation. It is a structural failure, one that now tests the country’s economic credibility, social cohesion, and political leadership.
For too long, housing was treated as a local issue, shaped by municipal zoning and market forces. That approach has collapsed under the weight of reality. Population growth has surged, supply has lagged, and affordability has deteriorated to the point where even middle-class Canadians are under strain.
What we face today is not simply high prices. It is a system that no longer delivers fairness.
Recent signals from policymakers suggest that governments are beginning to understand the scale of the challenge. The economic framing associated with Mark Carney and the more assertive supply-side actions of Doug Ford point in the right direction. However, direction alone is not enough.Execution is what will matter.
Canada’s housing shortage is the result of years of underbuilding relative to population growth. Immigration—vital to our economic future—has increased demand, but without a matching expansion in supply.
The consequences are visible across the country. Homeownership is increasingly out of reach for younger Canadians. Rent consumes a growing share of income. Skilled workers are priced out of the very cities that depend on them.This is no longer just an affordability issue. It is a question of whether Canada still offers a viable path to stability and upward mobility.
Mark Carney’s recent interventions have helped reframe the debate. Housing is not merely a private asset; it is core economic infrastructure.
Canada has been highly effective at attracting capital. But too much of that capital has flowed into existing real estate, inflating prices, rather than into new housing supply.
The policy implication is straightforward: we must redirect incentives. Governments should prioritize purpose-built rental construction, support long-term institutional investment, and reduce the distortions that reward speculation over building.
If we treat housing as infrastructure—like transportation or energy—we begin to understand the scale and urgency of what is required.
At the provincial level, Doug Ford’s approach has targeted a long-standing obstacle: municipal gatekeeping.
Zoning restrictions, slow approvals, and local opposition have limited density in precisely the areas where it is most needed. Ontario’s efforts to mandate housing targets and streamline approvals reflect an uncomfortable truth. Left to their own devices, many municipalities will not approve enough housing.These measures are not without controversy. But the alternative is continued paralysis.
Canada cannot solve a national housing crisis if local constraints consistently override national priorities.
The central weakness in Canada’s response remains a lack of coordination.The federal government sets immigration levels and provides funding. Provinces control planning frameworks. Municipalities regulate land use. Each operates within its mandate, but the system as a whole lacks alignment.
This fragmentation produces predictable outcomes: delays, inefficiencies, and missed targets.
A credible strategy would link these elements. Immigration levels should be aligned with housing capacity. Federal funding should be conditional on municipal performance. Provinces must enforce timelines and accountability. Without coordination, even the right policies will fail.
Housing is not just an economic issue. It is the foundation of social stability.
When working Canadians cannot afford to live where they work, the consequences are far-reaching. Healthcare systems struggle to recruit. Businesses cannot find employees. Commutes lengthen, productivity declines, and inequality deepens.
More fundamentally, public confidence erodes. A country where effort no longer leads to security risks losing the trust that underpins its institutions.
Canada has faced national challenges before. Each required leadership willing to move beyond incrementalism.
We need to build at scale, not at the margins. We need to rebalance incentives toward supply, not speculation. More importantly, we need governments prepared to confront local resistance when it conflicts with national interest.
The early signals from leaders like Mark Carney and Premier Doug Ford suggest that the diagnosis is improving. However, diagnosis is not delivery.
The real test is whether Canada can translate intent into action which is coordinated, sustained, and ambitious.
Because in the end, this is not just about housing.
It is about whether Canada remains a country where opportunity is attainable—or becomes one where it is quietly out of reach. What do you think?
Together We Can Fly..
The Illusion of a Social Norm - How Everyone is an Exception to Social Rules
The Illusion of a Social Norm - How Everyone is an Exception to Social Rules
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
In highschool, it can feel almost impossible to be your authentic, full self. Students are constantly influenced by peer pressure, social standards, and comparison to others. It is evident when you walk into a classroom and see every girl in the same leggings and uggs, every guy with the same haircut and sweater. The similarities are clear, however the source of the standard is untraceable. The ending is unclear, as these similarities are not limited to just high school, following us throughout our entire lives.
From a young age, we are often taught who we are supposed to be. Friends, family, teachers, and peers all have their own perspective on how you should act, and who you should be. As a kid, your friends may influence you to be louder, funnier, and more social, while a teacher may praise you for being quiet and introverted. None of these influences are directly wrong or negative, they are all trying to form a well-rounded individual. However, it can be confusing and make it difficult to distinguish what you really want from the loudest influences. When everyone around you has a different idea of who you should be, it becomes difficult to hear your own voice and your own wants. You start to wonder if your choices are really yours, or just reflections of others.
As you get older, these contrasting expectations don’t disappear, they evolve. You become more aware of the “social norm,” a combination of expectations that seems impossible to avoid. In elementary school, the norm might be as simple as liking certain games or fitting into friend groups. In high school, it becomes more intense, and rigid; what you wear, how you act, who you hang out with, and what you post can feel like they define your entire life. If you make one mistake, reject what is defined as “normal” one time, your entire social life feels endangered. This norm even follows into adulthood, where its focus shifts to success, relationships, career paths, and lifestyle. There is always an unspoken standard which defines behavior, even if we cannot directly see it.
The ironic part is, nobody perfectly fits the social norm. It’s an illusion, a constantly moving target which changes based on who you’re around. Since the rule is always changing, we’re all exceptions to a rule that doesn’t truly exist. This just increases the confusion which began at a young age, the question if you are your own person or a combination of the expectations which surround you. It creates a lifestyle of uncertainty and confusion instead of confidence and certainty.
The norm isn’t something anyone naturally is, it’s a performance. Both online and in person, there is a constant trend of people being called performative or fake due to their fashion, interests, or behavior. However, it’s all hypocritical, as we are all performing to some capacity. Trying to change ourselves, even if it seems in the smallest way, is the show we cannot escape. Whether it be online or with a social group, it is practically impossible to not let ourselves be changed, especially when it is hard to understand your authentic self in the first place.
Social media only intensifies the pressure and performance. Instead of trying to keep up with the standards of the people directly around us, we are now trying to keep up with the standards of thousands of people. We see the carefully curated versions of other people’s lives through a screen, and try to match it to seem trendy or likeable. The result is a constant feeling of falling short, unable to keep up with an online highlight reel.
It is clear we are all a little performative, influenced by the norms we cannot control or escape. We adjust how we act depending on where we are and who we’re with. That doesn’t make us fake or ingenuine, it makes us human. The goal isn’t to completely reject the idea of social norms, which is an expectation even harder than keeping up with the norms themselves. Instead, the challenge is to recognize standards without completely losing yourself to them.
The first step to moving past the norm is to figure out which parts of yourself feel real when no one is watching. It’s about choosing which standards to keep and what to let go of. Through this, it’s easier to learn about yourself and the interests, new and old, that feel the most “you.”
Finding your authentic self isn’t about escaping influence entirely, an impossible goal. Social pressure is something which exists from the second we are born, starting with our parents and evolving into the opinions of everyone we surround ourselves with. These influences are not always negative, and that's important to remember. So, instead of avoiding the influence and standard, the goal is to learn how to exist within the expectations, without letting them define you altogether.
Saturday, March 28, 2026
The Killing Of A Profession Scoundrels - Pretender & Wanabe’s
Saturday, March 21, 2026
According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre
According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre
By Bruno Scanga
Financial Columnist
In 2023 there were over 62,000 reported fraud victims. Seniors in Canada are getting bilked out of more than $500 million every year. It is estimated that as many as one in five seniors have lost money to fraudsters and most don’t report it.
Even though seniors today may be mentally sharper than ever, they are still the con artists’ favorite target because they generally have more disposable cash and are often more trusting.
Also, with our population living longer, there are more elders in their 80’s and 90’s who are vulnerable because they live alone, have a certain level of memory loss and can be confused or frightened by slick scammers.
Scam artists try their tricks on all age groups, but some of their cons they focus on seniors.
Here are a few common scams targeting seniors:
Grandchild-in-trouble – Henry gets a call from what sounds like a grandson asking for some urgent financial help. Apparently traveling far from home, he needs bail money or emergency car repairs and asks for a wire transfer.
In a nasty new twist, crooks knew some things about the grandchild and used a software tool to impersonate their voice. They were told their grandchild had been kidnapped and demanded payment of ransom. Cunningly, the crooks earlier called the grandchild on their cell phone, impersonating the phone carrier, and asked them to turn it off for a maintenance check.
Protection – Wire payment or Bitcoin is the dead give-away. Never send money before confirming the grandchild’s whereabouts and call police.
Phony bank official – Anne was bilked out of more than $15,000 when she thought she was helping her bank catch a thieving teller. She was instructed to withdraw a large sum of cash from her account and deliver it to the ‘bank official’ at a mall in her neighborhood. He was well dressed and assured her that the funds would be deposited back to her account. Anne was told not to tell her bank because they didn’t want to tip-off the teller, and he was able to get her to make two more withdrawals.
Protection – Do not give any personal information to someone claiming they represent your bank. Call the police.
Scareware – Shortly after David and Gail got their first computer; a message appeared on their screen telling them it was infected with a virus. They were invited to download a program for a small charge, giving the fraud artist their credit card information.
Protection – First thing, have Internet security software from one of the big-name providers installed. Set it to update regularly and ignore the phony pop-up messages.
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Today’s approach to Debt?
When Employers See Your Value, Job Market Disconnects Disappear
When Employers See Your Value, Job
Market Disconnects Disappear
By Nick Kossovan
When it comes to my The Art of Finding Work columns, none of what I write is theoretical for me. It took me about 20 years into my career to grasp the importance employers place on value-add. Before this realization, I intellectualized my experience, which was of no value to an employer.
I believe two main factors significantly contribute to why job seekers struggle in a job market that, although highly competitive, is still hiring, though not as easily or quickly as they feel entitled to.
1. Having grown up overprotected and overindulged, with parents and teachers constantly telling them, "everyone wins," many job seekers never had to fight for anything and therefore aren't mentally prepared to compete for a job.
2. Intellectualizing their experience.
Many job seekers hold the naive belief that their “experience” and “credentials” should be enough to get them hired; in their minds, they don't have to prove how they contributed to their former employers' profitability. Ultimately, much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers stems from job seekers failing to articulate how they'll contribute to an employer's bottom line—not framing their value.
When job searching, your worth needs permission. You don’t decide your worth; employers do, which they determine based on how they perceive what your value or potential value to their business is. Your worth to an employer isn’t a given, nor is it a matter of self-opinion. Proving your worth is your responsibility.
An employer assessing a candidate’s worth is no different from making a large purchase or investment. If an employer sees value, which, as I mentioned and is worth repeating, is the jobseeker’s responsibility to demonstrate, in hiring a candidate (an ongoing expense), such as they’ll generate revenue, save money, or remove risks, they’re more likely to hire that candidate, provided they feel the candidate will mesh with their company culture, the team they’ll be working with, and will be manageable.
Understandably, employers look to hire low-risk candidates, defined by:
· Having a track record of delivering measurable outcomes.
· Coming across as someone who won’t be a disruptor (you’ll make things easier, not harder).
Employers aren’t interested in your experience per se; they’re interested in the value you added to your previous employer’s profitability, which you ideally will add to their business. Approaching your job search with “Here’s what I do” triggers the question, “So what?”
· "I'm fluent in Tagalog." · "I'm proficient in Excel."
· "I managed a help desk." · "I'm creative."
· "Results-driven leader with a proven track record."
Due to their intangibility, employers no longer take self-promotion statements, which are usually grandiose, or opinions about oneself, seriously. I’ve lost count of how many candidates talk a good game about themselves, but upon further due diligence (an assessment test, completing an assignment, asking ‘Tell me a time when’ questions), it became clear that talking a good game was their primary skill.
Recruiters and hiring managers scan resumes and LinkedIn profiles for numbers and context, not soft skills or empty phrases. Results outweigh opinions. Employers are only interested in hiring candidates who can deliver results. When was the last time you made a purchase—remember, hiring is equivalent to making a purchase—without considering the expected result(s)?
· In 2025, secured $1.5M in new business contracts by targeting businesses that serve Toronto’s Filipino community.
· Created a custom automated Excel template that cuts the time to generate weekly sales analysis reports by 80%.
· Implemented Zendesk AI Agents, reducing IT support’s average daily call volume from 850 to 680, a 20% decrease.
· Launched Wayne Enterprise’s new anti-frizz shampoo by producing and posting 20 engaging 30-second videos on its social media channels, resulting in a 28% increase in conversion rate over the previous launch, a colour-enhancing shampoo.
· Managed a $10M annual capital expenditure budget spanning 4 divisions. Achieved 15% savings in 2025 through vendor renegotiations.
Shifting from “What do I want to say about myself?” to “What evidence can I provide that I’m the solution to this employer’s problems?” will create “connects” between you and employers rather than disconnects. Reflect on how your skills have led to measurable outcomes.
The candidates who are getting hired aren’t the ones who are shouting the loudest or checking off all the proverbial boxes. The candidates employers are having conversations with are those they believe can effectively solve the problems the role is meant to address.
For an employer to view you as a solution worth paying for, they need to see evidence that you have solved problems for your previous employers. Position yourself around the employer’s problems and needs—What employer wouldn’t want to increase their profitability?—not your resume.
Every day, job seekers tell me or post on LinkedIn, complaining about how employers hire, as if that’s a smart job-search strategy (it isn’t), that they have years of experience and expertise, yet their applications go unnoticed. No acknowledgments. No conversations. It’s their ego talking. Job seekers expecting employers to merely value their “experience” and “expertise” without providing evidence of how they impacted their previous employer’s bottom line are the ones creating much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers, and then ironically complain about “the disconnect.” 
Building A Culture Of Control
Building A Culture Of Control
As a Pickering City Councillor and the only elected official in Durham Region to attend the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) Drone as First Responder (DFR) Pilot Project community information night on Thursday, February 26, 2026, at the Education and Training Centre in Whitby, I witnessed firsthand the presentation of this program—already live and operational across our region.
No other municipal or regional representative was present, underscoring my ongoing commitment not only to the residents of Pickering but to the broader Durham Region. Unlike my counterparts, I serve without compensation, driven purely by a dedication to transparency, accountability, and protecting the freedoms of those I represent.
Durham Regional Police have launched one of Canada's first Drone as First Responder programs, with police-grade drones—manufactured by the American company Skydio—which will be docked strategically across the region. These are not recreational toys; they are advanced systems capable of launching and hovering over an incident scene in approximately 60 seconds—long before ground officers arrive. A drone could be filming your street, recording video, and transmitting live feeds at police discretion.
I must commend our Durham Regional Police Service—they are among the finest in the country, dedicated professionals who put their lives on the line daily to keep our communities safe. Their innovation in emergency response is admirable, but this program represents a slippery slope. Once we cross the line into expanded surveillance without ironclad safeguards, it's hard to turn back. History shows that tools introduced for "emergencies" often expand in scope, eroding privacy inch by inch.
Officials describe the program as a tool for emergencies and "operational incidents"—a term so vague and broad that deployment ultimately rests on police judgment. This raises serious questions: What if Quebec-style curfews returned, as we saw during COVID lockdowns? Could drones patrol neighborhoods to enforce compliance, monitor who is out after hours, or track individuals? During lawful peaceful assemblies—protests, marches, or community gatherings—might they hover overhead under the guise of "operational need" for situational awareness? We have already seen police drones deployed at large events elsewhere in Canada, and the potential for mission creep is undeniable when guidelines are this open-ended.
Consider the Million March for Children here in Durham a couple of years ago—a lawful assembly of parents and caregivers advocating for their kids. There was disturbing talk from City Hall, including straight from Mayor Ashe himself, questioning whether these protesters were "good or bad people." What would it take for DRPS to cross that line today? If a Chief Administrative Officer from any Durham municipality claimed they feared for their safety due to a legal protest, would drones be launched to surveil the participants? This isn't far-fetched; it's the logical extension of discretionary aerial monitoring in a region already leaning toward overreach.
Authorities assure us there is no facial recognition in use today. Yet footage can be recorded, stored, and subject to review. That data persists indefinitely. As artificial intelligence advances, future tools could analyze archived video for identification or patterns—especially with policies that evolve over time. Closer to home, Ontario Tech University is actively researching AI-coordinated drone swarms, where multiple drones operate autonomously. (Durhams Drones can also work autonomously together). Internationally, we see examples like China—the most surveilled country in the world—employing such technology for public monitoring and crowd control. Durham's program is not hypothetical; docks are installed, drones are flying, and the initiative is underway.
The community information night—featuring live demonstrations, discussions on privacy, and opportunities to meet operators—came after the fact. The decision to deploy was made without prior public consultation or meaningful input from residents. We were presented with a fait accompli: the program is here, now come learn about it.
This is not merely about faster emergency response; it is part of a broader pattern in Durham Region where policies increasingly tilt toward centralized oversight and data accumulation. Coupled with other initiatives—like the hate reporting line, essentially a snitch line allowing neighbors to anonymously report on neighbors or anyone for offensive comments, jokes, or perceived slights—it contributes to what can only be described as a culture of control. One where wide discretion allows surveillance tools to proliferate, personal privacy erodes incrementally, and meaningful oversight arrives only after implementation.
Durham residents deserve better. Is our region becoming a testing ground for always-on aerial monitoring? Are we comfortable with footage of our neighborhoods, homes, and families being captured, retained, and potentially integrated into more sophisticated systems down the line? Shouldn't citizens have had a real say before drones began launching over our streets, rather than being informed post-launch?
Public trust is built on transparency and genuine engagement, not retroactive briefings. I urge Durham residents to demand answers: full disclosure of deployment criteria, public access to flight logs, strict limits on data retention, and independent oversight to prevent overreach. Attend future sessions, contact your representatives, and voice your concerns. Our freedoms are not automatic—they require vigilance.
The truth matters. Let's keep pushing for it, together, before this "pilot" becomes permanent reality.
63 Million Insults And Our Mayor Thanks Them...
63 Million Insults And Our
Mayor Thanks Them...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
What is wrong with Oshawa.... It has got so bad that even the Generals Hockey Team management has publicly asked that fans bathe before attending games as some have complained that Oshawa fans stink. Even though management retracted the statement. It STILL STINKS.
That they would make such a statement public in the first place...
But they are not to blame as we do suck and we do stink... as how can any one thank GM for
investing 63 million when they are responsible for our Oshawa’s economic demise. For the loss of over 30,000 good paying jobs. For the decay in quality of life in Oshawa.
Not to mention the environmental mess they have left Oshawa. Yes, folks. “They Have Left”,
as anyone that thinks GM has any influence on our local workforce as they once did... has to go get their heads checked.
The days when GM workers could buy a house, a car a cottage and be able to send their kids
to University are long gone. This recent announcement is a total insult to Oshawa and all it’s Citizens. Yet, we have our phantom Mayor drop to his media knees and thank GM as if they are doing something great for Oshawa.
In reality GM use of the lands they so claim they own.... That they
rightly pay taxes on. According to record. GM was awarded those lands for as long as they produce cars in Oshawa.
Once GM pulls out or stopped producing cars. Those lands default back to the City of Oshawa.
This means we the taxpayers own those properties that are worth billions of dollars. Unfortunately in many cases an equivalent price tag for environmental clean up goes with it.
Then you ask. Why is GM tossing us a token.... Simple. GM by
putting those lands as their ownership possess great financial gain.
If they loose title. This means a loss to the company books. Not
to mention the possibility of having to clean the polluted lands.
It makes business sense to cut a cheque for a few millions to keep
the status quo and keep draining Oshawa. No one can say that they are not producing cars.
I can tell you one thing. Oshawa has no leadership. Thank God
that Carter is not coming back. The danger is that if a guy like Titto as he is being groomed to replace “yes” man Carter with “Si” man Titto. We are in for the economical spiral of our lives. You can be assure our taxes will continue to skyrocket and our quality of life slip to new lows.
You wonder... how can I make such bold statements... Well think of this way. Titto has sat on council for what 20 years. What has he contributed. I live in his ward. I have yet to see him in my office or at my residence. He does not even return phone calls. I am his City Newspaper and he does not return calls. Imagine how he treats the average taxpayer.
In 2026 we need to clean out the old and bring in the new. Guys
like Giberson, Kerr, Mckonkey, Neil don’t belong in politics as all
they done for Oshawa is sit on their hands and contributed little or
nothing. Giberson a third rate musician and before politics a dead
beat. How can you expect anything. Kerr an actor... self professed teacher and Mckonkey a realtor... They are and were over their heads when it comes to dealing with million dollar decisions. Giberson and Kerr had 2 terms to clean downtown and they done nothing. If I am wrong. I publicly challenge them to prove me wrong by writing a letter to the editor with their accomplishments. Councillors like Nicholson, Chapman, Lee... They should have never been politics. Nicholson is distant voice that is not representative of the people of Oshawa. Chapman, should have done the honorable thing and retired. He is not management material and as his leadership qualities... I bring to question as he has done nothing to improve the quality of life in Oshawa. He should know better. As for Lee. I am so disappointed. He has truly done nothing for his ward and he truly does not belong in politics.
Then what is left. Gray and Marks. If we have to pick an incumbent for Mayor...and the choice is Titto vs Gray. My money is on Gray. As for Marks. He has potential but sits watching the political storms come and go and is restrained from making a difference. The one guy with potential... 62 Million, please ....
Canada’s Defence Strategy Is a Start — However, Parliament Must Finish the Job
Saturday, February 21, 2026
A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections
A Voice Before the Vote
A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
Canadian elections affect every citizen within our country, from a political activist to a non-voter adult to underaged teenagers. Whether or not an individual casts a vote, their decision has a lasting impact, whether or not it was intentional. Every vote counts, affecting our public laws, social rights, and much more. With upcoming municipal and provincial elections, I am left considering these politics, even if I am not yet at the age to vote.
Many individuals choose not to vote, which is an unintentional political decision with consequences of its own. Choosing not to participate does not mean stepping outside of politics. Instead, it means allowing others to decide on your behalf. It is practically equivalent to voting for the most popular party in your region, even if you don’t align with their beliefs. When citizens stay home on election day, policies can shift in directions that may not represent the majority, strengthening extremes, reducing accountability, and implying that citizens are disengaged from important issues. In political elections, silence is one of the biggest statements, but in a way few people realize.
Although every generation experiences a lack of voting interest, I believe it is most prominent in younger generations. Many young voters feel disconnected from our political systems, believing they are outdated or unresponsive to their issues. Young voices are rarely taken seriously, fueling the decline in political interest. Modern youth are often the most passionate about social change, yet they step away from politics because they feel unheard and misrepresented.
Another reason young adults often step away from voting ballots is a lack of education in civic affairs. In high school, it is mandatory for grade 10 students to take half a semester of civic education, spanning about two months. In these months, students are taught the absolute basics of voting and major parties, however it doesn’t go in depth about the importance, major issues, or even party members. After that, high school provides no further opportunities to learn about politics, leaving individuals confused and uninterested. This often leads to a lack of voting or misinformed voting, as young people often mimic the actions, and votes, of those around them.
Lastly, young people experience the feeling there is nobody to properly represent their values. Every level of government has different candidates and parties, however when it comes to provincial and federal elections, there are only a few options to choose from. From the major parties, it feels impossible to decide which party fits personal values the best, which is what decreases voting interest.
What I'd expect, and what most other teenagers would expect from a politician is transparency, accountability, and priorities. I would want someone who listens and acts on what they hear, and who is willing to admit mistakes instead of avoiding responsibility.
A good politician should focus on long-term solutions rather than the short-term popularity we see from many political figures today. Most importantly, I would expect them to genuinely care about the well-being of the people they serve, not just during election season when they think it will gain them popularity.
One solution I know other countries have implemented is mandatory voting, especially on federal elections. This idea has many flaws, however I think it could prove beneficial if misinformation and educational issues are first combatted. This system would increase voting from all demographics, and create a system which includes the perspectives of many more individuals. However, it takes the opinions of those who have done no research or have no interest in our politics, making the system inherently flawed.
Overall, I think the main solution to the issue with a low voter turnout, especially among young adults, is a lack of proper education. It can be difficult to understand politics in the maze of internet misinformation, especially without interesting civic classes in secondary schools. Young voters often see politics as something which they can not control, something that does not apply to them, or something that avoids their issues, causing individuals to lose interest.
Friday, February 20, 2026
Don’t let them scare you
Don’t let them scare you
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
Don’t let them scare you into overpaying! For quite some time now we have been in a full-blown buyers’ market. For some reason, currently, we are seeing bidding wars creeping in again. The last property that I collaborated on had a bidding war so to speak.
There were two offers, ours being one of them. I strongly urged my clients not to pay more than the asking price because the property was priced well, but with so many properties on the market and many of them simply not moving, it seemed ridiculous to pay more than the actual value of the house. Some agents welcome this but in fact it is not good for either side.
If you find yourself in a position of wanting to put an offer on a house be aware that the minute you put an offer on a house, the listing agent for that property fires off a blast notification to all parties who have booked a walkthrough of that property. The notification is to let them know that there is an offer on the property and if they would like to submit an offer as well, they need to do that now. The hope here is to create a bidding war. I find for the most part that unless the property has been viewed very recently by a few people, that there is generally no problem and no competition. If a property was viewed two weeks ago by someone and they have not yet put in an offer, chances are that they do not intend to.
So, the notification they receive just goes into the deleted file. That notification, however, can rile some people into action and before you know it you are in a bidding war. That is when you really need to think about your personal needs when it comes to a new home for you and your family.
The message here is clear. The market is saturated with houses that are not moving. If you are in the market this spring, you have a great opportunity to negotiate on any property you choose.
Never fear that you will lose out if you don’t pay their price because there are more properties coming on the market every single day. Do not be intimidated and do not act in haste. What is meant for you will find its way to you.
By The Numbers
By The Numbers
By Wayne and Tamara
I need some clarification on something my husband has told the world, but first, a little background. We’ve been married four years, and he has cheated on me twice. They were separate affairs, each lasting less than a year.
The first one we moved past by recommitting to each other. Well, at least I did. I was getting back to my old self, and we were going out on weekends canoeing, swimming, hiking, and bicycling. Shortly afterward I discovered the second affair. That one really threw me for a loop because he led me to believe things were getting much better.
Then yesterday I saw him on a website I thought was a site for uploading pictures of family and friends. I learned it is a social networking site. On the website he lists his relationship status as “it’s complicated.” When I asked him what that means, he said I read too much into things.
To me it sounds like “I am married but still available.” That doesn’t sit well with me. Now he is talking about us moving out of state away from my family. Does “it’s complicated” mean to him what it says to me?
Daphne
Daphne, the British psychologist Peter Wason conducted a revealing experiment. He gave university students three numbers—2,4,6—and asked them to tell him what rule they followed. Before they suggested a rule, the students were allowed to guess sets of numbers and ask if they followed the rule.
A student who suggested 8,10,12 would be told those numbers follow the rule. If the student then offered 14,16,18 or 1,3,5, again they would learn those numbers follow the rule. At that point the student would guess the rule is each number is two larger than the previous number.
But that is not the rule. If we tell you that 1,300,996 follows the rule, can you guess what it is? You’re right. The rule says each number must be larger than the one before it. What the experiment demonstrates is that human beings suffer from confirmation bias. We try to confirm our beliefs rather than trying to disconfirm them.
That’s what you are doing with your husband. You think when he is nice to you he is recommitting to you. It appears more likely he is trying to keep you from calling a lawyer, telling his parents, or stopping his behavior. When he takes you out for the evening, he may be celebrating what he just got away with.
Now he hopes to take you away from your support system, your family. Take a page from his book and do something without telling him. Contact the only person likely to solve your problem: a good divorce lawyer.
Wayne & Tamara
Benched
For four months I sporadically dated a woman I know from church. I fell in love with her. When I told her how I felt, she said she wasn’t ready yet. She felt I lacked self-confidence and that made me less attractive.
But she became interested again when she learned I was going to meet someone else at church. She asked if I would come by her house later that week. We had a great time, and the night ended with a passionate kiss or two. Maybe three or four, I lost count.
She says God has put three great men in her life, and I am one of them. She feels I am a different person now, and she is awaiting clarity on what to do next. However, when I asked her out for this weekend, she said she is going to the lake for the weekend with one of the other two men. Should I continue the relationship or move on?
Greg
Greg, you’re not a starter on her team. You’re second- or third-string. If you want playing time in the romance league, find another woman.
Wayne & Tamara
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)