Bend So You Don’t Break

W. Gifford-Jones, M.D. and Diana Gifford-Jones Getting older takes a toll. Weakening bones, increasing aches and pains, and failing balance, flexibility and strength can make the body feel like worn-out baggage. But there’s a curious truth in an ancient Hindu text that states, “Everyone else is conquered by the body, but the body is conquered by yogis.” For centuries, yoga has been practiced by people all over the world for religious, spiritual rehabilitation or fitness reasons. The older set may see the neighbourhood yoga studio as a place for the young and nimble, but there is ample evidence that aging seniors benefit physically and mentally from instruction in the “sun salutation”, “tree pose”, or amusingly named positions like the “chair pigeon” or “cat-cow pose”. Yoga combines movement (asana) and breathwork (pranayama). The beneficial effects of yoga include relief from back pain, eased arthritis symptoms, better sleep, and improved mood. Regular yoga practice also promotes social connectivity and improved self-care. Yoga stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system – the “rest and digest” mechanism of the body – reducing heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure. Studies show decreases in blood glucose, cholesterol and sodium and increases in oxytocin. Yoga is effective in building strength, mobility and flexibility and aids in weight management and posture. Improved balance and functional movement are major benefits for seniors at risk of falling. These physiological benefits have led to the incorporation of yoga into the treatment of many chronic health conditions including diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and chronic pain. While many people initially look to yoga for physical health benefits, there are important psycho-spiritual perks as well. As a mindful practice, yoga increases concentration, memory, and attention. Hostility, anxiety, and depression are reduced. Instead, improvements in outlook and general self-acceptance arise. Breathwork patterns common to yoga practice are energizing and often used to treat depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions. Dr. Kirsten Blokland, a developmental psychologist and certified yoga teacher, states, “Synchronizing movement with breath can impart a feeling of coherence and integration – something that is so needed in our society, where many people report feeling fragmented and unsettled because of the hectic pace of our lives.” Dr. Blokland is part of a growing community of yoga specialists focusing on restorative yoga to assist with the healing process in response to significant medical challenges. Where do you start if you can’t touch your toes? It’s unfortunate if yoga conjures ideas of pretzel-like contortions. To the contrary, yoga can be enjoyed by even those with limited mobility. Chair yoga, a style of yoga performed in a seated position is a suitable starting point for people having difficulties getting from standing to seated on the floor repeatedly. Sitting down lowers the centre of gravity, protects hip and knee joints from weight-bearing and eliminates the need to rely on the shoulders and wrists for support. With the added stability of a chair, participants can concentrate more deeply on breathing and poses. There is also added accessibility of seated yoga. Everybody has access to a chair. Chair yoga can be done in the kitchen, in the office, or anywhere there is a place to sit. Chair yoga can be just as beneficial as other forms of practice, such as on a traditional yoga mat. “Chair/modified poses are in many ways just as beneficial as traditional asana poses – particularly when we consider that the benefits exist not just in the physical domain, but also in the psychological and spiritual domains,” says Dr. Blokland. As the body ages, take this advice to “bend so you don’t break.” Give it a try under the guidance of a trained instructor. Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive our weekly e-newsletter. For comments, contact-us@docgiff.com. Follow us Instagram @docgiff and @diana_gifford_jones

WE CAN ALWAYS DO BETTER

By Joe Ingino Editor/Publisher ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States “I live a dream in a nightmare world” Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret. Many are asking how my mayoral platform is coming along. The platform is ready. The issue is how to tailor the presentation as it is not utilized without my permission before the election. In the past I have written solutions to a local problems... and boom miraculously and without any credit. The solution becomes implemented by City hall. Just recently the Mayor has been busy working on numerous press releases. Releases that through his administration were far from few. It appears now that we are upon the eve of a municipal election he has to make it look like he has done something and or is doing. The question I have for him is. How can he go to sleep at night knowing that his people are sleeping on the streets? In a release entitled: ‘Message from His Worship Mayor Dan Carter to Business Community Stakeholders, May 2022’,. He stated: Our economic recovery has always depended on the idea of working together. (his definition of together is... as long as it benefits him. The mayor has show bias and prejudice towards local businesses/contractors and developers. Why do you think we in Oshawa do not have any building over 20 floors. Real developers have pulled away and left it for these two by four/drywall type of future ghetto developers). Whether you’re a local consumer, business or government policymaker, our collective actions have a profound cumulative impact on our economic direction. (Really name one impact that they have had under his leadership? One.) That’s why advocacy is so important to the work we do at the City of Oshawa. When we formed the Mayor’s Economic Recovery Task Force in 2020, we knew that advocating for your business, hearing your voice and communicating that message with all tiers of government would be critically important to emerge from the pandemic in a stronger position than ever. (In my opinion the Task Force is a joke. The councillor chairing it has no actual business experience or practice. He is to be taken serious as an advocate? They tell people they are advocacy group... in other fancy word for saying they are doing nothing and relying on a prayer. This is the same advocate that refused $100,000. free money from a local business in the middle of COVID. This is the same mayor that refused this same company out of personal vendetta, prejudice, bias. This is the same mayor that has turned off real investment do to his red tape from his city permit department. This is the same mayor that advocated making illegal to feed the poor on our streets. The same advocates to spend your hard tax dollars on rent a cops at the tune of $90/hr and pay the guards $40. To harass and rough up the homeless. This is the same advocate that refused a permit for C.A.M.P- Community Assisted Meal Program. A program that ran with zero tax dollars. The mayor took it upon himself to shut it down... This is advocacy? This is leadership? No real or formal reason given. Just that he did not like the organizers. This is the same mayor that stands before his supporters of the Durham Realtor Board and boasts on how he brought a billion dollars worth of development during COVID. When in reality he had nothing to do with it, as it is called natural population growth. This is the same mayor that attempted to take credit for the announcement of GM once again tossing us a token bone. Smoke and mirror. This has to stop. Let’s bring pride back to Oshawa. Let’s stop pretending and let’s start doing what we should have been all along.

Canada at the Crossroads

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As we descend from spring into summer in Canada, the days may be getting brighter, but the outlook for our society is somber. At 6.8% inflation is the highest it has been in 30 years. The bank prime rate quickly inching towards 3% will have a drastic cooling effect on house sales. High gasoline prices and an active war in Europe are just some of the events that are shaping our lives today. The Canadian political scenario is not doing anything to bring relief to the people who have been caged by the Covid-19 pandemic for more than 2 years. With businesses collapsing and the state intruding more and more on our private lives, one is driven to believe that Canada is going toward a multi-faceted trust crisis. Trust in our public institutions is fading fast, and what used to be the cornerstone of Canadian society, is cracking. Trust in our political system and politicians is at the lowest possible level. In Ontario we are facing a provincial election that seems colorless and odorless, mostly concerned with the elites and less with real people. Unfortunately, we do not foresee significant changes coming after the election. Politics is more interesting at the federal level, with the Conservatives engaged in a new leadership campaign and the governing Liberals in coalition with the NDP enacting legislation aimed at further limiting our freedom. If this continues and some common sense measures are not taken, this will irretrievably alter who we are as a country and how we govern ourselves. We will become more divided and less able to achieve big things that matter. Trust in our public institutions and people in general previously made Canada an enviable example of good governance in the world. We are on the verge of losing that and spiraling into unknown and unchartered waters. If not stopped, this downward spiral will spell disastrous consequences for our children and grandchildren. As we have seen, a polarizing pandemic has quickened the latent disintegration, alienation and loss of professionalism in Canada's politics. The ailments are plain to see: an increasingly coarse and negative political dialogue; a rejection of public policy compromise; and rising misinformation and censure of all kinds in society and across information platforms. Adding to this decline is the corrosion of the once proud public service. Mostly populated with senior officials who serve the politics of the day rather than the people, they contribute massively to the mushrooming trust deficit between Canadians and their governments. These tendencies raise core questions about what it means to govern in Canada today, and in the future. We need to remember that public servants are responsible for translating political direction from elected politicians into public policy and public services. They are charged with providing advice not just on the right public policy but on its effective implementation. To do this well in a system of responsible government with a non-partisan, independent public service, requires "fearless advice and loyal implementation." That is, the ability to speak "truth to power" and abide by the decisions of duly elected leaders. Are they doing that today? We really do not know. The Covid-19 pandemic brought to light some issues we need to reflect on, that indicate we need to move to a new and more up to date way of governance in our country. Once the scale of the pandemic became clear, governments at all levels moved erratically to respond to public need. The politicians delegated their responsibility and decision-making to unelected officials ostensibly invoking science. That resulted in trust levels of Canadians gradually declining in their governments as the pandemic wore on. Good governance is literally embedded in Canada's constitutional record or, more precisely, its BNA, the British North America Act. The phrase "Peace, order and good government" stems from the original 1867 constitutional document, which legally formed Canada. It has been a guiding principle ever since. Good governance means increased confidence in the decisions and actions of governments. That leads to greater legitimacy and acceptance of those decisions by citizens. Higher trust and faith in our public institutions then follows. The question now, is how we keep Canada united in today's tumultuous times. This goal raises new questions about the relationship between governments and the governed; between citizens and state. Maybe it is time to update our governance system with new concepts appropriate to this century. Many questions arise. What do we want from government? Not just bigger or smaller government, but what is the role of government and its institutions in society today? These questions are questions related to governance; the way we do things for our citizens for their benefit and for the benefit of the country. In conclusion, Canada's governments and leaders will need to listen more to Canadians and learn from them in the months and years ahead in order to re-establish our traditional, common sense and uniquely strong democratic traditions and public institutions. Our public servants need to be part of this process because they have a big stake in getting this right. Listening and learning from their front-line experiences with citizens and inside experiences with politicians would be advisable. Come down from your ivory towers. Let us hope that sanity will prevail and as a country we will once again be at the forefront of a good governance fully trusted by the people. Hope is not lost yet, wake up Canada!

'Whataboutism,' Is There Such a Thing?

'Whataboutism,'

By Nick Kossovan If everyone is guilty of something, is no one guilty of anything? Morality doesn't pick sides. It doesn't care about borders, political ideologies, socio-economic status, religions, genders, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or whether you like pineapple on your pizza. (Have I covered everything we use to divide ourselves?). There's good, and there's bad. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour. Yes, it's that simple-it's that black and white. However, these days calling out bad behaviour is fraught with self-righteous deflection. Increasingly, the following scenario occurs. You'll be having a conversation. Perhaps over coffee, a few drinks, or a meal. Inevitably Russia will come up, or Trudeau, or Biden. Your conversation partner bought into the social pressure that they're a Russian sympathizer if they don't stand by Ukraine as we're being told to do. Finally, you give in to your animal instinct and ask the "elephant in the room" questions. "Obama launched airstrikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. Where was the outrage then?" or "Canada sanctions Russia for invading Ukraine. Why did Canada not sanction the U.S. when it invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.?" Yay freethinkers! Have the nerve to mention the "mistakes," made by our side, and the blended word whataboutism will be used against you. (Fun fact, "whataboutism" was added to the dictionary in October 2021.) In philosophy, whataboutism is known as "tu quoque," pointing out hypocrisy. I've yet to meet a person who doesn't become defensive when their hypocrisy, or their side's hypocrisy, is pointed out. When Michael Corleone, in Godfather II, said, "Senator, we are all part of the same hypocrisy," he eloquently, I would even say artistically, used whataboutism to neutralize any sense of moral superiority Senator Geary felt he had over him. Michael understood that his hypocrisy served his interests, and his family's and that the same hypocrisy served the senator's interests. The hypocrisy the U.S. uses to serve and protect its interests is the same hypocrisy Russia, Turkey, China, U.K.-all nations-use to serve and protect their interests. As to why Canada didn't sanction the U.S. when it invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya et al.; it's in Canada's best interest to take a hypocritical stance of not showing disapproval of its southern neighbour's wrongdoings and sometimes going as far as supporting the U.S.'s wrongdoings. Whataboutism was coined during the postwar years when American-Russian relations were rather tense, and the following back-and-forth occurred: The Soviet Union would commit a crime, according to the West. Washington would call them on it. The Kremlin would then point out that the U.S. was also committing heinous acts. These accusations would contain the phrase "What about …" and point out America's Jim Crow laws, which until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 weren't entirely extinct, the U.S.'s bombing sprees, or any other embarrassing facts about the West. The U.S., and its western allies, began responding to the Russian critique by labelling it "Whataboutism." American intellectuals would later use the term "moral equivalence." Whataboutism in action a few years back: Obama laments about Putin's 2014 invasion and seizure of Crimea. In response, Putin mentions Kosovo and the Scottish Independence Referendum. Russia's crimes are well known, as are Western (e.g., Apartheid, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Turkish-Kurdish conflict, systemic racism, U.S.-led war in Iraq, human rights violations against immigrants, indigenous people, Guantánamo Bay). Conveniently, mainstream scholars have never pointed out that all nations are amoral and capable of committing great evil. Western countries sell themselves as "developed" and "democratic." They're quick to criticize countries they dislike. The world cheered when Ukrainians stocked up Molotov cocktails and took up arms against the Russians. However, when Palestinians and Iraqis do the same thing, they're labelled "terrorists." Whatever you call it: whataboutism, moral equivalence, two wrongs, double standards, it boils down to this: My side isn't subject to the same moral rules as the other side. My side has excusing factors for what it did. (or is doing) What nonsense! There isn't one moral law for the goose and another for the gander. Moral rules are universal. Whatever your political stance, whatever your geopolitical background, crime is crime, racism is racism, hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and human rights violations are human rights violations. People who have the courage to be a libertarian thinker understand this: If it's wrong when Stephen Harper did it, it's wrong when Justin Trudeau does it. If Trump's sexual predations were wrong, so were Bill Clinton's predations. If Russia launching missiles at Ukrainians is wrong, then Turkey's aerial bombing of Kurdish civilians is also wrong. Western media tries to explain why our wrongs are less bad, less evil, and excusable, than the wrongs of "the other side." Wrong is wrong regardless of who does it. Whataboutism doesn't just point to historical wrongdoings. Trudeau letting in an unlimited number of Ukrainian refugees begs the "what about" question, why isn't he doing the same for Afghans, Syrians, etc., refugees? You can draw your own conclusions as to the reasons why. A question such as this comes across as being centrist. Actually, "what about" questions are far from ambivalent. Moral clarity requires disruptive conversations-uncomfortable conversations. Moral clarity condemns self-interest and the even worse self-serving consensus talk for the high-grade cowardly drivel it is. Here's an example. If there's one thing both sides of Washington's political divide agree on, and Canadians look at enviously, that is the virtue and beauty of U.S. force projection. Based on their actions Democrat and Republican presidents as far back as Harry S. Truman, seem to have a fondest for bombing poor people in distant lands. Pundits love it. Western foreign policy establishments love it. Western mainstream media love it. But this is utter insanity. If bombing Americans is wrong, then bombing the people of Yemen is wrong. No one-not even those who speculate on the geopolitical reasons for Russia going into Ukraine-disagrees with condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, ignoring that the U.S. has been violating other nations' sovereignty-Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Argentina, Iraq, Iran, Brazil, Angola, Zaire, Cuba, Libya, Afghanistan, China to name a few-for years is hypocritical. It doesn't matter what gets hashed out in bipartisan meetings; ethical standards are universal. The Ukrainian resistance and the civilian victims of Russia's invasion are given sympathetic coverage by Western media. This raises the "what about" question of why there hasn't been a comparable response when the victims aren't white, Christian Europeans or when the aggressor is the U.S. or a U.S. ally? The double standards and resulting hypocrisy coming out of Washington, and the West, is obvious. A recent example: President Joe Biden asserted that "nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity." He is 100% on point! However, the U.S. is the only government to formally recognize Israel's illegal occupation of Syria's Golan Heights and Morocco's annexation of the entire nation of Western Sahara, both seized by force in defiance of the United Nations. See the hypocrisy? Another recent example: Despite the decree issued by Joe Biden on October 7, 2021, Washington didn't react to Turkey's attacks targeting civilians in Rojava. Such blatant hypocrisy invites "what about" questions. Two Nations Clinging Onto 'What Once Was.' Regardless of your political stripes, it's easy to see two declining superpowers-a corrupt and morally bankrupt America and the crumbling oligarchy of Putin's Russia-trying to hang onto what once was. Today the U. S. is an imploding republic whose global influence is dwindling, while Russia is a rusted-out autocracy that can barely project strength outside of its neighbourhood. These different "Rome is burning" scenarios don't give Washington the right to one set of moral laws and Moscow to another set. The moral arc of the universe doesn't bend that way. When Washington accuses Russia of hacking America's elections, then moral seriousness demands it addresses U.S. interference in past Russian elections. If it's wrong for Iran to oppress women, then it's wrong for Saudi Arabia to oppress women. If China is barbaric for using capital punishment, so is the U.S. If the U.S. recognizes the Republic of Kosovo, it should recognize Kurdish self-determination in Kurdistan and Rojava as well. Isn't all oppression of women wrong? Isn't all capital punishment barbaric? Shouldn't the desire for self-determination be listened to empathically and at the very least applauded? Only when self-interest is removed from the equation will the answer be a universal "Yes!" Whataboutism is the complaint of the intellectually lazy. One person's whataboutism is another person's pointing out similar cases to support an analogy. Someone who say, "That's whataboutism!" doesn't like the connecting of dots. Those who use the term whataboutism do so to deflect the hypocrisy being pointed out, especially if it's hypocrisy the West benefits from. As long as there are double standards that serve our interests, there'll always be those who'll say, when asked a "what about" question, "That's whataboutism!"-what can you do? ____________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what's on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan

BELL ARE A BUNCH OF CROOKS

By Rosaldo Russo Allow me to begin this column by thanking the Oshawa/Central newspaper for allowing me the opportunity and access to the press. Not to many if any allow an average person like me to tell the world what I see and think. In my opinion. The Editor/Publisher is a real upstanding type of guy. He shoots from the hip and hold traditional core values. My name is Rosaldo Russo. I came to this great country to make a better life for myself and my family. I thank Canada for everything it has allowed me to do and earn. I worked construction all my life. I know the value of hard work and honesty. I remember as a boy my father always telling me to work hard and buy land. So I did. I remember days when I did not have enough to eat. I go to work... but I did not wait for hand outs. I rounded up my pride my skill and my determination to succeed and went to work. In those days the only benefits we received was the fact we were employed. Before retiring I was the owner and operator of local material supply company that allowed me to retired without worry. Now that I have time to enjoy life. I look around me and have some concern for future generations. I see that the world is finished. I like to begin this column by making one point very clear. It is not about the money but about the business practice that BELL utilizes. I have been a loyal client of BELL as most of you. We pay our bills and entrust that BELL has our backs. That they offer the best service possible at a competitive rate. Well I was wrong. It all started with a technical problem. I called them. I got transfered from one person to another.... a voice message came up informing me that ‘BELL CANADA” now only employs 100% Canadian customer service. Now don’t get me wrong. If anyone has an accent that is hard to understand is my Italian one. But I get a long and don’t and would never dare work for BELL... When I finally got someone after playing the usual trivial pursuit voice service game. Press one if you like to continue in English. Press two if in French.... Like really!!! Who presses the french. Any how. Once I got to the person I was supposed to talk. I had to play the identify yourself game. HOW INSANE. Now I was 19 minutes in this call and my problem not brought up once. Finally, I survived the authentication process.... I am told I am in the wrong department... AHHHH... another 20 minutes and I am told that in my area there is no internet service. Incredible. So then I look at my bill. I had a package rate. Phone, Net and Cell. I was paying for a service I did not use. Not only that. When I checked with other companies I was over paying by like fifty dollars. Come on people... we as Canadians have become so docile. We take it and take it. NO MORE. I told them to shove it... In retaliation. Bell will not release my phone number to the new company. I called the CRTC. Another great government agency good for nothing. What is it with this country that we go from one automated system right on to another. Come on... Enough is Enough. I ENDORSE JOE INGINO FOR MAYOR OF OSHAWA IN 2022 VOTE INGINO

Before Joining 'The Great Resignation' Rethink Your Current Employer

By Nick Kossovan My addiction to job hunting ("the hunt") has made me somewhat of an expert at landing jobs-and a job hopper. "Look at me! I'm moving on to greener pastures!", "I'm going to where I'll be paid what I believe I'm worth!", "At my new employer, management will get me." I know firsthand how job-hopping can make a person feel as if they're in control. I've also experienced firsthand, more than once, starting a new job and realizing within a few days, even hours, that leaving my previous employer was a mistake-I'd made a hasty decision. The media is reporting that everyone is quitting their jobs; as a result, employers are experiencing "The Great Resignation." This mass reshuffling of employment is attributed to the pandemic prompting employees to seek better jobs. Actually, the Great Resignation represents the peak of a long-term trend of rising quitting rates that began over a decade ago due to five factors: retirement, relocation, reconsideration, reshuffling, and reluctance. If the media is to be believed, employers have trouble filling job openings; hence, job candidates are now in the driver's seat. In contrast, emails I receive from frustrated job seekers paint a different picture. Don't let wishful thinking lull you into believing today's job market isn't populated with hyper-competition, especially for sought-after jobs at sought-after companies. I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't predict the future power dynamics between employers and employees. However, I'm certain about one thing, the employer-employee relationship, and the economy, which is cyclical, are in constant flux. Inevitably employers will be back in the driver's seat, which given the rapid growth in AI, robotics, and self-service, not to mention using contractors and contractor, might be sooner than employees would like. Additionally, Bay Street and Wall Street are nervous, central banks are hiking interest rates attempting to curb inflation, and geopolitical unrest is worsening supply chain issues that began in 2020. Based on history, the recent spike in inflation will cause the economy to contract. The warning signs of a looming recession, possibly a major one, are flashing. It's not a matter of if there'll be an economic contraction/recession; it's a matter of when, which means employers will downsize. If you're considering joining the Great Resignation, keep the following in mind: Last one in, first one out. No one's ever accused me of not being pragmatic. I'm not saying you should stay with your current employer forever. Considering my track record that be hypocritical of me to say. Changing jobs for the right reasons and at the right time-making a well-thought-out strategic move-is often required for career advancement and income growth. What are your reasons for wanting to join the Great Resignation? We're talking about your career. I assume you have career goals other than "to make lots of money." Are you just jumping on the Great Resignation bandwagon? Is now the time for you to move on? Don't let your ego make your decision. An article I read on the Ultimate Kronos Group (UKG™) website, 15+ Million Pandemic-Era U.S. Job Quitters Say They Were Better Off in Their Old Jobs, makes the point that we seldom give our decisions the serious consideration they deserve. According to the article, 43% of people who quit during the pandemic admit they were better off at their old jobs, and 1 in 5 have returned to their old employer. Maybe the media should be reporting on "The Great Regret." To avoid regretting having left your employer consider the following: - TIP: Write a pros and cons list of leaving your current employer. - Don't just chase money. The most common reason to change jobs is to earn more money, but is the "more money after taxes" worth it? More money means more accountability, headaches, stress and hours, higher expectations, etc. - Are you running away from your present employer because the going is getting tough, and you believe elsewhere will be easier? What is your reasoning for believing that elsewhere will be better? - What do you expect from a new employer? Are you being realistic? - How will changing your employer now advance your career? There's nothing wrong with wanting a shiny new job, new colleagues, a new boss, etc. I know what the need to get out of Dodge feels like. However, upon reflection on whether the grass will be greener elsewhere, you might conclude staying put, for now, is in your best interest. Staying put could be the best career decision you ever make. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

False Imprisonment

False Imprisonment from Wayne & Tamara

Three years ago my husband confessed to me face-to-face, he had an affair with a friend of mine. It hurt me so bad, but after days of him apologizing, saying how much he loved me and what a mistake he made, I took him back. Now he is controlling me. He doesn't like me to sit and talk with my friends, or play cards with them. He wants me to stay here at home under him. He doesn't trust me, though I never gave him reason to doubt me. I believe he's afraid I am going to get revenge on him. I've asked him, but of course he denies it. He goes hunting and camping while I stay home with the kids, but when I want to go out, he blows up. When I reminded him I stay home so he can go out, he said he won't hunt or camp again. I have suggested separating for a while and see if time apart improves things. He said if I leave, that's it. Now I feel I need to stay home and go nowhere just to keep him satisfied. He even gets mad if I go to my mother's. Please help. Millicent Millicent, cheaters believe others cheat. Liars believe others lie. Thieves believe others steal. Your husband thinks, "She's no better than I am. If I could cheat, she could too." Every day that goes by, his fear builds. He is thinking, "If she gets away from me, she'll get even with me, and I won't even know for sure she did it." He knows he would never forgive you what you forgave him. The guilty party is in control here, and he doesn't have the right. He is acting like a jailer, and you are innocent of all crimes. You may feel separation will give you more standing in your relationship. If you want to exercise that option, don't let his threat stop you. Many books have been written about how to get past infidelity, but our experience is that cheating always remains central to the relationship. How do you uncrack an egg? The answer is: you don't. Wayne & Tamara First Things First I was with this guy a year. He wasn't my first, but I never knew I was capable of such deep love. I told my friends he's an angel. One day I visited him in the hostel, and a girl was in his room. I didn't suspect anything because I knew they had a report to finish. But they were so very quiet that day, like they were hiding something. When he offered to walk me home, I asked him jokingly if they were together. Surprise, surprise! He said, "Yes." I thought he was pulling my leg, but after asking him repeatedly, the truth sank in. The days after that were hell. I was suicidal. Three months later, I am no longer suicidal, but I…well…practice self-mutilation. I know it's wrong, but when I think about the past, hurting myself physically seems to ease the emotional pain. It feels good when I cut myself. Exams are around the corner. I can't concentrate. It hurts so much when I see them hand in hand, smiling and laughing. I used to participate in life, now I'm an observer. I feel I'm just waiting for death. Thanks for listening even if you don't answer. Cindy Cindy, when you have a known, identifiable problem like a broken arm, you need the assistance of a trained physician. You have a known, identifiable problem, and a trained professional can help break you free. Until you deal with this, it won't be possible to deal with anything else. If the first therapist doesn't help, seek a second or a third. Addressing this problem comes first in your life. Don't give up, do it until it is done. Wayne & Tamara. Wayne & Tamara are also the authors of The Friendship Solution, Making Friends and Dropping Frenemies, available from Amazon, Apple and most booksellers. Wayne & Tamara write: Directanswers@WayneAndTamara.com

Can AI Help Fight Cancer?

W. Gifford-Jones, M.D. and Diana Gifford-Jones

The short answer is yes – cancer and other health problems too. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a game-changer. Not only can this rapidly advancing technology improve the speed and accuracy of disease diagnosis and treatment, it has enormous potential to predict health problems, allowing for far more effective prevention programs that target at-risk populations. Take, for example, children born with congenital heart defects. This fate currently falls to about 40,000 babies born in the U.S. each year, and about 1.35 million newborns worldwide. What causes defective heart structures in the developing embryo is open to debate. But genetics, diet, environment, medications, and smoking are all on the list. But what if AI could analyse vast quantities of data and learn from patterns to predict a problem pregnancy even before conception? Neonatal cardiac surgeons are studying this possibility, in hopes of putting themselves out of a job. Instead of time in operating rooms, they are designing educational programs and delivering nutritional supplements to would-be mothers most as risk. What exactly is AI? And how does it work? Artificial intelligence refers to computer programs, or algorithms, that use data to make decisions or predictions. To build an algorithm, scientists instruct computers to follow a set of rules in the analysis of data. In machine learning (ML), an algorithm teaches itself how to analyze data and interpret patterns. With exposure to vast amounts of data, learning and interpretation improves. The question becomes, to what extent can the decisions being made be trusted? Dr. Hugo Aerts, Director of the Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Program at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, says, “AI can automate assessments and tasks that humans currently can do but take a lot of time.” Scientists are developing AI tools that use screening images like mammograms to predict risk of developing cancer. To date, doctors used such images to detect if cancer is already present. Due to variation in the skill-level and experience of radiologists, results are highly subjective. Aerts notes that relying on “a human making an interpretation of an image—say, a radiologist, a dermatologist, a pathologist —that’s where we see enormous breakthroughs being made.” In 2018, an AI tool hit the news by outperforming 58 international dermatologists in the diagnosis of skin cancer, missing fewer melanomas and misdiagnosing fewer benign moles. AI models have shown impressive precision in identifying lung, breast, thyroid, prostate, and blood-related cancers. With AI, medical professionals can cut costs, expedite clinical decision-making and significantly reduce wait times. But despite these successes and benefits, there is reason to be skeptical about early computer models as stand-alone tools for screening cancers or predicting the onset of other diseases. One model, for example, was found to raise alarms not in accordance with the patients’ conditions but with the location where imaging equipment was used. Yet, scientists are honing the instructions given AI tools by validating results against well known, trusted data. For example, the Framingham Heart Study has been collecting data from a large population cohort for over 70 years. This data provides an opportunity to assess AI findings against established records. Will the technology become so astute that oncologists and pathologists become obsolete? Not according to Dr. Olivier Michielin of University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland. “AI will enable oncologists, pathologists and other stakeholders to work more efficiently, it will not replace them,” he says. But AI is undeniably improving the practice of medicine by having computers do what humans cannot – crunching huge amounts of data to expedite diagnosis and treatment. To what extent AI can help prevent disease remains to be seen. Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive our weekly e-newsletter. For comments, contact-us@docgiff.com. Follow us Instagram @docgiff and @diana_gifford_jones

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

https://youtu.be/HHCbic6Nz0s

THE REALITY OF MATHEMATICS

By Joe Ingino Editor/Publisher ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States “I live a dream in a nightmare world” Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret. Dear friends and fellow taxpayers. Since I have put my candidacy forth for Mayor of our beloved City of Oshawa. I have received and overwhelming amount of support and encouragement. For that I thank all those that so far have come forth with such encouraging thoughts and well wishes. As it stands there are many people upset/frustrated with the current municipal administration. People do not fee safe walking our city streets. People are seeing first hand how the quality of life in Oshawa has slowly eroded to a level never seen before. This column is not about the obvious problems in Oshawa. this column is a message to take to heart to anyone thinking of running for municipal office. If you are thinking of running do it because you want a better Oshawa not for you but for children. Make sure you teach yourself or talk to others in the community with first hand knowledge of the issues and the needs. Make sure that you understand the job you are about to be elected to perform. Assure you have the time to put forth to be successful in that municipal position. As it stands the problem with our city is that our elected are going through the motions and not doing the job. Sitting in committees and or council is not the job. But part of the job. Councillors are not there to keep score for agendas. Councillors are there as door openers for opportunity for all. Many elected today have stopped caring and only care about fluffing pensions and or assuring that come friday they can collect their pay. It is a culture at City hall that needs to change. The way I see it. The Mayor is the CEO of the corporation. He is the sole responsibility of the success or failure of the enterprise. Council are upper management. Council meetings should be the place we all as a community rejoice over the proposed projects brought before us. Instead City council is nothing short of a rubber stamping process for choices made behind closed doors and heavily persuaded by lobbyist. Look what happened recently at the region with the passing of developing prime lands. For those thinking to enter the Mayoral race. Ask yourself one fundamental question. Is it because I want to win? Is it because you want change for your city? Well if you answer yes to any of those questions. Think about this. If you enter the race now. The votes will be split. This means that the incumbent will win. This meaning more of the same. Is that what we want? My suggestion for anyone wanting to do something positive for the City. Join the INGINO campaign. Mathematically we stand a chance. I am looking for advisors, volunteers, donations. Mathematically and traditionally. The incumbent always has the advantage. The more candidates the greater the chance of re-election. I have seen Oshawa slip for 30 years. It is time to take it back and bring it back to the jewel it was once. Let’s borrow the play book from Mississauga and follow to a ‘T’ and improve it. Success is near. The question is how bad we want it? Let’s work together for the betterment of our kids future.

Questionable Experts and a Gullible Media

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Today I will touch on a very sensitive but important topic; that of the many so-called experts, paraded interminably on all manner of subjects by our elitist, gullible and intellectually challenged media. For the purposes of this article, I will define an expert as "a person with an advanced degree with skill in, or knowledge of a particular subject (Oxford English Dictionary)." Expertise, is the dexterity of an individual to apply the acquired skill or knowledge, and communicate it effectively. Based on the Oxford English Dictionary definition of expert, we, Canadians, prefer to call the vast majority of advanced degree holders, experts. Whether the so-called experts have the expertise to use and communicate their knowledge effectively, is the million-dollar question. In Canada today, you hear from all sorts of experts, in fields as widely varied as governance, science, health, politics, military, security, communication, labour, energy, sanitation, finance, marketing, etc. The big question is, do the cited experts really have the expertise? What does it really mean to be a legitimate expert in a specific area, judged by a common sense approach? There are many kinds of experts in all areas. Some experts have a moderate amount of knowledge about a large number of fields. Other experts have extreme, in-depth knowledge about a tiny area in a particular field, but perhaps not that much about other areas of the same field. For example, someone who is an expert in chemical engineering is not an expert in structural civil engineering or engineering-physics. A medical doctor expert in cancer studies is not an expert on retroviruses, etc. and there are many similar examples in other professional fields. Unfortunately, there are also many fake experts, and like poisonous mushrooms, they are difficult to detect without direct interaction. Generally speaking, a legitimate expert is someone who: - has education in the general field; - has done recent research into the specific area in the field; - makes claims that are supported by systematic reviews of the research literature; - has a good track record when it comes to being accurate on specific field issues; - has not promoted bullshit in some other areas; and - does not have any overt and undisclosed conflicts of interest. So the questions arise; how to evaluate an alleged expert? And how to distinguish a genuine expert from a fake one? How can you spot a phony expert referenced by elitist and syndicated journalists to give a deceptive veneer of credibility to their otherwise unreasonable claims? This is often more difficult than it seems, especially for the general public. However, there are a few red flags that should increase skepticism about an alleged expert. One can roughly divide experts into two categories. The first category of expert relies on deductive methods. For instance, if multiple, well-designed randomized controlled trials point to one conclusion, but the alleged expert claims the opposite, then this alleged expert is probably a fake expert. A relevant example is the recent COVID-19 pandemic which has upended our lives and beaten us down. And just as we saw light at the end of the tunnel (thanks to vaccines, we were told), Omicron arrived. Surrounded by politicians dithering in the face of this new threat to their political lives, politicians advised by 'expert' medical professionals primarily concerned with hospital capacities rather than curing patients, the stage was set. 'Experts' in charge were fixated on vaccinations and testing, using corrupted statistics to intimidate the public. In Ontario, the expert advisory body on Omicron was running around like the proverbial headless chicken. The science Expert Advisor Dr. Peter Juni, since gone to greener pastures in England, was blowing his horn loudly, giving spaced-out advice to ordinary people, seemingly preparing us for further bleak and dark times ahead. This high priest 'expert' was really preaching doomsday when there was none. Canadians were encouraged to be 'fully vaccinated' to beat the Covid pandemic with its Greek alphabet mutations; the famous two doses of sometimes cocktail vaccinations. As this did not seem to be enough, a booster shot was recommended to protect us from the pandemic and end it once and for all. Now we are told that this was a false assumption. So may one ask where the expertise was in all this? The question was, how much longer would Canadians continue to believe in "expertise" that changed daily at the whim of the 'expert' science table, at times completely contradicting itself. Canada's top doctor, Dr. Theresa Tam, said employers must provide the best masks and ventilation possible. So now vaccinated or not, you needed the mask of all masks to stay protected?! The second category of expert relies on probabilistic methods. Being systematically wrong on many field issues increases the risk that an alleged expert would be wrong in the area under discussion. As an example from the political field, take an article run last week by journalist Catherine Cullen from CBC News "Legal experts accuse Leslyn Lewis of 'fearmongering' over WHO pandemic pact". Conservative leadership hopeful Leslyn Lewis, a member of parliament, who holds a PhD in International Law, has outlined a potentially damaging scenario: if Canada signs the World Health Organization's Pandemic Response Treaty, Canadians' travel and medication choices could be restricted, the Constitution could be suspended, and it could all pave the way to a global government. Several legal "experts" referred to in the article were quick to denounce her claims as completely untrue. "This is nothing more than fearmongering. There is nothing to support these really strong assertions," said Prof. Timothy Caulfield, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta. A quick scan of Timothy Caulfield's Twitter account shows dismissive and divisive language against those who have chosen not to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and articles with headlines like: "No, You're Not Entitled To Your Own Opinion." The other 'expert' quoted, Dr. Steven Hoffman, Dahdaleh, Distinguished Chair in Global Governance & Legal Epidemiology, collaborates with the WHO on a project about antimicrobial resistance but said he receives no funding from the organization. Yet another 'expert', Prof. Kelley Lee, Canada Research Chair in Global Health Governance at Simon Fraser University said: "The bottom line is that her claims are so far from the truth that it's actually hard to know where to begin," However, when academics and journalists are connected with the Trudeau Foundation, have active and historic working relationships with the WHO, and have employment income stemming directly from the federal government, the potential for conflicts of interest and bias cannot be denied. In case you haven't noticed, recommendation from the United Nation and its affiliated organizations seem to be taken as gospel truth in Canada lately, and used as the basis for making domestic legislation. In conclusion, to reach the most reliable evaluation, both deductive and probabilistic arguments have to be taken into account in an expert's testimony. You, the public, being fed a lot of 'expert' information today, face a difficult task in separating the wheat from the chaff. Finding the truth is rarely easy, but it is made significantly more difficult when deliberately clouded. So be alert and be prepared.

Strategically Pick Your References

By Nick Kossovan Hiring is costly, thus why employers ask for references-the last hurdle to jump over to reach your job search finish line. Before going to a restaurant, you've never been to, you likely check out online reviews, as you would read Amazon reviews before ordering a herbal remedy you've never tried or a laptop. Employers conduct reference checks for the same reasons you read reviews before making a purchasing decision: They want to know what kind of employee you'll be (most likely) and whether you'll be worth the salary investment. Furthermore, your opinion of yourself and your work is biased. Someone substantiating your claims goes a long way in making an employer feel confident you're the right person for the job. A few jobs back, I had a candidate going on about how they were a "team player." They even told me great STAR stories. However, when I spoke to a former colleague, they painted an entirely different picture of the person. Providing references who'll speak positively about you should be obvious. I've seen great resumes, impressive interview performances, and all the candidate's efforts negated by bad references. Hence, their candidacy was no longer considered. Speak to your potential references before starting your job search. Changing jobs is common these days; therefore, there's a good chance your former boss is no longer at your former employer. This is why it's a good idea to stay in touch with former colleagues and bosses. You don't want to be asked for references, a sign that your potential employer is considering offering you the job, and then find yourself scrambling trying to find references who'll evangelize your abilities and provide examples of your work. Don't provide a list of names to employers without telling the people on the list that they're references. Never share a person's contact information without their prior consent. If I receive a reference request out of the blue, I decline to act as a reference. First off, I'm caught off guard. Secondly, the person who gave my name and contact information without my permission didn't show any common courtesy. Nobody is owed a reference. As a hiring manager, I've spoken to many references who weren't excited or eager to act as a reference. Gauge how the person feels when you ask them to be your reference. Unless they say, "Sure, anytime!" or, as I tend to say, "I'll make sure they want you more than you want them," then don't use the person as a reference. Don't even try to convince them to be a reference. I will occasionally decline to be a reference for obvious reasons; we parted on bad terms. Not only is it professional, but it's also in your best interest to leave your job amicably. Leave the epic job quitting scenes in Jerry Maguire, Office Space and American Beauty to Hollywood. Keep in mind that it's a small world; many industries are "close-knit," and reputations travel on many roads-then there's social media. You never know when you'll need a former boss or colleague to act as a reference for you. Your references should be people who can speak to your work output and results, your overall approach to projects, and your ability to collaborate and lead. Your mother, father, best friend, or that one successful uncle don't count. Instead, choose former or current coworkers, past managers, or even clients and customers who can offer insight into your work and character. Ideally, your references (Plan on having at least four references in case one or two are unavailable.) should include a recent boss, a peer, and a subordinate. Chose people who not only can speak to your performance and your potential but-this is key-who are articulate. They needn't be orators, but one-word answers and "Oh, he's nice" don't make for a good reference. If you have any doubt about someone being a reference, DON'T USE THEM! As I mentioned, regardless of how well your interviews went, a bad reference can destroy your chances of receiving a job offer. Once you've lined up your references, give each of them a copy of your current résumé. When a potential employer asks for your references, inform your references to expect a call. As well, send them the link to the job posting or the job description. Last but not least, thank your references for helping you take the next step in your career and stay in touch with them for your next job search. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

SO MANY SHADES OF BLUE

By Joe Ingino Editor/Publisher ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States “I live a dream in a nightmare world” Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret. You got to be kidding me... How many shades of greed oops, I meant BLUE are there. From the true blue blooded Conservative party old guard to the People’s Party that can’t win a seat. It appears that the under rank has lost sense of direction and anyone and everyone that does not like kissing ass before being considered for a promotion can now open up a branch of the conservative party. I got to laugh at the NEW BLUE provincial party. REALLY... COME ON FOLKS. Look in Oshawa alone. This Alex Dawn. An arrogant, ‘YES MAN’ type. She is the classic example of all that is wrong with the conservatives. The party has lost it’s purpose, it’s vision and by the selection of it’s candidates it’s mind. With this said. Look at a guy like Colin Carrie. A conservative waiting on the sidelines... for what no one knows... as it has been almost a decade and what has he done for Oshawa. I use to be a strong supporter of the Conservative party. Jim Flaherty was one of our first columnist. Unfortunately the Flaherty days are no longer part of the conservative party legacy. I remember in those days. The conservative party was about leadership and about duty to the party. It was about working hard to assure the true values of the conservative party were felt in the community. Today, the conservatives have proven to be no better or worst than those they attempt to defeat. It is not about preservation of ideology and way of life. It is about jockeying for the top seat. Members don’t like it or disapprove of the way things are being done. They branch off and start their own party. This clearly showing the lack of understanding and commitment that is needed to truly represent any party. You can’t lead by division. You can’t win by splitting votes. If within your own conservative party you have splinters. How are the voters to take you serious and as a solid party. May there be hope for the conservatives yet? Let’s look at a man like: Pierre Marcel Poilievre PC MP. A careered politicians with the right look, the right moves and knows how to say when and for the right reason. Could he be the messiah for the conservatives? Or just another wolf in sheep skin. Personally, I been doing this for way to long. I have seen them come and go. I believe that Pierre end goal is obvious and he will dance to any tune played before him. Charming the votes of anyone that will take a moment to hear him. For this reason I tread with caution as I seen this type of leader before. I am sure the Liberals are thinking something similar with Trudeau.... Thinking how long can we ride this Trudeau nostalgia horse. Can the Trudeau nostalgia be enough to beat the song and dance that Pierre brings to the center stage? Hard to tell as we the voters have become so confused and have surrendered our ability to rationalize misinformation that we rely on voting on smiles, empty promises and much like Trudeau win. On nostalgia. We do not live in a democratic state. We live in a deceptive, misinformed state that emblematically shields itself as a democracy. Blue is not blue anymore. Don’t be fooled by the many shades as they are only signs of weakness not strength.

Expensive, outdated and mediocre Canadian health-care system needs urgent reform

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down, it is becoming evident that Canadians are paying too much for too little health care. According to a recent study by the Fraser Institute "Less Ottawa, More Province, 2021: How Decentralized Federalism is Key to Health Care Reform" published on October 19, 2021, this is because by current legislation, the federal government prohibits the provinces from reforming an expensive and deteriorating system. COVID-19 has exacerbated two of the most important ongoing public policy challenges facing Canada: the deterioration of government finances and the underperformance of our health care system. The two problems are related as the cost of Canada's inefficient health care system continues to grow over time, consuming a larger share of government resources and putting increasing pressure on public finances. Provincial governments are responsible for providing health care services, but federal government policies play a crucial role in shaping how health care is financed and delivered across the country-and not always positively. Specifically, the Canada Health Act, established in 1984, governs the way the federal government transfers payments to the provinces and territories in support of health care, and uses the threat of financial penalties to discourage provinces from experimenting with policies and innovations. An extension of previous federal laws related to provincial financing of health care, the Canada Health Act (CHA) of 1984 set the terms and conditions upon which Established Programs Financing (EPF) funding would be contingent, and created provisions for withholding transfers if they were not met. The Canada Health Transfer (CHT) set the terms and conditions under which provincial governments receive federal health transfers; they remained in place when the EPF was replaced by the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), and they remain in place to this day. To date, the federal government has not withheld transfers due to noncompliance. However, the threat of withheld payments is almost certainly a constraint on provincial health policy action. In essence, there is a need to modernize the Canada Health Act and that should be a priority for the federal liberal government. Unfortunately, while economic issues, particularly inflation, are on the fast track, the government seems to be more concerned with international issues, putting this essential service for Canadians on the back burner. We need to be clear and blunt that as of today, there are two major problems that have either emerged as a result of, or been exacerbated by, the current system of federal health transfers. The first of these is that as the population ages, almost all projections suggest that health care costs across the country will rise significantly. Recent research projects substantial growth in age-related health care spending in the years ahead. Secondly, a significant body of evidence suggests that, despite sustained spending growth, Canada's health care system is underperforming relative to peer countries with universal health care systems. These facts raise important questions about the sustainability of our current approach, and suggest the need for policy reform to make Canadian health care spending more sustainable in the medium and long term. However, the pressure that rising health care spending is placing on provincial budgets is not the only evidence that points to the need for meaningful reform. Also important is the fact that, despite what by international standards are high levels of spending on health care, Canada's health care system underperforms relative to several other countries with universal health care systems. Despite very high expenditures, Canada ranks 26th out of 28 in the number of doctors (2.8 per 1,000 people); 25th out of 26 in acute care hospital beds (2.1 per 1,000) and 24th out of 28 in psychiatric beds (0.4 per 1,000). Canada ranks 21st out of 24 countries in the number of MRIs (10.5 per million of population); 22nd out of 26 in CT scanners (15.2 per million) and 17th out of 24 in PET scanners (1.6 per million). Canada's medical wait times are the longest in 10 comparable countries with universal health care systems that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). While Canada ranks close to the average of high-income OECD countries with universal health care for the rate of doctor consultations and CT scans, it performs poorly on other indicators. In particular, Canada reports the lowest degree of hospital activity (as measured by curative care discharges) 12 per hundred thousand populations. In conclusion, as of today, Canada has one of the most expensive universal-access health care systems in the OECD. However, its performance in terms of availability and access to resources is generally worse than the average OECD country, while its comparative ranking in terms of use of resources and quality and clinical performance is mixed. The data presented in the above Fraser study is supported by separate analyses from the Commonwealth Fund, which show that in several areas of health system performance Canada underperforms peer countries despite its high expenditure levels. Clearly, there is an imbalance in the performance of our health care system, given the relatively high amount spent on provincial health care systems. The question for federal, provincial and municipal politicians, is how can we improve our health system performance and outcomes without spending more money to do so. In my opinion this should be the primary focus of any politician truly interested in the wellbeing of Canada's citizens, not other political fantasies. What are your thoughts?

By Nick Kossovan In every hiring scenario, the hiring manager is looking for someone as close to a "sure thing" as possible. Therefore, the story of how you've added value to your employers needs to be told throughout your résumé, cover letter, LinkedIn profile, and during interviews. This is how you sell yourself! Successful job seekers understand a job search is a sales process. They see themselves as a salesperson hunting for prospects (employers), building a pipeline of potential clients (employers), and scheduling interviews because that's where "the sale" is made. Don't kid yourself; interviews are sales meetings. A professional salesperson knows the most effective way to make a sale is to demonstrate value. They articulate how the product or service they're selling will generate revenue, save money, save time, improve results, or fix a pain point. Ask yourself: What will an employer gain by hiring you? The "gain(s)" is your value, which you need to convey to employers. Most job seekers answer their interviewer's questions giving cliché answers, "I'm a team player," "I'm great at sales," "I love writing," "I'm detail-oriented." Without numerically quantifying or mentioning specific accomplishments, these are just the candidate's opinions, and employers don't hire opinions. Talk is cheap. You might be very good at your current job, but if you don't demonstrate and vividly communicate your expertise and results (Employers hire to achieve results.) throughout your job search, you'll struggle to find your next job. Providing examples of how you have the competencies listed in the job description is essential when job hunting (e.g., problem-solving, taking initiative, managing change, bringing in revenue, creating process improvements, leadership skills). What better way to prove your competencies and track record than bringing evidence to your interview? Don't tell an employer what you think your value is-prove it with evidence! Do you expect your interviewer to simply take your word? The next time you're interviewing, consider bringing the following evidence to show your skills, capabilities, and results you've achieved. - Performance report My world (call center management) revolves around productivity reports. Such reports show me how my call center is doing, whether it's meeting its objectives, and which agents are distracting it from meeting its objectives. Over the years, I've had a few candidates who've been astute enough to show me their recent call center statistics. Such proactive initiative always impresses me and makes my hiring decision easier. Numbers are the language of business. Showing your interviewer recent reports of your performance (e.g., sales reports, key performance indicators) will go a long way in proving you walk your talk. Anyone can say they were a top 5 sales rep at Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, Inc. However, producing last month's sales report ranking the company's 45 sales reps and showing you were third in sales revenue changes your claim into an undeniable fact. Undeniable facts are influential. What recent (no older than 3 months) reports can you bring to your next interview? Sales Report? Website Traffic Report? Social Media Report? Marketing Report? - Appraisal/performance review During your job search, you'll most likely be asked something along the lines of, "If I were to call your boss, what would they say about you?" or "What will your references say about you should I call them?" Your interviewer is asking you what your past/current manager thinks of your job performance. Which is more powerful, giving a verbal answer such as "My last manager would say I was one of the best hires he has ever made. He'd say I was the go-to person to get things accomplished on our team," or saying, as you hand over your last performance review, "I'm glad you asked. Here's my last appraisal, which I'm proud of. As you'll see, my manager thought highly of my work, professionalism and how I contributed to the department's success."? Just answering the interviewer's question without producing evidence is hoping your interviewer will simply believe you. Other ways you can provide proof (READ: evidence): - Media appearances (e.g., newspaper articles) - Written recommendations - Presentations/videos (e.g., you as a keynote speaker) - Portfolio (articles, graphics, etc.) - Awards, honours and recognitions - 360 reviews Besides not being a fit, the most common reason candidates get rejected is their inability to provide relevant, concrete examples of what they've done in their current/previous job that is relevant to the position they're seeking. Bringing evidence to your interviews will set you apart from your competition and provide hard proof that what you claim is true, which no interviewer will be able to ignore. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

IT IS A GAS

By Rosaldo Russo Allow me to begin this column by thanking the Oshawa/Central newspaper for allowing me the opportunity and access to the press. Not to many if any allow an average person like me to tell the world what I see and think. In my opinion. The Editor/Publisher is a real upstanding type of guy. He shoots from the hip and hold traditional core values. My name is Rosaldo Russo. I came to this great country to make a better life for myself and my family. I thank Canada for everything it has allowed me to do and earn. I worked construction all my life. I know the value of hard work and honesty. I remember as a boy my father always telling me to work hard and buy land. So I did. I remember days when I did not have enough to eat. I go to work... but I did not wait for hand outs. I rounded up my pride my skill and my determination to succeed and went to work. In those days the only benefits we received was the fact we were employed. Before retiring I was the owner and operator of local material supply company that allowed me to retired without worry. Now that I have time to enjoy life. I look around me and have some concern for future generations. I see that the world is finished. Please check your pulse. Are we as Canadians dead? How high must the gasoline price get before we are broke? Will it have to get to that? The old ‘we have the money, we pay’ mentality has to stop. As the government is catching on an on a never ending price increase. After all if no one complains, it must be ok to keep rising the price of gasoline. Come on people, we not only lower our standards in this country to accommodate those of lesser civilized nations. But now we are being bent over at the pumps and have our wallets raped right in front of our children. How much more should we endure before we all go broke. Believer there is no machismo in opening a wallet knowing that is your last stash of cash for a while. We need to come together as a nation and put a stop to this. How is it that just three years ago when Trump was in office. The gas price was well under a dollar. Under a dollar. Can you believe the change. This brings me back to the Obama era. Same thing. The gas prices were skyrocketing without no real point of return. What is our government doing? We are a shadow of the American way. The U.S. pays out of their ass for gas. So do we. The U.S. touches on changes to abortion laws. Boom all of a sudden, abortion becomes a huge political issue. Let’s stop following. Let’s vote in real leaders. Ok, stop laughing. NO matter who we elect we the people still get it in the GAS. Sad to think that our economy is so heavily dependent on the Yanks. I guess as Canadians we can do anything but pray that Trump makes a big come back. Not because of his political inclinations but of his leadership qualities. NO MEANS NO... AS LONG AS IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT. I ENDORSE JOE INGINO FOR MAYOR OF OSHAWA IN 2022 VOTE INGINO

IT IS NOT ABOUT ‘I’ IT IS ABOUT ‘US’

By Joe Ingino Editor/Publisher ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States “I live a dream in a nightmare world” Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret. The other day in conversation I came across someone that is thinking of putting their name in the municipal election. He is undecided on the ward and on if he should be regional or city. He even expressed opinion of possibly putting his name in for Mayor. This particular person has no political experience. Unemployed, but has great community involvement. I asked him why he wanted to run for office? His answer floored me. “Well, I know I probably won’t get elected. I am doing it to get more name recognition.” Wow, really. Sadly his answer is not that uncommon. Many that have entered municipal politics do it to get name recognition. Look at our current Mayor. An unemployed television broadcaster. Ran for a council seat and won it on name recognition. The same person ran for Mayor with no real business experience and won on name recognition. Sad, that we as taxpayers vote on name recognition and not competency, experience and contributions to the community. Imagine using the same process of democracy to hire the CEO of GM, or OPG. Personally, I put my name forward because I care about the community at large. Anyone can have an opinion and anyone can criticize. It takes character to do something about it. I am tired of driving downtown and witnessing people living on the streets. You don’t have to look far to see people smoking crack. Or people that have overdosed in door ways. We have a system that is broken. That due to neglect it has deteriorated to a level never seen in Oshawa before. I decided to run not for me. Not because I needed a job or the money. I decided to run because something positive needs to be done. It is not about ‘I’, it is about “US”. We can’t afford to continue this way. We must plan for the future of Oshawa by implementing a solid path. We must create this path by ongoing setting of goals that will lead us to success and prosperity. No matter what you do in life “I” can only be used in selective places such as: “I”, must be the one that must go to work to assure my family is taken care. “I”, must be the one that will stand up for what is right. “I”, have a duty to my family, community, country. “I”, have the responsibility to assure that my children are educated and productive members of society. “I”, must live by the law of the land and support those less fortunate. I can further tell you that “I”, should never be in: “I”, am doing it for my best interest. “I”, should think of me first and my fellow man second. “I”, have no responsibility and it is my life. “I”, should not be about rewarding the self but about contributing in any way possible for the betterment of society. There can never be an “US” in an “I” mentality. Unfortunately this is the biggest problem with society today. This in part is why Oshawa is failing. We can’t run a corporation with an ‘I’, mentality. Made up of retiree's, realtors and the unemployable only looking to up their pensions, get a job and or name booster recognition types. Only thinking of how they can better their lives and not ours. If I am wrong. Tell me this. How has your life become better in the last four years? Choose wisely. Choose one of ‘US’.

Canada, the internet, social media, privacy laws and freedom of speech

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As spring descends on Canada, with economic worries and a bleak international environment surrounding us, Canadian parliament is in session and focusing on laws to put more controls on the citizens of Canada. Two of the most important values in a democracy are the right of citizens to have their privacy protected and their right to free speech. With the advances in internet technology and electronic management of your finances, shopping and social media, you never know where your personal information is going. Worse still, your personal information and even your personal movements can now be tracked and used by malefic organizations with the intension to control you and eventually punish you. So we need to do something to avoid further loss of our personal freedom, while also avoiding a nefarious digital environment. Canada's current privacy law, which governs how Canadians' personal information must be handled and protected by the businesses and government you share it with, was brought into force about 20 years ago. While there have been some tweaks made to it since then, the digital world we live in today is vastly different from twenty years ago. Federal law simply hasn't kept up with the pace of change, and consequently, ordinary Canadians donating to charitable organisations and Canadian businesses are now finding themselves exposed and at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, state bureaucrats like to do work for themselves and create little kingdoms. In Canada there is the added complication of several sets of privacy laws; the federal privacy law and the provincial privacy laws. How nice and efficient. The federal privacy laws, including those that regulate digital privacy and digital trade, are increasingly coming into play, and are also significantly outdated. They are now outdated to the point of holding Canadian innovation and entrepreneurship back, while also limiting the freedom of expression. The lesson to learn from this is to create an efficient law, a common sense one, to ensure that Canada doesn't end up with a proliferation of new privacy laws being enacted in each province individually. More importantly, the new privacy law must not act as a limitation on personal freedoms. In a digital world, Canadians are connected like never before. As virtual activities continue to increase, businesses and their customers must be confident that their data is protected. Simply put, Canada needs 21st century privacy legislation to help get the job done. This new reality creates a world of opportunity for those who desire to have some control over you, your activities and your movements. This must be avoided at all cost. There is little doubt amongst experts, policy makers and the public, that the ways in which our digital infrastructure is designed and incentivized has had widespread social, economic, and political costs. The largest and most vexing piece of this policy agenda is what to do about harmful content online and how we define it. When we discuss this issue we need to be very careful to avoid infringing on the basic freedom, the freedom of speech. We need to be assured that ensuring online safety does not harm the core democratic right, which is the free expression. Democratic governments around the world define and regulate speech differently, and so there is no global set of rules for platforms to follow - this will be determined country by country. In the Canadian context, the Charter provides robust protection for free speech, while recognizing that governments can limit speech to prevent harms, provided the limits are reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society. So the Canadian government must find the best way to accommodate privacy, safety and freedom of expression. Some countries have developed some systems, but our society must define one for Canadians by the Canadian legislators who have been elected to serve the people. The systems must be made radically transparent. One of the core problems with digital platforms is their opacity. Platform companies such as Facebook and Google could be compelled to share privacy-protected data with the public. Platforms must also be held accountable for how they build their products. To do so, we should base our regulatory system on a concept already in use in Canadian law - that of a statutory duty to act responsibly. This would place the onus on platforms themselves to demonstrate that they have acted in a manner that would minimize the harm of the products they build and offer to Canadians. A well-resourced regulator could have the power to audit these systems. It is also critical to shift the balance between platforms and their users. We can do so through mandated interoperability and data portability, a serious national civic education and digital literacy initiative, and critically, significantly strengthened and long overdue data privacy protection. This approach is not about responding or reacting to content, or speech, but about assessing the level of risk and implementing product safety standards so that platforms are being subject to the same statutory duty to act responsibly as other consumer facing products. For too long the issue of online harms has been erroneously framed as one of individual bad actors and the regulation of speech, but the problem is one of systemic risk and it must be addressed as such. Canada now has the chance to learn from and build on the policies attempted in other countries and get it right once and for all. Hope they will do it well!

FIT! FIT! FIT!

By Nick Kossovan I can't stress enough how important an employer seeing you as "one of them" is to being hired. A few jobs back, while analyzing stats reports, my phone rang. It was Crocs's Director of Talent Acquisition calling from the company's head office in Boulder, Colorado. He'd come across a Pinterest board I'd created, 'Brands that Have My Heart,' and noticed I included Crocs. He then visited my LinkedIn profile. Turned out my background was a fit with a position he had open. (This is why you should keep your social media presence current and clean.) I said, "Your call is like the mothership calling." He laughed, and we had a great conversation resulting in my joining Crocs. When interviewing, don't underestimate the importance of making it clear you're a culture fit. Ready for counterintuitive advice that's worked for me? Adopt the attitude "Either I'm a fit, or I'm not," and then just be who you are. Being someone you're not, in order to fit in, never works. My advice doesn't mean you shouldn't be strategic in making your interviewer see you're a good fit. Here are three "I'm a fit" strategies to try: 1. Communicate you have the same values and passions. Professing your undying love for the company doesn't tell your interviewer whether you'll actually fit in with the team and you're someone others will want to be working with. Research the company's core values. Read its mission statement, 'About Us' page, and social media postings. Determine what the company cares about. Then ask yourself how it overlaps with your own career and personal experiences. Now you can lead with something like, "I'm an avid camper; I love your tents, which is why I applied to be your next Director of Sales. I own your Giga Tent. Regardless of the weather, it's never failed me. Your website mentions how Habitat Camping Gear's mission is to embrace enjoying the outdoors in an environmentally friendly way. That resonated with me. Camping is how I unplug from the city. Like most campers, I'm environmentally conscious. Camping has minimal adverse effects on our environment compared to flying to a resort, which creates a large carbon footprint. " 2. Appear knowledgeable, not obsessed. Think again if you believe showing over the top bubbly enthusiasm for the company's products and/or services and raison d'être will give you an edge over your competition. (TIP: Every company's raison d'être is to make a profit. Therefore, be sure to explain how you plan to influence the company's bottom-line.) Say you're interviewing for a Senior Character Technical Animator position with Warner Bros. Your interview isn't the place to give your rendition of Bug Bunny's "Ehh, what's up, doc?" or re-enact your favourite scene from Troy. You want your interviewer to subtly notice your passion. Create a plan for what you'll do once you get the job. Then share it and discuss Warner Bros.'s challenges and how your plan addresses those challenges. This shows you're interested in Warner Bros.'s success and understand the problems they're facing. You also show what every employer looks for in a candidate, initiative. Candidates who present me with a plan of action are candidates I lean into. 3. Send a thank you note. That's it! I understand; you're eager to hear about the status of your candidacy, and you want to prove you REALLY want the job. However, too much follow-up will work against you-you'll look desperate, which is a turn-off. Take a deep breath. On the same day of your interview, email a thank you note. (Yes, thank you notes do have influence.) Thank your interviewer for their time and offer more. Provide more information to a question you were asked, give feedback on recent news you read about the company, or ask a clarifying question. Then wait. Don't follow up! (seriously) I don't believe in chasing an employer; either they want you, or they don't. No answer is an answer. Two more "I'm a fit" strategies: -Language usage is telling. Throughout your interview, use appropriate industry lingo and terminology. - Every company has an unofficial way of dressing (READ: uniform). Before your interview, find out what it is and follow it. When I interviewed with Crocs, I wore my Crocs. Joining a company whose culture is right for you should be what guides your job search. Being part of a company with values you can relate to, which you are living organically, inevitably leads to a great work experience. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

IT IS OUT OF CONTROL

By Rosaldo Russo Allow me to begin this column by thanking the Oshawa/Central newspaper for allowing me the opportunity and access to the press. Not to many if any allow an average person like me to tell the world what I see and think. In my opinion. The Editor/Publisher is a real upstanding type of guy. He shoots from the hip and hold traditional core values. My name is Rosaldo Russo. I came to this great country to make a better life for myself and my family. I thank Canada for everything it has allowed me to do and earn. I worked construction all my life. I know the value of hard work and honesty. I remember as a boy my father always telling me to work hard and buy land. So I did. I remember days when I did not have enough to eat. I go to work... but I did not wait for hand outs. I rounded up my pride my skill and my determination to succeed and went to work. In those days the only benefits we received was the fact we were employed. Before retiring I was the owner and operator of local material supply company that allowed me to retired without worry. Now that I have time to enjoy life. I look around me and have some concern for future generations. I see that the world is finished. It took a bunch of truck drivers to bust the COVID mandate. Now even tho we are in the six, seventh wave. No more closing businesses. No more attempts to control it. Not even mention of vaccination. What happened in such a short time that it is a free for all on all fronts when comes to covid. I think we should learn from the truckers efforts. They took it to Ottawa and they won. They won back our freedoms. I think the same should be done by every red blooded Canadian when it comes to taking control of our gas prices. Really, two dollars plus at some gas stations? You got to be kidding. How are people going to pay? I heard that the government is forcing people to use public transport. They are going as far as lowering the rates to just a dollar. Is this how it is going to be. Control people by forcing them to comply to use public transportation. Who can afford a house. A car and all that comes with it. Like insurance, taxes and maintenance. This can’t be allowed to continue. Gas prices need to be brought under control. We went from eighty cents to two dollars in no time... There is no excuse other than that of the government wanting to push electric cars. No one will buy electric if the gas price is low. This is not about the environment. It is about making millions if not billions. I think the electric car fad is a mistake. That eventually people will realize that the cost for an electric car is not worth it in the long run. How much do you think it cost for a battery for one of those cars... just as much a mid size car. Once we make the transition. It be hard to go back. I say. Let’s all go to Ottawa and let them know what we think. Lower the price of gas or we will occupy Ottawa. What do you think am I crazy? I ENDORSE JOE INGINO FOR MAYOR OF OSHAWA IN 2022 VOTE INGINO