Government-run grocery stores aren’t radical.

What’s radical is how comfortable we’ve become letting a handful of corporations control what it costs to survive.

---

Food isn’t a product like anything else.

You don’t opt out of eating this month because prices went up.

You don’t wait for a promo code on survival.

You don’t “cut back” on needing to live.

And yet, that’s exactly how we’ve structured the system.

We handed something essential over to companies whose only obligation is profit — and then we act confused when prices climb and nothing changes.

We talk about “market forces” like they’re some natural law.

They’re not.

They’re decisions.

And we made them.

---

We allowed consolidation.

We allowed dominance.

We allowed a system where competition looks real on paper but feels nonexistent at the checkout.

And when it started to hurt?

We didn’t build alternatives.

We wrote cheques.

Public money — handed to private grocery giants under the banner of efficiency, sustainability, modernization… whatever word made it easier to justify.

Lower their costs.

Boost their margins.

Hope, somehow, that helps you.

It doesn’t.

Because corporations don’t exist to pass savings on to you.

They exist to capture them.

---

So here we are.

Paying more.

Getting less.

And — somehow — still defending the system that’s doing it to us.

---

Now someone suggests a public grocery store.

Not to replace the private sector.

Not to nationalize food.

Just to exist.

And suddenly that’s the line?

That’s where people get uncomfortable?

---

Not when we subsidize billion-dollar companies.

Not when prices quietly climb.

Not when entire neighbourhoods become food deserts.

No — the problem is the government opening a store.

---

Let’s be honest about something.

We already accept government-run retail.

We line up for it.

We normalize it.

We argue about hours and pricing — not whether it should exist at all.

Alcohol.

We’re completely fine with the government selling us something we don’t need…

…but the idea of them helping provide something we do need?

That’s too far.

---

That’s not logic.

That’s conditioning.

---

A public grocery store doesn’t have to win.

It doesn’t have to take over the market.

It doesn’t have to be perfect.

It just has to exist long enough, and at enough scale, to do one thing:

Force the people currently feeding you to compete for your survival.

Because right now?

They don’t have to.

---

This isn’t about ideology.

It’s about power.

Right now, the power sits with companies that decide what you pay to eat.

A public option shifts that — even slightly — back toward the people.

And that’s what actually makes people uncomfortable.

Not inefficiency.

Not logistics.

Not cost.

Control.

---

Food isn’t a lifestyle.

It’s not branding.

It’s not a subscription.

It’s survival.

---

And if our tax dollars are already touching the grocery sector, then we have a choice:

Keep feeding the system that extracts from us…

or build something that feeds us back.

There is this idea in karate that to master it, you have to master all of it.

Every kata.

Every application.

Every stance, every strike, every concept.

Be able to perform it, explain it, apply it, and fight with it.

It sounds noble.

It’s also complete nonsense.

---

Imagine if a physicist had to master all of physics before earning a PhD.

No specialization. No focus. Just everything.

There would be no experts.

No progress.

No expansion of knowledge.

The field would collapse under its own weight.

And yet in karate, we pretend that’s exactly what mastery looks like.

---

Karate isn’t one system.

It’s a collection of systems stacked on top of each other and presented as one clean path.

Kihon.

Kata.

Bunkai.

Kumite.

Self-defense.

Weapons tied to Okinawan kobudo.

And even within just kata, you’re expected to understand:

the shape,

the application,

the competitive version,

the history,

the philosophy.

And somehow… also be able to step into a ring and fight.

---

These aren’t levels of the same skill.

They’re different disciplines that share a common ancestry.

And instead of admitting that, we pretend they all naturally come together if you train long enough.

They don’t.

---

The best kata competitors don’t always fight well.

The best fighters don’t always care about kata.

The best self-defense practitioners often ignore both.

That’s not failure.

That’s reality.

That’s specialization.

---

We also pretend karate is frozen in time.

Like everything meaningful was already discovered by the old masters — and our job is just to preserve it.

But those men weren’t preserving anything.

They were building.

They were working with less information, fewer tools, and a much smaller pool of knowledge than we have today.

A modern practitioner with ten serious years of training — access to video, cross-training, sports science — can understand fighting in ways those masters never had access to.

That’s not disrespect.

That’s progress.

---

And then there’s the part nobody wants to say out loud:

There isn’t just one karate anymore.

There’s what came out of Okinawa.

And there’s what grew in North America.

A full sport system.

A competitive culture.

A different way of training and testing skill.

And it doesn’t get the same respect, because it’s seen as “not traditional.”

But if millions of people practice something, refine it, compete in it, and build systems around it…

…it’s real.

---

Some of the people who helped shape that version don’t get the same reverence.

But they should at least be part of the conversation.

They didn’t just copy karate.

They translated it.

Stress-tested it.

Spread it.

So if we hang pictures on the wall to honor contribution…

maybe the wall isn’t complete yet.

---

Karate isn’t one thing you climb.

It’s a crossroads.

And the problem isn’t that students can’t master everything.

The problem is they’re told they’re supposed to.

---

And maybe the solution is simpler than we think.

Instead of forcing everyone to carry the entire system, we give them a foundation first — a level where they understand the art as a whole.

And after that?

They choose.

They specialize.

One student goes deep into kata.

Another into fighting.

Another into teaching.

Another into application.

They earn depth, not just time.

Because the dojo is bigger than any one person.

And maybe the best teacher isn’t the one who knows everything…

but the one who mastered the thing you came to learn.

---

If the old masters were great because they pushed karate forward…

then maybe the real question is this:

Are we honoring them by preserving what they left behind?

Or by doing what they did?

Subscribe now

I gained two followers and a subscriber yesterday.

All it took was… using litres.

I was scrolling my Substack feed when someone asked:
“What are gas prices in your area?”

Simple. Harmless. Community-building.
The kind of question that should end in mild agreement and maybe a complaint or two.

So I posted mine.

Casually. Calmly. Respectfully.
Like a normal human being reporting on the price of fuel.

But there was a problem.

Everyone else was American.

They were talking:

• USD

• gallons

• freedom units

And I showed up with:

• CAD

• litres

• quiet Canadian confidence

  

Now I’ll admit it — I knew what I was doing.

I wasn’t trying to start a war…
but I also wasn’t not trying to confuse people.

A little metric mischief.
A gentle nudge into international awareness.

A polite Canadian prank.

Apparently, that’s how culture wars start.

The reaction?

Immediate.

Hostile.

Unhinged in a way that made me feel like I had accidentally insulted someone’s grandmother.

I got called names.
Someone suggested I probably had an old toilet sitting on my front lawn (which feels very specific).
And at some point — and I still don’t fully understand the path we took to get here —
I was labeled…

A MAGA troll.

MAGA.

Because I used litres.

Think about the chain of logic required to get there.

“Hmm… I don’t understand this number…
must be political extremism.”

At no point did anyone go:

“Hey… are those litres?”

No one clicked my profile.
No one did the mental math.
No one paused long enough to think:

“Wait… could this guy just be… Canadian?”

Because if they had, they would’ve found:

• References to the Avro Arrow

• Mentions of the NDP

• A guy who is very clearly not auditioning for American politics

But that would’ve required five seconds.

And five seconds is a lifetime on the internet.

Instead, we skipped straight to:

“This man is a problem.”

At one point, someone even sent me an AI-generated image of Trump facing a firing squad
with a comment about dancing at his funeral.

Which felt like a bit of an escalation for a conversation about gas prices.

Eventually — mercifully — someone stepped in.

Explained the metric system.
Translated my numbers.
Brought peace back to the land.

They even joked I was probably near a Tim Hortons.

Which, to be fair…
statistically, yes.

And just like that, everything cooled off.

No more insults.
No more assumptions.
No more political labels.

All it took was:

“Oh… litres.”

Five seconds.

But that’s not the world we’re in.

We don’t investigate anymore.
We react.

We don’t get curious.
We get loud.

Something doesn’t make sense immediately, and instead of asking why,
we assign intent.

And once you assign intent,
you don’t need facts anymore.

Look — I get it.

Things are tense.
People are primed.
The internet rewards speed, not understanding.

You don’t get points for being thoughtful.

You get points for being first.

So when something feels off —
wrong units, wrong currency, wrong vibe —

you don’t check it.

You attack it.

And the funniest part?

I was trolling.

Just not in the way they thought.

I wasn’t pushing politics.
I wasn’t stirring outrage.

I was just a Canadian…
dropping litres into a gallon-based society
and watching the system try to process it.

And somehow, that was enough
to turn me into a MAGA troll.

But here’s the part I like best.

In the middle of all that chaos…

I gained two followers and a subscriber.

Because some people did take the five seconds.

Some people did look.

Some people realized:

“This guy isn’t a problem…
he’s just using the metric system.”

So yeah.

Shoutout to litres.

Shoutout to confusion.

And shoutout to the algorithm for rewarding international incidents.

Turns out…
the quickest way to grow your audience
is to accidentally start a geopolitical misunderstanding.

Subscribe now

Telecom companies don’t sell you a service.

They sell you confusion.

Try signing up for internet in this country and tell me it doesn’t feel like applying for a mortgage. You don’t get a price — you get a puzzle. A base rate, minus a credit, plus a bundle discount, tied to a condition you didn’t know existed, all wrapped in language designed to make you stop asking questions.

You don’t pay for internet.

You navigate it.

And if you ever dare to change anything — add a service, remove one, ask a question — the whole structure resets like a trap snapping shut.

---

I had a perfectly fine internet plan.

Good speed. Fair price. No contract.

Then I made the mistake.

I thought, “Hey, maybe I’ll add TV.”

That one decision cost me $50 a month.

Not because I added something expensive — but because I triggered the system. I called, they offered a bundle, I agreed, and suddenly I was in a completely different pricing universe. Credits changed. Conditions shifted. Things I never saw coming quietly disappeared.

The TV service itself? Useless to me.

I wanted channels. I got an app.

I was told I’d get a receiver. I didn’t.

So I cancelled it.

Simple, right?

No.

The next bill showed my internet price had jumped — dramatically. The deal I had before? Gone. Not paused. Not adjusted. Gone.

Why?

Because in telecom, you don’t have a price.

You have a *temporary arrangement*.

---

So I called.

You already know how that goes.

Endless hold music.

Someone reading from a script.

“No, there’s nothing we can do.”

No supervisor. No escalation. No ownership.

Just a system designed to wear you down until you accept it.

And here’s the part that tells you everything you need to know:

The moment I cancelled — suddenly they could help.

Retention calls.

Better offers.

Flexible pricing.

Real solutions.

So where were those options when I asked the first time?

They weren’t available to *me*.

They were available to the *version of me that was leaving*.

---

So I left.

Called the other company.

Got a clean quote.

Even got TV thrown in.

Great.

Until the bill came.

Because of course it did.

Now I’m looking at another breakdown of charges and credits and adjustments that don’t line up with what I was told. After two months, I’m overcharged by $200.

Back on the phone.

Another hour.

Another script.

Another “nothing we can do.”

Except this time, I didn’t stop.

Because that’s the real game:

not who’s right — but who’s willing to sit on the phone longer.

Eventually I get a supervisor.

Eventually it gets “fixed.”

Eventually I’m told it’ll be corrected on the next bill.

Eventually.

Always eventually.

---

So let’s stop pretending this is accidental.

This isn’t bad customer service.

This is a business model.

They don’t make things complicated because they have to.

They make things complicated because it works.

Confusion keeps you from comparing.

Credits keep you from understanding.

Delays keep you from fighting.

And frustration keeps most people from finishing the fight.

You’re not supposed to win.

You’re supposed to give up.

---

And all of this exists in a country where you don’t really have a choice.

Call them what you want — competitors, providers, options.

But when your only real decision is which giant you’re going to deal with,

that’s not a market.

That’s a menu.

And every item comes with the same ingredients:

complex pricing, weak accountability, and just enough service to keep you from walking away completely.

---

So when people say these services shouldn’t be in private hands,

this is why.

Because this isn’t about TV packages or internet speed.

It’s about control.

We’re talking about infrastructure — something you need to live, work, communicate, exist in the modern world.

And it’s being run like a shell game.

---

Here’s the truth:

They’re not trying to give you a fair price.

They’re trying to find the highest price you’ll tolerate.

They’re not trying to help you.

They’re trying to outlast you.

And they’re not disorganized.

They’re precise.

Every confusing bill,

every missing credit,

every hour on hold—

that’s not a mistake.

That’s the system working exactly as designed.

Pierre Poilievre is out attacking the proposed rail line linking Toronto to Montréal and beyond, as though passenger rail in this corridor is some brand-new Liberal fever dream.

It isn’t.

Canada has been talking about better rail in this corridor for years. Governments have studied it, committees have reviewed it, and politicians of all stripes have understood the same basic reality: the Toronto–Québec City corridor is the most populated stretch of the country, and our passenger rail service is embarrassingly slow for a modern economy.

And here’s the part that makes this whole performance so transparent.

Conservatives didn’t suddenly discover problems with this corridor.

Under Andrew Scheer, they supported expanding passenger rail in this exact Toronto–Québec City corridor. Party members backed it. The idea passed internally with strong support.

The difference isn’t the corridor.

It isn’t the need.

It isn’t even the concept.

The difference is who’s proposing it — and how ambitious the version is.

What was once framed as high-frequency rail — faster, more reliable service — has now evolved into a high-speed proposal. Fine. That’s what progress looks like. Ideas grow. Plans improve. Technology advances.

But now that the Liberals are the ones pushing it forward, Pierre Poilievre is acting like the entire concept is absurd.

That’s not leadership.

That’s reflex.

Because the job of opposition is not to play tug-of-war with the government like a contrarian child. It’s not to say left when they say right, down when they say up, no when they say yes.

The job of opposition is to hold government to account.

To challenge waste.

To expose incompetence.

To improve ideas.

To push projects to be done better, faster, and more responsibly.

A serious opposition leader wouldn’t be pretending the rail corridor itself is the problem.

He’d be asking:

Why did it take this long?

Why are we still talking about planning when we should be building?

Why have Canadians spent years hearing about rail modernization without seeing steel in the ground and passengers on trains?

That would be leadership.

Because if Poilievre actually wanted to govern, he could have taken the more intelligent line: yes, build the corridor — but stop dithering, stop delaying, stop announcing and re-announcing the same dream while nothing gets done.

He could have positioned himself as the guy forcing the government to move.

The guy demanding timelines.

The guy saying Canada should already be riding the thing by now.

Instead, he chose the cheaper instinct: oppose it because the Liberals touched it.

That’s the tell.

Poilievre’s problem isn’t that he disagrees with bad government. His problem is that he seems incapable of recognizing a good idea once the wrong team says it out loud.

Even when that idea is exactly the kind of nation-building infrastructure politicians are supposed to champion.

And while Canada keeps debating, countries we’re told to fear are building.

China’s high-speed rail network hit roughly 35,000 kilometres years ago.

They didn’t build that because they’re magically smarter.

They built it because they decided infrastructure matters.

Meanwhile, in Canada, we still argue like building useful things is some kind of ideological trap.

That’s the real embarrassment.

Conservatives are often the first to warn about falling behind global competitors — to talk about productivity, trade, economic growth, and national strength.

Fine.

Then act like it.

Because you do not keep pace with the future by whining about infrastructure.

You do not compete by romanticizing stagnation.

And you do not become a serious country by treating every major project as a partisan football.

If Poilievre thinks he should be prime minister, then he should start acting like someone interested in governing rather than someone obsessed with winning the title.

He’s been elected for two decades.

He has held office.

He has had every opportunity to be more than a critic.

But this is the problem with career politicians.

Eventually, they stop seeing public office as a place to build things and start seeing it as a stage for permanent campaign mode.

Everything becomes performance.

Everything becomes grievance.

Everything becomes someone else’s fault.

A rail line that could connect cities, move people more efficiently, ease pressure on existing networks, and help drag Canada a little closer to the century it already lives in should not be controversial because one party announced it.

The nuanced conservative response would be simple:

Build it.

Do it faster.

Do it responsibly.

And stop making Canada wait.

Instead, we get a man who sounds less like a prime minister in waiting and more like a whiny kid furious that somebody else picked up the shovel.

That’s Pierre Poilievre in a sentence:

more interested in having the job than doing it.

We spend our whole lives working.

Grinding.

Chasing.

Trading time for money like it’s the only deal on the table.

And somehow, we’ve decided that the best way to prepare young people for that life…

is to start them early.

Put them behind a counter.

Hand them a mop.

Stick them on a fryer.

Let them close up shop at 11pm on a Wednesday

with a math quiz waiting first period Thursday morning.

And we call that character building.

---

We say it teaches responsibility.

Time management.

Work ethic.

But let’s be honest about what it really teaches.

It teaches exhaustion.

It teaches compliance.

It teaches kids how to endure a system

before they’ve even had a chance to question it.

We confuse endurance with development.

---

And here’s the part nobody wants to say out loud:

In a lot of places around the world,

this wouldn’t be framed as “opportunity.”

It would be a red flag.

Call it what you want—

early work experience, life skills, earning your own money—

but when a kid is sacrificing sleep, school performance, and social development

to keep a business running…

you’re not building character.

You’re borrowing from their future.

---

Because those years?

They’re not supposed to be about productivity.

They’re supposed to be about discovery.

Who am I?

What do I like?

Where do I fit?

How do I relate to people?

You don’t learn that

while rushing through homework at midnight

or giving up your weekends to a shift schedule.

You learn that by living.

By being around your peers.

By making mistakes that don’t come with a time clock.

---

And let’s not pretend this system exists in a vacuum.

Those “starter jobs” were never meant to carry weight.

They were designed for pocket money.

For temporary work.

Now they’re propping up entire industries.

So we keep wages low,

expectations high,

and quietly plug teenagers into the gaps

because they’re the only ones who will accept the terms.

---

And how many kids get trapped in these jobs?

That’s the part we don’t measure.

We talk about the ones who “learned responsibility,”

the ones who “worked their way up,”

the success stories that justify the system.

But what about the ones who never leave?

The ones who get caught early—

not because they chose a path,

but because the path was there…

easy to step onto,

hard to step off.

---

Because here’s the truth:

When you start working young,

you don’t just learn how to work.

You learn how to stay.

You get used to the pay.

Used to the routine.

Used to being told what to do and when to do it.

And before you know it,

you’re not building a future—

you’re maintaining a position.

---

We tell ourselves there’s opportunity in these systems.

And sometimes there is.

But you have to ask:

Are they being lifted…

or contained?

Because there’s a difference between growth

and just moving up inside the same box.

---

What’s often worse?

When the money is good.

Because now leaving costs something.

Now staying feels smart.

Now the short-term win

becomes a long-term ceiling.

---

I’ve seen it in my own culture.

Young men pulled out of school

into construction.

Not because they love the trades.

Not because it’s their calling.

But because:

- the pay is good

- the work is there

- and someone they know can get them in tomorrow

An uncle.

A father.

A connection.

And just like that—

school becomes optional.

---

Then one day they’re 30.

No diploma.

No direction.

Just years of labour behind them.

They can lay shingles.

Pour concrete.

Work harder than most people ever will.

But ask them to pivot?

To build something of their own?

To step outside what they know?

That’s a different fight.

Because confidence doesn’t just come from working hard.

It comes from believing you had options.

---

And if we’re being honest about it—

these environments aren’t always healthy.

Long days.

Hard labour.

Repetitive work.

It wears on you.

Physically.

Mentally.

And yeah—sometimes people cope the way people cope:

- caffeine

- substances

- anything that gets you through the next shift

That’s not an indictment of the people.

It’s a reflection of the conditions.

---

And let’s be clear:

This isn’t about attacking trades.

Or saying construction workers are anything less than skilled, valuable, essential people.

It’s about asking a harder question:

Who chose this path—

and who just ended up on it?

---

Because when a kid steps into a job too early,

before they’ve explored who they are,

what they want,

what they’re capable of—

that job doesn’t just give them experience.

It can quietly define their limits.

---

We’ve normalized something strange.

We’ve taken childhood—

one of the shortest, most important windows in a person’s life—

and turned part of it into labour supply.

---

This isn’t about saying young people should never work.

It’s about asking:

Why are we so comfortable asking them to?

Why are we in such a rush

to introduce them to a system

most adults are trying to escape?

---

Because maybe the goal

shouldn’t be to prepare kids for the grind.

Maybe the goal

should be to give them enough space

to build a life worth grinding for.

Subscribe now

It looks like Trump is dusting off his favourite catchphrase again.

“You’re fired.”

He’s always liked that one. It plays well. Sounds decisive. Strong. Like something a leader would say.

But if you’re constantly firing people… what does that say about your hiring?

Most managers see firing someone as a failure — not just of the employee, but of themselves. A bad read. A rushed decision. A missed signal. Accountability doesn’t stop at the bottom — it starts at the top.

Not here.

With Trump, accountability is something to be avoided, redirected, reassigned.

He doesn’t build teams based on merit, experience, or competence. He builds them based on loyalty — or at least what he *perceives* as loyalty. He surrounds himself with people who agree, who flatter, who fall in line.

And loyal they are.

Right up until the moment they’re not.

Because with Trump, loyalty only flows one way.

You’re expected to have his back — publicly, aggressively, without hesitation.

But you have to know, somewhere deep down, that he will never have yours.

And when things go wrong — and they always do — someone has to take the fall.

It’s never the leadership.

Never the lack of understanding.

Never the inability to deal with nuance, complexity, or consequences.

It’s the staff.

Again.

And again.

And again.

---

And now people are arguing about *who* he’s firing.

That it’s women.

That it reflects some imbalance of power.

Maybe.

But that’s not the point.

The point is this:

I don’t want to see women anywhere near that administration.

Not because I have a problem with women in power — quite the opposite.

It’s because being part of that system isn’t progress.

It’s regression.

---

Representation only matters when it represents something worth moving toward.

Putting women into positions inside a system that undermines accountability, dismisses expertise, and rewards loyalty over competence isn’t a win for feminism.

It’s a step backward.

Because now those failures don’t just belong to the system — they get attached to the idea of women in leadership.

And that’s dangerous.

---

Real progress isn’t about who gets a seat at the table.

It’s about what that table stands for.

If the table is built on ego, deflection, and blame-shifting, then adding diversity doesn’t fix it.

It just spreads the damage around.

---

Let’s be honest about what the firing actually is.

It’s not performance management.

It’s narrative control.

When something fails — a policy, a decision, a crisis response — firing someone creates the illusion of action. It changes the conversation. It gives the public a villain that isn’t him.

“Look,” it says, “we found the problem.”

But the problem keeps coming back.

Because the system hasn’t changed.

Because the leadership hasn’t changed.

Because the hiring criteria hasn’t changed.

---

So the cycle continues.

Hire someone for loyalty.

Ignore competence.

Watch things unravel.

Fire them publicly.

Repeat.

And every time, we’re supposed to believe this one was the exception.

This one was the mistake.

This one was the problem.

---

But patterns tell the truth people try to avoid.

If every hire becomes a failure,

the failure isn’t the hires.

It’s the person doing the hiring.

---

Firing people might change the channel for a moment.

It might cool things off.

It might satisfy the crowd.

But it doesn’t fix anything.

Because the next person stepping into that role isn’t being chosen to solve the problem.

They’re being chosen to protect the same one.

And we already know how that ends.

“You’re fired.”

Again.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

I saw a video of Iraqi soccer fans singing in an airport, holding a banner, just having a moment.

And like clockwork, some miserable prick walks by and tears it down.

Not argues with them.

Not asks them to move.

Just tears it down.

And you have to ask — what kind of person does that?

Because it’s not about the banner.

It’s not about noise.

It’s not about “rules.”

It’s about discomfort.

Some people cannot handle joy that doesn’t look like theirs.

Hear a different language? Suspicion.

See people celebrating loudly? Irritation.

Watch a culture express itself unapologetically? Anger.

Why?

Because they don’t understand it.

And somewhere along the way, they were taught that anything they don’t understand is a threat.

So everything gets filtered through that lens.

Arabic becomes danger.

Black culture becomes crime.

Latino culture becomes disruption.

Not because it is — but because that’s the story they’ve been fed.

And here’s where it gets uncomfortable.

A lot of that reaction isn’t just fear.

It’s emptiness.

When you grow up disconnected from tradition…

when your culture gets boiled down to convenience, consumption, and whatever’s trending…

you don’t have anything solid to stand on.

So when you see something that *does* —

something loud, rooted, expressive, alive —

it doesn’t just look different.

It highlights what’s missing.

And instead of asking,

“Can I learn from this?”

“Can I experience this?”

“Can I join this?”

You tear it down.

Because it’s easier to destroy something than to admit you don’t understand it.

But here’s the part no one tells you:

If you feel like you don’t have a culture…

that’s not a disadvantage.

That’s access.

You get to try everything.

You get to learn everything.

You get to step into spaces, taste food, hear music, move your body in ways you’ve never tried before.

Not to take.

To connect.

Because the world isn’t out here performing for you.

Nobody’s dancing to prove a point.

Nobody’s singing to make you uncomfortable.

They’re just living.

Trying to squeeze joy out of a life that’s hard for everyone.

And if that bothers you…

that’s not their problem.

That’s yours.

So you can keep walking around policing joy,

tearing down banners,

calling the cops on people having a good time—

or you can loosen up,

step in,

and realize something simple:

Nobody’s excluding you.

You’ve just been standing outside the whole time.

Subscribe now

Bill C-9 has some people up in arms because it removes a religious exemption from Canada’s hate speech law. To be honest, I don’t see the problem.

Religion should not get a pass on hate speech.

Freedom of religion is there to protect your right to believe, to worship, and to live according to your convictions. It is not there to give anyone a protected lane for promoting hatred under the cover of scripture.

And that’s really the issue here.

If your concern is that parts of your religion might be considered hate speech when quoted in public, then maybe the problem isn’t the law. Maybe the problem is that you feel entitled to say hateful things without consequence as long as they are old enough and written in a holy book.

That is not religious freedom. That is legal indulgence for discrimination.

In a country like Canada, freedom has never meant absolute freedom. It never can. Every freedom has to stop where it begins to crush someone else’s dignity, safety, or equal place in society. That’s not oppression. That’s the price of living together in a pluralistic country.

We are not one tribe here. We are all the tribes of the world.

That means the law cannot be written to protect only the sensitivities of the most rigid believers while everyone else is expected to absorb the damage. If a religion teaches that certain people are lesser, immoral, or worthy of condemnation, then those ideas do not deserve special treatment just because they are ancient.

They deserve the same scrutiny as any other hateful idea.

Now, people of faith will still have protections. Courts will still exist. The Charter will still exist. Genuine religious expression is not suddenly disappearing. No one is banning prayer, worship, belief, or theological disagreement.

But if what you want protected is the right to publicly weaponize religion against other people, then no, that should not be protected.

Not in a modern country.

Not in a democracy.

And not in a society that claims to care about human rights.

I’m an atheist, but this is not about me wanting to take religion down a peg. If I thought this law was being used to unfairly target peaceful believers, I’d say so. Gladly. But that’s not what this is.

This is about whether religion should be able to function as a shield for speech that would be unacceptable in any other context.

It shouldn’t.

I was raised in a religious household, and my mother always taught me that religion belongs in your home and in your place of worship. Once you step outside, you owe respect to the people around you.

Honestly, that seems wiser than a lot of what passes for religious freedom now.

If more people practiced their faith with humility instead of entitlement, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. And we definitely wouldn’t need religious exemptions to protect the ugliest parts of ancient traditions.

We rage about corporations all the time.

We complain about how they treat workers.

How they raise prices.

How they squeeze every last dollar out of us.

And then — somehow — we trust them to run our public services.

That’s the trick.

They’ve convinced us that the very institutions we don’t trust with our paycheques

should be trusted with our tax dollars.

---

We’ve been sold an idea:

That corporations are more efficient.

More innovative.

More cost-effective.

But efficient at what?

Because it’s not service.

It’s profit.

And profit doesn’t come from doing things better —

it comes from doing things cheaper and charging more.

---

Look at how it actually plays out.

We build the infrastructure.

We pay for it.

We maintain it.

Then we hand it over.

Suddenly there are new fees.

New charges.

New language no one understands.

And when something breaks?

We still pay for that too.

---

We don’t even have to look far for examples.

In Ontario, a Liberal government sold off large parts of our power system.

How’s your hydro bill looking?

A Conservative government handed over a publicly funded highway.

Now try driving on it without feeling it.

We paid to build it.

Now we pay to use it.

Again. And again.

---

That’s the deal.

They keep the profits.

We keep the costs.

Imagine running a business like that —

where someone else covers your expenses

and you pocket everything that comes in.

That’s not capitalism.

That’s extraction.

---

And nothing is off-limits.

Utilities.

Waste management.

Healthcare.

Prisons.

In parts of the U.S., incarceration is a multi-billion-dollar industry.

A system that makes money

by keeping people locked up.

Do you think that system is built for rehabilitation?

Or repeat customers?

---

Because when profit enters the equation,

the goal quietly changes.

It’s no longer about solving problems.

It’s about sustaining them.

More inmates.

More procedures.

More “services.”

More revenue.

---

Healthcare might be the clearest example.

Insurance is supposed to protect you from rare events.

But healthcare isn’t rare.

We all need it.

Regularly.

Inevitably.

So the system only works

if it gets to decide:

Who gets treated.

When they get treated.

And how much they’re worth.

---

So let’s be clear.

This isn’t about left or right.

It’s not about what colour button you wear at election time.

It’s about a principle:

Public services should stay public.

The control belongs to us.

---

And if anything, as the world becomes more complex,

government responsibility shouldn’t shrink —

it should expand.

---

We’re living in an age where internet access is being talked about as a basic right.

So ask the obvious question:

If something becomes essential to modern life,

who should control it?

Corporations driven by profit?

Or systems accountable to the public?

---

Look at social media.

Platforms owned by companies like Meta aren’t just apps anymore —

they’re infrastructure.

They shape how we communicate.

How we learn.

How we see the world.

And yet, they’re designed to maximize engagement — not well-being.

That’s not a conspiracy.

That’s the business model.

---

When something becomes that embedded in society,

you don’t just “leave it to the market.”

You regulate it.

You structure it.

You protect people from it.

Not to control what we say —

but to make sure the system isn’t built to exploit us

or designed to do us harm.

Because right now, there isn’t anyone truly holding that line.

---

Because when no one is accountable,

profit becomes the only rule.

And when profit is the only rule,

people become the product.

---

As society advances,

government shouldn’t be taking on less responsibility

—

it should be taking on more.

---

Because when government is responsible,

we know exactly where to look.

We know who made the decision.

We know who to question.

We know who to replace.

That’s accountability.

---

But the more responsibility gets handed off

to private corporations,

the more that accountability disappears.

Decisions get buried.

Blame gets diffused.

Responsibility becomes impossible to trace.

---

And the people we elected?

They get lighter workloads.

Less risk.

Less consequence.

They stop governing

and start overseeing the slow sale of everything we built.

---

They become something else entirely.

An elected class that shows up,

puts on a performance,

waves to the crowd —

and answers for less and less.

---

An aristocracy with ballots instead of bloodlines.

---

And here’s the irony.

The very system they keep feeding —

the one they claim is more “efficient” —

doesn’t stop.

It doesn’t stabilize.

It doesn’t say “enough.”

---

Because capitalism, left unchecked,

is never satisfied.

A company can post record profits

and still see its stock drop.

Because the expectation isn’t success.

It’s more.

Always more.

---

And a system that demands constant growth

will eventually consume everything in its path.

Public services.

Public trust.

Public control.

Even the people who helped build it.

---

Because once corporations don’t need government anymore,

they won’t protect it.

They’ll replace it.

---

That’s where this road leads.

Not to efficiency.

Not to freedom.

But to a world where nothing belongs to the public anymore —

and no one is left to answer for it.

---

They don’t just want your money.

They want the system.

The control.

And eventually —

the job.

Subscribe now

The actions of Doug Ford’s government lately have a familiar feel to them — and not in a good way.

Long gone is the pandemic premier who stood back and let the experts speak. What we’re seeing now from the Ontario Conservatives feels like a quieter version of something we’ve been watching play out down south for the last decade.

The language is softer.

The tone is calmer.

It lacks the overt racism that defines MAGA.

But the direction?

The strategy?

The principles?

They’re starting to look the same.

Power consolidates.

Public money shifts upward.

Institutions get chipped away — not all at once, but piece by piece.

---

Ford himself fits the pattern more than people want to admit.

Born into privilege.

Inherited a business.

A track record that includes failure and bankruptcy.

And yet, the confidence never wavers.

Take the Greenbelt.

How many times can one government “learn its lesson” and then quietly circle back to the same idea?

The people spoke.

Loudly.

Clearly.

And still — here we are again.

---

Then there’s the waterfront development.

A massive public investment.

Luxury-focused.

Difficult to explain in simple terms who actually benefits.

That’s usually a sign.

Because when something is truly for the public, you don’t need a diagram and a press conference to justify it.

People just understand it.

---

Healthcare is following the same path.

Public hospitals underfunded.

Operating rooms sitting idle.

While private clinics — sometimes foreign-owned — are brought in to “help,” at a higher cost to the system.

Same procedures.

More money.

And in some cases, patients still pay out of pocket.

We’re not fixing the system.

We’re rerouting it.

---

Education isn’t far behind.

School boards being taken over.

Funding pressures tightening.

Student aid weakening.

You don’t need to be a policy expert to see where that road leads.

Wait long enough, and someone will start talking about vouchers.

About “choice.”

About “efficiency.”

And suddenly, public education isn’t a foundation anymore — it’s just one option in a marketplace.

---

Even at the municipal level, the pattern holds.

Cutting Toronto city council in half.

Expanding provincial control over local decisions.

Yes — it’s legal.

But legality and legitimacy are not the same thing.

Should voters in Sudbury or Thunder Bay decide how Toronto governs itself?

Flip that question around and see how it feels.

---

And now we arrive at something that should make everyone pause.

School boards being warned to avoid politics at graduation ceremonies.

With consequences.

“Punished.”

That’s the word being used.

Not discouraged.

Not guided.

Punished.

---

Think about that for a second.

In a democratic society, who benefits when people are told to stay quiet about politics?

Not the public.

Not students.

Not democracy itself.

---

And here’s the part that matters most:

There was no widespread movement of students turning graduations into political rallies.

No crisis.

No emergency.

This wasn’t a response.

It was a preemptive move.

---

That’s how control works.

Not through one dramatic action,

but through a series of smaller ones that slowly redefine what’s “normal.”

You don’t silence people overnight.

You just make them think twice before speaking.

Then a third time.

Then eventually — not at all.

---

The government knows people are frustrated.

But they also know they have a majority.

Time is on their side.

The question is:

How much are we willing to let change before we decide it’s too much?

How many pieces of public life are we willing to see sold, reshaped, or controlled

before we stop calling it “policy”

and start calling it what it is?

Because if we don’t ask that now,

we won’t get to ask it later.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

We’ve decided—somewhere along the way—that violent crime is the worst kind of crime.

It’s the one we fear.

The one we punish the hardest.

The one we point to and say,

“That’s what’s wrong with the world.”

And sure—violence is brutal.

A punch, a stabbing, a robbery—

it’s immediate, it’s visible, it leaves a mark.

You can see the damage.

But what about the crimes you can’t see?

The ones done in boardrooms instead of back alleys.

The ones written in spreadsheets instead of blood.

White collar crime.

We treat it differently.

Like it’s not really crime at all.

Like it’s just… business.

A guy robs a bank with a gun,

and we call him dangerous.

We lock him away and throw away the key.

Another guy robs thousands of people with a pen—

pensions, savings, livelihoods—

and we call it fraud.

He pays a fine.

He makes a statement.

Maybe he does a little time, maybe he doesn’t.

And we move on.

Why?

Because there’s no bruised face.

No chalk outline.

No ambulance lights.

Just numbers.

But those numbers are people.

They’re retirements that disappear.

Families that have to start over at 60.

Stress that turns into illness.

Lives quietly unraveling behind closed doors.

No headlines.

No outrage.

No urgency.

We say violent crime is worse because it feels worse.

But white collar crime?

It’s cleaner.

Quieter.

Easier to ignore.

And here’s the truth we don’t like to admit:

We don’t just fear violence—

we understand it.

Desperation.

Anger.

A moment where someone snaps.

We can picture it.

But calculated harm?

Systematic exploitation?

People gaming systems already built in their favor?

That makes us uncomfortable in a different way.

Because it’s not chaos.

It’s control.

It’s not someone losing everything.

It’s someone who already has everything—

deciding it still isn’t enough.

And maybe that’s the real reason we soften it.

Because if we called it what it is—

if we treated it like the destruction it causes—

we’d have to admit something we don’t want to say out loud:

That the crimes of the powerful

are protected by the systems they helped build.

And the crimes of the desperate

are punished by those same systems.

So we keep telling ourselves

that the worst crime is the one we can see.

Because it’s easier than facing the ones we’ve learned to accept.

I can never understand why the default solution for public services is to start calling private contractors.

In Ontario, we already lived through the eHealth disaster.

Over a billion dollars spent.

Private contractors everywhere.

And in the end? Nothing but a scandal.

So now it’s time to try again—and what’s the strategy?

Bring in private bids.

We already saw this movie.

It was terrible.

Why are we getting a sequel?

---

And here’s the thing—I’m not pretending to be some expert systems architect.

I don’t know exactly how to build a province-wide health records system.

But I do know what it is at its core:

It’s a database.

A place to store, organize, and access patient information.

That’s it.

And yeah—at scale, it’s complicated. Security, access, integration. Fine.

But let’s not pretend we’re building a spaceship.

---

I took a computer class in high school decades ago and built a garbage database in whatever version of Microsoft Office they gave me a C in.

Today?

I personally know people—real people—who build systems like this for a living.

My father-in-law built systems managing inmate data in Georgia.

I could name ten others making solid six-figure salaries doing this kind of work.

So why are we acting like this requires a hundred-million-dollar contract with a corporation full of people we’ll never meet?

Why can’t we just build a team?

Hire developers.

Pay them well.

Put them in a government office.

Let them build the thing.

---

Instead, we go the same route every time.

We open the door to massive private firms.

They bid low to get in.

Then the scope expands.

The timelines stretch.

The costs explode.

And suddenly we’re not talking millions—we’re talking hundreds of millions.

Or more.

And when it fails?

No one is responsible.

Because the system is too complex.

Too many contractors.

Too many layers.

Too many “partners.”

It’s failure by design.

---

And we’ve all bought into this idea that government can’t do anything efficiently.

That public employees are overpaid.

That the private sector is leaner, smarter, better.

But look where the money actually goes.

It’s not the developers.

It’s not the people doing the work.

It’s the layers above them.

Executives.

Consultants.

Subcontractors hiring subcontractors.

Everyone taking a cut.

That’s where your tax dollars disappear.

---

I’d rather spend that money on the people actually building the system.

Give them stable jobs.

Give them ownership.

Give them a reason to give a shit.

Let them take pride in building something that serves all of us.

Instead, we funnel that money upward into a machine that’s never satisfied.

A system that always needs more funding.

That never stays on budget.

That can’t be held accountable because no one can even fully explain how it works anymore.

---

Maybe what we really need isn’t fewer government workers.

Maybe we need fewer corporations inside our government.

Maybe the problem isn’t that public systems are inefficient.

Maybe it’s that we’ve built them to depend on people who profit when they are.

The world suddenly felt a little emptier that morning.

My wife woke me up with the news.

Diogo Jota was dead.

He and his brother André Silva had been killed in a car accident in northern Spain.

Normally I don’t take celebrity deaths too hard. We didn’t cry. But something about that morning felt different.

Maybe it was because my wife is probably Canada’s biggest Liverpool fan — the club Diogo played for and the one he was returning to when the accident happened.

And for anyone who wants to challenge the claim that my wife is Canada’s number one Liverpool supporter, you’ll have to fistfight me.

From the moment we started dating there was one condition to the relationship: I had to support Liverpool. If I ever even thought about putting on a Manchester United shirt, the relationship would be over.

So when she woke me up with the news, I knew it mattered.

Diogo wasn’t just another player.

He was also a countryman of mine — Portuguese — and he was simply a joy to watch play. When so many Portuguese players approach the game with a sour face and a kind of pessimistic intensity, Diogo always seemed to play with a smile.

He wasn’t just a great goal scorer.

He played like someone who understood the privilege of getting to play a game for a living.

To feel represented — both through my Portuguese heritage and through my wife’s love of Liverpool — by a player like Diogo was pure delight.

And knowing we’ll never see that joy on his face again, even when he just came close to putting the ball in the back of the net, is disheartening to say the least.

At the eighteenth minute of today’s FA Cup match between Wolves and Liverpool, the stadium began to sing.

Thousands of Wolves supporters stood and sang for a player who once wore their shirt.

Two minutes later, when the clock struck twenty, the Liverpool fans answered with a song of their own.

For a brief moment the rivalry disappeared.

Red shirts. Gold shirts.

Two sets of supporters singing for the same man.

They were all singing for Diogo Jota.

Football fandom certainly has its problems. Racism. Hooliganism. Tribal nonsense that can make the sport look ridiculous.

But it also gives us moments like this.

Moments where thousands of people who desperately want their team to win can still stop and show love and respect for someone who gave them something beautiful.

Because for people who love football, it’s never just a game.

It’s an escape from the weight of everyday life. Work that never ends. Illness. Bills. The thousand small pressures that grind people down.

For ninety minutes you can set it all aside.

For ninety minutes you feel like you’re part of something.

And maybe that’s why football feels different from every other sport.

No other game is as universal.

No other sport allows kids from every corner of the world, from every walk of life, to dream the same dream.

When you support a football club, you’re not just supporting a team.

You’re supporting those dreams.

And when someone like Diogo Jota is taken from the world far too soon, it doesn’t just feel like the loss of a player.

It feels like losing one of our own.

How is Pierre Poilievre still the leader of the Conservative Party?

Let me be clear: this isn’t about disagreeing with someone’s ideology. I can respect a political opponent who lays out a clear philosophy and defends it. I don’t have to like it. I don’t have to vote for it. But I can engage with it.

That’s not what this feels like.

With Pierre Poilievre, the only consistent position seems to be opposition itself. Opposition to the Liberals. Opposition to “gatekeepers.” Opposition to “the elites.” Opposition to carbon pricing. Opposition to spending. Opposition to whatever the government is doing that day.

Opposition is not a platform.

If you were Prime Minister tomorrow, what would you actually do?

Not what you’d undo. Not who you’d blame. Not which slogan you’d repeat.

What would you build?

Because running a country isn’t an extended Question Period clip. It’s not a viral 30-second dunk. It’s not repeating “common sense” until it sounds like policy.

Canada is dealing with affordability crises, housing shortages, strained healthcare systems, infrastructure gaps, climate pressures, and growing distrust in institutions. These aren’t solved by sarcasm. They aren’t solved by calling your opponents incompetent every day for four years.

Are you going to sit in the chair and continue campaigning? Or are you going to govern?

And here’s the deeper issue: it’s hard to even disagree with you meaningfully because you rarely articulate detailed, costed, long-term policy. You critique. You provoke. You simplify. You frame everything as corruption or betrayal. But governing requires complexity. It requires trade-offs. It requires saying, “Here is the plan, here is what it costs, here is who wins, here is who loses, and here is why we believe this is the right path.”

Where is that?

Instead, what comes through is a style of politics that leans heavily into division. Framing immigrants — including people who are here legally — as part of the problem. Suggesting institutions are broken beyond repair. Turning every disagreement into a moral failure of the other side.

Most Canadians don’t wake up wanting political warfare. They want their rent paid. Their groceries affordable. Their kids safe. Their taxes used responsibly. They want functional systems, not permanent outrage.

And yes — your own caucus instability raises questions. When MPs cross the floor or publicly fracture, that’s not just optics. That’s a signal. Leadership isn’t just about attacking opponents; it’s about holding a coalition together.

So what do you stand for beyond “not Liberal”?

Is it trickle-down economics? Is it American-style culture war politics? Is it deregulation at any cost? Is it shrinking government across the board, regardless of downstream effects?

Spell it out.

Because if your core message is simply that everything is broken and everyone else is to blame, then eventually you inherit that same broken system. And when you do, you can’t keep blaming the last guy.

You either govern — or you campaign forever.

Right now, it feels like campaigning forever.

And that’s not enough.

Fact check me.

Everyone wonders why America has a problem with processed food.

The answer is simple.

America was built on processed food.

You think they had fresh fruit and vegetables waiting on the Oregon Trail? People crossing a continent packed flour, salt pork, dried beans, coffee, and whatever would survive months in a wagon. Food had to travel. It had to last. It had to endure heat, dust, rain, and time.

Processing wasn’t indulgence. It was survival.

Salting. Drying. Smoking. Fermenting. Canning. These weren’t corporate tricks. They were tools of expansion. If you wanted settlers to move west, they needed calories that wouldn’t rot halfway there.

And once they arrived? Harsh winters. Drought. Crop failures. Isolation. Food still had to last.

Fast forward to the first half of the 20th century. The coasts industrialized. Cities boomed. But large parts of the interior stayed rural, spread out, infrastructure thin. Refrigerated logistics weren’t what they are today. Thirty or fifty years ago, you couldn’t move fresh produce across the globe overnight. Even rail refrigeration took time to standardize and spread.

Processed food solved problems:

It lowered cost per calorie.

It extended shelf life.

It reduced foodborne illness.

It simplified preparation.

It fed factory workers who didn’t have two hours to cook after a 12-hour shift.

When you worked all day, you didn’t come home to knead bread and braise vegetables. You opened a can, heated something up, filled your belly, and went to sleep so you could do it again tomorrow.

That wasn’t decadence. That was industrial life.

By the 1950s, life got easier—but the diet didn’t reset. The mythology of the scratch-made suburban kitchen ignores what was actually on the stove: canned green beans, boxed mixes, frozen dinners, steak from the icebox. Thanksgiving cranberry sauce still sliding out of the can, ridges intact.

Look at Midwest casseroles—cream-of-whatever soup, packaged seasonings, Jell-O, marshmallows on yams, hot dogs mixed with whatever binds it together. Dump casseroles weren’t culinary accidents. They were cultural artifacts. Shelf-stable cuisine for a country built on distance, winter, and work.

Processed food did its job too well.

It solved scarcity. It solved safety. It solved labor in the kitchen. It became normal. It became tradition. It became American cuisine.

And now we pretend the word “processed” means poison.

Unless you pick an apple straight from the tree and eat it whole, you are eating processed food. Grind peanuts into butter? Processed. Chop fruit and bake it into a pie? Processed. Canned chickpeas for hummus? Processed. Peaches in a jar instead of rotting in the fridge? Processed.

Processing is not the villain. It’s the reason cities function and populations grow.

A granola bar isn’t killing you. A bag of chips isn’t a moral failure. You can overeat “clean” food just as easily as packaged food. Macros matter. Total calories matter. Activity matters.

Processed food didn’t weaken America.

It built it.

The problem isn’t processing.

The problem is abundance.

Education isn’t a factory.

It’s not a conveyor belt feeding workers into whatever corporate machine happens to be humming the loudest this quarter. It’s not a sorting hat for “useful” and “useless” degrees. It’s not a discount warehouse where we slash philosophy because the market says we need more coders.

It’s supposed to be the engine of possibility.

But lately, listening to Doug Ford talk about education, you’d think the only acceptable dream is one that clears payroll efficiently.

Apparently, if you “pick the wrong course,” that’s on you.

Apparently, if you study something that doesn’t translate neatly into a corporate job posting, that’s your mistake.

Apparently, the solution is to tighten funding until everyone funnels into whatever field the government has decided is economically obedient.

Let’s talk about that.

Who decides what’s “wrong”?

Seventeen-year-olds?

Parents?

Markets that change faster than degree cycles?

Politicians who didn’t finish college but now want to lecture students about practicality?

A province that starves its humanities produces fewer critics.

A province that starves its arts produces fewer storytellers.

A province that starves philosophy produces fewer people asking uncomfortable questions about power.

Funny how that works.

And then there’s healthcare.

We’re told private clinics can “help.”

They’ll be more efficient.

They’ll clear backlogs.

They’ll cost less.

Corporations don’t exist to cost less.

They exist to extract profit.

Public systems reinvest surplus.

Private systems distribute it.

That’s not ideology. That’s structure.

So when procedures start shifting to privately run facilities while public hospitals remain “underused” because they lack funding — people notice.

When nurses are encouraged into debt-heavy degrees only to find themselves negotiating wages in increasingly privatized environments, people notice.

When the logic of the market creeps into spaces that were built on public trust, people notice.

And when leaders tell protesters to “get a job,” people notice who had the luxury of stepping into family businesses instead of filling out entry-level applications.

But here’s the part that matters.

This isn’t about one man.

This is about identity.

For decades, Canada defined itself — in contrast to our neighbours — by a belief that you didn’t need to be born rich to:

See a doctor.

Get fed.

Get educated.

Chase something improbable.

That was the deal.

You don’t have to come from money to matter.

Now we’re told education must align with market efficiency.

Healthcare must align with private delivery models.

Students must align with “labour needs.”

What happens to dreams that don’t align?

My kid has one.

So does yours.

Maybe it’s medicine. Maybe it’s music. Maybe it’s teaching. Maybe it’s design. Maybe it’s something that doesn’t even exist yet.

Education isn’t just about jobs. It’s about expanding what’s possible — culturally, scientifically, philosophically.

If we reduce it to workforce supply, we don’t just shrink funding.

We shrink imagination.

And once imagination shrinks, democracy follows.

Because a population trained only to serve markets stops questioning who controls them.

You want to call it dramatic?

Look south.

Waves of protest. Anti-elite rage. Political fracture. Public distrust. Institutions hollowed out by decades of deregulation and corporate capture.

You think flags protect you from that?

They don’t.

Institutions do.

Engaged citizens do.

Voters do.

If education and healthcare begin answering more to shareholders than to the public, don’t be surprised when public faith erodes.

Values don’t vanish overnight.

They thin out.

They get “optimized.”

They get reframed as inefficiencies.

Until one day you realize the promise changed and nobody announced it.

A country is defined by what it guarantees its children.

If we guarantee them access only when it’s profitable, we’re not defending Canadian values.

We’re auctioning them.

And if enough parents decide that’s unacceptable?

That’s when governments remember who they answer to.

Not corporations.

Not donors.

Voters.

My kid’s dream isn’t a line item.

And it sure as hell isn’t yours to shrink.

Subscribe now

The redemption arc in Star Wars always bothered me.

Not because I hate Star Wars. I love Star Wars. I grew up on it. I still feel something when the music swells and the twin suns hang in the sky.

But if we’re being honest — the moral math doesn’t quite add up.

Darth Vader helps destroy planets. He hunts children. He enforces a fascist regime across a galaxy. Then, in the final act, he saves his son, tosses the Emperor down a shaft, and suddenly he’s glowing blue beside Obi-Wan and Yoda like it’s all square.

We’re supposed to accept that he finishes as Anakin Skywalker.

As if the sum of a life can be recalculated in its final seconds.

Sure, he dies. He gets burned on a pyre. But if becoming a Force ghost is rare — if it requires spiritual alignment and mastery — why does he get it? Why does the universe itself seem to validate him?

What about the billions on Alderaan?

Where do they go?

They don’t get glowing immortality. They don’t retain identity. They don’t show up smiling in the afterlife. They just… dissolve. Become “one with the Force.” Cosmic background radiation.

Meanwhile the guy who pressed the button gets continuity.

That’s not justice. That’s hierarchy.

We’re told the Force is symbiotic.

That it’s balance.

That it’s neither good nor evil.

But look at the pattern.

Every time the Jedi rise, they centralize power. They train children. They claim moral authority. They suppress emotion. They detach from ordinary life.

And every time?

Collapse. Corruption. War.

Yoda lives nine hundred years, masters the Force, guides an order for centuries — and dies alone in a swamp after failing to see the Sith operating in his own political system.

Obi-Wan Kenobi ends up in exile in a desert.

Luke Skywalker isolates himself on an island.

Anakin Skywalker burns on Mustafar, loses everything, becomes more machine than man.

Nobody gets out unscathed.

Nobody retires peacefully surrounded by loved ones, reminiscing about a balanced life well lived.

It’s always lonely.
Always tragic.

If that’s symbiosis, it’s a strange one.

Maybe the Force isn’t good or evil.

Maybe it’s just power.

And power — mystical or not — amplifies whatever is already inside you.

Fear becomes tyranny.
Love becomes obsession.
Discipline becomes dogma.
Conviction becomes blindness.

The Sith are consumed by it.
The Jedi are rigid because of it.
Both reorganize their entire identities around managing it.

And the galaxy keeps paying the bill.

Maybe the Force isn’t a parasite.

Maybe obsession with transcendence is.

Because here’s what I’ve started thinking:

Maybe we shouldn’t be looking to space wizards to save us.

Maybe life isn’t worse because we can’t move objects with our minds.

Maybe it’s better.

No prophecy.
No chosen ones.
No cosmic hierarchy.
No spiritual elite with a higher midichlorian count.

Just gravity.
Entropy.
Impermanence.
Choice.

Physics doesn’t play favorites.

Physics doesn’t forgive or condemn.

Physics doesn’t hand out glowing afterlives to the powerful while the ordinary dissolve into anonymity.

It just is.

And within that “just is,” we build meaning ourselves.

Star Wars is myth.

And myth exaggerates.

It gives us destiny, balance, redemption in the final second.

But the strongest characters in that universe aren’t the ones who manipulate cosmic energy.

They’re the ones who:

Fix ships.
Show up for their friends.
Act without certainty.
Fight without prophecy.
Bleed without guarantees.

They don’t get cosmic validation.

They get scars.

And they keep going.

So no, I’m not hating on Star Wars.

I’m just saying maybe we shouldn’t be cheering for the return of mystical elites every time they fade away.

Maybe there’s a reason the Jedi Order keeps collapsing.

Maybe there’s a reason “balance” never sticks.

Maybe the universe doesn’t need wizards bending it.

Maybe it’s enough to be dust in the cosmos — obeying the laws of physics, aware for a short while, responsible for each other without waiting for glowing saviors.

Fact check me.

Maybe the problem isn’t the dark side.

Maybe it’s the idea that anyone should wield that kind of power at all.

Share

It’s not about two guys in a sauna.

It’s about what it represents.

When the people positioned as leaders — or adjacent to leadership — behave like rich frat boys performing health theatre for the camera, it exposes something deeper. It shows a class of elites living in an alternate reality. A world without consequences or limits. A world where money absorbs mistakes and image replaces substance.

They behave like entitled children working at daddy’s company — untouchable, unserious, unaccountable.

For a long time, that behavior stayed on the fantasy plane. The Hamptons, Monaco, country clubs and private jets. Exclusive spaces we could ignore because we were busy doing the real work of society — driving the economy, raising families, paying bills, keeping the gears turning.

But now that spectacle has bled into our world.

It plays out in public, through official channels, on our dime, tied to institutions that are supposed to represent us.

And people wonder why it feels wrong.

We were raised differently.

We were raised with accountability. If we messed up, it cost us. If we skipped responsibility, it knocked on the door. If we embarrassed ourselves at work, there were consequences.

So when we see power behaving as if there are none, it creates a fracture.

People say they hate the government. But the government was never supposed to be “them.” It was supposed to be us. A system built from the people who actually carry society forward.

Instead, it feels like elites used money, influence, and spectacle to convince us to hand over the keys — and then drove recklessly, as elites often do when insulated from impact.

And here’s the part that matters:

The most dangerous shift isn’t corruption.

It’s citizens believing nothing can be done.

That belief is the real surrender.

Because in a democracy, the people hold the power — but only if they wield it.

A sword hanging on the mantel does no good.

And no, I’m not talking about violence.

I’m talking about education.

Understanding the systems that bind us and protect them.

How laws are made.

What makes budgets move.

Knowing where influence flows.

Understanding what tools are actually at our disposal.

It has never been easier to have a voice, organize, build communities, access information and scrutinize power.

To hold leaders accountable.

But tools unused are tools surrendered.

The bill always comes due. History shows that clearly. When leadership fails, the cost lands somewhere — and it usually lands on ordinary people.

The only question is whether we remain passive spectators when it happens.

If citizens stop believing they are powerless…

If they stop outsourcing responsibility…

If they train themselves in civic literacy instead of rage…

Then elites don’t get to shrug off the messes they create.

They carry them.

Not because of chaos or threats.

But because informed, organized, disciplined citizens are harder to ignore than any spectacle ever produced.

The sword isn’t meant to hang above the fireplace.

It’s meant to be practiced with.

Carefully.

Intentionally.

Together.

Subscribe now

Are you watching Shrinking? On the surface, it’s a show about therapists and their own mental health. The show touches grief, addiction, Parkinson’s, resentment — all the quiet neurosis we try to hide, ignore, or outwork.

Emotional tissue that goes without oxygen because we’re too proud, too scared, or too busy pretending we’re fine. But that’s just the packaging. The real story isn’t about therapy. It’s about permission.

The therapists struggle, spiral, overstep. They break rules, grieve poorly and react instead of respond. And yet — they still help people. That’s important. Because somewhere along the way we were sold the idea that you must be fully healed before you’re useful. You need to be composed before you’re credible. That perfection is the goal and appearance is what matters.

Shrinking quietly dismantles that lie. The characters aren’t perfect — but they are self aware. They name their issues. Own them. Even lean into them. And that’s the lesson. You cannot move through something you refuse to name. Grief shrinks when it’s acknowledged. Shame loses power when it’s spoken out loud. Fear becomes navigable once you admit it’s there.

Awareness doesn’t solve everything — but it gives you traction. And yet, even that isn’t the best part of the show. The best part is the way this group carries their baggage openly — and accepts each other almost without question. They call each other out, sure. But they don’t enable or coddle. There’s no exile behind their honesty. No threat of abandonment. “Of course you’re messy.” “We know you’re scared.” “Sit down. We’re still here.” That kind of love is rare. Most of the world runs on conditional acceptance. You're expected to be impressive, stable, agreeable. Be useful. Not make it awkward. Don’t take up too much emotional space.

But this crew? They assume the mess. You’re allowed to spiral and still come to dinner. You can screw up and still be invited back. Allowed to be yourself — unapologetically. That’s not therapy. That’s community.

And then there’s the maze. The credits show different ways of navigating it — walking the path, climbing the walls, digging tunnels, flying over, wandering with someone beside you. A maze implies there’s a correct route. But the animation suggests something else entirely: There is no right way through your mind. No one path or solution. You can grieve loudly or quietly. Rage or withdraw. Move fast or stall for a while. You can ask for help or figure it out slowly. You can walk alone or link arms. None of those are wrong.

We live in an era obsessed with solutions. Everyone is selling a framework, a mindset shift, a 10-step fix for whatever hurts. Optimize your emotions. Upgrade your trauma. Monetize your healing. But Shrinking shrugs at all of that. It doesn’t hand you a master plan. It says something simpler: Choose to live. Keep moving. Accept help. Be there for the people you care about. Healing isn’t a product. It’s participation. It’s showing up when you’d rather isolate. Forgiving yourself when you regress. It’s staying engaged when numbing out would be easier. Letting people see you — even when you’re not polished.

In a world selling perfection, the show makes a quieter argument: The fact that you’re trying is what matters. Not how cleanly you navigate the maze. Not how impressive you look doing it. Whether you climbed the wall or dug the tunnel is less important than the fact that you chose to take action. You didn’t stop moving. And you didn't walk it alone in the dark.

Subscribe now