On the ropes: how journalism -- and feminism -- got themselves into a corner and got pummelled.


In boxing, it is safest to fight in the centre of the ring.


That happens to be the alchemic symbol for gold.


Or, in nature, the eye of the storm.

Because if your opponent gets you on the ropes, you have no room to manoeuvre, and you get pummelled.

Victory comes from the centre, not from the fringe.

Because when you move toward the ropes, you are retreating and fleeing.

And the fall of journalism is actually a very simple case of an entire profession on the ropes because it retreated to the fringe.

What makes this more fascinating is that the profession's strategy was to run toward the fringe instead of fighting in the centre.

And then they get their underpants in knots when people are shouting for them to move away from those ropes that turned into their shackles...and then noose.

 It should have remained a centrist entity. While you often feel surrounded if you stay in the centre as you seem to have enemies coming at you at all sides, the truth is you can keep your freedom and your space if you get yourself off the rigged board.

That means not playing any ideological games.

You do not want to lose your liberties or be checkmated?

Don't get tricked into walking on the board to become a pawn in the first place.

Keep in the centre -- the radical centre.

That means finding a balance to rebel against getting sucked into to dogma used to incite you to become a pawn to fight a player's games. He wins the bounty, never the pawn.

But journalism got suckered and the legacy media thought sticking with the Left was a wise way to pander to the illusion of a Middle Class majority. It looked like a safe hack: here is a class of people who like to fly under the radar, follow authority, consume products to look successful, and do not have the expertise or knowledge to actually understand the various systems used to control their behaviour as they can be easily shamed into retreating if they stray off the sanctioned script with their own ideas that will always be off because they do not have access to the information they actually need to make an informed decision and do not want to be exposed as being ignorant -- and the best part is they will all howl at you if you dare point this out to them, meaning they can be perpetually scammed as they dismiss the critical warnings they need, and then heed to the advice of the grifters playing them.

Diane Sawyer once made is very biting and comedic video short that hit upon it way back in 1986 on David Letterman.

Of course, it was a gag about how Letterman's audiences always seemed to laugh at whatever he spewed and she was "investigating" it, but audiences are those everyday Middle Class mundane people, and you can take it from there.

Play it safe by pandering to the group in the centre.

It is the middle class, after all.

And on first appearances, it seemed as if journalism was sticking in the centre.

But that is looking at the audiences -- not the people in power.

It was to the Left that mainstream journalism were taking their talking points from.

But the Left found themselves on the ropes in November 2016, get pummelled and defeated in every race that mattered.

And journalists got pummelled to death in the bargain.


The Left in North America have been in a hot mess for years, but the kicker is it is a party in perpetual denial about their own flaws and moral lapses.

Point it out, and you are accused of being some Right-wing partisan.

Except I am not a Ring-winger. Never have been. Never will.

But I am not a Left-winger, either.

Western politics reminds me of cable companies: if you want to buy a package, you have to accept all the lousy channels you do not want along with the couple that you want, meaning you are over-paying and are stuck with junk you didn't ask for in the first place in order to get the few that you do.

No, thank you. That's why I don't have cable. I don't even like Netflix. I liked DVDs because I had the exact say of what I wanted, how much of it I wanted, and when I would use it.

Politics runs the same way: it is all or none, just like cults. You have to accept garbage and more garbage than anything of actual value. 

It's how you had women who thought they were feminists defending Bill Clinton as they threw fellow woman Monica Lewinsky under a bus.

Or how you can have a feminist-free federal government in Canada, while they have slap fights over who gets to call themselves a "feminist."


The answer: none of you are feminists. If you are creating a Mean Girls pecking order, you are not feminists. Just because you are ambitious women in positions of power, it doesn't make any of you feminists.

Feminism is about taking your position of power seriously, and not girlishly argue over shallow trivialities. There are women in shelters, on the streets being pimped, getting abused at work -- and you are having a petty spat over semantics?

When you have a Prime Minister who ideologically appropriated the term and then does whatever sexist before him did when faced with a nasty accusation...and you ladies all stand by your man?

Are you serious? There is no federal feminist in government. Not one.

A feminist would be preparing the country for the fallout of a trade war. When -- not if -- tariffs hit the car industry, that's it. We are in for a rough ride, and how well will women against the ropes fare when that happens?

Feminism isn't a label -- it is actions and original thinking that rebels against a script.

Remember the Famous 5?

Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Emily Murphy are Persons #7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 who everyone should know.

Because they fought so women could be considered a Person.


They fought for women to have opportunities -- not who was part of a clique of superiors.

Shame on you all for being petty little wasters of time, resources, and taxpayers's money.

Women who want a better life are in danger if they follow the lead of journalisms because those who have arrived, but yet to deliver are suddenly running toward the ropes, where they are in for a pummelling of their sheltered lives.


Journalism had feminism are having far too much in common for comfort these days. Their labels have been watered down. They lost their focus. Feminism got a huge boost from #MeToo and broke barriers, but there is a difference between arriving and delivering.

Feminism finally arrived.

The problem is it is not delivering.

That's a serious problem, because if you build up an audience with your arrival, and you fail to deliver, they will not give you a second chance, and your failure is entirely on you.

Arriving is hard because if you do not arrive, the failure is on outsiders sabotaging you at every turn to prevent you from gaining access to a wide audience. If you fail to arrive, it is not your own doing. You have no control over getting on the stage.

But failing to deliver is something else entirely.

You have a crowd. You own the stage. You have complete control over both the content and structure of what you will deliver.

And what you have to deliver must absolutely be completely different than what the audience can give to themselves and others -- they are not going to waste their time on you mimicking what they are already doing -- or what they have already seen before. 

You then are a thought thief and a rip-off artist who wants attention, but not by putting actual effort -- and if the audience can do what you can do -- they'll be resentful that they aren't on the stage on you are.

Journalism found itself on the ropes because they failed to clue in that the audience has for the last twenty-five years been able to do the same things journalists were doing on the stage. 

Journalists failed to change their act, and the crowds grew resentful, and rightfully asked why should reporters deliver the same old garbage when anyone in the audience can do that from their smartphone. The audience rebelled, and rushed the stage, turning it into a boxing ring.

The professions was on the ropes and then in November 2016, Donald Trump waltzed in and pummelled them as he won the championship bout and the keys to the White House.

His timing was perfect. Journalism's comprehension of their defeat is nil.

They still believe they are without flaw, and then came to the dysfunctional conclusion that being on the ropes was a viable strategy that was both noble and would eventually give them a victory.

This is, of course, pure lunacy.

And the more they talked themselves into their own demented logic, the less of reality they could see. Not just their present reality in the West, but the reality of the past from different places.

We see nonsense propaganda articles from the Business Insider that hypothesize that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez non-functional ideas will work.

She is advocating the same flawed trash that was used in the former Yugoslavia -- you know, non-existent country that slaughtered each other when that strategy screwed them royally. If she is historically illiterate, the press should not enable those delusions. 

Anyone who relies on a parasitic economic and political system needs a stronger host country to feed it, and the US doesn't have a stronger host willing to allow them to do it.

Journalism has now come to the conclusion that socialism will save them, and if people do not want to willingly use their trash, they should be forced to pay for it, even if they will never use it.

But, since journalists think they are perfect, they refuse to change a thing. They can be blind, deaf, numb, and unaware of their environment, too arrogant and lazy to change their ways...but somehow, they are right and everyone else is wrong. There is no need to reflect with humility, try new things, and reinvent themselves because they are on the ropes, and what a glorious thing it is to be on the ropes getting your backside whumped.

So they now need a sugar-daddy to prove they were right all along, and everyone has to change and accommodate to prove they are right and don't need to alter a thing.

Leftist feminism is now doing the exact the same thing, and expecting a victory, and they can explain away and blame others when they fail to deliver, and in Canada, feminists have failed to deliver.

We saw the fast fall of Patrick Brown, and he is suing CTV, who seem confident they will win.

Perhaps, but when you have a prime minister's excuses imply that the woman's perceptions were not aligned with reality -- and his was -- it is doubtful.

I find it interesting that Justin Trudeau is incapable of admitting flaw or wrongdoing. His behaviour obviously caused someone whose job it was to work with different strangers in a public forum to be distressed enough to report it to her bosses -- and her superiors could trust her enough to believe her. They went public with the story eighteen years ago, and not in a sensationalist way.

And yet we have a prime minister who himself has dragged on this scandal because he cannot let go or come to grips with the idea that he has a character defect and caused someone on the job enough distress to pursue it then.

And considering she is not trying to milk this for all it is worth, merely adds to her credibility.

He is now on the ropes -- and he has no one to blame for it but himself.

When you arrive, you better make sure you can deliver before you step foot on the stage.

Because that stage can transmute into a boxing ring the second you fail to deliver -- and it is a different game you play.

Journalism never got that. Feminism is rapidly following that same loser's strategy.

The problem is that society needs both information and social equality to thrive. You cannot have one half the population getting pummelled on the ropes and not have dire consequences from violence to fraud.

Western society has now entered the Age of Propaganda, which is always dangerous as propaganda doesn't just blind us to society's true problems with trivialities; it also prevents us from seeing our own internal failings and improving on ourselves in a significant way.

Ways that take hard work. Ways that are emotionally and intellectually trying and taxing. Ways that take multiples tries and failures. Ways where we have no They do to it for us. Ways that make us feel uncertain and uncomfortable. Ways that force us to go into the eye of the storm to confront our greatest fears. Ways where there are no shortcuts, scripts, tricks, or hacks where we can preserve our cultivated and choreographed image and make people jealous.

The Left has been trying to avoid paying their dues for a long time now. Hillary Clinton thought enabling indignities was the equivalent, and when she lost, she threw fits, inciting others to make them think it was all a vast Right-wing conspiracy, and not a case of someone scheming to arrive, and then becoming indignant that she was expected to deliver.

Clinton is a huge reason why both journalism and feminism have been stuck in a vortex. They latched on to her ride, but then were too scared to cut the ropes and find their own ways.

There is a void of information right now. Journalism decided it was a good thing to be on the ropes, and feminism is getting the same ideas. Feminism at least is not there yet and can get itself to the centre again instead of alienating any person whose ideas deviate from a script.

But journalism lost it all. They can't go back because they got beaten to death -- and if by some miracle, got a reprieve, they would just march back willingly back on the ropes rather than admit they were ever wrong in any way.

It's the reason we need an alternative. F.R.E.E.D. was created knowing about stages and rings as well as the radical centre. Journalism was always groping in the dark or getting blinded by the light.

One of the most important Truths we must know is that we are all fallible. We can be wrong and someone we dislike can be right. Our opinions of other people do not turn wrongs into rights or vice versa.

Once we understand those Truths, we can adjust our attitudes, and begin to find new paths that we create on our own, working on not just arriving, but on how we plan to deliver once we get there...

Patrick Brown sues CTV for $8 million.

He'll never win it, however. It will be dragged through the courts for years, and the other, less savoury things will come out about him that will make his head spin.

And nothing will change.

CTV has little worry about. The PC Party was a little too happy to rid themselves of him for a reason, and they have moved on to the point that the Liberals are genuinely terrified for their fortunes. Their previous snickering and smug smirks vanished the day Doug Ford won, and they reek of fear. Brown should take a careful note and realize that Ford has what doesn't, and he's taking that with him on this doomed battle.

Brown's Alpha Male chest-thumping is meaningless, and if he is trying to salvage his dignity, that ship has sailed a long time ago...


Everybody loves a loser: Why Patrick Brown's downfall got the blow-by-blow attention.

Maclean's has been having a field day over Patrick Brown's cringeworthy downfall here, here, and here. Rarely has the Canadian media gone into such excruciating detail over someone's public demise. While they were protective of TVO's Steve Paikin and dismissed the accusations outright without bothering with any details, Patrick Brown's accusers were taken seriously from the start, and every second of Brown's takedown has been chronicled for posterity.

Maclean's article is detailed (and had outlined what I said earlier that his accusers were not "anonymous", but unnamed as he knew of their identities, particularly as CTV had told him of it), and is interesting in that the press often loves a loser more than a winner.

And Brown played the part perfectly with cartoonish zeal.

Brown is the perfect Patriarchal character, and the news media gets the Patriarchal perfectly. It was a perfect story for them: detailing his actions fit in perfectly.

When it comes to stereotypes, journalists can write about them forever, regardless if the truth is more complex. Brown's downfall is reassuring to the press as it reminds them of their glory days: taking down the losers, and then chronicling their final days in power.

It is something the press can relate to these days all too well.

Patrick Brown out again: Some people never learn. He wasn't wanted, and now the games begin.

Patrick Brown is out of the race he should have never gotten into in the first place. I have said before that what will sink him will not be being #MeTooed: it will be for the other things.

And it was.

He will be very fortunate if he does not wind up facing criminal charges. He will now be too busy in the fight of his life to meddle in something the PCs wanted him to stay clear from.

CTV stands by its story, and now this latest wrinkle doesn't hurt them.

Now the games begin...

Patrick Brown will take his chances in court with CTV as he is being sued for defamation himself by the Premier. If he thinks her suit is just a "stunt", then what is his suit? Another stunt?

Patrick Brown is suing CTV for libel, because he claims he was wronged. Yet, just in December, he was slapped with a defamation suit from Premier Kathleen Wynne, but he dismissed that suit as a stunt.

I do not know how her suit was a stunt considering he said something that wasn't true, she demanded he correct himself, he refused, and then she warned him she would sue him for defamation, and he didn't correct himself, and then she made good on her threat (which she had done with the previous Ontario PC leader, so she was not one to just talk a good talk).

Considering the number of different sorts of accusations and internal investigations against him, he is going to have a much harder time in court than the typical man. There are too many fires, and his reputation is already in serious question, as he already comes off as something of a spoiled and conniving man-child who must be micro-managed.

As I have said before, Brown is going to be in far more serious trouble, but it isn't #MeToo that will sink him. That was just an opening salvo, and a sucker punch. The fact that it all came out before the upcoming election is interesting. The Wynne Liberals would have easily won at least a minority running against him. Wynne's numbers mean very little. Donald Trump's numbers were also nothing to write home about, but when you are running against a propped up turnip, all you need is a single catchy platform, and you can skate to victory. There are far too many teachers and civil servants who will vote Liberal no matter what. They may not like Wynne, but they like their jobs, and want to keep them just as they are.

Wynne is shrewd. She was an underdog in the Liberal leadership race. She managed to turn a minority of an unpopular regime into a majority. No one in Toronto would vote for a Barrie boy when you have one of your own in the race. No matter how bad Wynne's numbers are, she can pull a rabbit out of her hat. I have no doubt of her political acuity. Brown is no match for Wynne on any level. He needs a posse to prop him up. Wynne has her wits. She doesn't need to be liked to win, and that is a rare quality that most politicians do not possess.

Brown losing face was in the Grits' favour, but not the turns now unfolding: Ford, Mulroney, and Elliott could snatch away just enough of a base to unseat her. I wouldn't count her out if Ford (the most unlikely winner) won. I also wouldn't write her off if Elliott won. Wynne, like Jean Chretien, is, at heart, a street fighter. She plays to win, and she does her best campaigning.

I would say Mulroney would be her biggest threat, despite the fact she is a newbie on the job. So was Justin Trudeau. Canadians love brand name politicians -- even if the previous generation was reviled when leaving office. We still have interest in a British monarchy. This is the next best thing to having one. If Mulroney runs, she would handily win. In this country, pedigree trumps street smarts every time.

Wynne has a talent that shouldn't be wasted, and she ought to set her sights to a federal platform instead. The Right in this country hate her guts, and that always helps to show your own base what prowess and power you possess. At this point, she is wasting her talents. She got the brass ring here. If Brown was still in play, she could walk all over him to retain that crown.

But Brown is a sinking ship. He is not a comeback kid. It will not matter how his libel suit turns out -- win, lose, settlement -- he has too many strikes against him, and he greatly overestimates his own cunning. When the going got tough, he ran away like a scared little boy. The first reaction is the only one that counts.

As is the first reaction of his own party. The PCs has been beaming and brightly once he was kicked to the curb -- and all those so-called members he supposedly signed up are turning out to be as genuine as Twitter followers.

What has already sunk him is his own party's jubilance at his ouster. When you are in a dysfunctional free fall at the absolute worst possible time, and are happier because the previous status quo crushed your spirit -- the province reads the memo and knows exactly why it happened.

And when your own traditionalist and staid party celebrates your removal, it signals to the world about the quality of your leadership -- and hints what the rest of the province will face if you are put in charge of them also. He may believe he did nothing wrong, but his own misperceptions are blinding him to the obvious.

But not the rest of the province.

How did Canadian journalism implode? By stringing words and saying nothing at all.

Three unrelated articles from three Canadian newspapers are riddled with a whole lot of nothing, but seem to be saying something. That is quite a feat, and Canadian journalism has a knack for it. Andrew Coyne's column in the National Post is interesting on many levels. It is artful. He seems to be arguing against bailouts, as I have been, and suggests that journalism should look inward, as I have as well.

Until you read it carefully.

The problem, according to Coyne isn't about the core -- but that journalism had clumsy forays into making their products in tune with digital media.

It is a whole lot more problematic than just that. It is more than a cosmetic misstep: the entire profession has never questioned itself, how it conducts itself, how it gathers facts, how it analyzes them, and then disseminates them to the public. It never questions why it never got empirical. It never questioned its own folksy logic. Its entire mindset never kept up with the times. It is a relic of a bygone era because when you have all of the control, you think that's Truth and not a fixed reality that can change at any time. He is still walking lockstep with the rest of that dead profession.

The second article is this knee-slapper from the Toronto Sun filled with innuendo and sophistry that seems to condemn one of Brown's accusers without actual proof or logic. She won an award from CTV as a university student. So what? I interned at CTV when I was in j-school. I also won an award from a woman who and her husband worked at the Hamilton Spectator. I have no pull or connections with either organization. I had a column with the Spec -- and it amounts to nothing. I didn't get the scholarship because I knew the woman or her late husband.

I did visit her in the isolated nursing home a few times after I won the award. She had no pull, either, and I never asked or tried to network with her.

So she won an award -- so what? Brown was a politician in Barrie for many years -- I am certain he schmoozed with those who work at CTV's Barrie affiliate station -- why didn't the Sun mention that?

And speaking of pull, who is chummy are the staff at the Sun with Brown? Have they disclosed any of it in their hatchet job or in their publication in general?

They really should.

Because they have a glaring confirmation bias because of it.

The Sun did elect to mention that Brown "passed" a lie detector test.

Again, so what?

As I have said before, lie detector tests mean zero.

And when you are the one who hires the lie detector firm, it means even less. So what? You can take the test until you pass -- the company that you hired can ask loaded questions to your favour because you are the one paying for it. You also can be a sociopath who can not get rattled, or you can merely be deluded with no sense of reality.

You can pile up an article full of non-facts all you want, but there is nothing in the piece that has any merit. It is pro-Brown propaganda meant to shade and skew, but merely draws attention to its own glaring holes.

The third is a pair of articles from the Toronto Star is an example of puffery dodge.

It is hyped as an "investigation" with Ryerson University -- and for all the puffery, it boils down to common knowledge that is easily accessible: how much jurors get paid according to province (something easily obtainable to an average citizen), and that jury pools come from those who own a house, also not a big reveal.

The article is in response to the Gerald Stanley verdict. A white man shot a young First Nations man and was acquitted because the all-white jury believed the defence theory that the gun accidentally fired.

But the Star's spin masks the real issue that turned the Stanley verdict into a watershed moment: the town where the trial took place had a First Nations population at about 40%, but it was not as if the pool was exclusively Caucasian. The defence lawyer merely picked off potential jurors based on race until he rigged the racial make-up to be all white.

That was the central problem. This is not to say the system isn't dysfunctional and archaic, but the central flaw was not who was called to serve jury duty -- it was that the accused's lawyer literally could have a White's Only decree and the courts could indulge him.

So it doesn't matter who is in the pool -- it is who is allowed to actually serve that is the bigger problem. The Stanley trial was not in Ontario -- so the fact that Ontario pays the least than the other provinces also would not have made a difference in the Gerald verdict. Those jurors were paid more and began as a more diverse racial make up from the get-go.

It didn't matter how much the juror were paid or the skin colour of those responding to the summons -- the outcome was the problem, meaning even if the government paid more and had a more diverse pool coming in -- the outcome would still be the same.

But that is the problem that felled Canadian journalism -- they dance around central and critical issues as they tackle everything else save the thing that must be confronted.

Three different newspapers. Three different articles. Three different subjects with different reporters from different ideological schools.

And all of them make the same error in the same way, informing no one, but skewing perspectives so we cannot even begin to find a solution to any of our problems.

The Implosion of Patrick Brown. Offence is a terrible defence, especially when you are outgunned and outnumbered.

This column from the Globe and Mail echoes sentiments I have expressed before here, here, and here: namely that Brown has infantalized himself, revealing himself to be me-centred, has few allies in a party that was all too happy to throw him under and bus, and that while he is attacking his accusers, he is all too silent on the other problems dogging him. In the old days, a coup d'état would usually end in the dethroned leader conveniently being dispatched gorily, but this is Canada 2018, and we don't roll that way, but at a price. In a nannied society, we see the little brats for who they are really when someone takes away the paper crown and the cools toys.

Brown is behaving like an ill-behaved child in a toy store once he realizes mommy isn't going to buy him anything because they are there to buy someone else a birthday present. He once had a bland and innocuous way about him, but now the his explosive temper is coupled with excuses and finger-pointing, he is turning out to be someone very different than what he once pretended to be.

And he is showing the worst qualities a leader could possibly possess: he did not see the storm coming. He had no loyalty among the ranks with some of the most powerful members of both the federal and provincial levels distance themselves from him. He is making excuses. He obviously has never had crisis management training -- something every good leader has in emergencies, and there is always a possibility for an emergency.

He reminds me of Hillary Clinton not preparing a concession speech in the even that she lost. The fact that she didn't entertain a Plan B showed how poorly prepared she was as a leader. You don't make concession speeches because you think you are going to lose: you make them because if you are a capable leader, you have to entertain multiple scenarios because by mere randomness alone, something can come from left field. You may not be able to anticipate what bizarro thing is going to sucker punch you, but you have to be aware that you may not be able to succeed. You still need an exit strategy.

Brown's tactical errors say a lot about him. He, like Clinton, never had a vision or a plan to justify wanting the position.

But now that his stealth advantage has been lost and he now damaged goods, how he plans to win back a seat without his usual bag of tricks will be very instructive for those looking at what was transpiring during his tenure. They can compare and contrast to find out how he won the last time, and what it took, squaring it with what he is doing now.

He has been shrill and coming off as a peculiar mash-up of Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and Donald Duck. The high pitch voice, the sheltered bumbling, and the explosive temper all give off a piteous cartoonish way about him. He is not in charge. He is not shrewd. He acts entitled, and in Canadian politics, a leader does not throw temper tantrums, strut with a paper crown in public, and can never suggest that the system is flawed in any way shape, or form (Justin Trudeau's comments about the jury system has broken a spell with the public for that very reason, but that's another story).

Especially not if you were in charge. Any rot that hits you means it's your fault.

And worst of all, Brown as suddenly found the one thing to defend with his every grain of his being: himself.

If you are going to be a leader in this country, you better have something else you have a passion for, and when you don't, you will not be winning any popularity contests.

Especially if your main defence is an offence. Brown is attacking the women who accused him of being slimy. He is absolutely silent on the "rot" that has been turning up in the party, and his strategy is not one that any adept leader would stoop to using.

He is behaving like a rank amateur, making it increasingly difficult for the press here to defend someone who is not abiding by the unspoken code, and with an entire political party who do abide by it, he is alienating a base who have three luxury names they can support instead. Brown is outgunned, outnumbered, and most of all outclassed. No one wants an excitable gnat at their dinner party. He is making Doug Ford look downright stately now, doing him a huge favour. Christine Elliott and Caroline Mulroney are smart, diligent, have class, and most of all, dignity. It is the reason Elliott lost to Brown once, but now can easily enter the race once more.

Because she carefully thought about her Plan B, and proves who was the better leader for the party the last time.

I would be surprised if Mulroney doesn't win this contest. Compare her to Brown and she wins in that competition. So does Elliott, and Ford.

Brown was always a poor fit. He went for a position out of his league and it showed. Glaringly.

He is imploding as we speak. If the allegations weren't true, he had better options to confront them, but the narrative has long ago drifted away from sexual harassment to the other little problem.

The one that got the party faithful's attention and focus. As usual, he has his guard down where it counts the most, and the knock out punch is coming. This election is the Tories' to lose, and if they lose it, it will be an ugly mood -- and Brown has provided them with a perfect punching bag to take their wrath on.