Journalism was never about being polite or comforting. It is about forcing the collective to face the truth: Why journalists would make horrible doctors.

Imagine you have cancer.

I don’t have to imagine it because I had it last year.

And you had a choice of two oncologists: one who told you to fucking grow up and face reality, and threw up on the operating table, gutted you, and then poisoned you with chemo as they warned you of the ugly consequences of being a wuss. They made you hurt, have your hair fall out and your fingers go numb as they showed you every ugly tumour in your body, and made you feel like shit as they put a PICC line in your arm, and made you drag around the poison that made you hate living as they put a cramp on your free time.

The other one was nice to you. They shielded you from unkind words and didn’t make you feel sick. No gutting, no poisoning. No having to go to scary places or see scary pictures of your innards. No treatment at all!

Which one is the morally superior physician?

It ain’t the one fellating your worthless ego, asshole.

To shield the patient causes irreparable harm.

What feels good isn’t what is good.

Or right.

But that never stopped the Toronto Star from virtue-signalling and trying to protect people who neither need protecting nor deserve it. This column take the cake:

In the wake of the resignation of Gerald Butts from his post as principle secretary in the office of the prime minister last Monday, a CTV reporter and photographer attempted to conduct and film a clearly unwelcome interview with his spouse, Jodi Butts, on the doorstep of her home.

The exchange was painfully uncomfortable to watch.

The reporter ignored any and all respectful social cues as Jodi Butts sternly, and somehow still politely, requested privacy out of concern for the safety of her children — a response that was remarkably patient and graceful considering the circumstances.

This is garbage logic and what propagandists bank on. Don’t pretend you are compassionate or moral. You’re just a tool.

Why?

If I did something sketchy and I, like a coward, don’t want to be forced to face the public, I can throw someone from my family at the front door, and then we can have pseudo-journalists feel “uncomfortable” with the exchange.

That is an old ruse, and if you were a genuine news-gatherer, you’d know it.

What a great excuse not to do a job.

It’s uncomfortable.

Yes, it is. It is uncomfortable and intrusive. And rude as hell. That is the reason it has to be done. What the middle class who have secrets of their own screech and babble on Twitter is unimportant. If we used their logic, cancer would be treated by ignoring it because surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation are uncomfortable.

Of course the family will kvetch about “privacy.” They don’t want to be accountable; so they use a misdirection of morality to do it.

And Gerald Butts had no problem being in the public eye, particularly chest-thumping on Twitter.

Who said there is a “right to privacy”, especially if the government was playing in the sewer with a corrupt company?

When it came to pushing a questionable agenda, Butts had no problem strutting on the Troll Scroll, but when it came to him being called on the carpet for what went down, let’s get the wife to take the hits as she begs for “privacy.”

Really?

That nice house and lifestyle came with the public life and aiding and abetting a regime.

And taxpayer money funded that lifestyle. There is no privacy whatsoever. That’s the price you pay.

You are to be held accountable as you make yourself transparent.

People can try to build fortresses, but reality doesn’t care. You can say the family didn’t ask for the glare, but I didn’t ask for ovarian cancer, either. It was imposed on me, and I didn’t even know what hit me.

I had to deal with it, and I did.

She’s a big girl. She can say she is not in a position to answer the questions, but give her husband’s whereabouts — because he is a big boy who has to answer to the people.

And the sooner, the better.

The Toronto Star is a decrepit rag. Shame on them for trying to protect the federal regime yet again...

Canadian opinionists spew partisan narrative on Provincial election...as usual, no one knows what they are talking about.

Opinionists in Canada are less flashy than their US counterparts, and as hard as it is to believe, less informed. Reading the babble about the Ontario election is particularly painful, because it seems as if everything is on auto-pilot.

Ho hum.

The Toronto Star, oblivious to reality as usual, has a silly piece about sexism in election campaigns. It is very whiny with a whiny headline:

Mediocre men walk their way through political campaigns. It is time to end the double standard facing women on the campaign trail

Except of all the sexism to point out, the opinionist picks one that isn't true.

That headline is essentially her hypothesis, but it's wrong, and NYU had a very surprising experiment right after November 2016.

They had two actors -- a man and a woman -- who switched roles -- the man mimicked Hillary Clinton in words and demeanour, while the woman took on Trump's role.

The point of the exercise was to prove that if women behaved like men, that everyone would jump down her throat.

Except that didn't happen.

Subjects preferred the female Trump -- and much more than the real-life male counterpart.

And they disliked the male Clinton, seeing him as smug and arrogant.

I had said in 2016 Hillary Clinton was the absolute worst pseudo-feminist candidate the Democrats could have possibly chosen. They didn't a firebrand maverick who was over-the-top. This is America, and Americans love someone who is large and in charge. If women were waiting for the moment to be crown a queen instead of a king all those decades, then, for pity's sake, show it like you mean it.

11518666_bodyshot_300x400-1405

I have always said that the problem isn't that there aren't wild female eccentrics -- I am not the only one on the planet, thank you very much -- but they are deliberately silenced -- not because people wouldn't like them -- but they would love them just a little too much, and that would bruise those tyrannical male narcissists who hoard power and keep everyone else -- including other men -- back.

As I write stories with nothing but idiosyncratic women -- I have a hard time getting attention, but when people read it, I do get wonderful feedback -- so the problem isn't the the world isn't ready for a wild woman -- women just make assumptions and restrain themselves unnecessarily.

So the Toronto Star is just spewing folksy logic that isn't true. Kathleen Wynne won a majority in the last election -- and considering she is openly gay and has radical ideas that frighten Jordan Peterson -- she was given public goodwill the first time around. The Liberals had a minority and a lot of illiill with the public, and they went solidly behind Wynne's regime.

But her penchant to throw money the province doesn't have to nanny the people is wearing thin with the public. It has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman.

And the election isn't over. As I have said before, if she won another majority, I wouldn't be surprised. She is a survivor and is that way because she has a working brain and knows how to use it instead of following other people's scripts.

If Wynne loses, it will be because she earned her loss, just the way Clinton spectacularly earned her defeat. Sometimes you lose -- not because you are a woman -- but because you think you are owed because you are a woman. Get that chip off your shoulder. People do not vote in women -- they vote for the person who seems like they are willing to listen to their constituents, will fight for them, and will make things happen. Politics is not an arena for social engineering -- it is a gladiatorial fight and people want to see candidates fight tooth and nail for the right to make their lives easier -- and if you think that sounds silly, you really didn't get the memo on democracy.

Don't take it up with me because if it were up to me, we'd be governing ourselves by referendum and by electoral conscription.

Oh, and by the way, Toronto Star, Clinton had more votes than the victor. Remember that? There may be sexism, but we have come a long way, baby.

But the Globe and Mail has a different -- but equally silly take on the election:

Why is Doug Ford giving Kathleen Wynne a chance to invoke Donald Trump?

That's right! Shame on Doug Ford who obviously forgot to tape Wynne's mouth shut so she couldn't invoke Donald Trump. He should have hired a chaperone for the little lady to supervise her. Jordan Peterson warned the world how dangerous she is and everything.

Do you honestly think he could stop her or her operatives from saying it -- regardless of what he said and did?

It is a campaign, people: it is all about using dirty tricks, and then using the meta-dirty trick of accusing the other guy of negative stuff as you paint him in a negative light, like Justin Trudeau recently did.

There is so much to discuss when there is an election: platforms, current situation, problems to be solved, qualifications, track records, needs, wants -- and yet we have babble from opinionists who have no idea what to say.

We are as ill-informed as we were before. We need facts to make sensible decisions, but what we get is the same old script that is always devoid of any real data...