Journalism was never a desk job. It was the army fighting the Intangible War. Those soldiers never realized it was all about a battle without end.

Reading this column in Kamloops This Week gave me a chuckle. Its headline is very naive:

Don’t silence journalism

This gist of what matters is this:

Two years ago, Justin Brake was praised by the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission for his reporting on an Indigenous standoff in that province.

The commission went on to later nominate him for one of its annual human rights awards.

And this:

 On Monday, a judge in Labrador ruled criminal charges laid against Brake would be moving forward. He’ll be spending time fighting to prove he was just doing his job when police charged him with mischief, disobeying a court order and civil contempt.

His crime? He entered a camp of people protesting planned work at the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project in Labrador. A provincial Crown corporation wanted to build a multi-billion-dollar hydroelectric dam at the falls on Churchill River to help move the province to renewable energy and away from oil dependency.

But the kicker is this:

Which brings me back to Brake. The province’s human rights commission praised him. The province’s court system sees a crime in the way he simply did his job. He faces criminal and civil charges, all laid by the government in some way.

It’s ridiculous. It fails to acknowledge the role of the journalist in society. It’s a temper tantrum by a government Brake embarrassed by reporting Indigenous concerns.

And, if you’re wondering why this is important to us in B.C., there are many reasons.

First, journalism matters. It simply does. And when one provincial government uses its powers to try to suppress it or create a chill for those who do it, who’s to say another government won’t  do the same thing?

It is gullible thinking. Journalists defer to authority to praise them...and then expect there be no opposition, that regimes fund them, and that they get lollipops and everyone just give them information without a fight.

Memo to Dale Bass: Do you understand what journalism actually is?

It is a form of warfare. You are fighting an intangible war where the enemy is lies and secrets, and the point is to find reality, liberate truth from the lies, and then make the information stream strong by disseminating information to the public.

WikiLeaks is probably just about the only organization in the history of mankind that actually gets it. You are not supposed to wear an away from a Human Rights Commission as a badge of honour because The Man gave you a pat on the head. That is not a good thing: it means they were caught, gave you a paper crown so that you would be satisfied and go away.

It is a feint. Nothing more.

You do not talk about "chilling effects" on journalism. You do not expect governments to play nice with you. You are a soldier going into battle, and you fight and do not stop until you liberate the truth from secrets and lies.

Then you create a map of reality as you liberate new facts from your missions.

It is not a desk job. It is not the place to be told how wonderful you are.

It is combat.

That is the reason happy, cheery, soft, and good news is an insult to the profession: do not praise students for marching for gun control because it is a temper tantrum that ignores the obvious truths about youth out of control. You question their methods and motives, just the same way you question the methods and motives of politicians whose watch does not prevent school shootings in the first place because they would rather shill easy solutions than make parents and institutions accountable for letting those youth fall beneath the cracks before they explode out of control.

It is about forcing the world to wake up from its slumber and facing reality.

It is not the place to create worthless fake celebrities or turn disposable entertainment into popular culture. It is not the place to recite press releases.

It is the place to create map of reality with facts.

That's it. You will be up against tyrants. Your soldiers will go into battle, and they will get themselves in trouble.

So long as they hunt and gather facts, and come back with truths.

They do not stand like drooling dummies on a red carpet. They do not try to think up positive things about being poor, stoned, or stupid. The world drowns in lies.

And it is about finding things that make people uncomfortable as their delusions are shattered one by one.

And the second they gripe about bad news bumming them out, you show them more truths.

The news should be showing how the homeless live. They should be in emergency rooms, showing the battered bodies of women taking a beating from everyone from their husbands to their pimps -- and then go to those prima donna exploiters at Times's Up and ask them how far have women really come. They should be showing the dead bodies out on the streets and the fallen of those school shootings.

Yes, the families will object, but their silence makes it worse.

Because it allows people to pretend everything is wonderful in their little meaningless lives as they vote for leeches who will siphon off their hard-earned money and waste it on nonsense.

That is what journalism should have been.

It was complicit in sweeping truths under the rug.

It was not supposed to ever be about getting people applause. It is about making people accountable for letting everything slide as they threw tantrums demanding that worthless applause.

Journalism didn't do any of it; so no, it no longer matters. It is a dead profession because you have an entire industry who made the conscious decision to be advertisers and apologists.

Journalism silenced itself. The few soldiers in that profession cannot expect anyone to truly applaud them when they prefer to know about the latest "Bachelor" than what is happening under their noses.

They are on their own and they have their own profession to thank for that.

The Hillary Clinton Syndrome: fighting for the wrong kind of votes can be hazardous to your ambitions.

As journalists have their mandated meltdown that Doug Ford won a very simple game, and became the new Ontario PC leader despite a well-crafted narrative that was supposed to put a woman in that position, it is time to look at two of those women to see how is it possible for a female candidate to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Christine Elliott was channelling Hillary Clinton in so many ways that it was truly breath-taking. She was not the gracious loser, taking a long time to concede defeat. She has more votes, but as I have repeatedly said, campaigns are not about getting more votes, but strategic ones. It is a game of skill and tricks, many of which are dirty. It is campaign warfare in the truest sense of the word.

But in 2018, just like 2016, there is some mistaken notion that you have to (a) be "inclusive", and (b) be non-offensive. As Donald Trump proved, those are the first two steps to defeat.

You are not supposed to be all things to all of the people. You have to pick a few demographics and psychographics, push the right buttons, and get enough of them to vote. You do not need a majority. How many times do we have to have elections before the public comprehend it is not about a majority. It doesn't matter if it took place 1984 or 2016 or 1900 -- you do not win campaigns courting a majority.

It doesn't matter what the general consensus is -- what matters is what the primary targeted blocs that vote come Election Day, and often, those groups deliberately hold their cards close to their chests.

There are ways to get voters, and ways to repel them away from marking your name on the ballot. Men such as Ford and Trump understand enough to say "I am running for the public/common voter" and "I will bring change" that implies the change will benefit the targeted groups for the better because under the current regime, they are being ignored.

For all the prattle that Trump and Barak Obama are nothing alike, they campaigned using that same winning strategy -- the only difference was who were the target groups. Trump went to the Right. Obama went to the Left. Same structure, but different content of message.

But journalists have a true blindness when it comes to seeing structure. They only see content.

To them, they think Obama and Trump are different. If they looked at structure of thought, they'd realize they are the same.

Ford won because his structure of campaign aligns with what successful candidates do: have you-focussed messages that promise a positive reward for the vote. Target certain groups, and they will hedge their bets on you. You focus without being all over the place, saving your enemies for other tactics.

Elliott had a me-focussed message -- she ran twice before, and thus, it was, "her turn" to lead. The backdrop of #MeToo implied it was the natural conclusion to have a woman in charge.

Clinton's defeat was a factor in creating a fertile ground for #MeToo, but her message was equally me-focussed -- it was her turn to lead because it was a "woman's" turn to run. That doesn't explain to voters what is in it for them to vote for her. That, coupled with the unfocussed bid to get as many voters as possible, meant she set herself up to lose.

A candidate needs more than just confidence in being able to do the job: you must have the confidence in your own targeted groups to give you their goodwill. If you know a good percentage of Group A will have your back because you made it clear you'll have theirs, you don't do desperate things and overwork your campaign.

This isn't to say the entire campaign is above board -- you'll have private investigators going through rivals' garbage for dirt. You'll have people play dirty tricks to keep certain votes away -- but any of that can backfire.

You also cannot worry about offending people outside your targeted groups because you cannot please all of the people all of the time. In fact, upsetting one faction turns you into irresistible forbidden fruit that your group will vote for just to stick it to the rival faction. For Anti-Establishment candidates, they absolutely have to be ready to thumb their nose at sanctioned beliefs. It's why activist groups are often unwitting pawns in campaigns -- the second they howl, they send a signal to the offending candidates' potential voters that their person is brave enough to stand up to those lines drawn in the sand.

Clinton played it safe, and she paid the price. Elliott took from Clinton's playbook and suffered the same fate.

Caroline Mulroney's case of the Clinton Syndrome was more subtle, but her problem was that she also lacked a you-focussed message. She was a legacy candidate, which gave her an initial edge, and she would have been a natural choice in the light of #MeToo, but when asked why she was running, she didn't have the answer. She also couldn't handle softball questions about her children being in private school -- all she had to say was she wasn't happy with the current public system -- but if she was elected, she'd make sure education improved for everyone...

Or something along the lines. It wasn't as if she was getting tough questions, but she came off as someone who didn't think she had to answer to anyone, and when you are running to be in charge of other people's money and hold their fate in your hands, you need to be somewhat accessible. Clinton had the same problems, and it was what always made her a problematic candidate.

But with Clinton, she became senator right after her husband's presidency, when she was  seen as forging her own way right after her husband's infidelity nearly got him impeached. There were other reasons why she was voted in back then -- but that kind of support was time sensitive. By the time she ran for president, she got no lift in support by it because by then, it was a different ballgame.

Men like Ford and Trump get it. They use playbooks that brought others victory. Elliott and Mulroney didn't, and it cost them both the paper crown.

As for the provincial election, Kathleen Wynne is also someone who gets it -- she is a polarizing figure. She is disliked by the majority.

And yet she knows how to connect to the right coalition of groups with strategic promises to get herself elected. She is focussed, understands you-centred messages, and is not afraid to offend a majority. She knows how to tussle with the big boys, and it is one of the reasons she earns her victories.

Very rarely do you see two candidates vying for the same coveted position who are equally structurally savvy in that regard. You either have a candidate who was in power for so long that they think they don't have to fight like a newcomer -- or a candidate who sees an incumbent is disliked, and then thinks they will win by default. This is first major election that I can remember where the candidates are truly equally matched in every way.

Some people think that may give NDP's Andrea Horwath the same kind of default victory Bob Rae got and then fumbled, but it is not a foregone conclusion that Ford and Wynne will cancel each other out. Ford can easily turn an Orange Hamilton area Blue, for instance. Wynne can also pull a rabbit out of her hat. She is not suffering from the Clinton Syndrome, and she is someone who can get results even when the odds look bleak. Anyone who looks at her polling numbers is missing the big picture.

Who ultimately wins depends on which targeted groups get the most inspired to go out an vote, and this is a rare case where both Wynne and Ford can raid the NDP's seats to eke out a victory.

Hamilton and Toronto are going to be big battlegrounds. Ford and Wynne both have strong support in Hogtown. Neither is well-liked as a general consensus -- but are both beloved by very loyal core groups of voting blocks.

While the leadership race was a replay of the Trump-Clinton match, the election is anything but, and it will make a very good comparison to see whose you-focussed message will be most effective this time around.

There are times where I am spectacularly wrong. Doug Ford bags his victory.

Doug Ford won the Ontario PC leadership contest. vt_leadership_candidates_debate002.jpg.size-custom-crop.1086x0

When it comes to the Ontario Tories, you can have many qualified women vying for the position, but it is the white guy from money who is going to take it. This may very well be an awakening for women in this province as well, realizing that keeping that positive, "it's all good" sunny attitude is going to not give them any returns, and perhaps a reality check would be a very good thing.

Christine Elliott was not someone I thought would win, despite all the "inevitable" narrative the press heaped on her, and that is the kiss of death for her. She is too much like Hillary Clinton with some notion that it was "her time" to win after two previous failed attempts. Like Clinton, her spouse was the bigger political name, and while her strategy was to try to court Patrick Brown's supporters by not condemning him, they all went to the white guy anyway. She took liberally from Clinton's playbook and ended up getting the same result.

This is Trump-Clinton all over again. Canadians are very naive in thinking that what happened in the US would never happen here. We align with Americans in our elections, and after Trump's tariff threats, it's going to be a factor.

I did think Caroline Mulroney would win -- she would have most likely been a cake walk for her under normal circumstances -- and she behaved as if it were -- but she opened her mouth and made blunder after blunder. She didn't check her privilege at the door, and then daddy went campaigning for her near the end, making that her kiss of death.

Usually, legacy candidates win, but the situation for her was quite misaligned with another legacy property; in this case, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau making a colossal fool out of himself in India, and then getting dissed by Trump and then Modi in front of the world. That alone would scare anyone into not voting for another offspring of a former prime minister.

That Mulroney placed on the bottom of the heap along with the no-name-one-issue candidate is telling. At one point, it was reported the placement was reversed.

But neither Mulroney nor Elliott actually fought. They both seemed to behave entitled throughout this chaos, that makes the Tories seem completely dysfunctional. It was not the right strategy to take: you do not behave as if you are "above" warrior's tactic in the middle of a war, and a campaign is war.

If you don't want to fight, then don't enlist. The little people want to know their getting off their duffs to give you power over them isn't wasted by you just standing around. The are electing you to fight. All Ford had to say -- and he did -- was that he was in it for "the people." At least he knows the answer to the question why he is running, unlike Mulroney who could not give that answer when one radio host asked her that softball obvious question. Between that stumble and her running away when reporters asked about her children being in private school (another softball question), she has no one to blame for her loss.

It was truly Mulroney's to lose, and she went ahead and lost it completely on her own. Elliott seemed to behave as if they just give you that paper crown if you run enough times. Ford fought and grabbed that brass ring. For all of his white boy privilege, he proved to be the lone street fighter, and he wrest it away from two women who seem to have no inkling what it means to go into the trenches and fight tooth and nail for something you want.

Can he beat the Liberals? Wynne is many things, but she is a survivor who does get that it is a war to fight. Toronto's core is having meltdowns right now at the thought of a premier Ford who will lord over them as Mayor John Tory is forced to beg his rival for spending money for Hogtown. This is going to pit Toronto with not just rural Ontario -- but many enclaves who will want Ford in power, including GTA suburbs. He is not a shoo-in by any stretch, but if he wins, women in this province might awaken from their slumber.

Journalists will be going into meltdown mode now, particularly the Toronto Star. Like Trump, Ford has a very bad history with Canadian media, and it is now officially war.

I am amused, at any rate. Sometimes, there are surprises that ought to upset you, but to me, this isn't one of them. I am relieved that legacy candidates are getting smacked for their shallow entitlement. I have been writing a lot about how women do not actually have their own war manuals, and this proves me right.

So, it will be a very uncharacteristically interesting street brawl. The Grits will now have to pull all of the stops because there has been a change in the cast. Ford Nation seems to let the country know just where that family is planning to move -- to the top.

But right now, after bagging Toronto, they are now eying the province. Stay tuned...

#MeToo was never native to Canadian sensibilities, and it shows with the very different fates of two journalists on the Hitlist.

The National Post may have their whiners lamenting in columns that CTV's Paul Bliss was doomed because #MeToo is just a big old mean witch hunt ("There was no other way this story could end but in Paul Bliss being 'disappeared'", didn't you know?), but that's just a confirmation bias speaking. Steve Paikin was also accused, but he is still not "disappeared". He hosted the PC leadership debate. He is still on his show and still has his blog, with the latest entry begin on March 8. Journalists all enthusiastically marched lockstep in support of Paikin, but those same apologists stayed deafeningly silent when it came to Bliss.

So the notion that getting on that list means a foregone conclusion is highly inaccurate.

The impact of #MeToo -- a strictly Made in the USA movement has been profound in the US far more than it has in Canada. The impact on Canadian politicians has been more significant than it has on US politicians. Patrick Brown got shown to the door at lightening speed, and no one was happier than his own party. They weren't hanging their heads down in shame. They weren't condoning his alleged behaviour. They were relieved and marched on in uncharted territory moving ahead in that ensuing chaos quite cheerily.

But when it came to some other men on the list, journalists got pouty and indignant. How dare anyone accuse journalists of being less than perfect?

While the US #MeToo also enthusiastically got rid of some swamp insects in their communications, Canadian has been much slower to act, even though sexual harassment is just as prevalent here as it is over there.

Bliss was turfed, but so far, it looks like Paikin will have no trouble weathering this one out. #MeToo is not a witch hunt here, no matter what the fear-mongers decree. The US had its shock with Trump's obvious victory that they didn't see coming or had the cunning or clout to stop. Canada had no such overt reckoning to face. It is a difference in ortgeist, not zeitgeist, and why two neighbouring countries are having very different outcomes with an identical movement.

But, as usual, the National Post does not have the savvy or the sensitivity to see it.

Rah-rah advertorials as "news": When it is affirming advertising, it is meant to pander, not to inform. Building up fantasies sets people up for a nasty tumble, but it's all in the name of trying to save a dead profession.

Brava! Look at our positive coverage! Says the New York Times. And us! Says the Toronto Star.

Journalism required a feel for how to find and present facts. It is not meant to cheerlead, but the press has two modes: vilify and deify. There is no in-between, or understanding that facts do not need a sales or hatchet job.

For decades, all sorts of people were ignored in the press or just plain demonized.

The press got flack for it, but didn't care because they were making money, and they had readers and ratings.

Over time, those numbers declined, and then it suddenly dawned on the press that they could try to bounce back by courting all those people they ignored or dismissed as silly.

So now they have overdone it with positive press pieces that are patronizing, giving people little pats on the head.

If anyone wants a glowing piece of advertising, they can buy ads.

What journalism cannot grasp is how to cover events without commentary. Do not applaud or boo. Just present the facts. Not all women are wonderful and nice. Some are psychopaths and bumblers, just like men.

If we had a healthy news media, we wouldn't have embarrassing dreck like this -- building people's egos and then they honestly believe they can never do any wrong and their critics who may have legitimate grievances, are wrong and evil.

That's why wealthy white men who used to get the praise got out of control: there was no one there to smack them back to reality and call them on the carpet for their increasingly despotic behaviour.

And many of those same despots got the shock of their lives with #MeToo. Had they been called out at the beginning and not be mislabeled Great Men, it would have never gotten that bad.

Now, there will be a generation of people who will also let everything go to their heads and show that the human condition is the same, regardless of what you look like on the outside.

There is no feedback. There are no facts to see reality. It is either praise or derision.

Usually praise, praise, praise, and then derision.

True journalist doesn't sell, but tell. Just facts. No sway. No playing favourites. Just presenting reality as it is to everyone. People can make proper comparisons and contrasts, and then make decisions on their own.

CTV's Paul Bliss is out.

A single blog post did him in, though his own network CTV has a Canadian Press wire story (the same one other outlets are using, including the Toronto Star) about it. You'd think there would be something with more varied and original reporting, but as we do not actually have journalism anymore, it all falls to one wire service to regurgitate the press release...

Memo to Ben Brafman: Sex to "boost a career" IS rape. Blackmail is blackmail, and it is time we stop rigging the courts to favour aggressors.

Ben Brafman, who gets paid a lot of money to defend wealthy men who got into trouble doing the same things that got them rich, is now trying to spin a narrative that is a real knee-slapper that explains why #MeToo was a movement to get real justice outside the courtroom. What Neanderthal logic has he spewed?

This bit of sophistry:

If a woman has sex to help her Hollywood career, that is not rape

This statement is wrong on many levels.

First, it makes the inherent assumption that the actress is nothing more than a prostitute, willing to swap sexual favours for fame, fortune, and free Oscar swag.

This is the way to control the optics by casting any woman who accuses a Hollywood producer as a villain. It is also a way of floating possible ways of countering the dominant narrative of #MeToo as well as begin to poison the collective ideological pool to bring in doubt in the public. As a journalist, I have seen this little gambit played before.

For the record, I do not believe that narrative posed by Brafman, but let us, to humour an arrogant rich white male as he has offered no facts, but mere conjecture.

If the woman has embarked on a career and she cannot get a job unless she gives the gate-keeper sex, she doesn't get a job. He will bad-mouth her, and she can get blacklisted.

That means her survival depends on giving sex.

Just like women who have a knife at their throats and are told by their attackers that if they do not give him sex, he will kill her.

So her survival depends on giving sex.

That's rape. The structures are identical.

A predator can very well talk his victim into believing it is her idea and she is the aggressor. That is a process of luring, priming, and grooming.

Child molesters do it because the victim's trauma and being subservient makes the victim vulnerable and confused, taking the cues of the predator who is in control in that chaos. It is a defence mechanism that cult leaders uses, pedophiles use, abusive spouses and parents use, and rapists use.

You came on to me; so you asked for it; you are bad, and you asked for this.

Brafman's Victorian narrative does not hold up tp psychological research. It is an unfortunate byproduct of artificial patriarchal narratives that are binary.

But let us take it one step further than that:

If the producer refuses to have sex with the woman, his career suffers nothing.

If the actress refuses to have sex with the man, her career is over. Acting is not one of those skills that is transferable to other jobs. You are usually going to be stuck being a waitress and living the poverty line. The stakes are too high to expect someone to make a rational judgement -- while the producer has no such quandary. He gets his limo ride to his mansion at the end of the day. The actress has bills and could be facing an eviction notice and yet another mark on her credit score if she refuses any requests.

It is the unequal power dynamic that makes it rape. It is the same as statutory rape: the victim, who has no power, has no consent going into a situation.

When I am looking for work, you can be sure my survival depends on getting work; therefore, I do not have the same consent as the wealthy tycoon who won't give me the time of day unless I put out for him.

So unequal is the power balance that the very business of Hollywood should be heavily regulated.

Of course it is rape. The knife in this case is the pay check.

The actress is in a vulnerable position from the get-go. The very structure is rigged to completely benefit the one in power, and when you have no safeguards to balance it out, there is no discussion or debate to be had.

Rape is rape.

And Hollywood is nothing but a rape den, and that has got to stop.

The origins of the profession of acting come from Ancient Rome where slaves were the literal actors.

Nothing has changed since then. With the public relations front painting a false narrative that the business can pull you out of poverty and obscurity as you find success and validation, it is the come-on to lure the most desperate where they will be subjugated for the rest of their lives.

It uses the American Dream as bait.

Mr. Brafman would not want a thinking person like me on a jury. I see right through all the excuses and sophistry. If you cannot tell the difference, perhaps you should retire from the profession.

Because some of us are not followers or cowards denying the rot in society. It is time we begin to make serious changes to bring equilibrium to such skewed power structures so that the Weinsteins of the world cannot exploit the vulnerable -- and the Brafmans of the world cannot financially benefit when the Weinsteins are finally exposed and held accountable for their tyranny.

I do not care for Marine Le Pen's politics. I do care that the French government's manipulative charges for her disseminating reality are being used to distort reality -- and that journalists see nothing wrong with it.

The Washington Post is a useless publication, and this article shows their banality of evil with this headline alone:

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen charged for tweeting gruesome ISIS images

We have people who commit murder who do not get charged, but the French government criminally charges someone for showing evidence of murder? The charges are disturbing, but those on the Left will justify it, never thinking that tides shift, and that it is inevitable that they will also be charged for showing evidence of abuse, torture, and murder, and they will be cast as villains for it.

Do I agree with Le Pen's views? No, but I do believe in forcing people to see both reality and truth unfiltered. I do not believe in sheltering people so they believe their untested life theories are correct. That's how industries and societies implode.

Le Pen, regardless of her beliefs, had every right to show what murderers do. I believe those vile and sickening images are necessary for the sheltered middle class to see. You have to have people see the ugly side of life because you have industries such as Hollywood that are immoral enough to glamourize and glorify some very sick things.

Quentin Tarantino is making a movie about human trash Charlie Manson with all sort of aging A-list white men attached to it.

And for all the arguments that Le Pen is exploiting death, remember, so is Tarantino.

If we, for instance, revealed how brutal Manson's machinations truly were, you wouldn't have the Tarantinos of the world be able to co-opt that story and then spin that gore into something entertaining. Sharon Tate was pregnant when she was slaughtered. Everyone that night was terrorized and slaughtered. Manson was a cult leader, woman abuser, and a manipulator so adroit, that decades later, he could manipulate female professors who studied him, knowing who he was (as I had discovered firsthand when I was working on a story for Elle Canada about the phenomenon of women who broke the law to please a boyfriend).

You can never find solutions unless you deal with truth and reality.

Le Pen is an extremist, but the images she showed were truth and reality that showed that there is a real element of hate out there that thinks nothing of slaughtering people. One extreme is reacting to another. I find it very interesting that the French government does what governments have been doing for hundreds of years: when you have two conflicting sides, you whack the one led by a woman.

To charge her for showing evidence of barbarity is the greater act of barbarity. They just proved her point for her by doing so. The French government merely showed itself to condone violence by punishing those who expose it.

Under no circumstances can one use the excuse of morality to charge someone for showing genuine images of an atrocity. As someone whose own family were annihilated by fascists in the Second World War, I believe you have to show just how sick those sorts of being can be.

Over the years, I have seen videos of extremist's torture and murder of soldiers, hostages, and civilians in war and in concentration camps. The perpetrators were not always Muslim, but sometimes they were. Some of those sadists were Christians, such as Catholics. As someone who studies propaganda, I have seen highly disturbing images to understand a point in time as it is. I may not be able to sleep for nights after, but it also ensures that I am not deluded when I confront problems of psychological manipulation.

The French government's own extremist actions are being spun as being patriarchal: Daddy Government has to protect those little children known as the middle class. It's not, of course: it is meant to hide reality from them so when it comes time to make decisions at the ballot, those who are the least informed vote for them, thinking that they know something.

The infantilization of the middle class is deliberate. It is a form of propaganda itself. If we are not exposed to reality, then we do not know how bad it is, and a government can impose any narrative it wishes. That is a social group that holds no true position of power, has no expertise, and their knowledge of complex concepts is shallow at best. They are educated just enough for competency in the workplace, but not enough to be able to understand the jargon and nuances of anything that can make a true impact of industry or governance.

It is not as if those people couldn't understand it. Their minds are not inferior by any stretch, and there are many that would be superior to those running the show. But when information is skewed and censored, their lack of experience and exposure prevents them from seeing how dire a situation truly is.

Shielding Western citizens from the mindset of ISIL has nothing to do with combatting Islamophobia. In fact, the primary victims of these terrorists have overwhelmingly been the Muslim population native to those regions. So to suddenly suppress this information is itself an act of Islamophobia and revisionism. The French government's ignorant logic is truly shocking. ISIL is not about Islam. That is a blind, and the excuse. This is about a cabal of brutes who wear the cloak of religion to take the spoils of war for themselves and to gain power.

Besides, every religion and political group ever created has its extremists. That is a given, but many governments truly fear that if one group's dark deeds are exposed, they are then free to retaliate -- not by violence -- but exposing comparable acts of the other group, showing them to be hypocrites trying to misuse the confirmation bias to their advantage.

Shutting down people such of Le Pen proves that the French government is an anti-democratic one, trying to oppress free speech and truth. She did not manufacture those images. She merely showed a literal snapshot of reality.

I am a diehard believer in free speech, regardless of a person's worldview, opinions, and delusions. I believe in finding truths by allowing the free distribution of facts, data, and evidence. You have to be aware of the true nature of reality. I do not believe in shielding liars, control freaks, the gullible, or cowards from it.

The French government has much to be ashamed of, and not just this barbaric act of pure self-interest. It is itself a form of propaganda: slander and distract a political opponent for your own personal gain. They are worse than Le Pen with this one act, and now have proven themselves to have a fascist bent themselves.

I am a radical centrist: you are not going to recruit me to mindlessly cheerlead your deluded agenda, Left or Right. It's not all about making life convenient for your conniving majesty at mine and everyone else's expense. The incessant nose-tweaking and manipulations from both the Left and the Right is obnoxious and completely unnecessary, distracting everyone from finding a solution that does not exclusively benefit those in power.

Because those disturbing images should be exposed so we can finally be able to ask the right questions: who are these people? Where did they come from? Who trained them? How did their victims cross their paths? How much do these terrorists know about our government's not-so-noble methods? How does this game stop?

Those images are fair game. The suppression of history serves no purpose other than to lie to a frightened public. Had we dealt with the ugliness right from the start because the world had a real and honest news media, no one political side would be able to co-opt those images to serve their own political aspirations. We wouldn't be running to Mommy and Daddy Government to tell us how to think or save ourselves; we'd be forming functional and rational plans to deal with it.

Better still, if we always dealt with reality with a real and honest news media, we would have seen the danger signs long before the formation of the cabals of hatred and fear, and we could have intervened to ensure that no group's own wrathful agendas did not take root and grow, ruining the lives of millions for absolutely no good reason at all.

The French government's absolute tyranny is also proof that governments have no place in information dissemination -- or what was once called journalism. They cannot be trusted not to meddle and then set their narratives why they are suppressing information that is unflattering and inconvenient to them.

It is the reason why we need an alternative to journalism: one that defies tyrannical regimes who think of nothing to misuse the law to silence truth and reality for their own political ends so that everyone knows exactly who and what they are dealing with so they can find solutions to their problems that will actually work, and not place their faith in corrupt governments that make decrees with no shred of proof that their methods do what they purport to do.

That the Washington Post completely missed the point and sided with the oppressors of free speech shows that US journalism has lost its sense and purpose. The shallow and superficial political dividing line that dictates that people who believe things that are different from what we believe can never have the facts we need to know.

It is a feint, of course. Truth and reality applies to everyone equally, regardless of their beliefs, and it is time to face that truth as we create a method of finding those truths from everyone.

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.

Journalism continues to confuse journalism and advertorial writing.

The sunny headline says it all:

Oscars forge new credibility in the furnace of scandal

The article from AFP is equally problematic. You have decades of abuse, but in a couple of months, those who partook in harassment or condone it, can all by themselves, clean up their act?


This comes right out of a sitcom: horrible thing happens, someone call someone else out, problem is completely solved by the end of the show. It is a way of signalling to readers that the press is hoping the problem is resolved so they do not ever have to call out another Hollywood player so they could hope to be invited to the next red carpet photo op.

It is advertorial writing, not journalism. It is not the first "okay, it's all good!" that has been put out by the press. The "witch hunt" narrative didn't take, and now let's pat the women on the head, assure them everything is all right, and then let us go back to covering Kardashians again.

The Oscars are facing heat over their choices of best pictures; so this is a way to deflect attention and try to take hold of the narrative. Like journalism, Hollywood has been facing a backlash.

All it takes is one new set of allegations, and it will be back to square one.

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.

Gender Inequality when it comes to photographing male and female actors? Ya think, Hub? When the press finally hits upon the's still oblivious.

Oh dear, you mean actresses are photographed half-naked while their male costars are dressed dignified, Hub? You just realized this now?


And that the boys all have wrinkles and are older than the dolled up female?

You didn't notice that, though. That requires two thoughts.

I have been noticing that for years.

And on this web site for a very long time.

Some of my favourites come from Vanity Fair.

To recap from previous entries:





And just in case you are going to tell me that Vanity Fair is "just" a celebrity magazine, Time magazine pulls that kind of garbage, too.

This is how one of the biggest female artists of a generation makes it on the cover:


And a male singer who who was also a well-regarded voice of his:


And that game has gone on for at least for as long as I have been alive:


And the only reason we even have an article like that is because some people on Twitter complained, though the actress thought critics should "get a grip" that women can only get publicity being undressed amid fully-clothed male colleagues. Had she been an actress who always wore jeans and a sweater, she wouldn't be hitting Slap Chops on informercials.

It is not as if journalists or editors see these things themselves.

Because they are the ones putting out the dreck in the first place.

Nice try.

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.


Doublespeaking the Pink Gulag: When journalism can't figure out how to deal with women, they pull out the bridge table for them. How the Globe and Mail's Amplify newsletter is the same old story, with content to prove it.

When confronted with reality that women are people, too, journalism cannot actually handle it. They cannot place women in the hard news weave completely: there has to be a way to isolated the threat while pretending to be inclusive. It is the same when you are a child who is invited to a dinner party with your parents. You know you are going to be seated away from the hub of the real table. You will be sold a bill of goods that there is a "young people's" table, and then you are stuck on a wobbly bridge table off in the corner while the adults can easily ignore you.

If you are forced to go to the same house as an adult, it doesn't actually change. You are still move away from the adults, even if you are in your twenties. You may have a graduate degree and hold a white collar job, you are pushed away. You start complaining, there may be some shift, but the same troublesome group gets thrown at the bottom of the table.

I remember being the recipient of this kind of tradition, and one year, I decided to sit with the rest of my family near the top. The hostess had a fit.

I was 28.

The oldest "young person" was in their early 30s.

The other guests smirked, and said they could finally have a conversation with me, and ask me all about my job as a journalist, and politely protested when the hostess wanted me back down at the end of the table.

I had stories, after all.

But that same thinking permeates through journalism. There is the head table, and now there are all these women clamouring about something, and the Globe has a series of other "newsletters" -- so why not whip out another bridge table, call it "Amplify" to sound cool, and then stick all of that sophistry and opinion in a Pink Gulag near the end of the laundry list, and pretend you are inclusive and enlightened.

Nice try.

This isn't hard news. This is opinion, and such, is going to be the kind of things that fit into a patriarchal structure of thought.

This piece in particular stands out to me:

Amplify: As women stand divided on #MeToo, it isn’t age or ideology. It’s misplaced pain

First of all, this subject matter is not even news.

It makes it sound as if there are some divide in #MeToo, and that this is a problem.

This is typical Star Trek thinking where an entire planet of aliens all think and behave alike.

Women were never united on #MeToo. Ever. It is the same way that not all Christians walk lockstep with each other -- you have Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, Evangelical, Baptist, and a slew of other kinds of Christianity.

The provincial Conservatives in Ontario have different preferences on the kind of leader they want -- no one is ever going to get 100% of the vote.

Americans didn't all vote for Donald Trump. Not all Democrats wanted Hillary Clinton and were devastated their pick Bernie Sanders didn't win the primaries.

So right off the bat, the premise of this article has a deep immaturity and a lack of foresight.

#MeToo was an American movement that began -- not with the poor or dispossessed women cowering in shelters -- but wealthy white women in the communications industry.

This may very well be one of the first social movements that came from a white collar segment.

There is nothing wrong with its pedigree, and, in fact, this is absolutely significant -- if women who have broken glass ceilings are reporting back that there are serious problems that high up -- everyone should be paying close attention.

It means if women are in positions of power, something has been seriously rigged that prevents them from fully exercising their power. It goes far deeper than changing laws because so many of those obstacles have been cleared, and yet, there is very little change or progress.

That is real news. That not all women subscribe to #MeToo is not.

So if you do not understand innate diversity, the rest of your premise falls apart, and #MeToo has nothing to do with this so-called "misplaced pain."

No, the pain is not misplaced. A certain demographic of women have witnessed things other women have not. They are reporting back, and their pain is real, legitimate, and hits it right on target.

This is typical of how Canadian journalists operate: strategic obedience to authority. You must appease that authority as you make excuses for their behaviour. In this case, it is demeaning those in #MeToo, hinting they are mistaken, silly, over-reacting, and perhaps a little hysterical. This is a stereotypical view of women: do not take what they say seriously because it can hurt the feelings of a man-child in power.

The fact that this article is in the Pink Gulag should surprise no one: it is there to reassure the big boys that they do not have to really make changes.

The Globe doesn't get it, and it lacks the intellectual dept to ever get it. It is all about spin to keep the overlords happy.

And that's not what #MeToo was ever about: it is about waging war with misogynistic rigs to tear them down.

Not this apologetic, rambling mess.

The Decline and Fall of the Journalistic Patriarchal Model. It is time for a change.

Once upon a time the patriarchal model of journalism was seen as the ideal. It was easy to assume it because the titans of that industry held all of the cards. When you are the gate-keeper, you set the rules of engagement. It was a simple and simplistic model that seemed to work -- even without the science or the experimentation. You showcased a lot of visionary Great Men -- in the days where men were Great Men:


And the women were disposable eye candy prancing in public in their underpants:


It was all very Patriarchal.

It still is, don't kid yourself, children.







Because for it to change, news producers would have to admit they were wrong.

And then they would have to overhaul everything.

They'd rather scuttle their own ship, then make changes that could possibly benefit someone else, and they'd lose some of their power.

Yes, I know they already lost it; but they keep hoping for the calvary to arrive.

Except some of that calvary got angry, outed all the boors through #MeToo, and now started a little something you may have heard of called Time's Up.

The ones you dismissed as disposable eye candy turned themselves into soldiers.

Bless them for it. Keep it up.

The reason journalism died was that it so stubbornly stuck to a single structure of script. No women visionaries.

No swaggering female Turks that are taken seriously.

No Matriarchal structure.

That was a very bad move when social media exploded on the scene.

The nurturing Matriarchal was giving everyone a chance to be heard, and then the authoritative Patriarchal became threatened by it all, and then used all of its old tricks to its utter devastation.

Journalism is antiquated. It cannot function in its current form.

We need a different structure, and a different way of doing things.

Because it is time.

Right here, and right now.

American violence: Another school massacre. Another vessel of hate explodes. Grabbing that gun is a symptom, not the cause. When did it all go wrong and why?

American journalism has failed its people again. Another vessel of hatred and rage exploded, and like all the of the others before him, there were huge warning signs that people who should have done something about, ignored it.

American journalists have done a great disservice to its people: it keeps telling of a simple solution: just get rid of guns, and then all will be corrected.

No, it won't.

They will brings knives. They will throw acid. They will build bombs.

Do not kid yourself.

Do I believe in gun control?

I don't understand the need for guns in the first place. I have always said you can stick a gun in my hand, and anger me to the breaking point, I am not going to shoot anyone with it.

I do not live a stress-free, trouble-free charmed life. The last couple of years have been horrendous.

But I am not someone who would cause another person harm or trauma.

I have empathy. I have morals. Guns do not appeal to me.

But America has a violence problem. The guns are a manifestation of that problem, not the cause.

But the news media like quick and easy solutions. They tell people if guns are off the street, they can go back to their mundane middle-class lives worry-free.


Gun control is a shallow solution to a deep-rooted problem.

Why do you have so many young men (and a few young women) who explode like that?

Violence is glorified everywhere: it's in the movies and on television. It is in video games. It is always seen as a solution to a problem.

It's not.

It is a hyper-violent society that has parents go ballistic if a teacher sees that their child is troubled and points this out to them. We do not teach emotional literacy in schools. We don't teach children at an early age to deal with rejection, obstacles, and frustrations.

I work as an educator. I have taught children and young adults. I worked in one place where a student physically assaulted a teacher, and the student was not expelled or charged -- and I find out all this after he was in my class. I was not warned.

The rate of shootings is increasing. The problem is getting worse. People want a fast fix, but there isn't one. It requires facing some very ugly truths. It requires work that will take people away from their online gaming.

What we have is a lack of connect. We have an Internet that is filled with people recruiting youth into all sorts of violent ventures, from gangs to cyberbullying to even terrorism.

The latest killer fell through hundreds of cracks. If teachers were given the tools and the freedom to identify troubled students so that something can be done, it would help far more than just hoping the kid whose gun was taken away doesn't resort to explosives.

Gun control is a tiny fraction of the problem. The drive -- the rage -- to kill is the bigger problem.

Journalism could have been a tool to stop politicizing hatred -- it could have had student reporters on staff to show what is happening within their own schools, for instance.

I have said it in my book Don't Believe It!: that there is a huge difference between a story that asks "Are your kids safe at school" and "Are you safe at school?"

It was something that troubled me when I was working on Chaser News: one of the stories I covered was a general version of the "Are you safe at school" story. It covered health and safety violations, but had I more traction, the natural progression would soon entail student-on-student violence because this was going to be a long-arc for me.

Because media never talked to kids. They have become an enigma to us. So when they explode and shoot up their school -- or pack it up to join ISIS -- we are shocked, shocked, shocked.

Why are we shocked?

Because an entire demographic was ignored.

Yes, America, you have a problem.

Don't look to your television ads for Gun Away that works like a Slap Chop.

Take a walk through your children's schools tomorrow, and study that battlefield.

Look around at the other kids, and your own to see how they fit together -- or don't.

You will have to do all this work yourself because there is no media outlet who can do that for you.

And that is one of the greatest failures of journalism -- that they never bothered to look toward the future by walking those school halls to tell you how things were fragmenting and falling apart.

Manipulating narratives: When critics gloss over the facts to suit their own denial of reality.

Just listening to Jerry Agar on Newstalk 1010 over Patrick Brown. The screened callers aren't exactly informed and are getting their facts messed up with no one to remind them of the basic facts of the case. Someone took issue with Patrick Brown's accusers being "anonymous" and that Brown as a right to "face his accusers". They are manipulating the narrative, without bothering with a single fact. Because Brown knows exactly who his accusers are. Here is a passage of an article I have used before:

So Brown knows who are his accusers. He knows of the incidents in question.

So the narrative that these are faceless women, and poor little boy Brown has no idea who is talking, or what they are talking about is rubbish.

And I am quoting his own words.

Scandal doesn't just happen when something is illegal. Canada is not exactly some country that cracks down on anything. We have the Gerald Stanley verdict to remind us that it doesn't always matter if a law is on the books, you don't always have to answer for your actions.

I don't care if what Brown did was illegal. When a person in a position of power asks an underling for date, that is a form of bullying. You are not on equal ground. That's not flattering. I am not on the job to get dates, or be noticed for my looks. I have to earn a living, stupid.

As I have said before, there are other things that Brown is associated with -- the nomination process in various ridings -- that have bigger ramifications, and show that a clear pattern of strong-arming and bullying. I don't think the PC Party would have kicked him that fast and disavowed of him that quickly unless they saw an opening to rid themselves of someone of that ilk.

And when you see a glow and a popularity surge from a party who is in turmoil at this very inconvenient juncture right before an election, you know that things must have been horrific during the previous regime.

That tells us everything we need to know about Patrick Brown. He is going after women, while keeping quiet on the other issues surrounding his leadership.

But that doesn't suit the narrative of the #MeToo critics who are hoping against hope that Brown can dodge this bullet with his blustering tirade. Harvey Weinstein is blustering, too. It doesn't mean a thing.


Watching the Patriarchal Meltdown: Patrick Brown, Michael Haneke show the shift in a changing world away from the Patriarchal.

The Internet has been a game-changer, for good and for bad. Great White Men made it, and it seemed like a sure-fire way to entrench a Patriarchal structure. It is not as if they had some devious plan, but there is an assumption that rigs are natural, and when they are natural to you, you want to spread that skewed prosperity around. Patriarchal storytelling is very skewed and is rigged to be all about the One and the One is the winner who takes all.

To not be the One means you are either (a) the victim, (b) the inferior supporting cast, or (c) the villain.

So you have the Great Men who stomp all over other people to be the One.

The One is a hypothetical construct. It does not actually exist, but it is a convenient delusion that give people the incentive to give it their best -- so they can "win."

#MeToo has now become the greatest challenge to this dysfunctional mindset: all the Great Men who thought they "won" and did it at any cost have been dethroned to their absolute shock and devastation.

A childlike fantasy has been shattered. This should give other predators food for thought that maybe, their narrative is not actually reality. You make too many victims of your manipulation and tyranny, they become a collective, a One of their own.

Or, more accurately, an Infinite.

The chorus of voices may be faceless (what traditional propaganda uses to demonize an enemy), become stronger than the "face" of the sea-appointed hero (the One).

The One becomes a target to evaluate.

It reminds me of an underrated game show called 1 vs 100.


Do you take the money or the mob? One contestant up against 100 and the point is for the One to answer more correct answers than 100 others.

But once the One wins, game over.

In television.

Reality is very different.

#MeToo seems like a mob to many men who backstabbed, stole, puffed, and bullied their way to become the One.

Patrick Brown of the Ontario PC party has shown himself to be a true Jekyll and Hyde.

When he was the One of the provincial party, he was bland and had no fire to him. He acted as if he was owed premiership of the province and had no fight in him. He played it safe.

But boy, did he change when he was ousted for naughty -- but stealth -- behaviour toward intoxicated prey.

The man turned into an angry monster, all but vowing to destroy the two women who dared say he was less than perfect.

That he was not the man he was presenting to the public.

He was unrepentant when he misspoke about Premier Kathleen Wynne who demanded, not unreasonably, for him to apologize and take back his incorrect statement. He didn't, and now she is suing him for defamation.

Brown is not a man who owns up to his mistakes. He is out with his hired goons in business suits to hit back at those who dare speak against him.

The shift in his behaviour is very telling: he wasn't this passionate when he was campaigning, because he thought he had it in the bag. The rigs that got him to his position of power were firmly in place, and there was nothing to worry about.

Until his plans proved to be child's play to dismantle.

This is an epic temper tantrum.

But as the PCs start looking over other aspects of his brief tenure as leader, they are not liking what they are seeing. For what it's worth, I do not believe his fire actually has much to do with the #MeToo claims, but more with the other little problems the party is now exposing to the public.

With his minions ousted, the protection is gone.

What will get him in deeper trouble will be all those ridings where a candidate was strong-armed into position, and that's the reason he is going full-force after what he would deem the "weaker" targets, and is keeping his mouth shut on the bigger target.

His predatory strategy and campaign to get back at his detractors here is very intriguing to watch. It is the omissions that are worth noting, but he is outclassed by bigger players who are letting him burnout in public.

The Patriarchal imploded on Brown.

And it is scaring the other disciples of that structure.

Director Michael Haneke is whining about how it is all a "witch hunt" that will cause brainless women to "hate" men.

Women are not going to suddenly hate their fathers and sons. Women do not hate decent men who do not abuse people. Because predatory men in power have been historically sheltered from the wrath and frustrations of those they harmed on their climb to being Great Men, they do not understand the explosion of rage that took centuries to swell up and explode.

They have been exposed to the reality of their tyranny thanks to social media -- those sentiments were always there, but there was no outlet to register them. This movement did not come from thin air -- it came because women who were making their way in the world were sick and tired of the unnatural rigs that kept them back and all the garbage they had to endure -- the ignorant comments, the vile assumptions, and the cheats that favoured men, but did not favour the functionality of the whole.

Imagine if social media was around when white Americans owned black slaves: #MeToo would look mild compared the rage and anger of those who were seen as property to be abused at will.

Would Haneke be whining about a witch hunt then?

When your goal is to be the One, you lose sight of the Infinite. You become Machiavellian because being the only One is unnatural.

This resistance was inevitable, and now that the Great Men have to face the voices of people burned by their campaigns, they see that being the One doesn't make you the hero by default.

It can turn you into a villain.

And what was supposed to guarantee entrenching a Patriarchal narrative on the world is beginning to backfire.

And the Great White Men Thinkers are now having a meltdown at the notion that they may have outsmarted themselves.

Renegade Inc. has a piece how technology is killing democracy.

Silly, silly sophistry and scare-mongering.

No, it's not. Machiavelli had done all sorts of underhanded things way back before social media was a thing -- so it is not the technology, it is the bad behaviour of those in power that made them ripe for a backlash.

A One who can control the Infinite? That's what is truly meant by the term "democracy" -- you can do anything you want, so long at the One deems it okay to do it.

What we are witnessing is a genie out of a bottle.

The Patriarchal was always flawed, and hinged on people buying into its narrative structure.

But it made being the One the only thing to aim for -- and do you really think people are going to cheer a One that isn't them?

If they cannot be the One, then they are going to take down the One who has harmed them in that battle.

It is now a shift in perspective.

Patrick Brown said something very telling: he accused his second "accuser" of being "the aggressor".

This is absolutely telling of a Patriarchal narrative. There is no way he could have been interested in a young female, come on now. He was irresistible, because he is The One.

Had he not thrown that one out, he would have a better chance to be believed, but that comment says it all.

That he is going by the old insinuations of shaming the women by throwing any dirt he can find in their faces is also telling.

But it's the first remark that is the more telling of the two: it's the oldest trick in the book.

No, no, she threw herself at me!


Of course, you had to be The One. It's always all about you. It's the standard excuse for every philandering husband caught in the act.

When all else fails, you are falling back to the Little Boy Excuse, not the Great Man Solution.

And that is the reason we are, for the first time in history, seeing the Patriarchal structure crumble.

Too many little boys posing as Great Men, and when they prove they are neither, they fall back to the little boy defence.

And that is the reason social media is suddenly hated: because in all the muck, the truth and reality is still making their way through it all.

And it terrifies a lot of people whose house of cards is about to fall.

Is it demeaning for female broadcasters to be sleeveless?

Kim Campbell was a non-elected Prime Minister, and to date, the only woman in this country has had for the position. She has said something that has the typical knee-jerk reaction: that it is demeaning for female broadcasters to wear sleeveless shirts when on air.

It depends, and she is not entirely wrong.

If women are cajoled into wearing them on air by their superiors, then yes, it is very demeaning, as men on air wear long sleeves and do not dress to vogue to increase viewership (men on prime time programming, are often topless and ripped).

If it is the female anchor or reporter's decision to wear a professional outfit without sleeves, it is a different matter.

As Canada is not the UK, where there is always Debrett's to give sensible advice, we sort of wing it here, anyway.

But Campbell does have a point that goes beyond television news: women on magazine covers in general do have to be more naked than the men.


Notice all of the men are wearing pants, but the one who has the bigger cumulative box office draw on that cover -- Julia Roberts (who outdoes Clooney by hundreds of millions of dollars) -- doesn't.

Campbell's observation isn't reactionary. When you see a consistent pattern that women cannot get publicity unless she is in some state of undress, that points to inequality.

Even men who are considered sex symbols get to be dignified about it:


And some women do have to fight tooth and nail for that equality, and win:


It is an issue that women have to take into consideration.


Versus Bono, who isn't just staring vapidly at the camera, he is making real change!


So for those who are offended by Campbell's remarks, they ought to think about more than throwing their noses in the air, thinking women have made progress.

Because that Beyonce cover is from 2014.

The Candice Bergen cover is from 1992.

Should women wear sleeveless shirts when they deliver the news?

If they want to wear them, yes, of course. They are women, after all, and they are adults.

But they should also think why they are really wearing it, as well. Is it just because, or is it, deep down, you are worried the interns swarming around the newsroom will replace you and you have to keep up with your looks and your body?

And not the body of work you have done.