Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Be Yourself - Not A New Wager

In case no one's noticed, the tone of this blog has gotten decidedly harsher, and that's intentional:

The site is called The Macho Response.

Not The Metrosexual Response.

Nor the I'm Not Sure What I Think So I'm Gonna Have A Kinda Wishy-Washy Moment thing.

I do know what I think, and there ought to be somewhere people can go to read someone who knows what they think, and will say it - openly and unadorned - with the swearing included and everything. TMR is NOT part of some super-sensitive new wage world order. As a matter of fact, it's the new wage order that's made me so harsh. I think the interests and sensitivities of people who believe in such things are obnoxious and harmful - just as I think belief, itself, is. Here, such people and attitudes get no quarter.

Here, I can read a NYT analysis bumper:

In his testimony, Gen. David H. Petraeus proposed an American troop presence in Iraq that would be longer and larger than what many Democrats have advocated.

And you can read exactly what I was thinking when I read it:

Who gives a fuck "what many Democrats have advocated"? Why does the NYT's war analysis always have to be a side-by-side comparison with what the Democrats - and the Democrats alone - want? The Democrats were against the war from the beginning - but have been on the losing side of every debate about it - so who cares? How about a side-by-side comparison to just what's in our national interest and leave the fucking loser Democrats out of the whole conversation already? Oh, yea - it's the NYT - and they're against the war too. So Republicans don't exist - until they win the latest debate - and then they're bad guys for winning the debate because the NYT was feeding the public a bunch of crap the NYT framed deceptively. Is that what the NYT calls being fair? Objective? Hardly, though I wish they were - but they ain't - and I know it. So I don't have to be fair, with them, either. Fuck the NYT. That's what they get for trying to take advantage of this black American's good nature,...

And so on.

TMR isn't a place for being polite. (Neither is the liberal denialism blog and nobody complains about their wimpy asses.) And why should every discussion be projected through the lens of people who lose every debate, usually, because they're making no sense? The celebrities, who starve themselves to death 'for health' or the people who want to control the minds of others into silence - because of their sensitivity? Fuck 'em all. TMR is where you get Red Meat. Vegans need not apply.

The LA Times has a lead article on Freegans - dumpster divers - why?

Is it such an important topic - a dumpster diving subculture - that it needs to lead?

Maybe it's because Freegans "do not want to depend on businesses that they believe waste resources, harm the environment or allow unfair labor practices." Well, great - and why should I give a damn about what they "believe"? Beliefs aren't worth shit but newspapers, today, seem enthralled by them. I know new wagers are.

These Freegans are stupid worry-warts, with an open agenda; they "hope it leads people to push their own limits and quit spending." Fuck them. We're in a war, and the LA Times is hanging out with dumpster divers - that should tell you everything you need to know about my hometown paper these days.

They've also got another lead story with this bumper:

Imagine Bush in jail stripes.

No - imagine the LA Times in jail stripes. Losers. It's no wonder journalism is looked down on today - it's not "reporting" but "indoctrination" into a new wage viewpoint - and it's gonna stop, because I ain't biting. Let the papers keep losing money, they'll learn: I'll get my news online, or by dumpster diving for the paper, because I "hope it leads people to push their own limits and quit spending" for this crap.

When news sources decide to aggressively dig into new wage operations and attitudes - and how they've harmed us - maybe I'll change, but until then, they can kiss this news junkie's money and support goodbye.

The Daily Mail:

The lead stories are on Britney Spears (tears) Anne Robinson (she's got "a new look") Posh Spice (seen puffy-eyed) and Sharon Osbourne (more tears) and this is fucking news how?

The only Daily Mail story getting major play, that comes even close to being news, is the Madeleine McCann saga.

Who runs today's news outlets? They're all new wagers. So called "progressives" who wouldn't know "news" to save their lives - and, considering all news sources are losing money, we're probably watching them die. Here's The Mail's war bumper:

Bush's top general dashes hopes of early Iraq retreat.

More "hopes" and "beliefs". When did we enter the new wage la-la land of hopes and beliefs? What happened to "facts" and "evidence"? Are the Daily Mail's editors children? Maybe Harry Potter is running things? Where is the fucking NEWS?

A dose of vitamin D could add years to your life.

"Could"? Or could not. Whatever. A so-called "reporter" getting hit over the head, by an angry news reader, can end his/her life, assholes, no matter how much vitamin D they took. I swear, they'd deserve it.

I gotta go:

I don't need this shit, and you don't either.

What you need is: