In rulings legal experts are calling “appropriate,” two men were sentenced to jail terms today.

Sgt. Michael J. Smith, 24, tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib prison with his dog, a Belgian Shepard. (He is pictured in this famous photo.) Smith received six months jail time.

The very same day, Demetrius Frank Martinez from Washington state was convicted of selling cocaine five times to an undercover agent. Martinez received four years jail time.

“Justice — and God’s will — have been done,” stated one expert on the Fox News Channel. “My only regret is that the Mexican got off so easy. Save for keepin’ Mexicans off our shores, drugs are the biggest problem in the U.S. What Martinez did is unthinkable.”

Added the Fox News expert: “Ein Volk; Ein Reich; Ein Führer; Ein News Channel!”

So far, no senior military or Bush Administration officials have been punished for torture committed by U.S. forces.

Following a trend in corporate naming, the New York Yankees have been renamed the New York Goldman Sachses after a corporate buyout from Goldman Sachs investment bank.

“After last quarter’s record profit, we just didn’t know what to do with all our money,” Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson explained at a press conference. “We saw what happened with Red Bull and the Metro Stars soccer team. So we bought and renamed what was then called the New York Yankees.”

“We had jokingly considered donating to charities that would help starving African majorities gain control over their local economies. Boy did we have a good laugh about that one. Let’s just say that buying and renaming the Yankees was a no-brainer.”

Yankees owner George Steinbrenner welcomed the move, citing “the profound importance of global marketing.” “We need to synergize our corporate interests to increase profitability and shareholder value,” he said.

But not everyone was happy with the name change. “This is really a shame,” said one analyst. “A more targeted name would have been better. Something like ‘The New York Goldman Sachs Trading and Principle Investments Divisions.’ The chosen name may increase brand awareness, but it may have a harder time reaching some of Goldman Sachs’s core clients.”

In an event being described as “civil,” Democrat U.S. Senator Hilary Clinton and The Dark Lord Satan debated the subtleties of the Iraq war yesterday, on the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion.

Satan began by expressing his unrelenting support for the war. “We must continue to fight the War On Terror. Freedom is on the march. The enemy is in retreat. But there are new challenges, and we must be ever vigilant.”

Satan added that he also “strongly supports” all other wars, “until a nuclear holocaust causes the Final Apocalypse for the human species, and the Endless Night of the Dark Lord will Descend Upon the Earth.”

In her rebuttal, Hilary Clinton expressed general agreement with Satan, but disagreed over the current strategy used by the Bush Administration.

“The War On Terror is a Glorious War,” she stated. “But for highly subtle reasons I won’t get into, we need a new administration running it — a Clinton administration, to be specific. But until it’s politically savvy, I’m going to refrain from discussing the war altogether, instead calling for small-scale domestic reform.”

Satan thanked Clinton for her candor, but insisted that the Bush administration was “perfect” for the job of creating “Lakes of Hell-Fire” throughout the Middle East.

“Your argument is sound,” Clinton responded directly to Satan, “but it’s slightly off with the specifics. We’ve killed tens or hundreds of thousands of terrorists — that is, Iraqi men, women, and children — so far, and that’s an important step towards reducing violence. But we simply need to be more subtle about it.”

Neither side seemed swayed by the end of the debate, at which point the two shook hands, and Satan disappeared into a ball of red fire.

Media analysts are divided on who won the debate. Some claim Clinton’s use of nuance was too much for Satan, while others say The Dark Lord’s “purist” approach gave Him the upper hand.

In a public battle revolving around the inherent obscenity of women’s breasts, Google today was ordered to give a list of 50,000 web sites to the Bush administration.

Google recently made headlines for refusing to give the U.S. government a random sampling of 1 million Internet addresses accessible through its search engine and a random sampling of 1 million search queries submitted over a one-week period. Google simultaneously created a censored version of Google for all Chinese viewers.¹

Media pundits were up in arms, confused about whether Google was a privacy rights hero or a capitulator to totalitarian repression. But the underlying issue wasn’t about privacy or free speech — it was, of course, about women’s breasts.

Bush’s demand relates to the so-called Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which requires restricted access (i.e. a login ID and password) for commercial sites not meeting “‘contemporary community standards’ … and that showed sexual acts or nudity (including female breasts).”² By getting a random sampling of Google’s search queries and sites, the administration wanted to demonstrate that the web was saturated with vile breasts, and that people under 18 — say, 17.5 — are seeing them.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “The dispute drew considerable attention from … legal scholars, who alternatively praised Google for defending Internet privacy and accused it of protecting smut peddlers” — such as those who show breasts on their site. But along with misusing the word “alternatively,” the Chronicle offers no evidence of an even balance of opinion among so-called “scholars.”

It appears both the Bush Administration and Google have lost this battle. The judge drastically reduced what Google had to provide, but Google still may be seen as giving in on important privacy issues.

Ironically, even if COPA becomes permanent, it may still have a negligible effect on internet breast availability. The ruling will only apply to web sites hosted in the U.S.

The Child Online Protection Act is part of a long Bush administration tradition of Orwellian naming, including, notably, the Patriot Act, Healthy Forests Initiative, No Child Left Behind Act, and the Clear Skies Initiative.

In a recent interview with the Jarusalem Post, Israeli Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that “Whoever is involved personally and directly in terror is a [military] target.” His comments were directed towards Ismael Haniya, leader of the recently elected Hamas party in Palestine.

“Moreover,” Olmert continued, “you may be aware that I recently ordered an airstrike that killed two Palestinian children. For that reason, the Israeli military must also be prepared to take action against me, for national security reasons.

“We must ensure that I am a target if I continue my violence towards civilians,” Olmert added.

But Middle-Eastern affairs experts were skeptical that Olmert would actually launch a strike against himself. “It’s absurd, really,” said one Harvard professor. “Olmert’s got a nuclear armed military protecting him from attack. If Olmert tries to attack him [Olmert], he’ll be in for a big surprise.”

But U.S. President George Bush expressed support for the statement. “Olmert cannot be a partner in peace with perpetrators of terror, i.e., himself.”

Architect Richard Rogers was slated to design the absurdly expensive expansion of Manhattan’s Jacob Javitz convention center.

But then Rogers did the unthinkable.

According to Reuters, the architect hosted a meeting of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, a newly formed group. The group later decided to call for a boycott of Israel. (Among other atrocities, Israel has been illegally occupying Palestine for nearly half a century, causing formal condemnation on several occasions by the UN General Assembly and the World Court.)

An architect with controversial political views was too much for NY politicians to handle, so they sought to remove him from the project.

However, all was resolved in the end. Rogers distanced himself from the justice organization during a meeting with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Democratic U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner. Now we can rest knowing Rogers doesn’t really want justice for Palestinians, and progress can continue on the $1.7 billion expansion of that Javitz center.

The College Of New Jersey Ayn Rand Society, dedicated to promoting the works of ultra-capitalist Ayn Rand, has an extensive web page. The site details information on the group and provides links to other ultra-capitalists.

But there’s just one problem: the organization has no members.

“I’d love to join the TCNJ Ayn Rand Society,” explained one student. “It’s just that I don’t have a psychotic political philosophy.”

Ayn Rand, the late author, is famous for her so-called “objectivist” philosophy, which scorns the poor and handicapped while praising the dollar above all else.

Others were also disappointed in the low membership levels. According to one Junior, “if building giant dollar signs and then passionately worshipping them were my bag, then I totally would have signed up Freshman year. As it stands, I think I’ll join the acting club instead.”

The New York Times is confused about who elected Hamas to govern the Palestinians. In an article today, the Times identifies Hamas as “the Islamic militant group elected to govern the Palestinians.”

One might have a difficult time imagining the Times identifying Israel’s governing Likud party as “the Jewish nuclear-armed group elected to govern the Israelis.”

Instead, the Times identifies Likud simply as “right-wing.”¹ Ironically, the title of the article about Israel article is: “[Likud Leader] Olmert Orders ‘Iron Fist’ Against Militants,” referring to Palestinians.

With its strange passive-voice identification, the Times seems confused as to who elected this “militant group,” Hamas, to power. They must have forgotten how the Palestinians voted Hamas to a sweeping victory a couple months ago in a high-turnout, internationally monitored democratic election.

With issues like abortion rights, eminent domain, and torture in the foreground for many concerned Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken bold action:

“This court must settle the case involving former Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith,” Chief Justice John Roberts solemnly declared this afternoon. “It’s something about an inheritance or whatever.”

Justice Alito agreed, remarking, “It is imperative that this broad appear in our hallowed halls at the earliest possible date, and that she spend as much time as possible with each justice. Only in this way can justice be served.”

Added Alito: “We must kill anything — and everything — except your unborn fetus.”

But Justice Clarence Thomas was most elated of all the Court’s members. “The Smith case is particularly interesting to this honorable court, as well as on a personal level,” he explained. “This may finally help resolve the issue of how that pubic hair appeared on my coke can.“

“Oh!” exclaimed a wealthy suburban consumer this afternoon as she drove through her town’s main commercial thoroughfare. “I didn’t know they’d put a Barnes and Nobles’s up over there.”

“Oh, and they put a Chili’s up too,” she added. “That must’ve just gone up there. Do you want some Chili’s?”

Local suburban officials confirmed the woman’s allegation, additionally citing fourteen other new “big box” stores that “they just put up over there.”

Other passers-by also took note of the new Barnes & Noble. “This will really add distinction to our suburb,” one said. “We used to have a few independent booksellers in town, which made us really weird. Now that we’ll be indistinguishable from every other suburb in the U.S., I’ll feel much more like part of the ‘in crowd.’

“And now the people in our community can use these big box stores as a means to funnel their money to a few executives who live nowhere near us,” he concluded. “It’s so clever, you’ve got to love it!”

In a display of tragic irony, the most famous club for so-called “high IQ” individuals is founded on a deeply low IQ understanding of unintelligence.

Mensa, “the organization for smart people like you,” accepts people in the top 2% of “standardized intelligence tests.” These intelligence tests include:

• the LSAT — a test for law school admissions. Taking a pricey Kaplan test-prep course can significantly improve your score, thereby, according to Mensa, making you more intelligent in general.¹
• the GMAT — same as above, but for business graduate school.

It doesn’t take a Mensan to figure out that a business school test doesn’t measure your overall intelligence.

It may be difficult for overachieving academics to accept that logic and language skills aren’t the only types of intelligence humans possess. For instance, athletic, social, musical — and most importantly, satirical writing — abilities also come from the same piece of gray matter.

IQ tests also happen to be racist² and classist³ — which makes Mensa perhaps the largest promoter of the widely debunked “Bell Curve” IQ-model.⁴

Mensa, more than a high IQ society, is a sort of nerdy networking club for the upper-class.

Neoconservatives lost their last inkling of realism today, scientists have discovered.

The event occurred when, according to Reuters, neoconservative U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that the U.S. “lags dangerously behind al Qaeda and other enemies in getting out information.”

According to one U.C. Berkeley sociology professor, Rumsfeld’s statement “completes [neoconservatives’] transition to complete, mind-numbing idiocy. There no longer exists a topic that neoconservatives can accurately describe.”

The Journal Nature agreed: “The U.S. routinely manipulates preferred foreign media outlets, controls foreign magazines and newspapers, and distributes flyers and leaflets abroad. It broadcasts radio propaganda into countries like Iraq. And it runs Voice of America, which broadcasts worldwide in forty-four languages.

“At best, Al Qaeda has email, instant messenger, and a few sympathetic satellite TV hosts. It has no official leader or base, and may not really exist.

“From a scientific standpoint,” Nature concluded, “it’s evident that Rumsfeld’s statement was the last straw for the sanity of neoconservatives.”

“We regret having become completely nuts-o,” Rumsfeld commented later. “Now if you’ll excuse me, we neocons have to invade more countries to stop war; and we’ve got lives to waste — to save lives.”

A U.S. Spokesperson has called the publication of newly obtained Abu Ghraib torture photos “irresponsible and unnecessarily provocative,” CNN is Reporting.

This is perhaps in contrast to actually committing torture, which is, according to top U.S. officials, just fine. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote that anti-torture laws are “obsolete,”¹ and worked to provide a legal framework for its use by U.S. forces.

Concern by the U.S. about the new photos results from the recent Muslim anger related to anti-Mohammed cartoons. Officials, at least publicly, don’t want to fan the flames. However, if that were really the case, perhaps they wouldn’t have sanctioned the torture in the first place.

The New York Times, the most powerful media outlet in the world, is declining to show several new photos of Iraqi prisoners being tortured at Abu Ghraib.

A Times article featured two of the least disturbing pictures¹, but was then updated by an article with no pictures at all.² In Britain, the U.S.’s staunch ally in the war on Iraq, the BBC stated plainly: “Some of the new images are too gruesome to be shown.”³

Too gruesome for whom?

For you, apparently. The New York Times (and the BBC) don’t want you to see these images.

It’s probably not that The Times doesn’t think you can handle seeing the gruesome acts being committed in your name (if you’re from the U.S.). But if you get upset enough to act against the war on Iraq, that might upset The Times’ Big Corporate sponsors, many of which have a Big Corporate stake in the war. The U.S. government has also spoken out against publishing the photos, calling it “irresponsible,”⁴ and The Times is usually happy to fall in line.⁵

St. Valentine, the martyred Roman priest known chiefly for his association with Valentine’s day, is under investigation for denying that sexual abstinence is appropriate until marriage.

“Valentine is currently under surveillance for unpatriotic speech and shooting heart-tipped love arrows,” admitted NSA Director LTG Keith B. Alexander. “In this modern age of terror, premarital sex cannot be tolerated. Terror. Sex. Terrorism. Sex. Is sex terror? Sex is terrorism. Obey.”

Shockingly, Valentine has not denied the charges. “There’s a little invention nowadays I like to call ‘the condom,’” he stated sarcastically. “Using these ‘condoms,’ people can enjoy sexual intercourse without so much worry about pregnancy and disease. Still concerned? Try a little number I like to call ‘birth control pills.’”

Leslee J. Unruh, founder of the pseudo-hip anti-love site abstinence.net, strongly disagreed. “Sex is impure, plain and simple,” she said. “If a penis enters your vagina — or a tongue enters your mouth — it’s safe to say that you’re a filthy little slut. Does Jesus let filthy little sluts like you into The Kingdom of Heaven? No.”

But St. Valentine remained unmoved: “As a Christian saint, I actually live in Heaven, so don’t even step to me on that, ‘cause you’ll get shot-the-fuck down. If God hated premarital sex so much, he wouldn’t have invented latex, the nuvo vaginal ring, or Depo-provera. Not to mention penises and vaginas. Suckaz!”

It is still unclear if formal charges will be filed.

The impeachment of President Bush, followed by the election of Centrist Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2008, would create a near-perfect world, announced liberal elites today at a Yale University discussion forum.

“On matters of national security, global capitalism, torture, and increasing the unfathomably large military budget, Bush is spot on,” explained one Harvard Law professor. “It’s just that, well, he’s too damned barefaced in promoting the U.S. imperialist agenda.

“God I love torture,” the professor concluded.

“Subtlety is key,” added a former John Kerry campaign manager. “And frankly: Bush has none of it, particularly when it comes to suppressing the civil liberties of U.S. residents while exploiting the resources of the international community. We need a liberal Democrat who can perform these same tasks with more finesse.”

Other panelists had a similar take. One Yale University administrator explained that “Subtlety must be combined with moderation. Keep up the good fight to funnel money from the poor to the rich, but pace yourself. Give them small victories, that they might lose the Great War. Hillary Clinton would understand. Things are out of whack now, but a Clinton Administration in ‘08 would fix just about everything.”

Neoconservative U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been one-upped by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.

Speaking in the newspaper Pravda, formerly a powerful Communist Party organ in the U.S.S.R., Zhirinovsky said that Rice “loses her reason because of her late single status.”

“Such women are very rough,” he continued. “They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere…. Even if she had a whole selection of men to choose from she would stay single because her soul and heart have hardened.”

A U.S. State Department spokesman said Rice would not “dignify the article with a response.”¹ “Besides,” he stated, “Ms. Rice is busy defending the practice of torture. And don’t forget that patronizing, sexist remarks are an important component of Conservative Family Values.”

President Bush has called for an increase in violence to stop Muslim violence. “We reject violence as a way to express discontent with what may be printed in a free press,” said the President on Wednesday.¹

“But,” he clarified, “if you’ve got a discontent with what you see on Al Jazeera, then the appropriate expression is to bomb that sucker to the ground.”

Added Bush: “We will bomb any free press outlet that is terrorist.”

Mainstream political pundits agreed unanimously. According to a moderate analyst on CNN, “Muslims prove again and again that even the slightest provocation — like having their country invaded and occupied — leads some of them to acts of extreme violence. And now this cartoon nonsense. They’re barbarians! We must increase our military spending here at home to fight this religiously tainted violence. O War On Terror, Hallowed Be Thy Name!”

Televangelist Pat Robertson agreed, but added that “we must not miss this excellent opportunity to further isolate Westernized Muslims — and all people of color — here at home.”

At a press conference today, executives from large corporations extolled the virtues of free speech.

“As Americans, we take free speech very seriously,” explained Citigroup CEO Charles Prince. “Which is why we allow you some free speech during the six hours a day that you’re not at work. At the office, of course, we’ll be monitoring and filtering your emails, prohibiting millions of web sites, and blocking instant messenger.”

“And of course, if you curse at the wrong time or express a contrary opinion, you’ll be fired,” added Peter Wuffli, CEO of Swiss mega-bank UBS.

But Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott disagreed. “Yes, of course our stores are equipped with video surveillance — not for security, but to see if you’re talking about unions. But don’t think that just because you’ve left the Super Center for the day, you’re free to talk to your coworkers about unions. We’ll find out, and you’ll all be fired.”

Added Scott: “Always low wages. Always.”

Free speech experts have widely praised the executives. According to an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, “these executives have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to occasional free speech — if only those creepy Chinese could follow their lead, the world would be a much better place.”

“N-no no no no n-no!,” exclaimed a wealthy capitalist today at a New York social gathering. “You just don’t get it. Because without money and fierce competition, there’s no incentive to do anything. Society would collapse! What are you, nuts?”

The capitalist continued: “Anyway, can I get you something to drink? A beer? Oh, which reminds me — I’m having a party on my yacht next week. You’re welcome to come, and bring some friends. What? No, of course you don’t have to bring anything.

“What have I been up to? Well, I spend most of my time at the office. But let’s not talk about that, work sucks. I’ve been fixing up my house — I love it. I could have hired someone, you know, but it’s just so rewarding to do it myself. I love seeing the progress. And my family loves it too. I’d do anything for them.

“What’s that?” the capitalist concluded. “You need somebody to watch your kids this Sunday? Of course I’ll do it! Just do me a favor — don’t spew any more of that stupid crap about people working without a monetary profit motive. You’re really fuckin’ sick, you know that? Don’t you dare miss my yacht party!”

“Appalled” by the “grotesque sight of naked bodies touching,” U.S. Regulators have demanded that all sex scenes in movies, TV shows, and video games be replaced with “perverse, blood-chilling violence.”

“It is well established that the human form is among the most shameful in the cosmos,” explained Los Angeles city attorney Rocky Delgadillo, who recently filed suit against Take-Two for its sexually explicit video game, Grand Theft Auto. “I thought GTA was about carjacking and random violence — so naturally, I was elated. Then I heard about the hidden ‘hot coffee’ sex mini-game. I hope Take-Two burns in hell.”

At the press conference, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin expressed similar ideas. “My favorite TV show is C.S.I. I particularly love when they show the mutilated bodies of the murder victims. My least favorite? Without question, the Janet Jackson nipple-slip incident. The loathsome sight of a woman’s bare breast made me projectile vomit straight onto my TV screen. Clean-up was a doozy.”

“Sex? Ewwwwwwww,” explained Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. “Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got a date with my wife to watch ‘Kill Bill’. I just love when Uma Thurman’s sword slices off the top of Lucy Liu’s skull, revealing her brain.”

Almost 400 articles today (according to Google News) are reporting on ABC’s censorhip of the Rolling Stones’ Super Bowl concert. However, almost none will state the censored words.

Articles in the New York Times, the Scotsman, MSNBC, CNN, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, and BBC News reported the censorship without explicitly stating what was censored. (Reuters appears to be an exception.)

The offending words? “Cocks” and “come.”

Disney executives defended the decision in a press conference. (Disney owns ABC.) “Can you imagine if the masses had heard the words ‘cocks’ and ‘come’?” asked CEO Robert Iger. “They would all get so horny! Women would become unchaste. Men, like lechers.”

Added Iger, pounding his fist on the podium: “Free love would spread like a wave of terror across the land! It would be chaos, I tell you! Dirty chaos!”

“Reality” lies between Democrats and Republicans, centrists said at a press conference today.

“Every story has exactly two sides,” explained a representative of Time, a centrist magazine, “with objective reality exactly in the middle.”

Al From, CEO of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council corporation, added that those two sides “are called ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’.”

“For instance,” From continued, “take the issue of gay marriage. On one extreme you have Republicans, who call for the elimination of gay marriage. On the other you have Democrats, who also call for the elimination of gay marriage, but propose so-called ‘civil unions’ instead. The correct answer on this topic lies somewhere between these two options.”

From concluded: “And whereas Republican leaders have fiercely supported the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, most Democratic leaders have only strongly supported it. ‘Fiercely’ and ’strongly’ are very different words — we must find a middle ground.”

But some cynics in the Republican Party sharply criticized the centrists. According to one CEO, “It’s true that there are two sides, but the sides are that of Jesus and Satan. Republicans directly follow the will of Jesus, whereas Democrats are led by The Dark Lord.”

The Chinese public has begun to react to its government’s decision to ban “Memoirs of a Geisha” from the country’s cinemas.

“I was kind of annoyed. I heard ‘Memoirs’ was OK, I guess,” said one Beijing resident before being immediately hauled off to jail, charged with “unpatriotic speech.”

Others were less forthright. “I did a Google search about this censorship issue,” said a young woman, “but nothing came up because they censor everything here. But I heard it [the movie] was kind of bad in my local newspaper. Although, I’m not entirely sure, because as I was reading about it, the paper was seized by a government officer and burned in front of me. I was then beaten. The paper’s offices have since been raided and destroyed; the thought police are now attempting to erase all memories of the paper’s existence. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to return to my Wal-Mart sweatshop job — I only worked 17 hours so far today. U.S. consumers are depending on me.”

U.S. Government officials rigorously denounced the censorship. “This is a civil liberties nightmare,” remarked one senator. “I mean, censorship is a fundamental part of controlling the barbaric masses, but why do those Chinese have to be so blatant about it?”

Speaking at the National Press Club, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that the threat of a terrorist attack on the U.S. may be “may be greater than ever before.”¹

Rumsfeld’s statement comes after nearly three years of U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and costing U.S. taxpayers over $230 billion.²

“With a loss of civil liberties and social programs, a ballooning deficit, and a decrease in national security, it’s painfully obvious that the War on Terror has been a nightmare for American civilians,” Rumsfeld stated. “And trust me, it’s been much, much worse for the Iraqis.

“With that in mind, it is of paramount importance that we continue waging the War On Terror without altering our approach whatsoever.”

But Democratic Senators issued a stern rebuttal to Rumsfeld’s remarks: “The War On Terror is a Glorious War, but we’re waging it somewhat incorrectly. We need a slightly better plan. And we should bring the troops home at some point, too.”

In his State of the Union address yesterday, President Bush said he was “humbled” by his privilege to speak in the Capitol building.

Following suit, world leaders released a joint statement today expressing humbleness — a show of submission and reserved pride — about the fact that they will make all the broad social, political, and economic decisions without your input.

“The tremendous amount of power we wield is deeply humbling,” the statement read. “That’s why, if you don’t follow our rules, it will be with extreme deference that we shuttle you off to jail, perhaps to be tortured.”

Political analysts have uniformly hailed the statement as a “touching show of genuine emotion,” with the Fox News analyst adding: “Ein Volk; Ein Reich; Ein Führer; Ein News Channel!”

Other leaders who have recently been humbled by their immense power include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice¹ and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.²

Afghanistan — the “festering wound, with primitive warlords still dominant, an isolated capital with no control of the country side, no national infrastructure, and a once-again booming opium trade the country’s only economic bright spot”¹ — is a “wonderful success story,” according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today.

Meanwhile, U.S. puppet Afghan President Hamid Karzai has developed a new economic strategy destined to make all Afghans millionaires: “Come to Afghanistan, make money, take most of it home,” he said, addressing foreign investors. Just “leave a little with us.”²

Karzai has other revolutionary ideas, including on the topic of voting reform. Speaking before his U.S.-backed election victory, he stated: “If Afghans have two registration cards because they like to vote twice, well, welcome.”³

“For the safety of all passengers,” American Airlines now requests that passengers use the lavatory in their own cabin only.

U.S. Transportation Security Administration administrators hailed the decision as “an important step in the March of Freedom.”

“The War On Terror starts right here, in the bathroom,” said American Airlines CEO Gerard Arpey in a rare interview. “If the nice white folks in First Class had to share their bathroom with the vulgar masses … well … I can only imagine the terror I’d feel after seeing a negro had just used my toilet.”

Added Arpey: “Would I catch the black disease?”

But some detractors argue the measures don’t go far enough. One Republican Senator has called for “the total elimination” of coach class bathrooms. “When I see an Arab enter a bathroom, how can I be sure he’s not building a biological weapon from microbes in the aircraft’s tap water?”

Arpey offered no comment on the Senator’s request, but remarked that “bathroom safety issues should be a key component in any anti-terror legislation.”

In a press conference today, President Bush commented on the striking victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections. Referring to Hamas’s militancy, Bush declared, “I know you can’t be a partner in peace if you have a — if your party has got an armed wing.”¹

“Moreover,” the President continued, “the armed wing of the United States, known commonly as the ‘U.S. armed forces,’ disqualifies the U.S. from peace partnership as well. The U.S. can no longer be a partner in peace with this administration.”

Asked whether the U.S. might consider taking military action against the U.S., Bush replied that “all options are on the table.”

“Part of winning this war on terror is to understand the nature of the enemy and to find out where they are so we can protect the American people,” Bush explained. “Because of its militant insistence on maintaining an armed wing, we must protect the American people from the U.S. using any means necessary.”

Bush concluded: “I am prepared to call on our army, if necessary, to bring an end to the U.S. army. Only in this way can the U.S. be a partner in peace.”

In his first encyclical letter, released today, Pope Benedict XVI described the “inescapable sense of solidarity between all peoples.”

However, the Pope stated that governments, through “subsidies or tax relief,” show “significantly” more solidarity than individuals. (With such benevolent governments, one might wonder why anyone needs tax relief in the first place.)

The Pope recently bemoaned a lack of solidarity from media outlets, who he claimed “undervalue” religious belief.¹ However, a Google News search for “pope” returns over 15,000 articles.

Pope Benedict is a former member of the Nazi Hitler Youth Militia.²

“Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability,” said Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz on Monday.

Israel is generally believed to have 300-400 nuclear weapons.¹ The country has not stated any intention to dismantle or reduce its current stockpile; in fact, it refuses to confirm or deny having them at all.

Israel “must have the capability to defend itself,” Mofaz continued, “with all that that implies, and this we are preparing.” Presumably, “with all that that implies” is a secret code phrase meaning “by bombing Iran.”²

For several decades, nuclear-armed Israel has similarly “defended itself” against Palestinians, who may be in possession of 300-400 hand grenades.

(For nuclear disarmament talking points, click here.)

Ford, the world’s third largest car company, hopes to “revive its business” by “slashing up to 30,000 jobs,” the BBC has reported.

“This is a great move for Ford,” said one analyst. “Having 30,000 fewer employees will breathe new life into the firm. You’ve seen the cars they make currently. Imagine how much better their cars would be if they had 30,000 fewer people making them.”

Employees were also elated. “It’s essential that Ford’s stock value continue to increase,” said one Ford factory worker, a struggling father of three. “If my job reduces corporate efficiency, then it’s my duty — and my honor — to be fired and let my family go hungry this year. It’s about efficiency, people. Glorious market efficiency!”

Stock brokers, recently rebranded as financial advisors, issued a joint statement to investors today, entitled “Our new plan will beat the market.”

“We first discuss your personal financial objectives,” the statement read. “Then we create a series of relevant action items before implementing broad-based, diversified portfolio solutions tailored to your specific needs. The net result of this process is beating the market.”

The statement concluded: “It’s value added.”

Some rogue FAs, defining themselves as “old school,” were skeptical about the statement’s claims. “Yes, of course every investor can beat the market,” said one broker. “That’s obvious. It’s just that these highfalutin poppycock terms like ‘action item’ give me the heebie-jeebies.”

But most brokers agreed fully with the statement. “In Communist countries,” said one FA, “they might tell you the market’s too complex to beat, or that insider trading laws make beating the market legally impossible. They might even go so far as to say that not everyone can beat the market for obvious logical reasons. Well, back in the real world, by assessing your long term needs and risk tolerance, we’ll develop a customized asset allocation plan that will outperform just about everyone. Now that’s value added.”

(For more information, visit Financial Sense)

What otherwise might appear to be a completely biased article has retained absolute objectivity, thanks to ample use of quotation marks.

The article in question is entitled “Justice O’Connor, a ’sensible’ jurist,” and appears in today’s CNN.com. Because “sensible” is in quotes, CNN has not expressed any opinion of its own.

Sub-headers of the article include “The ’swing’ justice” and “‘A great role model’.” In both cases, CNN is simply reporting viewpoints — its own voice remains completely neutral.

According to the article, “‘Sensible solutions’ may best describe how the jurist approached thorny legal questions.”

Examples of O’Connor’s “sensibility” include her rulings in favor of public funding for private religious schools, against affirmative action, and supporting the right for boy scouts to ban homosexuals. According to The Nation, “On criminal justice, her rulings in the 1980s and into the ’90s helped erect rigid sentencing regimes that now haunt governors and judges alike.”¹ Most “sensibly,” she voted to appoint George W. Bush to the presidency in Bush v. Gore.

O’Connor served mainly under the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whom CNN described, objectively, as a “‘Unifying figure’ on court.”²

The New York Times editorial staff has concluded that the Gaza Strip, “recently evacuated by Israeli settlers,” is “teeming.” The example of the word “teeming” in dictionary.com is: “A drop of water teems with microorganisms.”

Without Israel’s brutal, internationally condemned occupation of Gaza, the editors wonder “whether there will be any valid authority left among the Palestinians.”

The Times continues by warning of an impending “civil war” between these “invalid” authorities, “militant” Hamas (killed one Israeli in 2005) and Fatah (part of the Palestine Liberation Organization).² But they don’t bother to provide any evidence of why such a war is imminent.

The desired conclusion: Inhuman Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves. Their only skill lies in terrorizing Israelis.

The reality is much more complicated. Elections are approaching in both Palestine and Israel, and the outcome will determine a great deal for both nations. Hamas has tempered its hard line, while Fatah has grown severely corrupt. A Hamas victory in Palestine may spur an ultra-militant right wing victory in Israel (i.e. Netanyahu), while Fatah control would not represent the needs of the Palestinian people.

For a realistic examination of these issues, see ZNet and Znet.

Fox News and CNN, the two most powerful news networks in the U.S., both mention the phrase “liberal media” extensively on their web sites.¹ In fact, the phrase “Liberal Media” returns 432 current news articles in Google News. (In contrast, the term “Conservative Media” returns 95 articles.)

“Clearly,” said one media analyst, “editors of major media outlets think that they, themselves, are liberal — and this makes them very angry. At themselves.”

But one media executive begged to differ: “Those liberal media nutjobs’ll tell you anything to turn this country into a liberal nuthouse! And by ‘those liberal media nutjobs,’ I mean ‘me and my editorial staff.’ After all, we do have a 20% share of the prime-time TV news market.”

“God do I hate those bleeding-heart liberals,” he concluded, before jumping out his penthouse window, overwhelmed by the paradox of being simultaneously liberal and conservative.

And according to Fox News, the highest Nielsen rated News Network, Saddam Hussein may “have the liberal media in his hip pocket.”

(One liberal media outlet is Eric Alterman’s web site. Znet is a left media outlet.)

Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere, has taken center stage in the news today after a visit by Hollywood’s hottest celebrity couple, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

Jolie and Pitt brought some much needed “Hollywood glamour” to the impovrished country, according to ABC News. ABC describes Haiti’s situation as “beleaguered” and “tumultuous.” But Jolie said that “given just a little chance, and given a little help, this is going to be a great country.”

How did Haiti get to be this way? Because “former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forced from power in a violent rebellion nearly two years ago.” Who was rebelling against whom, and why? There’s no explanation.

There’s just one missing detail: reality. The U.S. has been deeply involved in preventing Haiti’s success since Woodrow Wilson’s 1915 invasion.¹ That, and Aristide — Haiti’s first democratically elected president — was ousted in a U.S. coup d’etat in 2004.²

Lawmakers and law enforcement agencies were unanimous today in their call for the general public to “respect the law.”

“This is a nation of laws, and if you break the law, you’ll pay the price,” said one U.S. Senator. “For instance, say you’re a top corporate executive of Enron, and you’ve cheated employees, shareholders, and others out of hundreds of millions of dollars. You’ll pay a steep price in legal fees to get yourself out of trouble. That, my fellow citizens, is a little thing called justice.”

California police chiefs agreed: “As police leaders, we have a profound respect for the law. That’s why if you get caught stealing bread three times in our state, we’ll proudly help you begin your mandatory 25 year jail sentence.”

“I love the law,” added one billionaire executive. “And if loving the law is wrong, I don’t wanna be right. Without laws, I wouldn’t have made 321 times more than the average employee of my company last year.”

However, some right-wing Supreme Court Judges conceded that not all laws are perfect. “Sometimes laws can be murky. For instance, 17th century Virginia lawmakers tried to determine if children got by a negro woman and an American man would be slave or free. They said slave — correctly, I might add. Wait, what was the question?”

In a recent interview with the New York Times, the chairman of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A, Yukitoshi Funo, said American consumers are “really, really nice people.”

“American consumers,” declared Funo, “are more on the open-minded side, rather than closed minded. They are … they are … really, really nice people … nice customers.”

The Japanese car company sold roughly 7.5 million cars in 2004, 2 million of which were purchased by U.S. residents.¹ The Toyota Camry is the best-selling car in the US.²

Some Americans have recently expressed concern at the impact of Japanese cars on American companies like Ford and GM. The Times interviewer described the political situation as “touchy.” But Funo disagreed. “Each country have a different situation,” he said. “American consumers are more on the open-minded side. . . . That’s the reason we’re successful, and how much we are thankful to the American consumers.”

The U.S. contains 5% of the world’s population but accounts for 26% of the world’s oil consumption.³

BBC has thoroughly covered Toyota’s perspective on a recent auto worker strike in India. At one point, the BBC quotes Toyota’s general manager at the striking plant, saying: “We would like to restore normalcy as soon as possible, but at the same time we would not like to compromise on discipline.”

The perspective of the factory’s workers is not mentioned.

Quoting extensively from the Toyota manager, the BBC drew a comparison with a recent Honda strike — one that cost Honda millions of dollars. The BBC does not mention why the Honda workers were on strike.

(For more information, visit Indian Express)

An exclusive organ analysis has revealed that TV psychologist Dr. Phil knows everything. Advising the public on matters from personal finance to “affair-proofing” marriages, Dr. Phil always knows the perfect solution.

Dr. Phil got a B.S, M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from North Texas State University. Experts suspect it was during this time that he discovered “a complete knowledge of the universe.”

Sometimes an absolute understanding of all things can be isolating, but in Dr. Phil’s case it led to frequent appearances on the Oprah Winfrey show. It was there that he first helped millions of viewers “get real about their own behavior.”¹

Sadly, a new class action suit claims Dr. Phil’s dieting products are fraudulent. Recently obtained emails written by Dr. Phil himself say that he had “no expertise” in the subject. This seems to contradict his own advice: “Don’t embarrass yourself or put yourself in a situation where you’ll look back and feel humiliated.”² But such apparent contradictions can be written off as the mystery of profound genius.

In a move experts are calling “unsurprising” and “completely obvious,” corporations have resolved to increase the value of their stock shares for 2006.

For instance, Business Wire is reporting that “Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (NYSE:ATI) today announced actions designed to continue to increase shareholder value.”

One expert yawned while reading that Circuit City is committed to “upgrade, evolve and innovate our business and increase shareholder value.”¹ “I’m so bored by this topic that even the slightest discussion of anything else would, by comparison, be akin to sexual ecstasy,” he concluded.

“There’s really nothing to say,” noted one rhyming financial analyst. “Corporations exist to increase shareholder value, so this isn’t really news per se. Come what may, they’d do the same thing anyway. Have a nice day. OK?”

However, Chinese sweatshop laborers breathed a sigh of relief at the news. According to one Chinese labor representative, “If Wal-Mart had changed its mission to accommodate social concerns over profit, we might have some free time and spending money. Imagine our hopeless, desperate confusion as we tried manage our own affairs!”

Rapper 50 Cent issued a stern warning to listeners in his latest album, The Massacre: “You should take time to check that bitch.”

50 issued his statement after presenting several pieces of key supporting evidence. “I have ya ho, eyeballin’ at the light,” he said, alluding to the way your girlfriend has shown interest in 50 and his “big white [Mercedes] Benz.”

Added 50: “damn pimpin.”

50 Cent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal Music Group, which is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi Universal S.A.

Expressing concern about the current situation with your girlfriend, 50 Cent declared that he’s “tired of tellin’ niggas over and over I won’t hesitate to pop or shank ya.”

“You don’t listen you gon’ get ya ass hit,” 50 concluded.

Intel, the world’s largest computer chipmaker, will be upgrading its brand next week, BBC has reported. The company will have a slightly modified logo and a new slogan: “Leap Ahead.”

Intel’s products will remain exactly the same.

Intel, the company, is worth $150 billion. But its brand, one of the most highly marketed in the world, is worth $35 billion on its own.¹

Marketing experts hailed the decision. According to one researcher, “With a stronger brand, Intel can charge consumers more money for the same products, increasing profits. It will also help manipulate consumers’ ideas about what Intel is. This is a great move for America.”

Time Magazine named Bill Gates “Person of the Year” last month, adding the convicted monolopolist to a long list of genocidal maniacs, torturers, and other role models.

Gates, who has done immeasurable harm to the technological progress by thwarting competitors and innovation at every turn, was a “fresh and interesting” choice, according to Time Managing Editor James Kelly¹

Other fresh choices have included

• Adolf Hitler (1938, murderer of six million Jews)
• Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942, responsible for tens of millions of Soviet deaths)
• Ayatollah Khomeini (1979, Iranian dictator who extensively outlawed civil rights)
• George W. Bush (1990, 2000, and 2004, lied to U.S. to justify illegal invasion of Iraq)
• Faisal bin Abdelaziz Al Saud (1974, Fascist Monarch who increased Saudi Arabia’s military)

Time is already excited about the possibilities for the 2006 person of the year. Candidates include Osama bin Laden, “The Humble Terrorist,” The Grim Reaper, Satan, and Nuclear Weapons.

Large corporations everywhere have a question: “Are you ready?”

Referring to a technology unlikely to hit the mainstream for at least ten years, CNN asks: “Are you ready for a hydrogen car?”

Urging Americans not to forget their primary directive — to consume — Florida’s Sun-Herald wants to know if you’re ready “for the last-week rush of holiday shopping.”

Dan Mabbutt of About.com — owned by The New York Times — wants to know: “Are you ready for the Complete VB.NET Tutorial?” Just give them your name, email address, and zip code, and you can become ready!

And Lifetime, Television for Women^TM, wants to know: “Are you ready to be loved?” “Yes, it’s likely that your soul mate is out there.” But you’ll never find him, ladies, if you’re not ready to be loved. Take Lifetime’s quiz to discover whether you’re ready — or a misanthrope loser.

Billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg today referred to striking transit workers as “selfish.”

Among other disagreements, transit workers have refused to allow the MTA to significantly worsen their retirement benefits.

Bloomberg himself is the sole private possessor of many things:

• a mansion on Manhattan’s upper east side.
• private homes in London’s Cadogan Square; Vail, Colorado; Bermuda; Armonk
• a farm in North Salem where his daughter keeps her horses¹.
• an 80% share of Bloomberg, Inc., the media megacorp that bares his name.
• $5 billion

New York State Governor George Pataki, a millionaire who indirectly controls the MTA through leadership appointments, has joined Bloomberg in harshly condemning the strikers. Pataki has continually decreased funding for the MTA, and he has clearly forced this strike into existence.

Pataki’s probable motive: showing business elites he’s tough on workers and “corporate friendly” as he prepares for a 2008 presidential run.

In 1892, super-rich Henry Frick cut impoverished steelworkers’ wages, so they went on strike. Frick hired armed mercenaries who protected strikebreakers and attacked the striking employees. The state government responded to this situation by bringing in the militia to protect strikebreakers — and then wrongfully charging union leaders with murder. If it were 1892 today, where would Bloomberg and Pataki stand?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are locked in a fierce competition to see who can be the most completely ridiculous Middle-East leader.

Although corporate media outlets have been careful to give a “fair and balanced” accounting of the engagement, it’s clear that both are pulling no punches in their quest to be the most totally fucking nuts.

Both leaders have a history of madness. Speaking about Palestinian territory brutally occupied by Israel, Netanyahu argued that “we cannot allow the establishment of a Palestinian state in our country” — even though the rest of the world, including the U.S. (Israel’s staunch ally), did not consider Gaza and the West Bank to be part of Israel.¹

For his part, Ahmadinejad implemented separate elevators for men and women while mayor of Tehran.²

Now both men are turning up the heat.

Ahmadinejad, who recently called the holocaust a “myth,” has now banned Western music in Iran.

And Netanyahu — poised to once again head Israel’s neoconservative Likud party — has placed himself to the political right of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a former Defense Minister convicted for his primary role in the massacre of thousands of Palestinian civilians.³

A panel of crazy judges recently selected Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad over runners-up Sharon and Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. A final winner is to be determined shortly.

Racists everywhere are scrambling to find new outlets for their unbridled hate, thanks to the recent identification of a skin color gene.

Scientists at Penn State recently published their findings in the prestigious journal Science. According to Scientific American, while searching zebrafish for cancer causing genes, the scientists ended up isolating the gene that makes European skin white.”¹

Faced with the overwhelming meaninglessness of skin color, racists are now hard-pressed to justify their malice. According to one racist, “Geneticist Kieth Chang and his team have shown that African-Americans are really just like me. I’m now faced with the formidable task of exploiting and dehumanizing a different subset of the population. Are Muslims still fair game?”

Other racists were even more affected.

“The entire fabric of this great nation is built on the profitable abuse of blacks, yellows, reds, and browns — domestically and internationally,” said one Republican state Governor. “With scientific support for our blind malevolence no longer a possibility, who will staff sweatshops, clean my house, work in poultry factories, or provide critical prison labor? Our whole economy will collapse!”

In an analytic discovery that scholars are calling “a breakthrough by any standard,” the New York Times has concluded on its front page that “the [Bush] administration has relied on an unusually expansive interpretation of the president’s authority.”

Since 2000, the Bush administration has launched globally unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bulldozed radical legislation through congress, and spied on thousands of U.S. residents without congressional or judicial knowledge.

But despite efforts, none have known what to make of this information — until now.

“This clarifies the actions of the Bush administration in remarkable ways,” remarked one political scholar, “opening up breathtaking new opportunities for study.”

A logician affiliated with Stanford University agrees: “That the Times could take so much information and piece it together so clearly is — and I don’t say this lightly — a marvel that shakes the very foundations of mathematics.”