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