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.

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 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 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.“

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.

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!”

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!”

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?”

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 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!”

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?”

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)

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.

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?

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!”

When thousandaire blue-collar transit workers want raises that match inflation, a humane retirement plan — and an end to draconian disciplinary actions — insiders know there’s only one man who can restore order: billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.¹

As most local residents know, the NYC Transit Union began a partial strike today. The union threatens to call a general strike on Tuesday, bringing public transportation to a halt, unless the Metropolitan Transit Authority agrees to its demands.

The MTA had a $1 billion surplus this past year.

The average NYC transit worker earns $55,000 a year — which millionaire and billionaire experts agree is more than a fair share of the profits. Bloomberg issued a press release stating that a strike “would be more than just illegal and inconvenient; it will threaten public safety and severely disrupt our City and its economy.”

Analysts note that Bloomberg — whose $5 billion net worth exceeds the sum of all 33,000 transit workers’ 2005 incomes — “is the perfect man to stop the greedy workers from stealing hard-earned MTA money meant for millionaire executives.”

At Bloomberg’s side is New York State Governor George Pataki, with a net worth $2.35 million. He noted that strikers seeking better compensation will face “very, very severe consequences.”²

The world’s suit-wearing population — which includes government leaders and bureaucrats, corporate executives, religious leaders, and conservatives — requested today that people trust them.

“Look at my suit,” said a banking CEO at a press conference for the announcement. “It’s worth thousands. I’m clearly a man whose words should be strictly adhered to.”

Editorialists and pundits widely supported the request, although a fierce debate has erupted over whether blue ties or red ties are more trustworthy.

However, some political extremists and terrorists have criticized the announcement. According to one freedom-hater, “suit-wearing can be a good indicator of corruption, elitism, lack of substance, or the peddling of propaganda designed to internalize classism or intolerant dogma.”

“That’s a ridiculous notion,” countered a highly respectable suit-wearer as he stepped out of his limousine. “Why? Because the jean-toting people who make those dangerous statements are probably too filled with hate to own even one suit. Feel this suit. It’s silk. If I can afford to feel this good, you should probably trust my opinion.”

Only 12.6 percent — or one in eight — black men in their late 20s currently provide wealthy white folks with mandatory prison labor, lamented super-rich white people nationwide today.

This is down significantly from the height of the slavery movement in 1850. At that time, roughly 87 percent of black men were slaves in southern plantations.¹

“Dammit!” cried Lehman Brothers, Inc. CEO Richard S. Fuld Jr at a recent shareholders meeting. Lehman Brothers has made millions in private prison industry financing.² “Those were simpler times. An average exorbitantly wealthy white man like myself could count on forced labor from most every male negro. Now seven out of eight of them are free to choose their own vocation. Granted, we still pay the free ones extremely little, but give me a break: wage slave and authentic slave are two entirely different animals.”

Added Fuld: “And it’s even worse with the negresses!”

Still, most super-rich white people were happy to be in the U.S. According to one anonymous prison industry executive, matters are “much worse” in every other industrialized nation. “In Japan, less than a tenth of a percent performs forced labor while stripped of basic human rights. How’s a billionaire to function under those primitive conditions?!”

With over 45 million Americans lacking any form of health care, one topic has recently taken center stage among major media outlets and the U.S. Supreme Court: the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. According to several anti-choice activists, “stopping the senseless murder of fetuses is the most important issue of the day — excluding saving marriage from those dreadful gays, of course.”

One anti-abortionist continued, “We must stop the wanton murder of fetuses. Also, let’s increase capital punishment, because frankly, if you try to murder a fetus, you deserve the death penalty. How else can we foster a culture of life?”

Many anti-choice activists also strongly support the Iraq war, which recently claimed its 2,000th U.S. victim. The war has also caused the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children, while costing U.S. taxpayers over $200 billion — enough to provide universal health care several times over.

“There is no confusion here,” explained one anti-abortionist. “If poor people would get jobs and stop spending all their money on abortions, we wouldn’t need to spend money on healthcare. And because of terrorism, if we don’t kill Iraqis, people will die. So you see, we’re killing people in a foreign country to save lives. I’m talking about a culture of life, here. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got bacon and eggs waiting for me at home. I love eating eggs.”

For more information about abortion rights, see Planned Parenthood’s talking points.

The first seven months Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate were a time of quite reflection. The new Pope, deep in Holy contemplation about the world’s many injustices, made not a single defining act.

But Lo!, with God’s Blessing, Benedict XVI has recently emerged with his first compassionate decree: banning homosexuals from priesthood.

Benedict XVI, the holiest former member of the Nazi Hitler Youth militia, went even farther, excluding priesthood from those who “support the so-called ‘gay culture.’”

Benedict himself once said that “Having a clear faith, according to the credo of the church, is often labeled as fundamentalism.”¹ With the Pope’s deeply humanitarian act towards homosexuals, he will once and for all put that label to rest.

Displaying both generosity and compassion, President Bush granted an “official pardon” to Marshmallow the turkey. To be eligible for the pardon, Marshmallow had presumably been tried and convicted on felony charges of “being a turkey.”

Bush’s good will did not extend to an estimated 45 million other convicted turkeys, all of whom will be slaughtered and eaten for their crimes. Nor did it extend to Frances Newton, an African American woman recently executed in Texas despite questionable evidence of her guilt.

According to bloomberg.com, Marshmallow will go on vacation to Disneyland, stay in an upscale hotel, and then retire in a 1930s replica park. Butterball Inc., which kills eight million turkeys a year, sponsored Marshmallow’s chauffeuring to the pardoning ceremony.

“The granting of the turkey pardon is not a responsibility that I take lightly,” Bush said.