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 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 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.“

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.”

“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.”

“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

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.)

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.

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?”

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.

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.”

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

In a major speech yesterday, President Bush compared the struggle for democracy in Iraq to that of the 18th century United States.

Like Iraq’s new leaders, “Our founders faced many difficult challenges, they made mistakes, they learned from their experiences and they adjusted their approach.” said Bush.

Referring to U.S. history, Bush noted: “There were uprisings, with mobs attacking courthouses and government buildings. There was a planned military coup that was defused only by the personal intervention of George Washington.¹

“Also, like today’s Iraq, the United States was occupied by a foreign, nuclear-powered imperialist government bent on controlling America’s rich oil resources.”

Bush used these similarities to appeal to U.S. residents, most of whom no longer support the war on Iraq:

“In 1783, Congress was chased from [Philadelphia] by angry veterans demanding back pay, and they stayed on the run for six months. Then in 1784, a foreign military superpower killed tens of thousands of U.S. civilians while trying to secure oil fields and install a puppet U.S. government under a facade of democracy. They initially invaded us under the pretext of eliminating so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ but as that lie began to crumple, they shamelessly fished for new justifications. Only the strength of the American People let our democracy flourish under such conditions.

“It is important to keep this history in mind as we look at the progress of freedom and democracy in Iraq.”

Bush concluded by remarking that any pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq would lead to civil war: “If only Britain hadn’t cut and run from the Revolutionary War, we’d never have had our own Civil War here at home.”

Alexander Vershbow, the new US ambassador to South Korea, has concluded that North Korea is a “criminal regime.” The United States, in contrast, is not.

As evidence of North Korea’s criminality, Vershbrow listed several activities in which the U.S. also heavily participates: “the export of dangerous military technologies, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, … and many other illicit activities.”¹

The difference, U.S. State Department experts explained, is that North Korea is part of certain type of axis — specifically, an axis of evil. “When you are drenched in evilness, as North Korea is, criminality clings to you like a leech … an evil, criminal leech. But when you receive your agenda directly from The Lord Jesus Christ — as the U.S. does — exporting dangerous military technologies is like spreading little golden nuggets of peace throughout the globe.”

North Korea has repeatedly made global headlines for its evil nuclear weapons development program. In contrast, the U.S. continues to develop its nuclear weapons program for lawful and wholesome purposes, expanding upon the 12,070 such weapons in its current arsenal.²

The Bush Administration, along with a broad cross-section of Democrat and Republican congresspersons, is standing up in defense of Microsoft.

Microsoft Corporation, currently worth $295.2 billion,¹ has been fined by South Korea for violating its antitrust laws. According to experts, the $32 million fine — equal to 1/9218 of Microsoft’s value — is too much for the software giant to bear.

Microsoft has previously been deemed a monopoly by judicial bodies in the US and, more recently, the EU. According to ZDNet, “European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti ruled that Microsoft had failed to provide to rivals information that they needed to compete fairly in the market for server software and that the company has been offering Windows on the condition that it come bundled with Windows Media Player, stifling competition.”²

But Deputy Assistant Attorney General J. Bruce McDonald explained that “regulators should avoid substituting their judgment for the market’s.”³

Hebrew University professor Martin van Creveld, considered by some to be Israel’s most respected military historian, has presented his opinion on the Iraq war in this week’s issue of Forward. Calling the Bush administration’s war “the most foolish” war since 9 B.C., van Creveld declared that the “thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.”

Van Creveld’s “classic withdrawal” entails a “continued [U.S.] military presence, made up of air, sea and a moderate number of ground forces.”

True, this sort of withdrawal is highly similar to what others might call “non-withdrawal.” But real withdrawal is simply not an option, he argues, because “the region, with its vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that.”

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.

Why is fluoride in toothpaste and tap water? The American Dental Association calls the practice “safe and effective … for preventing tooth decay.” Then again, the ADA answers to the same government that promotes the anti-evolution “intelligent design” theory.

Does water fluoridation prevent tooth decay?
Probably. But how much prevention, and at what price? Tooth decay rates have gone down since the US started fluoridating water back in the 50s. But according to World Health Organization data, tooth decay rates decreased similarly for European countries not using fluoridation, during roughly the same period.

Even scouring the Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association, one is hard-pressed to find convincing evidence of fluoride’s overall benefit.

Is fluoride safe?
Not for humans. Low doses of fluoride are not akin to low doses of, say, anthrax. However, according to salon.com, “Fluoride is, after all, an extremely toxic compound that originally was sold as a bug and rat poison. A growing body of scientific research suggests that long-term fluoride consumption may cause numerous health problems, ranging from cancer and impaired brain function to brittle bones and fluorosis (the white splotches on teeth that indicate weak enamel). An estimated 22 percent of American children have some form of fluorosis.”

Why is fluoride in toothpaste and tap water?
Fluoride has been a poisonous industrial waste product for well over a century. But during WWII, military aluminum production caused the quantity of fluoride waste — and lawsuits against Big Aluminum — to skyrocket. Fluoride desperately needed a makeover, so the industry trumpeted the compound’s alleged dental benefits. In 1945, despite any credible scientific evidence, several industries persuaded the government to run a 15-year water fluoridation experiment (on humans) in Michigan. But before this experiment had neared completion, it was expanded to 87 more cities. Meanwhile, Edward Bernays, known as the father of the public relations industry, spearheaded an intense pro-fluoride propaganda campaign — repeating dental health allegations while downplaying safety issues. The toothpaste industry signed on with P&G’s Crest in 1956, and without further delay, a toxic compound had been transformed into a dental miracle. For a fascinating history of American fluoridation, see the Earth Island Journal

Is there an alternative to fluoride?
Maybe. Xylitol is a naturally occurring sugar alcohol found in birch trees and some fruits. Studies are still ongoing, but many have shown that xylitol reduces cavities by preventing bacteria from attaching to teeth. Xylitol can be well applied in chewing gum form.

Cindy Sheehan, that anti-war lady in Crawford, Texas, had a protest that was smaller than a protest in August. This according to articles in the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, The London Guardian, and several hundred other media outlets. An estimated 200 attended the rally.

Meanwhile, pro-Bush counter-demonstrators had their own equally significant rally. Reporters on the scene of the pro-Bush rally counted at least ten people in attendance. Experts might say that, based on these high numbers, the pro-Bush movement is gaining steam. One pro-Bush protester gave a nuanced argument for the continued deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq: “Real America won’t wimp out.”¹

One thing cannot be doubted: the competing pro-Bush and anti-war rallies reveal an America split to the core. But with the pro-Cindy crowd losing steam and the pro-Bush crowd clearly building momentum, only the American Public can decide which direction America should take.

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.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa) caused a media frenzy recently by suggesting that U.S. troops be removed immediately from Iraq. The New York Times summarized the situation as follows: “Questions Long Avoided Now Take Center Stage.”

While it’s true that the New York Times has long avoided these questions, other mainstream Democrats have been strongly taking a position on this issue for quite some time — and their words are loud and clear: “Like, let’s bring the troops home later, ya know?”

Strong proponents of “troops out later” include Senators John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, and rising star Barack Obama. At a speech today, Obama reiterated this ideology, demanding that President Bush admit his mistakes in Iraq, but rejecting a timetable for troop withdrawal, declaring: “We need not a time-table….”

This “troops out later” position has often infuriated Vice President Dick Cheney, who calls for “troops out never.” But the intensity of Murtha’s “troops out now” outcry has caused Cheney to reluctantly acknowledge the withdrawal discussion as “entirely legitimate.”

Alongside Murtha on extreme left of the mainstream political spectrum is 52 percent of Americans, who think U.S. troops should be pulled out now or within 12 months. Even farther left is the Iraqi population, 82% of whom strongly oppose the presence of foreign troops.

For further reading, see Democrats and the War in The Nation.

U.S. Did Not Use Skin-eating white phosphorus as weapon in Fallujah.
November 8, 2005: Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan appears on Democracy Now and says: “I do not recall [that white phosphorus] was used as an offensive weapon. White phosphorus is used for marking targets for both air and ground forces.”

OK, we did, but it’s not a chemical weapon.
November 16, 2005: Pentagon spokesman Col Barry Venable appears on BBC and says: “[White phosphorus] was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.” But, “white phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon.”

OK, it’s a chemical weapon.
November 22, 2005: A 1995 Pentagon document emerges, stating: “Iraqi forces loyal to president Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels.”

By the way, the chemical weapons we used are a grave threat to peace
October 7, 2002 George Bush appears in Cincinnati, Ohio, and says: “Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace…. The threat comes from Iraq. … It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.”

With the threat of terrorism increasing daily, the vigilant leaders of New York City have taken unprecedented — and perfect — safety precautions.

Random bag checks

Loudspeaker on subway: “Effective July 22nd, all backpacks, parcels and bags are subject to random search by the New York City Police Department.”

Fourth Amendment of US Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches … shall not be violated … but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Even putting aside this opportunity to forego our constitutional rights, none can argue that random bag searches aren’t absolutely useful. None. OK, maybe one or two.

Constant, repetitive announcements by train conductors
The more people hear about “suspicious packages,” remaining alert, and having a “safe day,” the more they want to slit their wrists — an effective counter-terror measure. With people already dead, terrorists will have to be extra vigilant to kill them with their suspicious packages.

Passengers should always “remain wary of suspicious behavior.” They should also “report exposed wiring [ipods?] or other irregularities [skin blemishes?].”

Based on these scientific concepts and the available data, the MTA has come up with a composite of who to avoid on the train and platform areas:

Soldiers wearing camouflage and carrying machine guns in subway stations
This pretty much speaks for itself. Just to spell it out: camouflaged guards are invisible to terrorists, and machine gun bullets are great for deactivating bombs or anthrax.

Together with the NYPD and NYC Transit, we can stop terrorism — and terror itself as an emotion — in its “tracks.”