This Saturday, history was made: Republicans helped pass a proposal led by Democrats.  While some would argue that the truly historical event is the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy that resulted from the vote, clearly the real news here is that Republicans did not all band together to destroy all that is good and just in the world.  Everyone already knew that eventually gays would be able to serve openly in the military, after all.  No one could have predicted Republicans failing to obstruct a liberal proposal, though.

DADT was initially passed in the Clinton-era as a compromise between liberals and conservatives, which mandated that macho, moustached sergeants with bow-legged walks and manly grunts had to grit their teeth and restrain themselves from asking the pink boa-wearing soldier having sex with another man whether he was in fact gay, and the gay, boa-wearing soldier had to refrain from telling the quite masculine sergeant that he had sex with men.  The new policy, “Show and Tell,” would not change anything about the armed services, aside from allowing male soldiers to admit that the hooker they picked up in Thailand was, in fact, a man who just happened to look like a woman.

Months ago, the repeal of DADT looked nearly impossible, as Republicans blocked a defense authorization bill primarily because it included the repeal of DADT.  Defense authorization bills, bills that essentially allow the armed services to be paid, had been routinely passed without any qualms in the past, even in spite of additional controversial legislation that was often attached to the bills.  Frankly, the defense authorization bill could have had dead fish that reeked of sulphuric anal bursts from bovines attached to it and it probably would have passed.  The problem, of course, was that this time something worse than fish smelling of sulphuric anal bursts was attached.  This time, there was a provision that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. This weekend, though, the impossible was accomplished, and all that is required is a signature from Barack Obama to finally end DADT, which was repealed as a bill separate from the defense authorization.

Even with DADT as good as repealed, and a pentagon report showing only a low risk from repealing it, some Republicans are still shrilly insisting that ending the policy will wreak havoc on the armed forces. John McCain, for instance, said, “Today is a sad day,” and then rambled incoherently about how gays serving openly would be a “distraction” in life-or-death situations. Presumably, trained soldiers, suddenly cognizant that several of the lisping, well-groomed, fashion-forward members of their squad are homosexuals, would be so overwhelmed with this realization that they would forget they are being fired on by snipers and assault rifles while surrounded by roadside bombs. I know from personal experience that whenever I am in a life-threatening situation, such as when I’m wrestling a bear, one of the most distracting thoughts you can have is, “I wonder if this bear is gay?”  As soon as you think that, the gay bear will rip your face off, as all bears, homosexual or not, are want to do.

Gay soldiers are so deadly in military contexts, in fact, that it is difficult to explain why other countries allow gays to serve.  Some propose that these countries use the gays as deadly, glittery distractions for enemy troops.  ”What we do,” said a British general, under condition of anonymity, “is send out the queer regiment first. They then parade around in their leather assless chaps, causing the enemy to fearfully seize up and lose all power of movement.  These people are a lisping, dancing paralytic agent of such strength that any manly creature of any size, be it a Kodiak bear or a giant gorilla in a football jersey drinking a beer, inevitably falls victim to their spell and is incapacitated.”

Military scientists in Britain have detailed these effects. Apparently, many straight soldiers, like deer in headlights, often freeze in place in a vague stupor when encountering something new and different.  This fact is even well-known among the deer community, who describe brethren who have been hit by moving vehicles as “freezing like straight people who have just seen the gays.”

Of course, not all of the concerns are fictional nonsense emanating from John McCain’s backside and mythical British sources invented for humorous purposes.  For example, the pentagon study that characterized the repeal as low-risk showed that in combat specialist units, like the Marines, about half of those surveyed indicated misgivings and unease about serving with open gays.  Many of the Marines probably worry that the pink boas, the shiny glitter, and the sequined ball gowns that would no doubt be worn by the open gays would prove distracting.  The only thing stopping them from behaving in such a stereotypical manner, after all, could be DADT.

Of course, many recognize that the armed forces are already saturated in gayness.  Other than gays, for example, who would wear a green beret?  Other than a gay man, who would incessantly spend his time polishing a gun?  Other than a gay man, who would want to spend six months on a boat surrounded by seamen?  Not only that, but gays have been serving in the military already, just not openly.  With the repeal, the military could at least be honest about its gayness, as well as allowing honorable openly gay soldiers like Lt. Dan Choi and the entire U.S. Navy to return to the armed services.  Even some conservative Tea Party members have hailed the repeal as a victory for bigotry, as it will make shooting at gays just a little bit easier, and allow homophobic Islamic terrorists to do the dirty work of homophobic Christian fundamentalists.

In the end, the repeal of DADT will probably have minimal effects on the military.  When the military was integrated with African Americans, for instance, the furor was much greater among active military personnel, and yet things worked out on that front.  With gays already serving in all branches of the U.S. military, it makes sense that they should at least be able to be honest about it.  When blacks and women were allowed to join, no one forced them to remain in the closet, to serve as blacks and women but unable to be open about their blackness or womanhood, hiding themselves by taping their breasts down, speaking in an artificially lower voice, pronouncing the -ing endings of words, or constantly reassuring others that they’re just really, really tan.  It is only fair that gays can now join them in openly and proudly serving in an organization that has a long history of marginalizing and killing foreigners for no legitimate reason.  Now marginalized Americans can participate in this marginalization themselves, just like white males have throughout history.

If you want to get a liberal to look at something, direct your own gaze to it.  But if you want to get a conservative to look at something, throw money at it while screaming “A socialist black terrorist is trying to steal our guns!”  The latter is only a hypothesis, to be sure, but the former is demonstrably true, according to a recent study titled “The politics of attention: gaze-cuing effects are moderated by political temperament.”  Essentially, the study showed that liberals are more focused on social cues, and conservatives significantly less so, as demonstrated by eye-gaze cues.

I know what you are thinking, dear reader, and it is inevitably something along the lines of: “What the fuck does that mean, and why is it important?”  Well, it is very important, and I will explain what it means shortly.

In the study, participants were told to watch for a target and click the space bar on the keyboard when they saw it.  However, they were distracted by a drawing of a face that had circles for eyes.  First, pupils would appear in the eyes of the face, looking either left or right, and then the target object would appear.  Participants were told that the object would not necessarily appear where the face was looking.  Those subjects that took longer to find the object and press the space bar were thus distracted by the social cue of where the eyes were looking.  After the participants were given a survey detailing their political beliefs, it was found that liberals tended to be more distracted by the social cues than the conservatives.

When interpreting the results, the researchers hypothesized that conservatives were not as influenced by the social cues because of their belief in personal autonomy.  Similarly, liberals were presumably influenced by the cartoon face because they are foolish pushovers who care too much about other people.  Libertarians, on the other hand, did not respond to eye gaze cues, pleas for help from drowning children, or even the tortured cries of their own children, as they sat there motionless, lecturing them on personal responsibility and the need to return to the gold standard.

Republicans, of course, have already seized on this research in an attempt to outwit the Democrats.  While Republicans remain focused on their goal of getting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, Democrats have been constantly distracted by the Republicans as they keep looking ever-rightward. Obama himself, who once insisted that the wealthy should not have their tax cuts extended, was so distracted by cartoon eyeballs looking around that he seems to have forgotten his original stance, and he is now lecturing other liberals on the importance of extending the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Soon, the Republicans will install hundreds of giant cartoon eyeballs on the Senate floor, always looking away from things of importance, so that Republicans can vote unanimously for whatever vile bill they want as Democrats stare into the corner with cocked heads and befuddled looks on their faces, their eyes unknowingly drawn in this direction by cartoon eyeball social cues.  This way, with so many eyeballs looking at one corner, not even the likes of Bernie Sanders could hope to derail the Republican agenda with an 8-hour filibuster speech.  Instead, he’d speak for five minutes, find himself wanting to look at what everyone else is looking at, and then mumble softly until eventually he was saying nothing at all and merely standing there slackjawed, just like President Obama is now.

“This just goes to show how superior Republicans are,” said Republican House minority leader John Boehner. “If there were ever a scenario in which the world would end if the President did not hit the spacebar a few milliseconds after spotting a target on a computer screen, we’d all be dead with a liberal President in office if he were distracted by eye-gazing or concerns about homeless people. I think this just goes to show that Democrats are not competent and should be immediately impeached.”

On the bright side, however, the presence of eyes has been shown to cause better behavior in some studies.  Therefore, the Republicans, should they install hundreds of eyes staring into a corner, would suffer the unintended consequence of feeling actual emotions, like guilt, about their vile deeds, a novel experience that would no doubt be shocking to a class of people who have experienced only the emotions of greed and outrage for decades.

Republicans voted against tax cut extensions proposed by Democrats this Saturday, which would have provided tax cut extensions for the first $250,000 everyone makes. According to the Republicans, however, tax breaks for everyone aren’t good enough. How, after all, is a millionaire to feed his children when he only receives a tax break on his first $250,000 of income? How can he afford to buy troughs full of caviar and champagne, upon which his children feast daily, with the other $750,000 of his money subject to tax increases once the Bush-era tax cuts expire? He’d be forced to do the unthinkable: fill his troughs with the store brand caviar!

Republicans have consistently maintained that, given the current economic environment, no one should have their taxes increase. The economy is in absolute shambles, with American workers suffering under a staggering 9.3% unemployment rate. But it’s not just the poor and the unemployed that are in trouble. The rich are also experiencing economic hardships, with Wall Street only profiting by $19 billion, only its fourth most profitable year.  Clearly, if anyone needs help in today’s harsh economic climate, it’s the incredibly wealthy.  Now they can no longer shout out “We’re Number 1! We’re Number 1!” as they light their Cuban cigars with hundred dollar bills.  This year, they will be forced to softly mumble “We’re number 4! We’re number 4!” as they light their slightly smaller Cuban cigars with a wad of ninety-nine dollar bills.

Of course, Republicans argue that providing tax breaks to the wealthy creates more jobs.  As the wealthy save money from lower taxes, they are more likely to spend that money on random jobless people they meet in the street, giving them $20 to dance, DANCE, while shooting a golden pistol at their feet and laughing maniacally.  When tax breaks for the wealthy are not guaranteed, however, the uncertainty frightens them, so much so that they stop providing jobs, even in the face of increasing production demands that would no doubt turn a profit, and huddle in corners while rocking back and forth hysterically.  Being so uncertain about the tax situation thus stifles job creation, causing incredibly rich people to wonder whether they should be hiring more people or whether they should instead spend their time searching for tax loopholes like usual.

The idea that tax cuts for the wealthy also benefit the middle and lower class is known as “trickle down economics.”   No one is quite sure how this works, seeing as how wealthy people are more likely to save their excess money than spend it, but some have theorized that it benefits the poor presumably because the rich people accidentally drop their extra money from their penthouse suites into the alleys below, where random bums fight over it with broken bottle ends, exemplifying the trickle-down effect of the tax breaks.

Democrats, on the other hand, have argued that benefits for the poor and the jobless stimulate the economy better than tax breaks for the wealthy, because they are more likely to spend the money they receive, giving the money back to the businesses and the wealthy people that own them.  They have also emphasized the fact that Republicans constantly rail against increasing the national deficit, and letting tax cuts for the rich expire would help alleviate the debt to some degree.

However, with a Democratic President who promised change in charge, Republicans know that their best strategy is to stall any change whatsoever.  The Democrats could propose a bill asserting that 2 + 2 = 4, and Republicans would find a way to dispute it, most likely by denying several or all of the Peano axioms in favor of wild inconsistency, which would be consistent with their behavior in the legislature.  (Mathematicians, don’t bother me with comments that accepting contradictory axioms means anything would follow, including 2 + 2 = 4. In Republican math, the only thing that follows is that Obama is a Nazi Muslim and we’ve never seen his birth certificate so he probably was never born. Can you derive the parallel postulate with THAT axiom?) Strangely, the Republicans are also not willing to alleviate the deficit by cutting military spending, which accounts for much of it, instead emphasizing that older people should just work until they are 90 or so until they receive Social Security payments for their last few months of life, that the unemployed should simply starve to death, and that congress should conserve energy by turning off the lights during session and watering down the coffee.

In essence, then, the Republicans have become dyslexic Robin Hoods who steal from the poor in order to give to the rich.  They have voted against extending unemployment benefits, have promised to repeal healthcare legislation, and want to cut other entitlement spending that helps the poor and needy, while at the same time using these savings to pay for the Wall Street bailout and the tax cuts for the wealthy.  They want all of this even when they know that programs like foodstamps and unemployment benefits have a greater stimulative effect on the economy than tax cuts. It is necessary to make the wealthy wealthier, after all, or else the caviar companies would go out of business.

In spite of these partisan bickerings, however, there is a single truth that we can all agree on: The commercials are just too damn loud! Even in a world where people can’t agree whether it is proper to steal from the rich or the poor, congress has at least passed this ray of sunshine, giving hope to all those Americans who are still wealthy enough to own TVs, but not quite wealthy enough to own TVs with digital recorders that allow them to skip commercials.  Score one for the middle class!

According to a new study released by CQ Press, St. Louis is the most crime-ridden city in America.  The study ranked cities by comparing the rates of six major crimes—murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft—per 100,000 people in 2009.  St. Louis edged out cities like Camden and Detroit to claim the title.

“I knew we could do it,” said Leroy Walker, a well-known St. Louis criminal, as he wiped a tattooed tear from his eye.  ”All the other cities said it couldn’t be done, but we did it!”  he shouted, still wiping at his tattoo tear as his entourage doused him in gatorade.  ”We’ve proved that with a little hard work, a little perseverance, and a little gun, anything is possible,” he said in a more somber tone, this time rubbing his tear more vigorously.  ”I think that’s a tattoo,” I said in response, and in return Leroy tried to shoot me in the face.  ”Hey! Cool down, we don’t need to run up the score on the other cities,” said his compatriots.  ”Show a little sportsmanship.”

Not everyone, of course, is excited about the news.  St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, for instance, was noticeably displeased, as we could tell by his face, which bore a startling resemblance to a sad-face emoticon.  When the news was announced, he immediately called for a press conference to address any concerns.  ”I assure you,” he said, “that this study does not indicate that you will be raped and murdered if you live in St. Louis.  It only means that your chances of being raped and murdered are slightly higher.  Nevertheless, after a painstaking analysis, we’ve decided that the data are misleading.  For one, the study only chooses to accumulate data on insignificant crimes like rape, murder, and arson.  If the study had included such horrid crimes as pig-fucking and incest, no doubt Birmingham would top the list, and if the study had included police corruption and money laundering, New York would have climbed to the top.”

St. Louis ranked highly in most individual categories, as it was second in the nation in number of murders, second in aggravated assault, third in motor vehicle theft, and third in arson.  It was only fifth place in burglary, however, and a paltry eighth in rape, being outraped by cities like Minneapolis and Anchorage, where body warmth is a commodity worth fighting for.

Political science professor David Murray questioned the methodology of the study on a number of grounds.  ”To report on these measures as if they are measures of crime is highly misleading,” he said. “The study doesn’t take certain variables into account, such as whether the person murdered or raped deserved it.  And based on other studies, St. Louis is renowned for being the douchebag capital of the world, meaning that while its murder rate is high, in all likelihood the people being murdered are the types who find Axe body spray commercials funny, making the crime a community service more than anything.  Meanwhile, cities higher in rape, like Minneapolis and Anchorage, are filled to the brim with sexy conservative women, like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, who believe that raped women should be forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies, giving rapists more rape bang for their rape buck, effectively incentivizing rape even more. The crime statistics should take this into account.  If douchebags, gangsters, other criminals, and bat-shit crazy conservatives are the only ones being harmed, is there really any harm being done?”

Economists have also questioned the merit of the study.  ”Cities like St. Louis are experiencing more crime than other cities because of their vibrant economies,” said Mark Worth, an economist at Washington University in St. Louis. “In cities with more economic hardships, some criminals have had to cut down on their hours, being able to rape and murder on only a part-time basis.  Some criminals have even been forced into early retirement.  Additionally, there is less incentive to commit crimes in cities with poor economies, as the victims have less money and fewer possessions, and muggers are thus more likely to come away with pocket lint and a melted candybar rather than money.  Criminals are not just simple brutes with guns; they are simple brutes with guns who must follow the supply and demand curve, guided by the invisible hand, just like anybody else.”

Nevertheless, St. Louis plans a parade in honor of its achievement.  Said one of the parade organizers: “If you’re going to do something, do it right; and if you can’t do that, then fuck it up so badly, beyond all recognition, so that you at least get some publicity out of it.”

Among the top three cities with the lowest crime rates were Colonie, New York; O’Fallon, Missouri; and Ramapo, New York.  Purportedly, these cities have streets paved with candy and buildings made from unicorns and rainbows—unicorns and rainbows that do not fear rape or theft, unlike the unicorns and rainbows in St. Louis, which are constantly under fear of rape and stolen virginity.

It all started, as so many things do, with a man’s plaintive cry for another man not to touch his junk.  As a result, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has become the topic du jour of American political discourse, finally allowing the general public, and not just observational stand-up comics, to discuss airport security—some even going so far as to do so while using fancy French terminology. C’est la vie. La bête effectué philosophes suscité.

The TSA media circus started when John Tyner filmed an encounter from his phone, where he was observed admonishing a TSA attendant not to “touch his junk” before a routine pat-down.  As he uttered these words, “Don’t taze me, bro”-man shed a tear and relinquished his fifteen minutes of fame, allowing the media to descend in hordes upon this new story about an oppressed white man.

For those who don’t know, TSA is an agency that oversees airline security.  They use a variety of tactics to protect the American public from terrorists, brown-skinned people, and/or people wearing strange head coverings.  This is all well and good, considering the dangers of brown skin, which makes the wearer of said skin almost invisible to the naked or semi-clothed eye (such people are near-invisible not just in the darkness, but also in positions of power … which is why you almost never see them in such positions).  Likewise, odd head coverings have been used as weapons throughout time, assuming that “time” only goes back as far as 1964 and reality has been replaced with Goldfinger. And terrorists—they can be pretty dangerous, too.  Not as dangerous as brown skin, to be sure, as the bombs in their pants, shoes, and vans often turn out to be duds, but dangerous all the same, if only to their own egos.

The two tactics used by the TSA in airports that have received much media scrutiny in the past few days are full-body x-ray scans and pat-downs.  People chosen for screening are told they must consent to a full-body scan (which is capable of producing images of one’s naughty bits), and thus potentially bombarded by the harmful mystical technology rays that no doubt emanate from the machine, or else receive a pat-down that may or may not entail a TSA official’s hand grazing one’s nutsack (or vaginasack; we’re all about equal representation here).  The perceived choice between cancer and molestation is a choice that many airport patrons find unsettling, except for those who enjoy cancer and molestation.  Even more unsettling is the fact that these techniques are often used on highly unlikely threats, ranging from grandmothers to children, all of whom have white skin! At one airline security checkpoint, for instance, the following scene occurred:  ”I will not be mildly inconvenienced by your most-likely safe technology!” screamed a portly white man wearing a suit as a middle-easterner was dragged away with a bag over his head whilst a young lady with a cigarette pointed at him.  ”I will not stand for anyone slightly grazing my virility-lumps with their hand!” he yelled as a black man was fisted, his anus surely being the suppository of some sort of weapon of mass destruction.  As airport officials politely reasoned with the angry white man, a Muslim meekly added, “I agree with him,” upon which he was promptly shot in the face, with his corpse being shipped to Syria to be tortured and pissed upon.  The media, however, did not capture this last event, as they were quickly drawn away by another inconvenienced white man.  ”HOW DARE THIS POLICE OFFICER STUB MY TOE!” he chortled with rage.  ”I WILL HAVE YOU ARRESTED AND BEHEADED FOR INJURING MY FEETJUNK!”

Public opinion about the TSA’s procedures, of course, is mixed.  Some think that these small infringements of our liberties are necessary for the defense of our greater freedom.  Others think that, while a small ball-groping may not amount to much in the grand scheme of things, the cumulative effect of many small ball-gropings, repeated throughout time, adds up to something much greater than ball-groping.  It adds up to the end of America and the constitution and freedom and possibly apple pies, according to some calculations. ”We pay for these inane policies in more ways than one,” said noted libertarian politician Ron Paul.  ”Not only do we spend millions on these ineffectual x-ray machines and the earnings of TSA employees, but we also pay an emotional price in traumatized travelers.” He then bent down and began scribbling on a note pad, working out the cost of an emotion, as libertarians often do. “Sixteen billion dollars.  The number of people groped and scanned times the cost of antidepressant medication and PTSD cognitive therapy.  Think of the money our government could save if it simply didn’t make these people upset.  If we slashed the whole regulatory system, the free market would work out the problems.  People wouldn’t ride airplanes with too lax security, as those people would die at the hands of brown people, presuming brown people are actually people and actually have hands instead of strange, mutant monster claws (I’ve never actually seen one).  Likewise, people would vote with their wallets and wouldn’t ride planes with excess security that forced them to strip nude, bend over, and insert a cyborg into their anus.  The free market would thus create a happy medium: no one would ride airplanes; we’d take the bus to Australia.”

Many have proposed behavioral profiling as a more suitable alternative to outright molestation.  ”We currently screen children, old women, and priests.  This is uncalled for and unnecessary,” said Larry Hedom.  ”Authorities should only screen those whose behavior seems suspicious, using behavioral profiling.” He then assured us, “Keep in mind that this is not the same thing as racial profiling.  With behavioral profiling, authorities aren’t singling out black people, only people who act like black people.”

Larry Hedom’s statements about unnecessary screenings are not just hyperbole.  Father O’Malley, for example, is a Catholic priest who was recently scanned and searched at an airport.  He compared his recent experiences at airport security to his church: “When you go there, you will be exposed to cancerous, unhealthy practices and despicable scoundrels attempting to fondle your genitals in the name of some higher purpose.  At the airport, on the other hand, there’s just full-body scans and pat-downs.”

Not everyone is against the security measures, though.  ”I don’t want to have to choose between being scanned by a machine that sees through my clothes or being touched by a man who feels through my clothes,” said Ray Kurzweil, a well-known futurist. “I want both: a machine and a man both touching me in a bio-robotical orgy that culminates in the singularity, the uploading of my mind, and the inability to predict which orifice future technology will probe next.”