Search Continues for Missing Shoppers

Broomfield, CO--

Crews searching for three shoppers missing at Flatiron Crossing since last Sunday made good progress today and say they are "closer than ever" to locating the shoppers. A much-needed break in conditions gave crews a small window of opportunity to comb previously inaccessible mall acreage and narrow their search significantly.

"We were able to cover much more ground today than any of the last previous days combined," Sheriff Jed McGraw said. "Conditions were such that we moved a lot of people and equipment. We expect to find something in the very near future."

Christmas shopping crowds, weather, and mechanical holiday displays hampered rescue efforts throughout the week and into the weekend. One crew member even had to be rescued himself when he became entangled in a moving Santa's sleigh and reindeer attraction.

The missing shoppers' families, for the eighth straight day, hunkered down with officials in nearby condominiums, awaiting word on their loved ones' fates.

"Again, we are hopeful, and we are confident our loved ones will be home for Christmas," Terry Cinnabon, Tim Cinnabon's wife said.

Cinnabon and two friends, Marla Michaels and Carla Abercrombie entered the shopping complex more than a week ago for what was supposed to be a quick trip to get a small number of items. They knew what they wanted, where they wanted to go and the route they would take, friends familiar with the trio's plans have said. By all accounts, they were experienced mall shoppers.

The route, though not unusual, was one of the more difficult traverses through Flatiron Crossing, according to experts.

"It was not the customary route," shopping complex expert Ted Mallrat said. "It is not something I would have attempted at this mall even in the summer."

The shoppers may have been setting themselves up for disaster by attempting the traverse in December when hordes, weather and holiday attractions make quick shopping difficult if not impossible.

The last contact made by any of the shoppers was a brief cell phone call Cinnabon made to his wife last Sunday. At that time, Cinnabon said they were in trouble, but had found a safe place for the time being. They were going to stay put and wait for conditions to improve before attempting to depart the mall complex, he said. GPS technology pinpointed the call as coming at or near the two-story climbing wall in Gart, a retail sporting goods outlet. Cinnabon's phone has only emitted sporadic faint signals since then.

Mallrat said the best course of action, given the conditions, was for the shoppers to hunker down out of the elements, and that Gart was a sensible place to do just that.

"There are tents there, sleeping bags, hand warmers, you name it," Mallrat said. "If the GPS is accurate, and that was their location, I am hopeful that they did the right thing and have withstood the severe conditions somewhere in the vicinity of the Gart store."

Search teams were hoping to reach the Gart climbing wall as early as this afternoon, but were turned back several yards from their destination by a parade of human nutcrackers and the Polar Express, an 18-car childrens train ride running throughout Flatiron Crossing.

"We hope to get back at it tomorrow," Sheriff Jed McGraw said. "And when we do, if the conditions are right, we expect to find those shoppers and bring 'em home."

Anyone attempting shopping excursions at any large, multi-story shopping complex in the next week should make sure conditions are not too hazardous to make the return trip and should remember to take proper precautions before leaving the safety of your automobile, McGraw said.

"And never go in alone."

Terrorists Win: Americans Choose Certain Death

Washington D.C.--

It's official: Americans would rather die than vote Republican. Senators Conrad Burns and George Allen both conceded to their opponents Thursday, completing a transfer of power in the U.S. Senate to Democratic challengers. Democrats also gained control of the House of Representantives in elections held Tuesday.

In what has been described by some commentators as "kamikaze-style" voting, American electors disregarded stern warnings from Republican candidates that Democratic Congressional majorities would result in horrific terrorist attacks at best, and nuclear holocaust at worst.

"It's just a shame that Americans decided life was not worth living," conservative talk show host Sean Hannity said. "Obviously not enough people are listening to my radio program, or this never would have happened."

Meanwhile, terrorists worldwide were giddy at the prospects of a two year free-for-all.

"We are extremely pleased with the results of the American elections," a spokesman for Osama Bin Laden said. "We look forward to wreaking a significant amount of death and destruction upon the American populace while we have this window of opportunity."

Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were reportedly already planning mass slaughters to occur immediately after their detentions are declared illegal by activist judges.

Exit polling indicated a majority of Americans were so displeased with GOP leadership that they didn't care whether they lived or died.

"To be honest, at this point I would welcome death," factory worker Ricky Busby said. "They can bomb us to kingdom come for all I care, as long as I don't have to listen to those idiots in Congress drone on about 9/11 and the so-called war on terror while they take 75 cents of every dollar I earn and give it to the oil companies."

Shari McElroy, whose son was killed in Iraq while patrolling a neighborhood in Najaf, said that she would rather "die in a hellish ball of fire" than see the GOP in control of Congress.

"They are the ones destroying America, not the terrorists," McElroy said. "If I was in a dark alley and I had the choice between an Arab with a bomb strapped to his stomach and a Republican, I'd rather meet the Arab. At least with him you get a quick death."

President Bush was clearly disheartened at America's decision.

"In a few days you'll snap to and regret this," Bush said. "You'll wonder how you could have been so stupid. It's nothing to be ashamed of, we all have felt that way at one time or another. But you get up, you move on and you face the day. It may take a couple terrorist attacks, but by 2008 you'll start feeling like yourselves again."

The threat level in the U.S. has been elevated to Red (imminent) until further notice.

Pastor Forgives Gay Masseuse for Molestation

Colorado Springs, CO--

Colorado Rev. Ted Haggard on Friday forgave 49 year-old gay masseuse Mike Jones for molesting him. Jones had accused Haggard of paying him for sex and drugs over a period of three years. Haggard admitted to buying drugs and a massage from Jones, but nothing more.

"I went over there for some meth and a massage," Haggard said. "I guess I got more than I bargained for. But I forgive him-- that's the Christian way. No hard feelings. He'll have to answer to the Lord, and that's good enough for me."

Jones, however, did not apologize and is adament that their relations were consentual.

"Ted came over with $200 and a Costco-sized tub of KY," Jones said. "He told me very explicitly what he wanted me to do. I gave him a massage, all right. I gave him the works."

Haggard, who was senior pastor at New Life Church in Colorado Springs and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, stepped down from both of those positions Thursday, citing personal reasons.

"I am just not able to give 100% to my church right now," Haggard said. "I'm still dealing with the trauma of being sexually assaulted by a homosexual masseuse. It's going to take me a little while to walk this one off, so to speak."

Haggard's 14,000-member congregation has shown unwavering support in the wake of the allegations and has praised Haggard for being a model for compassionate conservatives everywhere.

"We just feel so bad for Ted," New Life member Simon Peter said. "It is so inspiring that he can stand up and forgive the man that did such horrible things to him. Thinking about what happened just makes me sick. Even the thought of the two of them together and that homosexual holding Ted down and-- excuse me-- I just threw up in my mouth a little. Hopefully this means Pastor Ted will be back as soon as possible."

In the prepared statement in which Haggard forgave Jones, he again reiterated that he did not meet Jones with the intention of paying for sex.

"To claim that I would pay for gay sex is ridiculous," Haggard said.

Sources close to the situation said Haggard wouldn't pay for gay sex because he usually has no trouble getting it for free.

But church members responded to the allegations of these additional homosexual relationships claiming Haggard was likely conducting unorthodox Bible studies.

"He always talks about 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,'" Ephraim Goliath said. "He was probably just converting some homosexuals."

Goliath went on to say that there were hundreds, if not thousands of people in his church who Haggard has "miraculously cured of gayness".

GOP Accuses God of Flip-Flopping

New York--
In a last ditch effort to derail The Almighty's bid to win several congressional and senatorial races this November, the GOP has called into question what they characterize as an inconsistent record. The tactic has put God in a defensive posture, an unfamiliar position for the being widely credited with the creation of the universe.

"People know me," God said in a prepared statement. "They know what I stand for. Deep in their hearts, they know what's best for them and for this country, and they know it is electing me to these offices."

God entered seven different races this year as an Independent. Though many questioned His ability to handle the rigors of running multiple campaigns, He thus far has had no problem meeting the demands of an impossible schedule. In June, God stunned the public by appearing in three different debates simultaneously. Opponents have accused Him of using body doubles and stand-ins, but God has maintained that He personally appeared in each of the debates.

In making other simultaneous appearances, God seemed to overcome doubts that He really could hold several offices at once. But now, the GOP appears to be attempting to force God to answer some of the questions much of the world has had on its mind since first editions of The Holy Bible were printed centuries ago.

"Is God for war or against war?" GOP spokesman Alan Abernathy asked. "Is He for slavery? Is He for adultery? What about the death penalty? Where does He stand on gay marriage? God seems to have developed a very inconsistent record in the book He authored. It's classic flip-flopping, and the public deserves to know where He really stands."

God has stated in debates and other public appearances that He believes the Iraq war was a mistake and that the death penalty "needs some serious consideration." He has called for an end to prohibitions on gay marriage and substantial revisions to the recently passed torture legislation and the Patriot Act, saying the policies are "motivated by ignorance, prejudice and hatred."

But with God in neck-and-neck races with Republican incumbents, the GOP has mounted a formidable attack, this time using God's own words against Him.

On war and torture, for example, God has said in the Bible:

When the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally (according to the law of anathema). Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. (Deut.7:2-5, 2:34, Num.25:1-5, 31:14-17, Ex.23:33, Joshua 6:17, 8:26).

In the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshipping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut.20:16-18).

"These appear to be pretty clear indications that God personally mandated mass slaughters, including genocide, apparently," Abernathy said. "To turn around now and claim to be a champion of human rights seems disingenuous at best."

On capital punishment, Abernathy points out that God has said:

And when a man doth presume against his neighbour to slay him with subtilty, from Mine altar thou dost take him to die. And he who smiteth his father or his mother is certainly put to death. And he who stealeth a man, and hath sold him, and he hath been found in his hand, is certainly put to death. And he who is reviling his father or his mother is certainly put to death. (Exodus 21: 14-17).

"This immediately precedes the famous 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' phrase," Abernathy said. "If there's a greater endorsement for the death penalty out there, I haven't seen it."

God's supporters, though, have pointed out that later Biblical passages directly contradict these statements, chief among them Jesus' famous "Sermon on the Mount" found in the Gospels.

"You'll see that in the Gospels, Jesus clarifies God's position and that position is completely consistent with the one God is taking today," said Clarence Cartwright, a spokesman for God's campaign. "God is a God of peace and a God of love. God is love, actually."

"That's just what we're saying," Abernathy said. "The book itself is filled with inconsistencies. On one hand He's destorying Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality, and on the other hand He has Jesus saying the greatest commandment of all is 'love your neighbor'. The simple truth is that it's flip-flopping, and God has to acknowledge it."

In a stunning response, God angrily denounced The Bible, calling it "tabloid journalism at its worst."

"Those people [the authors of The Bible] put words in my mouth, and words in Jesus' mouth," God said. "Rumor, innuendo, and hearsay. That's all that book is. I sent Jesus down there to set them straight, but when even that didn't work I gave up on it. I mean, these are the same people that thought the downfall of Man was caused by a talking snake and an apple."

Analysts are already saying God's tirade may have hurt his numbers among evangelical Christians, whose votes He was counting on to help put Him over the top.

"I don't know if I can vote for a candidate that doesn't believe in the Bible," Kansas resident Shirley Smith said. "I need to know that He represents my Christian values, and a statement like that tends to make me think He doesn't. And when He said He was against the death penalty, well that just cinched it."

The bright spot for God in all this, if any, is that He may have actually raised His numbers among atheists.

"He has already come out very strongly in support of the separation of church and state," Brentley Bromile, a political analyst said. "The Bible rant will likely get more secular-progressives out to the polls, and if there are enough of them He may be able to close the gap."

El Diablo? No!

Guest commentary by The Devil

The world (and underworld) have been all abuzz over the comments made last week at the U.N. by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez calling U.S. President George W. Bush "the Devil". A lot of people down here have been asking me what I think about it and wondering if I thought it was bad form to come to America and call the President names. "Can you believe he insulted the President like that?" they say.

"Insulted the President?!" I said. He insulted me! I've been called every name in the book, from "Prince of Darkness" to "The Father of Lies" to the "Angel of the Bottomless Pit", but to compare me to George W. Bush? That's just wrong. I am hereby reserving a special spot in Hell for one Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias. That he would have the gall to compare me to G.W. Bush is simply astounding. Mentioning me in the same breath as that man was just a low-blow, and it will not go unpunished. Let this be a warning to anyone else (I'm talking to you, Ahmadinejad) who thinks they can get away with comparing me to this President: Think long and hard before you decide to lump me in with this guy, for you will suffer eternally if you do, and that's a promise.

Now, a lot of people might be saying, "Hey, you're both evil, what's the big deal?" Well, I might be The Devil, but I still have standards. I like to think of myself as stern, but fair. When people deal with me, I give them fair warning and they know exactly what they're getting into. Who am I to blame if temptation gets the best of them? Bush, on the other hand, is totally ruthless. He is indiscriminate and altogether uncaring. Take Iraq, for example. My good buddy Saddam and I had a good thing going over there. Sure, he was committing atrocities, but what did you expect, he's an evil dictator? Bush on the other hand, comes riding in on a white horse of "democracy" under the pretenses of "saving everyone", but ends up making it 10 times worse! Now there are things going on over there I wouldn't take credit for even if I could.

See, the difference between he and I is I let people make their own decisions. Sure, I might use a little deception and chicanery to influence the choice, but hey, I'm the Devil. I don't pretend I'm not. I might make promises I don't intend to keep, but at least they know it's the Devil they're dealing with. I'll use every trick in the book, but I won't just impose my will on people. Unlike Bush, I let people dig their own graves. And when things fall apart for the people I deceive (and they always do), I don't continue to lie to them like Bush saying "Oh don't worry, it's all going according to plan. Just tough it out and you'll get your reward in the end. . ." No, I say "Gotcha! Ha ha ha! See you in Hell, sucker! Tee hee, fiddly dee!"

Maybe a little analogy will make it clearer. If someone is drowning in the ocean, I offer the person a choice: You can pray to God, and yeah He'll probably save you, but you'll just go back to your boring, mundane life. Or, you can take my hand right now, and not only will I save you, but all of your wildest fantasies will come true. Then it's up to the person. If he/she chooses God over me, I don't just grab his/her hand anyway! Not only would Bush yank the person out of the water, whether he/she wanted him to or not, but then he'd stick a knife in the person's back and tell him/her it's the only way to drain the water out of his/her lungs. "Trust me, you'll thank me for this someday," he'd say as he goes through the person's wallet. Even I'm not that cold.

This is not to say that Bush and Co. haven't been good for business down here. Make no mistake, a lot of people are thinking it's a good idea to sell their souls lately. But I just wanted to clear the air, get a few things off of my chest and make sure people weren't getting the two of us confused. Oh, and one more thing, Hugo-- it doesn't smell like sulfur down here, it smells like The Golden Corral. Sulfur is much too tolerable.

Coma Victim Grateful for CNN's Real-time 9/11 Coverage

Davenport, IA--

Tom Reynolds wasn't anywhere near Manhatten on September 11, 2001. In fact, he was sound asleep. The whole day. The whole year, actually, and all four of the next, deep in a coma since a tragic slip n' slide accident in August of that year. So when he suddenly awoke early in the morning on Monday, September 11, 2006, he had no idea his world was about to change forever-- or that, in actuality, it already had.

"The nurses came in and told me that I was in a coma for five years," Reynolds said. "After the shock wore off, I decided I had better check out CNN to see what was going on these days. You know, try to get caught up."

Reynolds, just coming to grips with the fact that he had been unconscious for five years of his life, couldn't have prepared himself for what he saw next: the World Trade Center collapsing before his eyes.

"I was back in shock," he said. "I just couldn't believe it. We were being attacked by terrorists, and all I could think was if everyone I knew in New York was ok. I started making some calls."

Friends and family in New York were shocked to hear his voice. At first they thought it was a sick prank. Reynolds was frantic.

"I just kept yelling at him to get a grip, you know, pull yourself together, man," said Ed Hampton, Reynolds' longtime friend who used to work in the World Trade Center's South Tower. "He just kept shouting 'Get yourself out of there! Get a gun! We're under attack dammit!'"

Try as he might, Hampton couldn't reason with Reynolds.

"He was absolutely out of his mind," Hampton said. "There was no explaining anything. I don't know if it was the coma or what, but he had completely lost it."

Reynolds continued to make desperate calls, sometimes to numbers that no longer were assigned to people he knew. Angela Liota, who moved to Manhattan just three months ago, was one recipient of Reynolds' pleas.

"I came home and had 15 messages on my machine, each one crazier than the next," Liota said. "He kept saying I was being attacked by terrorists and that I should crouch under a chair. I really thought it was a crazy person disturbed by the anniversary or something. I have caller ID, so if he calls back I'm screening it."

Reynolds' panic would finally subside that afternoon when, while flipping channels, he caught a report about the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Still somewhat confused by what he had seen, the truth began to dawn on him when he saw a promo for CNN's "Real-time" replay of their September 11, 2001 coverage.

"That's when I started to put it all together," he said. "Man, was I relieved. Of course, I still didn't know if many of my friends were dead or alive. And then I found out that almost as many people have died since then in Iraq- and I had a couple buddies in the Guard back then, so I started to wonder about them too."

Despite the shock, grief and worry, Reynolds says he is grateful that CNN replayed their coverage in real-time.

"You know, if I wasn't able to watch that, and truly believe it was happening at the time, I feel like I would have been missing out on a national event," Reynolds said. "You know, watching that horror unfold on live tv and feeling the resulting shock, fear and trauma was a common experience for the whole country. Missing that would be like missing the first episode of Survivor. I just would have felt really out of the loop at the water cooler."

Reynolds also credits the experience for some of his newfound beliefs.

"Had I not been able to watch the terror literally roaring in from the skies above, I would not be so nearly afraid of potential attacks now," he said. "Not afraid enough, at least, to vote Republican, which I'm going to do from now on."

Despite the initial setback, doctors expect Reynolds to make a full recovery.

9/11 Hijackers Grow Tired of Paradise

Paradise--

Five years after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States shocked the world, the 19 hijackers responsible are growing restless in paradise. Dissatisfied with their virgins and complaining of false advertising, the Islamic martyrs who earned eternity in paradise on 9/11 now say they made a mistake.

"They made it sound like non-stop pleasure," one of the disgruntled hijackers said. "I mean, 72 virgins! How could you go wrong? But they don't tell you about the nagging- or the emotional problems."

The consensus, according to the hijackers, is that none of them wants to have to "deal with the women" one more night, much less for eternity.

"Virgins are a two-edged sword," another hijacker said. "You know how it is. They all want their first time to be some special, romantic thing. And then they want to cuddle and talk about it. But, you know, I blew myself up in an airplane. What more do you want?"

Another hijacker said that he quickly grew tired of the virgins.

"After 30-40, it started to get to seem more like work than fun," he said. "And that's when they start in with the complaining. Then it's just no fun for anybody."

"I wish I was told about the technicalities," said one hijacker, thought to be responsible for United Airlines flight 93's tragic crash landing in a Pennsylvania field. "Let's say that #5 is a really good lay, and I'd be happy with her for awhile. Well, no, you have to go through all 72 before you can get back to #5. So obviously, it started to become somewhat of a chore."

Other hijackers, however, complained that 72 virgins was not enough.

"It only took me a couple of months to get through them all," one said. "So what am I supposed to do now? Yeah, I had 72 virgins, but now I all I got is 72 sluts. I didn't see that one coming."

"I don't know how they put up with it," one hijacker said of the others who were hoping for more virgins. "If they want some of mine, they can have them. I'm going to put in for Guardian Angel duty or something. What a sham."

The quality of the virgins, according to some, also leaves much to be desired.

"You find out soon enough," said one, " there's a reason that most of them are virgins."

Reports of the complaints were dismissed among Islamic militant leaders, and potential suicide bombers were told that the problems with virgins "were not widespread" and that "they were doing everything possible to rectify the situation."

Insensitive Mascots the Shame of the Sports World

The 2006 college football season kicked off last weekend, and with it the debate resumes over what many see as offensive and derogatory mascot names. People across the country have been clamoring for the NCAA to ban mascot names that make reference to Native Americans. The NCAA last year declined to ban the use of the mascots, but announced they would limit the use of mascots deemed to make "hostile and abusive" references. They may as well have taken a big foam finger and slapped all the Indians in America right across the face.

Not only are team mascots like the Fighting Sioux (University of North Dakota) objectionable, but I don't think the NCAA, or all sports leagues, for that matter, should stop there. What about teams like the Raiders (Oakland) or the Buccaneers (Tampa Bay)? Were all 17th and 18th century sea-going wayfarers cunning rapists and pillagers? I know from watching Pirates of the Carribean (1 and 2) that at least some of them were jolly and likeable. Pirates around the world have the right not to be denigrated in such a way by these irresponsible mascot depictions.

Further, there are a host of animals, from reptiles to mammals, getting a bad rap. Who is to stick up for the gentle American grizzly bear, harmlessly foraging for berries and grubs in the Northern Rockies when teams from Memphis to Montana portray this creature as a ferocious bloodthirsty killing machine? And what of the endangered tiger, one of the most popular team mascots in America? Based on the mascots alone, you'd have to assume that tigers are senseless man-eaters that will stop at nothing before all of your babies are devoured. But you'd never be able to find out for sure, because there aren't even any wild tigers in the U.S.! To even guess that tigers might be fun to hang around, you'd have to be from Inda, or know someone who is. And who knows anyone from India? I guess you could call your computer's technical support number, and ask them, but what would they know? They sit in warehouses all day answering technical support calls. The point is, animal mascots are at even more of a disadvantage because they can't even sue. So you can have a team called the "Furious Field Mice" and portray a red-eyed, evil mouse with fangs in full attack mode and completely get away with it.

To make matters worse, teams are now exploiting natural phenomenons for mascot purposes. I can think of nothing more insensitive than mascots like the Lightning (Tampa Bay) and the Hurricanes (Carolina). Think of all those Hurricane Katrina victims scattered across the country, trying to piece their shattered lives back together. So they turn on their new plasma screen tv's (thanks, FEMA) to take their mind off of it all, and what comes on? A Carolina Hurricanes hockey game, complete with rabid fans chanting "Hurricanes! Hurricanes!" over and over. Talk about rubbing salt in the wounds. And think of the poor lightning strike victims, recovering from surgeries and skin grafts in a Salt Lake City burn center, propped up in their beds so they can catch a little tv before they pass out again from the pain. And what pops up? A Tampa Bay Lightning game! Outrageous! Lightning and Hurricanes take a massive human toll on our population year after year, but somehow these mascots slipped past the censors. It's like naming a team the "Holocaustin' Hitlers" or the "Slaughterin' Stalins". Of course, no one would stand for that. Maybe the "Murderin' Mansons" would cause a bit of a stir, but probably only in California.

So what is the solution? I think to get away from all the controversey and bickering, teams should adopt accurate mascots from everyday life that everyone can relate to. Because as you know, Sioux Indians no longer raid villages on horseback with piercing war cries. But often they will still take your money at a mega-casino. So maybe a more accurate suggestion would be the University of North Dakota Swindlin' Sioux? You could then easily transfer this theme to other tribes: The Flimflammin' Flathead, Bilkin' Blackfeet, Hustlin' Hopis or Shuckin' Cheyanne. That's five replacement, non-offensive mascot names right there. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to come up with more.

To be fair, we shouldn't be limited to Native Americans either. There are plenty of caucasian people out there that are every bit as scary as the animals and ancient warriors of our past. You could have teams like the Relative-rapin' Rednecks, Jug-jigglin' Jailbait, Mice-munchin' Methmouths, Crack-addled Kid-killers, or Neo-conservative Christo-fascist War-mongers. I think there are plenty more where that came from.

That's just the start- the rest is up to you. Remember, as the fall sports seasons get underway, the team you're cheering could be insulting you or your ancestors with reckless and derogatory mascots. They could also be rubbing a horrible tragedy in your face, like the Pittsburgh Steelers do every Sunday to anyone who's ever been injured or killed in a horrific steel factory accident. And no one deserves that.

Dr. Phil Tells Middle East to 'Get Real'

Washington--

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday revealed renowned television talk-show host and conflict resolution guru Dr. Phil as the centerpiece of the Bush administration's strategy for quelling the escalating violence in the Middle East.

"Dr. Phil brings with him a wealth of experience in these matters," Rice said. "His straight-talk and no-nonsense style is just what this kind of conflict calls for. He won't pull any punches."

Rice, while not promising that the U.S. strategy could result in a cease-fire between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah who on Friday entered their 10th day of fighting, said she was "hopeful that Dr. Phil could be as successful in this arena as he has been with his shows."

The relationship and self-help expert is scheduled to arrive in Tel Aviv Saturday where he will meet with Israeli officials. From there, Dr. Phil will travel to an undisclosed location where he plans to conduct one of his now infamous "Relationship Rescue" retreats for the leaders with direct ties to the conflict. Dr. Phil reportedly has invitation acceptances from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and several representatives from Hezbollah itself.

"We're going to get down and dirty, and eventually we'll get to the bottom of this whole ugly mess," Dr. Phil said. "It's time for these people to get real- with each other, but most importantly, with themselves."

Dr. Phil was encouraged by the participants' willingness to sign up for the weekend.

"The first good sign in all of this is that the invitations have been accepted," Dr. Phil said. "That the players are willing to show up in the first place tells me that we can make some real progress."

President Bush also seemed hopeful a cease-fire could result from Dr. Phil's intervention.

"I've seen the guy work on T.V." Bush said. "And, by God, he gets it done. Those people don't know what they're in for."

The retreat is scheduled to last two days, but Dr. Phil indicated to the participants that he can extend that "as long as he feels is necessary." It will involve both group and individual sessions, a therapeutic workshop and "fighting fair" seminar. Ultimately, Dr. Phil hopes to accomplish an agreement "everyone can live with" and make each of the countries involved a "Dr. Phil country," which means he would be able to keep track of their progress and hold them accountable if they break any terms of the agreement, he said.

"One year from now I want to have everyone back on the show for a spectacular reunion special," Dr. Phil said. "And if any of this nonsense crops up before then I'm just not going to put up with it."

Missing Teen Found Alive in Geraldo's Basement

New York--

More than a year after her sudden disappearance shocked the nation, Alabama teen Natalee Holloway has been found safe in Fox News host Geraldo Rivera's New York apartment.

Rivera admitted holding the teen captive there for 13 months while tens of thousands of agents, officials and volunteers searched diligently for her remains.

"We were convinced she was alive," Beth Twitty, Holloway's mother said. "It is a relief to know she was safe all along."

Twitty thanked Rivera for "taking good care of her" and Fox News for "everything they have done for us this past year and for keeping Natalee out of harm's way."

Rivera reportedly discovered the teen last year while in Aruba covering her disappearance.

"She was lying passed out in my hammock the day I got there," Rivera said. "Both Fox News and myself agreed the story couldn't end that way, so we made the decision to sit on it awhile to see how things would play out."

Rivera's hammock sits on his sprawling Aruban estate a half mile from the beach where Holloway was last seen. With heavy security and dogs guarding Rivera's property, it remains unclear how Holloway made her way to the hammock. The teen had no memory of how she got there, or her subsequent trip to New York.

"I woke up and I was like, 'This isn't Aruba,'" she said. "I knew I got wasted the night before, but I didn't think I was that wasted."

Holloway said the last thing she remembered was "hooking up" with "some guy" on the beach. She could not remember his name or give a description, other than to say that he was "totally hot and cute, and it was really, really awesome."

"When I came to I was in, like, this really sweet basement lounge type thing," Holloway said. "And, like, there were pictures of Geraldo everywhere. I guess it was kind of strange. Then this guy came in and said that Geraldo saved my life and that someone was still trying to kill me. He said I'd be safe here. Then he gave me some booze, which was cool because my head was pounding."

Rivera's cover was blown when neighbors heard what they thought was a domestic dispute and called the police. Police arrived to find Holloway, Rivera and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly in a heated discussion about the Iraq war.

"It sounded like a husband and wife just going at it," neighbor Fred Rogers said. "It turned out Natalee was just getting under O'Reilly's skin. She's a little firecracker."

"She was talking about Cindy Sheehan and bringing the troops home and stuff like that," O'Reilly said. "I'm not going to sit by and tolerate someone who has sympathy for terrorists."

"In the last year I hung out with those guys [O'Reilly and Rivera] quite a bit," Holloway said. "And I can tell you, they're both f----- in the head. O'Reilly was actually arguing about how great the U.S. is by saying 'Look at Aruba, they can't even find your killers! It's been over a year!' I was like 'Hello, Bill, I'm right here, I'm alive!'"

Rivera and Fox News have been roundly criticized for not immediately disclosing the teen's location.

"We were going to break the story as early as Fall sweeps," Rivera said, "But they just kept making arrests. Even we couldn't have known the story would get this kind of momentum."

In a search of Rivera's apartment, authorities reportedly found plans that show Rivera and Fox News planned to transport Holloway back to Aruba so that Rivera could discover her live on the air.

"Sweet redemption," Rivera said, commenting on what might have been. "Everyone would have completely forgotten that whole Al Capone's treasure fiasco."

Both Rivera and O'Reilly face multiple criminal charges including aggravated kidnapping and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but Twitty is reportedly asking that charges not be filed.

"These men are heroes," a spokesman for Fox News said. "You should be giving them medals and a parade."

"I need you"- Repentant Kobe Begs Shaq's Forgiveness

Miami-

Dozens of phone messages left by Lakers star Kobe Bryant for Miami Heat center Shaquille O'Neal at the team's headquarters reveal a despondent Kobe in the throws of a mental breakdown.

Heat officials described the messages as "disturbing."

The messages, all left between 3 and 5 a.m. Wednesday morning, seemed to be triggered by the Heat's series-clinching win against the New Jersey Nets the night before. The win means the Heat will reach the Eastern Conference Finals for the second straight year, while Kobe's Lakers, opening-round losers to the Phoenix Suns, have once again fallen short of post-season success.

O'Neal, referring to the events leading up to the future Hall of Fame center's departure from the Lakers prior to the 2004-05 NBA season, made it clear that he would not consider playing with Bryant ever again.

"No, Kobe, no," O'Neal told a crowd of reporters at a team workout Friday. "It's over. He made a decision and he has to live with it. We will never play basketball on the same team again."

O'Neal went on to call the messages "bizarre" and "a little creepy."

"If we weren't on opposite coasts, yes I would be concerned," O'Neal said.

Heat officials discovered the messages Wednesday morning and made them available to O'Neal Friday. As soon as the star center learned of the messages, he cancelled his morning shoot-around to hear them.

"We told him he didn't have to listen to them if he didn't want to," front office staff member Susan McPhee said. "But Shaq actually seemed to get a kick out of them."

A transcript of the messages has now been posted on O'Neal's personal website. In the messages, Bryant starts out innocently enough, telling O'Neal "It's been awhile" and that he just wanted to "catch up." But shortly thereafter the descent into madness begins its freefall as a distraught Kobe laments their time together in L.A. and pleads with O'Neal to come back to the team.

"I need you," Bryant pleads at one point. "I didn't realize how much until you were gone-- I know I made a mistake, and I want to make it right. I am just so sorry."

"I'm lost without you," Bryant sobs. "I am nothing. I don't know if I can sit through another playoffs watching you play with another team. It's wrong, just so wrong. You are everything to me. If I can't play ball with you, I don't want to even suit up."

"Come on," Bryant says on the last of 36 messages. "You can't deny what we had together. We could have had it all. There's still time. Just give me a call big guy."

Bryant could not be reached for comment, but NBA Commissioner David Stern said he is looking into the matter and "will help Kobe get whatever help he needs."

Securing My Borders: Personal Space

A couple of days ago, while watching hundreds of thousands of people flood the streets to make their voices heard on illegal immigration, I was inspired to go out on my own street corner with a cardboard sign I made. But I wasn't protesting congressional bills. I was drawing a line. Literally. I drew a circle around myself with a piece of chalk, about 3-4 feet in diameter, and held a sign that said "Kindly leave this space alone, or I'll punch you in the face." Some people will call that an act of desperation. Well, desperate times require desperate measures. And I'm getting desperate. The USA-Mexico border is not the only artificial boundary that is unsecure these days.

Yes, folks, my borders are under siege, and its only getting worse. I had three colds last week alone, and I barely go out in public. And don't think it was just one cold that got better and worse-- I know it was three, because one day I was completely fine, then the next day I could hardly breathe and my eyes watered so much I could barely open them. Then the day after, I'm totally fine again, and so on. But someone pointed out that it could have just been allergies, which would really be too bad. If that's the case, I guess I'm allergic to people. Of course, I know I'm not allergic to all people. . . just the one's I don't want to be standing right next to. I know this because there are plenty of people out there that don't make me sick. Well, a good handful at least.

But it seems like more and more people think they can just waltz right into my personal space these days, bringing with them their pet dander, pathogens, putrid perfumes, fetid tobacco tar-breath, toxic hair products and cancerous body sprays. All too common nowadays are the work-week hand shakes, barbecue back-slaps, leisure-time fist pumps, church get-together hugs, Sunday Mass hand-holding and supermarket checkout-line brush-bys that make my immune system cringe.

So, like our fearless U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, I've decided to stop the madness. Be advised that I am passing new Personal Space legislation effective immediately. Anyone who enters my personal space without authorization will be immediately deported, by force if necessary. Only those who have been allowed to enter my personal space continuously for the last five (5) years will be allowed access without passing a rigorous written exam. Those who seek to apply for personal space privileges must request the written exam (which will only be provided electronically) and will have one week to complete the test from the time they receive it.

The first portion of the test will consist of several multiple choice questions covering details of my life and history. That will be followed by a short answer section in which the applicant must guess what I would do in various situations. The remainder of the test will be an essay question in which the applicant will outline ten (10) reasons why he or she should be allowed to enter my personal space. Finally, the applicant must sign a pledge that they promise not to give me any diseases. Certain individuals will be granted special amnesty, if I find them to be vital to the functioning of my life. So doctors, health care workers, EMT's, police, firemen, and of course my trusty dentist will have the testing requirement waived, because, really, they are doing work for me that nobody else would ever want to do. Besides, these are the good people, the heroes, that have entered my personal space to make things better, not worse.

Of course, now that I think about it, even my new personal space rules won't stop people from invading my personal space anyway, whenever they want. If I have to keep punching people in the face all the time, besides my arm getting really tired, I'm not going to have much time to do anything else, like eat or go to work. But if I just let these invaders continue to walk all over me with all of their strange germs and hive-inducing colognes, I'll probably end up with some kind of condition, and that's no good. I'm not a germaphobe, but it has to stop somehow. I'm buying a bubble.

Viva los burbuja!!

Jesus Sees Shadow- Christians Brace for 6 More Weeks of Lent

Jerusalem--

Christian groups across the globe celebrated briefly Sunday morning, then let out a collective groan as Jesus Christ rose, appeared outside his tomb, saw his shadow, then promptly retreated back inside. The large crowd that gathered for the event quickly dispersed as clouds started to dominate what had been clear morning skies.

The risen Christ ensured 6 more weeks of Lent in the annual Easter ceremony when he emerged to cheering that quieted as he noticed the shadow cast by the bright morning sun. Christ waved and thanked the crowd, then shrugged his shoulders while looking down at the shadow.

"Well, that's the way it goes," Christ said.

He then miraculously rolled a 5-ton boulder back in place behind him, sealing the entrance to the tomb he had remained in since late afternoon Friday. Many Christians were clearly disappointed by the ceremony.

"I can't friggin' believe it," Maria Chinchilla said. "What am I going to do with all this beer and candy?"

Priests and pastors appeared flustered and frustrated as they feverishly rewrote homilies and made last-minute liturgical changes in preparation for their various Sunday services. Easter has been re-scheduled for Sunday, May 28.

Brokeback Bible?

Lent is almost over, and by Sunday Catholics everywhere can stop giving money to charity, start drinking again, eat whatever they want and take the leaves they turned over about 40 days ago and pack them away until next year. Which I guess makes sense-- permanent change within the church (at least the Catholic one) is generally frowned upon. After all, Christ only stayed dead for 3 days before He gave up. Of course, that begs the question-- is it really fair then, if Christ could only manage for 3 days, that we have to give up stuff for 40? I guess we can only blame ourselves for not negotiating a better contract.

With the unveiling last week of the recently discovered "Gospel of Judas", this weekend's festivities could take on a whole new meaning. According to the ancient text, Judas and Jesus may have been closer than once thought, and, contrary to the story of deception and betrayal portrayed in the four traditionally accepted gospels, Judas may actually have been acting at Jesus' request. The argument has been made, then, that this better explains the famous "kiss" between Judas and Jesus just before He is handed over to the authorities.

But according to a revelation I had last Sunday in church while the priest was reading that very portion of the Passion narrative, it only explains part of the story. I had never really thought much about Judas and Jesus kissing before, but while sitting there listening to the reading and thinking about this newly discovered text and all the recent talk about the Bible supposedly condemning homosexuality, it suddently dawned on my like a lightning bolt from the heavans: Jesus was/is gay, or at least bi-curious. I know, I was stunned too. But once that hit me, everything else about the Bible started to make sense-- that Jesus was 33 or so at the time of His death, yet never married, that He only would round up men for disciples, that He was a carpenter (you know, woodworking). . .

It also offered me a better explanation of why He was put to death so suddenly and seemingly without cause. Executing someone just for claiming they are God incarnate? Hardly. It is now obvious to me that the crucifixion was in actuality the most notorious hate-crime of all time.

Of course, just because I was inspired by the Holy Spirit through divine revelation to come to that conclusion doesn't mean you have to believe me. But if you don't believe me, you probably also don't believe the Bible is the true reveleation of God's Word handed down to man (through divine inspiration of course), so there's that to think about.

Even though I know it's true ('cause God told me), I know you Scripture Nazis out there want some Bible quotes or something to back it up. Well, you're in luck. A cursory review of the New Testament (by me) revealed just over 150 references to Jesus' homosexual/bisexual preferences. Then, to check my work, I let a couple gay guys I know look it over (amazingly the Bible did not burst into flames and burn to ashes in their hands like I thought it would), and, wouldn't you know it, they found over 700 references! I guess I just couldn't pick 'em out the way they could.

What's that? You want some of the quotes? Well, since I assume some of you may not have a couple of gay friends handy to help you out, I'll give you just a couple of the highlights. Remember when Jesus went gathering up disciples, and told a couple of them to put their fishing nets away and follow Him? Remember what He said when they were concerned that they weren't going to be catching fish anymore? That's right, Jesus said not to worry because they were going to become "fishers of men". And with Jesus' striking good looks and long flowing hair, you can bet their nets were going to be full.

Skipping ahead to the end of His life, remember when He tells Peter that he will deny him three times before the cock crows? Regardless of the obvious clues the species of the bird provides, remember the words Peter uses to deny Him? That's right, Peter claims that he didn't "know" Jesus. And you all know what to "know" someone in the Biblical sense means. . .

Speaking of "knowing", everyone knows that throughout the gospels John is referred to as the disciple whom Jesus "loved". But it is also repeatedly stated that Jesus loved everyone. So why would the authors feel the need to go out of their way to say that Jesus loved John specifically? Obviously they were trying to clue us in as to what a lot of their "secret meetings" were all about, but didn't want to be too explicit for fear that their gospels would be banned, and themselves executed (editors were a little harsher back then).

Finally, there's that kiss. If I remember right, Mel Gibson conveniently portrayed the kiss from Judas as being one on the cheek. But since every word of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, if the Bible meant it to be a kiss on the cheek, it would have said so.

Also, with homophobia at all time highs at the time these texts were written, one would think the author would have been absolutely clear on that as to avoid any confusion. But at the same time, gospel authors can't, by their very nature of being gospel authors, deviate from the true inspired Word of God, so "kiss on the cheek" was obviously not how it went down.

Two of the four gospels (Matthew and Mark) use nearly the exact same words: "Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him." The other two contain significant variations, but there is absolutely no mention of any cheek-kissing. And apparently the kissing wasn't really a big deal to anyone, or there would have had to be some kind of follow-up like ". . . as those gathered around turned away in disgust" or ". . . as the men who had come to arrest Jesus threw rocks at Him and called Him names".

So what does this all mean? Is Dan Brown all washed up? I don't think so. Remember, God told me that Jesus was not gay, but bi-sexual. So obviously Jesus still could have fathered a child with Mary Magdalene and the whole Holy Grail saga remains plausible. But what this does mean is that all the people who claim the Bible condemns homosexuality better get a grip, because this Easter, Christ's here, he's queer, so get used to Him!

Sarcasm Tutorial

Anyone Ever Heard of Sarcasm? A Rear End Tutorial
Originally published in The Gonzaga Bulletin's 'Rear End', Feb. 15, 2002 (in response to angry letters regarding the diversity article):

The thing I love most about Gonzaga is how well everybody understands sarcasm. Since I never write in that style, people have few problems grasping the high concepts and lofty notions in my stories. That is why there is absolutely no need for a crash course in sarcasm, parody and satire: You all just seem to "get it" like it was innate at the moment of birth. Amazing.

First of all, sarcasm always means exactly what it says. If it is 100 degrees in a classroom on the fourth floor of the AD building and I say, "Damn, it's freezing up here," that means I'm cold and I would like to borrow a sweater. If someone down the hall in a dorm is blasting Kylie Minogue at 3 a.m. and I say, "Hey, that song's awesome, could you turn it up?" that means I love that song and wouldn't rather be sleeping. It also means I wouldn't rather be shredding my eardrums with a cheese grater.

Now I know this is some tough stuff, but try to keep up. Say I just got an F on a test. It is likely that some cheery goon might say, "Hey, I aced that test no problem. How'd you do?" I might then say, "Awesome." That means I like getting F's and like it even better when cheery goons discuss their winning grades at length with me.

The same rule doesn't apply to food, however. Say I am at the COG, for example, and someone comes by and says, "How's the burger?" I would probably say, "delightful," which in that situation means the burger definitely does not resemble a sick cat's stool sample. If they then proceed to inquire about the soup, I might again use the catch-all, "awesome," (just like I did about my F) but this time it would mean the soup is gourmet, not that it looks more like the vomit after a Thanksgiving feast.

You should be beginning to see that sarcasm has very few uses. It really only comes in handy when you want to say exactly what you mean and be entirely serious about it. Like after a date with someone who slapped you in the face and told you they never want to see you again, someone is likely to ask how the date went. If you want to be a quick wit and make a joke of the whole thing, steer clear of sarcasm! Instead, say something like, "Oh, it pretty much kicked ass . . ." as you rub your still red and bleeding face. Your friend is apt to say, "Great! So when are you two hooking up again?" This is because they undoubtedly understand sarcasm and your conscious choice to not use it in that situation.

OK, so now I'm going to up the ante. Imagine the possibilities if you could answer one sarcastic remark with another sarcastic remark. It's just too bad that you can't. Say you have to do a horribly long research project for class, and after it is assigned a classmate says, "This project is going to be sweet." You might think you could then say, "What the hell are you talking about? Research is stupid and you are stupid if you like it!" But since the first statement clearly means that the student loves research and loves research projects, your reply would be extremely out of line. But if you feel that the person's statement is completely serious and you're comfortable with it, go right ahead and let fly with the sarcasm in your response. It will further discussion and form the bridge between two widely differing viewpoints. This, of course, will be because you're on "the same page."

Take the "Rear End" for example — with a name like that, how could anyone in their right mind think it to be a page of sarcasm? Couple that with the fact that the Bulletin's "Opinion" section features nothing but column after column of hilarious, clever and biting satire while the "Rear End" consistently offers up only the most serious, droning and banal discourse imaginable. But I guess it's easy to see why you would confuse the two.

So, since you don't need it and obviously have mastered the subtle shadows that divide the serious from the satirical, I have devised the first-ever "Rear End Sarcasm Quiz." Answer all the questions and check your score at the bottom to see if you are a jackass. No cheating.

1) It's February in Spokane which means it is overcast, windy and there is a slight drizzle. Your friend opens the curtains and says, "Hey, another glorious day in tropical Spo-Canada." S/he really means:

a) S/he likes Spokane and the beautiful climate it affords.
b) Winters in Spokane are dreary and no one could possibly do enough harm to society to deserve such a punishment.
c) S/he is from Seattle so it's really too hard to tell.

2) After a drunken Kennel Club member vomits all over your friend's new pants at a basketball game, the friend curses and says, "Sweet, thanks Kennel Club. Real classy of you." S/he really means:

a) S/he is indebted to the Kennel Club for making her once ordinary jeans unique and interesting, and aspires to be as knowledgeable and reputable a fan as to be worthy of Kennel Club membership.
b) The Kennel Club, while a good idea on paper, in reality amounts only to throngs of drunken revelers who for the most part possess little appreciation for the finer points of basketball, yet can debate at length the merits of certain Bulldogs' hind quarters while slinging lewd, crude and rude obscenities at opposing players and officials with reckless abandon in a consequence-free environment.
c) S/he is in the Kennel Club so this stuff "doesn't ever happen."

3) Your friend writes an article in the paper which claims that anyone that goes to a public school is a "fornicating heathen" and should be shunned at all costs. S/he really means:

a) That all non-Catholics are sinners and will perish with Lucifer in the fiery furnace, and we must create a bubble around ourselves and dare not peer out from it, lest we be corrupted by evildoers.
b) That while the idea of keeping a Catholic university aligned with its mission and ethos is very admirable and extremely beneficial to faith and community development, the point of view that some (not all and not even a majority of) people at GU have is very dangerous in that it seems to value Catholicity over diversity and freedom of ideas, thus subscribing to the notions of "old-school" Catholicism which held that if it was not Catholic it was bad. While the Catholic church has moved forward and recognized that good and even truth can be derived from other faiths, it would be nice to see the entire GU community embrace the belief that non-Catholics have something to offer too and quash the stereotype of "the public school heathen."
c) You react before you think and it won't matter anyway.

Congratulations! You've completed the "Rear End Sarcasm Quiz." If you answered "A" to each of the questions above than pat yourself on the back: you are a Sarcasm Wizard. If you answered "B," I'm sorry, but you are horribly misguided and should be banned from ever speaking in public again. If you answered "C," you, like the legendary albino wonder-boy Powder, are made of pure energy and you are about to burst forth through the world like lightning exploding from the heavens.


Copyright 2006 The Gonzaga Bulletin

The Horrors of Diversity

Originally published in The Gonzaga Bulletin's 'Rear End', February 1, 2002.

It has come to my attention that your school is going through somewhat of an identity crisis. "Are we Catholic, are we not Catholic, should we be, and why?" seem to be the questions swirling about in your undergraduate noggins. Well, being nothing but my helpful self I decided I'd lend ol' GU a hand and clear things up a bit. I like to give back, that's all.

Anyway I think the best way to find out what a Catholic university is will be to take a look at what a Catholic university is not and go from there. This age-old debate has become a skid mark on the underwear of Catholic education, and since I now go to a "public" school in a lawless state, I believe I can shed some light on this greasy party and maybe even clear out some of the stench.

I go to law school at a large state university, and it is anything but Catholic. Each and every day at any given time there are hundreds and thousands of students having sex with each other. Not only that, but they are having protected sex. A shuddering thought, I know. Yes, there are condoms in the classrooms, birth control pills in the bathrooms and diaphragms in the depositories. Each day in the dorms gallons of bodily fluids are loosed upon the populace with reckless abandon. Saddening, yes. Shocking, yes. Real? Unfortunately, yes. Truly, this is a place of fornicating heathens.

But the saturnalia of sinfulness doesn't end there. Sometimes, and there are documented cases, students skip class to participate in sinful behavior. A friend of mine, let's call him Lucky Stiff, received a note in a psychology class from a girl who said she "was feeling horny" and to meet her outside of class. They then proceeded to use the remainder of the class period to perform a critically acclaimed re-enactment of the scene in Titanic where Jack and Rose get sweaty in a model T. He never even knew her name. Outrageous!

Here, dorm life is that of cheap '70s porn flicks. The RAs promote community not through service projects, but "service" projects, if you get my drift. The halls are lined with shag carpeting and mirrors on the ceiling. Clean-up rags hang from the bathroom walls disguised as "paper towel dispensers." The orgies have become epidemic and the STDs are rampant. Here, people get Hepatitis shots instead of Flu vaccines and an awkward silence is heard campus-wide every time that Aldera commercial comes on. Sure there's SEARCH, but from what I've heard they revolve around a search for someone known only as Poon and I'm told I have to sign up before I can learn any more details. All I know is that most people come away from the weekend looking extremely satisfied.

Then there are the retreats. Apparently these retreats are nothing more than a tag-team sex-a-thon, complete with mud wrestling and jello puddin' perversion. The sad part is that students are encouraged in these endeavors by past participants in an endless cycle of cult-like cants.

The student newspaper is nothing but a porn rag. Graphic depictions of campus life abound with reckless disregard as to who might be viewing it. Full spreads of the "Be Nude to Be Free" rally and "Co-ed Naked Twister" highlight the debauchery. Almost as dirty as the pictures are the words themselves: Words like (censored) and (censored) litter the pages of the campus publication.

The hardcover yearbook is a masterpiece in smut-gathering. An entire year's worth of sin is compiled for the perverted voyeur to drool over all summer long. In class, "group projects" become a swinger's paradise as students are selected at random to "work together" for a semester, a month, or sometimes just one class period. Shameful. Don't think the professors aren't in on it too. Just what do you think "office hours" here are all about? "See me one at a time, or in groups," one professor said. "My door is always open." Despicable! Some professors even go so far as to induce students to come talk to them "about their grade." I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Then there are the weekends. Oh, the weekends, when the true hedonism begins. On Saturday, of course, are the day-long sacrifices to Satan and drinking of blood from pigs' heads, but that's no different than GU so I guess we can rest easy there. On Sundays a great many students do the unthinkable: They work! And of those many, a percentage of them work for heretical organizations like Planned Parenthood, Victoria's Secret and Starbucks. Some even work for a coffee stand called "The Loose Caboose". Unbelievable.

Here, anyone can come to campus and say what they want about anything. Abortions are mentioned along with the day's weather. Gays frequent the same facilities as the rest of the students and sometimes even gather to — gasp — sponsor campus activities!

Yes, being a Catholic at a "public" school sure has my mind reeling. The drugs, the sex and the orgies have taken their toll. It's a little hard to concentrate when you're sitting next to a Protestant in study hall and your professor is Taoist. What really sucks is when I'm headed for a drinking fountain and all of a sudden one of these heathens cuts right in front of me and takes a big swig. Then I have to go all the way home with cotton mouth rather than drink from the tainted spigot. The same thing happens in the bathroom, though the consequences can be a bit more dire.

The bottom line is there is no escaping these sinners and their sinful ways. They have infiltrated the entire campus, from the administrators right down to the food and beverage people. Can I eat beef stew if it's stirred by a Hindu? Can I really eat a hamburger cooked by a Jew? Can I sit in the dark with a Buddhist named Clark?

These are questions that I grapple with day in and day out but that, hopefully, you all won't have to answer until you enter the horrible, secular shock that is "the real world". Well, I hope this helped you in your noble quest for truth and Catholicity. Until next time, kids, don't forget to shun the heathens!


Copyright 2006 The Gonzaga Bulletin

Opinions

Originally published in The Gonzaga Bulletin, Fall 1999.

I hate opinions, and I'll tell you why. Actually, it's not so much that I hate opinions, I just get tired of people trying to argue them as if they're going to persuade me to see it "their way" or something. Like maybe I'll be enlightened because of their cool way of looking at things.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for standing up for what you believe in, but sometimes I just wish some people wouldn't try so hard to make me feel guilty for not thinking and acting just like them. Besides, most people feel guilty enough as it is without someone spouting a bunch of nonsense and then claiming it would make the world a better place.

"More understanding and openness to creatures of all kinds will keep the world smiling," and sentiments such as these are the kinds of things that give opinion its bad reputation. Statements like these are completely meaningless. Am I supposed to think long and hard the next time I'm going to step on an ant? Yeah, I guess I'll consider things from the ant's point of view next time.

You might think that trees shriek each time chain saws cut into their bark, which is fine until you try to say that logging is one of the world's great evils because of it. That's no good for two reasons: The first is that you're treating your opinion as fact, which will never work, and the second is that trees shrieking might not be an altogether bad thing. As far as I know, there are an equal number of shrieks from pleasure as there are from pain. Who knows, maybe certain trees would rather be made into sturdy table legs than live in overcrowded and oppressive forests.

Opinions, furthermore, are so much harder to deal with. Facts are easy, which makes them wonderful. Facts don't make me feel bad about myself, or ask me to change and grow as a person. The fact that the earth is round means little to me during my daily living. It's not like I'm thinking about the roundness of our planet when debating how I should treat someone. In fact, facts rarely force us to make decisions about anything.

Presuppose, for a moment, that we could actually hear the trees shriek. For most people that would mean it is a fact. Nothing would change, because we would be arguing whether they shriek in agony or ecstasy. Most likely we would hear both types of shrieks with some giggling and chortling thrown in to really complicate things. The loggers would buy earplugs and we'd all get on with our lives.

It should be noted here that I've only heard a tree shriek once, and that was because it was being used as a bathroom. At any rate, facts are just so much better at avoiding confrontation. Opinions have a tendency to start arguments, and arguments tend to waste a lot of people's time. Arguments about facts are short lived, for the most part, and in this world of sound bites and instant pleasure, that's all for the better.

Nevertheless, there will be countless people "expressing" their opinions all over the place, and most of the time they do so in such a way as to prove that they possess the "right" opinion. This is as laughable as shrieking trees or crying bunnies. An opinion is just that: Someone's point of view. It is neither right nor wrong. If you agree with it, you might call it "right" and if you disagree you might think it's "wrong," but be aware that just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's "right"' it simply means it's yours.

If you think that bunnies cry when they are blown to smithereens by a shotgun, then don't shoot bunnies with shotguns. But don't try to get everyone in the world to stop shooting bunnies with shotguns without first convincing them that these bunnies indeed cry. You would then have to convince them that bunnies crying is a bad thing, and so on. It never ends. But telling people to stop shooting bunnies because you think it's horrible is poor motivation and a dreadful waste to the person shooting bunnies.

On the other hand, you might be a giant rock star or athlete/role model, and that would mean that you have a whole slew of fans that don't think for themselves. Then, everything you say constitutes their moral guide to life, and all you have to do to keep them from shooting bunnies or violating trees would be to simply say, "Bunnies cry and trees shriek when you hurt them. But I can't tell you why."

Nobody does this better than advertising companies. They get Michael Jordan to endorse something, and it's automatically superior simply because he says so. And it works because we are gullible and they know it. Thank God MJ is voting for Bill Bradley, now I won't have to decide for myself. So please, give people some credit and don't just state your opinion but live it. And if the mood strikes you, hug a tree or take a bullet for a bunny, because we've got more than enough people talking about it. And that's my opinion.

Copyright 1999 The Gonzaga Bulletin

Philosophy is Bunk, and I Can Prove It.

Originally published in The Gonzaga Bulletin, Fall 1999.

Philosophy is bunk, and I can prove it. You see, I have a real problem feeling subordinate to those hailed as "great thinkers" when all they really did was lie, both to themselves and to others.

How is it that someone comes to be dubbed a "great thinker"? How can someone be better at thinking than someone else? Who decides this anyway? If it were up to me, I would consider the majority of philosophers to be the absolute worst thinkers of all time simply because they waste so much time "pondering" subjects that by their very nature have little or no chance of having any resolution whatsoever.

Ultimately, all these "thinkers" do is start century-long arguments that have no right or wrong answers. A good balance of these arguments are nothing but a colossal waste of thought-- and my mama always said never to waste my thoughts. The analogy she always used, which I thought was brilliant, was to compare knowledge to a tube of toothpaste. She would say, "Son, if this tube of paste was your brain, and you wanted to squeeze all that goo out of it that you could, would you just squeeze from any old place on the tube? Of course you wouldn't. You would start from the bottom, and press all of that stuff out to the top until it was plum empty." Someone should give her some kind of an award for that one.

Consider this: The only proof we have that we exist is that we think. Some philosopher said that once. He was just as wrong as all the rest of them, and I can prove it. You see, to say thinking causes existence, we first have to decide what has the capacity for thought. For example, what if something didn’t exist, but still thought? Would that mean we don’t exist? It's like asking how many babies can fit in an elevator on an abnormally humid day between July and November. What's the point? It could go on forever.

Kermit the frog says it's not easy being green, but who's to say he's really a frog, and aren't there plenty of frogs that aren't green? Isn't it harder for these un-green frogs to live than the green frogs? I mean, at least the green frogs have something in common with each other. These un-green frogs face ridicule and oppression wherever they go because it's like, "Hey, you're not a frog. Stop hopping around like that."

Put yourself in a philosopher's shoes for a moment. You have to ask yourself a couple of questions: Why do you have so much free time on your hands, and what happened to all of your friends? You've got to be able to admit that you might not know something.

Have a look at the sciences. They aren't afraid to admit when something cannot be explained. If they have an idea that they can't prove, they simply say, "It has yet to be proven." They don’t end up huddled in a ball in the corner rocking back and forth crying over it either. They move on, and they don't worry if someone thinks otherwise. They don't need to play logic games and have intense dialogues. Just show them a picture of it and they'll be happy. Tell a philosopher about a discovery of some sort, and you start getting questions like, "Can we really believe what we perceive," or "Is something real because it's what we feel," and other rhyming nonsense of cheerleading caliber.

I think it is really a matter of faith, and I can prove it. The essence of faith is that you believe something that you can't possibly prove. If you can prove it then you don't need to believe it because it already is, and therefore requires no effort on your part to believe that it is true. The big problem, the one that everyone thinks they have an answer to, is how to prove God exists.

Let's take a look at how many philosophers have claimed that they could prove God existed. Well, that would be work, so let's just say there have been a lot. To my knowledge, only a few have stood up and said, "You know what, you just can't prove God exists." I think that it is a weak, shallow person that needs everything to be proven for them to believe it. Faith means so much more when what you believe can never be proven.

Ontological discussion aside, I think that it's better to believe in something even if only because you believe in it, not because a million other people have agreed with you. I feel sorry for all of the people who drool on themselves when they watch a movie like "The Matrix" and whine things like, "we were right, we were right-- the world really is fabricated and true reality exists outside the realm of sense and perception! Ha ha, log on so we can chat about it!" I don't feel sorry because they are wrong, but I feel sorry because they paid seven bucks to let Hollywood boost their self-esteem a little.

So what it comes down to is the amount of proof required by the average idiot to believe in something. My mama always said that the proof is in the puddin'. Well my tapioca reserves are going dry, and despite what Bill Cosby says, there's not much more room left in this world for J-E-L-L-O, and I can prove it.

Only two things need to happen before I believe in something. The first is that I have to think of it myself, and the second is that there has to be no way on earth to prove it. Then and only then will I lend credence to a theory. Wait a minute, that almost sounds like a philosophy. I better revise: If I believe in something, I don't have to tell you why, and in fact, I will never tell you why. How's that?

Proof shouldn't have anything to do with it. One of my favorite lines from the movie "Contact" is when Matthew McConaughy says to Jodie Foster, "Do you love your dad," and she says, "Yes," and he says, "Prove it." She knows she loves her Dad better than you do. Are you going to tell her she's crazy? I'm not.

Having to prove such abstractions of thought and emotion is ludicrous. Are you going to ask Jesus to prove that he loves you? I'm not. Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. That's all the proof I need. No wasted thought here.

You can go ahead and question such things until your head spins. But I will tell you this, I'm not going to be there to catch you when you hit the cold, hard, concrete floor known to the rest of us as "reality". Did I mention I can prove it?

Copyright 1999 The Gonzaga Bulletin

Let the nordsense begin!

Welcome to the nordsense. For those of you out of the loop, I used to write newspaper columns and stories in college entitled "Nord's Nonsense". A very wise man then came up with the idea that a shortened title "NordSense" would be appropriate. I wholeheartedly agreed. Anyway, this spot is going to serve as an archive for some of those very columns (since the "Bulletin" couldn't pull it together to go online until after I graduated), and will also serve as a forum for stuff I've been doing since then, and will continue to do.

Enjoy!