any purported to be surprised by the results of a random poll Thursday of living Americans to find high numbers in support of happiness and/or general well-being all around. While the poll results don't show express support for the administration or opposition to the war on Iraq, many responders suggested that happiness for everyone was something they favored.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being "most strongly agree" and 1 being "most strongly disagree," nearly 99.3% answered with 10 the question, "Would you like for everybody to be happy?" With a 3% margin of error, .6% ranked between 1 and 9 in their responses to the same question, while .1% were undecided on whether they wanted everyone to be happy.

According to the report, the results were clear across demographic boundaries. Republicans, Democrats, and independents were all generally in favor of happiness for everyone, as were women and men, most whites and members of minority groups. Incomes ranging from high to very low, even poverty levels, responded similarly, as did Christians, Muslims, and those of other faiths. In general, uncertainty was expressed among 28-year-old white middle class Christian men named Trevor Bancroft, who sounded like they might have been drinking a little.

A very high number of respondents also expressed a distaste for bad things. Many stated that if they had their way, they would do away with bad things altogether, while a small number expressed a philosophical opinion that bad things might be sometimes necessary for the twain purposes of breaking up monotony and making good things seem better.

While varying numbers expressed support or disagreement with military action in Iraq, high numbers again responded in favor of everyone getting along with each other. Some suggested putting aside differences in favor of working together in harmony, but their suggestions were batted aside with sarcastic statements that the poll wasn't a democracy.

The poll results follows a confusing month for pollsters, who have been reporting seemingly contradictory results that show Americans have strongly supported U.S. troops and at the same time have been against war. Polling companies are saying it's a pleasant change to find so many Americans agreeing on the subject of happiness.

Poll experts, which we are assured exist, are describing the high numbers as a rare artifact in polling. Such high similar responses in a poll have not been reported since 1995's poll on whether or not child abuse was good, 1992's poll on whether or not people were afraid of dying, and 1985's poll on who preferred Pepsi to Coke, taken by the Coca-Cola Company as part of an advertising campaign.

aoul Dunkin, insert your own slanderous insult here, reporting for the commune from Paris, France. Somehow my job is to cover a war in the Middle East, though your guess is as good as mine on how to do so from Paris.

The best explanation for how I landed this assignment is that dullest tool in the drawer Ramrod Hurley, Acting-Editor and possible Bachman-Turner Overdrive member, thought anti-American sentiment runs so high here I'd be ripped apart upon stepping off the plane. Having already sent danger magnet Ivan Nacutcha-whatever to the front lines, this probably seemed like the best option for getting me rubbed out, as I have no doubt the lunatic thinks I'm bucking for his job.

Fortunately for this commune whipping boy, I speak fluent French and my own anti-American sentiment runs so high I fit in pretty well with the locals. I've joined in a few local protests at the local McDonald's, but mostly I've been spending my time drinking the world's best wine, smoking thin cigarettes, and living the high life on Ramrod's expense account. Did you know you can actually buy some of the paintings at the Louvre? Surprised me, too.

Anyway, by the time Bagel gets back and has a look at all the damage Hurley's done I wouldn't be surprised if he finds himself the new public enemy number one. Fine by me. I've had enough shit from those yokels to last Bagel's lifetime. Oh, by the way, if you should ever get to France and they don't ridicule you back to the stone age for being American, you should try some of the cuisine. The women are exceedingly naughty, too. Hot mamas.

I suppose I should report on the war at any rate. Not much to say, to tell the truth. I'm looking out a window facing the western sky right now and I can see no sign of impending missile attacks or bombing raids of any sort. I thought I heard an air raid siren sounding an hour ago but it turned out to be a couple of cats getting familiar with each other. I threw a block of cheese at them (or fromage) and they ran off. No reports of any cat casualties or anything.

I asked the concierge and some other folks about the possibility of chemical weapons, and while there is some notable body funk in the air, I don't think there's too great a risk of attack. I'm still going to go down and buy a canary tomorrow. If there is a chance of a biological weapon attack, it will be an early warning sign, but mostly I just want to some company.

Yesterday I thought I saw a small group of Iraqis surrendering in front of the hotel, but they were actually just selling souvenirs. I bought a T-shirt with the Eiffel tower on it and they retreated into Baghdad. Baghdad Café, that is, a little coffee place up the street. Nice guys, very fair.

As you can see, it hasn't been extremely eventful in this area. But I promise to stay with this story until news breaks, or until my plane ticket demands I return home. For the commune, this Raoul Dunkin, snickering his ass off.

We continue our flip-flop on previous political stances here at the commune, and applaud President W. George Bush for his fearless perseverance to do the right thing for Iraq, no matter how many in the world disagree.

That's right. The main purpose of this column has always been to expose conspiracies and shine the golden light of truth on the hidden corners of government and the world, but piss on that—that's golden, too, you know. The president has received unending support from Americans since the start of the war, particularly Americans outside of large metropolitan areas and educated circles, and the commune wants to make it clear we support this president. As shown with Wednesday's liberation of Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's cowardly death by bomb drop, the ends have clearly justified the means.

Yes, freedom has finally hit Iraq, and knocked down the buildings and buried its people in shrapnel. Every American was filled with a sizable amount of patriotic do-gooderism seeing that giant statue of Saddam Hussein yanked down by an American tank and its head dragged through the streets. It was not unlike when U.S. troops knocked over that giant statue of Hitler in Berlin and blowtorched the mustache off—if any of you are old enough to remember that. It's too bad there weren't more televisions in households in 1945 to show that, as well as the technology to broadcast it.

In the spirit of the new, presidential-friendly commune, we would like to announce a few apologies, retractions, and corrections concerning the White House. We've given the president a good ribbing, so it's only fair we acknowledge our previous mistakes.

To start off, in the first few months following the 2000 election results, it was perhaps a little crude to refer to George W. Bush as "election-thief Bush" or "Electoral Vote Hi-Jacker Bush" as we did. It likewise may not have been in the best interest of fairness to continue the use of quotation marks on the word "president" when referring to Bush in articles.

Reports that the president's secret serviceman codename was "Captain Shithead" may have lacked the proper verification for publication, and we may have misrepresented that. Opinion columns stating that Bush's stance on race relations was similar to that of a 1850s plantation owner were probably a little hard on the president; news articles declaring the same thing were even more egregious examples of our previous bias.

The "W" in George W. Bush cannot be proven to stand for Warmonger, Whack-Job, Whitey, or Whiffledick. Any article referring to the president as Fascist W. Bush may have been typing errors.

Pictures of a long-haired, orange-jumpsuited bearded man with a swastika carved into his head may have been incorrectly identified as George W. Bush when in fact they were probably Charles Manson. The fact these photos appeared repeatedly labeled as the president cannot be explained.

Pictures of the president anally violating animals may have possibly been created in Photoshop. We have one we're reasonably sure about, but at this time we're urging careful speculation on all previous photos of the same nature.

At this time, we cannot verify the legitimacy of any quotes previously attributed to the president. On those rare occasions verification was possible, we decided not to seek it out. It's better to not know.

º Last Column: the commune Knows Which Way the Wind Blows
º more columns