n a move being sharply criticized by Democrats, President Bush announced his plan for a $350 billion tax cut. The cuts would be specifically to registered Republicans and corporations, and Bush promised the reduced taxes would spark growth in the job market and turn the economy around.

Democrats have denounced the move as a blatant attempt to curry voter favor and sustain the president's popularity, despite poor response to domestic issues. Bush's plan for tax cuts to corporations, they say, is more of the same failed Reaganomic "trickle-down" theory operating on the premise that monetary breaks to companies will produce new jobs. As for the reduced taxes for registered Republicans, it is an unbelievable act of hubris by a president with elephant balls.

In addition to the expected backlash by Democrats, the president was dismayed to find some moderate Republicans among critics of the plan. Early response to the idea called initial figures for a $700 billion tax cut too high, and though the president regained some support by lowering the projection to $350 billion, there are still some moderates calling it bad timing for additional tax cuts.

"Don't get me wrong, I could use that tax cut pretty bad," said Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, a leading opponent to the Bush plan, "but we're heading into belt-tightening times, we're looking at a $2 trillion deficit. Just so the president knows, 'deficit' is the one that means we owe that much. As for the tax cuts for Republicans, I don't even know if that's constitutional… but either way, we need to be paying off our huge debts before we start giving money away again."

Like other Bush critics, Voinovich is pointing to the expenses raised by Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the airline bail out following the incidents, the $100 billion Iraq war, and the projected $600 billion rebuilding cost for Iraq, all of which have turned the estimated surplus over 10 years into a deficit.

Though Voinovich agreed political rifts were dangerous to Republican solidarity, the senator felt that opposing President Bush on the tax issue wouldn't hurt his long-term relationship with the White House.

"I will stick to my beliefs on the issue to best serve my conscience, and I'm sure the president will do the same. It is characteristic of our respect for each other to voice our disagreements."

The interview with Voinovich was cut short as masked men rushed in through doors and windows to strap the senator to his couch. The men then proceeded to wallop Voinovich with black socks filled with bars of soap, their silence countered with the senator's high-pitched shrieks of pain and tearful crying.

The White House would not comment on the hazing, only that they hoped Voinovich would see the wisdom of the Bush tax cut before any more pain was inflicted.

"It is vital and important to our economy that we encourage growth in the public sector," said the president, or someone sounding like Bush while the president moved his lips. "Statistics we've funded show that tax cuts to corporations produce that kind of job creation. As for the tax breaks for registered Republicans, I can't tell you what's partisan or what's vote-buying. What is important is that it is imperative to our administration's long-term plans that I get elected in 2004. These tax cuts are designed for that purpose."

ust when you thought the limits of science were established—girl, look out! Here comes Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the politician who magically defies the change of time and remains stuck in the 1950s.

Santorum alerted the rest of America, scared and turbulent, but still living in the year 2003, when he stated in an interview printed last Monday that the Supreme Court would endorse incest and other immoralities if they overturned a Texas sodomy law the Court is hearing.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," said the senator living in the decade of the TV dinner and TV westerns.

Some Democrats and fellow Republicans have denounced the senator's remarks and asked for his resignation, worried that living in a time period of 50 years ago would interfere with Santorum's ability to keep informed in current issues. Key Republican party leaders have guaranteed to study the senator closely and divulge his knowledge of important government and cultural stuff.

"I guarantee you," said a personal aide to Santorum, Jeff Richards, "the senator is in full control of his faculties and knows what year it is. I can't explain any more than that. I've seen the TV on in his house, I assume he must get the news and the usual programs… he's just somehow filtered them out." Girl, I tell you, that Richards gave this reporter the eye. Beep beep on the gaydar, that's all I'm saying.

Few from the scientific community have stepped forward to explain, though a group at Harvard's Department of Quantum Mechanics are posing theories of collapsing personal wormholes. Psychologists from around the world are seeking medical background from Santorum's representatives, particularly interested in previous incidents of head trauma or hallucinations. The extremely early onset of Alzheimer's has not been ruled out.

Other theories have been offered, but not yet fully explored. My girl Ladyboy Smacky, she say Santorum look just like this guy pick her up three nights in a row last April and call her "Mommy" while she dress up like Martha Washington, but that guy had a mustache and was in Frisco, but she swear that dude Santorum so deep in the closet he sittin' on the box to a Colecovision.

Despite the failure to pinpoint the source of Santorum's confusion, others are stressing the importance of bringing him up to date with the year 2003 before it becomes a problem.

"We have 50 years of history to cover with the senator, so obviously we'll have to pick highlights," said Professor of Cultural Studies at the University of Chicago and real sweetie Isis Oviate. "We should start with telling him World War II is over—more than likely he knows, but we shouldn't take chances. The geographical maps and political make-up of the world should be explained slowly so he knows all of that, about Stalin's death and, eventually, the fall of the Soviet Union, of course. We would hate to offend an ally with some disparaging remarks against Russia. We'll tell him all about Iraq, but one thing at a time. Take it slowly. The sexual revolution alone ought to leave him quaking in his wingtips. Maybe we'll just sum up the Kinsey Report and see how he responds to that."

commune Editor Ramrod Hurley here, for one, was shocked and insulted by comments by BBC Director Greg Dyke Thursday insinuating American media coverage had lost all pretenses of objectivity. Or maybe "insinuating" was not the right word. "Outright accusing" is probably closer.

Posh, I say. Or if that's too effeminate for you: bullshit.

There's always someone from international media sources quick to charge American media coverage with being biased. Those people we call "terrorists." It's a shame to see the BBC align themselves with terrorists. Terrorists.

Speaking as the head of the commune, America's first source for third-source news, we know the virtue of objectivity more than anyone. the commune has prided itself on being an alternative source of news from its inception, and spelling its title with all lowercase letters. And though we value dissenting opinion like anyone, we recognize the importance of sharing the same dissenting opinion as those in power.

It doesn't take pure objectivity to see Iraq is a country plagued by years of repression, a government under which only suffering flourished. Even the most objective eyes can recognize Saddam Hussein was the great Satan, and only his immediate, brutal death could free his people and oil. The administration was quick to point this out, and provided evidence by way of saying it repeatedly. It was in the best interest of our nation, the people of Iraq, intangible ideas like freedom and democracy, and possibly apple pie, that we secure with military force the safety of the country.

To you critics, I say that the American media has objectively rallied behind the president in this time of crisis. For the sake of liberating Iraq from the greatest evil the world has ever known, we have put aside our need to "investigate" and "question" the administration. Those who allege we're co-conspirators with the Washington agenda in Iraq, I tell you this: Saddam Hussein gasses his own people. Do you like that? Gassing your own people? Is that your idea of objectivity? Buttholes.

We at the commune have embraced a new kind of objectivity, a quieter, more servile objectivity. It's not like we haven't tried the "objecting" kind of objectivity. We did that for years, with reporters like Raoul Dunkin and that other Duncan, what's her face, invading the personal space of Washington's top brass and asking them questions they didn't want to hear. We've even tried more a offensive, hands-on approach to reporting with correspondents like Ramon Nootles with personal space issues and groping habits, or Ted Ted who frequently quotes his friends and rants loudly in lieu of actual information. In the end, like that commercial song says, you "got" to give the people, give the people what they want. The people have spoken, and they want reinforcement.

You guys at the BBC and other terrorist-friendly news organizations can lob charges at American news all you want, but the fact is you only bitch us out as news organizations because that's what Britain and other countries want to see. Ooo, America sucks, ooo, America is full of inbred hillbillies with a gun in each hand and shouting "Whoo-hoo!" through a mouth full of overcooked hamburger. Well, that's surely true, but only anti-American European dicks would want to watch that on the news all the time. In the end, it is the responsibility of electronic media to cater to what its audience already expects to hear. And the commune's new slogan is, we cater!

º Last Column: Apologies to the President
º more columns