Texans claim gun as cure for road rage

In the clamor for finding a cure for cancer, aids, and a slew of other maladies that affect millions of people, the cure for road rage has been one often overlooked. Despite that, many people in Texas have claimed to have found the answer. Guns.

“You jest shoot at the fella who’s makin you angry and, bam, problem solved,” said Archie O’Hare, a local Texas gun-owner. O’Hare, like most people in Texas, has several guns on him at all times. He is a factory worker, not a scientist, but claims to have used the scientific method in approaching a cure for the common road rage.

Archie, and many others in Texas, identified the problem: People in cars who cut them off or drove erratically ticked them off. They took note of their situation and the factors involved: They all had guns that could either hurt or kill the people who were causing the problem. They then hypothesized that if they used the guns on said people, the behavior would stop. By getting rid of the people that cause the road rage within others, the road rage would disappear completely.

For Texas, is a logical, fail-proof theory. And they’ve begun putting it into practice.

“Jest last week a man was speedin next to me with a real smug look on his face,” O’Hare recalls. “I could tell he was gonna do somethin crazy, so I got out my gun and shot at him.”

The Texans who use this method of attacking the common road rage problem always claim self defense in a court the couple times people have sued them after a shooting incident. Texan judges, of course, side with the gun shooters. After most court cases, all the gun owners in the jury, the lawyers, the defendant, and the judge go outside and shoot their guns while hollering cheerfully. They are, on occasion, joined by Yosemite Sam.

Man shocked that woman has no desire to make out with him

Rodney Dearborn is an average man. He’s average height, average weight, average attractiveness. Like most average men, his ego is greater than the sum of its parts. Imagine, then, Dearborn’s surprise when last Friday, a random woman he met and began talking to on the train, refused to kiss him when he made a move mid-conversation.

“Clearly because she was politely responding to my questions and faintly smiling, she wanted me. I don’t get why I got rejected,” he claims. The two had apparently been making casual conversation, which in Dearborn’s mind was the equivalent of intense flirting from a desperate woman at a dive bar at 2 am on a Friday night.

Midway through the discussion about the colder-than-average temperatures, Dearborn leaned in with his lips puckered and his eyes closed. The woman squealed, jumped up and got off at the next train stop. “It’s her own fault!” Dearborn asserts. “She was giving me all the signals.”

“I’m a man. She’s a woman. We were talking. She made eye contact once in a while. Clearly, she wanted me,” he reiterated. Many men have been in Dearborn’s position before and unsure why they were rejected by these women.

The Institute for Male Ego Studies, IMES, has been researching the issue for several years. Brad Hunter, their spokesman, stated, “Scientifically speaking, there’s no reason any given woman shouldn’t be not only attracted to but smitten by an average man. Unless, of course, she’s a lesbian.The phenomena of women rejecting men who make a move has been boggling us for centuries.”

Hunter, who is quite familiar with cases like Dearborn’s, has attributed these rejections to the increase in the number of lesbians who retain much of their femininity, rather than wearing the obvious uniform of plaid, khakis, Birkenstock sandals and short hair. After years of research, that is the only feasible conclusion IMES can come up with. “Nothing else makes sense,” says Hunter. “There is absolutely no other possibly solution.”

Dearborn added, “If a woman doesn’t want to have intimate relations with a man, she shouldn’t lead him on by doing obvious things like eye contact, responding to simple questions, or being friendly. It gives the wrong impression.”

Chunky, thick glasses as unflattering in 2000’s as they were in 1980’s

With trends from the 1980’s making a strong comeback all over the fashion world, one truism seems to stand out from the rest. Thick-rimmed, chunky, oversized glasses are as unflattering to the normal human face now as they were in the 1980’s.

As scientist and researcher David Egan explains, “The issue at hand is that the typical human face shape has not changed nearly enough in the past two decades as would be necessary to make those glasses look good.”

He referred to his plotted a chart of how the human face has changed throughout evolution, and made note of the fact that there has been only insignificant change over the past two decades. Not nearly enough, he claims, to finally make those glasses look good on anyone. “Maybe in the next few thousand years, the trend can make a comeback and people might not look as stupid as it does now. But, we could luck out and have a series of nuclear meltdowns, causing the human form to change much more quickly and future generations to stand a better chance of making that style look good. We just never know.”

When asked if he thought humans would ever be able to look good in the 80’s trend of “grill” glasses with colorful but strips across the eyes, he answered a firm, “No. Never. Those will always look idiotic. No matter what. Period. People should stop wearing them as soon as possible.”

Teenager confirms that parents combined IQ lower than tree moss

14-year-old Gordon Ashburg is, yet again, in a fight with his parents. The trio, who seemed to get along just two short years ago, have found themselves especially angry at each other over the past year. Where they used to find common ground on many parent/son issues, they are now finding more and more conflict.

Though these may seem like somewhat normal circumstances for parents raising a teenage son, Ashburg is convinced nobody really understands what he’s going through, stating, “You guys just don’t get it. My parents are so stupid! They don’t listen and don’t understand anything. Anything!”

In order to substantiate this wild claim, Ashburg conducted some research of his own. He discovered that one of earth’s more basic organisms, tree moss, grows in dark, damp places and spreads across many areas to insure its survival. His parents, however, spend lots of time in the harsh, dangerous sun spreading only their waistlines with their poor eating habits. Therefore, Ashburg drew the conclusion that his parents combined IQ must be lower than the tree moss because they make poorer decisions for their survival.

While the news might be shocking to many who know and work with Ashburg’s parents, it comes as absolutely no surprise to the teen. “You should see how they nag me about cleaning my room. I mean, they’re so stupid! They just don’t get it! Nobody understands me!”

Ashburg holds out hope that with the right amount of training, counseling and weekly allowance, his findings could be slightly altered. Until then, however, he vows to continue to treat them like the scum of the earth they are.

Humans working on a flu to transfer to birds and swine

With the recent spike in deaths from swine flu or the “H1N1 virus,” researchers have decided to approach this pending epidemic with more than just a vaccine. They are working on actually creating a flu virus that can transfer from humans to birds and swine.

The idea came from scientist Victoria Paduchik watching her child play on the playground one afternoon. Paduchik elaborates, “When he got shoved down by the playground bully, he didn’t just vaccinate himself from the bully. In fact, we’ve tried that before and the bully vaccine only works 60% of the time. Eventually, he started shoving the bully right back.” When asked if the tactic worked for her son, Paduchik didn’t go into much detail claiming it was hard to really tell who the winner was amongst all the blood. The point, for her, was that the bully had finally learned its lesson.

So, she applied that line of thinking to the flu virus, approaching her boss about finding a way to take out the entire bird and swine population with a powerful human-based flu virus in order to eliminate the risk of humans getting swine or bird flu. Her boss, lead researcher Archie Linden, was fully supportive of the idea. “Without wanting to sound too cliché, lets just say that the best defense is a good offense,” He added, “Lets just say what goes around comes around. We could really kill two birds with one flu-filled stone here. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, in this case,” And finally, out of nowhere, added one more, “Let’s just say, they’ll finally get a taste of their own medicine. Or virus, rather. The medicine doesn’t really exist. Oh, bother, you get what I mean.”

The controversial research remains inconclusive at this time, but continue to check in for periodic updates.