Global Orgasm for Peace: Stroke of Genius for a Flagging Franchise

At long last, a peace movement that we can all get our hands around. I’d been wondering lately where the peace movement was headed. For years and years, there seemed to be no heir to the bed-in throne of John and Yoko — until now.

As you may have heard, a California couple have called for the population of the world (that has either a willing significant other, functioning hands or a modified electric toothbrush) to have simultaneous orgasms on December 22nd.

Here are the basics of the plan, the “spank plank” if you will, from GlobalOrgasm.org:

The intent is that the participants concentrate any thoughts during and after orgasm on peace. The combination of high- energy orgasmic energy combined with mindful intention may have a much greater effect than previous mass meditations and prayers.

The goal is to add so much concentrated and high-energy positive input into the energy field of the Earth that it will reduce the current dangerous levels of aggression and violence throughout the world.

The organizers are Donna Sheehan, 76, and Paul Reffell, 55. You may remember Donna Sheehan (no relation to Cindy), because about three years ago she and some friends protested the looming war in Iraq by stripping naked, laying down, and spelling out the word “peace.” This, obviously, didn’t stop the war, but it did confirm one thing most definitively: Newton’s Law of Gravity.

So, recognizing the age of interaction, Sheehan and Reffell are calling for us to have orgasms at the same time – and this will help end war, at least temporarily. I have no doubt that this would do the trick, provided there’s across-the-board participation. My problem is this: Who won’t be participating while the rest of us are sitting in front of a box of Puffs Plus watching a grainy VHS copy of Two Moon Junction?

But this is the entire problem with the peace movement. Their ideas always require the participation of everyone or they don’t work. Hell, there are no doubt teenagers in the U.S. who would love to participate, but are so lazy that they’ve decided instead to wait for XBox to release “Global Orgasm for Peace: The Game.”

Consider Yoko Ono, wife of the late John Lennon and “singer” whose shriek happens to be the mating call of the Tinnitus Warbler, and her lifelong efforts for peace.

John Lennon released the pacifist anthems “Imagine” and “Give Peace A Chance,” John and Yoko had “bed ins” (for which bags were worn on heads — ours) and Ono’s staged a “cut piece,” and through it all we saw a continuation of hostilities in Vietnam, the tragedy at the Olympic games in Munich, the hostage crisis in Iran, embassy bombings, hijackings, continuous violence in the Middle East and constant terrorist attacks around the world. Why didn’t it work? The answer is simple: Terrorists, criminals, warmongers and despots clearly don’t listen to FM radio, read back issues of “Rolling Stone” and attend Paris theater nearly enough.

It’s the same problem with the Global Orgasm for Peace. It won’t be global, so the odds that we’ll be killed by maniacs go up, and worse yet, the chances that it’ll happen while we’re in the john with out pants around our ankles while clutching the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue doesn’t add to the dignity of the passing.

In addition, as columnist Greg Strange observed, such a massive, lascivious act might actually further infuriate those who already hate us. Greg’s right. What’s worse than a Western infidel? You guessed it. A Western infidel who’s spanking the monkey.

But the ultimate nail in the coffin for the “Global Orgasm for Peace” movement may not be lack of participation. Heck, there are no doubt pockets of people all around the globe who are, at this very moment, furiously practicing striving for peace, and even paying $50 for it. No, the death of the “Global Orgasm for Peace” will be more religious in nature.

What happens very often when people have orgasms? With the exception of Michael Newdow, who yells out his own name, many people call out to, who? You guessed it: God.

This could be the downfall of the “Global Orgasm for Peace.” Millions of people suddenly calling out to God is bound to put some leftist undies in a non-secular twist.

Peace activists should also take caution in automatically assigning a label of harmonic tranquility to the orgasm. All through history, rapes have been committed, genocide inflicted, and torture performed, just because the despotic protagonist du jour got off on it. Sheehan and Reffell’s definition of what constitutes orgasmic behaviour could vary greatly from somebody else’s. Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe, to-may-toe, bloodbath.

That said, it’s good to see some fresh ideas and a more hands-on approach coming from the field of peace activism. There will still be wars and people trying to kill us, but for a couple of minutes, we won’t care. I pledge my full support. It’s time to give peace a chance.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Rangel Up More Troops: Congressman Plays Politics With Lives As Payback For Bush Playing Politics With Lives

Democrats can often be heard saying that President Bush is toying with lives, in a political sense. That sending our troops to Iraq was and is an unnecessary political game in which people are needlessly and senselessly dying. So, in the name of equalizing the playing field, one Democrat plans to fight this by — you guessed it — playing games with peoples’ lives.

Could we have a military draft again? Rep. Charles Rangel of New York says “yes,” which instinctively sent Bill Clinton to the tool shed to grab a sledgehammer and pound his feet flat.

Rangel, a Korean War veteran who apparently had his scruples shot off at the Battle of Kapyong, wants to introduce a bill requiring military service for men and women, 18-26, with no exceptions for college or the fact that they’re too busy playing “Grand Theft Auto” on Playstation 3.

This is, of course, being done not in the interest of the country, but as yet another move in a political chess game. Rangel doesn’t think you hold the lives of others in high regard, and if members of your own family were at risk of going into battle, you’d rethink your pro-war stance — if you have one. If you’re against the war, so what, your kid’s going too.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said.

It’s not like the good old days when there was a draft, such as during Vietnam and Korea. It was nice and fair then, with rich and poor gallantly fighting side by side. Oh, wait…

It’s said that any “fair” draft wouldn’t have an out for the “privileged,” but as long as they remain politicians with outstretched hands, otherwise known as “loopholes,” there can be no such thing as a fair draft, taxation, or anything else. When you put hucksters in charge of fairness, you’re ensuring that there will be none of it.

In the early ’90s, the U.S. military was much larger, and no draft was in effect. That meant that there was an ample amount of people willing to voluntarily serve their country — and did so honorably. They weren’t forced to join, and they did so for their own reasons.

Rangel must also think that all these new soldiers to be drafted are going to work for free. Rangel voted “no” on 1999’s $266 billion defense appropriation bill and SDI. 

If that’s not bad enough, Rangel also feels the need to remind us of what heartless, inhumane jerks we are. When he first started talking about a military draft in late 2002, Rangel said, “I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve — and to be placed in harm’s way — there would be more caution and greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq.”

Rangel voted “no” on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. “No” on banning physician-assisted suicide (getting killed in the back of a rusty VW van may be “death with dignity,” but only if you’re Cheech and Chong). “No” on reducing the marriage tax. “No” on banning partial birth abortions. “No” on banning human cloning even for medical research reasons. “No” on barring the transportation of minors to get an abortion. And we’re the ones who don’t value the lives of others?

Let’s first draft some new politicians, then we’ll talk.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Reforming His Way to the White House: A Cunning Senator McCain

I’ve long written of the joke that is called “Campaign Finanance Reform,” and it’s starting to rear its illogical yet carefully planned head again.

From the A.P.:

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Friday said potential 2008 presidential rival John McCain’s campaign finance reforms gives the Republican senator an advantage over other candidates by allowing him to transfer money easily.

“If you’re a senator, you can take the money you raise in a Senate campaign and transfer it to a presidential, but you can’t take money you raise in a state campaign and transfer that to a federal campaign,” Huckabee, a Republican, told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.

Real surprising…

In a Washington Post article titled “Money’s going to talk in 2008,” Michael Toner, chairman of the FEC, is quoted from an interview on the price tag for running for president in 2008: “There is a growing sense that there is going to be a $100 million entry fee at the end of 2007 to be considered a serious candidate.”

McCain-Feingold sure did get the money out of politics, didn’t it? Since John McCain is considered by many to be among the candidates to beat for the GOP nomination, he may be both surprised, yet pleased to discover, that the law he co-sponsored contains more loopholes than the wall between a high-school girls’ locker room and the wood shop. This can’t be an accident.

A quick look at even the seemingly noblest of intentions of McCain-Feingold and the failings (to us, but successes to bureaucratic authors of these bills) are obvious. Did the “stand by your ad” provision, which requires federal candidates say “I approve this message,” bring about a huge decline in negative ads? The thought behind that was, if a candidate had to say “I approve” visibly and audibly, the candidate would be less likely to permit negative or false material in the ad.

Since one must be forced to undergo a compunction-ectomy before entering politics, assuming the threat of personal shame can be used to lessen negative ads is naive at best. But this was the smoke-and-mirrors end of CFR, a red herring style distraction from the real issue of what happens to the money, who it can come from, and where it can be transferred, all of which just happen to favor John McCain.

John McCain will be a front-runner for the Republican nomination, and he will be greatly assisted in this quest by a bill-turned-law he co-authored, and he’s now in a position to “reform” politics until he ends up in The White House.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Saturday Bouillabaisse: Poisoned Court Cookies, Independence Day for Boob Lovers, and Michael Moore's Olive Branch

What a week it’s been, and there were plenty of things I didn’t have time to talk about. Here are only a few:

–Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that last year somebody sent each member of the Court, and others, poisoned cookies. Despite the fact that Federal courts have been poisoning the rest of us for decades, this was a stupid thing for somebody to do. Even dumber was the fact that the sender wrote a note telling the justices that the cookies were poisoned. The sender will now be baking in prison for 15 years.

–The government ended a 14-year ban on silicone-gel breast implants yesterday. Boob lovers and half of you actresses in Hollywood: this is your Independence Day!

–Economist Milton Friedman passed away this week, a victim of what he might call biological and Almighty market forces. He’ll be missed, but not by many leftists, whom his common-sensicle theories skewered at every turn. Friedman was 94, and liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith was 97 when he died in April. It would appear that the key to longevity has something to do with incessant analysis of supply and demand, spectral decomposition, GDP, and labor productivity.

–NASA is in the early stages of drawing up plans to land on rogue asteroids that may be the celestial equivalent of Billy Joel’s car and threaten a collision with the Earth, and to either shove them into a different course or blow them up with nuclear weapons. The new Democrat majority in Congress has instead drawn up plans to negotiate and offer concessions to the asteroid.

–Michael Moore has a pledge for disheartened conservatives. It’s a 12-point agreement he wants you to sign. Here’s number three: “We will not spend your grandchildren’s money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It’s your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.” — I believe they’ve already spent my grandchildren’s money, so he’s right on there. Michael Moore’s admitting he’ll have some control over my checkbook? This is where this entire pledge goes from being an “olive branch” to ending up on my check register as a huge expenditure to “Olive Garden.”

–A hotel chain in the midwest has blocked al-CNN from televisions in their rooms, saying that a recent al-CNN report showing Iraqi insurgents shooting U.S. troops was “shocking and repulsive” and “supported terrorism.” Al-CNN was so angered by the charge that they decided that it would only be fair to show the opposite as well, so in the near future, be on the lookout for footage of U.S. troops accidentally shooting other U.S. troops.

–And finally, from the “wasn’t there a better way to phrase this?” department comes this: A gay rights activist, speaking of the recently outed Reverend Ted Haggard, said “He had to be who he was in the end.” We couldn’t agree more.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Saturday Bouillabaisse: Poisoned Court Cookies, Independence Day for Boob Lovers, and Michael Moore’s Olive Branch

What a week it’s been, and there were plenty of things I didn’t have time to talk about. Here are only a few:

–Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that last year somebody sent each member of the Court, and others, poisoned cookies. Despite the fact that Federal courts have been poisoning the rest of us for decades, this was a stupid thing for somebody to do. Even dumber was the fact that the sender wrote a note telling the justices that the cookies were poisoned. The sender will now be baking in prison for 15 years.

–The government ended a 14-year ban on silicone-gel breast implants yesterday. Boob lovers and half of you actresses in Hollywood: this is your Independence Day!

–Economist Milton Friedman passed away this week, a victim of what he might call biological and Almighty market forces. He’ll be missed, but not by many leftists, whom his common-sensicle theories skewered at every turn. Friedman was 94, and liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith was 97 when he died in April. It would appear that the key to longevity has something to do with incessant analysis of supply and demand, spectral decomposition, GDP, and labor productivity.

–NASA is in the early stages of drawing up plans to land on rogue asteroids that may be the celestial equivalent of Billy Joel’s car and threaten a collision with the Earth, and to either shove them into a different course or blow them up with nuclear weapons. The new Democrat majority in Congress has instead drawn up plans to negotiate and offer concessions to the asteroid.

–Michael Moore has a pledge for disheartened conservatives. It’s a 12-point agreement he wants you to sign. Here’s number three: “We will not spend your grandchildren’s money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It’s your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.” — I believe they’ve already spent my grandchildren’s money, so he’s right on there. Michael Moore’s admitting he’ll have some control over my checkbook? This is where this entire pledge goes from being an “olive branch” to ending up on my check register as a huge expenditure to “Olive Garden.”

–A hotel chain in the midwest has blocked al-CNN from televisions in their rooms, saying that a recent al-CNN report showing Iraqi insurgents shooting U.S. troops was “shocking and repulsive” and “supported terrorism.” Al-CNN was so angered by the charge that they decided that it would only be fair to show the opposite as well, so in the near future, be on the lookout for footage of U.S. troops accidentally shooting other U.S. troops.

–And finally, from the “wasn’t there a better way to phrase this?” department comes this: A gay rights activist, speaking of the recently outed Reverend Ted Haggard, said “He had to be who he was in the end.” We couldn’t agree more.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com