Dec. 1, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't  always  satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe   Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

Bill Clinton, now invested in pharmaceuticals, goes long on news of Proctor & Gamble seeking FDA approval for "arousal patch" for Desperate Housewives after clinical trials by Nicollette Sheridan.

            Proctor & Gamble is seeking FDA approval for marketing an "arousal" patch for Desperate Housewives.  Stock market insiders report that Bill Clinton, who has become an avid investor in pharmaceuticals such as Proctor & Gamble since leaving office, went long on hearing the news.  Disney stock skyrocketed when an initial news report indicated Proctor & Gamble was seeking "FCC" approval for clinical trials of "arousal patches" on Desperate Housewives despite earlier reports that they'd already thrown in the towel.

             Social activists predicted that successful marketing of the patches to "desperate housewives" would convert stormy marriages into "civil unions."  Other activists feared the availability of such patches would change happy housewives into depressed housewives.  Rosie O'Donnell decried the patches as yet another example of a male conspiracy using the male-dominated pharmaceuticals industry to fill the "arousal gap" in a futile attempt to revitalize heterosexual marriage through use of toxic hormones to give women an unnatural attraction to men.

            CNN's business/space guru, Lou Dobbs, expressed grave reservations that "desperate housewives" would buy the product but conceded there would be a potentially unlimited market if Proctor & Gamble could find an ethical way to market the patches to desperate husbands for clandestine affixation to their wives' backs when they go to sleep too early.  

            In contrast, Wall-Street guru, Lawrence Kudlow (co-host of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer) enthusiastically predicted that mass-marketing of such patches would induce so much marital harmony that it would change blue states to red states.  Jim Cramer, the even more excitable co-host, predicted it would change red states to blue states because two-wage-earner couples who don't get home in time to watch the early news would no longer have time to watch the late news either.  Although Fox News' Neil Cavuto expressed concern that successful marketing of the patch to the real "desperate housewives" (as well as the really desperate housewives) might hurt the ratings of his business-news show by dramatically reducing the number of married men watching his show to be titillated by his regular showing of Victoria's Secrets vignettes in the guise of "fashion" news, he concluded that he could offset such loss by beginning to regularly feature Chippendale vignettes.  In fact, Cavuto, Kudlow and Cramer haven't seemed this excited since they joined forces as "Bear Busters" in July, 2003.      

            A scientific expert speaking for the pharmaceuticals industry explained how the skin-patch works:  It releases testosterone into the woman's system, but since normal women have extremely low levels of testosterone, it merely elevates their sex-drive even though such low-dosage level would be lethal for normal males because they naturally have far higher levels of testosterone.  Alarmed by this information, the National Organization of Women voted to urge all ardent feminists to avoid using the product on themselves for "medical and health reasons."  When asked to explain the basis for such recommendation, a spokes-being for NOW declined to be more specific.   As an example of issues making strange bedfellows, a spokesman for a men's-rights organization, who was equally alarmed but for different reasons, expressed the concern that abusive wives could kill their husbands by duping them into wearing the patches to "increase their virility" even more effectively than by using Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, or girlie magazines or watching Monday Night Football.

            Undaunted by such adverse recommendations, Wall Street experts say these "arousal patches" for women, coupled with their counterparts for men (i.e., Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, etc.), will comprise a new, specialized stock-portfolio sector for the Twenty-First Century to be called "Ball & Bare" even though most jargon experts think "Bare & Ball" would be more appropriate. 

--Jim Wrenn, Science Editor at PoliSat.Com.

Installment immediately preceding the one above, go here.

Recent Political Satire/Commentary Animations-- See thumbnails below GoogleAds (below).

·  About  Archives (Old Archives)  Contact  Search PoliticalxRay/PoliSat.Com  News  Troops

More Animations: Text-Index/Images-Index.

Other sites that feature PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here to view our Affiliates page.

Questions for Americans:

Shouldn't we be at least as generous in supporting the families of our troops killed or injured while serving our country in Afghanistan, Iraq, in America and throughout the rest of the world as we were for the families of the victims of 9-11?  Here are some suggestions:

*Salute American Heroes*  *Support Fallen Heroes Fund*

Shouldn't we recognize that many, if not most, instances of foreign anti-Americanism in the late 20th Century (like most of the foreign anti-Americanism today) focused reactionary rage against maintenance of, and willingness to use, human-rights-respecting power against forces that oppose liberty and favor the "stability" of the status quo?   See a retrospective on Ronald Reagan.   Shouldn't we recognize that despite arguments to the contrary by devotees of the United Nations that the world remains a yet-to-be-civilized place in which the wise exercise of human-rights-respecting power more than intellectual sophistry can best assure the survival of liberty?

Shouldn't we recognize that "property rights" are among the most fundamental of "human rights" and are therefore vital to the survival of liberty?  See "'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' versus 'Life, Liberty [and] Property.'"

Questions for secular thinkers:

Shouldn't secular thinkers be at least as respectful towards ordinary people of faith as George Bush is towards ordinary secular thinkers, and shouldn't ordinary secular thinkers repudiate fanatical secular fundamentalists at least as firmly as Bush repudiates fanatical religious fundamentalists?  Shouldn't secular fundamentalists learn to recognize the unscientific nature of their own leaps of faith before throwing stones at unscientific leaps of faith by ordinary people of faith?  See satire/commentary about Secular Fundamentalists and Religious Fanatics.

Shouldn't people professing to be secular thinkers learn to understand the difference between science and political science (i.e., politicized science)?  Shouldn't radical environmentalists learn to understand that their views are little more than modern forms of pantheism?  See Satire/Commentary about Pantheopians.  Shouldn't they learn to objectively and scientifically scrutinize theories such as Global Warming at least as rigorously as they scrutinize "creationism"?  See "Global Warming or Scientific Flatulence?"  See also the commentary on proposed "climate stewardship" legislation and the animated illustration, "Goblins of Globalized 'Warming.'" 

Shouldn't people professing to be secular thinkers learn to understand that what science reveals about human evolution supports, rather than undermines, the sensibility of a rebuttable presumption that monogamous, heterosexual marriage best serves the interests of children notwithstanding the sensibility of recognizing civil unions to accord comparable (but not identical) privileges to mutual-support partnerships?   See  commentary "Evolution versus Revolution" and the animated illustration, "Devolution versus Evolution."

Questions for people of faith:

Shouldn't people with faith that a Deity created free will recognize that compulsory piety would be offensive to such Deity?

Shouldn't people with faith that a Deity created free will recognize that political compromises limiting the power of government to compel conformity with theocratic doctrines over which other people of faith, as well as secular thinkers, can reasonably disagree would not be offensive to such Deity?  See commentary about our Founding Documents, the Constitution and the Creator.

end

Donate your frequent-flier miles to military personnel to return home from port of reentry on leave:  www.HeroMiles.Org.

·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,  Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·

First Things First:  Salute America's Heroes · Fallen Heroes Fund · Frequent-Flyer-Miles for Troops · Thanks to Troops · Military News ··  MilBlogs ·   Home · Posts:  Current /Recent · Videos/Toons/Songs:  Latest · Embed-Codes · Text Index · Images Index · Archives:  Old · New · About · Contact · Syndication · Affiliates · News  Sources/Papers/Magazines   Pundits  Blogs   ThinkTanks   What is "property"?   Pantheopians   Global Climate   Asteroids/Comets Hitting Earth--Risks/Predictions    Science   GlobalWeb

Other sites that feature PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here to view our Affiliates page.