MySpace



Rules:

* Although this is a public forum, it's also a Liberal Hostile Zone. Bring a knife to our 2nd Amendment guaranteed gunfight if you want to.
* HTML: I like it, but don't violate MySpace TOS.
* Topic: Although staying on topic is nice, it's not a requirement.
* Spam will be deleted! Spammers MIGHT get blocked!
* Blogdicking: Please feel free to comment on other people's responses.
* Censorship: I don't like censorship, but if you are way beyond all limits of civility, I will consider it.

Disclaimer: My views are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Government or the US Army.


Ben



Last Updated: 6/27/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 47
Sign: Scorpio

City: Tacoma
State: Washington
Country: US

My Subscriptions

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Saturday, December 20, 2008 

Current mood:  amused
Category: School, College, Greek


How many words do we have?

The Brits might disagree with this statement, but we US citizens generally speak English.  We inherited our language from our parent country.  But even English, for the most part, isn’t really English.  Nope, English is a collection of words from all around the globe.  Some have argued that there are more words in the English language than any other language.  But the simple truth is, amazingly, no one really knows how many English words there are.  And I’m not speaking about a little bit.  I’m talking about a lot!

It has been estimated that there are somewhere between 200,000 English words too nearly one cool million.  The reason for this difficulty is that no one really knows how to count them.  The difficulty comes from words like dog.  There are the four legged variants that dig up your flower gardens and rummage through your trashy refuse, then there is the way that someone dogs someone else.  This is the same word, two different meanings.  Then there are the variants of the same word; you run, are running, and ran.  There are also the contractions.  If a hyphenated combination of two words has a separate meaning than the other two words individually, can you count it again as an independent word, even if you have already counted them?  What about the derivative words like all, right, and alright? What about all the technical words?  What about the legal and medical terms?  Are these commonly used technical words English words, or Latin words?

How did this happen?

So, how did this all happen?  Well, starting off, England was invaded and conquered by almost everyone who could row their boats across the English channel!  Apparently, the“Heinz 57' descendants got tired of having their butts kicked and decided to do a little butt kicking themselves!  Soon after, the English Empire was borne, (or is that born?)  Well, they kept adding words without getting rid of the old words.  Not even the Queen of England knows for sure how many words are in her language.  So, if you don’t know how many words you have, then how can you know if you have the biggest dictionary?  How long does it take for a commonly used word to become an “official” English word?  Is Habeas Corpus an English word(s) yet?  What about the commonly used colloquialisms?  When do they become official?

Here are some of the places we get our language from:

Australian Aboriginal -kangaroo; African -trek; Arabic -ghoul; Chinese -gung-ho; Czech -robot; Dutch -bundle; Etruscan -market; Finnish -sauna; French -academic; German -kindergarten; Greek -apology; Hawaiian -aloha; Hebrew -behemoth; Hungarian -coach; (India has many languages: Sanskrit -diva; Tamil -pariah; Hindi -shampoo and avatar (just like my MySpace picture); Urdu -cushy);  Indonesian -amok; Irish (Gaelic) -dig from dtuig “to understand” (think hippies); Italian -facade; Japanese -tycoon; Korean -soju; Latin -sinister; Malay -paddy; Maori -kiwi; North American Aboriginal -skunk; Norwegian -ski; Old Norse -anger; Persian -rank; Polish -horde; Portuguese -breeze; Romanian -pastrami; Russian -luna; Serbo-Croatian -Tesla; Scots -blackmail; Scottish Gaelic -bunny; Spanish -alligator;  Swedish -gauntlet; Tagalog -boondocks; Turkic -yoghurt; Ukrainian -Cossack; Welsh -car; Yiddish -bagel!

Of course it’s difficult to say exactly where we got some words because many are passed down through several groups of people with different languages.  They begin in the ancient languages and eventually plop right down into the English language.  And of course, we always have room for more.

The United States adds one of our own!

So in the midst of this “big stew” we call the English language, we United States citizens decided to make our own contribution  . . .  sort of.  Yep, we inadvertently invented what has become not only a US word, or an English word, but a truly an international word.  I say United States citizens instead of Americans because the Canadians and Mexicans had absolutely nothing to do with this!  Nope, this word was invented in the exact same place we had our famous tea party.  Or, perhaps the infamous tea party if you happen to live on the other side of the Atlantic!  Yep, it’s a Bostonian word!

Yes-sir-ree Billy Bob, it’s a fascinating word because no one can really get behind it.  No one is really enthusiastic about it.  But, it’s short and easy to pronounce in any language.  And, most languages don’t really have an equivalent, even though globally most people throughout the world can relate to it.  Yep, it’s just an OK word! OK?

OK 1 or o·kay  (-k) Informal


n. pl. OK's or o·kays

  • Approval; agreement: Get your supervisor's OK before taking a day off.

adj.


  • Agreeable; acceptable: Was everything OK with your stay?
  • Satisfactory; good: an OK fellow.
  • Not excellent and not poor; mediocre: made an OK presentation.
  • In proper or satisfactory operational or working order: Is the battery OK?
  • Correct: That answer is OK.
  • Uninjured; safe: The skier fell but was OK.
  • Fairly healthy; well: Thanks to the medicine, the patient was OK.

adv.

  • Used to express approval or agreement.
  • Fine; well enough; adequately: a television that works OK despite its age.

tr.v. OK'ed or OK'd or o·kayed, OK'·ing or o·kay·ing, OK's or o·kays

  • To approve of or agree to; authorize.

OK, where did OK come from?

And of course, most people who use it don’t really know where it comes from.  So, how did this little jewel come to be?  Answer: In 1839, the newspaper writers and editors in Boston had a sense of humor.  They had a habit of abbreviating commonly used words and then spelling them out.  Because they were spelling them out anyway, they sometimes intentionally misspelled the abbreviation!  The first documented use of “OK” came from the March 23 edition of the Boston Morning Post (a United States newspaper).

This is the quote: “The 'Chairman of the Committee on Charity Lecture Bells', is one of the deputation, and perhaps if he should return to Boston, via Providence, he of the Journal, and his train-band, would have his 'contribution box,' et ceteras, o.k.—all correct—and cause the corks to fly, like sparks, upward.”

That’s right, “OK” were the initials for “All Correct!”  (Oll Korrect)  Now, normally that word would have died except wouldn’t you know it, the Presidential race followed the next year in 1840.  It got really ugly.  “OK,” became the initials for 'Old Kinderhook,' a.k.a. Martin Van Buren, a native of Kinderhook, NY.  He wasn’t great, but I guess he was OK.  Both sides were using OK for him and it took off like “Read my lips”; “Where’s the beef?”; “You're no Jack Kennedy”; and this year’s winner, “Joe the Plumber!”  Ain’t politics swell?

Martin Van Buren, our 8th President, lived up to his OK initials.  His administration was credited with a lackluster economy and strained ties with Brittan.  He is “almost” remembered today for not really doing anything.  In fact, when someone asks who he is, the response will probably be, “He’s the President that followed President Andrew Jackson and proceeded President William Henry Harrison.”  Well, I guess everyone had enough with OK and voted him not OK.  He was a  one term President (1837 to 1841).

OK, this word apparently was very catchy because it really spread, OKOK is not really a great word, but it’s an OK word.  It’s not a “no,” it’s not an enthusiastic “yes,” it’s just OK.  No one is really fighting it, OK, but it’s OK with them.

I certainly hope you are all proud of our OK word, and I hope this blog was OK with you, OK?


References:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/OK
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061029023834AA7TCuT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okay
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/OK
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/ok/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_English_words_of_international_origin
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutenglish/numberwords
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutenglish/mostwords?view=uk
http://www.slate.com/id/2139611/
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/181383
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Van_Buren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Sunday, August 31, 2008 

Current mood:  contemplative
Category: News and Politics

Click the Donkey!



Sunday, July 27, 2008 

Current mood:  enraged
Category: News and Politics

OUTRAGEOUS!



Isn't it nice to know that potentially our future Commander-in-Chief cares more about a bunch of damn foreigners than he does his own fallen troops?  That he cares more for Germans at a press op than he does wounded Americans?

For full comment, click the following link!



Outraged!






Ben X
Thursday, July 24, 2008 

Current mood:  excited
Category: Friends
I have a couple of announcements to make:

1. My status:

I am back online with MySpace for the time being.  I don't know how long I'll be able to stay on because of the Nature of this deployment.  I will probably move several more times before it is over.  I hate to be the boy who keeps crying wolf, but each time I move I won't know what I'll find until I get there.

2. A new profile:

 I've put together a purely political profile.  For some time I've been a little annoyed by how limited I was with this current profile and I wasn't quite sure what to do.  I have many interests and putting all of it on one profile takes too long for it to load up.  There were also other concerns that I could bore everyone with.  I'll be returning my original profile back to it's pre-politics, neutral state shortly.  Come check out my new profile and add me!  But not if you can't handle some serious Conservative views!  It will be a weapons free-fire political zone!  Very exciting!  LOL

My New Profile!

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 

Current mood:  amused
Category: News and Politics
This is probably one of the most heartless blogs I've ever written.  I guess I'm just a little tired of Liberals changing the rules to fit the circumstances.  For instance, women may have abortions legally because an unborn baby is not a human being.     Well ... unless the mother actually wanted the baby, then some jail baiter (criminally minded person) who causes a miscarriage can be charged with murder.  Why?  Presumably because in this case, the unborn baby is a human being after all.  Or how about Liberals trying to change the election rules in the State of Florida DURING the election in order to get Al Gore elected?  I can go on, and on, and on!

This brings us to the THEORY of Evolution.  We all know that the majority of Liberals tend to be atheists, agnostic, or at least non-religious.  They are like this because if an intelligent entity did create us, there MIGHT be strings attached!    That's right, a Devine quid-pro-quo!  This concept is repulsive to anyone who believes that morality is, or should be a relative term!  Enter the OTHER explanation as to how we could have gotten here!  We evolved from nothingness!    That's right!  Somehow a rock just started eating stuff, then reproduced for the first time!

In all fairness, we know that things mutate and evolve.    We know, for instance that viruses mutate into a new strain every time it circles the globe; that's why we get sick again!  We also know that the human species is getting taller.  All you have to do to confirm this is to look at how large the front door is on a 700 year old German house!  But, how did we go from inorganic to organic? From non-life to life?  

Some suggestions are hilarious!  One such suggestion was that aliens passing through left some organic stuff behind!  And ... that's where we began.    Of course it doesn't explain how the aliens got here.  Maybe they were created!  Or perhaps they also climbed out of goo that was left behind by yet another species of aliens, and so on - forever!  This also brings up visions of alien "Happy Campers" that left their trash behind!  YOU B****RDS! (Think South Park)  The fact is, Evolution has larger holes in it than the titanic!    And when the remains of "Early Man" turn out to be a rare species of monkey in some jungle, we won't hear a peep out of the evolutionists!

But as long as Liberals DO believe in Evolution and insist on teaching it to our children as fact, why not apply the principles evenly and fairly?  So ... what exactly is the basis for Natural Selection?  Could it possibly be that the strong survive and the weak perish?  And if the strong survive and reproduce, then the offspring will be more capable of surviving too?  Right?

I suggest we apply this principle to the Welfare State!  That's right, give every able bodied person 3 months to transition from one job to another.  Then kick them out of the Welfare System!  Let them STARVE TO DEATH in the streets!  Furthermore, make it a crime to help them in ANY WAY!  After all, it's NATURE'S WAY!  Then when all the Liberals are gone, our country will once again consist of good old fashioned, self-sufficient, "Stronger" Conservatives!  These Conservatives will then reproduce, making MORE Conservatives!

God bless you Mr. Darwin!

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 

Current mood:  annoyed
Category: Blogging
I was not going to comment or write this blog, except that this has been bothering me all day and I wanted to get it off my chest.  MySpace is not my life.  Groups and friends are not my sole reason for being on MySpace.  And finally, I am not one dimensional.  What MySpace does offer me, is a chance to vent!  And if people like what I have to say, then that's OK.  If they don't, then that's OK too.  If people talk behind my back, I don't really care.  I am amused when I get in a porta-potty and find some stuff written about me.  Why?  Because when someone was taking care of "personal business," I was the only thought that could fill that otherwise lonely, empty, and meaningless void!

I am a Conservative that loves to take on the liberal BS I see going on around me, and adding my 2cents!  I am alarmed at creeping Islam and the probable loss of liberty it will leave in it's wake.  But, I am not all about politics either.  I love blues and laughing at stuff.  I am a Christian (not the best), So on, and so on.  Because I am multi-faceted, I have friends for a lot of different reasons, and yes, some are liberals!  Heck, my own sister is a liberal and I have no intention on deleting her or anyone else.  EVER!  Nor do I EVER have any intention of censoring what people have to say on my blog as long as it is set to PUBLIC!  To me that's exactly what it means!  If you say something I don't like, then don't expect me to be kind in my response!  That's the rules.

This is a lesson I learned from one of my Liberal friends when my feathers were ruffled about another Conservative friend that I was considering deleting for completely ignoring me on her blog.  That's right!  As if I was "ALL THAT!"  I was asked by a LIBERAL friend to not delete my CONSERVATIVE friend because she loathed censorship of any kind!  IMAGINE THAT!

It's a darn shame to admit this, but I have never seen such a bunch of thin skinned people in all my life than some of my Conservative friends.  One of my early MySpace experiences was about a very popular Conservative everyone took down because his humor was too convincing!  What a bunch of crap!

I want to remind everyone that once hurtful things are said, you can't pull them back.  If you get home one night and you're really tired, or if you had too much to drink and something sets you off, maybe you should wait until the next day to write a blog, or to comment on someone else's, or to send some crazy email!  And believe me, I do drink (not here in Iraq) and I have said some pretty stupid stuff!  Lord knows, I'm not perfect!

But, DO NOT ASK ME TO CHOOSE BETWEEN FRIENDS!  I WILL NOT!  It doesn't mean I like you or respect you any more or less.  But, I will NOT be held hostage by ANYONE'S friendship!  If you need to delete me because of my position, that's OK.  If all I have left of my friends at the end of the day, are my personal family members, then that's OK.  Although having a bunch of friends that comment is nice, I am not in a popularity contest!  And I certainly am not trying to build my friend's list up into some unmaintainable monster!  Besides, over my lifetime I have learned one lesson well; when one door closes behind me, there's always another one opening in front of me! :)

Peace Out!
Thursday, June 12, 2008 

Current mood:  cynical
Category: News and Politics
I have heard people speak of the difference between so called Progressives and Conservatives as the following: "Progressives try to seek new and better solutions, where as conservatives try to preserve what was."  This position is partially correct, but fundamentally wrong.  Progressives, traditionally known as Liberals (or Modern Liberals), are trying to change what has proven to be successful, to something that has proven to fail.  Conservatives, on the other hand, only want to preserve what has proven to be successful.  This does not mean we do not wish to advance or change, it only means we wish to hold onto the principles that have made this country the powerful, influential, wealthy, and enormously successful nation that it is!  This didn't happen by chance.  It happened because we as a society did something right!  That "something" is what we wish to preserve!

As we all know, conservatism is a very broad collection of beliefs that fall mostly into four main categories: 1:  Economic / Fiscal policies; 2:  Foreign / Defense policies; 3:  Social / Moral or Religious standards, and finally; 4:  Good Constitutional governance along with Inalienable Human
Rights (Including the 1st and 2nd Amendments) according to the United States Constitution.  Interlaced in these broad categories are underlying  themes or principles such as; smaller federal and local governments, less entitlements, less taxes supporting less expenditures, self-sufficiency, educating our children to be successful, etc.!  The category I wish to address in this blog is Economic / Fiscal policies, specifically, the difference between Obama's Socialism, and Reagan's Capitalism!  

There is no argument that Modern Liberals believe that the way forward lies in a strong central government that takes care of the less fortunate by transferring wealth from rich people, (who must have done some sort of shady or immoral thing to get their wealth,) to deserving poor people who have been victimized by a system established by the rich!  This is a moral judgement by Liberals, as if Liberals were the caretakers of morality!  Their ultimate socialist government would be global in scope.

Let me respond by asking some questions:  What is wealth and who creates it?  Is it wealth to have a lot of dollars in your pocket?  Is it wealth to have nice personal property?  I propose that real wealth is the relative ease to purchase things that make our lives easier.  So you don't necessarily get richer just because you have more money.  What good does it do you to have a "fist full of dollars" if the price of everything goes up?

When the industrial revolution kicked off with Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, the people were up in arms because they knew they were all going to lose their jobs to a machine!  Yet history tells us that Americans lost tedious jobs that were best suited for a machine, and got other jobs that often required less labor.  At the same time, the cost of clothing went down allowing everyone to be able to afford new clothes.  These people did not necessarily earn more money in their new jobs, but they could afford more clothes.  So here's the question; were they richer because of this?  They were certainly better off!  

This invention created wealth by increasing productivity, and the ensuing Industrial Revolution happened only because the current system of capitalism encouraged and financed risk taking!  Anytime you create wealth, it's because you've invested in increased productivity and/or invested in the means to provide affordable services such as trades that have a marketable value attached to it!  You have grown the economy and made it easier for people to buy things that make their lives easier.  Socialism, on the other hand, discourages this same kind of investment by tying available capital up in a welfare system of government dependancy!  

So what encourages entrepreneurs to take risk?  The possibility that you can become stinking rich!  Greed, or at least the potential of advancing your social status drives capitalism.  It also drives the vast majority of new technology!  It advances science!  It creates new medicines and treatments!  It prolongs life and makes life easier!  The sky is the limit and every possible avenue to advancement is explored!  Anywhere there is a dollar to be made, there is someone making an effort.  Centrally controlled economies can't do this!  Only a freewheeling, wide open system of capitalism!

Modern Liberals will gain votes by transferring money from the bank accounts of the rich (taxes) to the pockets of the lazy poor.  (Some call this stealing!)  These economic parasites are victims for life because they have learned from Modern Liberals that they don't have to work to eat, get clothing, and have a roof over their heads!  All they have to do is come up with an excuse and cash their monthly welfare checks!  They are content to share the earnings of others, live at the poverty level, and then be envious of all those who have applied themselves, taken risks, and made a profit!  

Liberals will often put a short term solution ahead of a long term fix such as redistributing wealth instead of providing an environment for private enterprise to excel!  But transferring wealth is only part of the tinkering socialists do in a centrally controlled economy.  They may use all sorts of artificial central controls, like price caps!  The last time we were in an energy crises, Congress placed disastrous price caps on fuel.  The result was long lines, closed-up service stations, and empty fuel tanks.  But that was politically easier than offshore drilling for new national oil reserves.  Now we are back again!  Can you say deja-vu?!

Why are price caps and even more taxes on the rich bad business?  Imagine a plumber who is only allowed to charge a fixed price for fixing a leak.  Do you think this plumber, or any other plumber would excel at his or her job?  Why do a good job if someone else gets paid the same for simply showing up?!  The same is true for the redistribution of wealth.  Why apply yourself to creating a new market if you will never make any more money, after you pay your taxes, than the average factory worker?  A factory worker who never took a chance at anything in his or her entire life?!  I mean, why take the risk?   

I've heard Liberals refer to China as a good example of socialism that has been successful.  Well, you cannot use China as an example of a centrally controlled government that excels.  First of all, China languished for a generation under the oppressive socialist constraints of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution.  Any improvement at all would result in a double digit increase in their economy!  And secondly because China is not a purely socialist country anymore.  China tried an experiment; they allowed private enterprise to exist on some privately owned farms while continuing to support the collective technics on the rest of them.  These Chinese who were suddenly free to make their own choices and pocket their own profits were suddenly producing more than the government collectives!  China has been moving towards capitalism ever since.  

Unwilling to learn from history, Modern Liberals continue to move towards socialism!  Again, and again, and again, we see this.  Look at the decay of the old Soviet States.  Look at the decay of our own federal highways and bridges which are managed by the federal, public, "collective," government!  And you honestly believe that a handful of bureaucrats, who can't even keep our bridges standing, can manage the entire economy better than millions of individual Americans who take personal responsibility for their own success and their own failure?!  Unlike our public infrastructure, can you find any decay in a corporation that is at the cutting edge of their market?  

To continue to hold true to the perfect Liberal vision, even against the overwhelming historical and current data, is beyond naivety; it is willful ignorance!  Obama imagines himself to be our parent.  To feed us, to cloth us, and to take care of us; just like a parent.  I will never vote for someone like Obama!  This doting "would be" parent would force us into national decay and suffocate our Liberties like a pillow in the night!

                











                                  
Wednesday, June 04, 2008 

Current mood:  angry
Category: News and Politics
Tue Jun 3, 10:32 AM ET

PARIS - Brigitte Bardot was convicted Tuesday of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France.

A Paris court also handed down a $23,325 fine against the former screen siren and animal rights campaigner. The court also ordered Bardot to pay $1,555 in damages to MRAP.

Bardot's lawyer, Francois-Xavier Kelidjian, said he would talk to her about the possibility of an appeal.

A leading French anti-racism group known as MRAP filed a lawsuit last year over a letter she sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The remarks were published in her foundation's quarterly journal.

In the December 2006 letter to Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot said France is "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts."

Bardot, 73, was referring to the Muslim feast of Aid el-Kebir, celebrated by slaughtering sheep.

French anti-racism laws prevent inciting hatred and discrimination on racial or religious grounds. Bardot had been convicted four times previously for inciting racial hatred.

"She is tired of this type of proceedings," he said. "She has the impression that people want to silence her. She will not be silenced in her defense of animal rights."

The following link is the news source:

News story source at Yahoo!

---------------------

And someone please tell me again ... exactly what race is Islam?  This is what happens when you swing too far to the Left!  When we can't even send a letter to our government officials without getting suit and convicted, then we have lost our Liberties!  Freedom of speech involving genuine concerns is what the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is all about!  Political correctness has nothing to do with Liberty!  Liberal does NOT = Liberty!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 

Current mood:  creative
Category: Blogging
I made it to Iraq and now have an Internet connection.  K-Lo recommended I do podcasts after listening to me rant for a few hours one night.  I haven't decided to do them yet, but this is a screen test to see what people think.  It also explains my current status a little better.



Ben
Monday, May 05, 2008 

Current mood:  adventurous
Category: News and Politics
Hello everyone.  I'm in Kuwait and am finally about ready to head North.  I heard McCain is clarifying a little too much for comfort, Obama has finally clarified his position with the REV Wrong, and Hillary is still in the race (barely) after Pennsylvania, and attacking Obama fiercely.  Other than that, I'm pretty much in a vacuum. :( So rather than sending something of substance, I just decided to have a little fun.  The following tale is a fictional SATIRICAL story, NOT a true story.  It's political humor so it could have been listed in either category.  I figured, "What the hey?  N&P has been working for me so far.  I typed it up on my word processor before I got to the C-Zee to limit my time there.  So tell me Tim and KC, how's my writing skills?  LOL

I'll probably not be able to follow-up on most comments until I get set up in Iraq.  But I will follow-up.  I'll also check out Nuke's 5 part blog as soon as I can.  Oh well; have fun!  I read my short story to two of my female soldiers and they categorized it as "disturbing!"  I and the rest of the guys just thought if was funny!  LOL

As the Cape Churns

It was a cool windy day on the Cape.  From the large window in the exclusive yacht club, you could see the choppy waves below.  It was a private room on the second floor.  The late afternoon orange sun hung just above the horizon.  He took another large gulp of bourbon as he peered deep into her eyes.  "So, what about your wife?" she asked.  "Don't worry." Ted slurred in his New England drawl, "We're married by law only."  "If you don't say anything, who's to know?"  "I suppose you're right," she smiled.  "I certainly won't tell."

He partially stood up and leaned across the table zeroing in on her lips.  The kiss was long as his lips covered the bottom half of her face.  Pulling apart, a long line of spittle still tied them both together.  "Wow!" she gagged as the spittle finally snapped!  "I've never had anyone kiss me quite like that before!"  "I know," replied Ted, "I have that effect on women; I've still got it!"

For Ted Kennedy, his life's story was a long sorted tail of womanizing.  A lifetime of chasing anyone with a pulse.  Ted drank everyone up to a '10.'  Even the men at the club were afraid.  But there were always plenty of women with low enough standards, the kind that are attracted by men with money and power, this kept the men safe.  

"So how's the DNC these days Senator?" she asked.  "Well, the Clintons' idea of calling ourselves 'Progressives' seems to be paying off." Ted responded.  "It's much better than my idea of calling ourselves the Lazy Outspoken Society Equity Raiders, or 'LOSER's!'"  "This new packaging seems to have everyone baffled!" he said with a sly grin and a wink.

"Let's move to the sofa where it's more comfortable," he slurred with a slight belch.  "And ... there I can grope you," he thought to himself.  Ted had taken the double dose of Viagra that his private physician had provided him to overpower the booze, and finally, he felt ready.

As Ted straightened himself up, the room seemed to sway and turn to the right, then to the right, then to the right again.  As he squinted he forced her back into a single image instead of the three women he had just noticed rushing to his side to help steady him!  "Oh my, you certainly have had your full portion today!" she exclaimed.  "I've never seen anyone down an entire 5th of bourbon in less than 10 minutes before!"  "Which 5th ... the last one?"  he asked.  She looked at him closely.  "How many 5th's of bourbon did you drink?" she asked with astonishment.  Ted looked at his hand and tried to hold up a couple of fingers.  "Can you swim?" he asked.  "Thankfully yes," she said with a knowing look.  "Why?" she asked in a flat voice.  "Just checking." he said.

The couple took a zig zag path to the sofa and plopped down on it.  She unbuttoned his shirt, then reached down and undid his pants.  Ted gazed out the window, watching the sun slip down into the cape.  Noticing this opportunity, she quickly grabbed her reading glasses and searched for the Oscar Myer in the dense unkept undergrowth.  "Wow!" she exclaimed under her breath.  "So that's what excessive alcohol does!"  Almost hearing this remark, Ted looked back at her.  Immediately before his eyes locked on her, she ripped off her glasses and tossed them behind her.  "What?" he asked.  "Nothing," she replied.  "No, seriously, that's what what does?" Ted asked again.  Trying to distract him and having no idea what to do next, she began to pet him like her tabby back home.  "Oh I love that." he said.  How do all you women know to do that?"  Giggling, she said, "Sitting there you look like my little Teddy Buddha!"

Then Ted began to laugh.  "Careful, careful," he said.  "If I laugh too hard I'll have to put my Depends back on."  She stopped laughing.  "You'll put your ... what back on?"  "My Depends," he proclaimed.  "Sometimes I wear them just for fun!"  Chirping out a short shriek she jumped up off the couch.  She looked at the front door longingly and wished she was on the other side.  "You wear diapers for fun?" she shouted as she looked back at him.  She was standing there with a horrified look on her face and her mouth slightly ajar.  "Hell yes!" proclaimed Ted proudly.  "It feels really good!  Would you like to try it?"  "Hell no I wouldn't like to try it, you freak!"  She screamed!  "Well then, how about a bare bottom spanking?" asked Ted.  "A what?!" she shouted.  "Calm down!" retorted Ted.  "If you wish you can spank me instead!  I like them too you know!" You're a freak!  You're a freak!" she screamed!   "I'm getting out of here you freak!"  

She started for the door.  "Where are you going?" asked Ted as he leaned forward and tried to grab her leg.  Catching this movement out of the corner of her eye she let out a blood curdling scream and bolted through the door!  "Damn!" exclaimed Ted.  "There goes another one!"  "Damn! Damn!  Damn!  It's been years since I've been laid!"   He let out a long sigh.  He smiled at the vision of his future utopian paradise where women like her would throw themselves at him and everything different was good!  Then he passed into blissful liberal unconsciousness as he fell back onto the couch and began to snore.

Early the next morning, the cleaning crew would find the Senator from Massachusetts exactly as he lay the night before.  His shirt unbuttoned and wadded up behind him.  His pants worn resplendently at his ankles.  An uncertain smile on his face.  They would shake their collective heads and wonder ... "Why is it the Democrats always seem to end up this way?"

The End

Written by:  ME!  LOL