You Wanna To See A Trick?

We were both in college when we met. She lived with her parents. I had a room in frat house. [It was an urban college, mostly night students, that did not have any panhellenic organizations. A few of us got drunk, someone suggested we start a frat. That sounded like a good idea and so about a dozen of us got it started. Thankfully,  it was not charted until after I graduated.]

So anyway, two of us paid token rent on a huge victorian home. There were parties every weekend. Usually several of the faculty joined us to suck up. Yeah, a different time.

The house was our rendevous site. One day, I asked her if she wanted to see a trick and started quickly taking off my clothes. She surprised me and had her clothes off, her ass on the bed with her knees up before I finished. That’s when I knew she was Olympic caliber keeper.

May Day

I could post a lot of stuff. But I will not.

The Biden administration acts as if it has a broad mandate to pursue the most ambitious left-wing agenda in history, involving a massive expansion of the federal government and unsustainable spending increases.

One example is the $1.9 trillion Covid relief package, which goes mostly to new programs that have nothing to do with the coronavirus. Similarly, Mr. Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal would spend hundreds of billions on roads, bridges, ports, airports, utility grids and broadband— but almost $1.5 trillion on other things.

All this largess requires confiscatory tax increases that would punish savings by raising capital-gains tax rates, devastate small businesses that pass profits through to their owners by taxing income more heavily, and make U.S. businesses less competitive abroad by raising corporate rates well above those of foreign competitors.

There are also bills that would federalize elections, force unionization of America’s workforce, and make the district of Columbia a state. And of course, the panel to study packing the Supreme Court and diminishing its power to curtail unconstitutional laws and executive actions.

The above is now dated after his 6 trillion wish list of this week.

 

Another Saturday

You have to give the Dems credit. They are doing what they do best – spending money. This time on a scale never done before.

The details are coming out on what the 2 trillion is for. The most used word is infrastructure. That is NOT what most of the money will be used for.

Mr. Buttigieg is one of the five cabinet secretaries the president has designated to sell the $2 trillion infrastructure bill to the American people. In an interview last week, he declared “there is racism physically built into some of our highways,” and that this racism was a “conscious choice,” not “just an act of neglect.” If this is truly what Mr. Buttigieg and the administration believe, the trillions they are about to spend will almost certainly end up going less to actual infrastructure needs than some as-yet-to-be defined measure of “equity.”

As for Mr. Buttigieg’s racist highways, he is simply repeating an old progressive article of faith.  These critics believe that the rise of the interstate highway system “prompted ‘white flight’ to the suburbs, while stranding poor minorities in urban neighborhoods disfigured by the highways that bisected them.”

But the truth is more complex than the progressive narrative holds. Flight to the suburbs started long before the interstate highways, as the rise of the automobile gave ordinary Americans the means to indulge their preference for living in small towns over more densely packed cities. Progressives have never liked cars, and it’s surely no coincidence that this bill allocates $165 billion for public transit and rail against only $115 billion to fix and modernize the roads and bridges Americans drive on.

The White House admits only around 5%, or $115 billion, goes to roads and bridges, while Politico reports that the World Economic Forum’s definition of infrastructure, which Mr. Biden cites—roads, mass transit, ports, airports, electricity grids and broadband—covers 37% of the proposal’s $2.3 trillion in outlays.

The other roughly $1.4 trillion includes $100 billion to upgrade and build schools, $174 billion to support electric-car production, $213 billion for public housing, $580 billion for manufacturing initiatives and so forth.

Ten billion dollars for a Civilian Climate Corps that’ll employ every Greta Thunberg wannabe under the banner of “infrastructure spending” won’t go over well. Nor will spending $400 billion for elder-care services, something demanded by the Service Employees International Union, which endorsed Mr. Biden in the primaries. We love grandma and grandpa, but they’re not infrastructure.

Tis the Season

A reader wondered how our Red Panty Days of Christmas was going this year. Not so much. Bacall has donned red panties every day this month and I have given her some paddle pops. The damn disease I have has me without much energy or enthusiasm for play.

I Googled and found this Red Panties Post from 2017.

You can find more with this argument.

“red panties” site:https://ourbottomsburn.blogspot.com/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the time of the year when spanking blogs publish Christmas pictures. I have probably published some of these before and they have been picked up by other blogs. So here are some repeats and some new ones. Yeah, Bacall is in the mix.

Let’s started with one Bacall did many years ago.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Hermione, the Canadian

Most spanko blogs are written by liberals, who know a lot more than us deplorables.

First, she wrote this: Welcome, one and all, to our regular weekend brunch. The rule for today is no discussing the American election; this is a politics-free zone.

Edited to say this: Welcome, one and all, to our regular weekend brunch. I think yesterday’s news is cause for celebration. Three cheers for democracy!

Which translates to democracy as long as you agree with me. I tolerant no dissent.

Obama’s Progressive Pivot Is Meant to Push Biden Leftward

The former president has been contradicting himself. He must think radicalism is now a winning strategy.

By Jason L. Riley for The Wall Street Journal
Aug. 4, 2020

It is often said that the Democratic Party has moved significantly to the left since the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, which might explain why Mr. Obama’s remarks at John Lewis’s funeral service last week sounded like an attempt to stay relevant.

It wasn’t long ago that the former president was trying to steer Democrats in a more moderate direction. Back in 2018, amid calls for “sanctuary cities” and the abolition of immigration-enforcement agencies, Mr. Obama insisted that “national borders matter” and that “laws need to be followed.” He also urged fellow liberals to cool it with the identity politics. We have to “engage with people not only who look different but who hold different views,” he said. “And you can’t do this if you just out of hand disregard what your opponents have to say from the start. And you can’t do it if you insist that those who aren’t like you—because they’re white or because they’re male—that somehow . . . they lack standing to speak on certain matters.”

Alas, we heard a very different Barack Obama last Thursday in Atlanta, where he turned a eulogy for a civil-rights hero into a stump speech and offered his blessing to any number of progressive causes. Among other things, he now wants the Senate to ditch the filibuster—which he supported and employed as a senator—and grant statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, two liberal bastions that could be counted on to elect more Democrats.

And then there was Mr. Obama’s change of tone on racial controversies. “Bull Connor may be gone, but today we witness with our own eyes police officers kneeling on the necks of black Americans,” said Mr. Obama. “We may no longer have to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar in order to cast a ballot. But even as we sit here, there are those in power doing their darnedest to discourage people from voting—by closing polling locations, and targeting minorities and students with restrictive ID laws, and attacking our voting rights with surgical precision.”

Mr. Obama was elected president twice in a county where blacks are only about 13% of the population, yet he invokes segregation-era figures like Connor, who was Birmingham, Ala.’s commissioner of public safety, to suggest that little has changed for blacks since the 1960s. Mr. Obama’s own accomplishments undermine his rhetoric, as does the fact that in Minneapolis, where George Floyd died in police custody earlier this year, the police chief is black.

John McWhorter of Columbia University has documented that white suspects in police custody have died under similar circumstances. Those events don’t receive the media attention that Floyd’s death garnered because they don’t fit the prevailing racial narrative, which Mr. Obama is advancing. But absent any evidence that Floyd was killed because of his race, the responsible course would be to avoid such conjecture. And if Mr. Obama is concerned about the disproportionate number of blacks who die at the hands of law enforcement, he ought to be talking about the disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by blacks, not conjuring the spirit of Jim Crow to score political points.

Mr. Obama’s claims that Republicans limit minority voting today “with surgical precision” could also use more scrutiny. The black voter-turnout rate began rising steadily in the 1990s, and in 2012 it exceeded the white rate, even as more states passed voter-ID laws that improve ballot integrity. Moreover, polls show that a majority of blacks support these voting requirements, which suggests that any decline in black voter turnout in 2016 had more to do with the Democratic nominee than with lack of access to the polls. A Census Bureau report on turnout in the 2018 midterm elections showed an increase from 2014 of about 27% among blacks and roughly 50% among Hispanics. If Republicans are trying to suppress the minority vote, their efforts are having the opposite effect.

Whether Mr. Obama believes what he’s saying today or what he’s said in the past isn’t important. Politicians tend to be more interested in winning votes than in facts, logic and consistency. This is an election year, and the most popular Democrat in the country has determined that taking these progressive positions, and doing so in the tones we heard last week, will help his party prevail in November.

Perhaps he’s right, but the strategy is not without risks. Joe Biden prevailed in the primaries not because he’s an ideologue like Bernie Sanders or a firebrand like Elizabeth Warren. He did so because he’s neither and has resisted—with mixed success—efforts to pull him further left. Mr. Obama’s new endorsement of progressive brass tacks will please the base, but it also makes it harder for Mr. Biden to appeal to the moderate and independent voters he’ll need on Election Day.