Making a Sandwich

I got a pussy tingle making a sandwich for my David yesterday evening.

We were going to watch a show after knocking off work at around 6pm.

"I''m having a sandwich, you want one?" I asked.

"Sure!" he said, sitting there at the TV lining up the show (Killing Eve).

I got the fixings out and started assembling mine. I wasn't sure what he wanted on his, exactly, as his mood regarding that changes from day to day.

"Do you want to come put it together?"

"No. You go ahead."

I got a sudden pang of annoyance and exasperation. Am I his slave? I almost said, "make your own fucking sandwich!"

You know what held me back? The 100% certainty that he would spank me on the spot, and that it would not be at all pleasant. It might be a mouth soaping, it might be the hairbrush, it might be cornertime, it would likely be all three.
 

All I wanted to do just then was watch the show and eat my sandwich. I didn't want to stand in the corner for a half-an-hour with a sore bum and the yucky taste of soap still in my mouth.

"Ok, sweetie!" I said pleasantly. And that's when I got a little gush in my panties and a definite tingle in my pussy. I had just been dominated.

"I don't have prosciutto, I have this Iberian ham, though. Is that ok? Would you like cheese on it, or..."

"You decide for me, honey. Everything you make is great."

I went ahead and assembled his sandwich, and then I served it to him with a drink, and I got my own and sat down next to him ready for the next episode.

He turned to me and said, "I love it when you make me a sandwich. It doesn't matter what's in it. It just always tastes better when I know you made it for me."

Oh fuck! And now my pussy was gushing again. I leaned over and kissed him on the mouth, deeply and suggestively. He kissed me back with his tongue in my mouth and squeezing my breast.

We had our sandwiches and only watched one episode. We went straight to the bedroom right after, and I served him more than just a sandwich!

I surely do love my Man!

Book Progress!

I've been making gang-busters progress on the new book! Past 200 pages already. I thought I'd do a chapter-by-chapter synopsis for you (the numbers at the end are the current page numbers).

David's Spankings

A young man's journey into domestic discipline at the hands of his aunt and her submissive lesbian love-partner

by Julie Delmar

Preface -- 3

The whole book is written in David's voice. The preface is a little one page teaser that leaps into the future with him freshly spanked, nose in the corner.

Chapter 1: A New Living Arrangement -- 4

David introduces himself. We learn he is a bit of a nerd and is a spanking fetishist that he keeps very secret. He is going to university in the big city, and his Mom would like for him to live with his Aunty Sue and her wife Chrissie (the aunt is a professor at the same university).

Chapter 2: A Conversation with Auntie Sue -- 10

Aunty Sue and Aunt Chrissie drive up north to visit over Easter. Aunty Sue takes David aside and confidentially tells him that she is in a domestic discipline arrangement with Chrissie who is a spanking fetishist. David conceals his own fetish, worried he might not be welcome, but is now super-excited to go.

Chapter 3: Moving In -- 20

David's family drives him down and moves him in. The space he is living in is described. There's a little bit of spanking talk at the end to ease us into it.

Chapter 4: Housewife -- 23

Aunt Chrissie explains to David that she will take care of all of the cooking and housework, trad wife style, including keeping David's room tidy and organized and doing his bed sheets and laundry. Chrissie admits that if she doesn't do her job properly, Aunty Sue will spank her.

Chrissie is friendly with David. She is closer his age than she is to Sue. She teases him about girls and guesses his sexual experience level. She teases him that if he makes a mess in his sheets, she'll know and be very cross with him.

Chrissie makes pancake breakfast Sunday morning and wakes David up for it. She warned him night before that if he wasn't up in time, she'll pounce on him and shake him awake! She does this, in a long T-shirt and panties, which results in an erection for David that she teases him about.

As Chrissie is cleaning up after breakfast, still in her T-shirt and panties, and is bending over at the dishwasher, Aunty Sue asks David if he's checking out her wife's ass. She teases him a bit and tells him to ignore her, she dresses like that deliberately to get a rise. Chrissie sticks out her tongue, flips up her long T-shirt to expose her panty-clad butt, and shakes it at the pair. Aunty Sue says "do that again and it will get slapped." Chrissie goes right up to her and does it again, in her face. She gets a single very hard hand whack to her ass that makes her jump and yelp and rub her butt. David is enthralled.

That night David hears their first lovemaking session through the thin walls.

Chapter 5: Soiled Sheets -- 34

Aunt Chrissie's maybe tongue-in-cheek warning about soiled sheets circulates in his mind. He's constantly thinking about sexy Chrissie. He gives in and masturbates to thoughts of her. He deliberately ejaculates onto his sheets and leaves them for Chrissie to clean up.

Chrissie is furious with him. He tries to shrug it off as an accident and a natural function. If it's so natural, do it right now, in front of me, she says. She threatens him with telling Sue and his Mom even. He capitulates and humiliatingly jerks off in front of her. She stops him before completion, telling him he's been punished enough.

Chapter 6: Aunt Chrissie is Spanked -- 41

Chrissie receives her first punishment spanking for failing to pick up Sue's dry cleaning for an important professional engagement (TV interview) she has. She is severely scolded in front of David. She is sent to their room to await her spanking. David hears the whole thing. Later Chrissie is brought out in T-shirt and panties and made to face the living room corner. Sue considers, and drops her panties to her ankles.

Chapter 7: Cold Cream and Hot Hands -- 53

Right after Chrissie's hour-long cornertime, Sue has to leave for an evening engagement. Chrissie is disappointed she can't apply some cold cream as she usually does. Sue tosses the cold cream to David to apply to Chirssie, telling him to keep her panties on and watch where his hands go. Chrissie has other ideas.

After she enjoys her cold cream massage, Chrissie provides David with some hand relief, revealing that in her younger days she worked in a naughty massage parlour.

Chapter 8: Caught Snooping -- 69

The ladies are out and David takes the opportunity to snoop in their bedroom.

Later on, Sue notices some things are out of place and confronts David. Under her withering questioning, he admits it.

Sue questions whether or not to send David home. He would have to pull out of university. He begs for Sue to handle it by spanking him, as she does Chrissie. He admits to being a spanking fetishist himself, which feels like an additional betrayal of trust. He says he's been doing poorly at school and can use the ongoing guidance of a domestic discipline arrangement.

Sue calls Chrissie who is out and asks her opinion. She is all for it. Sue then calls David's mother, much to his chagrin, and clears the arrangement with her, It emerges that both Sue and David's Mom were strapped by their Daddy growing up. Mom admits that she sexualized her spankings from Daddy, but that did not lessen their effectiveness in keeping her on the straight and narrow, and approves the arrangement.

Chapter 9: David's First Spanking -- 84

David gets his first ever spanking, from Aunty Sue, for betraying her trust. It's done in the living room, naked, and is of the 'all over' variety (see First Research Spanking). Afterwards he is stood in the corner in timeout. Chrissie arrives home and is not surprised to see him there. Chrissie volunteers to return the earlier favour and apply the cold cream to him. Aunty Sue allows it.

Chrissie notices David is hardening. She asks in a whisper if she should take care of it. David says yes, expecting it to be their secret once again. Chrissie calls out to Aunty Sue and asks permission. Sue enters and gives her permission, observing Chrissie's quick, clinical style (so unlike the first!), and approving of it. They ruin it at the end and watch him spurt all over himself,

Chrissie felt violated by David as well, but has not yet had a chance to punish him. Suspecting he masturbated after violating her panty drawer, she asks permission to punish him by making him swallow his own sperm. Aunty Sue allows it.

Chapter 10: Spankings Become Routine -- 105

David describes his new routine and the many spankings he is now subject to, mostly revolving around keeping right on top of his schoolwork (no video games, no porn surfing). Some are recounted.

After a living room spanking, and feeling he is looking a bit unsightly with all his body hair as he stands naked, Chrissie asks Sue if she can shave it all off him, from ankles to armpits. Yes, she may. He's completely clipped and shaved and brought back out, red as a lobster, for Sue to inspect. After that, David must maintain his hairless state under threat of the paddle. He uses as many razors for his legs as does Chrissie. After multiple paddlings for it, he learns to beg Chrissie to shave his ass crack for him to avoid any more.

He also describes how the women have decided that due to all the pent-up sexual energy in the house around the two spanking fetishists, it is best if David's balls are kept well-emptied to allow him to focus on schoolwork. His various ball emptying routines, which are always supervised by the women, if not handled by them, is described.

Chapter 11: A Visit From Mom -- 115

David's Mom comes for a visit. She brings with her Daddy's old handheld strap. She punishes David in front of Sue and Chrissie to indicate how displeased she was with his snooping.

Chapter 12: Mom Is Spanked? -- 126

Both David and Chrissie are out. David comes home irst and hears the familiar sounds of Chrissie being spanked in their bedroom. She supposes his Mom went out for a walk to afford them some privacy for this spanking. But then, Chrissie walks in next. Who is being spanked???

David's Mom walks out, disheveled, red-faced, and flustered, and scurries away like a mouse while Sue is seen grinning and holding the hairbrush. They had some old family business that needed taking care of.

Sue and Mom reminisce in detail about their childhood strappings.

Chapter 13: Aunt Chrissie Spanked in Front of Me -- 130

Up to now, all of Chrissie's spankings have been behind closed doors. However, this time Chrissie screws up and forgets to drop off David's final English Lit essay. The penalty is a 25% deduction. Fortunately, Aunty Sue knows the professor and tells her what happened.  They agree Chrissie will drop it off next morning and apologize in person. Chrissie is then given a severe and very humiliating spanking in front of David for the first time. It includes the 'all over' option, plus the 'fronts and tops' option. At the end of her spanking, Chrissie is made to straddle Sue's tweed-panted thigh and is humiliatingly spanked to orgasm in front of David who gets to clearly see her pussy spasming in orgasm with a slight squirting on Aunty Sue's thigh.

Sue makes Chrissie apologize to David for forgetting his assignment. Sue is not satisfied with her verbal apology, and orders Chrissie to take David to their bedroom and, behind closed doors, give him an 'oral' apology.

Chapter 14: Caned for Playing with Myself -- 154

David is slipping back into bad habits. He must maintain a work diary for Aunty Sue's inspection. He inflates the hours he spends working and salvages the extra time for video games and porn. Aunty Sue is suspicious of the amount of time it takes him to complete some simple tasks, and spanks him for his slowness. Still suspicious, she barges in on him when he least expects it and catches him masturbating to schoolgirl spanking and fucking porn with his dick in his hand.

She is furious over his deception and lying. She, for the first time, masturbates him roughly into the kitchen sink with dish soap and yellow rubber gloves. Balls emptied, she uses the Delrin cane to give him his worst beating yet. All of this is in front of Chrissie. Afterwards he is tucked and a belt is put around his thighs for humbled, balls-out timeout. Meanwhile Sue prepares a 'punishment mat' for him to sit on after timeout to write lines.

After timeout, Chrissie remarks that he looks like he has a pussy, tucked like that. She asks permission from Sue to draw a pussy on him in black and red marker. They get the idea to further feminize him in schoolgirl skirt, bra, and blouse. Sue sticks a dildo in the middle of her timeout chair and they make David first suck on it as his backside is lubed, and then sit on it, all the way down to the prickly doormat Sue installed on the high kitchen stool, balls still tucked.

He writes lines in that state. Chrissie realized the markers she used were intended for packaging and were indelible. Despite twice-daily scrubbings, David keeps his pussy for two whole weeks.

Chapter 15: Aunt Chrissie Spanked in Public -- 172

After Chrissie's first spanking in front of David, Sue decides all her spankings will be like that. Several are briefly described.

Chrissie has her hot friend Meghan over. They get a bit drunk and Chrissie neglects dinner prep. Chrissie is given her spanking in front of Meghan and David.

Afterwards, Sue suggests Meghan take her to the bedroom and apply the cold cream. She gives tacit approval for hanky-panky this once, as Sue cannot keep up with Chrissie's sex drive.

Chapter 16: A Revealing Visit -- 179

When Chrissie came to apologize to David's English Lt professor, Beverly, Beverly suspected there was more going on than met the eye, and made Chrissie admit she was spanked by Sue. She subsequently phoned Sue and more context was given. She also suspected some of what was going on with David, given his remarkable turnaround in her class, but this was not confirmed.

After final marks are tallied in English Lit, Sue invites Beverly, with her Genders Studies professor wife Joyce, over for dinner.

There the beans are all spilled, and the full extent of both arrangements is revealed and discussed at length.

Chapter 17: An Embarrassing Punishment -- 190

Before dinner, Sue wishes to check that David's final math assignment was done. It was not! Sue says she will deal with this after the ladies have left. Beverly and Joyce both express disappointment, and say they would love to see her methods in action. They get quite involved and egg on his punishment.

Chapter 18: A Dinnertime Figging -- 206

Beverly, knowing English Literature, brings up "figging". So happens Chrissie has a ginger root and they carve it and insert it into David's bum for the duration of dinner as an experiment.

After the ginger root has worn off, David is revealed to be sporting a massive erection despite himself. He is sent alone to his room to "take care of it" prior to dessert. The women tease him afterwards about his now shrunken penis which they take pains to inspect.

When the ginger root is taken out, David is revealed to have a messy bum. He is wiped in front of all the ladies. Chrissie points out that lately she has been seeing skid-marks in his undies as well. The women confer and decide David should be sentenced to potty inspection after every wipe for the next three days. If after that the skid mark situation does not improve, they decide he should be back in diapers for a week doing all his business in them, and they can redo his potty training from scratch thereafter.

--

So that's how far I've gotten so far. I have a few more vignettes in mind to bring it to upwards of 300 pages.

1. An "outing" party for Chrissie where she outs herself as a spanking fetishist to all her friends. I imagine she's wearing a sexy maid sex store costume for the event, everyone else dressed normally.
   
2. Chrissie volunteers to get David laid by his choice of her hot friends. Along the way, David reveals he is somewhat male homophobic. Chrissie puts all the plans on hold until David experiences gay sex first, with her helping. The lure of losing his virginity to a series of Chrissie's hot friends is too much to pass up, and he reluctantly agrees to the gay sex threesome with one of Chrissie's best gay friends, Lance. When David appears reluctant in the moment, Chrissie tells Lance that David is a spanking fetishist also. Lance takes him in hand and spanks him into submission as Chrissie watches, loving every moment of it. Afterwards, David does indeed get the payoff.
   
3. Maybe a dreaded skid-mark makes a reappearance, and he is put in diapers for a week. Beverly is asked to babysit during this time and given spanking rights over him.
4. David meets and begins dating a  young lady his age from school. After a date, she drives him back home. They park in the driveway necking. She knows he has a curfew, but he tells her it's no big deal and they continue kissing. When they get onto the porch, they kiss one last time. The door flies open and it's an angy Aunty Sue with the strap in her hand. She scolds David for missing curfew. She scolds the girl as well, as she was told of it. The girl protests that David had said "it was no big deal", and now she is angry at him as well. They go into the house and David is given the strap as his wide-eyed date looks on. Later on, she reveals how turned on she was seeing him strapped. They begin playing boy-on-the-bottom spanking games. Sue and Chrissie are amused.
5. The girlfriend is integrated into the household, and becomes Sue's little protege. She expresses an interest in knowing more about strap-on play. The girl spanks David in the living room, makes him give head to her borrowed strap-on dildo, and then fucks him in the ass as Aunty Sue and Aunt Chrissie look on, giving suggestions.
   

 

That's all I have for now. Hoping some additional inspiration will come to mind to round things out, although what I have is likely more than enough. Have you guys any suggestions that might fit in with my little psycho-drama?

As I go I've been revising and revising and revising, making sure every part stays consistent with every other part, and shortening things up where I can.

I'm aiming for a big story arc that I'm sure will emerge. Maybe an Epilogue. David has graduated with top marks. He marries his girlfriend and they live spank-happily ever after?

What I've described I know is pretty "over the top". I'm taking pains to ease things in and make each progression logical to help suspend disbelief (you all want to come along for the ride anyways, right?). I find a focus on key details really helps, with zero inconsistencies. Is it too over-the-top you think? Ought I to tone it down? Not sure if I can. My brain gets controlled by my pussy! Help!

Did Trump Win After All?

My husband and I just watched the newly released documentary "2000 Mules" tonight about illegal vote casting in the 2020 presidential election in the US, and I just had to write about it. Ok, that and a commenter said I should stick to spanking and not do politics, and I'm a bit contrarian that way...

View it at https://dinesh.locals.com/

I first heard about the documentary from a debunk on some news outlet. I read the debunk and it seemed reasonable, but I always like to give the other side a fair shake, and since everybody claims there is no evidence of illegal vote casting big enough to impact the election, and this documentary purported to show evidence that there indeed was, I was interested, sure.

The basic premise is that in the swing states specifically (and maybe others, but nobody looked and what's the point?) there is tremendous evidence of massive "ballot harvesting". That is, paying people to go collect ballots, dropping the collected ballots off at various Democrat get out the vote not-for-profit organizations, and then having other people pick them up and drop off multiple completed ballots at a time in ballot boxes. All of this activity was Democrat, and shifted the election overnight dramatically towards Biden. And it's all illegal.

The documentary covered work carried out by an organization called TrueTheVote. The folks bought data containing detailed tracks of the movements of people in and around certain key precincts of swing states. The data came from cellphones. It has the same accuracy as Google maps when you're using it to guide you. It uses both GPS and WiFi to triangulate location and timestamp.

Here is an example of what they found:

This line is the track of a single individual (same cell phone at any rate). The small orange dots are ballot drop boxes. The circled icons are where these not-for-profits are located. In each case it was not just a drive by, but they stopped and did something. They combined this data with government surveillance video obtained under freedom of information to see what they were doing.

Here are a couple they showed in the documentary:

These are both very late at night (1am-3am sort of thing), and correspond to tracks of people who made multiple stops at multiple ballot boxes and not-for-profits. The guy on top had so many ballots in his hand that he could not stuff them all through the slot at one time and a bunch fell on the ground. The woman on the bottom is seen wearing surgical gloves that she removes immediately after stuffing the ballot box and tosses (there was a conviction that made the news the night before that indicated they convicted somebody ballot stuffing via fingerprints on the envelopes, and so multiple of these mules were seen wearing gloves in the following days).

Here's some more.

This brazen woman had a stack of ballots in her hand, and she can be seen moving her hand with some number of ballots in it five times to the slot of the box. Again. remember, she did this at least 10 times to qualify.

Here's a guy in the dead of the night, pushing in at least 10 total.

Here's a guy who stuffed a bunch in and then took a photo of the ballot box. Some of the mules were not paid unless they came back with timestamped photos of the ballot boxes they visited.

Here's a paid young mule on a bike. First he's seen stuffing some ballots in, and then he's seen taking the photo he needs in order to get paid.

Here's a guy with his dog in the middle of the day on a voting day, brazenly going up to the ballot box, pulling a wad of ballets out from his bag, then stuffing them in, still holding them with one hand as he takes a photo with the other.

They have countless examples of this.

And remember, the videos they have correspond ONLY to people who satisfied the criterion that the cell phone they had with them was tracked at 10 or more ballot boxes and they visited 5 or more not-for-profit offices in the month leading up to the election.

So even if you tell me all those people above had some business dropping off those ballots, remember they visited at least 10 ballot boxes and visited not-for-profits as well. So whatever their reasons (e.g., "just helping out at the old-folks home") that's still illegal, period.

Based on some data they have of the number of ballots dropped off only by mules, and by the geo-location data with that strict 10/5 criteria, they determined averages as follows across the swing states:

If these were all for Biden, was this enough to overturn the election? They looked at the data state-by-state, and in some states it was enough, in others it was not, but this was the final tally of the electoral votes:

So Trump would have likely won without these illegal ballots being cast.

And this is ONLY using the very strict criterion. There were drop-boxes not covered, they did not cover post-offices where ballots could be dropped as well, and the 10/5 sort of eliminates all possibility of false positives.

They redid the calculation using a less strict criteria of only 5 ballot boxes and got this result overall:

And this would have been the electoral college result:

The documentary also features several whistleblowers who explain what they were paid to do and how the system worked.

It started with COVID of course, and then a clever Democrat lawyer named Mark Elias who went around all the states trying to get mass-mail-in ballots and dropboxes approved by the typically Dem-appointed courts. Also worked to laxen signature and ID requirements in the name of "efficiency" and helping presumably poor illiterate blacks to vote (???). All things the Dems subsequently tried to ram through in their "election reform" bill. What a joke. Mind you, all that was pretty much unconstitutional already as the state legislatures need to approve anything along those lines, and many did not. This is all being re-worked out now for the next go-round with the Republicans a bit more on-the-ball this time. But they systematically setup all the pre-requisites so that this ballot harvesting, already a Dem go-to move, could be bigger and better than ever.

There was then lots of money flowed in from organizations friendly to the left, the biggest of which was Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook who put $450M into "get out the vote" campaigns exclusively targeting urban inner cities which are very heavily Democrat. There's a dispute whether that is illegal or not, as the law says anything like that not declared as part of a campaign, must be even-handed, and this surely was not based on locations targeted (though not based on the messaging which was just "go and vote", not for any particular candidate). But if not found illegal under the law, certainly feels unethical.

All this money flowed to these not-for-profits. They paid people to collect up ballots and drop them off at their offices. Sources included nursing homes, homeless people, stealing them from mailboxes, stealing them from appartment complexes and filling them in themselves, requesting ballots be sent to a different address for people who have not voted for a while, and so on. They offered a no questions asked payment for collected ballots.

Then they paid these mules to pick up the collected ballots from the not-for-profit locations and discretely drop them off a few at a time, and paid them for doing that, again no questions asked.

There were lots of people, especially Democrat leaning inner city people, more than willing to make a few bucks while helping to get the Orange Man out of office at only a tiny risk to themselves.

Based on this information, Georgia has finally opened up an investigation, but the other states are all dragging their feet and were quite obstructionist in releasing video.

The evidence does seem pretty compelling though. And this is only one aspect of potential illegal activity, but it alone would have been enough.

What do you guys think? Having doubts at all? Do you think we should be allowed to discuss it, or should it all be brutally censored (as is being done now to 2000 Mules) as a "threat to Democracy" to even discuss it?

P.S. here's a good free review with key clips if you want to watch it easier.

Elon Musk Buys Twitter

I am very excited that it looks like Elon Musk and a group of like-minded individuals is on track to buy Twitter and take it private.

I love Twitter. It's not the most popular platform, but there are a lot of important influencers, politicians, and newspeople on it. I often get breaking news on Twitter well before I see it anywhere else. Of course, there's a lot of fake news, bias, and satire on Twitter as well, so you need to follow the links and do more research to understand what's actually going on, but Twitter will often break it first.

Twitter is also great to hear directly from individuals involved in stories. Of course they may be lying to you, but you need to hear both sides of a story, and the individual posting their interpretation of events on Twitter, directly, is a very valuable part of that.

There are also many sub-cultures on Twitter that you can include into your bubble.  There is definitely a spanking twitter, a trad-wife twitter, lots of health twitters, and so on.

Twitter needs an "algorithm" to be at all interesting. If you follow people, and you just get an unfiltered time-ordered feed of what they tweet, it's exceptionally boring. A competing platform had the ability to turn off the algo, and it was horribly boring.

To keep things lively, the Twitter algo cleverly decides what to show you on your timeline. It's impacted by who you follow; tweets you like, respond to, and retweet; tweets that get a lot of likes and replies; tweets by people who you follow, follow; tweets from people opposite of the people you follow. I think it tries really, really hard to give you an interesting timeline.

Hower, the "dark side" of the algo is that it can bias the conversation or favour one political view over another. For example they can look for posts that have right wings things in them like "America" or "MAGA" and lower their reach. Twitter also engages in a practice called "shadowbanning" where a disfavoured user is put on a list, and the reach of their tweets is severely limited. I'm not sure the extent this happens on the left, but it happens a lot on the right.

The trouble is, all of this stuff is kept secret. If you are shadowbanned, you are not told you are shadowbanned (but tech has been written that can analyze these things and give you a strong indication). The workings of the algo are not revealed at all, but can be reverse engineered to a certain extent.

And Twitter employees, as for most Big Tech, are heavily, heavily Democrat, as demonstrated by the ratio of political donations of their employees. Almost 99%.

Imagine you are lonely conservative voice inside of Twitter. You'd be shut down and marginalized so fast. The 99% "groupthink" would dominate, and they would egg each other on to worse and worse excesses. That much one-sided bias is never good.

Of course, Twitter must moderate its content to a certain extent. Various countries have various laws that curtail free speech that must be respected if you wish to operate in those countries. However, Twitter goes well beyond this in their content moderation. They include "hate speech" without a clear definition of what that is. While we can all agree on the more egregious cases, it gets fuzzy around the edges. For example, Twitter declares that any position that does not 100% respect the radical trans agenda is "hate speech".

The content moderation policies now also include "misinformation". Again, on the most egregious cases we can be in agreement. However, Twitter takes controversial topics, such as COVID, war on Ukraine, Hunter Biden's laptop, Jan 6 "insurrection", election rigging (but only the 2020 election, not 2016), and brands the conservative side of these issues as "misinformation". They very much have egg on their faces, however, as many things they branded as misinformation have since been demonstrated to be true (Hunter's laptop and COVID vaccine limitations to name two).

Free speech advocates believe the antidote to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. And again, don't take it to the extreme. If you just get a lefty yelling "Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!", yeah, get rid of them or shadowban them (but let them know and why), or a white supremacist hating on Jews and POC, then the same. I'm not talking about that (but admit that "where's the line" is a tough question: no easy answers).

But Twitter's content moderation policies are horribly opaque. Their guidelines are vague, and when a tweet or user is flagged, there is often no information about which tweet or why a tweet was moderated. There is a very opaque appeals process. And there are lifetime bans of users without appeal.

The most notable banning was President Trump himself, ostensibly for issues surrounding Jan 6 and his statements of the election being rigged. But really, they just wanted to take a political adversary off the field, obviously. They actually lifetime banned the sitting president of the USA, an important political figure with the support of about 50% of the population. If that is not rampant political manipulation at the highest level, I don't know what is. And yet Trump has been charged with no crime, and there has yet to emerge any credible evidence whatosever that he had anything to do with instigating a riot. Yes, he directly and literally called for "peaceful and patriotic protests" to protest the outcome of the election which he believed was rigged. The Democrats did the same in 2016 and perpetrated a related "Russian Collusion Hoax" for years afterwards. If Twitter didn't have double-standards it would have no standards at all. Twitter has also systematically removed prominent conservative America First influencers, often for vague reasons. I do not believe we see this happening to the same extent to the left, but if you know of counter-examples, please share them.

Twitter makes money by occasionally showing you a relevant add in your timeline. Every time its presented to you, the advertiser pays Twitter. Every time you engage with it, the advertiser pays Twitter. Customers can also pay for Twitter to conduct surveys. The amount of revenue is therefore directly impacted by the number of users on the platform and their demographic.

Twitter was co-founded by its first CEO, Jack Dorsey, in 2006.

In 2013 it went public at a valuation of $31B. Here is how it has done since.

The current value of the company is $37.5B. The stock initially dropped from $70/share post-IP down to $20/share in 2017. Since then it has crept back up. At the start of March it had fallen back down to $33/share and was poised to head lower as it was expected its revenues would be lower than already low expectations.

That is when Elon Musk stepped in.

Who is Elon Musk? He was born to a Canadian mother and a South African father and was raised in South Africa. He came from a middle-class well-to-do, but not extremely wealthy family. He went to Stanford but then dropped out to co-found an early web software company called Zip2 with his brother. The company was acquired for $300M in 1999. With that money he co-founded an online bank that later merged with another and formed PayPal which was sold to eBay for $1.5B. He then used that money to found SpaceX and Tesla and subsequently several other innovative companies. He has a history of keeping all his money in the companies he founded, and very nearly lost it all in the early days of SpaceX and Tesla, putting his entire wealth on the line. Elon is now the richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of $250B, mostly tied up in his own companies' stock. Recently he paid the highest tax bill ever paid by any individual in history of $11B. And whever he tries to realize his wealth by selling shares, he'll be paying a lot more.

Elon began silently buying Twitter shares on Jan 31, 2022 and accumulated a 9.1% stake for $2.6B by March 14. He definitely bought the dip!

Elon began hinting publicly at his interest in Twitter in a series of tweets starting March 24th when the stock price was sitting at $39.

On April 4 he announced publicly that he had acquired his 9.1% stake. The stock immediately shot up massively to $51/share. He posted to Twitter:

On April 5 he was invited to join the Board of Directors of Twitter which he initially accepted. However, it soon became clear that the terms of a board seat were overly constraining. He would be capped at 15% ownership, and could not say anything critical of the company.

On April 14 Elon made an offer to acquire Twitter for $43B, or $54.20/share and take the company private. This represented a considerable premium on the current stock price of $45, and an absolutely massive premium over the price before he signaled his interest, or the likely share price would have been once earnings were announced ($30? $20?).

The Board initially tried to block Elon. It appeared as though the blocking was on ideological grounds and just plain old board members and management wanting to keep their high-paying jobs. But eventually the board had to capitulate and endorse his offer.  If they did not, they might be personally liable for the investors they purport to represent losing out on $30/share.

Since then, Elon has brought in some other high net worth individuals friendly to the cause of free speech. The tender offer has not closed yet, and there may still be roadblocks, but we shall see.

Here are some more tweets from Elon, indicative of his plans for the company were he to acquire it. We'll let him speak for himself.

Here we see that Elon is not interested in letting the hateful crazies on either side run rampant:

 Here he speaks of his intent to focus on eliminating bots and on validating humans:

Here is Elon responding to and disagreeing with a prominent conservative voice over the need for anonymity in addition to authentication.

Here is Elon being critical of the opaque content moderation policies currently on Twitter.

Here is Elon tweeting the true meaning of free speech.

And a more extended take on his intentions regaring Twitter

Here he is seen being critical of Twitter's decision to massively ban (in an absolutely unprecedented way) the Hunter Biden laptop story weeks before the election and thus sway the results via media manipulation:

The left reacted a bit "over the top" in their criticisms, as they tend to LOVE the ability to ban opinions they disagree with:

Jack Dorsey and his head of content moderation went on the Joe Rogan podcast a while ago, and it really exposed the blindspot that Twitter has internally around remaining politically neutral. Here is Elon saying he saw that as well.

On a related note, here is Elon acknowledging the lack of balance now.

Here's a bit of an amusing distraction showing his sense of humour, and then an important point about privacy protection from prying government eyes.

 When accused of being a conservative, Elon tweeted this in response.

And then soon after:

I know lefties think that the right have gone further right. I don't know how that view is sustainable. Here is Ben Shapiro addressing that issue very well.

Here is Elon recognizing that there are powerful, powerful interests that wish to control citizen's access to information. Also a signal that he knows the nature of the fight he has taken on.

Pfizer making billions of dollars in profit off its vaccines and hiding the efficacy and adverse effect data (that's just coming out now). The miltiary-industrial complex funding billions of dollars to engage in a proxy war with Russia. Where is all the money going? Arms companies. Even Pope Francis agrees with me on that one:

Pope says NATO may have caused Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Francis says transatlantic military alliance was ‘barking’ at Russia’s door.

There's billions upon billions of dollars to be made by controlling the thoughts of the citizens in nefarious ways, and Elon does not like that.

So what do you guys think? Is Elon taking over Twitter a good thing?

TV Startle

My husband and I were watching a new TV mini-series called "Gaslit" about Watergate and we came across a scene I considered pretty sexy anyways.

One of the main protagonists is John Mitchell, Richard Nixon's Attorney General. He had a wife, Martha, known as "The Mouth of the South" for how she loved the spotlight and gossip and would often do interviews for TV, magazines, and newspapers. She was a thorn in the side of the Republican party.

On the night the operatives were caught by a security guard and police breaking into the DNC headquarters, The Mitchells were in California seeking the endorsement of Ronald Reagan for Nixon's next election. John Mitchell was very afraid of his wife doing something foolish with this news, so he placed her on lockdown inside his hotel suite with his secret service agent Peter without waking her to tell her, not wanting the drama.

When Martha awoke, she noticed that John had emptied the drawers of his clothes.

She got up and put her robe on.

She noticed that her phone was disconnected, the cord ripped out of the wall.

Confused, she wandered out into the main room where she was startled to see Peter, the security detail, eating breakfast.

"Oh Peter! You scared me!"

"Sorry Ma'am, I was just getting some breakfast."

"Where is everyone?"

"Mr. Mitchell had to fly to Washington for an urgent business meeting. His instructions were to have you stay here."

"Oh... I think I'll just give his office a call, make sure everything's all right."

Peter puts down his breakfast bowl and steps in her way to block her from leaving the area. 

"All right Peter, what is going on?" she says angrily, in the tone of a woman of power who usually gets her way.

"Okay, there's no need to get hysterical. Why don't you just go back to your room and relax?"

"This is ridiculous. I am calling my husband."

She barges forward and Peter has to grab her to stop her.

He grabs her forcefully and spins her around.

"You are not in charge here. Do you understand me?"

Martha is terrified and nods yes.

Peter walks her along back towards her bedroom.

"You husband is a very busy man, and he doesn't have time right now to take your call."

"Ok" she whispers submissively and begins walking towards her bedroom of her own accord.

"Here. A little light reading," he says, handing her a stack of women's magazines.

She takes them and he says,

"Good girl."

She walks back to her bedroom.

Is that not an amazing scene? He's a young man, likely in his twenties, and she's much older, in her fifties. But he deals with her as if she was a child, even saying "good girl" when she obeys him. He restrained her physically, laying hands on her. It's obvious this was under the instructions of her husband. He would not have taken such liberties otherwise. But what else was he empowered to do by her husband if she put up more of a fight? We can only imagine...

"No! I refuse! I am leaving!"

"Now Ma'am, your husband has authorized me to put you across my knee if you don't comply."

"I will not be treated this way!" says Martha, stomping her foot.

Peter sighs, takes her arm, and pulls her towards the sofa. He sits and gently but inexorably pulls Martha across his lap. He moves her robe out of the way and pulls down her pajama bottoms, baring her mature bottom. He spanks her with his hand.

"You cannot do this! You cannot spank me! My husband will see you in jail! Let me up immediately!"

"I'm sorry Ma'am, but your husband left explicit instructions that if you misbehaved like a naughty little girl, you were to be treated like a naughty little girl, and where I come from, this is how naughty little girls are treated. Now, will you be a good little girl and go to your room without a fuss?"

"Yes! I will. I will!"

"Good girl."

He restores her pajama bottom and puts her on her feet. She trudges back to her room, head bowed, thoroughly shamed, and well put in her place.

Do you imagine she went to her bedroom and rubbed her pussy? I do.

This is such a powerful scene (even without my added spanking, that you have to admit was well-implied). It really speaks to our male and female stereotypes. This is exactly how I wish to be treated by my husband when I misbehave, as if I was a naughty little girl.