Archive

Archive for August, 2019

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 1

August 31, 2019 11 comments

As regular readers know, I have written a series about why the Democratic party does not have a bright future– to put it mildly. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Republican party is going to fare any better. It will be interesting to observe which one becomes irrelevant first. As things stand today, my money is on democrats becoming irrelevant few years before their republican compatriots suffer a similar fate. While there are many reasons behind this particular guess, one stands out because of its connection to the ongoing clown car show of presidential candidates. It seems that the democratic establishment, and almost every single candidate in the fray, has not learned any useful lessons from the 2016 debacle when their candidate lost to that orange troll.

There are those who believe that the democratic party will ultimately prevail because of changing demographics, aka “coalition of the ascendant”. I am old enough to remember this bullshit idea was floated, in its current form, over 10 years ago when democrats briefly won the house, senate and presidency. Of course, as we all know, things did not quite work out that way. Between 2008 and 2017, democrats lost multiple governorships, over a thousand seats in state legislatures, the house, senate and finally the presidency. I am sure some of you (MikeCA?) will try to portray the slight majority in house won by democrats in 2018 as a harbinger of further electoral victories. I for one, am not sure that this will be the case and here are the reasons.

The electoral victories of democrats in 2018 had far more to do with the incredibly inept handling of “healthcare reform” by Trump and republicans at state as well as national levels. The level of tone-deafness exhibited by orange man and his fellow republicans towards the concerns of tens of millions of voters about their healthcare coverage was the deciding factor in them losing the house and numerous governorship and seats in state legislatures to democrats. I am sure that there are more than a few partisan democrat voters who believe that the Mueller sideshow or newer disclosures about Trump’s extramarital liaisons had an effect. But who are we kidding? The popular image of Trump as a lecherous conman with mediocre business instincts hasn’t changed since 2015. Everyone who voted for him did so in spite of all his public shortcomings.

The real question we should be asking ourselves is: why did so many voters in many states either vote for a orange troll or, more importantly, not vote for HRC. And let us clear about something else, the number of non-voters in USA has exceeded those of the winning presidential candidate for many decades. Indeed, in at least 3 of the last 8 elections, the number of non-voters came real close to being larger than all candidates combined. The percentage of people who vote in USA, especially at national level, has historically been lower than other democracies. But why? Well.. there are many reasons, but most can be summarized in one sentence- majority of voters correctly believe that voting has no real positive impact on their lives. But, once again, why is that so? What makes the USA a Potemkin democracy as opposed to a real one?

To understand what I am talking about and how it relates to the subject of this post, let me ask you another question. Why is the democratic party today unable to win elections in many states which used to be its strongholds in the recent past. The conventional explanation invoked by idiots aka “political pundits” involves something about post-1965 (voting rights act related) political realignment. And there is a sliver of truth in that explanation. The democratic party did pay a considerable electoral price for all the civil rights related laws passed in 1960s. However the damage was largely restricted to ex-slave owning states in the deep south. Democrats actually gained seats in the house in 1968, 1976 and 1988. They also held the house in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1992. Heck, democrats were competitive in states such as Texas, West Virginia, Kansas etc into the late-1980s.

My point is that while passage of civil rights laws damaged democratic party prospects in deep south, things were pretty OK for them in rest of country for over twenty years. In other words, sorry state of democratic part in the post-1994 era has little to do with legislation passed in the mid-1960s. So what caused voters in many states, especially non-coastal ones, to abandon the democratic party? In a post from about two years ago, I pointed out that ascendancy of issues such as ‘gun control’ in democratic party started at around the same time as its leadership and upper echelons were increasingly populated by the credentialed professional class who tends to be concentrated in large coastal cities. While there are, once again, many reasons why this shift occurred, it resulted in the needs of working class (especially white) being ignored. Consequently, these voters either started voting republican or simply stopped voting altogether.

But why would many white voting class voters start voting republican, even though doing so was not in their own interests? Well.. we can blame a small part of this on sheer stupidity. But a much larger reason was that there wasn’t much difference between the two, politically speaking. Both parties were controlled by the same big corporations and super-rich who wanted to impoverish the working class and suck them dry. Even today, establishment democrats cannot stop talking about ‘bipartisanship’ aka passing laws and rules to fuck over everybody other than their rich campaign donors. But this still does not explain why people who seemingly gain nothing from voting republican continue to vote them into office.

In my opinion, it comes down to how each party treats the majority of its voters. The republican party, while busy fucking over their voters, provides lip service to ‘social issues’ (abortion, church, guns etc). More importantly, they don’t treat most of their voter base with the disdain with which democratic party treats its own. Confused.. see, unless you are a member of the credentialed professional class, you are a deplorable nobody to the democratic party. It does not matter if you voted for them or not, being anyone other than a member of the credentialed class makes you an object of contempt, derision and neglect. That is why they have kept focusing on ‘gun control’ since the 1980s, even though it has been electorally disastrous since early 1990s.

To put it another way, they see people who are not credentialed professionals as nothing more than undeserving retards whose beliefs don’t matter. Democratic politician and candidates, in turn, remind most voters of the shitty middle managers who make their working lives miserable and the HR harpies who fire them. To summarize, many working class voters in flyover states vote republican because it does not insult their beliefs while fucking them over. The democratic party, in contrast, believes that it has a god-given right to harangue and insult it voters while also fucking them over. In the upcoming part, I shall go into the many reasons why the much hyped “coalition of the ascendant” has turned out to be a damp squib and will likely remain so for the future. We shall also talk about how democratic party positions on issues such as “anthropogenic climate change”, “gun control” and “LGBTQ issues” are insulting to most voters.

What do you think? Comments?

Electric Cars and “Renewable Green Energy” as Virtue Signalling Scams

August 25, 2019 9 comments

As some of you might have heard, the autistic girl promoted by globalists aka Greta Thunberg is making news for taking an ultramodern yacht to cross the Atlantic and publicly demonstrate her commitment to a supposedly “zero carbon” lifestyle. Just do that you know, most of her handlers and promoters are flying to NYC. Any ya.. once her fake sanctimonious speeches in NYC are over, she too will quietly fly back to Sweden. While I could write a lot more about how this delusional and mentally-ill girl is being promoted as the face of environmental activism, it is best to leave that for another time. Instead I will talk about how electric cars and “renewable green energy” are nothing more than virtue signalling scams. Yes.. you heard that, they are scams.

Readers might remember that I have written a (still ongoing) series about how anthropogenic climate change is a form of secular apocalypticism. Some might also remember my thoughts on Tesla Motors being an image driven scam. This is not say that electric automobiles are somehow impossible. Indeed, electric vehicles with performance equivalent to their internal combustion powered equivalents have been technologically feasible since the late 1990s. My objection to the popular delusion that the future of automobiles being electric is based on factors other than technological feasibility. To put it very briefly, the electrochemistry which underlies rechargeable battery technology puts an upper limit on the amount of energy stored by this method.

Long story short, the amount of energy stored in carbon-carbon or carbon-hydrogen bonds (fossil fuels) will always be at least a magnitude greater than that possible with an battery utilizing the most optimal electrochemistry. But that, by itself, is not the Achilles heel of electric automobiles. As you know, it is easy to build electric vehicles with pretty decent performance using currently available battery technology. The far bigger and related problem is as follows: how do you get all that lithium, cobalt etc to build batteries on a large enough scale to displace internal combustion engine powered vehicles. This becomes tricky rather quickly, even if we assume better than 95% recycling of all metals used in such batteries. Then there is the issue of obtaining enough of those pesky lanthanides aka ‘rare earth elements’ for their electric motors.

But the electric car scam gets truly exposed once you consider how the electricity used to power and recharge it is generated. As things stand today and in near future, most of that electricity is going to come from coal/gas fueled power stations. Some will come from hydroelectric or nuclear powered stations. My point is that only a small minority of the power used to recharge those vehicles is going to come from “renewable energy sources”. In other words, using electric cars instead of normal ones merely shifts the location where carbon fuels are being burnt, not the amount. And it gets worse. Let me ask you another related question. How big is the “carbon footprint” of the industrial and transportation infrastructure necessary to build, install and maintain all those solar cells and windmills? Are you starting to see the problem?

And it just keeps on getting worse. Ever wondered why hydroelectric power has long been the dominant way to generate renewable energy? Well, think about it this way.. the amount of water which flow through a river, while varying from season to season, is reasonably constant over a period of several decades. Furthermore, it can be easily stored for future use, and over multiple years. To make another long story short, generating a constant and predicable amount of power is far easy if your source of renewable energy is water rather than wind or sunshine. The same is true for power plants using coal, oil, gas or nuclear fission. In contrast to this, the two most touted sources of “green energy”, namely wind flow and sunshine, are fickle and dependent on weather.

Do you think it is possible to run massive power grids based on the whims of weather? Some will say- why not build “green energy” power plants with.. say.. 10x the capacity you need? Well for starters, it starts becoming far more expensive and maintenance intensive than conventional power plants. But more importantly, building even 10x capacity doesn’t give you the same level of confidence in power grid stability as conventional power plants have been known to provide for many decades. Imagine running an electric grid which will fail on a massive scale at least a few times per year and during extreme weather events when such power is necessary. But couldn’t we store this energy?

Well.. sure, we can store energy from fickle sources and release it in a more gradual manner. But doing so introduces even more complications. Building huge rechargeable batteries of any known electrochemistry is expensive and they not as reliable as many want to believe. To make matter worse, if that is possible, their malfunctions can be far more catastrophic and harder to repair than is the case for conventional peak power plants. The other way to store excess energy or moderate its fluctuations involves the use of pumped storage. While this particular technology is very mature and routinely used in hydroelectric plants for providing extra juice for certain times of the day, constructing such an installation requires certain topographical features in addition to lots of water. In other words, you can’t set them up in most locations.

But what about a “smart” grid? Wouldn’t having a “smart and connected” grid solve the problem? Well.. not really. Leaving aside the part where you actually have to first possess enough energy to distribute it properly, there is the issue of whether these “smart” grids are robust enough to deliver power without massive and frequent failures. You don’t have to a genius to figure out that anything connected to a large network or the internet can and will be hacked. And even if does not get hacked, a “smart” grid is far more sensitive to cascading failures due to component malfunctions than your old-fashioned “dumb” grid. Of course, you can always use coal, gas, nuclear and hydropower plants for generating the base load and backup. But then, how much “renewable green energy” are you actually using and more importantly- WHY?

If your use of “green energy” is not sufficient to reduce your sins.. I mean carbon dioxide output.. by over 80%, what is the point of spending all that money on building and maintaining these white elephants? Did I mention the part where most countries in Asia and Africa do not go much further than giving lip service to the cause of “renewable green energy”. Yes.. you heard that right. For all the noise the leaders of some developing countries make about “green energy”, when push comes to shove they simply build more conventional power plants. For them, “green energy” is, at best, a way to provide some peak energy and keep a few more people employed.

Electric cars and “green energy” are solutions in search of a problem which does not exist. Sure, they have some good niche applications. For example, using electric cars in densely populated cities would certainly improve air quality. Similarly using solar panels to augment peak power usage for air-conditioning and refrigeration in warm countries with lots of sunshine makes sense. But let us not pretend that people are going to give up a comfortable life to perform penance.. I mean, pay much more and get far less.. to please the insatiable gods of environmentalism. Moreover, attempting to do so via rules and regulations is guaranteed to piss of the majority and result in the election of more right-wingers nutcases such as Trump.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Aug 25, 2019

August 25, 2019 1 comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Amateur POV BJs: Aug 23, 2019 – Amateur cuties sucking on the glans.

Spanking Toons: Aug 24, 2019 – Cartoonishly curvy cuties getting spanked.

Plugged Amateur Cuties: Aug 25, 2019 – Amateur plugged cuties.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

On the Poor Career Prospects for People with Postgraduate Degrees : 2

August 21, 2019 7 comments

In the previous part of this series, I went into some detail about the careers of those who studied or worked alongside me during my MSc. To make a long story short, the majority are either no longer involved in scientific research or have menial unstable jobs with some vague connection to what they studied or used to do for a living. Some of you might say that this is to be expected since the biomedical sciences produce many times more graduates than the number of available jobs. While that may be true now, it wasn’t always the case. Indeed, until the early 1990s, those who studied or worked in that sector could either find decent to acceptable jobs or simply move into related areas with considerable ease.

Now let us now talk about another sector which, for over 50 years, provided highly stable, well compensated and intellectually engaging employment. I am talking about pharma. From the end of WW2 in 1945 to mid-1990s, pharmaceutical corporations (large and medium) provided some of the best and most interesting jobs and careers in western countries. And it worked both ways, since those who worked in them came up with the most important advances in medicine we have ever seen. There is a very good reason why this period is often referred to as the ‘golden age’ of drug discovery. And then it started going wrong and is now a mere shadow of its former self. Years ago, I linked to a spoof by somebody else about how things went to shit in pharma.

To be fair, this fall was not instantaneous and it was only after 2008 that the whole sector was irreparably damaged. But ya.. things had been on a downward slope since the mid-1990s. In retrospect, the true beginning of end started in late 1980s, when certain large corporations (Pfizer, Merck etc) decided to recruit ivy-league MBAs. The first signs of this rot manifested as gradual consolidation within that sector. While I could write multiple books on why consolidation in the pharma sector was so disastrous, here is the very brief version. Monopolization and oligopolization always results in counterproductive centralization, destruction of real innovation, greatly increased rent-seeking and is bad for everyone other than the upper management of those corporations in addition to their lawyers and bankers.

It should be noted that corporate monopolization has been much more disastrous in the West than Asian countries because corporations in the later are answerable to their governments to an extent unimaginable in the former. But why are we talking about how the pharma sector used to be about 20 years. Well.. because it is relevant to my choice of career. One of the main reasons for me taking the educational path I took was that working in pharma was an excellent career option with long-term stability and a pretty decent work environment. Sure.. nothing is perfect, but for someone with my interest and talents, it was as good a match as realistically possible.

Also, the pharma sector used to be fairly conservative in both hiring and firing people. Until early 2000s, mass layoffs and multiple site closures for the purpose of “corporate reorganization” were unknown in pharma. Many larger corporations even had defined benefit pensions until mid-2000s. Yes.. you heard that right. To make a long story short, those who stayed out of corporate politics and had generally satisfactory job performance could reasonably expect lifetime employment, and this was widely expected by employers and employees right upto early 2000s. You were not expected to work beyond normal work hours unless necessary due to nature of experiments and there was tons of autonomy at the site and group level. And in spite of all this, vast majority of pharma corporations were profitable businesses and remained so over multiple decades.

But how is any of this linked to my story? As it turns out, I ended up working in pharma for a few years and through direct experience and observing the career trajectories of acquaintances had a ringside seat to the beginning of final collapse of employment in pharma sector. Here is a post from 2011 in which they document that almost 300k jobs in that sector were lost between 2001 and 2011. And those layoffs did not stop in 2011, though they have sorta run out of people to fire- especially in past 4 years. The total is now closer to 400-450 k jobs and even if we assume that 60-70% were in sales and administration, it is fair to say that ivy-league MBAs have finally killed the goose which used to lay golden eggs. Far more problematically, it has altered the career course for many who would have otherwise gone into pharma.

In other words, their short-termism not only destroyed decades of institutional knowledge but also their ability to rebuild in future. And it shows! And before I explain you how, it is important to quickly explain the process of drug discovery and approval. It all starts with either the discovery of a new drug target (usually protein) or some effect of a chemical compound in cell-based or animal assays. From there it enters the pre-clinical development phase where chemists make hundreds and thousands of chemical cousins of the initial lead compounds and test them in a number of assays, animal models of some disease and extensive toxicity testing in multiple animal species. Only after it has cleared that phase can it be even considered for human trials. Small phase I trials are usually the first (dozens of people), followed by larger Phase II trials (hundreds) culminating in Phase III (hundreds to thousands and often) over a few years.

To make another long story short, the system was designed such that drugs which entered Phase III trials were unlikely to fail, and this was the case for most of modern history. Sure.. you did encounter situations where testing in larger populations (P III) revealed some rare but nasty side effects or the drug was not as efficacious as previously expected. But outright failures of efficacy in Phase III trials was really rare. Then something changed and nowadays the majority of drugs which enter Phase III trials fail, and they usually do so for lack of efficacy. Curiously, this often occurs when Phase I and Phase II data was either very good or pretty promising. So.. what is going on? While many industry insiders have tried to explain this deeply troubling trend by invoking all sorts of clever sounding bullshit, there is a simpler and more rational explanation.

A large percentage, likely overwhelming majority, of drug development in past two decades has been based in two types of fraud. The first involves manipulating metrics to make something look far better than it is in real life. Examples of such frauds involve cherry-picking patients, burying negative data, changing criteria for success, playing around with data and statistics and other stuff which is not technically illegal. The second type involves falsification of data, deliberately deleting data, kicking non-responders out of trials to improve responses rates etc. But what does any of this have to do with the downward career trajectory of people working in that sector?

Well.. since we have already exceeded 1200 words in this post, I will leave that discussion for the next part of this series. In it, I hope to go into some more detail about how neoliberalization and financialization of pharma destroyed its older and much more successful business model and institutional structure- all to make a handful of people on wall street and upper management far richer than they otherwise would have been. You will also see how stuff such as pushing opioids, antidepressants, antipsychotics etc to doctors and constantly jacking up prices of old and new drugs replaced developing newer ones as the main source of corporate growth. And ya.. I will also go into what happened to all those middle-aged and older people who lost their jobs and, in many cases their entire, careers after decades of relative stability.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Poor Career Prospects for People with Postgraduate Degrees : 1

August 17, 2019 33 comments

A few years ago, I wrote a post about how the defined and stable career trajectory is now dead in west and west-aping countries such as Japan and South Korea. Some months after that, I wrote about how the hiring practices of corporations in west have shortened the length of semi-stable career for most people to about 15 years. Then, about a year ago, I wrote a series on the long term social, economic and cultural effects of career insecurity. While they don’t make cheerful reading, it is interesting to note that these and my other older posts (pre-2016) on this general area (link 1, link 2, link 3) anticipated the rise of pseudo-populists such as Trump, the alt-right and popularity of socialism among “Millennials”. Also, have a look at my post on why rich and well-off (even in USA) are barely having any kids.

But let us get back to the topic of this post, and talk about something which I have often hinted to in previous posts on this topic. Ever wonder about the real career prospects for those with proper postgraduate education in the sciences and other related areas such as engineering. And yes.. this is relevant to issues other than the immediate future of western countries. What I am now going to describe, based on personal observations, is going to vindicate many of your darkest suspicions but also make you feel depressed. But before we talk about my observations, you should know a couple of facts about me. Longtime readers are probably aware that I came here and started my MSc when I was 20 years old in the later half of 1990s. After finishing it, I worked a couple of jobs in my field and then started my PhD in a proper STEM subject in mid-2000s and finished at the beginning of this decade. The point is, I have seen a lot more change than many others have seen.

To be more precise, I had a ringside seat to the demise of career security for smart people with postgraduate education in western countries. And don’t worry about me, I am still doing OK and will (knock on wood) continue to do so. But back to the topic at hand- What do my personal observations about the career trajectories of others who graduated a few years before myself, or alongside me, say about the overall situation. The very short answer is that it is already very bad and getting worse- if that is possible. While there are many ways to describe what I have witnessed, a chronological account of the careers of people who graduated a few years before me provides the best (if somewhat disturbing) insight into how things have gone to to shit.

While biomedical sciences have notorious for overproduction of graduates, until the mid-1990s most of them could get some half-decent jobs or at least transition into careers where their skills were useful. Somewhere between mid-1990s and 2000, that became much harder or no longer possible. To make a long story short, only those who went into to medical or dental school now have anything approaching “normal” careers. And even for them, things are pretty dismal. For starters, most are single, divorced or unhappily married with a single child. Out of the ten or so guys I know who took that route, only one has more than 2 children- and half have none. Almost every woman who went to medical school (around my age or younger) has either zero kids or just managed to squeeze one out in their late-30s. And they all look older than they should.

But at least they have some semblance of a career trajectory, because most of the rest (aka the majority) who did not get into medical school have none. Sure.. there are a few who have done OK in either academia or industry (usually the later) but most of them just seem to disappear. Confused? Let me explain. Over the years I have followed the careers of many PhD students who were smart, liked by their supervisors and generally expected to do OK in later life. But things did not work that way and many of them after promising starts and careers lasting for a decade or so, just disappear. To be clear, I am not suggesting they are dead or have commited suicide (though the later cannot be ruled out). It is just that their career in science seem to end and they stop updating their LinkedIn profiles. In almost every case, detailed internet searches failed to reveal much more than their current addresses and some more recent photos.

While I am sure that most are still alive, it is clear that they do not have well-paid or marginally prestigious jobs. Maybe they are bagging groceries at the supermarket, driving for Uber, delivering Pizza, tutoring kids or in one of those mediocre administrative positions which have proliferated in past 15 years. My point is that most of them are now doing jobs that require nothing more than an undergraduate degree. Isn’t that a terrible and cruel waste of human potential and hope? But wait.. it gets worse. Let me talk about the fate of a few people I used to know well in the late 1990s and early 2000s. And it gets depressing real fast..

When I was just finishing my MSc, there was a new postdoc from UK in the adjacent lab who had come here with his then-GF (also a postdoc). The guy was bright and competent, because within a couple of years he got a decent academic position back in UK. So far so good. Based on mutual acquaintances and PubMed, it seemed he was doing well for a decade or so. Sure.. his GF dumped him after a few years, but he seemed set for an OK career. Somewhere in 2012, his research output just stopped. My guess is that his job loss might have something to with post-2008 austerity politics in UK. Anyway.. he reemerged a few years later as proprietor of a small businesses selling dietary supplements. So a guy with a PhD, over 30 papers in decent journals and an academic career lasting almost a decade ended up hawking supplements like one of those scummy Instagram and FakeBook influencers.

Another person who did his MSc in an adjacent lab ended up running cell-phone kiosks in malls and is now selling insurance. Yet another PhD student who was considered to be very smart ended up moving to his home-city for a postdoc. He then regressed to working as a lab tech and eventually as a freelancer, the last I heard. At least, he lives in a place where his parents own a house. Another ambitious PhD student, after a couple of stints at prestigious labs as a postdoc, seems to have ended as a part-time freelancer at some research institute in another large city. The women seemed to have done a bit better, and more than a few ended up as scientific writers or mediocre administrative positions in corporations with varying degrees of stability. But in almost every case, there had no defined career with the degree of stability expended by their parents generation. Also, many of them either have no kids or one token child squeezed out in their late-30s.

To be clear, all of this occurred to people who studied, or worked, at prestigious research groups in one of the top two universities in that state. But wait.. it get worse. In the next part, I will tell you what happened to the careers of people who worked in the pharma sector between 2001 and 2008-2009. It is really bad.. to put it mildly. In future posts, I will also go in some detail about the dismal career prospects of people with postgraduate degree from well-regarded universities in subject such as Chemistry and Physics. Also degrees in engineering (various disciplines) from well regarded universities are no longer the ticket to a stable career. I hope to show you how all of this ties with rise of neoliberalism, de-industrialization and increased financialization of economy in western countries- and the death of hope.

I have a feeling that some of you might say something the lines of these people being lucky since they are still employed in jobs which pay more than median wage. Funny thing.. that is not the way things work in countries which harbor any hope for a better future. What I have described is how things typically unfold in countries that are in a steep and likely irreversible decline.

What do you think? Comments?

Interesting YouTube Channel: Lindsay Ellis

August 15, 2019 2 comments

A few years ago, I came across a YouTube channel about critical analysis of films and TV show. It is likely that some of you might have also heard about Lindsay Ellis or watched a clip or two on her channel. While I don’t agree with a significant minority of her views, she does a pretty good and through analysis of whatever she is talking about. One does not have to agree with every view of another person to appreciate their competence. In any case, she does a much better job than almost every film and TV show review site on YouTube.

Clip #1: The Last of the Game of Thrones Hot Takes is the second in a series of reviews she made about GOT. In my opinion, this one and its previous part are two of the best analysis about GOT and other similar large-budget HBO shows on YouTube. They go into a lot of detail why show like GOT and Westworld start so promisingly only to become sad clusterfucks.

Clip #2: The Hobbit: Battle of Five Studios (Part 2/2) is the second in a three part series about why the Hobbit “trilogy” was such an epic clusterfuck.. and ya, it was due to insatiable greed of, and short-sighted decisions made by beancounters at, big movie studios. I would also highly recommend watching Part I and Part III of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links: Aug 15, 2019

August 15, 2019 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW. Will post something more intellectual tomorrow.

Amateur POV BJs: Aug 3, 2019 – Amateur cuties deepthroating.

Amateur POV BJs: Aug 5, 2019 – Side view of amateur cuties giving BJs.

Amateur Topless Beach Cuties: Aug 8, 2019 – Busty topless amateur cuties on beach.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized