Previous | Next
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Budget Ballet Continues
Until further notice, there are four big-ticket items that Congress has to deal with right now, and with time running short. Those are, of course, the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill, keeping the federal government funded, and lifting the debt ceiling. There was a fair bit of dancing around on those fronts yesterday, as the various factions try to outmaneuver one another.
Two of the aforementioned factions are within the Democratic Party, leaving Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to herd a bunch of progressive cats and a bunch of moderate cats. Pelosi had promised the latter clowder a vote on the smaller infrastructure bill yesterday. However, it was clear that the votes were not there, since the progressives are not going to vote "yea" until they are certain that the larger infrastructure bill will also pass. So, Pelosi managed to arrange an extension on the vote, to Sept. 30. That is something of a hard deadline, as there are certain programs (Amtrak, for example) whose funding will run out on that date without the $1 trillion bill being passed.
Since there is little chance that the $3.5 trillion bill will be ready by Thursday, this means that the Speaker is going to have to find a way to guarantee that the moderates in her caucus don't backslide and decide to vote against the big bill whenever it finally does reach the House. Maybe they can cross their hearts and hope to die when they promise that they'll remain loyal. Whatever it is, it will have to be something that both Pelosi and the progressives find persuasive.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans made it official yesterday and filibustered the House-passed bill that would have kept the federal government funded but would also have suspended the debt limit. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) & Co. are willing to fund the government, but they want the debt ceiling to be included in the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. Here again, Sept. 30 is a hard deadline, since that is when the fiscal year ends and the government will no longer be funded.
The Democrats believe, probably correctly, that if the government shuts down with them holding the keys to both the White House and Congress, they will get the blame. So, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Pelosi, and other key members of the caucus made clear yesterday that they are not going to let it happen, and that they will get something passed that keeps the lights on beyond Sept. 30.
The big question—currently unanswered—is whether the Democrats will just fund the government for a couple of weeks, setting up another ballet performance in which a federal shutdown and a federal default are both imminent, or if they will separate funding the government from lifting the debt ceiling, so that the debt ceiling, like the cheese, gets to stand alone.
Our guess is that the blue team decides to split the two issues and fund the government, leaving the debt ceiling to deal with in a couple of weeks. At that point, Schumer and Pelosi would have two basic choices: they could send a clean debt ceiling bill to the Senate floor, and let the Republicans take responsibility for killing it. Or, they could put the debt ceiling increase into the $3.5 trillion bill, which would make that bill too big to fail, and would give moderate Democrats in both the Senate and the House little choice but to vote for it. This would solve the problem of having to vote for the $1 trillion bill this week, before the $3.5 trillion bill is ready.
If the latter scenario comes to pass, then many will label that a Democratic "surrender." But is it, really? It's true that the Republicans will make the Democrats' wasteful spending a major campaign issue in 2022 if the Democrats lift the debt ceiling all by themselves, but the Republicans are going to do that anyhow. And we are unpersuaded that most voters are highly motivated by the debt ceiling as a wedge issue (or, for that matter, by the debt itself). Meanwhile, the Democrats would have the argument that, in opposing the $3.5 trillion bill, the Republicans apparently don't like education, day-care, the environment, etc., and that they hate those things so much and they love power so much that they are willing to crash the U.S. economy. Is the Republican side of that spin battle really the stronger side? (Z)
Be Careful What You Wish For, Part I: Texas Abortion Law
On one hand, the people who pushed for Texas' S.B. 8, which "deputizes" private citizens to sue abortion providers (or abortion assisters), are winning the battle. Most Texas physicians and clinics that provide abortions have started turning women away, fearful of being sued into bankruptcy.
On the other hand, they are losing the PR war. The "upside" of taking enforcement out of the hands of the government and putting it in the hands of everyone else is that S.B. 8 was not struck down—at least, not immediately. The downside of taking enforcement out of the hands of the government and putting it in the hands of everyone else is that "everyone else" could be "anyone else." Actually, that's not 100% true, since certain anti-abortion activist groups have been forbidden from filing suits by a judge's order. That left a vacuum of sorts, wherein Dr. Alan Braid broke the law and then announced it to the world, and then he was sued by two disbarred former attorneys who are both...eccentric, let's say, and who both filed briefs that make a mockery of the law.
Consequently, the anti-abortion folks are hopping mad. They may have a bit of tunnel vision when it comes to their pet issue, but they also know they have the much less popular side of the argument. And when the test case involves "self-serving legal stunts," as one anti-abortion activist put it, that does not help their cause.
The upshot is that some of the anti-abortion folks are now experiencing buyer's remorse, for lack of a better term. There's really no going back now, but some of them are starting to think that they may have overshot their mark. The Supreme Court is not completely unaware of which way the political winds are blowing, and they may just be backed into a corner by this, unable to limit abortion rights without sacrificing the authority of the Court (more below). (Z)
Be Careful What You Wish For, Part II: The Supreme Court
This is the time of year, with the Supreme Court not in session, that the justices are traveling all over the place, sitting for interviews, leading seminars, giving speeches, etc. In recent weeks, three different justices have given speeches emphasizing that the Court is not a political institution, and that its decisions are guided by the law alone. Yeah, right.
The most notable of these addresses—and by "most notable" we really mean "most audacious"—came from the newest member of the Court, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She declared: "My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks." Adding that the only concern that the justices have is "the law," she added that "judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties." That message might be slightly more credible if she had not just been introduced by Mitch McConnell, at an event honoring McConnell, to christen a research center named for McConnell.
In any case, the careful reader will note that the Justices are not giving speeches insisting that none of them are Communist spies, or serial murderers, or pink elephants. That so many of them would see fit to remind everyone, in such a short window, that "we're not political" tells us that they know full well how the Court is being perceived these days. Polls back this up; the recent Gallup poll we have mentioned a couple of times reveals that barely more than half of Americans "trust" the Court, while only 40% approve of the job the Court is doing.
A big part of the blame lies with McConnell. The Merrick Garland-Brett Kavanaugh saga became a national soap opera, and nobody who paid it even passing attention could walk away thinking that Kavanaugh/the Court are apolitical. McConnell could not be certain, at that time, that he'd get to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat as well. And undoubtedly if he was asked in public, he would say he's thrilled to have a 6-3 conservative majority. But the fact is that if he'd let Garland be confirmed, the Court would still be majority-conservative today, with four conservative Republicans, one somewhat moderate Republican (John Roberts), one moderate Democrat (Garland) and three liberal Democrats. Less margin of error for conservatives, but also far fewer questions about legitimacy.
Of course, McConnell doesn't get all of the blame. The Court has also helped make its own bed (apropos, perhaps, since they always wear robes). The aggressive use of unsigned opinions and the shadow docket isn't helping things. Further, they just issued three opinions in a row: striking down the eviction moratorium, reimposing a Trump-era immigration policy, and allowing the Texas abortion law to stand (for now). If the conservative majority isn't actually toting the Republican Party's water, then they are at least crafting the buckets.
Allowing the Texas law to stand, when they could easily have issued an injunction, was a particularly unwise choice when it comes to the Court's reputation and its public image. Beyond appearing hyperpartisan, the Court sent some...problematic messages. The first is that stare decisis isn't important anymore, and there is no such thing as "settled law." Undoubtedly, the most famous rebuke of the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court was Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which substantially overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). When the 1896 decision was announced, all of the justices but John Marshall Harlan persuaded themselves that "separate" really could be "equal." By 1954, there was nearly six decades' worth of evidence that was not the case. And with that new information, the Warren Court was well justified in revisiting the earlier decision.
In the case of abortion, there is no tranche of new information here. The underlying legal facts, the science, the social impact—whatever one thinks about abortion, we don't have any substantive knowledge today that the Court didn't have in 1973 when it decided Roe v. Wade or, more importantly, that it didn't have in 1992 when it decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If the Court decides to side with Mississippi when it considers their abortion law, or Texas when it considers theirs, then the only thing that will have changed is the politics of the justices making the decisions. Everyone, on both sides of the political aisle, is going to conclude that the Republicans stacked the Supreme Court with Republican justices and got a Republican decision. More broadly, the message is going to be: You might as well defy the Supreme Court's rulings, because while it may take 10-40 years, eventually you'll get a Court that sides with you.
Allowing the Texas law to stand sends an additional message: If a state/city/political party/officeholder is having trouble achieving their ends, then maybe all they need to do is get creative about means. The folks in the Lone Star State, and in particular conservative lawyer Jonathan Mitchell, found a loophole and exploited the living daylights out of it. Clearly, Texas is violating the spirit of Roe and subsequent decisions, even if one believes they aren't violating the letter.
We would suggest, then, that SCOTUS has backed itself into something of a corner. They are already at a crossroads in terms of public confidence, which is why the members keep making speeches defending themselves. And if they sustain all or part of the Mississippi law or the Texas law, that could well be the fatal blow. For years, maybe even decades, SCOTUS decisions would come with a giant asterisk.
The famous examples of Supreme Court defiance come from presidents, particularly Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson. But the far more common, and more consequential, form of defiance comes from states that pass laws and then dare the courts to do something about it. We'll see in the next couple of months, but it may already be open season in states where Democrats have the trifecta. It would not surprise us at all if, say, Oregon adopts a law allowing people to sue their fellow citizens for being gross polluters, or Hawaii adopts a law allowing $10,000 lawsuits over gun ownership. After all, the Second Amendment may protect your rights to own a gun, but it doesn't say anything about the rights of those who helped you get the gun. And even if the blue states show restraint right now, that restraint will surely evaporate if and when the Court makes decisions in favor of the Mississippi and/or Texas laws. The Texas law, in particular, opens a Pandora's Box worth of Pandora's Boxes.
Given that Roberts voted with the three liberals to stay the Texas law, it suggests he's already aware that the Court has a problem on its hands. And he's likely to spend the next 8 months working to convince at least one of his conservative colleagues to think in terms of the big picture. Point is, don't assume that these decisions are a done deal; SCOTUS may end up with no choice but to strike the laws down in order to protect their authority and their influence. All the conservative decisions in the world don't much matter if nobody pays attention to them. (Z)
Who Says Democrats Don't Learn?, Part I: Vote-by-Mail
"I am not a member of any organized party—I am a Democrat." Will Rogers was quoted thusly in 1935, in Will Rogers, Ambassador of Good Will, Prince of Wit and Wisdom. That means we're going on almost a century of the Democrats being seen as the clown car of political parties—well-meaning, perhaps, and maybe even entertaining, but somehow unable to pull themselves together and act like a disciplined organization.
One aspect of this general reputation is that it is often obvious what the Party should do, and quite often the Party's leadership agrees that it should do that thing, and yet, for various reasons, they don't actually do it. That list may grow a fair bit longer this year, with the filibuster, voting rights, reining in presidential powers, and the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill being among the places where the blue team might come up short.
This is not always the story with California Democrats, however. Maybe they're just smarter, being from California and all. Maybe they're just better looking, being from California and all. Maybe they're just better lovers, being from California and all. We're not sure how that would make a political party more effective, but it's a theory. Another possibility is that the California Democratic Party controls all of the statewide offices and a supermajority in both houses of the state legislature, and that sort of dominance makes it much easier to get things done. We'll have to ask our staff political scientist to look into it and figure out which of these it might be, but we're thinking it's the "better lovers" thing.
In any event, California Democrats took notice that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) easily defeated the recall effort. They also took notice that he won significantly on the strength of mail-in ballots. And so the legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, a bill that makes permanent the arrangement wherein all of the state's voters are automatically sent a mail-in ballot. That took a grand total of 13 days after the election to get done.
Newsom explained that he signed the bill in order to "increase access to democracy and enfranchise more voters." He's telling the truth, or at least part of it, and of course we support anything that makes voting easier and more accessible. What he didn't mention, but what surely occurred to just a few Democrats, is that the Republicans are not likely to win anything statewide for years, or maybe decades. (Z)
Who Says Democrats Don't Learn?, Part II: Ratfu**ing
One of the (several) reasons that Democrats have a reputation for not doing what needs to be done is that they tend to be unwilling to engage in realpolitik, and to reach into the bag of dirty tricks. Not true historically, mind you, but for the last 40 years or so, the ratfu**ing has mostly been the province of the Republican Party.
Maybe the times they are a-changin', though. Democrats were furious about the Republicans' (and the Russians') use of social media platforms to muck around in the elections. And many party members have called for legislation designed to curb abuses of Facebook, TikTok, Twitter, etc. As it turns out, however, not all of them are shouting into the void. Some members of the blue team have decided to fight fire with fire.
In the Virginia governor's race, where voting is already underway, poll after poll has shown that Terry McAuliffe (D) has a lead on Glenn Youngkin (R), but only a slight lead, and one generally within the margin of error. For example, the latest, from Monmouth, has McAuliffe at 48% and Youngkin at 43%, with 9% undecided. The Democrats are going to do everything they can to get their voters to the polls. However, it is equally useful if a few Youngkin voters decide to sit this one out.
And so, enter Accountability Virginia PAC, which has been inundating Facebook, Instagram, Google and Snapchat with ads claiming that Youngkin isn't really a conservative, particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment. They've already had at least 15 million impressions with the ads, which contain assertions like: "While the NRA backs Donald Trump, they REFUSED to endorse Glenn Youngkin. We can't trust Glenn Youngkin on guns."
Sounds like an attack from the right, right? But it's not, which means that by process of elimination, we've got the left, left. The PAC's website says it is "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee," which is undoubtedly true. However, as Axios discovered, the PAC's donation page is hosted by ActBlue, its bank account is with a bank (Amalgamated Bank) used by Democratic campaigns, its incorporation paperwork was filed by MBA Consulting Group, which works exclusively with Democrats, and many of its ad purchases were completed in the name of Gambit Strategies, which is owned and operated by a former Democratic operative who worked on Joe Biden's presidential campaign.
If you can't beat 'em, the old saying goes, then join 'em. It would appear that some Democrats have taken that to heart, which presages a 2022 election cycle even nastier than the 2020 and 2018 cycles, if that is possible. You might want to consider staying off of social media for, oh, all of next year. (Z)
Epik Hack Begins to Exact a Toll
The hack of the web host Epik, which was revealed last week, did not produce a smoking gun so much as it produced a giant, smoking heap of horse dung. That means that there is not going to be a day, or a week, where all is revealed. There's a lot of data to go through, a task that is complicated by steps that some users took to protect themselves, and also by the fact that Epik was in the habit of scraping the Internet for information, and so had data on people and websites who never did business with the company and had nothing to do with them. One would not want to announce that, say, chicagobears.com, or usc.edu, or visitcanada.com are really just fronts for deplorables until one was certain of one's claims. Point is, various unpleasant truths are coming, and various unpleasant people are going to have to wait on pins and needles to see if the shoe drops on them, as revelations slowly trickle out.
That said, some folks are already paying the piper. For example, by day, Joshua Alayon was a successful Florida realtor. By night, he was owner of several "tasteful" domains, including racisminc.com, whitesencyclopedia.com, christiansagainstisrael.com and theholocaustisfake.com. He's not a realtor any more, as you might imagine, since his firm dropped him. And you'll be stunned to hear that certain people closely associated with Donald Trump, including attorney Lin Wood, were also making use of Epik's services. Hopefully you had a fainting couch and smelling salts nearby when you read that.
Anyhow, this is a story that is just getting underway. And while nobody has said so openly, one has to imagine there is some information in the Epik data that will be of interest to the FBI and the 1/6 Commission. We are clearly going to have to add "Epik" to our spell-check dictionary. (Z)
Though the News Was Rather Sad...Well, I Just Had to Laugh, Part II
Last week, we had the answers to our little Beatles' lyrics contest. Today, the results. Note that every person named here got all 7 answers; folks with an asterisk got the bonus as well.
First of all, a few numbers. Here's the incidence that various people associated with the Beatles were mentioned across all of the responses we got:
John Lennon: 25
Paul McCartney: 15
Ringo Starr: 15
George Harrison: 8
Ed Sullivan: 4
Pete Best: 2
Yoko Ono: 2
Brian Epstein: 1
George Martin: 1
Eric Clapton: 1
The incidences of various Beatle-related terms:
Beatlemaniac: 22
Fab Four: 17
Lads: 6
Moptops/Mop Tops: 6
British Invasion: 5
LSD: 3
Liverpool: 1
The three quickest-to-be-submitted entries:
88 minutes after we posted: T.L. in West Orange, NJ*
69 minutes after we posted: J.S. in Gaithersburg, MD
57 minutes after we posted: R.H. in London, England, UK*
Entry sent in the shortest distance from Liverpool, England, UK:
B.H. in Nottingham, England, UK (109.6 mi/176.4 km)
Entry sent in the longest distance from Liverpool, England, UK:
K.W. in Sydney, NSW, Australia* (10,583 mi/17,031.7 km)
Entries sent in from cities mentioned in Beatles songs:
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA
E.M. in Los Angeles, CA
G.C.W. in London, England, UK
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA
M.P. in Los Angeles, CA
N.B. in London, England, UK
R.H. in London, England, UK
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA*
Los Angeles is mentioned in "Blue Jay Way," London is mentioned in "The Ballad of John and Yoko," and Hollywood is mentioned in "Honey Pie" (we're going to count West Hollywood, even though they aren't actually the same city). We might plausibly have gotten entries from Paris/Amsterdam/Vienna (also "The Ballad of John and Yoko"), Moscow/Miami Beach ("Back in the U.S.S.R"), Kansas City ("Kansas City, Hey, Hey, Hey"), or Tucson ("Get Back") but we did not.
Now, some comments that might be of interest:
D.C. in Teaneck, NJ: "I suspected this was afoot in the first item, when the phrase hit my ear. By the time I got to the second item, I had to scroll to the bottom to confirm these phrases were plants."
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA: "It's obvious (at least to me) that the catalyst item for this Beatlemaniac blog was the Meghan McCain story. After all, whenever a human being (older than 35) hears that someone is now working for the Daily Mail, they reflexively must wonder 1) is it a steady job, and 2) do they want to be a paperback writer?"
M.M.M. in Oakland, CA: "I got hooked, spent my lunch hour finding these..."
J.J.A. in Felton, CA: "Good thing I'm retired, cause that's two hours of my life I won't get back."
R.B. in Fairfax, VA*: "Let me preface this by saying that, like the SAT, this is a biased quiz. I'm 64 years old (will you still need me, will you still feed me?) so I am right in the sweet spot for having pretty much every Beatles song ever released stuck firmly in my memory. Younger readers doubtless are aware of the Beatles and familiar with some of their songs, but I doubt they have the vast exposure to the entire catalog as us geezers do!"
J.S. in Seattle, WA: "I was a Beatlemaniac back in the day, and even saw them live twice (Minneapolis 1965 and St. Louis 1966), so looking for (and finding) the hidden lyrics was a treat."
C.W. in Littleton, CO: "My husband and I met in high school in 1968 and my first gift to him was The Beatles White Album. I vividly remember the 1964 'Ed Sullivan Show' episode featuring The Beatles. My dad called me to come to the TV room (where The Beatles were performing on our old black and white set) and asked, 'What do you think of these guys?' I don't think he was particularly impressed with them. I don't remember how I responded, but I likely wasn't nearly as impressed as I should have been."
A.T. in Quincy, IL: "I have my dad to thank for such a Compleat knowledge of Beatles lyrics."
W.B. in Denver, CO: "And if I am wrong ... well, with every mistake, we must surely be learning."
W.V. in Maryland Heights, MO: "Thanks for the fun lyrics search, and I do appreciate you being 'round. I did it by myself, I never needed anybody's help in any way."
E.C-F. in Somerville, MA: "Now you know my name—look up the number!"
C.P. in Silver Spring, MD: "It's been a hard day's night writing this, but tomorrow never knows. Either way, I feel fine."
A.B. in Plano, TX: "That was fun for a week where news didn't suck up a lot of oxygen. A year or so ago, it was always about someone in the administration getting fired, as in Donald's silver hammer came down upon his head."
G.B. in Dallas, TX: "Thanks to you, without going out of my door I can know all things on Earth."
J.P. in Horsham, PA: "You sent your words flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup."
D.E. in Lancaster, PA*: In the section on the gay football player, Nassib, you referenced Paul McCartney's "Let it Be" with "Maybe there will be an answer (or maybe Clark will just) let it be." I love the meta comment for this one. The GOP should learn to see the differences in people and just let them be who they are instead of demonizing them. Additionally, for all their culture wars, the GOP has currently lost every battle they've waged. It seems there is no stopping cultural changes. Someone needs to speak words of wisdom to them!
R.C. in Eagleville, PA: "'Revolution' would make an excellent theme song."
A.R. in Arlington, VA: "Maybe you can squeeze in some Pink Floyd references sometime..."
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY: "Can you please do Bob Dylan next? I promise I won't be tangled up in blue or blowin' in the wind like a rolling stone when the ship comes in. And if you can't do it I might feel like a jokerman, but don't think twice, it's alright."
M.C.A. in San Francisco, CA: "It would be nice to see you pay tribute to the late Charlie Watts by doing a Rolling Stones version as well."
S.G. in Newark, NJ: "Try Simon & Garfunkel next!"
B.C. in Walpole, ME: "Now do I get my authentic Redstone Arsenal Missile Launcher playset?"
And finally, here is everyone not already named who got all the answers:
|
A.B. in Huntington, VT A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD A.D. in San Diego, CA A.H. in Espoo, Finland A.J. in Baltimore, MD* A.J. in Philadelphia, PA A.L. in Oakland, CA A.M. in Brookhaven, PA A.M. in Troy, NY A.M.S. in Silverdale, WA A.T. in Arlington, MA A.T. in Seattle, WA* A.W. in Greenwood, SC B.B. in Fort Collins, CO* B.C. in Chippewa Lake, OH* B.L. in Hudson, NY B.M. in Perth, WA, Australia B.N. in San Rafael, CA B.O.S. in Dublin, Ireland B.R.J. in San Diego, CA B.S. in Philadelphia, PA B.U. in St. Louis, MO C.C. in St. Paul, MN C.G.K. in Blue Island, IL C.K.S. in Berkeley, CA C.S. in Pelham, NH C.S. in St. Paul, MN D.C. in South Elgin, IL D.C. in Waterloo, ON, Canada D.E. in High Springs, FL D.F. in Norcross, GA D.H. in Copenhagen, Denmark D.J. in Jordan, NY D.L. in Springfield, IL D.M. in Burnsville, MN D.O. in Brookline, MA D.P. in Blackstone, MA D.R. in Atlanta, GA D.R. in Omaha, NE* D.S. in Chantilly, VA D.S. in Edinburgh, Scotland, UK D.W. in State College, PA E.B. in Indianapolis, IN E.K. in Arlington, MA E.P. in Plainville, CT E.S. in Cincinnati, OH E.W-H. in New London, CT F.F. in Berkeley, CA F.H. in Pacific Grove, CA F.Y. in Ann Arbor, MI G.B. in Kailua, HI G.K. in Mansfield Center, CT* G.M. in Manama, Bahrain G.R. in Tarzana, CA* G.S.M. in Chicago, IL G.V. in Plano, TX H.K. in Seattle, WA H.M. in Minneapolis, MN |
H.S.W. in Ardmore, PA I.T. in Orlando, FL J.A.W. in Northampton, MA J.B. in Franklin, TN J.B. in Waukee, IA J.D. in Massapequa, NY J.F. in Fayetteville, NC J.F. in The Bronx, NY J.G. in Holland, MI* J.H. in Austin, TX J.H. in Studio City, CA J.K.T. in El Dorado Hills, CA J.L. in Lords Valley, PA J.M. in Davis, CA J.M. in Knoxville, TN J.M. in New York City, NY J.N. in Zionsville, IN J.P. in Lancaster, PA & S.L. in York, PA J.P. in Seattle, WA J.R. in Indianapolis, IN J.S. in Pittsburgh, PA J.T. in Apopka, FL J.W.N. in Walnut Creek, CA* J.Z. in Baltimore, MD K.C. in Austin, TX K.C. in El Cajon, CA K.H. in Milford, NH* K.H. in Westborough, MA K.H.B. in St. Paul, MN K.J. in Toronto, Canada K.J.O. in Bloomfield, NJ K.S. in Harrisburg, PA K.W. in Galway, Ireland L.A. in Huntington Beach, CA L.H. in Middleburg, PA L.J. in Bourbonnais, IL L.R.H. in Oakland, CA L.S. in Greensboro, NC L.S. in Nancy, France L.W. in Corvallis, OR M.B. in Albany, NY M.B. in Melrose, MA M.B. in San Antonio, TX* M.B. in St. Paul, MN M.B. in Woodland, CA M.B.T. in Bay Village, OH M.E. in Greenbelt, MD M.G. in Boulder, CO M.G. in Pittsburgh, PA M.G. in Stow, MA M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada M.J. in Oakdale, MN M.J.M. in Boston, MA M.J.S. in Cheshire, CT M.K. in Long Branch, NJ M.L. in Encino, CA M.L. in Hartford, CT M.L. in Havertown, PA |
M.L. in Huntington Woods, MI M.R. in Vancouver, WA M.S. in Brooklyn, NY M.S. in Manhattan, NY M.S.G. in Pittsburgh, PA M.V. in San Francisco, CA M.W. in North Providence, RI N.C. from Gibsons, BC, Canada N.F. in Brussels, Belgium N.S. in Davie, FL N.S. in Stevens Point, WI P.B. in Kirksville, MO P.B. in Mendon, MA P.C. in Dublin, Ireland P.D. in Leamington, ON, Canada P.F. in Wixom, MI P.G. in Arlington, VA P.H. in Albany, CA* P.L.N. in Morro Bay, CA P.S. in Portland, ME P.V. in San Francisco, CA P.W. in Edmonds, WA P.Y. in Mundelein, IL* R.G. in Fullerton, CA R.G. in Oceanside, CA* R.J.H. in West Grove, PA* R.L.D. in Sundance, WY R.M. in Ocala, FL R.P. in Gloucester City, NJ R.R. in Chewelah, WA R.R. in Mount Kisco, NY* S.D.R. in Garner, N.C. S.E. in Cleveland, OH S.G. in Daytona Beach, FL S.G. in Winchester, MA S.K. in Bethesda MD S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA S.M.C. in Cheektowaga, NY S.R. in Robbinsville, NJ* S.S. in Zurich, Switzerland S.T. in Worcestershire, England UK T.H.B. in Winston-Salem, NC T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ T.K. in Kirkwood, MO T.K. in Mason, MI* T.K. in Vashon Island, WA* T.P. in Evanston, IL T.P. in Kings Park, NY T.P. in Martinsville, NJ T.R. in Emmaus, PA T.V. in Dinwiddie, VA T.W. in Nashville, TN V.R. in Grenoble, France V.S. in Oak Bluffs, MA W.B. in Dundee, Scotland, UK W.F. in Orlando, FL W.P. in Urbanna, VA Z.C. in Beverly Hills, CA |
Based on the number of responses, and the comments therein, people clearly enjoyed this, so we'll certainly do it again at some point. Probably multiple points. We may try other media (movie quotes?) or we might not give the musician's identity next time, so you have to figure that out, too. Anyhow, thanks to everyone who participated! (Z)
Previous | Next
Back to the main page