I know without conferring with any robots that:
- They Might Be Giants was the name of a movie in the 1970's
- 10,000 Maniacs also came from an old movie, except that it was called 2,000 Maniacs
- Steely Dan was the name of a dildo
- Duran Duran was the bad guy in Barbarella
- Grateful Dead was just something they saw in a dictionary, so said Jerry
- ABBA is the first letter of the band members' names
- Husker Du was a Scandinavian board game
- I told you 'bout Skynyrd
- 10cc and The Lovin' Spoonful are supposedly the measurement of and slang for average ejaculate
- R.E.M. -- another dictionary find!
And that's just what I can think of, there are thousands more tidbits... of what my dad calls "useless information that Whitney knows."
But... today we are here to listen to songs that inspired band names!
One of my faves...
DC locals!
Sometimes you add an "s"...
Sometimes you subtract an "s"...
And this post's origin story is that I just found this one out yesterday! In the film version of the Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour, a trippy, silly thing, there's a Python-affiliated goof group called the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, and they sing their song that has had its name grow more popular since the early aughts...
Now ya know. Enjoy!
Posts
A steam powered dildo…
ReplyDeleteCurious where it ranks on the Marls Dildometer
ReplyDeletemarls could do 2500 words on dildonic history without breaking a sweat
ReplyDeleteYou didn’t use the dildo label?!
ReplyDeleteThere was one??
ReplyDeletethere are a lot of preposterous sports in the winter olympics, but ski mountaineering has to be way up there in terms pure suffering
ReplyDeleteyour tribe lost to campbell, 84-83, at the buzzer. not exactly building momentum heading into the postseason. and mcsteamy died. not a great evening all the way around.
ReplyDeleteCouldn’t get over the hump against Campbell? Hahahahaha.
ReplyDeleteAlso, hi gheorghies
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of bands named after songs, Sizzler and I had a trio with Sam Haller called "Pretzel Logic" after the Steely Dan song/album. We didn't have the chops to do acoustic dan covers, but we hummed, strummed and drummed away many hours in the upper stairwell of Unit M.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I just discovered that the founder of one of our trio's most covered acts 'Flyin' Mice' is playing in Roanoke tonight. Anyone wanna go see Jon Shain with me?
SCOTUS struck down Trump's tariffs and the opinion is a doozy, 170 pages of hot fire and shade. Someone should write a post about it.
ReplyDeletebreaking: what’s left of trump’s brain
ReplyDeleteTrump orders temporary 10% global tariff to replace duties struck down by US Supreme Court
ReplyDeleteOne of you smarties can explain to me how this works.
just whipped this up for you:
ReplyDeleteFaced with a possible Supreme Court defeat over IEEPA, administration officials have been readying alternative authorities under which to impose tariffs. One such statute is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The provision empowers the president to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits through import surcharges of up to 15 percent, import quotas, or some combination of the two. That surely holds considerable appeal for a president who has consistently (and mistakenly) railed against the alleged dangers of US trade deficits.
As Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute and I explained in December in Foreign Policy, the administration could replicate most of the IEEPA tariff structure through Section 122 in short order. Countries currently facing rates above 15 percent would see some reduction, but for every other country, the hit would be nearly identical. And crucially, Section 122 doesn’t require the lengthy investigations that other trade statutes demand. The president could act fast.
But there’s a catch: Section 122 tariffs expire after 150 days unless Congress votes to extend them. How much of a constraint this is, however, remains to be seen. If Congress declines to act, the administration could, at least in theory, allow the tariffs to lapse, declare a new balance-of-payments emergency, and restart the clock. The maneuver would raise serious separation-of-powers concerns, but nothing in the statute clearly forbids it.
With the statute never previously invoked, there’s no judicial precedent clarifying its limits.
Thanks, buddy
ReplyDeletehappy to do it. gave me a chance to brush up on my section 122 knowledge.
ReplyDeletefun fact for congressional republicans - trump using this gambit means they'll be put in a position to either vote to continue tariffs just a couple months ahead of an election and hand the dems another cudgel or vote to terminate them and have orange manbaby tell voters to get rid of them. brilliant strategy, sir!
DJT suggests that SCOTUS judges who ruled against his tariffs were swayed by "foreign interests." Always always always projection with TFG.
ReplyDelete