Login HereBack Door Slam were special guests of The Who at the Peel Bay Festival at the Isle of Man, May 30, 2007, and wowed the crowd with their original song Gotta Leave.
This is Late Nite FireDogLake, where off topic is the topic ... so dive in.
Late Nite FDL: Gotta LeaveBy: Suzanne Thursday May 8, 2008 8:00 pm |
Back Door Slam were special guests of The Who at the Peel Bay Festival at the Isle of Man, May 30, 2007, and wowed the crowd with their original song Gotta Leave.
This is Late Nite FireDogLake, where off topic is the topic ... so dive in.
Share This 
Spotlight
Hi Suzanne
Suz!!!
Suzanne!!! Compadre in music!!
Ah, Arizona strikes again!
g’evening pups
how is everyone doing tonight?
Gnu?
Suz!
Excellent!
Aloha, Suz! Excellent tune!
Melancholy tonight. Wasn’t going to blog anymore after putting up a little piece for Eddy Arnold at my place. And then, driving to the tall timber, I heard Hillary, in her own words, her own voice, playin’ the race card.
Shame, shame, shame.
Did a quick piece about it, if anyone’s inclined to stop by, click my name. Or TPM’s got a piece about it I just discovered awaiting Late Night.
It’s like, well, kinda like discovering the revered Barbara Walters is a trollop /s.
I do think this is a tactic beyond the pale, and I hope there’ll be strong pushback against it.
On to TDS…could use some laughs…
Comadre. !
No better tune could reflect the way I feel tonight.
Oh yeah..hee, hee…
That was a complete disgrace. I know she’s tired, but wow.
Hillary needs to stop now. Actually, a while ago. Sad.
H
i see i’m not the only one feeling the blues this week.
End of this month, right, Suz?
We go from wishing for it to move to the next phase, to waiting out the death-rattle, and praying that it doesn’t catch fire.
Pins & needles.
wedding is the 31st
the bride is starting to panic…
Hello all. I’ve finally decompressed from the great victory we had here in Indiana. It was a lot of work but very enjoyable.
Panic about what? She seemed so composed at the shower…
Digg it!
where’s nahant?
Carlo, congrats! What part did you play?
panic about the wedding in 3 weeks and she’s thinking of all the stuff she still has to do
thanks neuro :)
must feel nice to have all the media leaving, being able to answer your phone and come out of the grocery store without being polled.
This is what not to do if facing a Judge for sentencing…
The Raw Story…
bet ET is gonna have something interesting to say about that.
Yep.
ET will have some things to say about it. He is close to this case.
Canvassing, canvassing, and more canvassing. Plus registering voters by the handful in March. I was part of the Washington Township team. Don’t have figures from the township, but we took Marion County (Indianapolis) 67% to 33 %. Turnout for the Demos was 80% and the Repugs 20%.
newton the user, you owe me a soda
woohoo! most excellent work, carlo
I got called by the HRC campaign just as a canvassee was opening her door. It was quite a humorous moment.
Pepsi, right?
Prolly grumble that I scooped him at the Lake…! ;-)
Speaking of videos, looks like I got my very first Youtube hit!! Hope you enjoy it. 52 seconds of pure bliss.
Hillary - Going Out of Business
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH0oJzT9WIg
Enjoy.
Suzanne said, “i see i’m not the only one feeling the blues this week”
ET is already on the job …
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/
We registered 200,000 voters before the April 8 deadline and will get at least 100,000 more before November.
pepsi
congratulations
Hey Everyybody, I was just reading Time Magazine’s article about the five biggest mistakes that Hillary made and it is astonishing the tenacity of her campaign. It was then I had a cold thought, what if Hill packs up her tent, pulls a Joe Lieberman and moves on to the McCain campaign. McCain-Clinton, the Establishment Dream Team. I feel like a snake just crawled over my foot.
Evening all. So what topic are we avoiding tonight?
I have met the “Blogwars” guy who’s on The Daily Show right now
Great work!
you are so gonna like the late late nite i’ve got in the queue for tonight :)
when it airs here on the west coast, i’ll know who you are talking about
Never happen, IMO. She wants a future. That scenario is the end-of-the-road.
The thought has crossed my mind.
7% of HRC support was from Operation Chaos that told exit pollers they had no intention of voting for her in November. And that is the ones that would admit to it.
No possibility.
the little cottage by the creek in the redwoods is still for sale
I’m with newtonusr on this. Things do not look good for the the Rethugs for the foreseeable future and Hillary is smart enough to see that.
Yep. New York wouldn’t touch her ever again. Pariah in the party, like you-know-who.
Arianna told us she’d be on Colbert tonight. Just a reminder to the pups.
Oh dear. Sorry to hear that. This would not seem like the market to be in. I will keep my fingers, legs, arms, eyes, and anything else I can manage crossed for you.
Evenin’ all !
How’s everyone tonight ?
the mistakes have been big ones
almost makes me wanna put on some tin foil and say her campaign was sabotaged by someone she trusted
sweet, thanks, revdeb
Yo, Petro! How’s it hangin’ up north of the line?
Thank you. :)
hey suz, pups
drive by–wanted everyone to know bill moyers is on charlie rose tonight on pbs……at least he’s scheduled for here tonight, assume it’s the same all over…..
g’nite, have fun!
thanks, dmac
Monte Montgomery — Little Wing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31QQ1gNpAaY
((( DrD )))
Unseasonably cool but at least I can see the green grass … *g* … talk of meeting some friends for spicy Indian cuisine tomorrow …
Still daylight here, Petro…! ;-)
(((PETRO)))
It looks to me like she planned to have a down and dirty fight with the Repugs and this was the only game plan they prepared …
OUCH! that forking hiccup hurt
Here is a little something I received via email today from Eddie Vale @ progressivemediausa.org and thought you might like to get a history of McSame:
Contact:
________________________________________
In the late 1970s, John McCain was at a crossroads, both personally and professionally. His marriage to his first wife, Carol, was falling apart; the two were in the midst of a number of trial separations. And McCain, who would never fully recover from injuries he sustained in Vietnam, finally accepted the fact that he would never fly again. He liked his job as the Navy’s liaison to the U.S. Senate, but it had done more to whet his appetite for politics than satisfy his career goals.
Then he met Cindy Lou Hensley. She was 25, he was 42. As Robert Timberg describes it in his book John McCain: An American Odyssey, the two were instantly smitten when they spotted one another at a political reception in Honolulu. McCain was there for business, Hensley for pleasure — a vacation with her parents, James and Marguerite. They courted long-distance. She’d told him she was three years older than she was; he said he was four years younger. The real age difference: 17 years.
In his book, Timberg acknowledges — then dismisses — a popular theory explaining the McCain-Hensley romance:
“McCain’s detractors, and some of his friends, would later say that he saw Cindy as the ultimate target of opportunity and locked on to her with single-minded, even cynical calculation. It was fine that she was young and beautiful, so it was said, but the real attraction was that she was the daughter of a rich, well-connected businessman from a state that seemed to offer opportunities to someone with McCain’s emerging political ambitions.
“… The scenario is hard to take seriously. Was it even remotely possible that the impulsive, hot-blooded McCain who used to take his Navy pay in cash had suddenly been reborn as a gold-digging manipulator, coolly mapping out a marriage of convenience?”
Further, Timberg argues, McCain had to divorce Carol, who had been seriously injured in a car accident before John returned from the war, and who was still debilitated. What would that do to his political aspirations in a conservative state like Arizona?
But John did divorce Carol in February 1980, married Cindy that May and took a job in public affairs at Hensley & Company. John and Cindy could hardly survive on his $31,000 Navy pension, after all, and the marriage and job granted McCain instant entree into Arizona’s business, social and political circles — although insiders tell New Times that McCain was miserable in his new job, biding his time until he could run for office.
It didn’t take long. McCain had banked on the fact that a new congressional district being created in Arizona would be located in metropolitan Phoenix — as a newcomer, he could hardly take on a strong incumbent. That didn’t happen; the new district ended up in Tucson. But McCain got lucky. Longtime U.S. Representative John Rhodes announced his retirement in January 1982, leaving McCain a clear shot at the state’s 1st Congressional District, which includes Tempe, Mesa and parts of east Phoenix. Even before Rhodes made his official announcement, the McCains had found a new home in Tempe.
The 1982 Republican primary was crowded. McCain deftly deflected the “carpetbagger” label by noting that as a Navy brat, he’d never lived in one place longer than the five and a half years he spent in Vietnamese prison camps.
His friendship with Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette publisher Darrow “Duke” Tully gave McCain a free platform to deliver his campaign messages via a series of columns that appeared in the Gazette. (Tully was enamored of McCain’s fighter-pilot experience. Tully resigned as publisher of the newspapers in 1985 after it was revealed he had fabricated a military background as a highly decorated fighter pilot.)
As much as his quick tongue, heroic story and free positive press, it was his father-in-law’s funds that helped first get McCain elected.
In 1982, John and Cindy McCain reported an income of $801,056. Of that, the only amount unrelated to Hensley was McCain’s $31,038 Navy pension.
McCain lent $167,000 to his campaign — a huge chunk of the $569,545 it took to get him elected that year. (Another major contributor that year was Charles H Keating, a former Navy fighter pilot who later ensnarled McCain in the biggest scandal of his political career.)
In addition, James and Marguerite Hensley and their employees donated $11,000 to McCain’s first campaign; Anheuser-Busch’s PAC gave him $1,000.
McCain easily won reelection in 1984. Fortune — or McCain’s foresight — smiled again when Senator Barry Goldwater announced his retirement in 1986. McCain was the perfect candidate to succeed the straight-talking Goldwater, who was also a retired military pilot.
McCain jumped for — and won — the Senate seat.
Every election season, contributions from Hensley & Company and other liquor interests continued to fuel McCain’s electoral triumphs — victories McCain was beginning to take for granted.
In October 1986, just days before McCain was elected to the Senate, the Associated Press broke a story that the McCains had been quietly remodeling Cindy’s childhood home — a $500,000 spread still owned by Jim Hensley and located in north central Phoenix, outside of Congressional District 1 — so they could relocate after the election. The project was kept so quiet, the AP reported, that modifications to the house were being made under the name “Smith,” rather than McCain. As it turned out, Smith is Marguerite Hensley’s maiden name. The building plans the AP obtained showed that McCain was adding “Jacuzzis, a cabana, a ramada, a swimming pool, fountains and a barbecue.”
To this day, Jim and Marguerite Hensley live just around the corner. Cindy drives a Suburban with the license plate “Ms Bud.”
In John McCain’s early years in public office, he didn’t enjoy the reputation he does today as a crusader, a maverick who rails against the evils of special interests. His only notable attribute was a grasp of foreign affairs.
Yes, he voted against pay raises for members of Congress, and donated his honoraria from speaking engagements to charity, but McCain’s critics charged that was painless for a guy whose wife was a multimillionairess. It wasn’t until the ’90s, after he was embroiled in the Keating Five scandal (he returned more than $112,000 in contributions from the savings and loan mogul after being accused of improperly intervening with federal regulators on Keating’s behalf), that McCain became a champion of campaign-finance reform. In fact, early in his political career, McCain voted against measures like the one he now proudly sponsors.
The same is true with tobacco and guns. McCain took tens of thousands of dollars from tobacco companies before 1998, when he infuriated the industry by pushing reform legislation. He has taken money from the National Rifle Association and its affiliates, and voted their way, although last year he supported a measure to ban gun shows.
McCain is reaping the benefits of his maverick act today, as scores of Democrats across the country are reregistering to vote for him in GOP primaries.
But there is one area where it is unlikely that John McCain will ever emerge as a champion of reform: alcohol.
When he was elected to Congress, McCain swore he’d recuse himself on all votes related to the alcohol industry, given his father-in-law’s and wife’s business. A New Times analysis of McCain’s voting record since 1983 reveals that he has in fact recused himself on the two dozen or so alcohol-related bills that required a voice vote on the floor of the House and then the Senate, while McCain has served in those respective bodies. The bills examined dealt specifically with alcohol: examples include legislation to toughen drunken-driving laws and lower alcohol excise taxes.
But such votes are relatively insignificant when compared to other powers endowed on a senator — particularly a senior senator who chairs an influential committee.
Particularly if the senator is John McCain, the committee is the powerful Senate Commerce Committee and the issue is alcohol.
The Senate Commerce Committee has a number of alcohol-related issues in its purview, including the labeling of alcoholic beverages and alcohol advertising. But you wouldn’t know it from looking at the committee’s agenda since McCain took its reins three years ago.
John McCain’s influence regarding alcohol-related legislation comes from his inaction, rather than action. As a committee chairman, McCain has the unilateral power to kill a bill simply by refusing to put it on a committee agenda or schedule hearings.
And since McCain was elected chairman of the committee in January 1997, that’s exactly what has happened.
In the summer of 1996, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons rocked the alcohol and broadcasting industries by announcing it would take to the airwaves, in violation of a longtime voluntary ban on broadcast advertising of distilled spirits.
For decades, there’d been an uneasy truce between the distilled spirits lobby and those who want to ban alcohol advertising entirely: Print ads were okay, but broadcast was out. When Seagram reneged on the agreement, the liquor community took note. It wasn’t just the distilled spirits lobby that was concerned. Seagram’s unilateral actions could result in a severe backlash for all alcohol-related industries.
Beer and wine interests, whose products are advertised on the airwaves, feared that Seagram had opened a Pandora’s box that could lead to tougher restrictions on beer and wine broadcast advertising as well.
In late 1996, members of the Senate Commerce Committee decided to hold hearings. A date was chosen, February 11, 1997, before Republican Senator Conrad Burns’ communications subcommittee. (Burns’ press office did not return calls.)
But before the hearings could be held, two important events occurred. First, the beer and wine industries mounted a strong lobbying effort to scuttle any committee action that might address liquor advertising.
Second, Senator John McCain was elected chairman of the Commerce Committee in January 1997 after former chairman Larry Pressler of South Dakota lost his November 1996 reelection bid.
Even before McCain’s ascension, Pandora’s box was flung open — the beer and wine lobbyists could see that this wasn’t just about hard liquor ads on TV. The distilled spirits folks also were jockeying for parity with the beer and wine industry, including equal excise taxes (taxes currently are based on the percentage of alcohol in a beverage) and the ability to advertise during sports broadcasts, the most lucrative shows.
The beer and wine lobbies don’t want any of that.
The hearings portended a showdown between a divided liquor industry — with the beer and wine industries trying to maintain the status quo while some hard liquor producers were trying to make inroads not only in broadcast advertising, but taxing issues as well. Another hot-button issue was alcohol advertising aimed at teens. The hearings likely would have broached that volatile topic.
The stakes were high and so were the campaign contributions. The Christian Science Monitor reported that hard liquor and beer and wine industry contributions doubled during that session of Congress.
Mounting contributions and intense lobbying paralyzed the committee as the hearings were postponed a couple of weeks.
Then, in mid-February, the committee announced it would not delve into the beer and wine industry’s role in alcohol advertising. News of the committee’s capitulation to special interests made the trade journal Advertising Age in a February 17, 1997, article.
The beer and wine lobbies had prevailed.
By mid-spring, it was evident the hearings wouldn’t take place at all.
Clearly, the pressure the beer and wine lobby brought to bear on many members of Congress had something to do with the decision, but observers also wonder about the coincidental timing of John McCain’s ascent to the chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee.
George Hacker was particularly disappointed that the hearings were derailed. Off and on since 1982, Hacker has run the alcohol policies project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. He says it’s very hard to get alcohol-related legislation heard in Congress, and more difficult since McCain took the helm of the Senate Commerce Committee.
“Having someone with no interest and who really refuses to take an interest in alcohol is a serious problem in the Commerce Committee,” Hacker says.
But does mere indifference actually benefit the liquor industry?
“Well, sure,” Hacker replies. “If the chairman has a problem dealing with these issues, he’ll go on to something else.”
In fact, three alcohol-related bills have been assigned to McCain’s committee since he became chairman, and none has been taken up. All three were sponsored by Senator Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina Republican.
Thurmond has fought for alcohol industry reforms for decades. He first introduced legislation to require health warnings on alcoholic beverages in 1967. He was finally successful in 1988, although he’s still not satisfied. Ironically, Thurmond’s daughter was killed in a drunken-driving accident in 1993 — prompting the Senate Commerce Committee to hold hearings that year; that’s the last time such hearings were held.
The three Thurmond bills that have been before McCain’s Commerce Committee all deal with alcoholic beverage labeling. They would transfer authority for the labeling from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to the Department of Health and Human Services. Another measure would prohibit the alcohol industry — particularly the wine industry — from claiming benefits from its products on labels. (This bill has been introduced twice while McCain has been chairman.)
John DeCrosta, Thurmond’s press secretary, says the alcohol industry doesn’t want to be in the legislative spotlight.
“The…industry looks at what’s happening with the gun industry, tobacco industry, the lead-paint industry, and they know they have a problem,” he says. “This is something people consume, they get behind the wheel of a car, they cause deaths. They develop cirrhosis of the liver. They develop breast cancer. They develop hypertension. How long before somebody goes after them?”
Asked about McCain’s ignoring of his boss’s bills, DeCrosta offers a halting response: “It’s obviously Senator McCain’s prerogative as to whether or not he calls these up for a hearing. And you know, yeah, I don’t want to say that we have problems, but that’s his prerogative, and these are not issues or pieces of legislation, unfortunately, that generate a lot of support as far as co-sponsors.”
But, DeCrosta adds, “This is an issue that we’re just gonna keep fighting. Next Congress, we’ll probably introduce these bills again and try to get some support for them.”
And then there’s the matter of bills that don’t fall into the category of “alcohol-related,” per se, but would definitely have an impact on the industry.
One such bill would have forced consumers to pay a 10-cent beverage container deposit, as an incentive to recycle. The alcohol industry — particularly the beer industry, which sells its beverages in individual units — hates it.
On January 28, 1997, the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act was introduced and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. The National Beer Wholesalers Association identified the bill as one of its prime targets.
The bill languished, untouched, until the end of that session — and died.
It’s not the first time McCain has watched that recycling bill die.
In 1992, McCain came under fire in Mother Jones magazine, which noted that the Senate Commerce Committee refused to hear a similar measure the day after McCain (then just a member of the committee) purchased between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of Anheuser-Busch stock for one of his children. (This purchase was likely made by his wife.)
One Anheuser-Busch pet issue that has received a great deal of attention from McCain is boxing. Since McCain became chairman, the Senate Commerce Committee has held numerous hearings on bills designed to reform the boxing industry, to keep it safe — and popular. Meanwhile, McCain has attacked so-called “ultimate fighting” promotions, which could be construed as competition for boxing.
Anheuser-Busch is the single largest corporate sponsor of professional boxing.
________________________________________
An analysis of contributions to John McCain’s ‘98 Senate campaign and current presidential campaign, through last December, reveals he’s taken at least $103,363 from alcohol-related political action committees and employees of the alcohol industry.
(By contrast, he’s taken more than $1 million from the telecommunications industry, $98,000 from maritime interests and $59,000 from trucking interests — other industries with business before his committee. Trucking issues are important to Hensley & Company, which operates a fleet of 300 delivery trucks.)
McCain’s recent alcohol money comes from a variety of sources — hard liquor, wine and beer interests — but from the beginning of his political career, James Hensley and his associates have been very good to John McCain.
Since 1982, McCain has received the following contributions:
%u2022 Hensley & Company employees: at least $61,063
%u2022 National Beer Wholesalers PAC: $21,000
%u2022 Anheuser-Busch employees and PAC: $33,100
George Hacker, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, was surprised to hear that McCain accepts beer money.
That raises a question: Why would alcohol interests donate money to McCain if he recuses himself completely from their issue?
Hensley and the National Beer Wholesalers Association did not answer requests for comment. But Anheuser-Busch released this statement, from Stephen Lambright, general counsel:
“Anheuser-Busch has a long tradition of active and responsible corporate citizenship. Like many corporations, we participate in the political process in many ways, including through making contributions. In doing so, we support candidates from both sides of the aisle who best represent the views of our community, our employees, our consumers and our shareholders.”
Hacker has another answer: “My guess is they give money because… he can help by being absent, he can help by passing the buck, he can help by not passing the buck.”
________________________________________
Budweiser is the King of Beers — both in the cooler and on Capitol Hill. Anheuser-Busch is the top-selling beer manufacturer in the world. Last year, Forbes magazine ranked the company among its “Super 100.” Gross sales in 1999 hit $13.7 billion, with profits of $1.4 billion.
Anheuser-Busch has long spread that wealth among political parties and elected officials, continually ranking near the top of campaign finance watchdogs’ contributor lists. A New Times analysis reveals that between 1979 and 1999, Anheuser-Busch employees and its PAC contributed more than $1.6 million to political campaigns. Since 1993, the company has donated more than $2 million in soft money to committees on both sides of the aisle.
In addition to campaign contributions, Anheuser-Busch spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year on lobbyists who work the Hill. A recent hire: Kevin Curtin, former staff director for the Senate Commerce Committee under former chairman Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat.
The company is backed by a strong beer-industry lobby. The Beer Institute is a force to be reckoned with on the Hill, and the National Beer Wholesalers Association is a huge contributor: The NBWA PAC donated more than $7 million to campaigns since 1982 and more than $100,000 in soft money contributions.
Anheuser-Busch has a lot to protect. No alcohol company has had worse press regarding its advertising practices. There’s even a group called “Anheuser-Busch Shareholders for Advertising Reform,” which holds protests at the company’s annual meetings.
In 1996 — months before the Senate Commerce Committee hearings were scheduled and then canceled — the Center for Alcohol Advertising released a study that showed that children between 9 and 11 were more likely to recognize the Budweiser frogs than Kellogg’s Tony the Tiger, the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers or Smokey the Bear.
Only Bugs Bunny was better known than the frogs.
Like the rest of the alcohol industry, Anheuser-Busch has interests that go beyond the alcohol votes McCain avoids. For example, McCain led the charge to normalize relations with Vietnam at the same time Anheuser-Busch was preparing to enter that market. (A deal the company had to co-own a factory eventually fell through because of copyright problems. A Czech beer called “Bud” is already sold in Vietnam.)
A recent lobbyist disclosure revealed Anheuser-Busch’s many interests (along with alcohol, the company owns amusement parks): “The company lobbied on issues related to alcohol abuse and prevention, tobacco abuse prevention, advertising, labeling, and taxation. Anheuser-Busch also worked on endangered species issues, clean air act, recycling, product liability, national tobacco settlement, and transportation spending, as well as international trade including China’s Most Favored Nation status and federal budget and deficit decisions.”
Despite his claim, it’s impossible for Senator John McCain to recuse himself completely from important issues facing his family’s business.
Last month, Anheuser-Busch announced it would once again serve as the primary sponsor of the four official presidential debates to be held this fall — the last one in St. Louis, the company’s hometown. The cost of the local debate, $550,000, was released, but the total amount Anheuser-Busch will spend to sponsor the events was not made available.
Unless George W. Bush delivers a powerful counterpunch to McCain’s swelling bandwagon, John McCain will be standing on the Republican party podium for the debates paid for by the King of Beers.
At his side will be Ms. Bud.
Back home in Phoenix, beer baron James Willis Hensley might smile about the fabulous return on his political investment.
And all three will hope the bright lights will continue distracting voters from a persistent croaking sound echoing from history’s murky but noisy swamp.
“Boot.”
“Leg.”
“Er.”
Fantastic vid!
Yeah, well I’m watching Colbert and an amazing guest right now … *g*
((((( Loo Hoo )))))
please do not post huge comments that like.. it creates quite a load on the servers when ya do
in the future, can you break large comments up into several comments please
A little something, nahant!!??
Hey Suzanne! Moving into the pre-midnight hours. Congrats!
hey tex
Uh-oh, who’s the culprit?
the culprit knows
Plus it might be in violation of intellectual property laws…. linking and small sections are within the law but posting the whole post without permission could be a violation.
Besides…. that hiccup did hurt
Dang, nahant! Quite the comment!
OMG, me too!
Suzanne was replying to nahant’s comment which no longer exists, it appears
Ota
yeap. fair use is generally deemed to be 250 words or less
I won’t be a spoiler, but Pups, do NOT miss The Colbert Report tonight.
That was extraordinary !
The Doctor has the cure…!
Suz thats the way I received the email and didn’t think to break it up. and it was sent to a very large public list so No there should be no issues with sharing it!!
Wow. I refreshed the page, and nahant’s comment appeared…
We are amazed! And I clapped like a madwoman.