I Was Somewhere Or Another And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt

In a matter regarding one of the top five celebrities in the world, who is also among those many celebrities who have made frequent and prominent use of my material over the years (while forgetting to credit me), we were all recently provided with a very rare television appearance by one of his very close relatives. During the course of this TV appearance, a specific reference was made by this close relative of his to a particular physical location of a particular business establishment during the late 1970s, which also happens to be the identical spot where a woman I once knew was employed during the late 1970s. This same person who I once knew also knew the referred to top five celebrity, prior to being employed on this spot in the late 1970s. “Saturday Night Live”, in their first post-election show this year, chose to make several inside references to things regarding myself in relation to this same woman I once knew. It was far from the first time inside references were made to myself in relation to this woman, one can even find such inside references in the work of the referenced top five celebrity.

This is all I wish to say on this subject, and have only said this much out of respect for the top five celebrity and his very close relative. Based on my extensive experience with such things, this appears to have been this individual’s first attempt at making such an inside reference, and so I acknowledge it. I recognize that the inside reference is buried in deniability, being obscure even for those advanced in reading such indications as I’ve described, but one tends to encounter this precise level of ambiguity in those burying inside references into things for their first time. I now consider the matter close.

In a separate matter, I previously have referred to the show "Monk" making inside references to my material in just about every episode made, and have posted videoclips illustrating many of these on YouTube (where I am Zoomsteinhoff). I have also previously mentioned that in my job I was responsible this month for handling the organizing of a rebroadcast throughout Kaiser Permanente in Southern California that included a special performance by Tony Shaloub, the star of "Monk". Prior to the Tony Shaloub performance I emailed those assigned to assist me at other Kaiser Permanente Southern California locations that we were like an orchestra being led by a train conductor, and that we were a train that would stay on schedule (now and then I provide people with amusement, which is something I've been doing on a volunteer basis since I was little, and so this was meant for amusement purposes). When Tony Shaloub and several others assisting him took their positions onstage, one's initial reaction was that they were musicians performing in an orchestra, as they had things in front of them that looked like music stands for holding written music. Actually these things were there for them to place their pages on for reading, but I stand by my initial reaction as the universal one. Out of all of the presentations that were part of this broadcast, only one presentation was off-schedule: Tony Shaloub's, which ran 30 minutes long.

Though my orchestra schedule remarks may not have had anything to do with what followed, I would nevertheless be remiss not to acknowledge this as a possibility, when one sees my "Monk" videoclips on YouTube alongside my role in this Tony Shaloub performance.

I Give You

Once again, guess who is in proximity to the big news in Hollywood. That's right, yours truly has unmistakably, for those willing to check the facts, made his way somewhere or another.

Let's see if the simple presentation of evidence isn't more than you can handle, you sometimes less than smart people:

1. My little video, "Adventure At The Pasadena Batman Estate," as posted in 2005 (and indicated intransmutably at the archive.org site as having been posted three years ago) shows me drunkenly flying around ala Superman with a bottle of wine in my hand. Clearly something to point to when one sees the Will Smith movie, "Hancock" released in Summer 2008. By the way, Will Smith is often influenced by me, but let's stay focused.

2. The huge news officially announced today in Hollywood, a first in the world of mega-talk show stars, is that Jay Leno will be doing a show on NBC at 10pm every weeknight after he ceases to be host of "The Tonight Show" in 2009.

3. And now I give you a clip from last night's "The Tonight Show" (now please, be sure you first follow the link in item 1 to "Adventure At The Pasadena Batman Estate" (also at YouTube, incidentally), and second, think back on the movie "Hancock", otherwise I'm wasting my breath on you, and just what can you expect to get out this, for that matter):

JUST A FEW

Just a few things have happened since my December 2nd post:

The TV show, "Dirty Sexy Money" has once again incorporated into an episode (12.3.08) my Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's "Uncle's Dream" from 1990, 1992. It being that my video stars Bill Clayburgh, and "Dirty Sexy Money" stars his daughter, Academy Award-winning actress Jill Clayburgh, you might imagine that I am not unaccustomed to finding my Dostoyevsky in her work:



Another example of "Dirty Sexy Money" crossing paths with my Dostoyevsky can be found in the 10.17.07 episode:



Perhaps it is too much to ask people to further consider that, in order for "Dirty Sexy Money" to make use of my Dostoyevsky as seen in the 12.3.08 episode, the entire multi-episode plot line had to be complicit. I would hate to believe that the announced cancellation of "Dirty Sexy Money" was affected (i.e., ratings were negatively affected) by their interest in using my Dostoyevsky.

Many others have also made reference to this video of mine, whole movies, in fact, may never have been made. Go to YouTube and look for Zoomsteinhoff's (me) "Monk" clips, and you will find references to it that I've noted on that show going back several years. Even Paul McCartney in collaboration with Elvis Costello has found it useful.

I saw a line surface on the recent "24" that I believe may have originated with a recent statement I made. Donald Sutherland, who also stars on "Dirty Sexy Money", is of course the father of Kiefer Sutherland. Over the years I have occasionally seen indications of my influence on the show "24", and other Kiefer Sutherland product.

Regarding "Saturday Night Live", I have written only a few things this season specifically intended for them, and have watched those things lead to a substantial amount of presidential election water cooler conversation (to say the least), via channels other than SNL. Prior to the days when I would write things intended for SNL, SNL would nevertheless find out things going on in my life and work stuff into sketches that same week (I have been secretly super - important most of my life). They have reverted back to this in the absence of my writing things intended for them. I would hope that they appreciate the fact, as they have never literally used one of my sketch ideas, but instead have extracted things for use that same week, consistently almost every week for three years, that however one might characterize our "relationship", it has not been fulfilling for me as a writer. It has, however, been helpful in that it has motivated me to write a certain type of material, which in a few instances has even led to my creating videos from that material.

One last thing since my December 2nd post: I've been occasionally seeing people in traffic who may or may not be Sarah Silverman, to whom I referred in my previous post. Then again, people laughed at all of my Lennon sitings which occurred for five years after his death, preceding the ever-popular Elvis sitings others have made. A person such as myself is a likely target for people who are prone, out of boredom, to hire look-alikes, and so I do not retract my Lennon sitings. I've never asserted that they meant anything beyond the idea that I was being descended upon by look-alikes. As for Sarah Silverman, I should perhaps mention that I stopped watching her show after she did the episode condemning pot. Mind if I promote the idea that anyone who touches alcohol be incarcerated?

Don't Open Until Halloween

Now that I have seen Stephen Colbert's Christmas special, I am compelled to whisper (so as not to disturb anybody's silent night, or various people's codes of silence, or contribute to noise pollution, or the ruckus of the malcontented, etc.) how it seems quite likely that my material played no small role.

I begin with my knowledge that my material shows up on The Colbert Report and The Daily Show now and then, sometimes in a big way, for the most part as the consequence of my sending my material to Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel. I refer to two of Hollywood's biggest producers, who I met in 1975 and 1971, respectively, before they were producers.

On August 16, 2006 I emailed to both an idea for SNL, "Bullish", which can be found on a page of my website (as the second comedy sketch idea on that page). Both the Colbert special and "Bullish" give prominence to the idea of people surviving being eaten by a bear thru a hero cutting open the bear that swallowed them, followed by the expression of thanks in a manner that falls short of an awareness of how ludicrous it all is. I first give you several lines from "Bullish", should clicking the above "Bullish" link be too noisy:

STEVE

Thanks for slicing open those bears and getting us out, Ranger Dan.

WAYNE

Yeah!

RANGER DAN

Don’t mention it, fellows.


I now give you a clip showing the dramatic resolution of the central dilemma of the story from Colbert's Christmas special:



As a final cherry on top of the Christmas tree (don't bother clicking on cherry, it won't open a link to anything - I'm just trying to make this all feel more festive), tomorrow night will be the premier of Elvis Costello's new talk show on the Sundance channel. It could just be TV history - why not? And as one more cherry for the road, yesterday Jimmy Kimmel and I looked at each other in traffic. Jimmy Kimmel, as everyone knows, is the ex-boyfriend of Sarah Silverman - in fact, last night his show was a repeat of Sarah Silverman's appearance, the only one taped after their breakup. Sarah Silverman, as everyone knows, is one of a handful of stars with their own Comedy Central TV show, Stephen Colbert being another member of that small group of people.

Disclaimer:
No part of Jimmy Kimmel has ever been pulled out of any part of a bear (in fact, Kimmel and Silverman were never actually married).

Give My Regards To Silence

Despite this blog site's unfortunate limitation of not being able to testify as to when I post - it indicates time and date of posting, but apparently makes it my option as to what time and date are set - I will nevertheless be making this the new home of my "Monk" and other TV/movie videoclip postings.

My "Monk" videoclip postings help illustrate how almost every "Monk" episode ever made incorporates inside references to my material, possibly the result of (or initiated by) the fact that the former head of USA Networks (which makes "Monk") was the first person from whom I learned of the college I attended (CalArts). [On this subject, one may also wish to read my Oct. 26th blog, wherein I refer to how, at my 9-5, I also happen to be responsible for organizing the rebroadcast, to Kaiser Permanente employees throughout Southern California, an IHI satellite broadcast of a conference program that includes an appearance by Tony Shaloub (star of "Monk") in a comedy sketch, occurring in several weeks.]

Up until now I have been posting these TV/movie types of videoclips at YouTube rather than at archive.org where I tend to post my works of a more independent significance. YouTube is now a problem. I was notified by YouTube that, per Fox, I had violated their rules with the posting of a "Simpsons" clip (which I posted because it was related to my other "Simpsons" clips). I have subsequently removed all of my "Simpsons" clips from YouTube. In a description I had posted at YouTube that went with the posting of one of my "Simpsons" clips, I pointed out that whenever "The Simpsons" makes inside references to my material, it tends to also involve "Limbo", a CalArts student film my class made in 1973-1974 (also related: during the '70s a supervising director of "The Simpsons" used to live down the hall from me at CalArts, the two of us knowing people in common). YouTube automatically testified to/posted intransmutably the date of this "Limbo" tendency reference regarding "The Simpsons". Two weeks later a "Simpsons" episode featured Homer doing the limbo dance (while singing the limbo dance song). This tended to substantiate my statement regarding what I saw going on with "The Simpsons". The chronology of my statement was important.

Prior to the days when I would post my "Simpsons" clips on YouTube, I would email my "Simpsons" videoclips to a former CalArts classmate who had also been involved with the "Limbo" scenes referenced (I emailed these clips to at most three other people). This individual is a friend of Senator Kennedy (his father once was a famous senator with whom Kennedy co-sponsored more bills than with anyone else), and although this former classmate and I were never more than acquaintances, I felt it noteworthy, as "The Simpsons" is the only show to feature a Ted Kennedy character (the Mayor of Springfield). I also consider it noteworthy that this former classmate had years ago incorporated an inside reference to my contribution to "Limbo" on a TV show he produced, on the same exact episode that included a Senator Kennedy guest appearance. [Perhaps at some future time I will go into my various "Kennedy Connections".]

PRECISELY TWO MINUTES before YouTube sent me the email indicating I was in violation due to the "Simpsons" clip, my "Didtheyreadit.com" technology (a technology I use and inform people I use) indicated to me that this same former classmate had reopened an email I had once sent him (excluding a few Obama/Kennedy subjects, I have only sent this individual "Simpsons" related emails). The next "Simpsons" TV episode was about Lisa Simpson receiving a secret message from Homer via a crossword puzzle published in a magazine (Homer had arranged it with the people who created the crossword puzzle).

Some may expect this to leave me with the sense that inside references should not be made public. That as I point attention to the references, I nevertheless should not try to prove that I know what I'm talking about. That if people make fortunes from my ideas, this fact can be buried by (1) mixing together in one's mind these idea-usage occurrences with things that are nothing more than inside references, and (2) burying/eliminating the evidence that these idea usages and inside references are even taking place. Assassinate my character/ intelligence/ credibility, all with my willing consent by engaging my complicity in a Mafia-like code of silence.

It should be pointed out that this former classmate might have somehow been tricked into performing his "Simpsons"-related act (opening a "Simpsons"-related email exactly two minutes before I was sent the "Simpsons"-related violation notice from YouTube) when he did. It would not have been difficult for someone on the inside to have set him up to appear guilty. Yet at the same time, one might have to consider that this same former classmate is also a longtime friend of Craig Bronfman, whose family-owned Seagrams bought Universal when Spielberg was there. Spielberg would be among those with the most to gain by cajoling me into this code of silence "game" - though I also sometimes wonder why Spielberg so often chooses to be influenced by my material, which in a non-corrupt world would make him seem quite guilty to any intelligent person in possession of the easy-to-access (at least for now) facts. I see where it may all be seen as a friendly sort of thing in the end (see previous blogs for references to Cornfeld and Daniel, two Spielberg & Steinhoff-related people). Who needs money?

The following videoclip relates the November 28, 2008 "Monk" episode to my 1998 "Gosk" material (my three most referred-to works are my "Gosk", "Uncle's Dream" and "Mall Man" videos):





And finally, a follow-up to my previous blog of November 22nd. In that blog I made reference (and provided a link) to the music video for my song, "The Gravity". That song includes a description of waiting a ridiculous amount of time for my waitress to return with the check, yet she leaves the restaurant without bringing me my check. That very same night (11.22.08), "Saturday Night Live" performed a comedy sketch in which Fred Armisen played a character waiting a ridiculous amount of time for his pizza in a restaurant/bar, until he leaves without it. Those who have been following my blogs would not have difficulty connecting these (though those seeing my November 22nd blog for the first time after November 22nd would unfortunately have no evidence of the chronology of events just described).

The Fireman Theory, or Cheerio

In the past few weeks there has been quite a set of things hurling me into the center of it all sort of kind of, not one of which do I care to discuss at this time, and so on to other matters.

Sir Paul McCartney has an unknown (Whatever that word means: if 500 people know something that no one else knows are they outnumbered, thereby not knowing? Or if 501 people disagree, believing that the thing cannot actually be said to be known, do they win?) history of doing things of secret significance when it comes to me. The absurd/crazy sound of that has played no small part in maintaining the unknown-ness of these actions.

For me to continue from my McCartney premise, it would therefore seem that I must throw the pupils in my Beginners class to the side of the road. I will then ask the people in my Intermediate class to keep them company, patch up their bruises (we were traveling at about 40 mph when we threw the Beginners class to the side of the road, so I expect there to be some bruises, not to mention screams of "Lunatic!" that I would rather not hear. Have you Intermediates any gags on you?). And so on this one I can only proceed with my Advanced class.

Now this is just a theory, based on tendencies and facts:

When I did the title song of my "The Gravity" CD in 2002 (not to be confused with my "Gravity" cassette from the late '80s, early '90s, different song, different stage of my musical development), and I made reference to the breakfast cereal Cheerios, ("I just want to go out into that world that I used to see on my box of Cheerios when I was young"), I knew something would be made of it by the Cheerios people. I did not include a reference to Cheerios for that reason, however, my experience informed me that there was an excellent chance it would get picked up on in some way by Cheerios. Sure enough, Cheerios shortly thereafter did a TV commercial of two trucks, one carrying Cheerios and the other carrying their new thing to combine with Cheerios. Now before the Beginners class insists there is nothing contained in this fact (I know you Beginners are still there), I hasten to describe how I had once created a thing where there was a lobster truck and a spilled truck with butter. I was sure to see in the Cheerios commercial an idea I had used, and though others might have independently come up with the same idea, how is it that it was Cheerios, which I already expected to do something. In addition to this, Cheerios did another TV commercial where a little boy refers to his heart as making a "clerp" sound. Clerp is the name of one of the central characters in my "Gosk" videos. And let us not forget the scene (though we may try) in "Ready To Rumble", where a truck carrying toilet paper collides with a truck carrying filled port-o-johns. David Arquette, the star of "Ready To Rumble", is part of a group that includes a star of my "Gosk" video, Robbie, who at one point was also going to star Rosanna Arquette in his Anita O'Day movie (he ended up doing an Anita O'Day documentary instead, starring Anita O'Day). Robbie also once introduced me to David Arquette's assistant, Whitney. Paul McCartney, it has been well publicized, is a good friend of Rosanna Arquette (particularly publicized after his split from Heather Mills, in fact, Rosanna Arquette was one of the only names associated with McCartney in the media during that period). Those who accept these facts as known may or may not feel inclined to allow me to do a tad less hastening in my explanation, yet the rest, well, they like to make me hasten. I must hasten to add this, hasten to add that, not fair, really.

Paul McCartney's newest release is "Electric Arguments" by The Fireman (a two-man group, McCartney and Youth), due out in a day or two. Based on the above-referenced unknown history of Paul McCartney, I had to see if there was anything of mine to correlate with his new CD (one can hear it on MySpace, courtesy of McCartney, and view the cover all over the place). All that I could come up with was a correlation between his "The Fireman" CD cover and my "The Gravity" CD video cover (see images above). Now anyone in the world could win the argument that for two people to each draw a circle does not imply a relationship. An intelligent person would be required to defend that, depending on the specific context, such an implication certainly could exist. Even half-circles, even quarter circles, even a one-inch line. Context is everything.

When I think of the name, "The Fireman", I hear a few possible things, one of which is what I heard repeated throughout this week's "Life On Mars" TV episode: the cliche of what a kid (Youth?) wants to be when he grows up - a fireman. On "Life On Mars" the kid wanted to be an astronaut or a policeman, but it comes to the same thing. This is the week of the new Fireman release, and in that cliche of wanting to be a fireman, I also hear the line from my "The Gravity": "I just want to go out into that world that I used to see on my box of Cheerios when I was young". A child's perspective on the world and one's future place in the world.

So this is my theory of where McCartney might be pointing. And if he is, because I am only 78% certain, it isn't something my Beginners or even my Intermediates can accept. And if you lousy Beginners and Intermediates think I leave it to you to tell me my true role in the world, you'd better finish your Wheaties.

If It's Not In The News It Couldn't Have Happened

I believe my previous, November 6th blog did some stage setting for this blog.

Well, firstly, no it didn't seem that Ben Stiller had anything to say on Letterman for my benefit. Yet nevertheless I should make mention of the fact that my Stuart ("Ben Stiller's Producer Partner at Red Hour") Cornfeld video, which accompanied my August 13th blog, featured a pirate costume and a thought towards seeing it in context, while Stiller told of a pirate costume being witnessed out of its proper context. So, same discussion perhaps, though nothing pointing to me.

A few other things of general significance have happened regarding me since my last blog, however, tons of backstory would be required to zero in on the context into which I would put these particular things. One involves Karl Rove, but it's sort of a long way to go and for what? Another involves me apparently being followed around over this past weekend by people cued by a sophisticated database of information regarding me, but what else is new? So I guess a few things will get buried, at least for now.

In my last (11/6/08) blog I promised a more explicit rendering of the result from my having created the comedy sketch idea, "The Weight" (first referred to in my Oct. 26th blog). In a way, my previous, November 6th blog already said it all on this subject, for those willing to do the due diligence follow-up research on their own. Nevertheless, I've also made a videoclip, just to make things more difficult for the skeptical, and for those pretending to be skeptical for ulterior purposes:





And lastly, my occasionally referred to comedy sketch idea (intended for SNL), "Peek-a-Boo, ICU", first referred to in my Sept. 28th blog, a sketch idea which led to an oft-referred to occurrence during the Brokaw-moderated second presidential debate (though one doesn't hear anyone attributing it to my sketch idea), experienced another inside-reference. On the November 1st Saturday Night Live, during the second-to-last sketch of the evening (on a night when McCain himself, in person, was occasionally surfacing in comedy sketches, poised to provide a certain form of closure to the world preceding the November 4th election), one looking for my "Peek-a-Boo" would have been particularly aware of this moment:

Things I Will Never Say Out Loud

Before the "Things I Will Never Say Out Loud" portion of this blog, I first want to express my exhilaration at Barack Obama's election. This real-life suspense can really deplete one's energy, especially when one shudders at what might have happened if McCain hadn't taken a dive by choosing Palin. At last the push for attitudinal stupidity that's been gradually insinuating itself into everything everywhere has been countered, through the election of someone who went to Harvard, the hardest school to get into in the country. That Obama graduated first in his class at Harvard and then made President of the U.S. has to stand as a beacon for those perpetually browbeaten by the stupid, and their arrogant accusations of over-thinking whenever they see themselves in a situation with someone to whom they feel inferior.

In a couple of hours Ben Stiller is scheduled to appear as a guest on the Letterman show. As Stiller runs “Red Hour Films” with Stuart Cornfeld (see my blog of 8/13/08), I occasionally find such Stiller appearances to contain inside references for my benefit. Following my assessment of this Stiller appearance, I may or may not have something to bring to this blog.

One thing definitely upcoming for my next blog: I will put together a correlation of my comedy sketch idea, “The Weight” (see my previous blog), about CNN’s then upcoming election night coverage, with CNN’s actual election night coverage. In both instances, CNN contrived the gimmick of being on a spacecraft while covering the election results. In my comedy sketch, the pundits float weightlessly in a spacecraft while discussing the results. In the actual CNN coverage, they use an effect to “beam up” holograms of people reporting on the election, which is referred to as being out of the TV show, “Star Trek” (from whence comes the expression, “beam me up, Scotty”). It can be proven that my sketch “The Weight” was posted on archive.org on 10/26/08, clearly prior to CNN’s actual unveiling of this election night surprise gimmick.

In the meantime I give you this, "Things I Will Never Say Out Loud", which might seem more meaningful/less absurd to those who have more closely and intelligently followed the weight that has continually been attached to my actions throughout most of my life:

1. Several days prior to McCain’s May appearance on The Daily Show, I sent out a comedy sketch idea to someone who always circulates my ideas to SNL and The Daily Show. My idea was about how The Bowery Boys, now grown up, were all suing each other for defamation of character because when they were young they used to speak to and about each other in a derisive, disrespectful manner. At the end of my sketch, Slip Mahoney comes out a few dollars ahead of the others after each are made to pay some amount to each of the others. This causes Slip to call them all “JERKS”, and for using this word “JERKS” he is made to pay out the few dollars he had gained. Several days later on The Daily Show, a program to which my ideas are always circulated and where they often end up, McCain told Stewart that now he had to talk to him nice and with respect, as he had become the Republican’s assumed presidential nominee since his last appearance on the show. Later during that same Daily Show appearance McCain said that he suspected the Secret Service’s code word for him was “JERK”.

2. Several days before McCain brought up the whole “Joe The Plumber” thing (the third presidential debate, October), I sent an email to Ringo Starr, “Shining Time Ringo”, relating to my having contributed to his backdrop on “Shining Time Station”, a show about “Thomas The Tank Engine”. Owing to my having long been a major influence on Ringo, the context of my suddenly sending this email was automatically an important one.

3. Several weeks prior to the second presidential debate, which was hosted by Tom Brokaw in October, I wrote a comedy sketch idea, “Peek-a-Boo, ICU”, referred to in my 9/28/08 blog, which was about the then-upcoming second presidential debate, using Brokaw as a character in the sketch idea (as it was known he would be moderating). My comedy sketch derives humor primarily from McCain doing what he can to obstruct a view of himself. In the actual debate, at the very end, Brokaw gets annoyed at McCain for visually obstructing his view. Those seeking to derive humor from the actual debate made repeated references to this actual view obstruction on McCain’s part.

4. On August 15th I sent an email regarding a video I was working on, wherein I referred to how it was influenced by British comedy legend Michael PALIN and several others with whom Palin used to work. As my video was about a wolf man and this email was sent to the producer of an upcoming movie about a wolf man (the producer being someone I have consistently been an influence on, a Spielberg and Geffen friend who was the first person who told me about the college I attended, CalArts), the email had a built-in special significance. As my influence on this producer has led to my being a significant influence on Spielberg, this email may have been seen as containing a very, very special significance. On August 24th I posted my wolf man video. On August 29th McCain announced Sarah PALIN as his VP pick. Up until McCain’s thrusting of Sarah Palin into the spotlight, many would have automatically associated the name PALIN with only one person, Michael Palin. To put it another way, a contestant on a game show, if asked for a first name to put with the name “Palin”, would have automatically answered, “Michael”, that is, up until August 29th, after which the answer would have become “Sarah”.

The Weight

1. Of relevance to my October 17th blog: On approximately October 21st (give or take a day) Billy Joel drove by me. My experience in such things, in terms of a pre-existing context, suggest the possibility of his having been dispatched by Paul McCartney to drive by me.

2. In mid-2006 I began posting videoclips on YouTube (as Zoomsteinhoff) regarding the fact that every episode made of the TV show "Monk" (give or take a few) includes inside references to my material. I attribute this to the fact that the first person who told me of the college I went to (CalArts) used to run USA Networks, which makes "Monk". "Monk" continues these references in every episode to this day. Meanwhile, where I am employed at Kaiser Permanente's Southern California regional headquarters, this is the second year I am in charge of (organizing) the providing of an opportunity, for all Southern California employees, to spend two full days in December watching a special rebroadcast of a two-day satellite broadcast of an IHI (Institute for Healthcare Improvement) event. The relevant thing here is that this year this IHI broadcast will include a play performed specially for this event by three actors: F. Murray Abraham, Tony Shaloub (star of "Monk") and Brooke Adams (Shaloub's wife).

3. Last night's "Saturday Night Live", as usual, included references to my material, though this time not in the opening (see my October 19th blog). Specifically, the "Vincent Price's Halloween Special" sketch referred in several ways to my SNL sketch idea, "Peek-a-Boo, ICU" (see my September 28th blog and the last paragraph of my October 17th blog). In my sketch idea, to improve onscreen visibility someone is asked to move something to the left but instead that just makes it worse, as in last night's SNL sketch. Furthermore, last night's SNL sketch has the Kristen Wiig character stopping in front of the camera, irritatingly blocking the view, as in my sketch and the resultant moment in the second presidential debate. To understand why I am certain on this, one might need to have experienced the long history of such things, wherein the first similarity tips one off that another similarity to the same material is on its way later in the sketch, and sure enough, without fail, there it is.

4. My new SNL sketch idea, entitled, "The Weight":

THE WEIGHT

A comedy sketch idea by Jonathan D. Steinhoff 10/26/08

This sketch is designed to be presented throughout the show in one-minute segments, in the same way that the SNL “McGruber” segments are presented throughout the show in short segments.

It is Election Night and, as we eventually hear in Wolf Blitzer’s rationalization to one of the guest political pundits for all of the bruises he’s receiving, CNN had to come up with a gimmick, as competition for viewers on Election Night is tremendous. With all of the mishaps, however, Wolf eventually wonders publicly if it really was such a good idea. The space capsule circling the Earth, causing the political pundits to be floating around in a weightless state while having their discussion, that was good. But maybe the trampoline floor, walls and ceiling might have been going too far. James Carville is complaining that he feels like he’s a pinball in a pinball machine, and Andrea Mitchell was knocked unconscious when she was dramatically catapulted across the capsule into a sink just as she was explaining why it was the economy that was making Florida look increasingly like it was going with Barrack. Andrea Mitchell continues floating around after this, only is now unconscious for the duration. Wolf occasionally calls to her to see if she’s revived yet, then says, “Nope, she’s still out. I wanted to ask her…. Oh well.” Periodically John King floats by as if he has mastered the trampoline-enhanced weightlessness, coming out of the bottom left corner of the screen, floating towards the upper right corner, while simultaneously calling out a new state going for Obama with each appearance: “And CNN is now projecting Iowa for Obama.” Wolf, off-camera, says, “Does it say that? Because I’m upside-down right now, but I thought it might be saying that.” John King, off-camera now, says, “That’s right, Wolf.” For a while no one is on-camera. Wolf, whispering loudly, says, “I’m being told no one is being picked up by the camera right now. James, do you think you can fling yourself over there? How about you, Hitchens? Hitchens! Hey, has anybody seen Christopher Hitchens? I’m trying to get there myself but I keep somersaulting around, I’m not quite sure where I am, I’m a little dizzy in fact.” James Carville, also speaking in a loud whisper, says, “Don’t ask me, Wolf, I’m like a pinball in a pinball machine, absolutely no control where I’m going. I would, however, like very much to say something about McCain’s dirty tricks backfiring during the campaign. Can I do that without being on-camera?” “Sure, go ahead. You know, I thought this would work, the space capsule idea, and then Campbell kept saying, ‘And with trampolines! With trampolines!’ I told them that would be overdoing it, nobody listened. Had to be a HUGE gimmick, right?” John King flies by on-camera announcing another state for Barrack. Wolf resumes, “And we all know how fierce the competition for viewers is on Election Night. I should have argued more.” James Carville says, “I’m getting all bruised up here, Wolf. Maybe if they had let us practice just with trampolines before they put us here.” Wolf says, “Sorry to hear about your bruises, James. Okay, well, let’s return to Campbell Brown in the studio for now. We’ll be returning up here a little later on in the show. And we’re out. There’s no way Christopher Hitchens could have accidentally floated out of the space capsule, is there? Good, no, I didn’t think so, I was just checking, because nobody’s seen him for a while. Look behind where?” James Carville says, “Ouch!” Wolf asks, “Are you okay, James?” “Nothing. I just banged my head again. I think it says Wisconsin went with Barrack. Of course, we all expected that.” Wolf says, “Yeah, that was pretty much predicted.”

They've Got Me Surrounded They Think

Here is the story of a camp counselor I met in 1971 named Sean, who once headed the film company David Geffen had before DreamWorks. I've edited it down to focus on the part of his story that connects to me and my first 29 billion trillion dollars:



And of course it doesn't end here.

Talk Is Cheap Unless You Leverage The 5% Rate Increase On 83% Of Stuff

For those who look to me to help them keep track of Saturday Night Live's inside references to me/my material, and/or make these inside references and seek acknowledgement that I noticed them:

In my September 30th blog, I described (with checkable references) how the SNL September 27h opening (I emphasize the word "opening" because these SNL presidential campaign- related show openings all become instant repeatables, clips airing on all of the news shows as part of that week's presidential campaign news) contained something that started with me. My September 30th blog also described how, for several years, there has scarcely been an SNL without something that started with me. How, for the most part, the things they used were pre-designated by me for the very same night's show in which they were contained.

In my October 1st blog, at the end of the second paragraph, as part of a description of something I wrote to McCartney in 1975 that contributed to a 1975 Laine/McCartney song lyric, I wrote:

"if he should ever wish to visit my school, CalArts, I would be delighted to show him around"

With the Vice Presidential Candidates Debate occurring on Thursday, October 2nd, the following SNL, October 4th, opened the show with a sketch containing the Joe Biden character saying:

"I'll show you around some time"

The following Saturday, October 11th, SNL broadcast a repeat, and so the very next new SNL was October 18th (last night). That show opened with Alec Baldwin saying to (the actual) Sarah Palin:

"let me take you for a tour of the studio"

SNL Clips, 10.04.08, 10.18.08:



I'm not sure what this might say to you out of context (by which I mean, the context of SNL and others regularly referencing me/my material, which serve to reinforce my conclusions regarding from whence cameth these). With the election two weeks from this Tuesday, would it sound self-centered for me to wish my 9-5 wasn't sapping my energy, diverting me from focusing on this little matter of an election that could seriously change the course of humanity and our planet?

I Now Pronounce This Ring Open

On October 1st my blog asked that Paul McCartney and Denny Laine (McCartney’s main musical collaborator after John Lennon) reunite for Billy Joel's and Bruce Springsteen’s concert for Obama on October 16th, which was to be (and was) attended by Obama. The day following my blog, October 2nd, the “What Goes On” Beatles website carried an article about an October 11th Denny Laine concert. That article offered several email addresses that might easily lead to Denny Laine, and so, being handed this the day after my Denny Laine blog, I emailed several people, under the Subject line, “Laine Help In A Specific Way,” a paraphrase of the line from the title song of the Beatles movie, “Help”: “I never needed anybody’s Help In Any Way.”

At the October 16th Billy Joel/Bruce Springsteen concert for Obama, according to an Associated Press article, Laine and McCartney did not appear. The article did not state this specifically, however, we will assume that it would have mentioned this had it occurred. Okay, I can see that.

What the article also did was to mention the fact that Billy Joel played the title song from the Beatles movie, “A Hard Days Night”. The Beatles have created a substantial number of songs. I therefore find it noteworthy that from all of the Beatles material to draw from (or not), I referred to the title song of one of the two Beatles movies in my efforts to make something happen at that October 16th concert, and the title song from the other Beatles movie was in actuality performed at that same concert.

This is far from the first time I had an influence on Billy Joel, who once sat next to me on an airplane in 1978, several weeks before Paul McCartney sent me a letter, which was several weeks before I graduated from CalArts.

Changing the subject, but remaining on a related topic, some may have noticed that my September 28th blog announced a new Saturday Night Live sketch idea of mine, “Peek-A-Boo, ICU”, including a link to where one could read it. This is also evidence of when I wrote it, because archive.org indicates, in a non-transmutable way, the date when things are posted there. My sketch was about the then upcoming presidential debate hosted by Tom Brokaw, and more specifically, about people’s views being blocked. In the actual debate, McCain’s actual blocking of Brokaw’s actual view became the actual source of much actual humor. Nor was this the first time McCain helped himself to my material, his last appearance on The Daily Show being another example. Are you ready to consider that it was deliberate when McCain blocked Brokaw's view? Okay, well I can appreciate how difficult it must be to accept the idea that at times my influence, at least on a certain, secret track, should be as powerful as, say, Paul McCartney’s. As for me, I've been seeing the extent of my influence in an unobstructed way for most of my life.

Paul McCartney and Denny Laine: Give Barrack Obama Your Vote

Let’s suppose that those who have been keeping an intelligent, careful eye on American politics would not be completely convinced by the current polls, which at present indicate that the election is Barrack Obama’s. Things continue to change at the drop of a hat, in spite of each new configuration of the way America “feels” being initially perceived as written in stone. And so, let us suppose that, just as a McCain presidency would place Palin dangerously close to the highest office in the land, perhaps the world, so McCain is dangerously close to winning the presidency. To sit back with the sense that nothing need be done about this, were one in a position to do something, might therefore be the highest form of irresponsibility.

In 1975-76, Paul McCartney and Denny Laine did a song called, “Must Do Something About It,” which was based on a communication I had sent to Paul McCartney at a time when, like now, I was of significance to Paul McCartney. My communication immediately followed a McCartney radio interview, in which he said that on his upcoming concert tour he was likely to do his songs note perfect to the version heard on the recordings, as that’s what the people wanted. My communication stated that it (the communication) should be regarded as my vote, that it would be more real if he felt at liberty to change the notes, and that if he should ever wish to visit my school, CalArts, I would be delighted to show him around (i.e., “hold your coat”).

When one considers that Denny Laine became Paul McCartney’s main musical collaborator following John Lennon, it seems something of a contrast to, in any manner, juxtapose that song’s “must do something about it…. or not” persona within proximity of Lennon’s “I sure as hell will do something about stuff” outward persona.

And that brings us to the stage that has now been set. Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel (who sat next to me on an airplane Easter Sunday 1978, the year the Pope would have wanted to be sitting next Billy Joel, owing to his recent hit about a Catholic girl hiding behind a stained glass curtain counting on her rosary; Easter Sunday 1978, three weeks before I received a letter from Paul McCartney regarding my upcoming graduation from film school; Easter Sunday 1978, six weeks before Rolling Stone Magazine’s June Random Notes piece about Lennon considering a part in a movie called “Street Messiah”, which I followed up on, and might have succeeded in working on had it ever been made) will be performing for Obama on October 16th, with surprise guests.

There is a great, wise expression: “It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it.” I would not want McCartney publicly supporting Obama if it were to be done clumsily, in a run of the mill fashion, as a typical celebrity endorsement, or tainted by seeming like an upstaging, or as something pointedly alienating to anyone not of like mind. But what I would love to see would be if McCartney could find a good way to fuse a Beatle-like feeling (from when they suggested the group persona of a social movement) together with the kind of support for Obama that is like being part of the rising spirit of a new social movement.

The suggestion I would like to make, as simple as it may sound, would accomplish a lot, in addition to meeting the only real criteria – it feels “right”: I would like to suggest a reunion of Paul McCartney and Denny Laine as part of the Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen Obama event. It would provide the perfect proximity to present times for the “ghost” of John Lennon’s activist spirit; it would contain the promise of musical chemistry yet unexplored; it is the right time, as Denny Laine’s new book about Paul McCartney could be seen as implying that their famous relationship could now finally be in the right place for such a musical reunion.

Obviously, I am far outside of the real inner issues McCartney and Laine would have to address in making such a decision. So: let this opinion of mine just be seen as.... one vote.

Misleading Title

I was staring at the title of my previous blog (which is also the title of my comedy sketch idea), "Peek-A-Boo, ICU", for about, I don't know, an hour, and suddenly all I wanted to do was make everything simple, just like in a game of peek-a-boo.

I've many times pointed out that SNL ("Saturday Night Live") has made quite a bit of use of my ideas, using my ideas in the very same week's show the ideas were designated for. In my Sept. 28th blog I mentioned the most recent example, although admittedly, my idea in this instance "surfaced" in my September 16th blog and used on the September 27th SNL, a rather substantial 11-day interim. This, however, was a special circumstance: it followed the first two shows in two years that didn't use my ideas (as I've mentioned in previous blogs). And so it is only fair to regard this as a reunion, a special circumstance, or perhaps, an-I-don't-know-what.

I stated in my first paragraph here that suddenly I want to make everything simple. So to make good on that promise, here is where my idea originally appeared (look at the Comment by JonathanDS below the article), and here is where it wound up on SNL:

Peek-A-Boo, ICU

Having recently been reinstated as a secret, unacknowledged contributor to "The Daily Show", "The Colbert Report", and "Saturday Night Live", I therefore felt it as not inappropriate to come up with something. First though, a brief mention regarding the recent indications of reinstatement:

1. I've already referenced the Daily Show indications in recent blogs.
   
2. On SNL last night they had the joke that Sarah Palin went to see "The Bush Doctrine" movie in NYC's Times Square, and found the title misleading. In my Sept. 16th blog, I refer to my joke that Sarah Palin found misleading the title of the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" - it was not about dismantling the idea that the stork brings babies (my implication being that she had attempted to provide a form of sex education to her one-time unpregnant daughter). Were one familiar with the consistency with which SNL has made reference to my material, one would be more likely to appreciate this as more than coincidence.
3. Several days ago when I was thanked at work during a national videoconference for organizing the videoconference, I made a muscle and pointed to it. That night at the opening of "The Colbert Report", Colbert made muscles in general reference to the greatness attributed to him. Were one familiar with my past observations that "The Colbert Report" occasionally gathers material from infiltrating my work situation (there are only several people regarding whom I consistently make this claim, Colbert being one of them), one would be more likely to appreciate this as more than coincidence.

And now my new SNL idea:

PEEK-A-BOO, ICU

A comedy sketch idea by Jonathan D. Steinhoff, 9/28/08

[Tom Brokaw is sitting alone on a stage, at a table, facing the audience. On the table are two video cell phones, perched on cell phone stands, facing each other. On one cell phone can be seen live, standing at a podium, McCain, Obama is seen live standing at a podium on the other cell phone. A clear water glass and a water glass pitcher are also on the table.]

Brokaw: Good evening everyone, and welcome to the second presidential debate. Some of you may have noticed that, instead of Senators John McCain and Barrack Obama being present together onstage, there are instead video cell phones on the table, upon which each can be seen, live. You see (clears throat), we noticed at the previous presidential debate that the candidates seemed a little reluctant to speak directly to each other.

Obama: John wouldn’t even look at me, Tom.

McCain: I was trying to concentrate.

Brokaw: And so what we’ve done here, the thing we decided to do…

Obama: I had nothing to do with this decision. Absolutely nobody checked with me first.

McCain (smiling and winking): Uh, nor, uh, me, right Tom?

Brokaw: What we’re doing is, we have two video cell phones with each candidate, the video cell phones positioned to face each other. Our hope is that gradually the candidates will feel more comfortable with each other, and later on during the debate perhaps, we can remove the video cell phones and have them face each other directly.

Obama: As you wish. (muttering) Might as well be a radio debate.

McCain: We did quite well before there even was such a thing as television, or cell phones, or…. Whatever you want to do, Tom.

[Brokaw pours himself some water, has a sip, then places the water glass in between the two video cell phones.]

Brokaw: My first question is for you, Senator McCain.

Obama: Excuse me, uh, Tom, I’m sorry to interrupt, but, uh, you put your water glass on the table between the two video cell phones. So that, well, now all that I can see is the water glass, basically. I can make out a little bit of movement of colors on the other side of the water glass, but other than that….

McCain: That’s perfectly okay with me, Tom, if you want to put your water glass there that’s fine, I don’t mind a bit.

Obama: I can just sort of make out the color of Senator McCain’s clothes now with the water glass there. Is this supposed to be like some amusement park mirror debate? Because, I mean….

Brokaw: Should I move the glass to the left or the right. I’m not sure which way….

McCain: It’s fine where it is, Tom. I would prefer that you leave your glass where it is.

Obama: You know, metaphorically, this all sort of reminds me of the way Senator McCain’s vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, seems to find things to hide behind whenever she’s called upon to answer a real question.

McCain: Please, we’re just talking about where Tom wants to put his water glass. For goodness sake, he is the debate moderator, isn’t he entitled to a glass of water?

Obama: John, is that really the issue? Tom, uh, to the left, Tom. No, that just made it worse.

Brokaw: This way then?

McCain: I’m still waiting for the first question.

Obama: It really shouldn’t be so complicated to move a water glass away from two cell phones.

Brokaw: Yes, well, if you recall, in the previous debate, Senator McCain demonstrated a certain reluctance to look directly at you.

McCain: I was just trying to concentrate.

Obama: I see, so then the truth is, Tom, you deliberately placed the water glass there to block our view of each other.

Brokaw: I’m sorry John, I told you he wouldn’t go along with the water glass thing.

McCain: I have no idea what you’re talking about, Tom.

Obama: It’s like I’m looking at an amusement park mirror.

McCain: You’ve said that already.

Obama: Tom, can I at least ask that you drink some more water out of the glass, I can sort of see his form better when there’s less water in the glass.

McCain: Can we just wait until Tom is thirsty before we ask him to drink more water? For goodness sake.

Brokaw: That might be a good question. John, would you say the glass is half full or half empty?

Obama: Why would you ask - Tom, I just want you to drink a little more water. Now look, I’ve shown I’m ready to compromise on this, even more than I should, quite honestly. I didn’t ask you to remove the glass altogether.

Brokaw: John? Half full, half empty. Which would you say?

McCain: I, uh….

Brokaw: Senator McCain, one last time, half-full or half-empty?

McCain: Half full or half empty?

Obama: I just sort of see this white blur. And now I know you’re going to try to say that remark is racially motivated, but it’s the truth, I….

McCain: Here’s what Senator Obama doesn’t understand.

Obama: What? What don’t I understand?

McCain: Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!

THE END

Roll Over, Not Enough Time For The Beethoven

What was I thinking when I wrote my previous blog, "Not Enough Time For The Beethoven"? For those who followed-up on the Terrance Williams reference that blog contained, the phrase, "Not enough time for the Beethoven," refers to a line Terrance's character speaks in my "Gosk" video.

But I mean, what was I thinking? That just because everyone all over the place of great stature for years and years and years has valued my material, bringing pieces of it to countless works in various popular mediums, through which the public values it, that therefore I should have a position resembling in any way who I am in the world? How naive, how upsetting of ALL the apple carts, how oblivious to the complex interconnectivity of all things that would surely be convoluted by an appropriate response to me. Oh yes, I do get an appropriate response whenever (okay, sometimes when) I order a cheeseburger. But is that the extent to which we are obliged to provide appropriate responses to one another? I may not be Mr. Conventional/ Appropriate, I may have a broadminded outlook comparatively speaking, but in whose mind does this place me so far outside the world of appropriate responses?

Okay, now I'm ready to leave that blog behind. You see, I'm not making a serious complaint here, so much as I'm trying to find a way inside myself to severe my bond with that blog. I can do it now. I can post this blog and thusly make that blog part of the past. That's all it is. Leaving things behind with the amount of force necessary.

Not Enough Time For The Beethoven

As a few of us know, Terrance Williams, who played the first violinist in my 1998 video, "Gosk II", used to be a key assistant to Director Ridley Scott and his director brother, Tony Scott. Another thing a few of us may have noticed is that, ever since Terrance's appearance in my video, my material has occasionally been used in significant ways (unacknowledged) in the work of Tony and Ridley (mostly Ridley). Ridley Scott's "American Gangster", which I just saw yesterday for the first time (in its HBO premier), proves to be no exception.

Specifically, I first draw your attention to the scene in my 1994 video, "Gosk I", where Clerp, noticing something while speaking to Jerp, says, "Wait a minute," gets up from his seat, dramatically (complete with dramatic music) steers the spacecraft away from a meteor, returns to his seat, then after a few nonchalant words in response to Jerp's question about what he was doing, says, "So anyway, like I was saying...."

I then draw your attention to the scene in "American Gangster", where the Denzel Washington character is in a diner speaking to a few people at his table, notices something, says, "I'll be right back," leaves the diner, exchanges a few words with someone, then shoots him, returns to the diner, sits back down, and nonchalantly says, "What was I saying?"

Ridley Scott, I once again repeat the suggestion I asked the person who answers the phone for you to pass along: As delighted as I am to be an influence, I would be even more delighted to work for you directly.

The Opposite Of Socks

For those interested in a somewhat spelled-out version of Steven Spielberg in relation to me, I recommend reading my PDF-formatted "Mall Man, Spielberg, Steinhoff: Interesting Mall Man Facts". And yet the answers would not all leap out at one simply by doing this, one would have to go yet further, and view my "Mall Man" video. And even then the research would have to continue. You'd have to force yourself to see the Spielberg films referred to in the aforementioned PDF.

After that, I might just begin to think you're getting a little bit up to speed. But here the road gets tricky. You've come a long way (I almost hate myself for what I put you through!), but afterall, the route has been clearly mapped out for you, hasn't it, and that made it pretty easy, to be honest. Found it in yourself to want to continue? Okay, go see the August 2008 "Mummy 3", produced by Sean Daniel, someone you should by now feel acquainted with, or at least introduced to. In "Mummy 3" the treasure we are looking for is a tie-in back to me in relation to Spielberg, if you've been paying attention.

Well, one thing that's clearly put before anyone who sees both the return of the Mummy ("Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor", released 8/1/08, after a 7-year hiatus) and the return of Indiana Jones ("Indiana Jones And The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", released 5/22/08, approximately two months earlier, after a 19-year hiatus), is how both films emphasize father-mother-son as the fellow adventurers, the father and mother coming out of some kind of retirement. It seems highly unlikely that this is coincidence, especially because these two “serials” have always been placed side-by-side by film audiences, due to their both being sagas of the same genre and period, and both having been granted the status of being legendary due to their great popularity.

You’ve already read what I picked up on in the return of Indiana Jones as specifically being in continuity with Spielberg doing stuff in relation to me: the moment at the end when the hat of Indiana is picked up and returned to him (a moment to which the movie assigns special significance). And sure enough, I found something related to pick up on in the return of the Mummy – when a soldier in an army of resurrected dead (the army fighting for the good guys) picks up someone’s head and returns it to him. Although the film attaches absolutely no real significance to that moment, it was time-stopping in that it was the only direct moment of humor (outside of the characters’ self-aware humor contained in their banter), and as such, a knowing wink, a deliberate, momentary break in the suspension of disbelief.

Tonight was the season premier of “Smallville”, written by the same writing team responsible for the third Mummy (Gough and Millar). “Smallville” from time to time has been “known” to make inside references to my work. I watched tonight in anticipation of something in continuity with what I saw done for my benefit in the third Mummy film - and there it was: the handing to Clark Kent of a jacket, a moment expanded in the dialog as something to be seen in relation to the idea of his finally having a costume/Superman identity. Thus, a hat handed to Indiana moment, a head handed to the dead soldier moment, an anti-socks left behind on the bench moment.

Sudden Change

Yesterday in my September 16th blog I discussed my September 6th comedy sketch idea, “Beaver And Wally, The Flying Invisible Time Travelers” (go to archive.org) as something referred to on the Monday, September 15th “Daily Show”, which I had surmised from a set of circumstances, combined with an enormous amount of experience, and an amount of intelligence only slightly less than my experience (I’ll wait while you figure that one out)….

The September 16th “Daily Show” has gone considerably further than the September 15th show, in this regard. Just as a key aspect of my comedy sketch idea is that the occurrences of sudden, dramatic transformations around Ward and June Cleaver are regarded as nothing outside the norm, so the sudden, dramatic transformations happening here in this Daily Show bit are presented by the reporter as nothing to get excited about: “People should remain calm. This is normal.”



This is not to say that such an idea has never manifested anywhere before. No. But any intelligent person could not fail to notice that on the 15th I had a real basis for connecting their use of a particular idea with the same September 6th comedy sketch idea that can be legitimately related to the show on the 16th.

Yesterday, “The Daily Show”. The day after tomorrow, the presidential election (or perhaps the day after that, who bothers to keep track?).

IT'S A LAWN STORY

In my previous blog of Sept. 14th, I referred to what had once (pre-June 2008) been the result of my emails to Stuart Cornfeld (former AFI student, "Tropic Thunder" producer, "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" pirate boss): little pieces in SNL bits. In my August 28th blog I went into more detail, in that I mentioned how sometimes my emails to Stuart resulted in pieces (some not so little) in Daily Show and Colbert Report bits.

Well, I don't know if it was the Sept. 14th blog that did it, but I find that I have returned to The Daily Show, or to be more precise, I have been returned to The Daily Show. The evidence, not unlike some forensic evidence, may seem miniscule, yet experience and intelligence inform me it is genuine:

The comedy sketch idea of mine that I referred to on Sept. 14th as the first one they ignored in two years, by not making any reference to it on the Sept. 13th SNL (my Sept. 14th blog including a link to where one could read the comedy sketch idea located at archive.org), has Beaver Cleaver mowing the lawn as a task he performs on par with when he changes world history. Now look at this miniscule videoclip from the Sept. 15th Daily Show:




Here Vice President Cheney is discussed with relation to the idea of dividing his time between Vice Presidential duties and mowing the lawn. The day following my blog.

In addition, I occasionally find that when I post a comment on an article on Huffington Post (where I comment as JonathanDS and as JonathanDS2U), something contained in my comment can find its way elsewhere, such as on "Monk", "Real Time With Bill Maher", "The Daily Show", or "The Colbert Report". Huffington Post is set up so that one can follow/search comments posted by a particular person without having to peruse every article's every comments to locate that particular person's comments. And so I noticed something else on the Sept. 15th Daily Show. Jon Stewart did a bit where the cover of a DVD he bought was misleading to him, hence he wound up with undersea crab pornography. In the past week or two I posted a comment on someone's comedy article on Huffington, listing off various items Palin tried to sell on eBay. My contribution/comment was Palin trying to sell a DVD of "An Inconvenient Truth" on eBay, complete with her description that the title is misleading, the DVD isn't about dismantling the concept that storks bring babies into the world.

Yesterday, the Daily Show.... tomorrow.... the world! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! (Sorry, sometimes I laugh at things that aren't generally regarded as humorous.)

"How To Endorse Obama If You Are Paul McCartney" Instruction Guide

In my previous blog I introduced an idea that may need no real introduction: that Paul McCartney should endorse Obama as an appropriate rechanneling of the optimism about the world generated by "The Beatles Movement" (Or was the term "Beatlemania"? I recall the adult establishment back then, via the media, found the term "Beatlemania" the acceptable way of framing things, as much for its non-authenticating of the seriousness of The Beatles as for any other reason). This time, a blog in which I will provide a "How To Endorse Obama If You Are Paul McCartney" Instruction Guide. A few related things first.

It is worth making note here of the fact that I was personally responsible the last time Paul McCartney made a (surprise) appearance on Saturday Night Live. Eight days before that "surprise" sketch about poison in which Paul McCartney appeared with Martin Short and Steve Martin, I emailed my Paul McCartney intermediary that Paul should do a comedy sketch based on my "Recipe For Fun". And so, an SNL sketch about poison featuring Paul McCartney was born. Without going into too many details about what prompted me to make that suggestion, I will say that it had something to do with a matter related to John Kerry (incidentally, it was Kerry who chose Obama to deliver the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, which was the moment credited with bringing Obama onto the national "stage").

When I made that suggestion to Paul McCartney, I seriously expected something to result, based on previous experience. In this case, however, I appreciate that I am not asking of Paul the same kind of thing, and I have never let my power to make suggestions that are given serious consideration turn me into a bossy "now stand on your head" kind of person. I do not even know if Paul McCartney knows how to stand on his head. There are innumerable photos of McCartney doing different things, yet I do not recall seeing even one in which he stands on his head. By the way, I do not believe asking him to endorse Obama is in any way like asking him to stand on his head. Yet perhaps I digress.

During last year's SNL TV season, as well as during the TV season the year before, every single Saturday Night Live included references to sketch ideas I had submitted for each show. I submitted my ideas to two very SNL-connected movie producers, who I had first met well before they were big producers, Sean Daniel and Stuart Cornfeld, and each idea found its way, in some miniscule form, to the show for which it was intended. The exception was the show for which I intended my sketch idea, "In Orders We Trust":

http://www.angelfire.com/blog2/jonathandsteinhoff/page15.html

I later found what I consider to be the explanation: someone later wrote a book based on that sketch idea of mine, then sold it to Stuart Cornfeld's company, Red Hour, for development as a TV show. My surmisal is that a few extra steps were taken to bury Red Hour's association with my idea, by not forwarding my idea to SNL. I also wonder if an inclination to bury this trail is responsible for their having ceased to open my emails (according to my email opening detection technology, they stopped reading my emails in May, although there are also ways to avoid detection with this particular technology).

The season premier of SNL on September 13, 2008 reinforces what is indicated by the email opening detection technology: they did not include in any form my sketch idea for a show for the first time in two years (not counting the exception I've noted here).

The comedy sketch idea I submitted for September 13th, entitled "Beaver And Wally, The Flying Invisible Time Travelers", can be read at:

http://www.archive.org/details/BeaverAndWallyTheFlyingInvisibleTimeTravelers

And so, now my idea for how Paul McCartney can go about making known his suport of Obama. Obama was initially going to appear on the September 13th season premier of SNL, however, he changed his mind because Hurricane Ike was going on, and so it was deemed inappropriate for him to make an appearance on SNL at this time. When he does appear on SNL, Paul McCartney can make a surprise appearance on the same show. He can play Ward Cleaver in my above-referenced sketch idea - the role would work because it is so opposite to how one sees Paul McCartney, unless one imagines that aging has transformed him into a calm, pipe-smoking, paternal figure (that reminds me of the time I provided him with something he used on the opening track on "Flaming Pie", but that's another story).

At the end of the show in which Paul and Barrack appear, as everyone who appeared that night stands together on the stage, Paul uses hand gestures we've seen him use before with perfect finesse: Paul pats Barrack on the back, smiles at the audience, and while pointing at Barrack, does a "thumbs up" and head nod. It will unmistakably communicate an endorsement; it will avoid doing so in a stiff, excessively self-important manner; it will be rebroadcast on news shows everywhere so it won't matter how many people stay up to watch the last moment of the show. The coolness of the manner of endorsement will electrify it. The only thing wrong with the idea is that it could be traced back to this blog. Well, that's life when you're trying to save the world.

An Open Letter To Paul McCartney Calling For His Public Endorsement of Obama

The title of this blog entry would seem to say it all. Yet I would like to throw a few things into the mix, things impossible to believe for some, things already known to others, things to think about for a certain number of people (how many people? I don’t think I will ever devise the method for figuring out precisely how many people should think about these things!).

1. Back in 1978-1979, when Robert Rickles and I worked for an environmental company called, WAPORA, I asked Rickles what had become of John Lennon and Yoko Ono. It had been the longest period yet in Lennon’s “career” (to use the most simplistic term) without music from him, and Rickles seemed the person for me to ask. Rickles was a buddy of then-Speaker of the House of Reps Tip O’Neil; Rickles had been Bella Abzug’s right hand; Rickles hung with some very well known, very left liberals. No more than one week later John and Yoko took out a full page ad in the New York Times, “An Open Letter To Those Who Ask What Became Of John And Yoko”. I was extremely important in relation to John Lennon back then, even if it was through middle men.

2. Paul McCartney, I am and have been extremely important in relation to you. May I say, people sensing that you are the type who would support Obama is not the same as rendering it tangible. Palin doesn’t even believe global warming is man-made. You cannot pass on taking sides when the failure to do so could mean another eight years (McCain could drop dead any minute and Palin would then be president) of matters discussed in “An Inconvenient Truth” (to reference the nightmare facing the Earth in the most abbreviated manner).

3. When I came up with the words and ideas for Lennon that were then formed by him into the opening of the song “Starting Over”, my words and ideas touched on ideas contained in words from the old song, “Walking In The Sand”: “Whatever happened to the life I gave to you, what will I do with it now?” Though I never said those words, I spoke of all the people who existed as a group because of something precious that Lennon possessed, and that now he had to do something with “it”, what could he do with it now, the life they gave to him. Thus it was a thing, an it, that Lennon possessed in my way of putting it, a thing that he had to (or should, whatever that means or meant) do something with. Lennon put the “Walking In The Sand” phrase into an early version of “Free As A Bird”, and I recognized from past experience his keying in on the thought I expressed to a middle man. I also used the word “precious” a million times in my little speech, a reference to the opening track on “Walls and Bridges”. And here is where we find a fundamental, recurring difference between Lennon and yourself. In your “Beatle-ization” (excellent in almost every way) of “Free As A Bird”, you essentially made the “whatever happened to” into a bemoaning of the loss of a feeling that “always made me feel so free.” At some point in his life Lennon tried to give tangible substance and shape to the power given to The Beatles, a power beyond a feeling. You do this too, but to a lesser degree. I once worked for Howard Smith, who introduced Lennon to Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, and others of their socio-political orientation/disposition. This almost led to Lennon’s involvement in protests at the 1972 Republican Convention, but Lennon opted out, an action taken (or rather, an inaction taken) because of his not wanting to lose his fight for American citizenship. Now you took Lennon’s counterpoint to the idea of being “home and dry” in “Free As A Bird”, the countering undercurrent against just being a complacent animal, and you turned it into bemoaning the loss of an important feeling. An endorsement of Obama would, in my mind, help restore this thing of Lennon’s that you neutralized in making (that great Beatles song) “Free As A Bird”. We are not bemoaning the loss of an important feeling, we are needing a thing of tangible substance that can make a difference in people’s lives. We have empowered you - now use it.

In Common Again

PREFACE

We all appreciate the wondrous invention known as the public bulletin board, where people post things, things that mean something to ourselves and certain others, and/or things that mean absolutely nothing to ourselves and certain others. And we all know there are things that contain secret significance, as well as things that contain significance partially unknown to us, not to mention things that are thought to contain secret significance yet don't, and things thought to contain no significance yet in fact are significant. Well, I think I've covered that one.

Amidst all of these various types of things floating, hurling and/or meandering through the universe (the public bulletin board is only one of the many stops for those things of which I speak), we stumble upon, or direct ourselves towards, the point at which such matter congregates to form common ground. Common ground for all, or sometimes only common for some, common for a few, or even ground the commonness of which is a matter for debate, discussion, thought, wars, etc. I hope I haven't left out any ground here - please let me know if I have and I will be sure to include it next time.


NAMES/WORDS SECRETLY AND INDIRECTLY ALLUDED TO FOR MY BENEFIT ON THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 “MONK” EPISODE (“Mr. Monk’s 100th Case”)

It is common knowledge, among a relatively small group of phenomenally important people, that I am a secretly phenomenally important person. Those who recognize this should accept, or at the very least be fairly willing to consider, that certain specific types of experiences find their way to me in consequence. For example, whatever the work situation I find myself in, invariably it becomes secretly infiltrated, possibly even taken over to some degree, by those involved with power, who are interested in me in relation to power (by power, I refer to the most wealthy and/or the most famous, and/or the most politically powerful people in the world). However innocent my work situations may seem, this has been true almost my entire life. It can even occur when a particular TV show includes things for my benefit - people then infiltrate those who put together the TV show.

Were one to visit YouTube and search for Zoomsteinhoff (my name there), one would find, among other videos, a number of my Steinhoff/Monk videoclips, which serve as examples of the fact that the TV show “Monk”, in almost every episode, makes secret references to my material (this perhaps has something to do with Sean Daniel, a former head of USA Networks, which broadcasts “Monk”). These videoclips of mine make the most sense if seen cumulatively, just as sentences or paragraphs read to the end make the most sense. Furthermore, it is generally verifiable, by searching for Jonathan D. Steinhoff at archive.org, that the items excerpted from my material that are included in these videoclips were, in fact, first posted there by me well before the “Monk” episodes were created. Thusly I deflect the idea that I have fabricated the chronology.

So now, without very much further ado (I did leave the preface behind several paragraphs ago, didn't I?), I shall present words and names to which the September 5th “Monk” secretly alluded, while depriving these words and names of the context provided by sentences. Like the Manhattan Project, wherein those who worked on it were shielded from the vantage point of knowing the true nature of what they were involved in, I do not presume that those I name here will truly understand how they came to be associated:

Patti Boyd, Slowhand, Common, Iranian President, Brian Williams, McCartney, Thurmond, Eck, Smallville, Burton, Friday, Dove, Calistra, Jack Black

Unlike the Monk/Steinhoff videoclips on YouTube that precede this posting, I offer nothing to validate or explain why it is that I make mention of these things, these words, these names in this context.

Perhaps next week's "Monk" season finale will permit me the opportunity to once again generate a Monk/Steinhoff videoclip for the common man, as I have this entire "Monk" season.

The Wind In Our Sails

We all heard Obama's speech tonight. Eight is enough, he said. We all heard his reference to the number one movie in the country, "Tropic Thunder". For like the Robert Downey, Jr. character passionately reciting words from the theme song to the TV show, "The Jeffersons," just as if they came from him, but then caught at it, and then defending himself, "Just 'cause it comes from 'The Jeffersons' don't make it not true", so Obama spoke the words, "Eight Is Enough", the name of a TV show, and then laughed. Just 'cause it's the title of a TV show don't make it not true, that was the message I heard.

This brings me to my 1993 screenplay, "Gosk", posted July 3, 2007 on the Internet at http://www.archive.org/details/GoskTheScreenplay (Archive.Org shows right there, that's when I posted it). Go to page 90 of the PDF (indicated as page 88 of the screenplay), Scene 30. Here we find the characters stranded in a rowboat, each grasping a corner of a jacket in order to make a sail. Until they learn that the idea came to one of them, Clerp, from watching the TV show, "Gilligan's Island". They then each let go of their corner of the jacket. Apparently, Clerp had been unaware that the characters on "Gilligan's Island" never escaped from the island, and so had failed to see that the idea was thusly fundamentally flawed.

Another example of evaluating the seriousness of an idea based on whether it comes from a TV show and/or a movie occurs yet again in "Tropic Thunder": the Jack Black character offers as a plan an idea borrowed from a movie he (his character) was in, wherein the panties gained from a panty raid are made into a catapult (Stuart Cornfeld, "Tropic Thunder" producer, who I half-knew in 1975, and who used to read all of my emails and pass them to "SNL", "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report", and who I refer to in my August 13th blog: how could you have missed this opportunity to present a visualization of this?).

Yes, Obama, you have picked a very interesting week to work the name of a TV show into a speech. And yes, you are quite correct: just 'cause it comes from a TV show don't make it not true.

The Wolf Man Who Turned Back Normal Whenever Someone Screamed

This is my new video, "The Wolf Man Who Turned Back Normal Whenever Someone Screamed." I consider it an optimistic piece, as in reality screaming rarely serves its desired purpose. I recommend organized protest as the best means for achieving success in overcoming our enemies.

A Piece of the Mask

This April 2008 Cornfeld/Steinhoff videoclip, which I will be updating once the Cornfeld- produced "Tropic Thunder" can be edited through it being broadcast on television, can already be seen in relation to "Tropic Thunder":

1. In this April 2008 videoclip, a Steinhoff-related work shows a man with a gorilla mask complaining that his mask/costume doesn't come off. In "Tropic Thunder", the Robert Downey, Jr. character undergoes a special treatment to make a change to his face/skin (he is made African American) something that cannot (easily) be altered (the special treatment is portrayed as a first that transcends the concept of theatrical makeup);
2. In the April 2008 videoclip, Jack Black in "Tenacious D" is shown beaten up and lying on the ground, opening his eyes to see Kyle standing over him - which the I correlate in the videoclip to an incident in 1975 on an AFI film shoot when I was knocked unconscious by an exposed live wire, opening my eyes to see Cornfeld standing over me. In "Tropic Thunder", we again see Jack Black's character lying on the ground, opening his eyes to several of the other characters standing over him.

Though other things that surface in "Tropic Thunder" might deserve being correlated to material in relation to me, included deliberately in that movie for that reason, I would be putting myself and my credibility exceptionally far out on a limb to do so. Perhaps someday, when we're all on the same page.

Talk French When Intellectuals Are Present

A recent controversy one may or may not wish to be in the middle of, the "retard" reference in the upcoming (end of this week) "Tropic Thunder", is one I actually do feel myself to be in the middle of. This has nothing to do with me being a retard. What I mean is, I am not a retard, besides which, with regard to those who are "retards", I believe in using different language, English of course, unless one isn't English, I have nothing against the French.

The person leading the protest against the use of the word "retard", Timothy Shriver, who is perhaps quite smart (a word occasionally used with a derisive inflection by the more stupid among us, who will often replace it with the insult, "intellectual"), is the brother of one of Rick Natkin's oldest friends. Rick Natkin was with me at Stuart "'Tropic Thunder' Producer" Cornfeld's house during the incident described in my "No. 1" August 10th blog about "Heard Shout-Outs".

I am long-accustomed to being some kind of news story missing link, or in direct relation to some kind of news story missing link, so this Tropic-Thunder-protest-leader's-brother-is- close-friend-of-person-I-encountered- in-relation-to-Tropic-Thunder-producer-in-1975 seems particularly un-random to me. It leads to thoughts of doing-it-to-generate-publicity-for-the- film, i.e., secret promotion. If one's mind "wanders" in this inevitable direction, one may then find of interest the fact that on Saturday, 8/9/08, I posted on YouTube my "Monk's Secret Promotion" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rw7PLpY_xY), the word promotion being used in the context of advertising.