Politics For Dummies

At Least Someone's Reading These
In my Sept. 8th blog I refer to how it was I who suggested, in a Sept. 3rd HuffPost article Comment, that Stewart and Colbert make it two separate rallies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JonathanDS/restoring-truthiness-colbert-rally-beck_n_704578_59349947.html

This is copyrighted proof that I made my statement prior to it becoming a part of things. I also stated in my Sept. 5th blog article that Jon Stewart and I looked at each other as we drove by each other on Sept. 4th. This also was before my statement had become anything, though based on having influenced Stewart and Colbert many times before in very big ways, it did lead me to suspect that my HuffPost Comment might be turning into something big. Stewart's look might have contained a certain suggestion of this, unless he was thinking, "Why are traffic lights green and red, Christmas colors, why must we Jews put up with this, someday I'm gonna run a traffic light, that'll show those bastards!" This is something all of us Jews think about from time to time, though few of us go through with it.

The following videoclip should be seen in the context I've just described (not the part about traffic lights, the other context):





Saturday Night's Alright For Following Tiny Little Details
I should at some point fit into a blog article how the SNL season premiere several days ago, like nearly every SNL for years and years and years, included a few things for my benefit. I know, I'll include it in this blog article.

Let's see, well for one thing, Amy Poehler's very brief revival of her Kim Jong Il. Her Kim Jong Il originally (a few years back) included referring to him as a film critic ala the Siskel/Ebert show, "At The Movies", as he said something about saving you an aisle seat. I had several days prior to that impression several years ago passed along (I would pass along an idea and they would always use fragments on the next show) the idea of Kim Jong Il being the guest host on "At The Movies" (when Ebert would always have a guest host with him). My idea showed how Kim Jong Il's taste in movies, in terms of why he appreciated the movies he liked, betrayed a strange sort of personality. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to say that I would personally love for him to review any of my videos, I was only joking about the kind of film critic he would be. (I seem to possibly be tangling with Ahmadinejad these days, and one crazy person doing stuff that could lead to nuclear bomb explosions is all I can handle at one time, thank you, would somebody else mind taking on Kim Jong Il?)

And then there was the appearance on SNL several days ago by the Governor of New York, Patterson, wherein they included their usual routine where he walks too near the camera, blocking things. This recurring bit (though previously it involved an SNL Patterson impression without the Patterson) began with something that happened in an Obama/McCain presidential debate hosted by Tom Brokaw (10.7.08), where McCain at the end walks too close to the camera, blocking things, which led to a few laughs when the moment was rerun on various shows. That real-life moment began with something I published at Archive.Org prior to the Brokaw-hosted debate ("Peek-A-Boo, ICU", 9/29/08, and also contained in my 9.28.08 blog article), a comedy idea about that very same (then upcoming) Brokaw-hosted debate. Incidentally, this was not the first time McCain did something in response to my comedy ideas - though you'll NEVER believe my version of what preceded his Palin selection. Anyway, in my Brokaw debate comedy idea, each candidate is on a video cell phone, placed on a table, facing each other. Brokaw inadvertantly puts his water glass down between the two video phones, blocking Obama's view of McCain, which he complains about, while McCain defends Brokaw's right to block his view.

I believe there may have been a few other things on SNL a few days ago regarding me, but who knows. One other thing I noticed on SNL, but NOT regarding me (every now and then I actually notice things that don't regard me, which in itself is yet another fact that many have trouble believing) is that, in their parody of that recent Stallone movie, they included something that brought to mind Jack Black in Sean Daniel's "The Jackal" (I have mentioned Sean Daniel not infrequently in my blogs for reasons I have also mentioned not infrequently). This struck me particularly because when Sheryl Crow was on Leno recently, she did something at the opening of the show out of Sean Daniel's "Animal House" (Ed Helms was sitting on a staircase playing a folk guitar and she took it away and smashed it). Though Sean Daniel did not produce "Animal House", it is an important part of his history, he was the person behind it when he was a decision-maker at Universal. So what's up with all that?

Your Comprehension Will Never Be Tested

As I promised in my previous blog article, “A Knight To Remember” (9.24.10), I will in this blog show how the Sept. 24th season premiere of “Smallville” (the final season), as has occurred MANY times before regarding this TV show (see references to “Smallville” in other blog articles), made substantial reference to my material (as also demonstrated in other blog articles). It may also perhaps be relevant to mention that the writers/producers of this show also wrote the movie, “Mummy 3”, which was produced by Sean Daniel, the first person who told me of CalArts, the film school I attended. Also perhaps of relevance is the fact that the person who co-produced the “Mummy” movies with Sean Daniel is one of my relatively few (less than 40) Facebook friends.





Image 1
This image featuring a chess knight is the logo for “Checkmate Agency,” which first appeared on “Smallville” in February 2010. Checkmate was an important part of “Smallville” episodes for the remainder of that (the previous) television season.

Image 2
This image showing a fence, field and tiny figure is the establishing shot for what is essentially the final scene of this 9/24/10 season premiere “Smallville” episode.

Image 3
This image, entitled, “A Separate Thing,” is from my graphic artwork book (self-published, copyright 1993), “Go Eyes, Go!” (posted at Archive.Org in June 2007). It is also the image I’ve been using for several years as part of my signature box on all of my emails at my job (thousands of emails). One sees an unmistakable similarity to Images 1 and 2. It is also the only creative work of mine that makes reference to chess, other than my video, “Bishop And Pawn Forfeit Rule” (posted at Archive.Org in May 2008, from a story posted at Archive.Org in October 2007). That video is the source of the remaining non-“Smallville” images.

Image 4
From the 9/24/10 season premiere of “Smallville”, this image represents the moment when Lex Luthor murders other Lex Luthors.

Image 5
From my May 2008 video, “Bishop And Pawn Forfeit Rule,” this image represents the moment when Chess Master Garry Kasparov states that he will travel in time to return to our present, and murder the Garry Kasparov there. Therefore this correlates to what occurs in the moment Image 4 represents.

Image 6
From the 9/24/10 season premiere of “Smallville,” in an extremely rare moment of losing his self-control, Clark is pushed to the point where he suddenly strangles someone, coming very close to strangling that person to death. This is also referred to later on in the episode, as being the moment when he lost his moral high ground.

Image 7
From “Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule,” in an extremely rare moment of losing his self-control, Kasparov is pushed to the point where he suddenly strangles someone to death. This is later self-described by Kasparov as the moment when he lost his moral high ground over Putin.

Image 8
From the 9/24/10 season premiere of “Smallville,” soldier pieces are moved around with deliberateness. The scene ends with the image of a soldier piece burning in the fireplace (forfeited?), a strange juxtaposition in which it is outside the normal context/realm established for it.

Image 9
From “Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule,” Putin and Kasparov move chess pieces around with deliberateness. Later in the story, having traveled back in time to the 6th century, Kasparov finds that chess pieces are strangely juxtaposed outside the normal context/realm established for them as he understands it, in that there are rules to chess back then with which he is unfamiliar.

Image 10
From “Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule,” in which Iranian President Ahmadinejad is made an important character in relation to the plot, in that he plays a key role in motivating Kasparov to travel back in time. In several of my previous blog articles (which are periodically copyrighted in volumes at Archive.Org), I have discussed how something appears to be going on behind the scenes that has led to “Smallville” episode moments and Iranian President announcement moments to, within the same several-day timeframe, include something that coincides with the same thing regarding me/my work (i.e., if both Hitler and Bob Hope had each said something within the same two-period that brought to mind the same, somewhat obscure moment in the movie, “It Happened One Night”, and then, about a year later, it happened once again regarding the same, somewhat obscure scene in the movie, “A Night At The Opera”, and then, two years, it happened again). It is not self-apparent, from what I have been able to identify and evaluate, that those who make “Smallville” have an inside track regarding the Iranian President. Also of relevance here is that “Bishop and Pawn Forfeit Rule” is my only creative work that includes a reference to the Iranian President.

A Knight To Remember (As Having Nothing To Do With The Titanic)

The Walls Are All In Place
I will not be demonstrating specifically in this blog how I am extremely important in relation to tonight's "Smallville" episode, which was the season premiere of this show's final season (those who read my blogs are familiar with my frequent presentation of evidence of my importance in relation to a great number of this show's episodes, including last season's season finale).

Demonstrating how I figure in relation to tonight's episode will take a little more doing than my present energy level will permit. But I do want to indicate here and now that I recognized it, as I am not one who feels good about keeping people in suspense regarding something important to them (I refer to the Smallville people who included me in so significant a way). I consider it very important that they have included me, I love this show, I also believe "Smallville" relates to an important modern mythology, Superman, and I feel enormously gratified by the whole thing. And I don't know if this will offend my old friend from junior high school, who is now one of the three people who runs Marvel Entertainment, and who is also my Facebook friend, but Superman is way better than Spiderman. Period.

The public-at-large may not feel totally satisfied this time around with the proof of what I say that I will be providing. It very much involves the image included with this blog, which can be found in something I posted a while back at Archive.Org, "Go Eyes, Go!", entitled, "A Separate Thing". This image is something I've been including for several years as part of the signature line of every email I send where I work. There are literally thousands of my emails containing this image. But do all of those "witnesses" comprise the entire population of the world? And so, as is the case with so much evidence of various things that exists in the world, there are indeed some among the entire population of the world who cannot be counted among the witnesses, and must therefore rely upon the witness testimony of others. There are always going to be some people who don't witness something! I suppose I deserve the blame for that!

Anyway, until the next time I have the exact kind of energy this task requires.

Hoping For A Stalemate
I also want to throw in, on Wednesday my blog asked the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, to be serious already. The following day, Thursday, he made himself seem unmistakably ridiculous for the first time, as if on purpose. He may have been outlandish before, but his statement that most Americans think 9/11 was an inside job? He had to know how silly that sounds. I think he was setting himself up. And today, Friday, he announced that he may no longer do that enriched uranium thing he was doing that was scaring all the children around the world and no small number of us adults as well. I'm not crazy about him, but I do have him to thank for the fact that I will be sleeping a little easier tonight. Then again, I wonder how much sleep he was making people lose altogether? Maybe I should just be glad of where the pieces on the chessboard are at this moment, and leave it at that.

When You're Ready To Be Serious, Napoleon

Here's a little bit of fun, at least for those who think things that touch somewhat directly on an important moment regarding the Iranian President are a little bit of fun.

In my previous blog, "I Don't Suppose Anyone Has A Videoclip Of Larry King Leading A Conga Line" (9.20.10), one of the things I touched on was the then-upcoming appearance on Larry King of the Iranian President (at that time it was scheduled for Thursday, however, it aired today, Wednesday). I also touched on something I've been making repeated mention of, that the Iranian President has plugged into my secret super-importance in relation to Spielberg (the most prominent living Jewish man) and Paul McCartney (another individual with a non-comparable prominence in the world), by making inside-references that I get but that would not be appreciable by the public-at-large (am I crazy sounding or what?).

In that same 9.20.10 blog article, I also touched on the Eric Clapton album, "Slowhand" regarding something Clapton did in relation to me personally. (I've also described this same thing in other blogs as well, where I get particular about how it was in relation to me.)

I will begin with "Slowhand". It will become relevant to the other thing.

I have a Facebook friends who is not unconnected from the above-referenced thing Clapton did. And there have been a certain number of occasions when this same Facebook friend person has posted something on Facebook in response to things I've posted that touch on him, though in so indirect a manner as to be undetectable to the Facebook public-at-large that his Facebook posting has anything to do with me. Therefore, I paid close attention on September 21st to see if this person had anything in this "mailbox" for me. What I found was that this individual "Liked" something that was posted by a Dr. Wayne Dyer (who has a quarter million Facebook friends) on September 21st:

"At your core, the place where you originate from and return to, there's no one and no thing to judge."

What does this have to do with Clapton's "Slowhand"? The first song (the opening track) on "Slowhand", entitled, "The Core," contains the line, "I'm at my core."

I had specifically been looking to this person's Facebook posting on this precise day for such a reference to what I had posted the previous day, and I unmistakably found it. I recognize that this had also required that Dr. Wayne (quarter million Facebook friends) Dyer be complicit for this to have come about. I have already described in a recent blog how in general this type of thing has been occurring, including the involvement of the complicity/cooperation of non-Facebook friends taking place in conjunction with Facebook friends.

This brings us to today's interview on Larry King with the Iranian President. Such a TV show can be seen as important in relation to the Iranian President, as this is rather significant exposure on a fairly significant American TV show.

On this occasion, I detected no inside-reference on the Iranian President's part intended for my interpretation. However, at the very end of this show, Larry King closed with a reaction to this interview from the editor of Time Magazine:



I am not saying that heretofore no one has ever used the word, "core". But an intelligent person will see that without my pointing that out. I should also point out that a friend at work is a friend of Larry King. Prior to today's Larry King, I described what happened with "The Core" to someone else at work. I can imagine that as one of the ways word could have reached Larry King. I have no doubt, having pre-anticipated something of this kind, that the specific choice of words used at that important moment began with Eric Clapton's "The Core," or to be more specific, my having just referenced the album on which that is the opening track.

Tomorrow the Iranian President speaks at the United Nations. If you're reading this, Mr. Making - Everybody - Nervous - That - You -Won't - Take - Responsibility - For - Seriously - Playing - With - Fire - While - Doing - Nothing - To - Address - The - Problem - When - The - Future - Of - The - Whole - World - Is - At - Stake, just tap your foot in time with Jack Bruce's "Never Tell Your Mother She's Out Of Tune" when you're up there speaking to the world. It will really help me put together my next schpiel.

I Don't Suppose Anyone Has A Videoclip Of Larry King Leading A Conga Line

Nothing extraordinary to report, nevertheless, a few things I consider worthy of mention:

End Of The World, Part 12
Thursday the Iranian President is scheduled to appear Larry King, and Friday will be the season premiere of the final season of "Smallville". No possible connection, unless you've been following my blogs. I will see if this possible connection takes on significance.

Look Both Ways Before Smashing Into Something
Recently someone who may have been Sheryl Crow behaved in traffic a little like the person I recently mentioned in a blog article for having looked like Eric Clapton on the day his new album was announced. You may want to put on the brakes here, go to Archive.Org, search for Volume 4 of my collected blog articles, then search for Sheryl Crow and Eric Clapton there (you may particularly want to note that Crow will apparently be big on Clapton's upcoming new release). But back to the recent traffic thing - I was at the light to the on-ramp to the 134 on my way to work, the light turned green, however, up came Sheryl Crow (or someone one would think of as her) in the on-ramp diamond line and so didn't have to stop. I behaved appropriately, but I always see that protocol as an accident waiting to happen. I'm glad it is incredibly rare when that on-ramp diamond lane car that doesn't stop vies for the road space of the car that did and then got a green light. I first got my driving license by practicing driving in the car of and accompanied by a woman whose image Clapton put on the inside album jacket of "Slowhand" on my account, so it is important for me to assess the driving of these people, you understand. She also knew (knows?) Paul McCartney, who drives well, last I saw, but I believe I digress.

I recently was provided an opportunity to join in on a Facebook discussion that had Will Lee as a participant. Will Lee is part of Letterman's houseband. This is interesting in that a recent blog article of mine referred to Sheryl Crow in relation to Letterman. I had nothing to contribute to that discussion, and for some strange reason I allowed that fact to be the basis for my choosing not to say anything. I do enjoy Will Lee's impression of a person tortured by Dick Cheney that we occasionally get to see on Letterman. Will Lee also played on a Lennon recording. (I imagine this is a digression for those appreciating the generally non-Beatles quality of this blog article.)

Always Place The Fork To The Left Of The Bishop
Recently Regis on Fallon did his usual secret inside reference for my benefit regarding someone I once knew who is also someone to whom Regis once introduced himself. Fallon participated in it (Fallon is a friend of Drew Barrymore, whom I've mentioned in blog articles, recently, in fact) and I think it was quite entertaining all around.

File Under Bulletin Board
I recently noticed that the woman I once knew whose image was on Clapton's "Slowhand" inside album jacket on my account (she's not the one in the photo showing Clapton kissing, that's Linda McCartney) has on her Facebook Info page something I recognize as being part of a line from the title song of my "Enough To Eclipse" CD (available at CD Baby). She seamlessly worked part of my song line into something about something, and you'd never know. Clapton once married George Harrison's ex-wife (could be I'm digressing again). I merely wish to acknowledge something that jumped off the page as far as I'm concerned, and don't believe I'm expressing an opinion.

Why Don't You Pour It In Jar
And finally, this videoclip regarding the Coen Brothers' "A Serious Man" in relation to my 1990/1992 video, "Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's 'Uncle's Dream'" (posted at Google Video in 2005, and later posted at Archive.Org) requires an appreciation of the fact that certain ideas can emerge from a collective effect that aren't visible when seen with a piecemeal perspective. You might actually feel I'm dreaming to think this videoclip has anything serious, in response to which I might actually feel you can't be serious to believe I'm dreaming, and there we are, at the beginning of World War III.

Hugely Insignificant Addendum To Something That Meant Nothing In The First Place

A minor addendum to yesterday's minor addendum blog article (9/11/10, "Most Are Unaware Of The Evidence"). This will once again be for the benefit of those who know certain things that others do not, as is so often the case in life (far more often than what I would choose). Perhaps others will also find value here, more likely those who have reviewed a number of my blogs wherein I have been fortunate enough to have supporting evidence to provide, in that such people may feel a basis for having faith in my words at this time.

It has occurred to me, regarding my discussion yesterday of my expectation that the movie, "Everybody's Fine" would have contained something related to me/my material (as tends to be the case when a movie is made for which Paul McCartney contributes a song), yet seemingly did not, that there are several things I may have overlooked. These are possibilities, but possibilities I consider significant enough to relate. I already realize that, numerically speaking, there are fewer people who are "insiders" than there are "outsiders" to what I describe. Sometimes the football only needs to be received by one person.

Drew Barrymore, who is in this movie, previously made reference to my "Leonardoville" movie idea (a version of which is posted at Archive.Org) in her movie, "Ever After". "Leonardoville" regards a humorous imagining of the backstory behind the creation of the painting, "Mona Lisa". In "Everybody's Fine", we see at the end of the movie, as a major closing moment, the significance of the backstory to a painting.

Additionally: I have previously asserted that a number of Beatles songs grew out of a 15-page story I wrote when I was in the 5th grade, "Endless Voyage," how this story involves a pill that, when taken, makes it so that one can breathe water but never breathe air again. In "Everybody's Fine," we find that Drew Barrymore's character has a job performing as a mermaid. Mermaids breathe water. Also, pills are given an extremely special place in the movie's plot, regarding the life and death aspect in relation to De Niro's character not having his pills (not to mention the drug overdose juxtaposed in relation to this, if one construes it this way).

If these things were included for my benefit, and I have a considerable number of reasons to believe they may well have been, or even if I see that only as a significant possibility, I would have to feel some kind of obligation to make an acknowledgment, which is the primary role of this article. Clearly such acknowledgment comes with a cost, in terms of how it must make me seem to the "outsiders".

Most Are Unaware Of The Evidence

For those who recall my August 8th blog article ("Stuck In Traffic, Not"), I have a minor addendum, unless one considers it to be very important in relation to Paul McCartney, in which case it might seem disrespectful to use the word "minor". Whether it is a minor or a major addendum, that is something for history to decide. Perhaps I shouldn't have even brought this question to the table. I have an addendum, I shall simply leave it at that, yes, that would be best. Oh yes, and as the title of this blog article states, most of you are unaware of any evidence for what I describe. You'll just have to total up the times I have been able to provide in my blog articles evidence in matters of this nature, calculate an assessment of my character and intelligence, and stare in astonishment at the results!

Minor Addendum (Preface)
In the above-referenced August 8th blog article, I described a message I sent someone that related to a video I made at CalArts in 1978, "How Did The Future Learn to Play Monopoly," a video which was a significant influence on many people's work, including Paul McCartney's work, particularly his movie, "Give My Regards To Broad Street". I also described in that article how that recent message was responded to, by way of Paul McCartney driving by me the following day on a road that resembled something out of his "Regards" movie, a beginning scene in that movie that directly related to a section I had influenced.

Yesterday I received a direct response from the person to whom I had sent the message. This may have been a reaction on this person's part to the very last paragraph of my Sept. 5th blog article, about emailed responses to phone calls or phone call responses to emails, and how this could generate the appearance of zero responses in the eyes of those presuming what form the responses must take for proper protocol to be involved. The response I received yesterday may additionally (as some actions are designed to serve multiple purposes) have related to the TV premiere (as an "Early Premiere" on Cinemax) of the Robert Downey Jr./Guy Ritchie movie, "Sherlock Holmes".

Follow Me, Watson
When I was in England for the first time, May 13, 1983, several days following my arrival McCartney and myself were nearly alone at the Baker Street Underground Station in London (facing platforms separated by the train tracks). Baker Street is, of course, very related to the Holmes mythology. When McCartney's "Regards" movie came out the following year, Rathbone Inc. (Rathbone Industries?) were the bad guys. At one time the actor Basil Rathbone was synonymous with Holmes (he played Holmes often). Also related is the fact that "Regards" includs a scene meant to evoke a Holmes-esque hunt for a criminal in 19th century London.

I Didn't Say I Was Finished Yet, Watson
I have previously been an influence on works that involved Holmes' Downey and Ritchie. One instance was Downey's "The Soloist", which made inside-reference to my 1993 video, "Mall Man" (posted at Archive.Org). For this and other reasons, I believe there are the right number of reasons for me to regard as deliberate the similarity between Downey's characterization of Holmes and my characterization of Mall Man. Not to mention the moment when Holmes discards a garment from his coach bearing a similarity to Mall Man discarding the socks.

We're Almost There
(I Thought I Told You To Use The Bathroom Before We Left)
Tonight was the TV premiere of "Everybody's Fine," a movie that features a McCartney song written for the movie. Traditionally, movies that feature songs created by McCartney for the movie have invariably contained inside-reference to me/my material. I therefore would first want to state, I hope that the scene in that movie in the train station with the guy who destroyed De Niro's medicine was not that reference (by the way, I would be remiss not to mention that I have also been an influence on De Niro). I would never do something like that, and if McCartney's recollection of what happened at Baker Street remains accurate, I think he would have to agree. I just pointed him out on the near-empty platform to the guy strangely dressed like Sherlock Holmes sitting next to me, who clearly should have observed it for himself, and was therefore obviously putting me on (not just in terms of the fact that he wasn't the actual Sherlock Holmes). Did that person at Baker Street dressed like Holmes destroy anybody's medicine? No. We were both well behaved. Therefore: The only possible connection I was able to find in "Everybody's Fine" that might possibly have been put there for me to identify is the fact that the song title, "I Wanna Come Home" has the word "Home" in it. However, this song title's spelling of "Home" is different, and uses the singular rather than the plural, "Holmes". Furthermore, it would have been scientifically impossible for them to have arranged the TV premieres of these two movies to coincide one day after the other. I suspect magic may have been involved, if anything.

Can't Completely Rule It Out

Here are a few things that belong in the category, "the more weight I attach, the more others will feel compelled to make light" (I've got to start writing about things that fall into a different category). Well, I guess I can stand the short-term break-even (or worse) that comes from this battle between attaching heaviness vs. being made light, in that matters of consequence endure and so I shall be vindicated for though fools may seek to rule the world.... I think I've already begun the making light process on my own. And so now, to be serious about what's serious (it is too). Or, as the title of this blog article states, here are some possibilities I cannot completely rule out, having experienced the strange things that I have (have too).

We've Got To Get Ourselves Back Off The Sofa (by Joni Mitchell)
In my previous blog article I mentioned how Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" apparently drove by me Saturday (admittedly, no fingerprints to support this conviction). I also took the opportunity in that blog article to repeat my oft-made assertion that I am an influence on him (and Colbert as well, as I've also oft-asserted). Older blogs of mine copyrighted on Archive.Org confirm that I didn't just start saying this yesterday (this Blogspot site confirms no chronology of when I said what, as one can attach any date to any article, and so I refer to what is copyrighted to Archive.Org).

In this context, one might consider, as a possibility, that there is greater significance to the following videoclip than merely being an instance of like minds thinking alike (then again, perhaps it could strike you as confirmation of same, or perhaps, different minds that haven't the slightest to do with one another, or, that Steinhoff sure hit the nail on the head this time, or, I wonder why he's talking about Colbert, that looks like Stewart):



I believe the upcoming event Stewart and Colbert allude to in the videoclip could ultimately prove to be the biggest event of the year, or something along those lines. Humor is a medium, and what these two do in that medium is most serious, in my view. Yes, I am serious about the seriousness of humor even if many make light of the weight of.... but some might say I digress, and the opinion of those who feel that way is what matters most to me in the whole world.

Some may feel the need for me to spell out how it is that I believe the Sept. 3rd comment I made on Huff Post as JonathanDS fits in with the direction in which Colbert and Stewart are taking things. It's simple. I reacted to the idea of a Colbert rally with the idea that it be juxtaposed as completely separate yet alongside a Jon Stewart rally, both essentially vying to occupy virtually the same space, despite the expectation that, if anything, it should be one big rally. And that is precisely how they are playing things out at this point. Easily possible I am making too much of a like minds think alike idea, limited in originality, no big deal. Also very possible that this, the biggest event in the history of mankind (I'm only quoting Colbert), in terms of the way Colbert and Stewart are handling it, sprang from my pen. Can those who have followed my influence on things, both in general and specifically, completely ignore this possibility? Would someone pay for my plane fare so I can attend? Or maybe, go to CD Baby and listen to my songs so that, penny by penny, I might at least make it halfway across the country, where I might watch the proceedings from a TV in a dingy hotel room, muttering to myself about the people who wouldn't pay to listen to my songs at CD Baby, that I might afford to be a few miles closer to where things are happening? Don't I deserve at least that, enough song money to be within a thousand miles of it? By the way, I recommend my song, "Whatever Happened" (which is also available for free elsewhere on the Internet in higher quality than mp3, as well as the music video, I didn't just say that, I wonder if Jimi Hendrix' ghost is laughing at me for that, which would be quite an honor).

Stop Pointing That Erasure At Me
Also difficult for me to ignore: In my August 22nd blog article I correlated the book burning in Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451" to the suppressive mentality of Iran's president. Now in the news we see this Terry Jones character suddenly causing an international stir with his vile plans to have a book burning of the Quran. I am not pleased by this (please note my use of the word "vile"). Nevertheless, of all the book burning the world has seen, rarely has the idea of such received this level of attention, including in this instance condemnation from the Pentagon, the Pope, and most importantly, Hillary Clinton (unless you're Catholic and/or militaristic, please don't put me in the middle of this). All this less than three weeks after my book burning referencing blog article. I do recognize that only those who read the blog article upon its publication could testify to this, it being that, as mentioned earlier, this Blogspot site makes it possible to fiddle with dates. Nevertheless, for those who know what I am saying is true about my having posted a blog article on August 22nd that makes significant anti-book burning mention, and also for those who have by now learned to believe me: this is far from the first time the right-wing has used me to springboard their crap onto center-stage. I suppose they would consider it their true crowning achievement if I permitted it to silence me, or bug me. Well, I can recognize a bright side. You see, when one plays pool, one often aims for the bank, it is well known that this is how to hit certain balls into certain pockets and leave oneself well-positioned. I think it extremely possible that, after Terry Jones is finished playing the antagonist in this little drama, the larger story that emerges will be a positive one. People who might otherwise seem aligned against all Muslims showing their repugnance at such conduct. Etc.

I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing Like Jimi Hendrix
And finally, on Sept. 6th, immediately following my Sept. 5th blog article about seeing words of my song show up in somebody's Facebook posting (seemingly inadvertantly), President Obama used words from a Hendrix song in a speech, as if inadvertantly ("they talk about me like a dog" - "Stone Free" by Jimi Hendrix). Okay, not enough here to necessarily construe that this had anything whatsoever to do with my blog article the previous day. How about the fact that the same blog article of mine held back from observing Hendrix song postings by Facebook friends who presumably don't know each other, in that they coincided with my Dwight Hendricks ("Memphis Beat") blog articles? I held back on including mention of those Hendrix incidents, though it would have been germaine to my blog article, owing to the fact that many see posting a Hendrix song on Facebook as being as common as using the word, "the". I would generally concur, if not for the collective significance when seen alongside the other stuff to which I was referring. But it was too obscure a point for me to make in my Sept. 5th blog article, so I held back - now, perhaps, things are different (too late!). I have also indicated in previous blogs that I am an occasional influence on what the President of the United States says. And that he is an old friend of someone I know at work.

Attaching Weight Can Be Fun

Yesterday I believe I was face to face with Sean Daniel, the first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the college I attended. Sean is a good friend of Steven Spielberg and Paul McCartney, and has played an important role in my being a significant influence on both, and on many others as well (that is, from what I can tell Sean has been in this role, although he could be getting his instructions in these matters from McCartney or the Kremlin or the ghost of Abraham Lincoln or whoever). Sean is also one of the co-producers of the Mummy movies (Jim Jacks, one of my Facebook friends, being the other). Sean and I were in our cars and less than half a block from the "Mummies of the World" billboard in Hollywood, the proximity to this being something I discovered after I recognized him. He appeared extremely concerned about something, and I would have to wonder whether my previous blog article on Iran's president might have been a contributing factor. Depending on how much weight one attaches to it, that particular article could be quite a source of serious concern, therefore, you may want to make light of it for that reason alone, as life is too short, etc.

I also saw Jon Stewart yesterday. I may also have seen Rachel Maddow, however, I'm not sure on that. I have at various times been quite a significant influence on both. As a Facebook friend had just posted something about Maddow's MSNBC buddy Keith Olberman, my mentioning this Maddow moment could easily sound contrived to some for that reason alone (I'm sure no one has ever been out to make me sound contrived, and I must accept full responsibility for all the times my words have sounded contrived, it must be something I like to do!).

Relevant to this latest instance of my sounding contrived, I have recently found evidence that some person or persons behind the scenes has been coordinating certain actions of certain Facebook friends of mine, people who presumably have nothing to do with one another. This has on occasion become additionally complicated to the point where it has involved the coordinating of certain Facebook friends of certain Facebook friends to post things, which in turn provide my Facebook friends the opportunity to comment on or like certain postings that were actually made for me to see. For example, a Facebook friend of mine (someone I knew at CalArts) who is connected with Eric Clapton had the opportunity to like a posting his Facebook friend made, causing me to see his Facebook friend's posting. That Facebook friend of a Facebook friend posting happened to use words that are identical to words contained in a song I once did, and the timing of when they made their Facebook postings coincided perfectly with a matter going on in relation to my video for that song (I will not go into further detail, sorry). That Facebook friend of my Facebook friend is himself the Facebook friend of a woman (not my Facebook friend) who is herself the Facebook friend of another one of my Facebook friends (from when I was in high school in Princeon), and this woman did something similar in relation to that Princeton Facebook friend of mine (who is not in the least connected to the Facebook friend person I knew at CalArts). So, a situation involving two of my Facebook friends who aren't connected to one another, and one of each of their Facebook friends who themselves are Facebook friends with each other, all doing things aimed at me (again, I will not go into further detail, sorry again).

As I have mentioned before (e.g., my Sept. 6, 2008 blog article), this type of stuff is nothing new to me. The unfortunate thing for me in this Facebook instance is that, if I keep seeing postings people are aiming at me, I would nevertheless be seen as initiating things without invitation were I to react in any way, as if I'm someone who speaks when not spoken to (ooh, I must be imagining it all). Someday there will be two people, one who telephones the other but never emails him, and the other will be someone who always emails that other person but never telephones him. And a third person will be perfectly able to make the case that one is continuing to send emails to someone who has never sent an email back. And that the other is continuing to phone someone who has never phoned him back. Persona non gratis, I think it's called. A hell of a thing to do to the person in the middle of this U.S. entertainment industry/Iranian President stuff, that is, if you've been attaching any weight to the evidence.