All The News That Has A Feeling Of The Right Amount Of Newness

A few notes, presented here in a manner devoid of all insight or perspective into how this might all affect the state of humanity some day! And while I essentially just feel myself to be wearing my reporter's hat at present, I totally see where it does look a little more like I'm actually trying to make a crown of sorts appear upon my head. Okay, well, I get a kick out of wearing crowns! (have I neutralized the deep tension that has subtly plagued mankind over what hats go where for all eternity? not yet?)

THE DAILY SHOW
In my previous blog (12/11/11), I was pushing for SNL (Saturday Night Live) to use material from one of two recent writings of mine for their last show before Christmas. They invariably work stuff I "submit" for that week's show in, though usually in fragments too different or small to be recognizable for what they are, unless one is clued in. Though I don't see how anyone making the effort could fail to appreciate the evidenciary nature of what I generally submit, when I can. They aren't always vague in their reference.

One of those two writings of mine, "Dostoyevsky's 'A Christmas Carol'" (published to Archive.Org by me on 11/27/11), did get used - however, not on SNL, but on another favorite show of mine, "The Daily Show". As I have occasionally described in my blogs, both "The Daily Show" and "The Cobert Report" occasionally find ways to incorporate my material into theirs, sometimes in a very big way, and most likely things aimed by me towards the next SNL.

In this case, I refer to their segment with John Hodgman, which aired 12/14/11. And if I may boast, this was their second to last show before Christmas, and unlike SNL, Daily Show's second to last show before Christmas is only a day apart from their very last show before Christmas. New Year's Eve too, for that matter, so thank me for your Daily Show holiday send-off, or one part of it. Or don't thank me, though it is the holiday season, you might want to thank me just for anything at all. Happy Holidays!

In my above-referenced writing, we find a reworking of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," with the anti-Capitalist message specifically removed as a chief part of the amusing convolution of things. John Boehner, one of the hosts of the movie presentation described in my writing, is seen to be tearful with emotion at viewing the story's new non-anti-Capitalist turn (it is for this reason that I edited in a little special emphasis on Hodgman's tearfulness, in case you somehow missed my point that their 12/14/11 bit comes from my 11/27/11 bit initially meant for SNL's 12/17/11 show):




SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE
While SNL apparently passed on the two writings I hoped would make their way in some form or another into their 12/17/11 show (though perhaps it is too soon to know these have no use to them), I did notice that they picked up on at least one thing contained in my previous blog (12/11/11). Those who read that blog prior to their 12/17 show will know as a certainty that I was several days prior to that show referring to how in my "Gosk" video, "One finds a montage in which a violinist is getting set up to play classical music, but the montage is coordinated with a Motown song." On SNL several days later, we find a sketch in which Beethoven conducts an orchestra playing Motown music. I have previously mentioned that SNL occasionally evidences that they follow these blogs. I might further add that their sketch on Spielberg's "War Horse" immediately followed this sketch, which I believe SNL did apropos of what came up in my previous blog, when I was discussing something Spielberg recently said on TCM.

I noticed something else on SNL's 12/17 show as well, though it is more obscure and requires great experience and knowledge in these shorthands to appreciate, perhaps. Or maybe you can pick it right up. I refer to the end of my 12/11 blog, where I pretend to plea, on little Tiny Tim's behalf, that SNL include an idea contained in a writing of mine, as it could help Tiny Tim. That sort of approach to creating something for SNL - do it for Tiny Tim. Then, on SNL's 12/17 show, Adam Sandberg calls to host Jimmy Fallon as he's creating a song, to please include something in it for the Jews. Fallon then obliged Sandberg, which had itself sort of been Sandberg obliging me, in trying to get an idea through about getting an idea through. God bless us everyone!

STEVEN SPIELBERG
For this next section, I will begin with an analogy to that thing on "LIVE With Regis and Kelly" (back in the day), where they have a number selected at random by the person on the phone means a person in the audience with that same number gets something. Because: this isn't that, despite looking like that. I've confused you already....

I took from a graphic artwork book of mine, "Go Eyes, Go!", (posted at Archive.Org) a specific image, and reproduced it beneath my signature line on all of my emails where I work, as sort of my logo. I did this from 8/10/09 to 12/28/10, and though thousands and thousands of such emails bear witness, I didn't gett around to emailing everyone who ever lived everywhere, my oops). The work, like it or not, is entitled "A Separate Thing":


Few images come closer to summoning a thought towards the new Steven Spielberg movie, "War Horse". The predominant focus of my signature line logo image is a photograph I took in the English countryside (Dorset), so, essentially the identical setting and subject of "War Horse." Furthermore, it does not simply bring to mind a random moment in the movie, rather, it tends to preserve the film's most innocent (almost iconically innocent) period.

I now abruptly must return to the above "LIVE With Regis" analogy. I recognize that invariably someone (or more than one) make prominent an image that connects to this or another movie or whatever at any given time, I do get that this is a statistical inevitability that someone has the number called out. What distinguishes my circumstance in a complete and total way, however, is that for Spielberg to be influenced in an important decision by something I'm betting my chips on is extremely consistent of him. I believe much evidence of this has already been presented by me from time to time, and would suggest interested predators and good people put in a moment and see my video, "Steven Spielberg and The Mall Man Factor", which can be viewed at Archive.Org). Of additional relevance in this instance is that, according to Wikipedia, Spielberg first announced in December 2009 that he was going to direct "War Horse". I began using this as the image at the bottom of all of my emails in August 2009. This was the image I had committed to, in a way, if you look at it that way.

• I have previously asserted that the DreamWorks' recurring opening montage was created apropos of the opening moment in my video, "Gosk".

• I have previously asserted that "Jurassic Park" began with the first thing I ever sent Spielberg, which was via a friend of his with whom I had spoken the day before, the title of which, "The Coin That Came In Second" (also posted at Archive.Org) alluding to the idea of occupants of a prehistoric artificial natural habitat environment somehow, perhaps ominously, escaping from there.
  

• Lots of other stuff
  

I also noticed stuff in the newly released Spielberg movie, "TinTin", and at the risk of appearing to see things (as I always do!), will just mention that I am certain of inside-references in that movie to my little music video, "Whatever Happened" (posted at Archive.Org). References to this music video of mine previously seemed the mostly exclusive domain of Joseph Gordon-Leavitt (who will be in the upcoming Spielberg movie about Lincoln), which I've discussed in earlier blogs.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, WORLD!

P.S. PAUL MCCARTNEY
The title of the upcoming (in February) Paul McCartney release has just been officially announced as, "Kisses On The Bottom". I researched it, and it comes from one of the songs on the album, and in context has to do with the bottom of a letter. I have long asserted and demonstrated (whenever possible) my great (or good at least) influence on Paul McCartney, particularly when we're talking about his album titles and/or album covers (not that there is direct communication where I'm concerned, in fact, well, I don't know exactly how it goes, actually, though I'm sure somebody has a good explanation for why I'm not a billionaire which just popped into my head and may explain why there's no direct communication). Continuing.... I cannot help but observe how this album title of Paul McCartney's conceptually connects, or interconnects, so distinctly with my observation about the signature line on my emails. Because I'm crazy enough to hope that one day everyone in the whole world will be on the same page, except maybe for the illiterates, those lousy bums, so pay attention in school and occupy your fingers, then your hands, then the universe, I'm probably leaving out a few steps. I'm going to have to leave things there for 2011.

Three Show & Tell Points Pending Approval of Review Board

Studying For The Big Show And Tell Exam
These two photographs of me are from over 50 years ago. I look older now.





Something Of Possible Interest To Those Who Go Overboard For Christopher Walken
Whether or not you possess the socks, or the IQ, or the proclivity for doing research, or the whatever that would be necessary to appreciate the point made in the first paragraph of my August 22, 2009 blog article ("Graffiti Is In The Eyes Of The Typesetter"), you cannot dispute certain things:

1. First, that this article definitely was not written apropos of recent events, as it was copyrighted at Archive.Org in November 2009 as part of a volume of my collected blog articles.
2. Second, that this article asserts that the "Gods Behaving Badly" project (an entertainment industry project that first manifested before the public via Marie Philips' best-selling novel of the same name being purchased for development as a TV show by Red Hour, the film company of Stuart Cornfeld and Ben Stiller) resulted from my "In Orders We Trust" project. (Again: appreciating that this assertion was made by me does not require that you concur with the assertion - the point here is simply that the assertion regarding this project was made at this time.)
   

Now that this exact same "Gods Behaving Badly" project is to become a movie starring Christopher Walken, its very title, "Gods Behaving Badly," will tend to automatically bring to the mind of the public the current mystery surrounding Walken's possible involvement with relation to the recently reopened investigation into the death of Natalie Wood. Which was huge in the news during Thanksgiving, and which one expects will continue to "resurface" (with apologies to Natalie Wood) with like intensity.

My larger point becomes:

Here we have yet another instance where a huge story in the media contains a component of considerable interest that leads back to me - in this case, the upcoming Christopher Walken movie, "Gods Behaving Badly," the title of which will unquestionably prompt one to think of the Natalie Wood death; it will furthermore become obvious to one and all that this movie is prompting this thought, owing to the enormity of the news story and the wording of the title. The news story generating a shadow over Walken, how far his negative side may have gone in real life, and a similar shadow suggested by the words, "Gods Behaving Badly" - how far do the Gods entitle themselves to go?

I Hear That
Those who saw Steven Spielberg's recent appearance on TCM discussing music in his films may recall his description of how, on set, he might occasionally address his music director, John Williams, out loud but in his absence, when particularly cognizant that he has done something that will get interesting further down the "assemby line" when it becomes Williams' turn to contribute something to the material.

This was a rare television appearance by Steven Spielberg, therefore, a special appearance. Therefore, those who have followed me on the subject of my being a secret, significant influence on Spielberg may, like me, have had their receptors up and running, ready to detect that which might lend itself as something to further support my contention.

In this one must first recognize that at no time will Spielberg ever look directly at the camera and state, "Jonathan David Steinhoff is the most amazing person in the universe." No, not directly. All things communicated by Spielberg to express this thought about me, or perhaps only a diluted version of this thought, would occupy a form on some other level, and only via a more subtle means would simultaneously contain this. For we live in a cold realm, where people are only somewhat effusive with regard to one another. I once actually saw an award show where the winning actor only referred to his director as a phenomenal genius, rather than referring to him as the most incredible genius who ever lived, which would have been more correct, at least in my view. However, I was discussing people recognizing one another.

So to continue, yes, if one were looking there was something there.

It is an often seen event, in instances where one finds a work that makes reference to me/my material, that:

• There is something contained in the material of another that suggests one is being alerted to the specific place in my material that is in relation to the influence or inside-reference
  

• Alongside the similarity, an additional component that further connects that same material
  

The moment in my material to which I was alerted while watching Spielberg on TCM is in my video posted at Archive.Org, "Gosk, Part 2". Vinkalert is by himself, yet says out loud, "Dockert, I can see the car." A moment later, he drops his pail because it changed from being a bluegreen pail to being a purple pail. That's when we hear the song by Procol Harum, "Whiter Shade of Pale".

So, not only was a specific moment in one of my works brought to mind while watching something that I pre-anticipated would contain something regarding my work (it being that Spielberg does this frequently with regard to me/my material). The subject of Spielberg and Williams talking on TCM was all about music in film. And what could be additionally said of the moment of mine Spielberg brought to mind? Of all the moments in all my work, it is the singular moment that takes the whole idea of music in film and cracks a joke about it - without compromising the mood of the moment. Throughout "Gosk" I was interspersing the idea of music as something to be heard from "outside the box", but this moment was the most direct.

Other music related moments in "Gosk" that I also would have found sufficiently relevant, had Spielberg brought such moments to mind:

• One finds a montage in which a violinist is getting set up to play classical music, but the montage is coordinated with a Motown song.

• Women from the planet Klug are automatically mesmerized by Earth music, therefore, as we watch shots of the musician intercut as part of the scene, and hear him playing, the music as we hear it transends its traditional role in such a scene.

• Following a montage I use to introduce a scene, the same song heard playing as part of the montage completely changes in significance by the song itself becoming the initial focus of discussion when the dialog in the scene begins (the introduction of the spacecraft interior in "Gosk 1").

I might additionally note that the actor in my "Gosk" scene who speaks out loud to Dockert in his absence was Joni Mitchell's art director in real life. Mitchell goes way back with David Geffen, who, together with Spielberg and Katzenberg, run DreamWorks. I might also mention that it was ONE WEEK after I told a group of my "Gosk" actors, "I don't recommend using the park's restroom, I would suggest if possible waiting until later when you can use a restaurant bathroom," just one week later, one week I tell you, that George Michael had that scandal where he was caught beating off in a park's bathroom and somehow wound up as a result being David Geffen's houseguest for a week according to the papers (had to remain in town as a result or something, who remembers exactly?). Admittedly, the Joni Mitchell art director/"Gosk" actor wasn't in the specific "Gosk" group I addressed on the subject of restrooms in parks, however, he specifically told me on a separate occasion that he had previously worked with one of the actors who was in that "Gosk" group, so with that kind of cross-pollination, and the kind of attention I generally secretly receive, I think this is putting two and two together, from all that I've seen in the past. Oh yeah, and Sean Daniel, to whom I refer from time to time, once ran Geffen's film production company, though what that has to do with me, well, actually, I suppose it has something to do with me, I just don't quite know what. David Geffen was in the physical presence of John Lennon when Lennon was shot, though Lennon is not known to have called out to him, or to Yoko, or to Dockert. But I'm sure I digress.


SNL, PART 1 OF 3.4 MILLION
I should begin by explaining, SNL is secret code language for the television show, "Saturday Night Live".

Below are my Facebook posting of a photograph with my comment, plus another comment from me regarding it below that. I believe these suggest to those who have been following things that, as a more significant part of my ongoing substantial influence on SNL, two consecutive SNLs had political opening sketches which had as their basic idea something I had days before brought up "on the record". One might have to appreciate the context of my being quite (that's right, I said quite) the influence on SNL over the years (as conveyed in numerous blog articles I've written), in order to appreciate my reading of things - please read more, at your leisure, in earlier blogs of mine, be my guest (you may want to go to archive.org, make a single document from the 5 volumes of postings there of my blog articles, and presto, you'll have a searchable database of all of my blogs posted to archive.org thus far).


Jonathan Steinhoff
Herbert Lamm on the left, then my mother (Herbert's cousin) and my father. My understanding, though you didn't hear it from me, is that Mom and Cousin Herbert were great Communists together in their youth, in the Bronx. Herbert later married the sister of Sidney Buchman, who wrote "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," "Holiday", "Talk Of The Town", etc., and was the head of the Screenwriters Union during WW II, etc., etc. (I therefore credit my mother with every bad thing said on-screen about Hitler during his reign, though it could be said I have an exaggerated belief in my mother's influence on the world, especially when I was a youth, etc., etc., etc.)
December 1 at 5:50pm

Jonathan Steinhoff
Those who caught my subtly ambiguous use of the word "reign" here (Hitler's or Buchman's?) may further notice SNL's taking this very concept further in their opening sketch last night. I've previously referred to my influence on their previous (11/19/11) show's opening sketch as well. My continuing thoughts on this will be next appearing in an upcoming blog!
December 4 at 8:11am

I would add, the SNL sketch to which I refer had Obama explaining how we are not living under his rule, he is only five on the list of the most powerful people in the U.S. Certain show biz individuals came ahead of him, though the application of the exact word "reign" did not literally materialize with regard to a show biz name. It was there, however.


SNL, PART 2 OF 3.4 MILLION
On last night's SNL, there was a sketch about Al Sharpton's political TV show on MSNBC. At one point, as if to represent the idea of an obscure political theory that has been fixated on, Sharpton over and over repeats the idea of the GOP having rocks in their heads, until the phrase appears at the bottom of the screen, "GOP: Rocks In Their Heads?" He further tries to interconnect with this phrase, the idea of "stone walling", the words stone walling said repeatedly, Sharpton saying, "Stone walling? You know, stones are just a variation on rocks. So they have rocks, big old roley poley rocks, in their head?" He finds numerous opportunities beyond these to say "Stone Walling" and "Rocks in their heads". My previous blog, and therefore my last blog before this show, gave the word "stone walling" the importance of being included in the blog title: "All I Want For Christmas Is A Stone Wall". My blog article immediately previous to that blog article refers to the idea of rocks in someone's head, using the phrase several times, while I specifically discuss a previous SNL reference to me/my material. This discussion about rocks in the head goes back to a previous thing I came up with about Larry, The Geologist Of The Mind.

I Was A Prisoner of A Cop Who Wouldn’t Let Anyone Leave The Office Christmas Party Until He Found Out Who Brought The Pot As A White Elephant Gift For 50 Hours
Yes, all that is the title of my newest comedy sketch writing, or for short, "I Was A Prisoner Of A Cop". And as with the one before it ("Dostoyevsky's 'A Christmas Carol'"), it would be most appropriate for their very last SNL before Christmas, and I don't know why I haven't seen a single trace of either one of these ideas on an SNL show yet (I ask but a single trace of one of these ideas, Mr. Michaels, spare a trace if you can, happy holidays to you and yours, sir! It's Tiny Tim, sir, he hasn't been at all well! spare a trace of my sketch idea that'll say something to help poor Tiny Tim!). Oh yes, and on this subject, SNL's last show before Christmas will be taking place this Saturday, or the one after it, or possibly next month (I'm never sure about anything).

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

All I Want For Christmas Is A Stone Wall

Two things worth noting since last time - my sketch idea submitted for the Nov. 19th SNL, "Talking Dirty Cups On A Dirty Kitchen Counter At Thanksgiving Time":

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

and my sketch idea submitted for the Dec. 3rd SNL, "Dostoyevsky's 'A Christmas Carol'":

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

Those who saw (or will see) the Nov. 19th show will notice in their opening sketch the idea of Romney cleaning a teacup was used to represent the opposite of a sleazy type; in my sketch, a dirty cup is used to represent a sleazy type. This fact, combined with SNL's ongoing references (for years and years) to material I submit for that week's show, says a mouthful (not just a sipful). In the neither-here-nor-there dept., there were other possible references on that show. A sketch about a mattress ended with the image of a glass of wine, it NOT spilling being the essential meaning of the image - my sketch has a cup bemoaning that his new crack will result in liquid spilling from him. Another sketch took place in a bar called "The Empty Glass" - if seen in the context I describe, it is related. And finally, in my previous blog, I state (in a discussion relating to SNL) that crude is often regarded as a surefire approach (that blog is not yet copyrighted, so if you didn't read it before the show, you might admittedly consider it had been written any time, though it was not). This idea was central to their opening Romney sketch, wherein he wishes to compete with the edgier personalities of Cain and Perry by appearing more crude than he is.

Those unfamiliar with the degree of my impact on SNL may have difficulty accepting the idea that I should have had so powerful an effect on that show.

COMING SOON:
Something for Christopher Walken and Steven Spielberg fans, or not, depending on your point of view.

Lawrence of Wherever

From The Ridiculous
SNL (secret code language for Saturday Night Live) has, for the millionth show in the past million years, made some kind of inside reference to material I provided for that show, specifically, something I (officially) posted to www.archive.org on Monday, Oct. 31st, 12:39am Greenwich Mean Time (Sunday, Oct. 30th in California): "We Do That Too".

"We Do That Too" is my comedy idea specifically meant for the Nov. 5th SNL. Throughout the bit, the action of wetting oneself flows through it like a beautiful river (as the prejudiced author, I may have waxed a little too poetic in my description, but the essential thing makes it through: wetting oneself is the predominant action of the bit).

The Nov. 5th SNL included a bit all about pooping oneself (the Dr. Oz takeoff where the person who poops himself is the focus of a magnificent demonstration that one can't forget, though perhaps someday I can charge people to read "We Do That Too" as a possible remedy that might assist one in forgetting to some degree anyway, but I digress).

So in conclusion, while people have been pooping and wetting themselves ever since they first began wearing animal skins (not that there are any cave paintings where they admit it, but what do you expect), and also making references to same ever since as well, this is not the proper context in which to scrutinize what has occurred here. Here we have the upteenth example of me submitting a comedy sketch idea for that week's SNL, and them taking something from it.

I would just like to add that the core of my idea was not used. My idea includes a concept in addition to the.... other stuff. I was going for how big business will try to co-opt a true group spirit (Occupy Wall Street) by latching onto something irrelevant they have in common with the movement and running with it. I do not normally go for the crude (though it is for many a surefire approach), but in this case, wetting oneself struck me as the obvious common ground for co-opters to exploit. In the '60s, we saw people grow their hair long without having any true belief in the spirit of freedom it connoted at the time, ultimately co-opting real change. So I say, beware the..... beware the..... perhaps you should read "We Do That Too" for yourself.

To The Not Ridiculous Enough (But Close)
When it came to the Nov. 12th SNL, I offered my comedy sketch idea, "It'll Shake Your Head". I posted this one to www.archive.org on Tuesday, Nov. 8th, 4:30am Greenwich Mean Time (or Monday, Nov. 7th California time).

SNL did an incredibly minor reference to it on their Nov. 12th show, would not begin to count as a reference, if not for the aforedescribed context that has developed over the years, as well as a shorthand.

Specifically, "It'll Shake Your Head" is about a Glen Beck-type named Larry, The Geologist of the Mind, who explains all things political with a crazy concept having to do with invisible Tectonic Plates in the sky that act on the human mind.

The Nov. 12th SNL had a game show sketch in which the characters had to guess the secret word without the person prompting them saying it. Kristin Wiig said the name, "Scientist Kate". It was not a secret, so it was okay for her to say, "Scientist Kate". Had she said, "Larry, The Geologist Of The Mind", that would have been a different matter - so, "Scientist Kate" in, "Larry, The Geologist Of The Mind" out.

An additional thing, though I attach little to it, was their opening, wherein Rick Perry is shot in the head but the bullet bounces off. This could be said to bring to mind the idea of having rocks in one's head, or a plate in one's head. If this did bring such a thought to mind, well, rock's in one's head, geologist of the mind, plate in one's head, Tectonic plate affecting our minds.... who knows what was going on inside their heads!

And now it gets scary. Glen Beck was looking at me contemplatively in traffic several weeks ago. So then, on the night of Nov. 8th on his show, Glen Beck guts a fish named Larry as part of a symbolic attack on mainstream media. I don't enjoy watching people defecate, and so never watch the Glen Beck Show, but apparently this was noteworthy enough to rate a Huffington Post article. I did a little further research, and found that the last posting on YouTube of Beck and his Larry the Fish was 2.5 years ago, in March 2009. So Larry the Fish returns after over two years in order to appear within less than a day of the appearance of the Beck-like Larry, The Geologist Of The Mind. A character created by me (a secret perpetual influence on the often political SNL) prompting a reaction from Glen Beck. Nope, wouldn't be at all surprised to find this is the Republicans remembering my influence on SNL when the 2008 election was getting into full swing.

In Other News
There's been other stuff worthy of mention, however, I don't really have the energy (did I mention I still don't have a 9-5 that takes into account my solemn duties as one of the most secretly influential people in the world at a time in history when that could make a real difference, and so my energy gets sapped by non-solemn duties? still waiting for Spielberg, McCartney, or somebody to call and tell me I can officially be seated upon my throne....).

I originally was inspired with the Tectonic Plates concept in "It'll Shake Your Head" as something for an animation of some kind. I saw it as containing huge possibilities. Now I see Glen Beck gutting a fish, and somehow, that messes with the whole thing (hopefully I'm mistaken). I mention this so that Spielberg or McCartney will feel compelled to call before another fish pays the price!

Fish Credit (or Addendum To The Last Thing)

Addendum To The Last Thing (or Fish Credit)

After a careful review of my description of the Klein/seasick in fishing boat cabin description found in my 11.8.09 blog, "The Price Of Freedom, And The Free Of Pricedom" (also published to Archive.Org 11.10.09 as part of the 1st volume of my collected blogs), which preceded the reference to same in my 10.23.11 (most recent) blog, "Chosen Leader In Reserve", brought up at that time while on the subject of a movie about credit for spotting birds ("The Big Year")....

I find that I feel exactly the same as I have always felt about credit deserved regarding that fish.  I shall always feel this way.  Case closed.

Chosen Leader In Reserve

Idiot-Proof Evidence Of Something-Or-Another
For those who might feel a vacuum from there not having been a Saturday Night Live last night, and/or if you're nostalgic for several SNL shows ago, or/and you're looking for proof of some kind of something or another relating to my blogs occasionally pointing at Stuart Cornfeld/Ben Stiller (who run Red Hour Films together, Stuart being someone I once sort of knew going back to 1975 and later and then back to 1975 then go to 1993), or whatever, then perhaps you will enjoy this little videoclip*:
*"The Chosen Leader of Florsheim Shoes" can be found at:
http://www.archive.org/details/TheChosenLeaderOfFlorsheimShoes




In Totally Minor, Unimportant News
That sketch they did on SNL (Oct. 1st I think it was), where they regard Hidden Valley Ranch Salad Dressing as a food to be consumed obsessively rather than as a mere salad dressing: that must have resulted from my mentioning to someone at work that Hidden Valley Ranch Salad Dressing is so great it should be treated like a main course in itself. How? In previous blogs I've touched on how my "secret" super-importance has led to my workplace environments invariably becoming infiltrated as if I was at the center of some kind of Hollywood (and more) chessboard (which I am). Obviously you weren't there, and so those who don't check out the evidence of my being truthful (e.g., the above videoclip) will not want to give me any credibility here.

I more recently have seen additional references to me/my material in a number of things: "Unstoppable"; "The Rite"; "The Green Hornet"; probably lots of other stuff, can't recall off-hand.

I surprisingly didn't notice anything in connection with me in the excellent new Cornfeld/Stiller/Black/ Martin/Wilson movie, "The Big Year" (please note- appreciating why the word "surprisingly" applies requires years of research).

It happens I once did a conceptual collage, "Finding Life" (below) that touches on the subject of "The Big Year", however, this would not "count", by my standards, as something to be regarded as a deliberate act on their part. They also had a character getting seasick and having to sit in the cabin of a fishing boat, as happened to me over 40 years ago when I was with the family of the then-future senior editor of "Money Magazine", Bob Klein (my family and the Kleins were old friends, and so went on a joint family vacation together in Cape Cod in the mid-60s). This also does not "count", as Cornfeld/Stiller provided no tie-in. Bob's daughter, Amy, did photograph me now and then during the '80s, but, nope, doesn't "count", as I was not a bird (and never will be). I nevertheless reserve the right to return to this as I may yet find something. Can't understand why they suddenly left me out, I don't get it....

Finding Life"

from "Go Eyes, Go!", copyright 1993, posted at Archive.Org June 2007

If I Was Cool You'd Be In Trouble

Well, there is quite a bit I might point out about my influence on last night's season premiere of SNL (Saturday Night Live). It's a detail-oriented job, but somebody's gotta do it. I do not revolve around this kind of thing, but do consider it all the type of stuff someone ought to be noting. And I also wanted to remind you, SNL has been thought to possess some kind of influence on the American Presidential campaigns, therefore, for five dollars you can tell me which candidate you want me to send in a joke about (or two dollars if the candidate is unlikely to win to begin with).

In the past I have asserted that my influence on this show (and on many others, such as Paul McCartney, Steven Spielberg, etc., etc.) is ongoing, and for the most part my SNL influence has involved just-written material of mine that didn't even exist at the time of the preceding SNL show. This has gone on for years and years, and there are times when I appear to have considerable standing around there - though it is for some reason forbodden for them to acknowledge or pay me. C'mon everybody, admit I'm a major influence, no one will get mad, we all know how it goes, the public expects there to be some sort of secret person behind the scenes who has some sort of magical, non-direct relationship with all, even more people than believe in the Easter Bunny.

Given the many things I've established in past blog articles, apparent to those with intelligence willing to invest the time and effort, I do not consider it presumptuous for me to ask reasonable people to weigh those things also included that I cannot specifically prove through readily available Internet resources - such resources do make available evidence of enough things to make the conclusion that I am a significant influence obvious to all.

Since the 2011 SNL season finale (i.e., since their last show), I have posted four comedy ideas at the site where I almost invariably post my comedy ideas, Archive.Org:

• "Amnesia Land" (6.11.11)
• "Investigations Into Why They Were Given Special Thanks" (8.5/11)
  
• "The Everywhere Crowd" (9.3.11)
• "Catcher In the None Of Your Business" (9.10.11)

[The dates are all copyrighted at the Archive.Org site]

1. On last night's SNL season premiere, a sketch about Susan Lucci had EVERYONE in the room raise their hand when asked if they ever individually had amnesia at one time or another on their soap opera. In my "Amnesia Land" sketch, EVERYONE in the room at one time or another is conked on the head to induce amnesia.

2. Not quite so obvious a reference to my "Amnesia Land" sketch occurred during SNL's last sketch of the night. A soldier comes to the side of another soldier lying on the ground dying, then must go a few feet away to cajole another dying soldier lying on the ground, then a third, then back to the first, and so on and so forth being the ongoing idea. In my "Amnesia Land," as each person in a room is one by one knocked down by a conk on the head, one of them comes to their side to cajole them back to "consciousness", this happening over and over as the ongoing idea.

2.001 SNL last night apparently forgot to include anything from the three other comedy ideas I posted since their 2011 season finale, and forgetting is something amnesiacs do (this is not a serious basis for correlation, and is instead a humorous remark on my part, humorrous for those who find it funny, that is - however, I may be explaining the obvious).

3. In the opening sketch, SNL had the Republican candidate John Huntsman asking you to vote for him while speaking in a (deliberately) poor Chinese accent. Earlier that day on Facebook, in posting a link to my video about Putin and Kasparov, "Bishop Pawn Forfeit Rule," my Comment was to use a deliberately poor Russian accent wording to ask you not to vote for Putin (as yesterday's news was the announcement that Putin was running again).

4. I have previously posted (and then time-stamped by reposting to Archive.Org as part of my volumes of collections of my blog articles) my assertion that Paul McCartney several years ago made a surprise appearance on SNL a week after I wrote to him through an intermediary asking him to be in a comedy sketch regarding my "Recipe For Fun" video (posted at YouTube, where I'm "Zoomsteinhoff") - I will not detail here the reasons behind that request. I am generally a major influence on a lot of Paul McCartney work, so I was not as surprised as I might otherwise have been when he appeared in a sketch with Steve Martin, Alec Baldwin and Martin Short, all about who had the poison in their drink. So you see, practically identical to the title of my video, "Recipe For Fun". Last night on SNL, Alec Baldwin was joined in his opening monologue by Steve Martin. They did a sketch not at all dissimilar from the aforementioned sketch that McCartney had participated in, in my view: it regarded what was in Alec Baldwin's urine sample, which Steve Martin drank in order to discern. In Alec's and Steve's sketch with Paul, again, a disgusting beverage (to the extent that a drink containing poison is disgusting). So it seems to me, this all comes back to me and my "Recipe For Fun".

5. A week ago I posted on Facebook a YouTube video of the Paul McCartney song, "My Brave Face" (a song on which I was an influence). That song contains the line, "I've been taking dirty dishes and throwing them away." On SNL last night, the Red Flag sketch has a character smashing one dish after the other, going through a whole pile of dishes. One could correctly use the term "throwing away" to describe what she was doing with the dishes. Yet they were not dirty dishes, one assumes they were relatively clean dishes. [I do not feel the cleanness of the dishes undermines my point; however, I see where the witnesses to my Facebook posting of the video are limited to people fortunate enough to be my FB friends.]

6. Alec Baldwin is known to be among Paul McCartney's friends. Additionally, my previous blog article showed (to anyone intelligent enough to know how to disseminate the information) further substantial evidence of my influence on the work of film producer/Ben Stiller business partner, Stuart Cornfeld. So now add in how Steve Martin has a starring role in an upcoming Cornfeld film about spotting rare birds; Steve Martin's recent banjo album, entitled, "Rare Bird Alert," includes an (excellent) song with Paul McCartney on lead vocal.

Yes, They Have No Bananas

If You Will Now Please Join Me For A Minute Of Not Mumbling
I've been postponing expressing my delight at once again figuring so large in major doings. And one of the good parts about expressing my delight here is that, in so doing, I will also be describing stuff that once again makes me appear, to the discerning eye, as somewhat impressive! Can there be any reason not to begin?

A number of people were involved in the making of the amazing, warm comedy, "30 Minutes Or Less," including film superstar, Jessie Eisenberg. I shall be focusing on this film's producer, Stuart Cornfeld, and the several significant things contained in this film that are inside-references for my benefit.

In blog articles I wrote as early as August 2008, I have made reference to Stuart Cornfeld, a person I kind of knew at a certain point in the '70s, and who is now Ben Stiller's producing partner, running "Red Hour Films" with Mr. Stiller. I mentioned back in 2008 how, when Stuart includes in his movies secret inside-references to the gorilla mask(s) in the 1973-74 CalArts student film, "Limbo", it is an inside-reference for my benefit. I've gone into in 2008 blog articles how, when Stuart includes in movies a character standing over another character knocked to the ground, it is an inside-reference to the time in 1975 I was electrocuted when "best boy" on an AFI film set at Santa Monica Beach, Stuart being the person who came over to me to see if I was still ticking. I also mention in 2008 how, when Stuart's "Tropic Thunder" showed the characters considering using an idea one learned from watching a TV show, this joke also started with me, or at the least was apropos of my using it.

As you might have by now guessed, I enumerate here these three Cornfeld-film elements because each can be found, as I essentially predicted in 2008, in the current Cornfeld film, "30 Minutes Or Less". A movie which had not even cast its stars until 2010. The blog statements of mine to which I refer were not only published as part of these blogs, but also as part of Volume 1 of my compiled blogs that I published in November 2009 at Archive.Org (which is the more binding copyright, as articles posted at this blogsite do not contain a binding timestamp other than being witnessed by those who read the articles).

In "30 Minutes," the instance of a character knocked to the ground, the flame-throwing sidekick of the villain (in the scene where an individual coming to his side as he lies on the ground is humorously presented as an important symbol of that person's humanity), regards someone who is considerably less than truly sympathetic. I therefore would want to emphasize here that this is no reflection on me, I don't use flame-throwers, plus, I'm a nice guy. Furthermore, if in writing a screenplay one happens to include a description of an automobile, which perfectly matches a car belonging to a neighbor, however, in your screenplay the car is owned by someone about to blow up the world, this should not be seen by rational people as an accusation against the real-life car owner in any way (the screenwriter might even be pleased with the neighbor who owns the car in real life, wanting to recommend that he be elected neighbor-of-the-month, and NOT wanting to accuse him of trying to blow up the world, seriously NOT wanting to make that accusation).

I also went to see "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," as it is in the realm of things commonly experienced by me, that if one movie currently showing has gorilla masks as an inside-reference for my benefit, another currently showing movie, if about gorillas, might also contain some interconnecting material deliberately placed. I do recognize that these are not the kinds of things that commonly occur in most people's realm of experience. In "Planet of the Apes" (which features John Lithgow, whose sister was my best friend's girlfriend in high school) we do not find someone who operates a flame-thrower knocked to the ground with someone immediately coming up to them to see what happened. No, here it's the person who operates a water hose, shooting not flames from a flamethrower but powerful bursts of water, aimed at the chimps. As in the moment from which the inside-reference to me originated, he is electrocuted and knocked to the ground. People gather over him.

Once again, I love chimps and don't use hoses to knock them down, and any other resemblance to persons etc. unless stupid people are looking for an excuse to bother me in which case - here's one! Put it all together, and you raise doubts about people gathering over me when I electrocute myself. Could this be part of their making a full-length movie about the character Tom Cruise played in "Tropic Thunder," which Stuart produced, yet a character which some say was based on Stuart just the same? I don't know - I cannot even say if Stuart drives the same car as that character.

Express Lane Now Open
I've often discussed how major Arabic terrorist acts have been preceded by "things left on my doorstep", if the significance of these clues is read correctly (readable after the occurrence). And I've also often discussed how I consider this related to my secret super-importance in relation to the most prominent living Jewish man, Spielberg (whether he chooses to exist in their world or not, can we know whether they count him as occupying a chess square?). I've often discussed how I see one primary obstacle to real investigations of these things left on my doorstep: the question, "Why YOUR doorstep?" As the answer requires much fact-checking (by way of my blog articles) in order to verify my assertion of secret super-importance in relation to Spielberg, McCartney, etc., and as this assertion of mine may appear to work against certain important people's "images" (to which financial empires are tied), this fairly obvious, cut-and-dried evidence from Stuart - most of his company's films are distributed by Spielberg's Dreamworks - may someday go a long way (I hope) towards someone being prompted to perform the investigations I seek. And if any of you major Arab terrorists are reading this, please note: You have too many items for the express lane! Go wait on the long line to be within earshot of Spielberg like everybody else! Nevermind.... will that be paper or plastic?

You Are Here

This will be in connection with something contained in my immediately preceding July 28th blog ("Crossfire Hurricane") in a section regarding Harrison Ford ("Harrison Ford Puts His Best Socks Forward"), which in turn was in connection with something that can be found in a blog of mine from January 30, 2010 ("May The Force Be Tested For Possible Negative Side Effects"), which regarded something posted in December 2009, etc., etc., and Steven Spielberg too, if you follow it all in the way you should!!! [I have used three exclamation marks here to specially help motivate you, as usually one is not asked to connect these types of dots just to be able to follow things, except by overly demanding people, who ask anything for any reason, and so we must all hate them, I hope they're not using three exclamation marks too, but I digress.]

I will here be pointing out to all the world those things I observed in the new Steven Spielberg/Jon Favreau/Daniel Craig/Harrison Ford movie, "Cowboys and Aliens," that I believe fall into the category of being in connection with my material. These observations of mine would not have been made based on similarities alone, in fact, for the most part the similarities alone would not form enough of a basis whatsoever. The extensive set of reasons that go well beyond issues of similarities, such as the shorthand/lexicon and the ongoing inside references from certain camps that have now gone on for decades with relation to me/my material, will be omitted from this explanation. You can close your eyes and point at a good number of my blogs, you'll find something, frequently things for which I was able to include evidence, if you can add two and two (sometimes, 18 times 3 divided by 12 subtracted from a trillion).

I am particularly delighted to have influenced "Cowboys and Aliens" - it is a great, memorable movie! I expect few to be able to appreciate why I consider it likely such vaguely similar bits and pieces in "Cowboys and Aliens" were done apropos of my having first employed them. This blog today is therefore more for the benefit of the few who did these things for "Cowboys and Aliens":

• When Harrison Ford puts his hand on Daniel Craig's shoulder and Craig's reaction to this counts with the audience. This is the oft-used thing that I use in one of my three "more major" videos ("Gosk"; "Mall Man"; "Uncle's Dream" - all posted at Archive.Org), specifically here, my 1990/1992 "Uncle's Dream" video, the part where the mother's hand on the daughter's shoulder occurs, in connection with the line about "the hurting kind". "Cowboys and Aliens" has much stuff going on about the idea of the course of the child (and child surrogate) as set by the parent (stuff about who is or is not truly the "hurting kind" is also an important aspect of that moment in "Cowboys And Aliens").

• People of one planet having a special power to mesmerize people of another planet. This occurs in both "Cowboys and Aliens" as well as in another one of my "more major" videos, my 1994/1998 "Gosk " video. We hear the Daniel Craig character respond with sarcasm when reminded how he had carelessly subjected himself to the mesmerizing; in "Gosk" the sarcasm is more extreme and not for the same reason, as the character using it does not accept that any mesmerizing has occurred. Nevertheless, in both cases it is a moment of sarcasm occurring within a discussion about aliens mesmerizing. I suppose one might possibly come across mesmerizing aliens in other stories within the genre, and so I would regard the degree of reference to my material here as likely the thing I also see a lot of from certain folk in entertainment: elements included apropos of me doing it (such as the opening logo shot of every DreamWorks movie, a bob in water, which I believe, for a set of reasons, began apropos of when I made this same image the opening shot of "Gosk" in 1994).

• In "Cowboys and Aliens", the opening shot following the credits sequence has Daniel Craig sitting up into frame, dumbfounded. This strongly resembles something I use in two of my three "more major" videos, "Gosk" and "Mall Man". I use the action of a character suddenly sitting up from a lying down position to convey a more magically dramatic awakening. In "Mall Man" it is the video's earliest real-time-ish shot of the main character, seen at the end of the credits sequence (as in "Cowboys and Aliens"); in "Gosk", Dockert is lying down, when suddenly one of the girls says, "So what if we are on another planet?", after having previously made no concession whatsoever to this assertion by Dockert. This causes Dockert to open his eyes and sit up. The question of whether or not a character has cognizance of an alien presence is most significant to this sitting up moment in BOTH their movie and my video.

CROSSFIRE HURRICANE

A few little trinkets, a few tiny morsels, a few delights, or to put it another way, homework:


HARRISON FORD PUTS HIS BEST SOCKS FORWARD




BIRTHDAYS I LIKE
I've additionally quite recently posted at Archive.Org this birthday wish for Carl Jung, Mick Jagger, Stanley Kubrick (7/26/11) and Ringo Starr (7/7/11):

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

By the way, this may or may not have a relationship with my recent Paul McCartney birthday wish.


MORE TO LIKE
And as if that isn't enough to throw to you ungrateful heathen, I also have posted this bit of stuff:

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


OSTRICHES LIKE SEEING SAND CLOSE UP
In the interest of saving humanity, which has been a longtime hobby with me, as many people know, I again tried to ford my way into getting something started up. I'll bet that requires a little clarification to make sense. Well, let me put it like this.

First, I took this July 2007 posting of mine:

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

My Archive.Org description for this posting makes reference to people at the top of the Arabic terrorist food chain being focused on me, due to my secret importance in relation to the most prominent Jewish man, Spielberg, and someone else of comparable power/influence in our entertainment industry culture, McCartney.

My Archive.Org description for this posting also refers to a December 2006 email I sent to a major "Simpsons" director who once lived down the hall from me at CalArts during the '70s, Mark Kirkland (I also sent the Dec. '06 email to two others, plus a bcc to myself).

Those who received that email would have read the "Simpsons" episode idea that I later posted at Archive.Org in July 2007, which mentions Arabic enemies of the U.S. violating the Mickey Mouse trademark for their own purposes. IT WAS ONLY SEVERAL MONTHS LATER that Palestinian TV came up with Farfour, a Mickey Mouse look-alike character (enough so that it aroused severe condemnation from the Disney family), who was there to instruct Palestinian children in how much to hate Israelis (with some amount of effort made to convince children to appreciate suicide bombers).

It being that I have a Facebook friend who used to be a real friend of mine at CalArts, who is also now a Facebook friend of Mark Kirkland, I thought I could leave a trail of "breadcrumbs" so that Kirkland could wake up, see I'm right about this stuff, and help me get a real investigation launched. The one could make it more apparent to the other. A little help! So I sent a message to my Facebook friend. No answer, so much for us (humanity). Oh well. Because after that there's the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 9/11, the Times Square Bomber, really plenty of stuff that I need investigated, owing to stuff left on MY doorstep. The funny thing about "me" needing this stuff investigated: though not clearly apparent to one and all, my not taking action in this would be enough to arouse the stored up fury of all humanity. You'll probably never know what I'm talking about.

Birthday Wish In A Bottle

I have just learned of something that people will surely be talking about after this blog, or perhaps only tweeting about (unless it would have been more proper the other way around, if I had written, "will surely be tweeting about, or perhaps only talking about"). There is reason to consider the possibility, though I do not deny it is not a probability but only a legitimate possibility, that Paul McCartney's recent birthday video to wish Ringo Starr a happy 71st birthday on July 7th was seriously influenced by me.

How could something like this have happened? Where were the authorities? Could this be in any way related to the fact that I am frequently a significant secret influence on significant actions (including artistic ones) by Paul McCartney? Could it be that it is not in the least bit unusual that there is, yet again, as there almost invariably is with regard to Paul McCartney and myself, enough of a basis, owing to the evidence, for an objective mind to wonder why there is (and so often is) a reason to consider an apparent similarity as being more than just a similarity? Not to mention those innumerable times when there is provided more than just a reason to consider a similarity, but in fact something that crosses the threshold into the realm of being evidence, at least to the astute and fair mind.

And now, down to specifics.

We see, in the following June 18, 2011 birthday wish video to Paul McCartney, that I clearly "break character" after my initial, structured birthday wish, in order to offer up a birthday wish in a more natural, personal way (this contrast in tone is the main part of my very limited birthday wish video):

http://www.archive.org/details/BirthdayWishes6.18.11

The above link evidences that I posted my birthday wish video for Paul McCartney at Archive.org less than three weeks before the following Paul McCartney video wish to Ringo Starr for a happy birthday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IHLKm1RtUFY

Here we again see a message for a former Beatle that begins with a structured birthday wish (the performance of a song), followed by a break from the tone/persona contained in the song, so that a happy birthday wish is then expressed with a more personal tone.

This is of course something that one sees from time to time. Interesting, however, that we see it again less than three weeks later, especially considering Paul McCartney's frequent pattern of making such inside references where I am concerned (I would want to add that there are any number of instances where the evidence is clearer, as opposed to what is found here, where pre-knowledge of the pattern would be required before one can even begin to consider that one is witnessing a shorthand/inside-reference/influence).

So now what is to be done? Of course, I expect a complete investigation, witnesses, media, so forth. It seems innocent - oh yes, it seems innocent. Yet, if matters of this kind are permitted to occur without any degree of scrutiny, and without being subject to any form of measurement and consequential regulation, would not the future of happy birthday wishing be put at risk?

Seriously though (to be honest, I actually have a somewhat more serious tone than this, despite my having just written the words, "seriously though"), if it could someday be proven in a court of law that I have in any way made a contribution to Paul McCartney's wishing Ringo Starr a happy 71st birthday, I would consider myself to have been highly honored and privileged, as if I had received the American equivalent to being granted knighthood (though I wish he would let me in on it so that next time I'll know when I don't need to bother spending the money on a greeting card - unless this should be seen as regifting, in which case I would not feel that I have really been a part of Ringo's happy birthday wish from Paul McCartney, and that's if I felt myself a part of this birthday wish to begin with, which at this point requires more information before a conclusion can be reached).

First Addendum To The Last Thing I Said

First Things First Or Second
Sometimes the universe isn't what you're expecting. In my previous blog article I was doubtful of any relevance to my seeing Sara Gilbert in traffic yesterday, thus altering the 9 out of 10 times equation to 5 out of 10 times (the proportionate number of times I will see a celebrity relevant to something in relation to me versus irrelevant). However, I have reconsidered, and it now appears somewhat obvious. Sara Gilbert is officially a regular on the show, "The Big Bang Theory." Named for one of the very few modern theories on the origin of the universe. So there I am in my blog yesterday, discussing how the theatre had the sound turned off at the beginning of "Green Lantern" while the narrator was explaining the origin of the universe.

What this all means is that certain very excellent people have come through to make me 10 for 10 yesterday with relation to the aforementioned equation, 100% in other words, or to be more precise, two for two.

Starting With John Goodman Leads To Sean Daniel
When I came to California from the East Coast in the early '90s, my first return after not being here since going to CalArts in the '70s, I saw John Goodman within the first week or two. Goodman is brought to mind as he played Sara Gilbert's father in "Roseanne," which is generally regarded as thus far being the height of both of their mainstream popularity (if one wishes to apply an overly conventional perspective). Within the first week or two of being back, I went to the Universal lot to see if, I don't know, perhaps, just walk up to someone I once sort of knew, Sean Daniel. Sean was the first person who had told me of the college I attended in the '70s, CalArts, and also the person I believed (and believe) forwarded my work to his friends Paul McCartney and Steven Spielberg, resulting eventually in "Jurassic Park", though they made whatever I started with their own completely. And also I believe I had many other reasonable and friendly reasons to say hello. Sean wasn't there, but I had no problem getting as far as his receptionist. As I left, the person whose name was indicated with regard to the place next to Sean's, John Goodman, went by on a golf cart. This became the same image you get of John Goodman in a movie released not long after that, "The Flintstones," as cavemen enjoyed a good game of golf. But the interesting part is that later that day, a good twenty or so miles away, Sean Daniel drove by me, and his car did some kind of jerking forward that made his head fling back a little. I later learned, when I went to see "The Flintstones", that John Goodman as Fred does this identical flinging back of the head when his vehicle gets going. I think what I'm saying is, the world has come a long way since the Flintstone period, and yet it hasn't!

That's Easy For You To Sa

Is Paul McCartney A Republican?
No. (Although he is reputed to have certain Conservative views.)

Recent Talk That John Lennon Would Have Voted For Reagan From Fred Seaman (Lennon's Former Assistant)
Recent talk that John Lennon would have voted for Reagan is a reflection of (please choose some fragment from the following):

(1) Lennon could not belong, not to the left nor the right, not to mother nor father (the story is that his parents made the 5-year old Lennon decide which one of the two would have custody, only to have the victor - his mother - give him over to her sister to raise. Perhaps this ultimately made Lennon go left/right like some erratic maniac, not to mention running in circles when the moon is full, which never occurred but could be tomorrow's news, who can say).

(2) Lennon being among those artists who try to provoke a rise of a special variety by touching a nerve so as to keep things real, a behaviorism previously exhibited by this individual, hence, he says "Reagan" to shock.

(3) The wisdom of appreciating Lennon being cast in stone for all eternity for what he contributed through his music is equal and parallel to the wisdom of recognizing that many things he said out loud when he wasn't creating music should not be taken as lasting reflections of anything about him but rather should be completely reinterpreted as a yang to the yin of something, it being that he was first and foremost an artist trying to get a good story by presstime.

(4) When I was working on the movie "Gizmo", a 1974 project of Lennon's friend Howard Smith (I just worked in the office and also did some film library research), they also were using Evan Lottman as editor (later replaced by Terry Manning as editor). Evan had edited "The Exorcist", where Regan is the main character's name. Lennon had already in 1974 played games with movie characters names (I've written on this before), so perhaps this was a long-term effort to raise the devil so that people would get secret reminders to play certain records backwards in time for the bicentennial.

Knowing The Way History Gets Messed Around
I've conjectured that the Lennon A Republican? story might not go away as easily as snapping one's fingers, that it could be retrieved in ten years, twenty years, who knows what right-wing revisionists might enjoy exploiting. So I therefore further conjectured on the idea of doing a mockumentary, a fun collection of people who knew him forced to remember Lennon's politics, but genuine recollections. I don't really know how good an idea this would be, but I did definitely decide it wasn't a great idea, and that it isn't an idea worth being a voice shouting in the crowd about. Once everyone starts playing around with the Lennon Republican story, it could turn everything into a strange hodgepodge of confused teenagers. Yet couldn't the same thing happen from doing nothing, and leaving it to the right to play with down the road? So I sent out a few messages in the hope of reaching someone I once worked for, Howard Smith. Howard had first introduced John Lennon to the whole New York City radical scene, particularly folks such as Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. If Howard were to be involved in a mockumentary pretending to study the political life of Lennon, it could be.... hilarious! They could interrogate Howard under the lights, asking what Lennon might have said about the way Jerry Rubin wore his beard, or did Lennon really laugh at Hoffman's jokes or was he pretending to while trying to infiltrate the Yippies as an undercover Republican those Abbie Hoffman jokes really weren't that funny were they so Lennon was pretending right? Right? Somewhere within Howard Smith's answers would reside the authenticity of an expert on the subject at hand. And that would filter through no matter how absurdly he is presented. And with Howard's involvement, perhaps others, even Yoko Ono, would lend support to my mockumentary. But Smith never wrote back (it's close to two days now), and as I said, I really don't know that it would be such a good idea. Therefore, I hereby suspend all work on this project, until someone else gets the ball rolling again perhaps, but someone with real weight here. On the other hand, maybe Fred Seaman's plan is to resurrect Lennon in the form of a great uniter of both Democrats and Republicans, being both? I could always do a part 2 to my "Frozen," video at Archive.org about The Beatles being brought back to life, through Lennon and Harrison being brought back to life, through cryogenics. No, on second or third thought, I don't think I will go there - just too much work trying to imagine what George Harrison might say after having been dead but then being alive again but then being dead again but then being alive again.

More Distance Going
For those who have read or will read my immediately previous blog (July 1st), which ultimately connects to Paul McCartney I believe, so you'll want to read and view all of those other connecting blogs, etc. in relation to it as well, there is more news.

Unfortunately for those who have never verified any or several or all of the innumerable verifiable yet extraordinary things I have written about, this is another instance where one must take my word. I am hopeful that it will be considerably less of a demand to take my word for those who have already had the chance to check my veracity.

With that kind of lead-in, you would think I was about to describe an alien abduction. And if that's how I made you feel, prepare for an anti-climax, or at least for some, while for others, anyway, so I went to see the movie "Green Lantern". I had used my computer to find a theatre still showing it in 3D as the previous day the assumption that it would be everywhere proved seriously flawed. I am generally reluctant to use my computer to find a theatre if I can help it, as life has made me paranoid of certain powerful creeps. This time, the situation required it. But please feel free to call me paranoid.

I'm in the theatre plex, and they redirect us to a different location than is printed on the ticket. Time goes by, there are no trailers (no complaint from me on this). Then the movie itself suddenly starts, but without sound. I therefore miss the entire opening half minute sentence or two that explains how the universe works (I might possibly already know how it works, though I cannot say for sure). Then the 3D is NOT working right, there are objects kind of, not transparent, but, and shapes. Okay well, geez, lemme see, imagine somebody, uh, ok, somebody takin' a baseball bat to a projectuh, know what I mean? It was worse than no 3D at all. After the movie, as I'm leaving the theatre, I see some people in theatre uniforms to complain to, and then collect a few people for them at random as they're leaving the Green Lantern theatre. All confirm the same thing I described, in their own words, so we're each given free passes to see another movie. But please feel free to call me paranoid.

On my way home from the theatre, way out in Woodland Hills or somewhere, I find myself face to face (me in my car, he in his car) with a Justin Timberlake look-alike, or else Justin Timberlake. This is good, as I consider his work on SNL among the truly excellent stuff they've done, and I am also an influence on that show myself, and on other stuff in his general neighborhood.

I then mulled over what possible significance his going by might contain. In my immediately preceding (July 1st) blog I mention how, when I see a celebrity, 9 out of 10 times it connects with something going on in some sort of proximity to me, including possibly being in relation to a recent blog (there is thusly an implication of rich people having the power the follow people without difficulty). I also in my immediately preceding blog refer in this same discussion to a videoclip from June 2009 that features Cameron Diaz. So I'm mulling over the possible significance. The best I can come up with is, I was junior high school friends in homeroom with John Turitzin when I was growing up in Princeton, and also knew John at summer camp in Vermont, at Camp Timberlake. John is now among the three people who run Marvel Entertainment. So, the elements being.... Timberlake, Marvel, Green Lantern, who is a DC comic book character, with Marvel and DC being something of a Pepsi and Coke kind of thing. I went home, looked Timberlake up on my computer, and found he is currently starring in the number 2 movie in the country along with Cameron Diaz and several others. I must admit to feelings of concern that this poor man was somehow ripped, ripped from a busy schedule of acquiring MySpace and being the star of yet another movie about to open in a week-and-a-half, just to do his bit in responding to my immediately preceding blog, which must have read like a challenge as 9 out of 10, etc., etc. And as if this wasn't bad enough, I also saw one other celebrity, Sara Gilbert, who had nothing to do with anything that I'm aware of, unless I'm not thinking this through, and so the math was now 5 out of 10 (1 out of 2), if you want to see things from that perspective. That means I needed to see 8 more celebrities that day, but they all had to be in some proximity to some recent thing in connection with me. I continued on home, and that was that, their time was up, just one out of two, owing to Justin Timberlake's currently co-starring with Cameron Diaz. I could have kept driving around, gone anywhere, hundreds of miles away, it never matters, it could easily have completed the 9 out of 10 thing. Somehow it was not fated to be.

Moomoo's Sun No Shine Right Global Change Witch's Curse

THE HEAT IS
I don't know if you're reading this, Al Gore or Bill Maher (as if - of course they are, both are! Oh wait, you're all clueless. My bad.). Here is where I shall leave my suggestion for a PR approach to a name change for "global warming" - assuming there is a mutual, all-around interest in getting a name change done on this confusing handle and then being done with it, as opposed to getting snagged even on agreeing on the shape of the table (sorry, that was me having a Vietnam War flashback).

So my idea would be, have a sketch in a Bill Maher Real Time Show, only first being sure it will be something that HAS to make the news, such as a brief sketch featuring, in-person, Al Gore PLUS Paul McCartney PLUS Barrack Obama (though his schedule may not permit) PLUS Steve Martin PLUS someone picked randomly from the audience, all joined together to solemnly agree, before the camera, on one thing: Change The Name "Global Warming" Officially. Hillary Clinton could notarize it, sign it, do whatever else it takes, and suddenly look seriously into the lens, Barrack alongside her (though his schedule may not permit), and say, "This of course was meant to be a fun sketch, but in all seriousness, from now on, well, you can keep calling it "global warming" if you like.... but WE (she motions around her at all the celebs gathered, who all cheer, Paul McCartney waving back), WE are hereby changing the name to: Climate Change. Happy Holidays Everyone!" (this may take 'til Christmas)

I think it would be great, even just for the idea of something important in the vernacular being "born" in so special a way (as opposed to the expression, "up your nose with a rubber hose," which all began back in a men's room in Chicago in the 1890s, unless it was at a fire station in Vermont in the 1690s).

On the other hand - perhaps the sketch would be better if absurd, with the final upshot being to rename it something totally ridiculous, in a doomed attempt to clarify the concept in people's minds, as "global warming" is truthfully too misleading (Where do I begin? The problem itself results in so many other extreme, far more direct concerns, such as zero heat - which, for the more slow-minded, one should think of as the very opposite of warm, though I am very far from being any kind of expert here).

Instead of "global warming", perhaps, hmm.... "Moomoo's Sun No Shine Right Global Change Witch's Curse".... How do you like that, I started out trying to make a joke, but I think I like this (better than "global warming")! Yes, it actually does almost have me wanting to sell everything I own so that I can afford an electric vehicle! (Special Note - This was not a dig at the movement to stop climate change, it was a dig at the fact that we don't even have the power to collectively bring electric vehicles within every car owner's financial grasp if our lives depended on it.)

MY MOTHER RAISED ME NEVER TO SAY ANYTHING A MILLION PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAPPILY ENJOY REPEATING IN UNISON
Now that Bill Maher has become increasingly involved with the idea that the term "global warming" is confusing and should be changed (to "climate change"), I am pleased to say that I also stated the obvious in this regard back months ago - about half-a-year ago. Here is my huffington post "comment" several months ago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JonathanDS2U/an-answer-for-bill-oreill_b_817238_76086655.html
Yes, and Tide detergent should advertise with the slogan, "Drink it and die!" Handles in these matters are EVERYTHING, so why use one that is obviously generating endless confusion? Sometimes the intelligent have to gear things towards what can be easily understood by the less intelligent (this is where soundbites came from), and "global warming" just does not work as a handle.”

I am occasionally an influence on Bill Maher (I have occasionally included in other blogs what I regard as clear evidence of this). In this instance, however, we are merely both stating the obvious, and both recognizing the importance of changing the wording on the handle, "global warming". I happened to find myself face to face with Al Gore (former Vice President, Nobel Prize Winner, etc., etc.) the other day, as we drove by each other on a narrow, random, obscure, probably middle-class residential street in Santa Barbara. I later looked up the fact that Gore recently (Feb. 2011) purchased a home in Santa Barbara. That doesn't make my seeing him necessarily random and unplanned in nature (though certainly it was not planned by me), as my experience has been that 9 out of 10 times I happen to recognize a celebrity face, it also happens to be a celebrity who around that same time is in connection with some sort of thing regarding me, such as an intertwining and direct connection to the previous week's blog article (e.g., years and years ago I left a message on the phone answering machine of someone I didn't entirely feel entitled to leave a message on the machine of. In the message I said I wanted to work for Steven Spielberg, speaking in a familiar way as I did sort of know the person - of additional note would be the fact that I had by then been a considerable influence on this and that Spielberg work. Within a week of my phone message, I was opposite Steven Spielberg as we waited in our cars on opposite sides of a red light. Can't rule out that it was a look-alike).

I would consider it remiss were I not to include mention of how I have no doubt of being behind a sketch the former Vice President was in when he appeared on SNL.

Fun Background Information
As I've mentioned before in many previous blogs, often including a degree of evidence, whenever I send in my sketch ideas for SNL, something always makes it through in some form for that next upcoming show, or occasionally the one after that. I'm particularly proud of the time I sent through someone a message to Paul McCartney (upon whom I am also a major influence) that I wanted him to make a surprise appearance in a sketch, and furthermore, that the sketch regard (for reasons I've detailed somewhere or another) my "Recipe For Fun." The SNL show that aired eight days later had a sketch featuring a surprise McCartney appearance (he was not even slated as the musical act), and the actual sketch was on a subject clearly related in various ways to "Recipe for Fun": Whose drink has the poison?

Back From The Fun Background Information And Still Having Fun
As I said, I am absolutely certain (for far more reasons than I could detail here) that I once had a sketch idea for the show Al Gore hosted, though the idea actually had little to do with Gore. It was about how Arab terrorists had planted a computer chip in chocolate that, by being planted in people who ate the chocolate, was automatically causing garage doors throughout America to automatically open and close unceasingly. So on SNL, instead, they had Gore play the evil head of a chocolate manufacturing company ala Willy Wonka sorta kinda. Not to mention that Sean Daniel was a White House guest of Bill Clinton, according to the record books, I cannot say I am one who knows Sean Daniel, I knew him a little a long time ago, though believe myself to influence him and his segment of the entertainment world (which happens to be a huge segment, extending to Steven Spielberg and so forth).

I AM OUT CONTEXTUALIZING, WILL RETURN IN FIVE MINUTES
This is a brief return in time a fairly short distance, as new information may serve to further contextualize something I find of great note. I refer specifically to my August 8th, 2010 blog, "Stuck In Traffic, Not". I'll leave the actual piecing together of that to which I refer for those interested enough to follow-through on their own (you can't please everyone, and this stuff isn't for those unwilling to do the due diligence research). The new information regards Drew Barrymore being named "Erl" on the video game in the movie "Going The Distance". In a videoclip several years ago I stated how, through me, there was a Drew Barrymore connection to the origin of "My Name is Earl" (you can find this in my June 28, 2009, blog article, "Jolly Fun"), though I suppose I could not particularly prove I stated it back then as that video isn't locked in with any kind of timestamp. I suppose that makes this more for the benefit of those who can take my word on these things (sorry, wish everything I said was for everyone).

If you check the release date of "Going The Distance" (9/3/10), you will see it is not far from the time of the "traffic situation" I had described August 8th. I had already associated Drew Barrymore with Paul McCartney in relation to me when I wrote regarding when they were both contributors to the movie, "Everybody's Fine". So I see some intertwining connections, and not just because of these particulars. I would also see it all further contextualized by, well you'll have to look that up on your own, too. I recommend going to archive.org, creating a searchable database of all the collected volumes of my blogs - I'm up to Volume 5 now, in fact, this will someday be the first one in Volume 6! Hello, world of the FUTURE!!!