One Small, Fun Step For Mall Man

When last we saw our heroes together (myself; Jason Lee), it was my July 6th blog, "Ten Fun Steps", with "Step 10" being:



A week has passed, it's a new "Memphis Beat" (7.13.10 episode), and once again it's time for Jason Lee's character to get a break in the case - during a moment that also picks up from where my July 6th "Step 10" left off, being sequential with that step's "Mall Man" moment. It also resoundingly connects together "Mall Man" with Jason Lee once again (that is, if you've been paying attention, i.e., if you incorporate what is contained in my July 6th blog):



This might just be a good and proper moment for me to once again mention the fact that, almost without exception, every episode of "Monk" also tied in with things Steinhoff. This is something made apparent (i.e., proven to the intelligent and discerning among us) through the cumulative implications of numerous videoclips I created that correlate almost every single "Monk" episode to me/my material (these videoclips of mine can be found either posted on YouTube, where I am Zoomsteinhoff, or among my numerous previous blog entries). I have attributed this Monk/Steinhoff relationship to the fact that USA Networks, which made "Monk", once had as its president a certain individual I once knew, who I happen to believe enjoyed being part of these things in his "spare time", though no longer president of USA when those "Monk" episodes were made. This in spite of the fact that most normal people would think of golf as a more reasonable spare time activity.

JUSTICE IS BLIND AND SOMETIMES SMASHES INTO WALLS IT DOESN'T SEE

IF THESE SPIELBERG WALLS COULD TALK
I am still working on my Spielberg/Steinhoff/"Mall Man" video project. It is not easy to sink one's teeth into a project that must deliberately exist within a context narrower than the subject matter deserves. On the one hand, Spielberg has made it possible for me to prove (to any honest, intelligent person willing to spend the time and energy to study it), through my being able to make references to copyrighted postings and other elements, that my 1993 "Mall Man" video was important to varying degrees (ranging from tremendously important to pretty important) in relation to Spielberg's "Minority Report," "Terminal," and his most recent movie, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". On the other hand, however, I do not see how I can prove that my influence on his most recent movie ("Indiana Jones") goes far beyond being very significant, actually entering the realm of being key to the plot. I refer to the fact that, for this movie, Spielberg did not only use my "Mall Man" video, but in addition, my 1992 "Mall Man" film treatment was involved. It being that I cannot prove the "Mall Man" film treatment was created in 1992, it would seem that this is one "detail" I must omit. Sean Daniel and/or Steven Spielberg: my invitation for you to appear in this Spielberg/Mall Man video project of mine as my interviewees and/or my interviewers still stands!!!

LICENSE TO SKI
Having just had the chance to see for the first time the Liam Neeson movie, "Taken", which premiered yesterday on HBO, I am now more convinced than ever that the real answer to what was behind the death of Neeson's wife, Natasha Richardson, is intertwined with things I put forward in my blogs of 3.13.09 and 3.23.09. In those blogs I had found a basis for believing, for a set of reasons, that a specific tie-in had been constructed by Richardson's killers to something contained in Sean Daniel's and Bruce Willis' movie, "Jackal": the line, "You can't protect your women."

I feel certain now that it was the killers' intention to lead us back to the movie, "Jackal," thusly interconnecting our perception of their action with other things (as described in those blogs). According to what I have been able to surmise/deduce, generating this tie-in satisfied a certain (convoluted) aspect of their criteria, consistent with their "modus operandi". The fact that Neeson is currently starring in Spielberg's work-in-progress, "Lincoln," and is among the few actors to repeatedly star in Spielberg films, satisfied another part of the killers' criteria. Did I mention that I don't regard Natasha Richardson's death as an accident?

Weekly MONK/STEINHOFF VIDEOCLIP, 11.27.09/12.4.09

For this final Monk/Steinhoff weekly videoclip, I'm trying to keep it simple, however, I did find it necessary to create a "Version 1" and a "Version 2". The latter (Version 2) is clearly thinner than the former, and is not for those interested in material that solidly confirms that this 2-part "Monk" episode, as with nearly every other "Monk" episode ever made, makes reference to me and/or my material.

Anyone turning to me for closure with regard to the end of this show, personally I won't even really feel like there are no more episodes until next week or so. Or maybe in a year or two.

VERSION 1:



VERSION 2:



If I had all the time in the world to do justice to all things in the world, I might have created a Version 3, Version 4, etc. I will only add that, as has been true in general this season, the "Medium" episode airing the same night also tied in with things (we have to wonder about those Arquettes). I chose to give the night to "Monk".


WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED
For those who might generally be interested in roads not taken, perhaps it would be fun for me to list off sections and content I decided not to create for this edition of my blog:

• What Can Happen When You Are Secretly Super-Important In Relation To People Who Individually Have Billions Of Dollars, And Collectively Have Billions And Billions And Billions Of Dollars
  

• Winning Your Case By Convoluting Things To Undermine The Testimony Of The Star Witness Against You Corner
  

• Dominating Someone’s Soul By Promoting The Theory That, If You Can Put Just One Word In Someone’s Mouth Without Their Knowing, Then Everything They Ever Said Or Will Say Is Thereby Tainted And Suspect
  

• Not Publishing Certain Things In Order To Avoid Making Your Readers Afraid Of You
  

Parallels In Parking

Weekly MONK/STEINHOFF VIDEOCLIP, 11.20.09
As I mentioned in my previous blog, I went on Thanksgiving vacation (actually I just returned), thus the reason behind my "tardiness" in presenting this November 20th Monk/Steinhoff weekly videoclip. It looks like this will be my second-to-last Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, as after November 27th's Part 1 episode of "Monk", there remains only Part 2, after which "Monk" will be no more. Perhaps Tony Shaloub will go on to new roles that won't be overshadowed by his "Monk" character, although it is hard to imagine. Perhaps it would work if he were to take the entire "Monk" cast with him on his next project?




Tempered Enthusiasm
Unless Matthew Perry was subtly telegraphing to me in advance something of a significant nature contained in the "Seinfeld Reunion"/"Curb Your Enthusiasm" season finale on November 22nd (see my "Curb" finale suggestion in my October 25th blog), I am totally huge in relation to creative decisions that went into this historic episode. When I suggested tinted car windows, my specific intention was to provide a way to touch on the idea of privacy at the strata inhabited by Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld, Matthew Perry, Paul Newman, etc. I believe I have succeeded: David's statement appears to be that certain approaches to privacy can inflict feelings known to all.

I now intend to redirect my focus to automobile glove compartments. I believe that if things keep going the way they seem to be in the world, the entire human race will, sadly, be able to fit into one glove compartment, with room to spare. This metaphoric approach may serve to help us all wrap our minds around the unthinkable (as metaphors often do), a grim necessity if we are to apply ourselves to the task of saving the planet. I have no problem with power windows or rear view mirrors.




Thick As A Rock
I plan to provide a videoclip regarding Joseph Gordon-Leavit and his recent "Fallon" and "Saturday Night Live" appearances, as I found these shows to contain inside-references to a particular music video of mine. Unfortunately, the opposite of Thanksgiving vacation is calling me at the moment, i.e., can't right now. I believe there to be a "Smallville" tie-in with this as well.


If These Cars Could Talk
On my way to work on Thursday, November 19th, I thought I saw Katie Holmes driving alongside me. This is particularly interesting for several reasons:

• I may be responsible for the fact that Katie Holmes first met Tom Cruise

• I saw a magazine cover a few days ago that stated she and Tom had public differences, causing her to walk out on him

• Stuart Cornfeld, to whom I occasionally refer in my blogs, runs a film production company (Red Hour) with Ben Stiller, which is making a movie with Tom Cruise ("The Hardy Men")

• I am currently working on my Spielberg "project" (as referred to in my October 30th blog), and Tom Cruise starred in two Spielberg movies regarding which I was an influence ("War of the Worlds" and "Minority Report")

The Skipper Too

Breaking Up A Telephone Book With A Karate Chop Is Hard To Do
Another one of the specially contextualized sitings of a former cast member of the TV show, "Friends". As mentioned in my blogs of October 25th and November 8th, a shorthand that has developed (was set up) has led to specific interpretations of my sitings of Jennifer Aniston and possibly Courteney Cox Arquette. Consistent with this, on Thursday, Nov. 12th, I almost definitely (no, make that, without any doubt whatsoever unless someone is using look-alikes in expensive cars) saw David Schwimmer (wearing sunglasses) on my way to work in more or less the same spot as where his fellow former cast members were spotted. As prescribed by the shorthand, I looked for the Ross Geller/David Schwimmer reference on that night's episode of "The Office". It was easy to spot: Rainn Wilson's Dwight character was seen ridiculously injuring himself while trying to demonstrate the importance of Martial Arts self-defense proficiency. Among those who have been seen doing likewise in another TV show: David Schwimmer's Ross Geller character on "Friends". I could rest my case here, if not for the fact that all of my witnesses, i.e., those who might also have seen David Schwimmer driving by me, are very difficult to locate. Naturally I wrote down all of their license plate numbers, and anticipate being able to present follow-up on this within the next thirty years. However, verifying how this is contextualized by the above-referenced shorthand may require a little more time.


Weekly MONK/STEINHOFF VIDEOCLIP, 11.13.09
This videoclip pretty much speaks for itself. I thought of including a few other things in this videoclip, such as the voice scrambler used on the phones that occurred on both the referenced "Monk" and "Smallville" episodes. I also thought of including something from the "Medium" episode that aired the same night as the referenced "Monk" and "Smallville" episodes, as they featured an idea that is important in the videoclip: the idea of a piece of ground made special (a man was secretly buried alive in cement - his teenage son somehow knows this, and often sits outside a store built on that spot). Who knows, perhaps if these two items had worked on their Musical Chairs skills....




It's All Good
On the Nov. 14th "Saturday Night Live" (a TV show that for years and years has regularly found ways to incorporate things from me from the week leading up to the show), in the opening of the show, they had Vice President Biden stating in an address to the nation (regarding Afghanistan):

"You know what they're good at, growing drugs."

On Nov. 12th, 2:44pm, my comment to a Huffington Post article (as JonathanDS2U):

"This has incentivised many to interfere with progress, and sometimes they're really good at it."

And so we find the same idea, being good at something bad, expressed two days apart, the second usage coming from those with a very long history of referring to ideas that come from the same person responsible for the first usage.

The Price Of Freedom, And The Free Of Pricedom

Once again, more stuff little and great, all worth reporting to someone or another!

In addition to my Weekly Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip, this time I made an additional, separate videoclip that involves this week's "Monk" episode, as it also involves not only an episode of "Medium" that aired the same night (a TV show that has begun regularly interconnecting with the Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip - see the last few Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip installments), but pertains primarily to one of my potential terrorist clues (described in my March 13, 2009 blog) as well, and only threads through me/my material in that connection.

You will also find stuff in this blog edition not connected to "Monk" - so in other words, a little bit of everything!

Weekly MONK/STEINHOFF VIDEOCLIP, 11.6.09
This time around I'm back to being able to provide in my weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclip things verifiable, in terms of referencing things I unalterably timestamp-posted a while back, "Gosk Part 1" and "Gosk Part 2" . As always, appreciating this Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip's significance requires seeing it in the context of (just about) every episode of "Monk" ever made containing things that connect to me/my material (most of which is similarly verifiable through unalterable timestamp postings). This context generates a perspective based on the necessary cumulative information.



Potential Terrorist Clues Left On The Doorstep Of Someone Secretly Super-Important In Relation To Steven Spielberg And Paul McCartney Corner
As you can see, I've come up with the perfect title for this section of my blog, sort of like, "Johnny's Corner", only with more words. I will use this section title in the future on those occasions when I choose to include something on this subject in my blog. For those particularly slow to figure things out, I am the "Someone" referred to in the section title.



My Potentially Imaginary "Friends"
On my way to work on Thursday, November 5th, in the same approximate spot as where I believe I spotted Jennifer Aniston several weeks ago, which I describe in my October 25, 2009 blog as something to be seen in a very specified context, I believe I may have spotted her BFF Courteney Cox Arquette (wearing sunglasses). I therefore looked to see if this related to that night's "Office" episode (as the previously described specified context implied it might), and sure enough, though not indicated ahead of time in any blurb on that episode that I saw, the episode had Michael backing out of his relationship with Pam's mother once he learns she is 58 years old. This can clearly be seen as a twist on the premise of Courteney's TV show, "Couger Town". Additionally, on Friday, November 6th, I thought I may have again seen Matthew Perry, this time in a sports car with the top down. If so, this relates to something I wrote regarding the last time I saw Matthew Perry (again, my 10.25.09 blog), which I also relate to as something that occurred in a specified context. At that time I wrote of my "Curb Your Enthusiasm" suggestion in which Larry David keeps running into "Friends" cast members individually by chance, while planning the "Seinfeld" reunion show. I have Perry complaining to David that he is battling his girlfriend to tint the windows of his sports car. This contrasts with the possible subsequent Perry siting in which his sports car has the top down (I never looked too directly at the possible Matthew Perry person, though I'm quite sure that whoever it was, unlike the possible Courteney Cox Arquette person, he was without sunglasses).

Take Out Some Insurance On Me, Baby (Sung To The Tune Of "Take Out Some Insurance On Me, Baby")
On Thursday, November 5th I commented on a HuffingtonPost article (as JonathanDS2U), with the suggestion that Wellpoint Insurance be dealt with harshly for Senator Bayh initially threatening to join Lieberman's pro-fillibuster against healthcare stance. Bayh's wife is on Wellpoint's board, and I expressed my belief that Bayh only backed down because the obvious corruptness of the reason behind his taking this stance would ultimately cause it to backfire. On Friday, November 6th there was a big trailer in front of my apartment house, suggesting they were shooting a film. I asked someone there, and was informed they had been making a commercial for Hartford Insurance.

Bunch Of Knuckleheads
Back during the three-year period when I would every week email a sketch idea for SNL to people I once knew (Sean Daniel and Stuart Cornfeld), because every week little fragments (sometimes big fragments) from my idea would wind up on that week's show without fail, I perceived that the very first "Scared Straight" sketch originated from the idea I had sent in that week. I am referring to the SNL sketches where an inmate (Kenan Thompson) is brought in to a room where several delinquent teenagers are being detained after having been caught for some misdeed, so that he can lecture to them on the consequences of delinquent behavior, by painting a picture of prison life. I now present to you my Bowery Boys sketch comedy idea, emailed by me on May 5, 2008, several days before the first "Scared Straight" sketch occurred (I know the "Scared Straight" delinquent characters are technically not the Bowery Boys - however, if you recall, I did say fragments of my ideas):

The Bowery Boys are a few years older, and are they ever angry. They’re in court, suing and counter-suing each other for defamation of character owing to things said back when they were a gang. So Slip dared to call Zatch a knucklehead? So Zatch dared to imply Whitey had a screw loose? Zatch may have expressed it in pantomime, using sign language when Whitey wasn’t looking to indicate Whitey was crazy, “but yer honor, ain’t it the same ting?” “Oh yeah, you lousy, why I oughta-“ “You hear dat, yer honor, he’s doing it again!” “I did not, I said ‘you lousy’, but I didn’t finish the sentence. I coulda, but I am too refined.” “Yeah, too refined.” “Did you hear that, your honor? He was sarcastic about the idea of me being refined. I’ve never been so insulted.” In the end, the judge decrees that each owes money to the others, but when totalled up, all break even except Slip, who comes out three dollars ahead. He calls them all jerks in his delight, and so is made to give up the three dollars as a result.

The November 7, 2009 SNL included another installment of "Scared Straight", complete with Kenan Thompson being caught at reciting movie plots that he tries to pass off as actual things he's personally encountered. This tends to remind me of an experience I had wherein, once the movie "The Front" came out, I could no longer tell one of my (up until then) oft-repeated stories.

Way back when, my mother was in the Communist Party with Zero Mostel before he was famous (when he was Sammy Mostel). My mother described to me how she had signed up with the Communist Party under the phony last name of "Brown", as everyone used phony names, for the Communist Party tended to never let people quit. In the movie, "The Front", Zero Mostel, playing a character named Hecky Brown, protects at all costs the name of the woman he was once in the Communist Party with, and eventually kills himself when he is destroyed for this. Mostel was in fact blacklisted as a Communist, and once when it was arranged that my family could meet him after attending a performance of "Fiddler On The Roof", Mostel said, "Ah, Rose ___ (her maiden name). My mother's friend, Phil Gordis (a star of my Dostoyevsky video), also corroborated their all being in the Communist Party together, back in the days when such a choice actually reflected a certain idealistic take on the concept of communism with a small "c" rather than a disposition toward Stalinism (interestingly, Phil also described knowing the person who introduced Trotsky to the person who used this access to assassinate Trotsky). Josh Mostel, Zero's son, once denied to me that his father was a Communist, and said I should have my mother contact him if she insisted this was the case.

My big point here is that, once they made the movie, "The Front", it seemed that for me to repeat this story of mine was to appear to be reciting something connected to a movie plot. Similarly, the November 6th "Monk" included a story I've told from time to time that I don't believe I will any longer be able to (perhaps no great loss):

A long time ago, my family was good friends with the family of a Senior Editor of Consumer Reports Magazine, Bob Klein, who went on to become the Senior Editor of Money Magazine. While our two families were on a joint vacation together in Welfleet (Cape Cod), one day I went with the Kleins on some deep sea fishing outing. I got sea sick and had to go into a cabin on the boat, however, they left my line in the water, and when I returned to it there was a nice sized sea bass on the end. On shore, Bob Klein was about to sell the fish to someone on shore who made an offer (this was before he was made Senior Editor of Money). I had to be extremely firm in my refusal to do so, insisting that it was my private property even though I had gotten sea sick and was in a cabin on the boat at the moment the sea bass was making his decision to eat from my fishing hook.

An incident on the November 6th "Monk" has a kid absolutely refusing to sell a fish he caught, as he is proud of it, which strikes Monk as a somewhat silly position. It's unfortunate in a way, as I thought of my sea bass story as containing a special meaning regarding the subject of private property, especially as Bob went on to become Mr. Money (a societal bastion of the concept of private property). Yet I am pleased to give this story away, if I have indeed correctly surmised some of the cause and effect of the matter.

Apple Pie Squared

"Evaporating Ink", Chapter 20 I Think (Thought I'd Written It Down)
Once again I only have things to blog for those who already appreciate that I don't make things up - there is no particular proof, not this time. Those who saw my October 25th blog's posting of my October 23rd Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip prior to October 30th will know that it was in fact created prior to the October 30th "Monk". However, skeptics have available to them the conjecture that I had inside word on what one would find in the October 30th "Monk", and so I could conceivably have conjured up something October 25th that would connect. There is no connection here to anything of mine that was unalterably timestamp posted some time ago (this blogsite's timestamp posting is malleable), so, no proof. However, once again, I point out that there exists, among my various blogs and elsewhere, proof for any intelligent person that I am indeed the point from which quite a bit of no small significance springboards. And so I really don't feel I am making too great a demand here to ask that I be taken at my word.

Regifting
I have previously referred to how every time Regis is on Letterman they work in inside-references to a woman I once worked with who Regis once introduced himself to in a restaurant, references that connect to me and the few things I ever had to do with her. Apparently I was mistaken in believing that Regis' first appearance on Letterman following the Letterman headlines about Dave in relation to his co-workers would be super big, though one might understand why they would choose not to play up that significance to this Regis appearance. Although: a show that often refers to my material, "Smallville" (a TV show referred to in a number of previous blogs), did in fact, on the very same night (Oct. 30th) as this Regis appearance, contain a plotline about Lois and Clark being morning show hosts. Regis and Kelly were actually mentioned by name last night on "Smallville". This is not something that happens every day.

I am reluctant to detail specifically how they made their inside-reference to this former co-worker of mine during Regis' appearance on Letterman, but as one might expect, at least one familiar with my secret importance, this time around they made it very difficult for me to be so non-specific. They went to quite a great length, which makes my silence considerably more pronounced. And so, out of what is likely a misplaced belief that, when something makes the headlines as big as did the Letterman and co-workers episode, and then the all-important Regis appearance on Letterman (eventually) follows, and it drags me in the way they have, perhaps the social contract entitles the world to stare at me out of the corner of its eye until I come forward and explain what they did there.

One of the times that this woman left my company to go on maternity leave, back in the '80s, someone gave her a dark blue dress as a going-away gift. Everyone who was on Letterman last night, the night of Regis' appearance, with the singular EXCEPTION of Regis, wore an identical dark blue snuggy dress (or whatever it's called) that brought this same dark blue dress very much to (my) mind. However, back when she and I were co-workers, at one point when I pointed out that she was wearing the dark blue dress that a certain person had given her, she denied that she had ever been given it by him. This must certainly leave me not knowing what to believe, or not.

And this is where "Smallville" comes in. This woman had once given me to understand that a person whose name I came across in a book about George Washington (found in a used bookstore/map store half a block from where we worked, and so perhaps something planted in my path), someone of importance in the sphere of Washington, with the same last name as hers, was the brother of her ancestor. She described to me how her mother had wanted her to follow-up and research this brother of her ancestor in the New York Public Library. She even wore white stockings to work sometimes. It was this ancestor of hers who first crossed the ocean from England to America (an action which I expect one is more likely to take when one's brother is hanging out with George Washington). I found this all quite fascinating, especially in light of my secret importance in relation to four of England's most important citizens (The Beatles).

When I offered her the book as my going-away gift for her maternity leave, she said it was too much. I was only able to persuade her to accept pages I tore out from the book that related to the brother of her ancestor, but not the entire book. What's a few pages? And so, I connect to what happened last night on Letterman regarding the blue dress gift, at least in my mind, an incident on last night's "Smallville": Oliver wishes to present a woman with a gift, however, she refuses it.


Weekly MONK/STEINHOFF VIDEOCLIP, 10.30.09
There are two things I would add regarding this week's Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip. Three, from a certain point of view, but I promise, two or three, it will not change the number of pages of this blog, even if I have to condense everything to achieve it:

• I have not included in the videoclip yet another reference by "Monk" to something that relates to inside-word pertaining to one of the potential terrorist clues I've previously blogged about (something relating to a Tim Robbins movie). I again choose not to go into further detail. I also noticed a car's license plate on my way home from work earlier that same day (well before the episode aired) that also tied in with an aspect of this same potential clue (the same aspect, in a certain sense), though there was nothing to suggest that whoever dispatched the car attached to this license plate had any kind of inside information on terrorist activity. Rather, it showed they had done a degree of follow-up regarding something to which I had only alluded.
  

• I have the feeling from certain things that occurred on "Monk" this week, and on the new "Monk" "tie-in" show, "Medium", and also from the trailer for next week's "Monk", that the Dockert character from my "Gosk" video is likely to come up in some inside-reference manner on the November 6th show(s).

Balcony Scene
After that stuff in my October 25th blog about Jennifer Aniston in relation to stuff she "laid at my doorstep" regarding people and their affairs with other people's parents, I was anticipating some follow-up when her good friend Courteney Cox Arquette appeared on Letterman this past week (it's the type of thing I've come to expect). All I saw was David Letterman climbing a ladder to the balcony so that he could give Ms. Arquette's mother some flowers for her birthday.

This is not something that can be construed as an affair with somebody's parent, try as we may. Perhaps things would have worked out differently had they placed Ms. Arquette's mother in the mezzanine (we can only imagine the possible scenario that might then have resulted, and personally, I am shocked just to think about it).


What's All This I Keep Hearing About Violins On Television
Not too long ago I was speaking with someone at work and found myself using the word "diddling". Suddenly feeling that I might be in danger of being reprimanded down the road for using a word synonymous with the "f" word (you don't know how careful some of us have to be), I quickly changed it to "diddling around" instead of just "diddling". Whew, nice save. There was probably no danger at any point anyway.

The next day occurred the usage by former Vice President Cheney of the word, "dithering", followed by much repetition and discussion by the media concerning his use of this word. If one is aware of the degree to which former President Bush has made inside-references to things that originated with me, one would perhaps appreciate why I now wish I hadn't come anywhere near "diddling". I am a million times more an Obama person than a Republican (though I cannot say that where I work there are no Republicans to be found diddling around).


I Know It Happened But I Won't Later Dept.
On the same night that Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" (a show that has been known to be influenced by me in a big way) said something that could conceivably have brought to mind my video, "Bishop And Pawn Forfeit Rule", the Jimmy Fallon Show, with help from Tim Robbins' wife, Susan Sarandon, also, in a different manner, did something that brought to (my) mind that same video of mine. Stewart spoke of going back in time and killing Afghanistan before he could create the country Afghanistan, and Sarandon gave Jimmy Fallon a ping pong paddle so small that it turned his great ping pong expertise to naught. Both on the same night! That has to be worth at least four points.

There's No Place Like Land

This time around I shall feature a few subjects of phenomenal interest to many! In other words, the same old thing:

• Everyone is talking about the balloon boy non-story, and I have a whole set of reasons to see this as yet another "major" news story that began as someone intertwining things with myself.

• This week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip

• Another Smallville videoclip

• Another one of my old potential terrorist clues, for one and all to have a crack at addressing; or corrupting:
  

(a) for the clear motive of seeking to avoid detection; and

(b) for the ulterior motive that, to acknowledge these clues are
landing on my "doorstep" is to acknowledge that I truly am secretly
super-important in relation to Spielberg, McCartney, etc., i.e., so big
league that I very much show up on the radar of those wishing to strike
fear towards the center of American pop culture.

• Another whisper out of the mouths of Saturday Night Live (including a bonus Chevy Chase addendum!).
  

You Only Think You Can Burst This Balloon
As I've indicated in previous blogs, I believe the Letterman headlines involving innuendos about Dave in relation to his co-workers traces back to the fact that, whenever the Regis appearances on Letterman occur (such appearances all being major Letterman events), they always make inside references to myself in relation to a woman who was a co-worker of mine, someone who Regis once introduced himself to in a restaurant. (As someone secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg, McCartney, etc., this is more par for the course for me than strangenesses). When this woman left the company we worked for, I gave her a Kinks cassette and a copy of my self-published book, "The Coin That Came In Second" (see Archive.Org) (copyright 1987 in my collection of books, "Inventing Air"). It was little surprise to me when, in consequence, the next Kinks album therefore featured a reference to my book's second story, "The Secretly Tumbling Spacecraft" in their song, "Loony Balloon". Naturally I drew a circle around this song of theirs at the time, which includes the repeated refrain, "Drift away, just drift away." On the Kinks album that followed the one containing "Loony Balloon", it proved to be that this was the song for everyone to circle, as that album contained another song with the identical, repeated refrain (though sung differently): "Sometimes I wish I could just drive away! Drift away! Drift away!" So on the one hand we have the new relevancy through the Letterman matter to me in relation to this woman in relation to this Kinks song. So then someone at work described experiencing a fan falling to pieces and flying through the air at a hot air balloon event in Arizona. This sounded much like a concern expressed by Natalie on the 9.25.09 Monk episode, "Mr. Monk and the Voodoo Curse", and as I do weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclips, it seemed noteworthy that I should be the one hearing about the hot air balloon incident. This prompted me to tell the person at work (who is the only person in proximity to me who adorns her cubicle with a McCartney photo) how, when I was attending CalArts during the time of McCartney's first non-Beatles U.S. tour (1976), a former friend confided in me that the password to go backstage was to tell them you're on the balloon crew (years later, this same former friend went to a party with Cher as his date, and Ringo Starr in attendance). So that was at the beginning of the week, prior to the balloon boy non-story.

Tony Shaloub, star of "Monk", last year became part of an IHI event for which I was responsible with regard to arranging its Southern California Kaiser Permanente broadcast (we were a major contributor to this event). This was well after every episode of "Monk" began featuring references to my material. And sometimes a person at work is apparently given something to say to me that turns out to be a reference to something upcoming on "Monk" in a day or two (this is not out of the ordinary in my experience - as far as I'm concerned, they could just as easily have a Mafia connection that accesses the inside word, it is nothing that makes me feel a special confidence in such people).

So I don't claim to know the specific cause and effect - was it the new relevance of the Kinks' balloon song that secretly prompted the co-worker's fan story (which included a balloon reference) that resembled something on a Monk episode, or was it when I brought the McCartney balloon crew password into it? It is too odd, and too consistent with my experiences of being in such proximity to a front page story timing-wise, for me to assume that it just happened to happen.

Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip, 10.16.09



Smallville/Steinhoff Videoclip, 10.16.09
This one may need a few words to frame the context. First of all, the writers for "Smallville" also wrote "Mummy 3", which was produced by Sean Daniel. Sean Daniel (friend of Spielberg and McCartney), was the first person from whom I learned of the college I attended, CalArts, and is someone I consider among those involved in making references to me/my material in a WHOLE lot of entertainment industry product. That this is not the first time I've observed references to my material on "Smallville" is evidenced by my Smallville/Steinhoff videoclip posted with a timestamp at HeyAHey. Though there has been a bunch of Steinhoff stuff on "Smallville", sometimes in a very major way, some of which I've mentioned in my blogs, this here blogsite's timestamp is meaningless as it is malleable, while the HeyAHey's timestamp is not malleable, therefore it is not evaporating ink, proof-wise.

Also:
I previously mentioned I was accumulating various "Smallville" fragmented references to Steinhoff stuff for when I have enough to shout "bingo!" (or maybe just "bing!"). I am still accumulating these and am not using them in this videoclip, as this videoclip is of the self-contained, one TV episode/one Steinhoff work correlation variety, and does not require my "expanded context explanation" in the videoclip.



Secret Location
And now this blog's potential terrorist clue. On the first anniversary of 9/11/01, our eyes were trained on the national news, should the terrorists be planning a rendezvous with their activities of the previous year. Though the national news contained nothing generally perceived as a terrorist act, my approach has become one in which, as most major acts of terrorism have tied in with things regarding which I have a strong personal association (as I've described before, this is something I ascribe to my "doorstep" being targeted due to my secret super-importance), I look for something that isn't identifiable to the public at large. Sometimes I wish I had more time to study such things.

So I noticed on the first anniversary of 9/11 that a major national news item was a wildfire in Glendale, California, in the same area that served as a film location for me in 1998. I have used very few film locations throughout the years for my major works. My three main works have been "Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's 'Uncle's Dream'" (1990, 1992), "Gosk, Parts 1 and 2" (1994, 1998), and "Mall Man" (1993). "Gosk" had about four locations, and the other two videos had two each. This is a very limited set of places.

In February 1993, less than a week after I filmed "Mall Man" at the NYC World Financial Center, an overpass away from the World Trade Center, the first bombing of the World Trade Center occurred (the 9/11 attack has been seen as a successful follow-up to this first, unsuccessful attempt at mass destruction, though there was a degree of destruction).

In February 1992, I filmed my Dostoyevsky video in the NYC apartment of a (now deceased) old family friend, who my mother had known for over 50 years. There was no clear terrorist connection to what happened to this film location. However, something extremely odd did happen: though this person had occupied this apartment for at least 30 years, and though it is essential that, if one uses a film location that one must return to for further shooting for continuity (it was the primary location), nevertheless this person felt prompted to suddenly sell their apartment after I put in a day's shooting with eight people (I only needed use of the apartment one other day). A month later he had sold the apartment to famed film director Sidney Lumet. So could someone have been pulling strings behind the scenes, someone somehow tied to those responsible for the other assaults on my few film locations?

And finally, the aforementioned wildfire in Glendale at a major "Gosk" film location on the first anniversary of 9/11.

I would therefore suggest that, if someone could trace who was truly responsible in any of these instances, all identical instances in terms of targeting my film locations in ways that struck me personally, one might thusly solve a much larger puzzle.

Saturday Night Whispers
As there exists the context of "Saturday Night Live" frequently making references to me/my material, I associate the Kristen Wiig sketch, in which the character repeatedly expressed experiencing orgasms from warm wind or cold wind (as well as other things, though the other things were not referenced repeatedly), with the title of my October 11th blog, "Water, Hot Water, Wet Paint, Etc." Using the words "water, hot water" is not dissimilar from using the words, "warm wind, cold wind". Air and water are associated, ask your science teacher. Or insist I am being triggered in a random way, whichever you prefer.

Chevy Chase Addendum
In my October 11th blog's videclip reference to (original SNL cast member) Chevy Chase's usage of my "Mall Man" material on the TV show, "Community", I should also perhaps have mentioned several Chevy Chase connections to me. When I lived in NYC from 1983 to 1993, among the 10 families occupying the co-op I lived in was someone who was Chevy's best friend when he attended Bard. Once I gave him a message he said he would get to Chevy, and the next day I was alone on an elevator with SNL's Mike Myers. Additionally, film producer and Ben Stiller business partner, Stuart Cornfeld, who I knew when I worked on an AFI film shoot in 1975, produced Chevy's "National Lampoon's European Vacation". The 1975 AFI film shoot featured a TV being smashed, a big thing, or at least a loud thing. So in 1993, on the same day that Stuart returned a phonecall, that night on Chevy's talk show they smashed a TV. TV's are smashed far less frequently than most people think. And in the mid-to-late '80s I spoke on the phone with producer Sean Daniel, who was at the time not only Vice President of Universal, but also credited in the Chevy Chase movie, "Spies Like Us", for driving a truck. I had called to applaud Sean's excellence in truck driving. Oh yes, and finally, the person who sold pot regularly to a friend in NYC during the late '70s also sold to Chevy's brother. My friend also had an in that permitted him to hang out on the "Blues Brothers" shoot, a movie (like "Animal House") for which Sean Daniel was extremely responsible.

Water, Hot Water, Wet Paint, Etc.

Death Is Like A Carwash
I am pleased to announce that I recently published my new movie idea, "Death Is Like A Carwash" at Archive.Org. I should caution, however, that I do not actually know that death is like a carwash, and therefore, those particularly fond of carwashes risk being seriously disappointed should they choose to end their life out of a belief in this apparent assertion on my part.

Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip, 10.9.09
First, what is NOT in this week's Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip: As was the case as described in my 9.27.09 blog accompanying "Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip, 9.25.09" (they skipped a week, no show 10.2.09, so no Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip for 10.2.09), potential terrorist clues have again resulted in Monk including reference to same without delay. This week's came from what I described in my Oct. 4th blog (Item 6), and this extremely expedited response on their part again indicates to me their appreciation of the gravity/potential gravity, which I in turn greatly appreciate. Suffice to say (who all this is "suffice" to may actually leave out almost everyone), they showed they had followed-up to the degree of uncovering inside word regarding the IQ-Lithgow's sister thing. No, the inside word wasn't contained in the part of the Monk episode where someone was stalking, or killing. That's all I choose to divulge. But it does not make me look bad. No, really. Seriously. And that's all you will get out of me. As it is, what is sufficient is already almost too much.

Second, what IS in this week's Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip:


Letterman, Regis, And Why Steinhoff, Jonathan Suspects Something Though It Makes Him Sound Crazy (Including Another Potential Terrorist Clue)
Prologue-Type Stuff
As you will find by looking in on my 8.30.09 blog ("Boston Crane Shot" section), my 6.7.09 blog ("Delano's Speed And Tinted Window Limit"), and my 5.10.09 blog, I assert, without any doubt whatsoever, that the few things (all non-illicit) that passed between myself and a woman I once worked with at the same NYC company for six years, a woman who Regis Philbin once introduced himself to in an NYC restaurant, are part of specific inside-references that have occured EVERY TIME that Regis has appeared on Letterman for approximately the past ten years (not to mention some of Regis' Ripa's Letterman appearances). Those who watch Letterman know how specially important Regis' appearances on his show are (this is not a subjective assessment). I attribute their involving me, at least in part, to my secret great importance in relation to people such as Paul McCartney. There is also evidence that Spielberg has been at some end of the "doings" pertaining to this woman and myself (I cannot emphasize enough the fact that they seriously made very much out of virtually nothing, and my addressing it all as noteworthy should not be regarded as confirmation that their actions have a substantive origin in a relationship worth going on about, though naturally there is a part of me that enjoys it all).

More Prologue-Type Stuff
There is a strange coincidence in that this same woman first met her husband while working for the same company as my father, a company an hour outside of NYC, my father acknowledging that he knew her husband (though not acknowledging that he remembers her). I have sometimes wondered whether she wasn't secretly instrumental in my having been hired (thru a job agency) by the company we both worked for in the first place (I was there ten years). It had previously occurred that a NYC job agency placed me in an office suite in NYC next to my sister's. I do not mean the building next to my sister's, I mean an office suite next to my sister's. It seems obvious someone set up that job that put me so near to my sister (in that instance I was a temp for Harley Lewin, famed rock lawyer who handled the Jimi Hendrix Estate, a Rod Stewart matter, a Billy Preston matter, had a fist fight with rock promoter Bill Graham described in Rolling Stone Magazine, etc.).

Stuff Probably More In The Epilogue Category

• This same woman (not my sister, please try to keep up) was depicted in a painting as the mother of the Alicia Silverstone character in the Amy Heckerling movie, "Clueless" (produced by Scott Rudin, who worked in the same building we were in). I had encountered Amy Heckerling years before, in 1975, when we both worked on an AFI film shoot.
  

• This same woman had on her wall at work, as the only non-business image, a photo I had taken (of a lobster truck, as she had described to me being sick on New Year's Eve but having been provided a lobster dinner by her husband). In the movie "Clueless" there is a whole emotional thing relating to whether it's about who took a photo versus what a photo depicts, and all of the emotional confusion this generates.
  

• There's also a bunch of other Heckerling and Silverstone and even Batman stuff I'm not describing as well (who has time for these endless details that help elucidate important things?).
  

• The painting in "Clueless" depicting this woman, I learned thru investigating, was by an artist named Rinaldi.
  

• The day immediately following one of Regis' appearances on Letterman, there occurred what became a major national news story: the abduction of children at a Jewish Community Center in Southern California. Specifically, Rinaldi Street.

• I concluded at the time that Letterman and Regis may inadvertantly have the worst people in the whole world somehow in their loop, as do all of us super-important and secretly super-important people (we're a magnet for certain types), but it seems most unlikely that it is any of their own doing.

• Now everyone's breath has been baited in anticipation of the fateful moment when Regis shows up on Letterman to touch on the tabloids' front-page subject of Letterman and his non-business relationships with his co-workers.

• Could this whole Letterman thing trace back to the Letterman-Regis-Steinhoff, Jonathan stuff? Hmm, but it looks like someone is going to jail, that's cooking with a human life. Yeah, but so was (in my view) the stuff that interconnected with the Jewish Community Center abduction. Here is where one needs theories, and I begin with the premise that it's all some kind of a pre-planned thing, with someone pulling the short straw, etc. It comes too close to the Letterman-Regis-Steinhoff, Jonathan co-worker business. One theory would be that, just as we know a person can die for his country, so a person can go to jail as part of a plan to end the endless Letterman sex jokes about Clinton, which were messing with our perception of the former president, thusly fueling the Republicans and thereby messing with the survival of the planet. Let's also remember that Stephanie Birkitt, the girlfriend of the blackmail villain whose diary was exploited as part of his blackmail scheme, shared the stage with Letterman quite a bit, when the pretense of deep-rooted animosity was just part of their shtick (she would pretend that his requests of her were tedious enough to warrant insolence and insults). This blackmail business can't also be a show? I have seen a LOT of front page show biz (and other) stuff regarding things that secretly began with major interconnecting to me. I have been making this point from the beginning. I'm sure Lennon knew how hard it can be.
  

"The Office", "Community", "Marley and Me" and Me


I make no mention in this videoclip regarding NBC Thursday night sitcoms that an NBC Thursday night sitcom that was canceled this year, "My Name Is Earl", was created by me. Otherwise, I will let the videoclip speak for itself.

Drew Barrymore and More
As Saturday Night Live often makes inside-references/usage of things regarding me/my material, a few things I saw last night on that show strike me as also belonging in that category, but only if seen in the context of SNL's history of doing such Steinhoff-related things:

• In a comment in relation to an article on Huffington Post this past week, as JonathanDS2U, I wrote something about scattershooting (about how the "convention" of making derisive remarks about pot smokers is a scattershot attack on a large number of people entitled to choose pot as their form of inebriation). On SNL last night, Drew Barrymore played a character who was described as chalking her cuestick in a scattershot manner.

• In another comment I made to a Huffington Post article, I wrote that, though the Taliban was cutting off people's hands for voting in the Afghan election, this is the type of thing that gets forgotten about in time as people look back on the election results, failing to factor in how this would have distorted the election's outcome. On SNL last night, in the Larry King parody, Kristen Wiig played a character who said that, in time, the only thing people remember about a news story is the wiener factor, failing to factor in things that were important in the discussions that took place when the news stories were first on the table.

• There was a sketch where a man was carried away by birds. Though this also occurs in my book, "The Coin That Came In Second" (which led to the creation of the Spielberg movie, "Jurassic Park"), I didn't clearly see anything else on last night's show that also connected to this work, which is generally how I judge there to be a deliberate reference. True, in the HBO premiere of "Marley and Me" (see second videoclip in this blog) they drive a car quite similar to one I used to drive (1985 Ford Escort), when my personalized plate read, "2 Coin"; and true, there was a sketch last night in which Drew Barrymore plays the author of a book; and true, Drew Barrymore starred in Spielberg's "ET"; and true, emphasis on the behavior of animals became relevant to the second videoclip in today's blog. None of these things are really enough, however, and I therefore mention them only to avoid omitting something intended by someone or another for inclusion here.
  

• I am quite certain that Cameron Diaz, close friend of Drew Barrymore, drove by me on my way to work Thursday. Although I do live in Burbank, 99% of my "celebrity sitings" have this degree of immediate relevance, and so are to be scrutinized as likely being deliberately designed to exist in such a specified context. Additionally, my June 25th and June 28th blogs both feature videoclips that include Cameron Diaz involved in things relating to me.

• Drew Barrymore's previous appearance on SNL included references to me/my material in nearly every sketch.

The Small Ones That Got Away
And finally, I'm building up a collection of more references on "Smallville" to my "Mall Man" video, and will put them together when I have enough to shout "bingo!", or maybe just "bing!"

Try To Focus On The Blurry Line Of The Eyechart

Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip, 9.25.09
We all know there are times in life when, for specific reasons, the weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclip must be seen in an expanded context (see "Monk Uncastles" on YouTube). And as was illustrated thru my 8-8-09 Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, and also in my 6-28-09 and 8-22-09 blogs, this can include other shows "joining in". Thus, the expanded context of the weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclip can include immediately previous Monk episodes, as well as other shows airing the same night:



Though there may seem to be a wider assortment of sources than usual for this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, expanding the context was not of my choosing, but was essentially handed to me through what occurred. Furthermore, all shows (and most people) involved have referred to me/my material numerous times before (additionally, Bruce Willis is discussed in my 3/31/09 blog when the subject was a possible terrorist clue playing off of something Willis). Prior to Smallville's move this season to Friday, the same night as Monk, it used to be on Thursday nights at the same time as a show I created, My Name Is Earl. I then would occasionally find on both shows references to the same moment contained in my material, simultaneously included on the same night.

In this weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclip I also put forward the belief that there was a very short interval between when I blogged something and when it surfaced in a show, and on this subject I would wish to say one or two things. At one time it was only the show Smallville that ever caused me to surmise so short an interval between my "cause" and a show's "effect" (not counting Saturday Night LIVE, which is in their element when they draw upon something brand new regarding me/my material). In the instance regarding Smallville doing this, they were responding to the Iranian president's backdrop drawing from something regarding me/my material. I should therefore point out that this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip generally has a lot to do with Monk in relation to Smallville in relation to me/my material. My specific reference to a fast "turnaround time" reflected in this Monk/Steinhoff videoclip has to do with my 9/13/09 blog, which is all about a potentially major clue regarding 9/11/01. I had hoped to someday present the clue more secretly to a government agency, but before they would take it seriously, it would require their believing that I would show up on major terrorists' radar as someone extremely VIP, motivating the terrorists to leave the clue "on my doorstep". And so in the absence of a proper opportunity to handle this clue with the secrecy it may warrant, I released the clue to the world so that someone might do something (I deserve high praise just for not screaming about this sort of stuff, considering the earth-devastating possibilities - I would scream if I thought it wouldn't destroy all chances of being taken seriously). Was the potential clue powerful enough to cause Monk to dispense with normal product-to-market timeframes? As to the 9/25/09 Monk's reference to my 9/22 wastebasket blog, that would scarcely seem to require great expertise in the art of acting on short notice, at least to those of us who are familiar with how fast an idea can come, and the mechanics of actualizing an idea of that variety.

Monk/Beatles Videoclip (without The Beatles)
My September 20th blog referred to some Monk stuff from September 11th and the immediately previous show to that, August 28th, that put together a reference to a specific scene from the Beatles movie, "Help!" in relation to a reference to my comedy sketch idea, "Teddy Tinyfingers". This time around I bring a more complete picture:



For those who have heard of The Beatles, to the point of actually going to see one their movies, the reference is less obscure than it otherwise would be.

Seeing Is Worth Considering Believing
And finally, was that Courteney Cox Arquette I saw while driving to work on Friday, September 25th, the day that Medium, the show of Patricia Arquette, Courteney's sister-in-law, had its season premiere? And was that Robbie Cavolina I saw while driving home from work on Friday, September 25th, star of my 1998 Gosk 2 video, who once introduced me to the assistant to David Arquette, Courteney's husband? And who once was going to star Rosanna Arquette (McCartney friend) in a movie about Anita O'Day but made an Anita O'Day documentary instead? I don't know, it was difficult to tell, I was driving. Yet in each instance I first thought that it was them who I was seeing, and only afterward did I see the connection. And for that reason alone I consider it more worth mentioning than not mentioning.

Garbage Much Too Good To Ever Throw Away

The Kind of Thing People Write Footnotes About
The new interest on somebody's part regarding my sketch idea, "Teddy Tinyfingers", as manifest from the most recent Monk/Steinhoff videoclip (see my previous blog) may have perhaps made sufficiently relevant the time Brooke Shields' fingerless image appeared on a TV Guide cover (Sept. 19, 1987), all because of me and a section from my wastebasket collage. And so I've created (and posted yesterday) a little presentation, "A Guide To Brooke Shields", viewable at archive.org and at YouTube. If they say right, it was personal between Brooke Shields and me, then why, in the mid-'90s, when I returned to NYC to help my father pack up the co-op for his move to Houston, and my neighbor came in telling me to go a few buildings down the street, Madonna was having a party, so I went, but couldn't get in, and so there is Brooke Shields also not getting in, on this quiet edge of the West Village street with just a few people around, did I say nothing to Brooke Shields? True, when Madonna came out, and Brooke Shields, standing next to me, had a conversation with her, it may have appeared to Madonna that I was with her, from the way Madonna acted, but that's her story (by which I mean, what is her story?). By the way, David Rabe, the son-in-law of the neighbor who told me to go there (Sandra Church, widow of the late Bill Clayburgh), wrote a movie Sean Penn starred in, "Casualties of War", which was in the works when Madonna and then-husband Sean Penn came into the same restaurant I was in, very much noticing me. I have been something of an influence on Madonna and Sean Penn as well, quite significantly at times.

Footnote
Returning for a moment to the July 18, 2009 statement I made in response to the July 14, 2009 "review" of "Teddy Tinyfingers", a response and "review" referred to in my Monk/Steinhoff videoclip of several days ago: I mentioned in that July 18th posted response at archive.org that I knew from the digit counter that the "reviewer" had not even read the sketch idea. I will explain. It so happens that I had posted on HuffingtonPost a comment (July 14, 2009, 2:48pm) wherein I included the archive.org web address of the very same "Teddy Tinyfingers". And so, curious as to whether posting this web address would generate traffic to the sketch idea posting, I checked the digit counter for it at archive.org before and after. I found that it did not. However, it did suddenly occur, and this was the only time this has occurred since I have ever posted anything at archive.org, that it was later on that very same day that the "review" showed up at the "Teddy Tinyfingers" archive.org web address.

As to the idea that digit counters on the web are not to be trusted, I've pointed out before that this would be not unlike tampering with Diebold election machine results. Indications of web address traffic have a most serious impact on things. Why would anyone undertake to alter information about the number of people who visit my postings of work on the web? What could they accomplish by doing that? And so why should this cross my mind.

Neither Here But Not Neither There

Knowing that there are people out there diligently connecting the dots, joining together in holy fact the multitudinous fragments of information that belong together, I will try to let this week's videoclips stand alone, without prefacing with further explanation. Surely these videoclips can withstand the hit-and-run soundbite seekers who won't be bothered with the hours of laborious research each moment of the videoclips requires. Plus, as part of my ongoing dream to create things that are self-contained, I've already permeated these videoclips not just with video to watch but with words to read, all within the videoclip. A real multi-media hodgepodge.

Let them stand alone. For example, with the Clapton clip, I don't need to be reminding anyone that the referenced Harrison song is on an album containing a set of things that started with me, beginning with the album title (or for that matter, that there are no small number of significant OTHER things regarding significant OTHER Beatles that also started with me). I don't need to bring up, that a TV show referenced in that Clapton clip, "The Office", has done things Steinhoff-related a number of times in the past, or that Stuart Cornfeld, the producer of Office's Jenna Fischer's movie, "Blades of Glory", has come up now and then in my blogs. Or that the former NBC lead-in show to "The Office", "My Name Is Earl", was first created by me/then sent in 2002 to Sean Daniel, producer of "Earl" star Jason Lee's first big movie, "Mallrats", titled after my "Mall Man".

This information, as well as the innumerable other pieces of relevant information, are already there in past blogs and elsewhere (here and there) for the motivated to fuse, and for the rest to ignore/or whatever. I would prefer that the enlightening, substantiating details weren't so scattered around - but I'm only here to report, not to make anyone add 2+2 multiplied by the square root of every third variable.

Clapton Videoclip


Bill Maher Videoclip


This Week's Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip
(this videoclip was revised and reposted 9.20.09 3pm from 9.20.09 am
posted version, correcting both "9.4.09 Monk" episode references to
"8.28.09 Monk" episode references - no episode aired 9.4.09)

It's Been A Hard Eight Years

Stuff here regarding Pet Shop Boys, 9/11, Monk, and Ridley Scott!!!! (one exclamation mark each, each exclamation mark interchangeable)

As always, the things worth reporting this time around put me in a chain-gang with numerous other things. That's my eloquent way of reiterating that, unless one connects the statements here to other dots, the statements get into trouble when seen all by themselves. For example, with this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, I refer to my comedy sketch, "In Orders We Trust", posted verifiably at archive.org on August 11, 2009, and unverifiably (as there is no timestamp from the site) at my Angelfire website on May 15, 2006 (it was also sent in an email May 15, 2006, but who's counting). One who has not checked my other Monk/Steinhoff videoclips (some viewable in my previous blogs, some at YouTube where I'm Zoomsteinhoff), wherein I usually get to point to postings of my work that were verifiably made years before the episode, might skeptically (or seemingly skeptically, if they knew better but have ulterior motives in this power situation) argue that the August 11th posting might conceivably have had benefit of inside word on what the episode would contain. Those who have seen the other Monk/Steinhoff postings, on the other hand, would sort of have to give me more credit than that, would they not.

So on with the show.

Sit
My Autumn 1993 collection of my graphic artwork, "Go Eyes, Go!" (most created pre-1993), though (as I've stated before) comprised of works that are not in any way slick/indicative of a refined technique, nevertheless has been a significant influence on a number of significant works by a number of significant people. I have long held that Pet Shop Boys not only named themselves after a work it contains, "Say Please", but also named their CD "Please" after it as well. Having seen them perform their new song "Yes" on late night television this past week, which also included a video as part of the backdrop during the performance, I now add both the song and its video backdrop to the category of Pet Shop Boys work upon which "Say Please" has been a significant influence. I include "Say Please" here so that you also can have the opportunity (without having to bother to click a link) to name your band, CDs and songs after things it contains:


The resolution in this rendering makes it difficult to tell, but a bottle in front of the woman with the dog-like nose reads, "Dog Food" (I suggest using the "Go Eyes, Go!" link to read these magically insulting words that may be responsible for provoking her tears). The quality of the print in the hard copy goes further, and reads, "Dog Food for dogs in....", and the original has another word or two after that (I did this in the early '80s, don't remember). Maybe I'll go to the trouble of "locating" it someday and finding out. (Thought I was going to say, "retrieving it" or digging it up", didn't you? Well, you don't know me as well as you thought.)

9/11 Clue Never Investigated Because Then They'd Have To Admit I Was Enough Of An Entity In Relation To Spielberg, McCartney, Etc. For The Terrorists To Choose My Doorstep To Leave It On
Here are the cover of my aforementioned, "Go Eyes, Go!" (Autumn 1993) and the title page that immediately follows:


















What makes me regard these as part of a clue (as indicated in the heading of this section) are the cumulative implications of the following:

• Since 1993, "Go Eyes, Go!" was being sold on consignment in a store in NYC called Printed Matter. Eight years later, approximately half-a-year before 9/11, they asked for and received from me my current address to return those copies that were unsold, yet didn't actually send them back until Sept. 2001. They were mailed several days before 9/11 and reached me several days after 9/11.
  

• The image on the cover, deliberately simple/abbreviated, a rectangle that is near the sun, easily lends itself to the interpretation that it is a very tall building, as in a child's drawing showing a house with simple geometric lines, referenced/defined by the sun above. The arrow towards the top of the rectangle suggests a diagram of some kind in relation to the top portion of the tall building. The following title page, which features myself in Superman attire, puts the image into a more literal context of involving the sun, the arrow therefore being aimed at the sky, and, though this may be stretching it, we all know the phrase they used at the start of each Superman TV episode, "Able to leap tall buildings....". Show me someone who utters the words, "tall buildings", and I'll show you ten people who immediately hear that whole phrase in their head.
  

• The importance of "Go Eyes, Go!", though clearly not widely known, is enormous, containing works that have greatly influenced works by Spielberg, McCartney, Starr, and others. Therefore, it is narrow-minded to assume that an occurrence important to the history of that work couldn't have been significant on anyone's "radar".
  

• Other major terrorist acts of our time have also come with clues left on my doorstep (still uninvestigated), including the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993.

I do not believe even for a third of a second that the NYC store, Printed Matter, had any kind of knowing involvement in a terrorist act. I think it is a well known concept that people are often made unknowing accomplices in things, pawns set in motion without any kind of idea what the larger picture is. As an example, I even believe it possible that someone working for Printed Matter could be led to believe that her distorting information regarding her end of what happened would be a "white lie" serving the interests of someone such as Paul McCartney, but shh, don't tell anyone why we want you to tell this "white lie". I have held back from being too explicit about clues that have come my way, to avoid sending a clear alert to those who might bury such clues. It has been quite some time. How long am I to wait for an investigation, an investigation that will only seem worthwhile to the powers that be once it is understood that I am an entity of sufficient note as to show up on the radar of those geared towards messing with those at the top in the first place - i.e., why would big league terrorists (or a mole on the inside) even bother with "involving" me by leaving clues on my doorstep, and so why investigate anything from my doorstep that I reported as being part of a larger puzzle?

Ridley Me This
Here is a videoclip reflecting my latest extremely significant influence on extremely famous director Ridley Scott, whose "Body of Lies" just came to a television premium channel and was just seen by me for the first time (other Scott-related blogs of mine were posted on June 14, 2009, March 15, 2009, and September 21, 2008):



Weekly Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip
Before I post this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, there is one thing that, well, I won't say it fell off the radar last time, it's just that it didn't fit, and, you know, everything has to fit, not symetrically necessarily, that would be neurotic, but, well, anyway. Those well familiar with the Beatles movie, "Help!" (I include not only those who are merely well familiar with this movie, but also those who are actually extremely well familiar with it) couldn't help noticing that the previous Monk episode (August 28th) borrowed a comedy bit from that source. Of course I refer to the co-scientist in "Help!" reporting into his hidden mic, "Now I'm moving my left foot, now I'm moving my right foot." When this is met with a recrimination from his co-scientist, he mutters, "He'll thank me for this in the end." And sure enough, this week's (9/11/09) Monk episode gives Monk the line, "You'll thank me for this in the end." I have previously observed Monk episodes making inside-references to a Ringo Starr anecdote I used to tell, after someone who was a friend of mine while I was attending CalArts reported it to me (my then-friend was there when it happened). In this August 28th and September 11th Monk instance, we have references from "Help!" to one of the two co-scientists who was involved in trying to shrink Ringo's finger to remove the ring. This makes significant the fact that, also in the September 11th Monk episode, Randy tries to see if his hand is small enough to fit through a hole in a glass window (injuring both hands on the jagged glass in the process as he wanted to test it with each hand). I now therefore consider these, in their cumulative context (and alongside innumerable other references to my material on Monk), as being a deliberate reference to my January 2009 "Teddy Tinyfingers" comedy sketch (to which I've made numerous previous references in earlier blogs, including mention of President Obama using the ending of the sketch at the end of his first week in office, giving the media their soundbite for the week).

As indicated in the following new Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, one may also want to visit my "In Orders We Trust" posting at my Angelfire website, and/or at its posting at archive.org, and/or my August 22nd blog wherein I announce that I had begun on making a video of it (progressing nicely!) and/or one of my many blog references to Stuart Cornfeld (such as the videoclip posted with my August 13, 2008 blog). And finally, this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip!

Like In That Beatles Song

Firstly, I would want to mention that Hugh Jackman’s opening number at the Oscars the other night, which was all about putting together a production with a ridiculously minimal set of tools, had an awful lot in common with my “Steinhoff’s Monster” (1978), which was the work of mine referenced in the “Monk” season finale just two nights earlier (see my February 22nd blog). For this reason, and also from previous experience of being secretly referenced on the Oscars, I have to wonder about this. Perhaps Hugh Jackman (who referenced my “Adventure At The Pasadena Batman Estate” when he hosted the Tony Awards several years ago) leaked the number ahead of time to Tony Shaloub. Or perhaps any number of other scenarios – did you know that Andy Breckman, the creator of and a writer for “Monk”, was a writer for the 2003 Oscars?

And now on to other things!

Preface Regarding Secret Occurrences On TV Last Night
What I am about to describe regarding conclusions I’ve arrived at concerning last night’s television would never read as on target to someone unfamiliar with a specific inside shorthand that has evolved, and what’s worse, people out of that loop might easily be led to make wrong surmisals regarding just how I arrived at my conclusions, thereby believing my statements to be foolishly arrived at. I would be better off if the outsider felt himself in the dark as to how I arrived at my conclusions, which is truly where the outsider is. Being who I am, I will not allow the anticipated misperceptions of the outsider to interfere with nor dictate what I choose to communicate to certain people, though it may seem that I am inflicting pain upon myself in so acting. Maybe I should just limit myself to inside references cryptically expressed, as so many others do.... no, don't think so.

Secret Occurrences On TV Last Night
Every once in a while, rather than one TV show including enough things regarding my material as to allow me to draw clear conclusions about inside references to my works, instead several TV shows on the same evening include things regarding the same Steinhoff material, so that between the things contained on different shows on the same evening, there would cumulatively be enough things such that inside references would become obvious to me. Last night was such a night. I have in previous blogs referred to occasional references to my material on “24”, and also to occasional references to my material in works featuring Arquettes (reasons regarding why there should be frequent usages found in material involving Arquettes have also been detailed in previous blogs). And so last night, both “24” and Patricia Arquette’s “Medium” referred to the same moment in Steinhoff’s Dostoyevsky’s “Uncle’s Dream” (1992): the moment when Susan says, “Are you the hurting kind, you know, like in that Beatles song?” The legitimacy of this observation of an inside reference to my Dostoyevsky is reinforced by the subject matter found on both TV show episodes: On “24”, Jack Bauer is confronted, in the most poignant way thus far, on the question of whether he is too indifferent to the pain/suffering/death that result from his actions ("the hurting kind?"); on “Medium”, Allison Dubois (Patricia Arquette) asks herself whether she is guilty and should hold herself morally responsible for inflicting a wound ("the hurting kind?"). In both TV shows, conspicuous use is made of a commonly seen action, one character placing his hand on the shoulder of another. Yet these usages show up on my special "be alerted" radar, because the rhythm of the scene is slowed down for these actions, as if something of plot significance is occurring instead of a more common behavior. Thus, the shorthand was present, and sure enough, in looking further, I found reinforcement of this observation in the aforesaid focus on the “hurting kind” issue, combined with the repeating of these components in both shows on the same night. Due to copyright protection technology I cannot even copy these TV moments on camera to present here in a videoclip, even if I wanted to - but without explanation the moments scarcely speak for themselves anyway.

Ending
Do I see in all of this an invitation to expound on the subject of what makes someone the “hurting kind”? This is too vast a subject, requiring discussion of all sorts of issues: references to preconditioned social perceptions and so forth; the imagination and experience to even see the potential for devising ways to avoid collateral damage; the passing of a serious responsibility with the intention that the responsibility nevertheless be addressed, rather than the intention to avoid being held culpable; the illusion that the negative energy in the world, which is related to inflicting hurt, can be reduced if squeezed into occupying a box 5” x 3” x 2” instead of a box 6: x 4” x 3”. I may see things connected to this issue that others would find tangental. I would likely stray far from a discussion of rotten bastards who go around hurting people. Here I touch on a few of the things I see as related to this question, but do not feel that the time has been granted me to truly explore this gigantic subject.