I was staring at the title of my previous blog (which is also the title of my comedy sketch idea), "Peek-A-Boo, ICU", for about, I don't know, an hour, and suddenly all I wanted to do was make everything simple, just like in a game of peek-a-boo.
I've many times pointed out that SNL ("Saturday Night Live") has made quite a bit of use of my ideas, using my ideas in the very same week's show the ideas were designated for. In my Sept. 28th blog I mentioned the most recent example, although admittedly, my idea in this instance "surfaced" in my September 16th blog and used on the September 27th SNL, a rather substantial 11-day interim. This, however, was a special circumstance: it followed the first two shows in two years that didn't use my ideas (as I've mentioned in previous blogs). And so it is only fair to regard this as a reunion, a special circumstance, or perhaps, an-I-don't-know-what.
I stated in my first paragraph here that suddenly I want to make everything simple. So to make good on that promise, here is where my idea originally appeared (look at the Comment by JonathanDS below the article), and here is where it wound up on SNL:
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Peek-A-Boo, ICU
Having recently been reinstated as a secret, unacknowledged contributor to "The Daily Show", "The Colbert Report", and "Saturday Night Live", I therefore felt it as not inappropriate to come up with something. First though, a brief mention regarding the recent indications of reinstatement:
[Tom Brokaw is sitting alone on a stage, at a table, facing the audience. On the table are two video cell phones, perched on cell phone stands, facing each other. On one cell phone can be seen live, standing at a podium, McCain, Obama is seen live standing at a podium on the other cell phone. A clear water glass and a water glass pitcher are also on the table.]
Brokaw: Good evening everyone, and welcome to the second presidential debate. Some of you may have noticed that, instead of Senators John McCain and Barrack Obama being present together onstage, there are instead video cell phones on the table, upon which each can be seen, live. You see (clears throat), we noticed at the previous presidential debate that the candidates seemed a little reluctant to speak directly to each other.
Obama: John wouldn’t even look at me, Tom.
McCain: I was trying to concentrate.
Brokaw: And so what we’ve done here, the thing we decided to do…
Obama: I had nothing to do with this decision. Absolutely nobody checked with me first.
McCain (smiling and winking): Uh, nor, uh, me, right Tom?
Brokaw: What we’re doing is, we have two video cell phones with each candidate, the video cell phones positioned to face each other. Our hope is that gradually the candidates will feel more comfortable with each other, and later on during the debate perhaps, we can remove the video cell phones and have them face each other directly.
Obama: As you wish. (muttering) Might as well be a radio debate.
McCain: We did quite well before there even was such a thing as television, or cell phones, or…. Whatever you want to do, Tom.
[Brokaw pours himself some water, has a sip, then places the water glass in between the two video cell phones.]
Brokaw: My first question is for you, Senator McCain.
Obama: Excuse me, uh, Tom, I’m sorry to interrupt, but, uh, you put your water glass on the table between the two video cell phones. So that, well, now all that I can see is the water glass, basically. I can make out a little bit of movement of colors on the other side of the water glass, but other than that….
McCain: That’s perfectly okay with me, Tom, if you want to put your water glass there that’s fine, I don’t mind a bit.
Obama: I can just sort of make out the color of Senator McCain’s clothes now with the water glass there. Is this supposed to be like some amusement park mirror debate? Because, I mean….
Brokaw: Should I move the glass to the left or the right. I’m not sure which way….
McCain: It’s fine where it is, Tom. I would prefer that you leave your glass where it is.
Obama: You know, metaphorically, this all sort of reminds me of the way Senator McCain’s vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, seems to find things to hide behind whenever she’s called upon to answer a real question.
McCain: Please, we’re just talking about where Tom wants to put his water glass. For goodness sake, he is the debate moderator, isn’t he entitled to a glass of water?
Obama: John, is that really the issue? Tom, uh, to the left, Tom. No, that just made it worse.
Brokaw: This way then?
McCain: I’m still waiting for the first question.
Obama: It really shouldn’t be so complicated to move a water glass away from two cell phones.
Brokaw: Yes, well, if you recall, in the previous debate, Senator McCain demonstrated a certain reluctance to look directly at you.
McCain: I was just trying to concentrate.
Obama: I see, so then the truth is, Tom, you deliberately placed the water glass there to block our view of each other.
Brokaw: I’m sorry John, I told you he wouldn’t go along with the water glass thing.
McCain: I have no idea what you’re talking about, Tom.
Obama: It’s like I’m looking at an amusement park mirror.
McCain: You’ve said that already.
Obama: Tom, can I at least ask that you drink some more water out of the glass, I can sort of see his form better when there’s less water in the glass.
McCain: Can we just wait until Tom is thirsty before we ask him to drink more water? For goodness sake.
Brokaw: That might be a good question. John, would you say the glass is half full or half empty?
Obama: Why would you ask - Tom, I just want you to drink a little more water. Now look, I’ve shown I’m ready to compromise on this, even more than I should, quite honestly. I didn’t ask you to remove the glass altogether.
Brokaw: John? Half full, half empty. Which would you say?
McCain: I, uh….
Brokaw: Senator McCain, one last time, half-full or half-empty?
McCain: Half full or half empty?
Obama: I just sort of see this white blur. And now I know you’re going to try to say that remark is racially motivated, but it’s the truth, I….
McCain: Here’s what Senator Obama doesn’t understand.
Obama: What? What don’t I understand?
McCain: Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!
- I've already referenced the Daily Show indications in recent blogs.
- On SNL last night they had the joke that Sarah Palin went to see "The Bush Doctrine" movie in NYC's Times Square, and found the title misleading. In my Sept. 16th blog, I refer to my joke that Sarah Palin found misleading the title of the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" - it was not about dismantling the idea that the stork brings babies (my implication being that she had attempted to provide a form of sex education to her one-time unpregnant daughter). Were one familiar with the consistency with which SNL has made reference to my material, one would be more likely to appreciate this as more than coincidence.
- Several days ago when I was thanked at work during a national videoconference for organizing the videoconference, I made a muscle and pointed to it. That night at the opening of "The Colbert Report", Colbert made muscles in general reference to the greatness attributed to him. Were one familiar with my past observations that "The Colbert Report" occasionally gathers material from infiltrating my work situation (there are only several people regarding whom I consistently make this claim, Colbert being one of them), one would be more likely to appreciate this as more than coincidence.
PEEK-A-BOO, ICU
A comedy sketch idea by Jonathan D. Steinhoff, 9/28/08
[Tom Brokaw is sitting alone on a stage, at a table, facing the audience. On the table are two video cell phones, perched on cell phone stands, facing each other. On one cell phone can be seen live, standing at a podium, McCain, Obama is seen live standing at a podium on the other cell phone. A clear water glass and a water glass pitcher are also on the table.]
Brokaw: Good evening everyone, and welcome to the second presidential debate. Some of you may have noticed that, instead of Senators John McCain and Barrack Obama being present together onstage, there are instead video cell phones on the table, upon which each can be seen, live. You see (clears throat), we noticed at the previous presidential debate that the candidates seemed a little reluctant to speak directly to each other.
Obama: John wouldn’t even look at me, Tom.
McCain: I was trying to concentrate.
Brokaw: And so what we’ve done here, the thing we decided to do…
Obama: I had nothing to do with this decision. Absolutely nobody checked with me first.
McCain (smiling and winking): Uh, nor, uh, me, right Tom?
Brokaw: What we’re doing is, we have two video cell phones with each candidate, the video cell phones positioned to face each other. Our hope is that gradually the candidates will feel more comfortable with each other, and later on during the debate perhaps, we can remove the video cell phones and have them face each other directly.
Obama: As you wish. (muttering) Might as well be a radio debate.
McCain: We did quite well before there even was such a thing as television, or cell phones, or…. Whatever you want to do, Tom.
[Brokaw pours himself some water, has a sip, then places the water glass in between the two video cell phones.]
Brokaw: My first question is for you, Senator McCain.
Obama: Excuse me, uh, Tom, I’m sorry to interrupt, but, uh, you put your water glass on the table between the two video cell phones. So that, well, now all that I can see is the water glass, basically. I can make out a little bit of movement of colors on the other side of the water glass, but other than that….
McCain: That’s perfectly okay with me, Tom, if you want to put your water glass there that’s fine, I don’t mind a bit.
Obama: I can just sort of make out the color of Senator McCain’s clothes now with the water glass there. Is this supposed to be like some amusement park mirror debate? Because, I mean….
Brokaw: Should I move the glass to the left or the right. I’m not sure which way….
McCain: It’s fine where it is, Tom. I would prefer that you leave your glass where it is.
Obama: You know, metaphorically, this all sort of reminds me of the way Senator McCain’s vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, seems to find things to hide behind whenever she’s called upon to answer a real question.
McCain: Please, we’re just talking about where Tom wants to put his water glass. For goodness sake, he is the debate moderator, isn’t he entitled to a glass of water?
Obama: John, is that really the issue? Tom, uh, to the left, Tom. No, that just made it worse.
Brokaw: This way then?
McCain: I’m still waiting for the first question.
Obama: It really shouldn’t be so complicated to move a water glass away from two cell phones.
Brokaw: Yes, well, if you recall, in the previous debate, Senator McCain demonstrated a certain reluctance to look directly at you.
McCain: I was just trying to concentrate.
Obama: I see, so then the truth is, Tom, you deliberately placed the water glass there to block our view of each other.
Brokaw: I’m sorry John, I told you he wouldn’t go along with the water glass thing.
McCain: I have no idea what you’re talking about, Tom.
Obama: It’s like I’m looking at an amusement park mirror.
McCain: You’ve said that already.
Obama: Tom, can I at least ask that you drink some more water out of the glass, I can sort of see his form better when there’s less water in the glass.
McCain: Can we just wait until Tom is thirsty before we ask him to drink more water? For goodness sake.
Brokaw: That might be a good question. John, would you say the glass is half full or half empty?
Obama: Why would you ask - Tom, I just want you to drink a little more water. Now look, I’ve shown I’m ready to compromise on this, even more than I should, quite honestly. I didn’t ask you to remove the glass altogether.
Brokaw: John? Half full, half empty. Which would you say?
McCain: I, uh….
Brokaw: Senator McCain, one last time, half-full or half-empty?
McCain: Half full or half empty?
Obama: I just sort of see this white blur. And now I know you’re going to try to say that remark is racially motivated, but it’s the truth, I….
McCain: Here’s what Senator Obama doesn’t understand.
Obama: What? What don’t I understand?
McCain: Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!
THE END
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Roll Over, Not Enough Time For The Beethoven
What was I thinking when I wrote my previous blog, "Not Enough Time For The Beethoven"? For those who followed-up on the Terrance Williams reference that blog contained, the phrase, "Not enough time for the Beethoven," refers to a line Terrance's character speaks in my "Gosk" video.
But I mean, what was I thinking? That just because everyone all over the place of great stature for years and years and years has valued my material, bringing pieces of it to countless works in various popular mediums, through which the public values it, that therefore I should have a position resembling in any way who I am in the world? How naive, how upsetting of ALL the apple carts, how oblivious to the complex interconnectivity of all things that would surely be convoluted by an appropriate response to me. Oh yes, I do get an appropriate response whenever (okay, sometimes when) I order a cheeseburger. But is that the extent to which we are obliged to provide appropriate responses to one another? I may not be Mr. Conventional/ Appropriate, I may have a broadminded outlook comparatively speaking, but in whose mind does this place me so far outside the world of appropriate responses?
Okay, now I'm ready to leave that blog behind. You see, I'm not making a serious complaint here, so much as I'm trying to find a way inside myself to severe my bond with that blog. I can do it now. I can post this blog and thusly make that blog part of the past. That's all it is. Leaving things behind with the amount of force necessary.
But I mean, what was I thinking? That just because everyone all over the place of great stature for years and years and years has valued my material, bringing pieces of it to countless works in various popular mediums, through which the public values it, that therefore I should have a position resembling in any way who I am in the world? How naive, how upsetting of ALL the apple carts, how oblivious to the complex interconnectivity of all things that would surely be convoluted by an appropriate response to me. Oh yes, I do get an appropriate response whenever (okay, sometimes when) I order a cheeseburger. But is that the extent to which we are obliged to provide appropriate responses to one another? I may not be Mr. Conventional/ Appropriate, I may have a broadminded outlook comparatively speaking, but in whose mind does this place me so far outside the world of appropriate responses?
Okay, now I'm ready to leave that blog behind. You see, I'm not making a serious complaint here, so much as I'm trying to find a way inside myself to severe my bond with that blog. I can do it now. I can post this blog and thusly make that blog part of the past. That's all it is. Leaving things behind with the amount of force necessary.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Not Enough Time For The Beethoven
As a few of us know, Terrance Williams, who played the first violinist in my 1998 video, "Gosk II", used to be a key assistant to Director Ridley Scott and his director brother, Tony Scott. Another thing a few of us may have noticed is that, ever since Terrance's appearance in my video, my material has occasionally been used in significant ways (unacknowledged) in the work of Tony and Ridley (mostly Ridley). Ridley Scott's "American Gangster", which I just saw yesterday for the first time (in its HBO premier), proves to be no exception.
Specifically, I first draw your attention to the scene in my 1994 video, "Gosk I", where Clerp, noticing something while speaking to Jerp, says, "Wait a minute," gets up from his seat, dramatically (complete with dramatic music) steers the spacecraft away from a meteor, returns to his seat, then after a few nonchalant words in response to Jerp's question about what he was doing, says, "So anyway, like I was saying...."
I then draw your attention to the scene in "American Gangster", where the Denzel Washington character is in a diner speaking to a few people at his table, notices something, says, "I'll be right back," leaves the diner, exchanges a few words with someone, then shoots him, returns to the diner, sits back down, and nonchalantly says, "What was I saying?"
Ridley Scott, I once again repeat the suggestion I asked the person who answers the phone for you to pass along: As delighted as I am to be an influence, I would be even more delighted to work for you directly.
Specifically, I first draw your attention to the scene in my 1994 video, "Gosk I", where Clerp, noticing something while speaking to Jerp, says, "Wait a minute," gets up from his seat, dramatically (complete with dramatic music) steers the spacecraft away from a meteor, returns to his seat, then after a few nonchalant words in response to Jerp's question about what he was doing, says, "So anyway, like I was saying...."
I then draw your attention to the scene in "American Gangster", where the Denzel Washington character is in a diner speaking to a few people at his table, notices something, says, "I'll be right back," leaves the diner, exchanges a few words with someone, then shoots him, returns to the diner, sits back down, and nonchalantly says, "What was I saying?"
Ridley Scott, I once again repeat the suggestion I asked the person who answers the phone for you to pass along: As delighted as I am to be an influence, I would be even more delighted to work for you directly.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Opposite Of Socks
For those interested in a somewhat spelled-out version of Steven Spielberg in relation to me, I recommend reading my PDF-formatted "Mall Man, Spielberg, Steinhoff: Interesting Mall Man Facts". And yet the answers would not all leap out at one simply by doing this, one would have to go yet further, and view my "Mall Man" video. And even then the research would have to continue. You'd have to force yourself to see the Spielberg films referred to in the aforementioned PDF.
After that, I might just begin to think you're getting a little bit up to speed. But here the road gets tricky. You've come a long way (I almost hate myself for what I put you through!), but afterall, the route has been clearly mapped out for you, hasn't it, and that made it pretty easy, to be honest. Found it in yourself to want to continue? Okay, go see the August 2008 "Mummy 3", produced by Sean Daniel, someone you should by now feel acquainted with, or at least introduced to. In "Mummy 3" the treasure we are looking for is a tie-in back to me in relation to Spielberg, if you've been paying attention.
Well, one thing that's clearly put before anyone who sees both the return of the Mummy ("Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor", released 8/1/08, after a 7-year hiatus) and the return of Indiana Jones ("Indiana Jones And The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", released 5/22/08, approximately two months earlier, after a 19-year hiatus), is how both films emphasize father-mother-son as the fellow adventurers, the father and mother coming out of some kind of retirement. It seems highly unlikely that this is coincidence, especially because these two “serials” have always been placed side-by-side by film audiences, due to their both being sagas of the same genre and period, and both having been granted the status of being legendary due to their great popularity.
You’ve already read what I picked up on in the return of Indiana Jones as specifically being in continuity with Spielberg doing stuff in relation to me: the moment at the end when the hat of Indiana is picked up and returned to him (a moment to which the movie assigns special significance). And sure enough, I found something related to pick up on in the return of the Mummy – when a soldier in an army of resurrected dead (the army fighting for the good guys) picks up someone’s head and returns it to him. Although the film attaches absolutely no real significance to that moment, it was time-stopping in that it was the only direct moment of humor (outside of the characters’ self-aware humor contained in their banter), and as such, a knowing wink, a deliberate, momentary break in the suspension of disbelief.
Tonight was the season premier of “Smallville”, written by the same writing team responsible for the third Mummy (Gough and Millar). “Smallville” from time to time has been “known” to make inside references to my work. I watched tonight in anticipation of something in continuity with what I saw done for my benefit in the third Mummy film - and there it was: the handing to Clark Kent of a jacket, a moment expanded in the dialog as something to be seen in relation to the idea of his finally having a costume/Superman identity. Thus, a hat handed to Indiana moment, a head handed to the dead soldier moment, an anti-socks left behind on the bench moment.
After that, I might just begin to think you're getting a little bit up to speed. But here the road gets tricky. You've come a long way (I almost hate myself for what I put you through!), but afterall, the route has been clearly mapped out for you, hasn't it, and that made it pretty easy, to be honest. Found it in yourself to want to continue? Okay, go see the August 2008 "Mummy 3", produced by Sean Daniel, someone you should by now feel acquainted with, or at least introduced to. In "Mummy 3" the treasure we are looking for is a tie-in back to me in relation to Spielberg, if you've been paying attention.
Well, one thing that's clearly put before anyone who sees both the return of the Mummy ("Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor", released 8/1/08, after a 7-year hiatus) and the return of Indiana Jones ("Indiana Jones And The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", released 5/22/08, approximately two months earlier, after a 19-year hiatus), is how both films emphasize father-mother-son as the fellow adventurers, the father and mother coming out of some kind of retirement. It seems highly unlikely that this is coincidence, especially because these two “serials” have always been placed side-by-side by film audiences, due to their both being sagas of the same genre and period, and both having been granted the status of being legendary due to their great popularity.
You’ve already read what I picked up on in the return of Indiana Jones as specifically being in continuity with Spielberg doing stuff in relation to me: the moment at the end when the hat of Indiana is picked up and returned to him (a moment to which the movie assigns special significance). And sure enough, I found something related to pick up on in the return of the Mummy – when a soldier in an army of resurrected dead (the army fighting for the good guys) picks up someone’s head and returns it to him. Although the film attaches absolutely no real significance to that moment, it was time-stopping in that it was the only direct moment of humor (outside of the characters’ self-aware humor contained in their banter), and as such, a knowing wink, a deliberate, momentary break in the suspension of disbelief.
Tonight was the season premier of “Smallville”, written by the same writing team responsible for the third Mummy (Gough and Millar). “Smallville” from time to time has been “known” to make inside references to my work. I watched tonight in anticipation of something in continuity with what I saw done for my benefit in the third Mummy film - and there it was: the handing to Clark Kent of a jacket, a moment expanded in the dialog as something to be seen in relation to the idea of his finally having a costume/Superman identity. Thus, a hat handed to Indiana moment, a head handed to the dead soldier moment, an anti-socks left behind on the bench moment.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Sudden Change
Yesterday in my September 16th blog I discussed my September 6th comedy sketch idea, “Beaver And Wally, The Flying Invisible Time Travelers” (go to archive.org) as something referred to on the Monday, September 15th “Daily Show”, which I had surmised from a set of circumstances, combined with an enormous amount of experience, and an amount of intelligence only slightly less than my experience (I’ll wait while you figure that one out)….
The September 16th “Daily Show” has gone considerably further than the September 15th show, in this regard. Just as a key aspect of my comedy sketch idea is that the occurrences of sudden, dramatic transformations around Ward and June Cleaver are regarded as nothing outside the norm, so the sudden, dramatic transformations happening here in this Daily Show bit are presented by the reporter as nothing to get excited about: “People should remain calm. This is normal.”
This is not to say that such an idea has never manifested anywhere before. No. But any intelligent person could not fail to notice that on the 15th I had a real basis for connecting their use of a particular idea with the same September 6th comedy sketch idea that can be legitimately related to the show on the 16th.
Yesterday, “The Daily Show”. The day after tomorrow, the presidential election (or perhaps the day after that, who bothers to keep track?).
The September 16th “Daily Show” has gone considerably further than the September 15th show, in this regard. Just as a key aspect of my comedy sketch idea is that the occurrences of sudden, dramatic transformations around Ward and June Cleaver are regarded as nothing outside the norm, so the sudden, dramatic transformations happening here in this Daily Show bit are presented by the reporter as nothing to get excited about: “People should remain calm. This is normal.”
This is not to say that such an idea has never manifested anywhere before. No. But any intelligent person could not fail to notice that on the 15th I had a real basis for connecting their use of a particular idea with the same September 6th comedy sketch idea that can be legitimately related to the show on the 16th.
Yesterday, “The Daily Show”. The day after tomorrow, the presidential election (or perhaps the day after that, who bothers to keep track?).
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
IT'S A LAWN STORY
In my previous blog of Sept. 14th, I referred to what had once (pre-June 2008) been the result of my emails to Stuart Cornfeld (former AFI student, "Tropic Thunder" producer, "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" pirate boss): little pieces in SNL bits. In my August 28th blog I went into more detail, in that I mentioned how sometimes my emails to Stuart resulted in pieces (some not so little) in Daily Show and Colbert Report bits.
Well, I don't know if it was the Sept. 14th blog that did it, but I find that I have returned to The Daily Show, or to be more precise, I have been returned to The Daily Show. The evidence, not unlike some forensic evidence, may seem miniscule, yet experience and intelligence inform me it is genuine:
The comedy sketch idea of mine that I referred to on Sept. 14th as the first one they ignored in two years, by not making any reference to it on the Sept. 13th SNL (my Sept. 14th blog including a link to where one could read the comedy sketch idea located at archive.org), has Beaver Cleaver mowing the lawn as a task he performs on par with when he changes world history. Now look at this miniscule videoclip from the Sept. 15th Daily Show:
Here Vice President Cheney is discussed with relation to the idea of dividing his time between Vice Presidential duties and mowing the lawn. The day following my blog.
In addition, I occasionally find that when I post a comment on an article on Huffington Post (where I comment as JonathanDS and as JonathanDS2U), something contained in my comment can find its way elsewhere, such as on "Monk", "Real Time With Bill Maher", "The Daily Show", or "The Colbert Report". Huffington Post is set up so that one can follow/search comments posted by a particular person without having to peruse every article's every comments to locate that particular person's comments. And so I noticed something else on the Sept. 15th Daily Show. Jon Stewart did a bit where the cover of a DVD he bought was misleading to him, hence he wound up with undersea crab pornography. In the past week or two I posted a comment on someone's comedy article on Huffington, listing off various items Palin tried to sell on eBay. My contribution/comment was Palin trying to sell a DVD of "An Inconvenient Truth" on eBay, complete with her description that the title is misleading, the DVD isn't about dismantling the concept that storks bring babies into the world.
Yesterday, the Daily Show.... tomorrow.... the world! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! (Sorry, sometimes I laugh at things that aren't generally regarded as humorous.)
Well, I don't know if it was the Sept. 14th blog that did it, but I find that I have returned to The Daily Show, or to be more precise, I have been returned to The Daily Show. The evidence, not unlike some forensic evidence, may seem miniscule, yet experience and intelligence inform me it is genuine:
The comedy sketch idea of mine that I referred to on Sept. 14th as the first one they ignored in two years, by not making any reference to it on the Sept. 13th SNL (my Sept. 14th blog including a link to where one could read the comedy sketch idea located at archive.org), has Beaver Cleaver mowing the lawn as a task he performs on par with when he changes world history. Now look at this miniscule videoclip from the Sept. 15th Daily Show:
Here Vice President Cheney is discussed with relation to the idea of dividing his time between Vice Presidential duties and mowing the lawn. The day following my blog.
In addition, I occasionally find that when I post a comment on an article on Huffington Post (where I comment as JonathanDS and as JonathanDS2U), something contained in my comment can find its way elsewhere, such as on "Monk", "Real Time With Bill Maher", "The Daily Show", or "The Colbert Report". Huffington Post is set up so that one can follow/search comments posted by a particular person without having to peruse every article's every comments to locate that particular person's comments. And so I noticed something else on the Sept. 15th Daily Show. Jon Stewart did a bit where the cover of a DVD he bought was misleading to him, hence he wound up with undersea crab pornography. In the past week or two I posted a comment on someone's comedy article on Huffington, listing off various items Palin tried to sell on eBay. My contribution/comment was Palin trying to sell a DVD of "An Inconvenient Truth" on eBay, complete with her description that the title is misleading, the DVD isn't about dismantling the concept that storks bring babies into the world.
Yesterday, the Daily Show.... tomorrow.... the world! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! (Sorry, sometimes I laugh at things that aren't generally regarded as humorous.)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
"How To Endorse Obama If You Are Paul McCartney" Instruction Guide
In my previous blog I introduced an idea that may need no real introduction: that Paul McCartney should endorse Obama as an appropriate rechanneling of the optimism about the world generated by "The Beatles Movement" (Or was the term "Beatlemania"? I recall the adult establishment back then, via the media, found the term "Beatlemania" the acceptable way of framing things, as much for its non-authenticating of the seriousness of The Beatles as for any other reason). This time, a blog in which I will provide a "How To Endorse Obama If You Are Paul McCartney" Instruction Guide. A few related things first.
It is worth making note here of the fact that I was personally responsible the last time Paul McCartney made a (surprise) appearance on Saturday Night Live. Eight days before that "surprise" sketch about poison in which Paul McCartney appeared with Martin Short and Steve Martin, I emailed my Paul McCartney intermediary that Paul should do a comedy sketch based on my "Recipe For Fun". And so, an SNL sketch about poison featuring Paul McCartney was born. Without going into too many details about what prompted me to make that suggestion, I will say that it had something to do with a matter related to John Kerry (incidentally, it was Kerry who chose Obama to deliver the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, which was the moment credited with bringing Obama onto the national "stage").
When I made that suggestion to Paul McCartney, I seriously expected something to result, based on previous experience. In this case, however, I appreciate that I am not asking of Paul the same kind of thing, and I have never let my power to make suggestions that are given serious consideration turn me into a bossy "now stand on your head" kind of person. I do not even know if Paul McCartney knows how to stand on his head. There are innumerable photos of McCartney doing different things, yet I do not recall seeing even one in which he stands on his head. By the way, I do not believe asking him to endorse Obama is in any way like asking him to stand on his head. Yet perhaps I digress.
During last year's SNL TV season, as well as during the TV season the year before, every single Saturday Night Live included references to sketch ideas I had submitted for each show. I submitted my ideas to two very SNL-connected movie producers, who I had first met well before they were big producers, Sean Daniel and Stuart Cornfeld, and each idea found its way, in some miniscule form, to the show for which it was intended. The exception was the show for which I intended my sketch idea, "In Orders We Trust":
http://www.angelfire.com/blog2/jonathandsteinhoff/page15.html
I later found what I consider to be the explanation: someone later wrote a book based on that sketch idea of mine, then sold it to Stuart Cornfeld's company, Red Hour, for development as a TV show. My surmisal is that a few extra steps were taken to bury Red Hour's association with my idea, by not forwarding my idea to SNL. I also wonder if an inclination to bury this trail is responsible for their having ceased to open my emails (according to my email opening detection technology, they stopped reading my emails in May, although there are also ways to avoid detection with this particular technology).
The season premier of SNL on September 13, 2008 reinforces what is indicated by the email opening detection technology: they did not include in any form my sketch idea for a show for the first time in two years (not counting the exception I've noted here).
The comedy sketch idea I submitted for September 13th, entitled "Beaver And Wally, The Flying Invisible Time Travelers", can be read at:
http://www.archive.org/details/BeaverAndWallyTheFlyingInvisibleTimeTravelers
And so, now my idea for how Paul McCartney can go about making known his suport of Obama. Obama was initially going to appear on the September 13th season premier of SNL, however, he changed his mind because Hurricane Ike was going on, and so it was deemed inappropriate for him to make an appearance on SNL at this time. When he does appear on SNL, Paul McCartney can make a surprise appearance on the same show. He can play Ward Cleaver in my above-referenced sketch idea - the role would work because it is so opposite to how one sees Paul McCartney, unless one imagines that aging has transformed him into a calm, pipe-smoking, paternal figure (that reminds me of the time I provided him with something he used on the opening track on "Flaming Pie", but that's another story).
At the end of the show in which Paul and Barrack appear, as everyone who appeared that night stands together on the stage, Paul uses hand gestures we've seen him use before with perfect finesse: Paul pats Barrack on the back, smiles at the audience, and while pointing at Barrack, does a "thumbs up" and head nod. It will unmistakably communicate an endorsement; it will avoid doing so in a stiff, excessively self-important manner; it will be rebroadcast on news shows everywhere so it won't matter how many people stay up to watch the last moment of the show. The coolness of the manner of endorsement will electrify it. The only thing wrong with the idea is that it could be traced back to this blog. Well, that's life when you're trying to save the world.
It is worth making note here of the fact that I was personally responsible the last time Paul McCartney made a (surprise) appearance on Saturday Night Live. Eight days before that "surprise" sketch about poison in which Paul McCartney appeared with Martin Short and Steve Martin, I emailed my Paul McCartney intermediary that Paul should do a comedy sketch based on my "Recipe For Fun". And so, an SNL sketch about poison featuring Paul McCartney was born. Without going into too many details about what prompted me to make that suggestion, I will say that it had something to do with a matter related to John Kerry (incidentally, it was Kerry who chose Obama to deliver the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, which was the moment credited with bringing Obama onto the national "stage").
When I made that suggestion to Paul McCartney, I seriously expected something to result, based on previous experience. In this case, however, I appreciate that I am not asking of Paul the same kind of thing, and I have never let my power to make suggestions that are given serious consideration turn me into a bossy "now stand on your head" kind of person. I do not even know if Paul McCartney knows how to stand on his head. There are innumerable photos of McCartney doing different things, yet I do not recall seeing even one in which he stands on his head. By the way, I do not believe asking him to endorse Obama is in any way like asking him to stand on his head. Yet perhaps I digress.
During last year's SNL TV season, as well as during the TV season the year before, every single Saturday Night Live included references to sketch ideas I had submitted for each show. I submitted my ideas to two very SNL-connected movie producers, who I had first met well before they were big producers, Sean Daniel and Stuart Cornfeld, and each idea found its way, in some miniscule form, to the show for which it was intended. The exception was the show for which I intended my sketch idea, "In Orders We Trust":
http://www.angelfire.com/blog2/jonathandsteinhoff/page15.html
I later found what I consider to be the explanation: someone later wrote a book based on that sketch idea of mine, then sold it to Stuart Cornfeld's company, Red Hour, for development as a TV show. My surmisal is that a few extra steps were taken to bury Red Hour's association with my idea, by not forwarding my idea to SNL. I also wonder if an inclination to bury this trail is responsible for their having ceased to open my emails (according to my email opening detection technology, they stopped reading my emails in May, although there are also ways to avoid detection with this particular technology).
The season premier of SNL on September 13, 2008 reinforces what is indicated by the email opening detection technology: they did not include in any form my sketch idea for a show for the first time in two years (not counting the exception I've noted here).
The comedy sketch idea I submitted for September 13th, entitled "Beaver And Wally, The Flying Invisible Time Travelers", can be read at:
http://www.archive.org/details/BeaverAndWallyTheFlyingInvisibleTimeTravelers
And so, now my idea for how Paul McCartney can go about making known his suport of Obama. Obama was initially going to appear on the September 13th season premier of SNL, however, he changed his mind because Hurricane Ike was going on, and so it was deemed inappropriate for him to make an appearance on SNL at this time. When he does appear on SNL, Paul McCartney can make a surprise appearance on the same show. He can play Ward Cleaver in my above-referenced sketch idea - the role would work because it is so opposite to how one sees Paul McCartney, unless one imagines that aging has transformed him into a calm, pipe-smoking, paternal figure (that reminds me of the time I provided him with something he used on the opening track on "Flaming Pie", but that's another story).
At the end of the show in which Paul and Barrack appear, as everyone who appeared that night stands together on the stage, Paul uses hand gestures we've seen him use before with perfect finesse: Paul pats Barrack on the back, smiles at the audience, and while pointing at Barrack, does a "thumbs up" and head nod. It will unmistakably communicate an endorsement; it will avoid doing so in a stiff, excessively self-important manner; it will be rebroadcast on news shows everywhere so it won't matter how many people stay up to watch the last moment of the show. The coolness of the manner of endorsement will electrify it. The only thing wrong with the idea is that it could be traced back to this blog. Well, that's life when you're trying to save the world.
Monday, September 8, 2008
An Open Letter To Paul McCartney Calling For His Public Endorsement of Obama
The title of this blog entry would seem to say it all. Yet I would like to throw a few things into the mix, things impossible to believe for some, things already known to others, things to think about for a certain number of people (how many people? I don’t think I will ever devise the method for figuring out precisely how many people should think about these things!).
1. Back in 1978-1979, when Robert Rickles and I worked for an environmental company called, WAPORA, I asked Rickles what had become of John Lennon and Yoko Ono. It had been the longest period yet in Lennon’s “career” (to use the most simplistic term) without music from him, and Rickles seemed the person for me to ask. Rickles was a buddy of then-Speaker of the House of Reps Tip O’Neil; Rickles had been Bella Abzug’s right hand; Rickles hung with some very well known, very left liberals. No more than one week later John and Yoko took out a full page ad in the New York Times, “An Open Letter To Those Who Ask What Became Of John And Yoko”. I was extremely important in relation to John Lennon back then, even if it was through middle men.
2. Paul McCartney, I am and have been extremely important in relation to you. May I say, people sensing that you are the type who would support Obama is not the same as rendering it tangible. Palin doesn’t even believe global warming is man-made. You cannot pass on taking sides when the failure to do so could mean another eight years (McCain could drop dead any minute and Palin would then be president) of matters discussed in “An Inconvenient Truth” (to reference the nightmare facing the Earth in the most abbreviated manner).
3. When I came up with the words and ideas for Lennon that were then formed by him into the opening of the song “Starting Over”, my words and ideas touched on ideas contained in words from the old song, “Walking In The Sand”: “Whatever happened to the life I gave to you, what will I do with it now?” Though I never said those words, I spoke of all the people who existed as a group because of something precious that Lennon possessed, and that now he had to do something with “it”, what could he do with it now, the life they gave to him. Thus it was a thing, an it, that Lennon possessed in my way of putting it, a thing that he had to (or should, whatever that means or meant) do something with. Lennon put the “Walking In The Sand” phrase into an early version of “Free As A Bird”, and I recognized from past experience his keying in on the thought I expressed to a middle man. I also used the word “precious” a million times in my little speech, a reference to the opening track on “Walls and Bridges”. And here is where we find a fundamental, recurring difference between Lennon and yourself. In your “Beatle-ization” (excellent in almost every way) of “Free As A Bird”, you essentially made the “whatever happened to” into a bemoaning of the loss of a feeling that “always made me feel so free.” At some point in his life Lennon tried to give tangible substance and shape to the power given to The Beatles, a power beyond a feeling. You do this too, but to a lesser degree. I once worked for Howard Smith, who introduced Lennon to Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, and others of their socio-political orientation/disposition. This almost led to Lennon’s involvement in protests at the 1972 Republican Convention, but Lennon opted out, an action taken (or rather, an inaction taken) because of his not wanting to lose his fight for American citizenship. Now you took Lennon’s counterpoint to the idea of being “home and dry” in “Free As A Bird”, the countering undercurrent against just being a complacent animal, and you turned it into bemoaning the loss of an important feeling. An endorsement of Obama would, in my mind, help restore this thing of Lennon’s that you neutralized in making (that great Beatles song) “Free As A Bird”. We are not bemoaning the loss of an important feeling, we are needing a thing of tangible substance that can make a difference in people’s lives. We have empowered you - now use it.
1. Back in 1978-1979, when Robert Rickles and I worked for an environmental company called, WAPORA, I asked Rickles what had become of John Lennon and Yoko Ono. It had been the longest period yet in Lennon’s “career” (to use the most simplistic term) without music from him, and Rickles seemed the person for me to ask. Rickles was a buddy of then-Speaker of the House of Reps Tip O’Neil; Rickles had been Bella Abzug’s right hand; Rickles hung with some very well known, very left liberals. No more than one week later John and Yoko took out a full page ad in the New York Times, “An Open Letter To Those Who Ask What Became Of John And Yoko”. I was extremely important in relation to John Lennon back then, even if it was through middle men.
2. Paul McCartney, I am and have been extremely important in relation to you. May I say, people sensing that you are the type who would support Obama is not the same as rendering it tangible. Palin doesn’t even believe global warming is man-made. You cannot pass on taking sides when the failure to do so could mean another eight years (McCain could drop dead any minute and Palin would then be president) of matters discussed in “An Inconvenient Truth” (to reference the nightmare facing the Earth in the most abbreviated manner).
3. When I came up with the words and ideas for Lennon that were then formed by him into the opening of the song “Starting Over”, my words and ideas touched on ideas contained in words from the old song, “Walking In The Sand”: “Whatever happened to the life I gave to you, what will I do with it now?” Though I never said those words, I spoke of all the people who existed as a group because of something precious that Lennon possessed, and that now he had to do something with “it”, what could he do with it now, the life they gave to him. Thus it was a thing, an it, that Lennon possessed in my way of putting it, a thing that he had to (or should, whatever that means or meant) do something with. Lennon put the “Walking In The Sand” phrase into an early version of “Free As A Bird”, and I recognized from past experience his keying in on the thought I expressed to a middle man. I also used the word “precious” a million times in my little speech, a reference to the opening track on “Walls and Bridges”. And here is where we find a fundamental, recurring difference between Lennon and yourself. In your “Beatle-ization” (excellent in almost every way) of “Free As A Bird”, you essentially made the “whatever happened to” into a bemoaning of the loss of a feeling that “always made me feel so free.” At some point in his life Lennon tried to give tangible substance and shape to the power given to The Beatles, a power beyond a feeling. You do this too, but to a lesser degree. I once worked for Howard Smith, who introduced Lennon to Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, and others of their socio-political orientation/disposition. This almost led to Lennon’s involvement in protests at the 1972 Republican Convention, but Lennon opted out, an action taken (or rather, an inaction taken) because of his not wanting to lose his fight for American citizenship. Now you took Lennon’s counterpoint to the idea of being “home and dry” in “Free As A Bird”, the countering undercurrent against just being a complacent animal, and you turned it into bemoaning the loss of an important feeling. An endorsement of Obama would, in my mind, help restore this thing of Lennon’s that you neutralized in making (that great Beatles song) “Free As A Bird”. We are not bemoaning the loss of an important feeling, we are needing a thing of tangible substance that can make a difference in people’s lives. We have empowered you - now use it.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
In Common Again
PREFACE
We all appreciate the wondrous invention known as the public bulletin board, where people post things, things that mean something to ourselves and certain others, and/or things that mean absolutely nothing to ourselves and certain others. And we all know there are things that contain secret significance, as well as things that contain significance partially unknown to us, not to mention things that are thought to contain secret significance yet don't, and things thought to contain no significance yet in fact are significant. Well, I think I've covered that one.
Amidst all of these various types of things floating, hurling and/or meandering through the universe (the public bulletin board is only one of the many stops for those things of which I speak), we stumble upon, or direct ourselves towards, the point at which such matter congregates to form common ground. Common ground for all, or sometimes only common for some, common for a few, or even ground the commonness of which is a matter for debate, discussion, thought, wars, etc. I hope I haven't left out any ground here - please let me know if I have and I will be sure to include it next time.
NAMES/WORDS SECRETLY AND INDIRECTLY ALLUDED TO FOR MY BENEFIT ON THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 “MONK” EPISODE (“Mr. Monk’s 100th Case”)
It is common knowledge, among a relatively small group of phenomenally important people, that I am a secretly phenomenally important person. Those who recognize this should accept, or at the very least be fairly willing to consider, that certain specific types of experiences find their way to me in consequence. For example, whatever the work situation I find myself in, invariably it becomes secretly infiltrated, possibly even taken over to some degree, by those involved with power, who are interested in me in relation to power (by power, I refer to the most wealthy and/or the most famous, and/or the most politically powerful people in the world). However innocent my work situations may seem, this has been true almost my entire life. It can even occur when a particular TV show includes things for my benefit - people then infiltrate those who put together the TV show.
Were one to visit YouTube and search for Zoomsteinhoff (my name there), one would find, among other videos, a number of my Steinhoff/Monk videoclips, which serve as examples of the fact that the TV show “Monk”, in almost every episode, makes secret references to my material (this perhaps has something to do with Sean Daniel, a former head of USA Networks, which broadcasts “Monk”). These videoclips of mine make the most sense if seen cumulatively, just as sentences or paragraphs read to the end make the most sense. Furthermore, it is generally verifiable, by searching for Jonathan D. Steinhoff at archive.org, that the items excerpted from my material that are included in these videoclips were, in fact, first posted there by me well before the “Monk” episodes were created. Thusly I deflect the idea that I have fabricated the chronology.
So now, without very much further ado (I did leave the preface behind several paragraphs ago, didn't I?), I shall present words and names to which the September 5th “Monk” secretly alluded, while depriving these words and names of the context provided by sentences. Like the Manhattan Project, wherein those who worked on it were shielded from the vantage point of knowing the true nature of what they were involved in, I do not presume that those I name here will truly understand how they came to be associated:
Patti Boyd, Slowhand, Common, Iranian President, Brian Williams, McCartney, Thurmond, Eck, Smallville, Burton, Friday, Dove, Calistra, Jack Black
Unlike the Monk/Steinhoff videoclips on YouTube that precede this posting, I offer nothing to validate or explain why it is that I make mention of these things, these words, these names in this context.
Perhaps next week's "Monk" season finale will permit me the opportunity to once again generate a Monk/Steinhoff videoclip for the common man, as I have this entire "Monk" season.
We all appreciate the wondrous invention known as the public bulletin board, where people post things, things that mean something to ourselves and certain others, and/or things that mean absolutely nothing to ourselves and certain others. And we all know there are things that contain secret significance, as well as things that contain significance partially unknown to us, not to mention things that are thought to contain secret significance yet don't, and things thought to contain no significance yet in fact are significant. Well, I think I've covered that one.
Amidst all of these various types of things floating, hurling and/or meandering through the universe (the public bulletin board is only one of the many stops for those things of which I speak), we stumble upon, or direct ourselves towards, the point at which such matter congregates to form common ground. Common ground for all, or sometimes only common for some, common for a few, or even ground the commonness of which is a matter for debate, discussion, thought, wars, etc. I hope I haven't left out any ground here - please let me know if I have and I will be sure to include it next time.
NAMES/WORDS SECRETLY AND INDIRECTLY ALLUDED TO FOR MY BENEFIT ON THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 “MONK” EPISODE (“Mr. Monk’s 100th Case”)
It is common knowledge, among a relatively small group of phenomenally important people, that I am a secretly phenomenally important person. Those who recognize this should accept, or at the very least be fairly willing to consider, that certain specific types of experiences find their way to me in consequence. For example, whatever the work situation I find myself in, invariably it becomes secretly infiltrated, possibly even taken over to some degree, by those involved with power, who are interested in me in relation to power (by power, I refer to the most wealthy and/or the most famous, and/or the most politically powerful people in the world). However innocent my work situations may seem, this has been true almost my entire life. It can even occur when a particular TV show includes things for my benefit - people then infiltrate those who put together the TV show.
Were one to visit YouTube and search for Zoomsteinhoff (my name there), one would find, among other videos, a number of my Steinhoff/Monk videoclips, which serve as examples of the fact that the TV show “Monk”, in almost every episode, makes secret references to my material (this perhaps has something to do with Sean Daniel, a former head of USA Networks, which broadcasts “Monk”). These videoclips of mine make the most sense if seen cumulatively, just as sentences or paragraphs read to the end make the most sense. Furthermore, it is generally verifiable, by searching for Jonathan D. Steinhoff at archive.org, that the items excerpted from my material that are included in these videoclips were, in fact, first posted there by me well before the “Monk” episodes were created. Thusly I deflect the idea that I have fabricated the chronology.
So now, without very much further ado (I did leave the preface behind several paragraphs ago, didn't I?), I shall present words and names to which the September 5th “Monk” secretly alluded, while depriving these words and names of the context provided by sentences. Like the Manhattan Project, wherein those who worked on it were shielded from the vantage point of knowing the true nature of what they were involved in, I do not presume that those I name here will truly understand how they came to be associated:
Patti Boyd, Slowhand, Common, Iranian President, Brian Williams, McCartney, Thurmond, Eck, Smallville, Burton, Friday, Dove, Calistra, Jack Black
Unlike the Monk/Steinhoff videoclips on YouTube that precede this posting, I offer nothing to validate or explain why it is that I make mention of these things, these words, these names in this context.
Perhaps next week's "Monk" season finale will permit me the opportunity to once again generate a Monk/Steinhoff videoclip for the common man, as I have this entire "Monk" season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
