You Bet

There might just be a thing or two that could be added to this videoclip regarding Colbert, McCartney and myself:



Now I already know this one's not for beginners, it asks that a few things be taken on faith, and all because of the unfair reality that not everything that happens in this world is documented. And not everyone comes forward to corroborate what cannot be verified in any other way. As a case in point, I was sitting on my couch a few minutes ago, yet will never be able to prove it to anyone. Fortunately, that action is of no consequence and so I shall hope that I will not be judged too harshly for asserting I was sitting on the couch. Should I leave out everything of consequence that I cannot document? Thereby not requiring anyone to take anything I say on faith? I feel I have earned some credit among those who have been keeping track of what I can prove, so no, I do not truly feel that I am burdening people when I ask that they take certain things on faith. Though one may find there are actions in this world that one cannot prove actually took place, yet many such actions are significant and worth communicating. So bye-bye beginners/lowest common denominators, at least this time around.

One Thing That May Have Belonged In This Colbert-McCartney-Steinhoff Videoclip
The title of my second-to-last blog was, "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench." This title was partly designed to address an important aspect of the "Monk" episode to which the videoclip refers. In the "Monk" episode, Monk is concerned that there is some "catch" behind the Gena Rowlands character's wish to be his friend. In this I perceived a common concern experienced by many people, and it is not difficult to see where people in show biz are likely to be coming from when they express this type of concern: the idea that underneath the engaging of their emotions people are really trying to advance themselves. The title of my blog, in the context of the Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, brings to that discussion the relevance of the degree of need, an element sometimes considered taboo in such discussions. The Indoor Bench aspect of the Monk/Steinhoff videoclip regards a sockless person being given socks, the Outdoor Bench aspect regards a person being given a scarf. The videoclip includes the question of whether these items are dispensable or indispensable. Thus, how far does the degree of need play into things, and even perhaps, influence issues of morality underlying real motives when people engage our emotions?

One statement in such a discussion might eventually be, "Does this mean that a circumstance could arise where there can be any morality in one person eating another, if the need is great enough?" This is part of the discussion that took place between Colbert and McCartney. Of course, this would be among the more extreme statements one could make in such a discussion, however, it is precisely by following things to their extreme logical conclusions that important points are often brought to the surface. This is often a function of comedy. In this instance, one is immediately made more conscious of what many already know: however great the need, as valuable as one holds one's own life, it is not something for which one must automatically feel inclined to pay any price. Did "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench" influence the decision for Colbert and McCartney to go there? In my opinion, it is possible, because I see it as a likely direction the conversation would go in were one to follow the statement made in my blog title to its logical conclusion. I saw it in the blog title before the McCartney interview on The Colbert Show, more or less.

Incidentally, immediately following the "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench" blog, in my last blog (entitled simply, "Indoor Bench"), I pointed out that Kiefer Sutherland and Tony Shaloub sitting at the same table at the SAG Awards appeared related to what I had previously indicated in a January 19th blog ("Traffic On The Unbeaten Path"). Sitting at the same table relates to the title, "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench", thus the nearly identical title I gave that blog.

People sometimes deliberately do things to simultaneously address more than one thing. I therefore do not consider it contradictory that I look at the eating people discussion on Colbert as having been prompted in part by the carrot nose in "Frozen," yet also possibly by the "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench" blog title. Sometimes people are even obliged to only take actions that serve multiple purposes, though it may spread their chips around the roulette table to the point where a win is seriously mitigated by the losses.

The next Monk/Steinhoff videoclip (regarding the January 30th episode) is on the way.