Connecting The Olive Branches

First:
I'm pleased to begin by making what I for one consider an important announcement: I'm currently at work on a new video, which will be a very brief excerpt from my new comedy scene, just posted a few days ago at archive.org, "Larry Houdini and Napoleon Escape".

Next:
Though I'm well aware that the point made by this following videoclip fails at being self-apparently valid, I feel that Letterman is falling way behind in his competition with Conan to make inside-references to me/my material, therefore I shall go ahead and credit them this one, though it be at personal expense to my own credibility among the "uninitiated" (as if I ever had credibility/credit with that group to begin with):



Third:
I'm continually getting the feeling that people who write articles at HuffingtonPost.com are reading my blogs, not just because of content but also because of timing. For example, a day or so following my blog wherein I state that Conan and Dave should go cold turkey on their need to ridicule anyone who uses pot, General McCafferty wrote a blog at Huffington Post where the title referred to an addiction to imprisoning people for "drug" use. By the way, I felt compelled to post a Comment to that article, as I think it's time someone started screaming about how certain commonly used phrasing ("substance abuse", "drug abuse", etc.) lumps the heroin addict together with the casual user of pot. It essentially generates a prejudice, inciting/promoting/sustaining/encouraging/suggesting, etc. a mindset against casual users of pot that is totally disconnected from reality.

Fourth:
I once sent to Paul McCartney for his birthday the following drawing (now contained within my collection of graphic artwork book, "Go Eyes, Go!"):

This birthday gift led to the opening line on the opening song of his "Flaming Pie" music CD, "The Song We Were Singing":

"For a while, we could sit, smoke a pipe,
And discuss all the vast intricacies of life"

By presenting the idea of sitting, smoking a pipe, and reflecting on things with another person, McCartney is clearly and deliberately taking the concept of smoking a pipe and playing on the different connotation pot brings to it, contrasted with what sitting and smoking a pipe meant in an earlier time. Because we are familiar with the context McCartney brings. My drawing, with its title, does the identical thing with a pipe, it plays on the once traditional connotation of pipe smoking as something an older person does, involving tobacco and reflection, contrasted with what pipe smoking means in the context The Beatles and/or Lennon brings. It also makes a larger point about the different context of our lives from those who lived before our time, and the need for redefinition this brings. We both make the point with the identical "prop" and in an essentially identical manner. Thus, as with many things McCartney brings to the world, this is something I brought to McCartney.

I bring it up today because President Obama seemed trapped by outmoded mentality when he had the cop and Gates come together for a beer. And now people having a beer together is burned into the idea of a dignified way to iron out what might from the outside appear to be racial tension. I therefore draw special attention today to the opening line of Paul McCartney's "Flaming Pie" music CD. Maybe those who sit together and pass around a pipe emanate a greater aura of dignity to a moment of coming together. Some will see things as I do.

Honk If You See A Clown's Nose

So I'm driving on the freeway this afternoon, or this morning, it was right around noon, and there's this guy driving next to me on my left. He looks almost exactly like Paul McCartney, only obviously he isn't because he has white hair. But as I am someone who plays a major role in Paul McCartney's artistic life, for the sake of the history of humanity I decide I should try to be more sure. I reposition my car in relation to him, so that now he is driving next to me on my right, and he still looks like Paul McCartney. So I decide there's only one way to be certain, I'll drive in front of him and look at him through my rear view mirror, as no one can fake this acid test. Before I can do this, however, the traffic gets bad and each lane is moving in fits and starts. I had considered previously driving behind him for quite a substantial distance to see if he was driving from L.A. to Liverpool, that would cinch it. But hey, if Paul McCartney wants to lose me he'll lose me, and if he wants to not lose me he won't lose me, irrespective of traffic. What do my steering wheel and gas pedal really have to do with it, considering the real options available to a billionaire? And then my lane of traffic (it's now been ten minutes since the last time the McCartney look-alike was anywhere near me) comes to a near-complete stop. It turns out, a van driven by a guy with clown makeup and a clown nose on had a completely flat tire, yet he was inching along just the same. And behind the van, inching along with blinkers flashing, a car also being driven by a guy with clown makeup and a clown nose on. Hey, you don't need clowns with flat tires, I can take a hint - unless.... well, it's pointless to conjecture when the possibilities are endless.

This reminded me of the time in 1983 when I was sitting next to a guy dressed up like Sherlock Holmes in London's Baker Street Underground Station. McCartney was across the platform, the rest of the station being nearly empty (it was May 13th, approximately 11pm, and I'm sure everyone who was there will verify everything I've reported here). The next day (still 1983) Nat Greenberg, an old friend of an old family friend (Phil Gordis, who plays Mr. Kelbman in my Dostoyevsky video), invited me to a dinner party (Nat used to live next door to McCartney in St. John's Wood). I had only been in London for a few days, had never been there before. After the dinner party (two weeks later), Nat said I could crash at an unoccupied house in St. John's Wood he was going to sell.

As for Baker Street, besides being known for a song I was an influence on, entitled "Baker Street" (which includes the line on which I was not an influence, "he's the rolling stone"), it is also commonly associated with Sherlock Holmes. Furthermore, shortly after the McCartney-and-Steinhoff-in-Baker-Street-Station moment, McCartney released the movie, "Give My Regards To Broad Street," where the bad guys are Rathbone Industries, actor Basil Rathbone being another name commonly associated with Sherlock Holmes (the shot introducing McCartney in "Broad Street" came from my 1978 video, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," which I had left with film producer Sean Daniel, a friend of McCartney's and the first person from whom I had learned of CalArts, the school I attended).

So the main thing is, today is Mick Jagger's birthday: Happy birthday, Mick Jagger! (I think he's a Rolling Stone)

I almost forgot, it appears from something Seth Rogen said on Conan on Friday, 7/24 that his people also followed me, several weeks ago.

Feet And The Ground

Before presenting this solid proof that I know what I'm talking about all the time make no mistake, I shall first beg your indulgence and clarify something from my previous blog.

In my previous blog, wherein I refer to specific things on Letterman and Conan regarding alcohol use, I expressed my belief that these TV shows did things apropos of what I had stated earlier that day in a comment (on Huffington Post in response to an article) about excessive targeting of pot use when alcohol use can just as easily be targeted. I believe this kind of targeting has less to do with the effect of pot on people and more to do with alcohol being legal, so therefore talk show hosts tended towards letting that fact make their choice for them regarding whose mind functionality to ridicule. However, I did not mean to say that alcohol use is never a target, nor that every time it is this is therefore being done apropos of something I stated. I was very specific about the very specific context that led to this specific assessment in this specific instance.

I might also add that, while it is generally understood that alcohol use can mean the consumption of a dignified glass of wine with dinner, and not necessarily drinking a bottle of whiskey five times a day causing one to be drunk on one's ear, the correlation in terms of pot seems strangely absent. Pot use is only represented as causing people to be stoned out of their minds, with no balanced mind functionality and no entitlement to dignity while under the influence, unlike those who use alcohol in moderation. Until this changes, I must condemn such blatant prejudice and the dangerous, massive disrespect of and interference against all of the legitimate people doing important things that it propagates. Is it just ignorance of the relatively benign aspects of pot use, or a tendency to offer up a random group of people for everyone to beat up on (perhaps without physical violence, but beat up just the same), tapping into the suppressed malicious bile of neurotics passing themselves off as the embodiment of sanity? And portraying themselves as society's voices of morality?

Letterman and Conan, you are of course terrific, I know you can cold turkey on this urge to ridicule pot use, and when it's over, and you're just targeting Republicans and right-wing Democrats as you should, you'll see it was worth it, and you'll have me to thank, but you'll never acknowledge my contributions outright, will you? No, never. Well anyway, the following videoclip, which makes reference to the 7/23/09 Conan in relation to my 1993 "Mall Man" video, pretty much speaks for itself (may I add that it should be seen in the context that for over a month now I've been pointing out that I recently seem to have some kind of a place influencing late night television, more than I usually do, at least):

Follow, You Idiot

Much that is worth saying in this world requires a substantial amount of context/backstory in order to appreciate the important reason why it is even being said. And yet it seems as if the Twittering-Away-The-World society we're moving towards generates the idea that anything that fails to produce an immediately positive, instant reaction, anything that needs to call forth a non-self-apparent context, isn't worth anyone's time. We who inhabit non-self-apparent contexts should recognize the increasing need to stand our non-self-apparent ground. Knowing that I exist in a world where corruption and convolutions are fed by evil, stupidity, and just plain lack of wisdom, I find myself apprehensive that the last word on so much might ultimately be allowed to be nothing more than a "twitter".

What brought all this on? The simple fact that, once again, for the millionth time, I must insist that before my words are judged, a few things must be carefully put together to appreciate a point I wish to make, and that it will seem only too easy to justify that I am asking too much. Well, here I come, ready or not.

In a number of my more recent blogs, I've demonstrated that I've been an influence on Conan O'Brien's "Tonight Show" and on David Letterman's "Late Show". My proof has been particularly manifest to those who are intelligent, and also particularly manifest to those who have witnessed the dates of publication of my blogs in relation to things that followed. As I've expressed before, this blog site makes a poor witness, considering that one can tamper with the date of publication - that is, unless one reads the blog on the day it appears, then you know when I said what. When I've fallen short of being able to provide proof of my influence (many things are done by us and happen to us that we will never be able to prove in an absolute way), I've asked that the credit to which I am entitled be applied. Credit from those times when proof is in fact provided, even beyond when my blogs did or did not appear, the proof residing elsewhere. I ask that my as yet unproven assertions be nevertheless considered without the taint of cynicism, that this is something to which I personally am entitled.

It is because of there being such recent interest in me by Letterman and O'Brien that I wonder about several things that happened last night on these shows in relation to myself:



And now I direct you to a Comment I made (as JonathanDS) to an article posted on Huffingtonpost.com (on July 21st at 12:16pm, prior to the taping of either show), the article being entitled, "Smoking The Green Shoots" (after you're done, I have a yet another comment or two):I draw attention to this because Dave and Conan are among the first people I think of when I wonder why it so often happens that alcohol use escapes being the target of cliches. Again and again, we are asked to applaud the assumption that the minds of people who prefer pot to alcohol are to be disrespected. Nevertheless, the audiences of Dave and Conan are not exclusively comprised of people so unanimous in their opinion of pot, so we often see a fence-sitting act - but rarely is it suggested on these shows that the minds of those who occasionally touch alcohol are necessarily suspect. It happens, but far more often, when pot or alcohol are interchangeable for the choice made by these talk show hosts as to who to ridicule, that those who like a glass of wine get to maintain their respectability, and those who would instead choose a joint.... lose.

Because of the particularly recent inside-references to me/my material on these shows, I seriously consider it possible that I might have made a difference, at least momentarily, with regard to the moments shown in the videoclip.

So: now let's all take the two hours we millions spend watching these shows every night, millions and millions of hours when put together, and use that collective time and energy (waning, sleepy energy, but I'm not picky) to build a, to build a.... I'm going to need a moment, I'll have to get back to you on this. I know there's got to be an untapped resource waiting for me around here somewhere, God knows the world is waiting for it.

One Small Stepbrother For Man

Overcome by the guilt that can only come from being a major influence here and there on Will Ferrell yet not seeing his movies until they come to premium cable channels and even then sometimes not seeing them immediately (this does not include movies that involve Stuart Cornfeld and Will Ferrell, I will always go see Cornfeld movies as soon as they come out in theatres), this time around I saw a Will Ferrell movie on the first day it appeared on a premium cable channel. I refer to "Step Brothers," which was made available for viewing on Starz On Demand Early Premieres today for the first time.

I will not write a movie review, however, I do feel compelled to say that I consider this movie to be truly original for the particular brand of absurdity in its premise, the specific unreality that permeates its characters and what they are capable of. I also see that it is highly unlikely that this movie will ever really be recognized for its originality, but will instead always be the target of tired, cliched criticism by those among us who are presumed adult and serious. Some will feel generous to grant that it is an "anything goes" slapstick comedy, however, I see significant creativity beneath the unreality, not unlike the way I believe the scifi "Twilight Zone" premises illuminate more truthful, insightful revelations regarding human emotions and the soul than do the so-called real premise upon which serious Chuck Norris-type characters dwell.

In this movie Will Ferrell continues his tradition of frequently being influenced by me in a big way. Back when I saw his small part in the first Austin Powers movie ("Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery," 1997), Will Ferrell's character performed an action I perceived as being based on my 1978 video, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly".

In my 1978 video, set in a relatively primitive future, a prisoner is brought before the king, refusing to divulge how to play Monopoly. The king has a whole Monopoly game, and the prisoner is the only remaining man alive who knows how to play Monopoly. Yet as if having learned a lesson from Prometheus, the Greek mythological character who gave fire to man, the prisoner will not be responsible for corrupting the human race. Alright, I was making a metaphorical statement about the very seed of capitalism. However, the prisoner's great feeling of repugnance at the thought of bringing knowledge of Monopoly back into the world did not necessarily represent my personal views on economic systems. I wanted to show how the seed of something that can be pervasively superimposed over everyone's life can exist in such sheep-like clothing - unless one sees my choice of Monopoly as random, the prisoner character's extreme feelings towards it totally absurd. My video obviously suggests a backstory to his aversion, yet leaves you to guess about it. And now back to the story: Next, everyone around the king begins to chant, like children who know the power of acting as one, "We wanna play Monopoly! We wanna play Monopoly! We wanna play Monopoly!" The prisoner finally cannot stand it, blurting out that if they will just stop torturing him with their chanting in this way he will give in and teach them how to play Monopoly. And so he does.

In the 1997 "Austin Powers" movie, Ferrell's scene is similar, where the childish, repetitious chanting of something humorously produces the effect of forcing a character's desired capitulation. One might also note that the premise of "Austin Powers" involves an individual who is something of a singular remnant of a bygone era, or at least the only one who hasn't moved beyond it, and is at one with ways that others are now outsiders to, despite there having once been a time when many were a part of the grooviness. This gives Powers much in common with the only remaining survivor from among all who knew the secret of how to play Monopoly. To be totally convinced of my influence on the Ferrell character in that movie, you might also need to be familiar with how often people such as Mike Myers et al are influenced by me.

And so, when years and years later Ferrell made his YouTube surprise hit videos with the very, very little girl Pearl, "Landlord" and "Good Cop, Bad Cop," wherein the ability of a small child to be ultra-insistent and unyielding (childish, to be precise) pitted against an adult prove far too powerful for the adult to be able to hold his ground, I was already on that page with regard to Will Ferrell. In fact, "Good Cop, Bad Cop" even has the Ferrell character divulging his great secret to the very, very little girl, Pearl (she interrogates a murder confession out of him). This would have reminded me of "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly" even if Ferrell in "Austin Powers" had not.

This thing about children encapsulates much of what "Step Brothers" is about, the power of childishness to dominate adult situations in so big a way, something one could liken to David and Goliath, in that one seemingly powerful is actually no match against one who appears comparatively weak. This idea is more specifically focused on when we see the schoolchildren are able to so completely overcome the two adult stepbrothers.

The filmmakers seem to share my perception that the stepbrothers in relation to the schoolchildren epitomizes something at the core of the movie, for the final scene of the movie is their return match, offering the moviegoer a way to crystalize on the growth of the stepbrothers - absurdist growth, of course.

Water Is My Friend

A brand new thought has occurred to me, and like many of my brand new thoughts, it might actually have been 42 years in the making, five seconds here, two seconds there, it all adds up to real time spent. Sort of like only thinking about pancakes once a week, because that's how often you have them. Yes, I am going to attempt the impossible: a hypothesis about the Beatles song, "I Am The Walrus".

First, matters of comparatively lesser importance (come to think of it, if my upcoming hypothesis has any validity, there are few matters in the world with greater importance - this may be an exaggeration prompted by a momentary enthusiasm).

Matter of lesser importances number one: my DVR crashed, which means, I saw neither Letterman nor Conan on Friday, July 17th, as my plan had been to watch them on DVR after they aired. Those who have been following my blogs might consider this a matter of potential significance - I cannot say, as I haven't seen the shows I missed(!). I will point out that something that occurred on the Thursday, July 16th Conan related to what I blogged on July 15th, 4am in relation to Conan: I blogged the idea that there is danger in sports if a ball comes at you with great velocity (in the instance I cited, danger to Conan's sidekick, Andy Richter). And so on the July 16th Conan, Venus Williams hit a tennis ball "to" Conan, Conan garbed in a catcher's mask and talking about the danger he was in from the ball coming at him at a great velocity. The following night, July 17th.... I don't know what happened on Conan, or Letterman.

My DVR has since been replaced by AT&T (all recorded shows gone), though who knows what might have made it happen in the first place? I use the word "might", and thankfully no one likes hypotheticals, and so therefore I can leave behind the "whole thing" now that the DVR has been replaced.

Next, I finally got around to seeing the Will Ferrell movie, "Semi-Pro". I've often been an influence on what Will Ferrell does (including the night of his farewell from SNL), and this movie is no exception. I will let this videoclip speak for itself (enabled to do so by all the printed words I've worked into it):



Well, it almost speaks for itself. I should add that, while the student film "Limbo" referred to in this videoclip was a film class project, wherein 15 or so people made various contributions in various ways, the scene shown here was by me, guided by the basic plot of the pre-written story our class used, but mine nevertheless.

This next videoclip regards the now-cancelled TV show, "Dirty Sexy Money," the last few previously un-aired episodes of which are now being shown on ABC. This TV show, like many other show biz product, has in the past made inside-references to my work. The thing of particular interest is that (the late) Bill Clayburgh, the father of one of its stars, Academy Award winning actress Jill Clayburgh, was my next-door neighbor in New York City during most of the '80s and early '90s, and appears in my Dostoyevsky video. In presenting this videoclip, I also offer you not one link but a second link as well to videoclips showing other times when this TV show made inside-references to my Dostoyevsky. So now the latest (though originally intended for airing around Thanksgiving 2008, apparently):



And now on to The Beatles. Specifically, as promised, I offer my hypothesis about the Beatles (Lennon basically) song, "I Am The Walrus". To do so, I feel I must first attempt to dispel the notion that if Lennon himself says the words to the song are all nonsense, therefore it's all nonsense. I use as my example to illustrate this another Lennon claim that one should take with more than one grain of salt. With regard to his album, "Double Fantasy", Lennon on the one hand explained that album title as being in connection with a planned follow-up album to be titled, "A Heart Play" - from a fantasy to a play. The strict meaning of the words "Double Fantasy" are about two people and fantasy, fantasy being a word one associates with an act of the imagination. Two people are on the cover, John and Yoko, pretending (as in "fantasy"), to be unassociated individuals waiting for a traffic light, and then suddenly kissing (by the way, in 1974 a close friend of Lennon, Howard Smith, once suggested to me that in New York City I could just start up a relationship with a woman while standing next to her waiting for a traffic light. Howard was amazingly gregarious). Yet Lennon also claimed that the album was named after a flower (when translated) called, "Double Fantasy". I dispute this - not the existence of such a flower name, but that this explanation provides the entire meaning of the album name. No doubt the flower name first put the idea in his head. However, I argue that if someone with the last name of Smith gives their son the first and middle names of George Washington, and then someone named Jones does the same thing, but claims their son was named after George Washington Smith, Mr. Jones would certainly have to accept that, as far as everyone is concerned, he can say this all he wants, just the same George Washington Jones has been named after George Washington, period, and if he didn't see this happening as the consequence, well, he had to see this happening as the consequence.

Lennon could not possibly have been oblivious to what he was communicating, in terms of the non-flower aspect to the sound of the name, "Double Fantasy". When he said otherwise to an interviewer, I'm sure he had his reasons, but the final truth of the matter must certainly be different.

Perhaps he wished to bring to the table the idea that an artist's private concept regarding what is behind his own decisions for his work, or what are perceived as his private concept, does not necessarily become the prevailing concept. I furthermore believe this to be the kind of larger statement Lennon enjoyed making, and if I took the time could find many ways to prove this point about Lennon. A Beatle gets used to doing things that require another to take it from there.

As a songwriter Lennon was something of a poet as well, and a poet should not always be held responsible, after the creation of a work, for knowing exactly what prompted what. McCartney said on Letterman just the other night that other people know his history better than he. There are times when another person is in a better position than ourselves to document our actions. I would not want to be my own spokesman if I had just had a fifth of whiskey (in truth I do not drink at all, a glass of wine a year perhaps).

And thus ends my attempt at dispelling the idea that Lennon and only Lennon should have the last word on whether "Walrus" was all nonsense.

"I Am The Walrus" includes, among other things, options about identity. There is both the idea of being someone with the identity of a cog in the corporate wheel, and becoming the target of reproaches from a twisted corporate mentality for not fitting in. There is the idea that an Edgar Allen Poe also becomes a target. There are those who become faceless through their identity, eggmen and policemen and penguins. This song is an example of how an artist might be influenced by a subject he already touched on in song: "Paperback Writer," created shortly before "Walrus," also discusses the idea of finding an identity/position in the world (just as the line in the Beatles' "Golden Slumbers," "Once there was a way to get back home," is not unlike the dominant subject of the song, "Get Back," both created during the same general period).

My 1965 story, "Endless Voyage," described in my previous blog and elsewhere, and which I contend led to a number of Beatle songs (including "Paperback Writer") and began my lifelong importance in relation to the individual members of The Beatles, ends with the underwater civilization building a monument to the first underwater people. It is as tall as the Empire State Building, which was the tallest building in the world at the time I wrote it. However, because the monument has its foundation beneath the sea, it only rises a few feet above the water. In "I Am The Walrus," Lennon writes, "semolina pilchard climbing up the Eiffel Tower". No one before this song had ever heard of "semolina pilchard", however, semolina is a pudding, and pilchard is a type of sardine (usually fed to cats). So you have sardines, i.e., underwater animals, climbing the Eiffel Tower, an architectural structure often thought of as being part of the same special, very small category as the Empire State Building. Furthermore, "Endless Voyage", by being about sending half the human race to live underwater as the solution to overpopulation, is not so far from the colloquial use of the word "sardine" to denote people when they're being crammed together. Additionally, walruses and penguins are also sea creatures. If my contention about the handful or so of other Beatles songs is correct, that they built upon material in my story, "Endless Voyage," it would greatly increase the likelihood that a Beatles song with various sea creatures also followed suit.

Initially I had understood that part of the reason behind Lennon's "Walrus" was "The Walrus And The Carpenter" from "Through The Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll, where the walrus eats the babies. A poet putting the word "egg" so near to the word "walrus" may actually have been, consciously or unconsciously, influenced by Carroll's writing, among other things. Yet are we willing to hypothesize that Lennon would write a song influenced by words from an author? Lennon never dictated that we think this, and that fact will always be "all she wrote" for any number of people. I think Lennon might also have had a special willingness to offer support, under certain circumstances, for those in situations requiring them to swim against the tide.

If I Had A Nickel For Every Grain Of Sand In The Universe

Before I make with the videoclip that will present to you how I believe I was a part of last night's talk show activities, including Paul McCartney's Letterman appearance, I will first say a few things thru the medium of writing (I'm hoping that somehow the writing that appears in the videoclip will be seen as part of a separate medium entirely).

The "Statement of Blog Purpose" that accompanies my blogs refers to a story I wrote in 1965, "Endless Voyage", and how it led to the Beatle songs "Eleanor Rigby", "Yellow Submarine" and "Paperback Writer". I have omitted from that statement other Beatle songs that it also led to, because it would sound far-fetched - I joke, not about where the Beatle songs came from, but about the idea that the line between what everyone regards as far-fetched-sounding and what sounds ordinary generally places me on the ordinary-sounding side. Yet even within the realm of the far-fetched-sounding there are distinctions, between far-fetched-sounding, very far-fetched-sounding, very, very far-fetched-sounding - I think you can grasp this point. My frequent contentions that things created and done by The Beatles and the ex-members The Beatles, when not carefully scrutinized on a serious basis, including an extensive review of the evidence, obviously give a whole new meaning to the concept of "far-fetched".

"Endless Voyage" has much in common with the idea, "You can't go home again". In a nutshell (I provide the word "nutshell" much like one pokes little breathing holes in a pet hamster box - when you have finished with your innovation on the word "nutshell" I shall continue. Oh yes, I hear you laughing. Please, enjoy yourself! You're thinking: only a nut would - but I digress), "Endless Voyage" is about a future world where over-population leads the powers that be to consider options regarding what to do with all the people, deciding where they all belong. A pill is developed, making it possible for a person to breathe underwater, but once one takes the pill, one can never breathe air again ("you can't go home again"). So half the human race is to live underwater, the other half above-water. A separation into two peoples results, those who breathe water and cannot breathe air, and those who breathe air and cannot breathe water.

At the time I wrote this story, it was a class assignment to write only a two-page story, to be based on a photograph one selected from among a group of photographs. My 15 pages created a stir, as if an endless amount of pages had been written, especially considering that all I had was a photograph. (I understand that nowadays it is considered far less unusual for a ten-year old to immerse themselves thusly.)

Other Beatle songs that resulted: "Rain" (flipside of the single release, "Paperback Writer", wherein the first-person singular speaks of rain as if his orientation is fundamentally alien to the listener), "Get Back", "Golden Slumbers", "Octopus' Garden". There may be others, I'll have to think about it. Let me get back to you, I've been very busy.

Something In And On The Air

Once upon a time, Smokey Robinson sang the words, “You really got a hold on me,” this despite the fact that his first name is Smokey, yet we all know that gaseous substances are the very things we cannot get a hold of. John Lennon once made a similar point, describing his innate sense of the importance of creating that which one cannot get an absolute hold of. Unfortunately I cannot recall exactly how Lennon phrased this similar point, though I am quite sure it was on a talk show.

I have digressed from the idea I wanted to share, an idea that, once you have a grasp of it, I know it will be something you will not easily let go of. I am not talking about denture adhesive, however, I am getting ahead of myself.

As the videoclip I bring with me today shows, the July 14th “Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien” (and Andy Richter) featured quite a lot being made out of Andy Richter dropping a ball. One might also be aware that my previous blog, dated July 11th, is entitled, “Not Dropping It”, and focuses on several of that past week’s Conan O’Brien shows in terms of their being influenced by myself. [I do appreciate that this blog site does not offer proof of the chronology of events, it being that the date on a blog does not have to reflect the actual date of publication or when it might have been later edited, therefore only those who read something when it first appears can testify to the actual chronology of when what was written. From my point of view, this is unfortunate.]

Speaking of denture adhesive, yesterday a woman I was speaking with said that later she would be taking her son to the dentist. She also mentioned that she had a total of four children. I then asked, “How many teeth is that all together then?” And though there was a certain amount of humor in my question, I believe a very important point was made about exactly what we create and exactly how it is perceived. Which is why dentists, metaphorically speaking, should not be taken overly serious when they discuss what they see as the contributions of Paul McCartney (perhaps also non-metaphorically speaking).

By the way, Paul McCartney will be appearing on Letterman tonight, and by the way again, Letterman could be seen playing catch in the studio with a guest on his show last night. Like his competition on NBC, Letterman has also thrown the ball to me from time to time, and vice-versa, sometimes including the show on “that other network” at the same time as well.



I've studied this videoclip, and I don't believe Timmy actually exists. When a ball is thrown to you as it was to Andy, you must catch it in the right part of the glove, otherwise it can hurt, even injure, your hand. If Andy's hand were injured, it would limit the show's writers in terms of the bits they could write for Andy. I believe Andy did the right thing by dropping the ball, and if Jenna Fischer benefited from the situation, deservedly or not, that's the way the ball, well, I leave the rest to your imagination.

Not Dropping It

The actions of others once again call upon me to call upon those bothering to read this to take my word for stuff. At some point I plan to create a listing of those things which do serve as evidence of my “secret” importance – at this time such proof is scattered here and there amongst various postings at various sites, sites where the date of posting cannot be tampered with. Even in those numerous instances the reader is required to put a few things together in order to see the proof, but at least those with intelligence can thereby find proof, and not depend on trusting in my word. I’m not sure when I will get around to listing these things, so for now I will limit myself to suggesting that you look at all of my “Monk” clips on YouTube (where I am Zoomsteinhoff). The implication of these clips, when taken cumulatively, should be unmistakable for an intelligent person: I am important in relation to the show, “Monk”. Again, this is but one of numerous high profile show biz “matters” where I am of “secret” importance. I am also “secretly” important in relation to McCartney, Lennon, Spielberg, SNL, etc., and have provided what should serve as proof to an intelligent person.

Nevertheless, for this blog I once again refuse to gear myself only towards the lowest common denominators among us by talking about the weather, and will instead present information for the benefit of those who have already concluded that I am both truthful and know what I’m talking about.

An undocumented event occurred on the afternoon of Wednesday, July 8th: I threw a key to someone, who failed to catch it, we agreed that we would try it again, again the other person failed to catch it (and yet it was an easy throw, I swear this to you). This occurred at my workplace. Another person at my workplace, someone with whom I work on a daily basis more or less, is a friend of Larry King’s. She has a photo of herself talking to Larry King at a party last Christmas Eve. You have not seen this photo, there is no proof to provide you with that this photo exists (as I am not inclined to request the photo for posting – besides, I would then have to document that the other person in the photo is my co-worker, that the photo is genuine – it would be nearly impossible to convince the skeptic), so, I have no proof of what I say here, you must simply take my word. That very night on Conan O’Brien, Larry King was the guest. Prior to his appearance, Andy threw a coffee cup to Conan, Conan failed to catch it. They agreed to try it again, again Conan failed to catch it (and yet it was an easy throw, I swear to you – it almost looked as if Conan was batting the cup down). You could verify this if you saw the show. I am not providing a clip here, as I can’t prove that the other game of catch took place anyway, so it hardly seems worth it, right? You are left having to take my word. Related to this is the fact that this was Conan’s first week of new shows following a week off preceded by a week in which his Cameron Diaz interview included things for my benefit, proven when put alongside a continuation of the references to the same things said for my benefit when Diaz appeared on “Real Time With Bill Maher”. I was able to point to a 2008 posting on another site that proved the inside-references by Cameron Diaz. As for these blogs, in and of themselves they offer no proof of when I say what, as the date of publication can be tampered with (as I’ve mentioned before, I could return to today’s blog in 2012 and add the name of the winner of the 2012 presidential election, and the date of the blog posting would still be 2009). Of course, if you read and or print my blogs on the date I publish them, you would be able to testify as to when I actually said what – but like that’ll happen.

Conan went on to reference other things in relation to me on Thursday’s (7/9/09) and Friday’s shows, but it gets very involved, and so I only have the strength to go into one of them. Let’s see, for this reference I would have to begin with the fact that, as someone “secretly” important in relation to Spielberg and McCartney, I am tracked when I drive somewhere. If you liken my role in this world to that of an Iowa bank teller, this will sound strange. If you liken my role as someone with serious influence on things that shape the way the world digests major things, maybe you’re intelligent enough to appreciate my observing to you that tracking technology is used on me.

And I go further, if you can follow me. There are databases that record this information, so that if I bought a few Knightsbridge turtlenecks seven years ago at a particular Target, and Knightsbridge is where George Harrison surfaces in the database, it being that his Handmade Films (me being an influence on their "Time Bandits") is in Knightsbridge, London, this might be in the database somewhere. So if on Saturday, July 4th I returned to that Target after seven years and bought a plastic turtle, it would very possibly happen that the store clerk would give me as change a dollar bill on which someone had handwritten, www.wheresgeorge.com. It would also very possibly happen that Conan O’Brien, on his Friday July 10th show, would sing a song to and about plastic turtles.

My suggestion is that, though coincidences do happen, things buried more than a million miles below the surface are not off the table in my world. In fact, there are those who prefer finding the paths by which such things can be put on the table, rather than focusing only on the latest weather report. You already know how databases and search engines work, you’re just a stranger to how things unfold where billionaires and billion-dollar interests are concerned (e.g., I’m the one who created NBC’s “My Name Is Earl”, yet never received credit and won’t shut up about it). I imagine some arguing that just because I associate Knightsbridge with George Harrison, how would someone making a database have learned this; arguing that on the 4th of July there are two other Georges that would first suggest themselves in the mind of the average Joe. It might get very tedious for me to familiarize you with what one such as myself has come to expect. At this point, I cannot say just how tedious certain people might want things to be.

Off With His Youth

First, serious business: when they announced who was in Michael Jackson's will, I immediately joked that since he saw fit to leave me out of his will I was going to spill the beans on him ("That's it, Michael Jackson left me out of his will, I'm spilling the beans on him"). Today Paul McCartney felt compelled to make a statement in his blog that the media has fabricated the idea that he is angry that he was left out of Michael Jackson's will, that he never actually expected that he would be included. This related to articles about Michael Jackson returning the Beatles catalog to McCartney via his will, which was all fabrication. Easily another coincidence between McCartney and myself, unless you've been keeping track, in which case one will see not the slightest indication that this is the law of averages at work. As for the things Michael Jackson did in relation to me and my work, I will save that for another time went they aren't going around burying him and so on.

We All Live In A Beat-Up Old Red Car
Today is Ringo Starr's birthday, making that the main reason why the image I'm featuring at the end of this blog is Ringo from a section of "Uniform", a minor collage I made (and contained in my book of graphic artwork, "Go Eyes, Go!").

There are no small number of things associated with Ringo that never would have happened if not for me, the most significant being "Yellow Submarine", "Octopus' Garden" and "Photograph". Furthermore, Paul McCartney's music video for "This One" (a McCartney song that includes a contribution from my song, "Icicle", as does the Rolling Stones' song, "Almost Hear You Sigh", both borrowing from the same recurring part of my song) made use of another part of my "Uniform".

Nevertheless, there exists yet another reason why I felt prompted to feature this image today. First, fix in your mind the videoclip I'll be putting together in a month or so out of my 1993 "Mall Man" video, Steven Spielberg's most recent Indiana Jones movie, and Sean Daniel's most recent Mummy. Remember, both Spielberg's and Daniel's movies feature families reuniting and then going on an adventure together, and were released around the same time, and also, that Spielberg and Daniel are old friends and co-collaborators. Perhaps you can't fix this upcoming videoclip in your mind. Not even a clue? In that case you haven't been paying enough attention, because if you were smart, you'd already be close to knowing the point there to be made. Oh well, nevermind, I'll be coming back to this at some point anyway.

So yesterday I'm driving home from work, and I drive past Dreamworks Animation, which is on my way home, and two or three quiet blocks later this beat-up old red car drives by, conspicuous for several reasons: the driver's head barely comes up to the steering wheel; there's a baseball cap on his head (Giants, I think); and he looks like Spielberg. Now if you really task your imagination, you small-minded people with half a brain, you might consider it possible that an old beat-up red car could have the driver's seat reworked to lower how high up the driver's head appears. It would take a small fortune, yes, perhaps, I don't know, $500, but it could conceivably be done.

It being that the ending of the last Indiana Jones movie is Spielberg borrowing from my 1993 "Mall Man" video, as Spielberg occasionally does ("Minority Report", "The Terminal"), and it further being that it also has to do with a character retrieving someone's hat, just as the latest Mummy by Spielberg's friend, Sean Daniel (the first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the school I attended), includes a character retrieving someone's head, I naturally went home to see what day it was in history. Because that is how the game is played. And sure enough, it was the same day in history that Thomas Moore was beheaded.

So you see why it is really Spielberg (or someone with a nearly identical head) who wants me to use this image of Ringo today:

Happy Birthday, Ringo!

Rambling Threads

A few random things regarding big names that all have some connection to me:

Paul Newman
I recently asked Sandra Church, my next-door neighbor when I lived in New York City and also the star of my 1990, 1992 video, "Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's 'Uncle's Dream'" (Parts 1 and 2) about Paul Newman, as once upon a time she had a leading role in the play in which he made his debut as an actor, "Picnic". She explained that, "He (Newman) was the boy my mother in the play wanted me, Madge, to marry, and then Ralph Meeker came along and I ran off with him. Paul met Joanne Woodward in this play. She was the understudy for Janice Rule, whom I replaced. She read for the part but didn't get it." When one considers the occasionally strange behaviorisms of the human heart, it almost seems possible that, had Joanne Woodward gotten the part in "Picnic" instead of Sandra, rather than just being the understudy of Sandra's predecessor, and thereby had the opportunity to play opposite Newman night after night onstage, the specific chemistry that led to their marriage might never have taken form. What would Dostoyevsky say?

Paul McCartney
In my March 23, 2009 blog, I mentioned, among other things, that I had suddenly received a communication from someone I went to high school with over 35 years after high school. An interesting, 35-year old anecdote regarding this person, which I didn't consider relevant at the time of the blog, concerns Bob Dylan. The reason I would now like to relate this anecdote is that it appears to me that Paul McCartney has chosen to play off of it, 35 years after the fact.

When I attended Elisabeth Irwin High School, a small, private high school in New York City, Bob Dylan's children attended the elementary school connected to the high school, the famous left-wing school, Little Red School House (separated by Sixth Avenue and a few other things). In order to interview Bob Dylan for the high school publication, this person I knew got ahold of Dylan's phone number from someone in the school office. Dylan not only refused the interview, but called the school and said that if they should ever give out his phone number again he would stop giving money to the school.

About a month after this person contacted me after 35 years, Dylan put out the word through a Rolling Stone interview that he would like to collaborate with Paul McCartney. McCartney promptly put out the word through an interview that he too would like to collaborate with Dylan. This was followed by the media presuming that they would therefore collaborate, which led to McCartney putting out repeated denials, stating that it would have to occur organically, and that he couldn't possibly phone Dylan because it would be uncool, a violation of proper conduct/protocol. This would sound like a strange attitude for Paul McCartney to take, as he has a somewhat extensive history over the years of suddenly introducing himself to various well known people, particularly in music, for the purpose of collaborating (not to mention the fact that he and Dylan previously met, that Dylan and Harrison were Traveling Wilburys, etc.). It sounds less strange if you are as familiar as I am with Paul McCartney often playing off of things that are going on with me, and my fairly recent mention of this person in my blog would certainly be enough for McCartney to interpret that this person in the anecdote had taken on relevance in relation to me.

I might also mention that a few days ago I posted a comment to an article on Huffington Post in which I expressed the idea that the Oscars try to hype up the idea that Hollywood product is high art. The following day an article about McCartney appeared with the word "hype" in the title. I recognize that this looks a lot like random chance, yet I cannot presume that it necessarily is chance that made this word appear twice in two days thusly. It is my personal experience in relation to McCartney articles that this could be his way of touching on my comment. It is additionally relevant here to make mention that is has become my surmisal that there are certain articles about McCartney wherein he has played a major part in the putting together of the article, beyond just being the reporter's subject: this includes exact release time of the article, insertion of certain key elements without it being left to chance as to whether the reporter would prefer that such elements be included, article titles, etc. I'm sure no one sees anything intrinsically wrong with a person of his stature taking steps to avoid being left wide open to everyone to whom he grants an interview.

Jennifer Aniston
I expect most will think this next videoclip has about as much to do with Jennifer Aniston as the word hype in the McCartney article title had to do with my posting the word the day before. Well, my experiences tell me different things than what other people's experiences tell them. I also find that an idea that emerges here contains a certain poignancy in relation to the referenced movie title, "He's Just Not That Into You", if you look at the idea of blocking someone from leaving their mark as existing in contrast with being into someone.

Also, allow me to provide this link to the "Steinhoff and Aniston" posting on YouTube mentioned in the videoclip.




Drew Barrymore
The following videoclip, the result of my recently seeing the movie, "He's Just Not That Into You," pretty much speaks for itself, though one might also want to see the videoclip in my blog of June 28th, where I also mention Drew Barrymore.

Elementary My Dear School

If you can throw out the notion that many of my observations are those of a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and instead consider that close study shows the things I’ve described regarding the deaths of Princess Diana and the mother of the Duchess of York, the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and other occurrences, and the conclusions that become manifest when a certain context is perceived, are all substantive, then I have another thing you may find to be material.

I begin by making mention of my “Joel’s Baby” screenplay, which I worked on in New York City for half-a-year (while on leave of absence from CalArts), a city which underwent a power blackout from July 13th to July 14th, 1977, beginning one half-hour after I went to the post office to mail the screenplay to Writers Guild of America West for the purpose of registering it. I’ve mentioned in an earlier blog how this screenplay led to Paul Simon’s “Slip Slidin’ Away” and other “stuff” (including the song, “Baker Street”, which also mixed in verbatim words spoken during a personal conversation I once participated in).

In 1978, via telephone, Tom Long, the person who had suggested to me part of the premise of “Joel’s Baby”, and who appears as Peterson in my 1993 video, “Mall Man”, and as described in my earlier blog, a person connected with the movie that virtually launched the careers of Henry Winkler and Sylvester Stallone, “Lords of Flatbush”, suggested to me a new subject for me to work on: the story of a mermaid. Here one might note that six years later, Ron Howard (very Henry Winkler-connected, i.e., The Fonz on “Happy Days”) directed “Splash”, a movie about a mermaid. “Splash” also starred Tom Hanks, whose 1980s TV sitcom (and basically his introduction to the public), “Bosom Buddies”, was created as the result of something I said in a conversation in 1978 to someone in proximity to those who would be connected to his sitcom (that show also used for its theme a Billy Joel song, “My Life”, which is about someone flying to the West Coast – on Easter Sunday 1978 Billy Joel sat next to me on a flight to California). I should add that the aforementioned personal conversation that found its way into “Baker Street” was in relation to the girl with whom I had the conversation that resulted in Tom Hanks’ sitcom. She went through a period when everyone was this or that kind of buddy: her laundry buddy, her pool buddy, her clothes buddy – she once called me her Sudafed Buddy because I once gave her some Sudafed sinus tablets. Hence, “Bosom Buddies”. She was staying at The Barbizon, the famous all-girls hotel in New York City, and my description of the means by which I planned to elude security to visit her, though not intended as a serious plan, was what led to a major part of the premise of “Bosom Buddies”. Additionally, years later, in 1993, after I saw someone in a restaurant whom we both knew at CalArts who was also in the Hanks movie, “Bachelor Party”, a car with the words “Kip” as part of the license plate drove in front of me on my way home (Kip was the name of Hanks’ character on “Bosom Buddies”). Yet that CalArts person in the restaurant was nothing compared to the other people in connection to Hanks’ show that were in proximity to the aforementioned Barbizon-related conversation.

My 1978 Mermaid Idea
In my story outline about a mermaid, an environmental scientist who was deeply in love with his wife, while studying water pollution in the ocean, learns that his supervisor is having an affair with his wife. This is immediately followed by the scientist meeting a mermaid while taking samples of ocean water, leading the audience to wonder whether his perception of meeting a mermaid might not be some kind of mental breakdown in response to his wife’s affair. The pervasiveness of the mermaid in his life increases in proportion to the scientist’s emotional despair regarding his wife’s affair: his positive anima became more dominant as a fantasy taking over as the real woman in his life pulled him further and further into emotional turmoil. Water pollution begins to sicken the mermaid. She introduces the scientist to a dolphin community, which leads him to a secret, major source of pollution in the ocean, caused by a villainous company. Finally the scientist’s heart breaks when his wife seeks a divorce. The mermaid then dies from the water pollution, perhaps actually killed by a malady to his sense of anima.

A short time after I had carried the story outline to this point, there was suddenly a news story about 100 dolphins being killed. Because of my experiences with people trying to screw with me big league in this "subtle" manner (put this news story alongside 100 other such experiences), following this, I somehow didn’t feel like staying in Hollywood.

I should add that the first job I had following CalArts was for an environmental studies company, and the person whose office was nearest to my cubicle was Robert Rickles, who had been New York City’s first Commissioner of the Environment, under Mayor John Lindsey.

I should also add that this was during the period when I was about to graduate from CalArts School of Film and Video, and was looking at a letter to me from Paul McCartney about possibly working for him, received a week after Billy Joel sat next to me on a plane to California. I was also looking at the possibility of being an assistant to John Lennon on a movie possibly in the works mentioned in Rolling Stone, “Street Messiah” (though Sean Daniel, the first person from whom I had learned of CalArts, who was a friend of each of The Beatles as well as Steven Spielberg, and who was soon to become Vice President of Universal and after that head of David Geffen’s film company, said the director mentioned in the Rolling Stone “Street Messiah” paragraph was a sleazy director I didn’t want to work for). During this period I expressed to some people an idea that landed on Lennon’s next album, “Double Fantasy”, in the song, “Cleanup Time”: “However far we travel, wherever we may roam, the center of the circle will always be our home.” I expressed the idea that it would seem that I didn’t need to stay in Hollywood to sorta kinda be in Hollywood, that were I to “serve” those at the very top, wherever I went I would find access and people would find me (sure enough, everywhere I went I encountered intermediaries to Lennon and McCartney, and even now, McCartney intermediaries).

Another footnote to “Cleanup Time” is that, prior to “Double Fantasy”, when I was throwing out all of my old albums in order to start over collecting records, after all of my albums were gone, the first album I bought was, “Nilsson Sings Newman” (Lennon was a close friend and collaborator of Nilsson’s, as well as a big fan of Randy Newman), which contains a song, “I’ll Be Home”, with the line, “wherever you may wander and wherever you may roam”. I personally feel that if not for this song, which is about a super-reliable person who will always be home for you, he might not have sent out the virtual invitation to every nutcase in the world to come see him at his home, an invitation, that is, in terms of his posing in front of his home for the “Double Fantasy” album cover. People may already have known where he lived, but I believe this sort of beckoned people (“Yo everybody, this is exactly where you can always find me in person, see?”).