No Words For What WAS Set Off

A few things, each of identical significance (or perhaps not):

New Steinhoff Song
I'm pleased to announce my newest song, "Born Ahead", which can be experienced at archive.org. I hope everyone who hears it enjoys it in the identical way and to the identical degree as everyone else who hears it (whatever way and degree that may be).

Why Is Today Different From All Other Days
As my mother passed away in February 1991, I am unable to experience this holiday in the identical way as everyone else. However, as the person who first told me of CalArts, the college I attended, is Sean Daniel (Spielberg and McCartney friend, former Lennon friend), and Sean Daniel is the producer of the "Mummy" movies, I will take this opportunity to wish him a Happy Mummy's Day. (I am not in touch with Sean, but would appreciate it if someone could pass along my message.)

Fish Wearing Goggles
The writers of the TV show "Smallville" (who also wrote "Mummy 3") have once again included an inside-reference for my benefit. However, this one is identical to the way-off-the-radar ones they do in relation to me, as opposed to being identical to the ones they do where I can point to evidence (evidence for those who know how to add 2 plus 2.2, that is). I am flying so below the public's radar here that I expect to be making more ripples in the ocean than anywhere else. Yet somehow I feel obliged to describe it, lest the powers that be (them what done it) feel I'm no fun anymore, and then what would happen to me?

I've previously described how oftentimes the "Smallville" episodes containing inside-references to me are done in conjunction with episodes of the TV show "Medium" airing that same night, and this is true regarding Friday, May 7th. In fact, you may wish to reread my "Smallville" mention in my May 1st blog and the whole T-shirt example there. I'm getting the feeling they had their own personal T-shirt vendor this time around.

In the May 7th episode of "Smallville", Lois Lane pushes for Clark and her to go on a "break" from each other (this develops into a breakup). Everyone watching heard something in that moment that brought to mind the historic episode of "Friends", the one that led to endless discussions/consequences of what it meant for them to be on a break.

What I heard, being someone who receives frequent, secret nudges from the "Smallville" folk, was a reference to the main side-plot in that same "Friends" episode, where Monica can only date someone if his translator accompanies them everywhere. This side-plot was based on my 1996 story, "The Translator". Someone (Raphael Middleman) once published my story in their little magazine (the May 1996 premiere issue of "The Inspector"). There were numerous reasons back then for me to deduce that "Friends" would use my material, even though I had not yet starred a "Friends" insider in my (1998) "Gosk 2". One reason: one of my sister's oldest friends, Claire Josephson, is the sister of Nancy Josephson, International Creative Management VP, the woman who first brought the "Friends" writers to California, which directly led to the creation of "Friends".

In "The Translator", newlyweds who don't speak the same language receive a translator as a wedding gift. He accompanies them EVERYWHERE, which much displeases the wife, causing her to secretly murder him, though it means she and her husband will not understand each other. They didn't need to understand each other when they first met, so why now?

Because my story was included as part of the very important initial "Friends" "break" episode, the "Smallville" "break" set me looking to see if there was something I should connect to this. As has often been the case, I found the answer in that night's "Medium": a husband murders someone about to communicate to his wife the key to understanding him. In "The Translator", the murder of the translator by the wife means she does not want to have around the person with the key to their understanding each other.

What Were They Trying To Do
What was the real meaning behind the Pakistani Taliban's Times Square "incident"? It was announced by the White House today that it was in fact the Taliban who were involved in the Times Square "attempted" bombing. Are we to believe that they truly meant to succeed, based on what we've learned about the hard-to-fail-to-anticipate reasons behind why it failed? Might not this lead the discussion to the question of what possible Taliban objective WAS achieved by only succeeding in having people investigate an empty car parked on a busy New York City street on May 1st?

As I described in my May 1st and May 2nd blogs, my April 28th posting on YouTube regarded a scene where an empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street is investigated. And my description accompanying that YouTube posting referred to the Iranian President.

I find that the degree to which there has been NO follow-up investigation regarding what I've been saying (shouting) for a while now looks VERY bad with this new terrorist occurrence, one that could have turned into the second 9/11. It suggests that there is a willful act of suppressing the investigation I seek. How close to the doorstep of Steven Spielberg must this suppression seem, as such an investigation would have to be based in part on my assertion that I am secretly super-important in relation to the work of Spielberg, the most prominent Jewish man, that therefore I am someone on the radar of those who act out of anti-Israeli/Jewish sentiment. What happens when my super-importance is secret - how can I instigate an investigation when that fact is unknown?

Does this Times Square bombing "attempt" light a fire under Spielberg and others? Is this all potentially damaging to key pillars/foundation stones of Hollywood Royalty? Extremely damaging? Fatally damaging? The suppression of such important investigations into terrorism, just to cover their astors?

Should we conjecture that the appeal of being able to generate this kind of issue in a big way became great enough to the Taliban/al Queda that it was chosen over an actual bombing - an alternative course? Especially if at heart they'd rather not kill in reality if they can poison the reputations of our "royalty", which would seriously undermine an important part of our moral foundation (yes, the product of Hollywood royalty portends to speak to the world's fundamental ethics).

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and etc. Would they poison our lives better by lighting this fire under us? Isn't it time to put aside this astor-covering of Hollywood Royalty's questionable behavior towards me, so that the truth about my secret super-importance can render plausible this basis for a real investigation of major terrorist acts? Or must we wait for something God awful to happen, when an investigation could have prevented it? I guess that's a chance some bastions of society are willing to take.