Two Pair Showing

A Show Of Hands
Little tiny inside-references to me/my material have been detectable here and there over the past several weeks. Most are of that nature where one would already have to be familiar with a number of facts before one could appreciate the significance of such observations, otherwise, I would seem to be making too much out of something. What a bother when recognition of the significant context requires special effort.

The Saturday Night Live one I am bothering with reveals to me, as they have before, that they see my blogs. I bothered with this inside-reference because, due to the "history" preceding it, I read it as being in the sphere of Saturday Night Live sorta kinda asking me to inject a remark or something about the Iranian President. Ahmadinejad is part of what they are inside-referencing, thus, my reaction might be expected to include such a remark. Furthermore, I see where I should believe SNL might very possibly scrutinize my reaction to their inside-reference.

There are a few things I should mention about the context of this image. It is preceded by my having mentioned in and demonstrated through numerous blogs, that "Saturday Night Live" has a long history of including things "hot off the Steinhoff press". Usually, the week in which such pieces of my ideas appear are the very same week that I specifically submitted them to SNL, through intermediaries. I do not say such ideas could never have existed prior to my incorporating them into my work. I emphasize the context created by the timing and consistency of their making such usage.

In this case, they not only had their image tie in with something in my 9/26/10 blog. What they chose to reference simultaneously intertwines with the video I have just completed - "Hatch", posted 10/15/10 at YouTube and Archive.Org. That I was working on this video was announced a few months ago in a blog. That announcement was immediately followed by an inside-reference on Colbert, as I described in a blog. "Hatch" also influenced the second episode of the new William Shatner sitcom (I am not new to influencing William Shatner, or influencing almost anyone you can think of, for that matter). When I first wrote the comedy idea several years ago (as "Down The Hatch"), SNL also immediately included an inside-reference.

So what, if anything, do I want to say about Ahmadinejad this time around. Well, I saw him on Charlie Rose recently, and here's what comes to mind. When I was working on the movie, "Gizmo" back in 1974, I came across this old Fox Movietone news footage (from the early '30s, I believe). It showed this young man sitting on the end of a plank of wood, a 2 x 4. The cameraman was on the other end. The plank of wood was on an upper floor of a very tall New York City skyscraper, hanging over the sidewalk. So the man sitting on the plank of wood is looking at the camera, laughing nervously. Why would a person put himself in that position? His nervous laughter was our only handle on his state of mind in doing this. That guy reminds me of Ahmadinejad, who has deliberately chosen to make his world far more precarious than any sane person would. But he looks at the camera with nervous laughter, soliciting the warmth of the cameraman. Asking to be seen as a man free of conventional fear. Impressing us with his bravado. It is a primitive person's route to winning points with people. And yes, you will find people in the crowd who will totally overlook your insanity.

The Two Of Us Are Really One
As I've mentioned a few times, it was I who suggested the Colbert and Stewart rallies be two rallies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JonathanDS/restoring-truthiness-colbert-rally-beck_n_704578_59349947.html

The day after I posted this Comment, Stewart drove by me, which I reported in a blog article the day following that.

Now they are making one rally out of it, so I suppose I ought to react. Okay, here it is: Fine with me!

Dear Letter

Something To Stew Over
I am pleased to announce the posting of my latest video on YouTube, "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!"

I would be even more pleased if this video wasn't connected with my numerous entries into the sweepstakes to see which of my muffled screams will succeed in drawing the necessary attention to the fact that I have been singled out by the Iranian President for including inside-references whenever he has a major statement regarding his nuclear situation. Which the Iranian President is doing because of my secret super-importance in relation to the most prominent living Jewish man, Steven Spielberg (please see my "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor" video at archive.org).

Oh well, what difference could that make? By the way, the work of mine to which I refer in this new Stewart video in connection with the final episode of "3rd Rock From The Sun" is "Gosk", both the 1993 screenplay and the shooting script for the unfilmed, "Gosk 3".

In The Future All My Troubles Seem So Far Away
A new event has occurred in connection with my observations that someone behind-the-scenes at the Huffington Post website is very much "on" to my secret super-importance (or partially on?):

1. My April 25th blog was titled, "See It In A Different Light".
2. My April 26th blog mentioned that this April 25th blog title was from a Paul McCartney song upon which I am/was a major influence.
3. On April 29th, 2:49pm, I made a comment (as JonathanDS) to a HuffingtonPost article, "Donald Trump Defends Arizona's Immigration Law". My 2:49pm comment was not actually approved/posted by HuffingtonPost for another ten minutes, yet a few minutes before my comment was posted to the world, at 2:53pm, someone posted a comment that included the words, "look into the future". These words are from this exact same Paul McCartney song.

Probably Bill Maher had something to do with it - he occasionally makes inside-references regarding me, and is very much a part of HuffingtonPost. In fact, his most recent article / videoclip on that website, which introduced the idea of an episode of "Lost" including an inside-reference to his pin number, made me think of the time my license plate number was referenced on an episode of "Monk" (please see my November 29, 2009 blog). "Monk" was a show that included inside-references to my material in every episode (please see my "Weekly Monk/Steinhoff" videoclips in earlier blogs and YouTube). Something else that wasn't "lost" on me was the time a while back when, immediately following my blogging a reference to the 1965 magazine photograph that led to my "Endless Voyage" story, Bill Maher's show included a photograph that bore a striking similarity to that photograph.

Wheel Of Making Me Look Like I'm Piecing Together Sentences That Aren't There
ONLY because "Smallville" has very recently included inside-references to my few music videos (as I've described in previous blogs), I believe I might have seen something in yesterday's episode, in this context, that could be seen cumulatively as part of this. However, please first permit me a moment to once again attempt to get across the cumulative concept:

If John Lennon wears a T-shirt in Los Angeles that only has the letter "M" on it; and Paul McCartney wears a T-shirt the next day in London that only has the letter "I" on it; and George Harrison wears a T-shirt the day following that in San Francisco that only has the letter "C" on it; and Ringo Starr a week or two or even three later in Ann Arbor, Michigan wears a T-shirt that only has the letter "K" on it, and you are in on the fact that John, Paul, George and Ringo were once in a group together, you could surmise that the context exists in which Ringo's "K" could be seen as part of a deliberate effort to spell the word "Mick", even though "K" all by itself contains no such implication. And if someone took the basis of your surmisal out of context, and said, "How does 'K' have to necessarily be part of spelling 'Mick'?", or "How does 'I' and 'K' necessarily have to be part of spelling 'Mick'?", or "Why do you think of The Beatles at the same time as the Stones when their music is not really all that similar?", the person saying these things about your surmisal might be out to make you sound like an i-d-i-o-t, or themselves be less smart than a non-idiot.

Back to "Smallville": There were things in last night's episode - the manner of flying; the turning of a wall into fragments (when a chemical was applied to make it shatter-able); a mystery regarding whatever happened to a woman who was taken away - that may possibly have been designed to bring to mind my music video, "Whatever Happened".

Numb With Excitement
Immediately following a recent email I sent to someone I never email, which made mention of Jon Stewart, an inside-reference was made on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" to someone who automatically brought to mind my email's recipient. And when I followed up that email with another email to that same person to point this out, this time around including mention of Stephen Colbert, "The Colbert Report" immediately made an inside-reference to my email's recipient, as well as an inside-reference to another person who automatically brought to mind my email's recipient. More specifically, Colbert was causing me to think of the few times people have pushed me into the position of bringing in emotion as part of an effort to dissuade someone from using violence. As my recent emails were written on the subject of the above-mentioned matter regarding the Iranian President (nuclear weapons and inside-references to me), I suppose these were meant to be regarded as contributions towards my efforts.

This may possibly lead the "discussion" to this question: Do people naively expect that, once Iran has nuclear weapons, we can then just hang the fate of humanity on our ability to bring in emotion as part of an effort to dissuade? To still be that young and idealistic! It is my belief that such idealism in such an instance as we now find ourselves can only hasten the end of humanity. It is very near to the point where a realistic action to halt Iran from nuclear weapons capability should replace endless efforts to dissuade.

A Fish Called Goofy

In my previous blog of November 18th, entitled, "Tortured By The Truth (or The Goofy Misconduct of Senator McCain)", I was primarily presenting an open letter to Jon Stewart. Therefore, my experience led me to sorta kinda expect that some form of acknowledgment might be discernible the following night. This acknowledgment could in fact be found the following night, when Stephen Colbert (Colbert's show being the "companion show" to Stewart's) appeared on Letterman:


As I have been something of an influence on Stewart's show, so have I been something of an influence on Colbert's. My 12.2.08 blog describes my very significant influence on his Christmas Special with Elvis Costello; my 1.30.09 blog contains a videoclip detailing my influence regarding Colbert's interview of Paul McCartney; my "Mall Man, The Trailer" video, posted on YouTube August 2006, was the inspiration behind that painting he had of three Stephen Colberts, one behind the other (it started two months later, with two Colberts in October 2006, which became three in October 2007).

So why not take this opportunity to post here my submission when Colbert had his green screen contest in August 2006:



As another footnote to a footnote to a footnote to a footnote (give or take a footnote) regarding McCain and Palin (see my previous blog of 11.18.09), I consider of relevance the fact that I was a significant influence on the Michael Palin movie, "A Fish Called Wanda," including the origin of the title. No time to explain now, must start my Thanksgiving vacation immediately, gotta run, Happy Thanksgiving!


Sit Back And Be Counted
For those who want their viewing of it to be counted, I have posted on YouTube the Weekly Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip, 11.13.09 (the same one that appears in my 11.15.09 blog), under the name, "Monk's Advanced Juggling Technique".

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:

1. I've already referenced the Daily Show indications in recent blogs.
   
2. 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.
3. 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.

And now my new SNL idea:

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