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!

The Thing Of It

Those who may recall my previous observations regarding my influence on "The Daily Show" (my observations being a matter of record if one looks up my blogs posted at Archive.Org, where they are copyrighted) may be interested in the latest on this.

On Wed., June 2nd, I posted a comment to an article on Huffington Post (at 4pm, in reply to a 3:49pm comment) wherein I personified the oil in the oil spill. On Thurs., June 3rd, "The Daily Show" also personified the oil in the oil spill. No doubt some will argue that the specific oil I was personifying was different from the specific oil Jon Stewart personified, which will become apparent when they finally put our different oil into different barrels. This has yet to be proven.

So first the one, and then the other (and yes, that's the Mayor of Los Angeles as one of my Huffington Post "fans"):


"Obama Calls For Rolling Back Oil Company Tax Breaks To Net Billions For Alternative Energy
"JonathanDS
"4:00 pm, 6.2.10

"This oil-hating rhetoric isn't helping: we must try to understand oil, for the oil hears us - that's why it's working against us. We need to speak nicely about oil. We should deliberately create another oil leak next to this one, a small one, and then repair it, so that when this oil sees what we want it to do, by watching the other oil, it will follow the example. Oil is our friend."

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

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?).