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.

Imagine That

Not a whole lot for me to be pointing at at this very moment, as far as I know.

Let’s see, we had the title of my previous, February 24th blog being “Like In That Beatles Song”, and the very next day, February 25th, Supreme Court Justice Alito renders a decision by putting things in the context of what it might mean to reference a John Lennon song. I consider myself very much on the left of the political spectrum, generally (though I don’t always accept conventional definitions of what issues fall where on the political spectrum, preferring to use my own mind), however, there is a substantial history of major Republicans referencing my material: George W. Bush, Trent Lott, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain. Perhaps it’s word of mouth, related to the fact that everybody everywhere references my material, from rock superstars to film directors to TV shows to leaders of foreign nations to Democrats. All of this weighs very much in favor of the conclusion that Alito’s action the day following my action, both actions not merely regarding references to Beatle songs, but rather the concept of referencing Beatle songs, was apropos of my previous blog title.

If that was a difficult one to follow, this next one will certainly throw you.

• I begin by drawing your attention to my videoclip regarding the final episode of the TV show “Friends”, which starred Jennifer Aniston and others. Ever since my 1998 “Gosk 2” sci-fi comedy video, which included in a starring role someone who was friendly with Arquettes and other “Friends” people, there were quite a number of references to my material on that show (only a few prior to “Gosk 2”, including an entire storyline contained within the initial “we were on a break” episode). On the referenced videoclip, they made a game of using one of the made-up words in “Gosk” a few episodes prior to the final one, and then on the final episode gave center stage importance to the power of a made-up word to catalyze events. The question was thereby raised of whether a new made-up word (or possibly not new for viewers of “Gosk”) would get Rachel off the plane the second time (as a made-up word had at one point in that episode), to reunite with Ross for the climax of the series (I said series, not episode). Had such a word been called into play, we can be certain that it would be a word instantly made part of the English language, for its “Friends” significance. Had such a word demonstrably originated with me, I imagine it would have become trivia difficult to suppress.

• Jason Lee’s show, “My Name Is Earl” is the result of a story idea I submitted to the person (Sean Daniel, first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the school I attended) who produced the first big movie Lee was in, “Mallrats”, which was itself named after my video, “Mall Man”. As mentioned in a videoclip posting of mine on YouTube, that several-page story idea of mine contained six references to chipmunk talk. The announcement that Lee would be in the movie, “Alvin And The Chipmunks”, came years after my story idea that led to his “Earl”.

• Jack Black often makes references to my material, in his work and his talk show appearances. Some see Black as part of the Stiller/Cornfeld group (Cornfeld is referred to in a few of my other blogs).

• When Aniston and Black together presented an award during the Oscars a week ago, I was struck less by what they said as much as by the omission of a word. Black began by saying that this year in animation we’ve seen talking squirrels. Squirrels are so close to chipmunks, that in the movie, “Alvin and the Chipmunks,” the association of the two species is referred to several times. I was left wondering why Jack Black of all people should be off by one word this way, off, that is, in terms of missing a chance to make an inside reference to things related to my material. It took several days, but it finally occurred to me, he must have learned this from Jennifer Aniston.

The Angelina Jolie movie, “A Mighty Heart”, premiered on Showtime yesterday. Of special interest to me is the fact that Daniel Pearl, the focus of this biopic, lived in Princeton, New Jersey where I grew up, my best friend in Princeton was someone named Winterbottom, an unusual name, and this movie was directed by someone named Winterbottom. In further relation to the Winterbottom I knew, Sean Penn modeled his portrayal of a lawyer in “Carlito’s Way” on Winterbottom’s brother. From what I’ve been able to surmise, Winterbottom (my childhood friend) had some kind of connection to Madonna and Sean Penn during the period when they were married. Additionally, Madonna named a character in one of her children’s books Tinkelbottom, or something like that. Madonna has crossed my path in various such (and other) ways any number of times, including referencing my material in her material. Angelina Jolie was mentioned in one of my previous blogs, and her movie, “Girl Interrupted” got its title from my (1987 copyrighted) short story, “Man Without Interruption”.