I Owe Me The World

PAID IN LAUGHTER
There have been a number of new Steinhoff references on the Saturday Night Lives this season, as always. I will not be going into these things, however.

I will instead be focusing on something I see as being in relation to the Pakistani Taliban joining everyone in Hollywood in making inside-references to things Steinhoff. That is what I will be prioritizing this time around! Owing to my being secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg! And McCartney! And others of note! I'm running out of exclamation marks! Read on....


PAID IN HALF-FULL
Fans of what is perhaps my craziest statement ever (that's quite a distinction, with all the crazy statements of mine there are to choose from) should be happy to learn there is something new to report in relation to this, something to perhaps chew on, perhaps scratch your head about, or even, perhaps, laugh hysterically over to think that a corrupt world should somehow inch its way into this strange a circumstance.

I refer to a connection I have repeatedly made between, among other things, the time proximity between the May 1st, 2010 Times Square Car Bomb Incident and my April 29th, 2010 YouTube posting, "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlH2Ln7GlmU

I will begin by putting that idea into a tiny nutshell here (but know I have your promise that you will explore the subject for weeks, beginning with my June 23rd, 2010 blog, "Crazy Time"):

The primary allusion made in my April 29th YouTube posting (evidenced at that site as having been posted on that date) is to the idea of curiosity and investigation resulting from a suspicious-looking empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street (my June 23rd blog extensively explains the allusion made in my YouTube video, also including verifiable evidence that this allusion was contained in the April 29th video). We all know how this very same idea provided the focus of the news story regarding the Times Square Car Bomb TWO DAYS LATER on May 1st: curiosity and investigation resulting from a suspicious-looking empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street. Now, add in my secret super-importance in relation to the most prominent living Jewish man, Steven Spielberg (see my video, "Steven Spielberg and the Mall Man Factor" at Archive.Org, posted December 2009), and think of what that could possibly mean to Pakistani Taliban thinking types. There's lots more I could describe, but I don't think anyone is likely to find all this truly worth so incredibly much of their time, unless perhaps someone finds a way to increase our lifespan to 1,000 years old, at which point devoting half your life to studying all this will still leave you 500 years for other things. 500 years! That's plenty, I say!

So the condensed version of what I'm on about here, the new thing in connection with all this, involves, I believe, none other than Mr. International Political Situation Investigator Extraordinaire, Jon Stewart (or "Jon Stewart, Daily Show Host", for short)!

In recent blogs I've provided evidence (a link) that I posted a Comment to a blog article at Huffington Post that Stewart and Colbert should do SEPARATE rallies, at a point in time when there first was talk of some kind of Colbert rally. A few days later when the two did make announcements, they hyped it all for weeks as two SEPARATE rallies.

I have often influenced these two, as I've explained from time to time, and I've even periodically included what I regard as evidence of my influence, evidence spelled out in "clues" that could be easily pieced together. Therefore, though they could have had the idea of SEPARATE rallies independently of me, I lean towards the possibility of that not being the case. I for one am additionally aware that Jon Stewart (or someone who looked enough like him for me to feel inclined to blog about it the next day) looked at me as he drove by me the day after my HuffPost Comment.


PAID IN FULL
On Tuesday, November 9th (a little more than a week after his rally, and a week after the Midterm elections), Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" beseeched former president George W. Bush to "come on" his show. He claimed he was starting a new recurring segment, though he repeatedly bemoaned the strange name his people came up with for the segment, "Come On Jon Stewart". Is it possibly fair to say my YouTube video referred to above, "Come On, French Stewart" is worthy of more serious scrutiny, under the circumstances? And what more can anyone ask for, in the name of all humanity, than more serious scrutiny?



I should additionally mention, however, that though I see this as a deliberate reference by "The Daily Show" to what I see as my little Pakistani Taliban-related situation, I do not presume it to mean any one person has really done the homework I'm talking about, no one has necessarily taken the trouble to see any of the emerging larger picture here. As with the Manhattan Project, many may understand some fragment of the larger project, which might give off that they see the larger project, but I see no clear sign of someone acting on a sense of the larger situation.

Politics For Dummies

At Least Someone's Reading These
In my Sept. 8th blog I refer to how it was I who suggested, in a Sept. 3rd HuffPost article Comment, that Stewart and Colbert make it two separate rallies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/JonathanDS/restoring-truthiness-colbert-rally-beck_n_704578_59349947.html

This is copyrighted proof that I made my statement prior to it becoming a part of things. I also stated in my Sept. 5th blog article that Jon Stewart and I looked at each other as we drove by each other on Sept. 4th. This also was before my statement had become anything, though based on having influenced Stewart and Colbert many times before in very big ways, it did lead me to suspect that my HuffPost Comment might be turning into something big. Stewart's look might have contained a certain suggestion of this, unless he was thinking, "Why are traffic lights green and red, Christmas colors, why must we Jews put up with this, someday I'm gonna run a traffic light, that'll show those bastards!" This is something all of us Jews think about from time to time, though few of us go through with it.

The following videoclip should be seen in the context I've just described (not the part about traffic lights, the other context):





Saturday Night's Alright For Following Tiny Little Details
I should at some point fit into a blog article how the SNL season premiere several days ago, like nearly every SNL for years and years and years, included a few things for my benefit. I know, I'll include it in this blog article.

Let's see, well for one thing, Amy Poehler's very brief revival of her Kim Jong Il. Her Kim Jong Il originally (a few years back) included referring to him as a film critic ala the Siskel/Ebert show, "At The Movies", as he said something about saving you an aisle seat. I had several days prior to that impression several years ago passed along (I would pass along an idea and they would always use fragments on the next show) the idea of Kim Jong Il being the guest host on "At The Movies" (when Ebert would always have a guest host with him). My idea showed how Kim Jong Il's taste in movies, in terms of why he appreciated the movies he liked, betrayed a strange sort of personality. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to say that I would personally love for him to review any of my videos, I was only joking about the kind of film critic he would be. (I seem to possibly be tangling with Ahmadinejad these days, and one crazy person doing stuff that could lead to nuclear bomb explosions is all I can handle at one time, thank you, would somebody else mind taking on Kim Jong Il?)

And then there was the appearance on SNL several days ago by the Governor of New York, Patterson, wherein they included their usual routine where he walks too near the camera, blocking things. This recurring bit (though previously it involved an SNL Patterson impression without the Patterson) began with something that happened in an Obama/McCain presidential debate hosted by Tom Brokaw (10.7.08), where McCain at the end walks too close to the camera, blocking things, which led to a few laughs when the moment was rerun on various shows. That real-life moment began with something I published at Archive.Org prior to the Brokaw-hosted debate ("Peek-A-Boo, ICU", 9/29/08, and also contained in my 9.28.08 blog article), a comedy idea about that very same (then upcoming) Brokaw-hosted debate. Incidentally, this was not the first time McCain did something in response to my comedy ideas - though you'll NEVER believe my version of what preceded his Palin selection. Anyway, in my Brokaw debate comedy idea, each candidate is on a video cell phone, placed on a table, facing each other. Brokaw inadvertantly puts his water glass down between the two video phones, blocking Obama's view of McCain, which he complains about, while McCain defends Brokaw's right to block his view.

I believe there may have been a few other things on SNL a few days ago regarding me, but who knows. One other thing I noticed on SNL, but NOT regarding me (every now and then I actually notice things that don't regard me, which in itself is yet another fact that many have trouble believing) is that, in their parody of that recent Stallone movie, they included something that brought to mind Jack Black in Sean Daniel's "The Jackal" (I have mentioned Sean Daniel not infrequently in my blogs for reasons I have also mentioned not infrequently). This struck me particularly because when Sheryl Crow was on Leno recently, she did something at the opening of the show out of Sean Daniel's "Animal House" (Ed Helms was sitting on a staircase playing a folk guitar and she took it away and smashed it). Though Sean Daniel did not produce "Animal House", it is an important part of his history, he was the person behind it when he was a decision-maker at Universal. So what's up with all that?

Can't Completely Rule It Out

Here are a few things that belong in the category, "the more weight I attach, the more others will feel compelled to make light" (I've got to start writing about things that fall into a different category). Well, I guess I can stand the short-term break-even (or worse) that comes from this battle between attaching heaviness vs. being made light, in that matters of consequence endure and so I shall be vindicated for though fools may seek to rule the world.... I think I've already begun the making light process on my own. And so now, to be serious about what's serious (it is too). Or, as the title of this blog article states, here are some possibilities I cannot completely rule out, having experienced the strange things that I have (have too).

We've Got To Get Ourselves Back Off The Sofa (by Joni Mitchell)
In my previous blog article I mentioned how Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" apparently drove by me Saturday (admittedly, no fingerprints to support this conviction). I also took the opportunity in that blog article to repeat my oft-made assertion that I am an influence on him (and Colbert as well, as I've also oft-asserted). Older blogs of mine copyrighted on Archive.Org confirm that I didn't just start saying this yesterday (this Blogspot site confirms no chronology of when I said what, as one can attach any date to any article, and so I refer to what is copyrighted to Archive.Org).

In this context, one might consider, as a possibility, that there is greater significance to the following videoclip than merely being an instance of like minds thinking alike (then again, perhaps it could strike you as confirmation of same, or perhaps, different minds that haven't the slightest to do with one another, or, that Steinhoff sure hit the nail on the head this time, or, I wonder why he's talking about Colbert, that looks like Stewart):



I believe the upcoming event Stewart and Colbert allude to in the videoclip could ultimately prove to be the biggest event of the year, or something along those lines. Humor is a medium, and what these two do in that medium is most serious, in my view. Yes, I am serious about the seriousness of humor even if many make light of the weight of.... but some might say I digress, and the opinion of those who feel that way is what matters most to me in the whole world.

Some may feel the need for me to spell out how it is that I believe the Sept. 3rd comment I made on Huff Post as JonathanDS fits in with the direction in which Colbert and Stewart are taking things. It's simple. I reacted to the idea of a Colbert rally with the idea that it be juxtaposed as completely separate yet alongside a Jon Stewart rally, both essentially vying to occupy virtually the same space, despite the expectation that, if anything, it should be one big rally. And that is precisely how they are playing things out at this point. Easily possible I am making too much of a like minds think alike idea, limited in originality, no big deal. Also very possible that this, the biggest event in the history of mankind (I'm only quoting Colbert), in terms of the way Colbert and Stewart are handling it, sprang from my pen. Can those who have followed my influence on things, both in general and specifically, completely ignore this possibility? Would someone pay for my plane fare so I can attend? Or maybe, go to CD Baby and listen to my songs so that, penny by penny, I might at least make it halfway across the country, where I might watch the proceedings from a TV in a dingy hotel room, muttering to myself about the people who wouldn't pay to listen to my songs at CD Baby, that I might afford to be a few miles closer to where things are happening? Don't I deserve at least that, enough song money to be within a thousand miles of it? By the way, I recommend my song, "Whatever Happened" (which is also available for free elsewhere on the Internet in higher quality than mp3, as well as the music video, I didn't just say that, I wonder if Jimi Hendrix' ghost is laughing at me for that, which would be quite an honor).

Stop Pointing That Erasure At Me
Also difficult for me to ignore: In my August 22nd blog article I correlated the book burning in Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451" to the suppressive mentality of Iran's president. Now in the news we see this Terry Jones character suddenly causing an international stir with his vile plans to have a book burning of the Quran. I am not pleased by this (please note my use of the word "vile"). Nevertheless, of all the book burning the world has seen, rarely has the idea of such received this level of attention, including in this instance condemnation from the Pentagon, the Pope, and most importantly, Hillary Clinton (unless you're Catholic and/or militaristic, please don't put me in the middle of this). All this less than three weeks after my book burning referencing blog article. I do recognize that only those who read the blog article upon its publication could testify to this, it being that, as mentioned earlier, this Blogspot site makes it possible to fiddle with dates. Nevertheless, for those who know what I am saying is true about my having posted a blog article on August 22nd that makes significant anti-book burning mention, and also for those who have by now learned to believe me: this is far from the first time the right-wing has used me to springboard their crap onto center-stage. I suppose they would consider it their true crowning achievement if I permitted it to silence me, or bug me. Well, I can recognize a bright side. You see, when one plays pool, one often aims for the bank, it is well known that this is how to hit certain balls into certain pockets and leave oneself well-positioned. I think it extremely possible that, after Terry Jones is finished playing the antagonist in this little drama, the larger story that emerges will be a positive one. People who might otherwise seem aligned against all Muslims showing their repugnance at such conduct. Etc.

I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing Like Jimi Hendrix
And finally, on Sept. 6th, immediately following my Sept. 5th blog article about seeing words of my song show up in somebody's Facebook posting (seemingly inadvertantly), President Obama used words from a Hendrix song in a speech, as if inadvertantly ("they talk about me like a dog" - "Stone Free" by Jimi Hendrix). Okay, not enough here to necessarily construe that this had anything whatsoever to do with my blog article the previous day. How about the fact that the same blog article of mine held back from observing Hendrix song postings by Facebook friends who presumably don't know each other, in that they coincided with my Dwight Hendricks ("Memphis Beat") blog articles? I held back on including mention of those Hendrix incidents, though it would have been germaine to my blog article, owing to the fact that many see posting a Hendrix song on Facebook as being as common as using the word, "the". I would generally concur, if not for the collective significance when seen alongside the other stuff to which I was referring. But it was too obscure a point for me to make in my Sept. 5th blog article, so I held back - now, perhaps, things are different (too late!). I have also indicated in previous blogs that I am an occasional influence on what the President of the United States says. And that he is an old friend of someone I know at work.

Attaching Weight Can Be Fun

Yesterday I believe I was face to face with Sean Daniel, the first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the college I attended. Sean is a good friend of Steven Spielberg and Paul McCartney, and has played an important role in my being a significant influence on both, and on many others as well (that is, from what I can tell Sean has been in this role, although he could be getting his instructions in these matters from McCartney or the Kremlin or the ghost of Abraham Lincoln or whoever). Sean is also one of the co-producers of the Mummy movies (Jim Jacks, one of my Facebook friends, being the other). Sean and I were in our cars and less than half a block from the "Mummies of the World" billboard in Hollywood, the proximity to this being something I discovered after I recognized him. He appeared extremely concerned about something, and I would have to wonder whether my previous blog article on Iran's president might have been a contributing factor. Depending on how much weight one attaches to it, that particular article could be quite a source of serious concern, therefore, you may want to make light of it for that reason alone, as life is too short, etc.

I also saw Jon Stewart yesterday. I may also have seen Rachel Maddow, however, I'm not sure on that. I have at various times been quite a significant influence on both. As a Facebook friend had just posted something about Maddow's MSNBC buddy Keith Olberman, my mentioning this Maddow moment could easily sound contrived to some for that reason alone (I'm sure no one has ever been out to make me sound contrived, and I must accept full responsibility for all the times my words have sounded contrived, it must be something I like to do!).

Relevant to this latest instance of my sounding contrived, I have recently found evidence that some person or persons behind the scenes has been coordinating certain actions of certain Facebook friends of mine, people who presumably have nothing to do with one another. This has on occasion become additionally complicated to the point where it has involved the coordinating of certain Facebook friends of certain Facebook friends to post things, which in turn provide my Facebook friends the opportunity to comment on or like certain postings that were actually made for me to see. For example, a Facebook friend of mine (someone I knew at CalArts) who is connected with Eric Clapton had the opportunity to like a posting his Facebook friend made, causing me to see his Facebook friend's posting. That Facebook friend of a Facebook friend posting happened to use words that are identical to words contained in a song I once did, and the timing of when they made their Facebook postings coincided perfectly with a matter going on in relation to my video for that song (I will not go into further detail, sorry). That Facebook friend of my Facebook friend is himself the Facebook friend of a woman (not my Facebook friend) who is herself the Facebook friend of another one of my Facebook friends (from when I was in high school in Princeon), and this woman did something similar in relation to that Princeton Facebook friend of mine (who is not in the least connected to the Facebook friend person I knew at CalArts). So, a situation involving two of my Facebook friends who aren't connected to one another, and one of each of their Facebook friends who themselves are Facebook friends with each other, all doing things aimed at me (again, I will not go into further detail, sorry again).

As I have mentioned before (e.g., my Sept. 6, 2008 blog article), this type of stuff is nothing new to me. The unfortunate thing for me in this Facebook instance is that, if I keep seeing postings people are aiming at me, I would nevertheless be seen as initiating things without invitation were I to react in any way, as if I'm someone who speaks when not spoken to (ooh, I must be imagining it all). Someday there will be two people, one who telephones the other but never emails him, and the other will be someone who always emails that other person but never telephones him. And a third person will be perfectly able to make the case that one is continuing to send emails to someone who has never sent an email back. And that the other is continuing to phone someone who has never phoned him back. Persona non gratis, I think it's called. A hell of a thing to do to the person in the middle of this U.S. entertainment industry/Iranian President stuff, that is, if you've been attaching any weight to the evidence.

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."

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.

Titanic Importance

In my immediately preceding post (April 8th), I mentioned, among other things, my conclusion that Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" had "reflected a cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video". Why did I choose to word this so strangely, outside of the fact that I like to word things strangely?

I chose these words to get across the idea that they are willing to go so far as to acknowledge to me that they know the video was released, yet at the same time they do not seem to feel they actually need to see it. I beg to differ: it is from me, I am unbelievably important, they know this, it is an important release. What's this stuff about sweeping it under the rug? I don't get it. "Avatar" and "Alice In Wonderland" are currently showing major contributions from me, to those in on it. To say the least. It doesn't make sense to pass on my latest work.

Later in this blog I will tell a little Hollywood story I just made up, entitled, "The Covering Their Astors Squad". First though, I would like to attend to a little business, which is to say, present how last night's "Saturday Night Live" also "reflected a cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video".

In my "In Orders We Trust" (the video), which I completed April 6th and posted on/ copyrighted at Archive.Org April 7th (the comedy sketch itself having been written 5.15.06), I used at the beginning of the video the image of the famous sculpture, "Artemision Bronze", which according to Wikipedia is often called, "The God from the Sea," and "represents either Zeus or Poseidon" (my usage was intended to represent Zeus, and so if you were to see Poseidon in my usage of this image you would be.... well, I put the word Zeus under the image as well, so....). In the thumbnails at Archive.Org for my video, which one can view without viewing the actual video, one will also see my usage of this image ("Artemision Bronze").

I will give you a moment to go to Archive.Org and see for yourself (I provided the link in my April 8th blog, please don't expect me to do everything for you).

In my April 8th blog, wherein I announced the release of my video, I also reprinted the original 5.15.06 email from when I first sent the comedy sketch out to certain people. That email contained, among other things, something that my blogs have occasionally touched on - references to a few of the immense number of timely references to my material on "Saturday Night Live". And with that as the background information, last night's (April 10th) show was no exception - for in Tina Fey's Sarah Palin sketch (which, unfortunately, was only partially successful in erasing from my mind the image of Sarah Palin looking at me as we drove by each other in Santa Barbara last month), Fey ended the bit with an image of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in a photoshopped pose quite identical to the Zeus thumbnail posted with my video at Archive.Org on April 7th:



Those who knew, as I did, the near-inevitability of some kind of SNL inside-reference to my newest release, will appreciate my interpretation of why they chose to show Michael Steele this way. And if you wish, I will even apologize for any responsibility I might have for any difficulty you might have in erasing this image from your mind.

I should also say something about tonight's "Simpsons" before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.

First, some are aware that the main opening montage of every "Simpsons" (sometimes they use variations so who can say what one will find on any given night), the latest regular opening montage (past two or so years), contains something that began as an ongoing inside-reference found on many "Simpsons" episodes. The inside-reference has to do with a scene from the CalArts film class student film, "Limbo" (1973-1974), wherein someone cannot remove a gorilla mask, while I stand in the background watching. One of the primary "Simpsons" directors, Mark Kirkland, used to live down the hall from me at CalArts, though we didn't know each other. This has not prevented him from joining the throngs of people in show-biz who make inside-references regarding me. These inside-references in certain "Simpsons" episodes to this "Limbo" moment would appear in conjunction with other Steinhoff-related stuff, producing a cumulative effect that made clear the inside-reference, at least to those "inside". So: nowadays their opening montage shows a statue head falling from a statue and landing over the head of someone beneath the statue, basically trapping the person inside the mask. Much like the previously recurring "Limbo" inside-references.

Tonight's "Simpsons" episode ended with Lisa and Bart forming a truce, until their dog commits some blunder, for which Lisa chooses to blame Bart, though there is no apparent basis for her to hold him responsible for what the dog does. And the truce ends as quickly as it was formed. Those familiar with the ending of "In Orders We Trust" (either the 2006 written version or the April 2010 video) need no further explanation to appreciate my conclusion regarding the origin of the "Simpsons" ending.

I seem to have one more thing to describe before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.

For somewhat complicated reasons, which I will not detail here, I found the ending of the April 9th "Smallville" to be in relation to me as well. Nor did I choose to detail in my April 8th blog exactly how something the Iranian President recently said was designed to intertwine with the April 2nd "Smallville" as it related to me.

What I will mention here is that it was something he said in relation to President Obama's nuclear treaty, something that was extracted from the rest of what he said and given the headline, because of it being such a from out of nowhere phrasing. I am the one who sees how it was not from out of nowhere, it was an inside-reference, it was from a wish to interconnect with something in relation to me/my material that has recently become relevant through recent doings.

My December 26th, 2009 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor" (at Archive.Org) demonstrates how tremendously and singularly important I am in relation to Steven Spielberg. It does not take a genius to appreciate that, the way our world is put together, Spielberg is something of an ambassador for the Jewish people, being among the most prominent living Jewish persons in the world. I have previously mentioned in a blog that the Iranian President has endeavored to "intertwine" with me via a show that often references my material, "Smallville" (I mentioned this in a September 2009 blog). I have also mentioned/demonstrated in earlier blogs that the show "Medium" has intertwined with references to my material on the episodes of "Smallville" that aired the same night as certain "Medium" episodes.

Back when a number of inside-references to my several music videos all suddenly began occurring around the same time on various shows, as I mentioned/demonstrated at those times, I also noticed that "Medium" (in their fever episode, which was concurrent with the two-part "Monk" series finale - another show that made innumerable inside-references to my material) included the line, "Another Good Answer" - the title of one of my music videos. It was that same music video of mine wherein I get specific about the fact that, due to my secret importance, terrorists "leave things on my doorstep". That "Medium" episode had the antagonist exploiting people's fear of a cataclysmic (terrorist?) event for personal gain. I include that among the significant number of times when "Medium", or rather, someone with a pipeline to the writers of "Medium", seems to manifest an investment in undermining me with regard to certain concerns I have. My statement that terrorists leave things on doorstep/their statement that causing concern of this kind is a manipulative exploitation for monetary gain.

"The Covering Their Astors Squad"
(a made-up story about a dead person)

Once upon a time someone with a lot of money repeatedly used someone's creative material in the movies he made with famous actress Mary Astor. Mary Astor became very upset at the injustice that might be done to the person with a lot of money, who had been so kind to finance the movies she starred in, for she feared that this person might be thought to be a mean person when he was really just a nice person having fun with the person whose material he used. So Mary Astor became so upset, she came down with a cold. It was chilly outside, and she was playing the part of someone who was in a warm climate, so she had to wear short sleeves, which aggravated her cold, and it looked like the picture might have to be scrapped, and everyone would have to say goodbye to all that this picture would have meant for them. So the studio hired a squad of people to always have blankets on hand, and whenever the cameras weren't rolling, these people in this squad would immediately cover Mary Astor with a blanket. The same thing happened when Mary Astor's relatives appeared in the movie, Astors were everywhere, for these were all people who were found worthy of being in this important picture, though it meant wearing short sleeves in chilly weather. So the squad of people with the blankets became known as "The Covering Their Astors Squad". Unfortunately, the benches they sat on became drenched during a terrible thunderstorm, soaking in the water, and when people sat on the benches the water seeped through to their bottoms. Apparently, they could not cover their asses.

It's swell that people are demonstrating to me a "cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video", as I stated earlier. To fall short of manifesting that they've viewed the video, however, given the stage I've reached in the world of important releases, is, in certain respects, disturbing, and I do not say this as an artist. I say this because it has "my lawyer told me not to" written all over it.

At this moment in the history of humanity, in the history of the Earth, the Iranian President, perhaps the single individual posing the greatest threat to the world at this time, due to what his present actions could very easily lead to not so far down the road, is trying to intertwine with me/my work, because of my tremendous importance in relation to Steven Spielberg. Spielberg being an important "ambassador" for the Jewish people, for the reasons described earlier in this blog. This plays Spielberg and myself, on a certain level, directly into the matter created by the Iranian President, a matter that springs from the animosity the Iranian President has for the Jewish people, which is behind his efforts to unite the Arab world, through this sentiment, behind his "right" to "blow Israel off the map".

It would be complicated to explain how it has been made manifest to me that the Iranian President is doing this in relation to me, though it is nevertheless something I could explain, to an intelligent person. There are facts to support my explanation. What isn't complicated is the fact that I have earned enough credibility by now to be taken seriously on this to a substantial degree even during the withholding at this time of the complicated explanation.

I believe that my little made-up story about Mary Astor may help to explain to all of you boys and girls a few factors that have impeded the response I demand. Those interfering with following-up on what I've asserted regarding myself in this situation are committing acts that, due to their intended effect with relation to the larger situation, are beyond criminal, and beyond forgiveness, due to the enormity of this situation. I find it unfortunate that the situation requires that I be the heavy to this degree, by having to point this out, but this is scarcely a situation that can be ignored. I find it difficult to think of a matter more worthy of serious attention.

Simmer, Cool, Simmer Again, Whatever

Julie, Julia, Clerp, Jerp, and Amy
The following videoclip, which includes our first introduction to Amy Adams' Julie character in the 2009 movie, "Julie and Julia" (now available on TV for the first time on "Starz On Demand-Early Premieres"), should be filed under my March 21st blog (two blogs ago), in the section, "Pavlov's Chef":




Out Of The Frying Pan, Into The Fire
A person I've referred to here and there in previous blogs, Kiefer Sutherland, again drove past me. It was while I was on my way to work Friday, March 26th. I am nearly certain it was he, despite the sunglasses and semi-upbeat expression.

His face divulged nothing about a bombshell that was about to be dropped on the world later that day, not that the explosion would have been preventable even if I had foreknowledge: "24" has been canceled. Jack Bauer will not live forever - at least in terms of new episodes of "24" (after this season). I also read that there may be a movie. I think back to the expression on his face for some indication of exactly how dead Bauer might be for Sutherland, but as I find myself unable to visualize ketchup splattered about, it is difficult for me to envision death and Jack Bauer next to each other to the extent that it is now so.

We have been left with a serious void on the landscape of our shared, common focus on matters related to terrorism against the U.S. Do not underestimate the value of a singularly iconic fictitious character of this variety at this point in the history of the world, particularly when one considers the degree to which we as a society have come to use the medium of theater to digest events that would otherwise be too difficult, perhaps even impossible to wrap our hearts and minds around.

We can come together over nobody in particular when we say here comes the sun, we may never need a sun king to say "here comes the" about, but we are not so good at not having a human to focus on when real events turn us towards this side of reality, and occurrences that could conceivably lead to the end of reality itself. I don't see anyone coming close to a Jack Bauer, just a whole lot of James Bonds, Sherlock Holmeses and what not.

On the bright side, Sutherland is now free to do a sequel to "Dark City" - though I have the feeling I'm alone in thinking along those lines.

It's Just Another Vote
Several days ago on my way home from work, at about 5:30pm, about 30 minutes before the final reconciliation vote on healthcare reform (after the House passed the healthcare legislation and after the Senate then passed the agreed-to reconciliation amendments and then the amendments went back to the House - I believe this was Thursday, March 25th), "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart may or may not have driven past me. The show has been on vacation this past week, so it was definitely possible for him to be in Southern California. Also, as occasionally referred to in previous blogs, over the years I have occasionally been an influence on his and Colbert's show, sometimes to no small degree. He appeared very serious. And his hair was not slicked down as one normally expects when looking at Jon Stewart. I don't think his was searching his mind for a punchline just then. Then again, it could have just been someone whose job it is to bring Jon Stewart to someone's mind at the precise right moment. I get a lot of that.

One On One
Ben Stiller, whose appearance at the recent Oscars was largely in relation to my "Gosk 2" video (see my March 13th blog), drove by me yesterday (March 27th), while his two recent late-night talk show appearances made no inside-references for my benefit (of which I am aware). I think that puts things where I'm supposed to.... no, can't say I know exactly.

The late-night talk show appearance in February by Helena Bonham Carter, Tim Burton's wife, on Craig Ferguson's show did make inside "Gosk" references for my benefit. These references to "Gosk" were not even close to being as clearly delineated as Burton's "Gosk" references in "Alice In Wonderland" (see my my March 16th and March 21st blogs). I do not feel that husbands and wives should be considered contractually obligated to be identical in the degree to which they make references to "Gosk", nevertheless, I will not permit Carter's references to dilute the intensity of Burton's references, and will therefore confine myself here to this general a description of her action.

Regis Philbin's recent late-night talk show appearance on Ferguson made absolutely no inside-reference for my benefit of the variety I have come to expect, though Ferguson isn't Letterman, which is where/who this normally can be relied upon. Is this non-relationship over? If so, I do not yet feel the void, and for now will make no assumptions.

Face To Face
Immediately after I emailed someone (a fellow CalArts alumni, aka a "CalArtian") asking what gives with Tim Burton and his Steinhoff references in "Alice In Wonderland", where's my $11.23 (I did the math and decided I was at least entitled to enough money to purchase 9.2 chocolate bars), I received an invitation to be the Facebook friend of someone else, someone I hadn't spoken with in about 30 or more years, and a non-CalArtian. Adding this person as a Facebook friend required that I logon to my Facebook page for the first time in about half-a-year. This caused me to see that another CalArtian I knew (different CalArtian) had visited my Facebook page, indicated to me by way of that privacy-violating way Facebook has of showing Facebook users this like it or not. This led me to feeling inclined to look up that particular CalArtian on Facebook and the listing of her Facebook friends - which included Tim Burton. I suppose it is a given that when Tim Burton uses your material in a big way in "Alice In Wonderland", trails of breadcrumbs are headed your way. Now send me a trail of breadcrumbs I would want to follow more directly, please.

Tortured By The Truth (or The Goofy Misconduct Of Senator McCain)

Addendum To The Bowery Boys Idea
I left something of a key nature out of my blog of November 8, 2009, wherein I assert that a certain recurring "Saturday Night Live" (SNL to some of you) sketch with Kenan Thompson, showing him lecturing three teenagers on the legal consequences of juvenile delinquency, originated with “The Bowery Boys Sue For Defamation Of Character” (my SNL sketch idea of earlier in that same week that their sketch first appeared).

In my email of May 5, 2008 (wherein I suggested the Bowery Boys sketch idea), I wrote the following in the preceding paragraph, to introduce the idea:

“My idea for an SNL sketch: A new movie, 'The Bowery Boys Sue For Defamation Of Character' (an oblique addressing of the misperception that one’s role in a gang must set one’s course for life).”

You may have no particular reason to believe that this paragraph was there, or not, though Sean Daniel and Stuart Cornfeld, to whom the email was addressed, do know better.


An Open Letter To Jon Stewart
When a person, in piecing together separate events to arrive at an obvious conclusion, finds that those things being pieced together, when seen individually, each seem highly out of the ordinary/unlikely, the obvious conclusion that results is only obvious to those who already know he is telling the truth, that the individual events did in fact occur as described. Otherwise, the obvious conclusion is no less far-fetched sounding than the individual events that led to the conclusion. I must therefore beg the indulgence of those who presume that they should already be personally familiar with the truth of what I describe in order for me to proceed with my description, and its obvious conclusion. For I am compelled by circumstances to address myself not to them, at this time, but to Jon Stewart.

An Open Letter To Jon Stewart

1. As you know, over the years there have been a number of ideas sent by me to Sean Daniel and Stuart Cornfeld, and that there have been a number of times when parts of those ideas somehow found their way several days later onto your show. In the instance of my May 5, 2008 “Bowery Boys” idea, reprinted in my 11.8.09 blog, there also being an addendum to this reprint at the beginning of this blog, it was something of an influence on John McCain when he appeared on your show two days later, on May 7, 2008. McCain began his appearance as a guest on your show by saying that you had to treat him with respect now, as he was the Republican presidential candidate. This is an important aspect of my “Bowery Boys” sketch idea, that a person who is regularly the target of a particular other person’s derisive remarks suddenly requires that the other person be respectful. Later in his appearance, McCain said that he believed the secret code name the Secret Service had for him was “jerk”. This is the very word used for the punchline of this same “Bowery Boys” sketch idea: when Slip Mahoney emerges victorious in the courtroom battle over who owed the least reparations for making derisive remarks, in his delight Slip calls them all “jerks”, making his victory short-lived.

2. In a brief email I sent to the same two, Daniel and Cornfeld, on August 15, 2008 (Daniel’s birthday), I announced my upcoming wolfman video, and characterized it as “Python-esque”. This video (“The WolfMan Who Turned Back Normal Whenever Someone Screamed”) was posted on YouTube on August 25, 2008, which is a matter of record. As you know, and as others know, “Python-esque” is not a reference to pythons. And as anyone who sees the video knows, it is unmistakable why I would characterize it as “Python-esque”, which should certainly lend plausibility to my assertion that I used that word ahead of time, even for those who did not themselves read/witness the email where this characterization occurred.

3. “Python-esque” is a reference to the comedy of Eric Idle, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Michael Palin, Terry Jones, and some other guy (I don’t feel like looking it up right now), who were collectively known as "Monty Python’s Flying Circus”.

4. Before John McCain’s August 29, 2008 announcement of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, if you were on "Jeopardy" and the answer was Palin, you would only win a refrigerator if you said, “What is the last name of a member of ‘Monty Python’s Flying Circus?’” There would have been no other way to win the refrigerator. Period. If you wanted to lose, you would have answered Sarah Palin in the form of a question. If you wanted to win you would have said Michael Palin in the form of a question. It was that simple before August 29, 2008.

5. My doing a wolfman video was big doings. Sean Daniel is the producer of the (still) upcoming movie, “Wolf Man”, and I am an influence on Daniel, and my influence on Daniel is what led DIRECTLY to my being a HUGE influence on his friend Steven Spielberg. Ipso-facto, my doing a wolfman video was big doings of the Spielberg-esque big doings variety.

6. As you must know, I am no stranger to being an influence on presidents and others of significant status in the political world. This is perhaps the natural consequence of my being a big influence on Spielberg, McCartney, etc., etc. "Starting Up A Brand New Day" by Sting, the performance of which with Stevie Wonder was the highlight of the Presidential Inaugural Ball, began with my "Building Up A Brand New River Of Love" (on my 1999 copyrighted music CD, "Still Around"), which I gave to Joni Mitchell's art director (a star of my "Gosk" video), which likely explains what happened - James Taylor (major Mitchell friend) appears on that Sting album. Sometimes I am a somewhat significant influence on things in politics.

7. An example of my influence on political folk would not be my influence on the opening of the 11.14.09 SNL (see my previous blog), as that was only a representation of Vice President Biden, it was not actually Vice President Biden (you probably knew that, you've met Biden). One random example might be something that occurred when Sarah Palin was a guest on SNL. There are countless examples, sometimes very high profile political stuff.

8. Let’s keep secret McCain’s plugging into my Michael Palin remark (aka my “Python-esque” remark) several days following it. He probably saw himself plugging into the top secret Steinhoff influence on Spielberg or something, the nut. I'm quite sure he wouldn’t have "played the game" with his Palin move had Sarah Palin been a waitress in the Bronx. There were other criteria involved in his "decision" (though suspiciously little vetting). Yet just the same, if you’d seen all that I have seen, though you have seen some of what I have seen that others have not, but if you had seen all that I have seen, well, perhaps what is obvious to me would be less absurd-sounding to you, which is hopefully less absurd-sounding than it would be to those who do not know what you know, which is less than what I know, but more than what they know. However, let’s keep it secret, as I am concerned that the most this “backstory” to the terrifying saga of Sarah Palin (aka “Could The Fate Of The World Ever Fall Into The Hands Of Someone Who Would Lead It Straight Off A Cliff Without Even Stopping To Get A Manicure”) could ever accomplish would be to improve Palin's (we all know which Palin I mean) chances of becoming a folk hero, possibly even endearing her to those of importance who should know better, simply because her rise was tied by McCain to a genuine (secret) folk hero: me. Don't we all love being in on something.