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 REAL Key To Good Health

Well, the "game" is finally over - healthcare reform legislation has passed!  And so now, at last, the truth regarding my important role can finally be told:

1. Rachel Maddow, as some of us have come to realize, has emerged as one of the true, vital, positive spirits of the new "the-left-doesn't-need-to-hide-its-we-won't-kiss-your-ass-with-self-defeatist-submissivism-you-rightwing-creeps" movement.  (This is an extremely new movement, in fact, I just named it a moment or two ago.)
2. Rachel Maddow recently called upon her viewers to participate in a "Filibuster Challenge" contest to rename the word, "filibuster", as an expression of outrage over the Republican "filibuster-the-world-into-submission" movement. (This is an extremely old movement, though I just named it a moment or two ago, and though the word "filibuster" only appears in that movement's recent incarnation, for in other incarnations the word "filibuster" is interchangeable with other words, such as "redneck", "slander", "swiftboat", e.g., "swiftboat-the-world-into-submission", etc.).
3. I made three submissions to Rachel Maddow's filibuster contest.  My important submission was #3586 Feb. 13, 2010, 1:43pm, as JonathanDS:  "What we need to "re-brand" is the phrase 'kill legislation' - the word 'kill' couldn't swat a fly anymore as an attention-grabber. So I suggest the phrase, 'murder legislation'.  We need to see the blood on their hands, sense that there are lives on the line, not just go for clever."  This submission should still be viewable, though I don't know for how long, by registering at newsvine.com and then going to Rachel Maddow's Filibuster Challenge contest.]
4. The winning entry that Rachel Maddow ultimately selected: "....Waldman wins the Filibuster Challenge by christening the problem that's choking the last breath out of democracy as 'the Tarantino.' Because, of course, it kills bills."
5. If "kills bills" was the idea that won, and my entry (which included the specific explanation that we should "re-brand" the phrase "kill legislation") was "murder legislation", ipso facto, I was right THERE.
6. Let's not forget to add in the fact that I am generally a secretly major person who frequently has a major impact on major matters. 
7. Then there's the fact that I once (only once) emailed Rachel Maddow (my subject: she was mistaken in feeling appreciation for the anti-filibuster rhetoric uttered by Evan Bayh when he resigned his position as Senator, considering how he had previously threatened to stand with Lieberman in an anti-healthcare reform filibuster, an especially brazen and corrupt stance if one considers the fact that Bayh's wife is on the board at Wellpoint, the biggest health insurance company in the nation).  The day following my email, Maddow wore on her show the same fake crown I wear in my photo whenever I post a comment on Huffington Post as JonathanDS2U.  It has become my experience that such acts should not be seen as coincidental.
8. I believe it is therefore reasonable to conclude that it was because of my contribution that "kills bills" was ultimately selected as the contest winner.  It comes that close to me, the elephant in the room.  It would therefore be I who brought to the healthcare reform debate table a congealing of our collective, inner feeling that, somewhere (in the world of Rachel Maddow) there is a real connection between the words "homicide" and "filibuster", in terms of what "filibuster" represents in this situation.  One cannot endeavor to devise a tactic to massively undermine the health and survival of the underprivileged, and then escape being associated with words like "kill" or "murder".  Maddow's appreciation of the Tarantino association with the words "kills bills" generated the suggestion of "murder" that my "murder legislation" intended, and so "kills bills" reached the 9th yard line only after I brought a close variation of it to the 15th yard line (all of my ideas are automatically placed on the 15th yard line, because of my secret importance/the automatic seriousness attached to my actions).  
9. Touchdown. 
10. You don't have to thank me.  (Just do me one small favor: please don't follow with football references in discussing healthcare reform - I know you will forgive me my moment of "touchdown" - it just seemed to work, at least for a second or two.)