The Implacable Veneer of The Implacable Veneeroid Invader

Inspector Burgundy
I am pleased to announce the release of the 2012 Writer / Editor's video cut of "Inspector Burgundy". I wrote this in 1978 for a color studio class exercise while a student at the CalArts School of Film/Video; Mitch Eakin filmed it in 16mm shortly thereafter; I received the footage from Mitch several weeks ago; had it transferred; edited it (including a few video effects, a little reframing, plus music and this and that - I've always been Mr. Auteur, or an auteur type, or whatever exact status you feel I should be permitted to entitle myself when it comes to creating, bugger off, imaginary demon police of artistic license!).

So I'm pleased to announce the release of "Inspector Burgundy", at Archive.org:

http://archive.org/details/InspectorBurgundy

In a future blog I plan to go into several miscellaneous extemporaneous details that seem to possibly regard "Inspector Burgundy", though they sort of clutter up the landscape.

One important detail to be discussed: My well-supported but very complicated basis for concluding that Will Ferrell - whose work has frequently been influenced by my material, and in serious ways, which I have discussed in my blogs here or there - decided upon his character's name in "Anchorman," Ron Burgundy, in order to inside-reference / mimic my character's name, Inspector Burgundy. I have no problem with this, but will not make my discussion of this part of this announcement. I'm merely making a reference. Not a detailed explanation, because this is the announcement, okay, so I hope we all understand that.

It being that "Inspector Burgundy" has now been resurrected 34 years later, or has been born 34 years later, whatever, I am considering (though not seriously), as an alternate, more audience-grabbing video title, renaming it, "The Implacable Veneer of The Implacable Veneeroid Invader" (if this sounds familiar, re-read the title of this blog article!). A revision of this nature would be more likely to occur if I get trouble from the people who own the song I use in "Burgundy", Dan Hicks' and Tom Waits' "The Piano Has Been Drinking". Should that happen, the new title for the video would legitimize outerspace sounds / outerspace music to replace that song.... although, hmm.... such a substitution could very possibly undermine something at the video's very core. Should I be faced with this issue, I imagine I might need a year to weigh the factors, or two, definitely no more than 33 years....

Real Play Money Of The Future
I also am pleased to announce a new comedy sketch idea I've posted to Archive.org, "Real Play Money Of The Future":

http://archive.org/details/RealPlayMoneyOfTheFuture

SNL found no value in "Play Money" on the show of the week it was created, in terms of finding usable fragments from it, as they tend to do with my material. This time around Saturday Night Live appears to have instead picked up on something I posted to Facebook earlier that day (an alternate general tendency we also find occurring as an unconscious act in our patient, SNL). That day on FB I made a reference to a screenplay I wrote back in the '70s entitled, "Joel's Baby," which is primarily about a parent trying to track down his child put up for adoption at birth 15 years earlier. SNL did a sketch about someone once put up for adoption being reunited with their biological parent on a talk show. And so, again I find SNL doing something that in and of itself could never be construed as signifying anything beyond "it is what it is", unless its perfect fit quality in relation to a pre-identified (by me) context is known.

On their most recent show, it is possible (hard to say) that the piece they did with Steven Spielberg contained inside references. I did not "submit" anything for this show, but this doesn't always stop them.

The laser cat piece with Spielberg (as I have often discussed and demonstrated in my blogs, I am a very significant influence on Spieberg) made me think of the laser cat piece they once did with James Cameron. In my discussion in an earlier blog of the Cameron laser cat appearance on SNL, I correlated, to something I submitted for that show, the part where Lorne Michaels expresses that the only reason he is willing to go along with an idea he finds dubious is on the strength of Cameron's insistence. Then, in the Spielberg laser cat appearance, Lorne Michaels responds in the identical way - great reluctance, but at the insistence of.... Then, for the ending of the Spielberg laser cat piece, I observed something that occurs in my often-referenced "Gosk" video (inside-referenced and an influence upon innumerable major films, TV shows, etc.), a character looking up to an alien spacecraft and shouting at it. This identical bit from "Gosk" is something I have mentioned, in previous blogs, as part of Gosk's influence on Cameron's "Avatar". I would never say that, in and of itself, such an action must necessarily have originated in "Gosk". To learn the actual basis for my conclusions regarding Cameron, please see where I discuss this in previous blogs.

Stop Blowing Up The World For A Minute

Old Puzzle Piece, Looks As Good As New
I neglected to point out in my previous blog, that the image I used as part of my email signature at work was something to which I referred in several blogs in September 2010. So "War Horse" being just released made this email signature image relevant; and McCartney's just-announced new album title ("Kisses On The Bottom"), being revealed as a song reference to a letter closing, also made this same thing relevant. As I have often stated, I am a secret, major influence on Spielberg and McCartney. It would be ten times easier for people to believe I just had their autographs - I do not. Or perhaps if I wasn't so huge an influence, it would be easier to believe. Or perhaps if I was rich.... yes, that would work!

NeesonWeeson
There have been a few occasions when I have referred to actor Liam Neeson in my blog articles. I have noted my belief that the death of his wife occurred in such a manner and at such a moment as to lead me to suspect foul play, though no one else has – that this foul play was deliberately intertwined by the perpetrators with something I had blogged shortly before, that it had to do with Neeson being Spielberg’s Lincoln at that time (the part has since gone to another actor), Neeson having previously been Spielberg’s Schindler, that these factors attracted a certain element to prey on someone in that small sphere, that my secret, great importance in relation to, and my secret, great influence on, Steven Spielberg (updated as recently as my blog article that immediately precedes this one, posted 12/30/11) is something that, over the years, have brought certain things to my doorstep, causing me to develop an ability to read certain things in ways the less experienced would miss.

This time, a recent Tonight Show appearance by Liam Neeson prompts me to draw your attention to my April 18, 2010 blog article (copyrighted to Archive.Org in May 2010 in Volume 3 of my collected blog articles), in which I observe the serious possibility that my “In Orders We Trust” (posted at Archive.Org, as a video and as a story idea) influenced the remake of the movie, “Clash of the Titans”, which stars Neeson as Zeus. My conclusion, though postponed until I had the chance to again see the original “Clash” to recheck a thing or two about the remake, is that I definitely was an influence on this movie.

Without all of this explanation, the following videoclip from the 1.11.12 Tonight Show could only seem completely inconsequential (whatever the word “consequence” means!). I present the videoclip so that you can see Neeson telling Leno urine should be referred to as, “Wee-wee”. Leno concurs (though he’s often overly agreeable, and too easily-made an agreement on important matters are at risk of falling apart, as history has taught us – in fact, I expect our truce with Great Britain from the Revolutionary War to blow up in our faces at any moment. However, I digress.).

This silly little discussion on wee-wee took place the same day the news story broke about American soldiers urinating on the corpse – a story that puts all Americans at risk of being thought of as enjoying desecrating corpses. Furthermore, whether or not you feel inclined to agree that I influenced “Clash”, it should be burned into the mind of anyone who sees (or reads) my above-referenced “Orders” that “wee-wee” is one of the most important things in this Neeson-associated story. It is an important moment in the piece when Hercules causes the human mortal to spray paint “Zeus Is A Big Fat Wee-Wee” onto Zeus (who was frozen into a statue by the granddaughter of Medusa when Hercules, not knowing what she could do, insulted her). The ending of the piece is when a dog, in urinating on Hercules (also frozen into being a statue), is suspected of being an instrument of Zeus, which ends the truce. Here the desecrating of one’s enemy has apparently escalated from writing the word “wee-wee” on their lifeless body to urinating on their lifeless body.

In summary: The key is that the exact words, “wee-wee”, were used in a very pronounced way by Neeson on 1/11/12; and spoken and written in a very pronounced way in my Neeson-associated (by way of my April 2010 blog article) “In Orders We Trust”.



Those wishing to express their appreciation of the position this puts me in with regard to the American entertainment industry’s diplomatic response to this grotesque news story about the soldiers may salute me as often as they please (or if I may ask that you at least not desecrate my lifeless body after I’m dead). Because my incredibly diplomatic nature, where I never say anything anyone might ever possibly disagree with, confining myself to topics that never offend or confuse, is the kind of thing the world now finds itself reliant upon! My “Orders” has come to the fore, wherever that is!

Ending Not With A Bang But A Letter To Kim Jong Un (or, "P Is For North Korea")
As I continuously explain, I have been a big influence on SNL (Saturday Night Live). I was not an influence on their 1/7/12 show – however, I did not “submit” anything for that show, so it kind of makes sense, at least to me, perhaps to you- oh, how I hope you agree!

I did submit something for their 1/14/12 show: “Dear Whoever Gonna Blow Up The World” -- http://www.archive.org/details/DearWhoeverGonnaBlowUpTheWorld.

This comedy idea of mine (copyrighted to Archive.Org on Saturday MORNING, 2am, 1/14/12 Calif. time, indicated at that site in Greenwich Time) is similar enough to the following clip from SNL’s show on Saturday NIGHT, that you might just want to assume mine came after theirs, if I couldn’t prove to you otherwise – though, of course, yes, the two comedy pieces are different.

Some may say that the common elements to both pieces are common ideas in general, to see someone who might someday end the world through the eyes of his childhood peers. Some may say that I could have had inside word that permitted me to post in advance of SNL’s broadcast. Yet I believe that those who have been following over time those things I HAVE been able to prove (proven to those who are truly reasonable, intelligent and honest – and can be relied on to remain so in proximity to these types of powers in the world) would consider it reasonable to give me the benefit of the doubt here. Or at the least, those following should see where it is a definite, real possibility, if not an extreme probability, that it was yours truly who set up SNL’s response to the appointment of the new North Korean dictator.



Now everyone in the world, go do something else, I have private business here:

Dear Un, If you want someone such as myself to feel that I shouldn’t write comedy ideas that people can in less than a day rework into something about you and then broadcast it to America, I suggest you not go waving that thing around the way your father did. I regard those who flirt with the dangers of nuclear annihilation to be grotesque human beings. I don’t wish to be disagreeable, however. Perhaps even just, just, hmm, even a softer image could win you my approval…. Try…. a more relaxed military outfit, that is, assuming military outfits are so essential. Something like a pea coat might look right. Yes, that’s all you need, really.

All The News That Has A Feeling Of The Right Amount Of Newness

A few notes, presented here in a manner devoid of all insight or perspective into how this might all affect the state of humanity some day! And while I essentially just feel myself to be wearing my reporter's hat at present, I totally see where it does look a little more like I'm actually trying to make a crown of sorts appear upon my head. Okay, well, I get a kick out of wearing crowns! (have I neutralized the deep tension that has subtly plagued mankind over what hats go where for all eternity? not yet?)

THE DAILY SHOW
In my previous blog (12/11/11), I was pushing for SNL (Saturday Night Live) to use material from one of two recent writings of mine for their last show before Christmas. They invariably work stuff I "submit" for that week's show in, though usually in fragments too different or small to be recognizable for what they are, unless one is clued in. Though I don't see how anyone making the effort could fail to appreciate the evidenciary nature of what I generally submit, when I can. They aren't always vague in their reference.

One of those two writings of mine, "Dostoyevsky's 'A Christmas Carol'" (published to Archive.Org by me on 11/27/11), did get used - however, not on SNL, but on another favorite show of mine, "The Daily Show". As I have occasionally described in my blogs, both "The Daily Show" and "The Cobert Report" occasionally find ways to incorporate my material into theirs, sometimes in a very big way, and most likely things aimed by me towards the next SNL.

In this case, I refer to their segment with John Hodgman, which aired 12/14/11. And if I may boast, this was their second to last show before Christmas, and unlike SNL, Daily Show's second to last show before Christmas is only a day apart from their very last show before Christmas. New Year's Eve too, for that matter, so thank me for your Daily Show holiday send-off, or one part of it. Or don't thank me, though it is the holiday season, you might want to thank me just for anything at all. Happy Holidays!

In my above-referenced writing, we find a reworking of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," with the anti-Capitalist message specifically removed as a chief part of the amusing convolution of things. John Boehner, one of the hosts of the movie presentation described in my writing, is seen to be tearful with emotion at viewing the story's new non-anti-Capitalist turn (it is for this reason that I edited in a little special emphasis on Hodgman's tearfulness, in case you somehow missed my point that their 12/14/11 bit comes from my 11/27/11 bit initially meant for SNL's 12/17/11 show):




SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE
While SNL apparently passed on the two writings I hoped would make their way in some form or another into their 12/17/11 show (though perhaps it is too soon to know these have no use to them), I did notice that they picked up on at least one thing contained in my previous blog (12/11/11). Those who read that blog prior to their 12/17 show will know as a certainty that I was several days prior to that show referring to how in my "Gosk" video, "One finds a montage in which a violinist is getting set up to play classical music, but the montage is coordinated with a Motown song." On SNL several days later, we find a sketch in which Beethoven conducts an orchestra playing Motown music. I have previously mentioned that SNL occasionally evidences that they follow these blogs. I might further add that their sketch on Spielberg's "War Horse" immediately followed this sketch, which I believe SNL did apropos of what came up in my previous blog, when I was discussing something Spielberg recently said on TCM.

I noticed something else on SNL's 12/17 show as well, though it is more obscure and requires great experience and knowledge in these shorthands to appreciate, perhaps. Or maybe you can pick it right up. I refer to the end of my 12/11 blog, where I pretend to plea, on little Tiny Tim's behalf, that SNL include an idea contained in a writing of mine, as it could help Tiny Tim. That sort of approach to creating something for SNL - do it for Tiny Tim. Then, on SNL's 12/17 show, Adam Sandberg calls to host Jimmy Fallon as he's creating a song, to please include something in it for the Jews. Fallon then obliged Sandberg, which had itself sort of been Sandberg obliging me, in trying to get an idea through about getting an idea through. God bless us everyone!

STEVEN SPIELBERG
For this next section, I will begin with an analogy to that thing on "LIVE With Regis and Kelly" (back in the day), where they have a number selected at random by the person on the phone means a person in the audience with that same number gets something. Because: this isn't that, despite looking like that. I've confused you already....

I took from a graphic artwork book of mine, "Go Eyes, Go!", (posted at Archive.Org) a specific image, and reproduced it beneath my signature line on all of my emails where I work, as sort of my logo. I did this from 8/10/09 to 12/28/10, and though thousands and thousands of such emails bear witness, I didn't gett around to emailing everyone who ever lived everywhere, my oops). The work, like it or not, is entitled "A Separate Thing":


Few images come closer to summoning a thought towards the new Steven Spielberg movie, "War Horse". The predominant focus of my signature line logo image is a photograph I took in the English countryside (Dorset), so, essentially the identical setting and subject of "War Horse." Furthermore, it does not simply bring to mind a random moment in the movie, rather, it tends to preserve the film's most innocent (almost iconically innocent) period.

I now abruptly must return to the above "LIVE With Regis" analogy. I recognize that invariably someone (or more than one) make prominent an image that connects to this or another movie or whatever at any given time, I do get that this is a statistical inevitability that someone has the number called out. What distinguishes my circumstance in a complete and total way, however, is that for Spielberg to be influenced in an important decision by something I'm betting my chips on is extremely consistent of him. I believe much evidence of this has already been presented by me from time to time, and would suggest interested predators and good people put in a moment and see my video, "Steven Spielberg and The Mall Man Factor", which can be viewed at Archive.Org). Of additional relevance in this instance is that, according to Wikipedia, Spielberg first announced in December 2009 that he was going to direct "War Horse". I began using this as the image at the bottom of all of my emails in August 2009. This was the image I had committed to, in a way, if you look at it that way.

• I have previously asserted that the DreamWorks' recurring opening montage was created apropos of the opening moment in my video, "Gosk".

• I have previously asserted that "Jurassic Park" began with the first thing I ever sent Spielberg, which was via a friend of his with whom I had spoken the day before, the title of which, "The Coin That Came In Second" (also posted at Archive.Org) alluding to the idea of occupants of a prehistoric artificial natural habitat environment somehow, perhaps ominously, escaping from there.
  

• Lots of other stuff
  

I also noticed stuff in the newly released Spielberg movie, "TinTin", and at the risk of appearing to see things (as I always do!), will just mention that I am certain of inside-references in that movie to my little music video, "Whatever Happened" (posted at Archive.Org). References to this music video of mine previously seemed the mostly exclusive domain of Joseph Gordon-Leavitt (who will be in the upcoming Spielberg movie about Lincoln), which I've discussed in earlier blogs.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, WORLD!

P.S. PAUL MCCARTNEY
The title of the upcoming (in February) Paul McCartney release has just been officially announced as, "Kisses On The Bottom". I researched it, and it comes from one of the songs on the album, and in context has to do with the bottom of a letter. I have long asserted and demonstrated (whenever possible) my great (or good at least) influence on Paul McCartney, particularly when we're talking about his album titles and/or album covers (not that there is direct communication where I'm concerned, in fact, well, I don't know exactly how it goes, actually, though I'm sure somebody has a good explanation for why I'm not a billionaire which just popped into my head and may explain why there's no direct communication). Continuing.... I cannot help but observe how this album title of Paul McCartney's conceptually connects, or interconnects, so distinctly with my observation about the signature line on my emails. Because I'm crazy enough to hope that one day everyone in the whole world will be on the same page, except maybe for the illiterates, those lousy bums, so pay attention in school and occupy your fingers, then your hands, then the universe, I'm probably leaving out a few steps. I'm going to have to leave things there for 2011.

She Killed To Get Into The Party But They Were All Out Of Those Little Hotdogs When She Got There

Here are a few little pieces that may be part of little and big puzzles - or perhaps they're just little pieces, period.

The Best That You Can Do
It's London, 1983, and it's the day my photographs are supposed to be ready for me to pick up - the photographs of my day trip a few days before to Glastonbury, where King Arthur was supposed to be buried. So on my way to the store to pick up my photos, there's Arthur, standing there, staring at me, or more precisely, there's Dudley Moore, star of the 1981 movie, "Arthur". Here's the thing: there was a fence in front of a house, Dudley was standing in front of the fence, and the rungs of the fence were all cast iron and made to look like sword handles at the top. But the one Dudley was standing directly next to was missing the handle (broken off by someone, apparently). So, think of the legend of King Arthur and Excalibur, the sword in the stone, everyone trying to get at the sword. Dudley/Arthur had a very concerned look on his face - it really was a picture.

So then recently I'm once again watching the movie "Arthur", and suddenly I notice something. The movie came out in July 1981. Earlier in 1981, or possibly late in 1980, I was involved with trying to put together my own little avant garde movie project, "Two Hours In The Life of George Washington", intended as a 45-minute real-time movie about the father of our country having a sex affair (that was where the missing hour and fifteen minutes were intimated to be about - the whole thing was meant to be done in a style too absurd to be taken for real on any level). At one point Washington is walking through a horse stable (he is if the movie had ever been made, that is, which it wasn't), addressing each horse individually (they each had the name of a future American president, and he had something very special to impart to each). And there it was, in "Arthur", a comparable moment (by my standards) in a scene involving Dudley Moore and Liza Minelli. My experience tells me that the nearness in time of my attempted film project to the release date of "Arthur" is indicative of where the idea came from. Of course, my idea never got anywhere. Harley Lewin, a famous rock lawyer I had worked for as a temp once, expressed a little interest; so did Carl Zucker, who was Woody Allen's locations manager on "Interiors" as well as being someone I had once worked with; and finally, so did Ken Hanson, whose brother was a friend of Yoko's before she met John, as well as also being someone I had once worked with. Nothing happened though. Unless you count that Lewinsky business that followed in the '90s, but a connection to that is too ridiculous to even consider.

Third Sword In The Stone From The Sun
I brought together the below stills from two different films, the 2009 Joseph Gordon-Levitt movie, "500 Days of Summer", and my 1974 CalArts Film Class' student film, "Limbo" (starring Dinah Manoff, who was also in this class) for a specific reason even greater than the sheer joy of seeing people in gorilla costumes, or seeing L.A.'s famous Bradbury Building, or seeing both at once.




In several recent blogs I observed that, beginning with "Third Rock From The Sun," I seem to be a continuing influence on things involving Joseph Gordon-Levitt, star of "Inception". This time around I draw your attention to yet another significant similarity with relation to Joseph Gordon-Levitt and myself:

• The very last scene (i.e., the ending) of "500 Days of Summer", which was filmed at the Bradbury Building, involves two people competing for the same job.
  

• In "Limbo", also filmed in the Bradbury Building, the characters are there to compete for the same job as well.

Cut To Hat
I may very possibly have passed by Steven Spielberg today, which is significant because of my immediately preceding July 23rd blog ("It's A Matter Of Principle, Or Money, One Of Those"). Because of my previous experiences, I had already pre-anticipated that something might very possibly occur during my first non-commuting drive since that July 23rd blog that would be something I would regard as fitting in with that blog, owing to the special significance of that blog. This does not mean it was necessarily actually Spielberg I saw today, but it does mean I was meant to feel that it may possibly have been. He was wearing the identifiable Spielberg baseball-ish cap, had the salt-and-pepper beard.... he also had an expression as he spoke to the person next to him that slightly reminded me of when Dudley Moore was concerned about something back in 1983 London.

The Secret Is Out There

One Man's Poison Is Another Man's Historical TV Show Episode
Now that "24" is in the past, about six minutes in the past, I feel I've let enough time go by to share something that happened on the show 12 minutes before it was over.

You may first want to bear in mind that, unless my eyes deceived me, Kiefer Sutherland drove by me the day they announced the show was over (see my blog of that day); and the star of "House" drove by me a hundred miles from L.A. the day a USA Today article on "24" described one of the reasons given for ending the show was to have a better lead-in for "House" (see my blog of that day). Also, I've occasionally mentioned "24" in my blogs at various other times - to research, go to archive.org and find where I've posted several volumes of my collected blogs ("Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog, Volume 1", etc.), and do a word search - or just rummage around here at Blogspot for the original blog postings.

It had recently occurred to me that, with this somewhat special "24" attention I was getting, it seemed a little out of the ordinary that so much time had gone by since they had made an inside-reference to my material. This made it seem more likely that they were waiting for the final episode. And sure enough, I have come to the objective conclusion that this is exactly what happened.

Twelve minutes before the end, as they were taking away that woman who was at CTU working on behalf of that former president who reminds me of Nixon, she said something that immediately brought to mind my 1978 CalArts video, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," which I've also mentioned here and there in a few blogs. "Take your hands off of me," she shouted as they were leading her away in handcuffs. It was very close to the way the star of my video, Henry Golas (who was once Groucho Marx' right hand), intoned the words, "Take your grubby hands off of me," as they were leading him away to be tortured.

So I started to think. Because this is the exact kind of short-hand used to put my mind on track with something, which then leads me to something else, which they had waiting for me. It would not count as a reference in and of itself, that would be way too thin. Unless there was some other thing that belonged alongside it, so that, cumulatively, they would be revealed as having deliberately brought something in particular to mind.

But what? And then it became obvious, and clearly the point, and clearly one I had discovered through objective thought, rather than by some stretch.

In "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," we find a future scenario in which only one person alive still knows how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.). And so they must make him talk, they have to make him talk. They have the Monopoly board, the Monopoly pieces - it must be made to work. But he doesn't want to talk. In his words, "It's a terrible game! A horrible game!" He did not want the seed of the precepts of capitalism to reenter this future world through the gate of knowledge that was the rules of how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.), - at least, that is one take on the significance of his resolve not to release the secret. So they take him to a room and begin chanting over and over, "We wanna play Monopoly! We wanna play Monopoly!" Until finally, he cracks. "Alright! I'll teach you! Just stop torturing me!" he shouts. This is the one work of mine that contains an unmistakable parallel (semi-parallel) to the thing about "24" that has made that show so controversial.

That's My Story And They're Sticking To Something That's Not Entirely Different, At Least In Terms Of The Idea For The Title
In 1978 I gave a copy of "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly" to then non-producer Sean Daniel, who was the first person who told me of the school I had just graduated from, CalArts. At the time he was Universal's spokesman for the first Robert Zemeckis movie, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". When Zemeckis later made "Back To The Future," wherein the movie title camps up confusion of past and present tenses owing to "future" being in the title, I knew why it reminded me of, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly." But that's another story.

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 Good Diet Is The Key To Good Health

Several things to report, though for the most part they are things that fall into the category of being unsubstantiated by anyone other than myself. Approximately 29.2% of the things I describe in my blogs fall into this category. The way I figure it is, owing to the 70.8% of the extraordinary things I describe that can be substantiated, though some effort may be involved (such as checking that the timestamp/copyright at Archive.Org is intransmutable; viewing those videos of mine posted there when I indicate that such action is relevant to the information being conveyed; putting 2 plus 2.2 together; etc.), I'm legitimately entitled to some real cred.

Addendum In Wonderland
After I posted my immediately preceding blog, which focused on Alice In Wonderland with relation to the bucket scene in my "Gosk 2", it occurred to me that the hat scene in "Gosk 2" immediately follows the bucket scene. This is the scene where all you see are intercut shots of Vinakalert's hat, framed such that one does not see his head beneath it, while he talks to himself about his high school girlfriend, Gosk (only direct mention of Gosk in the video). This hat scene should also be seen in connection with my fellow CalArtian's movie, owing to the context as described in my preceding blog. I should also take this opportunity to mention that the other CalArtian described in that blog, a woman I knew at CalArts, was never my girlfriend, I regard her as someone who was a friend. Whether or not people such as Paul McCartney or whoever saw in that relationship material for songs is more of a reflection of the fact that he tends to make quite a bit out of any relationship I have with members of the opposite sex. I have come to look upon any woman I might or might not have any kind of relationship with in terms of whether this is something they are secretly taking into account.

Wagon Train
In my June 7, 2009 blog I described something that happened the moment I came back to California for the first time in 15 years, during the early '90s, half-a-year after a movie that originated with something I sent to Steven Spielberg became the biggest movie of all time ("Jurassic Park", though this movie has subsequently lost this status - to other movies upon which I have also been a significant influence):

"....approximately one week after I moved to Southern California in the early 90s, when I was driving in Van Nuys when suddenly I found myself driving alongside Steven Spielberg, with two motorcycle police riding alongside each other in front of us."

The other day I saw on the highway four policemen riding together on motorcycles. Being aware that this did not constitute being under alien attack, and furthermore that it could easily contain zero significance, I did not see it as necessarily relating to the afore-described Steven Spielberg experience. It nevertheless seems odd to me that about four hours or so later, in a completely different neck of the woods, someone I believe may have been Steven Spielberg drove by me, though some of the hair on top of his head seemed darker than one would expect, and though he was driving a red pickup truck. A few moments later I came to an establishment called, "Stagecoach", which is also the name of a movie, about people on a road trip having to contend with being the target of attacks yet without the security of motorcycle policemen driving in proximity. At the time I saw the motorcycle cops there no was indication I would later be driving by "Stagecoach", so I can't say the whole thing in every detail was planned that way from the start. On the other hand, people know how to find moments to do things that are more opportune than other moments.

I already had been given a clear heads up that I was being followed that day (as if I needed one, as I can generally expect to receive such a heads up on most trips), when I saw someone driving by me who resembled Rob Hahn. I had just brought up Rob Hahn in conversation at work two days before, so it seems very unlikely to me that the siting of his look-alike in the middle of nowhere was a random event. By the way, Rob Hahn was among the people I assisted on an AFI film shoot during the summer of 1975. He had been the boyfriend of Amy Heckerling (now a well known director) at high school in New York, afterwhich they came to AFI together, afterwhich they broke up, afterwhich they were both working on that same AFI film shoot. I first met Stuart Cornfeld on that AFI shoot (now a major producer whose film company has their films distributed by Spielberg's DreamWorks).

Pavlov's Chef
Only because of my strange experiences in life and not because I consider it something that would ordinarily occur, I believe it possible that the Merryl Streep movie, "Julie and Julia", was made partly because it could later become connected, in a certain way, with my YouTube posted video, "Recipe For Fun" (I have not yet seen this Streep movie, however). "Recipe For Fun" (not to be confused with my "Recipe For Fun Epilogue (Non-Ketchup Version)") resulted from Lorne Michaels eating a sandwich on SNL, which itself had been the result of my sending Michaels something several days earlier wherein he eats a sandwich (my "Frozen" comedy sketch idea, which I subsequently made into a video that I've posted on Archive.Org - about The Beatles reuniting for an SNL appearance with a little help from cryogenics). The day following "Recipe For Fun", wherein the specific ingredients of good comedy are conveyed, ketchup being specifically portrayed as one of the major ingredients, the husband of the head of Heinz ketchup (former Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry) got into serious trouble, regarding which he could only defend himself by saying that he had told a bad joke. He had been misunderstood. He wasn't trying to say people who go into the military have a lower IQ. So I sent a message to Paul McCartney that this mishap, which had been set off by "Recipe For Fun", etc., should be addressed by McCartney being in a comedy sketch. A former candidate for President of the United States of America is not a small potato (I didn't put it exactly that way). Basically, I was saying, "Clean-up on Aisle 7" (I didn't put it exactly that way either). Several days later Paul McCartney made a surprise appearance on SNL in a comedy sketch about poison in a drink, which naturally made me think of "Recipe for Fun", though I am not Julia Childs. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were also in that SNL poison comedy sketch. So years later, when Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were together again, this time in a movie, I also thought of "Recipe for Fun", though I have not seen this movie yet ("It's Complicated"). Meryl Streep was also in that movie with Martin and Baldwin. Martin and Baldwin just cohosted the Oscars together - this made me think of "Recipe for Fun" as well. Streep also justed appeared in "Julie and Julia", about famed chef Julia Childs, which might also bring "Recipe For Fun" to mind (it brings it to my mind, anyway). I'm seeing this great big Baldwin, Martin, Streep stew, and I'm sure you could too, if you just put your mind to it.

The very last moment of Barbara Walters' very last Oscar Night interview (she will no longer be doing this show) had Barbara Walters and Sandra Bullock toasting Meryl Streep.

My own "personal" Meryl Streep story involves when I went to see her in "Taming of the Shrew" at a Shakespeare In The Park performance in NYC in 1976 or 1977. A heavy downpour occurred during the performance, which prompted Streep's costar, Raul Julia, to say, "And NOW my reign begins." I subsequently learned that there is no such line in Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew", though it was certainly a relevant thing for Raul Julia to say. I tended to enjoy this anecdote more when I thought it was Shakespeare's line benefiting for the moment from Julia's inflection. Now I realize Shakespeare isn't very much a part of the anecdote at all. Raul Julia just ran with the moment, apparently.

In any event, the anecdotal significance of this line from the Meryl Streep play, "And NOW my reign begins," comes to mind (as I associate it) during that toast at the final moment of Walters' show:



This all makes me think of "Recipe for Fun". In recent blogs I promised to describe in an upcoming blog the significance I found in this Walters-Bullock moment. Sandra Bullock has since that promise of mine leaped into the headlines, or was pushed, owing to her marital problems. I am most reluctant to appear to be inserting myself into that situation. I have influenced the work of Sandra Bullock in the past ("The Lake House" comes most immediately to mind) without acknowledgment, and hope to continue this non-relationship with her in the future. I do not wish to be in relation to her current situation in any way, and am confident that this attention I am drawing to that toast will not leap anywhere near the headlines. If that wouldn't make me seem opportunistic I don't know what would. Perhaps Paul McCartney could do a song that will straighten all this out.

Kalorping Against The Jabberwocky

There are many things many people can and will say and think about the somewhat amazing 3D movie, "Alice In Wonderland". Amidst all that, it has fallen to me to speak in relation to this movie in a manner that will surely be regarded by the "uninitiated" as strange - though I suppose that by now I should be quite accustomed to being cast in a role such as this.

Tim Burton, the auteur of the work to which I refer, not only attended CalArts at the same time as myself. Tim Burton has consistently been influenced by me/my work in a major way. "Alice" is no exception.

A woman who was a friend of mine at CalArts also existed in the realm of Tim Burton, has worked with Tim Burton, in fact, according to her website, she was responsible for CG (computer graphics) on "Alice". I do know that she worked on Burton's "Beetlejuice", yet there is nothing to confirm her assertion about "Alice", other than her own statement. I choose to believe her, however, it being that she always liked the low-profile route, and once you've reached a certain height, who really needs all the baggage that comes with being known as someone with that particular kind of status?

I have not spoken with this woman in about 30 years, yet Tim Burton has occasionally been known (to some anyway) to shine the "spotlight" on various things that passed between myself and her all those years ago.

With "Alice", Burton has outdone himself in this regard (and in other regards as well - it really is quite a movie!). No small number of times while watching "Alice" I found myself saying (not aloud), "Hey, that reminds me of a conversation I had about 30 years ago with (blank)." After a while (actually after the first one) it became obvious to me: she had confided the most insignificant things regarding our conversations to Tim Burton, who then instructed the writer of "Alice" to include them in the movie, who then included them in the movie, and then they filmed them for the movie, then edited them into the movie, then made the whole movie 3D (I have no idea how they did that part), put the completed film into film canisters, had someone drive the film canisters to movie theatres around the world, etc. For some people I might have put in the "etc." considerably sooner, but I always like filling people in and keeping the lowest common denominator among us in the loop. It's my inclusive nature.

There were also things in "Alice" that came from my creative work, things of consequence to Tim Burton's movie. I think it unlikely you would recognize these things, however, without knowledge of the fact that Tim Burton often does this in relation to me/my material. You would tend to be oblivious to the context necessary to appreciate my point. If I may therefore ask those of you who don't see eye to eye with me on this to kindly leave so that I may continue speaking with those who know what I'm talking about. Thank you ever so much.

In my Dec. 26, 2009 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor" (see Archive.Org), I detail how Spielberg's "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," in addition to its numerous references to my "Mall Man" video, also included something from my original "Mall Man" film treatment (sent in '92/'93 to Spielberg's good friend, Sean Daniel, the first person from whom I learned of CalArts). Specifically, I refer to the part in "Indiana Jones" where the statue is restored to wholeness through the returning of its head. And so I recognized something familiar when, in "Alice", significance was attached to Alice restoring wholeness to a suit of armor by bringing its sword to it following a special journey. I know this general concept is not new to various genres of storytelling - however, the shorthands I am "in on" led me to regard this as more specifically having been done as a reference to Spielberg/Steinhoff. It was then that I recalled how in "Alice" there is an important thing where The Mad Hatter's head is restored to his body. I see this as reinforcing my initial impression. Plus the restoration of Indiana Jones' hat to his head in that movie having a Hatter-esque dimension, a device used in the Spielberg film as something to correlate with the crystal skull's being returned to its proper place.

There was another important event in "Alice" that left me with a much stronger sense of my influence. That movie has a very important moment where The Mad Hatter throws his sword onto the ground as if it has suddenly come upon him that the sword is of an alien nature. Around this same exact point in the movie, The Mad Hatter does a very special dance, and for those who have seen the movie (did I forget to say "spoiler alert" somewhere in here?), this special dance of his is not merely in the category of someone dancing on-screen. It is a pre-anticipated, significant moment. Not unlike the extreme specialness of a dance as conveyed in the very first lines of the Procol Harum song, "Whiter Shade of Pale" (following the organ introduction): "We skipped the light fandango, turned cartwheels 'cross the floor." These song lyrics go well beyond being a mere mention of a dance. And this brings me to this videoclip from my 1998 video, "Kalorping For Gosk, Part 2" ("Gosk 2"):


As for the white dandelion particles we see here and there in "Alice", I apologize, but I am under contract to only discuss such things as they relate to "Avatar".

And again, I postpone for another blog my description of the last moment of Barbara Walters' last Oscar Night interview as it relates to me. You can see how it doesn't belong in the same company as this "Alice" blog.

Honk If You Like Cars

I've been accumulating no small number of things to describe of considerable significance, at least by certain standards, however, for this blog installment I will limit myself to addressing something of potentially great significance.  It could regard the automobile accident (that may have been no accident) experienced yesterday by the wife of Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader.

However I lay out the basis for this statement, it requires a little time, a little research follow-through on the part of the reader.  So please get the bleep out of here you tedious know-it-alls who entitle yourselves to opinions without any sense of the importance of arriving at an opinion in a responsible, intelligent manner.  This isn't the place for you.

• As I describe in my July 3, 2009 blog (and elsewhere in various other blogs of mine), the weekly TV sitcom that was Tom Hanks' first really big break, "Bosom Buddies", resulted from a conversation I had with someone.  

• In my December 26, 2009 video, "Steven Spielberg And The Mall Man Factor" (posted at archive.org), I show how the Spielberg/Hanks movie, "The Terminal," was very significantly influenced by my 1993 "Mall Man" video (also viewable at archive.org).  

• It therefore did not come out of left-field when Hanks' image on the cover of Time Magazine a week or so ago bore a strong similarity to a recurring image in "Mall Man":

In both instances, the photographic efffect is to use a very pronounced concentration of light on the face of the subject, in contrast with everything else in the image.  This isn't to say that no one else has ever used this effect - of course it is something we see from time to time.  Rather, the significance lies in the alignment of the previously described details in combination with the usage of this effect in this instance.  The fact that it was only recently (Dec. 26, 2009) that I pointed out the relationship between Hanks and "Mall Man".  I suppose, if you are very young, something that happened two and a half months ago was not recent.  If you are Tom Hanks, my December 26th video should have been an event containing a degree of significance.  One would not be surprised to find a reaction - a reaction in this form.  One may also wish to read (or reread) my January 23, 2010 blog.

• A day or so before the appearance of this Time Magazine cover, I saw for the first time in years (driving by me on my way to work) a woman I knew, or a look-alike of a woman I knew, whose family was close to mine when we were young (including going on a vacation together).  Her late father became Senior Editor of Money Magazine.  Money Magazine is part of the same company as Time Magazine.

• A number of years ago, while her father was Senior Editor of Money Magazine, her brother, Woody, who was also a friend, was killed in an automobile accident (that may not have been an accident).  His car suddenly got a flat tire, he had to suddenly pull off the freeway onto the shoulder to fix it, which was when he was run over and killed.  This could have been a set-up.  One has to consider this possibility, if one is realistic about the nature of the position his father held.  The Senior Editor of Money Magazine makes decisions that can affect how people invest billions (collectively), and we all know that when that kind of money is involved, shady doings designed to gain influence/control can occur.  As is also true if you are the Senate Majority Leader.

• Yesterday, the same day as this "accident" experienced by Reid's wife, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg were guests of President Obama at The White House, a "movie night" for the screening of something they jointly produced, entitled, "Pacific".

This would not be the first time that someone performing an insidious act threaded it through matters that connected in some way to me, nor would it be the first time that the perpetrator(s) threaded into it matters connected in some way to Steven Spielberg at the same time as myself.  As an example, one may wish to read my blog of March 23rd (and others) regarding the death of Natasha Richardson, whose husband, Liam Neeson, was working with Spielberg at the time of her death.

You Actually Believe The Light From The Moon Originates From The Sun?

Having just seen "The Wolfman", the new movie produced by Sean Daniel, a person I've referenced many times in the past, I was disappointed only by the fact that I saw nothing that I could point to as clearly having anything to do with me, something I'm generally able to do with Sean Daniel movies.

Sean Daniel's previous movie, "Mummy 3", contained elements that were very clearly intertwined with a movie that came out around the same time, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", which was directed by Daniel's old friend, Steven Spielberg. And that same "Indiana Jones" movie was very clearly intertwined with my 1993 "Mall Man" video (as I document in my 12.26.09 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor"). Thus, significant interconnectivity. And usually the interconnectivity in Sean Daniel's work to my work is considerably more direct, such as the fact that Daniel produced "Mallrats" two years after I made "Mall Man", two clearly similar movie titles.

In addition to being the first person from whom I learned of the school I attended, CalArts, Sean Daniel has also "been there" numerous times when my work has made its way to the public through others. Including when I sent him a demo of my song about "breaking the spell" to forward to his friend Paul McCartney to work with me on it (McCartney being another person whom I have frequently influenced), which clearly led to a song on McCartney's then next album that contained the line, "I would never break the spell" (my song, "Different" can be found on my "Enough To Eclipse", a CD I posted at CD Baby in 2005 prior to McCartney's album, my song included there in both its demo and finished form - which tends to reinforce the idea that I attached special significance to the demo part of that song's process).

So did Sean Daniel "break the spell", and allow some form of authorship on some author's part to "eclipse" the idea of throwing into "The Wolfman" this or that reference to my work? (Something I would consider totally valid, authors certainly shouldn't be made to compromise the integrity of their work for the sake of having to make references, unless of course their work possesses that kind of flexibility and they should feel so inclined.)

Though I did happen to notice two or so things in "The Wolfman". No, I cannot authenticate these things for those out there who were not eyewitnesses to that of which I speak, I cannot prove to non-eyewitnesses that I am not making these things up. But if you believe I make things up you haven't bothered to study the evidence I often do have the opportunity to present regarding other matters of equal consequence. I also recognize that the similarities I am about to note do not necessarily signify anything - however, as the context is that I do have cumulative, similar experience of this variety, I do not consider it too bold to entitle myself to see something that others would miss or have difficulty accepting.

The following two things notwithstanding, who knows, perhaps when the next Steven Spielberg movie comes out, couldn't it wind up bridging me to "The Wolfman" in the same way that the 2008 "Indiana Jones" movie bridged me to Sean Daniel's 2008 "Mummy" movie?

Thing Number One
There was a moment in "The Wolfman" when a wolfman finds himself alongside of a statue while atop a building, at which point he stands there. Statues on rooftops are rare enough, to me anyway, that it struck me as something one might legitimately associate with the idea of one of the gargoyles atop the Cathedral of Notre Dame. There is also a very strong significance in this movie to a particular father-son relationship, which I am not saying merely because this is among the countless movies that feature fathers and sons - and that is all the spoiling I intend to do absent the words "spoiler alert". I point these things out because, back in 1971 when Sean Daniel was the silkscreen counselor at Buck's Rock camp and I was a happy camper, Mr. Daniel assisted me, on the day my parents and sister came up for a visit, in making a photo silkscreen from a photograph my father took of gargoyles atop the Cathedral of Notre Dame. So therefore, when I flashed on gargoyles at that point in the Sean Daniel father-son movie, my father was momentarily brought to mind, as was Sean Daniel, for the reasons just-described. This same sense also happened to me a little bit during Sean Daniel's previous movie, "Mummy 3", which had very much to do with ancient Oriental culture - as another photo silkscreen we did was from a photograph my father took of a Buddha statue in Japan during the late 40s/early 50s.

Thing Number Two
The opening shot of "The Wolfman" features tree branches with the moon in the background, from which we pull back. This gives off a sense of being pulled out of a feeling of "not seeing the forest for the trees". This is the exact reverse of something contained in something I did in 2004 - I once made a 30-second TV spot in the hope that it might interest the company enough to air it. The VP had said to keep working on it, maybe they would (at which time I would get paid!!!). I involved someone I knew at CalArts, Richard Greene, aka the "That Was Easy" (Staples) voice, aka lots of other voices on lots of other TV spots. He knew there would be no money unless the company took it to the next level. I did everything but the voice in the TV spot, including write the copy.

As always happens with everything I touch, pieces of it were immediately used by others for this and that, with no credit or money to me. Progressive Insurance used something from an earlier version, for example. TCM (Turner Classic Movies Channel), which often makes use of my material in their little segue montages, was also among those who used it (another time they used something from my "Whatever Happened" music video; as well as other stuff I've done).

In addition to my never-aired TV spot having that tree branch thing that's the reverse idea of the opening shot of "The Wolfman", it's also the only thing I ever did that brings you up close to the image of a vicious lion, in fact, you even get to hear him roar, which is very close in spirit to "The Wolfman". Actually, for the lion's roar I used the sound of the roar of thunder, though most in the audience don't notice such things. I'll even bet I'm the only one in the audience who noticed the correlation between my May 2004 TV spot and the opening shot of "The Wolfman" - unless Sean Daniel also happened to notice it?



My other reason for seriously weighing the possibility that "The Wolfman" used this spot is that, far more often than not, when my stuff is used, it is used in a prominent place. Such as the opening shot of a Sean Daniel movie. Or the opening logo on every DreamWorks movie of a bob on a water surface, which correlates to the opening shot of my 1994 "Gosk 1" video after the opening credits - something I would overlook if not for my generally being super-important in relation to Steven Spielberg's work.

May The Force Be Tested For Possible Negative Side Effects

Somebody still has something to say on late night television, that is, somebody still has something to say about late night television, by which I mean, I still have something to say about late night television with regard to what I've been featuring in my past several blogs. I wonder whether this manner of needing to continually restate things might begin to suggest the idea of there being a five-hour talk show for those with special difficulty getting to the point....

More to the point:



I don't quite know if I could succinctly convey (to an idiot) why I see this as being in connection with my previous two blogs, and other matters of no small significance.

Also of relevance is my seeing (97% certain) Mr. Kimmel drive by me again on the morning of January 26th. It might also be worth mentioning that the January 27th Kimmel show referenced in this videoclip is also known as the Kimmel show that aired the night of January 26th, January 27th being a technicality in terms of his show beginning past midnight. Look it up in the dictionary, or wherever it is that we collectively store the description of how we differentiate that a new day has begun.

Speaking of the idea of collectively storing information (I was, anyway, which around here is enough for me to run with it), or not, I wonder just how strong a point this videoclip will continue to make going forward, whether the information will truly remain intact. Based on my previous experience with the type of evidence contained in this videoclip, and my experience with having to contend with the way things filter through the minds of idiots, and my occasionally giving in to my inner cynic, and my experience with people who have turned deliberate obscuring of the truth into an artform, I see a world of possibilities.

• Harrison Ford could begin publicly giving away different articles of clothing to different people as a regular thing

• It could become a frequent occurrence for people named Ford or Harrison who aren't Harrison Ford to begin publicly giving away socks to people
  

• Harrison Ford could later say he was put up to the socks thing by a comedy writer with a propensity for casting inside-reference mystery clouds over Spielberg/Steinhoff stuff, and Ford himself could therefore say that he has no knowledge of any separate context in which the socks thing has a special significance
  

• Harrison Ford could star in a movie about the Trojan horse

• Conan O'Brien could be given a sweater by Chevy Chase on the first day of a new show, which then leads to a discussion about Chevys, speaking of which then leads to a discussion about Fords

• Conan could be given a hat by Ringo Starr on the first day of a new show, who then talks about George Harrison

If I can instead assume that no one has a vested (semi-pun not intended) interest in diminishing the significance of what is contained in this videoclip, and that no one will endeavor to turn into something else the gift to me contained in what happened on the 7th anniversary Kimmel show.... then I am pleased to cherish it and not leave it behind on a bench in a mall - I would even entertain an offer to be a Kimmel writer, or a Ford mechanic.

I anxiously await the "Jimmy Kimmel Live" eighth anniversary show, with the hope that life hasn't by then made me seem too much more cynical.

Business As Usual-ing The World To Death

Weight Of Part Of The World Time Again
Before I present the latest, 12.13.09 version of my work-in-progress video, "Spielberg and the Mall Man Factor," a little perspective:

(1) If through this video I can prove my singularly incredible, important influence on Spielberg, and

(2) It is widely known that Spielberg is among the most high profile, prominent Jewish people alive today, and

(3) Much of the world situation has to do with reacting to Arabic terrorists intent on going beyond blaming the State of Israel in their quest for somewhere to channel all their hatred, and in truth are motivated to a large degree by a hatred of all Jewish people, then

(4) My previous assertions that terrorist clues of potentially great significance have landed on my doorstep, that my name is on that kind of radar because of my significance, must truly demand action/investigation. In light of certain things, can rationales to the contrary be anything other than grotesquely self-serving in nature, and/or a reflection of stupidity, and/or a reflection of a tremendously corrupt nature?

I have no personal inclination to come within ten miles of this subject on this personal level. However, I recognize that it is unthinkable to bury what I know. I also recognize that it makes no sense that important terrorist clues would ever land on my doorstep, until one appreciates the degree of my importance in relation to Spielberg. This is why the following work-in-progress is so important.

So I guess I'm just saying have fun with it:




Talk And Silence Are Not Cheap
I sent the following email to an assistant of Sean Daniel's several days ago regarding this work-in-progress, and my email technology indicates he never even opened the email. So let's just put that into the category of something non-serious, such as junk mail problems, instead of seeing it as potentially impacting on more than one cares to think about:

I am writing to inquire as to whether Sean Daniel would be interested in appearing in "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man Factor'", my unconventional "video docu story" in which his involvement would unquestionably be instrumental. I know that if you mention my name to Sean in the same breath as the words "Mall Man", he would understand more than I could describe to you in ten pages, and be pleased to have the opportunity to consider my request. I recognize that, if Sean does choose to allow himself to engage in an on-camera discussion on this subject, it would likely only be out of his feeling for the truth, as this project has not the kind of official credential that is generally regarded as a prerequisite in the making of such a request. This project exists in relation to the secret (and admittedly unlikely-sounding) fact that, through Sean's involvement with both myself and his friend, Steven Spielberg, the latter has made my "Mall Man" video (and other things I have created) an important foundation point in a number of his works. And so, I offer you the beginning of this work-in-progress of mine: here I inserted the web address of where this work-in-progress was, however, the work-in-progress version included with this blog replaces it Thank you for your consideration,

Was 1993 Too Long Ago To Count?
Need I remind everyone that in February 1993, five days after my referenced video "Mall Man" was filmed at NYC's World Financial Center (the main part of the shoot), the World Trade Center, an overpass away, was attacked by terrorists. That time, they only made a dent. And that was after Spielberg was already underway with "Jurassic Park," a movie that originated from something I sent to Sean Daniel with a note that he forward it to Steven Spielberg (the first communication I ever asked be directed in this manner). My claim here is irrespective of who technically ending up penning that movie, or the "Jurassic Park" book, etc. I do not say I wrote it, I say that what I sent is what led to its creation. But why listen to me.

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.