I don't see how I can get away with not pointing out something I was able to identify last night on Letterman. It touches on a matter that touches on a matter that touches on a matter that touches on the recent "attempt" to bomb Times Square. Of course, you're likely to scoff, if you don't do the research - and why bother to do the research, who I am I to have something to say here, etc., etc. My bad.
1. Read my June 23, 2010 blog article, "Crazy Time", wherein I explain how my April 29, 2010 posting on YouTube, "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!" was, several days following its posting, being rendered part of a larger puzzle by a Pakistani Taliban action, the "attempted" bombing of Times Square (the likely result of my secret super-importance in relation to Steven Spielberg, perhaps the most prominent Jewish person alive today, a fact that makes him a great big blip on the radar of Muslim terrorists).
2. The title of that YouTube posting of mine includes reference to actor French Stewart of the TV sitcom, "Third Rock From The Sun", the piece itself further referencing French Stewart in that context.
3. Additionally, the title of that YouTube posting speaks of someone owing someone, in a non-monetary way.
4. The one other actual work of mine that specifically uses the word owe in the context of someone being owed in a non-monetary way (less significant usage of the word notwithstanding, such as a blog article) is the title track of my 2005 CD, "Enough To Eclipse", which was posted and copyrighted in 2005 at CD Baby. To hear that particular song of mine one might go to http://www.isound.com/jonathan_david_steinhoff. The lyric is, "You couldn't possibly ever owe something to me." You may not want to hear the sarcasm in the delivery of that line.
5. In addition, my song, "Enough To Eclipse" also includes the line, "Don't you wanna be inside the sphere".
6. When I stayed up to watch Letterman last night, it was to see whether it would be upon Joseph Gordon-Levitt to do something I might see as being in connection with the French Stewart "situation", in that it touches on a matter of the utmost consequence. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was French Stewart's costar on the TV sitcom, "Third Rock From The Sun", the star of the show being John Lithgow, whose sister, SJ, was someone I knew back in high school in Princeton, NJ, as she was my best friend's girlfriend. I previously referenced JGL in my December 2, 2009 blog article (where I mispell his last name as Gordon-Leavitt), specifically, I assert that, when he hosted Saturday Night Live, he was involved in a deliberate reference to the music video I made for my song, "Whatever Happened". And sure enough, staying up late to watch Letterman "paid off" - apparently something was worked out with Letterman (who has referenced me/my material quite a bit before, as I've indicated in numerous blogs) to make the following pre-anticipated inside-reference occur:
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Crazy Time
“Attempted” Bombing Of Times Square, 5/1/10 –
My Special Information That Would Take
You 30 Minutes To Get Through
You 30 Minutes To Get Through
This is where I ask you for 30 minutes of your time without even having the good manners to wear a vacuum cleaner salesman outfit. This is where I beseech you to follow-through on scrutinizing my evidence, so that you might see proof of something that has to be…. too extraordinary for you to believe, I give up. No. I will continue. This evidence will cause those among you who are truly honest, very intelligent, and completely non-dogmatic to see something that happened to me that is of huge concern to all (only in the sense that the Pakistani Taliban could win over the Pakistanis and take control of their nuclear arsenal). Unfortunately, I personally must doubt that anyone within the “sound of my voice” will give that 30 minutes. Or will even admit that, to have an opinion of the things I contend, should such an opinion be formed without following-through here, would thusly be formed out of willful ignorance. I tend towards expecting that you simply will not know how to hear what the evidence screams. And yet, here I go.
1. 14 minutes, 30 seconds of your time
See my video that establishes the extraordinary fact that I, a graduate of the CalArts School of Film/Video, having first learned of CalArts from a very big Steven Spielberg friend, producer Sean Daniel, have come to be a secret, super-major influence on Steven Spielberg to an unparalleled degree:
"Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor"
http://www.archive.org/details/StevenSpielbergAndThemallManFactor
(posted at Archive.Org 12/26/09)
2. 20 seconds of your time
Consider that Steven Spielberg is perhaps the single most prominent living Jewish person in the world today, and how that might relate to the crusade (jihad) of Arabic terrorists against Israel, a jihad that includes a hatred of the world assimilating Jewish people/accepting those who have become important “emissaries” of Jewish people in the world, emissaries such as Steven Spielberg.
3. 5 minutes, 56 seconds of your time
See my video that was ostensibly prompted by secret, significant usage of my material in the final episode of the TV sitcom, “3rd Rock From The Sun”, as it is part of the picture I am drawing, members of the jury. And whether or not you can believe this version of an important cause and effect regarding that TV show finale, the specifics of that contention can clearly be identified as having been implied at least as of the date of this video. The material specifically implied regards the investigation of an empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street (see the following item, Item 4, below), a situation contained in both my material and in the “3rd Rock” finale (this assumes you have seen the "3rd Rock" finale; or find a way to view the "3rd Rock" finale; or read a synopsis of the "3rd Rock" finale).
"Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlH2Ln7GlmU
(posted at YouTube 4/29/10)
4. 1 minute of your time
The reference implied in the video in the preceding item (Item 3, above) can be found in my 1993 screenplay, “Gosk, The Screenplay”, which was posted at Archive.Org 7/3/07:
http://ia350641.us.archive.org/1/items/GoskTheScreenplay/
The New York City parking space is first referred to on screenplay page 53/pdf page 55. The investigation of the unoccupied vehicle parked on a busy New York City street develops on screenplay page 58/pdf page 60.
5. 30 seconds of your time
Consider that the text description that accompanied the 4/29/10 video posting referred to in Item 3 (above) included the following: “Meanwhile, the Iranian President has joined countless others in secretly intertwining their statements to things regarding me, while I'm supposed to sit there and not call in anything from anyone. Why doesn't he pick on Spielberg, or is that his secret idea to begin with.”
6. 10 seconds of your time
Consider that two days later, on 5/1/10, an unoccupied vehicle parked on a busy New York City street was investigated, the focus of a perceived attempt by the Pakistani Taliban to blow up Times Square. Or was it an attempt to have an unoccupied vehicle parked on a busy New York City street investigated?
7. 20 seconds of your time
Consider that the Pakistani Taliban alternated between asserting that the perpetrator acted at their instigation, or as someone who acted alone (according to various reports).
8. 5 minutes, 54 seconds of your time
In the one other work of mine also referred to in my video posted 4/29/10 (Item 3, above), the ending humorously focuses on the question of whether or not the perpetrator acted alone, or at the instigation of someone else.
“In Orders We Trust”
http://www.archive.org/details/InOrdersWeTrustvideo
(video posted at Archive.Org 4/7/10)
(initial screenplay posted at Archive.Org 8/11/09 –
http://www.archive.org/details/InOrdersWeTrust)
9. 1 minute, 20 seconds of your time
Deeply contemplate all of this, then fall back on the idea that Spielberg would never do something this far off your radar in the first place, not to mention the absurdity of the idea that the Pakistani Taliban would want to mix it up with a super high-profile Jewish man's secret super-major influence by working things out to where I would have to be shouting about this stuff.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Boy Who Cried Don't Sound The Alarm
A few interesting things that may or may not be earthshaking.
I Only Hope That Someday People Who Ask Us To Research Things Will Be Banned From Our Country Club
On 6/7/10, 12:54am I posted a comment to a Huffington Post article, "It's Always a Bad Year to Get Out of Afghanistan," as follows:
However you feel about war, or a specific war, can you really ignore the chess game/tactical dilemma aspect? As such, the stakes connected with Afghanistan are not necessarily something that extend no further than Afghanistan's physical boundaries. And I personally apologize for making war sound cold to the point where it involves the people of one country with matters taking place beyond their national borders. And on this subject of seeing entities (national or otherwise) differently than those entities may wish to see themselves: Steven Spielberg is among the most prominent living Jewish people; The "concerns" of Arabic terrorists is not outside the sphere of world opinion of Jewish people; Two days before that empty vehicle was found on that busy New York City street (Times Square) and immediately became the focus of investigation, I posted something on YouTube referencing the origin of the "3rd Rock" ending - an empty vehicle found on a busy New York City street that become the focus of investigation. My description with that posting touched on Arabic terrorism. I am secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg. The YouTube posting is a matter of record, as is what I've said here about what it was in relation to. Now accept that these things happen in a chess game type context, and research it instead of taking refuge in non-creative approaches to cause and effect:
http://jonathands2u.blogspot.com/2010/05/knowing-where-to-look.html
Thank you.
And here's a fun after-thought, which regards something else terrorists may have "left on my doorstep" as an additional phase of the Times Square Bomber episode (just in case you actually do the research with real follow-through).
You may eventually have actually gotten around to a video of mine, "In Orders We Trust" (posted both at YouTube and Archive.Org). It is part of the story - it is referred to in the above-referenced "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!", my YouTube posting of two days before the Times Square Bomber incident. The ending of the "Orders" video focuses on the question of whether or not a specific individual's actions should be looked upon as having been instigated by one of the conflicting parties, or: if that individual was acting alone.
The Pakistani Taliban initially claimed credit for the Times Square incident. They then denied that they deserved responsibility. Wouldn't you have to say they kind of did something "special" with regard to the question of whether or not a person acted alone?
The Pakistani Taliban are most scary if one considers how they are aimed at taking over Pakistan, which has a nuclear weapons arsenal. They once were within distance of this, it appeared, taking over stuff and being thirty miles from the capitol of Pakistan, etc. The territory they are in is not as opposed to them as one might wish. I believe our military involvement in bordering Afghanistan is connected to this. If they move on a nuclear arsenal and enough Pakistani people are resistant to accommodating US efforts to stop them, a base of operation such as Afghanistan could be the difference between whether or not the Taliban gains nuclear weapons. And for those who have completely avoided doing any research of any kind regarding this inconsequential stuff, the Taliban are very close with al Queda. If I'm spelling it wrong, perhaps someday you will find it in your heart to overlook my not being inclined at this moment to research the correct spelling. I'm busy.
Boom! (Goes The Drum)
So my new used car was left with one flaw after all the fixing up - the hubcaps rattled most percussively. Once resolved, as far as I can tell, it would be as perfect as one might expect a used car to be. Rattling hubcaps. You couldn't just tighten them, they needed to be replaced, because the things wouldn't tighten in the old hubcaps, the hole, the diameter had, well, I'm not going into that much detail. But I did not want to go around rattling all over the place. So finally I got around to getting new hubcaps, and then went for a test drive. I had to experience no longer being a rhythm section, now that this experience was available to me.
Apparently word had spread like a stone in a pond sending out ripples, or like soundwaves rippling out from a single.... well anyway, who do I suddenly see driving towards me, but a Ringo Starr look-a-like, in this really old English car from the '50s I think, wearing about forty coats of paint (the car), beige the latest one. Unless it was the real Ringo, I cannot say. Whoever it was, I knew why that person was there: the non-rattling.
And I am pleased to say, he clearly did not seem to feel himself to be in the presence of excessive percussive rhythm (nobody did). And as someone who has been a super-major influence on Ringo at various important times, I would like to state, here and now, that rattling hubcaps was never something I wished to include among my tools for generating influence.
Four! (or Fore, Whatever)
A comment I posted in response to a Huffington Post article written by Elayne Boosler of "Seinfeld" fame won a comment in response from Elayne Boosler of "Seinfeld" fame. I'll blow my own horn here (who else will?) and take this opportunity to again point out (as I have in an earlier blog or two) that I was an influence on the last season of "Seinfeld", and also on the "Seinfeld" reunion on "Curb Your Enthusiasm". So perhaps I should feel that I deserved that response from Elayne Boosler of "Seinfeld" fame.
My comment regarded, first, the "Seinfeld" episode about a golf ball being landed inside a whale's hole, and then, relating this to the idea of Tiger Woods doing the same thing, only as PR for BP.
The very next day Huffington Post had an article conjecturing on Helen Thomas doing PR for BP. People shamed in the eyes of the public doing PR for BP. Perhaps this is where I should take the opportunity to deny rumors that I'm the one who coined the well known comment about Nixon: "Would you buy a used car from this man?"
And Honorable Mention! (To Some)
Without going into detail, I should also mention that I was also a big influence on Sunday's MTV Movie Awards. Also, on some recent Daily Shows, perhaps Colberts as well.
I Only Hope That Someday People Who Ask Us To Research Things Will Be Banned From Our Country Club
On 6/7/10, 12:54am I posted a comment to a Huffington Post article, "It's Always a Bad Year to Get Out of Afghanistan," as follows:
However you feel about war, or a specific war, can you really ignore the chess game/tactical dilemma aspect? As such, the stakes connected with Afghanistan are not necessarily something that extend no further than Afghanistan's physical boundaries. And I personally apologize for making war sound cold to the point where it involves the people of one country with matters taking place beyond their national borders. And on this subject of seeing entities (national or otherwise) differently than those entities may wish to see themselves: Steven Spielberg is among the most prominent living Jewish people; The "concerns" of Arabic terrorists is not outside the sphere of world opinion of Jewish people; Two days before that empty vehicle was found on that busy New York City street (Times Square) and immediately became the focus of investigation, I posted something on YouTube referencing the origin of the "3rd Rock" ending - an empty vehicle found on a busy New York City street that become the focus of investigation. My description with that posting touched on Arabic terrorism. I am secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg. The YouTube posting is a matter of record, as is what I've said here about what it was in relation to. Now accept that these things happen in a chess game type context, and research it instead of taking refuge in non-creative approaches to cause and effect:
http://jonathands2u.blogspot.com/2010/05/knowing-where-to-look.html
Thank you.
And here's a fun after-thought, which regards something else terrorists may have "left on my doorstep" as an additional phase of the Times Square Bomber episode (just in case you actually do the research with real follow-through).
You may eventually have actually gotten around to a video of mine, "In Orders We Trust" (posted both at YouTube and Archive.Org). It is part of the story - it is referred to in the above-referenced "Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!", my YouTube posting of two days before the Times Square Bomber incident. The ending of the "Orders" video focuses on the question of whether or not a specific individual's actions should be looked upon as having been instigated by one of the conflicting parties, or: if that individual was acting alone.
The Pakistani Taliban initially claimed credit for the Times Square incident. They then denied that they deserved responsibility. Wouldn't you have to say they kind of did something "special" with regard to the question of whether or not a person acted alone?
The Pakistani Taliban are most scary if one considers how they are aimed at taking over Pakistan, which has a nuclear weapons arsenal. They once were within distance of this, it appeared, taking over stuff and being thirty miles from the capitol of Pakistan, etc. The territory they are in is not as opposed to them as one might wish. I believe our military involvement in bordering Afghanistan is connected to this. If they move on a nuclear arsenal and enough Pakistani people are resistant to accommodating US efforts to stop them, a base of operation such as Afghanistan could be the difference between whether or not the Taliban gains nuclear weapons. And for those who have completely avoided doing any research of any kind regarding this inconsequential stuff, the Taliban are very close with al Queda. If I'm spelling it wrong, perhaps someday you will find it in your heart to overlook my not being inclined at this moment to research the correct spelling. I'm busy.
Boom! (Goes The Drum)
So my new used car was left with one flaw after all the fixing up - the hubcaps rattled most percussively. Once resolved, as far as I can tell, it would be as perfect as one might expect a used car to be. Rattling hubcaps. You couldn't just tighten them, they needed to be replaced, because the things wouldn't tighten in the old hubcaps, the hole, the diameter had, well, I'm not going into that much detail. But I did not want to go around rattling all over the place. So finally I got around to getting new hubcaps, and then went for a test drive. I had to experience no longer being a rhythm section, now that this experience was available to me.
Apparently word had spread like a stone in a pond sending out ripples, or like soundwaves rippling out from a single.... well anyway, who do I suddenly see driving towards me, but a Ringo Starr look-a-like, in this really old English car from the '50s I think, wearing about forty coats of paint (the car), beige the latest one. Unless it was the real Ringo, I cannot say. Whoever it was, I knew why that person was there: the non-rattling.
And I am pleased to say, he clearly did not seem to feel himself to be in the presence of excessive percussive rhythm (nobody did). And as someone who has been a super-major influence on Ringo at various important times, I would like to state, here and now, that rattling hubcaps was never something I wished to include among my tools for generating influence.
Four! (or Fore, Whatever)
A comment I posted in response to a Huffington Post article written by Elayne Boosler of "Seinfeld" fame won a comment in response from Elayne Boosler of "Seinfeld" fame. I'll blow my own horn here (who else will?) and take this opportunity to again point out (as I have in an earlier blog or two) that I was an influence on the last season of "Seinfeld", and also on the "Seinfeld" reunion on "Curb Your Enthusiasm". So perhaps I should feel that I deserved that response from Elayne Boosler of "Seinfeld" fame.
My comment regarded, first, the "Seinfeld" episode about a golf ball being landed inside a whale's hole, and then, relating this to the idea of Tiger Woods doing the same thing, only as PR for BP.
The very next day Huffington Post had an article conjecturing on Helen Thomas doing PR for BP. People shamed in the eyes of the public doing PR for BP. Perhaps this is where I should take the opportunity to deny rumors that I'm the one who coined the well known comment about Nixon: "Would you buy a used car from this man?"
And Honorable Mention! (To Some)
Without going into detail, I should also mention that I was also a big influence on Sunday's MTV Movie Awards. Also, on some recent Daily Shows, perhaps Colberts as well.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
No Words For What WAS Set Off
A few things, each of identical significance (or perhaps not):
New Steinhoff Song
I'm pleased to announce my newest song, "Born Ahead", which can be experienced at archive.org. I hope everyone who hears it enjoys it in the identical way and to the identical degree as everyone else who hears it (whatever way and degree that may be).
Why Is Today Different From All Other Days
As my mother passed away in February 1991, I am unable to experience this holiday in the identical way as everyone else. However, as the person who first told me of CalArts, the college I attended, is Sean Daniel (Spielberg and McCartney friend, former Lennon friend), and Sean Daniel is the producer of the "Mummy" movies, I will take this opportunity to wish him a Happy Mummy's Day. (I am not in touch with Sean, but would appreciate it if someone could pass along my message.)
Fish Wearing Goggles
The writers of the TV show "Smallville" (who also wrote "Mummy 3") have once again included an inside-reference for my benefit. However, this one is identical to the way-off-the-radar ones they do in relation to me, as opposed to being identical to the ones they do where I can point to evidence (evidence for those who know how to add 2 plus 2.2, that is). I am flying so below the public's radar here that I expect to be making more ripples in the ocean than anywhere else. Yet somehow I feel obliged to describe it, lest the powers that be (them what done it) feel I'm no fun anymore, and then what would happen to me?
I've previously described how oftentimes the "Smallville" episodes containing inside-references to me are done in conjunction with episodes of the TV show "Medium" airing that same night, and this is true regarding Friday, May 7th. In fact, you may wish to reread my "Smallville" mention in my May 1st blog and the whole T-shirt example there. I'm getting the feeling they had their own personal T-shirt vendor this time around.
In the May 7th episode of "Smallville", Lois Lane pushes for Clark and her to go on a "break" from each other (this develops into a breakup). Everyone watching heard something in that moment that brought to mind the historic episode of "Friends", the one that led to endless discussions/consequences of what it meant for them to be on a break.
What I heard, being someone who receives frequent, secret nudges from the "Smallville" folk, was a reference to the main side-plot in that same "Friends" episode, where Monica can only date someone if his translator accompanies them everywhere. This side-plot was based on my 1996 story, "The Translator". Someone (Raphael Middleman) once published my story in their little magazine (the May 1996 premiere issue of "The Inspector"). There were numerous reasons back then for me to deduce that "Friends" would use my material, even though I had not yet starred a "Friends" insider in my (1998) "Gosk 2". One reason: one of my sister's oldest friends, Claire Josephson, is the sister of Nancy Josephson, International Creative Management VP, the woman who first brought the "Friends" writers to California, which directly led to the creation of "Friends".
In "The Translator", newlyweds who don't speak the same language receive a translator as a wedding gift. He accompanies them EVERYWHERE, which much displeases the wife, causing her to secretly murder him, though it means she and her husband will not understand each other. They didn't need to understand each other when they first met, so why now?
Because my story was included as part of the very important initial "Friends" "break" episode, the "Smallville" "break" set me looking to see if there was something I should connect to this. As has often been the case, I found the answer in that night's "Medium": a husband murders someone about to communicate to his wife the key to understanding him. In "The Translator", the murder of the translator by the wife means she does not want to have around the person with the key to their understanding each other.
What Were They Trying To Do
What was the real meaning behind the Pakistani Taliban's Times Square "incident"? It was announced by the White House today that it was in fact the Taliban who were involved in the Times Square "attempted" bombing. Are we to believe that they truly meant to succeed, based on what we've learned about the hard-to-fail-to-anticipate reasons behind why it failed? Might not this lead the discussion to the question of what possible Taliban objective WAS achieved by only succeeding in having people investigate an empty car parked on a busy New York City street on May 1st?
As I described in my May 1st and May 2nd blogs, my April 28th posting on YouTube regarded a scene where an empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street is investigated. And my description accompanying that YouTube posting referred to the Iranian President.
I find that the degree to which there has been NO follow-up investigation regarding what I've been saying (shouting) for a while now looks VERY bad with this new terrorist occurrence, one that could have turned into the second 9/11. It suggests that there is a willful act of suppressing the investigation I seek. How close to the doorstep of Steven Spielberg must this suppression seem, as such an investigation would have to be based in part on my assertion that I am secretly super-important in relation to the work of Spielberg, the most prominent Jewish man, that therefore I am someone on the radar of those who act out of anti-Israeli/Jewish sentiment. What happens when my super-importance is secret - how can I instigate an investigation when that fact is unknown?
Does this Times Square bombing "attempt" light a fire under Spielberg and others? Is this all potentially damaging to key pillars/foundation stones of Hollywood Royalty? Extremely damaging? Fatally damaging? The suppression of such important investigations into terrorism, just to cover their astors?
Should we conjecture that the appeal of being able to generate this kind of issue in a big way became great enough to the Taliban/al Queda that it was chosen over an actual bombing - an alternative course? Especially if at heart they'd rather not kill in reality if they can poison the reputations of our "royalty", which would seriously undermine an important part of our moral foundation (yes, the product of Hollywood royalty portends to speak to the world's fundamental ethics).
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and etc. Would they poison our lives better by lighting this fire under us? Isn't it time to put aside this astor-covering of Hollywood Royalty's questionable behavior towards me, so that the truth about my secret super-importance can render plausible this basis for a real investigation of major terrorist acts? Or must we wait for something God awful to happen, when an investigation could have prevented it? I guess that's a chance some bastions of society are willing to take.
New Steinhoff Song
I'm pleased to announce my newest song, "Born Ahead", which can be experienced at archive.org. I hope everyone who hears it enjoys it in the identical way and to the identical degree as everyone else who hears it (whatever way and degree that may be).
Why Is Today Different From All Other Days
As my mother passed away in February 1991, I am unable to experience this holiday in the identical way as everyone else. However, as the person who first told me of CalArts, the college I attended, is Sean Daniel (Spielberg and McCartney friend, former Lennon friend), and Sean Daniel is the producer of the "Mummy" movies, I will take this opportunity to wish him a Happy Mummy's Day. (I am not in touch with Sean, but would appreciate it if someone could pass along my message.)
Fish Wearing Goggles
The writers of the TV show "Smallville" (who also wrote "Mummy 3") have once again included an inside-reference for my benefit. However, this one is identical to the way-off-the-radar ones they do in relation to me, as opposed to being identical to the ones they do where I can point to evidence (evidence for those who know how to add 2 plus 2.2, that is). I am flying so below the public's radar here that I expect to be making more ripples in the ocean than anywhere else. Yet somehow I feel obliged to describe it, lest the powers that be (them what done it) feel I'm no fun anymore, and then what would happen to me?
I've previously described how oftentimes the "Smallville" episodes containing inside-references to me are done in conjunction with episodes of the TV show "Medium" airing that same night, and this is true regarding Friday, May 7th. In fact, you may wish to reread my "Smallville" mention in my May 1st blog and the whole T-shirt example there. I'm getting the feeling they had their own personal T-shirt vendor this time around.
In the May 7th episode of "Smallville", Lois Lane pushes for Clark and her to go on a "break" from each other (this develops into a breakup). Everyone watching heard something in that moment that brought to mind the historic episode of "Friends", the one that led to endless discussions/consequences of what it meant for them to be on a break.
What I heard, being someone who receives frequent, secret nudges from the "Smallville" folk, was a reference to the main side-plot in that same "Friends" episode, where Monica can only date someone if his translator accompanies them everywhere. This side-plot was based on my 1996 story, "The Translator". Someone (Raphael Middleman) once published my story in their little magazine (the May 1996 premiere issue of "The Inspector"). There were numerous reasons back then for me to deduce that "Friends" would use my material, even though I had not yet starred a "Friends" insider in my (1998) "Gosk 2". One reason: one of my sister's oldest friends, Claire Josephson, is the sister of Nancy Josephson, International Creative Management VP, the woman who first brought the "Friends" writers to California, which directly led to the creation of "Friends".
In "The Translator", newlyweds who don't speak the same language receive a translator as a wedding gift. He accompanies them EVERYWHERE, which much displeases the wife, causing her to secretly murder him, though it means she and her husband will not understand each other. They didn't need to understand each other when they first met, so why now?
Because my story was included as part of the very important initial "Friends" "break" episode, the "Smallville" "break" set me looking to see if there was something I should connect to this. As has often been the case, I found the answer in that night's "Medium": a husband murders someone about to communicate to his wife the key to understanding him. In "The Translator", the murder of the translator by the wife means she does not want to have around the person with the key to their understanding each other.
What Were They Trying To Do
What was the real meaning behind the Pakistani Taliban's Times Square "incident"? It was announced by the White House today that it was in fact the Taliban who were involved in the Times Square "attempted" bombing. Are we to believe that they truly meant to succeed, based on what we've learned about the hard-to-fail-to-anticipate reasons behind why it failed? Might not this lead the discussion to the question of what possible Taliban objective WAS achieved by only succeeding in having people investigate an empty car parked on a busy New York City street on May 1st?
As I described in my May 1st and May 2nd blogs, my April 28th posting on YouTube regarded a scene where an empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street is investigated. And my description accompanying that YouTube posting referred to the Iranian President.
I find that the degree to which there has been NO follow-up investigation regarding what I've been saying (shouting) for a while now looks VERY bad with this new terrorist occurrence, one that could have turned into the second 9/11. It suggests that there is a willful act of suppressing the investigation I seek. How close to the doorstep of Steven Spielberg must this suppression seem, as such an investigation would have to be based in part on my assertion that I am secretly super-important in relation to the work of Spielberg, the most prominent Jewish man, that therefore I am someone on the radar of those who act out of anti-Israeli/Jewish sentiment. What happens when my super-importance is secret - how can I instigate an investigation when that fact is unknown?
Does this Times Square bombing "attempt" light a fire under Spielberg and others? Is this all potentially damaging to key pillars/foundation stones of Hollywood Royalty? Extremely damaging? Fatally damaging? The suppression of such important investigations into terrorism, just to cover their astors?
Should we conjecture that the appeal of being able to generate this kind of issue in a big way became great enough to the Taliban/al Queda that it was chosen over an actual bombing - an alternative course? Especially if at heart they'd rather not kill in reality if they can poison the reputations of our "royalty", which would seriously undermine an important part of our moral foundation (yes, the product of Hollywood royalty portends to speak to the world's fundamental ethics).
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and etc. Would they poison our lives better by lighting this fire under us? Isn't it time to put aside this astor-covering of Hollywood Royalty's questionable behavior towards me, so that the truth about my secret super-importance can render plausible this basis for a real investigation of major terrorist acts? Or must we wait for something God awful to happen, when an investigation could have prevented it? I guess that's a chance some bastions of society are willing to take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
