We all know the story of King Solomon and how two women each claimed a baby to be theirs. How King Solomon, to determine the identity of the true mother, said he would therefore cut the baby in two and give each woman half. How this was intended to provoke the true mother to change her story and deny that the baby was hers. How this would reveal the true mother, who would be willing to give her baby to the other woman, if this was the only way to keep her baby from being cut in half.
This does not perfectly correlate to my solution to a problem currently faced by Paul McCartney regarding Beatles songs and iTunes, nevertheless, follow me, or Paul McCartney, follow me.
If Beatles songs become available on iTunes in the normal manner, what will happen to the artistic wholeness of Beatles albums? The songs on Beatle albums are not just packaged together as so much Beatles product; and Beatles albums are not merely artifacts of ways in which the songs were once packaged. They are artistic creations.
To strengthen the glue that holds these songs together as parts of specific Beatles albums, after the songs have been released into an iTunes song - at - a - time world, it may require more than a money incentive approach, a cheaper - by - the - dozen/ cheaper - if - you - get- all - of - the - songs - on - a - particular - Beatles - album approach.
I have an unusual plan for eliciting appropriate respect among the masses for the artistic wholeness that the Beatles albums possess. I do not know if Paul McCartney or iTunes are ready for my idea - in fact, I'm sure there are those for whom even the King Solomon story is considered profane (try pitching a movie where a major moment involves the idea of sawing a baby in half).
Sell Beatle songs on iTunes by the half-song. Each half-song would cost half as much as the whole song. From this there would emerge an ethic, a mentality of "You only bought half of that Beatles song???!!! What a ___ you are!" Song samples are one thing, where you know you aren't legitimately experiencing the entire work, but the idea of Beatles half-songs will touch so deep a nerve, provoke so extreme a reaction from those who respect the artistic wholeness of the entire Beatles song, that this disposition would emerge as a basic ethic. People would inwardly rejoice when they learn that, despite the option of purchasing half-songs, invariably the same number of both halves (i.e., whole songs) would be purchased (this is my prediction, as is the idea that this statistic would receive much attention).
I believe this new, basic ethic would have a ripple effect, reinforcing the glue holding together the sense that these songs are parts of whole Beatles albums. It could even become the foundation of a more widespread respect for artistic autonomy.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Thursday, December 25, 2008
I Was Somewhere Or Another And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt
In a matter regarding one of the top five celebrities in the world, who is also among those many celebrities who have made frequent and prominent use of my material over the years (while forgetting to credit me), we were all recently provided with a very rare television appearance by one of his very close relatives. During the course of this TV appearance, a specific reference was made by this close relative of his to a particular physical location of a particular business establishment during the late 1970s, which also happens to be the identical spot where a woman I once knew was employed during the late 1970s. This same person who I once knew also knew the referred to top five celebrity, prior to being employed on this spot in the late 1970s. “Saturday Night Live”, in their first post-election show this year, chose to make several inside references to things regarding myself in relation to this same woman I once knew. It was far from the first time inside references were made to myself in relation to this woman, one can even find such inside references in the work of the referenced top five celebrity.
This is all I wish to say on this subject, and have only said this much out of respect for the top five celebrity and his very close relative. Based on my extensive experience with such things, this appears to have been this individual’s first attempt at making such an inside reference, and so I acknowledge it. I recognize that the inside reference is buried in deniability, being obscure even for those advanced in reading such indications as I’ve described, but one tends to encounter this precise level of ambiguity in those burying inside references into things for their first time. I now consider the matter close.
In a separate matter, I previously have referred to the show "Monk" making inside references to my material in just about every episode made, and have posted videoclips illustrating many of these on YouTube (where I am Zoomsteinhoff). I have also previously mentioned that in my job I was responsible this month for handling the organizing of a rebroadcast throughout Kaiser Permanente in Southern California that included a special performance by Tony Shaloub, the star of "Monk". Prior to the Tony Shaloub performance I emailed those assigned to assist me at other Kaiser Permanente Southern California locations that we were like an orchestra being led by a train conductor, and that we were a train that would stay on schedule (now and then I provide people with amusement, which is something I've been doing on a volunteer basis since I was little, and so this was meant for amusement purposes). When Tony Shaloub and several others assisting him took their positions onstage, one's initial reaction was that they were musicians performing in an orchestra, as they had things in front of them that looked like music stands for holding written music. Actually these things were there for them to place their pages on for reading, but I stand by my initial reaction as the universal one. Out of all of the presentations that were part of this broadcast, only one presentation was off-schedule: Tony Shaloub's, which ran 30 minutes long.
Though my orchestra schedule remarks may not have had anything to do with what followed, I would nevertheless be remiss not to acknowledge this as a possibility, when one sees my "Monk" videoclips on YouTube alongside my role in this Tony Shaloub performance.
This is all I wish to say on this subject, and have only said this much out of respect for the top five celebrity and his very close relative. Based on my extensive experience with such things, this appears to have been this individual’s first attempt at making such an inside reference, and so I acknowledge it. I recognize that the inside reference is buried in deniability, being obscure even for those advanced in reading such indications as I’ve described, but one tends to encounter this precise level of ambiguity in those burying inside references into things for their first time. I now consider the matter close.
In a separate matter, I previously have referred to the show "Monk" making inside references to my material in just about every episode made, and have posted videoclips illustrating many of these on YouTube (where I am Zoomsteinhoff). I have also previously mentioned that in my job I was responsible this month for handling the organizing of a rebroadcast throughout Kaiser Permanente in Southern California that included a special performance by Tony Shaloub, the star of "Monk". Prior to the Tony Shaloub performance I emailed those assigned to assist me at other Kaiser Permanente Southern California locations that we were like an orchestra being led by a train conductor, and that we were a train that would stay on schedule (now and then I provide people with amusement, which is something I've been doing on a volunteer basis since I was little, and so this was meant for amusement purposes). When Tony Shaloub and several others assisting him took their positions onstage, one's initial reaction was that they were musicians performing in an orchestra, as they had things in front of them that looked like music stands for holding written music. Actually these things were there for them to place their pages on for reading, but I stand by my initial reaction as the universal one. Out of all of the presentations that were part of this broadcast, only one presentation was off-schedule: Tony Shaloub's, which ran 30 minutes long.
Though my orchestra schedule remarks may not have had anything to do with what followed, I would nevertheless be remiss not to acknowledge this as a possibility, when one sees my "Monk" videoclips on YouTube alongside my role in this Tony Shaloub performance.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
I Give You
Once again, guess who is in proximity to the big news in Hollywood. That's right, yours truly has unmistakably, for those willing to check the facts, made his way somewhere or another.
Let's see if the simple presentation of evidence isn't more than you can handle, you sometimes less than smart people:
1. My little video, "Adventure At The Pasadena Batman Estate," as posted in 2005 (and indicated intransmutably at the archive.org site as having been posted three years ago) shows me drunkenly flying around ala Superman with a bottle of wine in my hand. Clearly something to point to when one sees the Will Smith movie, "Hancock" released in Summer 2008. By the way, Will Smith is often influenced by me, but let's stay focused.
2. The huge news officially announced today in Hollywood, a first in the world of mega-talk show stars, is that Jay Leno will be doing a show on NBC at 10pm every weeknight after he ceases to be host of "The Tonight Show" in 2009.
3. And now I give you a clip from last night's "The Tonight Show" (now please, be sure you first follow the link in item 1 to "Adventure At The Pasadena Batman Estate" (also at YouTube, incidentally), and second, think back on the movie "Hancock", otherwise I'm wasting my breath on you, and just what can you expect to get out this, for that matter):
Let's see if the simple presentation of evidence isn't more than you can handle, you sometimes less than smart people:
1. My little video, "Adventure At The Pasadena Batman Estate," as posted in 2005 (and indicated intransmutably at the archive.org site as having been posted three years ago) shows me drunkenly flying around ala Superman with a bottle of wine in my hand. Clearly something to point to when one sees the Will Smith movie, "Hancock" released in Summer 2008. By the way, Will Smith is often influenced by me, but let's stay focused.
2. The huge news officially announced today in Hollywood, a first in the world of mega-talk show stars, is that Jay Leno will be doing a show on NBC at 10pm every weeknight after he ceases to be host of "The Tonight Show" in 2009.
3. And now I give you a clip from last night's "The Tonight Show" (now please, be sure you first follow the link in item 1 to "Adventure At The Pasadena Batman Estate" (also at YouTube, incidentally), and second, think back on the movie "Hancock", otherwise I'm wasting my breath on you, and just what can you expect to get out this, for that matter):
Sunday, December 7, 2008
JUST A FEW
Just a few things have happened since my December 2nd post:
The TV show, "Dirty Sexy Money" has once again incorporated into an episode (12.3.08) my Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's "Uncle's Dream" from 1990, 1992. It being that my video stars Bill Clayburgh, and "Dirty Sexy Money" stars his daughter, Academy Award-winning actress Jill Clayburgh, you might imagine that I am not unaccustomed to finding my Dostoyevsky in her work:
Another example of "Dirty Sexy Money" crossing paths with my Dostoyevsky can be found in the 10.17.07 episode:
Perhaps it is too much to ask people to further consider that, in order for "Dirty Sexy Money" to make use of my Dostoyevsky as seen in the 12.3.08 episode, the entire multi-episode plot line had to be complicit. I would hate to believe that the announced cancellation of "Dirty Sexy Money" was affected (i.e., ratings were negatively affected) by their interest in using my Dostoyevsky.
Many others have also made reference to this video of mine, whole movies, in fact, may never have been made. Go to YouTube and look for Zoomsteinhoff's (me) "Monk" clips, and you will find references to it that I've noted on that show going back several years. Even Paul McCartney in collaboration with Elvis Costello has found it useful.
I saw a line surface on the recent "24" that I believe may have originated with a recent statement I made. Donald Sutherland, who also stars on "Dirty Sexy Money", is of course the father of Kiefer Sutherland. Over the years I have occasionally seen indications of my influence on the show "24", and other Kiefer Sutherland product.
Regarding "Saturday Night Live", I have written only a few things this season specifically intended for them, and have watched those things lead to a substantial amount of presidential election water cooler conversation (to say the least), via channels other than SNL. Prior to the days when I would write things intended for SNL, SNL would nevertheless find out things going on in my life and work stuff into sketches that same week (I have been secretly super - important most of my life). They have reverted back to this in the absence of my writing things intended for them. I would hope that they appreciate the fact, as they have never literally used one of my sketch ideas, but instead have extracted things for use that same week, consistently almost every week for three years, that however one might characterize our "relationship", it has not been fulfilling for me as a writer. It has, however, been helpful in that it has motivated me to write a certain type of material, which in a few instances has even led to my creating videos from that material.
One last thing since my December 2nd post: I've been occasionally seeing people in traffic who may or may not be Sarah Silverman, to whom I referred in my previous post. Then again, people laughed at all of my Lennon sitings which occurred for five years after his death, preceding the ever-popular Elvis sitings others have made. A person such as myself is a likely target for people who are prone, out of boredom, to hire look-alikes, and so I do not retract my Lennon sitings. I've never asserted that they meant anything beyond the idea that I was being descended upon by look-alikes. As for Sarah Silverman, I should perhaps mention that I stopped watching her show after she did the episode condemning pot. Mind if I promote the idea that anyone who touches alcohol be incarcerated?
The TV show, "Dirty Sexy Money" has once again incorporated into an episode (12.3.08) my Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's "Uncle's Dream" from 1990, 1992. It being that my video stars Bill Clayburgh, and "Dirty Sexy Money" stars his daughter, Academy Award-winning actress Jill Clayburgh, you might imagine that I am not unaccustomed to finding my Dostoyevsky in her work:
Another example of "Dirty Sexy Money" crossing paths with my Dostoyevsky can be found in the 10.17.07 episode:
Perhaps it is too much to ask people to further consider that, in order for "Dirty Sexy Money" to make use of my Dostoyevsky as seen in the 12.3.08 episode, the entire multi-episode plot line had to be complicit. I would hate to believe that the announced cancellation of "Dirty Sexy Money" was affected (i.e., ratings were negatively affected) by their interest in using my Dostoyevsky.
Many others have also made reference to this video of mine, whole movies, in fact, may never have been made. Go to YouTube and look for Zoomsteinhoff's (me) "Monk" clips, and you will find references to it that I've noted on that show going back several years. Even Paul McCartney in collaboration with Elvis Costello has found it useful.
I saw a line surface on the recent "24" that I believe may have originated with a recent statement I made. Donald Sutherland, who also stars on "Dirty Sexy Money", is of course the father of Kiefer Sutherland. Over the years I have occasionally seen indications of my influence on the show "24", and other Kiefer Sutherland product.
Regarding "Saturday Night Live", I have written only a few things this season specifically intended for them, and have watched those things lead to a substantial amount of presidential election water cooler conversation (to say the least), via channels other than SNL. Prior to the days when I would write things intended for SNL, SNL would nevertheless find out things going on in my life and work stuff into sketches that same week (I have been secretly super - important most of my life). They have reverted back to this in the absence of my writing things intended for them. I would hope that they appreciate the fact, as they have never literally used one of my sketch ideas, but instead have extracted things for use that same week, consistently almost every week for three years, that however one might characterize our "relationship", it has not been fulfilling for me as a writer. It has, however, been helpful in that it has motivated me to write a certain type of material, which in a few instances has even led to my creating videos from that material.
One last thing since my December 2nd post: I've been occasionally seeing people in traffic who may or may not be Sarah Silverman, to whom I referred in my previous post. Then again, people laughed at all of my Lennon sitings which occurred for five years after his death, preceding the ever-popular Elvis sitings others have made. A person such as myself is a likely target for people who are prone, out of boredom, to hire look-alikes, and so I do not retract my Lennon sitings. I've never asserted that they meant anything beyond the idea that I was being descended upon by look-alikes. As for Sarah Silverman, I should perhaps mention that I stopped watching her show after she did the episode condemning pot. Mind if I promote the idea that anyone who touches alcohol be incarcerated?
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Don't Open Until Halloween
Now that I have seen Stephen Colbert's Christmas special, I am compelled to whisper (so as not to disturb anybody's silent night, or various people's codes of silence, or contribute to noise pollution, or the ruckus of the malcontented, etc.) how it seems quite likely that my material played no small role.
I begin with my knowledge that my material shows up on The Colbert Report and The Daily Show now and then, sometimes in a big way, for the most part as the consequence of my sending my material to Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel. I refer to two of Hollywood's biggest producers, who I met in 1975 and 1971, respectively, before they were producers.
On August 16, 2006 I emailed to both an idea for SNL, "Bullish", which can be found on a page of my website (as the second comedy sketch idea on that page). Both the Colbert special and "Bullish" give prominence to the idea of people surviving being eaten by a bear thru a hero cutting open the bear that swallowed them, followed by the expression of thanks in a manner that falls short of an awareness of how ludicrous it all is. I first give you several lines from "Bullish", should clicking the above "Bullish" link be too noisy:
STEVE
Thanks for slicing open those bears and getting us out, Ranger Dan.
WAYNE
Yeah!
RANGER DAN
Don’t mention it, fellows.
I now give you a clip showing the dramatic resolution of the central dilemma of the story from Colbert's Christmas special:
As a final cherry on top of the Christmas tree (don't bother clicking on cherry, it won't open a link to anything - I'm just trying to make this all feel more festive), tomorrow night will be the premier of Elvis Costello's new talk show on the Sundance channel. It could just be TV history - why not? And as one more cherry for the road, yesterday Jimmy Kimmel and I looked at each other in traffic. Jimmy Kimmel, as everyone knows, is the ex-boyfriend of Sarah Silverman - in fact, last night his show was a repeat of Sarah Silverman's appearance, the only one taped after their breakup. Sarah Silverman, as everyone knows, is one of a handful of stars with their own Comedy Central TV show, Stephen Colbert being another member of that small group of people.
Disclaimer:
No part of Jimmy Kimmel has ever been pulled out of any part of a bear (in fact, Kimmel and Silverman were never actually married).
I begin with my knowledge that my material shows up on The Colbert Report and The Daily Show now and then, sometimes in a big way, for the most part as the consequence of my sending my material to Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel. I refer to two of Hollywood's biggest producers, who I met in 1975 and 1971, respectively, before they were producers.
On August 16, 2006 I emailed to both an idea for SNL, "Bullish", which can be found on a page of my website (as the second comedy sketch idea on that page). Both the Colbert special and "Bullish" give prominence to the idea of people surviving being eaten by a bear thru a hero cutting open the bear that swallowed them, followed by the expression of thanks in a manner that falls short of an awareness of how ludicrous it all is. I first give you several lines from "Bullish", should clicking the above "Bullish" link be too noisy:
STEVE
Thanks for slicing open those bears and getting us out, Ranger Dan.
WAYNE
Yeah!
RANGER DAN
Don’t mention it, fellows.
I now give you a clip showing the dramatic resolution of the central dilemma of the story from Colbert's Christmas special:
As a final cherry on top of the Christmas tree (don't bother clicking on cherry, it won't open a link to anything - I'm just trying to make this all feel more festive), tomorrow night will be the premier of Elvis Costello's new talk show on the Sundance channel. It could just be TV history - why not? And as one more cherry for the road, yesterday Jimmy Kimmel and I looked at each other in traffic. Jimmy Kimmel, as everyone knows, is the ex-boyfriend of Sarah Silverman - in fact, last night his show was a repeat of Sarah Silverman's appearance, the only one taped after their breakup. Sarah Silverman, as everyone knows, is one of a handful of stars with their own Comedy Central TV show, Stephen Colbert being another member of that small group of people.
Disclaimer:
No part of Jimmy Kimmel has ever been pulled out of any part of a bear (in fact, Kimmel and Silverman were never actually married).
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Give My Regards To Silence
Despite this blog site's unfortunate limitation of not being able to testify as to when I post - it indicates time and date of posting, but apparently makes it my option as to what time and date are set - I will nevertheless be making this the new home of my "Monk" and other TV/movie videoclip postings.
My "Monk" videoclip postings help illustrate how almost every "Monk" episode ever made incorporates inside references to my material, possibly the result of (or initiated by) the fact that the former head of USA Networks (which makes "Monk") was the first person from whom I learned of the college I attended (CalArts). [On this subject, one may also wish to read my Oct. 26th blog, wherein I refer to how, at my 9-5, I also happen to be responsible for organizing the rebroadcast, to Kaiser Permanente employees throughout Southern California, an IHI satellite broadcast of a conference program that includes an appearance by Tony Shaloub (star of "Monk") in a comedy sketch, occurring in several weeks.]
Up until now I have been posting these TV/movie types of videoclips at YouTube rather than at archive.org where I tend to post my works of a more independent significance. YouTube is now a problem. I was notified by YouTube that, per Fox, I had violated their rules with the posting of a "Simpsons" clip (which I posted because it was related to my other "Simpsons" clips). I have subsequently removed all of my "Simpsons" clips from YouTube. In a description I had posted at YouTube that went with the posting of one of my "Simpsons" clips, I pointed out that whenever "The Simpsons" makes inside references to my material, it tends to also involve "Limbo", a CalArts student film my class made in 1973-1974 (also related: during the '70s a supervising director of "The Simpsons" used to live down the hall from me at CalArts, the two of us knowing people in common). YouTube automatically testified to/posted intransmutably the date of this "Limbo" tendency reference regarding "The Simpsons". Two weeks later a "Simpsons" episode featured Homer doing the limbo dance (while singing the limbo dance song). This tended to substantiate my statement regarding what I saw going on with "The Simpsons". The chronology of my statement was important.
Prior to the days when I would post my "Simpsons" clips on YouTube, I would email my "Simpsons" videoclips to a former CalArts classmate who had also been involved with the "Limbo" scenes referenced (I emailed these clips to at most three other people). This individual is a friend of Senator Kennedy (his father once was a famous senator with whom Kennedy co-sponsored more bills than with anyone else), and although this former classmate and I were never more than acquaintances, I felt it noteworthy, as "The Simpsons" is the only show to feature a Ted Kennedy character (the Mayor of Springfield). I also consider it noteworthy that this former classmate had years ago incorporated an inside reference to my contribution to "Limbo" on a TV show he produced, on the same exact episode that included a Senator Kennedy guest appearance. [Perhaps at some future time I will go into my various "Kennedy Connections".]
PRECISELY TWO MINUTES before YouTube sent me the email indicating I was in violation due to the "Simpsons" clip, my "Didtheyreadit.com" technology (a technology I use and inform people I use) indicated to me that this same former classmate had reopened an email I had once sent him (excluding a few Obama/Kennedy subjects, I have only sent this individual "Simpsons" related emails). The next "Simpsons" TV episode was about Lisa Simpson receiving a secret message from Homer via a crossword puzzle published in a magazine (Homer had arranged it with the people who created the crossword puzzle).
Some may expect this to leave me with the sense that inside references should not be made public. That as I point attention to the references, I nevertheless should not try to prove that I know what I'm talking about. That if people make fortunes from my ideas, this fact can be buried by (1) mixing together in one's mind these idea-usage occurrences with things that are nothing more than inside references, and (2) burying/eliminating the evidence that these idea usages and inside references are even taking place. Assassinate my character/ intelligence/ credibility, all with my willing consent by engaging my complicity in a Mafia-like code of silence.
It should be pointed out that this former classmate might have somehow been tricked into performing his "Simpsons"-related act (opening a "Simpsons"-related email exactly two minutes before I was sent the "Simpsons"-related violation notice from YouTube) when he did. It would not have been difficult for someone on the inside to have set him up to appear guilty. Yet at the same time, one might have to consider that this same former classmate is also a longtime friend of Craig Bronfman, whose family-owned Seagrams bought Universal when Spielberg was there. Spielberg would be among those with the most to gain by cajoling me into this code of silence "game" - though I also sometimes wonder why Spielberg so often chooses to be influenced by my material, which in a non-corrupt world would make him seem quite guilty to any intelligent person in possession of the easy-to-access (at least for now) facts. I see where it may all be seen as a friendly sort of thing in the end (see previous blogs for references to Cornfeld and Daniel, two Spielberg & Steinhoff-related people). Who needs money?
The following videoclip relates the November 28, 2008 "Monk" episode to my 1998 "Gosk" material (my three most referred-to works are my "Gosk", "Uncle's Dream" and "Mall Man" videos):
And finally, a follow-up to my previous blog of November 22nd. In that blog I made reference (and provided a link) to the music video for my song, "The Gravity". That song includes a description of waiting a ridiculous amount of time for my waitress to return with the check, yet she leaves the restaurant without bringing me my check. That very same night (11.22.08), "Saturday Night Live" performed a comedy sketch in which Fred Armisen played a character waiting a ridiculous amount of time for his pizza in a restaurant/bar, until he leaves without it. Those who have been following my blogs would not have difficulty connecting these (though those seeing my November 22nd blog for the first time after November 22nd would unfortunately have no evidence of the chronology of events just described).
My "Monk" videoclip postings help illustrate how almost every "Monk" episode ever made incorporates inside references to my material, possibly the result of (or initiated by) the fact that the former head of USA Networks (which makes "Monk") was the first person from whom I learned of the college I attended (CalArts). [On this subject, one may also wish to read my Oct. 26th blog, wherein I refer to how, at my 9-5, I also happen to be responsible for organizing the rebroadcast, to Kaiser Permanente employees throughout Southern California, an IHI satellite broadcast of a conference program that includes an appearance by Tony Shaloub (star of "Monk") in a comedy sketch, occurring in several weeks.]
Up until now I have been posting these TV/movie types of videoclips at YouTube rather than at archive.org where I tend to post my works of a more independent significance. YouTube is now a problem. I was notified by YouTube that, per Fox, I had violated their rules with the posting of a "Simpsons" clip (which I posted because it was related to my other "Simpsons" clips). I have subsequently removed all of my "Simpsons" clips from YouTube. In a description I had posted at YouTube that went with the posting of one of my "Simpsons" clips, I pointed out that whenever "The Simpsons" makes inside references to my material, it tends to also involve "Limbo", a CalArts student film my class made in 1973-1974 (also related: during the '70s a supervising director of "The Simpsons" used to live down the hall from me at CalArts, the two of us knowing people in common). YouTube automatically testified to/posted intransmutably the date of this "Limbo" tendency reference regarding "The Simpsons". Two weeks later a "Simpsons" episode featured Homer doing the limbo dance (while singing the limbo dance song). This tended to substantiate my statement regarding what I saw going on with "The Simpsons". The chronology of my statement was important.
Prior to the days when I would post my "Simpsons" clips on YouTube, I would email my "Simpsons" videoclips to a former CalArts classmate who had also been involved with the "Limbo" scenes referenced (I emailed these clips to at most three other people). This individual is a friend of Senator Kennedy (his father once was a famous senator with whom Kennedy co-sponsored more bills than with anyone else), and although this former classmate and I were never more than acquaintances, I felt it noteworthy, as "The Simpsons" is the only show to feature a Ted Kennedy character (the Mayor of Springfield). I also consider it noteworthy that this former classmate had years ago incorporated an inside reference to my contribution to "Limbo" on a TV show he produced, on the same exact episode that included a Senator Kennedy guest appearance. [Perhaps at some future time I will go into my various "Kennedy Connections".]
PRECISELY TWO MINUTES before YouTube sent me the email indicating I was in violation due to the "Simpsons" clip, my "Didtheyreadit.com" technology (a technology I use and inform people I use) indicated to me that this same former classmate had reopened an email I had once sent him (excluding a few Obama/Kennedy subjects, I have only sent this individual "Simpsons" related emails). The next "Simpsons" TV episode was about Lisa Simpson receiving a secret message from Homer via a crossword puzzle published in a magazine (Homer had arranged it with the people who created the crossword puzzle).
Some may expect this to leave me with the sense that inside references should not be made public. That as I point attention to the references, I nevertheless should not try to prove that I know what I'm talking about. That if people make fortunes from my ideas, this fact can be buried by (1) mixing together in one's mind these idea-usage occurrences with things that are nothing more than inside references, and (2) burying/eliminating the evidence that these idea usages and inside references are even taking place. Assassinate my character/ intelligence/ credibility, all with my willing consent by engaging my complicity in a Mafia-like code of silence.
It should be pointed out that this former classmate might have somehow been tricked into performing his "Simpsons"-related act (opening a "Simpsons"-related email exactly two minutes before I was sent the "Simpsons"-related violation notice from YouTube) when he did. It would not have been difficult for someone on the inside to have set him up to appear guilty. Yet at the same time, one might have to consider that this same former classmate is also a longtime friend of Craig Bronfman, whose family-owned Seagrams bought Universal when Spielberg was there. Spielberg would be among those with the most to gain by cajoling me into this code of silence "game" - though I also sometimes wonder why Spielberg so often chooses to be influenced by my material, which in a non-corrupt world would make him seem quite guilty to any intelligent person in possession of the easy-to-access (at least for now) facts. I see where it may all be seen as a friendly sort of thing in the end (see previous blogs for references to Cornfeld and Daniel, two Spielberg & Steinhoff-related people). Who needs money?
The following videoclip relates the November 28, 2008 "Monk" episode to my 1998 "Gosk" material (my three most referred-to works are my "Gosk", "Uncle's Dream" and "Mall Man" videos):
And finally, a follow-up to my previous blog of November 22nd. In that blog I made reference (and provided a link) to the music video for my song, "The Gravity". That song includes a description of waiting a ridiculous amount of time for my waitress to return with the check, yet she leaves the restaurant without bringing me my check. That very same night (11.22.08), "Saturday Night Live" performed a comedy sketch in which Fred Armisen played a character waiting a ridiculous amount of time for his pizza in a restaurant/bar, until he leaves without it. Those who have been following my blogs would not have difficulty connecting these (though those seeing my November 22nd blog for the first time after November 22nd would unfortunately have no evidence of the chronology of events just described).
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The Fireman Theory, or Cheerio
In the past few weeks there has been quite a set of things hurling me into the center of it all sort of kind of, not one of which do I care to discuss at this time, and so on to other matters.
Sir Paul McCartney has an unknown (Whatever that word means: if 500 people know something that no one else knows are they outnumbered, thereby not knowing? Or if 501 people disagree, believing that the thing cannot actually be said to be known, do they win?) history of doing things of secret significance when it comes to me. The absurd/crazy sound of that has played no small part in maintaining the unknown-ness of these actions.
For me to continue from my McCartney premise, it would therefore seem that I must throw the pupils in my Beginners class to the side of the road. I will then ask the people in my Intermediate class to keep them company, patch up their bruises (we were traveling at about 40 mph when we threw the Beginners class to the side of the road, so I expect there to be some bruises, not to mention screams of "Lunatic!" that I would rather not hear. Have you Intermediates any gags on you?). And so on this one I can only proceed with my Advanced class.
Now this is just a theory, based on tendencies and facts:
When I did the title song of my "The Gravity" CD in 2002 (not to be confused with my "Gravity" cassette from the late '80s, early '90s, different song, different stage of my musical development), and I made reference to the breakfast cereal Cheerios, ("I just want to go out into that world that I used to see on my box of Cheerios when I was young"), I knew something would be made of it by the Cheerios people. I did not include a reference to Cheerios for that reason, however, my experience informed me that there was an excellent chance it would get picked up on in some way by Cheerios. Sure enough, Cheerios shortly thereafter did a TV commercial of two trucks, one carrying Cheerios and the other carrying their new thing to combine with Cheerios. Now before the Beginners class insists there is nothing contained in this fact (I know you Beginners are still there), I hasten to describe how I had once created a thing where there was a lobster truck and a spilled truck with butter. I was sure to see in the Cheerios commercial an idea I had used, and though others might have independently come up with the same idea, how is it that it was Cheerios, which I already expected to do something. In addition to this, Cheerios did another TV commercial where a little boy refers to his heart as making a "clerp" sound. Clerp is the name of one of the central characters in my "Gosk" videos. And let us not forget the scene (though we may try) in "Ready To Rumble", where a truck carrying toilet paper collides with a truck carrying filled port-o-johns. David Arquette, the star of "Ready To Rumble", is part of a group that includes a star of my "Gosk" video, Robbie, who at one point was also going to star Rosanna Arquette in his Anita O'Day movie (he ended up doing an Anita O'Day documentary instead, starring Anita O'Day). Robbie also once introduced me to David Arquette's assistant, Whitney. Paul McCartney, it has been well publicized, is a good friend of Rosanna Arquette (particularly publicized after his split from Heather Mills, in fact, Rosanna Arquette was one of the only names associated with McCartney in the media during that period). Those who accept these facts as known may or may not feel inclined to allow me to do a tad less hastening in my explanation, yet the rest, well, they like to make me hasten. I must hasten to add this, hasten to add that, not fair, really.
Paul McCartney's newest release is "Electric Arguments" by The Fireman (a two-man group, McCartney and Youth), due out in a day or two. Based on the above-referenced unknown history of Paul McCartney, I had to see if there was anything of mine to correlate with his new CD (one can hear it on MySpace, courtesy of McCartney, and view the cover all over the place). All that I could come up with was a correlation between his "The Fireman" CD cover and my "The Gravity" CD video cover (see images above). Now anyone in the world could win the argument that for two people to each draw a circle does not imply a relationship. An intelligent person would be required to defend that, depending on the specific context, such an implication certainly could exist. Even half-circles, even quarter circles, even a one-inch line. Context is everything.
When I think of the name, "The Fireman", I hear a few possible things, one of which is what I heard repeated throughout this week's "Life On Mars" TV episode: the cliche of what a kid (Youth?) wants to be when he grows up - a fireman. On "Life On Mars" the kid wanted to be an astronaut or a policeman, but it comes to the same thing. This is the week of the new Fireman release, and in that cliche of wanting to be a fireman, I also hear the line from my "The Gravity": "I just want to go out into that world that I used to see on my box of Cheerios when I was young". A child's perspective on the world and one's future place in the world.
So this is my theory of where McCartney might be pointing. And if he is, because I am only 78% certain, it isn't something my Beginners or even my Intermediates can accept. And if you lousy Beginners and Intermediates think I leave it to you to tell me my true role in the world, you'd better finish your Wheaties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
