I'm Just A Love Machine

A few things surely to seem of no great consequence, especially if one feels no inclination to apply context:

1. Announcing my new little video, "A Stiff Drink", viewable on YouTube.

2. I believe I spotted Jennifer Aniston again a few days ago, which, if so, would only have significance if seen in relation to my believing I saw her good friend, Courteney Cox Arquette, a few days before that, and also a star of my "Gosk 2" video, who once introduced me to David Arquette's assistant, and who once was going to have Rosanna Arquette (McCartney friend) starring in a movie he was once planning.

3. I failed to note, in my blog of Sunday, September 27th, that the Bruce Willis role on Letterman in relation to Kevin Smith's appearance on Fallon, which were both in relation to me in relation to Smallville and Monk, the latter of which was also in relation to my potential 9/11 clue, never would have occurred if President Obama hadn't appeared on Letterman Monday, September 21st - from TV Guide:

Important! New! Dimension! To! The! Origin! Of! "Rigby"!, "Writer"!, "Submarine"! Unearthed!

This just in....

They've just found an essay Paul McCartney wrote when he was AGE TEN that brought special attention upon him - he received a book token from the Lord Mayor of Liverpool for it! I wish to draw very! special attention to a phrase excerpted from that essay in the article about its discovery:

"He then compares that coronation with the new Queen’s by writing that 'no rioting nor killing will take place because present day royalty rules with affection rather than force'”.

In my "Statement of Blog Purpose", which accompanies all of my blogs, I describe something I wrote when I was AGE TEN that brought special attention upon me (in my second blog, "A Few Words About My 'Statement of Blog Purpose'", 8.10.08, I elaborate on this - see below excerpt), with people talking about it!, the teacher hanging it on the wall!!, etc.!!!, partly because it was 15 pages (back then this was the rough equivalent of an adult writing a thousand pages, in the same way that dog years are different from people years - perhaps twittering will return specialness to the idea of a kid writing a bunch of words for one piece).

My big point here is this:
I had come to notice how one of the things the older McCartney handled (reworked without losing the point) in my "Endless Voyage" story was the all-important part where the world governments planned to act "dispassionately" (the exact word I used in the 8.10.08 blog) in sending half the human race to live beneath the sea to resolve the overpopulation problem of what to do with all the people. When he wrote Eleanor Rigby, McCartney turned this into the opposite of dispassionate government power. It was an agonizing over what to do with all the lonely people from someone who had himself quite nearly attained the status of royalty (McCartney). He had transformed my cynical portrayal of dispassionate powers-that-be into.... an expression of the exact idea contained in the essay he wrote at the same age of ten, royalty ruling with "affection" rather than "force". While this was not an unknown concept, powers-that-be having/not having feeling for their people, I had come to see this particular aspect of the handling by McCartney of my idea at ten as significant. Now, today, we see McCartney at ten, and now we see part of the process by which McCartney came to be influenced by this former ten-year old. And no, it is not purely the similarities that led to this conclusion "of mine" regarding the origin of those Beatles songs!!!!!!!

EXCERPT FROM MY 8.10.08 BLOG, "A FEW WORDS ABOUT MY STATEMENT OF BLOG PURPOSE":
My 1965 story, "Endless Voyage", is about how the world governments, faced with the dire threat of overpopulation, devise a scientific solution: a pill that permits people to breathe underwater. Those who take it can never breathe air again. And so, dispassionately, the human race would be divided in half, and the question of what to do with all the people resolved, by sending half to live beneath the sea, to become a group of strangers to the other half of the human race. All we had was a photograph, with the instruction to write a two-page story. I wrote a 15-page story, which was treated like a thousand pages. "Eleanor Rigby", "Yellow Submarine" and "Paperback Writer" resulted from this story. "Yellow Submarine" was the flipside of the 45 rpm record containing "Eleanor Rigby". Donovan would later describe how these two songs were worked on by Paul McCartney simultaneously. "Eleanor Rigby", which raises the question of what to do with all the lonely people and where they all belong, contains a theme that can be found in the very creation of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". When Lennon felt he had to justify that "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" was not code for LSD, he described the entire song as having originated from a single image, not a photograph, but a drawing that his son Julian made for school. An entire song from a single image.

Try To Focus On The Blurry Line Of The Eyechart

Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip, 9.25.09
We all know there are times in life when, for specific reasons, the weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclip must be seen in an expanded context (see "Monk Uncastles" on YouTube). And as was illustrated thru my 8-8-09 Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, and also in my 6-28-09 and 8-22-09 blogs, this can include other shows "joining in". Thus, the expanded context of the weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclip can include immediately previous Monk episodes, as well as other shows airing the same night:



Though there may seem to be a wider assortment of sources than usual for this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, expanding the context was not of my choosing, but was essentially handed to me through what occurred. Furthermore, all shows (and most people) involved have referred to me/my material numerous times before (additionally, Bruce Willis is discussed in my 3/31/09 blog when the subject was a possible terrorist clue playing off of something Willis). Prior to Smallville's move this season to Friday, the same night as Monk, it used to be on Thursday nights at the same time as a show I created, My Name Is Earl. I then would occasionally find on both shows references to the same moment contained in my material, simultaneously included on the same night.

In this weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclip I also put forward the belief that there was a very short interval between when I blogged something and when it surfaced in a show, and on this subject I would wish to say one or two things. At one time it was only the show Smallville that ever caused me to surmise so short an interval between my "cause" and a show's "effect" (not counting Saturday Night LIVE, which is in their element when they draw upon something brand new regarding me/my material). In the instance regarding Smallville doing this, they were responding to the Iranian president's backdrop drawing from something regarding me/my material. I should therefore point out that this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip generally has a lot to do with Monk in relation to Smallville in relation to me/my material. My specific reference to a fast "turnaround time" reflected in this Monk/Steinhoff videoclip has to do with my 9/13/09 blog, which is all about a potentially major clue regarding 9/11/01. I had hoped to someday present the clue more secretly to a government agency, but before they would take it seriously, it would require their believing that I would show up on major terrorists' radar as someone extremely VIP, motivating the terrorists to leave the clue "on my doorstep". And so in the absence of a proper opportunity to handle this clue with the secrecy it may warrant, I released the clue to the world so that someone might do something (I deserve high praise just for not screaming about this sort of stuff, considering the earth-devastating possibilities - I would scream if I thought it wouldn't destroy all chances of being taken seriously). Was the potential clue powerful enough to cause Monk to dispense with normal product-to-market timeframes? As to the 9/25/09 Monk's reference to my 9/22 wastebasket blog, that would scarcely seem to require great expertise in the art of acting on short notice, at least to those of us who are familiar with how fast an idea can come, and the mechanics of actualizing an idea of that variety.

Monk/Beatles Videoclip (without The Beatles)
My September 20th blog referred to some Monk stuff from September 11th and the immediately previous show to that, August 28th, that put together a reference to a specific scene from the Beatles movie, "Help!" in relation to a reference to my comedy sketch idea, "Teddy Tinyfingers". This time around I bring a more complete picture:



For those who have heard of The Beatles, to the point of actually going to see one their movies, the reference is less obscure than it otherwise would be.

Seeing Is Worth Considering Believing
And finally, was that Courteney Cox Arquette I saw while driving to work on Friday, September 25th, the day that Medium, the show of Patricia Arquette, Courteney's sister-in-law, had its season premiere? And was that Robbie Cavolina I saw while driving home from work on Friday, September 25th, star of my 1998 Gosk 2 video, who once introduced me to the assistant to David Arquette, Courteney's husband? And who once was going to star Rosanna Arquette (McCartney friend) in a movie about Anita O'Day but made an Anita O'Day documentary instead? I don't know, it was difficult to tell, I was driving. Yet in each instance I first thought that it was them who I was seeing, and only afterward did I see the connection. And for that reason alone I consider it more worth mentioning than not mentioning.

Garbage Much Too Good To Ever Throw Away

The Kind of Thing People Write Footnotes About
The new interest on somebody's part regarding my sketch idea, "Teddy Tinyfingers", as manifest from the most recent Monk/Steinhoff videoclip (see my previous blog) may have perhaps made sufficiently relevant the time Brooke Shields' fingerless image appeared on a TV Guide cover (Sept. 19, 1987), all because of me and a section from my wastebasket collage. And so I've created (and posted yesterday) a little presentation, "A Guide To Brooke Shields", viewable at archive.org and at YouTube. If they say right, it was personal between Brooke Shields and me, then why, in the mid-'90s, when I returned to NYC to help my father pack up the co-op for his move to Houston, and my neighbor came in telling me to go a few buildings down the street, Madonna was having a party, so I went, but couldn't get in, and so there is Brooke Shields also not getting in, on this quiet edge of the West Village street with just a few people around, did I say nothing to Brooke Shields? True, when Madonna came out, and Brooke Shields, standing next to me, had a conversation with her, it may have appeared to Madonna that I was with her, from the way Madonna acted, but that's her story (by which I mean, what is her story?). By the way, David Rabe, the son-in-law of the neighbor who told me to go there (Sandra Church, widow of the late Bill Clayburgh), wrote a movie Sean Penn starred in, "Casualties of War", which was in the works when Madonna and then-husband Sean Penn came into the same restaurant I was in, very much noticing me. I have been something of an influence on Madonna and Sean Penn as well, quite significantly at times.

Footnote
Returning for a moment to the July 18, 2009 statement I made in response to the July 14, 2009 "review" of "Teddy Tinyfingers", a response and "review" referred to in my Monk/Steinhoff videoclip of several days ago: I mentioned in that July 18th posted response at archive.org that I knew from the digit counter that the "reviewer" had not even read the sketch idea. I will explain. It so happens that I had posted on HuffingtonPost a comment (July 14, 2009, 2:48pm) wherein I included the archive.org web address of the very same "Teddy Tinyfingers". And so, curious as to whether posting this web address would generate traffic to the sketch idea posting, I checked the digit counter for it at archive.org before and after. I found that it did not. However, it did suddenly occur, and this was the only time this has occurred since I have ever posted anything at archive.org, that it was later on that very same day that the "review" showed up at the "Teddy Tinyfingers" archive.org web address.

As to the idea that digit counters on the web are not to be trusted, I've pointed out before that this would be not unlike tampering with Diebold election machine results. Indications of web address traffic have a most serious impact on things. Why would anyone undertake to alter information about the number of people who visit my postings of work on the web? What could they accomplish by doing that? And so why should this cross my mind.

Neither Here But Not Neither There

Knowing that there are people out there diligently connecting the dots, joining together in holy fact the multitudinous fragments of information that belong together, I will try to let this week's videoclips stand alone, without prefacing with further explanation. Surely these videoclips can withstand the hit-and-run soundbite seekers who won't be bothered with the hours of laborious research each moment of the videoclips requires. Plus, as part of my ongoing dream to create things that are self-contained, I've already permeated these videoclips not just with video to watch but with words to read, all within the videoclip. A real multi-media hodgepodge.

Let them stand alone. For example, with the Clapton clip, I don't need to be reminding anyone that the referenced Harrison song is on an album containing a set of things that started with me, beginning with the album title (or for that matter, that there are no small number of significant OTHER things regarding significant OTHER Beatles that also started with me). I don't need to bring up, that a TV show referenced in that Clapton clip, "The Office", has done things Steinhoff-related a number of times in the past, or that Stuart Cornfeld, the producer of Office's Jenna Fischer's movie, "Blades of Glory", has come up now and then in my blogs. Or that the former NBC lead-in show to "The Office", "My Name Is Earl", was first created by me/then sent in 2002 to Sean Daniel, producer of "Earl" star Jason Lee's first big movie, "Mallrats", titled after my "Mall Man".

This information, as well as the innumerable other pieces of relevant information, are already there in past blogs and elsewhere (here and there) for the motivated to fuse, and for the rest to ignore/or whatever. I would prefer that the enlightening, substantiating details weren't so scattered around - but I'm only here to report, not to make anyone add 2+2 multiplied by the square root of every third variable.

Clapton Videoclip


Bill Maher Videoclip


This Week's Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip
(this videoclip was revised and reposted 9.20.09 3pm from 9.20.09 am
posted version, correcting both "9.4.09 Monk" episode references to
"8.28.09 Monk" episode references - no episode aired 9.4.09)

Beyond Say-ing

Can anyone who knows how secretly important I am seriously ignore the possibility that Kenya West's (subsequently super-soundbited) debating of who should have won an MTV Music Awards was apropos of my blog earlier that day (my previous blog, Sept. 13th)? Wherein I specifically referred to the ending of my "Teddy Tinyfingers" sketch idea, the part where the concept of winning is the focus? Where I refer to how this winning reference at the end of my sketch idea was several days later picked up by President Obama his first week in office, "giving the media their soundbite" (quoted from my blog of Sept. 13th)?

Bravo, Kanye, for giving the media their soundbite (which I believe subtly serves to embarrass the Republicans for not even beginning to accept Obama as the a legitimate victor of the last election). And bravo, the strange magic by which President Obama became part of it - presumably by being "inadvertently" quoted off the record as referring to Kenya as a "jackass". Some of us adults have learned that certain things that supposedly happen "inadvertently" may or may not actually be all that incredibly inadvertent.

A September 6th article about Lennon for the most part focused on John Lennon's ongoing professional relationship with a reporter who crafted articles about him over the years. This was one of the first times that I can remember, in the entire history of The Beatles (I've followed them a bit), in which anyone has really put the focus on Lennon in relation to a reporter (not counting Lennon discussing the interview that contained his controversial statement that The Beatles were super-popular; or the interview style of the song, "With A Little Help From My Friends"; or the Village Voice columnist Howard Smith - for whom I worked in 1974 - and Lennon publicizing their friendship, Howard being Lennon's guide when he and Yoko moved to NYC in 1972). I actually felt baited (I held my tongue at the time) by this September 6th article, to tie it in with my July 5th blogged comments about Paul McCartney working things out with reporters:

It is additionally relevant here to make mention that is has become my surmisal that there are certain articles about McCartney wherein he has played a major part in the putting together of the article, beyond just being the reporter's subject: this includes exact release time of the article, insertion of certain key elements without it being left to chance as to whether the reporter would prefer that such elements be included, article titles, etc. I'm sure no one sees anything intrinsically wrong with a person of his stature taking steps to avoid being left wide open to everyone to whom he grants an interview.

I believe it could have happened with Obama's interview in which he was quoted "inadvertently" in relation to Kenya.

I also would add that, earlier in the day of Obama's recent speech before Congress, I emailed someone at work about the approaching room reservation "season". Obama likewise transplanted the word "season" that day, in his speech. I know neither of us are the first to transplant this word, but I note that this happened on the same day. I pre-anticipated the possibility of Obama incorporating my words into this speech, as he has done before. I also pre-anticipated that there would be something big at the MTV award show tying in with me, as this is something I have observed regarding their award shows many times before. Allow me also to draw your attention to the fact that one of my two dozen co-workers remains friends with Obama, having lived down the street from him in Chicago a certain number of years back.

Exactly how could my previous blog have contained something that would lead to a possible indirect involvement by the President of the United States? Re-read it. One word atta time. At a single bound.

It's Been A Hard Eight Years

Stuff here regarding Pet Shop Boys, 9/11, Monk, and Ridley Scott!!!! (one exclamation mark each, each exclamation mark interchangeable)

As always, the things worth reporting this time around put me in a chain-gang with numerous other things. That's my eloquent way of reiterating that, unless one connects the statements here to other dots, the statements get into trouble when seen all by themselves. For example, with this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, I refer to my comedy sketch, "In Orders We Trust", posted verifiably at archive.org on August 11, 2009, and unverifiably (as there is no timestamp from the site) at my Angelfire website on May 15, 2006 (it was also sent in an email May 15, 2006, but who's counting). One who has not checked my other Monk/Steinhoff videoclips (some viewable in my previous blogs, some at YouTube where I'm Zoomsteinhoff), wherein I usually get to point to postings of my work that were verifiably made years before the episode, might skeptically (or seemingly skeptically, if they knew better but have ulterior motives in this power situation) argue that the August 11th posting might conceivably have had benefit of inside word on what the episode would contain. Those who have seen the other Monk/Steinhoff postings, on the other hand, would sort of have to give me more credit than that, would they not.

So on with the show.

Sit
My Autumn 1993 collection of my graphic artwork, "Go Eyes, Go!" (most created pre-1993), though (as I've stated before) comprised of works that are not in any way slick/indicative of a refined technique, nevertheless has been a significant influence on a number of significant works by a number of significant people. I have long held that Pet Shop Boys not only named themselves after a work it contains, "Say Please", but also named their CD "Please" after it as well. Having seen them perform their new song "Yes" on late night television this past week, which also included a video as part of the backdrop during the performance, I now add both the song and its video backdrop to the category of Pet Shop Boys work upon which "Say Please" has been a significant influence. I include "Say Please" here so that you also can have the opportunity (without having to bother to click a link) to name your band, CDs and songs after things it contains:


The resolution in this rendering makes it difficult to tell, but a bottle in front of the woman with the dog-like nose reads, "Dog Food" (I suggest using the "Go Eyes, Go!" link to read these magically insulting words that may be responsible for provoking her tears). The quality of the print in the hard copy goes further, and reads, "Dog Food for dogs in....", and the original has another word or two after that (I did this in the early '80s, don't remember). Maybe I'll go to the trouble of "locating" it someday and finding out. (Thought I was going to say, "retrieving it" or digging it up", didn't you? Well, you don't know me as well as you thought.)

9/11 Clue Never Investigated Because Then They'd Have To Admit I Was Enough Of An Entity In Relation To Spielberg, McCartney, Etc. For The Terrorists To Choose My Doorstep To Leave It On
Here are the cover of my aforementioned, "Go Eyes, Go!" (Autumn 1993) and the title page that immediately follows:


















What makes me regard these as part of a clue (as indicated in the heading of this section) are the cumulative implications of the following:

• Since 1993, "Go Eyes, Go!" was being sold on consignment in a store in NYC called Printed Matter. Eight years later, approximately half-a-year before 9/11, they asked for and received from me my current address to return those copies that were unsold, yet didn't actually send them back until Sept. 2001. They were mailed several days before 9/11 and reached me several days after 9/11.
  

• The image on the cover, deliberately simple/abbreviated, a rectangle that is near the sun, easily lends itself to the interpretation that it is a very tall building, as in a child's drawing showing a house with simple geometric lines, referenced/defined by the sun above. The arrow towards the top of the rectangle suggests a diagram of some kind in relation to the top portion of the tall building. The following title page, which features myself in Superman attire, puts the image into a more literal context of involving the sun, the arrow therefore being aimed at the sky, and, though this may be stretching it, we all know the phrase they used at the start of each Superman TV episode, "Able to leap tall buildings....". Show me someone who utters the words, "tall buildings", and I'll show you ten people who immediately hear that whole phrase in their head.
  

• The importance of "Go Eyes, Go!", though clearly not widely known, is enormous, containing works that have greatly influenced works by Spielberg, McCartney, Starr, and others. Therefore, it is narrow-minded to assume that an occurrence important to the history of that work couldn't have been significant on anyone's "radar".
  

• Other major terrorist acts of our time have also come with clues left on my doorstep (still uninvestigated), including the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993.

I do not believe even for a third of a second that the NYC store, Printed Matter, had any kind of knowing involvement in a terrorist act. I think it is a well known concept that people are often made unknowing accomplices in things, pawns set in motion without any kind of idea what the larger picture is. As an example, I even believe it possible that someone working for Printed Matter could be led to believe that her distorting information regarding her end of what happened would be a "white lie" serving the interests of someone such as Paul McCartney, but shh, don't tell anyone why we want you to tell this "white lie". I have held back from being too explicit about clues that have come my way, to avoid sending a clear alert to those who might bury such clues. It has been quite some time. How long am I to wait for an investigation, an investigation that will only seem worthwhile to the powers that be once it is understood that I am an entity of sufficient note as to show up on the radar of those geared towards messing with those at the top in the first place - i.e., why would big league terrorists (or a mole on the inside) even bother with "involving" me by leaving clues on my doorstep, and so why investigate anything from my doorstep that I reported as being part of a larger puzzle?

Ridley Me This
Here is a videoclip reflecting my latest extremely significant influence on extremely famous director Ridley Scott, whose "Body of Lies" just came to a television premium channel and was just seen by me for the first time (other Scott-related blogs of mine were posted on June 14, 2009, March 15, 2009, and September 21, 2008):



Weekly Monk/Steinhoff Videoclip
Before I post this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, there is one thing that, well, I won't say it fell off the radar last time, it's just that it didn't fit, and, you know, everything has to fit, not symetrically necessarily, that would be neurotic, but, well, anyway. Those well familiar with the Beatles movie, "Help!" (I include not only those who are merely well familiar with this movie, but also those who are actually extremely well familiar with it) couldn't help noticing that the previous Monk episode (August 28th) borrowed a comedy bit from that source. Of course I refer to the co-scientist in "Help!" reporting into his hidden mic, "Now I'm moving my left foot, now I'm moving my right foot." When this is met with a recrimination from his co-scientist, he mutters, "He'll thank me for this in the end." And sure enough, this week's (9/11/09) Monk episode gives Monk the line, "You'll thank me for this in the end." I have previously observed Monk episodes making inside-references to a Ringo Starr anecdote I used to tell, after someone who was a friend of mine while I was attending CalArts reported it to me (my then-friend was there when it happened). In this August 28th and September 11th Monk instance, we have references from "Help!" to one of the two co-scientists who was involved in trying to shrink Ringo's finger to remove the ring. This makes significant the fact that, also in the September 11th Monk episode, Randy tries to see if his hand is small enough to fit through a hole in a glass window (injuring both hands on the jagged glass in the process as he wanted to test it with each hand). I now therefore consider these, in their cumulative context (and alongside innumerable other references to my material on Monk), as being a deliberate reference to my January 2009 "Teddy Tinyfingers" comedy sketch (to which I've made numerous previous references in earlier blogs, including mention of President Obama using the ending of the sketch at the end of his first week in office, giving the media their soundbite for the week).

As indicated in the following new Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, one may also want to visit my "In Orders We Trust" posting at my Angelfire website, and/or at its posting at archive.org, and/or my August 22nd blog wherein I announce that I had begun on making a video of it (progressing nicely!) and/or one of my many blog references to Stuart Cornfeld (such as the videoclip posted with my August 13, 2008 blog). And finally, this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip!