If my calculations are correct (and my use of the word “calculations” is perhaps overreaching since I’m talking about basic arithmetic, here; but in the age of newfangled technological devices like “calculators”, I’m fairly impressed with myself when I can count to ten without assistance), there are nine days remaining of 2009. Which means there will never again in my lifetime be double-aughts following the first digit of the year.

(or in anyone else’s lifetime, lessen someone figures out that whole immortality thing in the next 900 years without humanity extinguishing itself first, which I suppose someone very well may; a thousand years isn’t all that long, after all.)

For some reason, my brief encounter with double-aughts after the first digit of the year, and the end of this brief encounter, mean something to me.

It occurred to me a little too late to really consider exactly what it is that the double-aughts means to me, or why I might miss it, but I’ll speculate here, briefly, and then move on to discuss exactly what it is that had me wide awake four hours after drifting off, when I could have actually slept in today and gotten a full night’s sleep (whatever that means), had my body only permitted me to indulge.

So, a brief speculation on the Significance of the Double Aughts.

Hrm, well, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, there is a lovely symmetry in the two zeros between the first and fourth/final digits of the year; not only a symmetry, but a space, a breath, between the chaos of the years…

(okay, I’m enjoying totally overanalyzing this: I live for this shit!)

So, the two zeros in a sense hold the center, provide an anchor of serenity and space in an otherwise tumultuous world of concrete value and cold calculations -

The Double Aughts represent a sort of breathing space, the eye of the storm, an opportunity to write a stabilizing force, a  counterbalancing neutrality, into each day.

Now, we will no longer have that reassuring serenity and breathing space written into the code of each day.

Now, I suppose, we are fucked.

(I don’t really think we’re fucked, not any more than we usually are, at any rate, but it seemed like a nice, snappy way to end my Speculation on the Significance of the Double Aughts.)

And now I believe I had told myself I was going to arrive at the thoughts that had me awake earlier than I intended this morning (nothing particularly exciting or revelatory, so please don’t get your hopes up) -

Well, since I spent so long on an unanticipated bloggery detour (the speculation on the significance of the Double Aughts), I will make this next bit very brief:

I have been thinking of late of two themes, possibly titles, for a series of work — could be two series of work, or they could combine into a single series. And by “series” I mean a series of scenes, or short pieces, or maybe just a single play. I really don’t know, only that I’ve been mulling over it for quite a while now, and found myself thinking about it of late.

The two themes are: 1. catalog of Failure; and, 2. the excavation series.

I use “failure” not in a pessimistic way, but I find instances of failure so much more interesting than instances of success; I find I generally learn more from failing than from succeeding (using the words “failure” and “success” in the fairly traditional, obvious sense; not the “oh I thought this thing was a failure, but in reality it was a success because x,y and z happened as a result”), and failure also makes for some funny shit. Also, Failure tends to make a Human that much more relatable. Not that I’m anti-success: go success, it’s awesome. But I’m talking, here, about ideas for something I’m working on. This is nothing new, I’m just thinking about it – perhaps I’m drawn a bit too much to silver linings, here, I don’t know. We’ll see.

The Excavation Series is something that could be entirely different or could be, as I said, part of the same thing. In any case, these are two ideas I’m tossing around, as the final days of 2009 continue apace.

And I suppose, before the year is out, I will do some end-of-year accounting, & take stock, & express bewilderment, and gratitude, and pissed-offedness, and all sorts of things, to properly review the last year from my own, Totally Self Absorbed Perspective (TSAP).

so last night i watched an interview on larry king live with joel & victoria osteen. apparently, though, this interview aired on december 8, 2008, but never you mind -

i was so entertained i kept watching and was late for a tasty pho dinner, which is totally out of character for me.
if you don’t know, joel osteen is a preacher based in houston, and his wife victoria does a fair amount of public god-speaking too. apparently, people pay thousands of dollars a seat to be at one of their public sermons.

i think what impressed me was how utterly unconvincing a person can be in an unscripted interview – yes, shades of palin, so i know it’s nothing new – but this is someone who makes a living speaking. so you’d think he could spin an argument better. even i can come up with a more christianly satisfying answer to the question “is faith all you need?” than “Well, I think you need faith to believe, you know.” uh. i guess. and you need to breathe in order to inhale. plus, you need to make sense in order to communicate clearly.

there’s a choice excerpt of the full transcript below – a highlight is when larry asks joel if he thinks marriage is a civil right, and joel responds: “Yes. I don’t — I’m not — I’m not sure I’m up to speed on it. What do you mean by that?”  it’s also fun when victoria reassures us that the gay people who come through their doors are nice people.

i know it’s too easy to talk shit about the famous celebrity preacher, but they kind of pissed me off while fascinating me at the same time. if you can, watch the interview – joel has a way of constantly smiling while he’s talking, and victoria starts to get a very tense look as the interview continues…
excerpt from full transcript:

KING: OK. In another area, the new issue of “Newsweek” — I don’t know if you’ve seen it yet — but it discusses the Proposition 8 study in California and the defeat of the proposal to allow marriage among gays. And it claims that the bible has many, many, many marriages among gays and that it does not come down on it. How do you feel about it?

J. OSTEEN: Well, the way I feel about it is I’m an…

KING: It’s an interesting article, though.

J. OSTEEN: Sure.

KING: You ought to read it.

J. OSTEEN: I have this…

KING: It’s very — written in depth.

J. OSTEEN: Sure. I’d love to read it. I’m not for gay marriage. Every — in the bible, I see that a marriage is between a male and a female. Now, I don’t know — I haven’t read this new one that you’re talking about. I’m not against anybody. I’m not against gay people or anybody else. But I just think that, you know, that’s — my faith is based off the scripture and that’s what I see in the bible that it should be between (INAUDIBLE).

KING: But this gives you other scripture to think about. I mean, it’s very interesting…

J. OSTEEN: Yes. I’d love to see it.

KING: …the new issue.

J. OSTEEN: I’d love to see it.

KING: Do you think it’s a civil right, though, marriage?

J. OSTEEN: Yes. I don’t — I’m not — I’m not sure I’m up to speed on it. What do you mean by that?

KING: Do people have the right to marry whom they wish to marry? You know, for a time in this country, blacks couldn’t marry whites in the South.

J. OSTEEN: Oh, yes. Yes, oh, I think — absolutely. I think anybody should be able to…

KING: But not gays?

J. OSTEEN: Well, I just don’t think that — you know, I don’t think that’s God’s best. And, no, I don’t think that’s — that’s (INAUDIBLE).

KING: Do you think that gay is a choice?

J. OSTEEN: I think that it is a choice. I do think it’s a choice. I can’t say that I understand it all, but I believe it’s a choice.

KING: Do you minister to gay people?

J. OSTEEN: Absolutely. Anybody that comes through the doors.

KING: Do they come and ask you questions?

J. OSTEEN: I’m sure…

KING: Or do they have difficulty dealing with a theology that runs against them?

J. OSTEEN: No. I think — anybody is welcome to come. They know what I believe. But it doesn’t mean that, you know, that the scripture can’t help them. And, you know, our church is not a place for perfect people. There’s not — you know, I can’t say nobody…

KING: Then I can’t go.

(LAUGHTER)

J. OSTEEN: Well, you know what I mean. So, there’s plenty of people that come in and have difficulties and have issues. And, you know, we probably all have something. But we’re open and, you know, want it to be a place of hope and healing.

KING: How do you feel, Victoria, about the gay question?

V. OSTEEN: Well, you know, I just — I believe marriage should between a man and a woman. And we do have gay people in our church. And then they’re wonderful people. They’re nice people. It’s just that we just don’t believe in that.

i’m not very aware of All Things Shopping (i’m really not aware of many things, actually; my oceans of ignorance are vast and uncharted, but let’s leave the mapping of my kingdoms of ignorance for another ramble, shall we?), but i really never knew that shopping the day after thanksgiving was A Thing that people in this country did; my family never spoke of it anyway (and the ocean of subject matter of which my family never spoke is also vast & uncharted, but again we’ll save that for another time).

so when i first heard of this shopping-the-day-after-thanksgiving thing a few years ago–seeing front page photographs of people camped out at 4 in the morning in front of a wal-mart, waiting for the doors to open; the images of frenzied shoppers mobbing the gates, clawing at the hot new item (elmo? the newest version of playstation? i dunno), the remains of their shared humanity abandoned & forgotten in the parking lot–i did experience a level of shock. what the fuck? shopping season? people camp out over night in parking lots to get a discount on a doll? how many dolls do you have to buy to possibly make that experience worth it? and why do you want to buy the doll that every other kid in the country apparently is going to have, anyway? doesn’t originality count for anything anymore?

but then i rebuked myself for criticizing, upon realizing that (1) i’m not only a dick who rarely buys gifts for my closest friends and dear sisters, but (2) i’m a dick with no family to speak of outside of parents and sisters and grandparents, and i don’t have to purchase hella obligatory gifts for lots of little ones. so i guess a 40% discount is kind of important if you’ve got many crying little ones to consider.

but then, after thoroughly self-rebuking for judging the behavior of those who find themselves in situations starkly different from mine , i returned to my initial reaction of, “what the fuck?”

christ, someone get these kids a deck of playing cards or a set of colored pens or a cardboard box (the acute sense of disappointment experienced upon receiving such a christmas gift will build hella character), and let TMX elmo find his way into some soulless home elsewhere.

and there’s something profoundly disturbing about considering the value of TMX elmo when the “shoppers mob malls for holiday discounts” headline shares the front page of the NYT with headlines announcing that this month has been the bloodiest in Iraq since 2003. and today, it’s finally clear to more and more americans (as it’s been to most of the rest of the world for some time now) that all the violence in Iraq is actually part of what’s generally called a civil war.

RANDOM BLOG INTRUDER: oh shit, no she didn’t; she just had to go there. and we were all having such a good time hating on American shoppers and laughing at the absurdity of TMX elmo. what a downer.

ME: i wasn’t trying to be an upper, Random Blog Intruder. i apologize for nothing.

RANDOM BLOG INTRUDER: well you should; this site’s supposed to be about comedy, asshole. you’ve just gone and ruined it.

ME: well some of the most hilarious comedy comes from some of the most agonizing bits of reality; deal with it.

RANDOM BLOG INTRUDER: whatever. i’m gonna go start my OWN website somewhere else, where i’ll blog about DICK JOKES and CHICKS, putting my THINLY-VEILED MISOGYNY & HOMOPHOBIA to good use.

ME: fine, you go do that.

RANDOM BLOG INTRUDER: do you really want to leave it on this note?

ME: of course not. how about we leave it on the second, less commonly known, definition of the word “paraphernalia”?

RANDOM BLOG INTRUDER: “paraphernalia”? you mean, the noun which means equipment, apparatus, or furnishing used in or necessary for a particular activity, as in the example a skier’s paraphernalia?

quite. the second definition is a married woman’s personal property exclusive of her dowry, according to common law. or, put another way, the personal articles, apart from dower, reserved by law to a married woman.

RANDOM BLOG INTRUDER: really? they let women own personal property outside of her dowry?

apparently.

RANDOM BLOG INTRUDER: weird.

isn’t it?