It’s hard to argue with Time magazine’s assertion that the 2000’s were the “Decade from Hell”. It started with a U.S. presidential election that ended up being decided by the Supreme Court, followed by a massive terrorist attack and two ensuing wars, one of which Canada is still involved with. It ended with a new president calling for more war. And everyone lost their jobs.
The news wasn’t all bad, of course. Apple gave us a new shiny gadget each year over which to coo. And the Lord of the Rings movies were pretty good.
Despite the overall awfulness of the decade’s events, the 2000’s were actually pretty stellar for me. I stopped being so depressed and angry all the time (the 90’s were particularly bad and the 80’s sucked because I was in high school and that sucks for everyone), met the love of my life, moved to a new town, and became father to a healthy, happy baby. The only downside to our life right now is that we’re not sure our 16 year old cat is going to make it to 2010.
The very idea, however, that we’re closing a calendar decade almost passed me by until I saw that Time article. It may be because I grew up in the latter half of the 20th century and saw the decades counting up to the 21st century, it seems now to be random and arbitrary to mark the years in units of ten. Or maybe because we never agreed what to call this decade. Or perhaps because I have a kid, I’m not the pop culture and current events sponge I used to be. I try to pay attention to the Afghan detainee abuse story or the Copenhagen conference or Obama’s troop surge and I know these are important stories but it’s difficult to read more than just the first couple of sentences.
It’s a decent trade-off, though. I’ve been well-informed with no life and ill-informed with a good life and I think I prefer the latter.
I just worry that if the next decade is better, the well-being of my own will be inversely affected. Fortunately for me, according to the World Meteorological Organization, there’s little chance of that.