The 2000's?

---

Alright, I know this one is a little late, seeing as how we're almost two years deep into the new Millennium. However, the other day I was reprimanded four times by my friends for referring to our current decade as "The 90's". "We're not in the 90's anymore. We're in the 2000's," They said.

As I was procrastinating in studying for my psychology exam, I began thinking. When we talk of the Roaring 20's, the term just rolls off your tongue, and it brings a whole image of the hedonism of the decade.

The 30's=Depression.
The 40's=War.
The 50's=Suburbia and James Dean.
The 60's=Free Love.
The 70's=Disco.
The 80's=Capitalism.
The 90's=Grunge bands, Economic Tranquility, Monica Lewinsky.

See how nice it sounds to be able to say, "The 50's"? Now, fast-forward to present day... How awkward does it sound to say "The 2000's"? We can't very well say the 00's... obviously that's not y2k compliant...and I have a problem with labeling the next few years of our existence as a planet as "The New Milennium". Why? Cause, it screws with the uniformity of decade identification. It stands out like a sore thumb... it's like a family where the kids are named James, Mary, Peter and Shaniqutia.

Furthermore, it sounds too freakin' regal. I seriously doubt that the advancements for the next 10 years of the new "Milennium" are going to be so substantial that they overshadow, say, the 20's. So why should it get preferential treatment?

Okay, I know. I have too much time on my hands with which to contemplate meaningless bullshit. But the next time you're drunk at a party and you catch yourself referring to the times as the 2000's, pause and think how retarded it sounds. The 2000's... the years of Boy Bands, Britney Spears and the Taliban. Burn in Hell Osama.

And that's how I see it.

~*Feisty Charli*~

November 28, 2001