
The Decade With No Name - dwynings
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/01/04/100104taco_talk_mead
======
SamAtt
I didn't see much insight here. It was the typical liberal "00 was the decade
of Bush and Bush is bad" with a little social media admiration mixed in.

The truth, I think, is that the last decade was simply a hard one and George
Bush was just a product of his times. It was a decade where the U.S. chose
security over freedom and grew into a nation it didn't want to be. While Bush
was just a President who was not wise enough to turn the country around while
being appeasing enough to give the nation what it thought it wanted.

I know some here love Barack Obama but I think he represents the same one-
sided mentality of the last decade. He is the knee jerk reaction to Bush,
opposite in every way and just as extreme to the other side.

My hope is that the next decade finds a balance this one has lacked.

~~~
kiba
I have a hard time thinking that Obama is different than Bush. All he seem to
be doing is getting stuck into wars, and endorsing the Bush administration's
policy of interventionism into the economy.

Plus, I still remember the anger and betrayal I felt when Obama signed the act
that immunize telecoms for their spying activities. They don't even pretend to
be subtle about it!

------
petercooper
We only seemed to the naming issue near the start of the decade here in the
UK. Now, all of the mass media I've seen call it the "naughties" - even the
staid old _Times_.

------
codyrobbins
I like the question of semiology here, even though it's not really addressed
in the article. I’ve been calling it the _début de siècle_ — French for ‘start
of the century’. The French term has so much more connotation than the literal
English translation, though.

<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_de_siècle>

------
puredemo
It's the naughties, as far as I know.

 _Music from the eighties, nineties, naughties and today!_

~~~
Zot95
I have only heard that term used in the UK, not in the US.

I think that usage of naught/nought for zero in British English is pretty
standard. In the US, it can be used to mean "nothing" (e.g. "all for naught")
but not zero.

------
Zot95
This is why, I believe, that not much is being made out of the end of the
decade. That, and perhaps so much emphasis was placed on the start of the
century and/or millennium.

I'm not sure either what sort of name will be used for the next decade.

~~~
lurkinggrue
The Teens?

~~~
huherto
In that case this decade was the "pre-teens"?

------
mnemonicsloth
_killer appellation_

Some puns are too useful to groan about.

Considering the number of software entrepreneurs on this site, I'm surprised I
haven't seen it used here before.

------
wglb
I think it should be called the naughts: <http://www.nobody-knows-
anything.com/Jan00/000103.html>

------
gte910h
The AUGHTS. I see none of the issues the article bring up actually being BAD
things about this term for this time period, which it has been used to
describe it before.

------
kroo
"The first decade of the twenty-first century" sounds good to me. TFDOTTFC
("Tee-Eff dot Tee-Eff-See", TF.TFC) for short :)

------
sdurkin
Mentions Bump for the iPhone (YC S09).

------
schwit
2001-2010

------
ryanelkins
How about we all just agree to call it "Steve"?

