Unlike every other person who's ever cared enough about pop culture (or culture culture) to discuss it, I will not be running down my favorite moments of the decade. The decade, simply, is not over: you don't start counting at 0, and Year 1 was so called from its start (the 1 signified a year's beginning, not a year's passing). Technically, only nine years in this decade have passed. I know that this is pedantic. I understand that culturally, we group decades by the digit in the year's tens spot, not the cumulative passage of time. But whatever, I'm taking advantage of the technicality. I'd be more comfortable running down the decade at its actual end, next year, but since no one will be doing that then, it would be irrelevant. And that would be stupid.
I other words: I just don't feel like it.
(Also, was Year 1 actually called that at the time? And aren't we up against time-keeping accuracy, anyway? Whatever. In game of numbers, I still win...mainly because I don't have to rehash this very vast decade!)
Rich, just want to note that this one of those classic "overcorrections."
A decade is any period of ten years. It could be 1994-2003. The only way it would be incorrect is if someone referred to this as "the 201st decade A.D.," which would be 2001-2010 as you say. But luckily no one talks that way.
If someone calls this the '00s, and calls it a decade, and does a decade wrap-up of the '00s -- they are not making any error.
Posted by: Pink SQRL | December 17, 2009 at 04:00 PM
You aren't 1 when you're born; you're 1 once you've survived a whole year. This idea has always, for some reason, confused me. So when I turn 27, I won't be starting my 27th year, I'll be starting my 28th. So shouldn't I be 28? Am I somehow retarded? Or is this weird to anyone else?
Posted by: Hummina | December 17, 2009 at 04:01 PM
Fair enough; want to post pictures of Rudy?
Posted by: Sarah | December 17, 2009 at 04:15 PM
Yeah, this logic is pretty retarded. And making lists is fun.
Posted by: Holly | December 17, 2009 at 04:18 PM
i completely support you in this. i can't deal with reading those lists - i could not imagine the aggravation of creating one.
Posted by: jessica | December 17, 2009 at 04:34 PM
I'm glad someone agrees with me on this, even if it's just an excuse not to write an article. I feel like a jerk when I want to correct people who say this decade is ending. According calendar decades the next one doesn't begin until 2011. Trying to say that to anyone on new years eve and not sound like a pedantic know it all will be impossible.
Posted by: Heather | December 17, 2009 at 04:34 PM
Just to be fair:
Jan '00 - Dec '00: 1 year
Jan '01 - Dec '01: 2 years
Jan '02 - Dec '02: 3 years
Jan '03 - Dec '03: 4 years
Jan '04 - Dec '04: 5 years
Jan '05 - Dec '05: 6 years
Jan '06 - Dec '06: 7 years
Jan '07 - Dec '07: 8 years
Jan '08 - Dec '08: 9 years
Jan '09 - Dec '09: 10 years
Posted by: frankie | December 17, 2009 at 08:00 PM
well i have to defend rich, for i am one of those pedantics who did not celebrate the coming of the 21st century until 2001. the thing with the gregorian calendar is there was no year 0! there was year 1 b.c. and 1 a.d. so the fisrt decade a.d. comprised years 1 through 10, the second decade 11 through 20 and so on, and so on.
calendars are messed up anyway.
i can't wait until next year for your list :)
Posted by: nene | December 17, 2009 at 09:48 PM
[A] Decade ain't nothin' but a number. It's all good, Rich...smooches!
Posted by: bevskid1 | December 17, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Hummina, I remember in 8th grade I told my math teacher something of similar logic to what you said. She responded with something like "23 minus 6 will always be 17, you can't make arguments against that."
But I guess math teachers don't like to make 2+2=3
Posted by: victoria | December 18, 2009 at 01:44 AM
I wasn't even expecting you to do this, I thoguht you were just going to make an end of '09 list like last year. OH WELL, there had better be a Winston/Rudy Christmas post, that's all I want. THAT'S ALL.
Posted by: steele | December 18, 2009 at 03:10 AM
fair enough, but i am still waiting desperately for your fame monster post!
Posted by: emily | December 18, 2009 at 03:57 PM
Rich, I hope you'll still be doing a year-end wrap up. And also, if I may pretend you are Santa, I STILL play the shit out of THE HOUSE OF R&B, so I would really, really, really like another DJ mix. Anything music-related in the best-of style would be muchly appreciated!
Posted by: s2couto | December 18, 2009 at 06:22 PM
I totally see your logic Rich, because when you think about it , 1980 was more of a 70's year than an 80's , since disco and 70's clothes were still strong then, and 1990 had nothing to do with grunge as far as pop culture, it was still a neon 1980's year, and 2000 was a big ravey 1990's year. Totally logical
Posted by: matthew | December 19, 2009 at 04:08 AM
The world was divided into two parts: is it a new millennium or still not?
Posted by: Clenbuterol | November 05, 2010 at 10:32 AM
A wonderful rememberance and tribute. Oh how I owuld love to make beans like she did! Tonight you put out a little food for her, right?
Posted by: advertising equipment | November 14, 2011 at 01:52 AM
A wonderful rememberance and tribute. Oh how I owuld love to make beans like she did! Tonight you put out a little food for her, right?
Posted by: pvc card | November 14, 2011 at 01:54 AM
A lovely story that moved me very much. A big hug from Austin, for all our grandmothers.
Posted by: plastic holder | November 14, 2011 at 01:57 AM