2009 and this possible new decade

Well another Holiday season has passed and the new year hopes to be an improvement on the last. Me? I’m all for that hope as my paycheck for one, and I’m sure yours, just wasn’t as effective at staying the wolves as it has been in the past and I know late January will test that ineffectiveness even more.

But for now I’m going to put that thought aside, remember these fine holidays and watch Shoes, my cat, fight with a Q-tip he took out of Maria’s little garbage can next to her makeup table. Apparently it said something about his mother. I was considering a year’s end kind of thing but the inundation of bests of this, worsts of that, top 10’s, year in reviews, 2009’s greatest cheeses and such got to the saturation point as always.

Instead just one thought for now from the attic about those inevitable decade controversies that popped up as usual…

With the finish of this particular year, 2009, we experienced the arguments that have gone on at every decade’s or not decade’s end since the manger. At that time, time itself and the counting of it was magically reset at a later time by self important reverent folks to change the calendar from an actual undetermined start time, that was already being counted in another way by other self important reverent folks, to instead reflect the actual start time at the manger and give us a new system of counting time thus offering a great opportunity for future businesses at small bodegas in every mall in the world to make a killing selling kitten calendars. The argument is most passionate with those who feel that at the start of manger time, there wasn’t actually a year zero, that from the moment small screams could be heard in a meager shack by an assemblage of luminaries with expensive gifts, a step dad, an angel or two, a Sheppard and some farm animals, it was year 1. Thus an actual set of 10 years would only “officially” finish 9 years later leaving the beginning of new set of ten at 1 again. So in essence, 2000 + years later if you look back the “80’s” for example they would include 1990. Doesn’t sound quite right does it? These more passionate ones even include exclamation points in letters to the editor! Pretty heavy stuff. Technically, I guess, they’re correct but aesthetically and to the general public?

Now, to the credit of these so passionate if decades were measured the way they would like “Unskinny bop” and “Something to Believe in,” which came both out in 1990, would be classified as hits in the just one decade thus rendering any claims of success spanning two, thankfully mute. But, as it is, we’re all stuck with the hits of Poison covering a couple and we just have to live with it, just like we have to live with the fact that Brett Michael’s doo rag/cowboy hat libido just won’t go away another debatable decade or two later.

My thought, though, is that because manger time started in year 1 we take into account that that crying miraculous miracle was a newborn. He couldn’t count yet and when he could it was after disappearing for a few years while working on his carpenter’s card. Then he hit the public consciousness again, in a big way, and it was fishes this, wine that, throngs of devout everywhere he turned, bringing dead guys back to life etc. He didn’t have time to also think about a new system of day counting and the cuteness of kitten calendars. Plus he didn’t even know! “Hey, this whole messiah business has me a little preoccupied you know, plus, I’m not even aware that, in the future, a whole new system of calendar time counting bearing my mark will happen, but if I were I’d just say make the first of these decade things 9 years long and move on already. I don’t want to be responsible for the overly technical ones getting in a huff every 10 years and thinking the 80’s included 1990. What sense does that make? Poison having hits in only one decade is, really, all they should get…sorry gotta go, miracles, inspirational speeches, walking on water (really looking forward to this one by the way)…”

I for one consider this the start of a new decade if for nothing else than it makes the counting a hell of a lot easier. Plus, the aughts or whatever it is people will want to label this last decade seemed so much longer than ten years for too many reasons to list here. I just hope the new year holds some promise for all of us and I wish you well in it.

To a new year? Cheers and all the best.

-fb

One thought on “2009 and this possible new decade

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s