What's in a Name?

I have quite possibly the best job on this entire campus. For those of you unfamiliar with my work, I sit at the Campus Honors House at the University of Illinois for five and a quarter hours once a week. Sometimes I clean the whiteboard, others I decorate the interior for whatever season or holiday is upon us. Most of the time, though, I sit. I sit and do homework, study, watch videos, or read. Tonight, I am sad to say, is my last shift as a "student worker," my official title.

It's finals week, and I've spent the majority of time tonight watching "The Sing-Off," which mixes two of my favorite things: a cappella music and expert critique. Listening to and watching groups perform "Viva la Vida" and "Rehab" with only voices is a joy. Hearing constructive criticism mixed with the occasional joke from Ben Folds and others is interesting. Now if only the show wasn't limited to four episodes. *tear*

After one and a half hours of musical entertainment, I decided that it would behoove me to read something. The Honors House, or "HoHo" as we affectionately call it, is chock full of journals and magazines. I set my eyes on TIME's Special Issue: The Year in Pictures. Now, I know for someone wanting to read something, a magazine full of pictures may not be the way to go, but the issue complements the photos with captions and commentary that bring the framed life to action again.

In the "Inbox" section on page 18, I read dissents from some readers at the notion of calling the years from 2000-2009 the "Decade from Hell." TIME's cover story from the December 7th issue was all about how bad the past ten years have been. Whether it was war or financial crisis, contested elections or natural disasters, this decade seemed like it had every kind of catastrophe possible. We might even say it was a clean sweep of the calamity grab bag.

From the Inbox, I moved to "The World," and here I came upon something that connected the Decade from Hell to something about which I have been wondering for a while. The piece is small, in the corner, kind of like a journalistic afterthought. In blue font on page 25, one reads "The decade is nearly over, and the world still hasn't reached a consensus on what to call the 2000s." Yeah, I know! What the heck do we call this decade? I know people say that the new decade doesn't begin until 2011, but if we refer to the "Roaring '20s," or any other decade, don't we mean 1920-1929? It makes sense to me, at least, so now I come to my main point: the past ten years should be aptly dubbed the "Double O's."

Yes, the "Double O's." Think about it. Say it a few times. Let it roll off your tongue. Double O's. Mm-hmm, you hear it? Because I do. The "Decade from Hell," as TIME calls it, should be given a name that refers both to what it literally was (2000, 2001, 2002, etc.) and to what it felt like at many times. Sure, there have been plenty of hard times in other decades and plenty of good times from this one, say some TIME readers, but that doesn't mean we can't feel that the past ten years were trying in many ways for our country. It also doesn't mean that we should pass up the fantastic opportunity to give this decade a catchy name that sticks. And isn't that what really matters here? It's all about making it easier for us to refer to bygone eras. Well, almost bygone.