Ready or not, tomorrow night marks the end of not just the year, but the decade. Yes the old whatchamacallits (the oughts? the zeros? the o’s? the nils? the nothings?) will end and the tens will arrive, but before that happens, lots of people will create useless lists of things both good and bad from the past decade.
“But what about me?” You might ask, “I want to help make a useless list, too!”
Well, here’s your chance to vote for your choice for Moonbat of the Decade in several categories, so why not contribute your own voice to someone else’s “decade” list and feel a little better about yourself:
1) Celebrities
2) Blogging
4) MSM (News)
6) Politicians (International)
And last but not least, to cleanse the palate:
Remember, vote early and vote often… just like a good little Democrat would! (And death is no excuse not to vote!)
Ron Paul. You’re welcome!
“Ready or not, tomorrow night marks the end of not just the year, but the decade.”
Actually, all official record keeping agencies and historians consider a decade to run from 1-10, a century 1-100, and a millennium 1-1,000. This makes sense because, outside of computer science, when was the last time you started counting at 0?
To illustrate why this is the case, let’s assume that we want to begin a new year system to use instead of our current one with January 1 marking the start of the first year. All dates prior will be referred to as Ancient History (AH) and all after will be the Shining Future (SF).
Once January 1st rolls around, we will have begun our first year – the date will be January 1, 1 SF; but logically the first year does not end until the new one begins. Thus until it is January 1, 2 SF – we are still in the first year – not the second. It then follows that when we begin the first year, that we also begin the first decade and the first decade does not end until the 10th year comes to a close on December 31, 10 SF – remember this is when the 10th year ends. Thus the 2nd decade does not begin until January 1, 11 SF. This then also applies to centuries and millenniums.
Why did I start with Year One instead of Year Zero in my example? The answer is because there is and can be no Year Zero. In my example, we arbitrarily start numbering the years from a point in time that we define; once that is established then by definition we are living in Year One SF. What then of the previous year – it becomes Year One AH. Year One AH ends on December 31, 1 AH at 23:59:59 and Year One SF starts on January 1, 1 SF at 00:00:00. There is no point in time where you can point and call it Year Zero, so all numbering begins at Year One – the first year.
So while a decade can be numbered from any year (1995-2004 for example), it is most logical and consistent to start from the first year (1st decade 1-10, 2nd decade 11-20, 3rd decade 21-30, etc). The same holds true for millenniums as well and the 3rd millennium, the 21st century, and the first decade of the century/millennium all started on January 1, 2001. (The fact that people celebrated the “New Millennium” in 2000 just proves that the average person is more interested in big, flashy, round numbers rather than in being logical or consistent.) Thus, the second decade of the 21st century will begin on January 1, 2011.
I’ll buy that for the millennia, since we number those as first , second, third millenium,
but it seems stupid to say that 1990 wasn’t the first year of the 90’s and 2000 is the last year of the 90’s .
If we numbered the decades and said this upcoming year ended the 201st
decade which starts January 1, 2011, I’d go along with that.
What’ll we call it?
I’d call the next decade the “Oh Tens” or “Oh Teens” after 2012
, Anyway, Happy New Year.
OK. I managed to vote for all the dingbats nobody else wanted to vote for.
Charles Johnson is definitely the Moonbat of the Decade. I mean, if you help coin the very term “moonbat”… and then basically turn into one yourself… ’nuff said.
Dude!!! You left Fred off the final anti-moonbat poll? Wouldn’t want to be in your shoes when Fred finds out.
As for Charles Johnson as moonbat; I must admit I voted for Andrew Sullivan because of his lunancy of claiming both Trig and Tripp as Bristol Palin’s children. However, I agree that Johnson should get that extra consideration for both coining the term and then becoming the definition of a moonbat.
IMO – LGF was a good site pre-2009. He deserves consideration for loonie blogger of 2009, but he does not deserve to be pilloried for the whole decade.
I was disappointed that Dodd and Frank did not appear on the list of moonbat domestic pols.
I notice there’s no poll crowning the biggest moonbat “news” network. Is that because it’s already such common knowledge to everyone on both sides of the aisle that MSNBC has outperformed CNN to become the new undisputed Mecca of moonbattery?
I wonder if Olberman, Maddow, Mathews, and some of the other MSNBC moonbats will go separately to see Johnny Depp in Alice In Wonderland, or if they’ll go together. They must be so excited.