FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT [‘44]: "In our day certain economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. A second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, or race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines throughout the nation. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom, freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
"The right of every family to a decent home. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment. The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward in the implementation of these rights to new goals of human happiness and well-being. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."
BILL MOYERS: What do you think about, listening to that?
JAMES GALBRAITH: It's wonderful. It's splendid. It defined what we should have achieved in the last 50 years and in many ways, what we still need to achieve.
It's a test. It's a test for the country as a whole, as to whether we have the capacity to state and pursue a truly public purpose. We've come through a generation where we have really denied the existence of a common good or a public purpose. And I think we've recognized that that path leads to collapse, the collapse that we've seen. And that the way out is to somehow reestablish for ourselves this vision of what we really could be.
After reading several of these worst decade articles the last week or so I wondered how long it would take for someone to correctly point out that the first decade of the 21st century does not begin until next January 1st. Thank you.
I was recently assigned to write an article on the best films of the decade. One contrarian reader insisted on giving me a hard time about the newspaper's math. But I don't accept that defining the start of "the '00s" is the same thing as defining the start of the 21st century.
I do accept that the 21st century started in 2001 because the 1st century started with 0001, and the ordinal constructon ("1st, 2nd, 3rd...21st") means we're counting a sequence. And thus I accept that "the first decade of the 21st century" started with the year 2001.
But that's not the decade that most people are talking about.
A "decade" is any span of ten years, in whatever way it's defined by context. For instance, there is a decade that will go from June 6, 2006 to June 5, 2016, The next day, my wife and I will rightly say we have been married for "a decade." (Yes, we were married on 06/06/06--in Valentine, Nebraska.)
For the purposes of decade-in-review stories and other pop-cultural discussions, defining this particular decade is not a function of counting upward from the Year 0001; it's a function of nomenclature. Linguistically, the decade that people are calling "the '00s" started in 2000 and ended in 2009.
It's the same tautological truism that says "the 1950s" comprises those ten years of the 20th century in which the third digit is a "5." It would be an absurd contradition in terms to say that 1960 was the last year of the 1950s. (Symbolically speaking, John Kennedy was definitely not elected in the '50s!)
This is a matter of language and usage, not math. And language (like democracy but unlike math) is supposed to be majority rule.
However, I think we can all agree that the last ten years sucked.
A decade is simply a period of ten years. A decade can start and end in whatever context you want. For example I could say during the last ten years/decade i got stinking rich.
First, I must correct myself. I got it bass ackward in my first comment. [Late night; too early morning.] It should have read the first decade of this century does not 'END' this year, but next year.
Yes, a decade can be any set of ten years, or ten anything, you wish. However, it must also be noted that since the common historical calendar count began/begins at year 1 a full decade is not reached until year 11. For clarity one must simply reference what they are talking or writing about.
Whether it's been 9 or 10 years into this new millennium, I think we can all agree that it's sucked, and sadly, that we have to accept that it will probably get worse under this Trojan Ass in the White House.
Still, Happy "Good Riddance to 2009" Year. We can resolve to hang in there!
9 comments:
It must be like those who woke up in the depressing 30s after experiencing the roaring 20s. I look back at the Clinton's 90s wistfully.
New year's resolution: do NOT vote for a crooked Chicago pol with a speech impediment who fights dirty against women.
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT [‘44]:
"In our day certain economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. A second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, or race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines throughout the nation. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom, freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
"The right of every family to a decent home. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment. The right to a good education. All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward in the implementation of these rights to new goals of human happiness and well-being. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."
BILL MOYERS: What do you think about, listening to that?
JAMES GALBRAITH: It's wonderful. It's splendid. It defined what we should have achieved in the last 50 years and in many ways, what we still need to achieve.
It's a test. It's a test for the country as a whole, as to whether we have the capacity to state and pursue a truly public purpose. We've come through a generation where we have really denied the existence of a common good or a public purpose. And I think we've recognized that that path leads to collapse, the collapse that we've seen. And that the way out is to somehow reestablish for ourselves this vision of what we really could be.
After reading several of these worst decade articles the last week or so I wondered how long it would take for someone to correctly point out that the first decade of the 21st century does not begin until next January 1st. Thank you.
I was recently assigned to write an article on the best films of the decade. One contrarian reader insisted on giving me a hard time about the newspaper's math. But I don't accept that defining the start of "the '00s" is the same thing as defining the start of the 21st century.
I do accept that the 21st century started in 2001 because the 1st century started with 0001, and the ordinal constructon ("1st, 2nd, 3rd...21st") means we're counting a sequence. And thus I accept that "the first decade of the 21st century" started with the year 2001.
But that's not the decade that most people are talking about.
A "decade" is any span of ten years, in whatever way it's defined by context. For instance, there is a decade that will go from June 6, 2006 to June 5, 2016, The next day, my wife and I will rightly say we have been married for "a decade." (Yes, we were married on 06/06/06--in Valentine, Nebraska.)
For the purposes of decade-in-review stories and other pop-cultural discussions, defining this particular decade is not a function of counting upward from the Year 0001; it's a function of nomenclature. Linguistically, the decade that people are calling "the '00s" started in 2000 and ended in 2009.
It's the same tautological truism that says "the 1950s" comprises those ten years of the 20th century in which the third digit is a "5." It would be an absurd contradition in terms to say that 1960 was the last year of the 1950s. (Symbolically speaking, John Kennedy was definitely not elected in the '50s!)
This is a matter of language and usage, not math. And language (like democracy but unlike math) is supposed to be majority rule.
However, I think we can all agree that the last ten years sucked.
Trojan Joe
(sick of football, sick of war)
A decade is simply a period of ten years. A decade can start and end in whatever context you want. For example I could say during the last ten years/decade i got stinking rich.
First, I must correct myself. I got it bass ackward in my first comment. [Late night; too early morning.] It should have read the first decade of this century does not 'END' this year, but next year.
Yes, a decade can be any set of ten years, or ten anything, you wish. However, it must also be noted that since the common historical calendar count began/begins at year 1 a full decade is not reached until
year 11. For clarity one must simply reference what they are talking or writing about.
Whether it's been 9 or 10 years into this new millennium, I think we can all agree that it's sucked, and sadly, that we have to accept that it will probably get worse under this Trojan Ass in the White House.
Still, Happy "Good Riddance to 2009" Year. We can resolve to hang in there!
Well it's all just superstition-but I feel like 2009 was a particularly unlucky year. Lets hope 2010 is a luckier number.
Post a Comment