Top 10 Myths About the 2000s

The decade from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009. We still don't really know what to call it. Some call it "The 2000s," pronounced like "The Two Thousands." Some say "The Aughts." Some say "The Aughties.""The Oh-Ohs," as in "00's," never seemed to catch on with anyone.

Time magazine, noting the 9/11 attacks, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, the Crash of 2008 and the ensuing recession, called it "The Decade From Hell." Their editors did not foresee what would happen from 2016 to 2019 -- or, so far, in the 2020s.

I did posts like this for the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1990s. I also did "Top 10 Reasons Why the 1980s Were the Worst Decade," tackling some of that decade's myths. Now, I move on to the 2000s, the name I'm going to use for simplicity's sake. After all, the nostalgia wave for that decade is already underway.

1. George W. Bush wasn't so bad. Compared to Donald Trump, sure, anybody wouldn't seem so bad. And, now, Dubya, who served as the 43rd President of the United States from January 20, 2001 to January 20, 2009, has the reputation of being a nice enough guy who wasn't very smart and was in over his head. Well, in this case, two out of three would have been bad enough.

But he wasn't a nice enough guy. He lied, cheated and stole to gain the Presidency. And he smeared anyone who got in his way, even after he got into office. He was a draft dodger who called people who opposed his war of choice unpatriotic. He presided over the release of the name of an undercover CIA agent, just because her husband had blown the whistle on one of his lies about that war.

2. The period after the 9/11 attacks was a time of great national unity. It was not. Sure, we were all united behind our troops. But there was no great unity behind the President and his team. Yes, Dubya had a 90 percent approval rating. But most Democrats knew that this guy was not going to be able to get the job done, we were just afraid to say so, and hoping we were wrong.

But the Republicans were already saying that former President Bill Clinton had let bin Laden get away, that he "let him slip through his fingers," or even that a foreign government "handed him bin Laden on a silver platter, and he refused it."This was a lie. As is usually the case when Republicans tell lies and get caught, they didn't care, and kept on lying.

Suppose Al Gore had been President at the time, and had been unable to stop the attacks. Think there would have been any national unity? Yeah, surrrre: The Republicans, in control of the House of Representatives, would have impeached him for not stopping them. They wouldn't have been able to get enough votes in the Senate to remove him, but it would have poisoned the rest of his term.

Even if he had gotten Osama bin Laden before Election Day 2002, that election would have been a bloodbath for the Democrats, and he would have been doomed for 2004.

3. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had to be stopped at all costs. How many dictators have the Republicans refused to stop? And how many of them killed more people in fewer years than Saddam did?

We will never know if the people of Iraq would have toppled him before he died of natural causes, because we'll never know when that would have been. What we do know is that it wasn't worth it for our country to topple him.

4. The Republicans were patriotic, the Democrats were not. This has been the conservative argument since 1948, and it has been a big fat lie the whole time.

Case in point: The U.S. Senate race in Georgia in 2002. Max Cleland came out of the Vietnam War with his left arm, but not his right, and neither of his legs. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from Georgia in 1996. He was defeated for re-election by Saxby Chambliss, a Congressman who hadn't served in Vietnam, and questioned Cleland's patriotism because Cleland wasn't sufficiently supportive of Bush's proposed war in Iraq.

Bush never wanted to win the war. He only wanted to have the war, to use as a club over his opponents' patriotism. He still believes that his father's biggest mistake in the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War was ending it too soon, and not securing the patriotic vote for himself in his bid for re-election. Bush the son didn't just want the threat of war and terrorism for the Republicans to win in 2002, and the actual war and the threat of terrorism to win in 2004. He wanted it for 2006 and 2008, even though he would no longer be on the ballot.

Give John McCain credit: When he ran in 2008, he did say he wanted to end the war, by winning it. Whether he knew how, we'll never know. But at least he knew that it had to end, one way or another.

And speaking of the 2008 election:

5. Barack Obama was under-qualified for the Presidency. That argument has been completely shot to hell by the Republicans falling all over themselves to nominate Donald Trump. Obama also had more years in public service than the man the Republicans nominated to beat him in 2012, Mitt Romney, despite Romney being 14 years older.

Furthermore, length of experience isn't necessarily an indication of a good Presidency. George H.W. Bush probably had the most varied experience of any Presidential nominee ever, and he was not a good President. Better than his son, though. And, given the power of the Governor of Texas compared with most other Governors, George W. was less qualified in 2000 than was Obama in 2008.

When John McCain was the Republican nominee in 2008, he had a big edge over Obama on experience. The problem was, his experience was mostly in foreign policy and national security. He had hoped that the most important issues would have been those.

Instead, the economy went into the tank, and, having lived most of his life on the federal government's dime -- a son of a naval officer, then a Naval Academy midshipman, then a naval officer himself, then a Congressman, then a Senator, indeed the most time he'd ever spent away from the federal government taking care of him was while he was a prisoner of war -- his biggest experience in regard to the civilian economy and its difficulties was getting caught as one of the "Keating Five," in a banking scandal.

In contrast, Obama did have experience in dealing with the real civilian economy. He and his wife Michelle were still paying off their student debts. They understood the struggles of Americans who weren't rich. McCain, whatever his other virtues, didn't understand, because of, yes, his experience. When it came to handling the economy, Obama was qualified, and McCain was not -- and that's before we get into economic ideology.

6. Kids who grew up then were deprived when it came to technology. There were already smartphones and Game Boys. At home, there were already laptops and Xboxes. Social media only started to blossom in 2006, but more than half of the things that kids can do with their phones in 2022, they could do in 2000.

7. It was a barren time for music. Yes, a lot of it was bad. Some of it was very, very bad. Most of that was the computerized stuff, like the monotonous Sean Paul; or attempts at being soulful that ended up sounding like whining, like James Blunt's "You're Beautiful" and Daniel Powter's "Bad Day." (Sad to say, those 2 songs and Sean Paul's "Temperature" were all big hits at the same time in early 2006. Talk about some bad days.)

But it was also the decade in which Eminem, Jay-Z and his eventual wife Beyoncé, Christina Aguilera, OutKast and Pharrell Williams released their best work; Mariah Carey and Mary J. Blige each fell off both commercially and in their private lives, but each made a fantastic comeback on both fronts; the Dixie Chicks (as The Chicks were then known) pissed off conservatives, faced an ugly backlash, and received awards that proved they won that battle; and Pink, Alicia Keys, Norah Jones, Avril Lavigne, Kelly Clarkson and Amy Winehouse debuted, producing epic albums and stunning performances. So there was plenty of good music to go along with the crap that the music industry threw at us.

8. The Sopranos was the greatest TV show of all time. The 1990s began the format of "prestige television." The format really took off in the 2000s, led by The Sopranos, which ran from 1999 to 2007.

Look, as much as I would like a show set in my native North Jersey and in nearby New York City to be the greatest TV show of all time, The Sopranos ain't it. Yes, it was a very well-written drama. YYes, it could also be funny at times. es, the acting was great. Yes, it had some classic moments. And, yes, it also made the point, very well, that the kind of lives that these "men of honor" were leading was dishonorable, often horrible, how their real families suffered because of their activities in "the family," and should not be emulated.

So, I'm not saying it was a bad show. I am saying that, like all shows in which criminals are the main characters, it was not for everyone. That's a matter of taste. For all the violence and the over-reliance on profanity, there is much to be said in the show's favor. It deserved most of the accolades it got. And I'm not objecting to the ending, either. Once the shock wore off, I realized that it was wholly appropriate.

But I can name at least one show in every decade of the TV era that did those things better:

* 1950s: Bonanza. (Barely: It premiered on September 12, 1959.)

* 1960s: Star Trek. (The original series.)

* 1970s: M*A*S*H.

* 1980s: Hill Street Blues.

* 1990s: ER.

* 2000s: The West Wing.

* 2010s: Mad Men.

* 2020s: So far, I can't name one, but I'm sure there will be one premiering by December 31, 2029.

9. The Kardashian-Jenner sisters were talentless "heirheads." No. They started out in their father Robert Kardashian's music agency, then built their respective fashion empires. Unlike a lot of rich people who claim it, they actually have been "job creators." Because of her makeup line, youngest sister Kylie Jenner became American's 1st billionaire under the age of 21.

Are they publicity-hungry? Yes. Are their love-lives complicated? Sure. Do they bring some of the vast criticism they receive on themselves? You bet. But they do have talent.

10. The Yankees were as guilty as any other team when it came to steroids. This accusation is not merely false, it is really, really stupid. The Yankees most often cited are:

* Roger Clemens. Men tried to prove him guilty in court. They couldn't.

* Alex Rodriguez. The evidence that he used them as a Yankee is flimsy.

* Jason Giambi and

* Gary Sheffield. Neither helped the Yankees win a World Series. Giambi only helped the Yankees win one Pennant, they lost the World Series, and he was hardly among the team's most consequential players.

* Andy Pettitte. He used one time to come back from an injury. Hardly the same as gaining an unfair advantage. And the Yankees didn't win the Pennant that season.

In contrast, look at the Yankees' postseason opponents in the years from 1996 to 2007, which corresponds to Joe Torre's seasons as manager and also, roughly, to "The Steroid Era." In chronological order: