2003 -- Up For GrabsOkay, I'll warn you up front. This is one of those "Halley" things -- where I think I have something very figured out and then I realize that my version of reality is completely insane. It's like that post I did about the alphabet where I was so annoyed that they had mistakenly put the two-hump "m" before the one-hump "n" when any idiot could see it should have been set up the other way around. Big organizational mix-up there.
Here's the thing about 2003. We really were never supposed to have a 2003 -- it's just not the right thing. We were supposed to have 2000 -- what with all the Y2K stuff, anybody with half a brain would notice, of course, you have to have 2000. Besides, what the hell else are you going to do after 1999 anyway. Having 2000 just made sense. It was a good idea at the time. (But talk about anti-climaxes!)
So then, since you were kind of stuck with 2000, and it finally rolled around to December of 2000 and you had to follow it with something, and you had that movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey, so why not, just go ahead -- call it 2001.
Well, we know how well that worked. Forget it. The whole year got jammed into one day of infamy and boy, were we glad to get rid of 2001 -- so now, you're beginning to understand my logic, right? With 2001 being such a lousy year and actually feeling like it was only one-day long, we needed 2002 big-time to be done with it. So there were a lot of people behind the idea of 2002 -- we were looking forward to it.
So we had this 2002 year and if you didn't notice -- especially since everyone you knew was either out of work, in massive credit card debt, or just basically grumpy all year, it kindof sucked. I know I'm biased because a lot of bad stuff went down for me personally, but it was kindof a stupid year. In fact, it sucked enough that by now I could really see a reason to give up on all the "Two Thousand" and anythings. I could make a case for going just about anywhere else -- maybe back to 1890 -- or maybe forward to the year 2525 -- but anyone could see this incremental stepping stone thing with 2000, 2001 and 2002 was not going well.
So then, they decide to go ahead and market the 2003 concept. Why did we agree to it? It has little brand appeal, I can tell you. Do we get to drag the best of 2002 into 2003 -- like a disasterous economy and more of the weird non-existent Dick Cheney (is he Bin Laden -- you can tell me, go ahead, fess up) or is he like the mother in the motel in Psycho? and other great highlights of 2002 like airport security stripteases I've had to do. (I can assure you they DO discriminate against blondes in high heeled sandals -- they are ALWAYS pulling me aside.) Honestly, I can't think of many things in 2002 I'd like to bring along to 2003 -- so I guess I have almost ZERO expectations of much of anything good happening in 2003. Wait, I can say with assurance my dad will not die AGAIN in 2003, ... I guess?! Maybe it will be so weird it could have some Ground Hog Day effect and things just keep happening like they already did in 2002. Talk about same old same old. Ugh.
So I want to start a movement about renaming 2003. It's clear the name "2003" has little to offer. I think we might want to consider some other years with really excellent brands. -- like the Summer of '42 turns me on. And there's 1066, people wove rugs about that year, it must have been good. And the year 1492, that was a nice year here in America. Maybe we could just call tomorrow 1493 -- it would be easy for school kids to remember. Please, send your suggestions, because honestly, 2003 is up for grabs.