To the Editor of the Washington Post

So - let us begin. As I mentioned, my inaugural submission was a letter to the editor of the Washington Post in response to a piece by E. J. Dionne, a professor at Georgetown Public Policy Institute and a regular Post columnist. He has plenty of good things to say, and I recommend his column. On that particular morning, he published an article called "The Decade when the U.S. lost its way." The core of his argument is pretty clear from the title.

I didn't write to dispute his assessment of the 2000s. I wrote to draw attention to a media phenomenon that, somewhat absurdly, dominated the last two weeks of 2009. I'm referring to our obsessive anticipation of that magically meaningless moment when the ball dropped and the ticker ticked from 2009 to 2010. The airwaves and papers were dominated by frivolous top ten lists and the "Best" and "Worst of the Decade"; by sober evaluations of our nation's place in the world; by fantastic - or frightening - predictions of what lies in store.

I understand that this kind of sensationalism sells papers and boosts ratings. But is there more to it than that? Is this a product of some kind of collective neurosis, a manic build-up to climax? Were we desperately trying to compensate for last decade? Perhaps. The sense of relief that came with Y2K was certainly accompanied by an element of semi-masochistic disappointment. The anti-climax was especially potent for those unfortunate people who spent $20,000 on solar panels.

I didn't actually say any of that in my letter. Maybe I should have. It certainly couldn't have gotten any less published than it did. Oh well. Here's what I did say:

"To Whom it May (But Probably Doesn't) Concern:

E. J. Dionne wrote this morning that “certain decades shape the country’s political life for generations by leaving behind an era to embrace or, at least as often, to scorn.” True enough. He points to the 1960s, 1930s, and 1980s as such significant eras. “But as important as all these periods have been,” he continues, “their significance may be dwarfed by the reckless and squandered decade that is, mercifully, ending.”

Strong words, and he acknowledges as much. But it is not his assessment of the 2000s with which I take issue. To a large extent any such judgment is subjective, and besides, time will help bring into focus the many implications of the past decade which remain blurry. Rather, this statement is misleading in a much more straightforward way.

The decade is not, mercifully or otherwise, ending. The closing of one calendar year or decade means next to nothing except on paper. Even historians, naturally inclined to categorize, to compare, to divide history into eras, will find thematic and conceptual – rather than chronological – lines to draw.

This kind of discussion is useful, to a point. It provides some much-needed respite from the heat of the moment. It is an opportunity to reflect on recent history in light of current events, and in that way provides a perspective that is all too often lacking.

But the danger of over-hyping the dawn of a new decade is that it gives the illusion of a fresh start. We are not starting afresh. Our problems are not fundamentally different regardless of what year it is or even who is in the White House.

Let’s take a well-deserved moment to celebrate a new year, and with it a chance to reflect. Then let’s get back, not to the drawing board, but to the grind.

Signed,

Censored"

There you have it.

P.S. In fairness to the Washington Post, the above letter is about 300 words, which is at least 60 or 70 longer than their limit of 200. I didn't realize this until I got their automated e-mail response with tips for getting published. I then pared it down to 200 only to find that apparently their server blocks multiple e-mails from the same address on a single day. So I sent my edit - it's probably better shorter anyway - from a different account. I imagine filling their inbox with different versions of the same letter didn't endear me to the Post editorial staff. Maybe I have a future as a spammer.