If you go by the New York Post's selection of its best front pages of the decade, we ushered in The Nads with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and ushered them out with the revelation that an illustrious linksman banged a bunch of broads. Unnoted in the review of the past ten years: the bit of prognostication to your left, and the classic "Benedict Jeffords," which brought us all so much hope for new EIC Col Allan's tenure. Going over this list, a couple of things stand out: 1) It's weird to think that it was only in this decade that full-color front pages became standard, and 2) Wow, what an absolutely horrible ten years it has been.

Here's Newsweek's 7-minute guide to the decade the world has decided to describe as The Nads. You'll probably have your own thoughts about what should have been excluded or included, but for me the most jarring thing about this is how so many of the events feel so simultaneously distant and recent. Like, really, that actually happened nine years ago? I don't know if this is just a quirk of my own cranium, or if there really is something to the idea that the onslaught of information we've experienced during the last ten or so years has somehow rewired the way we think. Either way, The Nads were exhausting.

We are almost done with this ridiculous decade and we have yet to reach consensus on a proper way to describe the period. And don't give me "The Aughts," because, honestly, that is a terrible name. So we're making a unilateral declaration today that the span of years from 2000 to 2009 will henceforth be referred to as "The Nads." Think about it: It started off with two big, hanging zeroes and it ended up with the economy stuffed in a sack. It's kind of perfect. Tell your friends, start using it in conversation, casually reference it on your Twitter account, etc. If we all pull together I think we can make this happen. Thank you.