The past decade brought about numerous significant questions. Who really won the year 2000 election? Was that “wardrobe malfunction” intentional? Do carbs really make me fat or is Atkins crazy? Am I not stylish without a yellow silicon wristband? Are those really Jared’s pants?

Now, as a new decade begins, many are wondering what to call these last ten years. Since the 1920s we have been blessed with a predetermined name for the decade. The twenties through the nineties were all self-explanatory, but what to call the most recent decade is much more controversial.

Proposals have arisen and been rejected one after another. The “zeros” is clearly unacceptable. Having the decade share its name with a Japanese dive-bomber is just not an option. The “ohs” is not any better. The “nadas” would simply be bizarre: imagine a history teacher telling a class, “In nada-eight, the Olympics were held in Beijing.” In fatalistic submission, some have lauded the “nameless decade,” as a potential option. The blatant irony in this name, however, makes it simply sound foolish.

Some have proposed naming the decade after a major event or trend that occurred during the ten year span. The “Post-9/11 era” was seriously, if briefly, considered. Fortunately for the sensible, this title has been rejected because it would exclude the year 2000. After the financial crisis, some suggested the “debtcade” as an applicable name. While clever, one can be fairly certain that Tim Geithner is the sole advocate for this name.

The “Decas,” was also pondered. Terse, smart and widely appealing, it seems a valid suggestion, but the Distributive Education Club of America (DECA) and Defense Commissary Agency (also DECA) already have dibs on that one.

Turning away from these unattractive options, many have begun to favor the name “aught.” It is concise and specific, not ambiguous or vague like “zero” and “oh”. It does not have a strange ring like “nada.” It is not excessive like “the nameless decade,” and it is not an acronym for a national organization like “DECA.”

But “aught” is equally unsavory. For one, it is synonymous with the word “nothing,” inadvertently implying the decade was empty and dull (How can you call a decade with Rod Blagojevich dull?). Second, it is an archaic and outdated term, not widely used except among backwater hunters when describing rifle cartridge calibers. And third, it is wholly unappealing simply because of its throaty, guttural sound (which very similarly resembles the word “auk,” a clumsy, web-footed, arctic diving bird).

These cannot be the best options that the English language can provide. The decade has earned a better title. Sure, this was not the greatest decade in history. In fact, it was riddled with bad news: for Republicans, Obama won an election. For Democrats, Bush took two in a row. For everyone else, Nader will never win one. H1N1 swept the globe, as did terrorism. And worst of all, Bob Barker left the “Price is Right.”

At best, the last ten years have been mediocre. But a mediocre decade at least deserves a decent title to be remembered by. We “aught” to find a better name.