What A Great Mom!

You have vague, shuddering memories of the Octomom right?  She is that mentally ill woman who already had six children via in vitro and found a crazy doctor to implant several embryos in her as if she was some sort of human gumball machine and then she ended up giving birth to octuplets?  Nadya Suleman is the woman's name and she's back in the news!  In a move that I'm sure will leave you completely shocked, she has filed for bankruptcy!  I know!  Can you believe it?!  Hard to imagine how someone with fourteen kids and no income would have to file for bankruptcy.  Especially when the entire world hates her for doing what she did. She has no chance to make an honest dime any time soon.  Unless she considers one option that has been on the table since the beginning.  That's right.  She was once offered a million bucks to do porn.  Apparently, that offer has dropped to $100,000 "...if she stars in three hard core sex scenes."  Wow.  Talk about the bottom falling out of that market.  Regardless, now and what with the bankruptcy and all, she's willing to consider it.

She says "I have had to make some very difficult decision this year, and filing Chapter 7 was one of them...But I have to do what is best for my children and I need a fresh start."   Uhhh, I'm not so sure that your doing porn is going to be "best" for your children.  Do you think if your mom did porn that you'd end up thinking that was a great idea and "best" for all you kids?  I highly doubt it.  And since when is doing porn "a fresh start".  You know what usually qualifies as "a fresh start"?  Not doing porn, that is correct!  I'm sure that doing porn will do wonders for her children.  Fresh start indeed.  I wonder what her other difficult decisions this year were?  I'm curious simply because she doesn't seem to put a lot of thought into things that she does.  If only she had put as much thought into having in vitro fertilization as she put into her "difficult decisions this year", maybe she wouldn't be in this mess.

But it seems like there might be a catch with her "consideration" of doing all of the porn.  There's either a catch or she is unclear as to what exactly porn consists of.  That's because according to the New York Daily News, she "...would not kiss somebody.  I wouldn't touch somebody."  Now, as far as you know, I'm not much of an expert on porn.  (Work with me here, will ya?  It's not going to work if you don't play along.)  But from what I do know about porn, I seem to vaguely recall that there is at least some touching that goes on.  Granted, there aren't a lot of different parts that are involved the aforementioned touching.  Really, there are only a few key players in this sort of game.  But there has to be touching.  It's porn!  Porn is touching!  I guess I'm going to have to speculate that this means that she'll be doing porn...by...herself?  Ewww, ewww, EWWW!!  Is there really a market for that?  Forget I asked that.  Of course there is. 

And look, I'm not usually one to who would advocate that families be split up.  But in all seriousness, why in the world does she still have these kids?  She can NOT take care of them!  I'm not questioning whether or not she loves them, mainly because I have no idea and that really isn't the issue.  Love rarely solves anything.  (It actually complicates most things, but that's a different story.)  And yes, I've seen the pictures of the house of squalor.  I will hand it to her in that the pictures of the children that were included did not show the children looking particularly disheveled.  Sure, they didn't have pants on, but they're not even three yet.  That's not a big deal.  They appeared to be clean and had clean clothing on.  But even that's not enough.  I have no idea why the state hasn't stepped in. 

Yes, I know, I know that I don't usually advocate for the government to be involved in the raising of children.  But come on!  This isn't exactly you see your neighbor's kid outside without shoes on a cold day and insist that CPS needs to step in.  This nutjob has fourteen kids, no husband (or wife for that matter) and, most importantly no money.  Maybe even more important than that is that she doesn't even have any potential to make any money.  She can't do anything.  I don't think that she's ever held a real job.  Is she going to make a living doing masturbatory porn?  (That was one of the grossest sentences that I've ever wrote.) 
 

Let's do the math.  If she's only being offered $100,000 for three hard-core sex scenes, how much could her and a cucumber (I'm assuming) possibly be worth?  At $33,333 for each hard-core sex scene, I'd guess a solo act would go for a mere fraction of that.  Let's say she gets ten grand.  What's that going to last her?  A month?  According to some child raising calculator thing I found online (which could be completely full of crap for all I know), it costs about $8,330 to raise a child for a year.  She has fourteen of those children.  That comes out to $116,620 per year.  So, at the rates that I'm guessing, she's going to have to do twelve "porn" things a year.  Is there really a market for twelve of the same kind of movie from the same person?  (Look, here's the Octomom getting herself off on the beach.  Here she is in the kitchen.  Here she is doing herself on a gazebo.)  I'm not so sure that's the best investment.  For anyone, really.  After all, she already stripped down for a U.K. magazine called Closer and they only paid her $8,000.  Brace yourself and behold!

Now, when you ask her about all of this, she says (in what I can only imagine to be the snottiest tone possible), "I'm so done...You people, you keep your business to yourself, and I'll keep my business to myself. My kids are healthy, they're happy, they've got food."  Uh, tell you what, cupcake.  As long as you're taking public assistance, you are my business.  I'll give her that her kids look healthy because in the pictures that I saw, they looked fine.  I'd probably prefer that they were panted, but it's not a big deal given their age and that they were at home.   I'll give her that they have food, but only because she receives over $2,000 a month in food stamps.  As far as happy, I'm going to disagree a little bit.  That's impossible for me to know, but from the looks of the disarray of her home, I'm going to say that they're not all happy!  I wish she'd just do the right thing and give them up.  I know it sounds horrible, but this is a pretty extreme case and I think it's for the best.  And then she doesn't have to do porn.  That right there seems like enough of a win for her to at least consider it. 

Sphere: Related Content

Words of the Week

It hasn't been too bad of a week for people to say things that either make me laugh or make me wonder how the person has managed to keep themselves alive all of these years. It's also made me realize what a clueless, fast talking snake Nancy Pelosi is. How did she get to be Speaker of the House? How? How did that happen?! From what I can tell, there is no one more pleased with Nancy Pelosi than Nancy Pelosi. But, then again, I don't think her level of expectation is all the high so...you know. Take that for what it's worth. (Nothing. It's worth NOTHING.)

"And then I thought about Mandela, Dr. King, Gandhi and, uh, and try to put some perspective in all of this." - The now former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich when he was on his whirlwind morning television media tour before his impeachment trial began. The man is being charged with corruption up the wazoo (and if you've ever had corruption up your wazoo, you know it's not pretty) and he not only has the balls to deny the charges on every single TV show that will have him as he plays the victim role, he also compares himself to Nelson Mandela?! Dr. Martin Luther King?! Freaking Gandhi?!? Yeah, they're the same.

"We do encourage breast feeding a lot. And she is planning to breast feed the babies." - That from one of the doctors who delivered the octuplets that were born in Southern California this week. Um, being female, I'm going to do the anatomical math here. Let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven...eight. Eight children. Just a second....one....two. Two breasts. Yep, that's going to be a problem. It's breast feeding, not udder feeding. Good luck with that.

"And as we rounded the corner, I saw one of the angriest and ugliest women I have ever seen in my life. Oh, she was really bad. She charged my car with a sign...held the sign right up to the car window that said, "STAY OUT OF MY WOMB!" NO problem, lady! No problem." - That's George H.W. Bush speaking to some group of people somewhere this week. That's hilarious. Now that guy can tell a pretty good story. Too bad his son didn't inherit that trait.

"Can you imagine what they would do to me if I told that joke that he just told?" - A one Bill Clinton, lamenting that just because he slept with that ONE intern (that we know about) the topic of women as joke material and/or fodder is off limits for him, but free game for anyone else. Hey, Bill! Just be glad no one knows about the others, all right? You wouldn't get to speak about anything if that got out! (Oh, but I kid! There's no "proof" that he was trading cigars with anyone else whilst he was President. Nope. None. Then again, there's no "proof" that his wife has a human soul, but..well, you see what I'm saying, right?)

"If you're saying those things, you should be WAY hotter." - Seth Myers from Saturday Night Live on David Letterman's little late night show. Seth was comparing Joe Biden to one of those really hot women that tend to say inappropriate things and whose husband/boyfriend/escort/whatever always has to give them some sort of a sign to pipe down. Seth mentioned Obama has this little hand move that he does when Biden has said just about enough. And then he said that quote is probably what runs through Obama's mind when Biden starts to go off on one of his ten minute tangents. (We might not have W in the White House anymore to feed us an endless supply of amusing verbage, but I have the feeling ol' Veep Biden will do just fine.)

"Well, the family planning services reduce cost...They reduce COST. The states are in terrible...fiscal, uh, budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health...for education...for some of those elements is to help the states....meet their financial needs... One of those, uh, one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is...will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." (Nod...Nod...Nod.)" - That blather from a one snakelike creature, Nancy Pelosi, in response to George Stephanopoulus's question as to how on earth contraception (which was in the new "stimulus package") will stimulate the economy. Yep. THAT was her answer. What the hell?! That answer is what I am referring to as an iPod Shuffle answer. You know how you can put your iPod on 'Shuffle' and it just plays random songs for you? That's how Nancy Pelosi formed her answer. She put her vocabulary on shuffle and those words flew out of her mouth! It's the head nodding that just slays me. It's as if she is trying to get George to agree with her simply because he sees her head moving in that up and down direction and will think, "Oh! Nodding! I know nodding! Nodding is good! Good! Good!!" Ugh.

And finally...."Apostrophes denote possessions that are no longer accurate, and are not needed. More importantly, they confuse people. If I want to go to a restaurant, I don't want to have an A-level (high school diploma) in English to find it." - This said by a one Councilor Martin Mullaney of Birmingham on why the second largest city in England has decided to drop the use of the apostrophe from all street signs. Their rationale is that it's confusing. Given Mr. Mullaney's explanation, I'm confused. I'm confused as to why they're removing the apostrophe from street signs, but he's telling us about needing a high school diploma in order to read a menu at a restaurant. Yes, I can see how the apostrophe would contribute to your getting so confused that you're ordering your food off of a street sign. What does that have to do with anything? Where is this restaurant with the overly confusing menu? Einstein's Cafe? Quantum Physics Deli? Where?

We're doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Kicking Gas and Taking Names

Look, if you're going to do something that would be considered "questionable" (at best) when it comes to naming your unborn child, at least make it "questionable" and "worth it". Or if you can't quite swing "worth it", how about "not short term"? Or just make it something that the majority of people who hear about it don't respond with, "That's it?" or "What a dumbass." Sadly, all of these concepts were lost on a one David Partin of (surprise) Florida.

Partin had heard that local radio station 96.5 FM - WHTQ was giving away $100 worth of free gasoline to whoever called in with the most interesting item to trade. Are you with me? ONE hundred dollars worth of GASOLINE is what the morning hosts, Richard Dixon and J. Willoughby, were willing to trade for something "interesting". Now, "interesting" can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people, so they really weren't going too far out on a limb here with that requirement. Plus, they're in Florida, so you know that was going to start the ol' wheels turning for the residents down there at the Shady Palms Trailer Park.

But David was the winner with the item that he offered up for $100 of GASOLINE. So sometime around Christmas, when his girlfriend expels their little bundle of joy into a world where things like this really happen, the naming rights to the child will lay solely with the morning guys. And they will name the child after themselves. Dixon and Willoughby. Including the 'and'. Wait. What was that?

Correct. For one hundred dollars in gasoline, the guy traded the naming rights to his unborn child. And the lucky recipients of the naming rights are naming the child after themselves. Therefore, the child will be named "Dixon and Willoughby Partin". And as ridiculous as that sounds, it could have been worse. Originally, the two didn't want to leave out their executive producer and suggested that the kid's middle name be "With Radio's Alan Spector". Apparently THAT crossed some sort of a line that did not effect naming the kid "Dixon and Willoughby". Go figure.

Oh, and I'm sure you're wondering about the woman who is currently harboring the unborn fetus. Yeah, so am I. I'm wondering what in the hell her problem is. According to David's girlfriend, Samantha, she said, "Well, it was his choice. I'd told him that if it was a girl, I'd name her. And if it was a boy, he'd get to choose." But what about the fact that YOUR child is going to be named Dixon and Willoughby?! "Yeah, I think he might hate David for a while." (Like until he "gets over" that his name was sold for a hundreds bucks of gas? Sure, that'll happen right after the axe murders he commits.) "But after he grows up some, he'll always have a story about his name. I always wanted that but never did with 'Samantha.' " Wait. WHAT?!

Yeah, what a great story to have, especially when in high school (where NO ONE makes fun of anyone else. And even in the rare instances when that does occur, rarely is it mercilessly and every single day.) to be able to tell people, "Um, yeah, my Dad needed some gas money." What a great story! That should virtually ensure him to be beaten up at least once a week until he graduates from COLLEGE.

I'm going to let her in on a little secret in regard to her wanting some sort of story about her name. See, that's the beauty of things like this. You can just make stuff up. Like your Mom watched 'Bewitched" twice a day, every day when she was pregnant with you. Or your great grandfather is Sam Adams (or Sam Houston. Or Sam the Butcher. It doesn't matter, pick a Sam!) and they named you after him but had to make it "Samantha" because you're a girl. ANYTHING! People lie all the time. Who's going to know?


But enough about that. Back to the real issue. Dude, a hundred bucks worth of gas? "Hey, man, times are rough. I figure I'll be able to drive around for a couple of weeks on that gas." And your kid will go around with a black eye and that name for the rest of his life. (Perhaps this chap should be a Father-To-Be Of The Year Candidate. He'd be the front runner.) And times are apparently so "rough" that David has decided to pimp his kid's name just one step further. Correct. It's now on the open market and bids are being accepted from corporate America to purchase the naming rights to this child. I guess David figured that if he could get $100 from some local radio station to name his kid, that he could maybe get up to a whopping $400 or $500 from a major retailer. He could drive around for MONTHS with the gasoline that THAT kind of money can buy! (Hopefully the winning bid will include a little bit extra for all of the therapy that little Home Depot is going to need one day.)

I am little unclear on the last part of this whole scheme. I had thought that they had already sold the kid's name to Dixon and Willoughby for what was behind Door Number One. Maybe the corporate America auction is for the kid's middle name (giving him virtually NO escape from the hell that awaits him). And if you'll think back to what corporation seems to always win/purchase these things, you'll know what the kid's name will be. Correct. Little Dixon and Willoughby Golden Palace Casino Partin. Rolls right off your tongue, doesn't it? (Oh, like they wouldn't want to get in on THIS? These are the folks who purchased the Seattle Super Dog, the Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese Sandwich, Britney Spears Pregnancy Test, and William Shatner's Kidney Stone. Right. They'll be first in line.)

But don't worry. No matter what business David's child will be named after, he will follow through with his intention to, you guessed it, tattoo his baby's name on his body. "That part," said David, "is just an extra." (Just one more reminder that "extra" doesn't always mean "good".)

Sadly, I just knew this story wouldn't be complete without a tattoo. ::sigh::

Sphere: Related Content

The Games Are The Names

About a week or so ago over there in Sweden, a couple had wanted to name their baby girl "Elvis". Well, that's easier thought of than done over yonder there in Sweden because apparently, the Swedish government is a bit controlling, as their tax authority can shoot down a parents' choice of name for their child if the controlling tax authoritarians decide that such a name could "cause trouble for the child later in life." Grand. So, do you think that they thought "Elvis" was going to cause problems? Of course they did. (They probably just took a gander at the "other Elvis" and his life and figured that he had plenty of problems. Must have been the name! Veto!)

The weird part is that they aren't allowing "Elvis", but they have allowed a "Metallica" (girl) and a "Google" (boy), not to mention an "Ikea" (pretty) and a "Lego" (as in "my Eggo"). Go figure.

So what's the point? The point is that when I think "Sweden" I don't necessarily think "controlling", but yet they have this weird tax-guy/name-permission giver position in their government. Now, when I think "China", well, then I DO necessarily think "controlling" (and "Communist", which is like controlling times ten). But do they regulate what you can name the one child that they allow you to give birth to over there? Noooooo. Well, maybe they should start.

The Chinese people in China tend to get really excited and enthusiastic when it comes to national events. I don't know if they are naturally enthusiastic people or if they are forced to do so by the government. But when they get behind something, they are there 110%. And the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer will be no exception.

The Chinese are thrilled, just thrilled, that they are getting the Olympics. And people are so thrilled that they're starting to give their new born babies Olympic Games related names. Names like "Olympic Games". Wait. What?

The good folks across the pond at the BBC tell us that the name Aoyun, which means "Olympic Games" has been given to over 4,000 babies, 92% of whom are boys. There are also 3,216 babies who are named simply "Olympics". The majority of the "Olympics" babies are also male. (The "reasoning" behind this is that "in Chinese parents' minds, a man should be more athletic and fonder of the Olympics." (So what do they propose to name the girls? Little "Good Only For Childbearing" and the oh-so adorable "Barefoot And Pregnant"?)

And while that might seem a bit odd, it is apparently NOT uncommon for the Chinese to name their children after popular events or popular slogans. There are Chinese children that are named "Defend China", "Build the Nation" and "Space Travel". (Did the Chinese ever actually make it into space? Oh, sure, they have their spy satellites that are zooming in on me at this very moment as I type this, but I mean did they ever shoot a live human being up there? I'm not sure that they did.) There are also 290,798 babies with the name "Civilisation". Um, OK?

So what's the latest name to sweep China? Well, first, you have to think of the most recent event to shake up China. Correct, the big ass earthquake on May 12 over in Sichuan that killed over 69,000 people with 17,000 more still missing. Second, you have to think of how that would be adapted into a child's name. Correct, you would name your child "Hope for Sichuan". You would? Dear God, I would hope not.

So the Chinese have a firm grip on everything in that country, a grip so tight it's residents can hardly breathe at times. They control everything. They filter the Internet, for cryin' out loud! But they're letting people name their kids "Olympic Games" and "Build the Nation". Meanwhile, over in Sweden, they're participating in all sorts of unmentionable activities (most of which take place below the belt and while one is fully liquored up), but one of their activities will not be naming their children "Elvis." It just seems a little backwards to me, that's all. But, then again, who am I to be deeming something as "backwards", when folks in this country are giving their children names such as "Pilot Inspektor", "Moxie Crimefighter" and "Jor-El" (I actually think "Jor-El" is awesome. It's Superman's father's name, but regardless of that, it sounds pretty cool.). Actually, after listing those, "Olympic Games" is starting to sound pretty good.

Sphere: Related Content

Aiken's Makin' Bacon

You know, I've said it before, there's some stuff that you can't make up because you wouldn't even think to make up something so ridiculous. This is one of those things. And I'm not making it up. I swear. (I kind of wish I was, though.) Clay Aiken is going to be a father. Wait. The mother of the child is 50 years old. Wait. She is Jaymes Foster and she is Clay Aiken's record producer. Wait. And the baby is due in August. For cryin' out loud, I said WAIT!!!

Finally. Geez. Now, what?

Correct. Clay Aiken, who seems to be as gay as the day is long (not that there's anything wrong with that), has generously donated a portion of his spermatazoal fluid to Ms. Foster for the purpose of spawning another human being, aka, a child. When I first heard this, I thought, "Hey, way to go, Clay! Nice job dinking, I mean, thinking inside, I mean, outside her box. The box! THE box! Nice job thinking outside the box! (Wow. That was trickier than I thought.) But as it turns out, there was no heterosexual coital activity between Clay and Jaymes, as she was artificially inseminated (translation: turkey baster).

What very little information that her publicist has released (his publicist hasn't said anything yet, but that's not all that surprising to me. The publicist is probably still recovering from the shock of the news. Come on, you still are, aren't you? Well, then...I'm just saying.) tells us that Clay will be involved in the raising of the child. (And it's just a sad statement of affairs that something like that needs to be clarified.) Also, in case you were wondering, Foster was married once before to someone named Lou Leeds Levy, aka "The ol' L-Cubed" and their divorce was finalized last year. Neither they, nor any of their poultry moistening devices, have any children.

Why am I having flashbacks of the whole Michael Jackson-Debbie Rowe debacle of yore? You remember the D.R. publicity stunt, right? She, the nurse of the dermatologist of Michael Jackson, marries Jacko in 1996 (did I mention that the best man was an 8-year old boy? He was. Shocker, eh?) and bears him 2 children, the conception of which no one believes occurred through the "traditional" method, only to receive a rather substantial monetary compensation in 1999 for divorcing him. You know, the typical "nurse-of-dermatologist-meets-and-marries-international-freakazoid-pop-singer-with-an-unhealthy-penchant-for-the-company-of-small-children" fairy tale of yore. Ugh. Look, I'm all for non-traditional living arrangements, but that's a bit much for all of us.

I know that his 'sexuality' has been in question ever since the first time he said, "I don't discuss my sexuality." (Translation: Oh, come on, you can figure that one out on your own!) But, really, if you're trying to, perhaps, sway people into leaning toward your sitting on the straighter side of the fence, couldn't you just start lifting weights or something? Do you have to be getting your sperm all involved in it? (That sounds kind of wrong, but yet it is accurate. Hmm.)

But, hey, at least we know that the melding of the celebrity names will be good. After all, we've had to put up with "Brangelina" and "Tomkat" for way too long, so it's about time we got a name that was a) extremely amusing and b) descriptively correct. Come on, you can noodle it through, can't you? Jaymes Foster. Clay Aiken. That's correct. Faiken.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not Exactly an Olympic Event

Every year since 1620 in the Spanish village of Castrillo de Murcia (that's in Spain), there is the Catholic festival of Corpus Christi (not the Texas town). The festival is to mark the Catholic feast of Corpus Christi. It's apparently a very festive festival and is widely celebrated in Spain (not so much in Texas). They have the usual festival festivities there. The dancers, the plays, the eating, the grown men dressed like the devil jumping over small infants on mattresses. Wait. What?

It would seem as if Spain and those over yonder in the Philippines have a lot in common when it comes to slightly odd (Translation: WTF) celebratory practices. (You remember those over in the Philippines. The ones who like to re-enact the nailing of Christ to the cross by actually nailing themselves to crosses? Hey, I'm not judging! I'm just saying I like my holidays to be a little less...nail-y. That's all.) And I'm going to try and explain this oddity in as equal of a colorful fashion as I can. (I'm not thinking it's going to take a lot of effort. Sometimes, the really f-ing weird stuff is just funny in and of itself.)

Here's the scoop: The purpose of this strange ritual is meant to ward off the devil. In the village, men dress up as the Colacho. The Colacho is a character that represents the devil. (Now, I would think that if your goal was to "ward off" something, you wouldn't dress up like the thing you were wanting to "ward off". That seems an awful lot like something you would do if you wanted to "ward on" something. But what do I know? I'm not Spanish. But I do think I'm onto something.)

For other reasons that I have yet to understand (or find the origin of), another part of warding off the devil, aside from dressing up LIKE the devil, is to run and leap over clusters of infants that are laid out on mattresses. Of course. Wait. One more time?

Behold! Spaniards dressed like the devil jumping over babies dressed like babies!

According to our friends across the pond at the BBC, "Nobody appears to get hurt in this year's festive event." (Again, note the use of the term "festive" and how it can easily be interchanged with the term "freaking weird". They're tricky like that in Europe.) Well, and I should say that it's a good thing that nobody got hurt because if someone were to get hurt, I'm guessing it would have to be the babies! Who else is there? The brilliantly clad, leaping Spanish guy? I'm thinking he can hold his own! The helpless children, laid atop a mattress for the sole purpose of being leapt over? They're at the mercy of a guy dressed like the devil. And that isn't comforting for anyone, especially the children. I mean, look at the picture below. Do the people, presumably the parents, look all that comfortable with this? I'm not sure what the one hand on the kid is going to do is suddenly Macho Colacho steps on a banana peel or something and the whole thing goes horribly awry. But again, I'm still not Spanish, so what do I know?

I guess they don't just jump over babies at this festival (though I'm sure it's the highlight). There are other things that do not involve children in woolly feet-y pajamas. As the BBC tells us, "The shadowy brotherhood of Santísimo Sacramento de Minerva, the people responsible for organising the celebrations,dress up as devils and harass party-goers as they chase and terrorise anybody and everybody in the town at regular intervals throughout the day." How exciting! Not only do you get to watch in horror while infants unwillingly participate as the obstacle in a Spanish hurdling/devil warding off sporting event, you also get to be chased and terrorized by members of a "shadowy brotherhood." But wait! There's more!

"In addition to the devil costumes, participants also carry whips and truncheons to appear extra horrible." In case you are unfamiliar with what a "truncheon" is, allow me. A truncheon, while it sounds like "luncheon" (something quite pleasant), it is neither a "luncheon", nor is it "pleasant". A truncheon is a club-like weapon, small enough to be wielded in one hand. (Think of the club of a caveman. Only a Spanish cave man jumping over infants. Oh, and make sure he's dressed like the devil in this vision you're concocting.) OK, now you're with me!

WTF? Jumping over babies? Dressing like the devil? Terrorizing party-goers? Wielding clubs and whips? Why am I so surprised that no one is naked during this thing? Come on, you know you've read this far and you've been expecting "penis" to just jump out at you at some point. (Oh, not literally, for cryin' out loud! No one wants that!) But once again, we have an instance of a very, very bizarre ritual that a LOT of people seem to take VERY seriously and there is NO logical explanation for it at all. None. "Jump over a baby, get rid of the devil." Why? No one ever asks WHY! They just do it! Look, I might not have a kid, but even still, I'm not putting anything of value (a relative, an animal, a sandwich) on a mattress for some guy I don't even know to jump over because there is some unknown reason that I am just supposed to do it. No thanks. I'll ward off the devil my own ways from now on, thank you very much.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Just A Little Name Calling

The Social Security Administration has released the list of the Top Ten Baby Names for both boys and girls for the year 2007. Finally! News you can use! Apparently they've been doing this since 1997 and no one has told them that we don't care, so they continue. And so will I. Thus, without further ado, the Top Ten Baby Names for Girls Born in 2007:

• Number 10: Elizabeth (As in Taylor?)


• Number 9: Hannah (One of two palindromic names on the list.)


• Number 8: Abigail (I hear Abigail, I think van Buren.)


• Number 7: Olivia (Feminine of Oliver. Much more pleasant than Oliver.)


• Number 6 Sophia (I think of exotic house cats for some reason.)


• Number 5: Madison (As in Avenue, that is correct.)


• Number 4: Ava (Palindromic name number two & the name of Heather Locklear's daughter.)
  
  
• Number 3: Emma (Rachel on 'Friends' named her baby Emma.)


• Number 2: Isabella (Ross on 'Friends' had Isabella Rossellini on his 'list'.)


• And at Number One (drum roll please): Emily (As in Dickinson, correct again.)
  

I'm not totally sure what the appeal is for some of these names. They sound rather old. Almost as if this should be the list of Top Ten Names Appearing on the Social Security Death Index for 1910. But what do I know? (Besides knowing enough not to have children in the first place?)

And now the boys....

• Number 10: Andrew (Will get beat up. A lot.)


• Number 9: William (Sounds pretentious.)
  
  
• Number 8: Anthony (Has a sort of 'Sopranos' sound to it.)
  
  
• Number 7: Christopher (Will be "Chris" before high school.)
  
  
• Number 6: Daniel (Of Day-Lewis fame?)
  
  
• Number 5: Ethan (Sounds 'lispy', even though it's not.)


• Number 4: Matthew (See Number 7, replace "Chris" with "Matt".)


• Number 3: Joshua (Will likely end up as "Josh" before he's 6.)


• Number 2: Michael (See Numbers 4 and 7 and insert "Mike")


• And at Number One (drum roll please): Jacob (See Number 3 and insert "Jake".)

One of the odd trends in the baby name realm is the name "Neveah". No one has any idea how to pronounce that (mainly because it's kind of made up), but I guess I'd probably go with neh-VAY-uh. Why are people naming the little screaming, crying, pooping, bundle of joy Neveah? I have no clue, because "Neveah" is "heaven" spelled backwards. I always thought that if something was backwards that it was the opposite of what it was forwards. OK, well, wait. That would make sense then. Because if you're asking me, a small, newborn child, especially one that I would have to be in charge of twenty-four seven that just expelled itself through my uterus in a process akin to ramming a pot roast through my nostril, would be the opposite of "heaven". (And I'm sure it's extremely politically incorrect to name your child "Hell". So, Neveah it is! Problem solved!) Along that same line of thinking, I also think that people are unlikely to start naming their child "Natas", but they really should consider it. (Just for the sake of making this "backwards name" thing make sense, if that's even possible. I'm afraid that it might not be, though.)

Another trend that I am at a loss for an explanation of is the naming of both boys and girls with a moniker that rhymes with "maiden". That would include all of the Braydens, Jaydens, Kaydens and even a Raiden and a Zayden (you get the point, right?). Some spokesperson over at the SSA (who knew they needed a spokesperson? It's probably the one gig per year that the guy actually does.) said that the SSA would resist any sort of legislative efforts to regulate the spelling of any name, making reference to the variations on anything "maiden-rhyming-ish". And while I agree more than 100% with the notion that spelling shouldn't be regulated in a legislative sense, it would be nice if there was a bit more public ridicule and general nonacceptance of ridiculously spelled names. (I think I have some sort of a complex from going to school with a kid named Cefan. That's KEVIN, for those of us who spell things the way that they should be spelled.)

Some of the spelling variations on these names (and where they rank over yonder at the SSA within the top 1,000 baby names ) would include:

• Aiden (27); Aidan (54); Ayden (102); Aden (264); Aydan (598); Adin (983)

• Jayden (18); Jaden (76); Jaiden (191); Jaydon (415); Jadon (423); Jaeden (593); Jadyn (696); Jaydin (757); Jaidyn (841); Jaydan (887)

• Caden (92); Kaden (98); Cayden (175); Kaiden (220); Caiden (286); Kayden (507); Kadin (657); Kaeden (701); Kadyn (878)

• Braden (156); Braeden (325); Braydon (361); Braiden (529); Bradyn (629); Braedon (805)
  

Also included on the "rhymes with maiden" list were Zayden, clocking in at 588, and Raiden, just squeaking into the top 1000 names at 931.

What does this tell us? Well, it certainly doesn't explain the fascination with the "-aiden" sound, that's for sure. But it does tell us that people have this need to be unique. The problem with that is that "unique" means "being the only one" or "something without a like or an equal". Clearly, even through concerted efforts of new parents across this fine land to create (ie, invent) unusual spellings for their child's name, they are far from unique. That makes them just unusual. Or, as I like to call them, weird. But whatever the reason for it all is, it has resulted in at least SIX ways to spell Aiden, TEN ways to spell Jayden, NINE ways to spell Caden and SIX ways to spell Braden. Four names THIRTY ONE DIFFERENT SPELLINGS. Those are hardly "unique".

And here's the most amusing part: No matter how much these people want to spell the name of their child so that it is "unique", the name will STILL be pronounced THE SAME as the SAME name that is spelled DIFFERENTLY. And if you're asking me, that kind of defeats the purpose. On top of that, when there are SO many different spellings of the same name out there, what are the chances that your kid is EVER going to have his or her name spelled CORRECTLY on anything? Slim to none if you ask me. And Slim just left the building. Tormenting and frustrating your child isn't the goal now, is it? So can we just spell the name one or two different ways (NOT ten) and get over this? Soon?

Sphere: Related Content