Here's a NEW Boromir plan... since he can't get Ninja Wizards.....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:53 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Officially re-revised to 5.4. Some loose plumbing under the sink, but nothing fell or shook loose. Pictures didn't even move askew on the walls.

Dogs were completely non-plussed. One was laying in the grass chewing a toy, the other was chilling under the coffee table.

At least now we know what the house does in an earthquake.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:43 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Helen's post yesterday, about names, got me thinking. You see, I can't just say these are the names I would choose for my children without explaining why. There's a whole list of rules that hubby and I came up with many, many years ago. Long before we even started dating.

You know those long, rambling conversations you can have with your closest friends? The rules sprung from one of those. WE were just sitting around, BS'ing one day. I don't even know what started it off, but eventually both of us (and Ben. He was there, too) were tossing out rules for what names you can and can't give your kid. Over the years, we've gone back to them, as friends have had and named their own kids, and had a few laughs, I must admit.

So here's a list of our rules:
1. It must be a classic American name, spelled in the most standard way. Our children's heritage is classic EuroMutt with a dash of Native American and heaping helping of Armenian. The best way to describe them will be American. So we think their names should be, too.

2. It can not be one of certain names. I would list them, but I don't want to piss people off. It's just that, with a few exceptions, in our collective experience, everyone we know with these names is some kind of asshole. To the point that it's like "well his name is (one of those), you expect that".

3. It can't be a family name. Too much animosity. If I name my kids after my side of the family you can bet his family would be pissed. And vice versa. There may be some leeway for dead relatives used as middle names, but in general, it would cause more fuss than I'd care to deal with.

4. Probably best listed as a corollary to 3: There will be no juniors. There's enough confusion in the house with 4 different names now (two of which, I might add, belong to DOGS), I don't need to add on the confusion of calling for DH and getting answered by DH, Jr. Plus, we both think our kids should have their own names.

5. They must be full names. Alexander, Elizabeth, Johnathan, Katharine are all acceptable, for example, while Alex, Beth, Jon, and Kathy are not. Give the kid the whole name, and they can choose from a multitude of nicknames for themselves.

6. The Asswipe (that's Os-Wee-Pay) Rule: No easily made fun of names. Hubby's name is very similar to the quirky title character of a popular song during his childhood, and my last name laid me open to years of taunting comparing me to a comic villain. We'd like to spare our kids as much as possible. So under this rule, no Richard (Dick), Peter, Johnson, etc.

7. No rhyming. Dear God no. Thankfully, neither of our last names rhymes with many first names.

8. No multiples. This is mostly an issue for people with first names as last names, and we'd really have to stretch it to get that to work for us, but seriously. You couldn't think of anything more creative than Thomas Thomas (my mother's orthopedic surgeon) or Martin M. Martin (a teacher at our high school)?

9. No objects. Thing names are for animals. "This is our daughter, Ladybug." "This is my cat, Ladybug." "how nice." NOT. There's a reason some names refer to people. Abstracts are ok, however, such as Faith, Joy, Hope, Honor, etc. Although in my experience such names often turn out to be no more than wishful thinking on the part of the parents....

10. Fictional Characters are sometimes ok, under these conditions: the character must have a real name (Luke is acceptable, Han is not), and the character's reputation won't come back to bite the kid in the ass (again, Luke is acceptable, Homer is not). Naming your kid after a villain is usually a bad idea, as well. Especially if it's a villain in a kid's movie....

11. There should be a reason you're willing to share. Someday your kid will ask you "mom, dad, why did you call me Paris Nooner Lastname" and you have to be willing to explain your quick trip back to the hotel that ended up being more than a bag drop-off....

12. Gender appropriate names are a must. Gender neutral names are ok, but for GAWDS SAKE, don't give a girl a boy's name or vice versa. Even if it is acceptable as a name for the opposite gender. Leslie is a girl's name. As is Stacy. Cameron is a boy's name (see Ferris Bueller). So is Kendall. Trust me, it's hard enough to pronounce the names people give their kids. Don't make me look a fool by calling a "he" a "she" in class.

I'm sure some of our rules go against what you like or even some of your names, but this is what we want for our kids. Because life is hard enough without being known as Chlamydia Vagina.

More on the worst baby names ever compiled here.

So what do you think? What are your rules? Which of these do you agree with? Disagree with? That's what the comments are for, hint, hint.

UPDATE: Check out this poor girl's name. I would like to beat her parents. (h/t Richard Cocking)

Posted by: caltechgirl at 01:45 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 895 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Fully agree with the "no juniors" part. Also, that bad name link you listed? Hilarious. Big time.

Posted by: Helen at July 25, 2008 02:01 PM (R4iEo)

2 'Paris Nooner'. Heh.... Here's another one: don't name your two daughters the same name, just in different languages. That's silly.

Posted by: pam at July 25, 2008 02:11 PM (l6NIn)

3 Honey, you forgot: Don't name all of your children names that all start with the same letter. Don't name alphabetically either. :-)

Posted by: GMT at July 25, 2008 02:18 PM (IfXtw)

4 When I see Leslie, I think it's a boy My great uncle's name was Leslie, so that probably reinforces it.

Posted by: Ith at July 25, 2008 03:23 PM (tHVIZ)

5 oh, and there should be a whole section on multiple births. Rhyming twin names, or matching twin names are BAD. Choosing names based on the letter your multiples were assigned at Ultrsound, also BAD. You get the picture....

Posted by: caltechgirl at July 25, 2008 04:25 PM (IfXtw)

6 and along with that thing about the same initials? If you must do that, for goodness sake don't change the spelling of the kid's name to fit the scheme (eg Jinger Duggar, which is pronounced 'Ginger', but fits the J scheme along with her 17 other brothers and sisters)

Posted by: caltechgirl at July 25, 2008 04:28 PM (IfXtw)

7 I think you nailed it pretty good. My dad and FIL had the same name, so when I was preggars with #2, and my father died, we got away with naming his middle name after both of our dads. My FIL still calls #2 today by his middle name. My sister works for a pediatric dentist, and wow, has she come across some really bad names. Celebrities name their kids, quite often but not always, some odd things. Gwenyth Paltrow's daughter, Apple, I actually like.

Posted by: Stacy at July 25, 2008 07:30 PM (92p8H)

8 I just thank God I don't have to worry about it anymore, unless you consider naming a pet controversial. But nonetheless, you have great rules.

Posted by: c.a. Marks at July 25, 2008 07:52 PM (ePdrC)

9 I had this thing where I wanted to name any child (female) I had with Mr. Right "Malevolent". Because Malevolent Brown is a rawkin name! RG

Posted by: RightGirl at July 25, 2008 08:20 PM (dizBt)

10 These are good. I'm all for classic names myself. I was into syncopation of the first & last name too. It all has to roll off the tongue just right. And I didn't want a first name that ended in the same letter that our last name starts with - I don't like how they mush together. So for us, Michael was out, though I really like the name...

Posted by: Marie at July 26, 2008 05:00 AM (UunPp)

11 Don't name all your daughters Mary Blank - For example - me. My full name is Mary Elizabeth - my sister's name is Mary Anne. Catholic families often give their girls the first name of Mary and then a second name that is what she is called. I'd prefer they reverse that so your daughters won't all have the same first and last name as my sister and I did.

Posted by: Mary Elizabeth (Beth) at July 26, 2008 05:21 AM (RZhpS)

12 Yup, you pretty well nailed it. On the topic of "abstract concept" names: I've had several women in my class named Chastity. I'm sorry, but that is just not a good name. I know, I know, Cher used it, but still. Especially when the girl's 19 and is "experimenting." I also cannot stand the "invented spelling" names. Seriously, I think the parents sometimes do that to screw over the kids' teachers and anyone else who might have to read off their name. Snorglfqt does not equate to Michelle, not in ANY phonetic scheme of ANY real language, and several made-up languages. I don't even like the pretentious-spelling names, like MyShell instead of Michelle. Spell it like it is pronounced. And parents that name their kid after a consumer product should have said kid taken away.

Posted by: ricki at July 26, 2008 07:48 AM (UvHaM)

13 And I have to add: Parents who give their twins rhyming names should just expect those twins to turn evil. That is the curse of rhyming names. And second: if you give your kid an "invented spelling" name, you immediately disqualify them from EVER getting huffy if someone mispronounces their name. Seriously, if you name your kid Ghoti and expect teachers to pronounce it "Fish," also teach your kid not to cross their arms and pout when on the first day, the poor teacher goes, "Ghoti...Ghoti Anderson?"

Posted by: ricki at July 26, 2008 07:52 AM (UvHaM)

14 Amen. Preach it.

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at July 26, 2008 11:06 AM (0Pi1o)

15 Kendall = Girl's name for me, thanks to All My Children

Posted by: ZTZCheese at July 26, 2008 03:25 PM (Iw+8+)

16 I work in high school photography, so most of the time it's a lesson in Don't Do That. The classic one, though, is one that we had come through prom photos a few years ago. We ALL took one look at this "dress" and ended up with our jaws on the floor. Basically, imagine a halter top— except it just barely covers the breasts, and is bound at the waist, exposing the spangles the girl has around her belly button. Then imagine that she has on those little spandex cheerleader shorts, and a fall of cloth that does, in fact, go to the floor. Yes, she is wearing a garter. And high-heeled sandals. I pulled the girl's card, looked again— that couldn't be serious— and went to the school database. Sure enough, the girl's name was Sparkles. Sparkles hangs on my cubicle wall now, with a note: What Not To Wear. Ever.

Posted by: B. Durbin at July 27, 2008 07:59 PM (tie24)

17 Very good list...wish I could greet parents at the the classroom door with it and say, "Fix it or we will."

Posted by: Mrs. Who at July 29, 2008 12:44 PM (z+bTV)

18 I worked with a Latin girl named "Candida." I once asked her where her name came from, and she said that it was a "common Hispanic name." In my world, candida is yeast.

Posted by: Lauren at July 30, 2008 11:44 PM (Pt1kf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Joss Whedon's latest project, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog has finally arrived! The miniseries in three acts is being released this week.

Act I is available today, Act II will be released on July 17 and Act III on July 19.

But hurry, it all goes away on July 20!

Click over, turn up the speakers and enjoy!

Update: Also, now you can find a super cool Dr. Horrible button in the left sidebar below my Yahoo! Avatar! There are lots of different sized buttons and other widgets on the Dr. Horrible site, just scroll down and click the "get some resources" button. And be sure to read the EVIL Master Plan as well!

My brief review: It's Flash Gordon meets Little Shop of Horrors with Firefly sensibility. Perfect combo.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 04:12 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

A government-sponsored organization (organisation) in the UK now says that picky-eating toddlers may be "exhibiting racist behaviours" bt refusing to eat or saying 'yuck' to flavorful foreign foods. A daily Telegraph article says:

" The 366-page guide for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice, warns: "Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships."

It advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for childish abuse such as: "blackie", "Pakis", "those people" or "they smell".

The guide goes on to warn that children might also "react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuk'".

Staff are told: "No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action."

If a three year old hears a group of people called "apples" or "chairs" they'll use that word just the same as if it was (as mentioned above) "blackies" or "pakis". All they understand is the LABEL, if that. They are incapable of attaching racist meaning to it at that age because they are incapable of understanding (in an adult sense) what race is.

Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that a toddler can associate foods with races. Oh, I don't like curry because THEY eat it, where they is some other group.

As for the other labels mentioned in the article "those people" is a way that small children break down the world. These people vs those people, us vs them. It's an easy way for their young brain to learn to classify people and things, to sort out their environment and make sense of everything around them. It's not evil. It's not denigrating, it's just a baby brain learning to work.

I think my favorite of the report's objections, and the one that best demonstrates nanny-ism run amok, though, is "they smell."

Let's face it, small children are absurdly honest and have no politeness filter. they say what's on their mind. Including that some people smell funny to them. It's clear that different cultures come from homes that smell differently. Some burn incense or use flavorful, aromatic spices in daily cooking. To a toddler unused to those smells, someone who comes from that environment WOULD smell funny. Again, not racist, just honest.

The bottom line here is that kids are kids. They are simple, funny, honest, and open. Because they haven't learned how to be polite or appropriate yet. They don't understand that what they say can hurt. And frankly, if a toddler wants to insult you, they're more likely to say "poopyhead" than "blackie" or "paki". A kid who is rude or insulting should be dealt with, but not as an incipient racist. They should be disciplined accordingly, and taught that ALL rudeness and insult is unacceptable, including racism. We should explain why it's not nice to say that another child smells funny without pointing fingers and shouting accusations.

This report, in sum, says a WHOLE LOT MORE to me about the agenda of the authors than the intent of the toddlers.

This whole debate about racism and children is funny to me. Children today are so unaware of racism. They get their ideas about it from what WE (the ADULTS) project on to them. Kids are blissfully unaware of race problems until we tell them that they should be experiencing them.

This brought to mind a more local story. Charter Oak High School in Covina recently discovered that parodic African-American sounding names ("Tay Tay Shaniqua," "Crisphy Nanos" and "Laquan White") were printed in the yearbook under a picture of the Black Student Union, apparently as a racist joke.

I can't help but wonder if the motivation was really racist in nature or just bad taste, and a joke gone sadly awry. Do teenagers really harbor the kind of overt racist feelings implied by these actions? Was it entirely about race? Or were they just making fun of some kids they didn't like, by badly ripping off certain black comedians?

The community is up in arms and the parents are demanding action, but I have to wonder if we're missing something. Are our kids racist? Did WE make them that way? If not, why do they do and say racist things? Is it because they are SO OVER racism, that it CAN be a joke for them. Wouldn't that be considered a good thing?

It's like that classic South Park Question: How long does it have to be with us before AIDS is funny? When can we laugh? Can we EVER laugh about racism? And if we do, who gets to laugh? The opressed? The reformed opressor? The subsequent, non-racist generations? When does it get to be OK? For whom?

*Oh For Christ's Sake!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:39 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 870 words, total size 5 kb.