Two name-related things caught my eye in today's Sunday paper:
1) A weekly adoption piece called "Kentucky's Waiting Children" featured two brothers, ages 8 and 6, looking for a family. Really cute little guys, except the younger is named "Deamin" (the older is "Gary"). Nasty thing to do to a child, especially one who looks about as demonic as Thumper the Bunny.
Questions raised are: a) Is this somewhere a legitimate first name, and; b) why isn't it legal to sterilize parents that bestow this kind of handle on their kid?
2) A columnist for the Detroit Free Press wrote about parents in New York City who have offered to name their new baby boy after any specified consumer product provided a company forks over $1/2 mil. for the rights. Weird thing is, these are presumably educated people (dad's some kind of newspaper editor for a legit publication). I guess it wouldn't be too bad if the kid were named "Hungry Jack" or "Brawny", but "Scooter Pie", "Dutch Girl", and "Aunt Jemima" would be less savory possibilities (as would "Dippity Doo" and "2,000 Flushes".)
Question raised is: Are a lot of people in New York dipshits like this, or are Al Sharpton, Senator Hillary, and Lizzie Grubman rare exceptions?