I myself have briefly explored how the choice to be a housewife has become controversial, as well as why many educated black women are still single. But it wasn’t until I began to comment on Kit’s post that I managed to consolidate my views in a more coherent way. She suggested that I write a post on it and I had some time on my hands, so here goes.

The feminist movement and all the changes that came with it–full access to contraceptives, legalized abortion, women’s ability to choose to work outside the home–were radically different than anything Western society had ever seen before. In all of my studies in history and sociology, I have never heard of a society besides ours in the 20th century, in which both parents worked outside the home. Societies are either matriarchal or patriarchal.  Egalitarianism exists only in the sense that men’s and women’s roles are valued equally, not in the sense that men and women can do the same things. I have always maintained that God made men and women different for a reason, and that we are better off when both genders perform the tasks that they are naturally best suited to do. This flies in the face of

Now, feminism hasn’t affected white women too adversely because whites on average have a higher socioeconomic status. When a white couple gets married, it is likely that their parent paid for all or most of the wedding–hence they are not starting their life in debt. Furthermore, both parties are likely to be the  beneficiaries of intergenerational wealth, which equals increased social mobility.* Getting a job isn’t a problem when daddy owns a company. Or it could just be that their parents are well enough off to have created a trust fund with which to pay for their children’s education. We must also consider that wealthy people have life insurance, and thus when they die their children don’t have to pay for the funeral and can receive an inheritance. Even if this inheritance is only $2000, the advantage incurred by each generation compounds. The second part of this scenario is that white women did not need to work outside the home. They simply fought for the right to work if they wanted to. So when a white woman starts juggling a career with her family and realizes that it’s too hard, she can become a housewife without qualms because the family doesn’t need her income to survive. Conversely, the precarious position of blacks in America meant that black women were working outside the home long before Susan B. Anthony was a glimmer in her daddy’s eye. Black women wanted to be able to pursue more lucrative work  in order to help their husbands, who were often put out of work because they seemed dangerous (because we all know black men are just one step away from  unleashing their primitive, beast-like urges**) or because immigrants would do the work cheaper.

After suffering under the twin oppressions of racism and sexism for so long, black women were thrilled to be able to rise to their potential. Since they were less threatening than their male counterparts and filled two diversity quotas to boot, they rapidly found success in higher education as well as the boardroom and eventually outpaced black men. So now we’re in a depressing situation where it seems all the “eligible” black men want anything but a black woman, and so we must all fight over the remaining few.

It’s unfortunate, but women can’t have it all. Men can’t have it all either–it’s just that they long ago accepted that in pursuing career success to provide for their families they would not be the primary caretaker in their children’s lives. Women feel guilty for being away from their children because we are biologically programmed to be nurturers. Matriarchal societies function because the women do all the important work but the men stay at home with the kids, so women don’t have to feel guilty.

So basically, if you are a black woman and you want to get an education and get married, you must date with intention. You don’t have time to waste on “friends with benefits” or other dead end relationships. It may sound frivolous, but I went off to college fully intending to obtain my B.S. and my MRS. My mother told me that once I left college/grad school, I would never again be around such a large pool of eligible bachelors with similar qualifications who are open to getting married. And survey says that she was right. You have to find someone to grow with, because once men finish school, they are content to spend the next 10 years building material wealth and will marry a younger (translation: more fertile) woman to build a family with. And young men don’t marry older women (again, it doesn’t make biological sense) so after 35 there really is a man shortage.

Finally, my last point: it’s not degrees that scare men off but bad attitudes. Don’t believe the hype, any man worth his salt wants a woman who has more to offer than a pretty face. Men want to be stimulated physically, emotionally and mentally. The problem is that black women have gotten so used to doing for themselves that it’s hard for them to cede the power in the relationship, and they will worry, nag and browbeat a man until all the fight’s gone out of him. There are certain universal truths about men that will make life a lot easier for women if they only accept it…but I’ll save that for the next installment.

There was a lot to chew on in this post so I know my readers have something to say…let me know what’s on your mind!

*Emily Beller & Michael Hout, “Intergenerational Social Mobility”

**In case you didn’t know, I was being sarcastic.

For the first time, a safe, effective and reversible hormonal male contraceptive appears to be within reach. Several formulations are expected to become commercially available within the near future. Men may soon have the options of a daily pill to be taken orally, a patch or gel to be applied to the skin, an injection given every three months or an implant placed under the skin every 12 months, according to Seattle researchers.

…But will men take it? Some say yes, some say only if their partners make them, and other say they would never even consider it.     – John Schiezer, msnbc.com contributor

In case you’re wondering, the way this would work is that the contraceptive would reduce the man’s sperm count to almost zero, therefore making it the most effective form of birth control. All of the men in the study regained their full virility within 16 weeks of being off the pill.

Of course, I had to do a (very unscientific) poll of my male friends and the results were mixed. Some guys said sure, why not? Mr. Man said he would consider it if it was cheaper than condoms. Charles Marrero replied “What?!? It’s more fun if you don’t know whether or not she’s pregnant!” (Count on Señor Marrero to advance a serious conversation.) Those who were opposed to the pill made the argument was that it doesn’t protect against STDs and they would have to wear a condom anyway, thus doing double duty.

o_+   (in case you didn’t know, that’s an emoticon representation of me doing the side-eye)

Um HELLO, women have been doing double duty for ages! The pill is the most ubiquitous form of birth control and any woman who is serious about avoiding unwanted pregnancy is on it.* Despite the fact that women have been taking the Pill for a good 50 years now, it’s clearly it’s going to take a little bit of convincing to get men on it. Despite the fact that they are the bed-hopping gender (yeah, I know women screw around too but that’s a separate post) they aren’t used to bearing the burden of child prevention.

I’m sure the male pill will find some popularity amongst middle-aged married men who are done raising a family but don’t want a vasectomy. The pill is fine for young women, but as we age the risks of blood clots, elevated blood pressure and weight gain become much more threatening. IUDs (intrauterine devices) have never been hugely popular because getting one is an invasive procedure, and many women are simply uncomfortable with having a foreign object in their uterus.

So what do you think? Is this a viable idea, or destined to be another overlooked contraceptive option like the female condom? Discuss.

*Except maybe me. I tried it for about a year and I hated it. I felt bloated, generally out of sorts like I was PMSing all the time, and at the end of the day didn’t feel much like having $ex at all. When I found out that it was elevating my blood pressure (albeit only slightly), I called it quits and condoms are now my prevention of choice.

*He didn’t really look like he was going to cry at all, I just overdramaticized it in my head to glean more satisfaction from it.**

**Not that I glean satisfaction from making Q give up his prized possessions, it’s just that my pride was a little hurt from being laughed at by someone wearing Crocs.***

***I love you no matter what you put on your feet, just in case you ever read my blog.****

****I probably ought to tell him I have a blog since I talk about him all the time.*****

*****He would probably just make fun of me and then I’d have to give my blog to my mom.

Q and I have been going runbiking when he gets off work recently.  (Runbiking = He runs, I bike, because I’m out of shape and can take breaks while coasting.)  It’s awesome because it’s usually around 4 a.m. so I can swerve all over the road and ride circles around him because there are no cars.  And also no people, so I can swerve all over the sidewalks and people’s front lawns too.  So, the other night we did TWELVE miles and now I’m all proud of myself for not dying and also really impressed that anyone can run twelve miles when I could hardly make it on a bike and had to actually get off and walk the damn bike up one of the hills.  In my defense, a fox ran out in front of me* about two thirds of the way up this really long, steep hill and messed up my concentration.  Over the course of the whole runbike, I saw two foxes, one deer, one rabbit, one drug deal, and one busted lamppost that was catching leaves on fire.  Things I also saw but didn’t tell Q about because then he would think I was a chicken: a monster with bloody dripping jaws in the woods that was waiting for me to stop moving so that it could jump out and eat me.  Next time I won’t wear glow-in-the-dark shoelaces so I’m not such an easy target for evil menacing forest monsters.

*I am now completely confident, having had extensive experience almost running over foxes, that the animal I confronted that one time I almost got mauled to death to save a kitten was NOT a fox.  It was a COYOTE.  Nobody believed me back then, no.  They were all, “It was probably a fox or a dog or a mountain lion, you silly drunk.”

EXHIBIT A: Not a coyote.

EXHIBIT B: Not a coyote.

EXHIBIT C: Probably not a coyote.

So, I was up real late one night drunkpainting when I heard this high pitched noise over my headphones.  I took them off and listened and the cats were all freaking out, and when I heard the noise again, it was positively chilling.  Honest to god, I thought someone was killing a child right outside.  I looked out my window and saw a very small black cat cowering by a tree right by the door to my building.  I thought maybe the cat was making that noise, but it was like nothing I’d ever heard, and also I thought it might be my parents’ cat because he’s tiny and black and evil and a master of escape except that when he actually does get out he’s terrified because he’s also a chicken.  Then I noticed another animal in the shadows about ten feet away that kinda looked like a fox or maybe somebody’s dog, and thought to myself, oh hell no I’m not going to let that foxdog kill that cat, even if it is the Satanic jerkface that lives with my parents.  So I threw on my shoes and ran downstairs and out the door.

As the door shut behind me and I stood on the the edge of the stoop, the other animal stepped out of the shadow of the tree like a scene from a freakin’ movie, and I realized with some horror and quite a bit of sudden detachment, that it was NOT A FOX and certainly no one’s dog.  It was a fricking coyote, and I was sloppy drunk, and it was looking me right in the eye, and I had probably just interrupted its dinner-hunting, and I suddenly wondered if it was thinking, “Yay, bigger dinner!”  I was afraid to turn my back on it because it was so close, so I backed up and took off one shoe.  Like I was really going to scare off a goddamn hungry coyote with a shoe.  Luckily, as I was grabbing behind my back for the door handle, the cat took the coyote’s distraction as an opportunity to run away, and then someone yelled out a window from one of the other apartments, and the coyote ran off too.  And I went back inside and had another beer and wished there was someone I could call at 3 a.m. to tell them I was still alive.

Oh, and it wasn’t my parents’ cat after all.  Now every time I see the cat, which turned out to be my neighbor’s, I’m all, “You owe me, buddy.”  But he’s all, “Whatever, you stupid human, I still had like six lives left, it wasn’t THAT big a deal.”

It was a great evening and there was an excellent discussion between both speakers and audience. The room was packed and for the next debates in the series we’ll be moving to a larger venue.

Before I tell you what happened next, let me give you some backgound on these sandals and my cheapness and my hatred for shopping so that you can sympathize with my side of the story and not his.

My mom talked me into buying these sandals two summers ago because my favorite flip flops were falling apart.  And also gave me blisters.  Which I endured because I’m cheap and also I figured they’d eventually turn into calluses (the blisters, not the flip flops) and then I’d be fine.  So, my mom tricked me into going shoe shopping one day, and I was getting irritated because it was apparently the summer of the girly flip flops and I couldn’t find anything that didn’t have rhinestones and flowers and beads and hearts and glitter and bows and sequins and china patterns all over them in the first ten minutes at any given shoe store.

So, we end up in Off Broadway Shoe Warehouse, which is completely overwhelming to me, because there is literally a sea of footwear, all in rows, all about elbow-height, so you can see every single shoe in the whole goddamn place by standing in one spot and spinning around in circles, and my mom holds up these sandals from several miles away and yells, “These are cork!  You’ll love them!  They’re so comfortable!”  I’m not a huge fan of sandals, but I can see that they’re plain black, praise Jeebus, so I leap over several rows of shoe displays, try them on, and hot damn, they actually are pretty comfortable, now let’s pay and get to the liquor store before it closes.  I get up to the register only to find out they’re SIXTY FUCKING DOLLARS.  I look at my mom like she’s betrayed me, and she rolls her eyes and is all, “They’re worth it.  I have a pair that have cork soles, and they’re so. comfortable.”  So I pay.  And we leave.  And then they live in my closet for two years because 1. I still don’t really like sandals, and 2. I’m actually afraid to wear them because I paid so goddamn much for them I’d be really pissed if I tripped and busted a strap or something.

But by now, two years later, I figure I can’t return them, and it’s actually worse that I let them keep sitting in the closet than accidently busting a strap, so I may as well wear them.

So, I’m putting on my new old sandals the other night, and Q sees them, and suddenly he’s all waggling his finger and going, “Oh no, honey, those are not Tevas.  Please tell me you are not wearing Tevas.  Those things are fucking awful.”

Me: “What are Tevas?”

Q: “Those stupid things on your feet.”

Me: “YOU’RE WEARING CROCS.”

So then we get in a big argument about who’s the bigger douche, me for buying an expensive pair of hippie sandals, or him for wearing a pair of clown shoes that were a gift and so he therefore did not actively acquire them like that makes them okay.

You look at the pictures below and you tell me–

We now have pretty good epidemiological evidence that the long-term health consequences of living under our deficient healthcare system are considerable.  There is something inherently American about catering to the “best” while giving much less attention to the average.  We excel at advancing the “best” but fail at moving the average from the middle closer to the front of the line.  The US healthcare system is a definitive “best” strategy.  This economic model of our healthcare system is demoralizing and divisive for what? To benefit the few.  Universal healthcare is the answer because privatized healthcare is obviously not.    

Nationalized healthcare would create a national database alleviating many of the wasteful inefficiencies doctors face during treatment and diagnosis.  Doctors would be able to avoid the insurance premiums, malpractice and liability insurance, insurance submissions, claims approval, and focus on their job—tending to the sick.  Doctors and patients could work hand-in-hand practicing preventative measures.  Patients avoid routine check-ups now because of the lack of coverage, and they pay with their lives later on and we pay as a society for our ignorance.

Many opponents of universal healthcare cite the massive price tag associated with providing it to the masses.  They claim that the only way it could work is through severe taxation or through compulsory coverage premiums. I am of the opinion that a small bump in my taxes is worth improving the lives of my fellow citizens, but I may be in the minority.  Let’s pacify these bottom-liners for a moment.  The Canadian system, which provides universal healthcare, spends 10.5% of its GDP on healthcare.  Juxtapose that with the whopping 16% the US spends on their embarrassing system.  Not to toot the Canadian horn too loudly, but their healthcare system actually outperforms the US system in the two most commonly used quality metrics, life expectancy and infant mortality rates.   

There is also a fear that US citizens may be forced to look elsewhere for medical assistance, à la the Canadians that come to the US for some of their healthcare needs. My counter to that? So what.  Americans are doing that today, as we speak; insured Americans are going to India and South America to get cheaper healthcare.  That option will always be there, and will always be used.  If that criterion is used to degrade universal healthcare, then it must be referenced when highlighting the failures of the current system. 

The next argument volleyed by opponents of universal healthcare is the inefficiencies of the government.  They claim that healthcare system would become the DMV.  But why couldn’t it be as successful and efficient as the US military, or the US-run anti-discrimination agenda, or the CDC.  These same opponents of the US government attack it while living in the safe confines that same inefficient US government provides to them.    

Public enterprise has merits, but the government has a responsibility to ensure the well-being and security of its citizens, not to ensure public enterprise.  The failed healthcare system in this country is our scarlet letter.  Our allegiance to it is deteriorating our sense of social solidarity and our efforts to address the needs and problems of the population as a whole.  We are failing the 50 million uninsured as well as the 100 million underinsured Americans. Universal healthcare is not some utopian edict that will improve the lives of every single citizen.  It is not a strategy for becoming the best; it is a strategy for becoming better. Potential imperfections should not cause us to lose sight of substantial improvements.

Does our current health care system meet the standards of quality, accessibility, affordability, and equality that we as the most prosperous and free nation in the world should hold ourselves to?  To deny that our system is currently flawed is to take a position of ignorance and fail to recognize that our system is falling short in each of those categories.  Our current mix of private and public participation in the industry is clearly failing, and there seems to be two directions that health care reform can take. 

Our new administration’s plans for health care are consistent with many of the other strategies they’ve designed and implemented thus far.  As a result of the Obama administration’s initial spending, as well as the spending of the Bush administration, we have been somewhat desensitized to the mind-boggling spending by our government. Some of this spending dwarfs the potential bill for the president’s health care plan.  More central to the debate are the effects they will have on the quality and affordability of our health care, as well as the long-term effects they will have on one of our nation’s most profitable and stable industries.  The main reason for concern on both of these fronts is the more involved role the federal government will take in the health care industry under the proposed reforms.

Essentially, the proposal outlines a public plan in which the government would serve as a health-insurance company providing coverage to all.  However, a government-sponsored plan would immediately generate many problems.  Primarily, it will create an environment where the government will “compete” directly with private insurance companies.  Without being subject to the same risks and constraints that confront a private firm, the government would have a distinctly unfair competitive advantage.  With the ability to offer artificially lower prices, companies would be driven to move from the plans they currently provide for their employees to the new ‘public plan’.  This would directly undermine President Obama’s repeated claims that his initiatives would not have an effect on those who are currently satisfied with their health care plans. 

With a public plan, costs would be driven upward as hospitals, physicians, and drug companies will have no incentive to price competitively, similar to the way they do now.  With a single-payer system there would be no reason for individuals to be concerned with the prices of the service they’re receiving.  Currently this effect can be seen not only with employer provided insurance but also with Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.  Essentially people have no incentive to make a conscious decision about the necessity of the care they are receiving or how much it costs because someone else is paying the balance.

The real solution can be found in increasing the amount of competition within the industry.  Driving down the costs and increasing doctors’, hospitals’, insurers, and drug companies’ incentive to provide service and products of the highest quality at the lowest cost, the same way that industries are forced to do in order to survive.  Many companies have seen a significant reduction in their health care after modifying their plans to provide a stipend for health care up to a certain amount, say $1,000.  In this instance the individual would be able to use that $1,000 for any health care service they receive, with insurance and a deductible kicking in for any expense beyond that $1,000.  If the employee doesn’t use the full balance in the year, what’s left is theirs to keep.  What this creates is the incentive for individuals to make health care decisions based on price and necessity.

Undoubtedly within a free-market approach like the one above there would still be a significant portion of the population who lack coverage; however with lower prices resulting from increased competition the need for insurance would be greatly reduced.  Also, with the emergence of social-marketing as one of the most effective methods of attracting customers, health care providers would be encouraged to extend their services to the least fortunate members of our society to increase their social impact. 

With increased competition in the pursuit of customers who are forced to shop around for their own care we can see the dramatic transformation of an industry which will provide the world a stark example of the best way to harness the power of personal choice and competition.

What happened to Reagan’s 11th Commandment? What, was all that solidarity stuff only for when Rove’s imaginary “permanent majority” was in place?

The GOP is clearly floundering right now, and, granted, everyone who cares about said party is absolutely right to offer advice on how to fix it. Bashing them as hard as I do, though, is just kicking a dead horse. Which I do because (a) it’s easy, and (b) I’m not above it. They should be, though.

So, conservative pundits and bloggers, this is for you: Sack up and fix yo’ shit. Who should lead you? A fat pustule on the ass of humanity, an idiot demagogue from the icy regions of no-electoral-votes, or a babbling buffoon of a constant failure? Jesus, are you even considering bubble-headed-but-cutesy Meghan McCain, given her near-constant presence on the media circuit?

In the interest of my love of debates, especially those William Buckley used to have with Noam Chomsky and Andrea Dworkin, I’ll give you a hint: He works at the NY Times now, and is, by all accounts, not a waste of water.

Now, just because I love it, here’s Buckley and Chomsky in the kind of debate we should be having now: erudite, well-informed, and civil. Enjoy.

Marble Ryan: So, we’re two weeks into my trade, and my “half right” edict is coming true. Fitz, despite his TD last night, is clearly the #2 WR in Arizona, and, on some occasions, the #3. Sure, I gave up 8 to 12 predictable points a week by trading Fitz, but I did relieve myself of a very frustrating situation: Boldin is obviously the unstoppable go-to guy and is Warner’s personal favorite target. Eddie Royal and Fitz are arguably in the same situation: the #2 guy on teams that throw the ball all over the place. With the way Marshall gets doubled, Royal is an extremely attractive play, and I think his spottiness early season was injury related.

Mr. T: You can’t seriously be comparing Fitzgerald to Royal. I think you’re starting to go off the deep end when you say that Fitz is possibly the #3 WR on his team. If you look at catches yesterday, it was equally distributed between the receivers. Fitzgerald had 8 catches, Boldin had 7, and Breaston had 7. That’s a pretty even distribution, and when you acknowledge that a majority of Breaston’s yardage came on a 46 yard bomb, the discrepancy doesn’t seem as wide. Last game was the first all year in which Fitz didn’t catch a ball for longer than 10 yards and only the second game in which he didn’t catch one of 20+. That’s not statistically significant enough to question his yardage totals for that game. Then, you get to the red zone looks. From the game I was watching, I saw two looks to Boldin and two to Fitzgerald. Boldin just converted on his two. Fitz saw one go over his head; the other became a TD. Only in Marble’s world can a 10-point game from a receiver (on 8 catches) be called unproductive.

The Slow Eater: In no way are Fitz and Royal on the same level. I’ll admit that maybe I underestimated Royal (although his consistency still remains to be seen), but Fitz is the # 3 WR in Yahoo! scoring this season. Who cares if the #1 WR happens to be on his team? That’s absolutely irrelevant for fantasy purposes. Fitz still puts up points each week and gives you the “explosivity” of some monster games.

Marble Ryan: I care about points, and, more importantly, I care about trends. The majority of Fitz’s points came with Boldin out. With Boldin back, there is now 300 yards and two TDs to split between three equally-targeted WRs. In Denver, its the same stats split between 2.5 guys, only Marshall is double-covered way more than Boldin is. No one in their right mind would double Boldin with Fitz on the other side. In fact, Fitz is probably the one getting double-covered, which is why Boldin gets the love. Bottom line: you can’t rely on Fitz’s numbers from the weeks when Boldin was out because he had no face.

Mr. T: I agree with The Slow Eater: Fitz doesn’t become a less productive player just because Boldin is on the team. Wouldn’t Boldin’s production actually help Fitz and start pushing double coverage over to Boldin’s side? Can we rely on his numbers from last year when he finished as the #5 scoring WR? You’re just bitter that no one wanted to overpay for Fitz in a trade by giving up a RB1 and therefore you’ve convinced yourself that he’s not so good.

Marble Ryan: There’s a reason no one wanted Fitzgerald and there’s a reason no one drafted him. Slow Eater, if Fitz is so good, why wouldn’t you give up crappy Braylon Edwards and a very inconsistent MJD for Fitz plus a solid McGahee? Why was Edwards drafted 8 spots ahead of him? All of you were worried about Boldin, and the past three weeks showed it was for good reason.

Mr. T: Now McGahee is solid? A week ago he was terrible. It’s not that no one wanted to drafted Fitzgerald. He went after Moss, TO, Edwards, and Colston as the #5 WR. And you can’t say that the Slow Eater knew what he was doing with WRs because he drafted Chad Johnson in the 4th round. I don’t need to explain why Moss and TO went ahead of him. Colston has been hurt, but showed last week and last year why he went ahead of him. And then Edwards…well there was no reason to think he’d be as bad as he’s been. But the point is that Fitz was still the #5 WR taken at the end of the 3rd round, exactly where he was supposed to be taken…

The Slow Eater: Fitzgerald’s point totals from this season in games in which Boldin has played are 9, 15, 16, 12, 11, 8, and 10. You average those numbers out for the whole season up till this point and he’s still the #4 WR in all of football, as well as the most consistent. I’m not sure why you think you can’t rely on his numbers. There isn’t a WR you can rely on more.

Marble Ryan: That kind of just put me on the floor, although there’s one WR you can rely on more, and his name is Anquan.

So, who got the better end of the deal? Both parties and a few other league members weigh in on the transaction. Note that Steve Stevens owned Jonathan Stewart prior to the trade.

Marble Ryan: I’m pretty bullish on my Deuce acquisition and I still have faith in Selvin Young with Dre Hall clearly playing his way out of touches. DeAngelo was essentially my fifth RB, and he hasn’t looked very good. I know Smith is garbage, too, but he has some upside as Rudi is not going to last long as the starter. I don’t mind having a high risk guy as my fifth RB. DeAngelo’s value will continue to drop each week, and Rudi could easily go down this Sunday, so there was some urgency.

I understand fully the problems with Smith. I liked, however, that he is reacting angrily to being benched – he’s motivated to win his job back. And if you want to talk about garbage, Rudi is as bad as it gets at the RB position. He’ll be out of the mix in due time, I suspect.

Steve Stevens: They’re two lame duck running backs, but I think Smith is more lame than DeAngelo. Even if Smith wins back the starting job, the Lions schedule is just too tough. They play the Bears (twice), the Vikings, and a few other tough Ds like the Titans. DeAngelo’s biggest attribute is that he’s not Kevin Smith. There’s not a ton of upside, though, unless Jonathan Stewart gets hurt. For me, the trade was more about Carolina RB insurance. Detroit’s running situation is horrific. I’m definitely cutting bait while I can.

Michael J. Cox: It looks like Marble Ryan is starting to enter terrible trade mode early this year. It’s not a good trade. It’s not amazingly bad or anything because of the mediocrity of the players involved, but DeAngelo Williams is a starter, Kevin Smith is not, and Carolina is the better team.

Mr. T: If you think Smith sucks and that DeAngelo has more value right now, doesn’t that mean you’re getting the less in the deal? Couldn’t you have found a small upgrade elsewhere? You could’ve sold it harder as insuring the Carolina RB situation. Smith’s value couldn’t be any lower right now.

Marble Ryan: I know Kevin Smiff’s value is low right now, but Kellen Winslow was seriously the only upgrade I could’ve gotten from Steve’s team, and he was out of my reach. Steve’s team is terrible. DeAngelo was just hangin’ from a string for me, so I thought I’d upgrade to some upside. It’s a gamble on my part, I know, but one worth taking, with Deuce, Selvin, and Chris “Gaylord” Perry. Perry had a bad game last week, but it happens to everyone. Marion Barber had 2 points last week – these things happen.

I’ve yet to read the book, but wanted to recommend the New York Times article.  If you haven’t already read it, check it out.  The duo suggests that there have always been outrageous, outlandish names and that a moniker like Candy Stohr or Mary Christmas does not hamstring a child.  The same is true for a name like Oswald or Harriet.  While we might have a negative impression of the name, the person we meet can quickly overcome our initially unfavorable impression.

There are two ways to take this, of course.

One: Go ahead.  Name your kiddo Ebenezeromeo.  He’ll do fine in life anyhow.

Two: Not so fast.  Sure, it won’t ruin your kid’s life to christen him Diesel.  But that doesn’t make it a good plan.

For now, we’re going with Two.  And running down to the bookstore to order a copy of the book.

Give your kid a normal name!

What’s more dazzling is that this criticism can be in response to nearly any choice – from a chart topper like Ava or Aiden, to standards like Henry or Beatrix.

I’d like to put forward a simple tenet of baby naming: there is no such thing as normal.

The definition of normal is regular; conforming to the common type. The best measure of this then, must be the Top 20 – or perhaps 50 – names, and thanks to the Social Security Administration, data on “normal” names is readily available.

Scan it for a few minutes, and I’m sure you’ll agree: just like hemlines have always varied, baby names have come in and out of vogue. With the exception of a very few names – mostly for boys – the Top 50 are far from a stable list.

In 1906, the following names were normal:

• For girls, Mildred (#9), Ethel (#11), Gladys (#16), Gertrude (#22), Bertha (#25), Thelma (#31) and Myrtle (#37).
• For boys, Walter (#12), Willie (#13 no, not William – just Willie!), Clarence (#18), Fred (#20), Roy (#24), Ernest (#28) and Elmer (#42).

No fair, you say? That’s too far back to find a true measure of normal?  Let’s try 1926, then. After all, plenty of octogenarians are still with us, wearing names like:

• For girls, Betty (#3), Doris (#7), Norma (#29), Phyllis (#33) and Edith (#42).
• For boys, Albert (#21), Eugene (#23), Ralph (#24), Norman (#39) and Stanley (#43).

Even in 1946 – a year some of us can remember – plenty of the favorite names are strange by today’s standards:

• For girls, Shirley (#18), Beverly (#30), Peggy (#43) and Connie (#45).
• For boys, Larry (#11), Gary (#12), Terry (#26) and Bruce (#32).

Even 1966′s list features some names that would be awkward to bestow on a child born today:

• For girls, Lori (#21), Tina (#23), Dawn (#24) and Rhonda (#39).
• For boys, Rodney (#35), Randy (#45) and Troy (#48).

By 1986, the names sound more familiar, and either more palatable or less appealing to our ears, depending on our generation. But there are still some extremely trendy entrants on the list, including:

• For girls, Ashley (#2), Brittany (#8), Amber (#13) and Crystal (#25).
• For boys, Justin (#14), Dustin (#42), Jesse (#48) and Travis (#49).

And so little wonder that by 2006, the Top 50 had changed dramatically again.

• For girls, Madison (#3), Brianna (#20), Taylor (#22), Savannah (#30), Destiny (#37) and Nevaeh (#43).
• For boys, Tyler (#18), Austin (#41) and Jayden (#50).

The bottom line is that the Top 50 – the most commonly bestowed names in the US – are quite the changeable lot.

It’s also interesting to note that the Social Security Administration lists only the Top 1000 names. This represents about 75% of the population. So even a name that ranks at a relatively obscure #1000 (In ’06, that was Jarvis) or #998 (Thaddeus) is shared by about 180 children.

Plenty of “normal” names – enduring classics like Beatrice – can be found hanging out in the upper ranks of those listings. Beatrice came in at #966 in 2006, with a mere 266 girls given that lovely name that year.

Some European nations maintain a registry of acceptable names, strictly limited to exclude such fanciful entrants as Misty (a Top 50 name for girls in the 1970s) or Dale (a Top 50 name for boys in the 1960s). Would it be possible to compile a list of 300 or 500 names and force every parent to choose from the list? Perhaps. But inevitably, the same thing would happen – even in that small sea, certain names would be more popular; others neglected.

There are popular names.  It might even be possible to agree that some are classics.

But there’s no such thing as a normal name – and that’s a good thing.

NOTE:  Post revised and links added on December 22, 2009.