Let me just say that I have never written anything with the sole purpose of offending anyone. I can almost guarantee that I will be offending someone today, however. I am writing of any issue so intensely personal and polarizing that the reader will either readily agree with me and suggest starting some kind of grassroots movement, or he will vehemently disagree and call for censure, excommunication, and, possibly, disembowelment. I am writing about an issue that may forever more change the reader's perception of me. This issue is, of course, stupid baby names. I'm not referring to naming unintelligent children. I'm referring to saddling the pitiful progeny with names that will insure daily beatings and, quite possibly, will instigate many years of expensive therapy.

I must apologize in advance if I happen to name any reader's child at this point. I mean no disrespect to anyone's child. The parents already have taken care of that. I mean, really, does someone really expect their child's peers to exercise restraint when the kid's last name is Head and the parents name him Richard. Yet, that example does not even scratch the surface of the kinds of names I'm talking about here. These are monikers so hideous that they stand alone in function of making a child's life a living hell.

I will enumerate my rules for naming children normally in the following paragraphs. And let me just say, it is not the name that will make a child unique; it is becoming a person of substance and conscience that will separate them from the chaff. Think about it. Could there ever really be a Senator named Amaretto Moonbeam Smith? That sounds more like a stripper to me.

Rule number one: Try not to name children after plants. Daisy is fairly tame and generally acceptable, but it starts wanna-be-inventive parents on a slippery slope to silliness that ends badly for all involved. It is like a gateway drug to preposterous handles like Azalea, Begonia, Tulip, and Pansy. Also, these aren't as handy for naming the boys. "Sorghum, Barley. Come in. Your supper's getting cold."

Rule number two: Don't name the child after a place. Havana, Manchester, Kingston are all just a little too new age for me. Some place names just make the kids sound cheap. Paris, for instance; a name like this immediately conjures images of wasted, droop-eyed, crotch flashing, spoiled heiresses. Lourdes is another. Other than the awesome responsibility incumbent with the healing power this name implies, the parent would be sharing naming preferences with Madonna, a less than stellar arbiter of good taste. I guess that one kind of runs in the family, though, beings she was named for the mother of Jesus. I wonder if she'll rename her boy Messiah if the adoption goes through.

Rule number three: Constellations are also a big no-no. It doesn't matter how bright the kid is, it will be hard to shine with names like Cassiopeia, Andromeda, and Orion. The readers should note, however, that a couple would get extra credit for having big brass cajones and, possibly, no soul, for naming a little girl Aquarius Dawn. A couple should only name a child Borealis, Cygnus, or Perseus if they were both involved in either bodybuilding or professional sports before procreating. Little Cyggy will be eating a lot of crap sandwiches unless he's self reliantly endomorphic.

Rule number four: Mythological names are almost always a bad idea as well. Any of the following names will set the bar so unattainably high for the poor children, that they will have no option but to concede to a life of torment and unfulfilled expectation. These include Zeus (only works for Samuel Jackson. And really, when a child's born, how in heaven's name would the parents know if they had another Samuel Jackson? And if they did know, why, for the love of Mike, wouldn't they name him Samuel?), Apollo, Aries, Hermes, Bacchus, Adonis, Neptune, Jupiter, Athena, Mercury, et al.

Rule number five: Stay away from ancient Greek names. These almost always alienate the kids and make the parents seem like pretentious wieners. Aesop, Ambrosia, Cleopatra (although Cleo can be pulled off nicely), and Erasmus spring to mind as acts of singular cruelty. Although Erasmus means beloved in Greek, I am thinking the child will beg to differ after the first couple of years of school. There are also make-me-a-target names like Achilles, Prometheus, and Oedipus. Oedipus is wrong on so many different levels. There is the vulgar slang for feminine genitalia right there in the name. Also, once the kids study Greek mythology, the poor boy will more than likely be called mothaf**** every day for the rest of his life.

Rule number six: Names lifted from classical literature or famous authors should also be avoided. Gulliver, though classical, is not necessarily a great gift to give that new born baby boy. Bronte, Longfellow, Thoreau also seem like clunky first names. And if someone is naming their child Romeo, he had damn well better be good looking. A couple could name their boy Romeo, Valentino, or Don Juan, but it's not going to matter if he looks like Quasimodo.

Rule number seven: Whatever name the parents choose, it should be repeated five hundred times in rapid succession. This will be important, because in many cases, this will be the number of times the parent will need to repeat the name in order to gain comprehension on the part of the child. If this can be done with no pangs of guilt or self-consciousness then the name has passed the first test. After repeating the name for the tenth time, look around to see how many people are snickering and pointing. This is the second test. If there are a lot of people doing this, the chances are great that the parent has picked a name that is, for lack of a gentler word, asinine. The incredulous eye roll is also a very strong indicator in this regard.

Corollary to rule number seven: There is a statistically high chance that the more annoying the name is, the more uncooperative the child will be. The result will be the parent repeating said train wreck over and over until it takes on the pleasing effect of nails on a chalkboard. This is possibly the child's punishment of the parent for imposing this handicap on him for the rest of his life or until he reaches the age of majority and can legally have his name changed. Or it is entirely possible that the deluded breeder is just incredibly proud of this unique monstrosity and wants to share it with the rest of the world as much as possible.

Just the other day, at work, I had a woman and her son Romeo shopping in the store. It was constantly, "Romeo" this and "Romeo" that. I waited patiently for her to call to him twice in rapid succession, and then my prayers were answered. She lost sight of him and called, "Romeo, Romeo...?" I quickly replied, "Wherefore art thou, Romeo?" Luckily, most people who would actually name their boy Romeo have not actually read Shakespeare. "Yeah, where is he?" she wondered aloud. I found myself wondering if he had a little friend at day care named Mercutio. Of course, the bully would be named Tybalt. They'd call him Ty for short.

My theory is that lacking any significant impact on the world themselves, these whiney twenty-somethings are seeking to make their legacy through the unfortunate naming of their offspring. Saving the world for them and future generations is great, but will they really want to live in world where a dessert loving woman has named her twins Orangjello and Lemonjello? Whatever happened to normal names like James, Tom, Bob, Susan, Anne, or Elizabeth? And let us not forget the most fubar name of all. Biqll. The "Q" is silent. What were Peqte and Loreqtta thinking?