What's weird about name cycles is that they seem to be to a large extent unconscious. I know a little girl named Ava whose mom had no idea it had become a popular name (it was in the top ten the year she was born). Slate did a series of articles on names, and one discussed the phenomenon of names moving down the socioeconomic ladder. That is, the most popular names for girls in upperclass families now will be popular in the middle (and lower) class 5-10 years from now. It was suggested that names are aspirational: parents give their kids names not because they're popular, but because consciously or unconsciously they associate those names with wealth, succes, etc. http://www.slate.com/id/2116505/

When I was a kid, "Emily" would have been incredibly old-fashioned -- no one named their kid Emily. And I was sure that "Hannah" would never come back -- how wrong I was! After a lifetime of hearing, "oh, my mother's/grandmother's/great aunt's name was Ruth," I'm wondering if my name will ever come back (Ruth was in the top five in the early 1900s -- no wonder everyone had a grandmother/great-aunt, etc. named Ruth). And oddly enough, my sister married a man whose sister is also named Ruth, so in the future, when she meets someone named Ruth, she'll say "oh, I have TWO aunt Ruths!"

Mandatory service where young people are put into camps and indoctrinated into the government's way of thinking.

Has she ever heard of the draft?

The Malia-Sasha effect was my first thought, too. Even if they wanted to wear skimpy-sexy clothes, you can bet Mom and Grandmom aren't going to let them be photographed in such attire. We're in for four (or hopefully more) years of high-profile girld who are style role models who dress like young ladies and who aren't driven by the entertainment-world need to be "out there."

What's being overlooked in these comments is that the guy shared these photos with his buddies. That's the problem with "sexting" -- once something has been digitized and transmitted, it's easy to share with anyone, replicate infinitely and manipulate, and almost impossible to retrieve or destroy completely.

The issue is not what teens should be doing, but where to draw the line with the distribution of sexual materials teens generate. If we say it's okay for an 18-year-old to show nude pictures of a 16-year-old to his buddies, then we might as well throw child pornography laws out the window, because anyone can then claim that pornographic pictures were obtained legally by passing through another party who obtained them consensually.

What if the teenaged guy -- or even a female friend -- who is sent the pictures consensually starts selling them to friends? Or gives them to his/her dad's buddies? Or the guy creates a slide show and gives it to the local peep joint because the girl dumped him? Is that still just a harmless case of teens being teens?

"...the same quality that no doubt provokes the wrath of liberals who cannot stand to see an attractive woman stand up for what have come to be known as traditional values."

Don't you just love it when conservatives tell liberals what they think and how they feel?

This statement is actually just a projection of the common conservative horror of attractive women whom they deem to have rejected what they consider to be "traditional values." Because goodness knows they don't care about what unattractive women think, but an attractive woman who doesn't want to spend her life catering to men's sexual fantasies (unlike Sarah Palin, whom they quickly turned into Republican Barbie and who spent more time flirting with male voters than talking about issues) and making cute Republican babies is an affront.

Alex, your trite "we didn't care about what was going on in Somalia until there was this juicy story" rant rings really hollow when the ship in question was, according to your own story, carrying U.S. food aid. You're sounding like the conservative commentators who will twist any situation to fit their ideological agenda (just, in fact, like the conservative commentators you criticize).

Should be 5-7-5, like this:

A cute puppy dog

Was all Dick Cheney needed

To be lovable

Personally, I'm not sure it would have worked. And anyway, it would be a gun dog, right?

Hey, it was your brilliant idea -- I just tweaked it.

The Republicans are bankrupt of ideas and are grasping at any straw thrown out by anyone. I mean, this is a party that tried to base an entire presidential campaign on a random remark by someone who wasn't even who he said he was: Joe (Sam) the Plumber (not really). They're letting the tail (FoxNews, Rush, bloggers, pretty much anyone who can come up with a catchy phrase that's anti-Obama) wag the dog, and getting more and more desperate.

Don't waste any time trying to reason with these people: they've got their fingers in their ears, singing "La, la, I can't hear you!"