The American Spectator

/p>

As a publisher of a baby names information website, and one that does not charge visitors to use our name lists and articles, I agree with much of what Mr. Beston wrote. But I think the point needs to be made that parents who shell out money on “name consultants” or who “Google” names before choosing one are in a tiny minority.

In a blog post I wrote on June 22, I said, “I have to wonder whether all this reported stress and angst about what to name baby is a bit overstated. After all, the top 100 baby names for 2006 showed that the top ten names for boys and girls barely changed a smidgen over 2005, and the top three in each gender, Jacob, Michael, Joshua, and Emily, Emma, Madison, remained identical to 2005.”

Eight of the top ten boy’s names from 2006 are biblical in origin. For girls, it is two out of ten, but girls’ names are less common in the bible.

p>We have been running a poll on our blog for a few days, asking if readers would pay $475 to a nameologist. One respondent checked “maybe,” one “probably not,” and twenty-five checked “not in a million years.” br> — Neil Street br> Co-Publisher br> Baby Names Garden br> Wilton, Connecticut /p> p> My position on that in a nutshell: idiots with too much money and time on their hands. br> — Daniel A. Moroco Jr.