Celebrity Gossip, Celeb News And Fashion Tips : hercast.com

I was dazzled by the outpouring of nominations for the official Baby Name Wizard Name of the Year. Thank you all for some outstanding suggestions, including angles I wouldn’t have considered on my own. It was a tough year to make a choice as no single name truly dominated the landscape. (That’s not necessarily a bad thing; consider Katrina last year.) I weighed a variety of factors including your votes, public awareness of the name phenomenon, a dramatic change in the name’s social meaning or identity, and how the name reflected a broader zeitgest.

First, some runners up — 3 names shaped by television in 2006:

Emmett. Back in August I identified Emmett as a name on the verge, one that parents were talking about a lot but hadn’t quite pulled the trigger on. That was before retired football star Emmett Smith took home the top trophy on tv’s “Dancing with the Stars.” Zeitgeist bonus points: so who cares that you set the all-time NFL rushing record? You’re nobody til you’re a reality tv star. Points off for: the name is still a stealthy favorite, not really on everyone’s lips (as the paucity of Emmetts in the nomination pool demonstrated).

Miley. A strong candidate for the out-of-nowhere role thanks to “Hannah Montana” star Miley Cyrus (given name Destiny). Miley is a natural extension of Riley, Kiley et al. Points off for: Zeitgeist? What Zeitgeist? Besides, most Hannah Montana fans are still in the pre-procreation demographic.

Addison. I was surprised at first to see a flood of nominations for Addison. But the posters built a strong case: 2006 was a breakthrough year for Addisons as a character on “Grey’s Anatomy” propelled the name out of Madison’s shadow and into the the spotlight. It’s clearly one of the hottest names of the year and an example of some of the strongest trends in naming. Androgynous surnames that contract to girlish nicknames are a soaring sub-genre. Even the baby step from Madison to Addison illustrates the constant but cautious hunt for novelty. Points off for: being more evolutionary than revolutionary in 2006. I had cited Addison as a hot example of the the “retractable surname” trend in the opening sections of The Baby Name Wizard.

Which brings us to the official Name of the Year:

Shiloh.

I don’t know if you heard, but some couple named Brad and Angie had a baby girl this year and named her Shiloh. Ring any bells?

Yes, it’s a celebrity baby name. But before you start yawning let me say that it’s not just any name, and not just any celebrity. If there were a baby naming hall of fame Angelina Jolie would be a charter member. She chooses extremely unusual names: Maddox, Zahara and Shiloh. But while other celebrities earn snickers for their unconventional choices, nobody’s laughing at the Jolie kids. Angelina is like that friend who shows up for a party wearing colors you never would have imagined putting together and maybe don’t even like, but dang she looks good…and makes the rest of us in our basic black feel kind of timid.

When you think of the typical high-profile baby name, it’s an island unto itself. Suri, Apple and Audio Science don’t really belong to or influence any broader trends. Shiloh, in contrast, makes cultural connections. It’s part of the revival of biblical rarities — Shiloh is a place name from the Bible, adopted for towns in a number of U.S. states. It’s also a nostalgic place name of the Savannah/Cheyenne family. By far the best known Shiloh is in Tennessee, where a horrific 1862 battle gave an early glimpse of the bloody years that were to lie ahead in the Civil War. The Battle of Shiloh claimed over 23,000 casualties and dominated the cultural meaning of Shiloh for generations to come.

Shiloh did have a history as a baby name long before Miss Jolie-Pitt hit the scene. You’ll find occasional 19th-century Shilohs both before and after the Civil War, most of them male. The name tailed off after the 1880s and started to come back quietly starting in the late 1960s, this time chosen for girls and boys alike. Yet if you asked most Americans in 2005 their first association with Shiloh was surely still the battle, with second place going to the male beagle who headlined the 1992 Newbery-winning children’s novel Shiloh.

You want a “change in the name’s social meaning”? When I was writing my book I considered including Shiloh but decided that the battlefield associations were too strong. Now can you imagine leaving it out of the next edition — or calling the name anything but feminine? And as little Shiloh was endlessly discussed in every known medium, the name sent out ripples into the great name landscape. Just as Maddox took the popular surname style and blew the doors off its preppy Payton-Tyler constraints, so Shiloh will make parents take a fresh look at the seemingly familiar realm of Biblical and Old-South place names. (Think Jericho for boys, Shenandoah for girls.) Massive public awareness, sudden change, portents of names to come…there is your Name of the Year.

And with that, I bid you a happy naming year. See you in 2007…and start thinking about your entries for this year’s edition of the baby name pool!

Original post by lwattenberg

Before this year draws to a close, I’d like to take a look back at some of last year’s hottest baby names. Using the standard Baby Name Wizard Hotness Formula for fast rising and falling names, the #1 hottest baby names of 2005 were….

Linus and Siren!

Linus took the boys’ crown with a leap from 28 born in 2004 to a whopping 72 in 2005, while 33 girls were named Siren compared to just 10 in 2004. Yes, that’s the story in Norway, while across the border in Sweden the hottest risers were Milo and Amelia.

Ok, chances are that you, dear reader, are not from Scandinavia. You are not considering naming your son Sveinung (2nd hottest in Norway), or Wilgot/Vilgot (16th and 17th in Sweden). So why am I telling you all this?

While some popular Scandinavian names are uniquely local, many others are international. And lately Scandinavia has proven to be a few years ahead of the U.S. in picking up on name ideas like Leo, Theodore and Clara. The Wilgot vs. Vilgot spelling dilemma probably doesn’t make your list, but Milo and Amelia just might. So for a possible peek ahead, here are some international-styled names that are on the rise in Sweden and Norway right now:

GIRLS
Alva
Cornelia
Dania
Eleonora/Leonora
Elina
Filippa
Leona
Luna
Malaika
Melina
Nelli/Nelly
Noelle
Simone
Stella
Viola

BOYS
Conrad
Elliot
Enzo
Hector
Leon
Linus
Marco
Mateo
Roger
Theo

Original post by lwattenberg

Last night I watched “Christmas in Washington” on TNT or TBS or one of those T channels. It only has to do with babies in so far as it was a concert purported to benefit a children’s hospital, I believe. Of course a worthy cause, but I really hope those sick kids didn’t have to watch the show, because I swear it would have made them sicker. It was so incredibly bad — I was embarrassed for all involved. I think the President and his wife were kinda embarrassed, too; the camera kept flashing in their direction while the singers were performing, and their smiles were wan at best. Although maybe that’s just an hangover from the midterm elections.

Anyway, Dr. Phil and his wife hosted the thing, and I think their script was written by the guys who used to write for the Academy Award presenters in the 1980s. Flat and wooden would be good words to describe their little introductions. And since half of the singers were apparently from one season or another of American Idol, it was all Dr. Phil could do to try to introduce them without mentioning Simon Cowell fifteen times in an hour.

Which brings me to another point. The best these people could do for music was a bunch of leftovers from American Idol? Didn’t somebody with real musical talent want to sing for the president? Or has Barbara Streisand turned everyone famous against him? Apparently she didn’t brainwash Il Divo, the European quartet that is on tour with her, because they took a break from singing with Babs in order to supplement the Idol folks. Man, those guys are cheesey! (the Three Tenors do the pop opera thing much better and at least with tongue in cheek. These dudes are all kindsa serious.) And then there was this 12-year-old girl whose idea of singing (by the way, Simon Cowell called her one of the best he’s ever heard, natch) is screaming into the microphone. (I like that technique better when Axel Rose does it.) Taylor Hicks was the freaking headliner — couldn’t they have at least gotten Kelly Clarkson? Corrine Bailey Ray (non-Idol, as far as I know) was excellent, but her voice is soft and sweet so I fear she was lost amongst those warbblers on stage.

It really was a great big bunch of silliness (and yes, I admit I watched the whole damn thing). This was the 25th anniversary of the concert, and I say 25 years is enough. Everybody break out the Charlie Brown’s Christmas CD and call it a day.

Original post by Sally Tusa

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a new policy statement regarding kida and media last week that I, for one, found quite interesting. This well-respected organization came out with their views on the impact of TV on children almost five years ago, and their recommendation that parents “discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years” made big news and is still much-debated (see TV for Babies? in this very blog, if you like).

This time, they’re taking aim at advertising, saying that kids view more than 40,000 ads each year on TV alone (consider how Internet usage contributes to that!), and this exposure “may contribute significantly to childhood and adolescent obesity, poor nutrition, and cigarette and alcohol use.” Wow. That certainly draws one bright and scary line.

The statement called out erectile dysfunction drug ads (I know, you were wondering what the heck Bob Dole had to do with all of this) particularly, saying that there are way too many of these and way too few ads for birth control, so kids are way confused and may be led to think of “sexual activity [as] a recreational sport.” (Their words. Really.)

The AAP’s recommendations? No more than two hours on non-educational TV viewing per day for kids (sorry, time to turn off the “Real World–Denver” marathon now). Monitor what your kids are watching. Media education for all. Advocacy campagns by pediatricians to change advertising’s content, timing, etc.

Just one more freaky thing for parents to worry about, right? Advertising IS pervasive (it’s even here on my blog, for heaven’s sake!), so how are parents possibly supposed to monitor it? I tend to agree that ads with “adult” themes should be broadcast during “adult” viewing hours, but how in the world does change like that happen? Letter-writing campaigns? Mass uprising by parents and pediatricians alike? It seems an untamable monster, this. I feel for parents out there whose only real option is to turn the TV set off.

Original post by Sally Tusa

Perhaps it’s the hot new name that seemed to rise up out of nowhere, like Nevaeh in 2003 or Cadence/Kadence/Kaydence in 2004. Or maybe it’s a name that dominated the headlines, like Monica in 1998, or that came and went in a flash like Liberty in ‘76 and Farrah in ‘77. Maybe it’s not even the name of a person — 2005 was surely the year of Katrina.

The name of the year is a cultural time capsule. It captures some part of the zeitgeist in such a visceral way that the name never sounds quite the same again. Maybe it rose, maybe it fell, but a generation later it still conjures up an echo of the year when it made its mark.

What name do you think captures the spirit of ‘06? Do you suddenly know half a dozen babies named Atticus? Do you hear Akon songs everywhere you turn? Are you considering naming your first born after Nancy Pelosi? Please post your nominations here, and feel free to second others. The oh-so-official Name of the Year will be announced in this very space in two weeks’ time.

Original post by lwattenberg