Keep fighting, Crystal! I can't imagine being the object of such vitriol and applaud you for your strength and determination in the face of so many nasty, intolerant attacks.

just a quick heads up on a spelling error: "and what kinds of FOOT they ate within the immediate radius of their homes." Otherwise, I agree: the FLOTUS is fair game and the game is on!

A lot of those parents who chose "boy" names for their daughters did it to evoke strength and independence. And now, so many parents want more traditionally feminine-sounding names for their little girls, hence the names Isabella (Italian/Latin for Elizabeth), Sophia (old Greek work for wisdom), Olivia (as old as Shakespere), Emily (from the Roman family name Aemilius), etc., with those three examples being tremendously old names in their own right (hardly "new" or "non-traditional" as the author alludes).

The name Aiden is hardly quirky or novel...it's a centuries-old Celtic/Gaelic name. Another reason parents stick to such a comparatively small group of "traditional" boys names is because so many male names have been picked up and used parents for their daughters, so we're left with a much smaller group of "exclusively" boy names for our sons. Some names that used to be for boys but have been adopted for use with girls (and thus abandoned for boys, for the most part) include Leslie, Ashley, Madison, Dakota, Brook, Kim, Lynn, Taylor, Ainsley, Schyler/Skyler, etc. A lot were originally surnames given to boys as first names (often their mothers' maiden names), but as time went on, those names (and others) changed genders.

ditto...my thoughts exactly!

Interesting how those who scream "14th Amendment" when protecting "anchor babies" of illegals, but dispute that same amendment when it comes to Marco Rubio, whom I'm not sure off the top of my head if his parents came over seeking & were granted political asylum before his birth, or if they came over thru more traditional, legal routes and just hadn't gotten a chance to gain their citizenship before his birth. Either way, it's incredibly hypocritical. But to quote my favorite morning radio show host, "if it weren't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all."

The government just needs to keep its nose out of marriage, period. Leave it up to the churches/synagogues/mosques to perform marriages and just have it on file w/the state. If you're not legally married by a member of the clergy, then you're not married. Some Unitarian church wants to perform the ceremony for gays...fine by me, as I'm not the one they will have to answer to in the end. But otherwise, if you want to have the legal rights and obligations that a marriage will bring, but you can't or won't go to a member of the clergy to do so, then go to a lawyer to draw up papers giving your significant other, your best friend, whomever, the right to make decisions on your behalf and have claim to your estate.

that still means that 84% of serial killers come from non-adoptive homes. Are those 16% actually children who were actually legally adopted? Or those who were just in our awful foster system? Or a combination of both? Please provide URLs to cite your numbers.

That actually made me laugh out loud...thanks for the chuckle.

my thoughts, exactly. Most children aren't able to "survive" on their own until they're at least pre-teens (able to clean themselves, find food, etc.). They are dependent on parents and caretakers to keep them fed and healthy for several years after they're born.