A synchronised static method synchronises on the class's Class object. There is exactly one of these, so it means that only one synchronised static method can be operating on that Class at any one time. The Class object is for exactly that class, not its subclasses. Therefore, synchronised static methods on a subclass can run simultaneously with synchronised static methods on the base class. I am told that internal operations also sometimes synchronise on the Class object. Therefore, static synchronised methods may be blocked more often than you think. For these and other reasons, synchronised static methods are often a bad idea. Instead, you can declare a static "lock" object and synchronise explicitly on that. This method is particularly good if you want to involve subclasses in the synchronisation. If the lock object is given protected access, subclasses can synchronise on it, too. The "lock" object can be of class java.lang.Object, because you don't actually want to use it for anything else and Object is the smallest thing you can create. You can have more than one "lock" object, if you want to define more-complex class-level synchronisation semantics.
Betty Rubble? Well, I would go with Betty... but I'd be thinking of Wilma.