That Adolf Hitler Kid

I'm still following this story. I'm waiting for DYFS to release a statement on why these kids were removed from their homes. This was too much of a one sided story and I want the record set straight.

In case you missed it: Late last year it came to light that some ignorant white supremacist trolled the world by naming his kids after nazi* icons. On a slow news day his local ShopRite did the right thing by refusing to make a cake saying "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler." He was instantly a hero to those who portray common sense and decency as "PC," a martryr to racists everywhere, and a huge jackass to everyone else. End of story.

Only, it wasn't the end. DYFS came in a few weeks later and removed his kids. That's when the martyrdom was kicked up a notch. Suddenly, everyone in the world became a Monday morning social worker and the popular assumption was that these kids were removed due to their ridiculously stupid names. This was compounded because only the parents are allowed to talk as DYFS, as most such social services, has strict confidentiality laws about their cases.

I take issue with the parents, the names they gave their kids, their defense for the names, at least one popular defense for the names given by others -- including their aunt, and the assumption that DYFS is doing something wrong.

The Parents
These people have to be off their rockers. Honestly, who gives kids such names? What did they think the result would be? If nothing else, they are obviously too stupid to realize that freedoms go both ways and everyone else is free to shun their kids for their names and treat them like manure. The saddest part is that they had three children and didn't learn.

The Names
Well, this goes without saying. It's one thing to name your kid after someone controversial. If I were to name my kid after Malcolm X I would probably raise some eyebrows. Yet, I would not be naming him after perpetrators of some of the worst acts in human history. It's unfathomably gross to think that someone in good conscious named these children such.

Ignoring all of the psychology involved for the kid, by giving that name they paid tribute to Hitler and publicly acknowledged that they held Hitler in the highest esteem. Hitler's name should be ascribed to waste baskets and poop scoops, not children.

If they had chosen the name Adolf you wouldn't be reading this now but that's not what they did. They chose Adolf Hitler, leaving no doubt about who they were naming the child after. It's sick and stupid and the parents deserve whatever misfortune this name brings about.

Their Defense of the Names
This is one of the more insulting aspects of this story. These people are either completely delusional or they just take the public for suckers, probably a bit of both. Their claim is that they gave these names due to a desire for a unique identity for their children. Seriously? You couldn't think of anything better than to name your children after insane war criminals responsible for genocide? We're supposed to buy this?

Further insult to our intelligence comes when questioned about the swastika tattoo on the father's neck. He's not racist, he just likes the artwork. Sure, buddy.

The Popular Defense
Several editorials, blogs, and comments I came across about this situation offered the same quip that one of the family's relatives did during an interview with the local NBC affiliate. They combined two current events, this one and the election, and came up with the brilliant "but we just elected someone name Barack HUSSEIN!!!!!!!! Obama."



Do you really not see the difference? If you don't, stop reading and never return to this site again. There's no help for you. Just to spell it out, though: President Obama was named before the tyrant dictator took power. He was not named after Saddam. Further, Saddam sullied a fairly common name, but by no means to the extent that Hitler did with Adolf. It is very clear that Barack was not named after Saddam at all, but it is even clearer that this child was named after Hitler. To indicate that it is acceptable to name someone after Hitler because someone who is accepted by society coincidentally shares one of his names with Saddam Hussein is flawed logic of the worst kind.

If you still have a problem with Barack Obama's name then you should read this article by Juan Cole. He does an excellent job explaining why there is no good reason to have a problem with our President's name.

The Assumption About DYFS
Here's the big one. No one seems willing to let DYFS have any slack. Even the more analytical and understanding people I know have criticized the removal of the children because "it's just because their names."

I have a hard time believing this. From what I know about social services it is quite improbable that the children would be removed from their parents purely due to their names.

The more likely scenario is: The national news story sent one of their neighbors over the edge and they decided to make a report about abuse. DYFS is then legally required to investigate. Upon investigation some legitimate reason to temporarily remove the children from the home was uncovered. The children were removed.


Why would I assume that DYFS didn't do anything wrong?
The parents in this situation can offer no evidence that DYFS did anything wrong. They are merely throwing out baseless accusations that make us condemn the agency for our own prejudice against the family. This is classic behavior when a child is removed from a family.

Meanwhile, DYFS isn't giving us any reason to believe them. The problem here is that we don't need any more reason than we already have. DYFS is regulated and they cannot just go around removing kids for no reason.

Further, it is not easy to remove children from a family. Social workers take no pleasure in doing this, except maybe in the worst of circumstances. There is a lot of work involved and a lot of regulation. There is no joy in taking a child from their parent.

To insinuate that DYFS would remove children for no reason beyond their names, with no evidence aside from wild accusations by the parents in an attempt to start a media war, is ridiculous. However, it's beyond ridiculous for the social workers involved. Human beings, who obviously have more common sense than these parents, and are compassionate enough to take a thankless job so they can try to help kids, are behind these actions. These parents, and those who accept their claims at face value, are demonizing these faceless social workers who can't even legally speak for themselves.

I'll leave the fate of the children to the courts. Until then I won't assume that the parents are guilty of anything. I also won't assume the DYFS did anything wrong. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to believe that Heath and Deborah Campbell are failures at life.

*I don't care about spell check, this word does not deserve to be capitalized.

Race and The Race

Ever since the Democratic primaries were pared down to two people, I've been thinking about just what it will mean to have a non-white President. I think it says a lot about where we're at as a country. Probably not as much as some would want to believe, but we still have to give ourselves credit.

Early on, I maintained that it was possible for us to elect a non-white President, even a black one. Doubters, especially Hillary supporters, claimed that it was impossible for a non-white to win in this country. Their claim was that racism is too strong, and the racists too plentiful. I think they sold our country short and overstated the problem. I also argued that they were proposing to empower the racists if they let that fear alone prevent them from voting for Obama.

Here we are, less than a week from the election and every major polling agency and aggregator has the race for Obama. Most of the projected leads are statistically significant. The aggregate lead appears insurmountable for the Republican, whose only chance appears to be a belief in the Bradley Effect.

I find myself particularly swayed by the arguments that the Bradley Effect won't play any roll in this election, at least not a significant one. If it appeared in the primaries all it did was keep Clinton afloat in a couple of states, but Obama outperformed more polls than he underperformed. If anything, it would seem that various sector of Obama's support are being vastly under polled. I think we're set to see a landslide and he will win at least one state in the South that was thought to be an impregnable Republican safe haven, probably Georgia if any.

That doesn't mean racism is dead.

The racist reaction was strong, if not as strong as most feared. There have been so many overtly racist events surrounding this election. Every side is guilty, but none more so than the Republicans. No one is more complicit than Sarah Palin.

All over the country the Republican base was fired up over Governor Palin. Almost universally for the wrong reasons, although we must admit that she does appear to have a decent record against corruption, even if she just replaced old corruption with new corruption. They supported her because of her subtle bigotry, her religion (in all its extremist Christian glory), and her gender. Even the gender issue is for the wrong reason, she's not a feminist, nor a ground breaker, she's trying to ride Hillary's coattails in the most offensive way possible. The message was clear: If you want to vote for a minority you can still vote McCain. Don't worry about whether your vote is for or against feminism or if it will positively impact the institutional racism and patriarchy in our society, you're voting for a ticket with less penises than the other.

Once the honeymoon faded Palin's supporters had a hard time drumming up enthusiasm. She failed to connect with anyone but her narrow base, shy of a few old perverted men. So she fell on America's current worst racial issue: Our public acceptance of racism toward Arabs and bigotry against Islam. It didn't take long for her and her supporters to complete the circle back to the early whisper campaigns. The insinuation is that Obama is a radical black Muslim, the image they painted in the minds of racist Americans (this is a subset, not an indictment of us all) was that of the Black Panther with their fist in the air. It was just shy of screaming, "C'mon, people, he's black!"

Weeks later and the Republicans have not seriously censured this group of racists. They maintain their claim that Obama is "different," even as the differences between Palin and the average American become more and more clear. Recently in Iowa, Palin spent a solid minute merely talking over the crowd's growing anger and shouts of "he's a nigger!" Has she ever stopped to tell the crowd that she won't tolerate that, that it's not right and it's not how Republicans should act? No. That is why it keeps happening, that's why it has gotten worse.

I believe that what is happening is that we've flushed the racists out. They can only think to rally around Palin as their last bastion of hope against a black President. They are scared, because racism is born of fear and stupidity. These rallies are a support group for the racists. A last effort for them to vent their anger and fear before the coming unknown. In that, I believe the results we're seeing manage to slightly overstate the true weight of the racism problem in the Republican party, America, and the individual locations that host the events.

At the same time we can't give too much credit to the Democrats, or Obama supporters in general. The ability to ignore race due to the gravity of other issues does not signify the absence of racism. Indeed, there are plenty of voters who are simply voting "for the nigger." It's dangerous to ignore what this means. This indicates that racism is still a very real problem in our country, but even racists have their limits and very few people are shallow and stupid enough to allow race to be the most important issue.

So, if he wins what does it mean?

It means that we're less racist than almost anyone gave us credit for. Or, at the very least, that we do not let our racism affect our most important decisions. What is equally important is what it doesn't mean: This is not the end of racism in America. There is still a lot of evidence that we have a long way to go, and we need to seize the moment to make things better.

This does send a message to the world. I don't think it says that racism is dead. Instead, I think it says that we're growing up and we're moving on. It says that the slack jawed ignorant self-identifying redneck is no longer acceptable as our representative stereotype. We are more complex and diverse. Most importantly, I think it signifies that we care about how our country is perceived.

The worst possible outcome here would be if we declared victory prematurely. There isn't an exit strategy for the war on racism yet. Equality does not exist in our society, and what little equality there is has not yet reached a proper level of sustainability. Having an African American President does not invalidate Affirmative Action. This country is still a patriarchy ruled by the whites. The social systems that enforce that are still in place, let alone the governmental ones. We cannot throw up our hands in victory and give up. We cannot be complacent.

Now is the time for increased vigilance. This election has forced the dormant race issue to the surface. It is within our reach, we can grab it and attempt to fix it. We're 90 percent there, we just have the other 90 percent to worry about.