NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the police removed the child (Adolf Hitler Campbell) and his younger sisters (JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell) from their parents' custody.

Take that, worthless nazis!

Obligatory news link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_us/hitler_cake)

Ahahaha plebs.

Why were they removed? If there is no abuse, they should be returned. Taking kids from their parents who are not abusing them, just because you dont like that family's (repuslive) ideological bent, is an abuse of power and morally wrong.

Lolfail.

I wonder what the reason was, I mean I doubt giving your child's Nazi sounding names is enough to get them removed from your custody.

Why were they removed? If there is no abuse, they should be returned. Taking kids from their parents who are not abusing them, just because you dont like that family's (repuslive) ideological bent, is an abuse of power and morally wrong.
I'd say the naming crossed the line. When you name your kid "Adolf Hitler," that fucks them for life (or at least until the get old enough to change their name, by which point it may be too late).

Take that, worthless nazis!

:tongue: to all nazis.

Will the trial for definitive custody-by-the-State be held in Nuernberg? ;)

Why were they removed? If there is no abuse, they should be returned. Taking kids from their parents who are not abusing them, just because you dont like that family's (repuslive) ideological bent, is an abuse of power and morally wrong.
Congratulations, you are lame. Naming your kids "Hitler" or "Aryan Nation" - not cool in the slightest.

I wonder what the reason was, I mean I doubt giving your child's Nazi sounding names is enough to get them removed from your custody.
Adolf Hitler is not "Nazi sounding;" it is full on fucking up your kid. Even if you are a nazi, you should have enough sense to know that being called Adolf Hitler will only cause trouble.

Will the trial for definitive custody-by-the-State be held in Nuernberg? ;)

No, because Nuernberg doesn't exist. :p Also, you know that neo nazi who you beat up, was the bin still over his head when you hit him or not?

I'd say the naming crossed the line. When you name your kid "Adolf Hitler," that fucks them for life (or at least until the get old enough to change their name, by which point it may be too late).

Congratulations, you are lame. Naming your kids "Hitler" or "Aryan Nation" - not cool in the slightest.

Adolf Hitler is not "Nazi sounding;" it is full on fucking up your kid. Even if you are a nazi, you should have enough sense to know that being called Adolf Hitler will only cause trouble.

I'm not supporting the fact that they named their kids like that, but is it really abuse? And is it really enough to remove them from their parent's custody?

Congratulations, you are lame. Naming your kids "Hitler" or "Aryan Nation" - not cool in the slightest.

Wow. I have to ask where I said it was "cool" to name your kids "Hitler". I said I dont know if that qualifies as abuse. If the kids were cared for, I do not think this decision by CPS and the state was the correct one.

Im not in favor of manipulating the law to attack those whose ideology I find repuslive.

What other baseless accusations do you want to pull out your ass today?

I'm not supporting the fact that they named their kids like that, but is it really abuse? And is it really enough to remove them from their parent's custody?

I'm sure it could be constituted as verbal abuse. Calling your kid Hitler is probably in another league than just calling him dickhead.

No, because Nuernberg doesn't exist. :p Also, you know that neo nazi who you beat up, was the bin still over his head when you hit him or not?

Nürnberg, also written Nuernberg, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrnberg.

About the bin, yes of course. And no, no charges have been pressed, because assault is charged ex-officio only if there are injuries with a prognosis of more than 15 days. The bin and the waste paper cushioned his face nicely, so he merely fell down.

I'm not supporting the fact that they named their kids like that, but is it really abuse?
Yes. It may be administered indirectly, but that is definitely abuse. How is someone supposed to develop at all as a person with a name like "Adolf Hitler?" That makes naming your son "Prissy Boy Fairycakes," sound goddamn benevolent.
And is it really enough to remove them from their parent's custody?
Yes. The parents have no clue what their doing. I've got no problem with their ideology, that's their decision, and the kid can choose to take it or leave it when he reaches the appropriate age. A name like that, however, would not have been chosen by anyone who wasn't a complete fucktard, utterly juvenile, and/or completely out of touch with reality.

Adolf Hitler is not "Nazi sounding;" it is full on fucking up your kid. Even if you are a nazi, you should have enough sense to know that being called Adolf Hitler will only cause trouble.

Either that, or your kid will know how to kick some ass.

Most likely they found another reason; sure, they didn't make any reasons public, but keep in mind that normal, sane people don't give their chidlren names like that...

And,. for the record, Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii was made a ward of New Zealand's court so her name could be changed.

I'm not supporting the fact that they named their kids like that, but is it really abuse? And is it really enough to remove them from their parent's custody?

I don't believe it is. I think something else might be going on. Isn't it some kind of wrong to print it in the paper though? That always gets me, printing kid's personal business in the paper. Also when they can't "name the defendant" because they are a minor but they tell you who their parents and siblings are.....like we can't figure it out.*


*although growing up in a small town we always knew who did what before the paper did...gossip and such.

Most likely, their press coverage caused the authorities to investigate them a little more closely then they would've otherwise, and found some abuse taking place (probably unrelated to their names).

Harris says family services did not tell police the reason the children were removed. Agency spokeswoman Kate Bernyk says it does not comment on specific cases.

Just because they didn't give the reason out doesn't mean there wasn't one. There are still a very small subset of people who believe that people deserve a bit of privacy. Especially children. Don't worry, we'll phase them out eventually. ;)

Most likely they found another reason; sure, they didn't make any reasons public, but keep in mind that normal, sane people don't give their chidlren names like that...

And,. for the record, Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii was made a ward of New Zealand's court so her name could be changed.

I don't believe it is. I think something else might be going on. Isn't it some kind of wrong to print it in the paper though? That always gets me, printing kid's personal business in the paper. Also when they can't "name the defendant" because they are a minor but they tell you who their parents and siblings are.....like we can't figure it out.*


*although growing up in a small town we always knew who did what before the paper did...gossip and such.
Most likely, their press coverage caused the authorities to investigate them a little more closely then they would've otherwise, and found some abuse taking place (probably unrelated to their names).

I would be inclined to believe this if I didnt distrust the CPS do to their history of abusing their power.

And,. for the record, Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii was made a ward of New Zealand's court so her name could be changed.

Here in Italy the municipal officers and the judges forbade a couple to name their son Venerdì, that is Friday. The judge, through a ward, changed his name into Giorgio, iirc. (oh my, maybe the judge will miss the Shrub?)

I find it OK to forbid that... though I don't understand why John Elkann, heir apparent to the Agnelli family, was allowed to name his son Oceano (Ocean). Or Dario Argento was allowed to name her daughter Asia. Not so bad as Venerdì, but there you are. All people are equal in front of the law, but some people are more equal than others.

Most likely, their press coverage caused the authorities to investigate them a little more closely then they would've otherwise, and found some abuse taking place (probably unrelated to their names).

That's all well and good if that's really the case, but what if it isn't?

Is it right for the state to step in just because of a name?

I'm trying to look at it as a generalization. Is it right to make a special privilege just because the kids are named after Nazis? I'm sure there's children named Buttard out there somewhere, what about them? Should the government go around taking them away from their parents as well? Or they're alright, we just have to worry about names of Nazis?

Why didn't the state say something when they filed the paperwork for the names of the children and gave them social security numbers? I would think Adolf Hitler would be flagged...

I'd say the naming crossed the line. When you name your kid "Adolf Hitler," that fucks them for life (or at least until the get old enough to change their name, by which point it may be too late).

No no no. this is America we don't even learn who the guy was anymore. new official US history is Germany took a vacation from 1939-1945.

I'm not supporting the fact that they named their kids like that, but is it really abuse? And is it really enough to remove them from their parent's custody?

Naming your son Adolf Hitler is child abuse. Can you imagine what will happen to him in school?

It's amusing how these moronic parents saddle their kids with assinine names, but never bother changing their own. If the father renamed himself Adolf Hitler, that would be his call, but to impose your idiocy on a child is too much.

Takes "A Boy Named Sue" to a whole other level.

Naming your son Adolf Hitler is child abuse. Can you imagine what will happen to him in school?

His parents are accountable for the abuse he suffers at the hands of his peers? I would say that if is beat up at school, it should be treated as bullying, not evidence that his parents ar abusing him.

His parents are accountable for the abuse he suffers at the hands of his peers? I would say that if is beat up at school, it should be treated as bullying, not evidence that his parents ar abusing him.

Don't be silly. I suppose it's everyone's fault but his parents that he'll have to put up with all sorts of crap because he was named Adolf Hitler? No, wait. It's entirely his parents' fault.

Here in Italy the municipal officers and the judges forbade a couple to name their son Venerdì, that is Friday. The judge, through a ward, changed his name into Giorgio, iirc. (oh my, maybe the judge will miss the Shrub?)

I find it OK to forbid that... though I don't understand why John Elkann, heir apparent to the Agnelli family, was allowed to name his son Oceano (Ocean). Or Dario Argento was allowed to name her daughter Asia. Not so bad as Venerdì, but there you are. All people are equal in front of the law, but some people are more equal than others.

Naming a son after a body of water or a landmass isn't that different from naming them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_palin#Personal_life) after a city in england (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol), is it?

Mr. Campbell's children, however... he should have given them a name that gets them beaten up less often, such as Kickme Repeatedly Campbell.

Don't be silly. I suppose it's everyone's fault but his parents that he'll have to put up with all sorts of crap because he was named Adolf Hitler? No, wait. It's entirely his parents' fault.

No, its not entirely their fault. We have this thing called self control. If I beat the shit out of someone because I dont like their name, that doesnt mean its the parents fault for naming the kid something I didnt like.

Youre normative arguements aside, I need to see a law that the naming qualifies as child abuse. Or I need to see what other abuse the parents committed.

Otherwise, Im going to assume the CPS overstepped its authority. Which is really par for the course for them.

Naming a son after a body of water or a landmass isn't that different from naming them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_palin#Personal_life) after a city in england (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol), is it?


OMG Bristol got linked! I fell warm and fuzzy inside.

I'm not supporting the fact that they named their kids like that, but is it really abuse? And is it really enough to remove them from their parent's custody?

*snip*

Otherwise, Im going to assume the CPS overstepped its authority. Which is really par for the course for them.

We don't know anything about the reason for removal, do we? Not from the linked article. So unless either of you have evidence from another source you'd like to share, nobody knows why those children were removed. By all means, enjoy your conjecture, but realize that conjecture is all that you've got as of now.

No, its not entirely their fault. We have this thing called self control. If I beat the shit out of someone because I dont like their name, that doesnt mean its the parents fault for naming the kid something I didnt like.

We sure do, but just how often do people excercise their self-control? And especially, just how often do kids in elementary school excercise their self-control?

Youre normative arguements aside, I need to see a law that the naming qualifies as child abuse. Or I need to see what other abuse the parents committed.

Otherwise, Im going to assume the CPS overstepped its authority. Which is really par for the course for them.

You're probably right. I doubt there is a law against this sort of stuff, but then, I'm no lawyer.

Those that think Child Service took the children away because they are or might get beat up at school are looking into this a little to far. Take a step back. Parents are supposed to provide, as best they can, a positive social environment for their children. Naming your children after a genocidal maniac, his ideals and followers does not make for a positive social environment in the slightest.

No, its not entirely their fault. We have this thing called self control. If I beat the shit out of someone because I dont like their name, that doesnt mean its the parents fault for naming the kid something I didnt like.

Youre normative arguements aside, I need to see a law that the naming qualifies as child abuse. Or I need to see what other abuse the parents committed.

Otherwise, Im going to assume the CPS overstepped its authority. Which is really par for the course for them.


It is entirely abusive. Parents are responsible for their child. Period. If you leave a young child to his own devices and he burns, maims and hurts himself, for instance, that qualifies for neglect. Even if its not your fault that your child touches the stove everyday, its your fault for not taking proper precautions. (This is just an example).

However, its not about the child being beaten up in school. Its about the fact that naming a child after Hitler is going to mentally and emotionally scar him at a very young age. Society would not give such a person a chance. Is that a statement about society, sure, but its a statement of terrible parenting. As a good parent, your goal is to give your child the best chance he can to survive in the world. This kid's life would be over before it really started.

Can we get the California Department of Family Services to go into Berkeley and seize all the kids named Che or Fidel?

Why were they removed? If there is no abuse, they should be returned. Taking kids from their parents who are not abusing them, just because you dont like that family's (repuslive) ideological bent, is an abuse of power and morally wrong.

Indeed.

I rushed here to post this news, and found it had been posted twice already. I guess I should just rely on NSG for the news from now on, I'd find everything out quicker.

A spokeswoman for the state Division of Youth and Family Services, Kate Bernyk, said she would not comment on any specific case, but she said the state would not remove children from a home simply because of their names.

Emphasis mine. Names were apparently not the issue here.

I'm not supporting the fact that they named their kids like that, but is it really abuse? And is it really enough to remove them from their parent's custody?

They didn't state the reason and the article said:

"she said the state would not remove children from a home simply because of their names."

Emphasis mine. Names were apparently not the issue here.

It was probably what generated the initial interest of CPS though.

Can we get the California Department of Family Services to go into Berkeley and seize all the kids named Che or Fidel?

Absolutely. As soon as Che or Fidel kill a few million jews and become symbols of white supremacy.

Absolutely. As soon as Che or Fidel kill a few million jews and become symbols of white supremacy.

There were a few executions on Fidel's watch, especially in the early days, for something as simple as being a schoolteacher.

You don't have to be right wing to be someone who slaughters people.

It was probably what generated the initial interest of CPS though.

So what?

So what?

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do...

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do...

Guess they shouldn't have been trying to get attention then.....

We don't know anything about the reason for removal, do we? Not from the linked article. So unless either of you have evidence from another source you'd like to share, nobody knows why those children were removed. By all means, enjoy your conjecture, but realize that conjecture is all that you've got as of now.

Im aware its conjecture. My conjecture is based on the information given and the CPS's past conduct. I openly admitted I may be wrong, I hope Im wrong (because these parents are retards), and if I am, Ill admit it.

Thats why Im asking for more infro in regards to, well, anything related.

Thats why Im asking for more infro in regards to, well, anything related.
It's not legal for them to release any more info.

Emphasis mine. Names were apparently not the issue here.

Yeah they just updated it an hour and six minutes ago.

At least that's cleared up, bummer no one replied to my post though:(

Yeah they just updated it an hour and six minutes ago.

At least that's cleared up, bummer no one replied to my post though:(

I missed it. Well, thats good at least.

Naming a son after a body of water or a landmass isn't that different from naming them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_palin#Personal_life) after a city in england (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol), is it?
No. I think it's on the same level of stupidity.


Mr. Campbell's children, however... he should have given them a name that gets them beaten up less often, such as Kickme Repeatedly Campbell.
LOL.

I wish Berlusconi's mum had named him "Dontvoteforme" or "Putmeinjail".

Like the article says, their was probably more behind taking them than the name, but seeing people arguing that the name alone is a justicfication for taking them sickens me.

Ha Ha, Risottia! How about, "Mafia Man" for his given names?

On the police reason for the state seizure of those Nazis' kids, I wonder if there was evidence of any abuse or neglect other than the stupid names they gave the kids? I mean, theyu were obviously one screwed up couple who wanted to draw extreme public attention to themselves.
If that was the only thing that the parents did wrong, I don't think that, in itself, it would legally warrant their removal as the inevitable courtroom case will no doubt determine.

No, because Nuernberg doesn't exist. :p

You're thinking of Bielefeld.

It was probably what generated the initial interest of CPS though.

Is that a bad thing? Having once been engaged to a Texas CPS worker, I know that they look for a whole raft of signs for potential problems. I dare say that naming one's kid Adolf Hitler is at least a 6 to 7 on the "hmmm-I-wonder-what-that's-all-about"-meter. Anything 4-5 gets written down and back-burnered. Anything 6 or higher gets a visit. At least that was my perception from what little my ex could mention.

I'm inclined to agree with both sides here, as I understand KoL's suspicion given the CPS policy on avoiding nuance and subtlety wherever possible. However, I also know that where there's smoke, there's usually fire. I've got no idea how best to balance the need for sanity and the need for vigilance in the CPS millieu. Something's got to be better than the way it is now, but if there is something, I'll wager it involves more expense...which is why it won't get done.

Why were they removed? If there is no abuse, they should be returned. Taking kids from their parents who are not abusing them, just because you dont like that family's (repuslive) ideological bent, is an abuse of power and morally wrong.

How dare you try to inject logic and a sense of fairness into the child protective service's system!

You know who wasn't taken away from their parents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Blue_(duo)

Here in Italy the municipal officers and the judges forbade a couple to name their son Venerdì, that is Friday. The judge, through a ward, changed his name into Giorgio, iirc. (oh my, maybe the judge will miss the Shrub?)

I find it OK to forbid that... though I don't understand why John Elkann, heir apparent to the Agnelli family, was allowed to name his son Oceano (Ocean). Or Dario Argento was allowed to name her daughter Asia. Not so bad as Venerdì, but there you are. All people are equal in front of the law, but some people are more equal than others.
Ocean is in fact a boy's name. Not too common obviously, but it's still a boy's (and sometimes girl's) name. Likewise Asia is a (slightly more common than Ocean) girl's name.

Friday on the other hand - maybe the Judge figured it might cause problems and misunderstandings for the kid later in life.

You know if you think you can name your kid adolf hitler and have nothing bad happen then you really don't need to be raising children.

You know this is kind of funny when you think about it.I mean neo nazis always think the goverment is out to get them anyway

I'm not the least bit surprised by this; that family struck me as being severely messed up back when the cake incident hit the news.

lolololhitlercakespie

Believing that government has the right to control people's lives helped lead to fascism in the first place. This decision is nazi-esque, to be quite frank.

Can we get the California Department of Family Services to go into Berkeley and seize all the kids named Che or Fidel?

Wait, what?

Seriously? Of all the things you could have said, THIS is what you go with?

You're slipping.

Ocean is in fact a boy's name. Not too common obviously, but it's still a boy's (and sometimes girl's) name. Likewise Asia is a (slightly more common than Ocean) girl's name.

Friday on the other hand - maybe the Judge figured it might cause problems and misunderstandings for the kid later in life.

"Friday" depend on a cultural context. People may be familiar with Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, for a girl the Robert Heinlein novel, but I read once that Kwame, the first name of the first president of Ghana, means "Sunday". and that children in that country are frequently named after days of the week.
I suppose American parents could name their son "Coolidge Hoover Eisenhower", so he could choose according his politics when he grew up.:rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479904,00.html

It's certainly better than Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii.

I wonder what they're investigating, and if it's no more than investigating the fact that the parents named their children Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell.

And what kind of name is "Aryan Nation" anyways?

On a slightly but probably not very related note: the name "Violence" would actually sound kind of pretty if it weren't for the definition of the word.

Already a thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479904,00.html

It's certainly better than Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii.

I wonder what they're investigating, and if it's no more than investigating the fact that the parents named their children Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell.

And what kind of name is "Aryan Nation" anyways?

On a slightly but probably not very related note: the name "Violence" would actually sound kind of pretty if it weren't for the definition of the word.

One does have to wonder about parents who, apparently, make the conscious decision to permanently alienate their son and daughters from 99% of society.

Already a thread.

I should probably pay more attention to details like that.

One does have to wonder about parents who, apparently, make the conscious decision to permanently alienate their son and daughters from 99% of society.

The best part is, they arent even Nazis with the deceny to admit it. If you read the article about the whole cake episode, they were denying that they were nazis and get saying that they just "liked the name".


Theyre Nazis who dont even have the spine to be honest.

One does have to wonder about parents who, apparently, make the conscious decision to permanently alienate their son and daughters from 99% of society.

In fact I think the problem here is exactly that they did not consciously acknowledge the consequences of their actions.

Already two threads, actually. Would have been three, but the would-be-maker saw the first two.

Already two threads, actually. Would have been three, but the would-be-maker saw the first two.

Well now it is three, apparently.

Also, in reference to your sig: Naga gave me harpies.

Oh, so THIS is that other thread.

I know a guy named Alfred Pink Bosarge IV....Id find it pretty embarrassing, he usually goes by Bo...


Guess its not quite on the same level as little Adolf here...

Believing that government has the right to control people's lives helped lead to fascism in the first place. This decision is nazi-esque, to be quite frank.

Not necessarily. For example: Talula Does the Hula in Hawaii hated her name, went by "K" and refused to tell anyone what her name was. It was the source of a great deal of social anxiety for her, to the point that she petitioned the government to allow her to change her name. Point of fact: the government listened and took custody away of her away from her parents so that she could.
She had to grow up with Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii, which at least can be shortened to a somewhat more socially acceptable Talula. Even so, she had no chance to grow up normal. What chance of that do you think Adolf Hitler Campbell has, especially being educated, not only by the education system, but even by popular culture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNvReY8clSU) around him that Hitler is generally accepted as being the single most evil human being to have ever lived?

As the careful reader will guess (this note is for the not-careful readers), two threads on the same subject have just been merged. Carry on.

The best part is, they arent even Nazis with the deceny to admit it. If you read the article about the whole cake episode, they were denying that they were nazis and get saying that they just "liked the name".


Theyre Nazis who dont even have the spine to be honest.

Out of curiosity, is their any reason beyond the names to believe they have Nazi political beliefs? Its concievable I suppose that someone could choose those names soley for shock value.

Now, I suppose they probably are Nazis, but just because you call your children by such retarded names does not mean you believe in white pride or hate Jews or anything. It just means you messed up your kid's lives bigtime.

Understand I'm not saying this was the case, I'm not defending Nazism, and I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just wondering if their's any proof these people are actually Nazis.

Out of curiosity, is their any reason beyond the names to believe they have Nazi political beliefs? Its concievable I suppose that someone could choose those names soley for shock value.
In the first thread about them, the father was shown with several swastikka tattoos, their home had a huge nazi-era flag proudly adorning their lounge wall and the article made mention that the father proudly told the interviewer that his boots were originally from a WWII German soldier.

So not much Sherlocking is needed to deduce they're probably nazi-lovers.

In the first thread about them, the father was shown with several swastikka tattoos, their home had a huge nazi-era flag proudly adorning their lounge wall and the article made mention that the father proudly told the interviewer that his boots were originally from a WWII German soldier.

So not much Sherlocking is needed to deduce they're probably nazi-lovers.

Maybe they're just Nazi-lovers for the shock value...

Out of curiosity, is their any reason beyond the names to believe they have Nazi political beliefs? Its concievable I suppose that someone could choose those names soley for shock value.

Now, I suppose they probably are Nazis, but just because you call your children by such retarded names does not mean you believe in white pride or hate Jews or anything. It just means you messed up your kid's lives bigtime.

Understand I'm not saying this was the case, I'm not defending Nazism, and I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just wondering if their's any proof these people are actually Nazis.

In the other article the dad had a swastika tattoo on his neck and randomly was wearing stormtrooper boots, and he made a point of telling the reporter that.

In the first thread about them, the father was shown with several swastikka tattoos, their home had a huge nazi-era flag proudly adorning their lounge wall and the article made mention that the father proudly told the interviewer that his boots were originally from a WWII German soldier.

So not much Sherlocking is needed to deduce they're probably nazi-lovers.

Of course they probably are. I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt and saying that they might just be shock value wankers or guys who think Nazi flags and uniforms look cool, until I actually hear Nazi values from them or something like that. I do have a vauge recolection of them possibly saying something "Nazi-ish", but I can't recall anything specific.

Regardless, they reek of stupidity either way. And God help their poor kids in school. They may well go through 12 years with their classmates likely thinking they are Nazis, and might be subject to violence and/or harrasment from other students as a result. I suppose you might even be able to make a (probably rather flimsy) case against their parrents as a result.

I actually think Aryan is a pretty word if you ignore the meaning.

I actually think Aryan is a pretty word if you ignore the meaning.

to be honest, so is Molest. It's kind of reminiscent of Smolensk and Trieste.

Also, in reference to your sig: Naga gave me harpies.

Christ, why did I laugh at this? :)

Is it possible that one of the reasons the kids were removed from their parents was that the parents used the names they had given them to drum up publicity for themselves and Nazi ideology?
I'm not too sure, but using your children as political weapons can't be something social workers look upon kindly...

Not necessarily. For example: Talula Does the Hula in Hawaii hated her name, went by "K" and refused to tell anyone what her name was. It was the source of a great deal of social anxiety for her, to the point that she petitioned the government to allow her to change her name. Point of fact: the government listened and took custody away of her away from her parents so that she could.
She had to grow up with Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii, which at least can be shortened to a somewhat more socially acceptable Talula. Even so, she had no chance to grow up normal. What chance of that do you think Adolf Hitler Campbell has, especially being educated, not only by the education system, but even by popular culture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNvReY8clSU) around him that Hitler is generally accepted as being the single most evil human being to have ever lived?

But the kid could always go by Adolf Cambell...


The article says it wasn't about the names anyway.

Maybe they're just Nazi-lovers for the shock value...

You're confusing them with Royal Princes from Britain ;)

On the police reason for the state seizure of those Nazis' kids, I wonder if there was evidence of any abuse or neglect other than the stupid names they gave the kids?
According to the CPS, yes, there was. They are not allowed to say what, however.

to be honest, so is Molest. It's kind of reminiscent of Smolensk and Trieste.

Off the track for a tad, I don't know why but amongst my three favourite words of all time are 'Moist' and 'Flaccid'.

According to the CPS, yes, there was. They are not allowed to say what, however.

One assumes daddy asked the kids if they wanted to shower.

As the article says it wasn't because of their names. In time it will be known what the causes for this were. Racist in general have violence problems also inside their very own families.

But the kid could always go by Adolf Cambell...


The article says it wasn't about the names anyway.

It'd be even better if he went by the name Shimon Peres Campbell or something. :Þ

Racist in general have violence problems also inside their very own families.

That's an interesting assertion. Do you have any proof, or is that just your opinion?

That's an interesting assertion. Do you have any proof, or is that just your opinion?

It is just my opinion.

I have seen several cases of racist that were nearly as violent with their own families as they were with strangers. But I do not have statistics to relate this to the levels of domestic violence among non-racist. I doubt any study about it has been done so far.

It is just my opinion.

I have seen several cases of racist that were nearly as violent with their own families as they were with strangers. But I do not have statistics to relate this to the levels of domestic violence among non-racist. I doubt any study about it has been done so far.

I've seen this as well. My best friend's little brother is a wanna-be skinhead white power boy, and he's an absolute asshole to his entire family. Everyone except him in the family is ultra nice though, so it seems like a mental thing.

I'm guessing that when you see hate and violence as a viable form of relate to others it doesn't stops with those you claim to be different.

would be intersting to sit in the courtroom of that trial.

and there are two reasons why I don't think the name was the reason why those children were removed.
1) CPS said so. while they won't comment on the reason, removing a child because of their name is a stupid reason.

2) the family isn't raising hell. after the cake decible, I would suspect if the reason was their names, the family would be gathering the media around them.

however...
The father, Heath Campbell, had no comment when contacted by The Express-Times of Easton, Pa. The Associated Press could not locate a working telephone number for the family Wednesday.

now while this could mean they had an Unlisted Number, it could (and it's only speculation on my part) indicate a substandard living area. I remember one CPS child removal when it was found out that the home was kept in an unbeliveable state of uncleanliness. I'm talking weeks of dirty dishes, bags of trash, etc. so reallly, it could be anything. even abuse. which, while hasn't been mentioned is still possible.
I actually think Aryan is a pretty word if you ignore the meaning. there are alot of good words that would make great names if you ignore the meaning. :)

I actually think Aryan is a pretty word if you ignore the meaning.

If you're Persian, you could use it with a non-nazi meaning, btw.

Many girls in Japan are called Aria.

There's probably more evidence that hard-core Trek fans are pedophiles...

There's probably more evidence that hard-core Trek fans are pedophiles...

I doubt it. I mean I doubt there is more evidence, Trekkies are probably pedophiles.

There's probably more evidence that hard-core Trek fans are pedophiles...
Perhaps.

Though as racism is, I believe, largely born out of ignorance and non-contact ('fear of the unknown'), and that it is an obviously intolerant position, unable to cope with diversity, then it wouldn't be a huge leap to guess that many of those who hold racist views have problems with family life.

After all, cohesive social living is all about compromise and accepting the different ways of others. I imagine, for example, a young person who has found a new religion/philosophy/politic will have a harder time in an intolerant household than in a tolerant one.

Perhaps.

Though as racism is, I believe, largely born out of ignorance and non-contact ('fear of the unknown'), and that it is an obviously intolerant position, unable to cope with diversity, then it wouldn't be a huge leap to guess that many of those who hold racist views have problems with family life.

After all, cohesive social living is all about compromise and accepting the different ways of others. I imagine, for example, a young person who has found a new religion/philosophy/politic will have a harder time in an intolerant household than in a tolerant one.

Having personally seen domestic violence from tree-hugging PETA members who hate firearms, I'm not sure it's a prerequisite.

Having personally seen domestic violence from tree-hugging PETA members who hate firearms, I'm not sure it's a prerequisite.

Not a prerequisite. But maybe a motivator. Intolerance (something racist and PETA members seem to share) leads to violence.

Having personally seen domestic violence from tree-hugging PETA members who hate firearms, I'm not sure it's a prerequisite.
Of course not; all sorts can be twats.

But the life that those who hold racist views see as 'ideal' must be so incredibly limited, especially when we consider child-rearing. To bring up a child to hold an extremely racist view, in this day and age, must be hard. The amount of control needed, for one; think how little culture would be 'acceptable' to the racist parent.

there are alot of good words that would make great names if you ignore the meaning. :)
A kid was named "Latrina", by parents who weren't thinking.

...actually what trekkies lead in is klingonphilia :p

A kid was named "Latrina", by parents who weren't thinking.

Lol!:D

Well, the police removed the child (Adolf Hitler Campbell) and his younger sisters (JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell) from their parents' custody.

Take that, worthless nazis!

Obligatory news link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_us/hitler_cake)
Bad taste, yes. Idiot parents, too. But do we really want a government that is strong enough to take kids from a home because of what their parents named them?

Bad taste, yes. Idiot parents, too. But do we really want a government that is strong enough to take kids from a home because of what their parents named them?

if you read the article, it's stated that the reason (tho cannot be revealed) is not about the name of the kids.

Christ, why did I laugh at this? :)

Because you're sad and strange.

if you read the article, it's stated that the reason (tho cannot be revealed) is not about the name of the kids.
That's even worse. They take the kids away and don't need to make the reason public?

That's even worse. They take the kids away and don't need to make the reason public?

uhhh no. if you read, it's going to trial. Usually the Law Enforcement side tends to be silent about details being made public. I find it unusual that the parents, who were so vocal about the cake incident (no lie), are strangely silent about this.

If it is going to trial we are going to know sooner or later why they took the kids away.

If it is going to trial we are going to know sooner or later why they took the kids away.

*awaiting news of trial*

Edit: being it's a family custody thing. dunno if the media will report the trial... anyone down there that can 'sneak' into the trial to give us more info?

*awaiting news of trial*

Edit: being it's a family custody thing. dunno if the media will report the trial... anyone down there that can 'sneak' into the trial to give us more info?

Actually... I could. I only live about a half hour to 45 minutes away.


It'll cost though... I want Chinese food.

Actually... I could. I only live about a half hour to 45 minutes away.


It'll cost though... I want Chinese food.

From Hawaii?... it'll be a while getting there...

uhhh no. if you read, it's going to trial. Usually the Law Enforcement side tends to be silent about details being made public. I find it unusual that the parents, who were so vocal about the cake incident (no lie), are strangely silent about this.
I thought charges were in the public domain. I find it hard to imagine that there are indictments and we can't find out what they're for.

I thought charges were in the public domain. I find it hard to imagine that there are indictments and we can't find out what they're for.

Sounds like charges involving children are run by a different set of rules.

Also, even if the inditment is public domain, that doesn't mean the Media gets to report it.

I would send chinese...but I am in Alaska and we aren't known for chinese food...eskimo ice cream anyone?

Otherwise, Im going to assume the CPS overstepped its authority. Which is really par for the course for them.

I agree. Really, while the names are terrible, it's no business of the State. CPS needs to show evidence of real abuse. White supremacists are idiots, no argument there. Still, is stupidity in one aspect of life a valid reason for someone to ask the state to kidnap children?

Look at it this way: If I decided the parents were unfit, went to their house with a bunch of well-armed buddies, and took the kids to an enclosed compound, I'd be a criminal no matter what I claimed the reason to be. The state has no more authority to do that than I do.

Why were they removed? If there is no abuse, they should be returned. Taking kids from their parents who are not abusing them, just because you dont like that family's (repuslive) ideological bent, is an abuse of power and morally wrong.

Have to agree 100% here. The state is over stepping their power here if it is only because of the names. I am sure a few lawyers are going to have fun with this.

I thought charges were in the public domain. I find it hard to imagine that there are indictments and we can't find out what they're for.
There would only be "indictments" if it was the District Attorney (not CPS) trying to put the parents in prison (not just remove the children to someone else's custody). Family courts put much less out in the public doman than the criminal courts do. We are told it is not just about the names; that's all the information they are permitted to release. Sooner or later, some tabloid will get ahold of more details, I bet.

Why were they removed? If there is no abuse, they should be returned. Taking kids from their parents who are not abusing them, just because you dont like that family's (repuslive) ideological bent, is an abuse of power and morally wrong.

As much as it makes me twitch, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with KoL here. It's not against the law(yet) to be insensitive, or to be an asshole.

That's an interesting assertion. Do you have any proof, or is that just your opinion?

I can't provide any studies or links, just a psychological observation:
Most people who will adhere to this sort of right-wing ideology are not exactly the kind of people who are able to cope with conflicts in a quiet, rational, peaceful way. The kind of people who can do that are usually not drawn to any kind of us-vs.-them mentalities.

You don't often hear neo-nazis demanding a dialogue with ethnic minorities to work out a compromise that would work for everybody.
It's not too much of an extrapolation to assume that if they are not able to employ such social methods in their political ideology, they might not find it easy to resolve social conflicts in a domestic climate in an acceptable way.

I agree. Really, while the names are terrible, it's no business of the State. CPS needs to show evidence of real abuse. White supremacists are idiots, no argument there. Still, is stupidity in one aspect of life a valid reason for someone to ask the state to kidnap children?

Look at it this way: If I decided the parents were unfit, went to their house with a bunch of well-armed buddies, and took the kids to an enclosed compound, I'd be a criminal no matter what I claimed the reason to be. The state has no more authority to do that than I do.

So you got the consent of the vast majority of the population, do you? You can use laws that were passed with public consent in order to explain your actions? No?

In that case you've got no authority whatsoever.

As much as it makes me twitch, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with KoL here. It's not against the law(yet) to be insensitive, or to be an asshole.

No it's not. Which is why the names, as stated in the article, were NOT the reason the kids were removed.

No it's not. Which is why the names, as stated in the article, were NOT the reason the kids were removed.

So they say. They don't tell you why the kids were removed though, and if the kids had been named, say, Ben and Jerry, they most likely would not have been removed.

So they say. They don't tell you why the kids were removed though, and if the kids had been named, say, Ben and Jerry, they most likely would not have been removed.

Wild Mass guessing ftw!

So they say. They don't tell you why the kids were removed though, and if the kids had been named, say, Ben and Jerry, they most likely would not have been removed.

They haven't. so speculation is rather pointless really.
And how would you know that no kids named Ben and Jerry were ever removed from their families? Seems a very odd statement to make.

I'd say their names aren't the reason they were removed. But they were the reason why the case is all over the papers.

They haven't. so speculation is rather pointless really. And how would you know that no kids named Ben and Jerry were ever removed from their families? Seems a very odd statement to make.
I'd say their names aren't the reason they were removed. But they were the reason why the case is all over the papers.

- You do away with pointless speculation and 99.9% of the forums on the Internet will dry up and blow away.

- Don't read too much into the names I picked there, Freud, I just pulled the first two that popped into my head.

-Having watched my father deal with the CPS when they tried to take my brothers and I from him, I do not find it at all hard to believe that they may have grossly over-stepped their authority for something as trivial as 'inappropriate naming.' It's also why I'm un-inclined to give them anything even approching 'the benefit of the doubt.'

- You do away with pointless speculation and 99.9% of the forums on the Internet will dry up and blow away.

- Don't read too much into the names I picked there, Freud, I just pulled the first two that popped into my head.

-Having watched my father deal with the CPS when they tried to take my brothers and I from him, I do not find it at all hard to believe that they may have grossly over-stepped their authority for something as trivial as 'inappropriate naming.' It's also why I'm un-inclined to give them anything even approching 'the benefit of the doubt.'

I didn't read anything into the names. If anything, you're reading to much into the names those kids actually have.

So, what would you prefer overall? That social services err on the side of caution and sometimes remove kids who are reasonably safe and ok with their parents? Or that they step back and leave children to be abused and killed for fear of overstepping their authority? A little case to illustrate might be that baby that was killed recently in Britain despite the social services being aware of the problems of the family...
You can always return kids to their parents. You can't bring them back once they're dead.

So, what would you prefer overall? That social services err on the side of caution and sometimes remove kids who are reasonably safe and ok with their parents? Or that they step back and leave children to be abused and killed for fear of overstepping their authority?

I have to pick one or the other? How about reasoned decisions using common sense made on a case-by-case basis?

A little case to illustrate might be that baby that was killed recently in Britain despite the social services being aware of the problems of the family..

There is quite a bit of difference between that and kids being (possibly) removed because someone didn't like the names they were given.

I have to pick one or the other? How about reasoned decisions using common sense made on a case-by-case basis?



There is quite a bit of difference between that and kids being (possibly) removed because someone didn't like the names they were given.

They do decide on a case by case basis. How else would they decide? Or are they removing kids from their families on a town-by-town, street-by-street basis in the US?

Again, we can only speculate on why they were removed, but fortunately the article DOES say that it wasn't because of their names. That would be exceedingly silly anyway, seeing as they've had the names for several years now.

On a related note, did you know that the terrorist "Carlos the Jackal" was named Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, by his Marxist father. And two of his younger siblings were named "Lenin" and "Vladimir". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilich_Ram%C3%ADrez_S%C3%A1nchez

On a related note, did you know that the terrorist "Carlos the Jackal" was named Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, by his Marxist father. And two of his younger siblings were named "Lenin" and "Vladimir". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilich_Ram%C3%ADrez_S%C3%A1nchez

It's obvious that these children would grow up to emulate the Third Reich then.


Good thing the government stepped in when they did. They successfully averted a 3rd or 4th world war.

There's probably more evidence that hard-core Trek fans are pedophiles...

Wait, what? What does Star Trek have to do with this?

Wait, what? What does Star Trek have to do with this?

Someone was making the assertion without evidence that racists are more prone to domestic violence.

They admitted they had no evidence.

If we're going to ascribe bad outcomes on people's belief systems, Trekkies have come up often enough, and there's probably more evidence to support the assertion that they have a pedophilia problem.

Wait, wait - do you just react to anything I post, hoping that you can pull some negativity no matter what I post?

Someone was making the assertion without evidence that racists are more prone to domestic violence.

They admitted they had no evidence.

If we're going to ascribe bad outcomes on people's belief systems, Trekkies have come up often enough, and there's probably more evidence to support the assertion that they have a pedophilia problem.

Wait, wait - do you just react to anything I post, hoping that you can pull some negativity no matter what I post?

I was honestly confused as to what Star Trek had to do with any of this, since Star Trek wasn't mentioned in any of the articles.

And you don't need me to react to you. You have plenty of people reacting to you as it is, unfortunately.

So... anyone got any update?

Why were they removed? If there is no abuse, they should be returned. Taking kids from their parents who are not abusing them, just because you dont like that family's (repuslive) ideological bent, is an abuse of power and morally wrong.

I think some would argue that naming your child Adolf Hitler Campbell in a western society that largely regards Hitler as the most evil human being to be a form of abuse, albeit unintentional.

I thought there were laws in place regarding what you could and could not register your child's name as?

I thought there were laws in place regarding what you could and could not register your child's name as?

Some. Not many. Depends on where you are.

I thought there were laws in place regarding what you could and could not register your child's name as?

In the US, I don't recall any restrictions.

In other countries, definitely.

In other news: hearing postponed... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480169,00.html

Forensic psychologist N.G. Berrill said naming a boy Hitler could be considered child abuse.

"Part of it is the infantile nature of the parents’ behavior," Berrill said. "You can name your dog something weird, but they think they’re making some kind of bold statement with the children, not appreciating that the children will have separate lives and will be looked at in a negative light until they’re able to change their name. It is abuse."

Last year, a New Zealand court removed a 9-year-old girl from her parents in order to change her birth name: Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. In that country, officials do not deem a name abusive unless it causes serious bullying.

Heath Campbell told the Easton-Express Times last year that he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked it and "no one else in the world would have that name."

A paper to be published in March in Social Sciences Journal by economists David E. Kalist and Daniel Y. Lee of Shippensburg University found that unpopular first names, when mixed with factors like a disadvantaged home life, can increase the tendency toward juvenile delinquency.

Lee told FOXNews.com that Adolf and Hitler were not names they looked at for the study.

"Hitler most likely would be an unpopular name in the sense that not many people name their children with a name [like Hitler], but we didn’t particularly look at particularly bad names like that," he said.

New Jersey officials said Wednesday that it is not just a matter of names.

"DYFS would never remove a child simply based on that child's name," Bernyk said.

Kind of interesting. The fact that officials said "it's not just a matter" is a bit odd.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479904,00.html

Kind of interesting. The fact that officials said "it's not just a matter" is a bit odd.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479904,00.html

which is why I'm insterested in the other matters that called for removing the children.

which is why I'm insterested in the other matters that called for removing the children.

Yes, inquiring minds want to know.
But having the details of the way their parents hurt or humiliated them splashed across the national news might also be bad for those children and their chances of growing up semi-normal.

I named my first born Margaret (after Thatcher) and he has gone on to make a wonderful life for himself. No work dodger him by the way, he looks after the wee folk who cant manage to protect their own business, children,wife or say granparents. Aye he keeps a canny eye on the week folk.

hey JuNii why dont you move to beggeroff

Yes, inquiring minds want to know.
But having the details of the way their parents hurt or humiliated them splashed across the national news might also be bad for those children and their chances of growing up semi-normal.

which is why I also questioned why the parents were not making a hew and cry about their children being taken away. normally you would hear something by now...

hey JuNii why dont you move to beggeroff

wrong forum. and no thanks.

I named my first born Margaret (after Thatcher) and he has gone on to make a wonderful life for himself. No work dodger him by the way, he looks after the wee folk who cant manage to protect their own business, children,wife or say granparents. Aye he keeps a canny eye on the week folk.

"Margaret" is a fairly common first name with no stigma.

"Adolf" is a rare first name because of the stigma attatched to it.

"Adolf Hitler" is a virtually nonexistant first name because of the huge amounts of stigma.

I was honestly confused as to what Star Trek had to do with any of this, since Star Trek wasn't mentioned in any of the articles.

And you don't need me to react to you. You have plenty of people reacting to you as it is, unfortunately.

perhaps they will change the names of the children to James T. Kirk Campbell, Federation of Planets Cambell, and Beverly Crusher Campbell...so that we can then really bring in Star Trek to the conversation.