WARNING!

If you do not sincerely want Wendi's opinion, have not sufficiently prepared yourself for it and/or are easily offended (a/k/a you are fragile), then the "According to Wendi" Legal Department (a/k/a Wendi) hopes that you will accept responsibility for your own actions (for once) and politely click through to someone else's blog. Ignorance and the expression of hurt feelings will only provide fodder for future submissions. You have been warned! The readers of this blog will be exposed to the frequent use of satire. Opines which demonstrate a keen understanding of this concept will be encouraged. Do not engage Wendi or any of her followers in conversation unless you understand the essence of scarcasm and (certainly) not until you have read the rules (found on this page under the heading "Legal Disclaimer").

Friday, December 19, 2008

Self-centered Stupidity

Anyone who knows me will attest that I am a vigorous advocate of free speech, even when what is said is so heinous that no rational person could agree with it. For example: I have for some time been vocal in my defense of Ward Churchill, that ignoramous professor at the University of Denver who compared the dead on 9/11 to little Eichmanns who deserved what they got. Do I agree with him? Absolutely not. Would I ever place myself in a position where I had to socialize with him? Never. Do I think he is a waste of good air? Definitely! But I defend his right to say it--even in the classroom. Academia--while it frequently, as in this case, runs amok--IS the place where these types of things need to be said. College is the time to be confronted with unpopular ideas so one can develop skills for critical thinking and debate. So, should he have been fired? NO. Now, IF, because of his comments, no one registered for his classes because they had chosen NOT to associate with him, THEN he is an ineffective teacher and should be fired. IF he was one of those professors who refused to allow debate, no matter how persuasive, then he would be fostering an indoctrination and not an academic environment and should be canned. Fired for being stupid? No.

And so, it has always been my policy to defend a person's right to speak. However, I agree with most other advocates of free speech that the exercise thereof must be balanced with restraint if, by our speech, we might bring others to harm. The old adage about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is trite, but true. Which is why, when I read the following article on FoxNews, I suffered a minor implosion of my brain. I cannot paraphrase this article and do it justice so I am afraid my readers will just have to suffer as much as I did. Here it is:


EASTON, Pa. — The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the nearby ShopRite, but also with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article about the cake. Heath Campbell, who is 35, said in an interview Tuesday that people should look forward, not back, and accept change. "They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what [Hitler] did," he said.

After ShopRite refused the request for the cake as inappropriate, the Campbells got a cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said. About 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, according to Heath Campbell.

The Campbells' other two children also have unusual names: JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell turns 2 in a few months and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell will be 1 in April.
Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because "no one else in the world would have that name."

Utter, complete, absolute (get the picture) self-centered stupidity! The issue of whether or not the store has the right to refuse is such a minor, insignificant matter as to be only worthy of this one sentence. But HOW do TWO (not just ONE but TWO) ADULTS who profess to be SOBER enough to introduce three children into this world can be so ARROGANT as to ham-string their INNOCENT children whom they say they LOVE with names that can not bring any pleasure to anyone except THEMSELVES for NO other reason than they wanted to be clever? This is not the exercising of free speech! This is stupidity! This father--who, by the way, is smiling in the photo accompanying the article, says (as you read above) that he chose the name because "no one else in the world would have that name". And all God's people said--AMEN! And all rational persons would respond---there is a reason for that! I wouldn't advocate unique names like Lucifer, Beilzibub or Genghis Khan, either. There are no words for something like this.....

And it is NOT ignorance, either. Ignorance is the lack of information--these idiots PURPOSEFULLY inflicted potential harm on their children! Some might read these comments and say--what harm? WHAT HARM??? Exactly how many days into kindergarten do you think little Adolf will make it before little Yitzhak kicks his ass??? I'll open the bidding at 1 day....mostly likely before roll call is finished. Not to mention when the "girls in d'hood" get a hold of JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell on her introduction to our fine public educational system. Oy Vey!

2 comments:

  1. Unbelievable!! Those poor kids...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Man...and worse yet, they have the rights of parents to knowingly destroy their kids lives with absolute authority. Goodness!!!!!

    ReplyDelete