Birthday Cake Creates Furor

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

December 26, 2008

At what point do the lines between censorship, free speech and the concept of the customer is always right get blurred? That question was put to the test about a week before Christmas of all times.

Heath and Deborah Campbell, residents of Hunterdon County in south Jersey, were thwarted in their attempts to procure a decorated birthday cake for their three-year-old son from a ShopRite Supermarket in Greenwich, NJ. Apparently this is the third year in a row that the supermarket rejected the request.

The furor stems from the fact that the boy’s name is Adolf Hitler Campbell. At least this year the request for the named cake was toned down to not include the swastika the Campbells asked for in previous years. "We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," ShopRite spokeswoman Karen Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."

In order to purchase the desired cake the Campbells actually had to cross the Delaware River and conduct their business with a Pennsylvania Wal-Mart. Now, before anyone decides to boycott Wal-Mart, the store simply honored a paying customer’s request for a birthday cake with their son’s name iced on to the dessert. Nobody asked for the cake to be put on display in the bakery’s window and as soon as the cake was iced it could have been boxed with the name “Campbell” written atop for the parents to pick up when ready.

Sure, there’s a principle involved in the action taken by ShopRite, but where is the line drawn regarding what is or is not appropriate and who has the privilege of making such a decision? The Greenwich ShopRite is much closer to Philadelphia than New York. Could the bakery manager unilaterally determine a cake that said “Let’s Go Mets” be “inappropriate” because he or she is a Phillies fan? Could a cake congratulating Barack Obama for a customer’s inauguration party be deemed inappropriate if the bakery manager supported John McCain?

Make no mistake, I do not in any way, shape or form endorse the name chosen by the parents with which they saddled their child. A strong case could be made that such a moniker is a form of child abuse. One can only imagine the treatment and ridicule this child will be exposed to in school. 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." Campbell said his ancestors are German and that he has lived his entire life in Hunterdon County. Amazingly, both Heath, 35, and his wife Deborah, 25, expressed shock and surprise with the intolerance to which they claim they have been subjected, as well as the numerous angry postings on various internet sites directed toward the couple. Shocked? Surprised? What a couple of morons.

"I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they've been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past," Heath Campbell said in an interview conducted in Easton, PA. "There's a new president and he says it's time for a change; well, then it's time for a 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." Although Campbell claims no racial animus toward any group, he said he was raised to avoid people of other races and neither mix with, or get romantically involved with them. Quite frankly, the schools he attends should keep a close watch on this child. His name is just begging to keep him from making friends or getting dates. What parent wants their daughter coming home with Adolf Hitler Campbell.

Meanwhile, business is business, and Wal-Mart should not be chided for accepting the business of the Campbell family. It’s not up to Wal-Mart or ShopRite, for that matter, to determine the appropriateness of a person’s legally given name. The child will have enough problems later in life with which to battle. After all, what law firm, accounting firm or medical practice wants the name Adolf Hitler Campbell on its door, letterhead or website as a partner? Sure, his last name is Campbell, but what about when people see his full name on the diploma while I the waiting room? And, of course, there’s no way on earth young Mr. Adolf Hitler Campbell could ever get elected to anything – ever, no matter how good his ideas are or how well he presents them. Don’t forget serial killers, sociopaths, psychopaths and the infamous are typically tri-named: Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wayne Gacy, John Wilkes Booth, Jim Guy Tucker, James Earl Ray, Mark David Chapman, John Walker Lindh, John Allen Muhammad and Anna Nicole Smith, just to name a few. I’m not crazy about Philip Seymour Hoffman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Tommy Lee Jones, either, for that matter.

Sympathy for the child, yes; he is but three years of age. Hopefully he won’t be too damaged by the time he is old enough to either legally change his name if he so chooses or at the very least drop the middle name. A rose by any other name may still smell just as sweet, to paraphrase Billy Shakespeare, but not when its parents name it Adolf Hitler Campbell.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Not Your Father’s Stock Market – Does Anyone Really Miss Oldsmobile?

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

November 19, 2008

During Independence Day weekend in 2005 I bought a brand new Chevy Malibu. It’s such a nice automobile that General Motors now wants me to buy another one, except they won’t actually let me have the car. They, along with Ford and Chrysler want my money, but have nothing to offer in return. The same is true for the rest of American automobile owners and even those who do not currently own a vehicle of any kind.

Yes, my friends, welcome to the great American Automobile Bailout. The big three American auto makers in the United States flew into Washington, DC – on private jets, no less – obviously not learning anything from the piggish largesse demonstrated by AIG – hats in hand – upturned – begging Congress for a $25 billion “loan” to keep them afloat.

Remembering former First Lady Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug mantra of the 1980s, advice to Congress, “Just say no.” First the banking and financial industry, now the automobile industry, where does it end? Who will come calling next? Textile workers? The newspaper industry? Of course their failings are their own fault for all the pulp fiction the alleged mainstream media disguises as journalism. Well, as Harry Truman so eloquently noted on his Oval Office desk, “The buck stops here,” and here is with the American taxpayers. After all, the money Congress would “loan” the big three comes from the revenue provided by the American taxpayer.

And what do the taxpayers get in return?

Supporters of the bailout say it is necessary to prevent the auto industry from going bankrupt and eventually out of business causing the elimination of over one million jobs related directly and indirectly to the auto industry. US Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) never met a bailout he didn’t like – starting with the initial $700 billion and the $100 billion dumped in the laps of the AIG weasels who continued living high off the hog on the backs of the taxpayers while the AIG executives were getting cushy massages. If Frank is for it, it must be the wrong thing to do.

On the other hand, Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) was right on target when he called for Edward Liddy, AIG’s beleaguered CEO, to resign as a condition of the bailout. Why keep the same leaders at the helm to continue running the ship aground.

The automobile industry is to blame for their current failings. Obviously they are not producing the vehicles that the American motorist wants to drive or if they are, the cost is too prohibitive. And just why is the cost too prohibitive? It begins and ends with labor costs. The labor costs of the big three auto makers in the United States is roughly $73 to $74 per hour, while the labor cost of the average American worker not a part of the big three is about $28 to $29 per hour. By the way, in Japan, the labor cost of the auto worker is about $45 an hour.

Reorganization ought to include a panel of “civilians” to advise the big three what will drive customers back into the showrooms. Perhaps the big three simply need to make better vehicles. Although to be fair, I have only owned American cars and have had success with them, including my current Malibu, which I really enjoy, but then, I have low expectations – get me where I need to go safely and in a timely fashion. I probably would not be a good candidate for the civilian panel.

In fact my first car was a 1973 Delta 88 Oldsmobile – a big ole honking four door, dare I say, Carolina blue, behemoth of a car that had crank windows, AM-only radio and took regular leaded gasoline. Oldsmobile has gone the way of the dinosaur and America has survived. Perhaps if GM, Ford or Chrysler faded away or merged with one another and streamlined themselves, they could once again be the strong, solid American automobile manufacturer people remember from yesteryear. Sometimes a thinning of the herd strengthens the herd. Probably something of which Darwin would approve.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R), himself a Michigan native, has come out against the bailout. He suggests that bankruptcy is the appropriate way to go as well, because why should the American taxpayer be forced to pay for something they obviously did not want in the first place. Romney’s father, George Romney headed up American Motors starting in 1954. Anyone miss American Motors? They came into this world as a result of a merger between the Nash-Kelvinator Corporation and the Hudson Motor Car Company in 1954. They foolishly merged with the French company Renault in the 1970s and finally exited stage left when Chrysler bought out AMC. (Renault after all produced the hideous Le Car in the early to mid ‘70s. What a piece of crap.)

Lead, follow or get out of the way is the advice for the big three. If they can’t make it on their own, it just wasn’t meant to be. If bankruptcy will shake loose the cobwebs and give people something worth buying at a price worth paying, consumers will be back. If not, perhaps one of the big three needs to fade into the sunset.

Some who support the bailout have suggested it would be bad for the economy if the bailout does not occur. Well, let’s look at the tumbling stock market. When the Democratic-led Congress approved the initial $700 billion bailout did the market suddenly turn around and enjoy an upswing? No. And with continued talks of more government handouts with taxpayer dollars, the market continues sliding into the mire and muck.

When the Dow Jones Industrial Average, first published on May 26, 1896 in Customer’s Afternoon Letter, the original Dow Industrials featured but 12 companies from America’s important industries. In 1916 the Dow expanded to 20 companies and finally in 1928 settled on 30 companies – the number used to this day. Of the original 12, General Electric is the last man standing – and barely at that. They have enough of their own problems.

So, what happened to the US Leather Company? Dissolved in 1952. What about North American Company? Broken up in the ‘40s. How about the National Lead Company? Today they are NL Industries, but they were tossed off the Dow in 1916. And the American Sugar Company? Today, they are Domino Foods, Inc. – sugar, not pizza. Companies come and companies go – like the Bible says, a time to be born and a time to die.

And what about the original Dow 30? Sure, Chrysler and GM are still standing, but did the country fold when Bethlehem Steel, founded in 1857, went bankrupt in 2001 and dissolved two years later? No, other businesses pick up the pace. Anyone miss Woolworth? OK, it was an American institution, but now there is Wal-Mart. Potsum Inc. became General Foods, while American Can became Primerica. Standard Oil of New Jersey became Exxon while Texas Corp. became Texaco and is now Chevron – just a hair of a different color. All part of the original 30. In business there are no sacred cows.

It may not be necessary to reinvent the wheel, but reinventing the American automobile industry sure seems like a prudent idea.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.