Shoprite refuses to inscribe cake for child named after Adolf Hitler

This is a disturbing story on several levels.
A Pennsylvania couple have named their children after Nazi figures, including naming their three year old son after Adolf Hitler. The parents wanted Shoprite to inscribe a cake with his full name for his birthday party. The store refused. Now the parents are outraged. The Warren County (NJ) Express-Times went in depth. Here are some excerpts:

HOLLAND TWP. | In a living room decorated with war books, German combat knives and swastikas, a 2-year-old boy, blond and blue-eyed, played with a plastic dinner set.
The boy, asked his name, put down a tiny plate and ran behind his father’s leg. He flashed a shy smile but wouldn’t answer. Heath Campbell, 35, the boy’s father, encouraged him.
“Say Adolf,” said Campbell, a Holocaust denier who has three children named for Nazism.
Again, the boy wouldn’t answer. It wasn’t the first time the name caused hesitation.
Adolf Hitler Campbell — it’s indeed the name on his birth certificate — turns 3 today, and the Campbell family believes the boy has been mistreated. A local supermarket refused to make a birthday cake with “Adolf Hitler” on it.

The ShopRite rationale, while somewhat vague, reserved their right to decide what was appropriate for them to do. Wal-Mart accommodated the request.

Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman, said the grocer tries to meet customer requests but rejects those deemed inappropriate. “We believe the request to inscribe a birthday wish to Adolf Hitler is inappropriate,” she said.
The grocer offered to make a cake with enough room for the Campbells to write their own inscription. But the Campbells refused, saying they would have a cake made at the Wal-Mart in Lower Nazareth Township. The Campbells say Wal-Mart made cakes for Adolf’s first two birthdays.
A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart said the store won’t put anything illegal or profane on a cake but thinks it’s important to respect the views of customers and employees.
“Our No. 1 priority in decorating cakes is to serve the customer to the best of our ability,” Anna Taylor, the spokeswoman, said from Bentonville, Ark.

Could the Campbell’s have a discrimination case here?

If the Campbells have a legal case over the refusal, it would be that the family was denied service because of race, ethnicity or religion, said Shannon Powers, of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, a state agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws.
The Campbells, she said, would have to prove ShopRite didn’t make a reasonable attempt to provide service it provides others. She said the offer to make a cake with room for an inscription would probably count as a reasonable attempt.
“It sounds like they (the supermarket) don’t want to offend other patrons or do something offensive to their own sensibilities. If that’s the motivation, that’s totally different from discrimination,” Powers said.

What planet are these people living on?

The Campbells have swastikas in each room of their home, the rented half of a one-story duplex just outside Milford, a borough in Hunterdon County. They say they aren’t racists but believe races shouldn’t mix.
The Campbells said they wanted their children to have unique names and didn’t expect the names to cause problems. Despite the cake refusal, the Campbells said they don’t expect the names to cause problems later, such as when the children start school.
“I just figured that they’re just names,” Deborah Campbell said. “They’re just kids. They’re not going to hurt anybody.”
Heath Campbell said some people like the names but others are shocked to hear them. “They say, ‘He (Hitler) killed all those people.’ I say, ‘You’re living in the wrong decade. That Hitler’s gone,'” he said.
“They’re just names, you know,” he said. “Yeah, they (Nazis) were bad people back then. But my kids are little. They’re not going to grow up like that.”

This is lunacy – or feigned innocence. Of course, this is going to be a problem for the children. A local psychologist weighs in…

Robert M. Gordon, a clinical psychologist in Allentown, said the names would hurt the children.
“Certainly society is going to be hostile towards those kids, especially when they go to school,” Gordon said.
More than that, he said, the children would be harmed by their parents’ views.
“By the time they get to school, they will already have been damaged,” Gordon said. “Any parent that would impose such horrific names on their children is mentally ill, and they would be affecting their children from the day they were born. Only a crazy person would do that.”

I cannot diagnose via a news report but as a former court appointed custody evaluator, I can speculate that one might have to rule out a psychiatric condition in a case like this. The remainder of the article gives a glimpse into the sad emotional state of the family.
We live in a society that values freedom and so we wrestle with situations like this. It is clear that these kids are at risk for social stigma. But parents have rights to raise children in accord with their view of the world. If we intervene here, then where will such interventions stop? However, the state has a role in preventing harm to citizens, and in this case to citizens who cannot protect themselves. Probably, I would advocate some mandated sessions with a counselor or mediator.
I started this post yesterday, and since then it has made the international press with USA Today and the UK’s Guardian picking it up. Not much in the way of analysis in these articles where it seems mostly treated as an oddity.

MSNBC asking questions about Obama and Blagojevich

UPDATE: Illinois high court will not remove Blagojevich.
Surprising to me to see MSNBC report the possibility of 21 calls between Rahm Emanuel and Team Blago. Even MSNBC reporters think Obama could be more transparent and still honor the Federal prosecutor’s request to hold information.

Obama news conference at 11:45am.
UPDATE: First question from CBS News is about Blagogate. Paraphrased: You ran on a platform of transparency, how difficult is it for you to wait until next week to reveal results of your investigation? Obama replied that next week is not that far away and you’ll have answers to all your questions at that time.
He took 3 questions total.
UPDATE 2: Blago might break his silence today or tomorrow. Here is the video:

Sun-Times: Emanuel pressed for Jarrett appointment to Senate

“Sources” are beginning to talk about the details of Rahm Emanuel’s conversations with Rod Blagojevich, in this case to the Chicago Sun-Times.
From the Sun-Times:

President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was pushing for Obama’s successor just days after the Nov. 4 election, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Emanuel privately urged Gov. Blagojevich’s administration to appoint Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, and the Sun-Times learned Tuesday that he also pressed that it be done by a certain deadline.
Sources told the Sun-Times that Emanuel urged Blagojevich’s administration to select President-elect Barack Obama’s Senate replacement by a certain deadline.
The disclosure comes days after Obama’s camp downplayed Jarrett’s interest in the post.
At one point, an “emissary” who said he represented Jarrett had discussions with Blagojevich chief of staff John Harris and the governor about naming Jarrett to the post, according to a criminal complaint.
In addition to the discussions, Emanuel submitted a list of names of candidates suitable to the Obama team to the governor’s administration. Jarrett was not among those names because she had pulled herself out of the running at that point, a source with the Obama camp said.

Unless we are to believe that Emanuel pressed Blago on his own, then the headline should read Obama pressed Blago on behalf of Jarrett. If Emanuel acted on his own accord, then he should be replaced as CoS. If Obama was being briefed and giving direction, then he should take responsibility for the actions of his right hand man. Thus far, it appears that those actions were appropriate. However, they are in contrast to the picture painted by Mr. Obama about his involvement in the Senate pick.
There are a couple of conversations in the criminal complaint (re: getting Mrs. B on some boards, and another about Emanuel’s 5th District Congressional seat) of some concern and may be someone other than Emanuel. However, if either of them involve someone on the Obama team, then the story will take a new direction.

Sun-Times: Emanuel on 21 calls about the Senate seat

Michael Sneed reports:

Sneed hears rumbles President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds — dealing with his boss’ vacant Senate seat!

According to the Blago criminal complaint, Blago’s staff leaked several items about the Senate seat to Sneed. It seems entirely possible that she is correct given the contacts she has. It could also be misinformation based on the contacts she has.
If Obama’s account is to be believed, all those calls were conveying appreciation for any consideration Blago might give to Obama’s wishes.
However, Obama still has not addressed important questions in this matter. Politico.com lists 7 questions and this US News & World blog runs down thoughts on where this goes from here.

Questions about the Blagojevich scandal: Name that website

Don’t peek, but at the bottom I will link to the article from which the following excerpts are taken. See if you can guess where this article was printed.

Two top aides to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich resigned this week in the wake of the launching of criminal proceedings against the governor, and there was mounting pressure from state and national Democratic Party leaders for the governor himself to step down.

Ok, nothing unusual there. But then questions begin.

The frenzy to remove Blagojevich from office as soon as possible is also remarkable. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a motion with the state Supreme Court Friday seeking to have Blagojevich declared “incapable” of performing his office and have Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn installed as acting governor.
In her motion, Madigan argued that, “The pervasive nature and severity of these pending charges disable Mr. Blagojevich from making effective decisions on critical time-sensitive issues.” She sought to invoke a provision in the state constitution allowing for the replacement of a governor on the grounds of “disability,” although the constitutional history suggests that this term was meant to apply to a physical or mental breakdown, not a prosecution.
The traditional constitutional separation of powers would seem to bar the courts from intervening in such a fashion against the executive branch. Madigan conceded that her motion has no legal precedent, remarking at a news conference, “I recognize that this is an extraordinary request, but these are extraordinary circumstances.”
Madigan’s father, Michael Madigan, the Democratic leader in the state House of Representatives, said he would move for impeachment of the governor at a special session of the legislature called for Monday in Springfield if Blagojevich did not resign or was not removed by the court. Impeachment, the traditional constitutional procedure for removal of a chief executive, would take considerably longer, since it would require a trial before the state Senate and conviction.
Neither of the Madigans, nor Lt. Gov. Quinn, nor Republican state legislative leaders who have given their enthusiastic support, explained why it was necessary to remove Blagojevich from office so precipitously, before any trial or even evidentiary hearing on the criminal charges brought against him by the US Attorney.

Hmm, what is the author suggesting? That someone has a suspicious motive for removing Blagojevich? Then the author gets right to the point:

If there is a political motivation in the charges against Blagojevich, however, this could well involve a desire to protect a more important Democrat—President-elect Barack Obama. At least one top Obama aide, Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, Obama’s choice for White House chief of staff, was in contact with Blagojevich about the selection of Obama’s successor in the Senate.
While the Obama transition office refused to release any information on such contacts for several days after the Blagojevich scandal become public, on Friday it confirmed that Emanuel had delivered a list to Blagojevich of a half-dozen prominent Democrats whom Obama could support as his replacement. Any telephone conversations on this topic between Emanuel and Blagojevich or Harris would likely have been tape-recorded by the FBI, which wiretapped the governor’s calls for nearly two months, beginning in mid-October.
The timing of Fitzgerald’s decision to bring charges against Blagojevich suggests that he may have wanted to act before anyone in the Obama camp could respond favorably to the governor’s shakedown effort. This fact is underscored by a report in the Washington Post Saturday noting that “debate raged within the legal community about whether US Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald moved prematurely to bring bribery and conspiracy charges before the consummation of an illegal act.”
In plain language, Blagojevich was arrested before he could make any deal for the delivery of the Senate appointment in return for political and/or financial favors. While he may well be guilty of a series of other corrupt practices, among them selling state contracts for campaign contributions, extortion against the owner of the Chicago Tribune and a Chicago-area children’s hospital, on the most sensational charge, the sale of Obama’s seat in the US Senate, he seems to have engaged only in thinking and talking, with no apparent overt action.
Fitzgerald not only preempted any possible deal between Blagojevich and Obama, he included exculpatory information about Obama in the 76-page document charging Blagojevich, including several quotes of telephone conversations in which the governor cursed the president-elect for failing to offer a quid-pro-quo for the Senate selection. The US attorney—whose job depends on re-nomination by the incoming president—also went out of his way to declare that he was making no suggestion that Obama or anyone in his transition team had acted improperly.

So where was this written? WND? National Review? Maybe it is this guy, writing somewhere else?
Nope.
Here it is.
Surprised?
Additional note – I almost made a new post but thought I could just add this here. Emanuel just doesn’t want to say anything:

ABC News’ Rick Klein and Gregory Simmons Report: Incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel skated past a reporter’s question — just about literally — outside his icy Chicago home Monday morning.
ABC’s Bret Hovell caught up with him long enough to ask whether he plans on meeting with the U.S. attorney about the scandal involving Gov. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill. — but, in Emanuel’s words, the “sliding” got in the way.
Emanuel is under heightened scrutiny in the wake of published reports that indicate that he was in touch with Blagojevich’s office about possible replacements for President-elect Barack Obama in the Senate.
EMANUEL: “How are you?”
ABC NEWS: “I’m doing well, thank you.”
EMANUEL: “You guys got good holiday plans?”
ABC: “Hopefully yes. Now are you, have you…”
EMANUEL: “Can you hold on one second since I’m sliding? Thanks. Thank you.”
[Gets into the car and starts to shut the door.]
EMANUEL: “Keep yourself warm guys.”
ABC: “Sir do you have any plans to meet with the U.S. Attorney?”
[Shuts the car door.]