Taking the time to see what Child Restriction Laws would mean!

Has the process of researching this issue resulted in changing my views?

       Researching child name restriction laws has opened my eyes to a broad range of restrictions that can be seen all over the world. Countries like New Zealand, Germany, and Sweden all have laws that reject names that may cause offence to a reasonable person. That is a law that I have stood for at the beginning of my research. I have a personal connection to this argument, having come from a family full of Gaylords and Gaylenes. I know for a fact that all of my brothers and sisters were destroyed by these names. I never really put much thought into other naming restriction like a name can not be too long or a child’s first name must indicate what sex they are. In countries like Japan and New Zealand the governments have pre-selected names where parents must choose their child's name or they can submit a name to be added to the list. There are many other restrictions around the world that I never even imagined, and I am happy to have the freedoms that America provides for its citizens. I stand on the fence because it is too difficult to decide if we should lose freedoms that have shaped this country over a child’s name.

Would I advocate the same solution now as I did at the beginning of my research? Why or why not?

       I still do stand for a naming law that would restrict names that may cause offence. I do not agree with giving the government the ability to intrude on our freedom of speech rights by rejecting a parent’s wishes to name their child. The last thing I want to see is the government imposing on the due process clause in the fourteenth Amendment, depriving Americans of their freedoms. It is difficult to draw a line on what names would be allowed and what names would not be permitted. I still believe that someone should have the authority to step in when a parent is trying to name his or her child something that is clearly inappropriate or causes offence. Some parents cross the line and nobody is going to tell them they are making a mistake and I strongly believe that someone needs to have that authority.

What have I learned that has allowed my arguments to become more substantial and compelling?

       I have learned that fear and anger are the driving point behind not passing a law that would restrict parents naming rights. No one wants to give up their freedoms and we should not have to. Most people want to give their little bundles of joy a unique name, they want them to stand out and be one of a kind. That is still possible even with the restrictions I would like to see put into place. My goal is not to stomp on the creativity of parents who want to change a name from Jaden to Jayden, which does not hurt anyone. Names like JoyceLynn Aryan Nation or Dewanna Bonner are names that I would like to see an end to. It is difficult to stand in front of a group of people and persuade them when I have a past that leaves me in a biased mindset. Just knowing that now opens my mind a little bit in an attempt to understand the opposing side to this argument. I cannot say that I see exactly what the other side sees, but I see main problems with my solution, which would leave Americans on the chopping block. By allowing the government to take some freedoms may lead to us losing more freedoms in the future.

What have I learned about the process that has allowed my argument to become better received and accepted?

       I think the most important thing I have learned throughout this whole semester is that being biased is like being blind in some aspects. At the beginning of the semester I took offence when my argument was looked at in what seemed to be an ostracizing view. I believed that my argument was not something that should be laughed at or not taking seriously. After discussing my argument with some people I realized that I could not be taking serious with the way I was going about it. I still do not know the best way to persuade someone in understanding what this argument really means. I still have issues where I let my troubled past make me look like I am angry about my situation and just want to see a change. I want my audience to know of my past, but in a way that would show them why we need to have child-naming restrictions in the United States. I have been screaming about how Gaylord has affected me since I was a young child, and I am tired of screaming. The time has come to grow up and to realize that screaming will do nothing. I have to acknowledge the other side of the debate and try to figure out a solution that would benefit everyone, not just me.

Child Naming Restrictions

Message Effects- Fear

Child naming restrictions are slowly growing around the globe, some places faster then others. Even within the United States, naming restrictions can be found in states like Iowa, Nebraska, and New Jersey. However most states that do have restrictions are focused on the length of the name, the use of accents, and no numbers. Nebraska and New Jersey are the only two states that have restrictions that Prohibit names that are obscene. Many U.S. Citizens are against restricting names; some may argue that they fear in giving the government the power to reject a parents right to name their child, and then they are in jeopardy of losing more freedoms.

            Professor of Law at the University of California, Carlton F.W. Larson, wrote an article where he shares a legal analysis of parents' rights to name their own children. He talks about Americans and our fear of losing our first amendment rights, if we let the government reject names then we are letting the government walk all over the free speech clause. Larson also brings up the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that the government would be intruding on citizen's rights. The diversity within the United States creates havoc especially when it comes to forming laws. It seems that everyone sees this issue differently, but they all see the negatives that will be an outcome of change, so they choose to do nothing out of fear of what may be.

            Countries like, New Zealand, Sweden, and Denmark approach naming restriction with efficacy. These countries believe in the seriousness of the negative effects that certain names may have on children. The only way they can resolve this issue is to take the option away before more innocent children become victims. Some counties even supply a list of names that their citizens may choose from. For example, Portugal has a list of previously approved and rejected names that is used as a reference and available on the internet.

Letting fear take over, not allowing us to make a conscious look into the problem at hand is severely slowing down progression in any debate. Fear is a great tool to get what you want; however what you want is not always what everyone else wants. Fear is definitely a major factor in stopping more naming restrictions within the United States. Understanding that fear plays a role makes it easier to talk about the subject more, because fear is not real, it is a product of our imagination. It is essential to see that fear is not a valid reason to put a halt to formulating a solution for an on growing global issue.

Dramatistic Theory

            In the past few years a family from New Jersey has made waves that has progressed the debate of naming restrictions within the United States. The Campbell family if a great example of why naming restrictions is growing into a necessity around the world, having named their three children Adolf Hitler, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation, and Honszlynn Hinler Jeanne. The media coverage is really what made this story blow up, allowing for the situation to become dramatized. Many people want to know who, what, where, why, when, and how. The attention soon shifted away from the children and their names and moved to the parents and their backgrounds. The story just keeps going and today they are still battling for custody of their children.

Not many people are siding with the parents and their decision, especially after the fathers’ criminal background and his links to Nazism have come to light. Most people will try to identify with Adolf Hitler Campbell, who now has to live with the repercussions of his parents’ insensible mistake. We should be happy that the government rescued innocent young Adolf; we should be willing to do more.

            The Campbell family’s story has given us a reason to make a change. By finding out the background information on the family, it can be seen why the parents found their way to naming their kids after Nazi related terms. Burke’s "Pentad" answered questions that lead to the reasons why Adolf and his sisters had to be taken away from their parents. Using the Pentad can be extremely beneficial by providing more information to the audience and answering necessary questions that lead to their participation to the cause.

Discussing Naming Restriction

Should we allow the government the right to intervene when it comes to naming our children?
       
        Countries like New Zealand, Sweden, and Denmark are a few that have put restrictions on naming children, all of which protect children from potentially embarrassing or hurtful names.

A name is only a name, right?

        Sticks and stones may break my bones, and words may also too. In an article from nydailynews.com, “Being called a name can hurt -- even if it's the name your parents chose for you.” The article goes on to talk about research published by the journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science. They concluded multiple experiments involving 12,000 adult participants who, “found that a bad first name can not only ruin your self-esteem, but it may actually make you lonelier and dumber.” Going further then that, in a “trend across all sub-experiments,” it indicated that people with unfortunate first names were more likely to smoke, be less educated and have lower self-esteem compared to people with more common names.

         Flipping the script, according to an article by the Star-Ledger, “A Superior Court judge has decided that a self-proclaimed Nazi from Holland Township and his wife cannot take back their four children, three of whom were named in honor of the Nazis” This couple has been fighting for the right to their children since 2008 when they tried to get their, then, 3-year-old son Adolf Hitler Campbell a birthday cake. The courts have stated that the children were removed from the parent’s custody due to the fathers abusive behavior. Lawyers on both sides have been silenced by a gag order. Reported in an article by  nytimes, “Mr. Campbell’s choices have prompted a debate over whether provocative names alone should be considered child abuse.” In addition, a report by ABC News , Campbell was also noted to have said, "They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did." I agree with Campbell's last statement. He will not do what Hitler did because the government intervened. Reported by another article by, ABC News, young Adolf has made threats, including, "I'm going to kill you" as he threatened one of his younger sisters with a vacuum. We can only hope that Adolf will not go on to do the terrible things Hitler did, but, who can say, who Adolf would have become if no one intervened.

Difference of opinion
  
       One side of the argument is focusing on the effects of these “unusual names” on children during early development.  Some believe we need name restrictions to help these children who have no choice in the name they are given. By pointing out these negative effects, I believe that more people are willing to listen and understand why restrictions may be needed.
 
       The other side wants to look at the freedoms that we are granted in the United States. They believe they should have the right to name their children anything they want because that is what freedom means to them. Some parents aren't responsible enough to handle that freedom, which is why this comes to question. These extremist tend to push the envelope so far that we start to question if we should limit  that freedom.

Challenges
        It isn't easy to ask people to limit their freedoms, however it is necessary to ensure the welfare of the children. The  people who oppose name restrictions will argue, who will have the right to say whether a name is acceptable or not, what kind of restrictions would need to be enforced, and would every state have the same restrictions? Another challenge would be to make this issue relate to everyone by showing them that a name is not just a name.

For more information, check out the following:

Adolf Hitler Campbell
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/adolf-hitler-campbell-custody-battle-nazi-names-new-jersey_n_1561046.html

Denmark
http://www.perfect-baby-names.com/Danish-baby-names-article.html

Sweden
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2090401/Swedish-parents-win-legal-battle-to-name-their-children-Lego-Elvis-and-Metallica.html

Unusual Name: Study
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/badly-chosen-baby-names-lead-self-esteem-education-smoking-study-article-1.1002198#ixzz2MuVu3kAw

Raising poverty levels

Where do you live?

A constant fight to lower the poverty level in the United States has been an ongoing issue, which looks like it is only getting worse.  The Census Bureau announced figures in 2010 showing that 49 million citizens were living in poverty. One year later, new figures had shown an increase to 49.7 million citizens.  This growing dilemma has sparked interest in the political world.

 A good idea!

After his State of the Union address on Feb. 12, President Obama added a possible solution to the raising poverty issue. He made it known that raising the minimum wage was a necessary step to turn around this growing problem.

U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and U.S Rep. George Miller (D-CA) took Obama’s side and put together the Harkin-Miller Proposal. If passed it would raise minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.80 an hour across the nation.

The Harkin-Miller Proposal is aimed primarily towards low income families, high school/college students, and many retired citizens who work for many low paying jobs. Supporters of a minimum wage increase say that raising the minimum wage would greatly benefit the many Americans who cannot keep up with the cost of living. As President Obama stated in his speech,   “It could mean the difference between scraping by and finally getting ahead.” 

Not going to work!                        

            These opposing arguments are aimed at employers of whom may not be able to afford to give an increase to their employees. Some arguments are aimed towards many Americans who are worried that other businesses would take advantage of this extra money by raising prices on their already highly priced products, and of course the possible loss of jobs.

           

            Both sides of the argument have great reasons to support their views. Some arguments contradict each other, for instance, one side believes that it would create more jobs by supplying the market with more money to spend. The opposing side looks at the business point of view. They believe that is it taking much needed money away from an already weakened economy filled with businesses that are failing. However the ultimate decision will depend upon the senate, and until that decision is made the debate continues.

Anonymous

Is Anonymous a national threat? Anonymous, known as a “Hacktivist” group is creating chaos all over the world within the cyber world. Oxforddictionaries.com defines a hacktivist as, “a person who gains unauthorized access to computer files or networks in order to further social or political ends.”  They are mostly known for their extremist thinking. Anonymous can be identified for hacking the Federal Reserve banking system, hacking into the Egyptian president’s e-mails, and taking down Government websites…repeatedly. Breaching borders Anonymous has spread out to several other countries like Egypt, Spain, Turkey, and plenty more countries worldwide.

 According to an article in the Calgary Harold, the government appears to have seen a threat, sending three federal security agencies to take a closer look at the alleged ‘cyber terrorists’. One agency warned that, “Anonymous could soon have the ability to take down critical infrastructure such as water systems and the electricity grid.” Although that sounds like a possible threat, what proof is out there that supports all these accusations? After a short few minutes of combing the internet for Anonymous, I stumbled upon a site who defines themselves as; “The Atlantic wire” which reported that an Anonymous member threatened the life of an FBI member on a YouTube video saying “"Robert Smith's life is over. And when I say his life is over I don't mean I'm going to kill him, but I'm going to ruin his life and look into his f***ing kids.”, although Barret Brown was arrest for doing so, it is evident that this Anonymous member took things too far.

Another site “Religious Freedom Watch” is known to expose people that attack religious groups. Religious Freedom Watch believes in helping persons of all religions and does not discriminate or advocate violence against persons of any religion.” According to religiousfreedomwatch.org, Anonymous appeared back in 2004 and became a major nuisance, especially to scientologists. The site then deemed the group Anonymous as a hate group and used these word and others to define members of Anonymous, ‘religion hating, racist, criminals, and perverts’. The site, clearly a biased source, got me to thinking about the importance of masks.

Why should they hide behind masks? We supposedly live in this free nation, which I like to pretend is true. I always thought that we were free to be who we wanted to be, fight for what we believed in, and to work for what we wanted. I see that anonymous is fighting to be who they want to be. They wear these masks to categorize themselves as one unit, to protect themselves from their so-called right to choose to be whom they want to be. Now, the discussion is how far you will go, how hard you will fight for what you believe in.. What is too far? Hacking government websites? Stealing credit card information along with piles of person information? What gives Anonymous the right to do any of those things? I do see there are problems with our free nation, but what gives them the power to make these decisions. Though, I sometimes feel, like many other Americans, that our government should not have the right to make some of the decisions they make. Making personal information accessible to the public is a big breach of ethics on Anonymous’ part.

This discussion seems to be targeted for either extreme religions or gullible citizens that don’t question the world that surrounds them. If there is a possibility of a group that could knock out necessities such as water and power, we should not be so quick to lower our guard. Or at least let the government let you think you can lower your guard. A group such as Anonymous, who makes threats on a normal basis, should not be taken so lightly. Anonymous is defiantly a threat and they have shown capabilities that could destroy life for millions of Americans. Who is not frightened that they might be the next to be hacked? Who wants to wake up and find that there person information is posted online, your identity stolen, or your home address where you and your family live. Anonymous are throwing stones in the water, and the ripples are spreading. The tactics that some members use could one day be a serious problem right on your front step. Don’t assume there is not threat, this is America! There is always a threat!

 Martin, A. (2012, september 13). The arrest of the face of anonymous will of course be televised. Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/09/arrest-face-anonymous-will-course-be-televised/56833/

Behind the face of the anonymous hate group. (n.d.). Retrieved from religiousfreedomwatch.org

Press, J. (2012, december 21). Anonymous a threat to critical infrastructure? expert says no. Retrieved from http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/national/Anonymous threat critical infrastructure Expert says/7734843/story.html