Will "Criswell" Be Acceptable?

Constructive legislation in South America:

[O]dd names might be turned down by the civil registry if Venezuela approves a bill barring parents from giving their children 'names that expose them to ridicule, are extravagant or difficult to pronounce,' or that raise doubts about whether a child is a girl or a boy.

Hmm. That last requirement would rule out "Jesse," wouldn't it?

Believe it or not, the proposal has precedent:

Current Venezuelan law already has a similar measure saying registry authorities should not accept names that would expose children to ridicule. But the issue has until now been left up to the discretion of individual bureaucrats.

The new bill proposes to create a list of traditional names that could be offered to parents 'as a reference' to provide options when they are registering their child's birth. It says the list would have 'no fewer than 100 names' and would grow over time.

Submitted for discussion: This is

(a) yet another power grab by Hugo Chavez. Even low-level bureaucrats in the civil registry are coming under his centralized control.

(b) a step in the right direction. At least now there will be a consistent policy, and parents need not fear the petty obstructions of some meddlesome government clerk.

(c) Stupid! Stupid!

Update: Several readers inform me that such laws are common in Europe as well. Yet another reason to be glad I live in the USA, where a man can name his kid "Moon Unit Zappa" or "Madonna Ciccone" or "Willard Mitt Romney" without fear of official reprisal.

Comments

mitch | September 4, 2007, 1:20pm | #

I've read about a similar policy in Germany.

John Nicholas | September 4, 2007, 1:26pm | #

New Zealand has a registry that can reject names. There was recent coverage of the rejection of the name "4real".

Chavez is a thug | September 4, 2007, 1:28pm | #

I can't wait to read the comments from the people defending this program because it is being proposed by Chavez. These very same people would be loudly condemning it, were it proposed by the Bush Administration. Maybe people will find a creative way to link opposition to this program to the coup attempt five years ago and therefore claim it is a legitimate attack on one's freedoms.

Hayekian Dreamer | September 4, 2007, 1:30pm | #

as much as statism of this sort is a bad thing, there is reason to think some children could have benefited from such a law.

highnumber | September 4, 2007, 1:33pm | #

I predict!...that you have just provided one of the highlights of my day! Thanks for the clip, Jesse.

Malto Dextrin | September 4, 2007, 1:38pm | #

My favorite is "Xavier X Xichtlilxochitl" which I found in the LA white pages years ago.

Nick M. | September 4, 2007, 1:39pm | #

I highly recommend this site for a list of horrendous names.

http://notwithoutmyhandbag.com/babynames/index.html

Asswipe Johnson | September 4, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Where was this law 30 years ago??

Juan | September 4, 2007, 1:46pm | #

The state of Zulia will declare secession over this.

ed | September 4, 2007, 1:46pm | #

I've always liked "Carstairs".

Feel free to use it. I have no plans to reproduce.

Asswipe | September 4, 2007, 1:53pm | #

It's pronounced ahs-wee-pay!

Johnny D. | September 4, 2007, 1:54pm | #

I wish I could remember where I found this story about how white nurses in the south after the civil war used to encourage new black mothers to give their kids the most ridiculous names. It was almost like a running gag or something, to see who could get someone to give their kid the most outrageous name. Ring any bells?

gaijin | September 4, 2007, 2:04pm | #

I wonder if 'Hugo' is on the list of approved names?

parse | September 4, 2007, 2:10pm | #

Is is a basic tenet of libertarianism that totalitarianism is only acceptable when practiced by parents?

Stevo Darkly | September 4, 2007, 2:17pm | #

Is is a basic tenet of libertarianism that totalitarianism is only acceptable when practiced by parents?

Parents and Wal*Mart.

Brandybuck | September 4, 2007, 2:19pm | #

My mother went to school with "Imogene Hogg". Her parents thought it was cute.

Jesse Walker | September 4, 2007, 2:27pm | #

Is is a basic tenet of libertarianism that totalitarianism is only acceptable when practiced by parents?

I am a full supporter of a child's right to ignore his birth name and call himself whatever he pleases.

parse | September 4, 2007, 2:30pm | #

If your last name is Hogg, whatever your parents do might make it a little worse, but there's not much they can do to make it better.

de stijl | September 4, 2007, 2:33pm | #

I am a full supporter of a child's right to ignore his birth name and call himself whatever he pleases.

What was your slave name, Jesse?

toxicroach | September 4, 2007, 2:34pm | #

I think the basic thought here is the relatively rare dumb parent< a state that thinks it should be involved in everything from choosing your name onwards. Just because something is wrong does not mean that it is good for the government to fix it. Often the fixing is worse than the problem.

Also, as the owner of a last name that is both a world famous trademark and the street name of Columbia's favorite drug, I know a thing or two about going through childhood with a mockable name. It's not really that bad.

GILMORE | September 4, 2007, 2:36pm | #

My son will be Shaka Zulu Gilmore

parse | September 4, 2007, 2:42pm | #

I am a full supporter of a child's right to ignore his birth name and call himself whatever he pleases.

How is the solution more attractive in the case of a name approved by the parents as opposed to one approved by the government?

Jesse Walker | September 4, 2007, 2:51pm | #

How is the solution more attractive in the case of a name approved by the parents as opposed to one approved by the government?

It doesn't involve a bureaucracy sticking its nose into the most piddling family decisions. Also, it leaves open the possibility that the kid's self-chosen name will be even weirder.

QSL | September 4, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Friend of a friend works in a hospital. Actual names she heard from the maternity ward...

Last name is Sheets. Mother named twins "Betweenia" and "Beneathia". (Don't know how it was actually spelled, but say it aloud)

Another one named her son Lemonjello. Annunciated and pronounced as "Leh-MAHN-je-LOW".

parse | September 4, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Jesse, state recognition of a child's right to ignore his birth name and call himself whatever he pleases also leaves open the possibility that the kid's self-chosen name would be even weirder.

But there seems to be an underlying assumption that parents have the "right" to name their children what they want, and this trivial example reminds me that libertarian philosophy seems to run up against a problem when cases involving children arise. If men are free by virtue of their humanity, then children are either free, or something other than human.

jimmy smith | September 4, 2007, 3:05pm | #

I'm not sure what his parents named him but I call my son-in-law "Shithead". Anyone know him?

Another Phil | September 4, 2007, 3:07pm | #

parse,

Parents do have the right to name their children whatever they want. Being given a stupid name is not a violation of a child's rights.

Warren | September 4, 2007, 3:10pm | #

I'm waiting to run into a Judas. Perfectly good name, unused for the past 2000 years. I wonder, are there any Adolf's in Germany? Benitos in Italy?

What names has America soiled?
Benedict (still good for eggs, and popes)
Wilkes (ever common?)
Mudd (did this need a villain?)

Can't think of anyone vile enough in the 20th century. Lee Harvey together, but separate they endure. Joseph has way too much positive history, and even McCarthy is less and less associated with political witch hunts.

parse | September 4, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Parents do have the right to name their children whatever they want. Being given a stupid name is not a violation of a child's rights.

Another Phil, you've asserted it, but you haven't said why it's so. I'd have a hard time arguing that it wasn't true. But I do know I would think it would be a violation of a woman's right if her husband could force her to give up her maiden name--and in that case, the woman would have the option to refuse the marriage instead, an alternative not available to children.

What I'm trying to understand is how liberarian philosophy accounts for the disparity in rights between adults and children.

a boy named sue | September 4, 2007, 3:17pm | #

rather than sign this into law, I propose the death penalty for any parent who gives their kid an embarassing name, but only once the kid grows up and finds the sonofabitch that named them that.

tarran | September 4, 2007, 3:17pm | #

My grandmother used to tell the story of a real misogynistic bastard named Mr. Hogg who named his daughters Ima and Ura. My grandmother went to school with the poor girls. This would have been ~1915-1920.

Taktix® | September 4, 2007, 3:18pm | #

Another one named her son Lemonjello. Annunciated and pronounced as "Leh-MAHN-je-LOW".

Uhh, I heard this same myth when my sister was in the hospital having her son. Not true, and might be slightly racist. Oh well.

I think "George W." is probably off limits, at least for anyone that's going to be important enough to make it off the farm.

(Ohh. Got poor people and dumb people in the same shot! Thanks, all.)

Pro Libertate | September 4, 2007, 3:24pm | #

It's a sad day when a purportedly libertarian blog discussing unusual names neglects to mention Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette.

Another Phil | September 4, 2007, 3:28pm | #

parse,

I didn't provide a supporting argument because you have to stretch the definition of political rights beyond all recognition to assert that an unusual name is a violation of a child's rights.

QSL | September 4, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Uhh, I heard this same myth when my sister was in the hospital having her son.

Well I'll be damned. Looks like I fell victim to the wide margin of error associated with getting third-hand info.

In my defense, there are certainly enough knee-slapper names popping up out there that it wasn't beyond the realm of believability.

parse | September 4, 2007, 3:34pm | #

I didn't provide a supporting argument because you have to stretch the definition of political rights beyond all recognition to assert that an unusual name is a violation of a child's rights.

Well, would the unuusal name be a violation of the child's rights if it were imposed by the government instead of a parent?

de stijl | September 4, 2007, 3:37pm | #

Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette

I'll see your Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette and raise with Pilot Inspecktor Lee.

joe | September 4, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Chavez is a thug | September 4, 2007, 1:28pm | #

I can't wait to read the comments from the people defending this program because it is being proposed by Chavez

So, how's that going? Would you like us to start humming the Final Jeopardy music?

ed | September 4, 2007, 3:42pm | #

Could someone please tell parse that infants don't have volition? That toddlers often do really dangerous things? That teenagers are mostly stupid and irresponsible? And that's why we have a Legal Age, before which all children are their parents' slaves?

lunchstealer | September 4, 2007, 3:46pm | #

I would just like to thank Hayekian Dreamer for absolutely obliterating any productivity I hoped to have this afternoon.

Dave

Jesse Walker | September 4, 2007, 3:48pm | #

Ask four libertarians their views of children's rights and you'll get five answers. I probably have at least three mutually exclusive opinions on the topic myself.

Anyway, I believe that anyone has the right to call anyone else anything he wants, without a government registry standing in his way. Whether the name catches on is up to everyone else.

robc | September 4, 2007, 3:54pm | #

For those who hate urban myths, I give thee real baby names to look thru:

East Alabama Medical Center

Click on the months to see the names of the babies born there in the last year. There are always some good ones (and, by good, I mean very funny).

I hadnt looked in a year or so, the best I have found is "De'Love O'Christ".

joe | September 4, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Doo doo doo doo doo doo do.

Doo doo doo doo do. do-do-do-do-do.

Doo doo doo doo...

So, thug, those Chavez lovers show up yet?

robc | September 4, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Do you suppose that Zy'Kuez and Zy'Quez, both born 8/03, are twins? What is the distinction in pronounciation of those?

robc | September 4, 2007, 3:59pm | #

those Chavez lovers show up yet?

I saw one on today's Chavez fark thread. They have shrunk in numbers over there, to the point that some people deny they ever existed. But, I was reading Chavez fark threads years ago and they existed.

robc | September 4, 2007, 4:01pm | #

Clicked thru on the link, Q (as I shall call him) has 11 ozs on K but K has the reach, he is 1/2 inch longer. K is also 2 minutes older.

parse | September 4, 2007, 4:02pm | #

Could someone please tell parse that infants don't have volition? That toddlers often do really dangerous things? That teenagers are mostly stupid and irresponsible? And that's why we have a Legal Age, before which all children are their parents' slaves?

And why are they slaves of their parents, but not the state?

When someone makes the objection to libertarian philosophy that sometimes a person makes the wrong choice, the sensible response is that while that may be true, the person who makes the choice is the one to live with the consequences. We should trust individuals to make their own decisions, even when we're sure we know better--even if the collective decision of society runs against the individual choice.

As you point out regarding infants, they shouldn't be trusted to make their own decisions. But why default to their parents, rather than to some collective decision about what's best?

By the way, your snide comment about teenagers suggests you wouldn't be a realiable defender of libertarian values. Plenty of people are mostly stupid and irresonsible--libertarianism makes the claim that such people are still entitiled to liberty. If teenagers really don't merit freedom due to their bad choices, you've suggested liberty is something that must be earned, rather than something that is the right of men by virtue of their humanity.

J sub D | September 4, 2007, 4:11pm | #

Asswipe Johnson | September 4, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Where was this law 30 years ago??

The winner of the best in thread award!

J sub D | September 4, 2007, 4:16pm | #

Ask four libertarians their views of children's rights and you'll get five answers. I probably have at least three mutually exclusive opinions on the topic myself.

That is a fairly succinct way of describing a complicated and perplexing issue. Let's discuss this seriously sometiume.

I'd outlaw Hugo though. It's a dorky name.

gaijin | September 4, 2007, 4:29pm | #

I take it that the name of Hercules' brother, Testicles, would probably be off limits...

Trollaphile | September 4, 2007, 4:31pm | #

Would George or Dubya be considered names that would get a kid made fun of?

muchsarcasm | September 4, 2007, 5:53pm | #

There will never, ever be a worse baby name than Urhines Kendall Icy Eight Special K. Ever.

lunchstealer | September 4, 2007, 6:05pm | #

God damn it, Hayekian Dreamer. I got exactly one thing done this afternoon. That goddamn babyname site is fucking crack.

I feel so tired and shaky.

joe | September 4, 2007, 6:19pm | #

Doop-a doopa doopa

Doo doo doo doo

Doo doo doo.

Doop-a doopa doop

Doop Dum Dum.








Hi, Chavez is a thug!

prolefeed | September 4, 2007, 6:26pm | #

Can't think of anyone vile enough in the 20th century.

I'm pretty sure liberals don't name their kids George anymore.

Juan Arteaga | September 4, 2007, 6:32pm | #

In my country there is a province called Manabi that is famous for the really weirdass named people you can find there. In college I met a guy called Hitler Ordoñes, and in highschool I knew a Wilson Satan. I have heard of guys called Pepsi and even Powder. Some years ago a Colombian journalist made a list of the weirdest names he found in Manabi.

You can read the whole thing here (only in spanish) but here are my favorites:

Vick Vaporoup Giler
Land Rover García
Conflicto Internacional Loor
Perfecta Circuncisión Hidalgo
Houston Texas Ponguillo Loor
Alí Baba Cárdenas
Burguer King Herrera Suárez

And the champion:
Semen de los Dioses Bazurto Quesada

prolefeed | September 4, 2007, 6:35pm | #

And that's why we have a Legal Age, before which all children are their parents' slaves?

As an actual parent, I can assure you that the servitude runs strongly in the other direction. Can't remember the last time my children voluntarily washed my clothes, cleaned up my vomit when I was sick, etc.

As for the post stating that parents are violating their children's rights by naming them -- are we supposed to leave our children unnamed until they're old enough to come up with something on their own? Now, if we prohibited them from changing their name when they reached the age of majority, or prohibited them from acquiring nicknames until then, then the authoritarism charge might be justified.

MattXIV | September 4, 2007, 6:51pm | #

And why are they slaves of their parents, but not the state?

Because parents a) typically cohabitate with their children and thus have much more information about their children's characteristics and preferences b) parents (and other family members) fairly reliably develop an deep emotional attachment to their children that reduces the agency problem in a way that an outsider would not.

My personal stance is that the authority of the parent is similar to that of a trustee, and consequently is not unlimited and must be exercised in the interst of the party it is held in trust for. Here's how I see the decision making authority breaking down:

1) The initial decision making lies with the childs, to the extent it can express a preference. These preferences should be taken seriously to the extent that they show mature decision making.

2) Parents can override the kid's decision or make the decision for them when they can't express a preference and are obligated to try to decide in the kid's best interests. This requires no outside oversight and covers most of the day-to-day parenting stuff.

3) When evidence is present that the parent's are making decisions that are clearly contrary to the child's interests, the state can intervene. This should cover cases where the appropriate treatment of the child is obvious (feed them, educate them, get the medical care when appropriate, don't beat them senseless) or there is a conflict between a credible mature decision expressed by the child and the parent's decision.

The status quo in the US is about right - I think it is skewed towards the parents and gov't at the expense of the child's decisions if anything.

grumpy realist | September 4, 2007, 7:14pm | #

Reminds me of the situation in Japan right after they had done the first Kanji reform, hacking the number of "allowable" characters from 4,000-5,000 to a more managable 1,980. Unfortunately, quite a few of the jettisoned characters were those traditionally used in names....I think there was also a bit of a regional differentiation as well. Families refused to budge, continuing to use the traditional characters in a nation-wide revolt against the bureaucracy, which refused to register the names.

What this meant officially was that a sizable number of Japanese children were growing up legally nameless. Finally the gov't backed down and grudgingly added another list of 90 characters to the official Kanji, "approved for use in names only."

So you see, even in Japan, one can take on City Hall and win.

highnumber | September 4, 2007, 7:18pm | #

Semen de los Dioses Bazurto Quesada

Wow!

I remember a story about an old German guy who didn't speak any English who wanted to change his last name, Hitler, because he did not want to carry the offensive association.


He added an "S."


To the beginning of it.


Yes, he did the only thing that could make the name "Hitler" more offensive. He made it "Shitler."

Supposedly a true story, but I have heard it only once. I think a guest told it on Conan. The young man was traveling the world finding and meeting people with the same name as himself. This was an anecdote he picked up along the way.

Kimberly | September 4, 2007, 8:29pm | #

Much as I hate bad baby names, laws like these are outrageous and intrusive. What's more, it deprives us of the fun of laughing at bad baby names (out of the range of the baby, of course). A friend of mine - who is NOT a stripper - just named her daughter Skylar Vegas. Isn't that the name of a new casino opening up on the strip next year?

Cesar | September 4, 2007, 8:30pm | #

Much as I hate bad baby names, laws like these are outrageous and intrusive. What's more, it deprives us of the fun of laughing at bad baby names (out of the range of the baby, of course). A friend of mine - who is NOT a stripper - just named her daughter Skylar Vegas. Isn't that the name of a new casino opening up on the strip next year?

I knew a girl in my high school named Propecia. I'm not kidding.

BakedPenguin | September 4, 2007, 8:54pm | #

Cesar, I hope she doesn't handle herself if she gets pregnant.

Karen | September 4, 2007, 9:08pm | #

My best friend and I formulated the "Cox - McGough" Inviolable Law of Baby Names when we were in high school. We grew up in a small town in the South, where names like "Destiny Promise" and "Denim John" were popular. Then we went to college and met preppies with names like "Winthrop Rheinhart Carstairs." You could only tell it's a boy if there was a number at the end. So, this is what Venezuela should have done:

There must be a form that looks good on a business card and a form that looks good on a construction-animal-nametag for kindergarten. T

Over the years we've added corrolaries to this law, based on bad experiences with other people.

-- No surnames as first names unless said name appears within three generations of the parents' actual families. Thus, unless one parent's great-grandfather really had the last name "Caldwell," it's off-limits.

-- No names that came from soap operas no matter how much you loved the character. (It's okay to use names like "Erica" that were popular before the soap. But just barely.)

-- The initials must not spell anything funny. Same thing for switching first and last initials, as in "Carrie Hunt."

I'm available to advise the Venezuelan government on this subject for an appropriate feel.

Finally, this are the worst name I've encountered in real life, although it's not at all anyone's fault, just an accident of translation:

Phuc Dong



I'ts actually pronounced "Puke Dung," which is not an improvement.

Karen | September 4, 2007, 9:10pm | #

Ugh. Appropriate FEE dammit!!! Appropriate FEE!!!!

AC | September 4, 2007, 9:53pm | #

I'm available to advise the Venezuelan government on this subject for an appropriate feel.

Ugh. Appropriate FEE dammit!!! Appropriate FEE!!!!

Now there's a Freudian slip.

just sayin | September 4, 2007, 10:08pm | #

Moon Unit is OK, but according to his Wikipedia entry the hospital refused to register Dweezil Zappa under that name (They used "Ian Donald Calvin Euclid" instead). The family called him Dweezil anyway and got it legally changed when he was seven and insisted.

The two most "original" names I've seen first hand were a guy on my college dorm floor named Knorphe (yes, the K was silent) Byrd and the daughter of a guy my Dad worked with named Flurry. He named one of his daughters Snow.

BakedPenguin | September 4, 2007, 11:10pm | #

I'd forgotten this, but I worked for a short while in the claims department of an insurance agency. One of the claimants was a Vietnamese guy named Duk. The first name listed (I am not making this up) was Donald.

Brian Sorgatz | September 4, 2007, 11:13pm | #

The government's charity should be retroactive. American men should be paid reparations for having Richard Hertz or Michael Hunt on their birth certificates. Brooke Shields, Bart Simpson, and I are filing a class-action lawsuit over our embarrassing initials.

Brian Sorgatz | September 4, 2007, 11:26pm | #

Warren:
Can't think of anyone vile enough in the 20th century. Lee Harvey together, but separate they endure. Joseph has way too much positive history, and even McCarthy is less and less associated with political witch hunts.

I remember reading in a book about names that, as of the late 1930s, there were thousands of Hitlers (though some spelled it Hittler) in the New York City phone book. For obvious reasons, the same book had no singing or dancing Hitlers at all a few years later.

Akira MacKenzie | September 5, 2007, 12:08am | #

Is is a basic tenet of libertarianism that totalitarianism is only acceptable when practiced by parents?

That, and by state governments (i.e. "States Rights").