34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
Columns

KESSLER: N-bombs dropped too often




Can we all please resolve to stop throwing "Nazi" references around every time we are ticked off about the behavior of a public official or someone whose views we oppose?

Those on the left and right both do it far too often, invoking uncomfortable comparisons with Adolf Hitler's band of Nazis on their sworn "mortal" political enemies whenever they do something distasteful in their eyes.

Just last week, that tendency surfaced again in a most unlikely place, a local meeting of the board of selectmen. The board controls no armies, and yields no weapons. So it was especially disconcerting to read about what was said during last Thursday's North Attleboro Board of Selectmen's meeting.

Selectman Michael Thompson, upset over the proposal by fellow Selectman Mark Williamson to place an article on the September town meeting warrant to expand the town administrator's authority, made this statement about Williamson's proposal:

"The only thing you're doing is throwing some more mud in to the whole mess, so the whole thing gets killed," he said, referring to the town council-mayor form of government proposal that the town meeting members are due to debate. "You want to go play Nazi Germany, go play it somewhere else. This is America, we don't do that." To be sure, the North Attleboro political situation has been most frustrating and disappointing for the last several years, but no one should suggest that the town's leaders are acting at all like members of the Third Reich.

But Thompson has hardly been the only one who has made that unfortunate slip of the tongue over the years. The infamous - some would say hysterical; others would say notorious - "Seinfeld" episode about a gourmet soup chef, who is so crazed about his creations that he turns tyrannical when it comes to deciding who is worthy of being served his soup, was dubbed "The Soup Nazi," and after that, it seemed as if whenever someone didn't like something, the Nazi terminology was used.

Those, for example, favoring a crackdown on smoking in public were dubbed "smoking Nazis." Those favoring more stringent control over food products were called "food Nazis."

Enough already!

The Nazis were not the bumbling likes of Col. Klink and Sgt. Shultz portrayed on the 1960s TV sit-com "Hogan's Heroes," who were always being outwitted and outsmarted by the superior American and British prisoners in Stalag 13. That only happened every Friday night. "Hogan's Heroes" became a favorite of the sons and daughters of many World War II veterans precisely because it made the Nazis seem something that they were not: harmless idiots.

Unfortunately, they were anything but. They were an example of cold-hearted bureaucrats turned monsters, who targeted just about everyone but members of the alleged "master" or Aryan (Germanic) race for extinction. And the Internet is full of reprehensible Web sites favored by neo-Nazis who regret that Hitler's plan for "The Final Solution" was ultimately foiled.

So, please: No more Nazi comparisons. The Germany that they populated was one of the most heinous regimes in history, and that period of time was so traumatic that it makes many of us who are related to Concentration Camp victims shudder. The Holocaust really happened, and Hitler and his Nazis came frighteningly close to carrying out their diabolical plans.

So, let us all resolve to oppose viewpoints without calling people names - and especially without calling people the ultimate bad name.

LARRY KESSLER is a Sun Chronicle local news editor. He can be reached at lkessler@thesunchronicle.com.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » 5 comment(s) « Hide Comments

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Aug 14, 2009 11:44 AM:

" CEOs and presidents of Morgan-Chase, AIG, Chrysler, et. all don't belong to unions. That canard doesn't wash in the current economic melt-down. I have little problem with merit pay, but I have ENORMOUS problem with massive compensation packages that are still paid out for corporate execs who cooked the books, ran companies into the ground and generally wrecked the global economy because of their appalling greed and chutzpah.

Entrepreneurship is a marvelous part of responsible capitalism. Making a profit off of ones hard work is honorable. Bankrupting a company just so you can own five mansions and a mega-yacht is not only irresponsible but adds nothing to the economic growth of a nation. Why should a few individuals in a company profit by laying off thousands? How does that insure future growth of the company?

Any corporate exec who is part of wrecking a company not only should be forced by law to surrender all compensation but should be criminally prosecuted for causing such financial train wrecks that ruin the lives of workers who relied on them to make sound judgments. It isn't enough to safeguard the interests of investors any longer. Every recession has produced hardship for far more workers than for investors. Time to hold corporate executives accountable for everyone whose lives rely on their decision-making, honesty and ethical values. "

Anna D wrote on Aug 12, 2009 8:41 PM:

" Edmund: in a word, YES. Couple that with tort reform and you would save some serious money.

And I agree with you - I'm fine with linking compensation to performance. That's how a merit-based system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, merit disappears as a criterion when unions get involved (government employees are the model). I don't think anyone should get a raise if their performance isn't exceptional. "

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Aug 12, 2009 12:06 PM:

" BTW, Anna, in addressing a previous post, do you actually think that allowing individuals to buy insurance across state lines will have any meaningful effect? Nearly every health insurance company in this country already operates across multiple states (United, Blue Cross/Shield, Columbia HCA, etc.). At best, you'd centralize the bureaucracy of each company rather than on a state by state basis, which would have the effect of further removing approval/denial of benefits from the local region, something that mightn't actually improve delivery of health care services.

As for those unrestrained salaries and benefits packages of health insurance CEOs, do you honestly believe that the pay they currently receive is commensurate with the performance of these companies? If that's the case, why are so many of these companies in financial trouble? Doesn't seem like mis-management and poor performance is effecting those large quarterly pay-offs in spite of bad investment decisions not directly related to their primary reason for existence, namely health care insurance coverage. Requiring companies to tie all compensation to performance in such a critical field should be a no-brainer. Might actually improve public accountability AND set and ethical example that has been lacking for too long. "

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Aug 12, 2009 11:52 AM:

" For the record, I've never referred to anyone outside of the WWII era or the neo-Nazi movement as a Nazi, regardless of how much I may disagree with their politics. Kessler is right in bringing this matter up even if it should have been brought up during the Bush administration and even before then.

Tit for tat is NOT a particularly mature or responsible means of dealing with political differences or issues. Both radical left-wing extremists and reactionary right-wing extremists have stolen each others (bad) methodological ideas for far too long in order to "nuke" the opposition over issues that require in-depth reflection and decisive action. The current health care debate is just one of those areas. No one should revel in the raucous disruptive nature of the recent town hall debacles because it is drowning out reasoned discussion and the necessary nature of compromise needed to arrive at a reform that will actually benefit the most people possible. Neither acting like "I've got mined so every one else can get screwed" nor "Everyone should be forced into one health care system" is going to address spiraling costs nor declining quality of coverage.

I have just as many doubts about the health care "camel" that Congress is creating as I do about the "camel" that already exists courtesy of a hodgepodge of competing interests by the states, the federal government and all private health care businesses. No one should accept failure again... "

Anna D wrote on Aug 12, 2009 8:24 AM:

" I don't recall reading this column when the Code Pink-ANSWER-Soros financed types were calling President Bush and Senator McCain Nazis. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Political discourse has never been polite and constrained. And it won't be now. Cold-hearted bureaucrats turned monsters? That's the liberal utopia for you. Are you ready for the face of government run healthcare? "