This N-word doesn’t fit in health-reform debate : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

Rabbi Guttman declares he is offended by a health care reform protester carrying a sign that equated the proposal with National Socialism. But a federal takeover of our health care system — 8 percent of the U.S. economy, according to Guttman — would be both national and socialistic. So, the protester has a point.

More disturbing is his intolerance of free expression, which I find offensive and chilling.

The rabbi goes on to describe in excruciating detail specific atrocities committed by the Nazis on Jews. What does this have to do with the debate? Is he implying that anyone who disagrees with his position is a Nazi? And he later compares grassroots opposition with Nazi propaganda. This technique, in addition to declaring oneself offended, is an effective tool for silencing the opposition. After all, no one wishes to be considered offensive, much less a Nazi. But in a free debate in a free country, opposition is not only desirable, it is essential.

Character assassination by innuendo is unwelcome and unwarranted. Or as Rabbi Guttman put it: “Scare tactics ... have no place in this discussion.”

Christopher Rees
Oak Ridge

danagain

August 21, 2009 - 5:42 am EDT

"This technique, in addition to declaring oneself offended, is an effective tool for silencing the opposition."

Fortunately it doesn't seem to be working this time.

Slaan

August 21, 2009 - 11:25 am EDT

Exactly dan. Conservatives are trying to shut off other's free speech rights by stopping anybody from getting a word in edge-wise. Saying the pledge of allegiance at shout-volume constantly while others are trying to speak is nothing more than disenfranchising others.

Obama and liberal congressmen have taken great strides to let everyone's voices be heard on this matter. Obama has even let people armed with guns into his rallies, while Bush had his 'free speech zones' and had people arrested for wearing t-shirts. And lets not forget about the loyalty oaths!

Anyone who says that liberals are trying to silence the opposition are either idiots or lying.

truth

August 21, 2009 - 1:39 pm EDT

"Obama has even let people armed with guns into his rallies."

"his rallies"? Very telling that you consider these to be "his rallies". These are supposed to be town-hall meetings that would be better described as "rallies for the people".

As far as the guns, I'm guessing they are not anywhere close to where Obama is.

August 21, 2009 - 4:54 pm EDT

Well, seeing as he was AT the two rallies where first a guy with a handgun and then 14 others with civilian-model assault rifles, I think it is fair to call the rallies 'his' as he was the creator, focus and answerer.

rahrah

August 21, 2009 - 5:48 pm EDT

I think he's objecting to 'rallies,' not 'his rallies.'

A rally sort implies that the event is to energize one's supporters. You may or may not be aware that some are claiming that Obama is stuffing these town halls with his supporters and that the people who are called on for questions were planted there by the administration.

Anyway...town halls, forums, rallies...either way, there are people standing outside with guns, and they aren't in jail...not that they should be, but it's an interesting contrast to some of Bush's rallies...uh, forums.

neocon

August 21, 2009 - 7:05 am EDT

Kudos to tonymo...socialism has become the new "N" word.

August 21, 2009 - 7:46 am EDT

Let me get this straight:

Chris doesn't care that someone is actually calling the President a nazi, but decides that the Jew saying that "calling the President a nazi is bad," a nazi instead. Interesting.

Also, the 1st amendment stops the government from impinging on your speech. It doesn't stop you from being accountable to your speech. Calling a gay-jew (Barney Frank) a nazi is protected by the government, but it doesn't protect you from being called an incredibly irresponsible, stupid and/or ***hole.

Beachwalk

August 21, 2009 - 10:11 am EDT

The left-wing nut's hypocrisy is incredible. Where was the rabbi's out cry when the left wing nuts were calling (and still do) President Bush a Nazi?

August 21, 2009 - 10:57 am EDT

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/07/limbaugh/

As Glenn Greenwald finds out, they were there when Move-On's cloudsourced nazi ad was released, and are here now. Republicans were there then... and not here now. Coincidence?

TheSeeker

August 21, 2009 - 12:27 pm EDT

Remember, in the liberal thought process (hey! did i just use one of them thar oxymorons) anyone who disagrees with them and uses their techniques and tactics is a hate mongering idiot, nazi, baby seal killing, evil, unpatriotic, grandma kickin' butt wipe.

August 21, 2009 - 1:42 pm EDT

Same folks who parade around pictures of dead baby seals call people monsters for showing pictures of aborted babies. They don't hold the people responsible who actually aborted those babies, just the one's who show pictures of the outcome.

I know it's totally unrelated but I had to get that kick in.

miktay

August 21, 2009 - 8:19 am EDT

This letter is a perfect example of the way the right wing has approached the health care reform debate. Rabbi Gutman took to task a protester who held a sign accusing health care reform of being a Nazi program. The LTE takes that starting point and twists the whole story around until by the end, the protestor is the innocent victim of the Nazi Gutman!

Up is down! Day is night! Right is wrong! It is no wonder that anyone only half paying attention is confused. Of course, that is exactly what the naysayers want.

JGALT

August 21, 2009 - 8:37 am EDT

Rabbi Gutman does not have a copyright on National Socialist. Colorful descriptive language is appropriate-- especially if the arm band fits.

Andrew Brod

August 21, 2009 - 10:16 am EDT

But it doesn't fit, Dagny. See below.

August 21, 2009 - 11:54 am EDT

You're the brod in this thread, Andy

August 21, 2009 - 1:04 pm EDT

Okay, that's a good one.

dcribar

August 21, 2009 - 9:05 am EDT

Is Mr. Rees secretly expressing support for North Korea ( http://appliedrationality.blogspot.com/2009/08/political-philosophy-of-i... )?

Rufus_T.Firefly

August 21, 2009 - 9:22 am EDT

I guess the shouters have succeeded in changing the subject. We're not talking health care.

Score one for the insurance companies and their minions.

ghost from white oak

August 21, 2009 - 9:55 am EDT

Once again the left prove hypocrisy still is alive and well in America.
Some more of their do as I say, not as I do.
While protesting Bush, anything was ok.
Now with the supreme leader as the recipient, we must not say or do anything you consider bad.

August 21, 2009 - 10:50 am EDT

Once again the right prove hypocrisy still is alive and well in America.
Some more of their do as I say, not as I do.
While protesting Bush, nothing was ok.
Now with the supreme leader as the recipient, we may say or do anything no matter how inappropriate.

August 21, 2009 - 12:36 pm EDT

wrong rahrah, we defend the right of anyone to say whatever they want as long as it doesn't create a danger to others. We are not the ones who have made speech we disagree with a hate crime such as you libs have. We just can't understand the irrational and vapid way you label everything and everyone you disagree with.

August 21, 2009 - 1:18 pm EDT

I happen to oppose hate-speech codes and hate-crime laws, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? No one's talking about making protests--even ugly ones--illegal, so your attempted parallel doesn't work. All Rabbi Guttman did was make the case for civility in this debate, and yet somehow that's controversial to the conservatives commenting on this blog.

The conservatives could have said, yes, let's all be civil to each other, and let it drop. But instead the comments either continue to make bogus comparisons with Nazism or accuse liberals of even greater sins. Why can't you guys just let it go? Is it so hard to accept that a minority of jerks on your side of the ideological spectrum have gone too far? Or is everyone who's a conservative automatically immune to criticism?

August 21, 2009 - 3:49 pm EDT

I think that anyone who is incapable of rational thought and must rely on these stock labels when expressing their beliefs render them pointless. Like the chick at the Barney Frank Invitational Name Calling and Wiener Roast that used the Nazi word. what ever she said after that was pointless. I know we let 'em fly here, but that's the fun part of being able to poke at each other.

Christopher Rees

August 21, 2009 - 6:17 pm EDT

The problem with Rabbi Guttman's column, Mr Brod, was two-fold. Firstly, the inherent hypocrisy in claiming to want civility in this debate whilst simultaneuosly characterising opposition as somehow sympathetic to Nazism;
and secondly, the Rabbi's insipid salute to free speech whilst attempting to shut down conservative opposition by referencing Nazis and Nazi propaganda in the same breath. He well knows that most readers do not possess the same agility of intellect as you or I. They will be intimidated into silence, for fear of appearing sympathetic to nazi war crimes, or of appearing obnoxious. I believe the real purpose of Mr Guttman's column was to intimidate vocal conservative opposition through character assassination - and all by innuendo.
That's not fair play - and all the while begging for fair play!
Now that's chutzpah!

August 21, 2009 - 3:21 pm EDT

"we defend the right of anyone to say whatever they want as long..."

Bull. Seeker. Maybe you always do this, but go back and watch some FOX News coverage of code pink and anti-war protesters during Bush's Presidency.

I vigorously support free speech. I'm against the classification of crimes as hate crimes. And I think it's great that people are going to town hall meetings and voicing their opinions. Largely though, they seem to be opinions based on lies. I support the right of others at those meetings to call those referring to health reform as Nazism idiots and, realistically, when someone comes in saying crap like that, there's little chance you'll be able to reason with them. But good for them, voicing their distorted opinions. And really good for the ones who come in and ask honest questions and are really concerned.

August 21, 2009 - 3:54 pm EDT

Here we go with the "lies" crap again. People are reacting to what is actually in the bill! there is no lies about it. The "death panels" are in there, though not named that. The fact that they want a government rep to come into your house and monitor how you raise your kids, in there. Loosing your exsisting coverage and being forced onto the gubment plan, in there. What are these lies your hearing? Please tell me.

August 21, 2009 - 4:03 pm EDT

Show me then. And I don't mean some blog that says it. Show me the text of the bill with page and section number. If you know it's in there then you should know where and it shouldn't be hard to tell me.

August 21, 2009 - 5:08 pm EDT

I can show it Rahrah (though I bet you saw it last night). Here is an unedited interview with John Stewart on the Daily Show with one of the people that started the whole "DEATH PANELS EEEK!" thing.

Stewart destroys her utterly.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/21/tds/index.html

mamaboilermaker

August 21, 2009 - 4:07 pm EDT

The government hasn't seen anger until they come to my private residence and try to mess with my children. I hadn't considered the impact government takeover of health care might have on child rearing. Are they proposing coming to my kitchen to check for trans fats or something? After all, if the government is paying, they will want to dictate the terms.

August 21, 2009 - 4:32 pm EDT

Are you taking Seeker's word for it, mama?

news-record.com

OPINION