How late is too late… for a Nazi?

The headline reads: “90-year-old man charged over Nazi massacre.” Ok, you have my attention. Here is the article if you’d like to read it in its entirety, but here’s the synopsis. German officials have charged a 90-year-old man in the execution of 57 Jewish slave laborers just weeks before the end of the WWII. Claims are this man was part of the SS stationed in what is now Austria.

So, I got to thinking: How late is too late to pay for a crime? Here in the United States we have statute of limitations on many crimes; these basically restrict the amount of time after a crime is committed in which charges may be filed against the defendant. If time has expired it doesn’t matter if the person is guilty or not, they cannot be imprisoned for the crime. Of course, there are always exclusions, but you get the idea. That said, however, there is no statute of limitation on murder. This seems to be the crux of our social contract, you don’t kill me and I won’t kill you. Everything else comes after that first agreement. If you violate this primary agreement though, you can’t escape justice for a crime of taking another human’s life by hiding it long enough; you must inevitably pay the piper.

Which brings us to this 90-year-old man. The time has come for him to pay the piper, or has it? Just because we can charge someone with a crime doesn’t mean we should. At 90 years old how much time does he have left? What a different person he may have become after all these years. Where is the compassion in us that he was lacking so long ago? Is incarcerating a 90-year-old really going to be justice? Execution, is that the justice those 57 dead deserve? I struggled with this at first, but my unequivocal answer now is no. This man does not deserve prison nor the death penalty. Hear me out… the best way he can serve humanity, to pay his debt to those 57 Jews he executed mercilessly, is to live on and share his firsthand account every day of his life he has remaining.

This man’s sentence should be to help educate the world about the atrocities the Nazi regime committed. He should be a living example for all to hear and see of what hate and extremism lead too. Have his sentence be paid by going from city to city, classroom to classroom, person to person and have him tell of the atrocities committed. Force him to answer the question every day of his life, “Why?” For those Shoah (Holocaust) deniers the world now sees all too many of, this man can be yet another brushstroke in the tapestry of proof we offer, but this time, from one of the very criminals they say didn’t commit crimes. Bloodlust is not a Jewish value, but education is.

Should he refuse? Remind him the piper gets paid, one way or another.

Watered-down Nazis

For years now we’ve seen an increase in use of the word Nazi to indicate something or someone we don’t like or who is too strict. Someone too strict at work? The “office Nazi.” A woman that proclaims too much or too loudly feminist ideals? ‘Feminazi,” a term widely popularized by Rush Limbaugh. Honestly, of all people, I blame a Jew for this. Yes, Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi” seemed to be the opening of the flood gates for the use of this colloquialism. It seemed to signal to the general public that the taboo had expired and the term no longer heralded the ultimate in evil, but rather, a watered-down word that no longer carried the burden of a constrained reference.

Recently we’ve seen a dramatic rise in its use as a result of the healthcare debate. Rush Limbaugh (still a big, fat idiot) has compared the healthcare logo to that of the Nazi party. (See image at right). We’ve seen Nazi “SS” signs and armbands at healthcare protests and increasingly the reference to “Nazi SS death panels” as part of the healthcare reform. (Side note, I’ve read the section and it’s complete crap. Read it for yourself and don’t rely on me or any other pundit.) Swastikas have even been painted on a pro-healthcare reform congressman’s office sign.

Now this article isn’t about being pro or anti healthcare reform. Again, read it for yourself and make up your own mind. Don’t let the media or political hacks decide for you. What this is about is the trivialization of the true meaning of the terms. The word “Nazi” should be reserved for exactly what it is; a reference to the most evil and vile, dehumanizing political and sadistic organization the world has ever seen. It represents pure, unadulterated evil. There is no comparison. Hell, even “Neo Nazis” don’t have shit on the 1930’s Nazis. If you don’t believe me, go sit down with a Holocaust survivor or even a German citizen from that time. I dare you to listen to the stories not from a text book, but from a real person who witnessed these atrocities with their own eyes.

So my request of you. It’s time to take healthcare reform talks back to a civil discussion about what’s best for America. It’s time to honor the memory of ours and other Allies’ fallen soldiers from WWII and those who perished in the Shoah, the Holocaust. These are the people who paid the ultimate price at the hands of the “Nazis” and the “SS” death squads. If we continue to water-down these terms how else can we possibly explain to future generations the true horror that Nazis actually represent?

Polarization and Michael Jackson

So I’ve tried to stay silent on the whole Michael Jackson issue, but I simply can’t any longer. It’s not so much the death or associated drama, rather, it’s the posturing of celebrities and media that I simply can’t shake.

Take for instance the recent article by Orthodox Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and the response to his article by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Reform movement. Texts can be found here and here. Short summations:
Rabbi Boteach: Was a friend of Jackson’s and believed he was a good person, one who was partially a victim of circumstances, but none-the-less someone Rabbi Boteach writes, whose death is an “American tragedy.”
Rabbi Yoffie: He’s a child molester, what more do you need to know?!?

Yes, these are over simplified summations so I encourage you to read the text for yourself. What I want to focus on is the black and white nature, the absolutism that is going on here. I’ve complained about this for years now and we only seem to be entrenching it further in our lives. We make absolutist statements declaring something either this or that, black or white, good or evil, without ever accepting the notion that most of the world and our lives are lived in the gray part that lies between. Being a self avowed Bush hater (W, not Sr.), I do blame much of this rhetoric on him and his neo-con cohorts. His decree to other nations from November, 2001 of “you’re either with us or against us” carried over to the domestic agenda. The clever play inserted only two options into American media and culture: Either you’re for the war and support our troops or you support terrorism, period. There are no other choices. Those who vocalized their support of our troops, but their opposition to the war were immediately and summarily labeled as soft on terrorists. (As a short aside, how many of the terrorists from 9/11 were from Iraq or trained in Iraq again? ‘Nuf said.) There was no acknowledgement of a middle ground, somewhere you could support our troops, love America, bleed red, white and blue, yet disagree with the policies of the then President. Forget the hypocrisy, forget the politics, forget the emotions; rather, think about the statements in and of themselves. Do we really want to become a nation of absolutists? Isn’t that one of the tactics the hardliners in Iran and elsewhere used to take complete control of those countries?

So back to Michael Jackson. Why is it he’s either a pop icon and a “noble spirit,” someone whose tragedy should be looked upon and the question asked, “Was there no one to save him from himself?” clearly portraying him as a victim; OR, he’s a child molester who should be held accountable for his actions and remembered by this and shown to be the perfect example of how not to live your life? Isn’t there some in-between in there somewhere?

We need to address this issue as all others that face us in our lives. Although it’s easier to label something black or white, good or bad, making it a one or a zero thus forcing a digitized version of our world view, for in doing so we cut lose so much of what life is made. We live in gray areas and experience the world in shades, some gravitating to one side or the other, but very few falling solidly in one convenient bucket. We like those buckets though because making something either this or that is easier. We can avoid the hard questions and the spiritual and moral dilemmas that come along with dipping our toes into the gray.

Michael Jackson was an immensely talented performer, one who clearly influenced a generation and whose influences will continue to be felt decades after his death. His music inspired and comforted millions upon millions of people the world over. For this he will be missed. But he was also a flawed man, one who had difficulty facing up to the consequences of his actions. In the end, he and he alone was responsible for his inappropriate acts. For this he should serve as a warning to others and a disappointment to fans.

I’m not failing down the slippery slope of situational ethics or moral relativism as some would warn. We must agree that there are certain constants of objective ethics we all adhere to regardless of religion, creed or nationality. After all, that’s what our social contract is based upon. What I am saying is we cannot allow ourselves as a nation to continue to fall down the rabbit hole of absolutes. Account for all sides of an issue, and know that sometimes the answer really does fall in that tough gray area.