Along with the Marxist philosophy of unexceptionalism and collectivism, it appears that the democrat Congress is all about removing the distinction and power of the word “Hero” by applying it to everybody that has or is presently serving in our all-volunteer armed forces.

Therefore, I take exception to the labeling of  Senate Bill S. 4058  as the “Helping Heroes Keep Their Homes Act of 2010” which should have been rightly called “Helping Service Members Keep Their Homes Act of 2010.”

The Act which extends certain expiring provisions providing enhanced protections for service members relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosure, is part of the overall protections for those who may have encountered difficulty while serving in our armed services.

While there are true acts of heroism and sacrifice, the mere participation in a group effort should not be used as a criteria to label rather ordinary clerks and support personnel as being heroes for their mere “un-coerced” service.

True heroism and sacrifice is found in individuals like Mike Monsoor, a Navy Seal killed in action on 29 September 2006 when he deliberately and unhesitatingly jumped on a live grenade, thrown by an Iraqi insurgent,  to save his brothers-in-arms. He posthumously received the Medal of Honor.

And as much as it is regrettable that Pat Tillman, a former pro football player killed in an Afghanistan "friendly fire" accident, died in the service of his country, he did not deserve the appellation “Hero” nor did he deserve the Silver Star for Valorous Service any more than the Sergeant who dies in a car accident when under fire.

Just as policemen and firemen perform also their duties in a dangerous environment, I think that we should reserve the word “HERO” for those who go above and beyond the call of duty. Not dilute the word to cover just about everybody who ever served their country in government service.

By the way, do you know that one of the criteria for the Medal of Honor is to have gone beyond your standing  orders and direction by a superior officer?  That is, if your platoon leader orders you to charge an enemy position to suppress fire, you are not eligible for the Medal of Honor no matter how many lives you saved that day. However, if acting on your own initiative, in the face of enemy fire, you storm that enemy position – then you are a HERO and eligible for the Medal of Honor. Perhaps a subtle distinction – but a worthy distinction nonetheless.

Believe me, there are many unsung heroes deserving of medals and recognition who regard their courageous and valorous acts as simply doing what is required under the circumstances. The quiet heroes who are doing it because it is something that needs to be done and just part of the job.

Please note:  we are not speaking of respect -- all who serve deserve both our respect and thanks – but calling them heroes somewhat annoys me as it dilutes the real acts of heroism, both on the battlefield and at home. 

Bottom line …

There are heroes and there are exceptional performances – not to be diluted by regarding  the ordinary performance of one’s duty on behalf of a local, state or federal government as being worthy of the title “HERO.” Unless you are in the Soviet Union where its leaders were fond of giving themselves medals to decorate their uniforms.

Just my point of view and others are free to contradict me or comment further.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Public Law 111-34 Helping Heroes Keep Their Homes Act of 2010