A short while ago I was searching Netflix for the movie As Good As It Gets, and I came across a documentary called A-Sexual. For as peculiar and low budget as the film was, I heard something that was meaningful and thoughtful. The gist of it was: We should treat our friendships with the same respect that we (would/should) treat our romantic relationships. Particularly in the context of an absence of sex or it’s potential, that’s really something to think about.

http://nyti.ms/1hCjWSh

This article was thoughtful and indicative of some hard work in proving its various hypotheses. It will take a long time (maybe a life time) to correct the presuppositions associated with race, class, and success in the NBA, and by extension so many other things. Those assumptions have now been made less justifiable, though probably no less convenient. In spite of likely remaining steadfast, work like this is a start.

One minor criticism of this presentation relates to a common issue with presenting this kind of data. Any time a relative change is presented (“doubled”, or “increased by 200%”, for example), it doesn’t give us the truest perspective on absolute change. Is it from one million to two million, one thousand to two thousand, one to two?

It is critical to understand those distinctions and their extended impacts on the ideas the data is meant to support. This is especially true in the discussion of changes in a population over several decades. Still, none of this detracts from the article’s overall intent, and the fine job that it does.

Several months ago, the CEO of a not for profit for which I volunteer on average 4 to 5 hours a week, asked me to join a group of them to run the NYC marathon. It would be a fundraising event and a way to promote the organization. I went out the next day, bought running shoes and ran a mile or so to test the waters and gauge my investment in the idea. I’m happy to report that today, the marathon is finally upon us!! Yet, I’m sending this update (and positive vibes along with my full support) from the comfort of a warm bed. I’m a sprinter baby, we don’t do distance!!

Just turn on the news and now, apparently, everyone is a “hero”… This has often been my feeling and this week has been no different.

As children we were conditioned to see a “Hero” as a man. Not just a strong man, but a man with superhuman strength and abilities – in many ways a SUPER man. He handled SUPER problems, wielding solutions beyond what mere mortals could physically, and often mentally, grasp. He eschewed thanks with otherworldly humility – “I’m just doin’ my job.” Even in “dork mode”, he was likeable, perhaps pitiable, but never unlike us at his (solid gold) core. We rooted for him and he always came to our rescue, undoubtedly on a global scale, even in our sleep. He was always fit, usually white, usually tall, usually young, usually good looking, and occasionally spent time in the sky. THIS was a hero. Clearly, not everyone could be a hero, because after all, what would a hero be (most likely, not you)? And so began the propaganda, spread generously over time and space.

The thing about propaganda is that it rarely feels like propaganda. It even sometimes involves cartoons. Nevertheless, very few things have been tied to propaganda as much as what it means to be a hero. When the media began its liberal crowning of heroes though, something felt forced. It always has. Perhaps it needed to compensate for slow news cycles, or it could be a way to mollify the faint of heart and keep them interested in a show that is a nightly recap of the day’s murders and human discord. Either way, heroes make us feel good and we will settle for them in myriad forms; bus-drivers, fat kids, drunks, accountants, people in wheel chairs, nuns, even criminals, so long as they are being heroic. Anyone could be a hero because any one could fill this feel-good slot. I never cared for these impostors because it all seemed too convenient, too easy. I was both nostalgic for my childhood, and a product of He-Man. The ubiquity of the word “hero” and its frivolous application, seemed to dilute its meaning with every use. It was being applied to all and sundry. If everyone was a hero, who would there be to save? If everyone was a hero, that would mean that I was a hero. It would also mean that some of the people I know, who are afraid of their own shadows and snore themselves awake with a start, would be heroes. But finally I realized: the only thing that I hate more than being told what to do, is being told how to think. Just as I had been a product of He-Man, I had also been his (and Hannah Barbera’s) victim.

The historic definition of heroism is not only too narrowly defined as it relates to people, but also as it relates to acts. Courage takes many forms, as does the demonstration of one’s will, as does self-sacrifice. These are the three hallmarks of heroism; therefore, it only makes sense that heroism can take many forms. If that is true, it can only be concluded that we can all be heroes because we can all be courageous, willful and willing, and sacrificing on behalf of others. We all CAN be heroes. The guy in the dress suit never had to change his clothes or turn green, ripping his shirt to shreds to be a hero. It is not determined by how we look, who we are, Gummy-Berry juice or the Blue Pill, but on what we do on a case by case basis. This is also influenced by the statistical probability of being in the “right place at the right time”. Perhaps the person who runs into a burning building represents 30% of people who would, or 75%. Perhaps it is the rarity of people trapped in burning buildings that sets our perspectives further askew, not the rarity of heroism – perhaps fewer opportunities to exhibit heroism, not a dearth of the trait.

If you understand this, then you know that no one is consistently or even inherently a hero, just like they can’t BE a smile. We all have smiles (and burps, and frowns, and tears) within us that are “released” contingent on conspiring circumstances. We can be courageous, but we can’t BE courage. We can demonstrate courage, but not at ALL times, and not always in the same way or with the same intensity. Perhaps we should view heroism in this light – we can all BE heroes, but only through the exhibition of the traits. We can all show courage. We can all be willful and willing. We can all be self-sacrificing. Fundamentally, to be a hero is to be a good person and that should be our expectation of everyone.