I’m ‘uncomfortable’ calling liberals patriots

Of course. I'm really not. But it's a good way to begin this note on the crazy things American liberal thought brings people to sometimes say. Heroes come in all shapes, colors, religions and political backgrounds. Military heroes put their lives in harm's way and they don't have to pass any kind of political litmus test to gain my admiration.

You have my respect. Period.

Why is that so hard for some?

Consider Chris Hayes, an MSNBC host. In his Memorial Day themed show he said this:

"I think it's interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words 'heroes.' Why do I feel so [uncomfortable] about the word 'hero'? I feel comfortable -- uncomfortable -- about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that."

What? Using the word "hero" makes him uncomfortable because it somehow makes war a good thing?

What hogwash. Yet, I suspect (no, I know) that's exactly how some liberals feel. They hate war and by extension they hate those asked to make war.

Hayes later apologized saying:

"On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word 'hero' to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.

"As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.

"But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry."

If you think that's an apology, then fine. Doesn't sound like much of one to me. Sounds more like a plea for this not to become any bigger of a deal than it really is so that he can keep his MSNBC teevee hosting gig. I wouldn't worry, Chris. You'll probably get a raise from MSNBC.