There was an article I read talking about the changing face of heroes in our society. Probably more to the point, it talked about whom we define as a hero. The article took a look at TV heroes; since they are so accessible to most people, and mentioned Gregory House, Jack Bauer and Dexter as people we call heroes but probably wouldn't want to hang around with in real situations.

It brought up a number of good points about the nature of heroes. As a comic book person, while we want to aspire to be Scott Summers or Superman, we really want to be Batman or Wolverine. While we may abhor some of their tactics, we take pleasure in the fact that what they do, working from their moral code, is doing what is best in the interest of the people.

The stronger issue becomes when you put in the old stalwart superhero tag line "What becomes a hero?" When you look at a comic like Watchmen, it brings up those moral issues in stark contrast to the world around us. Is it acceptable to kill 10 million people if it will save 6 billion? In the movie The Dark Knight, the reason many critics were in awe of the film was the moral questions brought up because of the tactics batman used in the pursuit of crime, however this has always been the underpinning of the character. As long as we feel the 'hero' is on our side, many will accept the tough tactics.

In Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio is considered a hero by many because he's taking care of the immigration issue and crime. Sure, that's good if you feel your on the right side of the law, but if you're not the right hue or if you speak with a slight accent, your perception of the draconian measures of keeping people safe might rub you the wrong way. In Arizona they have started putting speeding cameras all over the state, and many law abiding people feel the cameras are an intrusion of privacy, however the supports of them use the tried and true method of protecting people from drunk drivers and protecting children.

It's not that we have a warped perception of what a hero is, but many of us see so many spots of injustice, sometimes we just want to cut through the moral ambiguity and root out the bad weeds of society. Many of us would accept this, but the very nature of heroism is to be, in some respects, above the law. The fictional characters believe what they're doing is right, no matter the consequences. So what if an innocent might be hurt, or if someone may have turned to a life of crime because of a momentary lapse of judgment, something that in a short time they would see the error of their ways and return to being solid citizens. Because they have been threatened by the hero, what might have been momentary turns to resentment and a permanent condition.

In the case of heroes, we also have to look and realize the hero is only the hero by our perception. When you look at what happened today, which actually brought me to thinking about this article, it's gives a stark look to a real life situation of a definition of hero. Bush had gone to Baghdad, and during a news conference, a reporter slipped into the conference and threw two shoes at Bush. The reporter was tackled down, Bush brushed off the incident, and during the early part of the incident, there was a lot of hand wringing with western reporters about the motives of the reporter. There was talk of swift justice against him, questions if the reporter was drunk and other instances trying to make this reporter, even through he might have been demonstrating the frustrations of a fringe element of Iraqis, in no part represented the law abiding Iraqis who may not be happy but accepted the freedom the Americans had brought them.