Back in July of 2003, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and his boy rescued a couple of guys from drowning in a lake. The guys’ boat had sunk, and the Romney’s, who were fishing in the same lake, steered their boat over and pulled the guys out of the water. Obviously, this was too juicy a story for any Herald writer to pass up, and so the predictable media hub-bub ensued, with many people calling the Governor and his son “heroes.”

In an opinion article some republicans decried as partisan sour grapes, the Boston Globe’s Scott Leigh wrote that he did not think the Romney’s actions amounted to “heroism” (the original article is now behind the Globe Website’s pay wall, but you can see the article quoted extensively here).

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Properly speaking, however, Mitt is not a hero at all but rather a Good Samaritan. Granted, in the loose and liberal definition of modern laurels, the notion of heroism has largely lost its meaning. Thus it is that a precocious tot who dials 911 to secure help for a stricken family member now qualifies as a hero, as does the plucky pooch whose insistent barking alerts a sleeping family to a fire smoldering in the basement.

True heroism, however, comes only at the very real risk of physical harm to the rescuer. Which is why the stories of actual heroes impress themselves indelibly on our imagination.

Let me first say that it is in very bad taste for a liberal columnist to write an article devoted to bitching about the coverage being given to a Governor who actually saved lives. Let me next state that I agree with Leigh.

Scott Leigh puts into succinct wording exactly what I’ve always believed: to be a true hero, one must put his own well-being in peril in order to help others. Red Cross workers going into African war zones to treat the sick? Heroes. Firefighters running into burning buildings? Heroes. The Romney’s paddling over and pulling a couple of guys out of the water? Not so much.

All that said, there is a big group of people that I consider real heroes, and that is everyone who rushed to the Ground Zero site in the wake of 9/11. These people were New Yorkers who, in some sense of the word, had already survived 9/11. While most of us were staring anxiously at the skies above, wondering if and when the attacks would abate, these people rushed forth towards the wobbling buildings and dust filled air of attack site.

Some stayed in the unsafe environment for weeks (some for months), wheezing and coughing up black soot from their lungs all the while. The people who worked in the World Trade Centers did not choose to be part of the attacks of 9/11. They were ruthlessly murdered; they were victims. It was amazing to witness those who rushed to the scene in the aftermath, people who were spared on that Tuesday morning, choose to become part of the events of 9/11, choose, as it turns out, to hurt themselves in the process.

Those heroes are sick now. A few have even died, their lungs simply giving out all these years after they inhaled the toxic dust brew of pulverized asbestos, concrete, glass, lead… that they breathed in that morning and in the days that followed. Many of the worker’s have seen their lung capacity decrease by 40% since before they worked at the pile. Imagine that: you take a breath and only receive 60% of the air you’re used to. 60% of the air you need. They still cough of black sludge. Autopsies of those who die reveal their lung tissue had turned black.

As of right now there is many of the Ground Zero workers aren’t getting any help to pay for thier medical costs. Obviously, that situation needs to be rectified.