Quote:
Originally Posted by McLovin
My guess is the distinction was made because people who invent polio vaccines, donate money, go to college to get a degree, win a Nobel prize, etc. generally aren't putting their lives on the line (and putting their lives in danger, far above the normal call of duty while engaging an enemy combatant) in service of the country to accomplish those things. Some might see a distinction there, I guess others don't.
|
Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, which ended period polio epidemics that used to kill thousands of children and paralyze many tens of thousands more, in the US alone. Albert Einstein discovered fundamental physical laws that enabled nuclear energy and weapons, space exploration, telecommunications and much more.
Would mankind be worse off without Salk or Einstein's contributions, or without the contribution of a Medal of Honor recipient who showed incredible bravery and self-sacrifice on the battlefied thereby saving several comrades but made no particular difference to the outcome of the battle, campaign, war, or history?
I think mankind should be more grateful for Salk or Einstein. Yet it should a federal crime to impersonate the medal recipient, but not the scientist? Doesn't make sense to me.
I think that when our military and our veterans are involved, a variety of emotions and political calculations get triggered which sometimes get in the way of logical thinking.
Perhaps the Senators who passed the law in 2006 could rather have devoted their attention to, say, the state of medical care for disabled soldiers - you know, something more useful.