 |
| Bill Donovan in WWI |
We've had them in every age of America when we needed them most. I've personally met more than a few I believe will be known to History for work they are now doing and feats they will perform.
I've drawn your attention the last few weeks to Bill Donovan. He is not without controversy. No man in America will ever accomplish anything significant and find universal praise. It has been my experience the more you accomplish, the louder they scream.
In 1912, Donovan formed and led a troop of cavalry of the New York State Militia. This unit was mobilized in 1916 and served on the U.S.-Mexico border during the American government's campaign against Pancho Villa.
Did you get the opening there? He formed his own cavalry troop of Militia and led them into war.
Here's his Medal of Honor Citation: Lt. Col. Donovan personally led the assaulting wave in an attack upon a very strongly organized position, and when our troops were suffering heavy casualties he encouraged all near him by his example, moving among his men in exposed positions, reorganizing decimated platoons, and accompanying them forward in attacks. When he was wounded in the leg by machine-gun bullets, he refused to be evacuated and continued with his unit until it withdrew to a less exposed position.
In WWII America had no real intelligence capability. Bill Donovan stepped in and in a brilliantly short amount of time he put together one of the most effective Intelligence Services the world has ever seen. Of course, OSS was much more than simply an Intel service. OSS got work done. OSS moved enemies off the field. It lasted only 3 years, from 1942-45. As we all know OSS evolved into CIA.
I consider OSS to be a roll-up-your-sleeves, get-it-done, no-whining, work-with-what-you've-got, blue collar service that did real work, didn't care much for anything except results, and it worked. Bill Donovan understood the value of self-made men and didn't suffer from today's endemic snobbery of those who believe the only way a man can be good at anything is to have gone to college and then worked in that field all his life. Bill Donovan would have gotten along with Ben Franklin, I think.
Here's the thing about true heroes: They don't try to be heroes.
The men and women History remembers as heroic are those men and women who simply found a task that needed to be completed, then did it.
Yeah, I have met many of those men and women in the last few years.
We have work to do, Patriots.
Kerodin
III
Kerodin'
ReplyDelete(captaincrunch)
That story on Bill Donovan is encouraging. I am from that part of West Texas that was raided by Pancho Villa and I am familiar with many of the storys surrounding an insurgent (and thief) such as Pancho Villa.
On a sidenote; its interesting that in Mexican and Mexican Border Culture that Pancho Villa is regarded as a hero (go figure)
Its interesting that you wrote this in time when our border is being over run and there is no rule of law coming from the feds (or anywhere else)
Here in Texas, we used to kill border bandits. Now they become instant American citizens.
and are instantly eligible for welfare handouts
ReplyDeleteI think a 3 strike policy should be used.
ReplyDelete1st strike: Tag and release, identification and immediate deportation following.
2nd strike: Hard labor with the *slight* chance of being allowed to assimilate and possibly gain citizenship by good behavior, dedication to becoming American, etc. If no bueno, immediate deportation after hard labor term.
3rd strike: Body hung over the border fence.
Just my 2 cents.
The men and women History remembers as heroic are those men and women who simply found a task that needed to be completed, then did it.
ReplyDeleteI'd only add, "....and damn the cost to themselves."
LOL. I know, you can't help yourself. Would you assert that they didn't find high value in being that way? Would you deny that this is why a person does what he/she does, including so-called sacrificial actions?
DeleteIf you agree, then shouldn't it be called a benefit rather than a cost? I mean, DOING "a task that needed to be completed," does bring a benefit (payoff), does it not? Am I mistaken that this is why you and I support it?
Well, the one thing we agree about is that it's a very important point! Oh yeah, the title of the post...who made 'em?
JK - I could say the same of you "....you can't help yourself." ;-) Arguing symantics is your thing.
DeleteTo answer your question, yes, it might bring a benefit to others (and possibly the person sacrificing doing the task if he/she survives) if the actor is successful, or, in sacrificing (at great cost) themself, helps others to be successful, but that's the rub: it's typically at great personal cost to the actor, so the statement, 'Damning the cost to themselves' allows the reader to infer that the actor isn't motivated for selfish reasons, but rather the benefit of others. So, as the sacrifice/cos/benefit equationt is determined to be worthwhile by the actor, what's the problem with the addendum to Sam's thought? [rhetorical]
"'Damning the cost to themselves' allows the reader to infer that the actor isn't motivated for selfish reasons"
DeleteExactly, and yes...that's why I can't help myself. It's false, that's all.
What's important about the point is that not only is benefit good, it is and should be the motivation of one's own choices. The problem with the addendum is that it implies that non-benefit makes something better...the "cost" in your words, as if the higher the cost, the more the good. IOW, sacrifice. That's wrong...benefit makes something better, which is why I asked the questions I did. It's beneficial to be a hero, particularly in the hero's judgment.
There's an interesting sub-point. Being pragmatic, you might offer that the emotion of sacrifice produces cohesion for the team goal. It does, but what produces that even better are individuals being motivated for their own interests in pursuit of a common goal. That's how skyscrapers get built and it's also going to be the only way this particular war gets won. In case it's not obvious, that's why I keep harping on the point.
I know it's not popular to say, especially in this environment, but it's the truth nonetheless...sacrifice has been the scourge of the Earth nearly forever. I don't care about the semantics. What's important is what things are...and what the good is, is a rational person seeking to benefit by serving HIS OWN values. Very selfish.
Call it what you will, but that's the opposite of sacrifice.
"Selfishness" is different than "Self-Interest."
DeleteWe'll have to agree to disagree, because sacrifice is decidedly not the scourge of the Earth. Just the opposite: Selfish, self-absorbed, acting solely for the benefit of self, and self alone, has brought us (as a civilization) to where we are now.
Miniscule example: You think for one moment that I am personally benefiting from whatever I do for the people I try to help? (And I do a hell of a lot less than others, some of which you know, some you don't.) Seriously?!?!? It'd be a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to not get involved and try to disappear and go live on an island somewhere. My 'sacrifice' of my time, money, and effort is given so that those who come after me might enjoy a benefit from whatever small amount I can offer. The benefit I realize personally is intrinsic, and I am willing to share that intrinsic benefit with anyone else taking an active role in the way of encouragement and support, however I can do that (which compared to the others I've alluded to, isn't much, comparatively).
In my book, people who act selfishly rarely, if ever, provide much in the way of benefit to others and are, in fact, decidedly not 'good'. Conversely, people who act in their self-interest and find that to meet an objective or end result, must sacrifice in order to do it, end up not only winning, but providing benefits to others, which is demonstrably good.
The difference between selfishness and self-interest is not a hair splitting exercise, either.
Just the way I see it, but I'm ok with disagreement on the point.
"You think for one moment that I am personally benefiting from whatever I do for the people I try to help?"
DeleteYes, I do. I think you enjoy helping others (as do most people, including me), and I think you're working toward a goal that you believe is highly beneficial for all of us, including you...Liberty. Is that wrong?
I'm not trying to prove that you're a selfish SOB. I'm trying to prove that you, like all rational people, engage actions that you decide are beneficial. We have no disagreement about any of that, but for one point---you can't bring yourself to say this is a GOOD thing. I keep harping because the belief that it's bad is what led to all the collectivist bullshit in the first place.
America was built on the freedom of the individual. If the individual serving his own values were a bad thing, then the founding of this country would be a bad thing. That's all it was ever about, which is why the Constitution limits only the government and not individuals AT ALL.
Sure, "self-interest" sounds a lot better than "selfishness," but you'll have a tough time distinguishing those two without bringing in "at the expense of others," which we both fully believe is the very essence of "bad" in a social context. Without that, the two are synonymous.
It's NOT about semantics. Call it whatever you wish. "What's important is what things are...and what the good is, is a rational person seeking to benefit by serving HIS OWN values. Very selfish." Yes, that's exactly what you do...serve YOUR values as YOU choose them to be. It's silly to try and deny that, and I know you don't...I'm trying to get you to see that this is what the good IS, at least here on Earth among free-willed beings.
+1 Trainer...You have the right of it...
ReplyDelete