Skip to main content

On Bucking the Odds

A good friend of mine expressed this sentiment concerning the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court: "He'll get appointed no matter what Democrats do or the public does."  The same could be said about Donald Trump and Republican Senators and Representatives carrying out their agendas. 

That conclusion, while often true, reflects an attitude that disturbs me.  It's an attitude of resignation and defeat, where I would prefer an attitude of committing to the struggle despite the odds.  Now I agree that one should be as objective as possible, particularly in terms of strategizing in the face of overwhelming odds.  One's options can be extremely limited.  But if you quit the fight before it's over, you're just accepting victimization, which can quickly turn into seeking pity. 

I prefer losing in the ring to seeking pity for quitting the fight.  I believe even the person quoted above believes, or wants to believe, the same.  That person happens to be a big fan of the "Star Wars" films, a favorite scene being when Han Solo tells his android advisor, "Don't tell me the odds!",  when going into an almost hopeless battle.  Granted, in the movies the heroes always beat the odds, but the lesson for me is that people want to believe in fighting against great odds.

I recommend strongly considering continuing the fight.  Even if you lose, you are not a subject of pity if you have tried your best.  I have been criticized for tilting at windmills, but I prefer that to being criticized for surrendering too soon.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "   - Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

- PeteBarkett.blogspot.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Henry and The Common Good

Well John Henry said to the captain "By   god I ain't no fool Before I die with a hammer in my hand I'm gonna get me a steam drill, too, lord, lord Get me a steam drill, too" - parody by the great Smothers Brothers They had the right idea.   Instead of millions of workers being put out of work by robots, workers should have ownership of the robots that replace them, which they then lease to the companies that they once worked for, giving them a wage, a stake in the success of the company, and the opportunity to do other work as well.   This would be not too dissimilar to the annual dividends that all Alaskans get from the energy companies, although there will need to be an alternative as we move away from fossil fuels.   This would all fall under the broad umbrella of taking care of the common good, a concept that we've too often replaced with individualism.   Entrepreneurial spirit is fine.   I had it when I ran a small business. ...
Post a Comment
Read more
The National Rifle Association-backed gun advocates claim that passing this law or that law wouldn't have prevented this mass shooting or that mass shooting.  It's a completely false argument.  It's like saying that passing this election reform law or that election reform law wouldn't have prevented Donald Trump or Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan from being elected.  It may be true, but it would be a good start. - Pete Barkett   02/22/18
Post a Comment
Read more

Musings

  Right-To-Lifers Don’t Go Far Enough       I was pro-choice, but I’ve changed my mind.   The problem is not that the State should govern what a woman does with her body, the problem is that the State has not gone far enough.   The argument is that to protect the life of a fetus, the State must overrule a woman’s privacy and bodily autonomy and regulate her body for her.   Fine.   If we want the State to be in the business of protecting life through bodily regulation, then go all in.   Stick to the prime directive.   Protect all life.   The State should govern both men and women to protect life.   The State should tell any healthy person what to do with their body in order to protect life.   So, if someone needs a kidney, liver, or any organ transplant to save their life, the State should find someone and take whatever parts are needed to save that life.   If not, then we are allowing organ-icide.   (...
Post a Comment
Read more