The Umpire
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Losing when you've given it your best can be a very good thing. If the winner has done the same during a fair fight there is much to be said for the game. Shake hands and acknowledge the challenge, nod and move on with respect for a job well done on both sides.
Winning when the adversary has a team and you're a solo player is a bit different. You may have a few cheerleaders and fill some seats in the bleachers, but you're likely down for the count. Unless you play not to win ... but to change the game. To expand the margins and question the established rules. To question the very purpose of the combat. For then - you're no longer a participant, you are a reason for enlightenment. And achievement becomes an art, a dance between two opposing attractions.
Sadly - too many things, people, are lost without a fair fight. Yet there is much to be learned by the endeavour. Perhaps the future is the ultimate umpire.
"The good fight" is not often fair, and never easily won.
Many of us attempt it only rarely.
And yes, sometimes we don't even know how we've done until well after, when we may be looking back from some distance.
Count me as one in your bleacher seats.
June 17, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like sacrificing one's own chance of victory in exchange of winning a smaller achievement to benefit the many? Like the man in China that stood defiant in front of the tank in Tienanmen Square? Hmmm.
You always make me work hard at thinking, barefooted Missy
June 17, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steroids; promises of fortunes to young amateurs, millions, nay billions to promoters...
And that is just sports.
I mean apply it to campaigns...
You know Obama did something like this. I mean he looked at the rules and he kind of said: screw this.
Big guys are not going to contribute to my campaign.
And he took his black twitter ipod thingy and spoke to millions of Americans.
And America responded. I mean, it was the repubs who were having trouble getting money.
THE END
June 17, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
M, after this year, I could write a book, if not the book, on:
"Winning when the adversary has a team and you're a solo player is a bit different. You may have a few cheerleaders and fill some seats in the bleachers, but you're likely down for the count. Unless you play not to win ... but to change the game. To expand the margins and question the established rules. To question the very purpose of the combat. For then - you're no longer a participant, you are a reason for enlightenment. And achievement becomes an art, a dance between two opposing attractions. "
I knew the odds, all too well. In fact, in an earlier post (that I have since deleted) I said I had" won the battle if not the war. "
Prescient words, those. But the point?
I would do it all again, to "change the game, to expand the margins."
It is enough.
June 17, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bravest thing a person can do is to face the prospect of losing head-on without fear of consequence. In the end, that's the definition of a winner.
I'm sorry you deleted your post, Wendy. I would love to have read it, as it's author is someone I greatly admire.
June 17, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Perhaps the future is the ultimate umpire."
Perhaps the decision by the Minnesota Supremes, still in the future as I respond to your post but not for long I think- and perhaps the effect of the demonstrations in Iran- are not even far enough in the future to quantify. For in the absence of our committed involvement in, and to, the present, the future can do little besides look back with regret.
So I agree with you, playing to change the game is the ticket.
June 18, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Thank you, leftyloosey.
June 18, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink