"Do What You Can, With What You Have, Where You Are."

Review: “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”

Category: Sayings

Author: Bill Widener, through Theodore Roosevelt

Rating: 95%

The phrase ‘Do what you can, with what you’ve got, where you are’, or its variant ‘do what you can, with what you have, where you are’, are quotations often attributed to Theodore Roosevelt, 26^th president of the United States of America. The words do appear in Roosevelt’s autobiography, in chapter IX, page 336, but the president attributes them to a squire Bill Widener, of Virginia. There is no metaphorical undertow to the phrase, it is entirely literal.

This is one of the best maxims ever, especially when compared with other quotations attributed to Roosevelt, such as ‘A perfectly stupid race can never rise to a very high plane; the negro, for instance’. This time, however, he’s really nailed it: the phrase never stops being good advice.

It would have been nice if Roosevelt hadn’t stolen the idea from someone else, but if Bill Widener was too selfish to write this great thought down, fine. He doesn’t deserve the credit for it. It’s not very punchy, but it’s more a mantra than a quotable quote, so you’ve got to forgive it really. There’s no imagery or subtext- no bullshit, because Teddy tells it like it is (except for the negro thing, that was a bit of a misfire).

I guess the downside is that if you followed this tenet the whole time, you’d never move. Some sort of motive needs to be inserted- ‘Do what you can, with what you have, where you are, or go somewhere else’ might be better. Or maybe something figuratively motive: 'do what you can, with what you have, where you are, if you want'.

I give up, the phrase is impossible to improve; I have nothing else to say. Carry this sage advice with you always. If you want.

"Why Buy the Cow When Milk is Free?"

Review: “Why buy the cow when milk is free?”

Category: Sayings

Author: 17^th Century Cynics

Rating: 60%

“Why buy the cow when milk is free?” is an English-language idiom. It is a rhetorical question, highlighting a flawed attainment process. In syllogistic terms, it might be reduced to ‘If the purpose of action Y is to gain/achieve result X, and result X is abundant/facile regardless of the performance of action Y, then action Y is A. Superfluous and/or B. Likely to be perceived as superfluous’. The phrase is often applied to marriage- to use our example structure, X= milk/sexual intercourse, Y= cow purchasing/marriage. The term is one of the most enduring idioms of its kind, probably because of the joint agricultural/economic lexicon, and because of its relationship to sex.

Sex sells, and this phrase proves that. I am, in spite of the cheap pandering, very impressed by it; it’s still as relevant today as when it was first used. It can’t be reapplied to much else, of course, except sex outside of marriage. It’s very good in this context though, because it has the added bonus of comparing the oversexed partner to a cow, which adds force to any argument.

The problem arises when one actually thinks about the implications. Okay, so you shouldn’t have extra-marital sex because it means you won’t get married. But cows are expensive, a lot more expensive than free milk; weddings are expensive, a lot more expensive than free sex. Who wants to buy a wedding when they can have sex for free? Suddenly, sexing it up doesn’t seem like such a bad idea.

Furthermore, the question can be answered, though rhetorical. ‘Why buy the cow, when milk is free?’ Because I also need cheese. Milk isn’t the only dairy product. And what about cream? You still need a cow, buddy. Think about it.

And the scenario isn’t feasible. Free milk? There’s no such thing as free milk, just like there’s no such thing as free sex: sex uses up lots of energy, and makes you hungry. If you’ve been lucky enough to set up a deal with some insane dairy farmer, who’s prepared to give you complimentary products, and have them delivered to you direct so that you incur literally no expense, don’t even think about buying the cow. In fact, don’t do anything that’s likely to make other people aware of the sweet deal you’re getting.

It’s irresponsible of course- you know perfectly well that this isn’t an economically viable route for the farmer, and yet you continue to allow him to give you free milk. Free milk is irresponsible. If you’re receiving free milk in this way, it would be courteous to at least adopt one of the dairy farmer’s cows, making some token monetary contribution. THAT is why you should buy the cow, when the milk is free: if you don’t, then you’re an evil parasite. I think that’s probably a clearer way of putting it: ‘Why accept free milk, when that would make you a worthless and evil parasite?’

It’s worth mentioning that this phrase has a number of variations, including "Why buy the cow when milk is cheap?" Well, numbskull, because in this context milk is consumable whereas cows aren’t, therefore milk is bound to be ‘cheap’ in comparison with cows, which are effectively an interminable supply of milk. Congratulations on coining a phrase about dairy farming and economics, when you clearly don’t understand either.

All in all, not a bad little piece of rhetoric, as long as you avoid the variations. The problems with it are irritating, but don’t amount to much; if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The phrase shows no signs of leaving the language, so this is undoubtedly one cow which we can continue to milk, gratis, for the foreseeable future.