Success is hard to define. We think we know it when we see it. But we seldom do. In fact, more often than not we actually misidentify things such as material abundance, popularity or power as “success.” They can in fact be correlative with success, but they are not success or even necessarily proof of success.
Thankfully as we get older this becomes more and more intuitive to us. We learn to focus our inquiry when thinking about success. The old maxim that “no man is a hero to his valet” reminds us that we are all ultimately only human. The march of mortality as well prevents any illusion to the contrary from lodging with sustained firmness in any but the most unsuccessfully matured mind. So we come to realize there are a lot of ways to define to success, to measure it, and to weigh it in terms of the overall picture of what or who it is we’re considering.
Now, this blog’s title is an allusion to one of the criteria used by courts to decide whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction in a civil litigation matter. Typically the elements weighed by a judge are (a) a balancing of harms as between what will happen if an injunction does issue, compared to if it does not; (b) whether the harm sought to be prevented is “irreparable harm”–meaning the relief sought is the only way to compensate the party seeking it or whether plain old money will do the trick without too much guesswork or speculation regarding the harm done; (c) a consideration of whether the issuance of the injunction will be in the public interest and (d) whether the party seeking the injunction can show its likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying legal claim.
This last element requires a judge to do a quick once-over of “the case” presented to him and evaluate whether the party seeking the injunction has put forth a plausible and appropriately authenticated prima facie factual set of claims which, in the framework of the applicable legal doctrines set out by the plaintiff, looks like a winner. Typically along with the issuance of a preliminary injunction, a court will require the plaintiff to post a bond, so that if something material turns out to have been misrepresented or misunderstood and harm results to the enjoined party, the court knows that party has recourse to the bond for compensation.
Blogging, however, does not require such profound undertakings.
Read the rest of this entry »
Read the rest of this entry »
Today is the Jewish holiday of Purim. (Unlike the biblically-based Jewish holidays, this is one, like Chanuka, on which I’m allowed to blog!)
As well explained in the Book of Esther, it’s the holiday of turnabout, surprises, false identities, intrigue, perhaps some emotional legerdemain, and not a little spiritual confusion. The outcome isn’t always funny, or even fun, except perhaps in the sense of the divine comedy.
It all comes around in the end, though!
I’m not someone who wants to see a killer whale killed just because it killed someone. It’s what killer whales do, and of course Dawn Brancheau, the Seaworld trainer who was killed by an off-kilter orca yesterday, knew that well. Still and all, there’s something not only circular but disturbing about the reasoning displayed in this AP article about the Seaworld tragedy:
Brancheau’s older sister, Diane Gross, said the trainer would not have wanted anything done to the whale. “She loved the whales like her children. She loved all of them,” said Gross, of Schererville, Ind. “They all had personalities, good days and bad days.”
In a profile in the Orlando Sentinel in 2006, Brancheau acknowledged the dangers, saying: “You can’t put yourself in the water unless you trust them and they trust you.” . . .
Howard Garrett, co-founder and director of the Washington-based nonprofit Orca Network, . . . . said Tilikum was probably agitated before Wednesday’s attack, possibly from some kind of clash with the other whales.
Gary Wilson, a professor at Moorpark College’s exotic animal training program, said it can be difficult to detect when an animal is about to turn on its trainer.
“One of the challenges working with any animal is learning to read its body language and getting a feel for what’s going on in its mind,” he said.
Right. But here’s the thing: If Dawn Brancheau wasn’t up to meeting that challenge–she who “loved the whales like her children,” and who knew their personalities, and the fact that they had “good days and bad days”–who is? She was everything you would expect someone to be who is capable of “learning to read [an orca's] body language and getting a feel for what’s going on in its mind.”
So is the job of killer whale trainer at Sea World one in which you acknowledge the distinct possibility that you could do everything right but still get killed doing it? That would not make such a job particularly unusual; millions of people do such work, and have a lot less fun at it than Dawn Brancheau did at her job until the sad day when it stopped very hard at being fun. And not all such jobs are all that more “serious” than the one that took Brancheau’s life, or as economically productive either.
I’m not so much a “there oughtta be a law guy,” as I said in a recent post where I uncharacteristically said just that. I don’t think there is a need for a law here, either. It’ s hard to imagine choosing to risk death so you can do a whale show. But if it’s truly a choice, so be it. That means, however, that if orca trainers and those like them are going to at least be said to have made their potentially deadly career choices voluntarily, they’ll have to think more clearly than at least the Associated Press wrote in lining up those quotations and leaving the obvious contradiction they raise hanging.
UPDATE: A tad more rigor at Overlawyered.
Not mine, mind you. I send John Hawkins down to round everything up for me. If I were to attend in person, the whole mystery persona would be shot! Look what happens to Ron Paul, for example, when people actually look under that rock. Yeah, there goes my putsch strategy. So that’s right out. But Right Wing News has just released the top 20 quotes from CPAC 2010. I’m not even saying they’re even all safe for work–they’re not.
That’s the other reason I don’t go to CPAC. Because I’m the last cultural conservative, remember?
No, it’s not all good.
Out of nowhere comes Google Buzz. It’s social networking that just appeared in your mailbox! As Adrian Dayton said earlier today, “I feel a little bit like I have been “spammed” into joining Google Buzz.”
Here’s a chat I had this morning with social media consultant (not “guru”!) Brian Wallace, who is entirely responsible for everything I have achieved with (and nothing I have abused via) social media, and he is not a happy camper, either:
I was not so impressed with this blizzard. That’s just me, what can I say? I hear down south, now, that was something else.
But I think it took some decent pictures in places like nearby Passaic, New Jersey, where I get off the train and, typically, drive to the evening service.
There are definitely some garden spots where a nice white coating of snow is just about right.