Amazing Life Lessons From Albert Einstein

10 Amazing Life Lessons You Can Learn From Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein has long been considered a genius by the masses. He was a theoretical physicist, philosopher, author, and is perhaps the most influential scientists to ever live.

Einstein has made great contributions to the scientific world, including the theory of relativity, the founding of relativistic cosmology, the prediction of the deflection of light by gravity, the quantum theory of atomic motion in solids, the zero-point energy concept, and the quantum theory of a monatomic gas which predicted Bose–Einstein condensation, to name a few of his scientific contributions.

Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.”

He’s published more than 300 scientific works and over 150 non-scientific works. Einstein is considered the father of modern physics and is probably the most successful scientist there ever was.

10 Amazing Lessons from Albert Einstein:

1. Follow Your Curiosity
   
   

   “I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”

   
   What piques your curiosity? I am curious as to what causes one person to succeed while another person fails; this is why I’ve spent years studying success. What are you most curious about? The pursuit of your curiosity is the secret to your success.


2. Perseverance is Priceless
   

   “It's not that I'm so smart; it's just that I stay with problems longer.”

   
   Through perseverance the turtle reached the ark. Are you willing to persevere until you get to your intended destination? They say the entire value of the postage stamp consist in its ability to stick to something until it gets there. Be like the postage stamp; finish the race that you’ve started!


3. Focus on the Present
   
   

   “Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.”

   
   My father always says you cannot ride two horses at the same time. I like to say, you can do anything, but not everything. Learn to be present where you are; give your all to whatever you’re currently doing.
   
   Focused energy is power, and it’s the difference between success and failure.


4. The Imagination is Powerful
   
   

   “Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions. Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

   
   Are you using your imagination daily? Einstein said the imagination is more important than knowledge! Your imagination pre-plays your future. Einstein went on to say, “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination.” Are you exercising your “imagination muscles” daily, don’t let something as powerful as your imagination lie dormant.


5. Make Mistakes
   
   

   “A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.”

   
   Never be afraid of making a mistake. A mistake is not a failure. Mistakes can make you better, smarter and faster, if you utilize them properly. Discover the power of making mistakes. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, if you want to succeed, triple the amount of mistakes that you make.


6. Live in the Moment
   
   

   “I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.”

   
   The only way to properly address your future is to be as present as possible “in the present.”
   
   You cannot “presently” change yesterday or tomorrow, so it’s of supreme importance that you dedicate all of your efforts to “right now.” It’s the only time that matters, it’s the only time there is.


7. Create Value
   
   

   “Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value."

   
   Don’t waste your time trying to be successful, spend your time creating value. If you’re valuable, then you will attract success.
   
   Discover the talents and gifts that you possess, learn how to offer those talents and gifts in a way that most benefits others.
   
   Labor to be valuable and success will chase you down.


8. Don’t Expect Different Results
   
   

   “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

   
   You can’t keep doing the same thing everyday and expect different results. In other words, you can’t keep doing the same workout routine and expect to look differently. In order for your life to change, you must change, to the degree that you change your actions and your thinking is to the degree that your life will change.


9. Knowledge Comes From Experience
   
   

   “Information is not knowledge. The only source of knowledge is experience.”

   
   Knowledge comes from experience. You can discuss a task, but discussion will only give you a philosophical understanding of it; you must experience the task first hand to “know it.” What’s the lesson? Get experience! Don’t spend your time hiding behind speculative information, go out there and do it, and you will have gained priceless knowledge.


10. Learn the Rules and Then Play Better
    
    

    “You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.”

    
    To put it all in simple terms, there are two things that you must do. The first thing you must do is to learn the rules of the game that you’re playing. It doesn’t sound exciting, but it’s vital. Secondly, you must commit to play the game better than anyone else. If you can do these two things, success will be yours!

Federal Confusion

Access to justice is a fundamental human right. There should be no doubt whether one is procedurally entitled to file a case or not because lawyers and litigants rely on judicial precedent to guide their conduct in litigation.

Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court states as follows:

For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to hear any application or to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Federal Court in a series of inconsistent decisions have caused much confusion as to whether Rule 137 allows a review of its previous decisions.

In the most recent (Jan 18, 2012) reported case Simpang Empat, the Court held that Rule 137 could be invoked. On the Bench were Sharif, Maarop and Lah FCJJ.

On Jan 26, 2012, V. Anbalagan of the NST reported that in Panflex, the Court held not:

The apex court says it cannot review its own judgments

A FEDERAL Court bench has ruled that it is unconstitutional and illegal to review an earlier judgment of the apex court.

Federal Court judge Tan Sri Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff said the Constitution and the Courts of Judicature Act (Coja) 1964 did not provide the apex court the jurisdiction to review such substantive matters.

“This court cannot sit as a court of appeal,” Ghazali said in his judgment, which dismissed a review application by Panflex Sdn Bhd over a breach of contract case decided last year.

He said paving the way for a appeal would open the floodgates and cause further uncertainty in the law.

“It would be intolerable and most prejudicial to the public if cases, once decided by the Federal Court, could be reopened and reheard.”

The judgment was made available on Jan 16.

Judges Datuk Hashim Yusof and Datuk Ahmad Maarop were the other members who reached the unanimous decision.

Ghazali said the Rules Committee, which enacted Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules, could not confer jurisdiction to the Federal Court to review its own ruling.

The panel also indicated that only a constitutional amendment could confer authority to the Federal Court to reopen a matter already decided.

Ghazali, who retires tomorrow, said the apex court was the “court of last resort” after the right to appeal to the Privy Council was abolished.

He said unlike India, the Malaysian Constitution did not empower the Federal Court to review its own decision.

Ghazali said the Constitution only allowed the Federal Court to hear matters by way of reference from a High Court, by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for a legal opinion or by federal law.

He said Coja was a federal law and the Federal Court was only empowered to hear leave to appeal applications and civil appeals.

There have been conflicting decisions by several Federal Court benches whether Rule 137 could be relied upon to rectify an injustice or abuse of the court process.

Malaysian Bar president Lim Chee Wee said Ghazali’s judgment was inconsistent with previous Federal Court decisions.

He said in at least two judgments, the apex court, among others, had held that in order to succeed under Rule 137, the applicant must show that there was injustice.

“A court of final instance must be equipped with residual jurisdiction to rehear its own earlier decision in a fit and proper case, but it must be done in exceptional cases.”

Lim said the uncertainty caused must be resolved by another enlarged Federal Court bench.

On the Bench were Ghazali, Hashim Yusoff and Maarop FCJJ.

With regard to using Rule 137 to review previous Court of Appeal decisions, a similar pattern has now arisen.

It was thought settled that litigants could not rely on Rule 137 to review Court of Appeal decisions: see Sia Cheng Soon (2008) not following Eric Chia.

On Nov 14, 2011, this position changed. The Federal Court in the Kota Siputeh case reinstatedEric Chia and held that Rule 137 may be used. On the Bench were Makinudin, Hashim Yusoff and Maarop FCJJ.

Reading Panflex and Kota Siputeh together as being the latest Federal Court pronouncements on the issue, the net result is that Rule 137 may be invoked to review previous Court of Appeal decisions but not previous Federal Court decisions.

Drug Weight Discrepancy

This will get you killed in Malaysia!

The recent Federal Court decision of Loh Kah Loon v PP [2011] 5 CLJ 345 (coram of Zulkefli Makinudin, Raus Sharif and Abdull Hamid Embong FCJJ) decided on 26 April 2011 is a worrying decision if it is a barometer of the court’s current and future attitude towards criminal cases. The judgment is also worrying if that is the general quality of consideration and thoroughness the bench holds itself to in deciding capital offence cases. When that decision is considered and juxtaposed with the Federal Court decision of Yusri bin Pialmi v PP [2011] 4 MLJ 533 (coram of Zaki Azmi CJ, Zulkefli Makinudin and Abdul Hamid Embong FCJJ) and Tan Yew Choy v PP[2009] 4 CLJ 245 (coram of Alauddin Mohd Shariff PCA, Ariffin Zakaria CJ (Malaya) and Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ), it raises interesting questions about the dynamics of decision making at the Federal Court bench.

The case of Loh Kah Loon

Loh Kah Loon relates to an accused charged pursuant to section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for trafficking 115.54 grams of methamphetamine. It is important to bear in mind that this provision carries the sentence of hanging until death upon conviction to appreciate the magnitude of Loh Kah Loon‘s injustice.

The sole issue raised by the learned counsel, Encik Hisham Teh Poh Teik, was about the identity of the drugs. His argument ran as follows: there is a doubt about the identity of the drugs because the investigating officer (commonly referred to as the ‘IO’) testified that thegross weight of the drugs was 200 grams at the time of arrest but the chemist found that thenet weight of the drugs at the time of testing was 214.74 grams. Since there was no explanation by the prosecution as to how the weight of the drugs increased between the time of arrest and testing, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs Loh was charged with was the actual drugs he was caught with.

This argument by the time Loh‘s case came up was not new. A similar argument was raised and found success in the Federal Court decisions of Yusri Pialmi v PP [2010] 6 CLJ 878 , Tan Yew Choy [2009] 4 CLJ 245 and Yeong Kia Heng v PP [1992] 1 CLJ 364 (Hashim Yeop Sani CJ (Malaya), Harun Hashim and Gunn Chit Tuan SCJJ). Following those line of authorities, how Lohshould have been decided was obvious.

However, the Federal Court unanimously dismissed his appeal for the following reasons (Raus Sharif FCJ (now PCA) wrote the judgment):

1. The cases of Yusri Pialmi and Tan Yew Choy can be distinguished based on the facts.
2. In Yusri Pialmi, the issue of weight was not the only issue – it was linked to the issue of a break of the chain of evidence.
3. In Tan Yew Choy however the ratio decidendi was in respect of the judge’s failure to resolve the discrepancy of the weight of the drugs between that recorded by the raiding officer and the investigating officer.
4. In Yeong Kia Heng, the case can be distinguished because there were other issues aside from the weight discrepancy; there was also variance between the police and chemist with regard to the odour and description of the heroin.
5. The courts below (the High Court and the Court of Appeal) felt that the prosecution should not lose the case on this issue.
6. On the facts of Loh the weight was not a ‘borderline’ case since it was 65.24 grams in excess of the presumptive limit.

A critical analysis of Loh Kah Loon

Clearly, an important step in the ratio of the judgment is the correctness in distinguishing the cases of Yusri Pialmi, Tan Yew Choy and Yeong Kia Heng from Loh Kah Loon. It is therefore necessary to consider precisely what these cases decided.

A consideration of Yeong Kia Heng

Raus FCJ in Loh Kah Loon said the following about the case:

The case of Yeong Kia Heng is also distinguishable on the facts from the present case. In that case, the investigating officer said the weight of the heroin was 113 grams whilst the chemist said it was 102.85 grams. But that was not the only issue. The then Supreme Court found that there were discrepancies between the evidence given by the police and the evidence given by the chemist with regard to the odour and description of the heroin tendered in court. [Emphasis mine]

However, this is how Gunn Chit Tuan SCJ wrote the judgment:

Keterangan yang tersebut di atas menunjukkan kecacatan dalam pembuktian identiti barang kes yang menjadi subjek pendakwaan terhadap perayu. Kecacatan itu menjadi subjek pendakwaan terhadap perayu. Kecacatan itu menjadi lebih ketara apabila keterangan dari pihak polis dibandingkan dengan keterangan pegawai kimia berkenaan dengan berat barang kes. Mengikut pihak polis berat barang kes ialah 113 gram. Ini ialah keterangan daripada Insp. Che Nor Ismail (SP5). Mengikut keterangan pegawai kimia (SP2) pula, berat barang-barang yang diterimanya dari pihak polis ialah 102.85 gram, iaitu perbezaan lebih dari 10 gram.

Berdasarkan kepada keterangan-keterangan yang tersebut di atas wujudlah satu keraguan yang serius berkenaan dengan identiti barang kes. Memandangkan kepada keterangan sebegini rupa berkenaan dengan identiti-identiti barang kes, perayu sememangnya tidak dikehendaki dipanggil untuk membela dirinya di atas pertuduhan itu. [Emphasis mine]

So although Gunn Chit Tuan SCJ did appreciate that there were other facts that went towards calling the drug exhibit into question, his Lordship said that the fact that there was a difference of more than 10 grams between the net weight and gross weight made it lebih ketara (more clear) that there was a reasonable doubt raised as to its identity. The difference in weight was therefore not simply corroborative but confirmatory.

It is also unclear where Raus FCJ found a discrepancy regarding the ‘odour’ of the drugs since this was not mentioned anywhere in the Gunn Chit Tuan’s judgment. What is more the onlydifference in description was that the arresting officer described it as ketul-ketulan berwarna merah jambu (pink lumps) whereas the chemist describes it as seruk berwarna merah jambu(pink powder). When Gun Chit Tuan’s judgment is carefully read, the weight discrepancy was not simply a supportive factor but a crucial fact to deciding that there was a reasonable doubt raised about the identity of the drug.

A consideration of Tan Yew Choy

Raus FCJ said the following in distinguishing this decision:

In Tan Yew Choy, the issue was more on the failure of the learned trial judge in not resolving the doubt as to the weight of the cannabis. In Tan Yew Choy, the drug in question was cannabis. The statutory presumption of trafficking for cannabis under s. 37(da)(vi) of the DDA is 200 grams. However, the raiding officer and investigating officer indicated that the weight of the cannabis was 205 grams. Whereas according to the chemist, the total weight of the cannabis was 224.65 grams. Thus, the amount of the cannabis which was the subject matter of the charge was just 5 grams as weighed by the investigating officer or 24.65 grams as weighed by the chemist for the statutory presumption of trafficking to be triggered. However, the learned trial judge failed to address the issue, which according to this court is of particular importance. This is because the weight is a borderline amount that can trigger the statutory presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da)(vi) of the DDA. [Emphasis mine]

Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ wrote the judgment for Tan Yew Choy. Although paragraphs 10 – 12 of the judgment are most relevant, I think it suffices to reproduce paragraph 12 to demonstrate the point:

[12] We are of the view that if we were to accept the reasons given by the learned trial judge as representing the correct law it means that the identity of the exhibit when it is first recovered is immaterial as ultimately what is important is the weight as determined by the chemist. With respect, this is not the law. In the present case the appellant has shown there is a discrepancy in that the nett weight of the cannabis as determined by the chemist exceeded the gross weight of the cannabis when they were first recovered by the police. It would therefore follow that the prosecution cannot be said to have proven the offence of trafficking beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. A reasonable doubt has been created as to whether the cannabis that was recovered by the police that was sent to the chemist for analysis is the same substance that is found to be cannabis and it is in respect of that substance that the appellant is charged with trafficking. (See the case of Gunalan Ramachandran & Ors. v. PP [2004] 4 CLJ 551). On this ground alone the appellant would succeed in his appeal. [Emphasis mine]

So although Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ did remark that ‘the learned trial judge erred in law in not resolving this aspect in favour of the appellant bearing in mind that this is a borderline case where the weight of the cannabis is 224.65 grams and that amount is only 24.65 in excess of the amount of 200 grams to attract the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 37(da) of the Act’, what his Lordship meant was that the issue of weight difference should have been resolved in the accused’s favour by ruling that there was a doubt in respect of the identity of the drugs. What is more Raus FCJ appears to have overlooked the last sentence of the quote above which clearly states that the sole issue of a discrepancy in the weight of the drugs would enable an accused to succeed in his appeal.

A consideration of Yusri Pialmi

Raus FCJ’s remarks in relation to this case is as follows:

“In Yusri bin Pialmi, the difference in the weight was not the only issue. There was another issue ie, the issue of a break in the chain of evidence, which this court held to be fatal to the prosecution’s case.”

“…”

“In Yusri bin Pialmi, this court basically found there was doubt as to the identity of the exhibit ie, the cannabis. It is because the movement of the cannabis was not clearly explained by the prosecution witnesses. However, in the present case, the movement of the exhibits was well explained. PW3, the raiding officer testified that from the time he took possession of the exhibits at the place of incident until he handed them over to the investigating officer (PW8), the drug exhibits were under his personal custody and control.” [Emphasis mine]

Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ who wrote the judgment opined as follows:

The appellant had shown there was a discrepancy in that the weight of the cannabis as determined by the chemist exceeded the weight of the cannabis when they were first recovered by the police. According to the chemist, the total weight of the cannabis contained in the two packages was 1850.21 grammes. However, the investigating officer in his evidence stated that he weighed the cannabis and found the total weight to be 1840 grammes. This in turn resulted in creating a doubt as to the identity of the cannabis. The prosecution could not be said to have proven the offence of trafficking beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. A reasonable doubt had been created as to whether the cannabis that was recovered by the police that was sent to the chemist for analysis was the same substance that was found to be cannabis and it was in respect of that substance the appellant was charged with trafficking. A defect with regard to the identity of the case exhibit in the present case was a serious matter. On this ground alone the appellant would succeed in his appeal. [Emphasis mine]

Considering Yusri Pialmi, Tan Yew Choy and Yeong Kia Heng collectively

Now it has been demonstrated that both the Federal Court decisions of Yusri Pialmi and Tan Yew Choy clearly decided that the issue of weight discrepancy with regards to the drugs (particularly when the net weight is higher than the gross weight) would allow an accused to succeed in his appeal on that ground alone. There was no need for this issue to be bound up with other issues such as a break in the chain of condition for an accused to succeed. It has also been demonstrated that the Supreme Court decision of Yeong Kia Heng was not properly considered. A proper consideration of all these cases would show that there was no basis whatsoever to distinguish all these three cases from Loh Kah Loon be it on the facts or the law.

How Loh Kah Loon was actually decided

Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment set out how the courts below decided the case:

“[10] The issue of discrepancy on the weight of the drug exhibits P7A & B has been extensively discussed by both at the High Court as well as the Court of Appeal. The High Court after a lengthy discussion on this issue, took the view that the prosecution’s caseshould not fail just because the nett weight of the drug exhibits as found by the chemist was higher than the gross weight as found by the police. The High Court found it as a fact that the drug exhibits recovered by PW3 was the same drug exhibits sent by PW8 to PW4 for analysis and subsequently produced in court as evidence. The High Court has no doubt as to the identity of the drug exhs. P7A & B as there was no break in the chain of evidence as to their movement.”

“[11] The Court of Appeal agreed with the finding of the High Court.”

So essentially, the High Court and Court of Appeal did not want to acquit Loh Kah Loon simply because there was a weight discrepancy in the drugs. How they went about it was cunning. They decided that because there was no break in the chain of evidence (i.e. the movement of the drugs was accounted for at every stage of movement from one officer to the other and its storage place), there was no doubt raised about the identity of the drugs relating to the charge. Raus FCJ endorsed this position and opined the following:

“It can be seen from the above that there was no break in the chain of evidence regarding the exhibits. The identity of the exhibits was well established. Thus, on the facts of this case, the difference in the weight of the exhibits as found by the police and the chemist, by itself cannot be said to have created doubt as to the identity of the exhibits. The real question is whether the exhibits recovered by the police is the same exhibits sent to and examined by the chemist and subsequently produced in court as evidence. We have no doubt that it was the same exhibits.” [Emphasis mine]

So it seems that the law on this issue has changed so quickly and dramatically from 14 June 2010 (when Yusri Pialmi was decided) and 26 April 2011 (when Loh Kah Loon was decided). A critical reading of Loh Kah Loon would leave one with the impression that the Federal Court in that decision was justifying a decision as opposed to deciding it based on previous authorities. There appears to be an attempt to depart from previously and recently decided decisions to change the law on the issue of weight discrepancy of the drugs from being an issue that could by itself win an appeal to one that needs to be bound together with other issues in order to succeed.

It is hard to understand how Loh Kah Loon can be considered satisfactory since the decision leaves this crucial questioned unanswered: How on earth can there be an increase in the net weight of the drug from the gross weight? This question is not addressed at all by Raus FCJ in his Lordship’s decision and it is noteworthy that there is no reasonable explanation provided inLoh Kah Loon to account for the increase. That such a crucial question is left unanswered is especially appalling when it involves a capital offence case. Loh Kah Loon is going to hang to death despite there being no satisfactory explanation about the weight discrepancy.

What is significant is that there was no dissent from Abdull Hamid Embong FCJ who sat on Yusri Pialmi and Zulkefli Makinuddin FCJ who sat and wrote the judgments for both Yusri Pialmi andTan Yew Choy. It should be especially obvious to Zulkefli Makinuddin FCJ that Raus FCJ was not accurate in his appreciation of his judgment in Yusri Pialmi and Tan Yew Choy. It should be noted that Raus FCJ does not say that his judgment was read in draft by his learned brothers who approved of it. All the same, that Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ should remain so mute in the face of such improper considerations of his very own judgment is surprising.

It would seem that the standard of proof required in criminal cases to convict an accused has been lowered from beyond a reasonable doubt to even if got a reasonable doubt.

Why You Have To Ask Her Father

When other men ask me how I proposed to my wife, I like to package the story as a planning exercise. I present my proposal as the end of an operational process -- the successful product of setting and respecting a budget and timeline, then knocking off a series of milestones (buying the ring, scouting proposal venues, etc.). I tell the story this way because that’s how I like to remember it (I am a super-planner who reminisces about well-executed plans of the past), but also because I know that's what other men want to hear. When a guy asks you how you proposed, it's not because he's a sucker for romance. It's because he's planning to pop the question himself and is in need of guidance and reassurance. Describing the process as a detached and mechanical one, similar to planning a camping trip, makes it easier to embark on.

My story hits a snag, however, when I get into the least plannable and thus most stressful part of the proposal experience: asking her father for permission. It’s tough to forecast when the right moment will be to pull him aside, and near-impossible to guess what direction the discussion will take when you do. This particular milestone is shrouded in uncertainty, and I figure that’s why so many guys resist it. "Do you really have to ask him permission? Isn’t that a bit old-school?" Well, yes, it is kind of old-school, in the same way that opening the car door for her is. That’s part of the point.


You absolutely have to ask her father for permission before proposing. If you don’t, your failure to do so will haunt you forever. Here’s why.

Because Respect Breeds Respect

Men used to call their fathers-in-law “Sir” and made a show of losing games of canasta to them. You deferred to him for the simple reason that he had toughed through more of life than you had, and because you knew that your gestures of respect would later entitle you to similar groveling from your own future son-in-law. Alas, in their reckless pursuit for total equality, the baby boomers have razed the male hierarchy, and today young men approach their girlfriends’ dads with the goal of becoming “buddies.”


Well, guess what? He doesn’t want to be your buddy. He wants your respect, but has been socialized to no longer expect it. When you give it to him, you’ll set yourself apart from every other guy under 30 in his life -- including all his daughter’s ex-boyfriends.

Because It Will Fill Up Her Romance Rolodex

In an article for us, Wendy Walsh wrote that “a highly emotional romantic courtship before marriage breeds positive memories that help a couple ride out the rough patches.” You will not have a single better opportunity to stock her up on positive memories than at the moment of your proposal. So you need to maximize it by going 100% cheesy, rose petals and all. This includes respecting all the traditional rituals, from asking her dad at the outset to bending on one knee in the moment. 
Furthermore, consider every element of your proposal to be an item on a romance checklist that she will soon be cross-referencing with the checklists of her married female friends. Women are viciously competitive creatures; giving her occasion to boast that you pursued the face-to-face with her dad that their husbands pansied out of gives you serious currency.

Because You Don’t Really Have To

My own proposal was one of my proudest moments as a super-planner. I ticked off all the items on the romantic checklist, came in on budget and did it all -- from conception to execution -- in under three weeks. It would have been even more efficient were it not for the four days I spent hovering nervously around my prospective father-in-law, waiting for the right moment for the talk. As it turned out, I spent most of the talk explaining what the talk was. My father-in-law is French, and requesting permission is not at all a part of the marriage tradition there. When I launched into my speech, he didn’t know what the hell I was talking about.

So, for all my anxiety, I didn't really have to ask for permission. And you won’t really have to either -- at least in the sense that no one will call you out on it if you don't. But asking her father for permission is one of those tough things in life that you have to do precisely because you don’t have to. You can’t rely on anyone else's expectations to corral you into doing so -- only your own. When you do, you show him, her and the rest of the family that you have high expectations for yourself.

The only guys I know who deny the necessity of asking a father-in-law for permission are those who neglect to do so. When they deny it, they do so angrily. Every guy I know who did ask him permission boasts of doing so proudly -- like I just did, and like I hope you will. You will have earned it.

Best Man's Speech

"The speech you will give as a best man will be the toughest speech you give in your life. Or at least it would have been before you discovered this incredibly useful Madlibs-style template." 

The speech you will give as a best man will be the toughest speech you give in your life. Or at least it would have been before you discovered this incredibly useful Madlibs-style template, which will shave your speech preparation down from a couple of weeks to 10 minutes.

For your speech to be truly perfect, however, you must respect these two rules as you feel in the blanks:

1. Maintain the right emotional balance. The perfect best man's speech makes the audience laugh at the beginning and cry at the end. Don't get too emotional too quickly, or they will snicker at you.

2. Keep your anecdotes accessible. There is nothing worse than a speech that only the best man and groom can understand. Your jokes should feel like inside jokes to as much of the room as possible.

The Universally Perfect Best Man's Speech 

Good evening, everyone. Thanks for putting down your forks for long enough to give me your undivided attention. For those of you who don’t know who I am, I’m the best man. And before I say anything else, I’d like us all to take a moment to appreciate and raise our glasses to [names of parents who paid, starting with mom] for what has been thus far a wonderful celebration on such a special occasion. Now, I know that most of you don’t make it out often and only came here for the free [main course -- probably chicken], so I’ve been asked by [bride’s name] to instruct you not to make a scene -- I’m looking at you [troublesome uncle or youngest child in attendance].

I first met [groom’s name] at [authentic first meeting occasion], but I really got to know him at [another early meeting that supports coming anecdote].

Don’t worry, [bride’s name]. I’m not leading to the story you’re worried about!

So when I first saw [groom’s name] at [early meeting that supports coming anecdote], I couldn’t believe that he was [weird behavior that at least 80% of room will recognize]. Now, I know they say that you never get a second chance to make a first impression, but let’s just say that [groom’s name] should be grateful that that’s just a myth!

[Groom] stopped doing [aforementioned weird behavior] not long after that meeting, but, happily, he didn’t lose his [positive personality trait driving weird behavior]. And for anyone who doubted that he did, let’s not forget about our night at [bachelor party venue]… Just kidding, [bride’s name]. [Groom’s name] was as well behaved… ahem, dull… as [grumpiest person in attendance].

But there’s a lot more to being [positive personality trait driving weird behavior] than [aforementioned weird behavior]. We’ve all seen [groom’s name] bring his [positive personality trait] to his work as a [groom’s profession] and to his pursuit of [universally recognized hobby or pastime]. And it’s definitely been a driving force in a friendship that has lasted [length of time of friendship], with a lot of years yet to come.

And, in any case, we all knew that [aforementioned weird behavior] wouldn’t last forever. (At least we all hoped it wouldn’t!) If it had, then [bride’s name] probably wouldn’t have given [groom’s name] a second look at [venue of their first meeting], where they first met. Walking into [venue of their first meeting], I’m sure neither [groom’s name] nor [bride’s name] expected it to be the start of a journey that would lead us here today. After all, [bride’s name] was so busy with her [estimable occupation/hobby/passion of that time], while [groom’s name] was so busy with his [ridiculous/juvenile hobby], that neither thought that they had room for another person in their life. 

On [approximate date of first meeting], destiny changed their plans.

And this was the first of many changes to come in [groom’s name]’s life. First of all, gone were his [bad lifestyle habit] and his [bad fashion trademark]! But, more importantly, we started to see [groom’s name] shine in ways we never knew possible. [Bride’s name], whether it was through her [positive personality trait] or her introducing[groom’s name] to [positive group activity], brought a new dimension of happiness to him that even I had never seen. But, having got to know [bride’s name]’s family a bit more in recent weeks, now I understand where this happiness comes from.

In fact, tonight I see two very happy families coming together. And we all know how delicate interfamilial relations can be -- particularly when one family is [nationality or religious denomination of groom’s family] and the other is [nationality or religious denomination of bride’s family]. But whether it’s over a steaming plate of[traditional meal associated with nationality of one group] or getting together around the [icon associated with religious denomination of other group], it all comes down the same thing: love and mutual respect. And I think you would all agree that there’s a lot of that in this room today, and I think you’d also agree that there’s a lot of that between [groom’s name] and [bride’s name].

So let’s all raise our glasses to the happy couple. [Groom’s name] may not [aforementioned weird behavior] anymore, but with [bride’s name] at his side, his [positive personality trait driving weird behavior] is now perfectly matched. Cheers!

Read more: http://au.askmen.com/money/how_to/best-man-speech.html#ixzz2ANCa7Q83