Why Les Miserables Matters

Les Miserables is about belief, faith, and conversion.  It is about moments of Crisis that test us and try us.

Do you live what you profess?  What would it take to change your mind?  Can people change?  What is worth living for?  What is worth dying for?

These are the themes of Les Miserables.  Each main character must face a moment when their view on life, their professed reason for happiness, is challenged.

THE BISHOP:

The story begins with an old Bishop.  He gives up the large church to make it a hospital, and moves his alter and house into the old small hospital.  He helps the poor, the needy, and never keeps anything nice or expensive for himself, except a nice set of silver dinnerware. 

Along comes a poor convict – fresh out of prison.  The Bishop gives the man dinner on his silver, lets him sleep on a feather bed, and calls him “brother.”
The convict steals all the silverware from the cupboard.  He runs away in the night and is caught by the gendarmes and brought back to the Bishop. 

The bishop has always professed to be a forgiving man of God.  He lives a poor simple life, but has somehow kept this silver all along.  Will he still be forgiving to a man that betrayed his trust and mocked his hospitality?  Will he still keep his little guilty pleasure – the silver, or will he give it up, and forgive the convict?  Where does his happiness lie?  Is it in Justice or Mercy?

THE MOTHER:

She falls in love.  She is in the prime of her youth and can’t imagine a better life.  Then her wealthy boyfriend abandons her one day and she is left alone, pregnant, with no employment.  She passes a woman on the street who had two daughters of her own.  Those two little girls look happy and content.  Her daughter could possibly have a better life living with them for a time.  Will the mother give up her daughter to grant her the chance at a better life?

The mother attains work, but is eventually cast out because she has a child and no husband.  She can’t find any good work and must decide between her pride and dignity, and supporting her daughter financially.  Will she sell her locket, her hair, her teeth, her virtue?  What can she sacrifice for the love of her daughter?  Where does her happiness lie?  Is it in her own life, or her daughters?

THE REVOLUTIONARY:

His father left when he was young, and never returned.  His Grandfather is rich and wants to dictate how his grandson lives his life.  Will this young man live a rich privileged life that he is entitled to?  While he live poor?  When he finds out his father was a good honest man, will he follow his footsteps? 

The revolutionary believes in the people of France.  He believes in the cause of freedom.  His life is dedicated to the revolution.  Then he falls in love - completely and absolutely head-over-heels in love.  His love is leaving, going away to England forever.  Will he follow her and find happiness in a life of love and happiness?  Will he stay and fight at the barricades in the cause of freedom?

The revolutionary knows his father’s life was saved by a man named Thernardier.  He swears to his father to help this “Thernardier” if they ever meet.  He swears to help him anyway he can.  When they do meet, Thernardier is a the worst and most vile of men.  The revolutionary watches as his girlfriend and her father are threatened, kidnapped, and held hostage by Thernardier.

Should the Revolutionary save his girlfriend, or the man he swore to serve and protect?  Is his happiness in love, or in honor?

THE OTHER WOMAN:

(this story line is only in the musical, not in the book)

She loves a young man.  He is handsome; he is brave; he is rich but lives like he’s poor.; and… he is in love with someone else. 

She would be his at any moment if he asked, but he sees them as “just friends.”  He asks her to help him court his love.  He asks her to find her, find her address, take him to her, deliver her love notes.

Where does the happiness of ”the other woman” lie?  Is it in being with him, or in making him happy by helping him be with another?

When he breaks her heart over and over again, should she still defend and help him?  When his life is in danger, will she sacrifice her life for his, even though he is in love with someone else?

THE INSPECTOR:

Life is just.  You reap what you sow.  There are no hand-outs.  There are no gray areas.  There is hard work and honest living, and that’s the way to be happy. 
He is just in all things.  He gives people exactly what is required by law.  He has no need to pass judgment because that is for God and the courts.  He enforces.

Men are good, or men are bad.  They choose, and they keep their course.  He has seen it time and time again. 

When Javert wrongly accuses a man, he asks for demotion and reprimand.  He asks that justice be meted out on him as it is on everyone else.

What does he do when a convict, a man who broke his parole and is on the lam, appears to be good? The man helps others and lives a seemingly honest life.   How can this be?

When a man he has hunted, chased, and found has a chance to kill the inspector, the convict instead lets him live.  He lets him go.

When the convict should be running for his life, he stops to help an injured young man, to carry him to safety.

The convict never asks for help for himself, only to be allowed to help others.  He needs an hour, a day, a short time to finish helping someone else, then he’ll turn himself in.  Can he be believed?

The Inspector must decide: Is happiness found in never breaking a single rule?  Is it found in justice?  Is there room for mercy, and if so, how can he reconcile that in his mind? 

THE CONVICT:

He is the main character of the story.  He has many of these moments of Crisis.  When he is shown kindness and love, will he steal and be who he has become in Prison?  Will he steal the silver from the Bishop?
When he is forgiven and given a new lease on life – will he change, will he become a better man?

When another man is accused in his place.  When the convict could have someone else jailed in his place, will he let it happen and live a free man, or will he confess to save this stranger from a lifetime in Prison?

When the convict sees a prostitute being abused and mis-accused, while he stand up for her? 

When he is asked to care for a little child, what will he do for her? 

When she grows up and has become all he cares about in the world, can he let her go when it is her time to move on, marry, and live her own life?

When he is given a chance to exact punishment and vengeance on the officer who had been chasing him his entire adult life, will he take it.? When the officer has done “wrong” and the convict has ”the right” to kill him, will he?

When the convict realizes he is a liability to his daughter, will he exit her life for good, for her good?

This story speaks to us.  It speaks to the very core of why we live.  What makes us happy?  What makes life worth living, and death worth dying?  What is the ultimate goal?  Where is the line between right and wrong, good and bad, justice and mercy?

This is about conversion – do we really believe that which we profess?  When it’s all on the line, who are we?

Who Am I?

(If you want to read an abridged version of the book - here's my version)

Review - Les Miserables Movie

GRADE: B+ 

Of course I enjoyed it - I'm a Les Miserables fanatic.  But it was not perfect.

This is a review of the movie for those who know the story, know the musical, and can even name many of the actors.  This review spoils everything, does not review the story at all, but rather the mechanics, the casting, writing, and filming.


Here's what was great: 

1. New Song: "Suddenly" was very needed because it finally gives Valjean a reason to care so deeply for Cosette. Before in the musical, he finds her, takes her away from Thenardiers, and then suddenly loves her like a daughter with no explanation.

 2. Colm Wilkinson as the Bishop: Having the original Valjean in the movie was genius. He sang it well.

3. Adding Marius' Grandfather: It was a needed addition to the story line to show how Marius can have this rich extravagant wedding and care for Cosette well.

4. Gavroche: He was amazing. His face and singing was perfect. The moment with Javert and the pin was very touching. My personal favorite addition was the fact that Gavroche lives in an elephant statue. That is taken directly from the book, and I appreciated it.

 5. The Revolution scenes: They look so real. The war is real, the despair is real, and the outcome is real. Tragic, and real. It was well filmed

6. Javert toe's the line: During "Stars" and "Suicide" he literally toe's the line on the ledge, and the symbolism is deep.

7. Fixing the ending. They finally took Eponine out of the song when Valjean is dying and going to heaven. It never made sense. Replacing her with the Bishop made it a great ending. (I wrote a whole blog post about this before)

 8. Many singers: Marius, Enjolras, Grantaire, Cosette (old and young), Eponine, Gavroche, the Bishop, and Fantine all did an amazing job. Madame Thernardier sang it exactly like the concert version - which was great. Valjean and Mr. Thernardier were good. Javert was fair.

Thing that they messed up: 

1. Russell Crowe. I think they should have cast someone else - but even so - they screwed up worse. They added new lines just for the movie, they were lines that were only going to be sung by one person (Russell Crowe) in one movie. WHY did they write them in a high octave?!?! They made Crowe sound ridiculous by writing him high notes to sing/speak when they could easily have written them in his range. That was dumb.

2. Changing "I have bought your soul for God." They made it "I have saved your soul for God" instead. The book and the original say "bought." Why change it?

3. New lines being sung with odd melodies. Many of the new lines were important, but the music was poor, and they sounded very forced.

4. Bring Him Home - Sorry, but Hugh Jackman couldn't sing it high and soft like it needs to be. He had to belt it out to make it work - which ruined it.

I thought was a very good movie. It tells the story very VERY well. It all makes sense, it is emotional, and it draws you in and makes you weep. I'll buy it. I wasn't perfect, but I recommend it.

To prove how much of a Les Miserables nerd I am:
Here are the prediction I made about the movie back in September

Here is my abridgment of the entire book (500 pages)

Here is my comparison of Valjean with Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof

Funniest Man I Know - Christian Busath

I met Christian my Freshman year of college. We were both cast as pirates in the Pirates of Penzance. I laughed hysterically every time we rehearsed. Since then I watched him in the university impromptu comedy group "Comic Frenzy." Then I saw him perform in West Yellowstone at the Playmill Theatre. I've gone to church with him, and even when he speaks from the pulpit, he can't help but make people laugh. Here are my favorite videos of him.

This is the best - Christian as the real life Fruit Ninja


This is a very close second - Christian as William Wallace. (after his part ends the rest is just a regular commercial so I stop watching after "put it out buddy"

Singing Magic Foot in "25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee"

Cute short film about fitting in:

Watching a man his size flying through the air off a slip n' slide ramp is just awesome.

Here he is as Lefou in a small stage production of "Beauty and the Beast."

A commercial for BYU football with Christian as the office manager:

This is a movie he was in: (haven't been able to see it yet)

Book Review: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Rarely does a book shock me.  This one did multiple times over.

Here’s a quick summary:

Henrietta Lacks was a poor black woman who was raised on a tobacco sharecropping farm.  She was poor, uneducated, abused, and she eventually developed cervical cancer.  She lived in Baltimore about 20 minutes from Johns Hopkins University.  It was the only place that would see blacks with no insurance, so that’s where she went.  Hopkins had a bad reputation for experimenting on their “colored patients” but it was the only place she could go, and they did have brilliant doctors and great facilities.

Also in Baltimore was a man named Dr. George Gey.  He was trying with all his might to keep human tissue samples alive in Petri dishes.  No one had been able to keep human tissues or cells alive for very long.  You could freeze it and preserve it – but all tissue eventually died, the cells would reproduce maybe a few times – then die.  He asked the doctors at the hospitals to collect extra samples of all tissues for him so he could try to keep them alive or even make the cells replicate in a test tube.

Henrietta had a malignant cervical tumor.  Her doctor took a biopsy, and sent part of it to pathology for diagnosis and part of it to Dr. Gey.  He labeled the test tubes with the first two initials of her first and last name: He La

Dr. Gey’s assistant put it the “nutrient bath” like the last few thousand samples and waited and watched.

For the first time ever – a set of human cells didn’t die, they multiplied.  They multiplied so fast it was unbelievable.  Sure they were cancer cells which always grow out of control – in the body.  But Gey had tested tons of cancer cells before, they all died.  These grew and spread like wild fire.  He told a few fellow researchers that he may have found the first “immortal” human cell line ever.  They asked if they could have some, and he freely gave them.  He started giving them to everybody.

Meanwhile Henrietta underwent radiation therapy.  While she was burned from the outside she had the most malignant and vicious cancer destroying her from the inside.  She soon died Oct 4 1951.

1952 was the worst US outbreak ever of Polio and Dr. Jonas Salk was desperately looking for a way to test his vaccine.  He needed human tissue that was susceptible to Polio that he could use his vaccine on and then inject with polio to see if it worked.  He needed to test it thousands and thousands of times and with multiple versions of his vaccine.

Dr. Gey knew he had what Dr. Salk needed.  They tested the HeLa cells, and they were susceptible to Polio.  They set up a massive cell reproduction system and started producing billions of HeLa cells for Polio experimentation.

In 1955 the vaccine was released.  Together with the vaccine developed by Sabin, polio was eradicated.

HeLa cells were then used by everyone for everything.  Bio-Tech companies reproduced HeLa cells on a massive scale and sold them to laboratories around the world.

HeLa cells were the only cells that could be tested forever.  You could test anything on them: diseases, drugs, radiation, zero gravity – if the cells died you just went to the test tube and got more of them.  They never stopped multiplying.  HeLa cells were sent to the moon and were exploded in atomic bombs.  They were fused with animal cells to make hybrid cells with mouse and human genes. 

HeLa cells became the basis of a HUGE portion of biological research.  The cells were a medical revolution and sparked a multi-million dollar industry.

Only one problem - No one told Henrietta or anyone in her family.  They found out 22 years later through a chance encounter.  In 1973 Henrietta’s daughter-in-law, Bobbette, was chatting with her friend and her husband.  She mentioned she was from Baltimore and her married name was Lacks.
The friends husband told her that was amazing because he’d been working for years with these cells in his lab and had just read an article that said they came from a woman named Henrietta Lacks.

Bobbette told him that was her mother in law’s name, but there couldn’t be a relation because her mother in law had died in 1951.

“Did she die of cervical cancer?”  He asked.

-“How’d you know that?”

“Those cells in my lab have to be hers.  They’re from a black woman named Henrietta Lack who died of cervical cancer at Hopkins in the fifties.”

- “WHAT?!” Bobbette yelled, jumping up from her chair.  “What do you mean you’ve got her cells in your lab?”

He held his hand up in the air, like whoa, wait a minute. “I ordered them from a supplier just like everybody else.”

- “What do you mean ‘everybody else’?!”  She snapped “What Supplier?  WHO’S GOT CELLS FROM MY MOTHER IN LAW?!”

And that’s how the nightmare started.  There was a woman whose biopsied cells had been sold for millions or billions of dollars and saved thousands of lives.  Her family was still dirt poor, couldn’t afford health insurance, and they were about to embark on a terrible and heart wrenching journey to find out what had been done to their mother.  Had anyone ever asked for permission to use those cells?  Would they ever see any money from their use?  Over the next 20 years her family would be ignored, followed, tested, lied to, deceived, interviewed and filmed dozens of times over.  

The book tells the story of Henrietta and her family, the story of the HeLa cells and all the good and bad they were used for, and the story of the author, Rebecca Skloot.  It took her 10 years to write the book.  It is fascinating, funny, horrific, shocking and heart-warming all at the same time.

I will be hanging a picture of Henrietta Lacks in my office.  I never want to forget her story. 

Larsen's World Famous Butter Toffee

This is the Butter Toffee Recipe from my Grandmother, Mildred Larsen. 

2 Cubes Butter
1 Cup Sugar
5 TBSP water

4 Hershey's Chocolate Bars
Chopped Walnuts

You also need a sauce pan for the stove top, a wooden spoon, a metal flat ended spatula and an 8x8 pan (or 7x10, or any size that's between 60 and 70 inches square)

(The instructions are the next paragraph, this is just a quick funny story about this recipe) -  I have made this Toffee since I was in Junior High.  I made my mother show me how to make it 8 times in a row.  Once I had it down I've made it every year since.  About 15 years later I was at my aunt's house (also a Larsen) and I tasted her toffee and it was different.  I asked her why, and we compared recipes.  She laughed and said "You're still using 1 cube of margarine too?  Grandma only used margarine because two cubes of butter was too expensive."
SO - like the old story about the family that always cut the end off of the ham - I have been making it "the cheap way" my whole life. 
Well - that's how I like it, so that's how I make it - you can use all butter if you want.

HERE'S HOW:

1st: Get everything ready.  You better have all your Hershey bars out and unwrapped and your walnuts chopped and your 8x8 pan nearby before you begin.  Because you never get to stop stirring and there won't be any spare time once you begin.

2nd: Put the 2 cubes of butter, the cup of sugar, and the 5 Tablespoons of water in a saucepan on high.  Start stirring.

3rd: When it starts boiling you have between 6 and 9 minutes to go. (I know that's a wide range, sorry)  Keep stirring, always the same direction.

It will start out really thin and bright yellow.

 It'll thicken a little.

 Then it'll turn a little whiter and really start sticking to the edges

Then it will turn a little more grayish, and you'll start to see dark brown on the bottom of the pot.  It will start clumping together and pulling away from the sides of the pan.

 4th:  When you start to smell a little smoke and it smells a little burned and you think your eyes might start to water if you stood right over the pan - you're just about there.  I wait about 20 seconds after I sense that smell and feel my eyes twinge a little.  (Don't burn it or let it get dark brown.)
*I recently used a candy thermometer and it was done when it reached about 285 F.  This is a little shy of "Hard Crack."  If you want to try the thermometer, go ahead, but I have always done it by "look and smoke."

5th: Pour it into the 8x8 pan, DO NOT scrape the sauce pan to get all of it.  If you do you'll be scraping in little burned sections and your toffee will taste burned.

6th: Lay the four Hershey bars face down on the top.  It doesn't matter how they're arranged or if they're broken - how ever they fit into your pan without overlapping is fine.

 7th: Wait for the chocolate to melt all the way through, then spread it with a flat tipped metal spatula so that liquid chocolate covers all the toffee.

8th: Spread your chopped walnuts over the top.

9th: Let the toffee cool down so the chocolate can harden. 
 - I always put it someplace in the garage where kids (and animals) can't get to it. That way it cools down faster and I can eat it sooner. (in summer time I put it in the freezer)

10th: When it's cool you should be able to turn the pan over and "pop" the whole square of toffee out.  Then put it on a cutting board and use a knife (whose point you don't care about) and break the toffee into pieces. (If you just hold the knife vertical and stab the point straight down into the toffee it will crack and separate and you can make the pieces more or less whatever size you want)

Put it on a platter or whatever you think looks festive and EAT UP!

Hope this makes sense - Merry Christmas and Happy Toffee Making!

Definitions Matter: Pregnancy, Birth Control, Abortion

I see and hear many debates about Birth Control.  Recently the American Academy of Pediatricians recommended that Plan B or "The morning after pill" should be available to teenagers.

This brought about discussions about abortion.  Is Emergency Contraception abortion?  Are any other types of birth control abortive?

That takes us to the question of defining pregnancy.  When is someone technically pregnant?  

It's important to figure out when someone is pregnant, because any action to stop the process prior to that moment wouldn't be called an abortion.

Like condoms.  There may be people or religions that oppose birth control, but I don't think they would call the use of condoms abortion, right?

How about Birth control pills, IUDs, or the morning after pill? 

The answer is not nearly as Black/White as you may think.

Here's a Quick review of the steps of conception:


1. Intercourse : (unprotected) There is sperm in the reproductive tract.
2. Ovulation: An egg from the ovary is released into the fallopian tubes.  This can happen anytime from 1 day before intercourse to 5 days after intercourse and still result in fertilization.
3. Fertilization: Sperm meets egg - they fuse, making a zygote.
4. Implantation: about 5 days after the zygote has formed and started to grow it implants in the uterus, where it will grow and grow until the end of pregnancy.

Any questions?

Most people would say you are pregnant at the moment of fertilization.  There are some who would say you aren't pregnant until implantation because that step doesn't always happen, at which point the zygote never progresses to become a baby.

There are tons and tons of steps between fertilization and delivery.  Which means there are many moments at which things can stop progressing, and a baby will never be born.  There are so many reasons for miscarriage that I won't go into them here.

Back to the topic of Birth Control.

So - I'm assuming that for most people - anything done before fertilization would be defined as contraception and not abortion.  I also assume that for most people anything done after implantation to prevent a baby being born would be defined as abortion.  What about things that work between the two?

Let's look at how the different forms of birth control take their effect.
1. Abstinence - Prevents Steps 1.  No chance at sperm in the tract.
2. Family Planning/Rhythm - It doesn't prevent any step, but tries to avoid fertilization by making sure when ovulation happens there are no sperm present.  (doesn't work well in most cases, but I know few people who have actually made it work)
3. Barriers (condoms, diaphragms etc.)- Prevents Steps 1.  Blocks sperm.  There is no sperm in the tract, no chance at fertilization etc..
4. Hormone methods (the pill, patch, shot, ring) -  Prevents Step 2 (sometimes 3 & 4).  Depending on the hormones they mostly prevent ovulation.  Some also work to prevent fertilization if an egg is present, or to stop implantation once fertilization has occurred.
5. Implantable methods (IUD or subdermal rod in the arm) - Prevents Steps 2,3 & 4.  The rod releases a hormone which occasionally stops ovulation but usually prevents fertilization or implantation.  The IUD comes in two types:
     a. Copper T - Prevents Steps 3 or 4.  There is sperm in the tract and ovulation can happen.  Usually it prevents step 3 by stopping the sperm from ever reaching the egg.  If fertilization does occur, the IUD prevents implantation.
     b. Mirena (hormones) - Prevents steps 2,3 & 4.
6. Sterilization
     a. Female implant in the fallopian tubes - Prevents Stage 3 (fertilization) by never letting the egg and sperm meet.
     b. Surgical (female) #1 - Prevents Step 3 (fertilization) by clamping, cutting, tying, burning or doing all of the above to the fallopian tubes so the egg and sperm can never meet.
     c. Surgical (female) #2 - Prevents Step 2 or 3&4.  If you take out the ovaries, there are no eggs.  If you take out the uterus, there is no chance of fertilization or implantation.
     d. Surgical (male) - Prevents Step 1.  No sperm can make it out of the male, so no chance of the other steps.

Did I miss anything?

SOOOOOO - Now that I've covered all of that.  What does it mean?

Well, for many people I've talked to - this causes a potential problem.  I have many friends who support IUDs but don't support the morning after pill.  (I assume this is because they consider it abortion.)

Here is the problem.  The morning after pill prevents ovulation - so the egg and sperm never meet, there is no zygote, nothing to implant.
(The evidence that the morning after pill prevents fertilization or implantation is pretty iffy.  Most evidence shows that it stops ovulation.)

That means the "Morning After Pill" is no different than taking regular old birth control pills.

IUDs can prevent earlier steps, but they often don't even prevent fertilization, they prevent implantation.  So a zygote is formed, and starts growing, but never implants in the uterus.  (This is especially true with the Copper T.)

Sooooo....

What does it all mean?
NOTE - I am not defining abortion.  I am not telling women what kind of contraception to use.
(Yes, I fully support anyone choosing to use the Copper T. )

The point of this post is education.  Defining abortion is not so easy, because defining pregnancy is not so easy.  So let's calm down and have real discussions about birth control.  Let's talk about what they ACTUALLY do.

Thanks.


P.S. To anyone curious - I am a member of the LDS (Mormon) church.  I don't speak for the church,  my opinions are my own.

Book Review: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Part 2

3 months later I'm finally finishing my review of this book.  (Part 1 reviewed here)

I appreciate the fact that the author is humble.  He states again and again that he did not discover anything new, or invent the principles found in the book.  As Covey says:

"I did not invent the seven habits, they are universal principles and most of what I wrote about is just common sense. I am embarrassed when people talk about the Covey Habits, and dislike the idea of being some sort of guru."
"I have found the principles contained in the seven habits in all six major world religions and have actually drawn upon quotations from sacred writings of those religions when teaching in those cultures."

He recognizes that life or business based on tactics or behaviors is not enough.  Even basing life on values is not enough - unless those values are based on universal principles.  I wrote a blog post recently stemming from his ideas: Three Degrees of Happiness.

I loved the second half of his book because it is about moving from "independence to interdependence."

Covey makes a big deal of the shift in paradigm: Dependence - Independence - Interdependence.

It made me think about political parties (since the presidential election just happened).

I thought: Stereotypically the Republican party proclaims itself to be the party of "Independence."  You do everything on your own; you pull yourself up by your bootstraps.  The government should be small and stay out of the way.

The trouble came when I tried to characterize the Democratic Party.  Is it the party of "Dependence?" They say we are all dependant on others and should be obligated to help each other.  The government should follow that same mandate.
OR
Is it the party of "Interdependence?"  The people can exist on their own, they don't "need" others but they recognize that much more can be done with others than on your own.  They see that humans are synergistic and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I don't know the answer.  I think both parties have great interdependent people, good independent people, and needy dependent people.

ANYWAY - that's what the book makes you do.  It makes you think, evaluate, reconsider, see things in a new light, and try to see how to make things better all around you.  It makes you work on yourself, and then expand your influence to help all those around you.

I read this book every few years to help me do a "course correction."  I recommend it for everyone.


Favorite Quotes:

You can't be successful with other people if you haven't paid the price of success with yourself. - p. 185

You can't talk your way out of problems you behave yourself into. - p. 186

Make what is important to the other person as important to you as the other person is to you. - p. 191

Integrity includes but goes beyond honesty .  Honesty is telling the truth - in other words, conforming our words to reality. Integrity is conforming reality to our words - in other words, keeping promises and fulfilling expectations. - p. 195

Be loyal to those who are not present. - p. 196

The key to the ninety-nine is the one... It's how you treat the one that reveals how you regard the ninety-nine - p. 197

If you're going to bow, bow low. - p. 198

Dag Hammarskjold - "It is more noble to give yourself completely to one individual than to labor diligently for the salvation of the masses."- p. 201

Habit 4:  Think Win/Win

People are not graded against their potential, or against the full use of their present capacity.  They are graded in relation to other people. - p. 208

"Who's winning in your marriage?" is a ridiculous question.  If both people aren't winning, both are losing. - p. 209

Emotional Maturity: The ability to express one's own feelings and convictions balanced with consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others. - p. 217

Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood

You listen with reflective skills, but you listen with intent to reply, to control, to manipulate. - p. 240

Satisfied needs do not motivate - p. 241

The human dynamic is more important than the technical dimensions of the deal. - p. 242

You can play twenty questions all day and never find out what's important to someone.  Constant probing is one of the main reasons parents do not get close to their children. - p. 245

Our perceptions can be vastly different.  And yet we have both lived with our paradigms for years, thinking they are 'facts,' and questioning the character or the mental capacity of anyone who can't 'see the facts.' - p. 254

Maturity is the balance between courage and consideration - p. 255

Habit 6: Synergize

We seek not to imitate the Masters, rather we seek what they sought. - p. 269

How much time is spent in confessing other people's sins, politicking, rivalry, interpersonal conflict, protecting ones backside, masterminding, and second guessing? - p. 274

All people see the world, not as it is, but as they are.  If I think I see the world as it is, why would I want to value anyone with a different opinion?  Why would I even want to bother with someone who's "off track?"  My paradigm is that I am objective; I see the world as it is.  Everyone else is buried by the minutia, but I see the larger picture.  That's why they call me a supervisor - I have super vision. - p. 277

If two people have the same opinion, one is unnecessary... I don't want to talk, to communicate with someone who agrees with me; I want to communicate with you because you see it differently.  I value that difference. - p. 278

Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw

It makes no difference whether you are a mailman, a hairdresser, an insurance salesman, a housewife - whatever.  As long as you feel you are serving others, you do the job well.  When you are concerned only with helping yourself, you do it less well - a law as inexorable as gravity. - p. 293

Martin Luther - "I have so much to do today, I'll need to spend another hour on my knees." - p. 294

David O. McKay - The greatest battles of life are fought out daily in the silent chambers of the soul." - p. 294

Proactive people can figure out many, many ways to educate themselves. - p. 295

The person who doesn't read is no better off than the person who can't read. - p. 296

I do not agree with the popular success literature that says that self-esteem is primarily a matter of mind set, of attitude - that you can psych yourself into peace of mind.  Peace of mind comes when your life is in harmony with true principles and values and in no other way. - p. 298

GOETHE - Treat a man as he is and he will remain as he is.  Treat a man as he can and should be and he will become as he can and should be. - p. 301

True Financial Independence: It's not having wealth, it's having the power to produce wealth.  It's intrinsic. - p. 304

Anwar Sadat - He who cannot change the very fabric of his thought will never be able to change reality, and will never, therefore, make any progress - p. 317

The Nobel Prize that Keeps Affecting My Life

Doctor's graduate from medical school every year - but not all of them will practice medicine.  Thousands of them will never get the chance.
CNN wrote a great article entitled: Why your waiter has an MD that explains the problem.

Here's the gist of it:
All med-school graduates who want to practice in the USA have to complete a "Residency Training Program."  If you want to specialize in anything such as Anesthesia, Psychiatry, OB/GYN, Family Practice, Surgery etc… you need to complete a 3-5 year residency and then pass your specific specialty board exams.  After that you can do EVEN MORE training called a “fellowship” to be a sub-specialist; such as a vascular surgeon, a child psychiatrist, or a pediatric oncologist. 

There are a few problems with this system.

In 2012 :
38,377 doctors applied to residency training programs in the United States:  there are only
24,034 slots available.

1^st – 14,000 doctors who graduated from medical school and passed their general medical boards – will not be able to practice in the USA because they didn’t get into a residency.

2^nd – How do you decide who goes to which residency?  Let’s say I wanted to be a dermatologist.  I applied to 45 different dermatology residencies.  I interview at 8 of them. 
Those 8 programs have interviewed anywhere from 15 to 100 applicants.  Every residency wants the best applicants, and every applicant wants the best program (or sometimes any program).

What is the best way to decide who goes to which residency?  Everyone knows you (the applicant) are interviewing at 7 other places - and you know they are interviewing another 50 people for the spot you want.  Who picks?  If you aren't picked by your top choice - do you then apply late to your second choice?

How do you make it fair and most advantageous for all parties involved?

SWITCH GEARS!

A while ago I read the book “A Beautiful Mind” – the biography of John Forbes Nash.   I blogged about it because it was interesting and insightful - and I got to see the life of a genius with schizophrenia.  There was an entire chapter devoted to his mentor – Lloyd Shapely.

Shapely was a genius of game theory. 
(He and John Nash and two others even invented their own game called “So Long Sucker.”)

Shapely did a lot of theoretical mathematics in game theory – like figuring out how to give the best result for all players when everyone is competing against each other.

 – Which brings us back to the problem of 38,000 doctors applying for 24,000 residency slots.

Let’s say one residency can accept 2 applicants per year.  They interview 20 candidates each year and then rank those 20 doctors from first choice to last choice.

Those applicants have interviewed at 15 different residency programs, and have ranked them from first choice to last choice.

How do you match them up?  How do you make sure that after you’ve weeded through 38,000 applicants applying to 4,427 residency programs offering 24,000 slots – that every had the best result?

How do you make sure that there is not a residency and an applicant that would both prefer each other over what they ended up with?

Let’s say Stanford Dermatology has 3 slots.

I ranked them as my #1 choice, and I am their #20 choice.

I ranked UCLA as my #2 choice and I am their # 5 choice.

I ranked Texas as my #3 choice and I am their #2 choice.

Where do I go?  Do I go to Texas because it's the best match?  Just becuase the combined ranking score at Texas (3+2) is less than UCLA (2+5) or Stanford(1+20)?  What if Stanford’s top 19 picks ranked some place else as their #1? Do I become Stanford's #1 pick because I'm the only guy left who really wants them?

Whose list takes precedence?  Does Stanford send out 3 letters of acceptance, wait to see if they get rejections, and then try to fill the slots with the next 3 people on their list?

There is a system called the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).  It’s designed to take every applicants rank list, and every residency programs rank list – and match them up. The applicants choice is considered first, then the Residency's.

Many applicants think - Can I beat the system?  How can I get into a better program than I’m really qualified for?  Could I rank programs at the top of my list that I have no chance of getting into – and then hope that the system will feel sorry for me and give me the first program I have a shot at (which is my REAL 1^st choice but I ranked it low to game the system?)

You may think I’m kidding.  I’m not.  I had friends in medical school trying to play this game with their training sites and med-school rotations.  They tried to beat the system, to play the game.

Luckily – the Matching system (NRMP) is based on Shapely’s theories about game theory.

A man named Alvin E. Roth proved that the NRMP was both stable and strategy-proof.  It gave everyone the best possible outcome, and it was impossible to “win the game” or “beat the system” by some strategy.

It is in everyone’s best interest to be completely honest in their rankings.  You have the best chance of getting your 1^st choice, and so on down the list.  It is true for the applicant, it is true for the residency.

This seems to make perfect sense – but how hard was it to make that system?  How do you allow for so many variables.

Some residencies only have 1 slot, some have 20.  Some applicants only rank 1 program, some rank 30?

That is why Shapely and Roth are winning the Nobel Prize this year.  Their combined efforts have developed a perfect system.  It can’t be beaten, tricked, swindled, twisted, or played.  Everyone uses the exact same strategy.

3 years ago I applied to 10 programs.  I interviewed at 5 programs and made my "rank list."  On “Match Day” every graduating medical student found out where they were working for the next few years.  I found out I was moving to Reno, my first choice.

2 months ago I applied for a “sub-specialty fellowship.”  I interviewed last month.  I submitted my “rank list” last week.

January 9^th 2013 is “Match Day.” It’s the day I find where I’m training for the next 2 years (if I matched at all).

December 8^th 2012 is the Nobel Prize Ceremony.  That’s the day that Roth and Shapely will give their Nobel Lectures.  I’ll be listening, and silently thanking them for making my life, education, and career - much easier.

To Dr. Roth and Dr. Shapely – thank you.


P.S. (Random Fact) - The Nobel Prize in Economics is not actually a Nobel Prize.   There are Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology/Medicine, Literature, and Peace.
It's actually awarded by the Central Bank of Sweden and is called "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel"

Three Degrees of Happiness

How many books and articles have been written about "happiness?"

The very declaration of our nation's independence says that our Creator endowed us with "certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Many people view happiness as the goal and purpose of life.  In my work I see hundreds of patients who are seeking it.  Some through family, others through friends, and others in a joint or bottle.  Some think a pill will grant it, others are certain that money is the key.

Personally, I have found three degrees of happiness.  There are three types, three sources, three keys to happiness.  They are pleasure, inner-peace, and eternal joy.

1. Pleasure: That which gives us momentary enjoyment.  

Pleasure can be both good and bad.  One can find pleasure in listening to a favorite song, eating a piece of chocolate, hearing a funny joke, or helping a friend.  It can be found in seeing someone "get what they deserve," or in a forbidden pleasure, in skipping school or breaking the rules or laws.  It can be found in alcohol, cocaine, heroin, LSD, marijuana, caffeine, or pure vanilla ice cream.  

Pleasure doesn't differentiate between right and wrong, short term or long term consequences. Pleasure is now. 

2. Inner Peace: Living according to our values.

Everyone has their own values, their own ideals.  Everyone has a vision of what they should be, how they should be different, what actions they should or shouldn't be doing.  These values may come from parents, friends, society, religion, or many other sources.  Many values include Family, Friendship, Work, Education, Recreation, Spirituality, Community, Health, the Environment, the Arts, etc...

Inner Peace comes from living according to your ideals.  It comes from having less regret and more fulfillments.  When your mind no longer argues between what you ARE doing and what you SHOULD be doing, that is inner peace. 

Most self help books are about these first two degrees of happiness.  They encourage pleasure as long as the means are in-line with your values.  They help people reach inner peace by eliminating internal conflict.

The problem is that not all values are good.  Criminal Gangs have values.  They may value gang loyalty to such a high degree that one would steal, kill, and serve time in prison to have the inner peace of being loyal and true to their word.  Many people can reach inner peace and still be a terror to society, to their families, their communities.  
Most any religion has its extremists: they are at complete inner peace as they engage in Crusades, terrorist bombings, lynchings, etc...

Inner peace is not the end goal.

3. Eternal Joy:  Living according to universal principles.

When our values match universal principles, then we can find true happiness; the joy that lasts and is independent of circumstance.

Principles are not practices and they are not specific to one religion or society.  They are universal. Everyone knows them and values them, though they interpret them differently 

Examples include: Fairness, Integrity, Honesty, Human Dignity, Service, Quality, Potential, and Patience.

I often think of the question: "Do I have happy moments, or a happy life?"

Happy moments are easy to come by, but they don't last.  In fact the more we do the same thing seeking the same level of pleasure, the more we'll be disappointed.  Whether it be thrills, or food, or drugs, or a new relationship - That momentary pleasure is usually best the first time.  Unless it also leads to inner peace or eternal joy, it will fade and we will move on to something else.

We can have inner peace and still have a miserable life, we simply won't care.  With inner peace we believe we are right and we will continue to think so because we are living by our values.  Other people's lives, opinions, or judgments don't matter because we have inner peace.  Many people consider this the ultimate goal. -It is the first step only.

Once we discover eternal and universal principles, then we can align our values with those principles. We can make goals according to those principles.  It won't always matter if we reach every goal or not. We may change our minds on goals or choose something new to work toward.  Since the principles never change, the change in goals won't matter because we've been moving in the right direction the entire time.

All three degrees of happiness are important, but the only way to enjoy pleasure without future regret is to make the pleasure match our values.  The only way to enjoy inner peace and building lasting happiness for ourselves and everyone around us is to make our values match universal principles.