Several times my daughter had telephoned to say, “Mum, you must come and see the daffodils(水仙花)before they are over.” I wanted to go, but it was a two-hour drive from Lake Arrowhead. "I will go next Tuesday," I promised, a little unwillingly, on her third call.

    The next Tuesday dawned cold and rainy. Still, I had promised, and so I drove there. When I finally walked into Carolyn's house and hugged and greeted my grandchildren, I said, "Forget the daffodils, Carolyn! The road is invisible (看不见的) in the cloud and fog, and there is nothing in the world except you and these children that I want to see!"

    My daughter smiled calmly and said, "We drive in this weather all the time, Mum. You will never forgive yourself if you miss this experience."

    After about twenty minutes, we turned onto a small road and I saw a small church. On the far side of the church, I saw a hand-lettered sign that read "Daffodil Garden."

    We got out of the car and each took a child's hand, and I followed Carolyn down the path. Then, we turned a corner of the path, and I looked up amazed. Before me lay the most beautiful sight. Flows of flowers of different colors seemed poured down the peak and slopes. There were five acres of flowers! A sea of daffodil! It was like a fairyland all beyond description.

    "But who has done this?" I asked Carolyn. "It's just one woman." Carolyn answered. "That's her home." Carolyn pointed to a well-kept A-frame house that looked small and modest in the midst of all that glory. We walked up to the house. On the patio (露台), we saw a poster." Answers to the Questions I Know You Are Asking" was the headline.

    The first answer was a simple one. "50,000 bulbs (鳞茎)" it read. The second answer was, "One at a time, by one woman." The third answer was, "Began in 1958."

    I thought of this woman whom I had never met, who, more than fifty years before, had begun one bulb at a time to bring the beauty and joy to the mountain top. Just planting one bulb at a time, year after year, had changed the world where she lived and created something of magnificence, beauty, and inspiration.

    When we multiply tiny pieces of time with small amounts of daily effort, we too can accomplish great things. Everyone can do something to change the world.

    Although many Chinese students say their knowledge of English grammar is good, most would admit that their spoken English is poor. {#blank#}1{#/blank#} However, their spoken English does not have to remain poor. I would suggest that there may be some reasons for their problems with spoken English.

    First, {#blank#}2{#/blank#} Obviously the better answer is to expand their vocabulary. However, you can speak, with a limited vocabulary if your attitude is positive. Others will follow you as long as you use the words that you know.

    Second, {#blank#}3{#/blank#}. Sometimes they make mistakes when they are speaking because they are shy and nervous. Yet students should remember that their goal should be FLUENCY NOT ACCURACY. You want to get your message across, to talk to someone in English, as quickly and as well as you can, even though sometimes you may use a wrong word or tense, but it doesn't matter because the person you are speaking to will understand you and make allowance for any mistakes he hears.

    Third, {#blank#}4{#/blank#}.You have one mouth but two ears! All that hearing is necessary for you to start speaking.

    Fourth, {#blank#}5{#/blank#}. Instead of actively seeking out opportunities to improve their spoken English, they passively wait for speaking opportunities to come to them and wonder why their spoken English always remains poor. If you have this proactive outlook，then you will see English opportunities wherever you go.

A. not enough attention is paid to listening.

B. they fail to find suitable words to express themselves because of limited vocabulary.

C. most Chinese students are not active language learners.

D. They are so stupid that they cannot finish their necessary homework in time.

E. Whenever I speak to Chinese students they always say, “My spoken English is poor.”

F. it is no use crying over spilt milk.

G. they are afraid of making mistake.

    The U. S. Postal Service (USPS) is losing billions of dollars a year. The government company that delivers "small mail" is losing out to email and other types of electronic communication. First-class mail amount fell from a high point of 104 million pieces in 2000 to just 64 million pieces by 2014.

    Congress permits the 600.000-empIoyee USPS to hold a monopoly (垄断) over first-class and standard mail. The company pays no federal, state or local taxes; pays no vehicle fees; and is free from many regulations on other businesses. Despite these advantages, the USPS has lost $52 billion since 2007, and will continue losing money without major reforms.

    The problem is that Congress is preventing the USPS from reducing costs as its sales decline, and is blocking efforts to end Saturday service and close unneeded post office locations. USPS also has a costly union-dominated workforce that slows the introduction of new ideas or methods down. USPS workers earn significantly higher payment than comparable private-sector workers. The answer is to privatize the USPS and open postal markets to competition. With the rise of the Internet, the argument that mail is a natural monopoly that needs government protection is weaker than ever.

    Other countries facing declining letter amounts have made reforms Germany and the Netherlands privatized their national postal companies over a decade ago, and other European countries have followed suit. Britain floated shares of the Royal Mail on its stock exchange in 2013. Some countries, such us Sweden and New Zealand, have not privatized their national postal companies, but they have opened them up to competition.

    These reforms have driven efficiency improvements in all of these countries. Additional number of workers have been reduced, productivity has risen and consumers have benefited. Also, note that cost-cutting measures—such as closing tone post offices—are good for both the economy and the environment.

    Privatization and competition also encourage new changes. When the USPS monopoly over "extremely urgent" mail was stopped in 1979, we saw an explosion in efficient overnight private delivery by firms such as FedEx.

    The government needs to wake up to changing technology, study postal reforms abroad and let businessmen reinvent our out-of-date postal system.

Five years ago, when I taught art at a school in Seattle, I used Tinkertoys as a test at the beginning of a term to find out something about my students. I put a small set of Tinkertoys in front of each student, and said: "Make something out of the Tinkertoys. You have 45 minutes today-and 45 minutes each day for the rest of the week."

    A few students hesitated to start. They waited to see what the rest of the class would do. Several others checked the instructions and made something according to one of the model plans provided. Another group built something out of their own imaginations.

    Once I had a boy who worked experimentally with Tinkertoys in his free time. His constructions filled a shelf in the art classroom and a good part of his bedroom at home. I was delighted at the presence of such a student. Here was an exceptionally creative mind at work. His presence meant that I had an unexpected teaching assistant in class whose creativity would infect other students.

Encouraging this kind of thinking has a downside. I ran the risk of losing those students who had a different style of thinking. Without fail one would declare, "But I'm just not creative."

"Do you dream at night when you're asleep?"

"Oh, sure."

"So tell me one of your most interesting dreams." The student would tell something wildly imaginative. Flying in the sky or in a time machine or growing three heads. "That's pretty creative. Who does that for you?"

"Nobody. I do it."

"Really — at night, when you're asleep?"

"Sure."

"Try doing it in the daytime, in class, okay?"

    An 80-year-old man was sitting on the sofa in his house along with his 45-year-old highly educated son. Suddenly a crow (乌鸦) landed on their window.

    The father asked his son, “What is this?”

    The son replied, “It is a crow.”

    After a few minutes, the father asked his son for the second time, “What is this?”

    The son said, “Father, I told you just now. It's a crow. ”

    After a little while, the father again asked his son the same question for the third time, “What is this?”

    This time, the son said to his father in a low and cold tone, “It's a crow, a crow.”

    After a moment, the father again asked his son for the fourth time, “What is this?”

    This time the son shouted at his father, “Why do you keep asking me the same question again and again? I have told you already, ‘IT IS A CROW'. Are you not able to understand this?”

    A minute later the father went to his room and came back with a diary, which he had kept since his son was born. On opening a page, he asked his son to read that page. The following words were written in it.

    Today my little son aged three was sitting with me on the sofa when a crow suddenly landed on the window edge. My son asked me 23 times what it was, and I replied him 23 times that it was a crow. I hugged him lovingly each time he asked me the same question. I didn't at all feet angry, but instead felt affection for my son.

    So...

    If your parents reach old age, do not look at them as a burden, but speak to them gently, and be kind to them. Be considerate to your parents.

    Some people believe that international sport creates goodwill between the nations and that if countries play games together they will learn to live together. Others say that the opposite is true: that international contests encourage false national pride and lead to misunderstanding and hatred. There is probably some truth in both arguments, but in recent years the Olympic Games have done little to support the view that sports encourage international brotherhood. Not only was there the incident of tragedy involving murder of athletes, but the Games were also ruined by lesser incidents caused principally by minor national contests.

    One country received its second-place medals with visible anger after the hockey final. There had been noisy scenes at the end of the hockey match, the losers objecting to the final decisions. They were convinced that one of their goals should not have been disallowed and that their opponents' victory was unfair. Their manager was in a rage when he said; "This isn't hockey. Hockey and the International Hockey Federation are finished." The president of the Federation said later that such behavior could result in the suspension of the team for at least three years.

    The American basketball team announced that they would not yield first place to Russia, after a disputable end to their contest. The game had ended in disorder. It was thought at first that the United States had won by a single point, but it was announced that there were three seconds still to play. A Russian player then threw the ball from one end of the court to the other, and another player popped it into the basket. It was the first time the US had ever lost an Olympic basketball match. An appeal jury（评审委员会）debated the matter for four and a half hours before announcing that the result would stand. The American players then voted not to receive the silver medals.

    Incidents of this kind will continue as long as sport is played competitively rather than for the love of the game. The suggestion that athletes should compete as individuals or in non-national teams, might be too much to hope for. But in present organization of Olympics there is far too much that encourages aggressive patriotism（爱国主义）.