Ongoing conflicts across the Middle East have prevented more than 13 million children from attending school, according to a report published by UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund.

    The report states that 40% of all children across the region are currently not receiving an education, which is a result of two consequences of violence: structural damage to schools and the displacement (转移) of populations, also called “forced migration.” Both issues result from the violence that has crossed the region in recent years. The report examines nine countries where a state of war has become the ordinary state. Across these countries, violence has made 8,500 schools unusable. In certain cases, communities have relied on school buildings to function as shelters for the displaced, with up to nine families living in a single classroom in former schools across Iraq.

    The report pays particularly close attention to Syria, where a bloody civil war has displaced at least nine million people since the war began in 2011. With the crisis (危机) now in its fifth year, basic public services, including education, inside Syria have been stretched (竭尽所能) to breaking point. Within the country, the quality and availability of education depends on whether a particular region is suffering violence.

    The report concludes with an earnest request to international policymakers to offer money and other resources to help ease the regional crisis. With more than 13 million children already driven from classrooms by conflict, the educational future of a generation of children are in the balance. This is destroying the future for an entire region.

    The baby is just one day old and has not yet left hospital. She is quiet but alert (警觉的). Twenty centimeters from her face researchers have placed a white card with two black spots on it. She stares at it carefully. A researcher removes the card and replaces it by another, this time with the spots differently spaced. As the cards change from one to the other, her gaze(凝视) starts to lose its focus—until a third, with three black spots, is presented. Her gaze returns: she looks at it for twice as long as she did at the previous card. Can she tell that the number two is different from three, just 24 hours after coming into the world?

    Or do newborns simply prefer more to fewer? The same experiment, but with three spots shown before two, shows the same return of interest when the number of spots changes. Perhaps it is just the newness? When slightly older babies were shown cards with pictures of objects (a comb, a key, an orange and so on), changing the number of objects had an effect separate from changing the objects themselves. Could it be the pattern that two things make, as opposed to three? No again. Babies paid more attention to squares moving randomly(随意地)on a screen when their number changed from two to three, or three to two. The effect even crosses between senses. Babies who were repeatedly shown two spots became more excited when they then heard three drumbeats than when they heard just two; likewise(同样地) when the researchers started with drumbeats and moved to spots.

    My motivation for starting our family tradition of reading in the car was purely selfish: I could not bear listening to A Sesame Street Christmas for another 10 hours. My three children had been addicted to this cassette（磁带）on our previous summer road trips.

    As I began to prepare for our next 500-mile car trip, I came across a book—Jim Trelease's—The Read Aloud Handbook. This could be the answer to my problem. I thought. So I put Roald Dahl's James and the Giant Peach into my bag. When I began to read aloud the tale of the boy who escapes the bad guys by hiding inside a giant peach, my three kids argued and fought with each other in their seats. But after several lines, they were attracted into the rhythm of the words and began to listen.

    We soon learned that the simple pleasure of listening to a well-written book makes the long miles pas more quickly. Sometimes reading became the most interesting part of the trip. I read Wilson Rawls's Summer of the Monkeys as we spent two days driving to the beach. We arrived just behind the power crews restoring（恢复）electricity after a tropical storm. The rain continued most of the week, and the beach was covered with oil washed up by the storm. When we returned home, I asked my son what he liked about the trip. He answered without hesitation “The book you read in the car.”

    Road trips still offer challenges, even though my children now are teenagers. But we continue to read as we roll across the country. And I'm beginning to see that reading aloud has done more than help pass the time. For at least a little while, we are not shut in our own electronic worlds. And maybe we've started something that will pass on to the next generation.

    You probably know who Marie Curie was, but you may not have heard of Rachel Carson. Of the outstanding ladies listed below, who do you think was the most important woman of the past 100 years?

    Jane Addams (1860-1935)

    Anyone who has ever been helped by a social worker has Jane Addams to thank. Addams helped the poor and worked for peace. She encouraged a sense of community by creating shelters and promoting education and services for people in need. In 1931, Addams became the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Rachel Carson (1907-1964)

    If it weren't for Rachel Carson, the environmental movement might not exist today. Her popular 1962 book Silent Spring raised awareness of the dangers of pollution and the harmful effects of chemicals on humans and on the world's lakes and oceans.

    Sandra Day O'Connor (1930-present)

    When Sandra Day O'Connor finished third in her class at Stanford Law School, in 1952, she could not find work at a law firm because she was a woman. She became an Arizona state senator (参议员) and, in 1981, the first woman to join the U.S. Supreme Court. O'Connor gave the deciding vote in many important cases during her 24 years on the top court.

    Rosa Parks (1913-2005)

    On December 1,1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks would not give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger. Her simple act landed Parks in prison. But it also set off the Montgomery bus boycott. It lasted for more than a year, and kicked off the civil-rights movement. “The only tired I was, was tired of giving in,” said Parks.

    The arm bones of women who lived 7,000 years ago show a surprising level of strength-even higher than today's professional athletes. that's according to a first-ever study comparing prehistoric(史前的) bones to those of living people. The finding suggests a revision of history- the everyday lives of prehistoric women were filled with hard labor, rather than just sitting at home doing lighter tasks while the men struggled and fought for life.

    Before the study, there are no clear records describing how our ancient ancestors lived. It can be easy to forget that bone is a living tissue, one that responds to the difficulties we put our bodies through, "said lead author Alison Macintosh."Physical force and muscle activity both put pressure on the bone. The bone reacts by changing in shape, thickness and other aspects over time.

    Previous studies only compared female bones to contemporary male bones, the researchers said-and that's a problem, because the response of male bones to stress and change is much bigger than that of women. For instance, as humans moved from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle constantly on the move to a more settled agrarian(农耕的) one, changes can be observed in the structure of the shinbone(胫骨)- and these changes were much more evident in men.

    However, a comparison of the bones of prehistoric women to the bones of living female athletes can help us work out a more accurate picture of what those prehistoric women were doing. "By analyzing the bones of living people and comparing them to the ancient bones, we can start to explain the kinds of labor our ancestors were reforming, Macintosh said. What they found was that women's leg strength hasn't changed a great deal, but their arms used to be very powerful. Prehistoric women, the researchers found, had arm strength 11-16 percent stronger than those of modern rowers, and 30 percent stronger than those of non-athletes.

    Living next to the Spellmans, our new neighbors, almost drove my mother crazy. If shewasn't shaming them for not attending church, or complaining to her sister Jackie about theway the Spellman girls dressed, then she was shoeing the Spellman's dogs out of our yard or filing noise complaints with the police, My mother had never been so busy.All she ever spoke of any more were the Spellmans and their wrongdoings.

    One Sunday afternoon after church service, my mother was driving old Ms Parker home to her house on the hill when we got a flat tire. As far as changing the tire, let's just say that we were at the mercy of the good Lord. Since old Ms. Parker lived so far up that hill, not a lot of traffic drove by us. It had been about fifteen minutes since the last car passed when we heard the rattling and puttering of an old pickup truck as it pulled over to assist us.

    The Spellman boys ran up on our car like a NASCAR pit crew. Before my mother could even protest, they had taken the tire off. "Her spare is flat," said the middle one to the big one. " Give her ours” replied the big one, barely acknowledging the sacrifice. My mother was stunned. "I don, t know what to say, "she stammered. The big one said, "Well, the Lord said love your neighbor, and we are neighbors, right?

    The next day when the Spellman's dogs went through my mother's flower garden, she put out a bowl of water for them. When she saw the Spellman girls walking out with nothing but a halter on, she lectured them about being upright ladies and offered them sweaters. And when she heard the Spellman's music through our walls, she tried to dance a little bit. She even invited the Spellmans to be part of the good neighbors committee. Now the neighborhood was a better place.