Fun doesn't have to be expensive

    Everyone likes to have fun, but not everyone has much money to spend. Here are some free or cheap ways to enjoy yourself.

    Go outside

    Going outside in good weather can be a lot of fun if you don't want to stay at home. {#blank#}1{#/blank#} If you live in a city, you can go window-shopping. Or you can explore an old part of town and admire the buildings.

    Try a hobby

    While you're out, take pictures of things you find. Planning and taking pictures can make you aware of the beauty all around you. Photographic equipment can be expensive, but it doesn't have to be. You probably already own a camera or a cell phone that can take pictures. Other creative hobbies can also be done with basic materials. {#blank#}2{#/blank#}

    Find an event

    Libraries often hold free public events. {#blank#}3{#/blank#}And while you're there, borrow a book or movie for free. Museums and universities also hold free events.

    If you can't find a free event, you can volunteer at an event that requires tickets. People who organize concerts and plays need help.{#blank#}4{#/blank#} Sometimes they reward volunteers with free tickets.

    Meet a friend

    Relationships are often the best things in life. {#blank#}5{#/blank#} For example, invite a friend for a walk, an event or a time working on your hobby. Hosting doesn't have to be difficult. If your friend comes in the afternoon, you don't have to serve a meal. You can sit and talk, play board games or card games or watch a movie together.

A. A friend in need is a friend indeed.

B. Stop by one to find out what's going on.

C. Hike or bicycle with a friend on a nearby path or in a park.

D. Whatever you do, find a friend to share it with.

E. It's a good idea to stay at home to watch a movie.

F. You can set up or take down chairs or greet visitors.

G. Drawing and writing require nothing more than a pencil and paper.

    One afternoon I toured an art museum while waiting for my husband to finish a business meeting. I was looking forward to a quiet view of the wonderful works.

    A young couple viewing the paintings ahead of me chatted nonstop between themselves. I watched them a moment and decided she was doing all the talking. I admired his patience for tolerating her constant words. Disturbed by their noise, I moved on.

    I encountered them several times as I moved through the various rooms of art. Each time I heard her constant talking, I moved away quickly.

    I was standing at the counter of the museum gift store doing some shopping when the couple approached the exit. Before they left, the man reached into his pocket and pulled out a white object. He turned it into a long cane (手杖) and then tapped his way into the coatroom to get his wife's jacket.

    "He's a brave man," the clerk at the counter said, "Most of us would give up if we were blinded at such a young age. During his recovery, he made a promise that his life wouldn't change. So, as before, he and his wife come in whenever there's a new art show."

    "But what does he get out of the art?" I asked, "He can't see."

    "Can't see! You're wrong. He sees a lot. More than you or I do," the clerk said, "His wife describes each painting so he can see it in his head."

    I learned something about patience, courage and love that day. I saw the patience of a young wife describing paintings to a person without sight and the courage of a husband who would not allow blindness to change his life.

    And I saw the love shared by two people as I watched this couple walk away arm in arm.

    Most dog owners believe their dogs experience guilt, but animal behaviorists say the "guilty look" of a dog is simply a reaction to you and that dogs lack the ability to feel shame.

    Alexandra Horowitz, a psychology professor and principal investigator at the Horowitz Dog Cognition Lab at Columbia University once carried out a study on dog "guilt". She videotaped 14 dogs in a series of trials and observed how they reacted when their owners left the room after instructing them not to eat a treat. When the owner was gone, Horowitz gave some of the dogs the forbidden treat. Then she would tell the owners whether their dogs had eaten the treat or had behaved. However, Horowitz wasn't always honest with them.

    Horowitz found that the dogs' "guilty looks" had little to do with whether they'd eaten the treat or not. In fact, dogs that hadn't eaten it but were scolded by misinformed owners tended to exhibit the most elements of the "guilty look".

Horowitz says this shows that the dogs' body language is actually a response to their owner's behavior—not an experience of shame for a misdeed. Why then, do dogs look so ashamed when we scold them?

Maybe that look of guilt is the result of a learned association. When you scold your dog for chewing up a pair of slippers, he quickly learns that if he lowers his head and tucks his tail, the undesirable response—raised voice and angry expression—is more likely to disappear.

    Americans gave nearly $300 billion away last year. Do you know the reason? Beyond the noble goals of helping others, it is that giving will make them happier.

    It is a fact that givers are happier people than non-givers. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, a survey of 30,000 American households, people who give money to charity are 43% more likely than non-givers to say they are "very happy" about their lives. Similarly, volunteers are 42% more likely to be very happy then non-volunteers.

    The happiness difference between givers and non-givers is not due to differences in their personal characteristics, such as income or religion. Imagine two people who are identical in terms of income and faith, as well as age, education, politics, sex, and family circumstances, but one donates money and volunteers, while the other does not. The giver will be, on average, over 40 percentage points more likely to be very happy than the non-givers.

    A number of studies have researched exactly why charity leads to happiness. The surprising conclusion is that giving affects our brain chemistry. For example, people who give often report feelings of euphoria, which psychologists have referred to as the "Helper's High". They believe that charitable activity produces a very mild version of the sensations people get from drugs like morphine and heroin.

    Of course, not only does giving increase our happiness, but also our happiness increases the possibility that we will give. Everyone prefers to give more when they are happy. Researchers have investigated this by conducting experiments in which people are asked about their happiness before and after they participate in a charitable activity, such as volunteering to help children or serving meals to the poor. The result is clear that giving has a strong, positive causal impact on our happiness, so does happiness on giving

    America's businesses are getting older and fatter, while many new businesses are dying in infancy.

    A study last month by the Brookings Institution found that the proportion of older firms has grown steadily over several decades, while the survival rate of new companies has fallen. In addition, young people are starting companies at a sharply lower rate than in the past.

    A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers shows a major cause: The cost of obeying government regulations has risen to more than $2 trillion (12.26 trillion yuan) annually, or 12 percent of the GDP, and this cost falls disproportionately on smaller, newer businesses.

    It's risky, difficult and expensive to start a business, and getting more so. Governments are imposing various new rules on a seemingly daily basis: health insurance, minimum wage increases and, most recently in California, compulsory paid sick days for even hourly employees. These regulations shift huge social welfare costs directly onto often-struggling small businesses, while being proportionally much less costly for larger companies.

This is partly an unintended issue of resources—established companies can cope with new costs more easily—but it's also deliberate. For instance, big insurance companies got a seat at the table to help write Obama care, but less politically powerful firms—like medical device manufacturers—got squeezed.

    Mature, successful corporations can employ ex-lawmakers with connections, distribute campaign contributions and even write regulations for themselves. They are also more likely to want to protect steady revenue streams than revolutionize their industry.

Major companies that have been so ill-managed they would otherwise collapse—airlines, car companies and banks—stagger(蹒跚)on because politicians ride to the rescue with bags of taxpayer money.

    The genius of our unique system of government is the determination to protect and defend the rights of the individual over the rights of the nation. As such, the rise of a well-connected oligarchy(寡头政治)that protects big business at the expense of small business, and the established over the new, is opposite to American ideals.

Income inequalitywhich is directly caused by faulty government policy—is being promoted as the reason to impose more of that bad policy. But let's be perfectly clear, we do not have a free market but one where government picks winners and losers through regulations and financial aids.

    Politics is, and always has been, about balancing competing interests seeking to benefit themselves, and that's as it should be, but the force of government should never be used to reduce competition, kill innovation or support and extend artificial monopolies(垄断)by harming the consumer, the taxpayer and the economy. Policy must breed our new and small businesses or see the as-yet undreamed of innovations that could be our bright future die in infancy.

    Every year in May, art galleries and museums prepare shows to honor Leonardo Da Vinci, who died in France on May 2, 1519. He is remembered as one of the greatest artists and creative thinkers of all time. His most famous paintings are The Mona Lisa and The Last Supper.

    Recently, researchers have been studying a painting-Landscape 8P which, they think, is Da Vinci's earliest-known artwork. They used special lighting to study the artwork and discovered there were two images(图像), not one. One drawing is on the back of the piece, which dates back to August 5, 1473.

    The drawing on the front was painted when Leonardo was 21 years old. It shows a river valley and a castle outside the city of Florence. There is little left of the drawing on the back, perhaps because it was wiped off. Only a bridge over a river can be seen. But there is writing on both sides.

    The writing on the front gives the date and goes from right to left. Some people would call this "mirror-writing". It's a way Leonardo often wrote in his notebooks. The writing on the back goes from left to right and tells about an agreement, probably to produce a work of art.

    Cecilia Frosinini is an art historian. She said, "Leonardo was born left-handed, but was taught to write with his right hand from a very young age. By looking at his writings, including from this drawing, we can see his right-handed handwriting is educated and well done. "

    Experts compared the two handwriting samples(样本)and said they were both made by Leonardo. They show he could write well using his left hand or his right hand.

    The drawing is known as Landscape 8P from its number in an art list. It will be part of an exhibit at Italy's Uffizi Gallery. The gallery director, Eike Schmidt, said by studying the drawing researchers gave us a new way of looking at Leonardo's drawing technique and his abilities in writing.