Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring one of the two, Australia, gave up the bad distinction by setting up paid family leave starting in 2011. I wasn't surprised when this didn't make the news here in the United States — we're now the only wealthy country without such a policy.

    The United States does have one explicit family policy, the Family and Medical Leave Act, passed in 1993. It entitles workers to as much as 12 weeks' unpaid leave for care of a newborn or dealing with a family medical problem. Despite the modesty of the benefit, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups fought it bitterly, describing it as “government-run personnel management” and a “dangerous precedent (先例).” In fact, every step of the way, as (usually) Democratic leaders have tried to introduce work-family balance measures into the law, business groups have been strongly opposed.

    As Yale law professor Anne Alstott argues, justifying parental support depends on defining(定义) the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for. Parents are burdened in many ways in their lives: there is “no exit” when it comes to children. Society expects — and needs — parents to provide their children with continuity of care. And society expects — and needs — parents to persist in their roles for 18 years, or longer if needed.

    While most parents do this out of love, there are public punishments for not providing care. What parents do, in other words, is of deep concern to the state, for the obvious reason that caring for children is not only morally urgent but important to the future of society. To classify parenting as a personal choice for which there is no collective responsibility is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting; really, it is to steal those benefits because they accrue (累积) to the whole of society as today's children become tomorrow's citizens. In fact, by some estimates, the value of parental investments in children, investments of time and money, is equal to 20-30% of GDP. If these investments bring huge social benefits — as they clearly do — the benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much clearer.

    It was almost the worst birthday of Abraham Lincoln's life.

    On February 11, 1861 (the day before he turned fifty-two), Lincoln left for Washington to become the nation's sixteenth President. As he left home in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln handed his son Robert a black oilskin(油布) bag, and told him to keep it carefully. He did not tell Robert what was inside.

    Unknown to his seventeen-year-old son, Lincoln had placed his newly written inaugural speech in the bag. It was to be the most important speech he ever made. And it was his only copy.

When the train arrived in Indianapolis—the first stop on the long journey—Lincoln rode off in a special carriage without his family. Robert walked from the station to the local hotel.

    When Robert arrived at the hotel, he learned that his family's rooms were not ready. So he asked that the bag should be held at the front desk. Then he went off to be with friends.

    On his return, Robert found his father waiting anxiously. Where was the bag? Robert explained that he had checked it at the desk.

An angry Lincoln sped to the hall and leaped over the front desk. He began searching through a huge pile of luggage.

    As puzzled guests looked on, Lincoln dragged from the pile a familiar-looking black bag and opened it, only to find someone else's dirty clothes. It was the wrong bag. Back he went to the pile.

    At last he found the valuable bag and the speech inside. Lincoln handed it to his son and said strictly, “Now you keep it!”

    It was the one and only time, Robert said, that his father had ever lost his temper at him. But with his speech fond and his birthday yet to be celebrated, Abraham Lincoln grew cheerful. As Robert proudly recalled, “Father did not scold(责骂).”

    I have learned something about myself since I moved from Long Island to Florida three years ago. Even though I own a home in Port St. Lucie just minutes from the ocean, an uncontrollable urge wells up to return to Long Island even as others make their way south. I guess I am a snowbird stuck in reverse. Instead of enjoying Florida's mild winters, I willingly endure the severe weather on Long Island, the place I called home for 65 years.

    I'm like a migratory bird (候鸟) that has lost its sense of timing and direction, my wings flapping against season.

    So what makes me fly against the tide of snowbirds? The answer has a lot to do with my reluctance to give up the things that define who I am. Once I hear that the temperature on Long Island has dipped into the range of 40 to 50 degrees, I begin to long for the sight and crackling sound of a wood fire. I also long for the bright display of colors—first in the fall trees, and then in the lights around homes and at Rockefeller Center. Floridians decorate, too, but can't create the special feel of a New England winter.

    I suppose the biggest reason why I return is to celebrate the holidays with people I haven't seen in months. What could be better than sitting with family and friends for a Thanksgiving turkey dinner, or watching neighbors' children excitedly open gifts on Christmas? Even the first snowfall seems special. I especially enjoy seeing a bright red bird settling on a snow-covered branch. (My wife and 1 spend winters at a retirement community in Ridge, and I'm grateful that I don't have to shovel.)

    While these simple pleasures are not unique to Long Island, they are some of the reasons why I come back. Who says you can't go home?

    Since English biologist Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, scientists have vastly improved their knowledge of natural history. However, a lot of information is still of the speculation, and scientists can still only make educated guesses at certain things.

    One subject that they guess about is why some 400 million years ago, animals in the sea developed limbs (肢) that allowed them to move onto and live on land.

    Recently, an idea that occurred to the US paleontologist (古生物学家) Alfred Romer a century ago became a hot topic once again.

    Romer thought that tidal (潮汐的) pools might have led to fish gaining limbs. Sea animals would have been forced into these pools by strong tides. Then, they would have been made either to adapt to their new environment close to land or die. The fittest among them grew to accomplish the transition (过渡) from sea to land.

    Romer called these earliest four-footed animals “tetrapods”. Science has always thought that this was a credible theory, but only recently has there been strong enough evidence to support it.

    Hannah Byrne is an oceanographer (海洋学家) at Uppsala University in Sweden. She announced at the 2018 Ocean Sciences Meeting in Oregon, US, that by using computer software, her team had managed to link Homer's theory to places where fossil deposits (沉积物) of the earliest tetrapods were found.

    According to the magazine Science, in 2014, Steven Balbus, a scientist at the University of Oxford in the UK, calculated that 400 million years ago, when the move from land to sea was achieved, tides were stronger than they are today. This is because the planet was 10 percent closer to the moon than it is now.

    The creatures stranded in the pools would have been under the pressure of “survival of the fittest”, explained Mattias Green, an ocean scientist at the UK's University of Bangor. As he told Science, “After a few days in these pools, you become food or you run out of food... the fish that had large limbs had an advantage because they could flip (翻转) themselves back in the water.”

    As is often the case, however, there are others who find the theory less convincing. Cambridge University's paleontologist Jennifer Clark, speaking to Nature magazine, seemed unconvinced. “It's only one of many ideas for the origin of land-based tetrapods, any or all of which may have been a part of the answer,” she said.

    Anyone who has ever volunteered for any cause can tell you that in the end, they felt that they gained more from the experience than they gave. This is true for most examples of reaching out to help others. We find that we gain new understanding about not only those we help, but ourselves as well. Stressing the importance of helping others in martial arts students will benefit them both inside and outside of the class.

    Helping others strengthens families. Families that practice the belief of working together and helping each other prepare their children for the concept of teamwork outside of the home environment. By learning to help around the house through activities such as household jobs, baby-sitting and keeping a tidy bedroom, children learn valuable lessons that they carry with them to their future relationships.

    By helping others outside of the home environment, valuable friendships can be developed. When we learn to reach out to others and give off our time and talents we find that our friendships grow, which in turn is a benefit to our lives. Martial arts training supports this by exposing students to people of various backgrounds and beliefs that gather for a common goal and to help each other. Any time a group of people are working toward a common goal, team spirit surely forms. When we help each other in the martial arts setting and in every area of our lives, a friendship is formed that promotes teamwork.

    The most important thing to realize is that it does not take a lot to make a lot happen. Little things can make a big difference in the area of helping others. Simple gestures of kindness and support given frequently can build a strong base for the growth and development of each individual which leads to the success of all.

    Some educators told us that more years of school could help students get higher scores on intelligence tests. That was a finding of a study of teenage males in some countries. Now, another research shows that physical activity may help students do better in their classes.

    The research comes as educators in some countries are reducing time for activities like physical education. They are using the time instead for academic(学术的) subjects like math and reading. The studies appeared between 2008 and 2014. They included more than 55,000 children, aged 6 to 18.

    Amika Singh: "According to the results of our study, we can conclude that being physically active is beneficial for academic performance. There are, first, Physiological explanations, like more blood flow, and so more oxygen to the brain. Being physically active means there are more hormones(荷尔蒙) produced like endorphins(内啡肽). And endorphins make your stress level lower and your mood improved, which means you also perform better."

    Also, students taking part in organized sports learn rules and how to follow them. This could improve their classroom behavior and help them keep their mind on their work.

    The study leaves some questions unanswered, however Ms Stash says it is not possible to say whether the amount or kind of activity affected the level of academic improvement. This is because of differences among the studies.

    The researchers said they found only two high­quality studies. They needed more high­quality studies to confirm(证实) their findings. They also pointed out that "results for other parts of the world may be quite different".

    Still, the general finding was that physically active kids are more likely to do better in school. Ms Singh says schools should consider that finding before they cut physical education programs. Her paper on "Physical Activity and Performance at School" is published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.