2019年11月14日 03:32

  The poor are very wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition, and I told the sisters: You take care of the other three. I take care of this one who looked worse. So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was such a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand as she said just the words "thank you" and she died. I could not help but examine my conscience1 before her and I asked what would I say if I was in her place. And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said I am hungry, that I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain, or something, but she gave me much more -- she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face. As did that man whom we picked up from the drain2, half eaten with worms, and we brought him to the home. "I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die like an angel, loved and cared for." And it was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man who could speak like that, who could die like that without blaming anybody, without cursing anybody, without comparing anything. Like an angel -- this is the greatness of our people. And that is why we believe what Jesus had said: I was hungry, I was naked, I was homeless, I was unwanted, unloved, uncared for, and you did it to me.
  I believe that we are not real social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of the people, but we are really contemplative3 in the heart of the world. For we are touching the body of Christ twenty-four hours... And I think that in our family we don"t need bombs and guns, to destroy, to bring peace, just get together, love one another, bring that peace, that joy, that strength of presence of each other in the home. And we will be able to overcome all the evil that is in the world.
  And with this prize that I have received as a Prize of Peace, I am going to try to make the home for many people who have no home. Because I believe that love begins at home, and if we can create a home for the poor I think that more and more love will spread. And we will be able through this understanding love to bring peace be the good news to the poor. The poor in our own family first, in our country and in the world. To be able to do this, our sisters, our lives have to be woven with prayer. They have to be woven with Christ to be able to understand, to be able to share. Because to be woven with Christ is to be able to understand, to be able to share. Because today there is so much suffering... When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread, I have satisfied. I have removed that hunger. But a person who is shut out, who feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person who has been thrown out from society --that poverty is so full of hurt and so unbearable... And so let us always meet each other with a smile, for the smile is the beginning of love, and once we begin to love each other naturally we want to do something.

  This is a story that happened in 17th century Europe. Tulips were introduced into Holland before the 17th century but it did not take long for the flowers to gain popularity among the upper classes. Flowers of such beauty and rarity soon became symbols of power and prestige and the rich tried their utmost to lay their hands on some to display in their gardens. When more people learned of the prices that the rich were willing to pay for tulips, they knew they just found a "get-rich-quick" gold mine.
  By 1634, the whole country was so fascinated by tulips that all other activities almost came to a stop. People were trading in tulips and even buying and selling un-sprouted flowers. It was similar to the futures market today, where traders are buying and selling crude oil or cotton which they will never see. It was documented that one rare bulb fetched a price equivalent to ten tons of cheese. As the tulip trades increased, regular marts were set up on the Stock Exchange of Amsterdam and other towns. That happened in the year 1636 when mania was reaching its peak.
  Like all speculative bubbles, many made a fortune in the beginning. As the prices moved in one direction, you only needed to buy low and sell high, buy high and sell higher. After the initial gains, confidence rose and many sold away their assets in order to invest more money in tulips, hoping to make more money. The temptation was so great that those who were watching from the sidelines also rushed to the tulip-marts. People often said in jest that one should sell stocks when housewives were talking about stocks in the market. Mass participation was a sign that the market had peaked. At that time, everyone thought that the high demand for tulips would continue forever and prices could only go up because more and more people from all over the world would start to like tulips. This was similar to the early nineties when China opened up its economy. If a listed company announced its intention to enter the Chinese market, its stock price rose because the profit potential was limitless if every single Chinese bought its product.
  When the prices of tulips reached such an exorbitant level, few people bought them for planting in their gardens. The real demand for the flowers was exaggerated by people who were buying them for speculation, not appreciation. The bubble finally burst in 1637. For some unknown reasons maybe a group of people suddenly realised the madness tulips failed to command the usual inflated prices in a gathering. Word spread and the market crashed. As in all asset bubbles, it took time to propel prices to such outlandish levels, but it only took a single pierce to burst the bubble. When confidence was destroyed, it could not be recovered and prices kept falling until they were one-tenth of those set during the peak. Soon the nobles became poor and the rich became paupers. Cries of distress resounded everywhere in Holland.
  Why do investment professionals like to bring up this story that happened centuries ago? This is because greed is part of human nature and short memory is an investor trait, we just never seem to learn from past mistakes. Recently, many have pointed to the American investors" craze over Internet stocks as another "tulipmania". Whether these are really "Internet tulips" remain to be seen. However there are tell-tale signs that the buying is overdone.


  Zeng Zi was one of Confucius" students. Once, Zeng Zi"s wife was going shopping. Because the child was crying loudly, she promised the child that she would kill their pig to treat him after she returned home. After she returned, Zeng Zi captured to butcher the pig. His wife stopped him, saying " I was kidding the child." Zeng zi said: "There is no kidding with the children, because they know little and they usually imitate their parents and follow their instructions. If you cheat them, it is the same as teaching them to cheat the others." So Zeng Zi killed the pig, because he knew that sincerity and keeping one"s words are the essentials of conducting oneself. If he broke his words, he might keep his pig, but he would leave a unforgettable shadow in his child"s heart.
  It might make a larger omelette but a bigger egg isn"t necessarily a better one — and it certainly doesn"t make the hen that laid it very happy.
  That is the view of the chairman of the British Free Range Producers" Association, who says that if you want to be kind to hens, you should eat medium, not large or very large, eggs.
  “It can be painful to the hen to lay a larger egg,” Tom Vesey, who keeps 16,000 hens on 45 acres at Dingestow, Monmouth, told The Times. “There is also the stress, which is a big problem as it takes more out of hens to lay large eggs. It would be kinder to eat smaller eggs. Whenever I go to the Continent people eat medium-sized eggs yet here the housewife seems to be wedded to large eggs.”
  He also suggests people would do better eating a breakfast of two medium-sized eggs rather than one large one. “I prefer medium eggs,” he said, “They taste better, are less watery and don"t run off the plate.”
  Mr Vesey, who says he is determined to change egg-shopping habits, insists that farmers only produce large eggs because they receive more for them from supermarkets. The average price for 12 free-range eggs paid to a farmer is 77p for medium, £1 for large and just over £1 for very large.
  Mr Vesey has been criticised by industry chiefs for raising the issue in The Grocer but animal welfare experts say his argument is valid. Phil Brooke, of Compassion in World Farming, said: “Selectively breeding hens for high productivity, whether larger eggs or larger numbers of eggs, can cause a range of problems such as osteoporosis, bone breakage and prolapse. We need to breed and feed hens so that they can produce eggs without risk to their health or welfare.”
  Christine Nicol, Professor of Animal Welfare at the University of Bristol, said: “There is no strong published evidence of pain in egg-laying hens but it"s not ueasonable to think there may be a mismatch in the size of birds and the eggs they produce. We do often spot bloodstains on large eggs. As a personal decision I would never buy jumbo eggs.”
  Prices for very large eggs have decreased slightly over the past year, something Mr Vesey believes may make farmers think again about their production. He would like to see higher prices paid for medium eggs to encourage production. There is little consumer demand for small eggs, which weigh less than 53g and are mostly used in processed food.
  He thinks by changing the protein element of poultry feed it is possible for farmers to slow down the process of egg production so that hens can lay smaller eggs. He also suggests that farmers will make more profit from producing medium eggs because there will be fewer breakages. The volume of egg shell is the same on a medium as on a large or very large egg. Thin shells mean more cracked eggs.
  Mark Williams, head of the British Egg Industry Council, said shoppers mostly opted for large eggs, thinking they offered better value for money. “But it is possible consumers could be switched off from buying large overnight,” he said.










  Legend has it that Napoleon objected to the time-honored military practice of marching on the left side of the road with weapons at the ready in the right hand: it put lefties like him at a strategic disadvantage. Once in power, the story goes, the French emperor—whose queen, Josephine, was also a southpaw—ordered his armies to switch sides. Civilians in countries he conquered had to do the same. Hence, supposedly, the rules of the road as we know them were born, which also explains why the British (who, along with the Prussians, defeated Napoleon at Waterloo) still drive on the left。
  Not only was atomic scientist Marie Curie left-handed, but she was the matriarch of a whole family of accomplished, southpaw scientists. Curie, who discovered the principles of radioactivity and won two Nobel Prizes, was married to fellow lefty Pierre Curie, who was instrumental in helping Marie"s atomic research and shared one of her Nobel awards. Historians believe their daughter, Irene, was also left-handed. Irene went on to win a Nobel Prize of her own with her husband--who, you guessed it, was also left-handed。
  Lefty scientists are hardly unusual. In addition to the Curie clan, Einstein, Newton and Alan Turing—founder of modern computer science—all were left-handed as well。