7 Scarcities of the World

7 Scarcities of the World

Attention – ravenous, focused and insatiable curiosity;
Acceptance – cultural abstraction and belief in a common genius;
Empathy – vivid vicariousness and ability to emote;
Rigor – intellectual discipline and capacity to articulate;
Range – tactile feel for history and logic;
Courage – preparedness to gamble the dreams;
Validation – pre-posthumous praise.
People Who Disappoint, Do They Still have Wisdom?

SCHOOL VOUCHERS

Issues and Arguments

School vouchers, also known as scholarships, redirect the flow of education funding, channeling it directly to individual families rather than to school districts. This allows families to select the public or private schools of their choice and have all or part of the tuition paid. Scholarships are advocated on the grounds that parental choice and competition between public and private schools will improve education for all children. Vouchers can be funded and administered by the government, by private organizations, or by some combination of both.
This page brings together some of the most important sources of evidence on the outcomes of existing scholarship programs. It includes studies of both privately- and publicly-funded programs, as well as the results of a key court case. (A more comprehensive discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of both private and government-funded scholarships can be found in the book Market Education: The Unknown History.)

Government-run voucher programs are very controversial, and they have been criticized from two very different angles. The first body of criticism alleges that competitive markets are not well suited to the field of education, and that any school reform based on privatization, competition, and parental choice is doomed to failure. A summary of these arguments, with responses, can be found by clicking here.
The second body of criticism states that government-funded scholarships would not create a genuinely free educational market, but instead would perpetuate dependence on government funding and regulation to the continued detriment of families. These arguments, along with responses are described here.

Judicial Verdicts

The Supreme Court of the state of Wisconsin ruled on June 10th, 1998, that the expanded Milwaukee voucher program--which will allow up to 15,000 children to attend any religious or other private school--does not violate either the state or federal constitutions. A link to the complete verdict follows, but please note that due to the size of the page it may be slow to load. Complete verdict.
This verdict was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but on November 9, 1998, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court announced that they had voted 8 to 1 not to hear the appeal, and thus to allow the verdict of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to stand.

Articles

An Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program

by Jay P. Greene, William G. Howell, and Paul E. Peterson

"This evaluation, issued by Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), reports the results of a survey of a random sample of parents who applied for a CSTP scholarship, including both parents of scholarship recipients and parents of non-recipients. It also reports test-score results for students attending two schools established in response to the creation of CSTP."--From the report's Executive Summary.
Note that researchers from Indiana University completed a study of the Cleveland program in May of 1998 and found no academic benefits to students after the first year (not available on-line). Peterson and Greene have identified a number of critical flaws in the Indiana paper, however, which greatly undermine its credibility. Their assessment of the Indiana study will hopefully be made available here shortly.

Fifth Year Report: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program

by John F. Witte, Troy D. Sterr and Christopher A. Thorn

An analysis of the Milwaukee publicly-run voucher program by the officially appointed researcher. According to Witte, the parents of "choice" kids are virtually unanimous in their opinion of the program: they love it. Parents are not only far more satisfied with their freely chosen private schools than they were with their former public schools, they participate more actively in their children's education now that they've made the move. See the review of "The Effectiveness of School Choice in Milwaukee," below, for a note on academic achievement outcomes of the program.

The Effectiveness of School Choice in Milwaukee

by Jay P. Greene, Paul E. Peterson, and Jiangtao Du

"A Secondary Analysis of Data from the Program's Evaluation." Witte's studies failed to demonstrate any academic advantage to students in choice schools. Recently, a reanalysis of the raw data by statisticians and educational researchers from Harvard and the University of Houston found that choice students do indeed benefit academically from the program, showing significant gains in both reading and mathematics by their fourth year of participation.

Fourth Year Report: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program

Are Public Schools Hazardous

Are Public Schools Hazardous
To Public Education?

By Andrew J. Coulson

For a diverse nation, we share a remarkable consensus with respect to educating children. As reflected in polls and focus groups, Americans are nearly unanimous in their commitment to certain fundamental ideals: that all children have access to a quality education regardless of family income; that they be prepared for happy and productive lives; that they be taught the rights and duties of citizenship; and that the schools help to foster strong and cohesive communities. These are the ideals of public education.
One hundred and fifty years ago, a band of dedicated reformers declared that progress toward those ideals was too slow and proposed that a new institution be created to more effectively promote them. Led by Bostonian Horace Mann, the reformers campaigned for a greater state role in education. They argued that a universal, centrally planned system of tax-funded schools would be superior in every respect to the seemingly disorganized market of independent schools that existed at the time. Shifting the reins of educational power from private to public hands would, they promised, yield better teaching methods and materials, greater efficiency, superior service to the poor, and a stronger, more cohesive nation. Mann even ventured the prediction that if public schooling were widely adopted and given enough time to work, "nine-tenths of the crimes in the penal code would become obsolete," and "the long catalogue of human ills would be abridged."
Though Horace Mann's promised nirvana has clearly failed to materialize, there is one respect in which he and his fellow reformers were completely successful: They forged an unbreakable link in people's minds between the institution of public schooling and the ideals of public education. As generation after generation has attended public schools and sent its children to public schools, it has become more and more difficult to see the distinction between the institution itself and the principles it is meant to uphold. "If you believe in our shared ideals of public education," goes the mantra, "then you must support the public schools."
This seemingly innocuous failure to distinguish between means and ends has had two disastrous consequences. First, it has meant that any criticism of the public school system could be--and often has been--misconstrued as an attack on the ideals of public education. As a result, individuals who agree on the ultimate goals of education but who differ as to the most effective way of achieving those goals are repeatedly and unnecessarily thrown into conflict. Where cooperation and mutual respect could flourish, endless bickering and antagonism are the norm.
The second consequence has been an extreme narrowing of vision. Scholars and policymakers who have equated public education solely with public schooling have contented themselves with reform efforts that merely tinker around the edges of our current system. They have consistently failed to consider the vast wealth of evidence that exists on alternative approaches to schooling, thereby reducing their chances of identifying the most effective practices.

Competitive educational markets have consistently done a better job of serving the public than state-run educational systems.
We have suffered under the weight of these consequences for too long. Despite decades of heroic efforts to improve public schools, the institution continues to fall short of our expectations. Over the past 50 years, we have cut the pupil-teacher ratio in half, quadrupled per-student spending, and tested innumerable reform programs. In desperation, we have ascribed blame for the system's ills to every level of public school employee from teachers and principals to administrators and superintendents. Nevertheless, the ills persist.
The most fundamental skill of all, literacy, has actually been in decline in this country for at least 30 years. According to the most sophisticated national and international literacy studies, nearly a quarter of American 16- to 25-year-olds have only the most meager grasp of reading and writing. Pedagogical methods and teacher training, which were promised to make great strides under the guidance of government experts, have languished. Some instructional techniques have been sidelined by the public schools for decades despite their proven effectiveness. And, most poignantly, the public schools have failed to fulfill one of our most important and universally held ideals of public education--providing a decent education to all low-income children.
We cannot afford to continue squandering our time and our children's futures on heated rhetoric and unthinking devotion to the status quo. While public schooling has become deeply entrenched in our nation's tradition, we must realize that it is only one among many possible approaches to education. We must not let the force of habit stand in the way of our ultimate aims. Instead, we must consider a broad range of school systems to determine which is best suited to advancing those aims.
Since most developed nations adopted state-run school systems during the 19th century, it might not be immediately obvious where to find examples of alternative approaches to schooling. The answer has been right behind us all along: the 2,500-year history of education. Our ancestors have tried more and different ways of educating their children than most people would imagine, yet we continue to ignore their experiences at our society's peril.
While it doesn't make sense to point to any one historical education system and try to copy it (there are a number of factors that could cause a system to work well in one culture and not in another), it does make sense to compare educational approaches from a variety of times and places, and to identify common elements of the most successful systems. Any approach to schooling that consistently produced good results across many different cultures, regardless of the prevailing social, political, and economic conditions, might have some interesting lessons to teach us.
Five years ago, I began just such a study, comparing school systems from all over the world, from ancient times to the present, in an attempt to discover which systems met the needs of citizens, which did not, and why. From classical Greece through the medieval Islamic empire, from the young American republic up to the present, a recurrent theme emerged from the hum of the centuries: Competitive educational markets have consistently done a better job of serving the public than state-run educational systems. The reason lies in the fact that state school systems lack four key factors that history tells us are essential to educational excellence: choice and financial responsibility for parents, and freedom and market incentives for educators. School systems that have enjoyed these characteristics have consistently done the best job of meeting both our private educational demands and our shared educational ideals.

After 150 years of experimentation and decades of disappointment, is it not time that we consider alternatives to the public school system?
Though it is widely thought that government intervention was necessary to bring schooling and literacy to the masses, both England and the United States achieved those milestones before state-run education systems were firmly established in either nation. It is also ironic that, while one of the chief aims of public education was to foster peaceful, harmonious communities, public schools have actually caused great divisiveness.
Because public schools constitute the official government organ of education, everyone wants them to reflect their own views. In a pluralistic society, that is impossible. When one group forces its views on the public schools, it does so at the expense of all others, creating inevitable turmoil. Battles over such things as evolution vs. creation, book selection and censorship, and sex education are endemic to state-run schooling. Free-market school systems, by contrast, have allowed people to pursue both their own unique educational needs and their shared educational goals without coming into conflict with each other.
One of the great promises of public schools was that they would end social inequities, providing a quality education to all students regardless of income. Today, market-oriented education reforms such as vouchers and tuition tax credits are often opposed on the grounds that they would break that promise. However, those who worry about low-income families falling through the cracks in an educational market cannot ignore the reality that the public school system is currently dumping countless children into a yawning educational chasm. The bulk of evidence, both historical and modern, points to the superiority of markets (supplemented with a mechanism for subsidizing the education of low-income children) over state school systems in their ability to serve the poor. Throughout history, low-income parents have consistently made better educational decisions for their own children than government experts have made for them, no matter how well-intentioned those experts have been. Poor parents, indeed all parents, need to be empowered to once again take control of their children's education.
T o many, the concept of an open market for education will seem preposterous. After all, we have been led to believe that education is different--that it does not benefit from market forces in the way that other enterprises do. In light of the historical evidence, we have clearly been misled. While most fields of human endeavor have seen astonishing growth and improvement over the course of the past century--while whole new industries have been created and general intelligence has steadily increased--educational achievement alone has stagnated, a fossilized legacy of central planning and good intentions gone awry.
If the lessons of history can be distilled to a single observation, it is that the institution of public schooling is not, after all, the best system for advancing our ideals of public education. After 150 years of experimentation and decades of disappointment, is it not time that we consider alternatives to the public school system?

School vouchers for private schools

School vouchers for private schools should be available in all 50 states.
All parents are paying taxes for schools - they should be entitled to the same benefits.
I also think this will induce the Public School system to improve its student education and not serve as a warehousing of kids.

YJ Draiman

Made in America, Could Create 200,000 More Jobs Quickly, and if you continue for a year it will be over a million jobs - Diane Sawyer Report

Made in America, Could Create 200,000 More Jobs Quickly, and if you continue for a year it will be over a million jobs - Diane Sawyer Report


Buy American products

Did you all see the recent Diane Sawyer special report? They removed ALL items from a typical, middle class family's home that were not made in the USA .

There was hardly anything left besides the kitchen sink. Literally. During the special they showed truckloads of items - USA made - being brought in to replace everything and talked about how to find these items and the difference in price etc.

It was interesting that Diane said that if every American spent just $64 more than normal on USA made items this year, it would create something like 200,000 new jobs!
I WAS BUYING FOOD THE OTHER DAY AT WALMART and ON THE LABEL OF SOME PRODUCTS IT SAID 'FROM CHINA’

FOR EXAMPLE THE "OUR FAMILY" BRAND OF THE MANDARIN ORANGES SAYS RIGHT ON THE CAN 'FROM CHINA '

I WAS SHOCKED SO, FOR A FEW MORE CENTS, I BOUGHT THE LIBERTY GOLD BRAND OR THE DOLE SINCE IT'S FROM CALIF.

Are we Americans as dumb as we appear - or - is it that we just do not think while the Chinese, knowingly and intentionally, export inferior and even toxic products and dangerous toys and goods to be sold in American markets?

70% of Americans believe that the trading privileges afforded to the Chinese should be suspended.

Why do you need the government to suspend trading privileges? DO IT YOURSELF, AMERICA!!

Simply look on the bottom of every product you buy, and if it says 'Made in China ' or 'PRC' (and that now includes Hong Kong), simply choose another product, or none at all. You will be amazed at how dependent you are on Chinese products, and you will be equally amazed at what you can do without.

Who needs plastic eggs to celebrate Easter? If you must have eggs, use real ones and benefit some American farmer. Easter is just an example. The point is don’t wait for the government to act. Just go ahead and assume control on your own.

THINK ABOUT THIS: If 200 million Americans refuse to buy just $20 each of Chinese goods, that's a billion dollar trade imbalance resolved in our favor...fast!!

Most of the people who have been reading about this matter are planning on implementing this on April 1st and continue it until May 1st. That is only one month of trading losses, but it will hit the Chinese for 1/12th of the total, or 8%, of their American exports. Then they might have to ask themselves if the benefits of their arrogance and
lawlessness were worth it.

Remember, May 1st TO June 30th !!!!!!
START NOW.


Send this to everybody you know. Let's show them that we are Americans and NOBODY can take us for granted.

If we can't live without cheap Chinese goods for one month out of our lives, WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET!

Buy American products

Pass it on, America.

YJ Draiman


People need to focus on keeping America from a total loss of what several generations worked so hard to accomplish and that is…. making America the strongest nation in the world. People need to be aware when they are purchasing

Your Stake in the Gas Crisis: 2001

Your Stake in the Gas Crisis:

An Interview with YJay Draiman,Director of Marketing
U.S. Gas, Electric & Telecommunications

With natural gas prices reaching epic proportions in
recent months, the Builder spoke with Jay Draiman, a
leading broker of natural gas and utilities, to see what
landlords, developers and property owners can do to
lessen the impact of a rapidly worsening gas situation.
The Builder: As far as gas is concerned, can you briefly
review what gas prices have been in recent months –
specifically in December, January and February?
Draiman: Well, prices peaked in January. And December
prices were somewhere in the upper $.60s, $.70s per
therm and in January they went anywhere from
between $1 to $1.20 per therm. So that by January gas
prices had tripled over the previous year.
The Builder: And how does it look as far as February
and March are concerned?
Draiman: February was down by about 25 percent.
March has seen a further decline of approximately 15
percent. I estimate that the price of natural gas will settle
somewhere between $.58 to $.62 per therm, roughly
double the cost of gas last year, for the near future.
The Builder: We understand that Peoples Gas Co. was
agreeable to setting the price of gas at around $.34 per
therm and they were rejected by the Commerce Commission,
is that right?
Draiman: The problem was due to several factors – it
was not just the city or Peoples Gas. Peoples Gas wanted
to set a price that it felt was reasonable so that they
could buy gas at a fixed price for the next year or so
about 18 months ago. This was a tariff item which had
to be filed with the Commerce Commission, and there
was a lot of discussion back and forth about setting a
price for gas. At that time Peoples Gas was asking for a
fixed price of about $.34 a therm. But the market was
going for about $.25 or $.26 a therm. So many people
were against setting a price which they felt was 40 percent
too high.As a result, they were unable to fix a price
and the deal fell through.
Peoples Gas was actually willing to guarantee the consumers
gas at the price of $.34 a therm, which as we
know today would have been terrific, but hindsight is
always easy to come by when you are dealing with such
emotional issues.
The Builder: What are some of your suggestions for
helping to keep gas costs as low as possible?
Draiman: Number one, make sure that your boilers are
firing properly.Make sure that the insulation is proper,
which does not necessarily mean that you will pay less
for gas, but it does make for greater comfort for the tenant.
This could mean physical insulation or storm windows
or replacement windows that help to block the
wind from coming in.
While this will not necessarily save the building
owner more money, it will give the tenant more of a
comfort level so that they do not have winds coming
through the windows.
When you figure the cost of installing the insulation
against the total income, you won’t save any money,
but if your tenant is comfortable, you won’t get
many complaints.
Also, they are saying that you may not see a dollar per
therm next winter, but you may see another $.80 per
them for next winter. So some are talking about the
possibility of trying to lock in prices now for at least
the next 12 months at anywhere between $.50 and
$.60 a therm. And this can be done very simply
through our office.
This would be for one year only. You don’t want to do
that for any longer a period, because we are hoping
that production will catch up with demand by the
Spring of 2002 and by then prices should be winding
down somewhat.
The Builder: You also mentioned that in the East many
buildings have dual gas and oil heating systems. Can
you explain the advantages of that, please?
Draiman: Yes, that’s true. On the East Coast, there are
a lot of buildings that have boilers which work on
both natural gas and oil. If natural gas is cheaper than
oil, they use natural gas and vice versa. As a result of
lower natural gas prices at the time, they were all using
natural gas. This put a greater strain and demand on
natural gas prices. And of course, you have to realize
that the electric company is using more than a third of
the natural gas production in the United States. So if
we have another very hot summer, you are going to
see another big increase in the cost of natural gas
because the electric companies are using so much natural
gas to make electricity.
The Builder: Do you have any further suggestions as
to how landlords can help to control the escalating
prices of natural gas?
Draiman: For one thing, you should make sure that
all radiators are properly vented and the pipes leading
to the radiators – those with number 5 vents on the
pipelines – are also properly vented. Also make sure
that every one of the radiators is very slightly tilted to
the valve so that when the steam evaporates, the
water drains right back down into the system That
way you don’t get that banging noise on the radiators,
which is caused by improper drainage – caused when
the steam is hitting the water and it is coming back
down in the system.
The most efficient heating that you can have is hot
water heating. And it’s the most economical of all
forms of heating.
Finally, make sure that you have good control of your
boiler – so that they do not get off calibration. If the
boiler controls are out of calibration, you could wind up
wasting between 15 to 20 percent of your gas.

YJay Draiman can be reached at (847)274-3100.

Deregulation Brings Competition, Opportunities, to Natural Gas- Dec 1997

Deregulation Brings Competition, Opportunities, to Natural Gas- Dec 1997

YJay Draiman, Director of Marketing

In the mid 1980s the Federal Government deregulated the Natural Gas Industry in a similar manner to the deregula¬tion of the telephone industry twenty years prior.
Subsequently, many independent companies started marketing and transporting natural gas. At the onset, many end-users were skeptical. As time went on many large and small end-users subscribed to a transportation gas pro¬gram. With such a program the Supplier delivers gas to the local distributing company (LDC) who in turn delivers the gas to the end-user with charges for the meter and deliveries only. Many end-users saved 20-30% on the cost of natural gas and in many cases were able to eliminate the payment of tax on their purchase.
In the late 1980s the local public utility commission granted some LDC's the right to charge special tariffs to end-users who subscribe to gas transportation. Thereaf¬ter some small end-users had to withdraw from the pro¬gram because the new tariffs made the program less beneficial economically for end-users with low annual gas consumption.
As new tariffs went into effect, end-users had to choose which program would be appropriate for them: full back¬up or zero to variable back-up which saved more money but had the risk of penalty for non-delivery or under-delivery of gas during winter periods. End-users also had the choice of additional storage offered by the LDC's which,

when used wisely, could save more money. Also, group¬ing meters with the same LDC saved on administrative tariffs charged by the LDC and reduced the risk of penalty by allowing all meters to draw from one pool of deliveries.
In many cases recommendations were made to eliminate multiple meters within the same facility and save on meter and delivery charges by the LDC. While, these actions could save money even if the end-user was not on trans¬portation program, if the end-user is on a certain transpor¬tation program, the savings is enhanced even further.
In the mid 1990s certain LDC's programs started requir¬ing the end-user to provide a phone jack by the meter. The gas company then installed a remote reading device to re¬port the gas usage on a daily basis. This device was re¬quired for end-users who elected to be on zero or variable back-up. It cost an additional fee to the end-user and it also required the supplier to provide daily uninterrupted deliv¬eries. It also posed an additional risk that, if the supplier did not ship all the necessary gas daily, the LDC would charge a daily penalty for any shortage in deliveries.
Thereafter, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) completely deregulated the interstate gas pipe¬line industry (also known as FERC Order 636). This al¬lowed the Gas Utility Companies to renegotiate their long term contracts and reduce the cost to reflect current mar¬ket conditions.



Energy Conservation Methods:

1. Lighting retrofit
a. watt stoppers, occupancy sensors, timers, pho¬tocells, low resistance wires, low heat circuit breakers
2. Energy efficient motors
3. Energy management system (building automation) a. Electric demand meters with recording device
4. Gas air-conditioning
5. Co-generation
a. Solar energy (Wind energy Wave energy) b. Compressed Natural Gas for vehicles
c. The use of compressed gas for alternate supply and/or back-up
6. Thermal windows (caulking & tuckpointing) a. preventing and reducing wind effect

7. Thermal roofing (reflecting paint)
8. Energy efficient boilers
a. proper venting for flames, preventive mainte¬nance, constant calibration of controls, proper sensors, clean air ducts and verify the appropri¬ate size of flow and return ducts
9. HVAC systems, fresh air intake and exhaust systems
10. Humidifiers and De-humidifiers
11. Utilizing the run-off of rain-water for watering lawns, water-cooled air-conditioning, toilets and laundry
a. checking leaking pipes (water, faucets, toilet tanks, steam and return pipes
12. The auditing of utility bills for electric, gas, telephone (local, interstate, international, and cellular) and wa¬ter (sewer, and the use of rainwater)
Some Utility Companies will give incentives or rebates to end-users or participate in the cost for energy sav¬ings components and methods. ^



24/DIE CASTING ENGINEER




Again, after the mid 1990s, additional tariffs went into effect which reduced the amount of storage permitted by the LDC to the end-users. Pools were set up and bulletin boards were provided to end-users for a fee. Many end-users had to look for other options for additional storage such as pipeline storage and/or gas futures in order to as¬sure a reasonable price for transportation gas.
Turning now to the "cost" and related costs aspects of gas transportation. There are various ways suppliers charge end-users for the gas: index plus, futures plus, fixed price for twelve months or ten years, management fee or percent¬age of savings or a combination of the above. Some sup¬pliers do not guarantee reimbursement to the end-user for penalties charged by LDC for non-delivery, under delivery or over delivery of gas. The majority of companies that do guarantee reimbursement for penalties insert a force ma-jeur clause in their agreement with the end-user which many suppliers use arbitrarily for any reason whatsoever and eventually the end-user pays the penalty price.
The cost of gas is not everything. It is imperative that an end-user selects the supplier that can provide a guaran¬teed uninterruptible supply of gas, strong supply sources, program management, utility management and other var¬ied energy savings services.
Many end-users fail to compute the various charges the LDC's add to their gas bill for deliveries. They assume that the cost of the gas by the supplier is the sole cost, while if you add the various charges by the LDC associated with transportation gas, you'll find out that the cost is higher than originally perceived.
In setting up the account on the transportation gas pro¬gram, it is important to analyze the best and most economic way to install the phone lines for the meters and to effectu¬ate economic pooling charges and to group accounts in order to minimize costs.

In selecting your gas supply company you should verify the supplier's past performance, financial capabilities, and determine if your supplier will confront the local LDC and/ or the utility commission on your behalf in case of unjusti¬fied fees or charges, delays in implementations of programs, MDQ (maximum daily quantity allowed to be delivered daily) errors, unauthorized use, excess use penalty, wrong program billing, errors in delivery credits, etc. Check if the supplier is currently operating on the cutting edge of the latest technology available to the industry and can respond promptly to tariff changes and new innovations.
Pipeline capacity throughout the United States varies substantially. It is of utmost importance for the end-user to determine whether his supplier, or proposed supplier, has had any curtailments of gas deliveries in order to assess how to handle the deliveries of gas and what pro¬gram to select with the local LDC. In order for the end-user to assure an uninterrupted supply of transportation gas, the end-user may elect to procure from its' supplier firm transportation gas which increases the cost but guar¬antees the flow of gas.
In recent years various electric generating plants have converted or built new generators that use natural gas as their energy source. This has affected the cost of natural gas during the summer months when additional electric generating capacity is needed.
In 1997 new tariffs were implemented by the LDC's to al¬low small volume commercial customers to procure gas on the spot market. Some tariffs have been set to start flowing spot market gas to private residences as early as the Spring of the year 2000. The trend is to eventually eliminate your local gas utility company to procure gas on the consumers behalf, but only serve as a gas delivery company.
Currently, additional pipelines are being constructed.

which will bring additional capacity.

Therapy for the Soul

Therapy for the Soul

Which day is the MOST BEAUTIFUL day in your life ???
Today.

What’s the easiest thing to do in life ???
A mistake.

What’s the greatest obstacle ???
Fear.

The most profound tragedy in life ?
Abandonment.

The root of all evil ???
Egotism.

The most wonderful entertainment & fun ???
Work, of course !

The greatest failure ?
Lack of faith.

The best teachers ?
Kids.

Intelligence without love makes you perverse.

Fairness & justness without love makes you inflexible & stern.

Diplomacy & tact without love makes you a hypocrite.

Success without love turns you arrogant.

Wealth without love makes you mean & tight–fisted.

Poverty without love turns you into a radical.

Beauty without love makes you capricious.

Authority & power without love lead to tyranny.

Labor without love turns you into a slave.

Naivety without love deprives you of values.

Prayer & worship without love turns you into a egotist.

Faith without love turns you into a fanatic.

Bearing your cross in life without love becomes a terrible burden.



Which day is the MOST BEAUTIFUL day in your life ???
Today.

„The Power of Love”


What’s the easiest thing to do in life ???
A mistake.

What’s the greatest obstacle ???
Fear.

The most profound tragedy in life ?
Abandonment.

The root of all evil ???
Egotism.

The most wonderful entertainment & fun ???
Work, of course !

The greatest failure ?
Lack of faith.

The best teachers ?
Kids.

The absolute prime need ??
Contact with another human being.

What brings a person the greatest feeling of satisfaction ?
Being of help to somebody & being appreciated.

The greatest mystery ?
Death.

The most serious human failing ?
Lack of a sense of humor.

The greatest Enemy ???
Deceit & lies.

The worst emotion ?
Anger.

The most wonderful gift ?
Forgiveness.



Intelligence without love makes you perverse.