"Because of television and worldwide computer connections, people can now become familiar with a great many places that they have never visited. As a result, tourism will soon become obsolete."

Contemporary society is sometimes portrayed as dominated by the experience of change. The break-neck speed of technological innovations, the erosion of traditional values and loyalties, the fickleness of consumers, the instability of international relationships are all cited as evidence that we are now living in a high-tech era. Admittedly, modern technology has changed our life, but tourism, as far as I am concerned, will never be obsolete, though people can became familiar with all great places due to the advent of television and internet.

I concede that modern technology has made it possible that we can pay a visit to any places at home. Admittedly, there is no denying that television and Internet have shortened the distance between any two places, making the world a global village. Some TV programs such as National Geography introduced many beautiful types of scenery, while made us really enchanted. Volcanoes in Japan, the Rocky Mountain in North America, wild grassland in Africa, and the Great Wall in China all give us a close touch with those fascinating places, as if we paid a visit there in person. There might be probably two advantages to travel on TV. One is you do not have to pay much, while all sceneries on TV are selected. And another might be it is much safer, that is to say, you do not have to risk yourself on the Mount Everest, or probably dive into the bottom of the sea. All these not only satisfied our desire to have more understanding of the world where we live, but what is much more important, is that it facilitates those who cannot afford long-distance traveling as well. Without modern technology, I dare say, less people would have to opportunity to know this lovely world.

It all seems that in this case traveling is much likely to be obsolete. Is this really true? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, millions of people who would still prefer to put on their bags, have their camera (especially digital camera, modern technology has provided us more efficient ways of recording) with them, and then discuss where to go. It is true that people will have different experience to visit such places of interest on their own. Once a person is standing on the seashore, watching the water reflecting beams of sunset, he would regard it as the channel to another beautiful world. The visual impulse is somehow unique, which may suddenly bring the sense uncertainty to the person. Some others on the summit of the Alps may feel excited, not for his successful climb, the environment would give them spiritual impulses while they are engulfed by it. All these feelings cannot be attained by remote traveling. And maybe, that is where the fun is!

Another advantage of traveling on one's own has something to do with the personal experience. Those hazardous accidents and particular adventures will easily give travelers long-lasting impressions. A climber from the tropical forest of South America may ceaselessly repeat his stories to fight against wild bears to the people around him or her, or the stories at night after losing his or her electric torchlight. According to my observation, such uncertainties and unpredictable accidents are favored by many people, especially the youngsters. Therefore, they prefer adventures on their own rather than watching TV programs or surfing on Internet for those boring pictures. It is true that camping or climbing the hills or other forms of traveling really provides them vivid sceneries, as well as special experiences.

In the final analysis, I concede modern technology has provided facilities for us to visit the world at home; there will still be many people choosing traveling in person rather than sticking on the screens. Tourism will never be obsolete, because we do not like to be jailed at home, because we want to have close touch with the nature, because we love this world.

"Scandals--whether in politics, academia or other areas--can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could."

Contemporary would is sometimes portrayed as dominated by the experience of change. The break-neck speed of technical innovations, the erosion of traditional values and loyalties, the fickleness of consumers, the instability of international relationships all cited from time to time as evidence to show that we are living in a changing society of turbulence. And scandals, as a special kind of phenomenon, have loomed large providing a certain retrospect to our society, so that we can have an intimate touch the surroundings we are in. Therefore, scandals are really useful, for they have brought us a new horizon onto societal problems.

The first reason has something to do with the government work. Admittedly, in order to avoid scandals, government officials would stop doing things that may cause attaint their reputation. With the help the media, officials are really under public supervision. Though I concede that for some of citizens, it is curiosity that drives them to pay more attention to it, and these events are welcomed discussion materials. But no matter what the impetus it is, they really prevent government agencies from bureaucracy, or corruption since no governor wants to be commented as "greedy", "notorious”,”cruel" rather than "considerate", "helpful" or "candid". As a consequence, they would try to behave better, the public support also outweighs in the governmental work.

Another reason for my view is that the scandals would sometimes reveal the darkness of the society, which otherwise may not be focused. It is true that we would always neglect the drawbacks in our public policy or legislation because those flaws are always covered by the glares of social prosperity. No one will even pay attention to it, let alone try to made amendment, unless those scandals really happen. In the early months this year, a youth was beaten to death by a hotel guardian in China, because he did not have an ID card with him, so that he can not prove his citizenship. This not only arises public indignation toward the barbarous guardian, but also the review of the regional public policy toward wanderers. Not long after, newly legislated policy replaced the former, which would prevent similar cases happening again.

By such accidents we can realize the stains of our society, as well as try to avoid such things happen again. The media pays a sensitive attention to everything happens in this society, while record the scandals around us. This proves not to be only discussion materials. In some respects, they are much useful that people may suppose. Students learn lessons from high school teachers who condemn the behavior of corrupted officials, because what they spend are all taxes of the citizens; parents will tell their children to walk on the footpath, because several drunken driving accidents are reported. On one hand, it will give us an alarm to resist such social scandals, and on the other, help us avoid being injured, in such scandals.

In the final analysis, I do agree with the speaker, that scandals are useful. As individuals and members of the society, we may come to realize that scandals are really playing an important role in our daily life. As being the supervision of government work and an alarm clock, we would understand scandals are not notorious at all, as they seem to be.

"The stability of a society depends on how it responds to the extremes of human behavior."

Contemporary society shows it advantage in great tolerance. No matter what people do, unless they break the law, they would not be restricted or punished. Therein lies the value of what is called "freedom and democracy." The speaker asserts that the stability of a society depends on the response toward human extreme behaviors. I fully agree with the speaker, for the following reasons.

First, better solution in responding the extremes of human behavior would help calm down what has happened, while maintain the societal stability. There might be various ways that the society can deal with human behavior, but to choose one of them requires comprehensive consideration. According to my observation, those extreme behaviors are not as simple as what we witness; they will certainly reveal some social problems, like unfairness, apathy, joblessness, poverty, or etc. Usually, the solution would not be related to only the behavior itself, but the problem or dissatisfaction hidden under the phenomenon as well. For instance, once a man committed suicide due to the unfair allocation in daily necessities, government need to respond it into different effort. To solve this problem, in addition to give careful medical treatment, government officials need to consider more about the causes, or better assess certain systems, so that similar tragedies will be avoided.  While improper response would cause public dissatisfaction, or even riots.

Second, proper government response shows a considerate or sympathetic attitude toward its citizens, which is in their favor. When comes to the assumption that government may not solve everything in the most appropriate way, we may forgive their faults in public affairs. Nevertheless, if they neglect the claims of the citizens, or they refuse to take responsibility for such severe accidents, they would lose public support. Take what happens in Japan as an example. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi refuses to recognize their crime in the World War II, while he endlessly pays respect to the war criminals. In return, parades protesting his activity started in many places. However, the prime minister shows no regret for what he has done, while he does not apologize to the people who were both physically and mentally hurt in the war. This directly results in the decrease of his support rate.

However, I do not think that all government will perform naturally in such cases. On one hand, they do not want to lose support, but on the other hand, to give satisfied explanations or meet all citizens' demand is not easy. This political dilemma hastens the government officials. Admittedly, to maintain the whole society is tough work. While they assume that all things have been taken into account, new problems have loomed ahead. The best way for such occasions might be to prevent not to solve, which is to say, when any problems is approaching, try to give proper solutions before it really occurs. But to accomplish this need sensitive prediction and precise judgment.

To sum up, to maintain the stability of a society, the response to extreme human behavior far outweighs. Proper solutions will do a great deal, and vise versa. But the best way would be to make solutions before it happens, so that government officials will worry less, and citizens can enjoy better life.

"The purpose of education should be to create an academic environment that is separate from the outside world. This kind of environment id ideal because it allows students to focus on important ideas without being held back by practical concerns."

When we pay attention to the college campus, it will remind us of an arcane sanctuary. For some students, they are like pacific gardens; but for some others, they cannot help wondering about the outside world. Then should college campus, or education create an academic environment so that students could focus more on important ideas without being involved in practical concerns? I fundamentally agree with this idea, but in some other respects, the speaker has ignored some important factors in education. On balance, I tend to prefer a mixture of these, which means, students will benefit from proper separation, but excessive one may do great harm.

Admittedly, campus enclosure would help students focus more on their books, rather than practical concerns. It is "student nature" that most of them do not want to stay in school all day long. Instead, their desires in shopping, watching movies, camping and some others will no doubt decrease their time and effort in study. Though I concede there are some campus-bounded students are willingly to stay in the library without any exhaustion, only a few could be exempt from the group I stated. Campus separation will help students spend more time studying. Another advantage for campus separation is that it facilitates the school staffs to better administrate them, in a much easier way. The principal of West Point would have less work than that of Harvard University, not only because the students of West Point is administrated under military training, but he does not need to consider much about their off-campus activities as well.

The advantage brought in academic field is obvious. As more students spend their spare time in libraries or laboratories, an academic environment would be formed. College professors would be very happy to see that, because all of them favor hardworking students. Being apart from the outside world would made students pay more attention to their major study, rather than what they favor--lipsticks, camping, part-time jobs, and etc. Without all these concerns, higher efficiency will certainly loom. The result is simple, their grade arises, more creations in laboratory are made, even the most naughty students, who made their tutors or lectures worried, will behave like a straight-A student.

There is no denying that campus separation brings us many advantages, however, negative factors should not be ignored so that we can better assess this idea. For some students who learn biology, physics, or chemistry, they do not have to make social practice. The only mission is to stay in their laboratory while doing different experiments. But for some others, such like students who study economics, business, sociology, certain practice is indispensable. What they can learn in campus is much too "academic", however, they need practice to enlarger their horizon, not only for the purpose that they can understand the knowledge better, social science really needs practice when students at school, so that they can better make of use of what they learn better--because they will inevitably step out the campus, their knowledge are not used in laboratory, but in the whole society.

Additionally, without social practice, students will not form a healthy value of their own. According our experience, school campus is after all a utopian, in which students could not form better standard in the sense of morality and societal obligation. It is not wise enough to limit them in campus, thus they may become self-centered, arrogant, and they may lack sympathy and tolerance. To better nurture the students, I really suggest them to have adequate social practice, where they can learn how to deal with others, how to behave in the most proper way, how to carry on the obligation of the whole society, and some others. More or less they can learn much which they cannot in campus.

In the finally analysis, I agree that campus separation will help forming a good academic environment, which is favored by both students and professors, thus they can learn better in their major. However, excessive separation will do great harm. A student without major knowledge is not competitive; neither do a student who does not understand the basic social custom. On balance, both campus separation and social practice are necessary. And in essence, they are not contradicted at all.

The only responsibility of corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, is to make as much money s possible for their companies.

Many young people dream to be corporate chief executives, but only a fraction of them would think about their responsibilities. Frankly speaking, we would define a good corporate leader "successful", "determined", or "have a good sense of judgment". Nevertheless, these are all ambiguous words, that could not give a clear standard of a manager. In my concerns, the only way to evaluate the corporate executives, though seemingly a bit extreme, is the capability to maximize the profit, in the restriction of law.

One reason for my point of view is that it accords to the conventional idea of a corporate leader. Admittedly, all members of one company pursue the highest income, including the executive. I concede the executive would also consider other factors of the company, such as the image of it, the morale of the workers, the cooperation with other companies; however, the workers, who are the main body of the corporate, consider less. The salary obviously far outweighs. In addition, working condition might be another important factor. In this sense, only the increase in whole profit would cater their need. To discuss it in morality, other factors concerning such as the corporate image should also be focused by the workers, but it is human nature that they may not pay more attention to it, unless their basic material desire is satisfied. Therefore, the chief goal of the executives is to make much money. I confess this assertion is not proper when the view is heightened viewed, yet it is reasonable due to some realistic aspects.

Secondly, according to my observation, as we are pursuing maximum profit, meanwhile, the workers have been inspired in production. As we know, when the result is closely connected to ourselves, we would possibly gain the highest efficiency. Take Chinese economy system as an example. Twenty years ago, we were under the "Planned economy", how much we earn did not related to how much we do, so that China's GDP remained in a low level. After the breakthrough brought by Xiaoping Deng, "Market economy" replaced the former, while in turn apparently change the economic situation. This could be an analogue to the situation of corporate, once the workers realize this, they would try to work harder. Moreover, not only to workers, but the executives, would try to explore some other ways, in production or system, to improve the working efficiency and total profit. In this, the responsibility of the managers has been clearly assessed, and their personal capability would directly result in the corporate revenue.

However, much emphasis on the total profit, as we discussed, may cause several questions. One thing that might loom large is the way to achieve the goal. Excessive working hours or burdens would not result in the ideal way. Additionally, the workers also need activities, such as spring outing, Christmas Evening, to enrich their life. The one who cares much about the total profit may ignore it, or he would even feel reluctant because such activities would cost much time and money. I really think the issue is a philosophical one, because to attain all wanted is impossible. A wise person knows how to coordinate all, but this need the detailed situation.

In the final analysis, I think it is not easy to be a good corporate executive, even a qualified one. Different people would carry on diversified missions, while they firmly believe that these are the responsibilities for them. However, it makes no sense for them to enforce them pursuing money, for they will have diversified definition for "success". But in my point of view, it is really a good suggestion for a possible evaluation. Others insist their assessments, but they are, in some sense, particularly the same in essence.

The following is a recommendation from the president of Appleby College.

"Whereas Appleby College holds class reunion every five years, Edelston College holds annual reunion for all classes, during which Edelston's alumni are treated to banquets, lectures, and student performances, enhancing their loyalty to the college and their willingness to donate money. Edelston College receives most of its alumni donations during or shortly after these reunions. Therefore, the best way for Appleby to increase its alumni donations is to offer similar reunion activities and to have each graduation class hold annual reunions.


In this argument, the speaker suggests that Appleby College to hold similar reunion activities of Edelston College every year, as well as graduating class hold annual reunions, which the speaker believes is the main reason that Appleby College get comparatively less alumni donation. To support this idea, the speaker claims that the activities, such as banquets, lectures, and student performances will enhance the loyalty to the college and their willingness to donation. The speaker also cites the fact that most of donation is received shortly after these reunions. However, this argument is not persuasive to me as it stands, for several logic flaws, as discussed below.

First of all, the speaker has overlooked the influence of class reunion, while ignored other ways that connect the graduated alumni and the college except school union, which would also increase the graduated students' loyalty. Perhaps Edelston College provides a special gift for all the alumni every year, or the college invites them to give lectures to the present students. All these activities will no doubt shorten the distance between the college and alumni, while in turn, they would be more willingly to donate money to the college. Yet the speaker has only emphasized on the class reunion, which is not appropriate.

Secondly, even if it is only the class reunion is the only link between college and its alumni, the speaker could not get the conclusion that the interesting activities, such as banquets, lectures and student performance enhance the loyalty and lead to the donation. It is likely that Edelston College enjoys a high reputation of college education, thus the alumni benefit a lot when they were at school. Therefore, their will be more appreciated to the school which nurtured them. But on the contrary, maybe the alumni of Appleby College suffered from rote-education in counterpart. And this could be a complementary explanation of the difference in donation.

Moreover, even if the alumni reunion is the only impetus of donation, that the speaker asserts that the best way to increase alumni donation is to offer similar reunion activities as Edelston College, is still not convincing. In this argument, this speaker has not provided us accurate number of the amount of the students, therefore, to discuss the amount of the donation, to some sense, does not make any sense. Maybe the Edelston College has much more students than Appleby, so that even if each alumnus donates the same, the total amount would still be less than that of Edelston.

In the final analysis, the speaker fails to give more convincing evidence to support his or her point of view. To bolster it, the speaker must provide more evidences to demonstrate the followings 1)the school reunion is the only way that both school provided for alumni; 2)the alumni reunion is the only impetus for donation; 3)the individual alumnus of Appleby does not much as that of Edelston

The material progress and well-being of one country are necessarily connected to the material progress and well-being of all other countries.

Nowadays, "peace and development" has become the theme of the world. All we concern is the societal prosperity, material progress, and development of our human beings. Of course several factors appear to restrict what we expect, but we are, in our endeavors, trying to come across the obstacles. In the meantime, all nations in the world have placed a peaceful attitude to all other counties, because it is accepted that the progress and well-being of one country are connected to that of all other. This is the world focus now, and we believe that human world would step further in this way.

According to my observation, the most significant aspect of this connection shows in the economic field. We are no longer self-producers, as we were thousands of years ago. Presently, we are making use of our regional superiorities to gain profit in the national range. Under the system of market economy, people tend to simplify their work by reallocating people to different period of producing, that is to say, we no longer take part in the whole process, thus efficiency increase, which complies with our will to enlarger total revenue. In one word, people would rely on the others, to purchase materials and sell half-way production in the chain work. When this is heightened, it becomes the relationship between countries. One may need the material from one country, and later sell it to another. There is no denying that it guarantees the whole world working in the highest rate.

Another factor that possibly causes this worldwide dependence might be the inadequacy of resources. Some countries, such like Australia, boast countless natural sources. Though the dessert regions take a great percentage of its all territory, the country still enjoys a highly developed societal civilization, because the output, especially metal output gains a great amount of incomes. In contrast, the development of Japan, another country located in the Pacific Ocean, was somehow restricted in the area of territorial land, natural resources, and frequent earthquakes. But all these could not decelerate their way toward well-being. Processing industry replaced manufacturing, and later on became the primary way in its economic system. Take the electric market as an example; the market is filled up with Japanese brands, like SONY, Kodak, and etc.

However, I do not agree that the worldwide connection, as well as the inter-depedence will all bring benefits, with no drawbacks. One thins that we should concern is about the potential conflicts, which may bring devastating consequences once broken out. Admittedly, natural resource, as the head of the production chain, is favored by everyone. But in the battle for it, when we do not reach a balanced distribution of it, conflicts may occur. And battle may escalate due to the extends of unfairness. Take what has happened in the Middle East as an example. There have been several wars ever since the 1990s. Tens of countries were involved such as Iraq, Iran, and even other countries like the US, UK, and etc. We do not expect the battle for oil became real war, which brings us blood, powder, and separation. Nevertheless, I concede that such kind of conflict will not be eliminated, due to human nature.

In conclusion, in our process pursuing better life and human progress, inter-connection of all nations proves to be the most important factor. Any country's decision will more or less influence on all other. Besides, since we are on the way approaching our same goal--peace and development, any conflicts are disharmonious. For what we are pursuing, we need to have more negotiations, or sometimes compromise a bit, because the cost of refution may prove much larger.

The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.

"Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks.

In this argument, the speaker lists several advantages of robots, while in turn suggests that factories use robots in production. But unfortunately, this argument is logically flawed in several aspects, thus it is not very persuasive as it stands.

In the first place, the speaker cites the fact that robots were used to explore the outer space in the past 20 years. However, this could not demonstrate that robots could work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human workers, because these to situations are not comparable, in any fields concerned. The purpose of robots used in space exploration was simply for the consideration of safety, but not effectiveness or efficiency. Moreover, the missions that robots carried in space are totally different from that in factory.

In the second place, the speaker claims that the robots do not sick, so that they will not be absent from work. But he has ignored the robots are conditioned workers. For instance, power gap, machine problem, or the absence of the engineers who control the robots would stop the robots. And these factors should be put into consideration.

Thirdly, the speaker asserts that factories would increase their output for the simple reason that robots do not make mistakes. As it is known to all, the possibility that the robots avoid making mistakes depends on the quality of the robot design. Once mistaken in the robot design or manufactory, the robots would make, and repeatedly make mistakes. Moreover, their disability of judgment and regulation may cause even more devastating problems.

Last but not least, the speaker believes that the factory workers are more willingly to shift more interesting kinds of tasks, so that the morale of factory workers can be proved. However, no evidence has demonstrated the attractions of robots, or the joys in shifting them. Though I confess that the robots may seem a bit interesting in the first days if they are placed in factories, nevertheless, this favor is not long-lasting. The workers will certainly turn boring again, for dealing with the same machine or what may be called "a robot" everyday.

In the final analysis, though I concede that the factories would more or less benefit from robots placement, I do not agree with what the speaker says. To bolster this idea, the speaker needs to give more convincing evidence to demonstrate 1)the connections between outer space exploration and factory work, 2)the good working conditions of the robot, 3)the best design of them, 4)the human workers have much interests in robots, and the interests will remain for a long time.

The following appeared in a memo from a manager of a car dealership.

"Ten years ago, long-term car leasing became available in our country of Mohilia as an alternative to outright car ownership, and leasing has steadily risen in popularity. For each of the last five years, the number of people leasing new cars has surpassed the number buying new cars. The average age of cars driven in Mohilia is six years; hence, if new car leases again outnumber puchase this year, it is likely that the majority of drivers will be driving leased, not individually owned, cars. Therefore, we should change the focus of our business from selling cars to leasing them.


In this memo, the speaker pointed out that leasing has steadily risen in popularity, reflected in the fact that the people who choose leasing cars instead of buying cars increased. The speaker also suggests shift the focus of their business from selling cars to leasing them. Without providing more convincing evidences, this statement is not very persuasive at all. And I have found that it is logically flawed in several places, as discussed below.

In the first place, the speaker has not considered about the consistence of the people who lease cars. It is possible that someone leases his or her car every year--because the car leased last year does not work properly. No evidence has proved that people who lease cars every year differ from that of the past years. Moreover, the reason that more people tend to lease cars rather than buy them could possibly explained as the leasing company has launched an attractive program to appeal more people, like bonus, or attached sales.

Another unconvincing evidence is that the speaker claims that the majority of drivers will be driving leases, in case that new car leases again outnumber this year. Obviously, the speaker has not taken the drivers who bought their cars five or more than five years ago into account. In another word, though the number of people who prefer to lease cars out surpassed the number who buy cars, the majority of the drivers, could still individually own their cars.

Moreover, the speaker has not thought about the macro economy. Even if all the car leasers are the first time leasers, as well as the total amount of leasing car outnumbers the individuals, the speaker still cannot conclude that they should change the focus of business from selling cars to leasing them. It is well understood that people would likely to have their own cars, regardless of the price and the cost for preservation. It is possible that the selling market became prosperous in the coming years, while more and more people tend to buy cars, because owning cars shows their wealth and identity. Regretfully, the speaker has not provided corresponding evidences.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen his idea, the speaker must provide better evidences that should include: 1) the number of car leasers really increases, 2) more people tend to lease cars rather than buy them, and I also need to make sure that this tendency will certainly continue.

Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.

It seems that all artist pay no concerns to politics, nevertheless, their art life cannot escape from government. They pursue freedom, so that they can plunge themselves into the art realm. But on the other hand, to some extend, they were restricted by poverty. Then a question looms large--should government finance art? Would government funding threaten the integrity of arts? In my point of view, that government finances art is definitely the way.

The first reason concerns about their living conditions. Artists may be considered as the most talented groups in the city, as well as the poorest. They may not have enough incomes, for their values not recognized. The only way to support their life is to sell their works, while what they get may only satisfy their basic needs. Without government support, here I refer to financial support; they may not pay all their time and efforts in art, in what they love. Meanwhile, their passion in art would possibly diminish. If they are, fortunate enough, supported by the government, they can try their best in their jobs, so that wonderful works could be made.

The second reason to support my view concerns the public concern. Though museums and art galleries may locate in the center of the city, fewer visitors show that the citizens pay little attention to art. What they are interested in might be movies, pop music, or fashion. The purpose to set the museums or art galleries is not for their architectural value, but for the reason they exist--to put on more exhibitions. With more government funding, more artists would be willing to exhibit their masterpieces, in the meantime the public would likely shift their interest toward art. Thought it is human nature that people would show their interest in jazz concert, modern art, and all elegant exhibitions rather than pop stars, street dance, or scandals of government officials, which tend to show that they are less educated--even if they really are, however, the art exhibitions would surely promote public taste and appreciation, with more government funding which would brought the citizens more exhibitions.

Another possibility that may result in the rise of government funding of art is that more young people would be likely to learn art. Some of them may be extremely gifted, but the crucial surroundings of the art world may slow down their steps toward what they love. The intervene of government, especially the increasing financial aid, would change the environment in a healthy way. And they will be no longer needed to worry about future--because an artist may not earn a living for himself or herself, and they do not have to do what they are not interested in--more or less boring compared to art. We will be very delighted to see all that happens, because the government fund really provides the artist, and the would-be artist, and the people who love art, a space filling with freedom.

In sum, I do not agree that government funding would threaten the integrity of art. On the contrary, I see that the financial aid not only saves art, but also provide a larger space for it. Artists no longer worry about their livings, art lovers have more chances to get touch with what they favor, and young people who dream to be Picasso or Van Gogh would have no obstacles toward their childhood dream. In the final analysis, that government finances art is really practical--even if it does not prove to be the most ideal way, it is predictably beneficial, while providing us an enjoyable image of the future, as art itself.