A list of essays released in 2001

Live as usual

After the 11 September attack there were a lot of voices calling Americans to live as usual in order to defeat the attackers' purposes.

They urged Americans to carry out their daily activities as usual.

To sing and enjoy life as usual.

To visit friends as usual.

To go on board aeroplanes and travel as usual.

To gather and celebrate good times as usual.

To go to schools and offices as usual.

To go shopping and help boom the economy as usual.

What about bombing other countries as usual? I did not read a comment like this, but presumably they will continue to do so as this is an important way to achieve the predetermined policy of promoting arms sale.

The significant income generated from arms sale can help support their luxurious ways of living and thus preserve ruling positons of powers.

And there is also another important issue of controlling resources of other countries. Without the resultant benefits how could the powers support their extraordinary quality of life. Of course they do not forget to share a small amount with the general Americans. And so everybody is happy.

But there will be an end to everything. Who will eventually suffer? Most probably the general Americans. By the time the suffering comes, the powers will retire and be protected by umbrellas created by themselves, at the expense of American taxpayers' money.

Afghans versus Americans

Americans bombed Afghan soils at an altitude which could hardly be reached by Afghan fires and sent a small number of troops to step on the Afghan territory ensuring beforehand high safety if not risklessness.

Afghan Northern Alliance fought against Afghan Taleban, of course suffering casualties. But those killed or wounded could hardly be pitied by ruling powers, both internal and external. This was not just applicable to the Northern Alliance. It has been a common phenomenon throughout history.

There was superficial cooperation between the Northern Alliance and the Amercians.

And there was aid to the Northern Alliance from the Russians.

The Taleban retreated from Kabul en masse and the Northern Alliance took the city, to the unwillingness of the Americans.

And some other developments too. Not to forget British and others.

The situation appeared to be rather complicated.

Turn to history and a complication like this simply reduces to a rule. Each and every power wants to gain benefits.

But where do these benefits come from?

From the people, in this case, of Afghanistan.

Benefits could either be shared or monopolized. In modern days, realizing that effort to monopolize benefits could be too huge, most clever powers tend to share them.

To the people of Afghanistan, there will be another long period of exploitation by the powers, both domestic and foreign.

But history will not fail them. Afghan people will, one day, hold their own fate and destiny.

Legislators' salary reduction

Recession is coming. It is also a good opportunity as a show time for legislators. After all, they need to do something in order to attract voters' attention.

How? In many ways. Here is one.

A group of legislators held a press conference and announced that they were willing to cut their salary voluntarily, as a gesture that they would survive the hard time together with the general public.

A good show? Yes.

What is the real motivation? All of them are associated either directly or indirectly with corporations which hire lots of workers. Their reduction in salary will create an atmosphere on salry reduction to the workers. Certainly it is a good deal.

Is a background like this difficult to understand? No. The public know it. The legislatiors know it too.

Then why did they perform the show? Because they needed to do something.

One day they will pay for what they have been paid.

Free sky

American warplanes flied over Afghan soil and dropped bombs unforgivingly, first at night then day and night in a nonstop manner.

Why at night?

Simply because Americans could, aided by equipment, see in darkness whereas their counterparts could not.

Why warplanes but not troops?

Simply because their warplanes were far better than their counterparts'. But not necessarily their troops.

The use of troops might imply face-to-face combatting. According to existing human civilization, it would be wise to go for bombing but without troops first.

Then why later day and night?

Simply because the reaction to free flying in the Afghan sky became too weak to deter the action.

Again, according to existing human civilization, it could be both clever and natural and had nothing to associate with cowardice.

Perhaps it might be wise to expect this civilization would last long enough to enable Afghan warplanes to fly freely over Amercian soil without being addressed as cowards.

Either friends or enemies

It was reported that George Bush of America indicated that "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists", at a speech after the September 11 attack.

What should a young lady in Switzerland, a land of peace-loving people, do?

If she likes, she has to judge whether she needs to make an announcement on her intention. She may wonder if an Amercia bomb will impact the roof of her house at a fantastic speed, in the event that she chooses to be silent.

Funny? Or absurd? Or both?

Perhaps opinions of the rest of the world where human beings populate are less important. What matters is the attitude of the Amercians. There have been opinion polls of different types conducted by different media. If there is one on the response of the Amercians at large on this "either-or" speech, it will be carried on in history, although the speech itself will not necessarily be.

Suicide attack

A total of three aeroplanes crashed into the two towers of World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. Apparently the aeroplanes were hijacked and taken control by some people who flew them directly into the buildings.

A number of people, especially those paid by taxpayers, stated that these hijackers were cowards. This is absolutely wrong.

Would a coward or a group of cowards be able to crash an aeroplane under his or her or their control into a building? A majority will give a negative answer.

One might name the hijackers as terrorists. This specific word was created or derived by people who possessed a lot to label those who engaged or would engage in activities which endangered or would endanger their possessions.

But the word coward, even under the game of rule of current civilization, has been defined as, in one convention, "a person who shows fearfulness". Definitely not the hijackers.

Please imagine the life led by them. Very possibly they were young persons and strongly self-disciplined. Very possibly they had been educated with a particular view towards living and trained physically and mentally hard in order to pursue their goals. The time taken could be years.

They had to believe in what they indended to do was right, particularly with regard to the loss of lives concerned.

Why did all these happen? Will there be retaliation?

Perhaps it is important to think about what the human population have been doing in the course of their civilization. How and why there have been the strong? How and why there have been the weak? How and why resources have been taken by a small group of people? How and why another small group have tried to reverse the situation? Is it worthwhile?

Questions after questions. Answers seem to be unreachable.

Payment for using an expressway

At a bus terminus in a rural area, a young woman and an old man intended to travel to the centre of the town.

The old man suggested: "Let us take the new bus route through a newly built expressway."

"Do you know that it is more expensive? Do you feel it is worthwhile?" the young woman asked.

"Yes. It takes less time."

"As we are not in a hurry, may be you like to know what I am thinking about. Let me ask you a question first. Why it takes less time?"

"Simple. Because of the expressway."

"If time taken is less, the cost to the bus company is not necessarily more. Then why it is more expensive?"

"This is a difficult question."

"Let me discuss with you from another perspective," the young woman continued. "Did the bus company build the expressway?"

"Certainly not. The taxpayers did."

"Are you a taxpayer?"

"Absolutely."

"Then why you should pay more if you want to travel on the expressway? The bus company makes use of the expressway to shorten the travelling time and it takes this advantage to increase the fare. Do you think it is fair?"

"Not fair. But could the increase in fare due to other factors?"

"It could be. But passengers should be told. As far as I know, the increase in fare was announced, rather than explained."

The young woman and the old man then went to a nearby train station.

Celebrities in an advertisement

There were two young women in a big department store.

One of them said: "I have to refrain myself from purchasing an article which I like very much."

"If you like it you should buy it," her companion replied.

"Yes, you are right. But did you see a recent advertisement on promoting sale of the article? The promotion was done by a group of well-known persons. It reminded me of the pricing of the article and money earned by these persons in an easy way."

"I don't really understand."

"These persons were paid for the advertisement, right? The payment must have come from the pricing of the article. Besides, the more one buys the article, the easier for them to earn money in future. Do you think they deserve it?"

"Difficult to say."

"Perhaps one needs to think more about it. But in the mean time, the best I can do is not to buy it."

Donations

Two young men sat on a beach and had a chat.

One of them turned to another subject: "I received a letter from a charity organization last week, asking me to make a donation."

"Are you movitated?" the other man asked.

"Well, yes and no. The letter was quite well written. There were about twenty names of well-known people on the A4 size paper, occupying almost a quarter of the area. Before I can figure out the implication I am unwilling to consider a donation."

"What is your suggestion?"

"Either the organization was making use of the names or vice versa."

"Could it be both?"

"But nothing can come from nothing."

"You might be right. Could it be possible that there is a third source. For example, your donation could be one."

"Oh! Now I understand. The needy was not necessarily benefited from my donations I made in the past."

"This is not an unusual remark. Ask youself a simple question. Who went to the celebration party after a successful fund raising?"

Expensive fruits

A man used to buy fruits from a chained supermarket near his home. In about two years the prices of the fruits almost doubled. But they were reduced if there was a sale.

In markets which were distant from his home the prices were much lower.

This practice went on until one day he decided that he needed to boycott the unreasonable pricing of the chained supermarket.

He said to himself: "I certainly can afford higher prices from this almost-monopoly supermarket. But if I continue to do in this way I am going to help them become a perfect monopoly business and eventually I will suffer. Besides, today, someone may be unable to buy their fruits at such high prices. I should help them."

Buying a newspaper

A woman and a man went towards a station where a train was due to depart in about ten minutes. Both intended to buy a newspaper before boarding on the train.

On their way there was a newsstand where only popular newspapers were sold. Apparently its business was good, judged