“Our aim is to take our art to the world and make people understand what it is to move,” said David Belle, the founder of parkour(跑酷).

    Do you love running? It is a good exercise, yet many people find it boring. But what if making your morning jog a creative one? Like jumping from walls and over gaps, and ground rolls? Just like the James Bond in the movie Casino Royale? Bond jumps down from a roof to a windowsill and then runs several blocks over obstacles on the way. It is just because of Bond's wonderful performances that the sport has become popular worldwide.

    Yes, that's parkour, an extreme street sport aimed at moving from one point to another as quickly as possible, getting over all the obstacles in the path using only the abilities of the human body. Parkour is considered an extreme sport. As its participants(参与者) dash around a city, they may jump over fences, run up walls and even move from roof top to roof top.

    Parkour can be just as exciting and charming as it sounds, but its participants see parkour much more than that.

    Overcoming all the obstacles on the course and in life is part of the philosophy(理念) behind parkour. This is the same as life. You must determine your destination, go straight, jump over all the barriers as if in parkour and never fall back from them in your life to reach the destination successfully. A parkour lover said, “I love parkour because its philosophy has become my life, my way to do everything.”

    Another philosophy we've learnt from parkour is freedom. It can be done by anyone, at any time, anywhere in the world. It is a kind of expression of trust in yourself. It is only a state of mind. It is when you trust yourself that you earn energy.

    Recently, American President Trump announced his budget. One of the budgets would cut all funding to the Institute of Museum and Library services and libraries across the United States. However, as far as I'm concerned, we need to save our libraries.

    Libraries provide books and after-school programs for children. They encourage literacy (识字）with summer programs. They help inspire a life-time love of learning and reading in children of all ages. Without them, where will kids with no Internet at home do their homework? Where will kids have a place to study or borrow books after school? Therefore, we need libraries for our kids. We need them so that kids can grow up with a place, other than school, where learning and exploration is encouraged. For adults, libraries serve as a place where they can use the Internet to apply for jobs, get job training, early voting centers as well as book clubs to help make new friends. It can also serve as a place to pick up a book and learn something new. What's more，they can also borrow a book and get away from it all.

    Libraries save our information for the next generation. When we live in an age of alternative (选择性的）facts, where science is ignored in favor of personal feelings, we need libraries now more than ever. We need them to educate ourselves on the facts and hold the government responsible for them. We need them to have strong public participation(参与).

    If you agree with me，you shouldn't be silent on this issue. You can write or call directly to tell the president to save our libraries. You can also write to both your state Senators (参议员）and your district representative. If you do not know who they are, you can find out here. Let them know this is a beneficial issue because all people use public libraries in their daily life.

    A lot of kids have dreams they will never achieve due to the limitations of their little bodies. They want to fly, or to become a dinosaur, or to learn how to shoot webs out of their fingers like Spiderman.

    Luka Tavcar, 12, has muscular dystrophy(萎缩) and is totally dependent on his wheelchair. Nevertheless, late last year, he had an inspired plan: to be photographed walking around and having fun.

    He approached Matej Peljhan, an amateur photographer and a psychologist at CIRIUS rehabilitation(康复) center near Ljubljana, Slovenia, where Luka is a patient.

    At first, Peljhan was perplexed. How could he photograph a boy who can not move or act in motion? "Luka wanted to see himself playing and having fun, but it seemed impossible," he says.

    Then Peljhan had a brainstorm: Luka could lie down on a piece of cloth and, with the help of an assistant, Peljhan would pose the boy as if he were jumping, climbing stairs, moving downhill on a skateboard, and playing basketball. Then Peljhan would shoot these images from above. The photos took about a month to produce; all were shot early this year.

    Peljhan, who lost his right arm and left eye as a child, says his disabilities motivated him to make the photographs. "I understand people with limitations," he says.

    He named the series the little Prince after the French story by Antoine de Saint-Exupery in which a boy teaches a man about trust, hope and friendship. Luka loves the photos.

    Peljhan himself understands what it is like to live with limitations- he lost his right arm and left eye as a child. "He wants to stay positive," the photographer explains. "Luka's imagination helps him forget his phisical limitation", says Peljhan. "He's fragile, but he can see the world differently."

    A serious problem for today's society is who should be responsible for our elderly and how to improve their lives. It is not only a financial problem but also a question of the system we want for our society. I would like to suggest several possible solutions to this problem.

    First, employers should take the responsibility for their retired employees. To make this possible, a percentage of profits should be set aside for this purpose. But when a company must take life-long responsibility for its employees, it may suffer from a commercial disadvantage due to higher employee costs. Another way of solving the problem is to return the responsibility to the individual. This means each person must save during his working years to pay for his years of retirement. This does not seem a very fair model since some people have enough trouble paying for their daily life without trying to earn extra to cover their retirement years. This means the government might have to step in to care for the poor.

    In addition, the government could take responsibility for the care of the elderly. This could be financed through government taxes to increase the level of pensions. Furthermore, some institutions should be created for senior citizens, which can help provide a comfortable life for them. Unfortunately, as the present situation in our country shows, this is not a truly viable answer. The government can seldom afford to care for the elderly, particularly when it is busy trying to care for the young.

    One further solution is that the government or social organizations establish some working places especially for the elderly where they are independent.

    To sum up, all these options have advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that some combination of these options may be needed to provide the care we hope to give to our elderly generations.

    Have you ever fallen for a novel and been amazed not to find it on lists of great books? Or walked around a sculpture known as a classic, struggling to see why it is famous? If so, you've probably thought about the question a psychologist, James Cutting, asked himself: How does a work of art come to be considered great?

    The direct answer is that some works of art are just great: of inner superior quality. The paintings that win prime spots in galleries, get taught in classes are the ones that have proved their artistic value over time. If you can't see they're superior, that's your problem. But some social scientists have been asking questions of it, raising the possibility that artistic canons(名作目录)are little more than old historical accidents.

    Cutting, a professor at Cornell University, wondered if a psychological pattern known as the "mere­exposure effect" played a role in deciding which paintings rise to the top of the cultural league. Cutting designed an experiment to test his hunch(直觉). Over a lecture course he regularly showed undergraduates works of impressionism for two seconds at a time. Some of the paintings canonical, included in art­history books. Others were lesser known but of comparable quality were exposed four times as often. Afterwards, the students preferred them to the canonical works, while a control group liked the canonical ones best. Cuttings students had grown to like those paintings more simply because they had seen them more.

    Cutting believes his experiment casts light on how canons are formed. He reproduced works of impressionism today bought by five or six wealthy and influential collectors in the late 19th century. Their preferences given to certain works made them more likely to be hung in galleries and printed in collections. And the fame passed down the years. The more people were exposed to, the more they liked it, and the more they liked it, the more it appeared in books, on posters and in big exhibitions. Meanwhile, academics and critics added to their popularity. After all, it's not just the masses who tend to rate what they see more often more highly. Critics' praise is deeply mixed with publicity. "Scholars", Cutting argues, "are no different from the public in the effects of mere exposure."

    The process described by Cutting show a principle that the sociologist Duncan Watts calls "cumulative advantage": once a thing becomes popular, it will tend to become more popular still. A few years ago, Watts had a similar experience to Cutting's in another Paris museum. After queuing to see the "Mona Lisa" at the Louvre, he came away puzzled: why was it considered so superior to the three other Leonardos, to which nobody seemed to be paying the slightest attention?

    When Watts looked into the history of "the greatest painting of all time", he discovered that, for most of its life, the "Mona Lisa" remained in relative obscurity. In the 1850s, Leonardo da Vinci was considered no match for giants of Renaissance art like Titian and Raphael, whose works were worth almost ten times as much as the "Mona Lisa" It was only in the 20th century that "Mona Lisa rocketed to the number­one spot. What brought it there wasn't a scholarly re­evaluation, but a theft. In 1911 a worker at the Louvre walked out of the museum with the "Mona Lisa" hidden under his coat. Parisians were shocked at the theft of a painting to which, until then, they had paid little attention. When the museum reopened, people queued to see it. From then on, the "Mona Lisa "came to represent Western culture itself.

    The intrinsic (本质的) quality of a work of art is starting to seem like its least important attribute. But perhaps it's more significant than our social scientists admit. Firstly, a work needs a certain quality to reach the top of the pile. The "Mona Lisa" may not be a worthy world champion but it was in the Louvre in the first place, and not by accident. Secondly, some objects are simply better than others. Read "Hamlet" after reading even the greatest of Shakespeare's contemporaries, and the difference may strike you as unarguable.

    A study suggests that the exposure effect doesn't work the same way on everything, and points to a different conclusion about how canons are formed. Great art and mediocrity (平庸)can get confused, even by experts. But that's why we need to see, and read, as much as we can. The more were exposed to the good and the bad, the better we are at telling the difference.