Jump to navigation
To wikipedia or not to wikipedia, that is the question. It's become the supremacist Vulgate of cheap on-line knowledge. Not healthy, really
The other day, the Wall Street Journal [6/9/2016] carried a piece on the fate of the ten million US disposable people living over there. Nothing really new but, still, eery in a way...
Who runs the world? Well, not Brigitte Bardot, Anita Ekberg or Sophia Loren, though they really were bound to make the country grow, as Dylan famously said. Not Trump or Clinton either. Google does, along with Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, that kind of crowd (...)
History will always remain unfinished business. Hitler, for instance. How come that lunatic managed to seize power and, more to the point, got almost all Germans to approve and go to war? In 2014, Martin Amis side-stepped the question by quoting Primo Levi: unexplainable, folks. It doesn't stand to reason.
As we all know, the world out there is flat. Does it matter? Good point made, folks. But (...)
Certain things are hard to understand. Facebook is one of them. The way it has seduced so many. More than a billion poor little things who'd rather go on-line to tell what they've had for breakfast – or whatever – rather than go out and speak to real people...
In his book "Le Virus Libéral" published in 2005 (by Le Temps des Cerises), Samir Amin gives an interesting insight into the transformations the working classes have undergone. (It's on page 42 to 46). Presently, he notes, half the world's population live in cities (3 billion people), whereas the other half is made up of peasants.
She opened the door. They were killing people there. Retreating to her room, she sat for a while on her bed. She put on a new dress. It made her feel...
