anaroundtheworld

As incredible as it may sound, I'd like less sex in my TV shows please.

Incredible because us French are rarely against a little bit of full frontal. In fact I think the only time I wrote a comment in a forum was to defend the sex/rape in Game Of Throne because it was necessary to the story. I've read the first 50 shades, thought it was not as good as my usual erotica and laughed that they would have a Red Room of Pain but anal was out of the question :-)

But I've recently sat through all 12 episodes of the new Netflix serie: Sense8, and really started yearning for PG-Rated shows. Let's go back in time before I rant about this shit show.

Charlie's Angels: 1976 Family-style porn

Turns out in I Love Lucy in the 50's, the word "pregnant" could not be mentioned on TV and the married characters had to sleep in separate rooms. In 1976, TIME called Charlie's Angels a "family-style porn, a mild erotic fantasy that appeals about equally to men and women."

But in the time I can remember, the 1st shocking show, the one that started it all, was Sex and the City. These women liked sex, talking about it and sometimes doing it, they were extremely shocking. At that time their sex scenes where usually brief, in the dark, and you couldn't actually see a nipple, starting this devastating urban legend that you keep your bra for sex.

Then there was Dexter and the bad bad hero, Game of Throne and the incest, and certainly some gore zombie thing I did not watch introducing us to bloody innards. And they were successful. In fact they made HBO and Netflix and other original programming channels. The shock value of these TV Shows made them more real, more gripping, more of an emotional roller-coaster.

Unfortunately with Sense8 (yes we're coming to it), you see exactly the other side of the penny. They started with the shock and forgot the show. They had a great premise: A group of people around the world are suddenly linked mentally, and must find a way to survive, being hunted by those who see them as a thread to the wold order. I mean you could do something with at, at least for 1 season, particularly when directed by the Wachowski's.

Apparently they thought that was enough and started filling the blank with what seems to be success-recipe these days: Shock. Let's include all the things in there, that will make people talk about our show.

• Gay / Lesbian couple done: in The L Word (among others) Sense8 twist: One is actually a transsexual... Actually also already done in Transparent. Nice effort though...
• LGBT Sex done: in... I don't know, Brockeback ans everthing else since 2000 Sense8 twist: there is a close-up on a fluid-splashing strap-on dildo... Bon Apetit!
• Masturbation done: in Sex and the City Sense8 twist: Someone else is in the guy's mind and it's against a wooden door. It might be gratuitous, still don't want it.
• Gore done: even in the recent and classy Kingsman Sense8 twist: some trepanations

One scene I had forgotten about. Can't remember what that was for...

1 bag, 2 bags? 3 bags maybe?

Defining what my "bag" configuration would be for this trip has been a real puzzle, and the Eureka moment came from the best camera shop in Paris.

I already had The Big One, a 65L Rucksack, that is neither good, nor new, nor light, nor anything BUT I have it and I have not yet used it enough to feel good buying a new one. So the big one is a go!

But then I'll need a smaller one, with some space for a sleeping bag and some clothes for various 2-day trips we're going to take.

But then I'll also need a bag for my camera + 3 lenses + charger etc.

But then I'll also need this little bag to be my eeveryday on my back in all circumstance bag, whether to take a walk in the city or... well... anything really.

My 1st idea was to take a camera bag that would have enough space to hold some cloth and sleeping bag.

So I looked at the Lowepro Rover Pro 35L

Found it really not pretty (yeah I know but it counts for me...) and really not infinitely re-usable, too much of a 1-shot purchase. There are some other brands and possibilities for this kind of bags. Le Vieux Campeur in Paris has many camera bags for backpacking.

Then it's the magic men from the most fantastic camera shop in Paris: L'instané (link to the post which first pointed me there) who solved my problem.

First thing is: he sold me my new camera (took 2 visits and at least 3 hours for me to decide) and he was nice and helpful all the way.

I was talking to him about my camera bag issue and I took out the most glorious item of the store. A camera-blanket with velcro.

I pack my camera in there, then drop it in any bag I like. This is how I've been able to take my camera everywhere these day and really train and get used to everything. It's a wonderful little thing!

So with this issue wrapped up (such bad pun I tasted a little bile...) I knew what I was really looking for was a backpack made for hiking / trekking and big enough to hold my camera gear in wraps.

Again to Le Vieux Campeur. I was looking at the Osprey bags, just because they are so cool. The guy showed me the Gregory J33 and it was love at first sight open from the top, from the front, very light... everything I wished for except he has only in Bright Pink and the Purple ones. I had to go online to find the grey one I picked.

So here it is. Finally found what my bags would be:

- The Big One

- A 33 L Backpack to hold my camera gear and sleeping bag and everything else.

In a few weeks I leave for a great trip through Africa followed by 2 years in the US. I thought it warranted a come back of the anaroundtheworld blog.

For the net few month it's certainly going to look like a travel blog.

For the next 2 years it might be a bit more like a bitchy sociological / satirical look at the US. I'm torn between moving to Boston full of optimism, willing to renounce bitching or keep on being a real Parisian even if just to offset the balance of all these hugs to come.

Here is what the next 2 months will be about

And here is what the next 2 years are going to look like

Yep...

And Also...

Not all of it will be pleasant but I hope I'll keep the blog up and make some friends smile as I soldier on and hug some nice people.

Today is Sunday and as it sometimes happens I treated myself with magazines. I say it's a treat because I have the loveliest newspaper shop near my place.
Check it out

I bought ELLE, ELLE Déco, AD and other foolishness and then The Economist. For me it is a bit like porn you know. It doesn't happen so often, the paper is very thin and yet I make it last forever. Also reading about politics and economics makes my cheeks all rosy... what can I say.

Anyway.

My 1st remark is : only in The Economist do I hear so much about the Chinese one child policy. Why do you care so much? I mean no... I see why you care, it being borderline a human rights violation and shaping and molding the next superpower. Maybe later causing wars based on "give me your women!". But still I feel there is 1 or 2 big articles EVERYtime! But maybe it's just our nation's news silence on the matter that makes it so loud in your pages.

That was just a sidenote. So I was reading and my eyes got caught by this title : Bail-outs? Bof... by .... Never noticed I couldn't find any author name in The Economist before.
Why the French are relaxed about contributing to the Euro Zone rescue.

I'll spare you the details, after all you can just click on the link. I read this very good piece about how we (French that is) wanted to save our more engaged banks and Germany was more eager and alert about protecting its competitiveness gains.
Then I wondered how many French actually knew what Competitiveness Gains means (even if heard a lot about it during and after the 35-hour week debate). And then a more general wonder :

What exact pourcentage of the population have had economics classes?
What I mean by that is what pourcentage of the population understands what's going on? I am not starting a debate on elites ruling the masses. Don't care really. But at some point you have to wonder if our nice rulers for the last 50 years haven't colluded to make us dumber in matters of... what matters.

Philosophy is mandatory in France. Every single one of us had to go through it last year of HS. I remember a smelly professor, who might have been passionate about philosophy one day but lost all interest after years of talking about Socrate's, Plato's & Aristoto's thinking to a bunch of students who were mostly uninterested and certainly all frightned because they knew and everyone had told them so, that philosophy is hard and useless.

Don't get me wrong! During my real philosophy classes in the following years, I understood how important Philosophy is, liking it so much I wanted to double-graduate in it, and certainly at that time I was very proud that we, in France, make it mandatory.
Still proud! But as I was also following my first economics classes (and that was an intense 8 hours / week) I realised that only then was I starting to understand what people were saying in the news. After 2 years at this regiment I was screaming at the TV and cursing at whoever was professing unsustainable bullshit.

So! Really... 20% of high school students choose economics as their specialy. Some other will take it as a 1-hour/week option. So I'll say roughly 65% of the students who leave high school have never had an economics class (I'd love some real numbers on that if you have them).

At that point I am thinking major inter-generations government conspiracy.
I feel I'll be willing to give up philosophy-for-all if we could gain Economics in every classroom. I say their hasn't been an uprise in France about paying for another in-debt country , not because we are weighing pro or cons, but just because this debate flew right over the nations head.

Would loooove some numbers on that because I am both feeling like an elitist prick and yet still can't be sure I am wrong.

Today on the Place de la Bastille was the concert to celebrate François Mitterand's election 10 years ago.
The organisators said this event was not supposed to be political.

Am I the only one laughing?

I vote we make it "Concert for USS Triton" if that's what they really want.

I realise my last post was somehow heated, I might have been rather p*** off and therefore maybe even angry.
So today we'll keep a neutral to happy tone:
AREN'T YOU HAPPY FOR KATE? WHAT DO YOU THINK SHE'LL WEAR?

NO that's just too much. But I WILL talk about Scream 4 and our new packs of cigarettes. For a few weeks now I've been visually assaulted by the new pictures on my Malboro's packs. My reactions have been contrasted.
There's the one with a needle which I had to ask my friends about to be sure it meant that this was an addictive product, almost like a drug. Which I do not find effective on long-time smokers like me because I feel it is too late now for me to start trying coke! (almost wrote cock there... no little red underline from the spellchecker! Useless!)
There's the one with a child breathing into a mask... you kinda wanna say... "Well why don't you pack a mask with the pack if you care so much about my kids!" (nota : I do not have kids please do not send DCFS to my home...)
There's the one with the 2 lungs... you know which one I am talking about... a classic but oh so effective!

There was a big debate in France about this "shock" pictures. Was it too much?
To anybody who's wondering if this is too much, you should go see scream 4 currently in a theater near you!

As you certainly know Scream was one of the 1st (if not the 1st) scary funny movie. The killer... (...s because YES! there were 2 of them!) got kicked in the balls, always a good one! At some point in Scream 4, which is actually a little more gore thant the previous ones (I can tell, we did a trilogy re-run the night before), poor Anthony Anderson (Deputy Perkins) get stabbed in the face. And I mean a foot-long blade between the eyes. NOT a pretty one!!! And I swear the audience (and I, I have to admit) laughed so hard as he just cried, got stabbed, and actually walked a bit with a giant knife planted in his skull, it almost turned into a collective nervous laugh of shame.

So I wonder, we just saw a pretty girl eviscerated, and laughed as a Police offcier getting stadbed in the forehead. How much can a picture of a needle scare us into giving up a year-long addiction?
You pass me the lighter and tell me.

Sunday February the 27th 2011, I am in the TGV, reading newpapers from the internet, on my iPhone. I live in a world where growing a beard is suspiscious and everybody knows that the longest part of the trans-atlantic flights are the security checks.

From what i just wrote, our great liberator Charles de Gaulle would only be able to understand "February".
The technologies, companies and social paradigm of today weren't even there when he passed away.
Tante Yvonne would never understand that at my age it's very normal to be single, have a carrier, and think that you could just as easily raise a child with a man or a woman.
I have absolutly nothing to do with De Gaulle, I know little about him as he was always in the end of the history books (and therefore often fallen victim of program cuts). I suspect he wouldn't really understand me either. I am grateful for what he did for our country just as much as I am to Louis XIV and Joan of Arc.

So why on earth do politicians keep calling themselves "gaulliste"... And fighting over who deserve it more!!! Nobody cares!!! The only people who actually know what being "gaulliste" means are about to not remember even their children's names!!!!

Might be a little harsh but it drives me crazy that the finest and most powerful politicians are so out of our world they didn't notice De Gaulle didn't mean anything to many voters, that they didn't see that when they claim to be "Gaullist" we only hear "I am elitist".
And it makes me sad that we haven't had any new leader since that new generations would claim to be sons of, that our last historical leader was run out of office by riots 40 years ago and that no man or woman has shaken our political landscape since.

Please kind sirs from the government or the opposition, stop saying "gaulliste" it just makes ME sad and YOU look sad.

Yet there is little doubt that the skepticism about global warming resonates more strongly among conservatives, and Christian conservatives in particular. A survey published in October by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that white evangelical Protestants were among those least likely to believe that there was “solid evidence” that the Earth was warming because of human activity.

Only 23 percent of those surveyed accepted that idea, compared with 36 percent of the American population as a whole.

So.....64% of the American population doesn't believe that there are "solid evidence" that the earth is warming because of human activity. Which means that 64% of the population of the most polluting counrty doesn't think there is anything to do about it. and given the medium they use to convey this idea _ class books_ I'd say the reste of us are in deep trouble!