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...

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.

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.

Tonight I>Tele is proud to annouce they've managed to get the first interview of Barack Obama by French journalists.
Apparently they fought long and hard to convince him that I>Tele was the right medium for him.

I was thinking "This ought to be good, 24/7 news channel, they're going to talk politics and international issues, it's gonna be smart and no-nonsense as they don't have to appeal to the average 40 year-old housewife".

It started okay but then our dear Laurence Haïm started to go all teenager on us. It's seems what she was going for was:
- LH : Do you like France?
- BH (because he can) : I hate it and cheese gives me weird bowel movements

- LH: Did you learn French and can you tell us something in French?
- BH (Yes he did): I can say "wulè wou cucher avec moa ce soi" and I was looking forward to making a fool of myself before I travel to Middle East.

But somehow it didn't go as planned as (what a chock) Barack loves France, its food and wine, and no, he can't say anything in French as he learned it in high school and can't (and won't) remember a thing.

I am very sorry for Laurence but somehow it seems this fantastic opportunity turned into a not-so-fantastic interview, exept for her 'cause I think she's in luuuuuuuv.

I love presidential election time. It's a time when hearing the news you can see all the media tricks the candidate are playing on us.

Appart from the image marketing: Ségolène with her white jacket and Sarko with his white shirt, there's the lobbying on what should journalists say, how to influence the audience by auto-realising prophecies.

The most blatant example is the fact that Ségolène is a poor public speaker. Sarkozy being a very good one, just like me you might think "he's going to eat her up during the very first debate". Logical! I would think that having no charisma on meeting and be unable to formulate one's idea clearly is kind of a low point for a candidate.

But it might turn up very differently! Our left-side newspaper are praising this unability to speak in public, saying Ségolène is such a good example of what French people are today. Personally, most French being poor bad public speaker I would expect my future president to be a little bit above average. But what remains is that is not in the interest of Sarkozy to eat her up anymore, he'll look like the elitist bad guy.

Won't this level down the poltical debate? Should our president be an average Joe/Jane? Is it so bad to be part of an elite that you should hide it by anyway you can?

Today I wonder...

Is she a politician who can actually admit that she doesn't know everything and that opinion can evolve? That she doesn't always have the one and only solution just because she tought about it while cooking diner. That other people's opinion can contribute in finding better solutions?

Or she is just a would-be idol, as some Socialist Party's member said "with ségolène it's Pop Idol every day, we never know if she is not going to tell a blunder and be voted out of the island"

Well to decide I have only one question : yesterday night, was it possible to vote by sms?

Last week an Economics Nobel Prize winner was invited on the Le Monde chat room to discuss on the matter of inequalities.

As the chat was entertain by French people, the US were held as the perfect example of inequalities in the world.

Is that true? I mean I always considered the US as a land of opportunities! Had it changed so much?

And as our economist quoted his ex-teacher If I knew the answer to this tricky question, I would already be in New-York making money it tickled me: it seems natural this guy wasn't going to Paris with a good idea. No way he could make money there!

So here we have the average French Joe, holding the US as THE land of inequalities, thinking only about what we call in France "poor workers", the Mexican immigrant who has to put up with 2 jobs to live.

And on the other side a teacher who thinks of the US as THE land of opportunities and relate much more to the wealthy self-made business man driving his Ferrari to get to his house in Santa Monica.

Should we see a direct relation between inequalities and opportunities?

Here is my insight and please feel free to give me yours.

French are not ready to accept low-paid job or workers with 2 jobs. It remains something we should all unite against. Why? Because the poor guy has no hope here. What he is doing today is what he is going to do for the rest of his live. At least it is how we see it and that IN FACT makes it unbearable.

As in the US there is a way out. Why is it so much more accepted? Because it is not seen as fate.

And this thought, that there is no hope here, is what makes me a sad example of one of our French problem: la fuite des cerveaux (brain-drain).

I am no genius but a well-educated 23-year old girl. I am motivated and willing to work hard and become wealthy. I feel I have no unbreakable link with France and that the world is a 10-hour flight away. So what should I do? Stay and work in a country were the world liberalism is considered an insult? Were even with a wonderful work of imagination there is no way I will ever drive a Ferrari to my house on the beach.

Well, no! It's a shame but I see no opportunities here of making my ambitions come true and I'll be in line very soon among my classmates to sell this valuable education France gave me to another country.

Maybe we found a way of reducing the opportunities: letting ambitious ones go!