The website GraphJam estimated the potentially APOCALYPTIC consequences of gay marriage:
Via The Daily Dish.
I saw The Baader-Meinhof Complex with Ada and Peter, a movie telling the story of terrorist group RAF during the 60ies and 70ies. It's a very good movie.
I liked this movie first and foremost because it was very close to the truth. It explained very well the motives of these terrorists (the will of revolting against "american imperialism" and the fear of seeing nazism come back to Germany) as well as their story. It was kind of creepy to see these people who looked simple at first sight (Ulrike Meinhof, one of the main gang member, is like any mother of two at the beginning of the movie) say things such as "we don't see the man in uniform as a human being but as a pig".
I also liked this movie for the charisma of his actors. Martina Gedeck, who plays Ulrike Meinhof, is very convincing.
I read some said this movie glamourised terrorism. That's all wrong. The movie is even portraying terrorism severely and heavily criticises the legacy of the group's action.
Go see it while it's still playing!
My clumsy translation for Ségolène Royal's clumsy words:
Talking of honour, Ségolène Royal attempted to defend Georges Frêche's, excluded from the Socialist Party (...) after controversial words on harkis, that he had called «inferior men».
«There has been a lot of unfairness towards Georges Frêche», Ségolène Royal said on France Inter (French radio), highlighting he had been cleared by «a justice court's decision». «He's an important politician, he's a mayor who transformed Montpellier (town in the South of France), he's cultured, he's clever», she added. Obviously, he said «clumsy words but if you had to exclude from the Party everyone who has been clumsy, especially on the candidate for the presidential election (herself, last year), much more blameworthy (...), well there would be a lot of people to exclude», Royal said. But «I don't want to exclude, I want to unite».
A deux jours du vote, le PS en ébullition [Libération]
Is she saying that saying racist words is not important but criticising her when she's a presidential candidate is?! I hope she's just been "clumsy" again...
You have probably heard of this story in Rohtenburg, in Germany, where two men met on Internet and decided that one of them would eat the other. I watched the movie Grimm Love that is inspired from this story.
To tell what happened, the movie revolves around a young american woman (obviously, people would get interested or identify with two gay cannibals) who comes to Germany to study criminal psychology and who researches this story. She's then going to search the two men's past, discover how they met and even get the tape that the cannibal directed.
If I thought the character of the student was useless first, since the storyline of the two guys evolve pretty independently, nevertheless she asks good questions. First of all, what pushes us to know more about that horrid story? At some point in the movie, she says something like:
We shouldn't analyse our differences in these two men, but our common points.
No, I'm not a cannibal! But I must admit the movie managed to make me feel some sympathy towards them, especially when it talked about their loneliness.
Though I thought otherwise, the movie was not sensationalist, like, "boo fags eating other!". At the end, the movie, as crazy as it may sound, manages nearly to make us want them to succeed! We know one of them is dead, and the other one is in jail now, so they'd better manage to fulfill their fantasy, as lugubrious as it is.
A very interesting movie then, that I would recommend. Eat something before watching the movie though. Or plan veggie food! Otherwise, it is said there's another movie, Cannibal, that has been directed on the same subject and some people on IMDB say it's better... but much more "graphic".
An idea for a funny ad from Gay Times, born from a concept that plays with the stereotype that gays would want to "convert straight men" (or even make it universal).
Via Matoo.
Oh, I didn't see that cover of french satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
This drawing refer first of all to Ségolène Royal's candidacy for the job of leader of the Socialist Party, which is in a good way after her short but clear victory last week, but also to the rally she organised in Paris and where she insistingly repeated the word Fra-ter-ni-té (brotherhood).
You have to admit the people at Charlie Hebdo are very funny.
The Congress of Reims has been a series of conflicts among the socialists, particularly because of the refusal of many high-ranking members to rally Ségolène Royal. The only one who has been clever enough to admit his defeat and humble enough not to struggle for the competition in the end, is Bertrand Delanoë, who conceded. Martine Aubry and Benoît Hamon are still in the game, the first one thinking she's the only one who can unify the party, the second one thinking he's the only one who can renew it, both of them thinking they can beat Royal. This split is good news for Royal, who coould then be the presidential candidate in 2012.
2012... Beating Sarkozy at the presidential election will not be easy. Everybody knows the President is very skilled. His action as president of the European Union and his behaviour regarding the crisis are increasing his poll ratings big time. I read somewhere, I don't remember where, that some socialists were already pessimistic for the next presidential election and would let Ségolène Royal be the "sacrificial lamb"...
Anyway, nothing is decided yet.
Obama offered the job of Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. This information surprised more than one but it seems to get popular... However, even though I'm a big fan of the Senator of New York, I'm not thrilled. Indeed, Obama won against Hillary in the democratic primaries for two reasons.
- First of all, Obama pledged for change. The change of Washington and its corrupt system, the change of politics themselves, the change of generation, and stuff. It was a very strong argument against Hillary who was perceived as a hypocrite by the opinion and she came from the Clinton era. For now, Obama recruited many clintonites. "Change We Can Believe In", we're still far from it...
- Then, the main disagreement between Hillary and Obama was the conception of foreign policy! Hillary was criticised for her vote on the Iraq war, Obama represented a redemption of the american people for opposing the war back in 2003. Hillary pledged for relaunching diplomatic ties with enemy countries, Obama wanted top-level meetings without preconditions. Also, Hillary threatened to "obliterate Iran" if this country attacked Israel, Obama said the United States could go and fight Al-Qaeda in Pakistan even if this country disagrees. Hillary had experience in the field, Obama had none, and that was his asset.
If this job matches Hillary's skills, it doesn't match her favourite field: health. Hillary Clinton has been the greatest activist for universal healthcare, we remember she tried to settle it when she was First Lady, but that she had failed. Also, Obama did not campaign for universal healthcare but lately, signs indicate he may do it. This is so confusing...
To finish, I invite you to read Slate's article imagining the ideal government for Obama.
Obey, who designed the famous Obama poster, has just released a new one for gay marriage in California. This poster will be given away tomorrow at the nationwide protest in the US which should gather a lot of people.
I don't find it great though...
Last Tuesday, I saw W. at the cinema with Ada and Peter.
I thought the film succeeded in its "documentary" goals in that it relates the story of the american president George W. Bush until the war on Iraq correctly, at least the way the world sees it: the story of a guy who doesn't have the intellectual abilities for his position, manipulated by his vice-president and who has got a tricky ambition of earning his family's approval, his father in particular.
Nevertheless, something was missing, I don't know what. I'm thinking this may be caused by the fact that I already knew what this movie would say, I didn't learn anything interesting. Had this movie been released 4 years later, maybe I would have had a different feeling, like "Wow, things were going so bad these days". Now, it's too fresh.
It's still a good movie though, but it's more like a testimony of one of the darkest times of american history, meant for future generations.
![[Background 1] Sky 200](/img/bg1.jpg){kind=small}
![[Background 2] Big Ben](/img/bg2.jpg){kind=small}
![[Background 3] Faile Girl on Brick Lane](/img/bg3.jpg){kind=small}
![[Background 4] Bedsheets](/img/bg4.jpg){kind=small}
![[Background 5] Safari Beach](/img/bg5.jpg){kind=small}
![[Background 6] Trees in Hoxton Square](/img/bg6.jpg){kind=small}
![[Background 7] Counter-diving Gerkhin](/img/bg7.jpg){kind=small}
![[Background 8] Faces on the wall](/img/bg8.jpg){kind=small}
![[Background 9] Pants](/img/bg9.jpg){kind=small}
![[Background 10] Cosmogenic](/img/bg10.jpg){kind=small}
![[Icon] Open my Twitter page](/img/open.gif){kind=small}
![[Icon] My Twitter feed](/img/feed.gif){kind=small}
