theoriginalb

[theoriginalb]

Oscar time

So, it's time for some predictions. Here's how we'll do it. I'll go over the 24 categories, each time with a 'will win', being my prediction for the category, a 'should win' indicating who i would vote for, and a 'please no'. That last one speaks for itself. There are some films that deserve a more in-depth look, so I'll try to write a few words about them.

First off though, a general thought. There have been three clear front-runners throughout this award season. Boyhood, Birdman, and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Three movies I truly and instantly fell in love with when I saw them. But each is also distinct in the way it appealed to me. 

Boyhood is a film filled to the brim with the souls of the filmmaker, actors and everyone involved. It made me feel like I was watching something special, and that it was remarkable that I was allowed to see this.

The Grand Budapest Hotel on the other hand is an entirely creative and artistic masterpiece. It has an immensely distinct style, sense of humor, and build-up.

And Birdman exactly parallels its topic. It is about craftsmanship in the creative arts, and it shows that in every fiber that it is made of.

So the choice has been, for a large part, between soul, creativity, and craftsmanship. Luckily, these each sort of have their own categories, and you will see me distribute my own picks in different categories across these lines.

Also, if you're anxious for my picks in Best Picture and Best Director, scroll down. It's not just to build the suspense, it's just that I had a very hard time picking these.

Actor

Nominated: Steve Carrell (Foxcatcher), Bradley Cooper (American Sniper), Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game), Michael Keaton (Birdman), Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)

Will win: Eddie Redmayne.

Should win: Probably Eddie Redmayne. Very honorable mention for Keaton though, I absolutely loved the - you'll be reading this word more often when I talk about that film - craft he displayed in Birdman.

Please no: Bradley Cooper. Not that he didn't do an admirable job, but the character he had to portray in American Sniper was depicted in such a flat manner, there was no honor to be had there.

Should have been nominated: David Oyelowo (Selma)

Actress

Nominated: Marion Cotillard (Deux jours, une nuit), Felicity Jones (The theory of everything), Julianne Moore (Still Alice), Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl), Reese Witherspoon (Wild)

Will win: Julianne Moore

Should win: Definitely Julianne Moore. Her performance had me crying throughout pretty much the entire film. Very honorable mention for Rosamund Pike for her stunning performance in a genre that often leads to cliched characters devoid of nuance.

Please no: Felicity Jones. Never captured me in what was essentially a supporting role.

Supporting actor

Nominated: Robert Duvall (The Judge), Ethan Hawke (Boyhood), Edward Norton (Birdman), Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher), JK Simmons (Whiplash)

Will win: JK Simmons

Should win: My word, JK Simmons of course. That shit was amazing. Honorable mention for Edward Norton and the extreme layers of craft he put into Birdman.

Please no: Robert Duvall. Adequate performance, but an entirely forgettable movie. In fact, I hardly remember it at all as I write, let alone in ten years.

Supporting actress

Nominated: Patricia Arquette (Boyhood), Laura Dern (Wild), Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game), Emma Stone (Birdman), Meryl Streep (Into the Woods)

Will win: Patricia Arquette

Should win: Patricia Arquette for playing by far the most soulful character in this list, and probably in this category in the last ten years. Honorable mention to Emma Stone for her craft, and to Meryl for being the best Meryl dressed up as a witch in any category.

Please no: Laura Dern. Forgot all about her again already.

Writing: original screenplay

Nominated: Birdman, Boyhood, Foxcatcher, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Nightcrawler

Will win: The Grand Budapest Hotel (I doubted a lot here, and at the last instance removed Birdman)

Should win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. This truly is extremely creative screenwriting. Very honorable mentions to both Boyhood (for layering in so much incredibly well-selected slices of time to anchor the story in the rest of our collective memory) and Birdman (for, you guessed it, its craftsmanship). Slightly honorable mention for Nightcrawler for being so delightfully but utterly fucked up.

Please no: Foxcatcher. Well-written, but just not by any means the best of the year.

Writing: adapted screenplay

Nominated: American Sniper, The Imitation Game, Inherent Vice, The Theory of Everything, Whiplash

Will win: The Theory of Everything

Should win: either The Imitation Game or Whiplash.

Please no: American Sniper. It gives a glorified look devoid of nuance at a war which has divided the USA for almost a decade. And if anything, a screenplay in this category needs to be layered.

Animated feature

Nominated: Big Hero 6, The Boxtrolls, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Song of the Sea, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya

Will win: How to Train Your Dragon 2

Should win: The Lego Movie. How the actual frack is that not nominated here? Lacking that, Big Hero 6. I cried like a baby at the end.

Please no: Princess Kaguya. Though I LOVED the style of animation, this one just made a little too little sense for me.

Foreign Language Film

Nominated: Ida, Leviathan, Mandariinid, Timbuktu, Relatos Salvajes

Will win: Ida

Should win: Ida. Every single frame of this film is a beautiful photograph that I would have enlarged and put on my wall any day. That's also why it's nominated for cinematography and will get an honorable mention there. Honorable mention here for Leviathan for providing a critical look at Putin's Russia on a grand scale, from the perspective of one essentially small story. Probably would win if Ida didn't have any jews, and the members of the Academy weren't all old jews.

Please no: Relatos Salvajes. Fun stories, but never truly felt like a film to me.

Documentary feature

Nominated: CitizenFour, Finding Vivian Maier, Last Days in Vietnam, The Salt of the Earth, Virunga

Will win: CitizenFour

Should win: CitizenFour, providing us the actual footage of Edward Snowden leaking his knowledge and upsetting the entire world. Honorable mention for Finding Vivian Maier, a beautiful and unique look at an intriguing woman and photographer, who would have been lost to history if not for the work of the documentary maker.

Please no: The salt of the earth. This was not a documentary, it was a audio-version of a photography book. Great subject, horrible execution.

Documentary short subject

Nominated: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1, Joanna, Our Curse, The Reaper (La Parka), White Earth

Will win: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1

Should win: White Earth, providing a disarmingly innocent and honest look at the oil industry in the northern United States, through the eyes of children. Honorable mention for the gorgeous cinematography in Joanna, and the horror atmosphere created in The Reaper.

Please no: Our Curse. Tragic subject (a chronically ill baby), but never really got to anything fundamental.

Cinematography

Nominated: Birdman, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Ida, Mr. Turner, Unbroken

Will win: Birdman

Should win: Birdman, for the continuity in its shots, displaying indeed incredible craftsmanship. Honorable mention for Ida (see the comment in foreign language film), and Mr. Turner for being the only thing good in that movie, with painting-like cinematography.

Please no: Unbroken, nothing memorable there.

Film editing

Nominated: American Sniper, Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Whiplash

Will win: Whiplash

Should win: Whiplash. This category is pretty much in my field of work, and it's also usually the category I'm most clueless to. Because editing is usually something you only notice when it is done wrong. Whiplash however managed to make me pay attention to a drum solo for 15 minutes, which is an achievement in and of its own.

Please no: American Sniper. Just because I think it's a piece of shit film.

Production Design

Nominated: The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Interstellar, Into the woods, Mr. Turner

Will win: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Should win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. Hands-down.

Please no: any of the others. Nothing even came close to Grand Budapest in this category.

Costume Design

Nominated: The Grand Budapest Hotel, Inherent Vice, Into the Woods, Maleficent, Mr. Turner

Will win: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Should win: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Please no: Inherent Vice. It's a movie set in the seventies. Making Joaquin Phoenix wear jeans does not an Oscar make.

Original score

Nominated: The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Interstellar, Mr. Turner, The Theory of Everything

Will win: The Grand Budapest Hotel, even though I doubted to put The Theory of Everything here until the last second.

Should win: The Grand Budapest Hotel. Honorable mention to The Imitation Game. I liked Theory of Everything, but it reminded me too much of the soundtrack to Every Single Biopic Ever Made, which won the Oscar in 1963.

Original Song

Nominated: Everything is awesome (The Lego Movie), Glory (Selma), Grateful (Beyond The Lights), I'm not gonna miss you (Glen Campbell, I'll Be Me), Lost Stars (Begin Again)

Will win: Glory, because the academy feels guilty for not giving Selma more nominations.

Should win: Lost Stars. Beautiful indie piece executed in many different versions in Begin Again. Which in and of its own was a surprisingly pleasant movie, showing us apparently Keira Knightley can sing. I don't usually enjoy movies about the music industry, but I loved Begin Again. Also, what Mark Ruffalo did in that movie was better than what he did in Foxcatcher, and what Keira Knightley did was better than what Felicity Jones did as a best actress nominee.

Please no: I'm not gonna miss you, because that nomination is the only one I couldn't see. Also not Grateful, because Beyond the Lights - as opposed to Begin Again - was a piece of crap pulling out every cliché about the music industry AND politics. It's also very inverse racist: the only two white characters in the film are the bad ones. Don't know whether to be offended, or proud that we've come so far.

Visual Effects

Nominated: Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Guardians of the Galaxy, Interstellar, X-Men: Days of Future Past

Will win: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (though it could be Interstellar. I picked the apes because they won most at the visual effects society awards - yup, that's a thing)

Should win: Dawn of the Rise of the Sequel to the Prequel to the Reboot of the Franchise of the Planet of the Apes. DotRotSotPotRotFotPotA for short. Why do movies in this category always have such lengthy names?

Please no: Meh, liked all of the others equally much actually.

Makeup & hairstyling

Nominated: Foxcatcher, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Guardians of the Galaxy

Will win: Foxcatcher, for making Steve Carell look like... yuck.

Should win: The Grand Budapest Hotel for its sheer craziness in hair. Selma should have been here for making Oprah look her age.

Please no: any of these would deserve it.

Sound editing

Nominated: American Sniper, Birdman, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Interstellar, Unbroken

Will win: Interstellar

Should win: another category that you only truly notice if it's done wrong... Although for the first time in my life, I noticed how well it was executed in Interstellar. Honorable mention for Birdman's craft.

Please no: The Hobbit: The Battle to Stay Awake

Sound Mixing

Nominated: American Sniper, Birdman, Interstellar, Unbroken, Whiplash

Will win: Whiplash, I hope

Should win: Whiplash. Spot on.

Please no: American Sniper. No matter how well you mix the sound of a piece of crap, it's still a piece of crap. Sorry John Reitz, Gregg Rudloff and Walt Martin, it's truly not your fault.

Short film animated

Nominated: The Bigger Picture, The Dam Keeper, Feast, Me and My Moulton, A Single Life

Will win: Feast

Should win: Feast, Disney short about a doggy who lives his master's love life through the food they share. Had me in tears. Honorable mentions for The Dam Keeper for being an emotional tale against bullying, A Single Life for sheer funniness, and The Bigger Picture for its gorgeous style of animation combining painted characters on the walls, and claymation.

Pleaso no: Me and My Moulton, the only one of the nominees to never really touch base with me.

Short film live action

Nominated: Aya, Boogaloo and Graham, La lampe au Beurre de Yak, Parvaneh, The Phone Call

Will win: Boogaloo and Graham

Should win: Boogaloo and Graham, another one to really touch base. About two boys and their chickens. Honorable mention for The Phone Call, spanning a single phone call, with excellent performances by Sally Field and Jim Broadbent.

Please no: La Lamp au Beurre de Yak. I don't even know what that one was really about.

Directing

Nominated: Alejandro G. Iñarritu (Birdman), Richard Linklater (Boyhood), Bennett Miller (Foxcatcher), Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel), Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)

Will win: doubted for a very long time about this one, especially because the other two major film awards (the Globe and the BAFTA went to Boyhood), while pretty much all the individual guilds went for Birdman. In the end however, I decided to put my faith in the academy, and so I'll go for Boyhood.

Should win: Boyhood. Because this is a category where soul should prevail. And what Linklater did in telling this story across the span of twelve years, is simply extraordinary. But very honorable mention for the unique directorial style of Wes Anderson, which I simply adore.

Please no: Bennett Miller. It just wasn't that extraordinary.

Best picture

Nominated: American Sniper, Birdman, Boyhood, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Selma, The Theory of Everything, Whiplash

Will win: Same story as above, though it could be a split between these two: Boyhood.

Should win: Boyhood, same reason as above. Honorable mentions for Grand Budapest's uniqueness and one last time for Birdman's craftsmanship.

Please no: One last time: American Sniper for being a patriotic piece of crap lacking any nuance.

[theoriginalb]

85th Oscar Picks

This year's oscar bPicks presented in following format:

Category: Will Win / Should win according to the B

I have this year succeeded in seeing 47 of the 53 nominated movies (88.7%). These account for 116 out of 122 nominations (95.1%). The only films not available to me were Kings Point, Mondays at Racine, Open Heart and Redemption (all of them nominated for Documentary Short), The Gatekeepers (a documentary nominated for Documentary Feature) and Chasing Ice (a documentary nominated for Original Song).

Best Picture: Argo / Lincoln, Les Miserables, Django Unchained or Life of Pi, all more exceptional films than Argo

Leading Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln / Daniel Day-Lewis

Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained / Christoph Waltz

Leading Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook / Jennifer Lawrence or Jessica Chastain

Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, Les Misérables / sooooooo much Anne Hathaway.

Animated Feature: Brave / Frankenweenie

Cinematography: Life of Pi / Life of Pi

Costume Design: Les Misérables / Les Misérables

Directing: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln / Spielberg is fine, but also Tom Hooper, Les Misérables (not nominated) or Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained deserve it. Anyone but Haneke, really.

Documentary Feature: Searching for Sugar Man / How to Survive A Plague

Documentary Short: Mondays at Racine / Don't know because they are so unavailable, but honorable mention to Inocente for at least being viewable online (and even then not outside of the US, officially...)

Film Editing: Argo / Argo

Foreign Language Film: Amour / En Kongelig Affaere, or actually basically anything but Amour. Also, we should have sent in The Broken Circle Breakdown, it deserves to be here.

Makeup and Hairstyling: Les Misérables / Les Misérables, but The Hobbit would also very much deserve this.

Original Score: Life of Pi / Life of Pi, but The Hobbit should have been nominated here

Original Song: Skyfall, Skyfall / Skyfall, Skyfall

Production Design: Les Misérables / Les Misérables

Animated Short Film: Paperman / Paperman

Live Action Short Film: Probably Buzkashi Boys, but patriotism makes me say Dood van een Schaduw / Dood van een Schaduw

Sound Editing: Skyfall / Skyfall

Sound Mixing: Les Misérables / Les Misérables, for all the live singing. Dayum.

Visual Effects: Life of Pi / Life of Pi

Adapted Screenplay: Silver Linings Playbook / Lincoln

Original Screenplay: Django Unchained / Django Unchained

[theoriginalb]

Golden Globe Predictions 2012

Today, award season really starts to get in full sway with the announcement of the Golden Globe Awards. Time for me then, to give you my first in a series of predictions for this season.

The Globes generally are hard to predict, as many of the big names haven't yet been available for watching in Belgian theatres. This means that I've only seen 24 out of 38 nominated movies, and haven't seen big nominees such as Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, Silver Linings Playbook and Django Unchained. In fact, I've only seen 36 out of 70 total movie nominations (51.4%), and probably even less of the TV nominees. So many of these predictions are quite premature, and for every category I'll indicate between brackets how many nominees I've actually seen as an indication of how informed my prediction is. For the television series, I count them as "seen" if I have seen at least half the episodes of the current season.

Here goes:

FILM

Best Motion Picture, Drama (40%): Lincoln 

Best Motion Picture, Comedy or Musical (60%): Les Misérables

Best Director (40%): Steven Spielberg, Lincoln

Best Actor, Drama (20%): Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln

Best Actress, Drama (60%): Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty

Best Actor, Comedy or Musical (80%): Hugh Jackman, Les Misérables

Best Actress, Comedy or Musical (40%): Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook

Best Supporting Actor (20%): Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln

Best Supporting Actress (60%): Anne Hathaway, Les Misérables

Best Screenplay (20%): Lincoln

Best Animated Film (100%): Frankenweenie

Best Foreign Language Film (60%): Amour

Best Original Score (60%): Life of Pi

Best Original Song (80%): Skyfall, Skyfall

TV

Best Television Series, Drama (0%): Homeland

Best Television Series, Comedy or Musical (80%): Modern Family

Best Actor, Television Drama (0%): Jeff Daniels, The Newsroom

Best Actress, Television Drama (0%): Claire Danes, Homeland

Best Actor, Television Comedy or Musical (60%): Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Best Actress, Television Comedy or Musical (40%): Tina Fey, 30 Rock (because it's gonna be a lot of fun to watch one of the hostesses win ;))

Best Miniseries or Motion Picture Made for Television (0%): Game Change

Best Performance by an Actor in a Miniseries or Motion Picture Made for Television (0%): Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock

Best Performance by an Actress in a Miniseries or Motion Picture Made for Television (0%): Julianne Moore, Game Change

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Miniseries or Motion Picture Made for Television (20%): Ed Harris, Game Change

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Miniseries or Motion Picture Made for Television (20%): Sofia Vergara, Modern Family

There, in about five hours, we'll know how far off I was this year :D

[theoriginalb]

Deloyale regeringspartners

Vandaag kunnen we in De Tijd een interview lezen met Bruno Tobback, voorzitter van sp.a, die zwaar uithaalt naar zijn coalitiepartner in de Vlaamse regering, mijn eigen partij N-VA.

Nu zijn er toch een aantal frappante uitspraken in dat interview, die eens temeer doen vermoeden dat de sp.a van ons allen wil dat we collectief geheugenverlies lijden. Heel wat van de verwijten van Tobback stroken namelijk niet met de werkelijkheid, of zijn slechts halve waarheden. 

Zo verwijt Tobback N-VA deloyauteit tegenover de partners in de Vlaamse regering, na de kritiek op de onderwijshervorming voorgesteld door minister Smet. Hij vermeldt ook expliciet dat dit geenszins te vergelijke is met de kritiek die minister Lieten eerder gaf op het besluit van minister Schauvliege betreffende Uplace.

Hier moet ik hem evenwel gelijk geven, die twee vallen inderdaad niet te vergelijken. Lieten ging namelijk frontaal in tegen een beslissing die genomen was door de regering en die reeds doorgesproken was binnen die regering. Natuurlijk is het een valabele discussie of dat standpunt nu het goede was of niet, maar feit is dat hier een sp.a-minister flagrant inging tegen het standpunt van de regering.

Het verschil met de kritiek op het voorstel van minister Smet, is dat het hier helemaal niet ging om een voorstel dat was doorgepraat binnen de regering, maar om een visienota van minister Smet zelf. Als de man zijn nota naar buiten in de pers mag brengen zonder overleg binnen de regering, is het niet zo heel verwonderlijk dat N-VA daar dan ook in dezelfde pers op reageert.

Tobback haalt dan ook aan dat de voorstellen gestoeld zijn op het regeerakkoord, en dat N-VA dus het regeerakkoord zou aanvallen en miskennen om een regeringspartner onderuit te halen. In het regeerakkoord staat inderdaad dat de discussie over de onderwijshervorming gebaseerd moet zijn op het rapport-Monard, waarin onder meer gepleit wordt voor de afschaffing van het onderscheid tussen ASO, TSO en BSO en een brede eerste graad. Een discussie baseren op een rapport is echter niet hetzelfde als dit rapport ook klakkeloos overnemen; kritiek op bepaalde maatregelen hierin is dan ook geen vertrouwensbreuk te noemen.

Daarenboven is het trouwens door Pascal Smet zelf een goede zaak genoemd dat er nu kritiek komt op zijn voorstellen, gezien hierdoor een discussie op gang wordt gezet waar hij ook zelf om had gevraagd. (http://www.vandaag.be/binnenland/99730_onderwijshervorming-smet-ik-volg-regeerakkoord.html) Bruno Tobback is hier dus verontwaardigder dan de persoon die de kritiek krijgt zelf.

Tenslotte haalt Tobback nog uit naar N-VA omwille van het voorstel de BTW op luxegoederen te verhogen van 21 naar 22 procent, terwijl N-VA toch diegenen zijn "die zeuren over het hoge overheidsbeslag". Dit is natuurlijk een grote verdraaiing van het standpunt van N-VA: er is een groot verschil tussen lasten op arbeid en lasten op consumptie. N-VA heeft altijd de bijzonder hoge lasten op arbeid in dit land aangeklaagd, en terecht, deze zijn bij de hoogste in de wereld. In het zelfde voorstel van N-VA om de btw te verhogen naar 22 procent werd dan ook aangevoerd dat het bedrag dat hiermee wordt gewonnen, gebruikt kan worden om de lasten op arbeid te verlagen.

Maar goed, dit alles past natuurlijk in een kader van algemeen N-VA-bashen dat steeds duidelijker en frequenter wordt. Ik mag hopen dat de partijen die hieraan meedoen even hard op inhoud werken als op het aanvallen van N-VA. Dan komt het nog wel goed.

[theoriginalb]

R.I.P. DeMille

Tonight, sadly we say goodbye to DeMille. He was the first of my director-named hard disks to fail.

He had been a faithful servant for just under four years when he was officially pronounced dead Monday May 7th 2012, 11:06 PM CET after many attempts at reanimation. Though his memory contained nothing but a triply redundant backup of our masters project, the rushes and high quality exports of some four year old movies, he is deeply mourned by his owner, and his remaining brothers (Altman, Burton, Chaplin, Eisenstein, Forman and Griffith).

The person who makes a success of living is the one who sees his goal steadily and aims for it unswervingly. That is dedication. – Cecil B. DeMille

[theoriginalb]

The End Is Near

Of course, I'm not talking about December 21st of this year, the day the Mayan calendar ends.

No, the calendar I'm referring to ends even sooner, namely on June 14th. That's the day of my jury, and the last day that I will have to do anything for school. And that creates quite an odd sensation...

There are a couple of reasons I really feel like writing this right now. One, in order to get to that jury date, my director and I need to finish editing our finals project, and he's currently using my iMac to do some prepping work for the editor, leaving me on a crappy old PowerBook with not much power to do anything else but write and browse various websites (as long as they don't feature video or flash).

But I think the main reason was, I was reading some backlogged twitter feeds, and I came across this tweet by Jean-Philip De Tender, the manager of Belgium's biggest TV station, één. He taught one class to us in the past two academic years, and his main message there was "Everything's a story." And I came across a tweet from him - like I think he tweets like once every two days - saying just that. 

Now, it's a funny thing when a couple of parts of your world collide, and you get like this cosmic revelation. Well, maybe not cosmic, or a revelation per se, but it can feel pretty grand. So hold this bit of info in mind while I try to set the stage for the other parts of my world involved in my mind-collision.

The past few weeks I've been increasingly obsessed with the rides and parks in Orlando, where we're planning a family vacation next year, around this time of year (so still a LONG time to be stuck with this level of anticipation). So I have been reading some of the guidebooks to Disney World, which focuses quite heavily on the... you guessed it, story that features quite heavily within the design and detailing of so many Disney attractions and "lands".

Also, right before I read the tweet, I was reading an interview with legendary Disney imagineer Eddie Sotto, who among other projects was responsible for the design of Disneyland Paris' Main Street, literally leading me into the magic some 19-20 years ago. And guess what Sotto focused on: the storytelling that's so heavily involved in making the Disney parks work.

And this sort of roundtrips me back to mr. De Tender's class about the story. In his class last year, we had to make sort of a book report on one of many inspirational or marketing books. I picked one book on the list that I had actually bought years before, but still not read: The Imagineering Way. It's the inspirational story of many Disney Imagineers, sharing tidbits of their personal experiences, tips for the imagination, and most importantly: their story.

Actually, it hit me yesterday how much of an impact the lessons of mr. De Tender and Disney had been to me. We were having a political meeting in preparation of the October town council elections, and the subject of writing our party's program came up. We have been having some content-focused meetings, of which detailed accounts exists with a very nice listing of every idea we had there. But someone said that would not make a good form for presenting to the electorate. I replied instantly, without thinking: "Of course not, we need to find the story in it and take that to the voters."

And this has become true for almost everything I do nowadays. When I experiment with new burgers in the fries restaurant my dad owns (and I work in some weekend days), I make a burger with a story. The Ben-burger (also available as a Benny Cheese) has a sort of Westernish taste to it, combining pepper with spice and two kinds of onions, referencing my love for the USA. And yesterday I felt like creating something with curry, so I went looking for flavors befitting an oriental theme. And thus, and this is a fresh scoop for the readers of this blog as nobody else has tasted it, the Oriental Chicken B was born.

So... as I stand here at the end of my career at the Rits, it's time to look back a bit and reminisce, so sorry for the corniness. It's also time to think about all I've learned in those four years. Obviously there were a lot of technicities there, and there are quite a few teachers I will always remember for the vast amount of knowledge and wisdom about the craft they have taught me. I won't name or thank them individually, at least not before the date of the jury, but they're there, and still are.

But if there's just one bit of wisdom that I would have to say has really affected me, I'd say... Everything is a story.

Thanks, JP.

[theoriginalb]

Oscar picks 2012

Okay, this is the big one, the one we've all (and by us all, I really mean me) been waiting for ever since The King's Speech won Best Picture a year ago: the 84th Academy Awards are now less than 24 hours away! Time to announce my picks.

Mind you, I still have one movie (The Tree of Life) left to watch, so these picks might still change, although that is unlikely.

Before revealing my picks for this year however, I must get something off my chest. Movie availabilities have been especially difficult this year, with as of now 11 out of 61 nominated films unavailable for watching. And that is including the shorts being released on iTunes in Belgium for the first time this year, otherwise it would likely have been even worse.

This is not understandable or sustainable anymore in this digital day and age where studios, both big and small, have a plethora of options to make their films available to the global public simultaneously, legally, at low cost to them yet with profitable margins. A recent study has shown that there is a direct correlation between internet piracy and the amount of time between a film's original release and its availability in other countries. Therefore it is in the studios' best interest to release these films globally. That they continue to not do so, is baffling to say the least.

Hence, the following list is compiled without having had access to films in the following categories:

Costume Design (missing 1/5): W.E.

Documentary Feature (missing 1/5): Undefeated

Foreign Language Film (missing 3/5): Monsieur Lazhar, Footnote (Hearat Shulayim), In Darkness (W Ciemnosci)

Animated Short (missing 1/5): Pixar's La Luna

Documentary Short (missing 5/5): The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement, God is the Bigger Elvis, Incident in New Baghdad, Saving Face, The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

We mourn these 11 films.

Right, on to the big list!

Best Picture: The Artist

Leading Actor: George Clooney - The Descendants

Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer - Beginners

Leading Actress: Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady Viola Davis - The Help

Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer - The Help

Animated Feature: Rango

Art Direction: Hugo

Cinematography: The Artist The Tree of Life

Costume Design: The Artist

Directing: The Artist

Documentary Feature: Hell and Back Again Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

Documentary Short: The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

Film Editing: Hugo

Foreign Language Film: A Separation

Makeup: The Iron Lady

Original Score: The Artist

Original Song: Man or Muppet - The Muppets

Animated Short Film: The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

Live Action Short Film: Raju

Sound Editing: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Sound Mixing: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Visual Effects: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants

Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris

Going through this list right now, I realize there are actually quite a few categories I still have very strong doubts about, so I might still change my mind over the next... 20 hours or so. I'll try to mark the list as best as I can if and when I do.

Update: at 4:36, a mere 6 minutes after the original post, decided that Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory might have a fractional advantage over Hell and Back Again. Odds are this isn't the last change here.

[theoriginalb]

Road to the Oscars: BAFTA picks

Okay people, BAFTA's are tonight (hosted again by the fantastic Stephen Fry), so it's time for my picks. I still need to see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which I'm gonna do at 1:45 PM, but chances are I won't be able to blog after that, so preliminary predictions on this blog now.

When I see TTSS, I will have seen 73.3% of all nominated movies, and 81.7% of all nominations. I will have seen all feature-length films except Coriolanus and Black Pond (both nominated solely in the category Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer), and The Iron Lady and My Week With Marilyn (both nominated for Leading actress, and quite a few other categories). Sadly, these films were not available to me before BAFTA time.

In the screenplay categories, I have read everything except for The Guard and Midnight In Paris, both of which were unavailable, but I have seen the films. I have seen none of the nominated short films, as they were unavailable.

So there, now you know what I am basing my picks on, here goes:

Best Film: The Artist

Outstanding British Film: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer: Richard Ayode (Writer/Director) - Submarine

Film Not in the English Language: Incendies

Animated Film: Rango

Documentary: Senna

Director: Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist

Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris

Adapted Screenplay: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Leading Actor: Jean Dujardin - The Artist

Leading Actress: Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady

Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer - Beginners

Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer - The Help

The Orange Wednesdays Rising Star Award: Chris O'Dowd (I don't know any of the nominated people...)

Original Music: The Artist

Cinematography: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Editing: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Production Design:  Hugo

Costume Design: Jane Eyre

Make Up & Hair: The Iron Lady

Sound: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2

Special Visual Effects: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2

Short Animation: A Morning Stroll

Short Film: Mwansa The Great

Should these picks change after seeing Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, my last film to see before the BAFTAs, I will try to update this post. Otherwise: may the best films win! 

[theoriginalb]

De silver lining van de duistere kant van de iPhone

Vandaag verscheen er op de Standaard Online (en allicht ook in de krant zelf) een artikel van de notoir Apple-kritische Dominique Deckmyn. Onderstaand is een e-mail die ik hem stuurde, het originele artikel van Deckmyn staat onderaan bij de content source.

Beste Dominique,

Laat ik, vooraleer bestempeld te worden als alweer een woedende Apple-fanboy, zeggen dat ik uw doorgaans voor Apple kritische stukken steeds aandachtig lees, en soms zelfs weet te appreciëren. Ja, ik ben een Apple-gebruiker in hart en nieren, maar dat wil niet zeggen dat het bedrijf heilig is, en al zeker niet dat er niemand een kritische noot over mag schrijven.

Vandaag las ik echter uw artikel 'De duistere kant van de iPhone', waarin u aanhaalt dat het enige argument dat de Apple-fans gebruiken, is dat ook andere producten daar worden gemaakt. Natuurlijk ís dat ook wel zo, slechts 25% van wat Foxconn doet, is werk voor Apple, nochtans het grootste bedrijf ter wereld, naar beurswaarde gemeten, volgens uw eigen artikel. Maar daar maakt u later nog verder het punt mee dat de winstmarge van Apple ook groter is dan die van de andere bedrijven, dus dat is u ook toegestaan.

U maakt ook melding van de brief van Tim Cook, die u - en dat is uw goed recht - nogal flauwtjes vindt, hoewel er een aantal concrete maatregelen van Apple in staan opgesomd. U maakt er evenwel géén melding van dat de CEO's van de vele andere bedrijven die via Foxconn werken, absoluut geen gelijkaardige maatregelen hebben genomen.

Wat tenslotte totaal niét klopt, is dat er geen andere argumenten ter verdediging zijn. Op de site van Forbes staat namelijk een uitstekend artikel dat de verschillende aantijgingen tegen Foxconn toch in een zeker perspectief plaatst. Ja, de werkomstandigheden zijn helemaal niet goed naar onze normen. Natuurlijk worden die mensen slecht betaald in vergelijking met een Amerikaan. Maar het zíjn geen Amerikanen. Het zijn Chinezen, en hoewel er heel wat PR-stunts worden ondernomen om ons te doen geloven dat in China alles rozengeur en maneschijn is, is dat niet het geval. Het is nog steeds een arm land waar vaak in erbarmelijke omstandigheden geleefd wordt, dan kan je moeilijk een groot bedrijf verwijten dat zij dat niet eigenhandig veranderen.

Integendeel, het loon van de Foxconn-arbeiders ligt een derde hoger dan het gemiddelde Chinese loon, het aantal zelfmoorden bij Foxconn-arbeiders (waar ook veel rond te doen is geweest) is nog geen 10% van het Chinese nationale gemiddelde, en het aantal arbeidsongevallen bij Foxconn per capita is slechts een vijfde van dat in de States.

Daarenboven hebben bedrijven als Foxconn net gezorgd voor een enorme groei van de Chinese lonen (bovenop de inflatie), waardoor misschien beetje bij beetje dit erbarmelijke land uit zijn armoede kan kruipen, en niet alleen de bedrijven maar hopelijk vooral ook het repressieve Chinese regime - waartegen dat massale internetprotest waartoe u oproept misschien beter gericht zou zijn - kunnen werken aan betere omstandigheden voor de gemiddelde Chinees.

Maar ik parafraseer hier, het originele artikel vindt u op http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/01/29/the-apple-boycott-people-are-spouting-nonsense-about-chinese-manufacturing/. Hopelijk publiceert een goed journalist ook de silver lining van de duistere kant.

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Ben Verhaegen

[theoriginalb]

Road to the Oscars: Golden Globe predictions

As promised, in this post you can find my personal predictions for the Golden Globes tonight. I don't have time to write a statement defending these predictions, I might go into more details later (this is NOT a promise). I would also like to make clear that these do not necessarily reflect my personal taste, they are my estimate of how the voting members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association will distribute the awards.

FILM

Best Motion Picture - Drama: The Descendants

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama: Viola Davis (The Help)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama: George Clooney (The Descendants)

Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical: The Artist

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical: Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical: Jean Dujardin (The Artist)

Best Animated Feature Film: Rango

Best Foreign Language Film: Jodaeiye Nader Az Simin - A Separation (Iran)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture: Octavia Spencer (The Help)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture: Christopher Plummer (Beginners)

Best Director - Motion Picture: Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist)

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture: Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist)

Best Original Score - Motion Picture: Ludovic Bource (The Artist)

Best Original Song - Motion Picture: Lay Your Head Down (Albert Nobbs)

TV

Best Television Series - Drama: Game of Thrones

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Drama: Julianna Margulies (The Good Wife)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Drama: Steve Buscemi (Boardwalk Empire)

Best Television Series - Comedy or Musical: Modern Family

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Comedy or Musical: Tina Fey (30 Rock)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Comedy or Musical: Alec Baldwin (30 Rock)

Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television: Mildred Pierce

Best Performance by an Actress in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television: Kate Winslet (Mildred Pierce)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television: Bill Nighy (Page Eight (Masterpiece))

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series, or Motion Picture Made for Television: Sofia Vergara (Modern Family)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series, or Motion Picture Made for Television: Peter Dinklage (Game of Thrones)

There, especially in the TV categories I will have screwed up a lot. These estimates are in part based on the results of the Critics' Choice Awards from last Thursday, and in part on watching 23 nominated movies (accounting for 62.16% of nominated movies and 45 nominations (63.38%) in the movie categories), and 6 nominated television programmes (accounting for 20.69% of nominated movies and 11 nominations (20.00%) in the television categories). I have also read two nominated screenplays, and listened to all nominated songs.

The show starts in slightly under 3 hours, bCurious!

[theoriginalb]

Road to the Oscars: Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Comedy/Musical

Okay, finally completed watching another category for the Golden Globes: Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Comedy/Musical. I fear this will be the only category I'll be able to complete by the award ceremony tomorrow, aside from Animated Feature Film which I posted earlier. The only missing movies in a bunch of categories are The Descendants (Belgian release date February 8th) and My Week With Marilyn (Belgian release date March 7th, which is a problem as that is even after the Oscars).

As per usual, I will share my remarks with you. My full prediction for all 14 movie categories will be posted tomorrow, right before the ceremony.

Jean Dujardin (The Artist): Finally saw this movie yesterday. If anything, it shows pure craftsmanship, on the part of both the actors and director/screenwriter Michel Hazanavicius. I might be posting an in-depth review later (if I find the time, which is a very limited resource in my life nowadays), but it is a French-Belgian co-produced silent film, where Dujardin plays a succesful Hollywood actor from the silent era, who is replaced by a hip young it-girl when he can't make the transition to the talkies during the late 20's. What Dujardin (and Bérénice Bejo, the young actress) have to do in this movie, has not been done for decades: play their part using solely facial expressions and actions. Their performance has something magical, not only because this takes us back to the silent era when movies had an entirely different type of wizardry coming over us, but also because somewhere in the back of the head (certainly not the front, as we are simply dragged away into this silent world with them), we know these are people like us, having all the means of getting their emotions across as we do nowadays, but their larger-than-life acting is THEIR medium. And it is beautiful. Dujardin's smile will soon be burnt into the collective memory as a contemporary classic.

Brendan Gleeson (The Guard): Brendan Gleeson is perhaps best known, certainly here among people my age, for his performance as Mad-Eye Moody in the Harry Potter films. However, it is in "In Bruges" he really shone as the slightly psychopatic assassin. The Guard, and certainly Gleeson's portrayal of Gerry Boyle, a misantropic socially deranged Irish cop, are very close to "In Bruges"'s dark sense of humor. You want to hate this enormous ass (like when he says to Don Cheadle's African American FBI agent cooperating with them on Irish drug trafficers: "I thought only black guys were drug smugglers?"), but Gleeson really plays this with such bravado, you can't help but end up thinking "this guy is so right". Strange film, with a strange protagonist, but I loved it.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (50/50): 50/50 is a comedy about cancer. I know, right? Still, it is an absolutely fantastic and honest comedy dealing with the many wrong ways in which people respond to people dealing with cancer. Gordon-Levitt has grown immensely as an actor since he was the old and wise alien trapped in a pubescent teenager human body in "Third Rock from the Sun": in "50/50" we feel the pain from his cancer, but more importantly, we feel his will to live, and live normally. He laughs, has good times, and gets upset at idiots who treat him 'specially'. *SPOILER ALERT* The moment where he loses one of his 'chemo-buddies', and it really hits him he might be dying, is just pure beauty, and one of this year's most dramatic moments in cinema. *END OF SPOILERS*

Ryan Gosling (Crazy, Stupid, Love): If there was one trend in cinema this year, I'd have to say 'Gosling&Fassbender'. They were both in so many movies, Gosling being nominated as Best Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama as well for "The Ides of March", and having also starred in "Drive". But this is about Crazy, Stupid, Love, where he plays a fantastically arrogant and self-assured playboy, who completely retools a middle aged man in a midlife crisis who just got dumped by his wife. Gosling gives him a make-over, and teaches him confidence when picking up women, which he then demonstrates by picking up dozens of women himself. Gosling is a great - not to mention GORGEOUS (one of the ladies tells him 'you look photoshopped!') - actor, who gives a great comic performance here. However, he's good, but we're talking extraordinary here to win the Globe, and I can't call this extraordinary.

Owen Wilson (Midnight in Paris): With "Midnight in Paris", Woody Allen directed one of this year's great nostalgic films (another trend: see also "The Artist" and "Hugo"), where Owen Wilson finds himself travelling back in time to the twenties of the previous century in Paris every midnight, to surround himself with the great writers and artists of the time. Again, as I have said many times before in this category, it is a wonderful film (in the strictest sense of the word 'wonder'), with a good performance by Wilson, certainly his best film yet. Still, as with Gosling, I cannot for the life of me call this performance extraordinary enough to warrant the Globe.

So really, it's down to three players here really contending for the gold: Jean Dujardin, Brendan Gleeson and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Charmed as I was with Gleeson's... well, asshole cop, I'm afraid I must drop him out of the race here, I just personally found him slightly less amazing than the other two.

I have great admiration for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He is a very capable actor - as he showed in "Inception" - who really shines in smaller, independent productions such as "Mysterious Skin", "(500) Days of Summer", and now "50/50". I also have great respect for what Jean Dujardin did in "The Artist", acting in a silent movie, an art form that has been extinct for some 80 years now.

My criterium has been extraordinary, and then it leaves no doubt: I must go for Jean Dujardin in "The Artist". But hey, in the Golden Globes ties are a real possibility (in 1989 Jodie Foster, Shirley Maclaine AND Sigourney Weaver all won Best Actress), so who knows they'll both get a statuette...

[theoriginalb]

De opstand tegen een opstandige democratie

Ik kreeg vandaag een artikel toegezonden van de hand van professor Jan Blommaert over opstandigheid en democratie, waarin hij de recente vakbondsacties verdedigt. De link naar de originele tekst staat onderaan dit artikel bij 'content source'.

Zijn originele uitgangspunt is dat, waar de vakbondsacties ondemocratisch worden genoemd en daardoor worden gecontesteerd, het precies de minister is die het sociaal overleg heeft overgeslagen die ondemocratisch ageert, daar democratie meer is dan stemmen voor bepaalde personen en die dan alle macht van het volk geven. Neen, zegt Blommaert, in een democratie heeft de burger de plicht op te treden tegen democratisch verkozen antidemocraten die de beginselen van de democratie bedreigen.

Ten eerste heb ik mijn bedenkingen bij het uitgangspunt van Blommaert in deze. Het vakbond-bashen zoals hij dat noemt, komt niet alleen vanuit het feit dat men de vakbonden ondemocratisch noemt omdat zij in opstand zouden komen tegen het bestuur dat democratisch verkozen is, en hun protest als een vorm van geweld tegen de democratische instellingen en procedures zouden zien. 

Integendeel, dat is een redenering die ik eigenlijk helemaal niet gehoord heb binnen de storm van anti-vakbondsprotest. Er is ongenoegen over de actie van de vakbonden omdat deze doorgaans - op zijn minst in de perceptie van de algemene bevolking, maar ook gestaafd door enkele reacties van de vakbonden zelf de laatste weken - elke vorm van oplossing die ook maar enige inspanning vraagt van de werknemer weigeren. Nochtans leeft er een breed besef dat er wel degelijk problemen zijn met de pensioenen (we worden ouder, en dat is goed, maar dat wil zeggen dat als we niet langer werken, onze pensioenen niet meer betaalbaar zijn en het huidige systeem dus zonder hervormingen onwerkbaar is), en men mort dus over het feit dat de vakbonden dit niet lijken te beseffen, maar rustig in alle arrogantie verder protesteren en maar acties in de toekomst afkondigen, of er nu met hen gepraat wordt of niet: de acties gaan door.

Het is dus tegen deze onwil van de vakbonden dat het algemene ongenoegen gericht is, niet tegen een eventuele ondemocratische afstempeling, waar ik persoonlijk slechts in het artikel van Blommaert als eerste van gehoord heb. Men ageert overigens ook tegen twee neven-effecten van de stakingen en betogingen: ten eerste worden mensen die het niet met de vakbonden eens zijn, en die - zeg het met Blommaert - ook hun democratisch recht hebben om gewoon verder te gaan met hun leven, daarin beknot worden door de vakbonden (u heeft een vrijheid tot staken, maar uw vrijheid eindigt waar die van een ander begint is een van mijn lijfspreuken); ten tweede wordt er geprotesteerd tegen een aantal maatregelen die worden genomen o.a. omdat de economie slecht draait, door diezelfde economie dan maar ineens een dag plat te leggen.

Dus: natuurlijk heeft een vakbond een democratisch recht tot actie, dat hebben we allemaal. Maar het is niet omdat je een recht hebt op iets, dat dat ook een goed idee is.

Erosie

Blommaert vervolgt zijn artikel met een herhaling en uitwerking van de stelling dat het begrip democratie ondertussen o.a. door populisten als Wilders en Dewinter is geërodeerd tot een reeks almachtige volksvertegenwoordigers die spreken namens het volk - iets wat overigens enkel zij kunnen, en het volk zelf niet meer. Het volk spreekt in deze visie enkel nog via de verkiezingen, voor de rest weten de populisten wel perfect wat het volk voelt of denkt.

Deze analyse van Blommaert is natuurlijk op vele niveaus zeer juist. Dit soort van populisme is natuurlijk inderdaad een bedreiging voor de democratie vanaf zij het volk de rest van de tijd monddood wil maken. En toch heb ik er mijn vragen bij of dat het hele verhaal is. Traditioneel zijn die populistische partijen namelijk ook voor de organisatie van referenda over vanalles en nog wat. Denken we aan het Vlaams Blok/Belang dat hier een referendum wou over het migrantenstemrecht, en al jaren schreeuwt om een referendum over de Vlaamse onafhankelijkheid. Of denken we aan de referenda over de EU die alleen opdoken in Euro-sceptische landen. Natuurlijk kan je hier perfect argumenteren dat die partijen dan ook wel heel selectief zijn in de issues waarover ze het volk willen raadplegen: dat zal doorgaans enkel zijn over die punten waarbij het volk geïnstrumentaliseerd kan worden voor het bewijs van het eigen punt (zoals migrantenstemrecht, hier was waarschijnlijk een meerderheid tegen geweest).

Maar dat is niet het punt van Blommaert, het punt van Blommaert is dat het middenveld (het echte democratische theater, aldus Blommaert) de plicht heeft om zich met de samenleving en haar belangen bezig te houden, en ook te ageren wanneer er spanning bestaat tussen middenveld en beleid.

Deze stelling is eigenlijk enkel een herhaling van zijn openingsstelling, en dus kan ik ook enkel mijn respons herhalen: ja, natuurlijk is dit zo. De vraagtekens bij de recente vakbondsacties zijn dan ook eerder inhoudelijk en niet alleen over óf zij zich mogen roeren of niet. 

Vertrouwen

Vervolgens gaat Blommaert dieper in op het begrip vertrouwen in de democratie. Hij schrijft dat er een aantal checks zijn ingebouwd in de democratie, omdat verkozenen en bestuurders a priori te wantrouwen zijn (net als andere mensen, overigens). Een voorbeeld hiervan is de grondwet, een aantal onvervreemdbare democratische grondrechten die door de politici verzekerd en bewaard moeten worden, en de onbelemmerde uitoefening ervan onmogelijk maken. En dan begaat Blommaert meteen een fikse uitschuiver, hij beschuldigt Van Quickenborne ervan om in het pensioendossier vlug artikel 23 van de Belgische grondwet terzijde te schuiven. Nu heb ik dat artikel 23 eens opgezocht, en dat stelt:

Ieder heeft het recht een menswaardig leven te leiden.

Daartoe waarborgen de wet, het decreet of de in artikel 134 bedoelde regel, rekening houdend met de overeenkomstige plichten, de economische, sociale en culturele rechten, waarvan ze de voorwaarden voor de uitoefening bepalen.

Die rechten omvatten inzonderheid :

1° het recht op arbeid en op de vrije keuze van beroepsarbeid in het raam van een algemeen werkgelegenheidsbeleid dat onder meer gericht is op het waarborgen van een zo hoog en stabiel mogelijk werkgelegenheidspeil, het recht op billijke arbeidsvoorwaarden en een billijke beloning, alsmede het recht op informatie, overleg en collectief onderhandelen;

2° het recht op sociale zekerheid, bescherming van de gezondheid en sociale, geneeskundige en juridische bijstand;

3° het recht op een behoorlijke huisvesting;

4° het recht op de bescherming van een gezond leefmilieu;

5° het recht op culturele en maatschappelijke ontplooiing.

Ik neem aan dat Blommaert bedoelt dat hij vindt dat de titel 1º overtreden is, met name het deel over "het recht op informatie, overleg en collectief onderhandelen". Daar valt natuurlijk wat over te zeggen, al is het overleg en de collectieve onderhandeling op zich nooit beknot geweest. De beslissing is enkel op een dusdanig snelle manier doorgevoerd, dat het moeilijk werd om dat overleg nog te plegen vóór de behandeling van de wetgeving door het parlement.

Daar kan ik begrip opbrengen voor de frustraties van de vakbonden, maar evengoed voor de minister: we zitten al bijna in de helft van de legislatuur, én er was dringend behoefte aan een begroting om de financiële markten en Europa gerust te stellen. Nu goed, ik wil hier het proces van Van Quickenborne niet voeren, ik wil enkel maar zeggen dat het misschien een beetje kort door de bocht is om te beweren dat hier meteen een grove grondwetsschending is gebeurd.

Verder in zijn opiniestuk identificeert Blommaert twee problemen die de democratie vandaag heeft. Ten eerste is de rol van het middenveld sinds de jaren 90 verdrongen door de rol van de individuele burger. Verhofstadt schetste in zijn Burgermanifesten een politiek zonder middenveld, waarin de individuele burger zonder tussenstations in contact stond met zijn bestuurders, wat neerkwam op een goeie tien miljoen individuen in het middenveld, die hun stem lieten afhangen van de marketingwaarde van een politicus.

Een interessante stelling, die zeker stof tot nadenken biedt. In ieder geval 'voelt' deze nieuwe vorm zonder middenveld democratischer aan. Dat klassieke middenveld van vakbonden en werkgevers voelt toch steeds aan als een aantal ietwat stuurloze machines (Unizo, VOKA, ACW, ACV en ABVV), met een aantal machtige mannen aan het stuur die ongestoord hun machines op mekaar kunnen laten botsen met desastreuze gevolgen. Bovendien vertegenwoordigt dit middenveld zeker niet iedereen van onze 10 miljoen inwoners: ik vind zeker niet van een van bovenstaande organisaties dat die in mijn naam spreekt. Ik ben noch werkgever, noch vakbondsmilitant. En dat vakbonden zeker niet in naam van alle werknemers spreken, is afgelopen weken ook duidelijk gebleken.

En toch is de stelling van Blommaert zeker valide: een politiek die dat middenveld negeert, mist ook een zekere legitimiteit. Want die stuurloze machines ZIJN er wel, en als we niet met hen afspreken dat en hoe ze minder gaan botsen, zal dat desastreuze gevolgen hebben.

Het tweede probleem dat Blommaert identificeert is er eentje waar ik ondertussen al een kleine vier jaar over debatteer in de studie audiovisuele kunsten: de rol van de media binnen en naast de politiek. Sowieso is het een probleem dat de media tegenwoordig haast allemaal zuiver economische belangen hebben: ze moeten het nieuws brengen dat kranten verkoopt, het nieuws dat voor kijkcijfers zorgt, het nieuws dat clicks op de site oplevert. Hierdoor verglijden de media steeds vaker naar populisme, een begrip dat ik hierboven al kort heb aangestipt.

Wat hier volgens Blommaert echter een bijkomend probleem is, dat ik niet onderschrijf, is dat de media zich volgens hem hebben opgeworpen als het nieuwe middenveld, net op het moment dat het zuilen-systeem afbrokkelde en de media dus hun feeling met het middenveld net verloren. Nu, het is onmiskenbaar dat de media een belangrijke rol spelen binnen de informatie en daardoor dus onrechtstreeks ook in de perceptie en opinievorming van de bevolking, maar een middenveld is volgens mij toch nog net iets anders. De media proberen niet rechtstreeks te wegen op de politiek, integendeel, ze prediken nu meer dan ooit politieke neutraliteit. De stelling dus dat de media zichzelf opwerpen als nieuw middenveld, is mijns inziens bediscussieerbaar.

Doodzieke democratie

Verderop verduidelijkt Blommaert dit als volgt als een eerste groot gevaar waarin onze democratie vandaag verkeert: de media, voor hem in deze gesymboliseerd door een opiniestuk van één hoofdredacteur (die van Het Laatste Nieuws, nvdr), kunnen roepen dat de staking ondemocratisch is, en daar kunnen de vakbonden die - strikt theoretisch - twee miljoen burgers vertegenwoordigen niet tegenop. Dat durf ik toch in vraag stellen. Het klopt dat de media hierin een zekere macht hebben, en dat er een aantal opiniemakers zijn die daar handig gebruik van weten te maken. Maar het is incorrect om te beweren dat de vakbonden en het middenveld niet aan bod zouden komen in diezelfde media. Rudy De Leeuw, Jos Digneffe en Luc Cortebeeck hebben mij al zeer vaak hun grieven uitgelegd in het Nieuws, in Terzake, en in de Standaard. Ik ben het er gewoon inhoudelijk niet mee eens, punt. Opnieuw, ik kan het niet genoeg herhalen, omdat hun staking zogezegd ondemocratisch zou zijn (wat ze niet is), maar gewoon omdat ik het er inhoudelijk fundamenteel niet mee eens ben.

Een tweede gevaar dat Blommaert aanhaalt is dat, doordat politici het middenveld niet meer moeten volgen, het centrale democratische gegeven 'het Volk' evengoed verdwijnt. Ook daar ben ik het niet mee eens, zoals hierboven gezegd is het Volk meer dan enkel het middenveld, al vind ik, opnieuw, dat het middenveld niet noodzakelijk genegeerd mag worden. Maar het moet ook niet meer belang worden toegedicht dan het heeft, het staat ook niet boven de rest van het democratisch systeem.

Het derde gevaar in zijn opiniestuk is volgens mij het meest fundamentele. Hier stelt Blommaert namelijk dat de burger in de democratie steeds meer herleid wordt tot iemand die enkel de democratisch verkozen politici dient toe te juichen, en dat de individuele stem beperkt wordt tot het aanduiden van een bolletje op een touchscreen, binnenkort om de 5 jaar. Een consument die kiest voor een politiek product, maar die niet meer participeert in de democratie, en zich volledig laat sturen door wat de politiek en de media hem voorschrijven. 

Dit is inderdaad een schrikwekkend beeld, dat er volgens mij niet van zal komen. Als 2011 ons één ding geleerd heeft, is het dat de burger wel degelijk nog zijn stem zal laten gelden wanneer het nodig is. Dat de burger zich kan groeperen en opkomen wanneer hij ontevreden is over het gevoerde beleid. Denk niet alleen aan de Arabische lente, maar ook aan de Occupy-beweging en de Indignados. Denk zelfs even godbetert aan de knullige Shame-betoging hier bij ons. Allemaal zeer fundamentele burgerprotesten die inderdaad niet uitgingen van het middenveld of een vakbond, zelfs niet vanuit een bestaande organisatie. Dit waren de burgers die het heft in handen namen, en die wel degelijk hun rechtmatige democratische positie opeisen.

Conclusie

De conclusie van Blommaert's stuk, dat een zeer interessant opgebouwde en gefundeerde analyse was die veel stof tot nadenken aanbracht, dreigt echter zijn krediet onderuit te halen. Voor hem is het klaarblijkelijk onmogelijk het inhoudelijk oneens te zijn met de vakbonden, hij noemt het instemmen met de pensioenplannen in kwestie 'knikken en gehoorzamen [aan] een politiek dictaat dat zowel procedureel als inhoudelijk geen enkele aansluiting heeft met een fundamentele democratie'. Voor hem is alle kritiek op de vakbonden een 'schelden op die bewegingen die hun democratische plicht doen: hier tegen in het verzet komen, en daarvoor de middelen gebruiken die ze hebben, de staking en de boycot.'

Dit vind ik persoonlijk echt onwaarschijnlijk kort door de bocht, en hier maakt Blommaert zichzelf haast schuldig aan waar hij een heel artikel lang tegen in opstand komt. Hij ageert tegen een gedachte die volgens hem mainstream is en die kritiek op gangbare gedachtegangen verbiedt of op zijn minst fel veroordeelt, en hij concludeert dan met het fel veroordelen van enige kritiek op de organisaties die hij zelf verdedigt. Dat lijkt mij zacht gezegd nogal hypocriet.

Hij eindigt tenslotte met de herhaling dat we volgens hem ondertussen al in een soort van totalitaire schijndemocratie zitten, een stelling waartegen ik mijn eerdere argumenten enkel kan herhalen: er zijn nog steeds burgers die het heft wel in handen zullen nemen als het erop aankomt, en er zijn zeker nog burgers die inhoudelijk denken en ageren. Zoals bijvoorbeeld yours truly, bij deze.

[theoriginalb]

Road to the White House Failure: Rick Perry

Okay, wasn't able to do a GOP candidate yesterday due to celebrations, so I'm running behind (and I wasn't gonna be ablo to do Jon Huntsman before the Iowa caucus to begin with)... So let's get to business! Today it's time for governor Rick Perry of Texas.

Now, this guy is... fun. He is not best known for his positions, but for the gaffes he made the last couple of weeks. So let's get these out of the way first.

He was ranting against supreme court justices as 'eight unelected [...] officials', while there are nine.

When asked to name one of the nine justices, he mumbled 'Montemayor', probably meaning Sonia Sotomayor. Now, we may not understand why this is such a big deal, nobody knows any of the judges on the Belgian Supreme Court (the Court of Cassation), but the Supreme Court's function is highly different from ours. In Belgium, the courts are limited to applying the law and deciding whether or not the law has been broken. In the United States, the court system is based on precedents, and Supreme Court decisions become pretty much as binding as any law. Therefore, the nine Supreme Court justices are among the most important people in the US, and not being able to name one of them when running for president is like not being able to name a minister when wanting to be Prime Minister here.

During a debate, he was boasting about three government agencies he would eliminate as president, but then was able to name only two.

During a rally, he said: "Those of you who will be 21 by November the 12th, I ask for your support and your vote." Only, the voting age is 18, and the election is November 6th.

He kept talking about the upcoming "New Hampshire caucuses", while New Hampshire elects its candidate through a primary. (Primaries are like real elections, while caucuses are a strange sort of debating event that results in declaring support for a candidate).

But hey, in these past analyses, I've always been about content. So let's not judge Perry on a few stupid remarks, after all, there is no way he's gonna beat the last Republican president OR the next candidate to be discussed. On to his political positions. However, there is not much to be found on those, so hopefully I can be briefer here than I was with Ron Paul.

Constitution: As opposed to Paul, who defended the constitution as holy, Perry opposes certain amendments to it, namely the XVI and XVII amendments. The 16th amendment states that the federal government can collect income tax, the 17th that senators are elected directly. Er... yeah, taxes that are required for the workings of the government and direct democratic elections, that DOES sound evil. The reasoning here is that these amendments take wealth (XVI) and sovereignty (XVII) away from the states. 

Amendment XVI: Before amendment XVI, the states were solely responsible for taxation, and all taxation was apportioned between the states. However, I defended this in a previous analysis: taxes are necessary to run a democracy, period. 

Amendment XVII: Before amendment XVII, the respective state governments decided, without any interference from the people, which people to send to the Senate. The reasoning here is that this way, the Senate, which was meant to be the representation of the states (as opposed to the House, which was the representation of the people), lost that function, as it is now also a representation of the people of that state. I get the reasoning, but it seems to me to be severely overrated. The state government is elected by the people to begin with, so why shouldn't the representatives of the state in the federal level be elected as well?

Abortion: Perry supports amending the constitution with a new piece of legislation prohibiting abortion nation-wide. Not only would this make abortion illegal in all cases (which I have extensively warned against in previous posts), it would also make that law extremely hard to change.

LGBT issues: Perry also supports giving same-sex marriage that same treatment: amending the constitution to make same-sex marriage illegal nation-wide. The constitution of his own state has already been amended in this way, exclusively defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He has written in his first book that homosexuality is akin to alcoholism, and that gays "should just choose abstinence". I'm sorry, but that is just asinine and plain stupid. He declares that he is not an expert in the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate, and that is clear from this statement. Like I have reiterated over and over again in previous posts, this is not a choice, neither is there anything wrong with being gay. We do not harm anyone, we just love guys instead of girls. That love is not even different from straight love, and it certainly is not less valuable. Only the sex is slightly different. So why on earth should we not only not be allowed to marry, but not even be allowed to express and live that love? Perry has also defended the Texan anti-sodomy laws (prohibiting oral and anal sex between homosexuals by law, oral and anal heterosexual sex had been decriminalized in 1974) as appropriate, even though the Supreme Court struck them down in 2003. You do not have to be an advocate of gay rights to see that it is plainly wrong for any government instance to regulate anything that happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults, whatever that may be... This is a privacy issue where no-one else has any business.

Federal Reserve: Perry greatly opposes the Federal Reserve for "printing money to play politics". Here he almost entirely agrees with Ron Paul, so for more on this, see the article on Ron Paul.

Immigration: Perry has taken a very moderate stance on immigration, extending tuition to undocumented immigrants, supporting work visas for undocumented immigrants, and opposing building a Mexico-US barrier. He declares it is important to not damage relations with the important trade partner that Mexico is, but he does defend improving security around the borders.

Climate change: Perry does not believe in human contributions to climate change, and says that many scientists don't either, and criticism on it is swelling. Bad news Rick, 97% of climate scientists believe in human causes in climate change, and that number is not dwindling. He opposes regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, as they would be damaging to the Texan economy. This is why America should've learned from the last Republican president that electing Texans is a bad idea: Texas has a lot of oil and coal industry, and Texan (republican) representatives will do everything to keep that polluting and poisonous economy afloat.

Fossil fuels: Perry has stated that fossil fuel reserves in the US are sufficient to meet current demand levels for the next 300 years. Now, even the most optimistic estimates state a global (couldn't find numbers for the US) reserve of 200 years, with realistic estimates stating that if current production wouldn't change (which is not realistic as demand increases all the time), we would likely run out of coal by 2128, out of gas by 2072, and out of oil as soon as 2055. So... 300 years? No, check your facts Perry.

Social security: In one of his books, Perry called Social Security unconstitutional, a monstrous lie. According to him, health care should be left to the states, and Social Security should get "better and more solid footing". Now, the argument whether or not Social Security should be organized federally or not is a valid one, and one we recognize from our own Belgian politics, so here you can start the debate. The point however that Social Security severely overspends just does not work out in the USA. They have giant poverty rates, expensive health care, and little to no pension plans. Perry attacks the system itself as well, and in that he is wrong. Any society should be judged on how it treats its weaker members, and solidarity IS important.

Israel: Perry believes Israel was given to the people of Israel a long time ago by God, and as such opposes putting the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians on equal footing. Okay, imaginary friends are NOT a good basis for foreign policy, why do I even have to say this?

Okay, so for me, no question about it, not only does this guy sometimes mess up while talking, his political positions are often stupid too (except immigration, did NOT see that one coming).

Next time, my absolute favourite, one that I have been waiting for since I decided to do this series: Michele Bachmann!

[theoriginalb]

Happy New Year!

Okay, fine, I'm a day late, but to everyone around the globe: may your 2012 be filled with joy, excitement, happiness, and may all tragedies be kept to a minimum, and may we all mock a bunch of morons on December 22nd.

[theoriginalb]

Road to the White House Failure: Ron Paul

In this week's continuing coverage of GOP candidates leading up to Tuesday's Iowa caucus, we already had the two big frontrunners, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, who currently have a respective ballot support of 23 and 27% in polls. The third candidate by a far margin, is somewhat of an outsider. Over here in Belgium he is probably best known as 'that poor elderly politician Brüno tried to have sex with in that movie', but Ron Paul has been around for a while.

This is actually his third race for the presidency, having been the nominee of the Libertarian party back in 1988, and having sought the Republican nomination last time in 2008.

When I say Paul is an outsider, I say this because he fits the profile of neither of the traditional parties very well, even though he has formally been a Republican since 1976 (apart from the brief gap for his presidential candidacy in 1988). Paul is a true libertarian, and thus has some extraordinary ideas inconsistent with those of the traditional parties. He is a staunch constitutionalist, believing that if it isn't in the constitution, it shouldn't be in any law. This has earned him the nickname of "Dr. No", having voted no on every single piece of legislation that was not expressly in the constitution during his 15 years as a senator and 8 years in the House, sometimes even being the sole no-voter.

Before I get into the specific political positions of Paul, I find it necessary to give a short description of what this libertarianism entails, for those unfamiliar with the term. The essence of this political philosophy is that individual liberty is the basis of all morality, and should as such be the basis of all laws. From this basis stems that in the libertarian philosophy, laws should be limited, and government should have as little power as possible (as it can only hinder individual freedom when exerted). It is this point of view that runs through most of Paul's policies, and that has made him an important influence to the Tea Party (which will now see its first presidential election as an influencer), of which Paul has often been named 'the intellectual godfather'.

Now, before we take an in-depth look at Paul's political positions, there is one more technical issue I would like to discuss. Paul likes to answer several issues by saying that should be up to the states to decide. Here, he is referring to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, saying that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Personally, I feel this 'leave it to the states' defense, is a very weak argument avoiding any type of decision, which is precisely the function of a politician. Saying 'well, I think I shouldn't prohibit it, but someone else sure can if they want to' is just a very weak way of conducting politics. Sure, this can be true for many issues, I also live in a federal country inside a confederal union, this system certainly has its benefits, and there are certain pieces of legislation that the European should not be allowed to infringe on. However, many of the issues Paul uses the defense for, concern basic rights, often relating in some, indirect way to the Constitution he holds so dearly. And those rights should be defended on any level. After all, Amendment X says it is for the states 'or the people', and at which level of government are all American people best represented? Exactly, the federal one.

So let's look at what Paul would do as president.

Religion: This really is so big an issue to me that I'll divide it into three subsections. 

Religion in schools: Paul believes children should be allowed to choose privately if they wish to pray in public schools (which currently is forbidden by the separation of church and state), but that prayer should in no case be compulsory. Personally, I absolutely defend the strict separation of church and state, and feel that prayer should be kept inside the private life. 

Religion in government buildings: Paul also finds that the separation of church and state has no basis in the constitution and so should not be exerted, and also stresses the christian foundations of the country myth I talked about in the Gingrich analysis two days ago. He has introduced (failed) legislation for allowing public buildings such as courthouses, city halls and public schools to openly display religious symbols. This should not require a defense on my behalf, but this of course greatly compromises the neutrality government buildings are supposed to exude, as they are there for all citizens, not just those happening to believe in the same imaginary friends as the town councellor does. 

Religion's values in education: Finally, Paul has also written that religion and churches have taught greater lessons than any government ever could. Here I gladly refer to Christopher Hitchens for further explanation, but religion has absolutely no lessons to teach us that we could not infer without it. Yes, religion has taught us not to kill each other, but really, I think at some point mankind would have come to the conclusion 'Hey, I don't like having my head smashed in with a pointy rock, maybe those guys don't like it if I do it to them either, hey everyone, let's say we stop the pointy rock stabbing, okay? No, Bob, no sharpened sticks either!' On the contrary, religion and churches have held education and research back for decades, and are still doing so today (see for example my stem cell research segment with Gingrich).

Freedom of speech: Here Paul is extremely inconsistent. He absolutely defends freedom of speech in all circumstances, but has introduced a law enabling states to punish flag burning (which is, in essence, a form of expression which should be protected under the constitution's freedom of speech). He is against any restrictions on the internet, but has also voted against net neutrality laws trying to make restrictions on the internet illegal. However, he has always protected whistleblowers in affairs such as the Wikileaks 'scandal'.

Gun control: Paul opposes each and every form of gun control. He thinks citizens should be allowed to own machine guns or whatever kind of weaponry of their choosing, as he believes the second amendment was put into place not only to allow for self-defense or hunting wildlife, but also to put a check on government tiranny. This is of course in a country that has enormous rates of firearm murders, high school shootings and armed robberies, far higher than anything we know in Western Europe. This country has the highest rate of gun-related injuries of all developed countries. This might have something to do with the fact that it also has the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed countries. And I really don't know what he means by 'putting a check on government tyranny'. Does he really expect situations like Gadaffi in Lybia to break out in the United States? There ARE checks on government tyranny, they are in the democratic system. If you feel your president is a tyrant, you vote for the other guy next time. What you don't do is run into a mall and fire a gun in the face of your congresswoman. Like what happened do Gabby Giffords almost a year ago in Tucson. Of course I'm not saying Paul had anything to do with that shooting or caused it in any way, but it does show that the way of thinking about government as a tyranny you should be able to stand up to in an armed fashion, is a dangerous notion at best.

Privacy and civil liberties: Paul has consistently voted against legislation infringing on citizens' privacy in the name of the war on terror. Examples of these are the PATRIOT act, the domestic surveillance of the NSA, etc. However, he has also opposed the REAL ID act, to create federal ID-card standards, something grossly needed in a country that still has no uniform way of identifying its citizens, e.g. if they have no driver's license.

Marriage: Paul opposes federal legislation concerning marriage, both legislation defining it as a union between a man and a woman, and legislation defining it as anything else. He believes it is for the states to decide this. This is one of the examples where Paul's 'leave it to the states'-defense is extremely weak. Either you are against any laws prohibiting two people other than a man and woman to get married (which, in traditional libertarian logic should be seen as infringing on personal freedom and thus should indeed be opposed by Paul), or you are for them. But protecting rights should be a job of everyone, whatever level they are on. This is for 'the people', and the people are the nation.

LGBT rights: Paul has previously supported the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that used to be in effect in the US army, prohibiting gays to come out while they were serving in the military. Again, this is inconsistent with Paul's basic philosophy, as this clearly is an infringement of the freedom of speech. However, apparently he noticed the error in his ways, as in 2010 he voted for the repeal of the DADT policy. He has also spoken out in defense of states' rights to enact laws prohibiting sodomy. Not because he himself supports such legislation (on the contrary, he has indicated his opposition). But again, yes, because it should be up to the states to decide. Again, I say, this right to privacy and sexual freedom should be protected at the highest possible level.

Foreign policy: Paul opposes any sort of intervention abroad. This of course means he opposed the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the recent intervention in Lybia, but it goes further than that. He also opposes sending foreign aid to third world countries. He advocates open trade, travel, communication and diplomacy, but advocates the withdrawal of the United States from international organizations which 'override American sovereignty', such as NATO, the United Nations, The International Criminal Court, etc. Personally, I can sort of respect his non-interventionist point of view (I disagree, as I believe in some cases, such as Lybia, intervention is certainly warranted, but I can respect that point of view), but having the United States isolate themselves by withdrawing from all international cooperations is nothing short of moronic. What this world needs is more cooperation, instead of less. Every country needs to understand that we share not only the planet, but our humanity, and no single country or leader can play a solo slim. Sure, some sovereignty should always be retained, as different people also require different decisions, but certain things (including peace and human rights, domains of which currently even only the basics lie with the above organizations) are universal, and should be governed as such. Isolation in these matters will only lead the United States to crumble.

Terrorism: Paul voted against federalization of airport security following the 9/11 attacks. His solution was to allow pilots to carry firearms, stating "it's much harder for terrorists to commandeer an airplane when pilots can fight back." You know, those guys in the cockpit sitting with their backs toward the door. Who have other things to worry about than shooting bad guys, like making sure the plane doesn't crash to begin with.

Small government: Paul believes, in true libertarian spirit, that the size of federal government should be decreased substantially, and has regularly voted against plans for government spending or new taxes. He would, among others, eliminate the following departments of the government: Education, Energy, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He would have all these services be subject to free market policies and open to private agents. Again, I personally severely object to this. If anything, the United States need MORE regulation in some of these domains, especially healthcare. Certain things should be available to all citizens, regardless of their personal wealth, and are the job of government to provide them. After all, government is nothing more than a representation of the people to take care of the people in the way that is best for the people. Education, healthcare, security and aid in case of a natural disaster are basic rights that every one should be able to enjoy without fault, and thus are the task of the government. And the IRS (the organization in charge of taxation) is necessary to generate and manage the funds required to provide these services.

The Federal Reserve: Paul opposes the Federal Reserve, the central banking institution in the United States, because he thinks that instead of containing inflation, it is responsible for causing inflation, causing booms as well as recessions and depressions. He feels that the free market should be allowed to determine both intrest rates and money supply. He also advocates not exactly returning to the gold standard, but allowing gold and silver to be used as currency, and eliminating all taxes on gold transactions. As such he does support legislation of a parallel currency, such as gold-backed notes from private markets ar a digital gold currency, to compete with the Federal reserve notes. Personally, again, I must disagree with Paul on this issue. Allowing just anyone to issue currency will soon lead to an incontrollable amount of currencies, where it is unclear for anyone which currencies can be trusted and which currencies can not. What the dollar has done, is create a uniform currency that can be used within the entire Union of the United States, as opposed to the days of the Wild West where you couldn't trust the value of pretty much anything but gold where every territory would have its own internal currency. We have long since evolved from that, and the country now has a strong, single currency that should be supported. And yes, the Fed can cause inflation, but sometimes the economy does require this breathing space...

Abortion: Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion", but believes... you guessed it, the states should be allowed to decide this. He does argue that a true libertarian should oppose abortion, as it is an act of aggression to the fetus, which according to him is alive and should possess legal rights. Again, I disagree with him: I do not by any means advocate that abortion should just be regarded as another means of birth control, but I do believe there are cases where abortion is warranted (as mentioned in the other two articles: incest, rape, and where the mother's life is in danger), and at any rate should be the choice of the mother, whose liberty has priority over that of the fetus, whose humanity is at this point debatable.

Stem-cell research: Paul supports stem-cell research, but the debate should be... yes, up to the states.

Capital punishment: Paul supports the death penalty... if the states do it. The federal government should not be allowed to issue it. Personally, again, I strongly disagree with Paul here. In most cases, death is just by far too extreme (and it is a penalty which is handed out fairly lightly in the United States). A true libertarian should oppose the death penalty, as it is the ultimate robbing of a person from the most valuable of his liberties: life. Furthermore, it is so hard to undo in case of a mistrial, and an enormous amount of executions every year are controversial at best. Just think of the Troy Davis case last September in Georgia, who was executed despite serieus doubts about his guilt, and a lack of any physical evidence. It was the state that decided upon this execution, but this made it no less shameful. However, I must nuance my opinion here. That same night, another man was executed in Texas: Lawrence Brewer. Brewer was convicted of the hate crime murder of James Byrd, a black man whom he and two accomplices had tied behind their truck and then dragged for three miles until he got decapitated when his head hit the edge of a water drain. In this case, there was no doubt about Brewer's guilt, and the circumstances were so severe, that one could argue the death penalty was certainly deserved. I personally absolutely did not feal bad about the loss of this human life. However, that does not in se justify death penalty, it only makes the issue more debatable. Where exactly do you draw the line? Now, I don't mean to make this small entry in Paul's analysis into a debate on the death penalty, so I'll finish this here, but it's powerful food for thought.

Environment and climate change: Paul does not think climate change is a "major problem threatening civilization", and as such advocates taking no actions against it. He does see polluters as aggressors who should be punished under private property rights: polluting someone else's air or water is an act of violence against their property, and should be punished as such. This, in theory, sounds like a nice philosophy, however, it is almost impossible to put into practice. Everyone pollutes a little: we all drive a car, we do number 1 and 2 in the sewage water, some of us smoke, ... so is everyone really going to have to sue everyone else to get their compensation for that pollution? Who is going to determine which percentage of my air gets polluted by my left neighbour, which percentage by myself, and which by my right neighbour? Yeah, sure, this would probably only be in effect for big polluters, but how big? You know, it would be convenient if we had an organization that represented everyone in a democratic way, to regulate all of this. Wait, we do. IT'S GOVERNMENT!

Medical Marijuana and other drugs: Paul supports the use of marijuana as a medical option, as well as ending prohibition on other drugs. He believes drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, like we do with alcoholism. Now this seems to be one of few policies where I agree with Paul, although I would advocate a policy where we not only take drugs out of illegality, but also exert a certain amount of control, so people are informed and quality can be insured. This will rule out certain cases of overdose or deaths due to inferior, poisonous drugs. Those that are going to want to do drugs, will. So it's better to make sure they don't die doing it AND have a true option of quitting outside of the jails.

Alright, I think I've gone on about Paul about twice as long as I did about Gingrich or Romney, maybe more. This is obviously because he is a significantly different kind of politician, with many unorthodox and controversial political positions, that are well worth the time to analyse.

Now, to Paul's Constitutionalism and rigid defense of Amendment X, I would like to reply in the words of founding father Thomas Jefferson, words that are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial, not far from Paul's working place the Capitol:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Times change, and so should the laws to reflect the current situation. The Constitution is some 230 years old, perhaps it is time for some changes to it.

One last thing I have not been able to discuss: I may not agree with Paul on most anything, I do highly respect Paul's style as a politician. He has an enormous factual knowledge and is a highly skilled debater. In interviews he comes across as genuine and sincere, values which I regard quite highly. I would never vote for him, but I'd sure like to take him to a restaurant for a night of interesting conversation.

[theoriginalb]

Road to the White House Failure: Mitt Romney

Time for part II in our ongoing series on the upcoming clusterfuck to the White House. Today I'll introduce you to Mitt Romney.

Now, one very important and widespread characteristic of Romney's is he is a Mormon. I have been known to take very radical anti-religious points of view, and certainly against Mormonism, the religion that – among others - baptizes Holocaust-victims posthumously. So I figured I address this religious issue before I get into Romney's actual political views, so we can get this out of the way.

You see, honesty dictates me to say that, even though Romney himself is a fairly strict believer, he openly announced that his faith is private and he will do nothing to impose his or his church's beliefs on the general population. And I must give him the credit that this has shown itself in some of his policies and political positions.

Right, onto the analysis!

Abortion: Like most Republicans, Romney is clearly pro-life. He has however declared that he thinks it should be an option in the cases of incest, rape and when the life of the mother is in danger. He also supports the states having the decision over their own abortion legislation. Romney has stated that his own views on abortion were influenced when someone close to him died from an illegal abortion. And this is exactly one of the reasons why wo need to give women the option to do this safely and legally people! Romney has also through his policies as governor and actions with proposed legislation shown consistency on this soft pro-life standpoint.

Crime and Punishment: Romney supports harsher punishments for certain categories of crimes. These include: drunk driving, child harassment through the internet (where he would order longer mandatory prison sentences and lifelong GPS tracking), terrorism and multiple homicide. He also proposed legislation to reinstate the death penalty in Massachussets during his time as governor of the state.

Education: Romney acknowledges that standards in schools have been dropping, and has proposed measures and incentive package to raise the level of education, among others by upping the standards used for measurements, augmenting efforts to identify failing schools, and establish merit scholarships for well-performing students as well as stimuli for above average teachers. On the other hand, he also strongly opposes sex education in many levels, and advocates abstinence education as 'very important'. He does oppose public schools endorsing any religion openly over any other.

Gun control: Romney has supported gun control in the past, as well as a ban on assault rifles, but does now say to support the right to bear arms as mentioned in the constitution.

LGBT issues and same-sex marriage: Romney has always adopted traditional views of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and as such not only opposes same-sex marriage, but civil unions (a legalized state of the relationship similar in rights to marriages) as well. He has however shown support of granting certain rights to same-sex couples, and has declined to sign any piece of anti-same-sex marriage legislation that sought to infringe on this rights. He has also consistently supported hate crime legislation to protect LGBT citizens against homophobia.

Stem cell research: As opposed to yesterday's Gingrich, Romney DOES think stem cell research using human embryos is ethical, although he opposes using federal funding for the research.

Climate change: Romney does support curbing greenhouse gas emissions, albeit primarily through voluntary measures. He is however in favor of some form of regulations, and acknowledges climate change as a fact, as well as the human contribution to that change, even though he says he does not know exactly how large that human contribution is.

Health care: His position on health care seems to be somewhat ambiguous, probably motivated by political factors. He has led a healthcare reform as Massachusetts governor that was in many ways similar to the federal healthcare act that is now commonly known as Obamacare, but he has opposed said Obamacare at the federal level. The argument given is that his plan had bipartisan support in the state senate, while Obamacare has met with singular republican opposition.

Foreign policy: Although Romney is a defender of a theory of the US having an exceptional position in the world (which may find its origins in his religious beliefs, as Mormons belief the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, and Jesus met with jews living in America centuries ago), The Economist has found his foreign policy positions to be mostly in line with those of the Obama administration. He proposes a stronger stand toward China, stopping to borrow money from the country and making them invest in humanitarian aid themselves, and take a stronger position on human rights.

Immigration: Romney has a (for a Republican) very soft and moderate stance on immigration. He strongly opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants, but also opposes mass deportation of these illegal immigrants. He wants them to be registered, some deported, some allowed to gradually become part of society and become officially registered citizens, but does not want to give them priority over those that do want to enter the country through the legal process. This legal process he does however want to expand, so immigration to the US is increased, in a legal way.

War on terror: Romney has a record of supporting all of the recent wars started by the US, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and interventions in Syria and Lybia. He is also known for the 2007 quote "We need to double Guantanamo", indicating he would prefer terrorism suspects to be detained abroad, outside of American soil. He has however opposed the use of torture, leaving a small opening for a limited use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques', whatever they may be. He refused to answer whether waterboarding is one of them.

Budget: Romney has supported all of the Bush tax cuts, which were basically tax cuts to the superwealthy. The theory behind these was to allow them to create extra jobs, a strategy which has not proven any results whatsoever. Romney still continues to support this situation, and opposes any new taxes or removal of the tax cuts, and advocates cuts in the budget, e.g. in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

So, in general, Romney seems a much more moderate candidate. Not only do I personally think this would be a much better situation for the United States AND the rest of the world than Gingrich's neo-conservative world view, I am convinced that Romney will be far more successful in convincing moderate, centerfield, independent voters than a polarizing figure like Gingrich would. There is a large part of Obama's electorate that will never vote for Gingrich, but they might vote for Romney.

Well, these have been the two current front-runners in the race. At the moment of writing this, Mitt Romney has a 27% vs. 23% edge over Newt Gingrich in the Gallup poll (where they were tied 25% each just days ago; I think this blog might have pushed Newt down a bit ;)). In the coming days we will be looking at some of the more unlikely candidates currently dangling at the bottom of the pack, but who knows, they might get a big boost in Tuesday's Iowa caucus.

Stay tuned! 

[theoriginalb]

Road to the White House Failure: Newt Gingrich

Ladies and gentlemen,

I said so in the description of this blog, I tend to switch between Dutch and English. And I've just noticed random people actually do tend to read blog posts here, so I'll try to do everything concerning something bigger than Flandres in English.

Like the upcoming race to the US general election of November 6, 2012 for example. The first primary will be held on January 3rd, that is in just 6 days. Up until then, I plan to take a look at each of the Republican kandidates for you, and tell you why exactly this one is batshit crazy, and even those who think Obama didn't exactly do the greatest job in his first term, should strongly support him come November.

Up first: Newt Gingrich!

He's a real flip-flopper. When you read about his policies, you'll often think 'aha, now this I agree with', only to read two sentences later that he changed his mind about it, and now opposes it. Examples to follow.

Abortion: Gingrich is strongly pro-life, and opposes subsidies for abortion in all cases. He WAS pro-funding abortions in case of rape, incest, or protecting the life of the mother, but has since flip-flopped. Why is this position important to me? One of the major problems we have is that there are too many people on this earth for the way we live. Birth control and birth planning are fundamentally important to protect our own lifestyle. On top of that, young women should be allowed to control their own bodies, certainly in the above-mentioned cases of rape, incest, and danger to own life. It can also not be good for a child to come to this world in a place where it is not exactly wanted to begin with. I've got a lot of points to make here, so I'll just cut this argumentation short and move on.

Climate change: Gingrich appeared in an ad for one of Al Gore's organizations, advocating action against climate change. He also supported a cap-and-trade program where carbon emissions are limited by law. BUT, he... changed his mind since. Now he strongly feels that such legislation would be damaging to businesses.

Drug importers: Now, I don't tend to make a strong case for drug dealers, I do think they often tend to ruin the lives of those in a socially weaker position, but Gingrich once proposed to up the sentences for drug importers to life in prison for a FIRST offence, and the death penalty for multi-offenders. Now that seems extremely harsh, especially if you know that many of the drug couriers are exactly poor people in a weak, exploitable position who are abused by the big kartels to transport their drugs. Literally killing those people because they try to make a few bucks they have no perspective of making otherwise, is just plain wrong.

Energy: Gingrich proposes producing more of the US' need for energy domestically. In and of its own, that is a good idea, only the plan lacks any foresight. It focuses almost solely on gas and oil, while everyone with a sound mind knows that these fossil fuels ARE going to run out within a foreseeable future, and we really need to invest in alternative energy sources to compliment our fossil fuels right now, until the durable energy sources are advanced enough to completely take over our energy production.

Health Care: Newt's policies on health care honestly are a little too hard for me to follow. He obviously opposes Obamacare, and wants to limit many entitlement programs, but then again, he is at the helm of some other entitlement programs... But from what I gather is he strongly supports cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and social security.

National Security: This is the guy who calls all Palestinians terrorists, the guy who is angry at his ambassador in Belgium because the ambassador claims that Israel does bear guilt in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by constantly oppressing the Palestinian people and continuing to settle their territories instead of looking for a peaceful solution. He also advocates that it is very much okay to give up all civil rights in the battle against terrorism.

Religion: Gingrich is a staunch christian, and is on a crusade against atheists, secularists, muslims and anti-theists, in defense of 'what it once meant to be an American'. Guess what Newt, your nation was founded on secular beliefs, giving everyone a strong freedom of religion, forcing no-one to pledge allegiance to a flag 'under god', forcing no-one to trust in God with every single dollar they pay. He does quite rightly oppose islam penetrating into public aspects of life, such as proposing legislation to ban sharia law in courts (it is amazing that it would even be possible to be tried in sharia law to begin with); but Gingrich remains blind to the fact that in essence there is no difference between the muslim religion and his own Lutheranism and currently Catholicism. Application of any form of religious law in society, either inside a court or outside, is just wrong. It is forcing someone to believe in something they do not, and that is unconstitutional. All of the so-called traditional American values and the Christian nature of the country were imposed by the communist hunter Joe McCarthy in the 50s. The phrase 'In God we Trust' has only been on the paper money since 1957, the pledge of allegiance was not 'under God' before 1954. Gingrich may pretend to defend the original American values, but what he really defends is the black period in American politics where all rational responses were overshadowed by a paranoid fear of communists. And that is NOT a country worth seeing back.

Same-sex marriage: Gingrich strongly opposes LGBT-weddings, defending the traditional bond of marriage between a man and a woman. He will do everything in his power to find legal and administrative ways of defending that marriage. Phew, I don't know how many times I've made this argument, but let's do this once more: homosexuality is not a choice, we are born this way. This is shown in pretty much every decent study done by an independent organization (sure, many organizations claim to prove the corollary, but they tend to have names like the 'American Society for Defense of the Family' (not an actual example, but you get the drift)). So then, you only need to look at what a marriage is to you. To me, it is a legal way of expressing infinite love between two persons, who want to spend the rest of their lives together. Who on earth is to say that the love that two men can feel for each other is any less valuable than the love between a man and a woman? This is exactly what I mean when I say that no religious point of view should enter in the public domain. The only argument I've ever heard to deride the value of same-sex love is a religious argument, which should have no place in debating legislation. Oh and by the way, Gingrich has been divorced two times, having had an affair while married to his first wife, so I'm not entirely sure how well his 'sanctity of marriage' argument holds up.

Stem cell research: A pretty important issue to me, and it should be to Gingrich. Stem cell research is an innovative new path in science, where scientists see possibilities to cure dozens of important diseases, like deafness, cancer, heart diseases, diabetes, even brain damage. And Gingrich is a strong proponent of science and scientific research, so he should be totally pro stem cell research too, right? Yup. Well, he was. Sort of. He is against using embryonic stem cells, which are by far the most useful, because he 'doesn't want to advocate killing babies'. Now of course, embryonic stem cells are taken from miscarried or aborted embryos and fetuses, and nobody actually advocates killing babies. But apparently this nuance is lost on mr. Gingrich.

There, that ought to do it for now, right? I'll try to find the time tomorrow to tell you about the other big front-runner for the GOP, Mitt Romney!