politics » Absurd Intellectual

2010′s Politician of the Year: Jon Gnarr

Posted by T. Keith Edmunds on 23 December 2010 Modern Life

Dec 232010

Jon Gnarr, the man who will make parliament drug-free by 2020.

What? You haven’t heard of Absurd Intellectual’s 2010 Politician of the Year, Jon Gnarr? What’s the matter with you? Don’t you follow international politics?

Jon Gnarr is the mayor of Reykjavik, Iceland, elected to that position in June of this year. What qualifies him as this year’s politician of the year is not the fact that he has been a punk rocker, writer, actor, comedian and a creative at an advertising agency. The best part about Mr. Gnarr is that he ran for mayor as a prank. And won.

In Reykjavik, municipal politics has political parties. Gnarr founded the Best Party to lampoon the political process. His political campaign included: Free towels in all swimming pools, getting a polar bear for the Reykjavík Zoo, “all kinds of things for weaklings”, a drug-free parliament by 2020, and (my new favorite buzz-word combination) Sustainable Transparency. On election day, the Best Party won 6 of the 15 available seats and took almost 35% of the vote.

As mayor, he continues with the central premise of his party: making fun of politics. In one of his first mayoral addresses to the city, he spoke like a true politician (ie. complete nonsense):

The odds of you being in Reykjavik are not great. The greatest part of mankind is elsewhere. It is scientifically proven. When I was little, I would often ask myself why I had been born in Reykjavik. Is it a coincidence where one is born? Is it subject to some universal law? Did I exist in any form before I was born? Did I have anything to do with where I was born? Why did Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler not bear any children? Did they not try to? Can it be that no child wanted them as parents? I don’t know, but I do not believe in coincidence. I do not believe that God plays dice, especially not when human lives are concerned. These thoughts inevitably lead one to consider Schrodinger’s cat. He is probably one of the most famous cats in the world (maybe after Ninja Cat). Still no one knows what it was called? What was Schrodinger’s cat called? Abracadabra? I don’t remember. Let’s call it Phoenix. That is a common name for cats. Phoenix was of the nature that it both existed and not. Therefore, it always existed, and even if Schrodinger killed his cat in a rather tasteless manner, it is still alive at Schrodinger’s house, while Schrodinger himself has been dead for a long time.

Does this mean that I always existed, or that I never existed and do therefore not exist now? That can’t be! It would mean that all our existence was unreal and only existed in our own imagination. If I do not exist, then neither do you. I have a hard time believing that. The facts speak for themselves. If I am not real, then how could I fly to Finland, send myself a post card with a picture of Tarja Halonen, the President of Finland, fly back home and welcome the mailman that brought me the card? I don’t know. I am one of many Icelanders that believe in elves and trolls. I mainly believe in Moomin elves. It is more of a certainty than a belief. I have seen them and touched them. I know they exist. I have been to Moominworld in Naantali, Finland. I have evidence; photographs, video recordings and witnesses. I had a good talk with Moomin Papa. He told me that life in Moominvalley was much better after Finland joined the EU. He encouraged us Icelanders to join the EU. He also said that the Moomins had always existed, long before Tove Jansson “invented” them. The Moomins are eternal, at least in books.

I hope these thoughts shed some light on the history of Reykjavik and its culture. I hope you enjoy your time in Reykjavik, that you go swimming a lot and tell all your friends how fun Reykjavik is, and how everyone is always happy there and that you will never forget your hotel, and the eternally young cat Phoenix.

Iceland is in a bad way, financially. It seems to me that any city in a country which found itself for sale on Ebay not so long ago that can elect a comedian for mayor is a city worth visiting.

And perhaps inspiration for the next generation of politicians.

2,000 of years of human political history, in one YouTube video

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 30 September 2010 Vintage/Retro

Sep 302010

Let’s take a look at the political boundaries of human culture and how they have evolved, shall we?

What I find interesting is how tiny the early political groupings are. Then, boom! Persia. And from there, bigger is better.

Note: I am not a historian, so cannot judge the accuracy of this map. I can, obviously, point out that it is pretty centred in so-called “Classic” history. North and South America are completely ignored (I’d love to see a similar video for the Aztec/Mayan world) and Africa seems duller than I’m sure it was.

(from ComingAnarchy.com)

What if cartoonists were also members of the Tea Party?

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 26 September 2010 Modern Life, Vintage/Retro

Sep 262010

The Boston Globe has a huge gallery of classic comic strips — reimagined by Ward Sutton as if they had been drawn by a Tea Partier named Joe Smith. I guess Sutton didn’t want his real name on these strips?

Above are three of my faves, but there’s about 20 of them here. I also love their rationale:

The newspaper comics page: some find it to be innocuous, even at times irrelevant. But there’s a growing concern among a certain segment of the country that the comics page is out of step with mainstream values, if not an outright cesspool of treasonous, pinko propaganda.

They offer these strips in the interest of “fairness and balance.”

Political lesson via graffiti

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 10 September 2010 Modern Life

Sep 102010

But if you want more, head on over to the discussion at Reddit, which quickly devolves into discussions of the human tendency to form hierarchies, and the difference between anarchy and anarcho-syndicalism, and which one was attempted during the Spanish civil war.

What if flags were just really weirdly designed pie charts?

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 9 September 2010 Modern Life

Sep 092010

Posit: That a country’s flag says something about that country.

Further posit: That the colours on the flag represent something real.

Finally posit: That the amount used of each colour is proportional.

Conclusion: What the flags of the world really mean:

Touché!

There are three more at Creative Component.

Keith talking about Keith

Posted by T. Keith Edmunds on 9 September 2010 Everything Else

Sep 092010

First, I would like to start off with an apology to the loyal fans of Absurd Intellectual. I’m sorry I haven’t been here for you. My posts have been irregular for the past few months, and although I’d like to think my wit has remained intact, it feels like I haven’t been giving you my all. For that I am sorry.

But there is a reason for my distraction: I have been engaged in another very exciting project. In short, I am running for public office — the Rosser Ward seat of city council here in Brandon.

Don’t worry. I do not plan on turning Absurd Intellectual into a forum for my political aspirations. I have another website for that: rosserwardbrandon.ca. I invite you to check it out and contact me there if you have any questions.

In short, I’m afraid you won’t see me around here much over the next few weeks. I will try to keep up with Short Film Fridays and the occassional mid-week post (especially with another special event Grant and I are both involved in that takes place in only a few short weeks).

For now, Grant and Amy will keep things going on an even keel. I’ll see you here now and then.

Keith out.

An example of how the world makes me sad

Posted by Amy Breen on 16 August 2010 Modern Life

Aug 162010

I try not to involve myself with American ridiculousness politics too much, case in point the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” but I thought this post was too good not to share.

Blogger Darryl Lang walked around, snapping pictures of businesses in the same radius to ground zero as the mosque would be.

Here’s what he saw:

From the post on his blog:

What’s my point? A month ago, I wrote about my support for a group of Muslim New Yorkers—whom I consider my neighbors—and their right to put a religious building on a piece of private property in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the debate over the Park51 community center, inaccurately nicknamed the “Ground Zero Mosque,” has jumped from talk radio to mainstream conversation, and turned nasty in the process. Sarah Palin wrote that, “it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground.”

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and that’s a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

I couldn’t agree more. For those who say building a mosque near ground zero is insulting, I say it’s insulting to assume every Muslim has the same beliefs as those who flew the planes into the towers, which is no different than saying every Christian is a gay-hating slut shamer who believe women wearing skirts deserve to be raped. (End of run-on sentence.)

How political is your clothing

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 27 July 2010 Modern Life

Jul 272010

It’s old news, I guess, that companies contribute to political campaigns, but I guess I never really thought about how I, as a consumer, could be helping out political causes that I don’t agree with.

I sort of thought that most large companies would hedge their bets by contributing equally (or equitably) to both sides of the political spectrum, but that’s not always the case. And, I’ve just come across a site that breaks down the contributions by clothing manufacturer. Check out this page on OpenSecrets.org:

In the 2008 election cycle, employees of Michael Kors donated 93 percent of campaign contributions to Democrats while employees of Liz Claiborne donated 98 percent to Democrats. Meanwhile, employees of Columbia Sportswear donated almost 90 percent of campaign contributions to Republicans.

Although the clothing industry is pretty evenly divided overall, individual companies in the clothing manufacturing business tend to be notably partisan in their federal political donations, more so than almost any other industry.

Some other highlights were that Guess?, Calvin Klein and American Apparel were 100% supportive of the Democrats, while Levi, Perry Ellis and Fruit of the Loom were heavily Republican.

Want to try communism for a weekend? Go camping

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 17 July 2010 Modern Life

Jul 172010

A Guardian writer points out that, when people get together in small groups for shared experiences — like, say, going camping in the wilderness — they often adopt social mores that look suspiciously Marxian:

Consider what happens when you swap your wage-slavery for a rucksack: adult hierarchy is flattened, utensils and resources are pooled. Tasks are performed as a unit: you may lay on the food, but your friend is a better cook, and her boyfriend will clean the dishes. There is no question of people being paid differently for different tasks.

Of course, my personal position is the same — I love the idea of camping and I love the idea of communism. But both can be miserable experiences as much as they sound awesome. And, frankly, I love camping.

Comparing the two is good jumping-off point for conversation, though I’m not sure it would persuade anyone who’s deeply anti-communist.

(Anti-communist feeling, in my experience, is generally an anti-totalitarian feeling. Communism can be an economic system, not necessarily a political one — there’s no real reason it couldn’t happily exist with democracy. It’s just never been tried that way.)

The Declaration of Independence, translated into “American”

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 5 July 2010 Vintage/Retro

Jul 052010

H.L. Mencken was a funny, funny dude. One of the things he wrote, which I didn’t know about, was this translation of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Because language shifts naturally over time, Mencken noted that most people of his day could no longer really understand the 18th Century English that the Declaration had been written in.

So he translated it.

Hilariously, he chose to write it in street argot — which, after 90 years, uses slang that sounds as dated to modern ears as the original.

Here’s a sample:

All we got to say on this proposition is this: first, me and you is as good as anybody else, and maybe a damn sight better; second, nobody ain’t got no right to take away none of our rights; third, every man has got a right to live, to come and go as he pleases, and to have a good time whichever way he likes, so long as he don’t interfere with nobody else. That any government that don’t give a man them rights ain’t worth a damn; also, people ought to choose the kind of government they want themselves, and nobody else ought to have no say in the matter. That whenever any government don’t do this, then the people have got a right to give it the bum’s rush and put in one that will take care of their interests.

You may be more familiar with the original:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Most people are. But when you get into the middle sections — the less-famous stuff — well, it’s a tough slog. Thanks, H.L., for the translation.

Two dozen libertarians agree on nothing

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 2 July 2010 Modern Life

Jul 022010

The most devastating critique of libertarianism that I ever heard was someone pointing out that most libertarians seem to want anarchy for themselves, but fascism for their neighbours.

(from Accordion Guy, thanks Stacey!)

Yup, the 60s and 70s wrecked everything

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 19 May 2010 Modern Life

May 192010

Actually, to be honest, I kind of like the 70s — that’s when I was born, the music was epic and not quite as self-consciously serious as the stuff the decade before, and I just love mid-70s design.

But, the decade’s not perfect. And two recent op-eds in the New York Times offer interesting perspectives on how ripples from the late 60s and early 1970s are still wrecking things today.

First — Vietnam protesters? Thought you had morality on your side? Well Larry Pressler says you were a bunch of rich brats getting off on a technicality — a lesson you’ve carried over into business and politics today:

Too many in my generation did a deeply insidious thing. And they got away with it. Big time. Poorer people went to war. The men who didn’t were able to get their head start to power.

Now that flawed thinking has been carried forward. Many of these men who evaded service but claimed idealism lead our elite institutions. The concept of using legal technicalities to evade responsibility has been carried over to playing with derivatives, or to short-changing shareholders. Once my generation got in the habit of saying one thing and believing another, it couldn’t stop.

Now, Pressler writes, those who opposed one war are in charge of another — sending other peoples’ children into harm’s way to assuage their guilt for ducking responsibility.

Slightly too young to protest the draft? You’re no better. David Brooks sees a link between the sky-high crimes rates of the 60s and 1970s and today’s helicopter over-parents:

if you grew up in or near an American city in the 1970s, you grew up with crime (and divorce), and this disorder was bound to leave a permanent mark. It was bound to shape the people, now in their 40s and early-50s, reaching the pinnacles of power.

It has clearly influenced parenting. The people who grew up afraid to go in parks at night now supervise their own children with fanatical attention, even though crime rates have plummeted. It’s as if they’re responding to the sense of menace they felt while young, not the actual conditions of today.

He sees a few more links too — some good, I’ll admit — but his descriptions of New York crimes back then are terrifying: “A serial killer nicknamed Charlie Chop-Off menaced the Upper West Side, emasculating little boys and then killing them, and such was the general disorder that his crimes were barely mentioned in the city’s newspapers.”

I’m very curious to see what will happen in 30 or so years, when the kids of the over-scheduled, over-parented generation grow up and take charge.

‘We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us’

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 5 May 2010 Vintage/Retro

May 052010

Oh yes, please. Read the story about this “illegal” trailer at Ain’t It Cool News.

Stephen Harper is scamming us

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 5 March 2010 Modern Life

Mar 052010

Stephen Harper, the “right honourable” Prime Minister of Canada, is acting a bit like a street criminal. No, he’s not actually stealing or dealing drugs or anything — he’s much too crafty for that. No, Stephen Harper is the guy causing the diversion while other people do the dirty work.

Look, we had to prorogue Parliament so that the government could “recalibrate,” right? We had to take a big long break so that everyone on the Conservative side could work real hard and get things ready for this Very Important Budget. We couldn’t afford distractions. Everything needed to be just right.

And what do we get? Oh, a very important budget, for sure. And a very important Throne Speech. So important that, boiled down to their essence, they say “No real changes. Nothing to see here.” It’s a mild-right budget, and the biggest changes are hinted at as coming next year, not this.

So why did we need to prorogue? Well, that’s an inconvenient question, isn’t it. Let’s distract people — let’s change the national anthem and introduce plastic money!

Do you realize what’s going on? Despite the merits of both ideas — I’m a fan — these are not real issues. These are distractions. These are the political equivalent of Stephen Harper flashing his boobs at you, while his boyfriend picks your pocket.

Why would he want to do this? Because some people are already sussing out what’s hidden in the budget’s fine print — and it’s not all good. In fact, cutting the deficit too early, which is what this budget is all about, is a classic way to create what they call a “double-dip” recession. Canada mostly avoided the first dip, so why are we so eager to get on the runaway train towards Part 2?

Oh, who knows — let’s all ogle the PM with his shirt up, over there.

Aw, heck, let’s take a closer look at both of those boobs of an idea that he’s waving in our faces.

1. Change the national anthem so that it’s less sexist.

This is a great idea — can we also get rid of the reference to God? How about the phrase “home and native land” as well? What about recent immigrants, aren’t they Canadian? And I’m sick of aboriginal protesters saying “home ON native land” every time there’s a territorial dispute.

Some more changes I’d like to see, if we’re going to open up this Pandora’s box: a) get rid of the “thee” and “thy” language; b) in fact, all the tortured phrasing is pretty flowery, and smacks of ivory-tower intellectual elitism; c) why does only the True North get a shout out? d) in such a short song, we sure to repeat “stand on guard for thee” a lot — more variety!

Oh, and it’s nice that we have an English and a French and a hybrid version. Let’s get the translators working on more, though. Why can’t we have semi-official Mandarin, Spanish and Ojibway versions?

(Curtis at Endless Spin has a nice look at how awful some other national anthems are, if we judge them by the sexist yardstick.)

2. Plastic money

Awesome idea — it’s cleaner, lasts longer and lets you do funky things like see-through spaces. It’s also damn tough to counterfeit. We should have done it years ago, when Australia did. But, if we’re really going to start making cash out of plastic, better get ready for a barrage of op-ed columns that make faux-insight about our “petro-dollar.”

Anyway, here’s the rub — I thought this was going to be a budget about innovation. That’s what the Throne Speech trumpeted. So why are we taking an admittedly innovative idea (plastic money) and outsourcing it to an Australian company?

We have a fantastic Royal Canadian Mint — which produces currency for Canada and a number of other counties. They even made the Olympic medals. Can’t we invest in a machine to make plastic money, as well?

Nevermind, let’s outsource those jobs.

Look — boobs!

RIP Howard Zinn

Posted by Grant Hamilton on 28 January 2010 Modern Life

Jan 282010

Howard Zinn died of a heart attack, says his daughter. I hope his legacy, “A Peoples’ History of the United States” lives on.

Older Entries