"What's the difference?" "The letter 'u.'"

MuchMusic has recently aired PSAs for a new campaign aimed at reducing emissions in Canada. The spots are filmed in a hand-held, guerrilla fashion and feature two or three young people "covertly" smacking "Flick Off" bumper stickers onto idling cars and unattended laptops.

Now, a car is one thing; people can easily access each other's cars while they're on the road. But the laptop bit takes place inside a home. How can I be compelled to Flick Off when the seams of your campaign are so glaring? I don't know about you, but I need my commercials free of improbable scenarios before I can begin to consider the merits of the ad.

This reminds me of the equally frustrating Stop Smoking campaign, stupid.ca, which is sponsored by the Government of Ontario. That campaign will have us believe that a group of kids with government cash didn't have the sway to stick up a few signs in the mall without fear of being kicked out. It also tries to convince me that smoking is not cool, so this one's got all sorts of lies happening.

Both campaigns use various techniques like handheld cameras and frantic acting to give the spots an air of danger and counter-cultural, anti-establishment cred. The Flick Off campaign goes a step further by substituting the word "flick" for the oh-so-versatile and caustic "fuck." Their website takes bad puns to a Michael Scott level with sections titled "Are We Flicked?" and "Go Flick Yourself."

Key Gordon, the advertising agency behind the campaign, offers this explanation for their techniques: "It's kind of provocative, but after reading George Monbiot's book Heat and seeing An Inconvenient Truth, well, the situation kind of calls for provocative, don't you think?"

Sure, I think climate change is provocative, but not the word "flick."

Young people should not be pandered to the way these campaigns do. Actually, let's make that: no people should be pandered to by public service announcements. Public service! Let the issue speak for itself.

Rather than intrigued and motivated by the message of the Flick Off campaign, I'm insulted by those motherfuckers.

It's called swearing, Key Gordon. And it's fun.

Maybe the glasses serve as disguise

"[The collection] is not aggressive. It's not to show other people that you have more money than them; it's to show your friends that you're more beautiful than them."

Come now. How could a man who utters such endearingly pretentious bon mots be an enemy of the Red Army?
Well, according to The Guardian, perma-be(sun)spectacled fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld was just that. Apparently Lagerfeld was selected from "an array" of prominent Germans as a prime target for kidnapping due to his personal wealth and personification of capitalism.
Good thing The Reds backed off, or else the proletariat wouldn't know who to turn to feel bad about themselves.

I came across a Radio Netherlands report on CBC radio as I cruised through the succession of green lights that illuminate Oakville’s sleepy streets. Side note, why was the broadcast in English?

The report discussed the unwillingness of African political leaders to relinquish power. In contrast to the United States where an ex-president is treated with as much – even more – respect and earns a greater living after abdicating office, African leaders are discarded. They move from opulent palaces back into the ordinary citizenry. Many critics claim this indiscrepancy spurs leaders to retain power for as long as possible, despite the will of the people, and often leads to corruption.

In order to amend the situation, Sudanese businessman Moe Ibrahim offered a $5 million reward to a worthy African leader who willingly resigns power. Some critics countered that money was not a noble incentive, but as a businessman, Ibrahim disagreed. He contrasted his proposal with the Noble prize (the winner of which receives $1.4 million), saying that humans thrive on recognition, or is it money?

But perhaps Mr. Ibrahim is being realistic. If the issue is the reluctance of these leaders to abandon their lives of luxury, then ensuring they do not lose those luxuries seems to be the quickest solution. Although, the problem is beyond each leaders’ gluttonous desires. For one, the comparison to America raises the question of why US presidents are revered post-assignment, while their African counter-parts are ignored? Could it be that African infrastructures simply do not have space for former politicians? If, and I am making gross assumptions here, power and politics in Africa are far less democratic, less of a viable career choice and more a few peoples’ thirst for power, then there is no place for African leaders to ascend to once they have achieved power. The palace is the end of the line, so why get off the train? America, on the other hand, has corporate boards to sit on and university students to be lectured to. The presidency in America is book ended by years of civil service. One does not become president overnight, and once done, it is never undone.

Secondly, perhaps instead of keeping African leaders in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, it would be best not to accustom them to it at all. The broadcast mentioned presidential palaces, Mercedes limousines, and fine wines. If the position is thought of as a luxury, the gravity of power is lessened. A man who wants to serve his people and affect great changes should want to do that whether sitting at a marble desk or on the floor his one-room home. Is that too much to ask? Maybe.