There has been much discussion on the recent decision by the Swiss people to ban the construction of new minarets. The principal concern to me is that this was done in the name of The Swiss People who, against the Federal Council’s wishes, used the direct democracy system to rewrite their own constitution.

For those unfamiliar with the Swiss system: any citizen may put forward a “people’s initiative” for universal referendum if they gain over 100,000 supporting signatures in an 18-month period. Most other nationalities buckle in disbelief on hearing this and it certainly does seem like a utopian dream where true people-power is possible. Surely this form of democracy in its truest sense can only be a force for good?

Sadly, to believe this you also have to believe that people are always unemotional, rational, strong-willed and deeply educated in a wide range of abstract topics.

The first weakness is that politically-charged issues are vulnerable to highjacking by extremist groups. It only takes a cleverly-targeted propaganda campaign to quite literally bypass government and international treaties, and access the constitution.

The second weakness, hopefully the one that can be addressed first, is that some Swiss appear to dogmatically cling to their current system of direct democracy as an immutable, unquestionable, force for good—”it’s better to have it sometimes produce results like this, than not to have it at all.”

Being appalled by the minaret result, but not questioning and challenging the system is unfair. It’s time to admit that a) populations can be brainwashed by extremist propaganda, b) despite its noble intentions, direct democracy is very vulnerable to being exploited by extremist groups and c) steps need to be taken now to stop this from happening again.

If you’re still questioning why the system is so vulnerable and unjust, just consider how flawed the logic is that allows an open vote on whether a majority should take away a minority’s human right. In a historically peaceful country like Switzerland—supposedly full of neutral and thoughtful people—this shouldn’t be a problem, right? A reliance on shared cultural beliefs is toxic. When a cultural shift happens, usually via exploitation and propaganda by an extremist organisation, the system collapses.

While the wording of the minaret initiative focused only on the construction of specific architectural towers, the surrounding far-right campaign pitched it as a chance to clamp down on the encroachment of political Islam in Switzerland, which was neither the subject of the vote nor a concern backed up by fact.

So here we have a 95% non-Muslim majority voting on an issue that takes away a fundamental right of a 5% minority—all based on ugly, warped logic.

The Swiss People’s Party—the largest political party in the country—directly stated voting “no” on the minaret ban could eventually lead to the Islamification of Switzerland with all women being forced to wear burkas on the street and endure genital mutilation. Of course the illogical misuse of women’s rights here is made all the more unnerving by the fact that Switzerland only gave women universal suffrage in 1990—another catastrophic example of a majority sytematically suppressing a minority.

In a court-of-law great lengths are taken to stop the decisive jury from being exposed to this sort of scaremongering and bias. But it’s somehow possible to have a nationwide court of 7,400,000 decide the fate of 400,000 people, while their fears are built and played upon with non-factual evidence. I saw many people being interviewed who believed that minarets were allowed to broadcast the call to prayer in Switzerland (they’re not) or had no idea about the size of the perceived ‘threat to their country’ (the majority of Muslims living in Switzerland are from the former Yugoslavia and Turkey, are secular, well integrated into society and do not practise any of the “faith characteristics” the far-right’s campaign was built on.)

As with most things, the integration of different peoples and cultures is a very complicated task, but leaving it up to what is essentially misguided mob rule is a shocking, shocking tragedy. Just as the initiative for building regulations was symbolic for a whole lot more, Switzerland cannot expect their decision to be viewed as an architectural preference alone. They have sent out a clear message that even the well-integrated Muslims in their country are being treated with suspicion and, far more worryingly, they have helped to legitimise the mobilisation of other far-right campaigns in countries like the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK.

57% of the 53% that voted, plus the 47% who didn’t vote at all (I’m sorry, but non-participation when given a vote on human rights issues is deplorable) have set the scene for a nasty turn in European politics.

A population can easily be manipulated into suppressing minorities when given a legal framework to do so, and it’s time to admit that direct democracy on this scale is a prime target for such exploitation. There’s a reason right-wing groups in other countries haven’t had the same success yet on similar initiatives.

There are, of course, still many differences between this situation and the legally legitimate rise of the National Socialist Party that formed Nazi Germany, but a country even putting one foot on that ladder is something that needs to be battled against and quickly stamped out.

The emboldened Swiss People’s Party is now proposing that the country withdraws from its European Human Rights obligations, while they try to tighten the grip on other Muslim customs. I firmly believe that the Swiss people in general do not want this to happen, but refusing to examine how to make direct democracy more robust and immune from highjacking is only going to make things worse. An investigation into the failings of the system should be presented to the international community as quickly as possible.

Personal productivity is a strange ’science’. Quite a while ago I used to think it lay somewhere between evangelical preachers grabbing your money on live television, and How-to-Get-from-Where-You-are-to-Where-You-Want-to-be self-help books.

Actually a lot of things written about personal productivity do fall into that category. But, in the last few years the revolution of simplicity over complexity, software that “does less” and a book by David Allen called Getting Things Done have opened up the world of self-management systems (termed action management) to a whole new crowd.

GTD was a revolution (1)(2) in that it defined a logical, structured and technology agnostic system (a bundle of index cards being one implementation) that appealed to the geeky crowd and open-source mentality. It is thus the topic of much debate and refactoring, leaving the subject to take a life of its own as it spreads via a sleuth of new software tools and thought.

I’ve been employing my own version of GTD for several years now and after evaluating the new task management software ‘Things’ (not for me until they have cloud-sync), coupled with the dawn of a new year, I decided to sit down and review my own workflow and make some changes here and there. I thought it might be interesting to share how I’m now organising myself.

Disclaimers

The system described is for my personal management. Although we organise company-related tasks and projects using the same basic methodology, more group-based processes and systems are used. It’s also just about task management and does not cover my general data organisation (contacts, schedule, etc.)

So this is a method that works well for me, which is loosely based on the GTD principles (for which the Wikipedia page is an excellent introduction).

Tools

Backpack – This is the cornerstone of everything. A super simple, web-based organisation tool that is so flexible it can accommodate almost any work flow you can think of. Although it has recently grown into a group-based, ‘intranet’ system, it still scales-down to support the lone user.

My tasks are essentially organised into a series of to-do lists that are in turn grouped into a number of pages. My page setup looks like this:

• 0. Dropbox – This is my task inbox. Anything that I have on my mind initially ends up in here, whether it’s a quick admin chore, an idea for a new project, or a life goal – the dropbox gets everything out of my head and stored safely into my system. Backpack even supports emailing text and files directly into this page. It also contains my today/urgent list (more on that later).
• 1. Tasks – General to-dos and things that have a definite goal are grouped together here: ‘buy X a birthday present’, ‘pay electricity bill’ and ‘pump up bicycle tyres’ are all examples of short, succinct tasks. Within this page I have five lists titled General, People, Administration, Finances and Technology, which is what I can categorise most of my tasks into. I often make location-based task lists too. These are groups of tasks that I need to do the next time I’m at at a certain place, like the post office or train station.
• 2. Projects – As I’ve already mentioned, all of my company/team-related projects are in another system entirely. This page is for my solo, non-client projects. The definition of a project, as opposed to a task, is something that has a long term, abstract goal with an ongoing series of tasks to reach it. Examples of projects are Writing, Creative, Learning German and Chess Club. Each project has its own list on the page and always contains the next atomic tasks I need to complete in order to move that project forward.
• 3. Waiting For – A record of everything that I’m waiting for other people to complete. This page is grouped up into Orders (goods that I’ve purchased online and am waiting to arrive in the mail), Administration (usually questions about some legal or taxation issue) and Financial (people who owe me money :)
• 4. To Buy – A simple list of things that I need to buy, grouped by the general locations where I can get them from.
• 5. Someday – This is the daydreaming list. ‘Write a film’, ‘fly to the stars’ and ’save the whale’ are all things I (maybe) want to do at some point in my life, but there’s no way of breaking them down into concrete, atomic tasks at the moment, so they end up here where they’re safe and organised.
• @PAGES – I have a lot of information pages where I just group together thoughts and supporting documents about things I’m working on. I prefix all of these with @’s.
• §PAGES – Finally, I lied slightly about this being a totally personal system. My girlfriend Lucy and I share some pages and these are prefixed with §’s. The examples above are to store films we’d both like to see and who last did the grocery shopping.

The final type of task is the recurring task. These are the things that come around on a regular basis, like visiting the dentist, paying taxes or watering the plants. Backpack supports these too with its ‘reminders’ feature. Simply add the task to receive an email (and optionally an SMS) at the defined interval. Reminders are also great for single items that have a specific deadline – this really helps to keep tasks out of your calendar.

iPhone – This device has really revolutionised my productivity. I’m often dashing to meetings out of the office, or going between Zürich and Copenhagen, and having my entire system stored up in the cloud was a frustrating experience at these times. With the iPhone I can access and update everything from (almost) anywhere. It really is the key to my productivity now and although outside of the general scope of this discussion, a constantly synced address book and calendar is another huge boom.

Moleskine – Despite my trumpeting of the iPhone, my Moleskine notebook still has an important function. There are always times when it is more pleasurable to jot notes and sketch ideas with a pen. Of course all useful information and new tasks are extracted from the pages as soon as possible and entered into my digital system. Nothing important should only exist in a notebook!

Zero inbox – The final tool is more of a general methodology that has some implications for my task management. I ruthlessly strive to “zero my inbox” at every opportunity. By this I mean deleting every e-mail that has no related actions left on it. Therefore my inbox also serves as a kind of secondary ‘dropbox’. If there are e-mails in there, then they require action.

Typically these actions are just replying to the message, as if there is a larger task associated with it then it usually gets forwarded to my Backpack dropbox page. An empty inbox is a happy inbox and I believe it’s one of the best ways to deal with the general e-mail stress most people suffer with.

Deleting every inbound email might sound a little scary at first; what about all the valuable information in them? Well, firstly if you’re well organised then you’ll find there should be little of importance left in there. Secondly, most significant mails require a reply from me, so the full conversations end up being stored in my ’sent’ folder anyway.

The process

Now that all of my tasks are safe and organised, I need to do the most important thing and actually complete them! I process my tasks and ideas in three review iterations. There’s the daily cycle, the weekly cycle and the soul-searching cycle:

Daily cycle – Each morning, before I begin anything else, I go through my pages and start prioritising. The first step is to take everything out of the dropbox, classify it and move it to the relevant page and to-do list group. Then I scan pages 1-4, reorder some things if necessary, tick off completed tasks that might still be open and build up a mental image of what lies ahead of me. Even though the individual tasks number into the 100’s, I find that I quickly build up a mind map of the important things that need doing for the weeks ahead anyway, which makes the daily scan quite quick.

I then gather up all the urgent tasks and move them to the today/urgent list that sits atop my dropbox page. There might be some leftover things from yesterday that didn’t get done too, so these are reaccessed and left in today’s agenda or moved back to a categorised list.

Weekly cycle – A more thorough scan that takes place once a week, usually over the weekend or on Monday morning as part of my daily cycle. During this session I scrutinise all tasks still open – checking if they are still valid, asking myself if their importance has changed, creating new list categories if required and performing general ‘housekeeping’. It might seem like a chore at times, but giving myself just 15 to 30 minutes a week to review how I’m doing is a very beneficial process.

Soul-searching cycle – This is the irregular one; the one I do when I’m periodically questioning if I’m achieving everything I want to, looking for New Year’s resolutions or want to tackle one of the more abstract goals I’ve set myself. It’s meant to involve taking some time out with the ’someday’ list and seeing if now is the right time to save that whale, but quite often I end up reviewing and refactoring the very system itself.

Summary

There are many benefits to the business of being hyper-organised – increased productivity is obviously the major reason for undertaking such a mission. However, I also find a beauty in having every single task and idea out of my head and organised in my system. It tends to wrap ‘doing important stuff’ up into a single task. When I have time to dedicate to my jobs, I sit down and and work through them, but the rest of the time I find I’m able to put things to the back of my mind, safe in the knowledge that everything important is documented somewhere. If something new comes up then I just add it to my dropbox, knowing that it can be processed later and not forgotten.

I think I’ve covered most of my system here, but I’m very interested in hearing how other people organise themselves too, so please add your comments and thoughts.

Language traits and fashions advance extremely quickly and if left alone, seem to be one of the rawest, most observable forms of cultural or memetic evolution. Language also seems to be the facet that we hold the most dear to our self identity and any drift is immediately heralded as a decline in standards.

Various self-appointed mavens frequently take the moral high ground on how language ought to be, and you only have to question the general population to discover that perceived language erosion by the younger generations is top of the threat list in how they feel alienated from their own species in later life (related post: progression).

But yet scanning the etymology of any given word reveals a rocky and fascinating history and any golden age of language is of course immediately debunked. Someone’s God be with ye is someone else’s Goodbye, which is yet another’s Bye that is by now something I probably don’t understand. What we may consider slang is actually highly evolved language reduction. Just think about how much emotion and meaning can be conveyed by the shortest and “dumbest” idioms that seem to flow out of the USA! Genius!

There are two approaches that governments take to language: dictation or reaction. Ownership of a language by a governing body seems to be the memetic equivalent of eugenics; an attempt to control and command hereditary traits of something that no living being can possibly judge. Blonde hair and blue eyes are the best you say? Hmmm.

The French are of course famous for their stringent L’Académie française. Here the appointed members (knows as “immortals”) scrutinise daily life for signs of decay while cleansing society of all foreign loan words. Danish and Norwegian are very similar languages, expect the Norwegian Language Council decided to invent new “Norwegian” words for every part of the microcomputer, while Denmark’s own body, the Dansk Sprognævn, is more than happy to let CPU, RAM, bits, bytes and indeed “computer” itself though the iron curtain.

The difference here is that Denmark’s bureau appears to understand their role is to document and record the naturally occurring phenomenon (their main objective: “new words which have appeared enough in print and speech to be considered notable are added to the Danish dictionary”, but note that this doesn’t stop the population’s sky is falling reaction to the recent American-English overload they are experiencing).

So while a country taking ownership of its genes or planning its economy is generally considered morally dubious or fascist, dictating totally irrational language policies is still rife. Just check out the list of the world’s language regulators. Of course, in reality, language dictation can never have the reach or control of eugenics or communism in the countries we are discussing (although that didn’t stop the Welsh from trying to dictate their own suicide), but that just highlights further how futile their purist approach is!

English appears to be relatively unique because not only does it have no dictatorship, it also doesn’t have an appointed body. Whether its touted rise as the first “global language” is because of this, or a consequence of it being so wildly distributed in the “free-world” that it’s impossible to control or monitor (although France seems to try hard with French) is a topic for debate. But it seems clear that its sheer diversity and richness can in some part be attributed to the cultural freedom it has received.

The nearest that British English has to an authority is the Oxford University Press whose dictionary is the result of a long-running mission to “record the word’s most-known usages and variants in all varieties of English past and present, world-wide”. More like an ornithologist than a genetic engineer then.

So, how does this analysis of linguistic imperialism and study relate to Google?

The internet is fast approaching a tipping point where it will contain almost all human knowledge, past and present, in textual form and from a multitude of different authors and viewpoints. It’s only a short step to proclaim that this can be considered a complete data bank of language. Google therefore, as the world’s leading organiser of this data, has on-tap access to the historical sum of human language, limited only by the integrity of their algorithms.

Their seemingly benign, but useful, “Did you mean” feature (the one that corrects your spelling errors and lazy typing) works on a simple premise that is made powerful by its knowledge rather than process. Unlike a typical computer spell-checker, which works from static word lists, “Did you mean” compares similar phrases to the one entered to see if they might produce more search results. Because it indiscriminately uses occurrences of all words on the internet, it can find common usage spellings for proper nouns and slang, and remember common usage is what is important for language norms at any given time.

The service is therefore essentially a rapid, constantly updated, language usage analyser that is performing an automated version of the Oxford University Press’ mission, only on a scale unimaginable in a manual world. The natural reason that “football” is not “foot ball” is because of usage frequencies, whether or not dictation played a part in the past. It’s also the reason why “dubstep” is not “dub step“.

As the information age takes hold and language enters a free-fall state of growth due to the thirst for global communication, hopefully it will shake free of its oppressive regimes and the more archaic forms of language planning, to join eugenics on the list of ethical horrors and pseudoscience.

Living in a shared apartment is a curious mix of personal and communal space. Here at Haraldsgade 54 we have a great deal of the latter and less of the former. There’s lots of space for hanging out in ‘public’ and people sit around reading books, studying or watching television. We do this on our own, together or sometimes with other friends and there are very few uncomfortable breaches of interaction bubbles. When we need some time alone there are always our bedrooms; full of personal trinkets and laundry bags. I image this is pretty much like shared accommodation everywhere. However, we haven’t yet mentioned the universal exception to this stable sanctity.

The kitchen is where boundaries are established, borders are erected and names are scrawled on packs of butter. Resident’s supplies are hoarded away behind cupboard doors and tidied from the work surfaces. But even this falls short of the true communal horror… the fridge.

This glossy, chilled box is the front line of shared living, where notes and bills are posted and war rages inside. It’s a head on crash of irrational ownership emotions. Classification by shelves is an obvious but flawed approach, which holds up only until personal ration quantities become uneven. Encroachment tactics are deployed and soon enough there’s a wide spread labelling and level-monitoring epidemic. Oh for the casual ambiance of the living room and its naive social transparencies!

After debating this for a while at a recent house meeting, we hit upon two great discoveries. Firstly that everyone spent around the same amount of money on food each week, and secondly people were sad to wake up on a Sunday to find their cupboards bare and all supermarkets shut(*).

So, Haraldsgade 54 decided to launch the Grocery Liberation Experiment, in order to purge all mental guards and instilled social norms from the kitchen area. After the uprising, foodstuffs were brought out of their isolated cells, categorised and then put back on to appropriate shelves with their new friends.

The results were visibly stunning, particularly as the duplicates started piling up: six half-full margarine pots, five opened jars of pesto and enough stock cubes to flood the streets with bouillon. Boosted by this iron curtain collapse, we declared a free state under the following constitution:

1. A weekly shop for listed essentials will be performed by house members in turn from a money pool.
2. All personally purchased food lies in the public domain by default.
3. Teaming up at meal times is encouraged and leftovers should remain on the stove.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Personal grievances are nearly always irrational and so everyone just has to focus on keeping theirs in check for the greater good.

Initial feedback is that this evening I wanted a leek for my soup and there was one waiting for me in the fridge. I’m now going for ice cream I didn’t know I had, while trying not to mind that hunk of cheese that’s missing from ‘my’ block.

(*) Danish trading laws

The inevitable conclusion of capitalism is a fragmented population sorted into the intelligent and the foolish, the lucky and the unfortunate, the opportunistic and the meek, the healthy and the sick and so on. One variable that may affect the rate at which this effective sorting process occurs, is the cultural values a society possesses and retains. A blunt way of expressing this is that capitalism is an inherently inhumane outlook, that is successful when self-moderated by a population with common goals.

If we start with a historically unifying event such as World War II and plot the USA’s capitalistic divide since, we might see the following:

We can think of the central axis as representing the degradation of a shared sociological perspective over time. That is to say, a common outlook based on history, culture, religion and tradition that is shared by the majority of a population. It’s important here to note that I am referring to an ingrained, ‘evolved’ culture built up incrementally by many generations of a population. We can also consider the central axis to be a kind of magnetised core that pulls the two opposing results of capitalism towards the centre. As this force becomes weaker, so the graph splits further.

Here we consider the generalised capitalist fragmentation of the United Kingdom and Denmark:

Capitalism brought about huge benefits during its initial and mid-phases, propelling society forward at a rate biological evolution could only ‘dream’ of, but the unavoidable endgame is where the system breaks down. In order for an ideology with this kind of exponential decay to maintain its success, the left hand side of the graph must be regularly truncated and discarded thus resetting the unifying point. However in the world-views of most people and some governments, this is rather tricky to consider.

There are many factors that cause historical, incrementally-built, shared cultural values to become ‘broken’. Globalisation and the resulting mass-migration cannot be ignored as a primary cause. No matter whether the incoming population is viewed as scrounging, violent, rich, benevolent, humourless, wonderful or odd, there will always be a clash between them and established ways of life. This is something that a capitalist system can not tolerate. Anything that weakens the unity axis hastens the end game, whether it’s “damn yuppies buying up rural cottages”, “damn freeloaders taking advantage of welfare cheques” or “damn advertisers targeting new markets”.

Mass population migration only causes problems because current economic systems can’t cope with it. Remember they were doomed anyway, this is just accelerating the failure. Capitalism has given the world fantastic opportunities at a rampant pace, but it’s about time we started planning something that will fit for the future instead of persisting with something that’s looking more and more fragile. National capitalism is no longer capable of empowering a globalised world at once. Shared historical and religious values are no longer enough to keep the unity axis powered up. We need to shift to a whole new economic system that offers tomorrow’s society a single, positive trajectory.

DISCLAIMER: This is vague, philosophical speculation based on non-scientific observation and expressed using coloured pens. It is not meant to form a foundation for your revolution.

The immigration policies of countries around the world are fast becoming the approved knee-jerk method to evaluate how that place stands in global moral and social order. From the racist to the paranoid to the odd, countries that impose new border tightening measures tend to attract scorn from the rest of the ‘free’ world, while being generally accepted by the occupying ‘native’ population.

At one time immigration policies seem to have been drawn up by governments keen on expanding their skilled workforce and/or their cheap labour and were dutifully accepted by voters on this premise. Without these economical issues to guide ‘free-thinking’ thought, would cultural migration have come anywhere near as far as it has? Some people think not, leaving us with the concept that world markets have actually contributed to emotional-society in a positive manner? Hmm.

Anyway, even in countries with supposedly forward thinking policies, things seem far from harmonious. Where has mass generational migration of a culture ever really resulted in workable, lasting integration? Maybe the single, global understanding we are all supposed to strive for is being driven at a speed dictated by the economy’s lust for a generic consumer, instead of by something more in tune with its delicate nature?

Two extreme examples of culture mixing could be: the marginalisation of Native American and Aboriginal cultures (newcomers destroying culture), and immigrant quarters/enclaves (newcomers living outside of national culture through choice or society-imposed segregation). Neither of these methods are championed by the collective conscious, but why is this result so common in practise?