The Simple Questions

The most complex, difficult issues we face often stem from very simple questions. But these are also the most important ones to ask.

A good example of this is Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

You've probably heard of it, and you probably know very little about it, in fact you may well think it's a hugely complex and difficult subject.

And it is. But it all started with a very simple question. Einstein was a genius, and he loved to ask questions. In doing so, he often asked questions other people thought were stupid or irrelevant. One such question was this:

If the earth is travelling through space, why is the speed of light measured at the "front" of the earth as it moves not higher than the speed of light at the "back" of the earth?

It's a simple question. It makes sense: after all if we're moving "into" light falling onto the front of the earth and "away" from the light falling onto the back, the light at the front should appear to be moving faster, like two cars moving towards one another.

The answer is both incredibly simple and incredibly complex. We calculate the speed of things - their velocity - by dividing distance by time. That's easy. But in the case of light falling on the earth, there's a problem. We know that the distance the light travels in each case is different. So in order for the velocity to come out the same each time, something else must be changing too.

Einstein came to an unbelieveable but extraordinary answer. He realised that if the distance was different then to give the same velocity, time must be changing. It's bizarre, incredible and profound, but it's true and it's the entire basis for the theory of relativity, which has now been studied worldwide for over almost 100 years.

There are no stupid questions.

This is your life (minus the assholes)

Clearly the explosion in social networking is having far-reaching effects. Ordinary people (that's us) are discovering that the scribbly, chaotic mess which serves them for thoughts and ideas are genuinely interesting, in fact other people are actually willing to read them and even follow us in the hope that we'll make more.

So what happens when ordinary people start to credit their own opinions and ideas? Well, lots of things. But here's an idea for you: in a world where we have access to a vast audience who take what we say seriously, what happens when organisations or people treat us badly? Well, we tell people about it. And maybe they tell other people.

Obviously we can't lie about how we were treated. That's libel (or slander) and is illegal, for good reasons. But if we're telling the truth... what happens? Most of us know a business sociopath or two, maybe a middle manager at work or a telephone company. And most of us know that they continue to be employed and continue to dish out totally unacceptable behaviour precisely because until now, we had no way of letting other people know what these lunatics were doing. So there were little in the way consequences to their behaviour, and on they went with it.

Well, now there is a way we can let people know. Welcome to the age of treating each other fairly.

The BNP: please don't shut your stupid, fascist face.

So the BNP, the British National Party, have had two representatives elected. Debate has exploded all over the country. Even the BBC, advoctes of the cheap and lowbrow, are screening a debate this morning entitled, "Does the BNP have the right to be heard"?

This is an issue which is close to home for me. The BNP's racist policies mean that if they were elected to government my adopted brother, who is half West Indian, might well be forced to leave Scotland, the country of his birth, possibly with his children - tearing both his and my family apart.

So surely I must think the BNP should not be heard?

Well, no. I'm sure everyone recognises the parallels between the state of our country now - the economic difficulties, the social unrest, the weak government, the emerging fascist sympathies - and Germany in the nineteen thirties (beautifully parodied by The Daily Mash here).

And yes, there are consequences to allowing extremists like fascists to be heard. In fact there are two chief consequences:

1. The risk of extreme policies being implemented.

2. Freedom of speech.

Are you prepared to lose the second to avoid the first? If so, should you not ask yourself whether there's really much difference between saying that one section of society should be silenced based on their race and saying that another should be silenced based on their politics?

All's Fair in Love and Religion?

On 30 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons lampooning the prophet Mohammed and other icons of Islam, saying it wished to “contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship”.

But you know this already.

So was it fair?

I doubt anyone really questions that discussion about religion is necessary – after all, any idea that isn't discussed and criticised surely fades inevitably into obscurity, so those on the religious side should be just as keen as anyone else to see it examined. So it follows that the freedom to conduct such discussion, even if it offends some taking part, is necessary.

So far, so obvious.

But there's another side to the issue. Yes, the paper obviously wanted to “discuss” Islam. Yes, some Muslims entered into the debate by protesting the cartoons. But the vast majority of Muslims have no desire at all to enter into some sort of “robust debate” about their beliefs in which those beliefs are mocked and made fun of; in fact all they want to do is live out their lives and religion in peace.

They have a right to do so. Everyone has the right to live their lives free from harassment and abuse, in fact most reasonable people regard this as a basic human right. So if Muslims don't want to take part in a “debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship” then that shouldn't that be respected? Don't get me wrong, the minority of Muslims who protested, preached, shouted and argued about it are absolutely fair game – they entered the discussion and need to go where it goes, even when the direction offends them.

But this is where I think the cartoons went wrong, badly wrong. They didn't just target those Muslims who were willingly participating in the discussion, they targeted all Muslims, and in doing so attacked the innocent majority who wanted nothing to do with them and violated their right to live in peace.

There is a word for people who pursue and abuse those who want to be left alone. That word is “bully”. By publishing cartoons which abused and mocked the beliefs and religion of people who had said and done nothing at all to deserve it as well as the few who had, it seems clear that Jyllands-Posten stepped far, far over the line between “robust debate” and nasty, petty bullying. No one who genuinely appreciates informed debate which leads to greater understanding and tolerance will want that kind of small-minded hate-mongering being passed off as productive discussion.

The 4 Pillars of Marketing

The bad news about the good news about the internet.

Here is the news. And if it's about the internet, it's gonna be bad news, right? It'll be about a new virus or online bullying, “today a 45 year old mother of two fell for a phishing scam and had her email address stolen to be used by unnamed, evil criminals”.

Isn't that a little weird, when there's so much good news about the web?

Here's what I want to see: “today a 45 year old mother of two discovered Twitter and for the first time in her adult life was free to express herself fully, without fear of censorship, part of a vast network of equal sharing people who value her and her thoughts for the simple, trite, excellent, funny, pointless and wonderful things they are. Here's John with the weather”.