Seriously. If I hear one more thing about 2012, I'm reasonably certain I'm going to go insane. The Mayans were primitive folk who didn't know what a star was, and it's absurd to think that they had any kind of special knowledge. I'm sure lots of interesting and impressive things are going to happen in 2012, but the end of the world is not one of them and, if you think it is, you're an idiot.

Now, thanks to a Japanese company called Cyberdyne, you can rent your very own powered exoskeleton from as little as $1,000 a month. The company will be producing up to 500 of the things before the year's out, so don't be surprised if you start seeing people leaping from building to building and chucking cars around. Okay, so it probably won't be quite that cool, but a 2-10 times increase in strength is still pretty damn cool. Personally, though, I'm waiting until they can graft some kind of synthetic muscle tissue straight onto my skeleton (which will be made of Titanium and carbon nanotubes).

The government and various MPs have been making quite a hash of a number issues recently, not that one should expect anything else.

First, there have been calls to force parents to allow MMR vaccination of their children by refusing them education. Whilst this measure might increase vaccination rates, it would be absolutely morally bankrupt and would end up causing a huge amount of resentment in the (sadly quite large) minority of people who bought into the scaremongering bullshit over MMR. If a parent really doesn't want their child to be vaccinated, then refusing the child an education isn't going to help much. They should certainly be told that they're wrong, encouraged to vaccinate their child as much as possible, and if necessary be called idiots and bad parents; but these aren't jobs for the government. Doctors, scientists and the press should be extolling the virtues of vaccination at every opportunity, and explaining why the jab is safe and effective. Bullying people into having their kids vaccinated goes past even the normal British nanny-statism, and gets into a pretty scary place.

Next up, the Medical Research Council is opposing scientists' plans to march on the house of commons in order to support stem-cell research, describing them as "counter-productive". What a ludicrous statement. There's a large number of people who don't properly understand stem-cell research or are opposed to it for (usually rather incoherent) philosophical reasons, including some MPs, and it seems to me the best way to remedy that is through public action, such as media appearances, letter writing, websites and demonstrations. It seems that the best people to explain scientific issues are usually scientists. As such, a demonstration by scientists is a pretty damn good idea. Luckily, it seems that the scientists are undeterred, and Evan Harris MP (who recently managed to repeal the UK's blasphemy laws, and is one of very few politicians I wouldn't feel dirty voting for) is supporting them.

In case you hadn't heard, "extreme" pornography is now illegal. Liz Longhurst, the woman who campaigned for this law, says "Sometimes the freedoms of like-minded, decent people have to be curtailed because of a few others". I find myself completely unable to sympathise about the death of her daughter after reading that. Yes, it's very sad when an insane person decides to live out their fantasies, but that doesn't give anyone a right to decide what is and isn't okay for other people to view. She's gone on an absurd moral crusade (although she rejects the term), because she believes her daughter would still be alive today if it weren't for violent pornography, instead of blaming the actions of a dangerous nutjob (who is now in jail). Even if you're willing to sacrifice freedom for perceived security (and if you are, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, you're a moron), banning violent pornography isn't going to make the situation worse, if everything. Studies suggest that access to pornographic material decreases the incidence of sex crimes by providing a release for urges. One of the main problems with this bill is the rather loose wording when it comes to exactly what constitutes "extreme". Who gets to choose where exactly comparatively mainstream bondage porn "appears to threaten a person's life". Does "appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal" include furry porn? Of course, most people are willing to bleet along about how repulsive it all is, and how those perverts should be hanged, and most of those who actually realise that their liberties are being encroached upon are doubtless scared of being labeled a pervert. Ever been on 4chan or gotten a pop-up you really didn't want to see? Better delete your browser cache now, or else the police might come knocking. Spiked has more on the issue.

Jacqui Smith, the home secretary who admitted to smoking cannabis a number of times during the '80s whilst attending Oxford, has decided to change cannabis back to a class B drug. Apparently, cannabis smoking has "given her the experiences to understand that she wants crime tackled". Well, I'm glad that you had that opportunity, Ms Smith. Aren't you lucky? Now, how about leaving that opportunity open to others so they can have the set of experiences in life that they desire, rather than threatening to kidnap (arrest) them? If you're willing to break the law in order to try something new, why the fuck do you expect anyone else to pay attention to it, you nanny-statist bitch? Are you the only one who gets to break the law in order to have a good time?

There's a quote from one of the Drugs Council's members (the drug council that advised keeping it class C) saying "The government may want to take other matters into account. That's their right. They are the government." NO. You don't get to make random, staggering, idiotic decisions completely unfounded in evidence simply because you're the government. That's complete bollocks, and it really worries me that anyone on a supposedly independent council would say anything like that.

It seems that Gordon Brown is at least as retarded as Jacqui Smith. Either he's a liar or a moron as, in a recent interview, he described cannabis as "lethal". Mr Brown, if you can point to a single case in the world's medical literature in which anyone died as a direct result of cannabis consumption, then I'll take all this back, but I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to take it up with Dr Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Med School, who doesn't seem to share your opinion. Or you could take a look at your own government's death statistics. Perhaps you don't want to, because you know you're a goddamn liar and you don't care as long as you can get some votes from people who also have no idea what they're talking about. Either way, you're not qualified to be making this decision, which compounds with the fact that nobody in this country has voted for you to be in power. The one thing you've managed throughout your pathetic stint in office is to make me long for the at least mildly endearing lies and spin of Blair. Reason explains more.

What do you do when you're prime minister and every single one of your advisers and scientific committees suggest that you don't reverse a decision? Of course, you ignore all of them and do your own thing. That seems like the best course of action- fuck evidence, and do whatever the hell you like. That's how real leaders do things.

In case you haven't guessed, I'm talking about old Gordo's decision to switch cannabis back to a class B drug. Not that this actually means anything useful, as many very dangerous chemicals aren't even classified, and some class As have effectively no risk of death or serious damage to the user*. Cannabis is a drug that has never killed anyone. Ever. Its thought to cause any kind of long term damage only in extremely chronic users, and at least 30% of the adult population, most likely more and including many members of the current government, have used it at some point. Raising it to a class B will mean that the police "should" be arresting anyone they find with it on their person, with a maximum jailtime of five years for mere possession (14 for supply).

Luckily, many police officers realise that arresting teenagers smoking joints in car-parks and down alleys really isn't the best use of their time, and the Association of Chief Police Officers seems reluctant to have their officers do so. As I said in a previous post, police are just normal people, and sometimes there's an upside to this, such as when an idiot who wasn't even voted into power starts telling them to arrest people they know don't deserve it. The problem comes, of course, when the officers do decide to follow the law, perhaps to bump up their arrest statistics or simply because they buy into all the Daily Mail's bullshit about cannabis. The situation you're then in is having a force of entirely unpredictable police who are able to essentially judge whether to ruin someone's life or not on a complete whim. Perhaps the cop is having a bad day and decides to arrest a stoner because he was being a bit mouthy? Fine for the officer, but there's still the little issue that, if the stoner gets convicted (which is hit-and-miss thanks to our erratic legal system), his life will be ruined. Police should be restricted by their power, not given more than they need, and locking people up for something which harms nobody but themselves is not a power that the police need.


On a related note, the war on drugs has claimed one more victim.

*I'm presuming that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is based on the concept of minimising harm to users rather than purely political pressure from the US and "Reefer Madness"-style hysteria induced by yellow journalism of the type so often employed by the Daily Mail et al.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen on the BBC website can be found here. As a bonus, it's pretty interesting too.

Also, check out this ace article on future materials. In case you've never seen it before, I suggest checking out Aerogel's Wiki page. It has to be the most awesome material ever.
Check out this video about it, too:

You've probably heard about the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein which purports to decimate the weedy and slanderous arguments of the evil, materialist minority of scientists out there who actually believe in that silly little ("only a") theory of evolution. I wish I was using hyperbole here, as this seems to be what Stein actually believes.

"Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."

Stein seems a little mixed up there. Now, of course, I'm not claiming that atheists are universally great people or that all religious people are hell-bent on murder, but let's take a few seconds to consider how many conflicts based either directly or indirectly on religion or the collectivism it inspires- Israel Vs. Palestine, troubles in Ireland, the crusades, 9/11 and the ensuing American jingoism, etc. Compare that to the number actually based on any kind of scientific agenda- none. Sure, Hitler used his own distorted brand of eugenics and communist regimes are non- or anti-religious, but atheism has nothing to do with that. It's all down to people abusing power and encouraging collectivist mindsets. Fundamentally, though, even if every single war ever started could be directly linked to "Darwinism", it would say nothing about the theory's truth. The truth can be determined by careful consideration of the evidence, and when it comes to that, Stein just doesn't have a clue:


I can't be arsed to debunk the movie (which seems to be a 2-hour extended reductio-ad-hitlerum) point-by-point but, luckily, Richard Dawkins has saved me the job. Another good anti-Stein site is situated here.

EDIT: Also, take a look at Wikipedia's section on people presented in the film. It's amusing to see the comparison between what Stein purports, and what really happened.


In local election news, I went out and voted yesterday but, seeing how all of the candidates in my area are either morons, in complete disagreement with me, or both, I spoiled my ballot.


Oh, and the NYTimes has a good article on PETA's in-vitro meat prize. It seems that there's a bit of a schism in their offices due to the fact that, apparently, they're massively retarded. Obviously, I despise their methods and dislike their goals, philosophy and pretty much everything else about them, but disagreeing over this seems ludicrous. Beyond a "yuck" factor (which, admittedly, many PETA-types seem to base their entire world-view on), there isn't a single negative aspect to the vat grown meat, from either my or PETA's perspective. It'll be safe, clean, produce practically no pollution and be free of any animal suffering. Any self-professed environmentalist who opposes this technology's development is an idiot. It really is that simple.

Cervarix, the new HPV vaccination, is being rolled out later this year. Great news, right? Well, not quite so great. It seems that 20% of parents involved in the preliminary trials aren't happy with the fact that, in their warped world-view, their girls are being "encouraged" to engage in sexual behaviour. Sure, I can understand wanting to be protective of one's kids, but this is anything but. I could understand maybe 5% or so of parents declining on misunderstood health grounds or whatnot, but a whole one-fifth of parents is just insane. The regrettable thing is that it isn't just the kids who suffer (which is bad enough), but it's people who they haven't even met who're also taking a hit, as herd immunity suffers when a large enough proportion of the population isn't vaccinated.


In other sad news, Albert Hofmann, the Swiss scientist who discovered LSD-25, died on Tuesday after a heart attack.


In awesome news (for those lucky bastards with Xbox 360s, and the rich idiots with PS3s), GTA IV is finally out, and unsurprisingly causing a controversy. Jack Thompson is flapping his mouth about it being "the gravest assault upon children in this country since polio", Feministing is bitching about it being degrading to womenfolks, and the MADD (Mothers Against Drink Driving) are worked up about the fact that one can drink and drive in the game.

The sad thing is that this parade of moralist morons seems to completely miss the fundamental purpose of the game- to give the player a huge variety of choices and allow them to have fun their own way. Yes, you can run down prostitutes and shoot corpses lying on the floor, but you don't have to. If you wanted, you can spend hours making money from ferrying people around in a taxi, or getting in a police car and hunting down bad guys. You can't choose not to kill random civilians unless you have the option of doing so- otherwise there's no choice at all. GTA is a wry, exaggerated look at life in a city, and it works wonderfully as a social commentary. Yes, it's not meant for kids, but GTA proves that gaming is a very valid (albeit not fully matured) art-form, and anyone who disagrees is a goddamn philistine.

PETA have finally done something I agree with- they're offering a $1,000,000 prize to any research team which can produce reasonably priced vat-grown meat by 2012. With a recent economic report coming out in favour of the feasibility of synthetic meat, it looks like the technology is here, and it won't be much longer until we have access to it. It's a great idea- hardly any methane emissions when compared to normal beef production, no ethical issues when it comes to killing the animals, consistent quality and (eventually) much lower prices. Whilst there will certainly be a place for "natural" meat in our diet for quite some time, vat-grown meat should solve quite a few problems.

As you should already know, spiritualism, mediums and psychics are all bunk. Not a shred of solid evidence has been put forward to support the existence of ghosts/spirits or that there are people with the ability to speak with the dead and, as such, it is unreasonable to seriously contend either point. Anyone who claims any ability to speak with the dead or use "psychic powers" to heal others is at best deluding themselves, and at worst causing huge amounts of grief and false hope, as well as taking the money of gullible people. Having said all this, I have a somewhat mixed opinion of the government's new plans to crack down on mediums, psychics and healers who are unable to justify their claims (i.e all of them). These people are a grab-bag of idiots and charlatans who certainly deserve to be taken down a few pegs, but is simply prosecuting them the answer? Huge amounts of trading legislation hasn't managed to stop thousands of other fraudulent products- spiritual self-help books, homeopathy, magnetic healing bracelets, healing crystals, etc. There's always going to be a loophole that these liars will wriggle through, and outright banning these practices (the only logical step if one is going to ban any, as none of them have any real merit) would simply cause annoyance in those who actually believe this claptrap. A better idea would be for as many people as possible to explain to others why all of this spiritualism is a load of old shite. Encourage each other not to waste our money on it, and instead put our trust in reason and evidence. Not only do you not have to start locking people up, but the whole of society becomes a little bit more enlightened, and hopefully the charlatans will creep back into the woodwork a little more.


Oh, and I would totally volunteer for this.

Having finally gotten back to my room after nearly three weeks away, I've been catching up on my webcomics (the thirty-something I read regularly), and the last few editions of Subnormality, starting here. That one, especially amused me, and I'd strongly recommend a read through the archives.

Incidentally, the discussion referenced is excellent- two hours of Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins (whose "The Ancestor's Tale" I'm currently enjoying), Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, all of whom I admire tremendously. Links:
First hour
Second hour

I've been watching a few "Cops" style TV shows lately, and whilst they appear to be meant to show how difficult police officers' lives are, they usually just end up making me irate. I would say that I take issue with the handling of at least 3/4 of the cases shown. Here's a few couple of fairly typical examples:

The police turn up to the scene of a fight, but the violence has stopped. One of the men involved, a bit bloodied and quite drunk, agrees to chat with them, peppering his speech with "fuck"s occasionally. After warning him not to swear and him continuing to do so, they arrest him. Please, someone, explain to me why a representative of the "people's" government is able to detain someone against their will simply for using an arrangement of syllables which some people happen to find offensive?

A dozen or so officers, in full riot gear, start battering down the door of a suburban home. After about ten strikes with their ram, it becomes obvious that the occupant is standing behind the door and attempting to open it. What do they do? Of course, they carry on battering rather than let the man open his own door, and eventually manage to take the frame out. They raid the residence, camera flying over a young girl sobbing as a cop handcuffs her, and manage to find a couple of cannabis plants growing in the back bedroom. They, of course, steal the plants and kidnap the man (whoops, I mean "legitimately confiscate" the plants and "arrest" the man). Then we cut to a smiling cop, grinning at his new haul. "Of course, we hear the old adage "what's wrong with it?", well, it's illegal", he chuckles in an attempt to justify the theft.

Also, have you ever noticed how practically every single suspect complains about the handcuffs hurting? Perhaps they are just bitching but maybe, just maybe, the handcuffs actually hurt. How about either loosening them, getting some plastic ones, or even (and it's a crazy idea, I know) not arresting as many people as you physically can, and not handcuffing people who don't absolutely need it.

I think my central problem with the police isn't that they're some evil monolithic conspiracy hell-bent on suppressing our liberties, it's merely they the officers are idiots. They're just regular people, with no obvious understanding of legal ethics, willing to blindly follow their superiors. Sure, most of them probably got into the job with good intentions, and I'm sure very few of them are dangerously moronic, but they're just too normal. With the current amount of power over others granted to officers, they'd need to all have a post-grad degree in philosophy to keep civil liberties at an acceptable level.

Police aren't bad people*- they're normal people. Problem is, when normal people are given power over others, the tendency is for them to push that power a little too far.

_{*Okay, so some of them are genuinely bad people. Then again, I've met some very reasonable police. The point is that the bad/good ratio isn't necessarily any better than that in the general population.}

An excellent roundup of April Fools this year, including:

Youtube Rickrolled all the visitors to the main page.
SciAm proposes the "Hyper Games", in a similar vein to to my suggestion a while back.
The Daily Mail snaps a shot of the chancellor trying his luck on a scratch-card.
The Xbox 360 gets some new accessories.
Virgin and Google vow to go to Mars.
Zelda movie on its way, with trailer courtesy of IGN.
PETA plans to sell "Newkirk Nuggets"- meat cloned from their president.
VG-Cats gets a re-skinning.
Starcraft 2's going to feature Tauran space marines.

A recent BBC "documentary" which I sadly missed reported on a woman called Nicky Taylor who decided to spend a month in Amsterdam off her tits on weed. Apparently, after spending a month constantly high, she wasn't feeling very well. What a fucking surprise. You try spending a month indulging that heavily on any other drug, and see where you get. Take a look at your liver after four weeks of hardcore drinking, and then complain that you're not feeling great after that sort of weed binge. She wasn't even a frequent user, so she'd have no resistance built up, which is hardly going to help. The thing is, all of this proves nothing about cannabis. Even if she had died (which, incidentally, nobody in recorded medical history ever has done from cannabis), it would demonstrate nothing, as there's nobody seriously arguing that this sort of behaviour is healthy or smart. Injecting yourself with pure THC is absolutely absurd, and it's hardly surprising that it induced an adverse reaction.

The fact that a chemical has the capacity to be abused or makes for an unpleasant experience for some people does not give any reason to ban it. It's a shame that I didn't see the programme, as I would have liked to know what the hell they're trying to prove with this questionable endeavour.

Thanks to h8d_bitch, who describes Ms Taylor as a "attention seeking whore". Also, a "dickface".

Check out this short documentary on Pro-Test from Current TV, and see a few of the faces behind the organisation:

I'm a fan of Current TV and similar citizen journalism-based media groups, and I was pleased to see a hi-vis vest wearing Wikinews correspondent attending the Scientology demo in London on Saturday. Placing the ability to generate news in the hands of ordinary people allows for a much more transparent and fair account of events. Rather than striving for one unobtainable objective account of an event, citizen journalism and blogging allow for hundreds of subjective accounts, from which an unbiased story can hopefully be teased.

I like 24 hour time.

In other news, I've given up vocal communication. From now on, all conversations are to be had electronically. I hope you're happy, Tim.

It appears that the police now want to take DNA samples from children who are suspected of showing criminal tenancies. I was hoping they'd at least be a little subtle about turning this country into a police state.

In other news, the Vatican are still being hypocritical pricks. What a surprise.


The anti-scientology demo on Saturday went well, and again many epic lulz were had. It appears that anonymous is making enough trouble for them that they feel the need to "expose" us. The resulting film is hilarious.

TalkToFrank's new page of viral ads is really quite poor. I'll give their three videos a quick review.

"House Party Gone Wild"
Well, first, this is a blatant ripoff of the recent US anti-drugs flash site campaign I blogged about. 0/10 for originality, and it's not even executed as well as the US one. Secondly they have, as usual, misrepresented sensible drug use. Rather than shouting about how Ecstasy users overheat, people on LSD go mad and cannabis smokers can be sick, perhaps they should be giving out information on how to use these substances in a more responsible manner. Things like "If you're going to take MDMA, keep well hydrated", "if you take acid, do it in a controlled environment and have someone sober watching you" and "don't mix too much alcohol with weed, or you might puke up". Nah, screw giving out advice that could end up saving lives, let's just demonise some chemicals instead.

"Under pressure?"
Well, this is just stupid. Drugs dealers don't have to go out and push them on random people both because drugs sell themselves (believe it or not, some people do take drugs because they enjoy it) and because it'll get those dealers arrested. There is some credence to the idea that there is social pressure to take drugs, but a lot of that is down to their illegality. If you don't believe me, check out the rate of cannabis use in Dutch teenagers and compare it to that of British ones. Oh, and the whole "be an individual and say no to drugs!" thing? It's a little bit bullshit when you're using the exact same idea of majority influence to try to get people not to take drugs. Stop being hypocritical.

"Love Story"
Everyone I know that takes drugs (including alcohol) enjoys taking them with friends. There's something very social and pleasantly ritualistic about getting together with a group of mates and having a smoke. Likewise, I don't know anyone who would seriously consider taking ecstasy or hallucinogenics alone. Perhaps there is a huge underground network of people who isolate themselves from their friends, but I really doubt that this sort of behaviour is any more common in illegal drug users than it is in alcoholics. Also, I'm pretty sure that's just tobacco in the baggy. Who the hell spends all day smoking tobacco on their own?


If you're going to lie to people, at least make decent adverts. I'd rather they didn't lie and carried on making poor viral ads, but can't they at very least make something which doesn't suck hugely.

Lord Goldsmith wants British teenagers to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country.

Dear Lord Goldsmith,

Fuck you. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Sincerely,
Laurie Pycroft

I in no way see myself as a British citizen. I happen to live in a town which is located in Britain. This is mere chance of where my father decided to take a job. It's entirely possible that I could have been brought up in Holland (a far superior prospect, to my mind) or I could have taken residence in any one of about two hundred other states on this planet. I had no choice over my living here, and I had no choice in the leadership of this country. Even when I do finally get to vote, the party that gets into power will almost certainly not have been supported by me (I'll probably end up either voting Lib Dem or spoiling my ballot, assuming there's no Libertarian party in my area). As such, I feel no allegiance to this country, and no pride in the works of its government. I have no respect for the monarchy, which is founded on the idea of the Queen/King having divine right to the throne by virtue of birth. I don't care what she does for the country, or how hard she supposedly works, the Queen has no right to take public money or to the absolute loyalty of sixty million people.

I realise there are people who disagree with me. The continuation of new recruits joining the army shows that there are plenty of teenagers willing to die for their country. They're welcome to, for all I care (provided they aren't the aggressor in a conflict), but it is not the government's job to be asking for anyone's allegiance, least of all people below the age of consent, and unable to even vote. If anyone wishes to swear a private oath to whatever entity they wish, they're welcome to. Just don't use tax money to start encouraging kids to do it. It doesn't instill any kind of sense belonging, just an ugly collectivist mentality usually known as "patriotism". Love your country, town, community, or whatever, but this sort of behaviour, especially when pushed by government, is invariably going to end up with bigotry and discourage criticism of the government.

Goldsmith's other retarded ideas include:

Tax breaks for volunteer work. It was my understanding that volunteer work is uses the word "volunteer" because you don't get paid for it. Or does it not count as being paid if they're simply stealing less money that you've already earned? Also, how do they choose which organisations count as "volunteer" work? Do people get tax credits for just picking up litter around their street? How about working for controversial non-profit organisations? I'd be pretty annoyed if the Animal Rights activists were getting tax breaks for their time, but I'm sure they'd be equally annoyed if working for Pro-Test was saving me money. What about people volunteering for charities which are actively opposing government policies?

Citizenship ceremonies. If you don't love your country, you don't get a party. You do love Britain don't you? There'll be cake at the party. Who doesn't love delicious, moist cake?

Reform of the treason laws, probably to make it so that people can actually be tried under them, without complaints about the law being archaic.

Creation of a "National Citizens' Corps", to make sure glorious Comrade Brown's five year plans are undertaken with swiftness and a sense of national pride, no doubt.

Setting up a new "Deliberation Day" to be held before each General Election to ensure you vote for the right candidate.

Some form of credit system which appears to make it more attractive to work for government organisations.


It's all a big load of crap. Anyway, on a more pleasant note, there's more cool work going on in nanotechnology.

One of the frequent criticisms of libertarianism that I encounter is the idea that libertarians just don't care about people who can't afford housing, food, education or any other problem to which the state is supposedly the solution. We are, apparently, not compassionate enough; compassion can only come from government. On the contrary, I do care about issues such as these. I care enough that I'd like to see them tackled efficiently by people who know what they're doing. I am not, however, so arrogant that I'll claim that my views on how problems should be solved are so perfect that people should have their money taken from them by force in order to solve the problems. When government tackles something, they're burdened by the fact that every expenditure must (in theory) be accounted for, as the money they're spending is the people's. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look into the average "tendering" process that public bodies have to go through to contract a company. At the same time, the individuals in the government are not accountable and have a tendency to forget where the money comes from, and spend frivolously. Check out your local council for examples of this one.

The two main factors at play here, as I see it, are results and choice. When it comes to government, whilst money may be accounted for, results are not. How many results has the war on drugs gotten? How about the whole "education, education, education" thing? You also get no choice. Don't like the way that the NHS deals with medicines? Think it'd be better to have a private organisation deciding who deserves medical care? Tough shit. You'll keep on paying your taxes and funding that unwieldy behemoth, or else we'll steal your property and put you in jail, where you'll probably be raped. Stand your ground and exercise your right to defend yourself when we come to arrest you, and we'll shoot you. How's that for fucking compassion?

You can't force compassion. I always hear "oh, but if we don't make people pay taxes then nobody will pay for (insert social project here)". What makes you think that (social project) is so important that people have to be strong-armed into coughing up the cash to pay for it? Maybe other people think that there's something more important to do. Why are we paying for expensive chemotherapeutic drugs in this country when each pill could feed an African child for a year? Should the government be paying for new sports equipment in schools while Malaria and TB still kill millions? Is the Olympics really more important than feeding and sheltering all of this country's homeless population? Even if democracy is a true indicator of what the country believes, why is a single monolithic organisation (government) the best way to solve these problems? If you don't like the way a charity operates, you can stop giving your money to them. Think Oxfam are ineffective? Give your £2 a month to Unicef instead. Think other people should give more of their money away, or to different causes? Then, by all means, tell them about it and give your reasons. Blog it, try to get on TV, write to the newspaper, shout it in the street. If it's a good cause, then I'll be completely behind you. If not, I'll disagree with you, and explain why. Just don't get people to use force on your behalf to finance the projects that you think will save the world. If you really have to, at least have the guts to put the gun to people's heads and snatch their wallet yourself.