Football Players - Seriously, what's the problem?

I have seen one too many places of late quoting football players salaries. Personally, I couldn't really give a toss what football players are paid. When the world cup is on, I have a large sign on my shop door advertising it as a football free zone - and I will throw people out if they happen to mention football! However, whether or not I happen to like football is by the by. (For the record, I don't. In case you hadn't guessed.) Let me now quote you something which is once again doing the rounds on Facebook;

"footballers give 90 mins of their time kicking a ball around for vast sums of money..... soldiers fight to defend this country and those who live here.....they deserve the footballer's wage"

There are plenty of similar ones which crop up from time to time, with "repost if you believe this...honor our troops" etc etc. It's all much for a muchness. I'm sure you may even have encountered one or two.

It's also all utter, utter nonsense.

It's basic business when you get right down to it. Straightforward stuff. The Army isn't really a business. There's no incentive there to maximise profits, whether or not there are even any profits in the first place is a subject I'm not exactly qualified to comment on. Business on the other hand, I have a bit of a grasp of. Mister [insert random *ahem* "overpaid footballer" here] is doing a job with a great degree of profit potential. Initially he's kicking a ball around for 90 minutes and getting paid a fair few bob for doing it. He can command said fair few bob because the organisers know what they're doing when it comes to making money. Sponsorships, Advertising, Merchandising, and of course Ticket Sales. And that's not an exhaustive list. They're bringing in the money, so Mister Footballer can command his share of it. If they won't pay him the share he wants, well, him and his Image can bugger off to someone else who will. Then of course there's his Image itself. His Image sells, as they say. If either Mister Footballer or his Agent have an ounce of business sense (which of course they do, in abundance it seems!) they'll use his Image in a ton of ways. Again, Sponsorships, Advertising, Merchandising and anything else which will earn a few pennies! It just so happens that the industry which Mister Footballer works in is worth millions, and isn't exactly all reliant on playing football games either. There's nothing to stop him donning a pair of designer trainers for the afternoon to kick a ball around in front of a few cameras in a London studio somewhere. By doing which, he can make a small fortune in an afternoons work, simply for allowing said designer trainers to grace his worshipful feet.

If you had a job like that, wouldn't you milk it for all it's worth too?
So, back to the Army. Where is that opportunity for merchandising? Sponsorships? Advertising? Will military uniforms suddenly start sporting silly slogans? Could certain companies be allowed to advertise on the side of our aircraft carriers? Sounds a bit daft, doesn't it. I'm sure they could, but that's not the point of the Army. They're not there to make money. They're there to blow up Ze Germans if Hitler suddenly rises from the grave and gets up his horrible Jew-Burning habit again. (Not likely, I grant you. But I'm told Jesus managed it, well, not the Jew-Burning part...)
I'm sure you see my point. It's comparing a business and a service. Granted, a service can also be a business, but the Army is not such. Therefore the whole comparison is just downright silly.

So, what started all this? I was reading an interview with Belle de Jour (That's Brooke Magnanti nowadays) and noticed a comment down the bottom along the same vein of Soldiers Wages vs Footballers Wages, only it was actually Research Scientists Wages vs Footballers Wages. I shan't go into it other than that. But it got me thinking, Mister Godwin really needs to do a study into this one too. According to Godwin's Law;

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."^[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis." *

So, to finish, I should like to propose Christie's Law;

"As an online discussion involving the subject of low wages, with regards to groups deemed to be a form of public service [such as military, academic, charitable etc] grows longer, it is only a matter of time before someone gets all righteous about Wayne Rooney's income"



* and yes, I know I'm one of the worst perpetrators of Godwins Law, it just so happens that Hitler is a favourite subject of mine. Don't get me wrong, nothing to do with burning Jews whatsoever, he's just so recognisable as the iconic "bad guy", and therefore makes for such very good satire...

Are you sick of the Royal Wedding yet?

I'm not.
Well, not yet anyway.

But there's a very simple reason for that. I don't have a telly. Well, at least I don't have one that works, I have one that plays playstation games and the occasional video, but not TV. Sometimes I even push the boat out a bit and watch a DVD! But no actual live broadcasting of any sort generally.
My mum does have a telly however, and I nipped round hers the other day for something and made the insane decision to switch it on for a bit.

THE COUNTRY'S GONE MAD! STARK RAVING BONKERS!!

Well, if you believe the telly anyway, it has. Honest. Wills and Kate, Kate and WillsandKateandweddingsandunionflagsandand... (And I'm sure last time I looked, the name was William, but that's by the by.)
Gosh. Stuff that. I am never getting a proper telly!

But that said, I'm still going to hang a Saint George's Flag out of the window this weekend. Just Because. I do like a good excuse to hang a flag up.
I wish them all the best, marriages are lovely an' all that, but I was also planning on ignoring the whole thing and going out shopping for the day, but something tells me that might be a little optimistic.

The AV, or in English, The Alternative Vote

I had a leaflet through my door the other day encouraging me to "say NO to AV". Allow me if you will, dear reader, to talk you through my thoughts upon reading this...

"Oh, that's a good idea. The AV button on Mums telly never worked properly, and mine doesn't work at all....Hang on a minute, why would people be protesting about dodgy tellys? Oh it must be something to do with the airport again, AV, Aviance..." Break for coffee and look at leaflet again once actually awake "...oh! The Alternative Vote! Why didn't they bloody say so?"

So, broken tellys aside, what are my thoughts on the matter?
Well, I can't really see the point it bothering to fiddle with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And is it necessarily broke? I can't say I'm convinced, unless of course you voted Labour, in which case perhaps the current system could be a blessing in disguise...

The Old Bill ain't half daft sometimes...

Well, a lot of the time actually, if you ask me!

My garage was broken into yesterday. This is nothing more than a downright nuisance as all it contains is a load of old junk. So unless the thief has a fetish for empty bottles of engine oil and broken fridges, there wasn't a lot that would be of any interest to him in there!
The reaction of the Old Bill to this little dilemma was enlightening, to say the least. Now let me just put this into perspective. My motorcycle was stolen last year. Value? 8 1/2 grand. A friend's Ninja was stolen the following day, value? 6-7 grand. Then another friends went the following day, value? 8 grand. Then someone else's Ninja went, then another, and the list goes on. Over the space of a month, the same group of thieves collected a good quarter mill's worth of bikes. All Ninjas. All matching descriptions of the same van. (It was a fairly distinctive van) When I rang the old bill, with half a ton of evidence, including CCTV, they "filed a report". Over the phone.
Compare that, if you will, to my garage full of junk. They sent round an officer, who took a good 3 hours taking a statement. They sent round someone to "forensically secure" the garage. (Who didn't have anything to do it with, borrowed a bit of wood from me, then put his hands all over the doors anyway) And today they have promised to send round a forensic team. (Who, as yet, haven't shown!) Bear in mind here that nothing is missing from the garage. Including the empty bottles of oil. And the broken fridge is actually still there. And it's still broken. If anything, it's a little rustier than it was last time I looked.

Work that one out!

My suggestion? Well, if you're ever unlucky enough to have a motorcycle stolen, tell the police your garden shed has been broken into and you're awfully frightened that your 20 year old lawnmower that doesn't work is missing! Oh, and your broom with no handle is definitely gone.
You never know, that way they make actually turn up...

The Lib-Dems are "Too Male and Too Pale", apparently!

...And they're too liberal as well if you ask me, but that's utterly beside the point!

So anyway, I discovered an old copy of The Times at work and I thought I'd have a good old read of it over lunch. And I came across this slightly silly-sounding headline...

The Lib-Dems are "Too Male and Too Pale"

So ladies and gentlemen, we are being told most Liberals are white and male. Wowee what a shock! Quick Mister N, better hire some token women/blacks/asians/oompa-loompas/cabbages (delete as applicable!)
I jest. But honestly, that's exactly what the party say they plan on doing! Well maybe not oompa-loompas, cabbages potentially, but not oompa-loompas.
Honestly guys, who cares if you're all white blokes? You're politicians, not a girl-band! Could you kindly start acting like politicians and cease caring about gender, or the colour of peoples skin? It stopped being a problem many years ago, and there is no reason for it to become one again.

I'll be honest, personally, I really wouldn't give a toss if the lib-dems were all orange-skinned transvestites called Barbara, with a penchant for wearing bananas as earrings...as long as they do the job we're paying them to do!

"Positive Discrimination" indeed! Now I'm sure there's an Old English word for positive discrimination, ah yes, I remember it, "bullshit".

What does "ghoti" spell?

Fish, obviously.

Think about it;
GH - as in "That's enough", F
O - as in "Three women", I
TI - as in "Train Station", SH

GHOTI = FISH

Ah, the wonders of the English Language, nothing is as it seems!

Ka, Ba and Akh - The Ancient Egyptian Soul

The Egyptians had quite a few interesting ideas with regards to the human soul, and some which are quite hard for us modern types to conceive of. However, some are pretty good food for thought.
So, something "quite interesting" for you now;

Firstly, the Egyptians did not have a simple idea of a soul. There was not "living humans with a single spiritual essence" and then "dead humans who's spiritual essence buggers off to Heaven" (or Hades, or Valhalla or wherever.) There were essentially three "spiritual" parts to a human, and these needed different things. Initially, without the body being preserved, these parts would have nowhere to reside when they weren't living it up in the afterlife, or hanging around irritating their relatives and would therefore quite simply die off. Hence the fantastically complicated burial rituals and the inevitable mummification.

We'll do the easy ones first;

Ka - This is the life force. The living energy of a person. It enters the body when born and leaves it when dead. It is basically the "spirit", not conscious or thinking as such, purely a force.

Ba - This is the thinking one, it's basically the soul. What's different about it is that it needs sustenance. Offerings of food must be left in the tomb, and the Ba will consume the "essence" of these offerings. (The priests of course then get to consume the physical offerings which are no use to the dead, pretty clever huh?)

Akh - This one is the combination of Ka and Ba. And it only comes into being if the proper rituals are performed at the funeral, drawing the Ka and Ba out of the body and getting them to come together. The Akh then basically becomes the Ghost. Able to come and go in the afterlife. And able to wind up the relatives if it so chooses!


Now, what interests me in all of this is the idea that this Akh of the dead person (made up of Ba and Ka) needs sustenance to go on existing. Not only in the form of food and drink, but in the form of attention from the living. There is a lovely little phrase which is often found in tombs which reads "Oh you, who live on earth and pass by this stele, if you love life and hate death, say: may he receive a thousand loaves of bread and a thousand jugs of beer!" So a living person can give this sustenance to the Akh of a dead person simply by willing it.

Now, back to modern times, stick all of that together with one of the theories I previously proposed with regards to the soul, Theory 2. The soul is a concept. It's an idea. Can an idea exist if no one is there to think it? Probably it can't. But it definitely can exist if it is shared and there are many people to think it. Can a person go on simply because there are still people to speak their name and remember them?

Maybe the Egyptians and their nutty priests were onto something here? Maybe they weren't. But it's quite a nice thought either way.



The "opening of the mouth ceremony" The priests are drawing out the Ka and Ba to get them to combine into the Akh. Without this ceremony, it was believed a person could not have life after death.