A Change of Direction

I don't think anyone who follows this blog is subscribed to me on YouTube. There may be people who follow me here and watch my videos there, or vice versa. Anyway, I'm not sure how many people to whom this applies will be reading this. But yeah, it's a medium through which to express myself so who cares.

Basically I've deleted most of my YouTube videos. To be honest when the YouTube craze first started up I was a bit taken by the whole thing about talking to a camera, connecting with the world and really making something of it. Dan Brown style (the YouTube vlogger and Rubik's cube teacher, not the author of, among others, The DaVinci Code). Needless to say that didn't really work out. Currently I have a couple of hundred subscribers, and am eligible for revenue sharing. But really I haven't done anything with YouTube barring the occasional video from cubing competitions for months, maybe a year or more? So probably no-one will notice I'm gone. Regardless, I'm quite embarrassed about most of those videos. Most are from about 3 years ago. I stuttered, spoke poorly and didn't really express very many good ideas, which I find much easier to do when I write stuff down, hence the blog. If I'm honest I was never really comfortable talking to a camera, it always felt a bit weird. But there you go, all those old philosophy videos are gone. I'll hopefully be updating this blog more often now, with stuff related to philosophy, trying to offer evidence for Christianity etc. I'll keep the channel for cubing videos, because I quite like filming stuff, and I do rather like those videos where things are more 'natural' rather than me talking at a camera. Maybe if I ever feel like having a rant or getting something off my chest I'll post a vlog there. But mostly it'll be cubing, and other random videos, such as holiday footage for instance. I'll try to keep this blog updated a bit more.

I don't really have an ending for this one. Can't think of anything witty, so I'll just end it.

Bye.

A Tainted Title?

Rangers are in crisis. Liquidation looks inevitable. Redundancies are being made, with 2 players released today and more to follow no doubt. Celtic could have the League Championship title wrapped up as early as the 25th of March at Ibrox.

With all this going on, the party line for the media and hun support seems to be:

"The title is tainted! It was only won because of Rangers going into administration!"

Now, it doesn't take a genius to see why this is clearly not the case. The Bhoys have won this title fair and square. Unfortunately, the Rangers support seem determined to cling onto whatever they can to attempt to devalue our title win. So I thought I'd put together this little blog post just to clearly explain precisely how our title will NOT be devalued.

5th November 2011: Celtic are 15 points behind Rangers, all be it with 2 games in hand. After a poor run of games which has seen draws with Hibs and Kilmarnock and defeats to Hearts and Rangers, it seems almost inevitable that Rangers will stretch their lead further and go on to claim 4 in a row.

29th December 2011: Celtic beat Rangers 1-0 at Celtic park, seeing us go 2 points clear at the top of the SPL having won our previous 9 games in a row.

21st January 2012: Rangers draw 1-1 at home to Aberdeen, thus seeing them slip 4 points behind Celtic in the title race.

14th February 2012: Rangers enter administration and are deducted 10 points. Celtic now lead the title race by 14 points.

Now, last weekend (Saturday 4th March 2012), Celtic drew 1-1 with Aberdeen. This result signalled an end of a 17 game SPL winning run and a 20 game domestic winning run. We are still unbeaten domestically since the 2-0 defeat at Hearts back in October.

Given these facts, how can anyone possibly say that Celtic do not deserve this title win? Yes, it would be closer if Rangers had not gone into administration. But even then, we would still be 11 points clear of Rangers. You could argue that administration had an effect on Rangers morale, despite them playing poorly ever since November. Let's assume that this is a valid argument. This still has no bearing on Celtic's results, so even if Rangers were able to win all their games since entering administration, Celtic would still be 2 points clear and in with a good chance of winning the league.

It looks likely that Celtic will wrap up the league at Ibrox on March 25th, or at the very least win that game. Would we have won there if Rangers hadn't gone into administration and lost players? Maybe not. But there's a good chance that we would have, given how Rangers have been playing for the past few months. 

Rangers going into administration has had no bearing on the fate of the SPL title. All it has meant is Celtic wrapping it up 4 games earlier. We are undefeated domestically since October. Since November we have won 20, drawn 1, lost 0. That is title winning form, and Rangers administration has had no bearing on that. In fact, we could DONATE 10 points to Rangers and STILL be ahead in the title race. If we were less than 10 points clear, you could argue that we won't have won it on merit. But we are.

Oh, and yes, this season may well be remembered as the season where Rangers went into administration, rather than the season where Celtic won the title. But last season could well be remembered as the season when Neil Lennon was sent bombs and bullets just because of his religion. Could this have had a bearing on the destination of the title? Who knows. I've never had to do my job under police protection, knowing that my life is at risk. But I can't imagine that it makes the job any easier. But nevertheless, Rangers will cling to that title win for all it's worth, and rubbish claims that they won it because their fans attempted to kill our manager. They'll cherish that title win for ever. It'll be their last.

Does Scottish Football need a Strong Rangers?

Ok, so here's a football related post. Looking at people who subscribe to my blog, I don't imagine it will be one of my most popular, but hopefully it will put a point across to others who do take an interest in football. These are the people for whom this blog is intended.. Also if occurs to me that I haven't posted a blog in ages. So hi. Good to be back.
As you will know, Rangers Football Club recently went into administration. This came about as a result of them failing to pay PAYE to the tune of approximately £9m. It has also emerged recently that Rangers owner Craig Whyte, Motherwell born Billionaire, Millionaire or 'thousandaire' depending on which newspaper you read and how gullible you are, has sold (not mortgaged, SOLD) 4 years worth or Rangers season tickets, depriving them of their main source of income for the next 4 years while bringing in £24m pounds which seems to have gone missing. They are also awaiting the results of a tax case relating to the use of EBTs since 2001, which could land them with a bill of between £49m and £75m. Liquidation looks inevitable.
But what does this mean for Scottish football? All week I've heard about how the powers that be will be doing everything they can to try and save Rangers, how Scottish football needs a strong Rangers and how Celtic could never survive without them. Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell made it clear at the start of the week that financially, Celtic would manage just fine without Rangers. It seems obvious, however, that initially, Scottish football would suffer without Rangers. The 'Old Firm' are the only two teams who are ever in the running for the SPL title; it's been this way since the late 1980s. No Rangers would mean Celtic would be certainties to win the League every year, which would make Scottish football extremely boring, and may even take something of the shine off the title celebrations for Celtic fans. However, I believe that ultimately, the demise of Rangers would be a good thing for Scottish football.
Let's look first at Celtic and how we would improve from not having Rangers in the league. Many people have pointed to the Sky TV money which we would lose if there were no Rangers, and hence no Old Firm games. Firstly, I'd like to point out that no Old Firm games wouldn't necessarily mean Sky withdrawing interest. There's no doubt that these games are the primary attraction in Scottish football, but that doesn't mean they're the only attraction. Sky also show Irish, Welsh and lower league English football, as well as some other Scottish games (just this weekend, in fact, Aberdeen v St Johnstone was shown on Sky Sports 1). Sky need to look at their market. A large number of that market will be Rangers fans. Another significant proportion will not support a Scottish team, but will follow Scottish football due to the Old Firm rivalry. However, a large proportion will also be Celtic fans, who will follow the team regardless of how poor the opposition is. There will be also be fans of other teams who relish the rare opportunity to see their team on TV. So while interest in Scottish football may drop generally, there's no guarantee that Sky would withdraw their interest. Besides, revenue from Sky accounts for less than 2% of Celtic's annual income, so we wouldn't be hit too hard from the lack of TV revenue. Now, in the past 3 years Celtic have not won the league. We came closest last season and are almost certain to win it this season. This is with a very talented squad of young players, assembled for very little. Key players last season were the likes of Hooper, Stokes, Kayal, Commons and Izaguirre, all of whom cost very little. The likes of Wanyama and Matthews have also come in for little money this season. Both of these players are under 21, and were relatively unknown before coming here. I think this shows that even if our income dropped, Celtic would still be able to maintain a strong squad.
But would our income drop? Remember, we haven't won the league since 2008. Prize money for winning the league is something in the region of £10m, a figure we'd be all but guaranteed to bring in with no Rangers to challenge us for the title.
But why strengthen the squad if there's no quality competition for the league? Well, the answer should be quite obvious; Europe. Glorious European nights have always been an integral part of Celtic's history, from the days of old when we beat the likes of Leeds and Liverpool, and of course winning and losing the final of the European Cup in the 60s/70s, to the modern days, when we were beating the likes of Juventus, A C Milan and Man UTD at Celtic Park, as well as reaching the UEFA cup final. Recently we haven't made an impact on Europe, largely due to our lack of League wins. Winning the title this season would put us in a good position to qualify for the group stage. I wouldn't expect us to reach the last 16 just yet, but based on our European exploits from this season, I think we could give teams a real game. This season, we were in easily the toughest Europa League group, playing 3 teams who wouldn't look out of place in the Champions League. We picked up a total of 6 points, which unfortunately wasn't enough to see us through to the next stage. However, we gave a good account of ourselves, creating some really good chances in each game as well as picking up a couple of rare European away points. Many of the goals we conceded were down to individual errors. The opening goal away to Athletico, when we were unable to defend a set piece, the absurd own goal from Cha against Rennes, the goal at home against Athletico when Kayal ducked on the line, and the goal away to Udinese when Cha headed the ball straight to the Udinese attacker. If we eliminate all these goals, as well as the goal at home to Udinese, which was a frankly dreadful penalty decision, this would have seen us pick up 13 points, easily enough to take us through. We have undoubtedly improved defensively since then, and some wise reinvestment of our SPL winnings in that area would set us in good stead for our Champions League challenge. This would mean not only would we get some more glorious European nights, but we would maintain Scotland's UEFA coefficient, allowing us to continue qualifying for the Champions League.
But what of the rest? Well, I feel it would be much the same story. Motherwell look like the 'best of the rest' in Scotland right now. I think they'd be sure to finish second this season if there were no Rangers, and may even manage it with Rangers still there. Finishing second would put them in qualifying for the Europa League. In addition, they would receive additional prize money for their higher league position. I believe the current prize money for finishing first is £10m. I don't have the exact figures for the rest, but you can find percentage breakdowns here: http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Rules%20at%2012-May-10%20%5BCURRENT%5D.pdf (scroll to page 31).
If the figure of £10m is correct then second place would take around £8.25m, which is pretty big money for a club like Motherwell. This money would allow them to bring in players of a higher quality, who would also likely be attracted by the chance to play in Europe. Given that the opportunity to play in the Europa League would bring in additional revenue in the form of ticket sales and TV revenue, Motherwell would continue to improve their squad, maybe to the point at which they would be able to challenge Celtic for the title.
But it's not just Motherwell. While at the moment, it's pretty much guaranteed that Celtic and Rangers will occupy first and second place each season, there's no guarantee as to who will finish in the places below that. Dundee UTD are usually challengers. They currently sit well off the pace in seventh. Hibs put in a real challenge not so long ago; they're currently battling relegation. Just 6 years ago Hearts split the Old Firm to finish second. Aberdeen were playing Bayern Munich in Europe in 2008. All these sides feel that they can push for 3rd place, if not now then in a few years, after some improvement which definitely seems to be necessary for the likes of Hibs and Aberdeen. If these sides mount a challenge for second in Rangers absence, then they too will improve in the same way as described by Motherwell above.
Finally, there are social reasons for Rangers' demise being a good thing. Rangers football club bleeds sectarianism and hatred. They didn't sign a Catholic player until 1989, and this was met by uproar. I don't believe that all of the Rangers support are inherently anti-Catholic or sectarian, but when you support a club founded on sectarian principles, you're going to feel that you should hold those views. The club itself has always been sectarian, and this bleeds onto the terraces. If the club was no longer there, then eventually, Scotland's sectarian problems would decrease dramatically. I feel that if Rangers no longer existed, future generations of Rangers fans who would otherwise hold the same bigoted, anti-Catholic views that you see on the terraces today, would not in fact hold those views, as there would be no football club for them to use as an outlet or justification for their hatred.
So next time you're watching a Rangers game, and you hear chants of 'up to our knees in Fenian blood', 'Fuck the Pope' or 'The Famine's over, why don't you go home', next time Rangers have a European tie in your city which results in fighting, vandalism and leaves the city a complete mess, ask yourself, is society really better off WITH this football club?
I wonder what answer the people of Manchester would give.

Charitable Giving

I just read an article by philosopher Peter Singer, which can be found here. The article, published in 2006, discusses how much a billionaire should be expected to give to charity. Towards the end of the article, Singer discusses the UN Millenium Development Goals.
These goals, set in 2000, include:
Reducing by half the proportion of the world’s people in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than the purchasing-power equivalent of one U.S. dollar per day).
Reducing by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
Ensuring that children everywhere are able to take a full course of primary schooling.
Ending sex disparity in education.
Reducing by two-thirds the mortality rate among children under 5.
Reducing by three-quarters the rate of maternal mortality.
Halting and beginning to reverse the spread of H.I.V./AIDS and halting and beginning to reduce the incidence of malaria and other major diseases.
Reducing by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water.
It has been estimated that achieving these goals would cost $121bn in 2006, rising to $189bn by 2015. To illustrate how much America's rich can help to acheive these goals, Singer then goes on to suggest brackets by which the top 10% of American earners could give, and still live comfortably. The top 0.01% of taxpayers earn a minimum of >$5m, with the average wage of $12.75m. Singer suggests that if each of these people, 14,400 in total, gave a third of their salary, they would donate an average of $4.3m each, with total givings of around $61bn for that group. Each person would still have an average annual income of $3.3m. The next group, the remainder of the top 0.1% of earners, makes a minimum of $1.1m per year and has an average salary of $2m. Each person in this group, comprising 129,600 people, could give 25% of their income, with total givings equaling around $65bn, and each person still having an average of $864k per year to live on.
The next group consists of 575,900 people, the remainder of the top 0.5% of earners. The average wage for this group is $623k, with a minimum income of $407k. If each person in this group gave 20% of their income, they would give a total of $72bn, an still have an average salary of $325k. The remainder of the top 1% have an average income of $327k and a minimum salary of $276k. If each of these 719,000 people gave 15% of their annual income, they would give a total of $35bn and be left with a total average wage of $234k. Finally, the remainder of the top 10% of taxpayers have an average wage of $132k and a minimum of $92k. If each of thse 13m families gave 10% of their income, they would give a total of around $171bn, leaving each with a total of at least $83,000 to live on.
Put together, these givings amount to a total of $404bn. The fact that everyone in these groups could give so much and still live so comfortably should make every one of us think seriously about how much we do for those less fortunate than us.

I really will try to update this blog more...

It may not have escaped your attention that I've been awol recently. In hindsight, I should have checked when my last blog was posted before I began this one. But I didn't. I think it was around May. So about 5 months ago. Various things have happened since then, mostly A-levels and moving into Uni. But I've also had a pretty quiet summer, and from around the start of July to the end of September, I had basically nothing to do. So no excuses for not 'blogging' (is that the word?) in that period. But now I'm back, and will (probably, hopefully, maybe...) try to update this blog more. Mostly philosophical stuff (I hope) but also some 'this is what's going on in my head' stuff. Also some political stuff. Oh, and in a week I'll be going to watch Stephen Law debate William Lane Craig on the existence of God. Two heavyweights on either side of the God debate. So that should be good, and I'll (almost certainly) blog about that. But until then, I may or may not continue with one or two updates, and after that I'll do my best to write regular blogs (hopefully ones with a few less brackets used).
On a more serious note, I swallowed a particularly sharp piece of crisp and it got lodged in my throat. It hurts. This isn't relevant, it's just difficult to think about anything else just now.

May 22nd 2011- We're Still Here!

So as I'm sure you've all heard, May 21st 2011 was supposed to bring about judgement day, and the end of the world. This prediction was made by Harold Camping, the 89 year old leader of the Family Radio Christian network. Well, as I type this, it is 12:28 AM on Sunday, May 22nd, and we're still here.
Camping's prediction was based on two Biblical 'proofs':
1. Noah's flood happened in 4990 BC (I've not heard any explanations as to how he knows this, so we'll just have to take his word for it). God gave Noah 7 days warning for the flood, and since the Bible tells us that "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8). So, this means that God will give us 7000 years to prepare from the rapture after Noah's flood, and that year is 2011 (apparently we have to subtract a year, as there was no year 0).
2. Jesus was crucified on April 1st, AD33 (again, this is something we'll just have to take Camping's word for.) The three Holy numbers are 5, 10 and 17 (once again, we'll have to trust Camping on this one). if you multiply these 3 numbers together (twice, for added emphasis and to make the numbers fit), you 722500. May 21st 2011 is exactly that number of days from the day of the crucifixion.
As for the time, 6pm, that is also something which it seems is not down to any particular proof. Camping certainly has relied on a lot of guesswork for his prediction. The same can be said of his claim that about 2,000,000 people will be saved. There are probably more people than that who have bought into his claims.
In general, I don't think I would have had a problem with a nutjob going around telling everyone that he had pulled some numbers out of his backside, tried to make them all fit in the Bible and used them to predict the end of the world. I'm a Christian, and I believe that one day, Christ will return and people will be judged. What I object to is the way in which he has gathered his followers to spread this in a huge, scaremongering advertising campaign which has gained worldwide publicity. Even more worrying is what some people will decide to do as they prepare for the end. If I knew that I wasn't going to be around much longer, I would probably spend a considerable amount of money, for one. I saw an interview with one family who, a few months ago, pulled their children out of school in order to spend more time with them before the rapture.
Denying your children an education because of a prediction from a mad old fundamentalist preacher is not on. You'll have an eternity to spend time with them in Heaven, so for now it's probably best to let them prepare for their future, just in case.
Another thing which worrys me about this whole sorry episode is the effect it may have on children who believe it. I'm sure all of us feared death in childhood, maybe some still do. So to have people around you proclaiming that you're going to die this evening cannot be too healthy for a child's mind, particularly not if your parents are also telling you this. The ease at which some adults are buying into the prediction is also somewhat worrying, particularly considering the number of failed apocalypse predictions in the past, including one from Harold Camping himself.
So, the day of judgement is still not upon us. When will it come? No-one knows. Harold Camping would have realised that if he'd studied the Bible properly (Matthew 24:36, 25:13, Mark 13:32). I certainly don't believe that there will be so few people saved. All we can do is carry on with our lives, and not worry about it. I believe Christianity is the truth, and one day Jesus will return. That day was not May 21st 2011. I don't believe it will be October 21st 2011 (the day Camping predicts the world will end). I will spend the rest of my life assuming that it will occur after I'm gone, and trying to remain true to the Christian teachings and be faithful to Jesus, and encourage others to do the same. As for Camping, he's probably working out where his calculations went wrong, and trying to find some other numbers in the Bible which he can throw in. Third time lucky and all that. He's also probably a bit annoyed that his prediction failed again.
Cheer up Harold, it's not the end of the world.