gambitch - now available in blue

Wednesday, July 02, 2003

A rude awakening came to me today. It has occurred to me that, unlike most other people who engage in blogging, I do not have a circle of fellow blogging friends, such that we link our blogs to one another in a neat little network. As a consequence, it is entirely plausible to say that, on any given day, nobody is reading gambitch's blog other than gambitch himself!

Oh, the shock and horror of that thought!

There are basically three things I can do to correct the situation:
a) Find fellow blog-writers on the Internet and befriend them enough to add them to my links;
b) Find friends who are already blog-writers and add them to my links;
c) Find friends and persuade them to join the ranks of blog-writers, and then add them to my links.

The first question to ask, of course, is whether gambitch actually intends to correct the situation in the first place.

Tangential, but somewhat related to the thought, is some of the logic used in early explanations of the greatness of the Internet. We grant that the proliferation of Internet-related technology has allowed the average Joe to have the power to put up his own homepage on the Internet. Increasingly, therefore, people can have some form of digital real estate. But how useful is this real estate, really, if nobody visits your webpage? There are thousands, if not millions, of homepages that have been put up in haste because the owner just hurried himself or herself into putting up some homepage. So we have many homepages that simply say something like "Hi, my name is Jenny. Welcome to my homepage." and includes a few pictures of our favourite Jenny with her dog, a couple of friends, or just having tea at some nice cafe. Not quite what people strolling around the Internet are actually interested in seeing.

(Of course, there are those who claim that Jenny's homepage would get lots more visitors if Jenny started putting up, say, pictures of herself in the nude. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Jenny is just some unenterprising 10-year-old girl. There seems to be an abundance of such webpages put up by 10-year-olds anyway.)

The Internet is really about greater communication. Communication, however, cannot exist in a vacuum, or in a world of one. If there are no interested readers, the creation of the webpage is moot. So what is a suitable critical mass of readers before a webpage becomes meaningful? That depends on the context, since some pages are meant for consumption by a nameless, faceless public, while others are private circles created by friends - either offline friends who are trying to colonize a collective space online, or online acquaintances like those made via chatrooms.

Common sense, really. So why did Jenny create her homepage when she doesn't know who's going to visit?

The simple answer: I don't know. Go ask Jenny.

gambitch [ 3:57 AM]

Tuesday, July 01, 2003

Every day nowadays is becoming a trying day. When the world we find ourselves in become such an important part of our lives, it should really not come as a surprise that our interactions with one another can be heavily shaped by external events and developments. Yet it is curious how often we allow ourselves to be completely swept away and react to circumstances, rather than have the strength to come out on top of them.

It feels painful when you have to deal with something that has become inevitable when it was not always necessarily so. The worst part is that the necessary course of action is in fact to do absolutely nothing. While this sounds very easy in theory, in practice it is often much more difficult, especially when you are convinced that you really can do something, even if you are not sure exactly what that something you can do actually is. Sitting there and making yourself do nothing makes you feel absolutely powerless and helpless about the situation, which I think isn't really much good, if only because I tend to be the type who wants to be constructive.

So it reduces to keeping quiet when you are quite convinced that there must be a better course of action. The "better course of action" would of course involve talking. The problem is, how do you talk when doing so would send more than just the message conveyed literally by what you say, and carry with it a whole lot of under-, over-, or hidden tones? Other issues are going to come into question, and some of those issues you may not necessarily want to have brought into question, because they introduce complications that are possibly unnecessary, and probably detrimental to the main issue at hand.

But what is the main issue at hand, really?

gambitch [ 4:51 AM]

Monday, June 30, 2003

More on the Australian football furore...

FIFA votes against automatic Oceania place

Oceania's furious response

Asia or bust, claim Socceroos

More background information: It was not so long ago that the World Cup featured 24 teams rather than the current 32. At least at Italia 90, there were 24 teams. This was the year when, among other things, England, Ireland and Holland had an identical win-loss record and even had the same goals for-goals against record. By a flip of the coin, the group standings was decided as England, Ireland, Holland, Egypt (who I think lost all three matches to the Europeans). Expansion to 32 teams came in France 98, so another increase to 36 teams according to the proposal by CONMEBOL would have come a little too quickly.

Having said that, there were only 16 teams as late on as 1978, when Argentina hosted the World Cup. Espana 82 (Spain, for those who have problems with foreign tongues) was the first World Cup with 24 teams.

The question now is, would an expansion to 36 teams really be that great an idea? It means more matches, which means greater logistical nightmares and possibly even a longer World Cup, which could be a problem for the international football calendar every four years. Already Korea-Japan 02 had started earlier than usual and witnessed a whole lot of burnt-out players, and Foe's death (yes, it has to be mentioned again) should give enough impetus for fewer matches to be played to protect the sportsmen.

At the same time, national pride means lots of countries actually want to have more regular appearances at the World Cup. So something has to give and a compromise has to be struck. The question is, which way?

gambitch [ 7:05 PM]

That we would all be better off in Australasia

Australia is, plainly, frustrated that they dominate the Oceania group but keep missing out on a spot in the World Cup. Would it be better for Asia? Maybe, maybe not. Part of the problem arises from the fact that FIFA has been changing Australia's opponents every few years. One World Cup qualifying season they played the fifth-placed team in CONMEBOL (South America for those who don't understand - see this link for details). Another they got to play against a team from Asia. On both occasions they lost.

Australian football has been on the up for a few years now. The issue is whether giving them a greater chance to qualify for the World Cup would be good for them, as well as for football.

gambitch [ 6:13 PM]

Sunday, June 29, 2003

Football needs its fans

Apart from spelling errors resulting from failure to differentiate homonyms, the piece is generally concise and idiot-proof. What is important, though, is that even in sports we can notice underpinnings of socialism and capitalism. More evidence that if one is to make sense of a lot of issues in the world, even in the most obscure ways, knowledge of these philosophical frameworks or doctrines is essential in getting big structural explanations.

That should be pretty good reason for me to start getting the relevant texts or forms for crash courses.

In other news, Marc-Vivien Foe died at the Confederations Cup semi-final. Apart from the obvious sadness one would feel for the gentle giant of Cameroon, it should also be noted that his death highlights the fact that footballers are getting too many games. Manchester City had 38 games this season, and Foe had to represent his country at another pointless FIFA event, which was probably intended to generate more financial turnover. Foe's sad death, while officially remaining unexplained, may well become a rallying point for footballers to play fewer games. The international match calendar must be redone to give fewer of these unnecessary matches and tournaments. This is necessary and right if we want to avoid burning out the very players who we want so much to see in good physical condition.

R.I.P., Marco.

gambitch [ 3:09 AM]