"We didn't vote for Bush"

[mike777]

btw got an email today from a non bridge playing friend asking me if I heard of this issue :)

[mike777]

We have read a lot on this topic here and at other sites.

 

Perhaps someone can point me to any valid source that documents that the WBF, the Chinese hosts or other honored teams present at the ceremony felt offended.

obviously someone at the WBF which includes acbl members is. :)

[hrothgar]

I think implicit in the fact there there were 35 pages arguing about b, is that there isn't currently a rule that they actually broke...

I don’t find this at all clear cut.

 

The WBF Conditions of Contest require that participants abide by the Olympic Charter. Furthermore, the Olympic Charter states that

 

No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.

 

One can certainly make the argument that the WBF is entitled to take action against the USA1 Venice Cup Team for violating the Conditions of Contest of the Venice Cup. However, to date I haven’t seen any official notice from the WBF about the “incident” in question. I suspect that the WBF is either smart or lazy enough to keep its head down.

 

In theory, the USBF could certainly choose to act on behalf of the WBF or instead of the WBF and take actions against the USA1 team. Moreover, I agree that the USBF probably has the authority to refuse to permit members of the USA1 team the right to compete in future USBF events for almost any reason that they want.

 

Whether or not it is a smart idea to do so is a very different matter.

 

There are an awful lot of reasons that people start legal battles. In many cases the expected ruling has little or no impact on the decision to instigate litigation.

Simply put, I expect that the USBF would win in a legal fight, however, any victory would almost certainly be Pyrrhic in nature.

[goodwintr]

You, as a Canadian, can have your limited freedom of expression with your notwithstanding clauses and whatnot.  Americans made it the FIRST amendment for a reason. 

The Americans did in fact include freedom of expression in the FIRST amendment for a reason, but not the reason you suggest. When the Constitution was ratified, it was understood that Congress would immediately propose a Bill of Rights to amend the text. Accordingly, the First Congress enacted a Bill of Rights. It comprised twelve amendments, and the one including "freedom of expression" was number three on the list. The original First Amendment, having to do with the number of citizens in a Congressional district, and the original Second Amendment, having to do with compensation for Congressmen, failed of ratification by the States. The remaining ten were ratified and became part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The proposed Third Amendment became the First Amendment, the proposed Fourth became the Second, and so on. That is to say, the ordering of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights was to a large extent arbitrary.

[unless, perhaps, you think the First Congress thought, for example, that their rate of pay -- proposed Amendment Two -- was a more important matter than Freedom of Speech -- proposed Amendment Three (eventual Amendment One); or that the right to a jury trial -- in proposed Amendment Eight (eventual Amendment Six) -- was a more important matter than the right to bear arms -- in proposed Amendment Four (eventual Amendment Two).]

TLGoodwin

[bid_em_up]

The values I'm referring to (some American values and some 'Bridge values') are pretty much those I've outlined earlier:

 

Freedom of expression, decency, tolerance, compassion, forgiveness, sportsmanship ... and yes, sensitivity to decorum.

 

The fact that the ladies breached the last one in the mildest fashion imaginable doesn't give the USBF BoD carte blanche to violate virtually all of them.

So, if one were to claim "Freedom of Expression", even though the rules of the WBF/Olympic Code of Conduct expressly prohibit such actions, according to your own personal statements, it would be appropriate for someone to display a sign saying any of the following:

• Free The Monks
  The Internet Should Be Uncensored
  Nuke Iran
  We voted for Bush
  Go Georgie. Kill 'em all!!
  1/20/09
  Viva Hong Kong
  Taiwanese are people too
  Our future president's a lesbian.
  

Would you still be as adamant if the sign said any of these as you are being in your defense over what the ladies displayed as you are being now?

 

Somehow, I don't think so. The only reason you are making such rash claims is that you happen to feverently agree with the message they were presenting. If however, the message they had displayed happened to offend you, you would be right here screaming for their butts in a sling, freedom of speech be damned.

 

But in reality, that is not the issue. The fact remains that they still violated the CoC that they had agreed to follow, regardless of the message they were sending. The USBF BoD must take action of some sort. Otherwise, the next time something of this nature happened, the perpetrators would just claim "well, the VCT did it and you did nothing to punish them".

 

Seriously, what would have happened to the members of the VCT would have displayed a sign stating "The internet should be uncensored" or "Free Taiwan"? Do you think the Chinese government would have allowed them to come home? Or come back at a later date? Or would it have arrested them, tried them and had them executed? Don't think for a moment that it couldn't or wouldn't happen.

 

I suggest maybe if you want to insist on Freedom of Speech in a country where you are supposed to be following their rules, which does NOT have freedom of speech, that maybe sometime you try making such a display and find out exactly what the consequences of doing so are.

 

(My apologies to anyone offended by the suggested signs. The purpose was however to show that some signs could be very offensive, either to a specific person or to a foreign government, and that depending on the message, different people would be offended by different things.)

[geller]

One of the questions throughout this thread has been whether the USBF is entitled to undertake disciplinary procedures without a specific notification in advance to the players that prohibited the conduct in question. The answer would appear to be yes. Among the offenses subject to discipline is the following: (from page 5 of the USBF Grievance, Appeals, and Disciplinary Procedures).

10. Actions unbecoming a member of the USBF (or a person participating in a tournament conducted by the USBF), including, but not limited to, improper actions at the time and site of a tournament, including parking lots, elevators, restaurants, and hotels.

That being the case, holding up a political sign (albeit one that many would agree with) at the closing ceremony seems clearly subject to disciplinary action. However the relatively innocuous nature of the offense suggests that the punishment ought to similarly be relatively light (a reprimand and/or probation). By seeking to impose a harsh penalty the USBF has unwisely subjected itself to needless negative publicity. (The USBF has also failed to get across to the public that the offense subject to discipline was not expressing anti-Bush sentiments, but rather making a political statement of any sort at the closing ceremony.)

[mikeh]

Seriously, what would have happened to the members of the VCT would have displayed a sign stating  "The internet should be uncensored"  or "Free Taiwan"?  Do you think the Chinese government would have allowed them to come home?  Or come back at a later date?  Or would it have arrested them, tried them and had them executed? Don't think for a moment that it couldn't or wouldn't happen.

 

While I agree with much of what you posted, the suggestion that the Chinese Government would have imprisoned (let alone 'executed') any BB or VC participant for any sign... including far more direct attacks on China than anything you suggested is misguided.

 

At more or less the same time as the WBF events, some Canadians participated in the unfurling of huge banners on the Great Wall, protesting the Chinese presence in Tibet. This conduct was timed to coincide with a lot of media attention surrounding the Beijing Olympics and the beginning of the fanfare leading up to it.

 

The protesters were arrested (as would any Chinese hanging banners on the Lincoln Memorial, for example) but their 'punishment' was being sent home. And I suspect that they won't be let back into China anytime soon :)

 

Now, if and to the extent that there were any chinese or tibetan protesters, my suspicion would be that their punishment would be far more severe, but I really don't see the Chinese government being so stupid as to imprison, let alone execute, American, or Italian, or.... you name it... bridge players for unbecoming behaviour on the podium of an international event the government sponsored.

[hrothgar]

One of the questions throughout this thread has been whether the USBF is entitled to undertake disciplinary procedures without a specific notification in advance to the players that prohibited the conduct in question. The answer would appear to be yes. Among the offenses subject to discipline is the following: (from page 5 of the USBF Grievance, Appeals, and Disciplinary Procedures).

10. Actions unbecoming a member of the USBF (or a person participating in a tournament conducted by the USBF), including, but not limited to, improper actions at the time and site of a tournament, including parking lots, elevators, restaurants, and hotels.

That being the case, holding up a political sign (albeit one that many would agree with) at the closing ceremony, seems clearly subject to disciplinary action. However the relatively innocuous nature of the offense suggests that the punishment ought to similarly be relatively light (a reprimand and/or probation). By seeking to impose a harsh penalty the USBF has unwisely subjected itself to needless negative publicity. (The USBF has also failed to get across to the public that the offense subject to discipline was not expressing anti-Bush sentiments, but rather making a political statement of any sort at the closing ceremony.)

The USBF is a private membership organization. Its BoD can (probably) do whatever they damn well want.

 

For example, the BoD grants itself the power to refuse to approve anyone's application for membership. Moreover, you must be a member in order to compete in the USBF events. Combine these together and ...

 

The core issue is not whether or not the BoD has the authority to take action, but rather, whether or not doing so is the smart thing to do.

 

This isn't an argument about authority, but rather legitimacy.

[bid_em_up]

Seriously, what would have happened to the members of the VCT would have displayed a sign stating  "The internet should be uncensored"  or "Free Taiwan"?  Do you think the Chinese government would have allowed them to come home?  Or come back at a later date?  Or would it have arrested them, tried them and had them executed? Don't think for a moment that it couldn't or wouldn't happen.

 

While I agree with much of what you posted, the suggestion that the Chinese Government would have imprisoned (let alone 'executed') any BB or VC participant for any sign... including far more direct attacks on China than anything you suggested is misguided.

 

At more or less the same time as the WBF events, some Canadians participated in the unfurling of huge banners on the Great Wall, protesting the Chinese presence in Tibet. This conduct was timed to coincide with a lot of media attention surrounding the Beijing Olympics and the beginning of the fanfare leading up to it.

 

The protesters were arrested (as would any Chinese hanging banners on the Lincoln Memorial, for example) but their 'punishment' was being sent home. And I suspect that they won't be let back into China anytime soon :)

 

Now, if and to the extent that there were any chinese or tibetan protesters, my suspicion would be that their punishment would be far more severe, but I really don't see the Chinese government being so stupid as to imprison, let alone execute, American, or Italian, or.... you name it... bridge players for unbecoming behaviour on the podium of an international event the government sponsored.

The point was, you cannot claim to have "freedom of speech or expression" in a country that does not allow it.

 

And if you were to go "far" enough with your attempts to do so, it could have severe consequences.

 

It would really depend on how much you pissed the Chinese government off as to whether or not they would take such actions. International bridge event or not. It's not like they are not capable of doing so, only that they are unlikely to risk the international outrage that would result from such extreme actions.

 

(And I was simply attempting to make a point, not claiming that they would actually do so.)

[geller]

The USBF is a private membership organization. Its BoD can (probably) do whatever they damn well want.

It has to obey laws, its own bylaws, and all the regulations of the US Olympic Committee (and thus all the rules of the Intl Olympic Committee). Within this framework the USBF has considerable discretion, but they can't just do "whatever they damn well want."

 

For example, the BoD grants itself the power to refuse to approve anyone's application for membership. Moreover, you must be a member in order to compete in the USBF events. Combine these together and ...

Well, yes and no. That's what it says, but I think everyone understands that this wording was chosen so that they can bar cheaters without being subject to litigation, and that it should otherwise be used exceedingly sparingly, if at all.

 

The core issue is not whether or not the BoD has the authority to take action, but rather, whether or not doing so is the smart thing to do.

Not sure I agree with you. They have to take some disciplinary action to fulfill their obligations to the WBF. The question is how severe these actions should be. I think they've been unwisely harsh here.

 

This isn't an argument about authority, but rather legitimacy.

Sorry, you've lost me here. If you replace "legitimacy" by "reasonableness" I would agree with you.

[luke warm]

I remember when Olbermann was a sportscaster in Los Angeles 20 years ago.

 

Not exactly qualified to be a talking head IMO.

And while we're at it, what qualifies comedian Rush Limbaugh (another junkie) and Bill O'Reilly (a sexual harassing bully) to be talking heads?

 

I remember when Bill O'Reilly was the host of Inside Edition (an entertainment show) and it was a lot less than 20 years ago.

 

And some people remember George Bush being a coke-snorting alcoholic failed businessman 20 years ago, who joined a cult to help him deal with his substance abuse problems.

 

Not exactly qualified to be POTUS, imo.

that sounds very close to pee wee herman's famous "i know i am but what are you?" debate tactic... if that's the case, you win hands down... poor phil can't compete with that logic

 

jon, i'm pretty sure you've played in some organized events before, bridge or otherwise... i'm also pretty sure that those events had rules and/or bylaws that you, as a participant, were expected to follow... the very fact that you participated was de facto agreement with the terms of engagement, yes? and if you violated one or more of those terms i guess you'd not be surprised if there were repercussions, yes? or would you shout 'free speech, free expression'?

 

if one doesn't agree to be bound by whatever rules are in place one should just refuse to participate, imo...

You, as a Canadian, can have your limited freedom of expression with your notwithstanding clauses and whatnot.  Americans made it the FIRST amendment for a reason. 

The Americans did in fact include freedom of expression in the FIRST amendment for a reason, but not the reason you suggest.

that was uncalled for... a point was (supposedly) in the process of being made

[jonottawa]

Apparently at least one of the ladies will be on with Olbermann tonight on MSNBC. 8ET/7CT I'm not sure which story it will be, but probably #4 (the 2nd story.)

 

Edit: If you're watching the rerun, it's the #1 story (the final story) with about 5 minutes left in the show.

[mikeh]

You, as a Canadian, can have your limited freedom of expression with your notwithstanding clauses and whatnot.  Americans made it the FIRST amendment for a reason. 

The Americans did in fact include freedom of expression in the FIRST amendment for a reason, but not the reason you suggest.

that was uncalled for... a point was (supposedly) in the process of being made

The point being made was, it seems to me, a ugly, chauvinistic assertion that Americans have a privileged place in the world because of their 'freedom' rights: rights that Canadians, amongst others, don't have.

 

We actually enjoy a pretty good freedom of expression up here in the not-so-frozen north. And while we have blemishes in our past (the War Measures Act invoked in Quebec in the early 1970's), we don't have a version of the Patriot Act, nor do we send people to secret prisons to be tortured (Well, arguably we have sent some of our citizens to the US so that the US could send them abroad to be tortured... one difference may be that we eventually say we are sorry and pay the innocent victim a whack of money) and we don't have warrantless monitoring of private communications between citizens.

 

Americans have much to be proud of, but the tendency of some of them to act as if being born in the USA bestowed upon them a mantle of civilization or knowledge superior to the rest of the world is not part of that part of their heritage. Let me stress, my knowledge of Americans suggests that this chauvinistic minority is just that: a minority (and similar minorities exist everywhere....it is perhaps merely my impression that this attitude is more prevalent in the US than in most western countries).

 

However, the success of George Bush and the fact that a substantial minority of Americans would vote for him again also suggests that it is not an insignificant minority.

 

BTW, I see absolutely NO reason to read into the USBF conduct any 'Political' agenda of any kind.

[jdonn]

The point being made was, it seems to me, a ugly, chauvinistic assertion that Americans have a privileged place in the world because of their 'freedom' rights: rights that Canadians, amongst others, don't have.

That's obviously not the point he was trying to make, though I pretty much agree with your description of it. His point was that he believes the USBF should represent the values that the US stands for, not try to squelch them.

 

We actually enjoy a pretty good freedom of expression up here in the not-so-frozen north. And while we have blemishes in our past (the War Measures Act invoked in Quebec in the early 1970's), we don't have a version of the Patriot Act, nor do we send people to secret prisons to be tortured (Well, arguably we have sent some of our citizens to the US so that the US could send them abroad to be tortured... one difference may be that we eventually say we are sorry and pay the innocent victim a whack of money) and we don't have warrantless monitoring of private communications between citizens.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Bush. By the way, very lawyer-y of you to feel that torturing people is less bad as long as you pay them a lot of money later!

 

BTW, I see absolutely NO reason to read into the USBF conduct any 'Political' agenda of any kind.

IMO that is extraordinarily naive. I had typed a lot more here about what I now think of the USBF and their handling of the situation, but better to self-censor at this point.

 

I look forward to watching Olberman tonight.

[jonottawa]

Meh. I wish I could say the ladies knocked it out of the park, but the Olbermann appearance was pretty awkward. I can't say I'd have done any better.

[ArcLight]

On a somewhat different topic, I think a 1 year suspension is rather harsh.

And the threat that it will be even longer if they don't agree is extremely unfair.

 

If the USBF or ACBL wants to punish them, I think 1 year is far too long.

Why not 3 months? With a probabtion condition of much longer than 1 year.

 

What I wonder is how much of the push for punishment comes from the ACBL. If the ACBL contributes a sizeable amount of the funding (even if less than 50%), they can still wield enormous influence.

[geller]

Meh.  I wish I could say the ladies knocked it out of the park, but the Olbermann appearance was pretty awkward.  I can't say I'd have done any better.

The video is up. Click on the following and scroll down to "Backlash for bashing Bush" and click on that (have to sit through a commercial first). Actually I thought they did quite well.

[mikeh]

We actually enjoy a pretty good freedom of expression up here in the not-so-frozen north. And while we have blemishes in our past (the War Measures Act invoked in Quebec in the early 1970's), we don't have a version of the Patriot Act, nor do we send people to secret prisons to be tortured (Well, arguably we have sent some of our citizens to the US so that the US could send them abroad to be tortured... one difference may be that we eventually say we are sorry and pay the innocent victim a whack of money) and we don't have warrantless monitoring of private communications between citizens.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Bush. By the way, very lawyer-y of you to feel that torturing people is less bad as long as you pay them a lot of money later!

 

BTW, I see absolutely NO reason to read into the USBF conduct any 'Political' agenda of any kind.

IMO that is extraordinarily naive. I had typed a lot more here about what I now think of the USBF and their handling of the situation, but better to self-censor at this point.

 

I look forward to watching Olberman tonight.

1. I meant the statement about what Canada did to be sarcastic, not to try to justify an abominable act of cowardice. However, at least our government is capable of admitting to error... something that seems beyond your current administration

 

2. I meant, by using the "P" in the quoted word to refer to democratic v republican type politics, not the internal 'small p' politics that bedevil any organization comprising more than 2 people.

[kenrexford]

I read in one of the rgb threads on this topic that Jill Levin has some history of suing the ACBL and/or the USBF for one thing or another.  Does anyone have any details?

See page 7 of an old (1998) Daily Bulletin for the US Nationals (NABC). The winners (Lew and Joanna Stansby) thanked Jill Levin (formerly Jill Blanchard) as follows.

“I want to thank Jill Levin,” said JoAnna. “Without her, Lew and I could not have played in this event.” Levin, then Jill Blanchard, filed suit with her husband Bob in 1984 over gender-based events, which she claimed violated a California anti-discrimination statute. The upshot was that, in 1990, three former men’s events were changed to open events, including the event the Stansbys won.

As suggested by the quote, the ACBL used to run parallel mens pairs/teams and womens pairs/teams events, but these were changed to open pairs/teams run simultaneously with womens pairs/teams as a result of the lawsuit filed by (among other plaintiffs) Jill Levin (then Jill Blanchard).

Amazing.

 

She fights in court for the ability to play with the men, and yet she plays in an event limited to women.

 

I have so little respect for someone like that.

[kenrexford]

I just found a funny quote from early this year in the Southern California Bridge News:

 

"Without a doubt, there are very good female bridge players, although the very top ranks are dominated by men. Female bridge players who participate in women’s-only events, however, contribute strongly to any general lack of respect that may exist between the sexes. If one’s position is “Women are just as good as men,” then one shouldn’t play in restricted events. It’s ironic (and hypocritical) that the woman responsible for getting rid of men-only events, on the grounds of sex discrimination (Jill Blanchard, formerly Jill Levin) earns masterpoints and gets paid to play in women-only events." -Dan Oakes

[glen]

The video is up. Click on the following and scroll down to "Backlash for bashing Bush" and click on that (have to sit through a commercial first). Actually I thought they did quite well.

Thanks for posting the link - the video gives a better picture of what is happening

[uday]

She fights in court for the ability to play with the men, and yet she plays in an event limited to women.

 

I don't know that that the two are related.

 

I'm sure someone will express this more cogently. But if we grant that it was wrong to exclude women from the "men's pairs" then that should have been fixed. To me, that has nothing to do w/what a fem then needs to do (or chooses to do) to optimize income. , career, or any of those boat-floating things.

 

disclaimer: i know & perhaps even respect some of the relevant characters in real life.

[jonottawa]

I read in one of the rgb threads on this topic that Jill Levin has some history of suing the ACBL and/or the USBF for one thing or another.  Does anyone have any details?

See page 7 of an old (1998) Daily Bulletin for the US Nationals (NABC). The winners (Lew and Joanna Stansby) thanked Jill Levin (formerly Jill Blanchard) as follows.

“I want to thank Jill Levin,” said JoAnna. “Without her, Lew and I could not have played in this event.” Levin, then Jill Blanchard, filed suit with her husband Bob in 1984 over gender-based events, which she claimed violated a California anti-discrimination statute. The upshot was that, in 1990, three former men’s events were changed to open events, including the event the Stansbys won.

As suggested by the quote, the ACBL used to run parallel mens pairs/teams and womens pairs/teams events, but these were changed to open pairs/teams run simultaneously with womens pairs/teams as a result of the lawsuit filed by (among other plaintiffs) Jill Levin (then Jill Blanchard).

Amazing.

 

She fights in court for the ability to play with the men, and yet she plays in an event limited to women.

 

I have so little respect for someone like that.

Amazing.

 

She fights for something she believes in even if it doesn't benefit her directly.

 

The nerve of that woman.

 

I joined the ACBL back when this was a hot topic (87/88 I was in high school.)

 

I thought it was a stupid lawsuit and that she should keep her nose out of it.

 

Then again, I was a fan of the Republican Revolution and even enjoyed listening to Rush Limbaugh back in the early 90's.

 

Some people evolve.

 

Edit: I made a joke that could well be misconstrued and have decided that it probably crossed the line so have deleted it.

[kenrexford]

Are we on drugs here?

 

I have no problem with eliminating men-only events. I agree 100% that this is an archaic concept that was good to drop.

 

That said, however, the existence of "women's only" events is absurd. It is the exact same thing, unless, of course, the "women's only" event is somewhat like the "special olympics." I am using hyperbole to make a point. The ability of a group to allow the existence of an exclusive-group event while elminating another exclusive-froup event must be based in a belief that one group is inferior and needs a protected event for themselves. This is offensive and embarassing.

 

I'm not a woman, obviously. But, if I were, I cannot imagine even wanting to play in a women's only event.

 

Characterizing this as "fighting for something she believes in" is quite a good catch phrase. It sounds great! Adding that it does not benefit her is an interesting spin. I rather look at it as pitiful. It is not that she fought the lawsuit. I think that is great. Rather, it is that she fought the lawsuit, won, and then played in women's only events for her career. That, to me, would be as rewarding as winning a handi-capped world championship. Give my team +50 IMP's to start the event, and then I get to feel good about winning by +2 net?

 

Your argument ends by taking your apparent ignorance to a new level. By using the "P" word, you indicate to me a latent belief of what I suspect from many like you. You use a word to describe someone as having certain negative connotations associated with that word. However, that word is used for that purpose because of the implicit understanding that women have those characteristics. So, whereas you seem to have a heated interest in opposing a thought that somehow is attributed to republican/conservative thinking about women, you actually show a latent disrespect for women, the very thing I complain about. Sort of like the secretly homosexual public homophobe.

 

Try actually evolving and not simply spouting words that sound good to a new peer group that you like.

[mrdct]

.. if we grant that it was wrong to exclude women from the "men's pairs" then that should have been fixed.

That statement makes almost as much sense as "go on the offensive by extremely aggressive defensive actions".

 

If one was running a "men only" event of any description wouldn't the correct thing to do be "exclude women"?

 

My local cricket association won't let me join my son's under-12s team. What an outrage! Can I hire Jill Levin to sue them for being ageist?