"We didn't vote for Bush"

[Walddk]

Perhaps it was just as inappropriate to have started this debate in a thread purporting to congratulate Harald and Norway and hijacking the whole intent of that aforesaid thread? Somewhat insulting, don't you think?

Harald, Fred and I are friends in real life, so trust me, I would never dream of insulting any of them. I actually started the initial thread by congratulating Harald and bridge in Norway in general.

 

Yes, I should have started the thread in another forum; my fault. Eventually, it was moved to the Water Cooler. Fine. And I don't think Harald is offended in any way. I don't think Fred is either, and he was the one who started the thread.

 

Funny how some people think it's their duty to be offended on other peoples' behalf.

 

Roland

[fifee]

Hi Justin

 

I beg to disagree:  If my team were to win a world championship, I would view it as being about "my team".  I couldn't care less about my country or my federation.

You are a representative of your federation. When you win the trials you do not automatically get to go, you have to be approved by your federation to go. They then pay at least some of your bills. Regardless of how you feel about your federation you are still representing them, they are still doing you some favors, and you have to play by their rules.

Let's put it in another perspective. What would you think if a USA team won an Olympic medal and on the podium, held up this sign. Completely inappropriate for me and the same for a World Bridge Federation sponsored World Championship.

 

I certainly sympathize with this team and the motivation behind the sign. They had probably discussed politics with many over the past weeks and felt compelled to do what they did.

 

I think the best solution is for the organizations who sponsor these events to simply put in place directives that their podium will not be used as a political forum.

 

Patricia Anderson

[geller]

Funny how some people think it's their duty to be offended on other peoples' behalf.

We call them "concern trolls."

[han]

No sign is appropriate, not even "Hi Mum, send more money".

 

Roland

Do you really mean that?

 

What if the father of one of the players had just died, and the player had held a sign saying "this one is for you dad"? Would you have called that a scandal as well, and would you have called out for punishment?

[ralph23]

Funny how some people think it's their duty to be offended on other peoples' behalf.

 

Roland

Didn't you know, Roland, that being offended is the new empowerment of 21st century America? Take offense at everything !!

 

A nice side-effect is numbing people to those things that truly are offensive. For if everything's offensive, nothing is !!

[ralph23]

Funny how some people think it's their duty to be offended on other peoples' behalf.

We call them "concern trolls."

That is priceless, thanks lol. :lol:

[the hog]

Hardly! Some people have manners; others haven't.

[kenberg]

Anyway:

IF, you (or anyone) should feel strongly about something thats not right in this world, why hide when you finally in the limlight?

see, there are certain individuals whose sensibility is only offended if the sign held up does not agree with their particular political/cultural/ethical viewpoint. I am almost willing to bet that those who are so up in arms about this and claiming that "no sign is appropriate" would be patting the women on the back had the sign said "bush is the greatest president ever."

I don't much care for the display, but if the women held up a sign that said "Bush is the greatest president ever" I would find the obvious sarcasm somewhat amusing. I didn't vote for Bush either but I doubt even my wife much cares. I am sure no one else does.

 

 

I really doubt much will come of this whole thing, it hardly seems like a major scandal. Here is a historical note however for anyone interested. I haven't checked but I think I have my facts about right.

 

When I was a grad student in 1966 the International Congress of Mathematics was held in Moscow. Steve Smale was one of the Fields Medal Winners (there is no Nobel Prize in Math, this is a rough equivalent in prestige). He decided to take this opportunity to lambast the US for Viet Nam. His right? Sure. But actions have consequences. Senators who finance mathematics (he had a huge grant supporting many people) were not amused by someone standing up in Moscow and denouncing the hand that feeds him. Speaking out in the US, as many did, would not have provoked anything like the same reaction. People get ticked when someone goes off to another country and uses the opportunity to grab some headlines. Sometimes the people who get ticked have the power to make their displeasure felt.

 

If a person feels that something really must be said then sure, you say it, you pay the price, and just maybe you effect change. Smale did indeed feel strongly: He led a group of graduate students to lie down on railroad tracks to stop the passage of a troop train. He didn't however feel so strongly that he stayed on the tracks when the train didn't stop.

 

My guess, and I admit it is a guess, is that this Bush placard was closer to a fun stunt than to a deep expression of moral outrage. But of course that's always the way it is with these things. A painter sets fire to an American flag. Is he making a political statement or trying to sell some paintings? Who knows? And who cares?

 

So no, I don't think Mr. Bush is the greatest president ever. I'll be happy to give you my opinions on this and many other things after a few beers. If someone ever gives me a trophy, I'll skip the beers and I'll say thank you.

 

 

Cut to the chase: Of course people have a right, sometimes a duty, to speak out. I and others have a right to assess their judgment when they do so.

[Winstonm]

If they had just changed the sign to I DIDN"T VOTE FOR CHENEY no one would be complaining.

[TimG]

I am almost willing to bet that those who are so up in arms about this and claiming that "no sign is appropriate" would be patting the women on the back had the sign said "bush is the greatest president ever."

I expect most who objected would have had no problem if any of the women had worn a necklace with a religious symbol on it (a symbol that was large enough to be recognizable by the audience).

 

Nor do I think most of them would have had a problem if one of them wore a yellow ribbon (support for troops) or a pink ribbon (support for a cure for breast cancer) or the like.

[Elianna]

I am almost willing to bet that those who are so up in arms about this and claiming that "no sign is appropriate" would be patting the women on the back had the sign said "bush is the greatest president ever."

I expect most who objected would have had no problem if any of the women had worn a necklace with a religious symbol on it (a symbol that was large enough to be recognizable by the audience).

 

Nor do I think most of them would have had a problem if one of them wore a yellow ribbon (support for troops) or a pink ribbon (support for a cure for breast cancer) or the like.

Nor would I have minded if they wore a ribbon whose meaning was anti-Bush. There is a difference between wearing a subtle symbol as opposed to carrying a sign.

 

Or even a small pin that's anti-Bush. I guess the size matters to me.

 

In general, I basically agree who were saying that this was innapropriate. Not necessarily saying that they should be sanctioned, but that I found it inappropriate, but I wasn't there personally. I can't imagine what goes through the mind of someone who's just played a gruelling bridge tournament, and probably had to explain/apologize for their country to everyone they met.

 

I have lots of sympathy. I've definitely met people who decide they need to lecture me about the politics of my countries of citizenship.

 

Off-topic: I just don't get that need. It's actually funny, because one of those countries, I know nothing about, another I completely disagree with most of the people in power (on both sides), and the third I'm so conflicted emotionally, that I would never get in a debate with anyone about. And the only one that I've ever even gotten to vote in was the second!

[fred]

I can't imagine what goes through the mind of someone who's just played a gruelling bridge tournament, and probably had to explain/apologize for their country to everyone they met.

This seems to be a widely-held misconception.

 

I have been to many international bridge tournaments in many countries and I don't recall any player ever confronting another player and putting them in a position where they had to apologize for or explain the actions of their country.

 

That is one of the nice things about these tournaments. (Almost) everyone leaves their politics at home. People accept each other for who they are. Where they are from does not come into play.

 

In most places I have been it is not much different on the street. Regardless of what they may think of your country, most natives would not even think about taking it out on you. Making individual guests feel welcome regardless of where they are from seems to be all but universal in my experience.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bendare]

[

I have been to many international bridge tournaments in many countries and I don't recall any player ever confronting another player and putting them in a position where they had to apologize for or explain the actions of their country.

 

That is one of the nice things about these tournaments. (Almost) everyone leaves their politics at home. People accept each other for who they are. Where they are from does not come into play.

 

In most places I have been it is not much different on the street. Regardless of what they may think of your country, most natives would not even think about taking it out on you. Making individual guests feel welcome regardless of where they are from seems to be all but universal in my experience.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Exactly, Fred!

 

Furthermore, the audience these women were "playing to" was ( I assume), primarily fellow participants in these World Championships. How can anyone possibly imagine that these World Class bridge players were putting these women in a position to have to apologize or explain the actions of their country's government? Yet, some are suggesting they may have been met with this at every turn.

 

I don't think so! Even if so ( highly improbable), that would not justify undignified and classless behavior on their part.

 

Bendare

[helene_t]

I have been to many international bridge tournaments in many countries and I don't recall any player ever confronting another player and putting them in a position where they had to apologize for or explain the actions of their country.

[......]

In most places I have been it is not much different on the street. Regardless of what they may think of your country, most natives would not even think about taking it out on you.

I'm surprised to hear this. Han said that even he (a non-American) has to "explain". I've heard that from many Americans as well.

 

I've had a clerk at a Dutch government office harassing me because he was annoyed with the Danes who always cause troubles in the EU (just after the Danish referendum on the European Monetary Union). More often, people's reactions are positive. Some congratulate me with the courage "we" showed by resisting the pressure from Brussels. As a pro-European, I'm obviously annoyed. OK, most natives don't blame the behaivour of the Danish government or a Danish referendum on me, but a significant number do.

 

Maybe your experiences are different from mine because you frequent people with better social skills. I must say that such incidents have become rarer in recent years, and are more likely to happen with random converation partners I meet in the tram than with peers at a conference.

[Gerben42]

I doubt that the US players have been in many political discussions in Shanghai. More likely they talk about

 

* bridge hands

* bridge hands

* did I mention bridge hands?

 

:ph34r:

 

More seriously, I've noticed the same thing even when the subject is not bridge.

[HedyG]

I can't imagine what goes through the mind of someone who's just played a gruelling bridge tournament, and probably had to explain/apologize for their country to everyone they met.

This seems to be a widely-held misconception.

 

I have been to many international bridge tournaments in many countries and I don't recall any player ever confronting another player and putting them in a position where they had to apologize for or explain the actions of their country.

 

That is one of the nice things about these tournaments. (Almost) everyone leaves their politics at home. People accept each other for who they are. Where they are from does not come into play.

 

In most places I have been it is not much different on the street. Regardless of what they may think of your country, most natives would not even think about taking it out on you. Making individual guests feel welcome regardless of where they are from seems to be all but universal in my experience.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

i couldnt agree more with Fred!

in none of the international events i have been to has anybody ever started political discussions nor discussed religious or racial differences!

its one of the nicest things in taking part! we are all there as bridgeplayers and not as somebody whose governement did something somebody else disagrees with or whose religion or colour is different!

as Sabine Auken said so correctly: "we are all one big bridge-family" and never do you feel it more than at one of these events.

[paulg]

as Sabine Auken said so correctly: "we are all one big bridge-family" and never do you feel it more than at one of these events.

Making them go stand in the corner might be a suitable punishment.

 

p

[helene_t]

So far, the impact of this incident, outside BBF, seems to be zero. In spite of Swangames publishing several photos, zooming in on the sign.

[pokerbids]

impact appears to be zero?????? I didnt even read of this incident on here - I was first led to the incident NOT even on a bridge site. It made headline on a non bridge site that first alerted me to it - So I woudnt say it was zero. And the picture I saw on another site altogether - Another non bridge site http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=389x2040421

 

Heres another headline from a site - I didnt even go to the link cause the headline read like this and was self explanatory

 

Chimp Dissed By Women's Bridge Team - No medals for guessing the reference they were making there?

 

So I wouldnt say it were zero. I dont want to publicise other bridge forums but there is one where there is a full scale brouhaha on this very subject itself on their forum. Everyone has piled on in that forum and it has had the most interactions and views relative to their site - Its not as big as BBO so naturally numbers cant be compared.

 

No say what you want to and agree or dont agree with this subject but I wouldnt say the chatter of this subject is on this forum alone. Its making news elsewhere also in a loud manner. And news in non bridge forums. Bridge is hardly ever commented on in non bridge forums so when they start jabbering about it...need I say more

[hotShot]

Google news has 0 hits for "venice cup", so I guess the scandal is unnoticed by the general public.

 

If it were a scandal, the public might notice that there is a bridge championship at all......

 

Google finds 7 hits, one hit in a polish newsgroup, 2 on the site you quoted and 3 blog entries (probably from people reading this forum).

 

What an impact.

 

The latest scandal I followed, hat more than 10000 forum entries withing a weak in each major newspaper and television forum, not to mention several hundred newspaper articles.

[bid_em_up]

MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE USBF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 4:30pm – Pacific Time

The USBF Board of Directors met by conference call on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 4:30pm Pacific Time. Jan Martel, president of the USBF called the meeting to order.

 

Present: Jan Martel, president; Steve Beatty, Joan Gerard, Bob Hamman, Rose Meltzer, LouAnn O’Rourke, Bill Pollack

Also present: Peter Rank, Gary Blaiss

 

A quorum was established. Peter Rank, legal counsel for the USBF, stated that according to the USBF By-Laws a board meeting can be called without proper notice and be official if all members of the board are present and do not protest the lack of notice. All members were present and no one protested the lack of notice. . The board then went into Executive Session. The board came out of Executive Session at 5:45pm Pacific Time and went back into

Open Session.

 

By a 6-0 vote with Bill Pollack abstaining because of his possible conflict of interest it was agreed that a letter of regret will be written to the president of the Chinese Contract Bridge Association and to Mr. Jose Damiani, President of the World Bridge Federation regarding the incident at the Closing Ceremonies on Saturday, October 13, 2007 in Shanghai when the US Women’s team received their gold medals and remained on stage during the playing of the US National Anthem while holding a sign “we did not vote for Bush”. This letter of regret will be written by Jan Martel and approved by an e-mail vote of the full board. The board also agreed that these Minutes could be approved by e-mail vote and they have been so approved.

 

The board further agreed to meet again next week to discuss this incident.

 

This meeting was adjourned at 6:15pm Pacific Time.

[blackshoe]

How many of the millions of non-bridge players in the world will now decline to take up the game because of this incident? None.

 

How many of the millions of bridge players in the world will now quit the game because of this incident? None.

 

Or a very, very, few.

 

What is the impact of this incident on the world as a whole? Zero.

 

That said, I applaud the action of the USBF BoD.

[han]

Looks like a good decision. I imagine that most people who posted here can live with this.

[joshs]

Woah Nelly,

 

I didn't notice what happened in Shanghei or this thread until now, but I have quite a few things to say.

 

First is this preposterous claim that the players are representing the US. As far as I know the people of the US did not select them, and neither did anyone the people of the US did select (aka representatives). They were not delegated any power by the US.

 

I went to dictionary.com and looked up "represent":

 

1. to serve to express, designate, stand for, or denote, as a word, symbol, or the like does; symbolize: In this painting the cat represents evil and the bird, good.

2. to express or designate by some term, character, symbol, or the like: to represent musical sounds by notes.

3. to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does: He represents the company in Boston.

4. to speak and act for by delegated authority: to represent one's government in a foreign country.

5. to act for or in behalf of (a constituency, state, etc.) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government: He represents Chicago's third Congressional district.

6. to portray or depict; present the likeness of, as a picture does: The painting represents him as a man 22 years old.

7. to present or picture to the mind.

8. to present in words; set forth; describe; state.

9. to set forth or describe as having a particular character (usually fol. by as, to be, etc.): The article represented the dictator as a benevolent despot.

10. to set forth clearly or earnestly with a view to influencing opinion or action or making protest.

11. to present, produce, or perform, as on a stage.

12. to impersonate, as in acting.

13. to serve as an example or specimen of; exemplify: a genus represented by two species.

14. to be the equivalent of; correspond to: The llama of the New World represents the camel of the Old World.

–verb (used without object) 15. to protest; make representations against.

16. Slang. to use or display a secret handshake, sign, gesture, etc., for purposes of identification: The gang members always represent when they see one another.

 

 

The one claim that can posibly be made is is definitions 1 or 13 hold, that is the players symbolize america or serve as typical examples of americans. This claim would be purely in their own minds, since american bridge players are hardly representative, in any sense, of the american population, and some of them are not even US citizens.

 

If the National Rifle Association, The American Civil Liberty Organization, The American Nazi party, or any other association in america went abroad they would not be representing america, despite any pretentions they might have.

 

So if we want to claim that these players are representing something, they are representing the USBF, which was the organization that did designate them and collected money to send them. I still find this representation idea funny, since it really just means in this case, that according to the rules set forth by the USBF they earned the right to play in the world championships that is reserved for a team from the USBF. This is no different then the colorado rockies winning the national league and being able to play in the world series as a result. Its a bit unusual for an organization have one set of conduct rules for its members (at least during an event sponsored by the organization), and another set of conduct rules for those who happen to win, but I suppose that an organization in advance can make whatever rules it wants for its members. In the case of other sports, the rules that apply to players in the championship event are not different then the other players in the league.

 

Now to prefice my next comment I want to relate a story. In around 1988 or 1989, the communist mayor of Leningrad (now St. Petersburgh) was running unopposed. The rules required everyone to vote, and he needed 50% of the vote to win. In one of the final actions in the soviet union, more then 50% of the people showed up to vote but left they ballot blank, which did not allow him to get re-elected. The point here is while voting is a political act, so is the decision to not vote. And while speaking out about politics carries political content, so does not speaking out. Were the people in germany during the Nazis who did not speak out against discriminatory laws. imprisonment, and genocide towards the jews (and gays and gypsies) free from responsibility for what happened there?

 

If a bunch of americans show up abroad, and never say a word about american politics this actually carries some subtle messages:

a. there is tacit support for current american policies from these people

b. there lacks serious diversity of ideas in america

 

and these influence how we, as a country, are viewed by those who come into contact with. That is a lack of a sign influences how we are viewed as does the presence of a sign does. Did they do this to claim that all americans all the USBF all have one opinion? In fact, the sign itself was making the claim for there being a diversity of ideas within america. This articulation of diversity, almost by its nature, rejects the idea that this idea comes from a large organization. Instead it implicity carries the disclaimer "the ideas presented here are my own personal ideas, and do not come from the USBF or the US government or any other organization".

 

Was this sign a good idea? I don't know. I think it achieved its ends of announcing US diversity of political opinion and at the same time caused a bit of a ruckus and

shifted our discussion from about bridge (which unites us) to some stuff which divides us.

 

Should there be rules against such a sign? There is a fine line between forcing conformity from the participants, and making rules so that others are not offended (I personally, am offended by most instances of enforced conformity unless there is a clear harm that the rules are preventing). When we pass rules that say there is no smoking at the table, there is one group (the smokers) who are disadvantaged, and others (the non-smokers, especially folks like me who are allergic to the smoke and would not be able to play if the rooms were like they used to be) that benefit. Both rules and lack of rules have there benefits and costs. I just think an organization should step very carefully when it attempts to pass rules that have nothing to do with what unifies its membership, which in our case is the game of bridge.

 

 

Josh

 

P.S. I am still outraged by how the protesting athletes in the 1968 olympics were treated....

[Walddk]

Looks like a good decision. I imagine that most people who posted here can live with this.

Indeed appropriate (hmm!), Han, but that is hardly the end of it since the committee is going to meet again next week as we read. My guess is still that the women will be reprimanded and asked to confirm that this will not happen again.

 

Finally, the USBF needs better rules if they want to stop/pre-empt these incidents from now on.

 

Roland