"We didn't vote for Bush"

[Walddk]

Take a look at the athletes when national anthems are played. It is visibly a very proud moment for them.

 

It wasn't for the American women in Shanghai.

Much like the sign topic to begin with, why in the world would you even bring it up???

 

I don't know what your intentions are in bringing up either topic to begin with. But I hope they aren't as bad as they would seem to someone who doesn't know how much of yourself you have dedicated to Bridgebase and to bridge.

Because it's a journalist's job to bring forward topics of general interest to the public. I can't tell how much you know about journalism, but that is how it works all over the world. You are entitled to think that this incident should have been swept under the carpet. I disagree.

 

You can't pretend that nothing happened when it actually did. My judgement, rightly or wrongly, was that this is of general interest to the public. We had more than 4,000 views in the BBF so far, and that makes me think that my judgement was correct.

 

I had no bad intentions; I was merely inclined to tell what happened during an award ceremony after the World Championships. Since you have posted several times too, I suppose that you wanted to express your views. That's fine although I don't agree with what you have said to this point.

 

What my work for Bridgebase has to with this I don't understand. You are kindly requested to make it clearer if you want me to comment.

 

Roland

[matmat]

a statement that twice has been proven as a minority view in free elections, which the country that you state this bold or rash comment does not exercise.

is that actually strictly true?

[TimG]

For me it seemed obvious that the sign was really just that, an apology saying "please distinguish between us and our government, please don't dislike us just because you dislike our government", and not a political statement. I am really surprised that so many seemed to think otherwise.

I agree with this. Hard to come to another conclusion if you think about it.

[cherdano]

It is not a privilege for the best players in the world to compete in the world championships;

I think you are wrong about this (and just about everything else).

 

It always felt like a privilege and an honor to me. I am guessing that this would be a near universal sentiment among players who have competed in such events.

 

Since you seem to be young (judging from your appearance to say nothing of your words) and since you seem to take yourself seriously as a bridge player, I am going to offer you some free advice (which could easily be worth what you are paying for it) based on my experience as a serious bridge player:

 

If you are to have any hope of being successful in this game you are going to need to undergo a serious attitude adjustment. Otherwise you are going to have a hard time finding and keeping strong players who want to be your partner or teammates.

 

Maybe one day you will be so awesome that people should feel privileged simply to be in your presence, but here in the real world that attitude is just going to piss off the people who can help you. Nobody likes to play on a team with a prima donna.

 

You don't have to take my word for it, but I have seen this happen time and again. The Jlalls of the bridge world get ahead in no small part because better players take an interest in them, not just because they are good but also because their attitudes are good.

 

The talented young players who never grow up rarely get to learn first hand that it really is a privilege to play for your country in the World Championships.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Fred, you are being unfair to Jon in the heat of the battle here. He didn't say he wouldn't take it as a privilege to play with stronger players, and also he wasn't talking about himself, just what he suspected about world class players.

Anyway, are you really so sure the Rodwells and Versaces take it as such a big privilege to "represent their country" every single time?

[mrdct]

Anyway, are you really so sure the Rodwells and Versaces take it as such a big privilege to "represent their country" every single time?

Quite an interesting point that has some parallels with the "club vs country" debate whenever star football players get called up for international duty often to the detriment of their professional club.

 

The livelihood of professional bridge players depends on their recurrent professional gigs with the well-paying sponsors, so clearly in order to keep their families fed a fair degree of loyalty to their sponsor is required.

 

I can't remember exactly when it was, but I believe that the situation has arisen with a USA team previously where the npc wanted to bench the playing-sponsor to maximise the chances of USA winning the match, but out of loyalty to their sponsor (without whom they wouldn't have been able to get where they are) one or more of the professional players either feined illness or threatened to fein illness inorder to ensure that the playing-sponsor played. I hope some bridge historian can confirm or correct this for me as I probably read it on rgb or some similar "authoritative" source.

 

I'm not going to comment on Rodwell or Versace as I've never met either of them and have no idea where their loyalities lie, but I would suggest that just like any other segment of the population, elite bridge players would have varying degrees of patriotism and I'm sure there exist some who take the "representing one's country" thing more seriously than others.

 

For me, aside from seeing my children born, representing my country at bridge has been the highlight of my life so far.

[jonottawa]

It is not a privilege for the best players in the world to compete in the world championships;

I think you are wrong about this (and just about everything else).

 

It always felt like a privilege and an honor to me. I am guessing that this would be a near universal sentiment among players who have competed in such events.

 

Since you seem to be young (judging from your appearance to say nothing of your words) and since you seem to take yourself seriously as a bridge player, I am going to offer you some free advice (which could easily be worth what you are paying for it) based on my experience as a serious bridge player:

 

If you are to have any hope of being successful in this game you are going to need to undergo a serious attitude adjustment. Otherwise you are going to have a hard time finding and keeping strong players who want to be your partner or teammates.

 

Maybe one day you will be so awesome that people should feel privileged simply to be in your presence, but here in the real world that attitude is just going to piss off the people who can help you. Nobody likes to play on a team with a prima donna.

 

You don't have to take my word for it, but I have seen this happen time and again. The Jlalls of the bridge world get ahead in no small part because better players take an interest in them, not just because they are good but also because their attitudes are good.

 

The talented young players who never grow up rarely get to learn first hand that it really is a privilege to play for your country in the World Championships.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Wow. A little over-the-top (not to mention completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed) don't you think, Fred?

 

Since you brought it up ...

 

I will certainly never represent the US in international bridge competition. I'm nowhere near good enough and don't have the tickets to be.

 

At some point, if I move back North, it's conceivable that I might represent Canada. But that would likely be due mainly to attrition (and also a fair bit of luck) more than anything else.

 

I never said it wasn't an honor. It is indeed that. Much like being POTUS is an honor and a privilege and the person who holds that office should be rightly held to a certain standard. If not by the Congress, then by the media. If not by the media, then by patriots who love the Constitution and the principles on which our great country was founded. That is what duty, honor, country is all about.

 

Do I offend people because I am blunt and outspoken? I do. Has it cost me certain opportunities in life? Undoubtedly it has.

 

Maybe that's why I look so young, though (you're barely 6 years older than me.) D'ya think?

[cherdano]

Because it's a journalist's job to bring forward topics of general interest to the public. I can't tell how much you know about journalism, but that is how it works all over the world. You are entitled to think that this incident should have been swept under the carpet. I disagree.

 

You can't pretend that nothing happened when it actually did. My judgement, rightly or wrongly, was that this is of general interest to the public. We had more than 4,000 views in the BBF so far, and that makes me think that my judgement was correct.

 

I had no bad intentions; I was merely inclined to tell what happened during an award ceremony after the World Championships. Since you have posted several times too, I suppose that you wanted to express your views. That's fine although I don't agree with what you have said to this point.

I believe you that you didn't have bad intentions, but you brought it up at the wrong place (a thread designated to congratulating the Norwegians and others for their bridge achievements), and you exaggerated:

When the American ladies received their gold medals on the podium, they displayed a poster with

 

WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR BUSH

It wasn't "the American ladies", it was just one of them, and it wasn't a poster, but just a small hand-written sign. Your post gave a wrong impression, and I understand enough about journalism that this is something you, as a journalist, should be able to avoid.

 

So using "it's a journalist job" as a justification for bringing this up sounds a bit odd in my ears.

[Erkson]

If we were wrong to have elected Mr. Bush, that error will be set right in November. 'Nuf said.

So, please, work hard and try to find us something better than another L. Johnson, Carter or Clinton (to mention only the worst).

[jonottawa]

Finally, if anyone thinks it's appropriate behaviour to laugh through your national anthem while holding a sign with that text aloft, I have lost what little respect there was left for him or her.

They laughed through the national anthem???? All of them ??

 

Were they just giddy with excitement and glee, or were they actually making fun of it or ridiculing it?

 

I find the latter alternative sort of hard to believe. Not really that, was it ?

The latter I am sorry to say. I understand that you don't approve (thanks!), but I assume Jon does since he didn't comment. If I am wrong, perhaps Jon would care to tell us what he thinks.

 

Roland

Since you asked, Roland ...

 

It would never occur to me to mock the playing of the Star Spangled Banner.

 

I have too much respect for the principles upon which this great country was founded and for the men (mostly) who fought and died to defend them.

 

It would never occur to me to condemn someone who lashes out against the current occupant of the Oval Office.

 

I have too much respect for the principles upon which this great country was founded and for the men (mostly) who fought and died to defend them.

 

It would never occur to me to try to have someone barred from playing bridge or raked over the coals because out of an arguably misguided sense of patriotism they behaved in a way that Miss Manners would object to.

 

I make far too many mistakes and have far too many flaws to obsess about other people's shortcomings.

[Erkson]

I do recall when I was a young fellow travelling about in France and working on my French (being in school in Aix for a college semester), meeting some older blue-collar workers in a bar, and eventually I let them know my Dad had landed with the Allies at Normandy and so forth. That about brought the house down and needless to say, I didn't pay for anything that night and several of the men (moi included) cried over the stories. One of them had been in the Resistance and had been tortured.

 

So when people say "Europeans hate Americans" I recall, "Well, not all of them do."

American soldiers who died in France, died because their Government send them.

 

Their Government send them to defend USA, not to defend France.

Germany's domination of Europa was a threat to USA.

 

Germany defeated France on May 1940. USA abandonned isolationism only after Pearl Harbor (i.e. December 1941) and that direct threat upon USA.

 

Frenchmen owe nothing to USA.

[matmat]

American soldiers who died in France, died because their Government send them.

 

Their Government send them to defend USA, not to defend France.

Germany's domination of Europa was a threat to USA.

 

Germany defeated France on May 1940. USA abandonned isolationism only after Pearl Harbor (i.e. December 1941) and that direct threat upon USA.

 

Frenchmen owe nothing to USA.

not to mention that france, among others, had participated in the US War of Independence... hmmmm....

[mrdct]

It wasn't "the American ladies", it was just one of them, and it wasn't a poster, but just a small hand-written sign.

I've just see some video of the incident, which I expect in due course will be out in the public domain but I won't be the one releasing it. The video shows the following:

 

- at the instant that the anthem starts the "We Didn't Vote for Bush" sign is not visible anywhere (although at this point the video isn't panned out to see the entire team);

- Debbie Rosenberg then glances to her left and is handed the sign by Hansa Narasimhan (looking very much like a couple of silly school girls passing a note in class);

- They are all more-or-less standing at attention and, indeed, Jill Levin who prior to the start of the anthem was busy inspecting the trophy ceased doing that and stood still in a dignified manner for at least the first 30 seconds of the video (which is all I have seen);

- Gail Greenberg, Jill Myers and JoAnna Stansby appear to be singing along to the anthem while the others are just look really happy to be there with some laughter and chatting evident, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it was over-the-top.

- About 8 seconds into the anthem, Jill Myers grabs the sign briefly to hold it jointly aloft with Debbie Rosenberg who then retakes control of the sign and holds it front of her chest.

- Now here is the previously unreported bit: on the audio of the video one can clearly hear male voices vigourously cheering, laughing and egging-on the ladies on stage. You can hear a few "yeah"s and "ha ha ha ha"s. I suspect that those voices weren't the Chinese waiters serving refreshments.

[Erkson]

American soldiers who died in France, died because their Government send them.

 

Their Government send them to defend USA, not to defend France.

Germany's domination of Europa was a threat to USA.

 

Germany defeated France on May 1940. USA abandonned isolationism only after Pearl Harbor (i.e. December 1941) and that direct threat upon USA.

 

Frenchmen owe nothing to USA.

not to mention that france, among others, had participated in the US War of Independence... hmmmm....

Not to mention.

 

I don't expect any gratitude from USA because of Lafayette etc...

 

France, in 1777-1780, helped the Insurgents because it was her interest to weaken England and monarchies in general.

 

The rest is History told to children.

[han]

Would you mind posting a link to the video?

[mrdct]

Would you mind posting a link to the video?

I've only got a 1.6mb flash video file of it, but in any case it isn't mine to share so I think you'll just need to wait until it appears in the public domain which I'm sure wont be too long.

[blackshoe]

Frenchmen owe nothing to USA.

Apparently there are at least some Frenchmen who disagree with you.

[jocdelevat]

I think was a conspiracy theory making democrats look bad for their opinion. So for sure Mr. President Bush is behind the scene :)

[Erkson]

Apparently there are at least some Frenchmen who disagree with you.

Yes, some of them.

 

My consolation is that the number of Americans who believe that God made the Earth in 7 days is higher.

[Fluffy]

this is a typical situation where talking about it is just helping them on their goal, I think totally ignoring it would had been better, but what do I know.

If they had a goal, what would it be?

whatever it is, they wanted many people to know about it. I wouldn't had knew of it if it wasn't so largelly talked about in the forums for example.

[helene_t]

As for the idea that these women represented USA, I would spell it out (in this context) as "being in a position to influence some foreigners' image of the USA". This applies to everyone who has contact with foreigners. Every time I do something stupid, some of the native Dutch will jump to the conclusion that Danes are generally stupid. But a team that has been selected to represent* USA is in said position to a much stronger extent of course. [ *here in the different meaning of "playing in an international event where only two teams from the USA were allowed to participate" ].

 

I put it that way because I think it's important that "USA", in this context, is not a person or organization that can speak out an opinion about anything. These women did certainly not have any obligations towards the US government. Therefore, I don't think that the idea that they "represented the USA" guides us towards a consensus about how they are supposed to behave.

 

I do think, however, that they have an obligation towards the other participants in the ceremony to make it a pleasant thing, and an obligation towards the USBF not to make troubles. As such I think they did the wrong thing. They may have done the US public a favor (just my subjective opinion) but they certainly did USBF and the other participants a disfavor, so I think they should have found another time for their action.

 

As for the legal issues: while in China, they must abide to Chinese law, except that any contract they may have with USBF or other US persons/institutions is probably to be governed by the law of some US state.

[hrothgar]

What I find truly sad is the number of people who seem incapable of distinguishing between President Bush and the United States. The two are not the same. Individuals can be deeply patriotic while believing that Bush is an idiot. (I certainly don't claim to into this category).

 

I find it interesting that this debate is going on at the same time that Frank Rich printed a column talking about "Good Germans". (To my knowledge, this column was the first occasion where an Op-Ed writer for the NYT, the Washington Post, or the WJS directly compared Bush to Hitler)

 

From anyone who doesn't understand the reference, here is a copy of the Wikipedia reference:

 

“Good Germans” is a phrase that originally referred to citizens of Nazi Germany who, after Germany’s defeat in World War II, claimed not to have supported the regime, yet made no claim to have opposed it in any significant way. This was widely noted by Allied occupation troops, who were amazed and appalled by the widespread disavowal of responsibility for Nazi crimes among the German populace. For example:

 

It is a saying among our troops that there are no real Nazis in Germany, only “good Germans.” Every crime Germany committed against humanity seems to have been done by someone else.[1]

 

The term has come to be used to refer more generically to people in any country who observe reprehensible things taking place — whether done by a government or by another powerful institution — but remain silent, neither raising objections nor taking steps to change the course of events.

 

I thought that one of the fundamental lessons of World War II is that individual citizens have a duty to raise objections and try to change the course of their government. In much the same manner, members of the military don't get to use "following orders" as a defense.

 

If individuals feel that they are in a position to try to make a difference, they should do so...

[mrdct]

I thought that one of the fundamental lessons of World War II is that individual citizens have a duty to raise objections and try to change the course of their government.  In much the same manner, members of the military don't get to use "following orders" as a defense.

 

If individuals feel that they are in a position to try to make a difference, they should do so...

I couldn't agree more, except:

 

- Not on the sporting field.

- Not when you are representing your country in international competition.

 

One thing that I'm struggling to get my head around is that with the USA being one of the few places in the world with a popularly elected head of state, one would expect that at least 50% of Americans would've voted for Bush at least once; but as things pan out I don't think I've encountered any Americans that admit to the deed.

[helene_t]

One thing that I'm struggling to get my head around is that with the USA being one of the few places in the world with a popularly elected head of state, one would expect that at least 50% of Americans would've voted for Bush at least once; but as things pan out I don't think I've encountered any Americans that admit to the deed.

Same here. I suppose democrats are more likely to travel abroad than are republicans.

[Gerben42]

One thing that I'm struggling to get my head around is that with the USA being one of the few places in the world with a popularly elected head of state, one would expect that at least 50% of Americans would've voted for Bush at least once; but as things pan out I don't think I've encountered any Americans that admit to the deed.

 

Simple. The ones you meet as a foreigner are the kind of people who meet foreigners. These are more likely the kind of people who do NOT vote for Bush. The places I've visited in the US are Chicago, California and the NY / DC area. Note the correlation with areas that did NOT vote for Bush.

 

Anyway, although I think personally that mr. Bush should have been impeached years ago and has no business running the country, I think the statement was very inappropriate. You are on a mission to represent your country, and that does not just mean you play your cards well and that you owe it to more than just your team that you do everything you can to get a good result. It also means that during the events that comprise the championship, you behave as those who sent you expect you to. Don't like that? Don't go.

 

I wouldn't be surprised is some of the ladies involved would be asked not to participate in the next trials.

[hrothgar]

One thing that I'm struggling to get my head around is that with the USA being one of the few places in the world with a popularly elected head of state, one would expect that at least 50% of Americans would've voted for Bush at least once; but as things pan out I don't think I've encountered any Americans that admit to the deed.

1. Have you taken a good look at voter participation rates here in the US? 50% of the number of voters is very different that 50% of the number of Americans.

 

2. The last two Presidential elections in the US were extremely polarized. Voting patterns fractured along a number of different demographic lines. The two most significant were population density and religious intensity.

 

This is an enormous over generalization, but I suspect that the average Bushie isn't the type to travel outside of the country. (Hell, Bush had only stepped foot outside the US once when he was elected). In a similar vein, I suspect that most folks who travel to the US - especially on business - often end up in urban enclaves. When I drove cross country last year I was deep in the middle of Bush country a few times (Idaho is a weird place). However, there seemed to be much better ways to spend my time than discussing politicals with the locals.

 

With all this said and done, I'm quite sure that a number of the members of this forum voted for Bush. (Unclear whether they're excited about admitting it at the moment, but...)