[QUOTE=Bricker]
If two players were suspended in 1994 for holding signs saying, “We escaped Klinton’s Amerika!” then these players don’t have much of a leg to stand on.
[/QUOTE]
I think I read about that! Didn’t they escape with their families in the dead of night in a balloon they had made from scraps of cloth collected over the course of several years and hidden below the floorboards of their hut for just that purpose? Dramatic stuff.
[QUOTE=Hampshire]
49% of Americans didn’t vote for Bush. Now you’re not allowed to say it?
[/QUOTE]
Now you’ve gone and done it. You’ll never play bridge in this town again.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Restricts who from what now?
[/QUOTE]
Restricts Congress from abridging the freedom of speech. Like you explained here.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Or more like, “don’t do stuff we don’t like.”
[/QUOTE]
What, you think we *like *bad stuff? You’re suspended for two years.
[QUOTE=Hampshire]
Can anyone explain to me how “WE DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH” is in any way an opinion? Or an insult?
49% of Americans didn’t vote for Bush. Now you’re not allowed to say it?
They were just stating a fact. There was no opinion or insult in it.
It may have been different if they said “WE DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH SO DON’T BLAME US FOR SCREWING UP THE WORLD”, or “BUSH SUCKS”.
I would ask exactly what was inappropriate about that statement taken word for word? And no bullshit answer like “well, it implys that…”
[/QUOTE]
You know, you don’t have a license to be stupid.
.
.
.
.
And I assume you are perfectly happy for me to say that, because that’s just stating a fact. You do not have a license to be stupid. No agency issues such licenses. They don’t exist; ergo, you don’t have one.
Right?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
What, you think we *like *bad stuff? You’re suspended for two years.
[/QUOTE]
Dang. I knew this was going to happen eventually.
[QUOTE=Hampshire]
Can anyone explain to me how “WE DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH” is in any way an opinion? Or an insult?
49% of Americans didn’t vote for Bush. Now you’re not allowed to say it?
They were just stating a fact. There was no opinion or insult in it.
It may have been different if they said “WE DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH SO DON’T BLAME US FOR SCREWING UP THE WORLD”, or “BUSH SUCKS”.
I would ask exactly what was inappropriate about that statement taken word for word? And no bullshit answer like “well, it implys that…”
[/QUOTE]
Whatever you take it to mean is irrelevant…it’s still a political statement. What if they said “WE VOTED FOR BUSH?” That’s obviously a political statement, too. Either one may be ambiguous, imply something different or be interpreted differently, depending on the sentiments of the crowd, but it’s clearly a political statement.
Well, it’s not like South got back to dummy with the six of trumps, threw a spade on the good fifth club and claimed 10 tricks, losing one spade.
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
See my last post, luci.
(I hope it’s OK if I call you that. I’m not a common GD or Pit girl, but I like the nick.)
[/QUOTE]
Perfectly all right, and I stand ready to thrash anyone who suggests that you are “common”!
Gotta love peckerwood chivalry.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
The “wrong” here comes from doing it while the cameras are trained on you as the result of the work and resources of an organization that’s asked you not to criticize or praise political figures.
[/QUOTE]
That’s nice. Where is your proof that they were asked that?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Getting kicked out of some douchebag, Republican housewives’ bridge club? Oh, no, not that, anything but that. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Spoken like someone who doesn’t follow bridge. This wasn’t afternoon bridge at the country club; this is world class play.
[QUOTE=friedo]
Bridge is for old people.
[/QUOTE]
A common mistaken impression, chiefly due to the fact that it takes most people many years to get good. There are certainly young players, but they are the truly gifted who are seemingly born with card sense. I’m am an amateur player, but I can truly respect the skill shown by the pros. Read the bridge column in the paper and see if you could have found the winning play by yourself. And done so consistently, game after game.
IMO, there are only two card games worth playing: poker and bridge. In both, skill rises to the top like cream, but poker throws in that bit of luck that can kick in your teeth. When playing duplicate bridge, luck is factored out and all that remains is skill.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I believe in free speech, but “free speech” doesn’t immunize me from the consequences of exercising my right to free speech when representing a non-political organization of which I am a member.
In other words: the United States Bridge Federation does not strike me as unreasonable for demanding that their representatives eschew political commentary during publicity for official bridge events.
This is not an encroachment on the right of “free speech” as that right is generally understood. The players were there representing the organization, the event, as opposed to being there in their own persons. The organization can reasonably require that they limit their commentary to event-related platitudes, and can enforce that requirement by whatever sanctions are in their legal power to levy.
I will say that “treason” and “sedition” are charges that are over-the-top… but of course the United States Bridge Federation is not making such charges.
[/QUOTE]
This was an extraordinarily roundabout way of saying that you’d support the U.S. Bridge Federation’s rule about political comments if such a rule actually existed.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Story here. And here:
“Treason”? “Sedition”? :rolleyes: Don’t get yer knickers in a knot, ladies!
And what exactly, may I ask, is “bridge-related community service”?
[/QUOTE]
I’m guessing it involves explaining to ghetto children that bridge playing is a viable alternative to crack smoking.
Personally, I don’t think I could get through a bridge tournament without smoking crack.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
The suspension affect these women’s ability to earn a living. Yes, they earn thier living playing contract bridge.
[/QUOTE]
!!!
How does that work? Where does the revenue come from? I’ve never seen a bridge-related product endorsement.
[QUOTE=lalenin]
*I don’t know that they are assholes, but assuming political motivations for cold treatment is a bullshit excuse, although I am personaly sure that any girl who has ever treated me coldly in a bar did so because of my anti-communist stance.
[/QUOTE]
sigh Dude, when ya gonna learn?! Chix dig the labor theory of value! Find some way to work the historical dialectic into it and you’re in like Flynn!
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
No, you can’t have it both ways. Either it is Ok to bring politics into this, in which case, as long as you do it civilly and politely, you can say anything, or it’s not OK, in which case cut out all of the goddamn political crap and keep it solely “USA! USA! USA!”
[/QUOTE]
When I was in college I was a long haired hippy Republican. if everyone in a similar venue was piling on me about voting for McGovern, I might have wanted to hold up a sign saying I voted for Nixon. She didn’t do it out of thin air, she did it, so she said, because she felt she was being considered as a de facto supporter of the war and perhaps of torture.
[QUOTE=lalenin]
On the other hand, maybe the cold treatment was because the US players are assholes*.
[/QUOTE]
Possible - except they were comparing the treatment with that in previous tournaments. So, unless they suddenly became assholes, not likely.
I wonder if waving the flag could be considered inappropriate under these rules. I didn’t realize bridge tournament award ceremonies were like those in the Olympics. Did the audience shout “USA USA” after every trick taken?
[QUOTE=JonScribe]
Well, it’s not like South got back to dummy with the six of trumps, threw a spade on the good fifth club and claimed 10 tricks, losing one spade.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. That’s a hanging offense. 
Well, let’s put it another way. If other players were treating the American players “coldly” just because they were Americans, then those other players are fucking idiots. Unbearably ignorant and unbelievably rude.
About on the level of: “What? I gotta play against a Chinaman? I don’t cotton to Chinamen, they’re the ones who run over peaceful protestors with tanks, right? And they force women to have abortions. Fucking Chinamen, you might be able to force me to play against a Chinaman, but you’ll never force me to be polite to a Chinaman.”
Substitute various countries and ethnicities at will–Ghanans, Jamiacans, Germans, Arabs, Chileans, and see how ridiculous it sounds. Then put in “American” and suddenly it’s OK?
Simply pathetic.
And the notion by the American players that the source of the problem was that the other players were under the misapprehension that they voted for Bush, when in fact they voted against Bush, and if only the other players knew they hadn’t voted for Bush and in fact do not support his policies, they would have been polite, is just as pathetic.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Except there’s no morality involved here. It’s not a matter of morality, it’s a matter of appropriate settings and putting an organization in a position of looking as though it endorses your opinion.
[/QUOTE]
By that token, then no participant should say or do anything that is not sport specific until that person is well clear of the venue. No amateur football player or baseball player should ever say “I’d like to thank God for giving us the strength to win” for that would put the organization in a position of looking as though it endorses Christianity. No Olympian on the podium should ever wave a flag (we ran into a problem with that in Canada, when a winner from Quebec wrapped herself in the Quebec flag rather than a Canadian flag at an international competition), for that would would put the organization in a position of looking as though it endorses a certain state. No British Columbian snowboarder should ever hang out with dopers in his personal life, for that would put the organization in a position of looking as though it endorses pot (are there any BC boarders that don’t have friends that toke?). A female beach volleyball player must never play in modest attire, for that would put the organization in a position of looking like it endorses feminism (yes, that has been an issue too). A skier must march in a parade of nations, for to not do so would put the organization in a position of looking like it does not endorse its own sport (ne shitteth vous pas).
It is a question of whether or not the sport organizing body should or should not enforce its standards of morality. Whether one comes at the question fro the perspective of a sport organizing body trying to present a good image to the public by not permitting any morally offensive lapses surrounding its competitions, or one comes at the question from the old British boys school perspective of sport and morality being inextricably intertwined, the fact remains that sport organizing bodies limit what athletes can say or do based on what the sport organizing bodies find to be offensive.
The bottom line is that the sport is composed of athletes, who come together through sport organizing bodies to arrange for competitions. In my opinion, the sport should be driven by the athletes, not by the the sport organizing bodies. If certain conduct would affect the outcome of a competition, then the sport organizing body would be well within its rights to make rules against it, but if that conduct would not affect the outcome of a competition, then in my opinion the sport organizing body should not reach outside of the sport to make rules against it.
Or to put it another way, precisely how and to what degree did holding up a sign harm affect the outcome of the tournament or any future tournament, or the sport of bridge in general, or the USBF in particular? The fact is that it did not harm any of the above, and if there was any effect, I expect that it was simply to draw attention to a sport that many folks would not otherwise have heard of, and thereby ever so marginally result in increased participation rather than decreased participation. It is simply that some people in the sport organizing body, not the players themselves, took great offence because the sign was contary to their personal morality (treason? come on), and these persons used the rules of the sport to extend outside of the sport to sanction the players.
Win a Nobel Prize? Stand up and say whatever you want, for you have earned the right to your fifteen minutes of fame, and your right to try to change the world. Win a Governor’s General Award? Stand up and say whatever you want, for you have earned your right to your fifteen minutes of fame, and your right to try to change the world. Win an Academy Award? Stand up and say whatever you want, for you have earned your right to your fifteen minutes of fame, and your right to try to change the world. Win an international sporting event? Stand up, but keep your mouth shut, for it is the sport organizing body that has earned its fifteen minutes of fame, not you, for from the sport organizing body’s position, you are simply a fungable unit to be used to promote the sport organizing body by reflecting the morals of the sport organizing body’s directors, and woe betide you if you act contrary to that morality.
(BTW, I have sat on a national sport organizing body, and I have competed internationally on a national team, so I have experienced both sides of the equation.)