Shanghai Incident
goldstarsteve
http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356&Itemid=1
"Many of the USBF Board members have received questions about what is
happening with regard to the incident at the closing ceremony in
Shanghai. Board members cannot engage in discussions of this matter.
The Board has considered the matter and acted promptly. For more
information, see the Minutes of the USBF Board for 10/15/07 ,
10/18/07 , and 10/25/07 as well as the attachment to the 10/18/07
minutes"
Some extracts from the minutes below. It reads like the US womens team
held up a placard "we did not vote for Bush" and are to be
disciplined. But what were they trying to acheive - something anti
chinese or something against Bush? Interesting to know gossip wise but
IMHO its a pity they mixed there politics with bridge - do you agree?
10/15 extract
"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."
18/15 extract
"The Board invited Jillian Levin to appear. Jillian Levin joined the
meeting. Peter Rank
informed Levin that this meeting was being held to determine whether
to bring a
disciplinary proceeding because of the actions of her Venice Cup team
at the closing
ceremonies in Shanghai and that her statements to the Board might be
used at such a
hearing. Levin stated that she understood and would not make a formal
statement and
would reserve her right not to answer questions if she thought that
the answers would be
damaging to her or to her teammates. Levin then answered questions
from Board
members. The board then went into Executive Session.
The board came out of Executive Session at 6:15 pm Pacific Time and
went back into
Open Session.
By a 4-0 vote with Bill Pollack, Jan Martel and Rose Meltzer
abstaining, the Board
passed the following Resolution:
RESOLVED, that the United States Bridge Federation ("USBF") make a
complaint
against the members of the 2007 Venice Cup USA 1 team (Hansa
Narasimhan, Jill Levin,
Irina Levitina, Jill Meyers, Debbie Rosenberg, JoAnna Stansby and Gail
Greenberg, nonplaying
captain) regarding their behavior at the Closing Ceremonies of the
World Bridge
Federation World Championships in Shanghai, China. Such complaint
shall be
forwarded to the USBF President requesting that she charge the members
with violation
of Section IV.A.10 of the USBF Grievance, Appeals and Disciplinary
Procedures
("Actions unbecoming a member...") and requesting that a timely
hearing on the charge
be held under Section IV.B.2 of the Procedures.
The Board agreed that a hearing committee of non-board members should
be appointed
and that these charges should be heard, if at all possible, at the
2007 Fall NABC.
The board agreed that these Minutes could be approved by e-mail vote
and they have
been so approved."
The Board decided that we want to keep a low profile. We do not want
to try this
team by publicity. The front page of the USBF web site will state that
action has
been taken regarding the incident that took place at the Closing
Banquet in
Shanghai and provide a link to the Minutes of Board meetings. Then
interested
people will be able to click on the minutes and read more details.
Henk Uijterwaal
> Some extracts from the minutes below. It reads like the US womens team
> held up a placard "we did not vote for Bush" and are to be
> disciplined.
Correct.
> RESOLVED, that the United States Bridge Federation ("USBF") make a
> complaint
> against the members of the 2007 Venice Cup USA 1 team (Hansa
> Narasimhan, Jill Levin,
> Irina Levitina, Jill Meyers, Debbie Rosenberg, JoAnna Stansby and Gail
> Greenberg, nonplaying
> captain) regarding their behavior at the Closing Ceremonies of the
> World Bridge
> Federation World Championships in Shanghai, China. Such complaint
> shall be
> forwarded to the USBF President requesting that she charge the members
> with violation
> of Section IV.A.10 of the USBF Grievance, Appeals and Disciplinary
> Procedures
> ("Actions unbecoming a member...") and requesting that a timely
> hearing on the charge
> be held under Section IV.B.2 of the Procedures.
The Volkskrant (one of the Dutch newspapers with a well informed
author for their bridge news) has an item on it:
http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/bericht/165269. For those who don't
read Dutch, it says that the ACBL Grievance Panel (without a hearing of
the involved players) offered the following sentence to the 6 players and
NPC for their conduct during the closing ceremony:
1. Suspension from any ACBL game for 1 year. Suspension for the 2008
Olympiad in Beijing.
2. Probation for another year after 1, during which the players can
enter ACBL events again.
3. 200 hours of community service for all players, half of which must
have been carried out before the probation period.
4. The team has to write a letter of apology. The ACBL will decide to
publish the letter or not.
5. The team has to write a document specifying all details of the incident.
(Who had the idea, who made the sign, ...). This document can be
used as evidence in a court of law.
This is apparently a compromise, if the players don't accept it, more
severe punishment will follow.
Henk
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
Alan Greenspan on the next elections
David Stevenson
If you compare this punishment with what they would have received for
stealing or assault you can see how some people are prepared to be
totally silly over non-issues.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Substitute .org for .com else blakjak eddresses will fail this year
David Stevenson
>Stolling though the USBF site I came accross this gem:
>
>http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356&Itemid=1
>
>"Many of the USBF Board members have received questions about what is
>happening with regard to the incident at the closing ceremony in
>Shanghai. Board members cannot engage in discussions of this matter.
>The Board has considered the matter and acted promptly. For more
>information, see the Minutes of the USBF Board for 10/15/07 ,
>10/18/07 , and 10/25/07 as well as the attachment to the 10/18/07
>minutes"
>
>Some extracts from the minutes below. It reads like the US womens team
>held up a placard "we did not vote for Bush" and are to be
>disciplined. But what were they trying to acheive - something anti
>chinese or something against Bush? Interesting to know gossip wise but
>IMHO its a pity they mixed there politics with bridge - do you agree?
No, why? I find politics boring and do not understand why everyone
raves over them, but to many people politics is life itself. So they
held a placard up - who cares?
Ok, so everyone cares. But I cannot see why. Big deal.
Hank Youngerman
Seriously, I can see the point. This kind of "world stage" is not
really the place for overt political statements. If they want to
compete as "Team Hillary" through next fall and wear "I didn't vote
for Bush" shirts and buttons, that's fine.
Although some of the punishments seem more appropriate for a 5-year
old. "OK, which of you said the bad word - well, if you don't tell
me, I'm going to punish all of you."
BTW, when I was in New York last weekend there was a guy in Times
Square selling bumper stickets that said "Cheney / Satan '08." I
bought one!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
> RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
> P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
> 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
> The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
> Alan Greenspan on the next elections- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
BBO expert
> IMHO its a pity they mixed there politics with bridge - do you agree?
Hell, no. I have a lot of respect for people who wear their politics on
their sleeves - even if their politics are wrong. They had an opportunity
to make a statement, knowing it could get them into trouble, and they took
it. Brava!
Ed Reppert
> read Dutch, it says that the ACBL Grievance Panel (without a hearing of
> the involved players) offered the following sentence to the 6 players and
> NPC for their conduct during the closing ceremony:
>
> 1. Suspension from any ACBL game for 1 year. Suspension for the 2008
> Olympiad in Beijing.
> 2. Probation for another year after 1, during which the players can
> enter ACBL events again.
> 3. 200 hours of community service for all players, half of which must
> have been carried out before the probation period.
> 4. The team has to write a letter of apology. The ACBL will decide to
> publish the letter or not.
> 5. The team has to write a document specifying all details of the incident.
> (Who had the idea, who made the sign, ...). This document can be
> used as evidence in a court of law.
>
> This is apparently a compromise, if the players don't accept it, more
> severe punishment will follow.
This "compromise" seems more than severe enough, to me. But I'm
concerned about something else. Either your knowledgeable reporter got
it wrong, or the ACBL is stepping on the toes of the USBF. This is the
latter's jurisdiction, not the former's (though I don't see how the
USBF can ban players from *ACBL* competitions). That fifth requirement
strikes me as unConstitutional - in effect, it *requires* the players
to give up their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. I
can't believe the USBF doesn't have a lawyer smart enough to see that.
Something's not kosher here.
John Crinnion
> Stolling though the USBF site I came accross this gem:
>
> http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356&Itemid=1
<SNIP>
Click on:-
also
for brilliant pix.
Henk Uijterwaal
> This "compromise" seems more than severe enough, to me. But I'm
> concerned about something else. Either your knowledgeable reporter got
> it wrong, or the ACBL is stepping on the toes of the USBF. This is the
> latter's jurisdiction, not the former's (though I don't see how the
> USBF can ban players from *ACBL* competitions).
The article says "American Bridge Federation" and gives the impression
that it is the ACBL, not the USBF. Of course, the whole mix of ACBL
and USBF doesn't exist here, so it is easy to get it wrong.
> That fifth requirement
> strikes me as unConstitutional - in effect, it *requires* the players
> to give up their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. I
> can't believe the USBF doesn't have a lawyer smart enough to see that.
> Something's not kosher here.
Yes, I agree.
Everett M. Greene
The fifth item seems to be an allocution which is done quite often.
If the points are accepted, they are already admitting guilt so they
aren't testifying against themselves.
What is the USBF?
PriorKnowledge
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The actions of the woman's team was outrageous. They introduced
politics into a bridge event. They used a platform paid for by others
to make a petty political comment. The comment was made in a foreign
country. That foreign country is a dictatorship whose people have
little political freedom. I can't think of a more stupid act. Since
they represent the USA, they are making a political comment as
representatives of all of us. They were given money to go to China by
sponsors. Those are just a few of the things wrong with their actions
from the top of my head.
I think their actions were disgusting and outrageous. If I was the
ACBL or USBF (I have no clue who they are, but I think they are the
ones paying the bills), If it was up to me, I would have barred them
permanently from ever representing the USA in any international event.
Since the ACBL and USBF are private organizations and not part of the
federal government, they are not subject to federal government
restrictions spelled out in the US Constitution.
tzim...@gmail.com
> IMHO its a pity they mixed there politics with bridge - do you agree?
Not in the least. Sports and politics frequently do meet, why should
bridge, which aspires to be an Olympic sport, be different? What
matters is the mode of expression, the nature of your message, and who
(with clout) agrees with you.
Consider the black power salute during the 1968 Olympics versus the
competing under the Olympic flag (rather than their country's flag)
during 1980 by 15 countries and the boycott by an additional 62.
With the upcoming Olympics in Beijing, the IOC and China are both
under competing pressures to balance the Olympic spirit with desires
to leverage political influence against China by using the Olympics.
There was an article in The Economist about a year ago about these
issues. If you're a subscriber, you can read the full article at
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7038930
-Todd
Mark Brader
>>> IMHO its a pity they mixed ... politics with bridge - do you agree?
I quite agree.
We should all boycott their records. :-)
Henk Uijterwaal:
>> 1. Suspension from any ACBL game for 1 year. ...
But this is just bizarre. How long would the sentence have been if the
signs had said that they *did* vote for Bush?
>> 3. 200 hours of community service for all players ...
Where do bridge authorities get the idea that this is appropriate?
David Stevenson:
> If you compare this punishment with what they would have received for
> stealing or assault you can see how some people are prepared to be
> totally silly over non-issues.
Indeed. How long do people get suspended from playing bridge for stealing?
--
Mark Brader | I passed a sign that said "you are here",
Toronto | but I didn't entirely believe it.
m...@vex.net | --Michael Levine
My text in this article is in the public domain.
raija d
"Henk Uijterwaal" <he...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:47397ba6$0$228$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
I was unable to find anything like this on either the ACBL or the USBF
website. I wonder what the source for the well-informed Dutch newspaper
bridge writer is. Anyone know?
Raija
Onno Eskes
wrote:
>I was unable to find anything like this on either the ACBL or the USBF
>website. I wonder what the source for the well-informed Dutch newspaper
>bridge writer is. Anyone know?
>
>Raija
>
Extract from the settlement offer sent by the USBF attorney to the
team::
It should therefore come as no surprise that the USBF Board of
Directors unanimously agrees that a significant disciplinary sanction
is appropriate. The Board was adamant that nothing short of a
suspension, which would preclude you from playing internationally for
at least one full year, would suffice as a mark of the seriousness of
the situation-provided it were agreed upon, and then duly approved by
the Hearing Panel of the Grievance and Appeals Committee (which has
sole authority to determine the appropriate discipline), without the
necessity of a hearing. I am instructed to press for a greater
sanction against anyone who rejects this compromise offer.
You therefore have an opportunity to accept the following discipline,
subject to approval of the Hearing Panel:
1. A one year suspension, during which you will be ineligible to
participate in USBF-sponsored events in any capacity, specifically
including the World Bridge Olympiad in Beijing, PRC;
2. One year of probation, to begin after the conclusion of the one
year suspension, during which you will be fully eligible to
participate in USBF-sponsored events subject to condition #3;
3. Two hundred (200) hours of "community service", to be performed
during the probationary period, of which 100 hours must be completed
before the USWBC in 2009 in order for you to be eligible to compete;
4. A signed, written apology in a form drafted by myself, which the
USBF may publish or disseminate as it chooses;
5. A detailed written statement truthfully reporting the facts of the
incident (who broached the idea of displaying the sign, when the idea
was adopted, etc.), subject to my approval as to form and content,
which may be used in evidence at any hearing of this matter involving
other respondents, and, if required by me, your participation as
witnesses at the GAC hearings currently scheduled to be held in San
Francisco, or at such other place and time for which the hearings may
be adjourned or continued.
Ed Reppert
> Extract from the settlement offer sent by the USBF attorney to the
> team::
Uh, huh. Where did you get a copy of this settlement offer?
OldPalooka
Your diatribe seems to somehow identify the USBF as the USA. It is a
common mistake made by Olympians, Ryder Cup team members, and now
bridge players. They were NOT representing the USA, they were
representing a private organization from North America. They
exercised an unalienable right in a foreign land where such is
punishable. So what in the big picture of the world stage? And since
they were acting as private citizens, any human rights embarrassment
they may have caused their host government is just peachy with me.
Admittedly, they were probably traveling partly on your nickel, and
barring them for life or suing to recover some of the expenses may be
appropriate for the members of the USBF, but your outrage should
logically be limited to USBF issues, not those of the larger political
theater.
== Bill Shutts
mart...@gmail.com
that is flying around, I would have even less time than I do at the
moment for anything else. However, I do think it is important to
correct the false impression that any sanction (or punishment if you
prefer that word) has been imposed in this matter.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Hearing Panel of the USBF
Grievance & Appeals Committee has scheduled a hearing in this matter
to start at 9:00 am on Thursday, Nov. 29th in San Francisco. Unless
some settlement is reached between the USBF Board, as Charging Party,
and one or more of the members of the USA1 Venice Cup team between now
and then, and that settlement is approved by the Hearing Panel, no
resolution will be reached until after the conclusion of that hearing.
Any settlement discussions that do not result in an agreed-upon
settlement will not be considered by the Hearing Panel.
Jan Martel
President, USBF
Sid
<wayf...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356&Itemid=1
Sid
raija d
"Sid" <el...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:9r7kj3d1t2hcn54c7...@4ax.com...
There is nothing on USBF website about any sanctions imposed on the players.
The link you provided is USBF webpage where there are links to three USBF
meetings and an attachment to the 10/25/07 meeting. Those minutes do not
show anything resembling what Henk, the Dutch article, and the subsequent
Onno Eskes post are saying.
I will wait for information to be published by USBF before I give credence
to a Dutch newspaper article by an anonymous "well-informed bridge columnist
in the Netherlands".
Raija
Sid
wrote:
:
: "Sid" <el...@nospam.com> wrote in message
Yes - was in Dutch:
http://www.volkskrantblog.nl:80/bericht/165269
Sorry.
Sid
BBO expert
> "Steve" writes:
>>> 3. 200 hours of community service for all players ...
>
> Where do bridge authorities get the idea that this is appropriate?
Or that they have any such authority? Especially the bit about "This
document can be used as evidence in a court of law." What court of law do
they think they have any right to take the players to? It's hard enough to
believe that they don't have a right to do what they did under the US First
Amendment, but when the "crime" didn't even occur in the US?
> David Stevenson:
>> If you compare this punishment with what they would have received for
>> stealing or assault you can see how some people are prepared to be
>> totally silly over non-issues.
>
> Indeed. How long do people get suspended from playing bridge for
> stealing?
People who assault and steal often get less than 200 hours community
service.
Steve Grant
What a pack of lies this is.
The USBF board has in fact threatened the members of the Venice Cup
team with Draconian suspensions, all the while pretendiing to be
offering a "compromise."
I'm proud of what those women did in Shanghai. And I'm disgusted with
the pretentious fools of the USBF board.
John Crinnion
I take it you *did* vote for Bush.
Georgiana Gates
> "Steve" writes:
>>>> IMHO its a pity they mixed ... politics with bridge - do you agree?
>
> I quite agree.
>
> We should all boycott their records. :-)
>
> Henk Uijterwaal:
>>> 1. Suspension from any ACBL game for 1 year. ...
>
> But this is just bizarre. How long would the sentence have been if the
> signs had said that they *did* vote for Bush?
is outlandish. And yes, I suspect that if the signs had said they voted
*for* Bush, the sentence would have been far lighter. The majority of
Americans do not approve of Bush - but I'll bet the majority of bridge
officials do.
>
>>> 3. 200 hours of community service for all players ...
John Crinnion
> On Nov 13, 11:47 am, moja...@mojaveg.nodomain (Everett M. Greene)
> wrote:
<SNIP>
> The actions of the woman's team was outrageous. They introduced
> politics into a bridge event.
I take it you *did* vote for Bush.
> They used a platform paid for by others
> to make a petty political comment.
I take it you *did* vote for Bush.
> The comment was made in a foreign
> country. That foreign country is a dictatorship whose people have
> little political freedom. I can't think of a more stupid act. Since
> they represent the USA, they are making a political comment as
> representatives of all of us. They were given money to go to China by
> sponsors. Those are just a few of the things wrong with their actions
> from the top of my head.
All good reasons to infer you *did* vote for Bush.
> I think their actions were disgusting and outrageous. If I was the
> ACBL or USBF (I have no clue who they are, but I think they are the
> ones paying the bills), If it was up to me, I would have barred them
> permanently from ever representing the USA in any international event.
I thought the First Amendment covered all this. Remember the case of
the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics?
Georgiana Gates
> Ed Reppert wrote:
>
>> This "compromise" seems more than severe enough, to me. But I'm
>> concerned about something else. Either your knowledgeable reporter got
>> it wrong, or the ACBL is stepping on the toes of the USBF. This is the
>> latter's jurisdiction, not the former's (though I don't see how the
>> USBF can ban players from *ACBL* competitions).
>
> The article says "American Bridge Federation" and gives the impression
> that it is the ACBL, not the USBF. Of course, the whole mix of ACBL
> and USBF doesn't exist here, so it is easy to get it wrong.
>
>
>> That fifth requirement
>> strikes me as unConstitutional - in effect, it *requires* the players
>> to give up their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. I
>> can't believe the USBF doesn't have a lawyer smart enough to see that.
>> Something's not kosher here.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> Henk
>
how can the USBF bar anybody from ACBL play; I agree that the USBF does
have the power to bar them from the next US trials.
raija d
"Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:473a47c5$0$63181$a726...@news.hal-pc.org...
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> "Steve" writes:
>>>>> IMHO its a pity they mixed ... politics with bridge - do you agree?
>>
>> I quite agree.
>>
>> We should all boycott their records. :-)
>>
>> Henk Uijterwaal:
>>>> 1. Suspension from any ACBL game for 1 year. ...
>>
>> But this is just bizarre. How long would the sentence have been if the
>> signs had said that they *did* vote for Bush?
> Disclaimer - I know these players. Anyhow, being barred for a full year is
> outlandish. And yes, I suspect that if the signs had said they voted *for*
> Bush, the sentence would have been far lighter. The majority of Americans
> do not approve of Bush - but I'll bet the majority of bridge officials do.
I don't know if it would have made any difference to USBF officials whether
the sign had said "Shrek is great" or what it actually said. Maybe I am
being too old-fashioned, but I think that *on stage at an awards ceremony*
is not the time or place for advertising personal views however popular the
views might be.
.
OldPalooka
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or unpopular as in the 68 Olympics ceremony of Tommie Smith and John
Carlos.
== Bill Shutts
havs...@yahoo.com
politics with bridge" (sic), the proposed penalties are absolutely
absurd.
Were the players informed beforehand that any political statements
made at the event could subject them to such severe punishment? I
highly doubt it.
I could understand some kind of public reprimand, and perhaps
disqualify them from 1 or 2 minor to mid-level events. What they did
was in the great American tradition of free speech, democracy, and
protest. They weren't particularly disruptive (other protestors
employ loud chants, block access to buildings, etc). To come down on
them this hard for displaying what is so right about America is
unconscionable.
Certainly the USBF has the authority to decide who is eligible for
events and such, and this might be a big enough violation of some
"code of ethics" or whatnot they have. Though I wouldn't mind seeing
a creative lawyer try to sue the USBF for adversely affecting the
earning potential of these individuals, but that's not really the
point here. The important question here is how severely SHOULD the
USBF punish them. Anything nearly as severe as has been proposed is a
betrayal of everything any organization with the term "United States"
in its name should stand for.
raija d said:
"Maybe I am being too old-fashioned, but I think that *on stage at an
awards ceremony* is not the time or place for advertising personal
views however popular the views might be."
I can understand this view, but have you seen pictures of the event?
A great many of the people on stage were waiving American flags, and
apparently the national anthem was played. Allowing (perhaps even
encouraging?) the advertisement of those personal views while
threatening a 1+ year suspension for expressing a contrary view is
sending a strong political statement.
PriorKnowledge said:
"The comment was made in a foreign country. That foreign country is a
dictatorship whose people have little political freedom. I can't think
of a more stupid act."
I can't think of a more laudable act than offering an example of the
meaning of free speech and democracy in a country that has enough of
neither. If Chinese see Americans making statements critical of the
American government in an international forum it might help to raise
their opinion of us and encourage them to make their own voice known.
China is EXACTLY the place that needs to see more of this kind of
behavior.
I was thinking about getting back into organized bridge, but if the
USBF continues in this kind of stance and the ACBL agrees with them I
may wait until I can find a bridge organization that is more in
keeping with true American values of freedom and democracy as opposed
to supporting hollow patriotism and the authoritarian mindset.
--havspace
pumpk...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Interesting rebuttal.
I look forward to hearing how you would have replied to Ms. Martel had
the USBF committee filed charges against the US Team because Ms.
Rosenberg had infuriated her Chinese hosts by holding up a sign that
said "I support the Dalai Lama".
Cheers.
Nick
Bill Jacobs
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
It's hard to resist putting in one's 2 cents worth, particularly since no
penalty has yet been finalized.
The ONLY sanction that seems appropriate here is to bar these players from
playing in USBF events for some period into the future (for example 1
year). That seems a perfectly reasonable penalty, although I suspect that
it would come at a risk of legal action (in Australia, it could be
considered "Restraint of Trade" if they are bridge professionals of some
form).
The other sanctions seem absurd to me. Community Service? Where I come
from, that is what a judge gives someone who has been convicted of a
criminal offence not warranting a jail term. Maybe it's a different
concept in America.
As for the incident itself, I think the offenders were stupid, rude to
their hosts and extraordinarily naive. My first reaction was that they had
had much too much to drink prior to the ceremony.
Cheers ... Bill.
Otis Bricker
news:1195001913.0...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
I am no lawyer but the First Amendment(assuming you mean the one to the
USA Constitution) reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That does nothing to prohibit PRIVATE citizens or groups from taking
action. Employees can be fired for making statements that create a
hostile work environment. The US has also seems free to ignore this rule
when it treats mailing newsletters as political contributions and bars
then in some situations. Thomas Paine would be so proud.
Otis
Henk Uijterwaal
> I will wait for information to be published by USBF before I give credence
> to a Dutch newspaper article by an anonymous "well-informed bridge columnist
> in the Netherlands".
The journalist in question is Kees Tammens (and in his article, he also
mentions the email address of Debbie Rosenberg and says that letters of
support can be sent to her).
Steve Grant
<jcri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I thought the First Amendment covered all this.
The First Amendment limits what the government can do, not what a
private organization can do.
>Remember the case of the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics?
The current brouhaha does indeed call that incident to mind. It also
reminds me of the firestorm that followed Natalie Maines' 2003
statement at the Shepherd's Bush Empire Theatre.
Steve Grant
>I can't think of a more laudable act than offering an example of the
>meaning of free speech and democracy in a country that has enough of
>neither. If Chinese see Americans making statements critical of the
>American government in an international forum it might help to raise
>their opinion of us and encourage them to make their own voice known.
>China is EXACTLY the place that needs to see more of this kind of
>behavior.
>
>I was thinking about getting back into organized bridge, but if the
>USBF continues in this kind of stance and the ACBL agrees with them I
>may wait until I can find a bridge organization that is more in
>keeping with true American values of freedom and democracy as opposed
>to supporting hollow patriotism and the authoritarian mindset.
>
>--havspace
I wish I'd written that.
jrw
It would be appalling in my view if this led to a Ban from all ACBL
competitions for a year. In no way does a political protest of this
nature come close to cheating for instance. I would admonish the
players in a carefully worded statement, then move on.
Best regards
John
Hank Youngerman
1) It seems like they are only being suspended from the USBF for one
year, not the ACBL. Particularly since 2008 is a year the US will
send only one team to international competition, that doesn't seem too
severe.
2) I would have agreed with their right to speak their minds just
about anywhere except on stage during the medal ceremony.
3) Before we draw and quarter the messenger (much worse than shooting)
maybe we Americans should think about the circumstances that caused
them to do it. See the other thread on this newsgroup about the
incident. Apparently the team members were frequently questioned by
foreign players about US policies in Iraq and use of torture.
4) The community service thing seems bizarre.
5) I don't like the idea of having to produce a sworn statement about
who did what with which to whom. I understand that in criminal cases
it's common to offer a lesser penalty in return for testimony against
co-defendants. But this seems more like the McCarthy-era tactic of
asking people to prove loyalty by naming names. Unless one or more of
the women is asking for exoneration based on not having agreed to the
plan, why does it matter? But the detail in the other thread suggests
that this was a spur-of-the-moment decision, done in a "moment of
levity." So maybe it does matter. It doesn't sound like there was a
team meeting and a unaminous vote to make a political statement.
6) While I disagree with what they did, deep in my gut I have this
uneasy feeling. If they had held up a sign saying "God Bless George
Bush" you really can't help but think it wouldn't be nearly the rukus
it is. But in theory it shouldn't make a difference. I don't think
the US is quite like, say, the UK where at least based on tradition
Queen and Country are one and the same.
Somehow I think having to sit out the 2008 trials is punishment
enough, without having to sit in the corner, stay after school to
clean the erasers, and tattle on their friends.
But I will nonetheless defer to the USBF hearing panel, who will hear
all the evidence firsthand.
On Nov 13, 4:15 am, goldstarsteve <goldstarst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stolling though the USBF site I came accross this gem:
>
> http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=356&Itemid=1
>
> "Many of the USBF Board members have received questions about what is
> happening with regard to the incident at the closing ceremony in
> Shanghai. Board members cannot engage in discussions of this matter.
> The Board has considered the matter and acted promptly. For more
> information, see the Minutes of the USBF Board for 10/15/07 ,
> 10/18/07 , and 10/25/07 as well as the attachment to the 10/18/07
> minutes"
>
> Some extracts from the minutes below. It reads like the US womens team
> held up a placard "we did not vote for Bush" and are to be
> disciplined. But what were they trying to acheive - something anti
> chinese or something against Bush? Interesting to know gossip wise but
> IMHO its a pity they mixed there politics with bridge - do you agree?
>
> 10/15 extract
> "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."
>
> 18/15 extract
> "The Board invited Jillian Levin to appear. Jillian Levin joined the
> meeting. Peter Rank
> informed Levin that this meeting was being held to determine whether
> to bring a
> disciplinary proceeding because of the actions of her Venice Cup team
> at the closing
> ceremonies in Shanghai and that her statements to the Board might be
> used at such a
> hearing. Levin stated that she understood and would not make a formal
> statement and
> would reserve her right not to answer questions if she thought that
> the answers would be
> damaging to her or to her teammates. Levin then answered questions
> from Board
> members. The board then went into Executive Session.
> The board came out of Executive Session at 6:15 pm Pacific Time and
> went back into
> Open Session.
> By a 4-0 vote with Bill Pollack, Jan Martel and Rose Meltzer
> abstaining, the Board
> passed the following Resolution:
> RESOLVED, that the United States Bridge Federation ("USBF") make a
> complaint
> against the members of the 2007 Venice Cup USA 1 team (Hansa
> Narasimhan, Jill Levin,
> Irina Levitina, Jill Meyers, Debbie Rosenberg, JoAnna Stansby and Gail
> Greenberg, nonplaying
> captain) regarding their behavior at the Closing Ceremonies of the
> World Bridge
> Federation World Championships in Shanghai, China. Such complaint
> shall be
> forwarded to the USBF President requesting that she charge the members
> with violation
> of Section IV.A.10 of the USBF Grievance, Appeals and Disciplinary
> Procedures
> ("Actions unbecoming a member...") and requesting that a timely
> hearing on the charge
> be held under Section IV.B.2 of the Procedures.
> The Board agreed that a hearing committee of non-board members should
> be appointed
> and that these charges should be heard, if at all possible, at the
> 2007 Fall NABC.
> The board agreed that these Minutes could be approved by e-mail vote
> and they have
> been so approved."
>
> The Board decided that we want to keep a low profile. We do not want
> to try this
> team by publicity. The front page of the USBF web site will state that
> action has
> been taken regarding the incident that took place at the Closing
> Banquet in
> Shanghai and provide a link to the Minutes of Board meetings. Then
> interested
> people will be able to click on the minutes and read more details.
John R. Mayne
> Ed Reppert wrote:
>
> > That fifth requirement
[Requiring statements by the accused as to each person's participation
- JRM]
> > strikes me as unConstitutional - in effect, it *requires* the players
> > to give up their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. I
> > can't believe the USBF doesn't have a lawyer smart enough to see that.
> > Something's not kosher here.
>
> Yes, I agree.
I'll disagree. Removing the issue that this occurred in China, private
action does not invoke the Fifth Amendment. This includes civil suits
- if you decline to testify at deposition or trial in a civil case
because, yeah, you did do some infant murders, the jury is absolutely
permitted to infer guilt.
If I'm running a McDonald's, and the till's short, and my employee
declines to state whether he took the money due to the Fifth
Amendment, he's fired. He can sue me - anyone can sue anyone - but he
cannot win.
If I run a private organization which runs bridge tournaments I can
require statements by anyone on almost anything; if they don't comply,
I can eject them. (With the limited information I have, I view the
USBF's response as an overreaction.)
The argument by others that this constitutes a First Amendment
violation is also incorrect. Private organizations generally have the
right to restrict political speech completely. This gets complicated
at points, but the fact that you have the right to say things without
going to jail doesn't mean that if you tear up a picture of the Pope
on Saturday Night Live that they have to invite you back.
--JRM
John Crinnion
wrote:
Such an (hypothetical) act would have been an insult to Mrs/Miss
Rosenberg's hosts. What she actually did was not an insult to anyone
except Bush - and the fools who elected him.
> Cheers.
David Stevenson
>If I run a private organization which runs bridge tournaments I can
>require statements by anyone on almost anything; if they don't comply,
>I can eject them. (With the limited information I have, I view the
>USBF's response as an overreaction.)
But the USBF was not running the tournament: the WBF was.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Substitute .org for .com else blakjak eddresses will fail this year
BBO expert
>
> "Henk Uijterwaal" <he...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> I was unable to find anything like this on either the ACBL or the USBF
> website. I wonder what the source for the well-informed Dutch newspaper
> bridge writer is. Anyone know?
I was unable to find anything in the USBF by-laws that would have made this
a violation, of anything, either...
John Blubaugh
wrote:
> John R. Mayne wrote
>
> >If I run a private organization which runs bridge tournaments I can
> >require statements by anyone on almost anything; if they don't comply,
> >I can eject them. (With the limited information I have, I view the
> >USBF's response as an overreaction.)
>
> But the USBF was not running the tournament: the WBF was.
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
> Substitute .org for .com else blakjak eddresses will fail this year
The world has gone mad.
JB
Ron Johnson
>
> The USBF board has in fact threatened the members of the Venice Cup
> team with Draconian suspensions, all the while pretendiing to be
> offering a "compromise."
>
> I'm proud of what those women did in Shanghai.
I'm ... sorry that it happened I guess. I have a
second-hand explanation of the reasoning behind
it (but will let the team speak for itself as they
see fit), and it makes a certain amount of sense.
Wouldn't have done it when they did, but really
this was the only time anybody would have paid
attention.
> And I'm disgusted with
> the pretentious fools of the USBF board.
It seems to me to be a severe over-reaction.
BBO expert
> On Nov 13, 7:53 pm, John Crinnion <jcrinn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I take it you *did* vote for Bush.
>
> Interesting rebuttal.
>
> I look forward to hearing how you would have replied to Ms. Martel had
> the USBF committee filed charges against the US Team because Ms.
> Rosenberg had infuriated her Chinese hosts by holding up a sign that
> said "I support the Dalai Lama".
LOL - but I can't imagine the response would be any different on either
side. The only difference is that in the latter version it would be the
Chinese government that's embarrassed and in the former ... well, nobody,
really. I'd be surprised to hear that Dubya even heard about the VCW
protest, let alone had his feelings hurt.
ma...@netzero.net
wrote:
> On Nov 13, 11:47 am, moja...@mojaveg.nodomain (Everett M. Greene)
> wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> The actions of the woman's team was outrageous. They introduced
> to make a petty political comment. The comment was made in a foreign
> country. That foreign country is a dictatorship whose people have
> little political freedom. I can't think of a more stupid act. Since
> they represent the USA, they are making a political comment as
> representatives of all of us. They were given money to go to China by
> sponsors. Those are just a few of the things wrong with their actions
> from the top of my head.
>
> ACBL or USBF (I have no clue who they are, but I think they are the
> ones paying the bills), If it was up to me, I would have barred them
> permanently from ever representing the USA in any international event.
>
I'm proud of the team. They represented, very well, the genuinely
American trait of confident self-expression. Sometimes rude or
imprudent (as this was), sometimes ill-judged (here, depends on your
political views), but always willing to say what you think without
fear of repression.
Folks with little (or less: spend some time in some European
countries) political freedom can only envy us. If you don't like the
sign (I didn't), shrug and move on.
Uncomfortable with their self-assurance? Well, there are lots of more
regulated societies. Our team's behavior is an outgrowth of our
heritage, if you'll allow the elevated expression.
Adam Beneschan
> If I'm running a McDonald's, and the till's short, and my employee
> declines to state whether he took the money due to the Fifth
> Amendment, he's fired. He can sue me - anyone can sue anyone - but he
> cannot win.
Well, not legitimately, perhaps. But if someone can sue McDonald's
and win because they're klutzy enough to spill hot coffee on
themselves, then theoretically anyone could win any suit, if they're
lucky enough to get a jury pool that has only a few people with
brains, which few of course the plaintiff's lawyer can use his/her
peremptories to send home. I trust that you're right on the point of
law. I just don't trust that it does much good. Sigh.........
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
> goldstarsteve wrote:
> > IMHO its a pity they mixed there politics with bridge - do you agree?
>
> their sleeves - even if their politics are wrong. They had an opportunity
> to make a statement, knowing it could get them into trouble, and they took
> it. Brava!
No "brava" from me. What strikes me is that the statement they made
was so pointless. If they had made a statement that could have
expressed an opinion on something that actually has current relevance,
like "We Support Hillary" or "We Support Giuliani" or "We Support the
Writers' Guild" [yes, I know this took place before the strike] or
"Down With Ahmedinejad" or even something like "Free Tibet"---which
last *really* could have gotten them in trouble given where they
were---at least I could understand it. I agree with Raija and others
that it would be inappropriate, but I could at least understand it.
But "We Didn't Vote For George Bush"? So what? This really can't
make an impact on anything, given that Bush is not running for re-
election. It sounds more like a gratuitous personal attack on an
unpopular present, mixed in with smugness, sort of like "Look how
smart we are, we didn't vote for the guy who turned out to be so
unpopular". So the "statement" they were risking getting into trouble
over was, at least the way I see things, pretty pathetic.
-- Adam
John Blubaugh
Oh, I think it says a lot. None of the men's teams there could have
said "We didn't vote for Bush" unless they decided to lie about it. I
think it was the right approach to let some of the world know that
many Americans share their opinions about Bush and they even did what
they could four years ago to stop him. This was the only time to make
such a statement and have an impact. Bravo ladies and the USBF should
be defending their right to say what they want even if they don't
agree with them. The ladies represented the USA, not Russia or some
other state that would have complete control of what their members say
or do. I'm sure glad there were no bridge players at the Boston Tea
Party. Our country is built on protests and stating opinions without
fear. Yes, the USBF can and probably will be asses about the whole
affair. Why don't they just use their right of free speach and let the
ladies know they didn't appreciate their making a statement on the
medals podium and let it go at that. That would set the right tone of
letting them know that not everyone agreed with their actions but it
would also send a message about the freedoms in the USA.
JB
Hank Youngerman
the coffee was hotter than it should be, but that they purposely kept
it that way to discourage people from coming back for refils.
I suppose that in a libertarian paradise, there would be third-party
organizations surveying the safety practices of places people go and
things they buy, people could subscribe to these services (for a fee)
if they chose, and then make the decision whether to eat at McDonald's
based in part on how hot the coffee is.
A more absurd decision (from which I personally benefitted) was that
when I bought my 1986 Nissan, I got "leather seats." It turned out
that some portions of the sides and back were trimmed with suede, and
therefore they weren't technically "leather seats." The class action
settlement gave me a choice of $175 off parts or service at a Nissan
dealer (which I used) or $1000 off a new car. Nissan of course no
longer sells "leather seats" but rather "leather-trimmed seating
areas."
I don't want to veer this thread off-topic. I just think that people
should tend to defer to those who know all the facts. In both the
McDonald's case, and in the present case (in the hearing scheduled for
San Francisco) there are people who will hear all the facts.
Adam Beneschan
> On Nov 14, 1:33 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> > No "brava" from me. What strikes me is that the statement they made
> > was so pointless. If they had made a statement that could have
> > expressed an opinion on something that actually has current relevance,
> > like "We Support Hillary" or "We Support Giuliani" or "We Support the
> > Writers' Guild" [yes, I know this took place before the strike] or
> > "Down With Ahmedinejad" or even something like "Free Tibet"---which
> > last *really* could have gotten them in trouble given where they
> > were---at least I could understand it. I agree with Raija and others
> > that it would be inappropriate, but I could at least understand it.
> > But "We Didn't Vote For George Bush"? So what? This really can't
> > make an impact on anything, given that Bush is not running for re-
> > election. It sounds more like a gratuitous personal attack on an
> > unpopular present, mixed in with smugness, sort of like "Look how
> > smart we are, we didn't vote for the guy who turned out to be so
> > unpopular". So the "statement" they were risking getting into trouble
> > over was, at least the way I see things, pretty pathetic.
>
> > -- Adam
>
> Oh, I think it says a lot. None of the men's teams there could have
> said "We didn't vote for Bush" unless they decided to lie about it. I
> think it was the right approach to let some of the world know that
> many Americans share their opinions about Bush and they even did what
> they could four years ago to stop him.
It's still past history. Why would this have been any more apropos,
or meaningful, than, say, holding up a sign saying "We voted for
McGovern back in 1972"?
-- Adam
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe it was a way to tell the people asking all of those embarrassing
questions about torture, Iraq, WMDs and oil that there were lots of
Americans who agree with them about those issues and some of us who
are ashamed about some of the things are president has said and done.
It still says a lot. OK, they didn't vote for Bush, a republican. That
must mean that they voted for a democrat and intend to do so again.
Perhaps, (gasp), it even might mean they support a woman to be the
President of the United States.
I hope people show up in San Francisco carrying signs that support
these ladies and denounce the USBF and ACBL. By the way, a little bird
has informed me that the ACBL is threatening to cut the funding for
the USBF is they do not mete out some kind of harsh punishment. Money.
It always comes down to money.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
By the way, you might want to check out this children's book "Why
Mommy is a Democrat." At least I don't have to fear excommunication
from the ACBL for suggesting it.
JB
BBO expert
> On Nov 13, 5:55 am, BBO expert <n...@test.com> wrote:
> But "We Didn't Vote For George Bush"? So what? This really can't
> make an impact on anything, given that Bush is not running for re-
> election. It sounds more like a gratuitous personal attack on an
> unpopular pres[id]ent,
Well, that part's been explained - it was a response to other competitors
who don't like what the US is doing in Iraq & Afghanistan, in which case it
does have relevance.
> So the "statement" they were risking getting into trouble
> over was, at least the way I see things, pretty pathetic.
Yeah - and they have a right to be pathetic, too :-)
Adam Beneschan
> Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 5:55 am, BBO expert <n...@test.com> wrote:
> > But "We Didn't Vote For George Bush"? So what? This really can't
> > make an impact on anything, given that Bush is not running for re-
> > election. It sounds more like a gratuitous personal attack on an
> > unpopular pres[id]ent,
>
> Well, that part's been explained - it was a response to other competitors
> who don't like what the US is doing in Iraq & Afghanistan, in which case it
> does have relevance.
That would make more sense, I guess... If "We didn't vote for George
Bush" is taken by most people as a synonym for "We don't support
American actions in Iraq", then my argument probably doesn't apply.
For me, though, I have this maddening tendency to assume that people
mean what they say (common idioms aside), rather than some "wink wink"
hidden meaning that everyone's "supposed" to understand. Especially
if they could have just said what they meant. I guess if they had
held up a sign saying "US Out Of Iraq" or something, I wouldn't have
disagreed with your original commendation of their courage, whether or
not I felt it was an appropriate time for it and whether or not I
agreed with their sentiment. But that's just me, perhaps.
-- Adam
jrw
And what European countries would that be?
Thomas Dehn
"Hank Youngerman" <donts...@redtopbg.com> wrote:
> Testimony in the McDonald's trial indicated that McDonald's knew that
> the coffee was hotter than it should be, but that they purposely kept
> it that way to discourage people from coming back for refils.
Somebody testifying something does not mean it is true.
A restaurant can either serve cold coffee, which tastes
poor and is unsafe due to bacteriological considerations,
or serve hot coffee that can cause significant burns when spilled.
Coffee can't be both hotter than 160F and colder than 130F
at the same time.
Thomas
Ron Johnson
> For me, though, I have this maddening tendency to assume that people
> mean what they say (common idioms aside), rather than some "wink wink"
> hidden meaning that everyone's "supposed" to understand. Especially
> if they could have just said what they meant.
Thing is that it's at least plausible that the message doesn't
lend itself to simplicity.
Say the issue is Iraq and waterboarding and the administration's
response to Katrina or ... well some kind of mixture of
the above for each person on the team.
> I guess if they had
> held up a sign saying "US Out Of Iraq" or something,
Yet, but the or something might well run to several paragraphs.
Leading to something that doesn't photograph well or
couldn't be held up by mere mortals.
If you've got a complex statement why not phrase it
in such a way that the curious will seek to find out
your meaning, while grabbing attention in the
first place.
Richard Pavlicek
was said (or written) but the effect that it was flaunting to
members of the host country, "We can say (write) things that
you can't." Tacky and rude, yes, but hardly deserving of all
the punishments suggested. A simple letter of apology to the
Chinese Bridge Association would be adequate.
If much more is made of this, I guess you could say the girls
were shanghaied.
--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: http://www.rpbridge.net
zintintin
> f I attempted to respond to every incorrect rumor about this matter
> that is flying around, I would have even less time than I do at the
> moment for anything else. However, I do think it is important to
> correct the false impression that any sanction (or punishment if you
> prefer that word) has been imposed in this matter.
>
> Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Hearing Panel of the USBF
> Grievance & Appeals Committee has scheduled a hearing in this matter
> to start at 9:00 am on Thursday, Nov. 29th in San Francisco. Unless
> some settlement is reached between the USBF Board, as Charging Party,
> and one or more of the members of the USA1 Venice Cup team between now
> and then, and that settlement is approved by the Hearing Panel, no
> resolution will be reached until after the conclusion of that hearing.
> Any settlement discussions that do not result in an agreed-upon
> settlement will not be considered by the Hearing Panel.
>
> Jan Martel
> President, USBF
Bush." Anyone want to join me? I'll bring extras.
Tom McGuire
David Stevenson
To be fair, once you read the coffee incident, you realise she did
actually have a case.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
John Blubaugh
I think their simple statement addressed Iraq, torture and much, much
more. If you think this was just about voting for Bush then I don't
think you will understand what they are about.
JB
John Blubaugh
Amen ;-)
Kenny McCormack
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
...
>It's still past history. Why would this have been any more apropos,
>or meaningful, than, say, holding up a sign saying "We voted for
>McGovern back in 1972"?
I can't believe anybody is this stupid about politics. It is as if you
actually believe that the fact that GW isn't running in 2008 means that
everything he's done is going disappear in a puff of smoke on 1/20/2009.
First of all, as everyone knows, the government runs on inertia.
Policies put in place during the last 8 years will have effects for
decades.
Second, the 2008 election will be largely a referendum on "Continue
Bush/Cheney/Rove-ism or not?" The fact that GW himself isn't running
doesn't matter; what matters is that future repubs want to be seen as
continuing what he started. Think of how many decades of repubs have
been competing with each other to see who is the most Reagan-y.
And so on - there is more I could say, but if you don't get it, you
won't get it.
Charles Brenner
I don't dispute your general point, but just as a digression this myth
about how a jury and poor MacDonald's country lawyers were hoodwinked
by a scheming cheating woman is worth considering a little more
rationally. Certainly the idea that justice is perverse and juries are
hopelessly stupid is an attractive one, the kind of story that is fun
to repeat and even, dare I say, to embroider. But which is more
plausible:
A. The story as commonly retold is the same story the jury heard, and
the jury was so befogged by her lawyers that they rendered a
ridiculous verdict; or
B. The jury gave a rational verdict, but thanks to human nature or
whatever a twisted story became a popular urban myth.
Just considering those possibilities should make the point. Beyond
that it's easy enough find on the internet a set of facts of the case
that are quite different from the version that is so pleasing to
retell.
Charles
pumpk...@hotmail.com
> On 14 Nov, 01:44, "pumpkin_...@hotmail.com" <pumpkin_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 7:53 pm, John Crinnion <jcrinn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Nov, 21:56, martel...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > f I attempted to respond to every incorrect rumor about this matter
> > > > that is flying around, I would have even less time than I do at the
> > > > moment for anything else. However, I do think it is important to
> > > > correct the false impression that any sanction (or punishment if you
> > > > prefer that word) has been imposed in this matter.
>
> > > > Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Hearing Panel of the USBF
> > > > Grievance & Appeals Committee has scheduled a hearing in this matter
> > > > to start at 9:00 am on Thursday, Nov. 29th in San Francisco. Unless
> > > > some settlement is reached between the USBF Board, as Charging Party,
> > > > and one or more of the members of the USA1 Venice Cup team between now
> > > > and then, and that settlement is approved by the Hearing Panel, no
> > > > resolution will be reached until after the conclusion of that hearing.
> > > > Any settlement discussions that do not result in an agreed-upon
> > > > settlement will not be considered by the Hearing Panel.
>
> > > > Jan Martel
> > > > President, USBF
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > I look forward to hearing how you would have replied to Ms. Martel had
> > the USBF committee filed charges against the US Team because Ms.
> > Rosenberg had infuriated her Chinese hosts by holding up a sign that
> > said "I support the Dalai Lama".
>
> Rosenberg's hosts. What she actually did was not an insult to anyone
> except Bush - and the fools who elected him.
>
>
>
> > Cheers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So the identity of the host country is the key factor.
So had the USA been the host of the event your view is that Ms
Rosenberg would not have been able to reject Bush but could have
supported the Dalai Lama?
Cheers.
Nick
Otis Bricker
news:rCexPdEO...@post.demon.co.uk:
> Adam Beneschan wrote
>>On Nov 14, 7:34 am, "John R. Mayne" <jrma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If I'm running a McDonald's, and the till's short, and my employee
>>> declines to state whether he took the money due to the Fifth
>>> Amendment, he's fired. He can sue me - anyone can sue anyone - but he
>>> cannot win.
>>
>>Well, not legitimately, perhaps. But if someone can sue McDonald's
>>and win because they're klutzy enough to spill hot coffee on
>>themselves, then theoretically anyone could win any suit, if they're
>>lucky enough to get a jury pool that has only a few people with
>>brains, which few of course the plaintiff's lawyer can use his/her
>>peremptories to send home. I trust that you're right on the point of
>>law. I just don't trust that it does much good. Sigh.........
>
> To be fair, once you read the coffee incident, you realise she did
> actually have a case.
>
I wonder how you draw that conclusion.
You might look over this discussion of the case:
http://www.overlawyered.com/2003/12/mcdonalds_coffee_revisited.html
Georgiana Gates
Georgiana Gates
>
> Certainly the USBF has the authority to decide who is eligible for
> events and such, and this might be a big enough violation of some
> "code of ethics" or whatnot they have. Though I wouldn't mind seeing
> a creative lawyer try to sue the USBF for adversely affecting the
> earning potential of these individuals, but that's not really the
> point here.
Jill Levin has a long track record of suing the ACBL to allow her to
play bridge. I suspect there may be a lawsuit in the making.
> The important question here is how severely SHOULD the
> USBF punish them. Anything nearly as severe as has been proposed is a
> betrayal of everything any organization with the term "United States"
> in its name should stand for.
>
John Crinnion
pumpk...@hotmail.com wrote:
No, not as such. I think McGraw-Hill publish a introductory manual on
Logic.
> So had the USA been the host of the event your view is that Ms
> Rosenberg would not have been able to reject Bush but could have
> supported the Dalai Lama?
Only if she had been Chinese (or, for that matter, Tibetan).
> Cheers.
>
> Nick
Georgiana Gates
> Just my two cents...
>
> 1) It seems like they are only being suspended from the USBF for one
> year, not the ACBL. Particularly since 2008 is a year the US will
> send only one team to international competition, that doesn't seem too
> severe.
There's another factor here. This means that the US Womens team in 2008
won't be the best we can send.
I think I'm the leading "expert" on US women's bridge posting on this
thread - perhaps that's not something I should brag about :) If this
incident had happened three years earlier I'd have played
internationally for the US, because my team finished third in the US
trials in 2005 to select two teams for 2006. We played against this
team, and we lost, because they were better bridge players than we were.
In 2006, the US was represented by the best bridge teams we had to send
- shouldn't it always be this way?
Bill Jacobs
>
> Folks with little (or less: spend some time in some European
> countries) political freedom can only envy us. If you don't like the
> sign (I didn't), shrug and move on.
> Uncomfortable with their self-assurance? Well, there are lots of more
> regulated societies. Our team's behavior is an outgrowth of our
> heritage, if you'll allow the elevated expression.
>
If I was American I wouldn't have voted for Bush either, and would be happy
to say so if it arose in conversation.
But to do it in Shanghai at an award ceremony was dreadfully rude.
They were at this Bridge Tournament by invitation of the USBF. It seems to
me to be entirely appropriate for the USBF to choose not to invite them to
such an event in the future. Any other sanction feels wrong.
If you invite someone to dinner, and they turn up and are rude to another
guest, then you choose not to invite them again. But you don't sentence
them to Community Service.
Cheers ... Bill
John Crinnion
Bill Jacobs wrote:
<SNIP>
> But to do it in Shanghai at an award ceremony was dreadfully rude.
Would it have been 'rude' if they had displayed a placard saying 'We
support our troops'? (someone has started another thread to this
effect).
>
> They were at this Bridge Tournament by invitation of the USBF. It seems to
> me to be entirely appropriate for the USBF to choose not to invite them to
> such an event in the future. Any other sanction feels wrong.
>
> If you invite someone to dinner, and they turn up and are rude to another
> guest, then you choose not to invite them again. But you don't sentence
> them to Community Service.
ISTR Naomi Campbell got community service.
> Cheers ... Bill
Bill Jacobs
$a726...@news.hal-pc.org:
No.
If the best team wins the trials and then states: "As a matter of protest
against George Bush's policies, we are going to turn up naked to Round 1
wearing only a sign that says We Didn't Vote for Bush", then the USBF would
send the second placed and second best team. And rightly so.
In other words, as well as sending the best team, you also intend to send a
team that you expect to uphold some minimum standard of behaviour. Where
you draw the line on "minimum standard of behaviour" would be subject to
debate, but there is no doubt that some minimum standard must exist.
Cheers ... Bill
David Stevenson
> I will be wearing a sticker to the NABCs reading, "I did not vote for
>Bush." Anyone want to join me? I'll bring extras.
Sure.
David Stevenson
That's not a discussion, it is highly biased view from someone who
has made his mind up and will only quote one side.
Try reading details of the case without the bias.
Bill Jacobs
news:28777ebb-ee5e-4df8...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Bill Jacobs wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> But to do it in Shanghai at an award ceremony was dreadfully rude.
>
> Would it have been 'rude' if they had displayed a placard saying 'We
> support our troops'? (someone has started another thread to this
> effect).
>
In my opinion, yes. Rude, inappropriate, embarrassing.
But wearing a small badge that said this would be ok with me.
Unfortunately, as is obvious in this thread, there is a judgment to be made
on what behaviour is appropriate and what isn't.
Cheers ... Bill.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is already a financial backer who is willing to fund a law suit
and take it to the bitter end. I believe three of the ladies are
lawyers. Good luck to them.
JB
Chris Pisarra
> There is already a financial backer who is willing to fund a law suit
> and take it to the bitter end. I believe three of the ladies are
> lawyers. Good luck to them.
I didn't think you had that kind of money these days, John. Good
for you.
Chris
--
Oh life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea.
And love is a thing that can never go wrong
And I am Marie, of Rumania.
---Dorothy Parker
Chris Pisarra
> zintintin wrote
>
>> I will be wearing a sticker to the NABCs reading, "I did not vote for
>> Bush." Anyone want to join me? I'll bring extras.
>
> Sure.
At the risk of sounding like and AOL newbie, me too.
Chris
--
I want to die in my sleep, like my Uncle Jack
not screaming in panic like his passengers. ---Jack
Handy
Lorne
news:1194990998....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I do think it is important to
> correct the false impression that any sanction (or punishment if you
> prefer that word) has been imposed in this matter.
>
> Nothing could be farther from the truth.
It seems to me that if you publish meeting notes that say either they accept
a punishment that is way over the top for the offence or we will do
something even worse to them then you are implying that a decision has been
made to do at least what the meeting notes say and it is being backed up by
blackmail.
An appology seems enough to me. Maybe a ban from representing the USA for
a year as well but certainly no more.
Rob Tamlyn
> Georgiana Gates <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in news:473b9b35$0$63186
> $a726...@news.hal-pc.org:
>
>> Hank Youngerman wrote:
>>> Just my two cents...
>>>
>>> 1) It seems like they are only being suspended from the USBF for one
>>> year, not the ACBL. Particularly since 2008 is a year the US will
>>> send only one team to international competition, that doesn't seem too
>>> severe.
>> There's another factor here. This means that the US Womens team in 2008
>> won't be the best we can send.
>>
>> I think I'm the leading "expert" on US women's bridge posting on this
>> thread - perhaps that's not something I should brag about :) If this
>> incident had happened three years earlier I'd have played
>> internationally for the US, because my team finished third in the US
>> trials in 2005 to select two teams for 2006. We played against this
>> team, and we lost, because they were better bridge players than we were.
>> In 2006, the US was represented by the best bridge teams we had to send
>> - shouldn't it always be this way?
>>
>
> No.
>
> If the best team wins the trials and then states: "As a matter of protest
> against George Bush's policies, we are going to turn up naked to Round 1
> wearing only a sign that says We Didn't Vote for Bush", then the USBF would
> send the second placed and second best team. And rightly so.
>
Good grief. This suggestion itself is rude.
> In other words, as well as sending the best team, you also intend to send a
> team that you expect to uphold some minimum standard of behaviour. Where
> you draw the line on "minimum standard of behaviour" would be subject to
> debate, but there is no doubt that some minimum standard must exist.
>
> Cheers ... Bill
We should be able to discuss politics without resorting to calling it
rude or overreacting to someone's statement.
George Priest
"Adam Beneschan" <ad...@irvine.com> wrote in message
news:1195065188.3...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...>> goldstarsteve wrote:
>> > IMHO its a pity they mixed there politics with bridge - do you agree?
>>
>> Hell, no. I have a lot of respect for people who wear their politics on
>> their sleeves - even if their politics are wrong. They had an
>> opportunity
>> to make a statement, knowing it could get them into trouble, and they
>> took
>> it. Brava!
>
> No "brava" from me. What strikes me is that the statement they made
> was so pointless. If they had made a statement that could have
> expressed an opinion on something that actually has current relevance,
> like "We Support Hillary" or "We Support Giuliani" or "We Support the
> Writers' Guild" [yes, I know this took place before the strike] or
> "Down With Ahmedinejad" or even something like "Free Tibet"---which
> last *really* could have gotten them in trouble given where they
> were---at least I could understand it. I agree with Raija and others
> that it would be inappropriate, but I could at least understand it.
> But "We Didn't Vote For George Bush"? So what? This really can't
> make an impact on anything, given that Bush is not running for re-
> election. It sounds more like a gratuitous personal attack on an
> smart we are, we didn't vote for the guy who turned out to be so
> unpopular". So the "statement" they were risking getting into trouble
> over was, at least the way I see things, pretty pathetic.
>
> -- Adam
>
>
Perhaps the real answer is that sign was pointless: anyone who is
intelligent enough to play bridge at that level wouldn't have been dumb
enough to vote for Bush.
George Priest
David J. Grabiner
> Mark Brader wrote:
>
> > "Steve" writes:
>
> >>> 3. 200 hours of community service for all players ...
> >
> > Where do bridge authorities get the idea that this is appropriate?
>
> Or that they have any such authority? Especially the bit about "This
> document can be used as evidence in a court of law." What court of law do
> they think they have any right to take the players to? It's hard enough to
> believe that they don't have a right to do what they did under the US First
> Amendment, but when the "crime" didn't even occur in the US?
I would expect that the document could be used as evidence if the
players try to sue the ACBL or USBF in court. The official statement
about the incident would be an agreed statement from all parties
involved, and anyone who signed the statement would have difficulty
arguing a different statement in court. In addition, the ACBL could
make the statement public without fear of libel.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@alumni.princeton.edu, http://remarque.org/~grabiner
Baseball labor negotiations FAQ: http://remarque.org/~grabiner/laborfaq.html
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Andrew
> On Nov 14, 5:44 pm, "Richard Pavlicek" <rich...@rpbridge.net> wrote:
>
> > To me, the whole point of the issue is not political or what
> > was said (or written) but the effect that it was flaunting to
> > members of the host country, "We can say (write) things that
> > you can't." Tacky and rude, yes, but hardly deserving of all
> > the punishments suggested. A simple letter of apology to the
> > Chinese Bridge Association would be adequate.
My understanding is that when they were consulted at the time, neither
the CBA nor the WBF had a problem with the protest.
raija d
"Andrew" <agum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc40ac8e-d584-4235...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Would you like to tell where this understanding originates. Who consulted
whom. How did you come to know this.
Raija
Otis Bricker
I think he does present the other sides ideas but easily counters them.
If you look around there you will find several discussions in the
comments where both sides are presented.
But I was referring both to the article and to the many links provided
at the end which cover both 'sides' of the discussion. It does seem that
some are no longer active. But the ones at the volokh Conspiracy and
ProfBainbridge are not hard to find and the others seemed to work. I
think both Volokh and Bainbridge are pretty well regarded by the Legal
academic community. ( Or is that the academic, legal community? The
first sounds like there may be some Illegal academic community the
Goverment is trying to stamp out)
I guess you can disagree, but I found that after looking at the
arguments presented by both sides, I could not see any validity in the
claim. It seemed to me that her carelessness and the actions of the
driver that were the proximate cause of the injury.
I actually have some direct contact with part of the author's argument.
My daughter once dumped hot tea onto herself and her older sister at a
restaurant. She ended up with blisters and her big sister was unscathed.
The tea hit her sister's bare skin but the younger one was wearing
sweats. As the article pointed out, clearly it was the defective design
of the sweats that caused the injury. I guess I should have sued the
manufacturer.
Otis
Sorry to drag things so far afield. Almost as bad as politics.
Otis Bricker
news:Xns99E91C8CC858ob...@216.196.97.136:
<SNIP>
Sorry. I should have noted before that courts on your side of the pond seem
to better understand the issue:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?
doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html
ma...@netzero.net
> On Nov 14, 5:54 pm, "ma...@netzero.net" <ma...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>
> And what European countries would that be?
My wife (Viennese parents) has been cautioned in several middle
European countries about her irreverent humor. Most recently, in
Austria, she was told by a tour director: "jokes like that can get you
in trouble." (after a reference to the statue honoring the unknown
Soviet rapist) Every American traveler (I just mentally counted 17) I
know has recounted similar experiences. An obnoxious group? But
typically American.
John Schuler
Ah, yes, judgement. The team is accused of "behavior unbecoming...", a
HOPELESSLY vague regulaton. So vague, in fact, that members could not
possibly know IN ADVANCE what behavior is "unbecoming". So it really
comes down to behavior that some/all USBF officials just plain don't
like.
John Schuler
BBO: jrssd
Skype: jrsofsd
John Schuler
How dare you point out that the emporer is not wearing clothes!
jrw
I think you might be surprised how many more freedoms there are in
European countries. Besides gun ownership, something that most
Europeans are grateful that their respective governments restrict, can
you point to an obvious 'freedom' that Americans have, and Europeans
don't? If so required I can draw up a list that shows the USA to be a
much more restrictive country than most in Europe.
On the subject of humour, jokes can get you into terrible trouble in
the US, having worked there, one spent considerable time walking on
eggshells in fear of having a law suit from an employee because of an
off hand remark. I worked for a large publishing company that was
sued by an employee after a collegue made a slightly off colour
joke...
Best regards
John
John Schuler
<ric...@rpbridge.net> wrote:
>To me, the whole point of the issue is not political or what
>was said (or written) but the effect that it was flaunting to
>members of the host country, "We can say (write) things that
>you can't."
Perhaps that's how you saw it, but IMHO their statement/protest had
NOTHING to do with the Chinese and their repressive government. It had
everything to do with their disavowal of the policies of their own
government (under the direction of George Bush). Their protest would
have occurred no matter which country was hosting the event.
But we are both guessing - perhaps one of them will tell us (here).
Tacky and rude, yes, but hardly deserving of all
>the punishments suggested. A simple letter of apology to the
>Chinese Bridge Association would be adequate.
>
>If much more is made of this, I guess you could say the girls
>were shanghaied.
gle...@gmail.com
> Maybe I am
> being too old-fashioned, but I think that *on stage at an awards ceremony*
> is not the time or place for advertising personal views however popular the
> views might be.
It is reasonable to feel this way. Then, when you are next on stage at
an awards ceremony, you may refrain from expressing personal views.
What is not reasonable is to suppose that you can impose your feelings
on other people.
Jürgen R.
soldiers, no matter who put them up and no matter what they intend to
glorify. However, to refer specifically to various Soviet memorials as
depicting unknown rapists, parictularly in the former Nazi Empire, almost
certainly suggests a stupidly partisan attitude.
It is true that in these parts (Germany, Austria) your freedom of speech is
restricted: e.g. various forms of hate speech, glorification of past
horrors, denial of the Holocaust etc. are explicitly forbidden. It is not
likely that dumb jokes about 'Soviet Rapists' are illegal, nor do I suggest
they should be, but I do think they are idiotic.
Why is demonstration of disagreement with the current murderous policies of
the Bush government inappropriate, while in the same context waving the U.S.
flag, presumably demonstrating agreement, passes without comment?
<ma...@netzero.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1c248dfd-e89a-4378...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Nick France
> David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote innews:EciaI6G$y5OH...@post.demon.co.uk:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Otis Bricker wrote
> >>David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have one question on this off topic discussion. Didn't McDonalds
win on appeal. Seems there are a lot of verdicts by juries that don't
stand up under review.
Nick France
Steve Foster
> > If you invite someone to dinner, and they turn up and are rude to
> > another guest, then you choose not to invite them again. But you
> > don't sentence them to Community Service.
>
> ISTR Naomi Campbell got community service.
After being convicted in a court of law for a criminal offence
(assault).
--
Steve Foster
Jürgen R.
"George Priest" <geop...@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3iO_i.3942$ET.3800@trndny03...
Wishful thinking - certainly it takes a certain specialized intelligence to
play bridge well, but that does not prevent stupid behavior in other fields.
Good bridge players tend to be old, well fed and conservative. Such people
tend to approve of Bushistic behavior until it becomes inconvenient.
Jürgen
John R. Mayne
> On Nov 15, 12:10 am, Otis Bricker <obric...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I think he does present the other sides ideas but easily counters them.
> > If you look around there you will find several discussions in the
> > comments where both sides are presented.
>
> > But I was referring both to the article and to the many links provided
> > at the end which cover both 'sides' of the discussion. It does seem that
> > some are no longer active. But the ones at the volokh Conspiracy and
> > ProfBainbridge are not hard to find and the others seemed to work. I
> > think both Volokh and Bainbridge are pretty well regarded by the Legal
> > academic community. ( Or is that the academic, legal community? The
> > first sounds like there may be some Illegal academic community the
> > Goverment is trying to stamp out)
>
> > I guess you can disagree, but I found that after looking at the
> > arguments presented by both sides, I could not see any validity in the
> > claim. It seemed to me that her carelessness and the actions of the
> > driver that were the proximate cause of the injury.
>
[snip]
>
> > Sorry to drag things so far afield. Almost as bad as politics.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I have one question on this off topic discussion. Didn't McDonalds
> win on appeal. Seems there are a lot of verdicts by juries that don't
> stand up under review.
The judgment was lowered to $640,000 by the judge, and the parties
settled during the appeal for an unspecified amount, but one believed
to be slightly lower than the $640,000.
The biggest problem for McDonald's is that they were not able to well
articulate the reasons for serving their coffee hotter than virtually
everyone else on the planet. While punitive damages in this case
always seemed improper to me, the jury's ruling didn't same crazed.
The public policy issues are somewhat complicated, and disallowing hot
coffee suits is certainly a reasonable alternative, but it wasn't a
fait accompli that a sane jury would rule for McDonald's.
Side note: Overlawyered is run by the American Enterprise Institute, a
pro-business political entity.
--JRM
>
> Nick France- Hide quoted text -
Kenny McCormack
Nick France <gand...@att.net> wrote:
...
>I have one question on this off topic discussion. Didn't McDonalds
>win on appeal. Seems there are a lot of verdicts by juries that don't
>stand up under review.
Judges and appeals courts are more easily bought off.
What I find funny about this is how normally intelligent, well bred
people (Usenetters) get all hyper about this case. Why all this surge
of support for a truly hideous company? (That, I trust, none of us ever
patronize)