[mrdct]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

Is there another sport where mediocre amateurs with no hope of ever becoming more than that are expected to fund the national teams?

How about just every sport there is that doesn't fill big stadiums or have juicy TV rights for sale.

[jonottawa]

Aight mrdct, it was a dumb question.

That doesn't mean everyone has to answer it like it was the meaning of life.

Go set some alarm clocks or something. Or answer the 'real' question: Should we subsidize a rich guy and some pros to pay in the Bermuda Bowl?

[nickf]

jonottawa, on Oct 20 2007, 12:07 PM, said:

Aight mrdct, it was a dumb question.

That doesn't mean everyone has to answer it like it was the meaning of life.

Go set some alarm clocks or something.  Or answer the 'real' question: Should we subsidize a rich guy and some pros to pay in the Bermuda Bowl?

1) Miaow

2) I can attest that the issue of alarm clocks is important to david. When playing with him in our National Open Teams three years ago, I accidentally had a inter-session nap and arrived 5-10 mins into the game for a 1VP fine.

nickf
sydney

[mrdct]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 09:07 PM, said:

Or answer the 'real' question: Should we subsidize a rich guy and some pros to pay in the Bermuda Bowl?

Of course you should.

Just because someone is wealthy or makes a living playing bridge doesn't mean they should be treated differently to any other player who had won their way through to the national team.

Do you want the team that wins the trials to provide copies of their income tax returns to the credentials committee?

I'm not sure what the extent of the subsidy paid to USBF representatives is, but I guess it would be something like return economy airfares, entry fees to the event and twin-share accommodation for about two week. So for something like the Bermuda Bowl, assuming six players plus a coach and npc for each team, you would be looking something like US$30K per team - so US$180K for six teams. I think this works out at about US$1.50 per registered player in the USA which doesn't seem too steep to me.

[glen]

mrdct, on Oct 19 2007, 10:59 PM, said:

...Do you want the team that wins the trials to provide copies of their income tax returns to the credentials committee? ...

No need to examine returns etc. Teams should registered for team trials as a "pro team" (3 or more paid players) or non-pro (very hard to represent a pro team as a non-pro team). If a pro-team wins the team trials, then:

a) if they want to use one or more clients as a player on the team they get no subsidy dollars, and they get to pick their own NPC, coach etc. and make arrangements as they see fit (their decision on NPC etc. can only be changed by first providing subsidy dollars);

b ) if they convert all clients on the team into non-players, such as into NPCs, coaches, etc., and then allow for the team to be filled out with other top players, then they get the full subsidy dollars.

[jonottawa]

officeglen, on Oct 20 2007, 03:08 AM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 19 2007, 10:59 PM, said:

...Do you want the team that wins the trials to provide copies of their income tax returns to the credentials committee? ...

No need to examine returns etc. Teams should registered for team trials as a "pro team" (3 or more paid players) or non-pro (very hard to represent a pro team as a non-pro team). If a pro-team wins the team trials, then:

a) if they want to use one or more clients as a player on the team they get no subsidy dollars, and they get to pick their own NPC, coach etc. and make arrangements as they see fit (their decision on NPC etc. can only be changed by first providing subsidy dollars);

b ) if they convert all clients on the team into non-players, such as into NPCs, coaches, etc., and then allow for the team to be filled out with other top players, then they get the full subsidy dollars.

I wouldn't go quite as draconian as officeglen, but I'd only give the rich guy (ya, I know, irony) a subsidy (and only his share,) since he's the only 'amateur'.

Edit: ... Actually, upon sober reflection, I don't think that's workable. I'd just discontinue all subsidies for US non-juniors. If the home unit or home district of the team (or just of some members of the team) want to hold a charity game and designate that team as the charity (similar to what was done in Ottawa for local members of Canada's BB and VC teams) that would be fine.

Excluding pros from receiving subsidies would be too much like a "some signs" rule. Having a policy of always giving subsidies funded largely by people whose greatest bridge aspiration is to consistently break average in a club game and having the recipients of those subsidies being pros and well-off clients 95%+ of the time is a fundamental misallocation of resources. Let the teams pay their own way (or raise the funds for a subsidy from the entry fees for the qualifying event.)

[mrdct]

Aren't the sponsors of the professional teams one of the main reasons why the USA has been so successful? Without the sponsors, the USA wouldn't have the volume of elite players to make the major NABC events and trials so competitive.

If the sponsor has met the minimum board playing requirements, they have just as much right to be there as anyone else.

Of course a lot of sponsors are very good bridge players in their own right, but just happen to have some spare cash to be able to assemble teams capable of winning world championships.

[Elianna]

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

Elianna, on Oct 19 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

I know people from Iran.  I've sympathised with my students while they wonder if their relatives will be ok, or if they'll be accused of made-up crimes, like others have in their communities.

I know many who are so grateful that they were able to get out, and have had parents so desparate that they send the kids out in the care of relatives or older siblings if there's no one else.

Accused of made-up crimes? Like what? Marijuana possession? Good thing they don't do that here. Here they don't accuse you of anything, they just lock you up and throw away the key. Much tidier that way.

And do you think that letting Cheney/Bush invade Iran will make your students' families' lives easier?

I don't support invasion of Iran, and my students don't, either. I never said that. You just were arguing that Iran has been maligned, and I'm pointing out that I know people from there who don't agree.

I also have yet to meet people in the US who have been accused of a crime solely for their religion. I'm not saying there aren't, I'm just saying I haven't personally met any. I haven't seen situations in the US where they forbid the head of a religious school to be a certain religion (maybe the US forbids certain schools, but that's a different topic).

[mike777]

Elianna, on Oct 20 2007, 12:51 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Oct 19 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

Elianna, on Oct 19 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

I know people from Iran.  I've sympathised with my students while they wonder if their relatives will be ok, or if they'll be accused of made-up crimes, like others have in their communities.

I know many who are so grateful that they were able to get out, and have had parents so desparate that they send the kids out in the care of relatives or older siblings if there's no one else.

Accused of made-up crimes? Like what? Marijuana possession? Good thing they don't do that here. Here they don't accuse you of anything, they just lock you up and throw away the key. Much tidier that way.

And do you think that letting Cheney/Bush invade Iran will make your students' families' lives easier?

I don't support invasion of Iran, and my students don't, either. I never said that. You just were arguing that Iran has been maligned, and I'm pointing out that I know people from there who don't agree.

I also have yet to meet people in the US who have been accused of a crime solely for their religion. I'm not saying there aren't, I'm just saying I haven't personally met any. I haven't seen situations in the US where they forbid the head of a religious school to be a certain religion (maybe the US forbids certain schools, but that's a different topic).

Even if we assume the Iran government is super evil...why should we do something about it.......

If it is not we should do nothing....maybe talk...but do nothing
If it is we should do nothing.....maybe talk..but do nothing

easy.....

[gwnn]

mike777, on Oct 20 2007, 09:13 AM, said:

why should we do something about it.......

cause it brings profit?

easy....

[mike777]

gwnn, on Oct 20 2007, 02:14 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 20 2007, 09:13 AM, said:

why should we do something about it.......

cause it brings profit?

easy....

Heck I just saw on cnn and msnbc usa tortures, puts people in jail and throws away key for no reason, illegal wiretaps, kills hundreds of thousands of moms and dads

all for profit....i guess but are not those people all ready rich????/

how big of a house do they need?

anyway.....at least the people of usa keep voting back in these folks......or do not bother to vote at all.......

[helene_t]

jon said:

Scandinavia's governments are usually socialist, no?

Since WWII, social democrats vs "burgeous" (or "non-socialist", according to taste") have been appr. 50/50 in power in Denmark, while social democrats have had the lion's share in the other Nordic countries (Scandinavia and Finland, today the Baltic states are usually considered Nordic as well but I'm not referring to them) especially Sweden. I'm sure google can take you to more accurate figures.

Socialist vs Social Democrats: The party allied with Anglo-Saxon Labour parties is called "Social democrats" in Nordic countries, Germany, Netherlands, Turkey and Austria. Dutch "Socialists" and the Danish "Socialist people's party" are more left-winged on social issues. In France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy, said party is called "socialists". Portuguese "Social democrats" are more right-winged.

Liberal: This term usually refers to an attitude to a specific issue (as opposed to restrictionist). You could say that Hrothgar is a liberal with respect to drugs but a restrictionist when it comes to pollution (except that maybe some would interpret "restrictionist" as favoring bans rather than taxes, not sure). You will rarely hear someone from continental Europe call himself a "liberal" as an indicator of general political orientation. There was a time during the later eighties when it was fashionable to label oneself as a "liberalist". I suppose I myself (together with Dutch left-environmentalist leader Femke Halsema) am one of the last liberalist dinosaurs - today it is largely used as a left-winger's swearword for a Thatcherist. OK I'll get flamed for that comment. General site note: ideology is largely dead in Europe. We don't have anything like the polarization you have in USA. Most people, even those with strong interest in politics, are buffet politicals/opportunists. In the Netherlands, the Christian Democrats recently tried to restore conservative ideology with their "norms and values" campaign, but today it is largely seen as a joke, even by their proponents. OK I'll get flamed for that one as well.

Parties allied with UK/Canadian liberals are from time to time prominent in some countries, but their profiles varies. Current Danish PM is from "Venstre" which is historically a somewhat left-liberal party associated with farmer's grassroot culture, as opposed to the Conservatives who are associated with elite urban culture. While a few of their ideologist dinosaurs (current minister of education Bertel Haarder) try to maintain that profile, on practical issues they are close allies of the conservatives. Denmark has a smaller liberal party as well which is usually environmentally restrictionist, culturally/economical liberal and socially rightwinged. The two parties belong to the same liberal fraction in the EP, that must be a colorful lot. Very similarly, we have two liberal parties in NL as well.

[mike777]

Sorry Helene but I really hate all this left wing, right wing stuff.

too confusing



right wing wants the poor to die and disappear and war all the time?
left wing want peace and love and health care for all?
I guess extreme right wing wants faster death and extreme left wing wants faster love?

[mike777]

Or liberals want peace, love and understanding
conservatives want money, money and war and more money.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Oct 20 2007, 09:32 AM, said:

Sorry Helene but I really hate all this left wing, right wing stuff.

Agree, I don't care for those terms either. I should probably try to find other terms. Anyway, why don't you move to Europe, as I said ideology is dead here, sounds as if you would like that aspect of our culture. And if it's true what Jimmy says that you're a Contrarian, you will find a lot of peers here.

[blackshoe]

Robert A. Heinlein said:

Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and. so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

[geller]

Quote

Even if we assume the Iran government is super evil...why should we do something about it.......

OIL!

[han]

mike777, on Oct 20 2007, 02:45 AM, said:

Or liberals want peace, love and understanding
conservatives want money, money and war and more money.

Think you nailed it, why do you say you don't understand it?

[geller]

Quote

conservatives want money, money and war and more money.

and oil.

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Oct 20 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 20 2007, 02:45 AM, said:

Or liberals want peace, love and understanding
conservatives want money, money and war and more money.

Think you nailed it, why do you say you don't understand it?

I'd frame it very differently:

From what I can tell, Conservatives seem to be (predominantly) defined by a bunch of severe hangups revolving around sex, religion, and race.

The folks who are manipulating the conservatives are chasing after money, money, money...