[ralph23]

kenrexford, on Oct 14 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

I know that it is quite disappointing to click onto a post on the BBF about how well Norway did, and how proud Harald and others must be, to read about stupid signs.

Indeed.

Congratulations again to Harald and the fine team from Norway.

[hotShot]

fred, on Oct 14 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

You are saying that it is not only proper to break rules that you have agreed to follow, but that one *should* do this?

I have not seen a rule yet they have broken.

If they have a contract with the USBF and broke that, it's between those two and none of my business.

Quote

It is considerate of you to draw a line where it comes to insulting your hosts - that will save some embarassment if a player who thinks his country represents terrorism decides to express his patriotism on the podium.

It's my impression that no nation stands for "breaking laws", and I would guess that breaking a law in a country where you are guest, will be seen as an insult.

Quote

But what if your hosts say "we will be insulted by any form of public political expression at our tournaments"?

I would hope that the WBF would reconsider to put the event there. I would not play there.

Quote

What if, even if your hosts haven't explicitly said it, you are smart enough to know that this is how they actually feel? Is it OK to insult your hosts now?

Of cause it's not OK!
I will have to inform myself better about the cultural differences or I can decide not to be guest of someone with a "sadistic" attitude.

[ralph23]

cherdano, on Oct 14 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

For me it seemed obvious that the sign was really just that, an apology saying "please distinguish between us and our government, please don't dislike us just because you dislike our government", and not a political statement. I am really surprised that so many seemed to think otherwise. (The political statement would be a waste of paper anyway, as in a completely international audience some 95% are against Bush anyway.) [And whether Aaron likes it or not, this feeling is representative for some part of the US society.]

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

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

[fred]

hotShot, on Oct 14 2007, 09:12 PM, said:

Quote

But what if your hosts say "we will be insulted by any form of public political expression at our tournaments"?

I would hope that the WBF would reconsider to put the event there. I would not play there.

The WBF are the ones who invited the various countries to send teams. They are the ones who are in charge of the tournament. They, along with the Chinese, are the tournament hosts.

It is proper to consider the wishes of both the WBF and the Chinese.

I am certain that the WBF would (strongly) prefer to have no public political statements at all at the tournaments they host, even if they have never explicitly said this. To violate your host's wishes in this area would be disrespectful. To be disrespectful is to insult ("your wishes are not worthy of my respect" - sounds insulting to me).

If your answer to this is "fine, then I won't be playing in any WBF tournaments", I suspect that neither the WBF nor your National Bridge Federation will be shedding any tears.

How about the Chinese hosts? Not being Chinese, it is harder for me to guess at how they might feel about such things. But finding out experimentally when you are a guest in their country is in itself a sign of disrespect ("we don't know your wishes, but we don't care" - insult).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mrdct]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 09:45 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 14 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

By the way, if the picture is to be believed it was just one person. If the others on the team are even considered for some kind of punishment that would be even larger of an outrage. What are they supposed to do, leave the stage and start booing?

You are too naive for comfort if you think that this was the work of one person. Unless "We" is "pluralis majestatis". I don't think Debbie Rosenberg is royal.

Roland

I don't think it's at all obviously that any of the USA1 ladies other than Debbie Rosenberg were aware that she was going to pull her little sign out.

From looking at photos Debbie didn't appear to have the sign in her hand until after the medals has been put around everyone's neck, the officials had stepped away and Gail Greenberg had the trophy in her hand.

I keenly await comment from an official member of the USBF delegation.

[bidule4]

Not sure if this thread is really in the right part of the forums,

but

now, the title of the the thread (Congrats Norway ...)
has clearly no connection with its content.

[the hog]

Quote Mike777

"Do you owe your country of birth any duty...any duty at all?

I will rephrase.....do you owe your country of birth/adoption a duty/debt greater than your very life?"

Uh, you are joking here Mike, aren't you? Attitudes like this went out in the early C20th. with "King, God and country" and all that rot.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Oct 14 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

Quote Mike777

"Do you owe your country of birth any duty...any duty at all?

I will rephrase.....do you owe your country of birth/adoption a duty/debt greater than your very life?"

Uh, you are joking here Mike, aren't you? Attitudes like this went out in the early C20th. with "King, God and country" and all that rot.

Ron as shocking and old fashion as this may sound, I know many people who think Duty, honor and country is phrase that governs their lives.


I also understand many ridicule that.

I only bring up this subject here in this thread in the context of owing some duty in representing your country. I understand many believe they owe no duty ever to a country.

[mike777]

I was going to say Congratulations Norway but now based on this thread I am not sure if the players or Harald represent the Country of Norway, represent only themselves, or represent nothing?

[jonottawa]

The WBF has no business regulating the behavior of its members away from the table (with possible, very narrow, bridge-related exceptions.)

The host country has no business imposing its norms on the participants. It is not a privilege for the best players in the world to compete in the world championships; they have earned that right through years of hard work and by beating the 2nd best their country had to offer. It is a privilege for any country to be allowed to host the Bermuda Bowl.

A world championship that bars the best players from competing because they insist on their right to express their beliefs is illegitimate.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson

Who knew that so many bridge players were closet autocrats?

[jonottawa]

Oops. That Jefferson quote was erroneous. Here's a real one that seems even more pertinent:

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." - Thomas Jefferson

[Walddk]

jonottawa, on Oct 15 2007, 01:32 AM, said:

The WBF has no business regulating the behavior of its members away from the table (with possible, very narrow, bridge-related exceptions.)

The host country has no business imposing its norms on the participants.  It is not a privilege for the best players in the world to compete in the world championships; they have earned that right through years of hard work and by beating the 2nd best their country had to offer.  It is a privilege for any country to be allowed to host the Bermuda Bowl.

A world championship that bars the best players from competing because they insist on their right to express their beliefs is illegitimate.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson

Who knew that so many bridge players were closet autocrats?

You are wrong on all counts, Jon.

- 1. The presentation is an official part of the championships, so you have to behave on the podium too.

- 2. If you don't approve of the conditions in a particular country, stay away. No one has forced you to go there. We have a saying in Danish: "Skik følge eller land fly". I think the English term is "When in Rome do as the Romans do".

- 3. They don't bar anybody, they merely insist on their rights to enforce appropriate behaviour. That is quite normal.

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

I have watched thousands of sports events where national anthems were played. I have never seen anything like it and I sincerely hope that I won't see it again. Disrespectful is the most diplomatic word I can find at the moment.

Roland

[jonottawa]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

You are wrong on all counts, Jon.

- 1. The presentation is an official part of the championships, so you have to behave on the podium too.

- 2. If you don't approve of the conditions in a particular country, stay away. No one has forced you to go there. We have a saying in Danish: "Skik følge eller land fly". I think the English term is "When in Rome do as the Romans do".

- 3. They don't bar anybody, they merely insist on their rights to enforce appropriate behaviour. That is quite normal.

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

I have watched thousands of sports events where national anthems were played. I have never seen anything like it and I sincerely hope that I won't see it again. Disrespectful is the most diplomatic word I can find at the moment.

Roland

1. As has been stated elsewhere, if a ceremony includes a national anthem and a flag, it is inherently political. To not speak out against this administration, which advocates torture, spying on its own citizens without a warrant, and kidnapping people and holding them indefinitely with insufficient evidence to charge them with anything, would be a greater misbehavior. It's arguably the lack of people who've shown a willingness to do just that which has caused this whole mess in the first place.

2. We have a saying in America. "Don't tread on me." If the event was held in Saudi Arabia, would the women be forced to wear Burqas and those ladies who refused to attend be SOL? Poppycock. Any country privileged enough to host such an event should do so with the awareness that the participants will each have different value systems and will behave accordingly.

3. They can enforce appropriate behavior at the bridge table (as defined by the laws currently in place) all they want. They have no business enforcing behavior of the guests of honor at a social gathering.

Finally, if anyone thinks it's appropriate behavior to hijack a Congratulations Norway! thread by bringing up this topic, ...

[Impact]

Congratulations to Norway - winner of Bermuda Bowl, and to the US as winner of Seniors and I'm just not sure who to congratulate for winning the Venice Cup (the players I guess since they wish to disown affiliation???).

I will not enter into the merits of the sign itself or of the current administration/President of the USA.

No one here has suggested that the sign held up was anything less than poor taste - and as I believe Voltaire is alleged to have said "There is only one great sin: vulgarity".

The action should be condemned for bad taste at the least.

Freedom of speech is NOT a worldwide right: quite the reverse in a multitude of countries. It is an egregious mistake to take for granted and assume that in which you believe is believed/revered or even given credence by others.

Even in those countries which do promulgate "freedom of speech" it is constrained by common law eg sanctions apply for shouting "fire" frivolously in a packed movie theatre...

As in so many cases you may hold any opinion you like but your right to promulgate the opinion is not unfettered.

In this instance the players of the victorious Venice Cup team were present in a representative capacity, and the obligation is to the group they represent.

There is also a wider obligation IMHO: not to politicise bridge or indeed to use a representative capacity for limited purposes to pursue your own hobbyhorse (whatever it may be).

Whether it is accurate or not, the making of "motherhood statements" (and obviously from the comments there are posters who would regard criticism of the current President of the USA as a motherhood statement) is similarly inappropriate, unless they have some fairly direct relationship to bridge/the championship.

I echo the views already expressed by others as to the capacity for what one group calls "obvious truth" to be deeply offensive to another.

As to any sanction to be applied, that will depend upon:-

a) who had prior knowledge of the holding up of the sign;

the existence and terms of any code of conduct/terms signed ;

c) the intestinal fortitude of both the administration and the participants.

Presumably there will be an inquiry (almost an inquest) and were I engaged to provide advice to the participants, I would recommend a pre-emptive apology both to the sponsoring bodies (WBF and Chinese Bridge Federation, and to the ACBL and USBF) for any offence given, the poor taste exhibited and an undertaking to act appropriately in future if provided with the opportunity to represent the USA.

I note that euphoria might be an excuse but what may be excused more easily when done by teenagers (perhaps athletes), is harder to excuse by mature adults who have just won a world championship which as a representative unit - which world championship was based on intelligence and judgement!!

Of course to play devil's advocate, some might argue that given the aforementioned requirements of judgement and intelligence, any need to specify the sign's contents is rendered superfluous (but of course that only furthers the argument of bad taste at the least!).

regards,

[ralph23]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

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

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

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

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

[Walddk]

ralph23, on Oct 15 2007, 02:45 AM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

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

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

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

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

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

Roland

[ralph23]

Walddk, on Oct 14 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

The latter I am sorry to say.

Really ??

Were they shooting birds at the flag etc. too, or sticking their tongues out etc., or other such things???

Sorry to be so ....er.... dubious.... and not to doubt what you say, but what you describe ....It's just (as I'm sure you know) inherently very hard to believe.

[uday]

Locking topic while I split it.... .... unlocked... moved to watercooler.

Anyway, carry on

[blackshoe]

The Hog said

Quote

Uh, you are joking here Mike, aren't you? Attitudes like this went out in the early C20th. with "King, God and country" and all that rot.

If they had, I and many like me would not have spent most of our adult lives in service to our country.

You might be interested in this, which I believe:

Quote

Do not confuse “duty” with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect. But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of you, and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants “just a few minutes of your time, please--this won’t take long.” Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time--and squawk for more! So learn to say No--and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you. (This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Don’t do it because it is “expected” of you.)

- Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973.

Another thought: I was taught that it is not enough for a person in the public eye to avoid impropriety. He (or she) must avoid the appearance of impropriety as well. I think that Ms. Rosenberg, if not the whole team, failed to meet this ideal.

and there is this:

Quote

The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

- Senator Carl Shurz, remarks in the Senate of the United States, February 29, 1872.

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

[cherdano]

uday, on Oct 14 2007, 07:13 PM, said:

Locking topic while I split it.... .... unlocked... moved to watercooler.

Anyway, carry on

Thanks Uday.