[luke warm]

pclayton, on Nov 15 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

I remember when Olbermann was a sportscaster in Los Angeles 20 years ago.

Not exactly qualified to be a talking head IMO.

jonottawa, on Nov 15 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

And while we're at it, what qualifies comedian Rush Limbaugh (another junkie) and Bill O'Reilly (a sexual harassing bully) to be talking heads?

I remember when Bill O'Reilly was the host of Inside Edition (an entertainment show) and it was a lot less than 20 years ago.

And some people remember George Bush being a coke-snorting alcoholic failed businessman 20 years ago, who joined a cult to help him deal with his substance abuse problems.

Not exactly qualified to be POTUS, imo.

that sounds very close to pee wee herman's famous "i know i am but what are you?" debate tactic... if that's the case, you win hands down... poor phil can't compete with that logic

jon, i'm pretty sure you've played in some organized events before, bridge or otherwise... i'm also pretty sure that those events had rules and/or bylaws that you, as a participant, were expected to follow... the very fact that you participated was de facto agreement with the terms of engagement, yes? and if you violated one or more of those terms i guess you'd not be surprised if there were repercussions, yes? or would you shout 'free speech, free expression'?

if one doesn't agree to be bound by whatever rules are in place one should just refuse to participate, imo...

TLG said:

jonottawa, on Nov 15 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

You, as a Canadian, can have your limited freedom of expression with your notwithstanding clauses and whatnot.  Americans made it the FIRST amendment for a reason. 

The Americans did in fact include freedom of expression in the FIRST amendment for a reason, but not the reason you suggest.

that was uncalled for... a point was (supposedly) in the process of being made

[jonottawa]

Apparently at least one of the ladies will be on with Olbermann tonight on MSNBC. 8ET/7CT I'm not sure which story it will be, but probably #4 (the 2nd story.)

Edit: If you're watching the rerun, it's the #1 story (the final story) with about 5 minutes left in the show.

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Nov 15 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

TLG said:

jonottawa, on Nov 15 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

You, as a Canadian, can have your limited freedom of expression with your notwithstanding clauses and whatnot.  Americans made it the FIRST amendment for a reason. 

The Americans did in fact include freedom of expression in the FIRST amendment for a reason, but not the reason you suggest.

that was uncalled for... a point was (supposedly) in the process of being made

The point being made was, it seems to me, a ugly, chauvinistic assertion that Americans have a privileged place in the world because of their 'freedom' rights: rights that Canadians, amongst others, don't have.

We actually enjoy a pretty good freedom of expression up here in the not-so-frozen north. And while we have blemishes in our past (the War Measures Act invoked in Quebec in the early 1970's), we don't have a version of the Patriot Act, nor do we send people to secret prisons to be tortured (Well, arguably we have sent some of our citizens to the US so that the US could send them abroad to be tortured... one difference may be that we eventually say we are sorry and pay the innocent victim a whack of money) and we don't have warrantless monitoring of private communications between citizens.

Americans have much to be proud of, but the tendency of some of them to act as if being born in the USA bestowed upon them a mantle of civilization or knowledge superior to the rest of the world is not part of that part of their heritage. Let me stress, my knowledge of Americans suggests that this chauvinistic minority is just that: a minority (and similar minorities exist everywhere....it is perhaps merely my impression that this attitude is more prevalent in the US than in most western countries).

However, the success of George Bush and the fact that a substantial minority of Americans would vote for him again also suggests that it is not an insignificant minority.

BTW, I see absolutely NO reason to read into the USBF conduct any 'Political' agenda of any kind.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Nov 15 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

The point being made was, it seems to me, a ugly, chauvinistic assertion that Americans have a privileged place in the world because of their 'freedom' rights: rights that Canadians, amongst others, don't have.

That's obviously not the point he was trying to make, though I pretty much agree with your description of it. His point was that he believes the USBF should represent the values that the US stands for, not try to squelch them.

Quote

We actually enjoy a pretty good freedom of expression up here in the not-so-frozen north. And while we have blemishes in our past (the War Measures Act invoked in Quebec in the early 1970's), we don't have a version of the Patriot Act, nor do we send people to secret prisons to be tortured (Well, arguably we have sent some of our citizens to the US so that the US could send them abroad to be tortured... one difference may be that we eventually say we are sorry and pay the innocent victim a whack of money) and we don't have warrantless monitoring of private communications between citizens.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Bush. By the way, very lawyer-y of you to feel that torturing people is less bad as long as you pay them a lot of money later!

Quote

BTW, I see absolutely NO reason to read into the USBF conduct any 'Political' agenda of any kind.

IMO that is extraordinarily naive. I had typed a lot more here about what I now think of the USBF and their handling of the situation, but better to self-censor at this point.

I look forward to watching Olberman tonight.

[jonottawa]

Meh. I wish I could say the ladies knocked it out of the park, but the Olbermann appearance was pretty awkward. I can't say I'd have done any better.

[ArcLight]

On a somewhat different topic, I think a 1 year suspension is rather harsh.
And the threat that it will be even longer if they don't agree is extremely unfair.

If the USBF or ACBL wants to punish them, I think 1 year is far too long.
Why not 3 months? With a probabtion condition of much longer than 1 year.

What I wonder is how much of the push for punishment comes from the ACBL. If the ACBL contributes a sizeable amount of the funding (even if less than 50%), they can still wield enormous influence.

[geller]

jonottawa, on Nov 16 2007, 11:06 AM, said:

Meh.  I wish I could say the ladies knocked it out of the park, but the Olbermann appearance was pretty awkward.  I can't say I'd have done any better.

The video is up. Click on the following and scroll down to "Backlash for bashing Bush" and click on that (have to sit through a commercial first). Actually I thought they did quite well.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Nov 15 2007, 08:22 PM, said:

Quote

We actually enjoy a pretty good freedom of expression up here in the not-so-frozen north. And while we have blemishes in our past (the War Measures Act invoked in Quebec in the early 1970's), we don't have a version of the Patriot Act, nor do we send people to secret prisons to be tortured (Well, arguably we have sent some of our citizens to the US so that the US could send them abroad to be tortured... one difference may be that we eventually say we are sorry and pay the innocent victim a whack of money) and we don't have warrantless monitoring of private communications between citizens.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Bush. By the way, very lawyer-y of you to feel that torturing people is less bad as long as you pay them a lot of money later!

Quote

BTW, I see absolutely NO reason to read into the USBF conduct any 'Political' agenda of any kind.

IMO that is extraordinarily naive. I had typed a lot more here about what I now think of the USBF and their handling of the situation, but better to self-censor at this point.

I look forward to watching Olberman tonight.

1. I meant the statement about what Canada did to be sarcastic, not to try to justify an abominable act of cowardice. However, at least our government is capable of admitting to error... something that seems beyond your current administration

2. I meant, by using the "P" in the quoted word to refer to democratic v republican type politics, not the internal 'small p' politics that bedevil any organization comprising more than 2 people.

[kenrexford]

geller, on Nov 15 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

mrdct, on Nov 16 2007, 06:08 AM, said:

I read in one of the rgb threads on this topic that Jill Levin has some history of suing the ACBL and/or the USBF for one thing or another.  Does anyone have any details?

See page 7 of an old (1998) Daily Bulletin for the US Nationals (NABC). The winners (Lew and Joanna Stansby) thanked Jill Levin (formerly Jill Blanchard) as follows.

Quote

“I want to thank Jill Levin,” said JoAnna. “Without her, Lew and I could not have played in this event.” Levin, then Jill Blanchard, filed suit with her husband Bob in 1984 over gender-based events, which she claimed violated a California anti-discrimination statute. The upshot was that, in 1990, three former men’s events were changed to open events, including the event the Stansbys won.

As suggested by the quote, the ACBL used to run parallel mens pairs/teams and womens pairs/teams events, but these were changed to open pairs/teams run simultaneously with womens pairs/teams as a result of the lawsuit filed by (among other plaintiffs) Jill Levin (then Jill Blanchard).

Amazing.

She fights in court for the ability to play with the men, and yet she plays in an event limited to women.

I have so little respect for someone like that.

[kenrexford]

I just found a funny quote from early this year in the Southern California Bridge News:

"Without a doubt, there are very good female bridge players, although the very top ranks are dominated by men. Female bridge players who participate in women’s-only events, however, contribute strongly to any general lack of respect that may exist between the sexes. If one’s position is “Women are just as good as men,” then one shouldn’t play in restricted events. It’s ironic (and hypocritical) that the woman responsible for getting rid of men-only events, on the grounds of sex discrimination (Jill Blanchard, formerly Jill Levin) earns masterpoints and gets paid to play in women-only events." -Dan Oakes

[glen]

geller, on Nov 15 2007, 10:54 PM, said:

The video is up. Click on the following and scroll down to "Backlash for bashing Bush" and click on that (have to sit through a commercial first). Actually I thought they did quite well.

Thanks for posting the link - the video gives a better picture of what is happening

[uday]

Quote

She fights in court for the ability to play with the men, and yet she plays in an event limited to women.

I don't know that that the two are related.

I'm sure someone will express this more cogently. But if we grant that it was wrong to exclude women from the "men's pairs" then that should have been fixed. To me, that has nothing to do w/what a fem then needs to do (or chooses to do) to optimize income. , career, or any of those boat-floating things.

disclaimer: i know & perhaps even respect some of the relevant characters in real life.

[jonottawa]

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 03:44 AM, said:

geller, on Nov 15 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

mrdct, on Nov 16 2007, 06:08 AM, said:

I read in one of the rgb threads on this topic that Jill Levin has some history of suing the ACBL and/or the USBF for one thing or another.  Does anyone have any details?

See page 7 of an old (1998) Daily Bulletin for the US Nationals (NABC). The winners (Lew and Joanna Stansby) thanked Jill Levin (formerly Jill Blanchard) as follows.

Quote

“I want to thank Jill Levin,” said JoAnna. “Without her, Lew and I could not have played in this event.” Levin, then Jill Blanchard, filed suit with her husband Bob in 1984 over gender-based events, which she claimed violated a California anti-discrimination statute. The upshot was that, in 1990, three former men’s events were changed to open events, including the event the Stansbys won.

As suggested by the quote, the ACBL used to run parallel mens pairs/teams and womens pairs/teams events, but these were changed to open pairs/teams run simultaneously with womens pairs/teams as a result of the lawsuit filed by (among other plaintiffs) Jill Levin (then Jill Blanchard).

Amazing.

She fights in court for the ability to play with the men, and yet she plays in an event limited to women.

I have so little respect for someone like that.

Amazing.

She fights for something she believes in even if it doesn't benefit her directly.

The nerve of that woman.

I joined the ACBL back when this was a hot topic (87/88 I was in high school.)

I thought it was a stupid lawsuit and that she should keep her nose out of it.

Then again, I was a fan of the Republican Revolution and even enjoyed listening to Rush Limbaugh back in the early 90's.

Some people evolve.

Edit: I made a joke that could well be misconstrued and have decided that it probably crossed the line so have deleted it.

[kenrexford]

Are we on drugs here?

I have no problem with eliminating men-only events. I agree 100% that this is an archaic concept that was good to drop.

That said, however, the existence of "women's only" events is absurd. It is the exact same thing, unless, of course, the "women's only" event is somewhat like the "special olympics." I am using hyperbole to make a point. The ability of a group to allow the existence of an exclusive-group event while elminating another exclusive-froup event must be based in a belief that one group is inferior and needs a protected event for themselves. This is offensive and embarassing.

I'm not a woman, obviously. But, if I were, I cannot imagine even wanting to play in a women's only event.

Characterizing this as "fighting for something she believes in" is quite a good catch phrase. It sounds great! Adding that it does not benefit her is an interesting spin. I rather look at it as pitiful. It is not that she fought the lawsuit. I think that is great. Rather, it is that she fought the lawsuit, won, and then played in women's only events for her career. That, to me, would be as rewarding as winning a handi-capped world championship. Give my team +50 IMP's to start the event, and then I get to feel good about winning by +2 net?

Your argument ends by taking your apparent ignorance to a new level. By using the "P" word, you indicate to me a latent belief of what I suspect from many like you. You use a word to describe someone as having certain negative connotations associated with that word. However, that word is used for that purpose because of the implicit understanding that women have those characteristics. So, whereas you seem to have a heated interest in opposing a thought that somehow is attributed to republican/conservative thinking about women, you actually show a latent disrespect for women, the very thing I complain about. Sort of like the secretly homosexual public homophobe.

Try actually evolving and not simply spouting words that sound good to a new peer group that you like.

[mrdct]

uday, on Nov 16 2007, 12:02 AM, said:

.. if we grant that it was wrong to exclude women from the "men's pairs" then that should have been fixed.

That statement makes almost as much sense as "go on the offensive by extremely aggressive defensive actions".

If one was running a "men only" event of any description wouldn't the correct thing to do be "exclude women"?

My local cricket association won't let me join my son's under-12s team. What an outrage! Can I hire Jill Levin to sue them for being ageist?

[jonottawa]

kenrexford, on Nov 16 2007, 05:33 AM, said:

Are we on drugs here?

I have no problem with eliminating men-only events. I agree 100% that this is an archaic concept that was good to drop.

That said, however, the existence of "women's only" events is absurd. It is the exact same thing, unless, of course, the "women's only" event is somewhat like the "special olympics." I am using hyperbole to make a point. The ability of a group to allow the existence of an exclusive-group event while elminating another exclusive-froup event must be based in a belief that one group is inferior and needs a protected event for themselves. This is offensive and embarassing.

I'm not a woman, obviously. But, if I were, I cannot imagine even wanting to play in a women's only event.

Characterizing this as "fighting for something she believes in" is quite a good catch phrase. It sounds great! Adding that it does not benefit her is an interesting spin. I rather look at it as pitiful. It is not that she fought the lawsuit. I think that is great. Rather, it is that she fought the lawsuit, won, and then played in women's only events for her career. That, to me, would be as rewarding as winning a handi-capped world championship. Give my team +50 IMP's to start the event, and then I get to feel good about winning by +2 net?

Your argument ends by taking your apparent ignorance to a new level. By using the "P" word, you indicate to me a latent belief of what I suspect from many like you. You use a word to describe someone as having certain negative connotations associated with that word. However, that word is used for that purpose because of the implicit understanding that women have those characteristics. So, whereas you seem to have a heated interest in opposing a thought that somehow is attributed to republican/conservative thinking about women, you actually show a latent disrespect for women, the very thing I complain about. Sort of like the secretly homosexual public homophobe.

Try actually evolving and not simply spouting words that sound good to a new peer group that you like.

Aight, the joke was a little over-the-top and I've deleted it. It was meant to poke fun at men who complain that women have women's only events and men don't, but I asked a female friend of mine what she thought of it and she said it sounded a little sexist. Fair enough.

I don't see what your problem with Jill Levin is if she is the one responsible for abolishing Men's events and you think it was an archaic concept that was good to drop.

Why don't you take the next step and sue to get Women's events dropped as well?

[mrdct]

hrothgar, on Nov 15 2007, 05:12 PM, said:

The USBF is a private membership organization.  Its BoD can (probably) do whatever they damn well want.

For example, the BoD grants itself the power to refuse to approve anyone's application for membership.

I've got no idea what the laws are in the USA, but in Australia there are very powerful laws that prevent any organisation, private or otherwise, from engaging in discrimination on the basis of age, breastfeeding, carer status, disability/impairment, gender identity, industrial activity, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status, physical features, political belief or activity, pregnancy, race, religious belief or activity, sex, sexual orientation or personal association with someone who has, or is assumed to have, one of these personal characteristics.

There are some general exceptions such as sporting organisation being allowed to run separate events for reasons including:

• competitive standards - whether someone can compete effectively;
  
• age - participation in competitive sport may be limited to a specified age or age group;
  
• disability - participation in competitive sport may be limited to people with a general or specific disability;
  
• sex - organisers of sporting activities for people over 12 years of age may discriminate on the basis of sex if strength, stamina or physique is relevant.

The running of ladies event in bridge in Australia is potentially illegal, but as far as I know nobody has ever challenged it.

[glen]

The nice thing about this tangent is that it should be good for another 400+ off-the-main-topic posts.

Sadly, though, free speech has seen a Post self-edited here.

[mrdct]

What was the topic here again?

In a civilised society the only place where free speech should exist as an absolute right is in a sound-proof room when you are alone. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fruitcake.

[mike777]

mrdct, on Nov 16 2007, 02:41 AM, said:

What was the topic here again?

In a civilised society the only place where free speech should exist as an absolute right is in a sound-proof room when you are alone. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fruitcake.

Insane

free speech

absoulte


insane