From left, Jill Levin, Jill Meyers, Debbie Rosenberg and Irina Levitina of the Venice Cup championship team in Shanghai.
From the NYTimes:
In the genteel world of bridge, disputes are usually handled quietly and rarely involve issues of national policy. But in a fight reminiscent of the brouhaha over an anti-Bush statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, a team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest.
“Brouhaha”? I think there is a bit of major difference between this bridge team and Natalie Maines: The Dixie Chicks aren’t overseas as “official” representatives of the United States.
At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”
By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”
“This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the United States Bridge Federation, the nonprofit group that selects teams for international tournaments. “There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.”
Not so, said Danny Kleinman, a professional bridge player, teacher and columnist. “If the U.S.B.F. wants to impose conditions of membership that involve curtailment of free speech, then it cannot claim to represent our country in international competition,” he said by e-mail.
Ms. Martel said the action by the team, which had won the Venice Cup, the women’s title, at the Shanghai event, could cost the federation corporate sponsors.
The players have been stunned by the reaction to what they saw as a spontaneous gesture, “a moment of levity,” said Gail Greenberg, the team’s nonplaying captain and winner of 11 world championships.
“What we were trying to say, not to Americans but to our friends from other countries, was that we understand that they are questioning and critical of what our country is doing these days, and we want you to know that we, too, are critical,” Ms. Greenberg said, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not her six teammates.
The sign says “we”. So she was setting herself up as the mouth breather for her 6 teammates.
What a sorry excuse and an absolute lack of good judgment and self-awareness.
What does mixing bridge have to do with politics? And isn’t one of the purposes of international sports competition supposed to be the absence of political conflict?
The controversy has gone global, with the French team offering support for its American counterparts.
“By trying to address these issues in a nonviolent, nonthreatening and lighthearted manner,” the French team wrote in by e-mail to the federation’s board and others, “you were doing only what women of the world have always tried to do when opposing the folly of men who have lost their perspective of reality.”
What chutzpah. What a complete lack of objective reality. There is an assumption that being against President Bush and the war on Islamic terror and the Iraq War is just a given; that it isn’t a bias and partisan belief.
The proposed sanctions would hurt the team’s playing members financially. “I earn my living from bridge, and a substantial part of that from being hired to compete in high-level competitions,” Debbie Rosenberg, a team member, said. “So being barred would directly affect much of my ability to earn a living.”
A hearing is scheduled this month in San Francisco, where thousands of players will be gathered for the Fall North American Bridge Championships. It will determine whether displaying the sign constitutes conduct unbecoming a federation member.
Three players– Hansa Narasimhan, JoAnna Stansby and Jill Meyers — have expressed regret that the action offended some people.
Get it? They aren’t sorry that “the action” took place; only that “the action” “offended some people”.
The federation has proposed a settlement to Ms. Greenberg and the three other players, Jill Levin, Irina Levitina and Ms. Rosenberg, who have not made any mollifying statements.
Given that none of the team members have come forward expressing disagreement for the sentiment on the sign, is that not further proof that Greenberg was lying in saying she wasn’t speaking on their behalf?
It calls for a one-year suspension from federation events, including the World Bridge Olympiad next year in Beijing; a one-year probation after that suspension; 200 hours of community service “that furthers the interests of organized bridge”; and an apology drafted by the federation’s lawyer.
It would also require them to write a statement telling “who broached the idea of displaying the sign, when the idea was adopted, etc.”
Alan Falk, a lawyer for the federation, wrote the four team members on Nov. 6, “I am instructed to press for greater sanction against anyone who rejects this compromise offer.”
Ms. Greenberg said she decided to put up the sign in response to questions from players from other countries about American interrogation techniques, the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues.
“There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture,” Ms. Greenberg said. “I can’t tell you it was an overwhelming amount, but there were several specific comments, and there wasn’t the same warmth you usually feel at these events.”
So rather than defend our President’s war policy or criticize it in private conversation, amongst her peers, she felt the need to publicly make a political statement. As an American, can I go overseas and hold up a sign in front of some AP photographers, saying “Ms. Greenberg does not speak for me”? Because as an American, I do not feel the need to apologize publicly to the rest of the world for the actions of my president, whether he has an “R” or a “D” laced to his name. And if I were representing my country as a member of a U.S. team, even if my personal feelings ached to speak out, I’d have the good sense to not abuse my position in front of the camera to speak on matters of politics, when I am on camera for reasons other than politics.
Ms. Rosenberg said the team members intended the sign as a personal statement that demonstrated American values and noted that it was held up at the same time some team members were singing along to “The Star-Spangled Banner” and waving small American flags.
“Freedom to express dissent against our leaders has traditionally been a core American value,” she wrote by e-mail. “Unfortunately, the Bush brand of patriotism, where criticizing Bush means you are a traitor, seems to have penetrated a significant minority of U.S. bridge players.”
Where is the common sense decency and good taste? They exercised their freedom of speech, and expressed their idiocy, for all the world to see. Why do anti-Bush liberals always feel that their exercise in free speech absolves them of criticism and backlash for behavior that is disagreeable to Americans who are not like them?
Through a spokesman, the other team members declined to discuss the matter.
Ms. Narasimhan, Ms. Stansby and Ms. Meyers have been offered a different settlement agreement, but Ms. Martel declined to discuss it in detail.
Many of those offended by the sign do not consider the expressions of regret sufficient. “I think an apology is kind of specious,” said Jim Kirkham, who has played in several bridge championships. “It’s not that I don’t forgive them, but I still think they should be punished.”
Mr. Kirkham sits on the board of the American Contract Bridge League, which accounts for a substantial portion of the federation’s financing, Ms. Martel said, and has submitted a proposal that would cut the league’s support for the federation, one of two such proposals pending.
Robert S. Wolff, one of the country’s pre-eminent bridge players, who has served as an executive and board member of several bridge organizations, said that he understood that the women might have had a legal right to do what they did but that they had offended many people.
“While I believe in the right to free speech, to me that doesn’t give anyone the right to criticize one’s leader at a foreign venue in a totally nonpolitical event,” he wrote by e-mail.
David L. Anderson, a bridge player who supports the team, said it was common to see players at international tournaments sporting buttons bearing the date “1-20-09,” when George W. Bush will hand off to a new president, as well as buttons reading “Support Our Troops.”
“They don’t go after those people,” Mr. Anderson said.
“Support Our Troops” is a political issue? Whatever.
There should be some line drawn in the sand between public behavior, as an “official ambassador” of your country, where you are representing ALL Americans and not just one political spectrum of it, and private discourse, in which you are free to criticize away to your heart’s content.
And suck it up, when you are floored by the illuminating discovery that more fellow Americans- both conservative and liberal- disapprove of your soapbox moment than support it.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Of course you can go overseas and hold up whatever sign you wish in front of AP photographers. Please do.
As for the ratio of who supports their action and who does not, my guess it would be about the same as those who currently support Bush and those who do not currently support Bush.
I hope these lady bridge players are punished swiftly so that people in China and in other parts of the world don’t get the wrong idea and think it is OK to criticize your leaders.
How dare a private organization have rules and try to enforce them!
You sure can hold up a sign, but not if your part of an a non-political organization that forbids it. If you do then you get in trouble with that organization. Unlike China which puts you in jail for this kind of conduct, the only thing that will happen to these idiots is that they lose the right to play in that private organization for awhile.
You know, in the grand scheme of things, who gives a flying care about the “bridge club” and why give them more attention than they deserve? But what gets my goat is the mentality behind the action; it’s a prevalent endemic attitude amongst many liberals who have dissolved the barrier and distinction between what is appropriate, and what is “anything goes”.
“By trying to address these issues in a nonviolent, nonthreatening and lighthearted manner,†the French team wrote in by e-mail to the federation’s board and others, “you were doing only what women of the world have always tried to do when opposing the folly of men who have lost their perspective of reality.â€Â
OK… So it would be perfectly fine then if I stood up at my table in this hall with a large sign that read: “Go F$&# yourself you skanky, dumbass whores!!!”
Hey… it’s free speech and apparently it’s appropriate whenever, wherever and for whatever anyone wants to do it.
Right?
Well of course we know the answer to that. It’s ONLY appropriate if you are bashing President Bush, or conservatives, or Christians…. If I were to hold up MY sign I WOULD BE ATTACKED and denounced for exercising the same offensive speech rights these Bridge Playing @#$@)#$()@)$#@ did!
The kicker was she was making a statement on somebody else’s dime and reputation. If she had formed a seperate group called “Bridge Against Bush,” then I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
What’s it like for a sponser? Imagine the sponsers waking up to angry letters and E-mails claiming they are some how unAmerican for supporting an anti-American organization. A friendly game of bridge just became a major PR disaster that could cost the company money in the form of fewer customers not to mention the money and time needed to win them back. This probably wouldn’t hurt the sponsers as much as if it was a NASCAR event, but it doesn’t take much to ruin a reputation or have a minor incident become a major one. Just talk to Howard Dean about his one time scream to find out how little it takes.
Come on people – If the ladies held up a sign saying “We Love Bush” instead of “We did not vote for Bush” do you think they would be subject to the same kind of sanctions? Both signs are political but the latter would have undoubtably gotten a free pass.
JDL, perhaps not. But “We love Clinton” or “We love Bush” is not politically as offensive as making a negative statement for the man who is representing your country’s leadership. The point is, it is an inappropriate forum to make such a statement; yet liberals are the ones who always can’t seem to help themselves abuse the podium at nonpolitical events to make political statements. It’s a dis-ease among them. In their private lives, rather than simply being satisfied with positive bumper stickers and t-shirts about their politics, they overwhelmingly always have to trash the other side with negative slogans. In the past two weeks, I saw junkmobiles that even had anti-Bush stickers plastered on the side, and on the front-end of the vehicles; not just the rear.
When was the last time you saw a Hollywood celebrity step up to accept an Oscar and make a political slam against a Democrat politician?
So, no. Both sides do not engage in it.
Mike’s America has it just right. If a team held up a terrifically offensive (to almost all) sign – would everyone then be yelling “oh; it’s just free speech?”
I think not.
Rather than have the “sign police” at tournaments – better to just have NO signs.
Do it on your own time – when you are not receiving an award for your nation – on the dime of the organizations that sponsored and sent you to the competition.
If you want a really good laugh, go to the United States Bridge Federation’s website and read their “Statement of Damage.” Amid the statement’s numerous non sequiturs, lapses of logic, and general tone of hysteria, one passage in particular stands out: “Certain members of VCW have complained that the USBF apology to the WBF and the Chinese Contract Bridge Association for the VCW’s conduct was unwarranted. This reflects a complete disregard for the fact that the Chinese government, which does not exactly have a history of sympathetic views toward political dissent, provided the bulk of financial support for both the 2007 World Championship and the 2008 World Bridge Olympiad.â€Â
So let’s be clear about what they’re saying: Because the totalitarians who rule China don’t have “sympathetic views toward political dissent,†the Federatin thinks that the players who held up the sign and the USBF should adopt the same attitude. Especially since China provided some of the funding. In other words, the USBF is perfectly willing to sell out bedrock American values to totalitarians in exchange for a little funding. Sorry folks, but freedom is messy — the USBF will just have to explain that to their Chinese friends.
Let’s not forget, also, the punishment the USBF is trying to impose: a one-year suspension, an apology drafted by the USBF and signed by the players,and 200 hours of community service for the cause of bridge(doing what, teaching bridge to inner city kids?). As Keith Olbermann suggested on MSNBC last night, the USBF should change its name to the Soviet Bridge Federation. They’re a bunch of petty tyrants and they are the real embarrassment to our country. It’s depressing that so many writers on this website are so blithely willing to jettison cherished American ideals in favor of a prissy decorum and unthinking obedience to the hysterics who run the USBF.
The USBF should represent the whole country, not the right-wing war-mongers and profiteers currently in charge.
tOM