[matmat]

Erkson, on Oct 14 2007, 11:12 PM, said:

American soldiers who died in France, died because their Government send them.

Their Government send them to defend USA, not to defend France.
Germany's domination of Europa was a threat to USA.

Germany defeated France on May 1940. USA abandonned isolationism only after Pearl Harbor (i.e. December 1941) and that direct threat upon USA.

Frenchmen owe nothing to USA.

not to mention that france, among others, had participated in the US War of Independence... hmmmm....

[mrdct]

cherdano, on Oct 14 2007, 10:26 PM, said:

It wasn't "the American ladies", it was just one of them, and it wasn't a poster, but just a small hand-written sign.

I've just see some video of the incident, which I expect in due course will be out in the public domain but I won't be the one releasing it. The video shows the following:

- at the instant that the anthem starts the "We Didn't Vote for Bush" sign is not visible anywhere (although at this point the video isn't panned out to see the entire team);
- Debbie Rosenberg then glances to her left and is handed the sign by Hansa Narasimhan (looking very much like a couple of silly school girls passing a note in class);
- They are all more-or-less standing at attention and, indeed, Jill Levin who prior to the start of the anthem was busy inspecting the trophy ceased doing that and stood still in a dignified manner for at least the first 30 seconds of the video (which is all I have seen);
- Gail Greenberg, Jill Myers and JoAnna Stansby appear to be singing along to the anthem while the others are just look really happy to be there with some laughter and chatting evident, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it was over-the-top.
- About 8 seconds into the anthem, Jill Myers grabs the sign briefly to hold it jointly aloft with Debbie Rosenberg who then retakes control of the sign and holds it front of her chest.
- Now here is the previously unreported bit: on the audio of the video one can clearly hear male voices vigourously cheering, laughing and egging-on the ladies on stage. You can hear a few "yeah"s and "ha ha ha ha"s. I suspect that those voices weren't the Chinese waiters serving refreshments.

[Erkson]

matmat, on Oct 15 2007, 04:21 AM, said:

Erkson, on Oct 14 2007, 11:12 PM, said:

American soldiers who died in France, died because their Government send them.

Their Government send them to defend USA, not to defend France.
Germany's domination of Europa was a threat to USA.

Germany defeated France on May 1940. USA abandonned isolationism only after Pearl Harbor (i.e. December 1941) and that direct threat upon USA.

Frenchmen owe nothing to USA.

not to mention that france, among others, had participated in the US War of Independence... hmmmm....

Not to mention.

I don't expect any gratitude from USA because of Lafayette etc...

France, in 1777-1780, helped the Insurgents because it was her interest to weaken England and monarchies in general.

The rest is History told to children.

[han]

Would you mind posting a link to the video?

[mrdct]

Hannie, on Oct 14 2007, 11:37 PM, said:

Would you mind posting a link to the video?

I've only got a 1.6mb flash video file of it, but in any case it isn't mine to share so I think you'll just need to wait until it appears in the public domain which I'm sure wont be too long.

[blackshoe]

Erkson, on Oct 14 2007, 11:12 PM, said:

Frenchmen owe nothing to USA.

Apparently there are at least some Frenchmen who disagree with you.

[jocdelevat]

I think was a conspiracy theory making democrats look bad for their opinion. So for sure Mr. President Bush is behind the scene

[Erkson]

blackshoe, on Oct 15 2007, 05:07 AM, said:

Apparently there are at least some Frenchmen who disagree with you.

Yes, some of them.

My consolation is that the number of Americans who believe that God made the Earth in 7 days is higher.

[Fluffy]

officeglen, on Oct 14 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Oct 14 2007, 05:01 PM, said:

this is a typical situation where talking about it is just helping them on their goal, I think totally ignoring it would had been better, but what do I know.

If they had a goal, what would it be?

whatever it is, they wanted many people to know about it. I wouldn't had knew of it if it wasn't so largelly talked about in the forums for example.

[helene_t]

As for the idea that these women represented USA, I would spell it out (in this context) as "being in a position to influence some foreigners' image of the USA". This applies to everyone who has contact with foreigners. Every time I do something stupid, some of the native Dutch will jump to the conclusion that Danes are generally stupid. But a team that has been selected to represent* USA is in said position to a much stronger extent of course. [ *here in the different meaning of "playing in an international event where only two teams from the USA were allowed to participate" ].

I put it that way because I think it's important that "USA", in this context, is not a person or organization that can speak out an opinion about anything. These women did certainly not have any obligations towards the US government. Therefore, I don't think that the idea that they "represented the USA" guides us towards a consensus about how they are supposed to behave.

I do think, however, that they have an obligation towards the other participants in the ceremony to make it a pleasant thing, and an obligation towards the USBF not to make troubles. As such I think they did the wrong thing. They may have done the US public a favor (just my subjective opinion) but they certainly did USBF and the other participants a disfavor, so I think they should have found another time for their action.

As for the legal issues: while in China, they must abide to Chinese law, except that any contract they may have with USBF or other US persons/institutions is probably to be governed by the law of some US state.

[hrothgar]

What I find truly sad is the number of people who seem incapable of distinguishing between President Bush and the United States. The two are not the same. Individuals can be deeply patriotic while believing that Bush is an idiot. (I certainly don't claim to into this category).

I find it interesting that this debate is going on at the same time that Frank Rich printed a column talking about "Good Germans". (To my knowledge, this column was the first occasion where an Op-Ed writer for the NYT, the Washington Post, or the WJS directly compared Bush to Hitler)

From anyone who doesn't understand the reference, here is a copy of the Wikipedia reference:

Quote

“Good Germans” is a phrase that originally referred to citizens of Nazi Germany who, after Germany’s defeat in World War II, claimed not to have supported the regime, yet made no claim to have opposed it in any significant way. This was widely noted by Allied occupation troops, who were amazed and appalled by the widespread disavowal of responsibility for Nazi crimes among the German populace. For example:

It is a saying among our troops that there are no real Nazis in Germany, only “good Germans.” Every crime Germany committed against humanity seems to have been done by someone else.[1]

The term has come to be used to refer more generically to people in any country who observe reprehensible things taking place — whether done by a government or by another powerful institution — but remain silent, neither raising objections nor taking steps to change the course of events.

I thought that one of the fundamental lessons of World War II is that individual citizens have a duty to raise objections and try to change the course of their government. In much the same manner, members of the military don't get to use "following orders" as a defense.

If individuals feel that they are in a position to try to make a difference, they should do so...

[mrdct]

hrothgar, on Oct 15 2007, 05:58 AM, said:

I thought that one of the fundamental lessons of World War II is that individual citizens have a duty to raise objections and try to change the course of their government.  In much the same manner, members of the military don't get to use "following orders" as a defense.

If individuals feel that they are in a position to try to make a difference, they should do so...

I couldn't agree more, except:

- Not on the sporting field.
- Not when you are representing your country in international competition.

One thing that I'm struggling to get my head around is that with the USA being one of the few places in the world with a popularly elected head of state, one would expect that at least 50% of Americans would've voted for Bush at least once; but as things pan out I don't think I've encountered any Americans that admit to the deed.

[helene_t]

mrdct, on Oct 15 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

One thing that I'm struggling to get my head around is that with the USA being one of the few places in the world with a popularly elected head of state, one would expect that at least 50% of Americans would've voted for Bush at least once; but as things pan out I don't think I've encountered any Americans that admit to the deed.

Same here. I suppose democrats are more likely to travel abroad than are republicans.

[Gerben42]

Quote

One thing that I'm struggling to get my head around is that with the USA being one of the few places in the world with a popularly elected head of state, one would expect that at least 50% of Americans would've voted for Bush at least once; but as things pan out I don't think I've encountered any Americans that admit to the deed.

Simple. The ones you meet as a foreigner are the kind of people who meet foreigners. These are more likely the kind of people who do NOT vote for Bush. The places I've visited in the US are Chicago, California and the NY / DC area. Note the correlation with areas that did NOT vote for Bush.

Anyway, although I think personally that mr. Bush should have been impeached years ago and has no business running the country, I think the statement was very inappropriate. You are on a mission to represent your country, and that does not just mean you play your cards well and that you owe it to more than just your team that you do everything you can to get a good result. It also means that during the events that comprise the championship, you behave as those who sent you expect you to. Don't like that? Don't go.

I wouldn't be surprised is some of the ladies involved would be asked not to participate in the next trials.

[hrothgar]

mrdct, on Oct 15 2007, 03:09 PM, said:

One thing that I'm struggling to get my head around is that with the USA being one of the few places in the world with a popularly elected head of state, one would expect that at least 50% of Americans would've voted for Bush at least once; but as things pan out I don't think I've encountered any Americans that admit to the deed.

1. Have you taken a good look at voter participation rates here in the US? 50% of the number of voters is very different that 50% of the number of Americans.

2. The last two Presidential elections in the US were extremely polarized. Voting patterns fractured along a number of different demographic lines. The two most significant were population density and religious intensity.

This is an enormous over generalization, but I suspect that the average Bushie isn't the type to travel outside of the country. (Hell, Bush had only stepped foot outside the US once when he was elected). In a similar vein, I suspect that most folks who travel to the US - especially on business - often end up in urban enclaves. When I drove cross country last year I was deep in the middle of Bush country a few times (Idaho is a weird place). However, there seemed to be much better ways to spend my time than discussing politicals with the locals.

With all this said and done, I'm quite sure that a number of the members of this forum voted for Bush. (Unclear whether they're excited about admitting it at the moment, but...)

[HedyG]

mrdct, on Oct 14 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 14 2007, 10:26 PM, said:

It wasn't "the American ladies", it was just one of them, and it wasn't a poster, but just a small hand-written sign.

I've just see some video of the incident, which I expect in due course will be out in the public domain but I won't be the one releasing it. The video shows the following:

- at the instant that the anthem starts the "We Didn't Vote for Bush" sign is not visible anywhere (although at this point the video isn't panned out to see the entire team);
- Debbie Rosenberg then glances to her left and is handed the sign by Hansa Narasimhan (looking very much like a couple of silly school girls passing a note in class);
- They are all more-or-less standing at attention and, indeed, Jill Levin who prior to the start of the anthem was busy inspecting the trophy ceased doing that and stood still in a dignified manner for at least the first 30 seconds of the video (which is all I have seen);
- Gail Greenberg, Jill Myers and JoAnna Stansby appear to be singing along to the anthem while the others are just look really happy to be there with some laughter and chatting evident, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it was over-the-top.
- About 8 seconds into the anthem, Jill Myers grabs the sign briefly to hold it jointly aloft with Debbie Rosenberg who then retakes control of the sign and holds it front of her chest.
- Now here is the previously unreported bit: on the audio of the video one can clearly hear male voices vigourously cheering, laughing and egging-on the ladies on stage. You can hear a few "yeah"s and "ha ha ha ha"s. I suspect that those voices weren't the Chinese waiters serving refreshments.

i have never had the honor to stand on the podium at a major prizegiving ceremony.
but i have had the pleasure to attend several.
it is a solemn and highly emotional moment. they raise your flag and play your hymn and all those present rise in your honor.
i know that i for one would have tears running down my cheeks and would do my best to sing my national anthem.
raising banners and giggling is not the correct behaviour for a moment like this and seems to me to make a mockery of the whole ceremony.
what i find hardest to understand is the lack of reaction on the spot by the WBF officials who were surely present.does this mean that they agree with the actions of the ladies of the USA1 team?

[mrdct]

hrothgar, on Oct 15 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

1.  Have you taken a good look at voter participation rates here in the US?  50% of the number of voters is very different that 50% of the number of Americans.

Good point. I forgot all about that as we have compulsory voting in my country.

hrothgar, on Oct 15 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

... Bush had only stepped foot outside the US once when he was elected ...

That reminds me of a comment made to me about 10 years ago by a partner in a very large multi-national accounting firm where I used work who was out in Australia for a quality control review. He told me that greater than 50% of the firm's partners in the USA did not hold a passport which I found quite surprising as partners in large multi-national accounting firms don't tend to be short of a dollar and ought to be able to travel abroad to their heart's content.

[robbg]

I would like to bring to everybody's attention the following item from the ACBL BOD minutes from the Nashville (Summer 2007) meeting:


tem 072-141: WBF Relationship
ACBL will sever its relationship with the WBF.
Estimated cost/savings: Potential savings of many dollars.
Motion failed. Aye: 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 21. Abstain: 4, 5, 11, 22, 23.

There is a minority of members of the ACBL board who think that our participation in world bridge is a waste of money and support should be withdrawn (presumably to fund more bracketed knockouts and club appreciation pairs).

Actions like this give them more fodder for their views.

I may be sympathetic to, and even share the view these women expressed. But I would be proud to be representing my country on that podium. Representing my country means representing people who disagree with that view as well.

The WBF has gone through times when certain teams were banned by their governments from playing certain other teams. They have done their very best to remove politics from everybody's agenda for these events and I heartily approve of that.

I can't believe that after a campaign to make bridge an Olympic sport and to do other things to get the game worldwide general recognition that our ambassadors would shoot the game in the foot like this, but apparently their agenda trumped that of those of us who believe in a healthy world competition absent political overtones.

I hope that these women are not disciplined, but rather, come to their senses and apologize - not for their opinions, but for their abysmal judgment.

Robb Gordon

[HeavyDluxe]

Hi all...

Threads/topics/discussions like this do little, I suppose, to change the opinion of the people participating. Those people who think 'The Sign Incident' was in poor taste will always think that. Those people who think 'The Sign Incident' was humorous or even patriotic will continue to think that, I suppose.

Welcome to the internet, eh?

Regardless of the transformational value (or lack thereof) this thread holds:

I think the behavior of the winning women's team, if it was as described, was in very poor taste.

• The Bermuda Bowl stage *in CHINA* is simply not the place for this kind of political statement to be made. If the tournament were held in the US and you wanted to make such a statement, fine. To do so in someone else's house is just immature and disrespectful, IMHO.
  
• If the point was to distance the participants on the team from the negative perception the US currently has abroad, doing so at the CLOSING CEREMONY is certainly absurd. By this point, the women had already conversed and competed with representatives from all the countries. If you want to tell people, "Yes, I think GWB is a idiot, too. Please don't think of me the way you think of him" then you've had ample chance to do so.
  
• If you support support the action of the US women's team using their 'free speech' option, then I hope you would also support another team making a different, perhaps more inflammatory statement from the podium. Perhaps "We hate the UK" or something like that...?

The simple fact is that the general dislike of the current Presidential administration is influencing our view of their behavior. However, I believe the fact is that the behavior was wrong and immature - no matter how much you might resonate with the content. They are completely entitled to their opinions ("We hate Bush"), but should have sought a more appropriate soapbox to stand on.

Anyways, FLAME ON!!!!

[Al_U_Card]

Fear not the puppet but beware his master.

People and their motivations are personal but not always private.

This is the age of spin and media coverage of any event is subject (as it has more or less always been) to control and manipulation.

"Don't taze me bro" being another classic example.

Her only risk was losing the ($) support of her sponsoring body should they have pressure wielded against them for her actions. Her action, her decision, her responsibility. What we do with and about it remains to be seen.