Help Our Bridge Team "Scotch" The "Palooka"

(The quoted terms both are part of the lexicon of the card game of bridge, as noted here.)

It seems that the life form who once proclaimed that he wanted to be “a uniter, not a divider” has managed to create division in everything Americans do in this country as well as overseas, and that poisoned atmosphere is everywhere.

Yes, I know this is “department of the obvious” stuff here, but it’s the only reaction I have in response to this story that appeared in (of all places) the Arts and Leisure section of the New York Times today….

…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.

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” (that was held up at the same time some team members were singing along to “The Star-Spangled Banner” and waving American flags).

By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”

“Treason” and “sedition” (what century is this, anyway?) for coming up with a little impromptu sign protesting the preznit, something as innocent as anyone can imagine with six little words on it, none of them profane?

This is pathetic off the scale. I honestly can’t think of anything to say beyond that.

“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.

A-HA! (and not talking about the '80s group, of course)..See? The rights of corporations trump free speech always. We all know that from The Two Minutes Hate, don’t we? And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go use my credits to buy some Victory Gin. Doubleplusgood, that!

Dear God…

So what exactly spurred this moment of rebellion, an acknowledgement to the world that there are still people in America who respect habeas corpus for all, who don’t believe in unilateral imperialism as a means of solving problems and who think that torture is wrong (I wish I could find the post, written by Kagro X I believe, that explained how ridiculous it is that we’re even having a discussion about someone’s position or policy on torture in this country – as if there could be a gray area somehow – other than to state categorically that torture is wrong!)

How dare these women bridge players act as independent, free thinking human beings with a conscience! Exactly what on earth could have prompted this action (which surely emboldens the terrorists even as we speak)?

“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,” (Gail) Greenberg (the team’s non-playing captain and winner of 11 world championships) said, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not her six teammates.

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.”

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.”

…

“There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture,” 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.”

…

“Freedom to express dissent against our leaders has traditionally been a core American value,” Rosenberg 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.”

And wait until you get a load of what the United States Bridge Federation has in mind for the bridge players as a punishment (and kudos to the French players, by the way)…

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.

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.”

Nice - and on top of all of this…

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.”

I’m surprised Kirkham and the USBF aren’t going to burn the women at the stake or stick bamboo shoots under their fingernails (or better yet, why don’t you water board them; after all, our new AG doesn’t consider that to be torture, as alluded to previously).

I had hoped that the “Chernoff defense” would be in play concerning our political dialogue as well as this sport, but instead, those seeking to punish the bridge players are collectively acting as a single dummy here (and by the way, I’m definitely not talking about cards).

Update 11/20/07: How nice that sanity prevailed here.