Posts Tagged ‘bridge’

Let’s take a peek around the blogroll and see what we can see:

Dan Collins notes a double standard on gaffes:

But despite all of the available evidence that so easily destroys the meta-narrative of Obama’s brilliance, we still have yet to see him get the same treatment that Gerald Ford, Reagan, Quayle, or G.W. Bush did; where are all of the jokes about his educated idiocy? About Hirohito signing the surrender aboard the Missouri? About him listing the 57 states? No one seems to see the humor in any of this.

This reminds me a bit of why I think Obamacare is such a priority for this administration.

On the left side of the aisle Dissenting Justice takes issue with John Sheehan and his opinion of Gay Soldiers in the Dutch army:

Sheehan’s comments are absolutely bankrupt. 23 of the 26 NATO members allow out gays and lesbians to serve in the military. Only the US, Turkey and Portugal do not. Under Sheehan’s “logic,” NATO itself is ineffective due to the presence of gay soldiers.

There is no question however that the Dutch certainly didn’t cover themselves with glory in Bosnia. I’ve given my opinion on gays in the military here.

And Finally Peg at What if notes that both the administrations dealings with Israel and her showing in the North American Bridge association championships leave much to be desired:

his kind of excessive and weirdly paternalistic attitude to the state of Israel, directed so clearly from the top, seems to come out of a kind of unexamined personal animus. The long record that Obama has of friendship with virulent enemies of Israel has not gone unnoticed.

As the old saying goes; only time will tell. Let’s hope that the rest of the time this week is kinder to my bridge performance, too!

Hey Peg, at least you never played with a partner who liked to bluff when bidding. It really changes the game.

Peg (whom I still owe a favor to, I’d better make sure I disclose it to the FTC since I can’t afford the fine these days) talks a bit about this piece on inequality:

Since Ronald Reagan was elected nearly 30 years ago, Democratic politicians have promised that their program could reverse the steady post-1970s growth of income inequality without sacrificing America’s economic dynamism.

But having promised win-win, they may deliver lose-lose.

I think it is ironic that the logical end result of all of this tinkering is what a cultural hero of our leftist friends once sang against:

It brings to mind Ayn Rand and the Incredibles:

Dash is denied the opportunity to play sports because his power of super-speed means that he might excel. When he fights with his mother, pointing out that he is special, she insists that “everyone is special.” Dejectedly, he looks down and mumbles, “then no one is.” Similarly, Mr. Incredible gets in a fight with his wife, trying to intercede on his son’s behalf, and bemoans the fact that the school stages a fourth-grade “graduation.” This, he insists, represents the constant modern-day effort to find new ways of rewarding mediocrity.

I’m with Joe Hartman on this one who points to these two paragraphs in Screwtape proposes a toast to address this:

“The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be “undemocratic.” These differences between pupils – for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences – must be disguised. This can be done at various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing things that children used to do in their spare time. Let, them, for example, make mud pies and call it modelling. But all the time there must be no faintest hint that they are inferior to the children who are at work. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have – I believe the English already use the phrase – “parity of esteem.” An even more drastic scheme is not possible. Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma — Beelzebub, what a useful word! – by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeval’s attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON A MAT.

In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.”

Thus I am even more pleased that in her post she rebels against this abominable standard that would have kept us in the dark ages in the best way possible, by excelling!

With my favorite partner, Bill Kent, we won a four session event to get a subsidized trip to Reno next March, along with the right to compete in the North American Pairs event there. We won by an incredible margin of 7 boards (probably akin to winning a football game 63-3) and won each of the sessions with excellent games each time. Our percentage average was over 61%; generally, 55% or 56% will win the event. Am I bragging? You bet!

I don’t play enough Bridge and would love to have the chance to learn to play better from a master. Maybe if our liberal friends address bridge inequality I’d have a chance.