Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/717186
Iprobablycouldhavehadabridgeminorin college a er my friend Bill Goldman intro- duced me to that addictive card game in my freshman year. There are some lessons to learn from that game. Playing bridge helps you deal with what you are dealt, to think about your opponents' cards and strategy, to plan ahead, and to refrain from kibitzing and unnecessary conversations. It requires a certain amount of discipline. Ruffingandtrumpingare a part of bridge as is over- trumping. False carding was problem if you didn't pay atten- tion to what you were doing. If you partner won the bid, you were the dummy, lay- ing your hand out face up for all to see, but you could not signal your partner which of your cards to play. You could bid in the two major suits, spades and hearts, the two minor suits, clubs and diamonds, or in no trump. My regular partner in college, George, liked to bluff, and Bill Goldman was good at finessing. We learned about Scotch while playing bridge. My wife's roommate, Kathy, used to talk about "might on the right" and "heft on the left" in planning her card playing strategy out loud. My mother in law would tell us to "bid or bunch", a polite way of saying either toss in your cards or bid, for Pete's sake. When we were first mar- ried we played bridge one night per weekend with an- other couple our age in San Francisco; they had two young children at the time, and we mostly played at their house. In the course of a night we would finish a bottle of tawny port during our visit. In Red Bluff we played of- ten with George and Sha- ron Russell who played a so- cial game of bridge where the playing was equal to the so- cializing. Some people I knew were cutthroat players, how- ever, and you feared for one of your hands if you misplayed or missed a bid. For a variety of reasons thinking of bridge has given me a new way to look at this year's bizarre political con- test, not just because one of the candidates is "Trump" and there is a "no Trump" move- ment. Most people I talk to are not happy with either of the major party candidates, and most of those people, no mat- ter their party, are particu- larly unhappy about the Re- publican candidate and his propensity to demonstrate ig- norance, pomposity, and to avoid any kind of tact. One person told me that "after three wives he should have been better trained." In any case, if running for President were a bridge game there would be certain rules that the players would follow. They would avoid calling each other liars or frauds, but they could call their opponent's bluff by letting them dem- onstrate the truth by allow- ing them to play their hand, or make their bid. They could attempt a finesse, but realize there is chance involved and not assume everyone actually knew their strategy. If running for President were a bridge game, there would be no kibitzing or chid- ing, or innuendo like using the Second Amendment in a certain way. Candidates would bid, that is make their state- ments, and face the conse- quences…playing their cards. If running for President were like a bridge game, there would be an immediate pen- alty for false carding…. Al- leged sarcasm could not be used as an excuse for playing the wrong card or making an incorrect bid. If running for President were like a bridge game, the winning bidder would have to play the hand by himself, and not rely on surrogates to ex- plain what he "was really do- ing." Excuses like, "he's an amateur politician" do not fly if you do not play your hand well. You either make the hand or you go down to de- feat. If running for President were like a bridge game, play- ers could brag about their al- leged wealth or business acu- men, but not at the table; they would have to put up or shut up, so to speak. Their repu- tations do not matter; it is how they play their cards that counts. (On the other hand, it would be good to see Don- ald Trump's taxes or hear his excuses about past mislead- ing statements about himself. Mrs. Clinton could do a better job of explaining or apologiz- ing for her email faux pas.) If running for President were like a bridge game there would be an accepted vocab- ulary, and the players would have to use those acceptable terms; the grammar is simple. We would not have to listen to runaway sentences, misplaced modifiers, or other malaprop- isms. If running for President were like a bridge game, we wouldn't care about the size of the player's hands or other bodily parts; we would only care about what his/her hand is holding. If running for President were like a bridge game, can- didates would not be able to take back or clarify state- ments; once a bid is made, the logical consequences of the game follow. In other words, candidates would have to think before they spoke. In bridge the player only has to promise his/her part- ner that he/she knows what is going on; in politics, the play- ers have to promise everybody everything, so it is more com- plicated. Clear rules for all to follow would help. I could go on, but I've had fun with this and hope you have enjoyed it too. JoeHarropisaretired educator with more than 30 years of service to the North State. He can be reached at DrJoeHarrop@sbcglobal.net. JoeHarrop Playing bridge vs. playing politics Cartoonist's take If you are an average per- son, you are unlikely to con- sider yourself to be prejudiced, and in many respects, people would be correct. The United States is in fact highly toler- ant, even in respect to the rest of the developed world. Preju- dices that were common sev- eral decades and were not even consider remarking on are rare today, to the point where any public figure who utters something deemed rac- ist or sexist quickly becomes a pariah in society. Yet one form of bigotry has skyrocketed in the past twenty years: political bigotry. It's not what one typically considers a form of prejudice, but I hap- pen to consider it just as se- rious. It's become common, almost normal, if you are a Republican, to see the Demo- crats as not just wrong or mis- guided, but evil. Democrats have a very similar attitude to- wards Republicans. Let's not kid ourselves: name-calling, bluster, and half-truths are normal in pol- itics. There is no golden age where everyone managed to get along, in spite of their dif- fering belief systems. Political ads have always been nasty, and it works; if it didn't, they wouldn't be used, even if we like to complain about how toxic they are. The paralysis in govern- ment is merely a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself, contrary to what I have frequently heard discussed. If you see the other side as the enemy, not just as your oppo- nent, compromise is going to be very difficult. On the rare occasions where it has hap- pened, both sides are immedi- ately damned by their respec- tive voting bases for daring to give in, even a little, to ones who are considered an en- emy. If you make even a minor compromise, you are deemed a "flip-flopper." We can see this with the re- cent political conventions of the Democratic and Republi- can primaries. To use a con- siderable understatement, nei- ther Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump are very popular, with serious questions about integ- rity, honesty, and competence. In the interest of keeping this as non-political as I reason- ably can, I'll leave the topic there. Both Hilary and Trump are deeply unpopular, with the lowest favorable ratings of any candidates in recent his- tory. Whom is more unpopu- lar seems to vary from day to day, depending on what Trump says or what new scandals Clin- ton undergoes. And yet in spite of being hated by large num- bers even of their own parties, the two of them succeeded in becoming the respective nom- inees. I personally did not ex- pect Trump would actually win, but he did. Over time, and especially over the last fifteen years, the other party is no longer con- sidered the "loyal opposition". They are the enemy, they are a threat to the very existence of the nation. Close to half of Hilary and Trump's support- ers aren't voting for their can- didate so much as they are voting against their opponent. A considerable majority of this country, in fact, are gen- uinely scared of the other per- son becoming president, hence why an individual would vote for Trump or Clinton de- spite having serious misgiv- ings about them. According to a July 14th AP poll, 81% per- cent of Americans fear having at least one of the nominees as president, with a quarter of the respondents fearing both. An excellent example of this polarization is the tragedy in Orlando. Forty-nine people were murdered in a nightclub by a man who pledged allegiance to ISIS. In fact, he went so far as to call the police, saying that he was committing mass mur- der on behalf of ISIS. I had ex- pected, perhaps naively, that with a clear-cut terrorist attack that we could unite in support of those who had lost their lives. I was wrong. While many people in Orlando lined up to donate blood Within hours, the political attacks began. The Republicans and Demo- crats blamed one another for this, not including the age- old argument about gun con- trol. We had an Islamic ter- rorist declare what he was inspired by, and yet many re- flexively blamed the GOP. In the media, I lost count of how many fools were claiming that this attack happened because of our "intolerance" towards homosexuals, how our cul- ture encouraged this attack, how the blood in on the hands of the right. Just to take one especially egregious exam- ple, the New York Post on the front page posted the faces of the forty-nine victims, saying: "Thanks, NRA!" Not that the Republicans acted any better. Criticism of Obama's policies is legitimate, whether you actually agree with it or not. Some go much farther, however. Senator John McCain claimed that Obama was directly responsible for the Orlando tragedy. Instead of unity, we tore each other apart further, claiming that you cannot truly care about the victims if you disagree with certain policies. Seeing the other party in an unfavorable light has sky- rocketed over the past couple decades. In 1994, 17 percent of Republicans had very un- favorable views of the demo- cratic party, with 16 percent of the Democrats believing that of the Republicans. By 2014, those numbers had increased to 43 and 38 percent, respec- tively. Even then, the two main parties didn't particularly like each other, but other time, it's grown to a true loathing. Another example are the po- lice shootings in the news that we have been watching, espe- cially the ones involving black males. Most of the time, people hearing about this have already made up their minds, even be- fore the first bits of evidence have been learned. Either the young man was yet another vic- tim or our racist system or an- other example of a thug who got what he deserved. These sorts of knee-jerk re- actions happen very quickly, hours or even minutes after the shooting happens. Looking at each case by itself and more importantly, waiting until the evidence begins to come out has becoming quite rare. Even with dating and friend- ships, finding people who have similar politics is becoming in- creasingly important. Accord- ing to an OK Cupid survey, around a quarter of the people who responded state that find- ing someone with similar polit- ical beliefs is important, com- pared to 17 percent back in 2012. The more passionate you are on one side, the more likely you are to consider it impor- tant, especially on the liberal side; 40 percent of those who consider themselves liberal be- lieve it important, compared to 29 percent for conservatives. And 63 percent of people claim that they only date people with a similar political belief. And this is where I come to a disappointing conclusion. I don't really have any answers for this, no real solutions on how to change our partisan di- vide. Nor am I completely inno- cent of it myself. All I can really say is to keep in mind that just because someone has a different belief than you, that does not make them evil or heartless. Trevor Bacquet lives in Tehama. Trevor Bacquet Political bigotry has skyrocketed in recent years Most people I talk to are not happy with either of the major party candidates, and most of those people, no matter their party, are particularly unhappy about the Republican candidate and his propensity to demonstrate ignorance, pomposity, and to avoid any kind of tact. GregStevens,Publisher Chip Thompson, Editor EDITORIAL BOARD How to have your say: Letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and no more than two double-spaced pages or 500words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section will be published. Email: editor@ redbluffdailynews.com Fax: 530-527-9251 Mail to: P.O. Box 220, 728Main St., Red Bluff, CA 96080 Facebook: Leave comments at FACEBOOK.COM/ RBDAILYNEWS Twitter: Follow and send tweets to @REDBLUFFNEWS Joe Harrop By Trevor Bacquet Let's not kid ourselves: name-calling, bluster, and half-truths are normal in politics. There is no golden age where everyone managed to get along, in spite of their differing belief systems. Political ads have always been nasty, and it works; if it didn't, they wouldn't be used, even if we like to complain about how toxic they are. OPINION » redbluffdailynews.com Saturday, August 20, 2016 » MORE AT FACEBOOK.COM/RBDAILYNEWS AND TWITTER.COM/REDBLUFFNEWS A4