IS THIS "INTEGRITY," "HONESTY" AND "CREDIBILITY?"
by Jerry Hanken
"Restore respectability, integrity, credibility and
professionalsm to the USCF." - Polgar, April Chess Life
"Too little integrity, honesty, credibility and professionalism by some board members." - Polgar May Chess Life
"Restore responsibility, integrity, credibility and professionalism to the USCF." - Polgar, May Chess Life
"Too little integrity, honesty, credibility and professionalism by some board members." Polgar, June Chess Life
"Restore responsibility, integrity, credibility and professionalism to the USCF." - Polgar, June Chess Life
"...restore the much-needed integrity, credibility and professionalism back to the USCF." - Truong, May Chess Life
"...restore credibility, integrity, efficiency and professionalism to the USCF." - Truong, June Chess Life
Please note that the words integrity, credibility and honesty ring through the campaigns of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. This reminds me of two of my favorite Shakesperean characters. Throughout Shakespeare's tragedy of betrayal and murder, Othello, the words used to describe the consumate villain, Iago, by other characters, are similar. "Honest Iago," "Honorable Iago," etc. echo throughout the play. As we learn more about his true character, the words take on a sharpened irony.
Also, Shakespeare's character, Mark Anthony, speaks over the body of his friend Julius Caesar, and again and again he uses the word "honorable" to describe Brutus and the other conspirators who murdered his friend and patron Caesar. He takes great care in repeating this word- "Brutus is an honorable man. So are they all honorable men." By the end of the speech the aroused crowd sets out to destroy Brutus and the conspirators.
The use of the words "integrity," "honesty" and "credibility" in the campaigns of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have the same hollow ring as do those Shakesperean ironies.
What kind of credibility does it show when these two, who we now know have been legally married for about five months, have each announced for the Executive Board and conveniently forgot to disclose that fact to the voters?
On Feb. 16, 2007, Susan posted in response to an inquiry, "Paul is my business manager and one of my best friends for more than 20 years... Paul handles the media, publicity, PR and technical stuff for me, my website, blogs, chess center and the SPF. He does not get paid for what he does." How disengenuous. What else are they hiding?
When Paul Truong claims extensive executive business experience, but refuses to provide specifics, how credible is that?
When Susan and Paul claim that the Susan Polgar Foundation awarded $400,000 in scholarships and chess prizes in the last few years but their 990 tax form filed with the IRS shows a vastly smaller number, how credible is that? And how many of the offered scholarships were actually
declined by winners who preferred other schools?
When Susan and Paul claim that USCF is falling apart and only they can save it, even though membership is up strongly and we have had a surplus of over $600,000 in the last four years, how credible is that?
When they complain about "little attempt to positively promote chess or USCF" or "too little focus on positive chess promotion" when our publications and website have been improved and our rating system dramatically updated, how credible is that?
When Susan's three Chess Life campaign statements all say, "End the petty and destructive politics," what does she have in mind? If she means that Sam Sloan should be defeated, I strongly agree, but I'm afraid she plans much more if her slate gains control.
Have we ever seen an EB candidate attack "politics" while campaigning for a political slate in every Chess Life statement?
Do we see a sample of what could be coming on her blog, where posts not conforming to her party line are deleted faster than you can read them? (Example: someone actually had the temerity to put up a post supporting one but not the other. That was gone in a flash.)
Why are Susan and Paul the only EB candidates who refuse to interact with the members on the USCF Issues Forum, preferring their own controlled environment where anonymous poster after anonymous poster sing their praises? How credible is that?
Those of you who recall my coverage of the 2006 National Open might recall that I praised Susan Polgar quite highly for her effectiveness as a role model for girls. However, her Executive Board campaign, like that of her husband, has been disappointingly hollow and without substance. I will not be voting for any member of the Polgar slate.