So, I'm perusing the news that has been coming across inews lately, and I've gotta say I'm shocked. For a little background before I get into my question…

China won the bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.
Darfur Stuff begins.
Tibet stuff begins.
Olympic Torch relay begins.
London and Paris have some pretty bad protests when the Torch comes through.
IOC gets worried that San Fransisco might have to be the last stop for the Relay.
American Protests are mild, but only because SFPD caught on, rerouted the relays route, and canceled the closing ceremony for the torch relay.
IOC elects to continue the relay despite heavy protesting.

Now, What China is doing in Tibet is wrong. I won't dispute the fact that these people have it right to be protesting that. But are the Olympics, a set of games, events, and tests of human physique and training originally revived to promote unity between the countries of the world, really the thing to protest?

The athletes selected for the Olympic teams have trained probably their entire lives to make it to and participate in the Olympics. These aren't some backwater games. This is an international competition of sports.

Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton are calling on President Bush to boycott the Opening Ceremony. The British Prime Minister, and German Chancellor have both elected to boycott the Opening Ceremony. But really.. Why? Not showing up isn't going to make the Chinese change their ways, it's only going to let the Athletes of your country down. The leader of their country couldn't even show up to recognize that they made it to the Olympics. Why? Because the World leaders want to turn the Olympics into some Political statement. The Olympics are not a Political Arena. This actually reminds me of something I had to do a report on in History class in like 8th grade. The 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin. Now, if you click the link and read, you'll see such things as an American protest to going to the Olympics because it could be seen as supporting the Nazi Regime. But in the end it was decided that Boycotting them would be bad. It would ruin the spirit of the games.

I think this ideal stands clear today as well. The Hitler's Third Reich was no less of a human rights surpressing regime then the People's Communist Party of China. The Nazi party was obsessed with Aryan Supremacy. But even in light of all of that, the countries of the world set aside their differences and went to the Olympics Games.


Hitler understood this, and its been proven he was a sociopath and a madman. Why don't the current leaders of the world see this the same way?


Anyway, What are you guys views on this? I know a lot of you are in other countries around the world, England, Germany, Australia, etc. What is your take on the local views on the situation?

It should come as no surprise from me that I am appalled at the things China does to its people. They certainly didn't deserve the honor of hosting these games, but that decision has been made by the IOC, and for better or worse, they're sticking to their guns. I could ask no more of my own leaders here at home. In the end, you're right. This is supposed to be a celebration of the athletes and the competition that makes them the way they are. This isn't supposed to be a political tool to be exploited like so many other things in life.

You need only go back and look at the laughable message it sent the last time we boycotted the games for political reasons. In 1980, Jimmy Carter boycotted the games as a protest against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. If history has proven anything, it's proven that had no affect on the situation there at all, and only made Carter look like an idiot. You can't solve a human rights problem by boycotting a sporting event. It needs to be solve by more aggressive methods than that.

Let the athletes compete. This is an event for them, not for us, not for our governments, and not something the Democrats should be using as a campaign issue.

Before you jump into action blaming the Democrats, you might want to double-check that Republicans aren't doing the exact same thing. Blame, but blame fairly…

Oh right. I keep needing to be reminded McCain is not a Democrat too… :P

But yes. That more or less makes all 3 candidates blithering idiots on the subject, though I imagine I've made my distaste for our choices this election pretty clear. None of them should be leaping on this as a campaign issue, they're all just trying to get the media's attention. Just that Clinton and Obama managed to get more of it from our local bastions of liberalism than McCain did.

:lol:

I so don't want to get into the politics of this nonsense here, but for the record, I have to agree with Kayle on this one. China probably doesn't deserve to be allowed to host the Olympics and certainly doesn't deserve to reap the financial rewards that come from tourism, etc related to hosting the Olympics, but boycotting the events because China has been allowed to host them will not help anything and protesting the Olympic games will not either. If anything, it strongly demonstrates a lack of basic understanding .. it's almost like insisting that our congress should intervene with professional athletes who use legal medications like steroids in unethical ways to gain a sporting advantage… oh, wait, we've done that recently too…

I have to agree, The candidates using this as a tool to get elected is stupid. The Games were to promote the unity and strengths of the human race. I mean, if Hitler can grasp this fact and clean up Berlin of all his anti-Jew propaganda for the Games, Why can't our government keep their nose out of the sports world?

The Congress/MLB deal is just as retarded. Why the hell is congress wasting their time on things like that when they could be discussing Important things like, the economy, housing markets, and gas prices, and how to fix them so the common man can afford things?

Because just like the sports issues and the Olympics, Congress has no business sticking its nose into things like the economy and housing markets. That's what capitalism is for. Government bail out of stupid people who took out loans they couldn't afford - and knew they couldn't afford - is as big a waste of our tax dollars as anything else. Asking the government to fix all that is asking for fascism.

I left the gas price thing separate because that's not something we have any control over at all. The US is not a member of OPEC, and never will be. OPEC sets the world oil prices, and everything cascades down from there. Our oil companies have to get it from them, which means they pass those costs along to us or they don't survive. We can't fix it without going to war to stop it.

The sub-prime mortgage crisis is a whole lot more complicated than people losing houses. The entire financial system is hurting badly, with some of the biggest banks going bankrupt, or being saved by foreign capital. You say Congress should not intervene, but do you maintain that in the face of the idea that Congress not intervening could mean a massive recession? Should it let our financial institutions fall apart, or be bought by foreign companies, or even countries? Since we were talking about China: do you like the thought of China owning more of the American economy – like, say, our banks – than it already does via Treasury bonds?

These issues are never simple and should not be reduced to such sound-bites like "government should not intervene, long live capitalism". Capitalism in its "pure" form (pure meaning "strictly interpreted") is just as unrealistic as communism in its "pure" form. The US is certainly not a "pure" capitalist country; no country is.

I don't understand how you can say things like government should not intervene, and then want government laws and oversight of things like domain names. Wouldn't the government doing something about it be precisely the kind of intervention that you're saying we shouldn't have? Where does one draw the line?

Anyhow, I think we're straying into potentially murky waters here…

We're dangerously off topic already, but since you asked:


It's precisely their intervention in this that's going to cause a massive recession. If they keep out of it and let the economy do what the analysts are saying it will do, then we'll be over this by the end of the year. If they stick their noses in and interfere with artificial loan bailouts, tax increases, price controls, or other means then we're going to be in a lot more trouble for a lot longer. If our financial institutions fall apart, maybe it should be allowed to happen. They didn't get into this situation by being smart with their money. If China swoops in and cleans up, a lot of people will be pissed, but blame the real cause - the banks - and let them suffer the consequences for once.

As far as domains, I think I already pretty well established that the reason I'm in favor of regulation there is due to the rampant fraud, counterfeiting, and deception going on. Things which rise to criminal levels in some cases. Which is entirely the jurisdiction of the legislative and executive branches to fix.

That's funny – the economists and analysts you mention are saying that everything is falling apart and that the Fed (central bank) needs to intervene to keep things afloat. In fact, there is a lot of debate about the ethics vs. necessity of that: basically, the message it is sending to the financial industry is that it's fine if they screw up, because the country will bail them out because the country cannot afford to have the banks crash like in 1929. Don't believe me: follow the WSJ for yourself. They're well-known to have a right-wing slant, so no blaming evil liberal news outlets on this one. :wink:


If the banks tank, the country tanks. Cf. 1929 if you don't believe me.

I'm a little surprised that the notion of China owning the financial institutions doesn't seem to bother you…

Doesn't this violate at least one of The Rules of Acquisition??

I'm not entirely surprised you've deliberately read something into my statement that I didn't say. Your skill at selective quoting is only matched by the trolls at TMC.

I never said it didn't bother me that China may swoop in and take over our banks. I simply said it's probably high time that they actually be allowed to feel the consequences of their own reckless actions.

As far as the WSJ, I don't agree with their assessment that the Central Bank needs to step in and keep injecting false support into the economy. Lets draw a parallel to the sports world ( and desperately try to relate this to the actual topic! ) if you'll indulge me for a bit. Kayle brought up the steroid thing and Congress. What usually happens to someone who uses steroids for a long time and finally has to stop? They tend to suffer some pretty serious health affects, often worse than if they'd simply left the stuff alone. The Fed is doing the same thing to our economy right now, and at least two talk radio hosts have identified this and raised the alarm, even going so far as to call it a "steroid economy".

So what does that mean? It means when injecting artificial support into the economy is no longer effective, and I don't believe it can continue to be, there's going to be a hard crash not at all unlike a steroid user who is finally forced to quit using. Instead of a mild recession like many analysts predict is coming but will smooth out a few months later, The Fed is setting us up for a much larger economic disaster that will make 1929 look like a gambling loss at the track one drunken night.

Back on the subject of the Games, I heard a tidbit on Fox News this morning that got me to thinking. I think it was Shepard Smith who suggested it. Let the athletes go to the Games, but President Bush stays home in protest. It seems like a balanced enough response. The competitors go, do their thing, bring glory to themselves and their countries, but our government officials do not need to be there to honor the Chinese government. Seem like a reasonable solution to anyone else?

Gee, thanks, Samson. Alrighty, we'll roll your way. I should have known better than to attempt to engage a conversation on this topic with you. :rolleyes:

It helps a lot when you avoid distorting someone's words into something they didn't say. :)

The instant you guys start talking to each other about each other rather than about the topic is when we derail. Try and keep it on topic please guys.

It was a remark made in good faith. I'm not in your head. I can only go by what you write, not by what you meant. You come out calling me a troll of the highest degree just because I unintentionally interpreted your sentence in a way that you did not intend. Instead of clarifying, you chose to insult me. (Who was it just recently who bemoaned the state of debate in the MUD community?) Forgive me if I don't care to continue a conversation after a statement like that. :shrug:

Sorry. Still burning off leftover steam after the treatment I got on TMC over the last couple days. It seemed clear enough to me I wasn't saying that I wanted China to swoop in.

I did clarify that I'm not favoring letting China take over our banks, just that I think they should be allowed to suffer the consequences of what they've done. It would bother me a lot if China swooped in, but it bothers me more to see our government interceding in ways that are extremely harmful to our own economy. We don't need to help it along anymore than it already has been.

The only purpose served by us boycotting the games as a political statement will be to make us look like asses. Let the athletes compete, Bush can stay home.

Alright. :smile: Sorry that things went the way they did on TMC, but, after having read your link, I suppose you have done what it takes to have it not happen again. I truly did think you were saying that China coming in would teach the banks a good lesson, and that that would be a good thing, but now that you've clarified I see that was wrong.

It's a complicated issue: I agree that the banks need a lesson, but I also would rather that they stay out of foreign control. The only way to do the latter is for the Fed to intervene. Actually, although it might not be clear from the above, I also agree that the Fed should avoid intervening; I am just not convinced that that is a viable option in this case.

Still, all of this has drifted away from the topic of the Olympics. The main reason I haven't said much about those is that I'm not sure what the right option is. Bush staying home could be seen as a disservice to our own athletes. Bush going could be seen as a statement of (at the least, implicit) acceptance of the Chinese government's practices. It is a lose-lose situation for everybody. :sad:

Damn, Samson, that's harsh. :wink:

This idea is no better than boycotting the entire games. The President should be there to support the athletes from his country, cheer them on, congratulate them when they get medals, and support them when they don't. By Bush boycotting the opening ceremony, he won't do the athletes any good except to make them feel like their country isn't behind them.

The only thing that Anyone could do about the Olympics to make China pull their heads out of their asses at this point, would be for the IOC to cancel the Beijing Olympics on grounds of Human Rights Violations and ruining the spirit of the games. Or by Moving them to where they all started, and holding the summer Olympics at Olympia, Greece, whether it's against the rules for one country to hold them more than another or not. Olympia is where the whole thing started, it's only fitting that if a country is selected to host, and then is unfit to host because of the way they treat their citizens, the games should be moved to Olympia. The IOC should foot the bill, because chances are, it's their fault that said country won the bid with poor human rights tactics to begin with.

As long as the games go on, whether the Heads of Nations are there or not, China won't give a damn. They still get to host the Olympics. But they won't clean up their act, because they know there is no way te IOC can cancel, or move the olympics with only ~115 days to go.