Olympic boycott?

Calls for a boycott of the 2008 Olympics have increased lately as a result of the humanitarian disaster occurring right now in Tibet.

I'm not sure I favor anything more than a Diplomatic boycott, and/or a boycott of Olympic sponsors. A full boycott would likely not accomplish much. Opponents of a boycott point to the fact that the Olympics have served to shine light on human rights abuses committed by China, and that China has vowed to improved its human rights record as a condition of hosting the games.

None of that has amounted to anything meaningful yet. Now that the inevitability of the Beijing Olympics has been solidified, China is certainly moderating its promises of improvement. On the contrary, China's behavior seems to have become even more brazenly anti-humanitarian, i.e., the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in Tibet, the arrest of political dissidents, and hyped-up rhetoric justifying its support of the genocidal government in Darfur, Sudan.

But what I'd like to know is, Why was China considered as a host in the first place? China's human rights abuses certainly don't seem to be in line with the IOC's official Charter stating, "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." China continues to routinely torture its people, arrest and jail dissidents, and generally behave as autocratic dictatorships are inclined to.

And the situation in Tibet is particularly nasty. The Chinese Government is killing people for peacefully protesting, and the IOC is lending them prestige and international legitimacy. The USOC is complicit in this, of course.

But, all that aside, the over-riding reason that the Olympic games should NOT be hosted by China is their support of the Sudanese government. China is supporting the genocide in Sudan, the biggest humanitarian crisis of this century, with weapons and money. That fact led Steven Spielberg to resign as artistic advisor to the 2008 Olympics, saying, "At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur."

Way to go Steve! But I'd really like to see the International community step up and refuse to condone the legitimization of genocide. Is that too much to ask in 2008?

So no, there should not be a boycott of the 08 Olympics. The Olympics should be moved to another city. Or at least that threat should be firmly on the table. The leverage that could be exacted by such a threat should absolutely be exploited to its fullest potential. It is a moral imperative.

And let's be clear; the IOC, as one of the sleaziest organizations around, will do nothing on its own. The threat of a full pull-out must come from, oh, I don't know, maybe the U.N.? Why not? Using the threat of a pull-out to compell China to make human rights improvements, on several fronts, represents the easiest, least costly, and perhaps most effective means of effecting change in the world today.

It is an opportunity that must not be squandered. But, of course, it will be.

McCain: A man of principle

In his 2000 campaign, McCain famously said that he would "openly condemn agents of intolerance", refering specifically to the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Recently though, he has been buddying-up with such unsavories as John Hagee who blamed Hurricane Katrina on gay parades in New Orleans.

I suppose that "condemning agents of intolerance" has become too much of a political liability for McCain. Though I wonder if that is wise on his part.

Principle indeed.

A Cowboy President I Could Handle

"Thank ya ma'am. Much obliged."
Hellz yeah! Now, that is f-in' sharp!

The Rare Bush Veto

Today, Bush has used one of the rare presidential powers he doesn't like to abuse, the veto. Unfortunately, the veto was used to keep the congress from limiting executive powers in other ways. This bill would have specifically, and by name, forbidden the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding, along with other forms of tortu.....ahhhhum...excuse me......I mean interrogation. I believe that this is his fifth veto while president. Two of them, I can not recall, but let's look at the other three.

First, there is this one. He actually vetoed a bill that would say we can not torture people. It is bad enough that our Congress feels it necessary to pass this bill in the first place, but then the President goes and vetoes it. You know, this has actually gotten to me so much that I am out of snark. My snark has left the building. But, maybe this will help people to understand why hoodie wearing, anarchist bicyclers are blowing up military recruitment centers.

Next, Bush hates for poor children to be healthy. Yes, he vetoed a bill giving children health care. He apperently loves poor kids while they're in the womb, but could give a flying fuck about them once they've cleared the vagina.

The third one I can recall off the top of my head is his first. Yup, this is slut he popped his veto cherry on. This whore of ethics was none other than the evil that is stem cell research. In Bush's own word's stem cell research, "crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." So, let me get this straight; using an unwanted grouping of cells, that have not even attached themselves to a woman's uterus yet, for medical research that could save the lives and decrease the suffering of innumerable people, crosses a moral boundary that torture is safely behind. And, we have come full circle in the travels through Bush's logic.

I need a drink...