NationStates Jolt Archive

Cities to host the Olympic Games are chosen primarily on the basis of their capacity to host said Games. The city needs to have some decent infrastructure (transport and accomodation) and the financial capacity to build facilities for this massive event which grows with each incidence.

Cities in countries which send a lot of competitors and/or win lots of medals are preferred (eg Moscow 1980) and there are also sentimental reasons (eg Athens 2004) and timezone reasons (eg Atlanta 1996).

There is a history of countries boycotting the Olympic Games, which came to a head with the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The subsequent Games (Los Angeles 1984,) was likewise marred by a counter-boycott of the Eastern Bloc nations.

Since those two outstanding examples, boycotts have been discredited. It is simply unfair on the athletes to compete for medals when their strongest opponents are not sent to the games, to make a political statement on behalf of their country's government.

I agree with the Olympic ideal, that athletes should set aside their political or nationalistic differences and compete fairly with each other, as individuals or sporting teams. The Olympics, like the World Cup, should be a fair measure of sporting prowess not a stalking-horse of national hostilities.

And yet ... these will be a very political Games. Forms of protest which are acceptable in democratic nations will be evident, and the foreign press and visitors will be on the look-out for them. They will play in the foreign media, and the Chinese leadership may rue the day they made a bid to showcase their capital city.

(If you can't see anything to argue with in the above, feel free to yell "Free Tibet!" or just ... you know ... talk about the Olympic Games :) )

I tend to agree that I wish the Olympics could be more free from the taint of politics, that they could just be an athletic competition, but I can certainly understand those groups who want to use the publicity for their own agendas. I wish it would not happen, but I think it's unavoidable.

I tend to feel that people who protest the Olympics are selfish. Even if they feel it is for a good cause. The Olympics go back to ancient Greece. They stopped wars for the Olympics. Why the #$%^ should we stop the Olympics because of some hippies? Those atheletes have been training and preparing for four years. Some of them are in the prime of their lives, and some people want to crush their chances to prove themselves?

I don't have a problem with politics at the Olympics, after all hosting the Olympic games is a major political coup for the host nation's government. These games in particular were always going to be politicised, the Chinese government has seen to that. But I don't support boycotts.

But really, what's the importance of athletic competition? Isn't it just a luxury anyway, or a way to assert dominance over other human beings? Why should athletic competitions be held in higher regard than things like human rights or political tension?

But really, what's the importance of athletic competition? Isn't it just a luxury anyway, or a way to assert dominance over other human beings? Why should athletic competitions be held in higher regard than things like human rights or political tension?

In the interest of peace, I guess. To show that all nations can come together without violence or retribution.

I don't have a problem with politics at the Olympics, after all hosting the Olympic games is a major political coup for the host nation's government.

Well, that's what I'm wondering. The Sydney Olympics lost money, but not much and it's easy to see it as advertising. Some of those Olympics visitors probably had a great time and will come back as tourists.

If the Olympics goes well, it's money well spent. The last few have all gone well.

But the Games get bigger with each iteration. The stakes are increasing. What if London really fucks it up?

These games in particular were always going to be politicised, the Chinese government has seen to that. But I don't support boycotts.

Boycotts are stupid. Any country which boycotts makes a political statement, but it's undermined by (a) they save money not sending a team, and (b) it hurts their own athletes' reputation (ie winning record.)

Olympics and politics should be totally separated.

The Olympics are about the athletes competing, not governments making money. It is sad that all the governments think about is the money, not seeing it from any other point of view. As Ascelonia said in #3, "...and some people want to crush their[athletes] chances to prove themselves?" some people only think about themselves.

In the interest of peace, I guess. To show that all nations can come together without violence or retribution.

But if we can't come together in truly meaningful ways, in the ways that matter, to do things like fully address human rights issues, alter our technology to better coexist with the environment, and all that jazz, then what's the point?

But if we can't come together in truly meaningful ways, in the ways that matter, to do things like fully address human rights issues, alter our technology to better coexist with the environment, and all that jazz, then what's the point?

Practice?

Well, if you disagree with it, boycott it. And when I say "Boycott", I don't mean countries, just don't watch the Olympics. That simple. *Shrugs*

As the son of a US Olympic Team member to the '80 Games, I have a somewhat bias opinion that politics have no place in sport, however, they will sadly find their way onto the awards podium in one form or another.

One example of the sad presence of politics in sport is when he embraced his friend and training partner East German Wolfgang Schmidt after Schmidt won the silver and beat Wilkins fellow American thrower.

The news media had a cow over the event, decrying Wilkins as a communist and as un-American, even though such a moment showed the transendence of sports across political barriers.

im fine with political protests at the olympics. its not like you can stop them anyway and its .... interesting... to see how the various countries deal with them.

i despise those who use terrorism to wreck the olympics for their own political agenda. those people should be hunted down and given the strongest penalty possible.

i despise those who use terrorism to wreck the olympics for their own political agenda. those people should be hunted down and given the strongest penalty possible.

As do all the patrons of NSG, I certainly hope.

Practice?

Haha, I remain, somehow, unconvinced.

But really, what's the importance of athletic competition? Isn't it just a luxury anyway, or a way to assert dominance over other human beings? Why should athletic competitions be held in higher regard than things like human rights or political tension?

I would say its importance is to test the limits of human fabric. How much can we hurt, how hard can we push our bodies before we crack, what is are moral fiber made of, sand or stone.

I don't think the Olympics should have been given to China in the first place. Of course no country dares to boycott, given the loss of trade with China that would surely follow in retaliation. Its up to individuals to boycott. I of course will not be watching the Games, though this may be at least partly because I think watching it on TV would be made more enjoyable with the introduction of a paint-drying event :p

It's nonsense that politics and sport can be separated, especially with something as big as the Olympics. The host country gains prestige, international attention and huge economic benefits - not just simple ticket sales, but regeneration, construction work and the like.

The Olympics should not have been given to China as it gives our stamp of approval to the regime there.

The Olympics should not have been given to China as it gives our stamp of approval to the regime there.

The only reasonable argument that I can think of against awarding the Games to the Chinese is the environmental issues.

The marathon is expected to be a bonanza of people dropping out due to the pollution.

But if we can't come together in truly meaningful ways, in the ways that matter, to do things like fully address human rights issues, alter our technology to better coexist with the environment, and all that jazz, then what's the point?

Basically what NH said. To show that it can be done I guess, its baby steps man. You can't expect to run with out crawling a little first at least. (used crawling instead of walk, because my brother started running before he learned to walk, or so I'm told.)

It's nonsense that politics and sport can be separated, especially with something as big as the Olympics. The host country gains prestige, international attention and huge economic benefits - not just simple ticket sales, but regeneration, construction work and the like.

The Olympics should not have been given to China as it gives our stamp of approval to the regime there.

If we didn't pull out of Nazi Germany's Olympics, why would we pull out of China's.

I see no "stamp of approval", on either.

If we didn't pull out of Nazi Germany's Olympics, why would we pull out of China's.

I see no "stamp of approval", on either.

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

The two situations are not even remotely comparable! The humans rights violations of Nazi Germany were not understood to any degree at all, nor did people care anywhere near as much.

Now, if we were talking about a Nazi Germany today, where we allowed Olympics despite the Holocaust, then MAYBE this line of logic would work. Since we thankfully do not have a Nazi Germany today...

Basically what NH said. To show that it can be done I guess, its baby steps man. You can't expect to run with out crawling a little first at least. (used crawling instead of walk, because my brother started running before he learned to walk, or so I'm told.)

So we need hundreds and hundreds of years of crawling? Seems a bit excessive to me.

:p

I would say its importance is to test the limits of human fabric. How much can we hurt, how hard can we push our bodies before we crack, what is are moral fiber made of, sand or stone.

But where's the value in that, even? I mean, the Holocaust tested the limits of human fabric, and probably much more effectively. They published studies on it. Surely this didn't have any positive value.

Also, I take exception to the phrase "moral fiber" in this context. The amount of physical labor in which we choose to take part has nothing to do with morals, as far as I can tell.

But where's the value in that, even? I mean, the Holocaust tested the limits of human fabric, and probably much more effectively. They published studies on it. Surely this didn't have any positive value.

Also, I take exception to the phrase "moral fiber" in this context. The amount of physical labor in which we choose to take part has nothing to do with morals, as far as I can tell.

I would contend that a hard work ethic is the ultimate moral.

As the son of a US Olympic Team member to the '80 Games, I have a somewhat bias opinion that politics have no place in sport, however, they will sadly find their way onto the awards podium in one form or another.

One example of the sad presence of politics in sport is when he embraced his friend and training partner East German Wolfgang Schmidt after Schmidt won the silver and beat Wilkins fellow American thrower.

The news media had a cow over the event, decrying Wilkins as a communist and as un-American, even though such a moment showed the transendence of sports across political barriers.

It's an interesting story now that you point it out.

EDIT: Schmidt was certainly a worthy athlete. If I'm reading it right, he held the world record in discus ... twice?

Wikipedia tells me that Schmidt tried to escape to the West after that. He was jailed for it, then released to coach an Eastern Bloc soccer team. In '87 he applied for permission to pass through the "iron curtain" to coach abroad, and ... was allowed to!

The Wall was still there, but the thaw had begun.

Kudos to you dad. If the mainstream press is "having puppies" you're probably doing something right.

I would contend that a hard work ethic is the ultimate moral.

As a very un-goal-oriented person, I prefer "firstly, do no harm." Work Ethic carries overtones of living up to the expectations of others, which I find associated with many acts which are NOT moral. ("Ve ver just doing our jobz!")

I do recognize dedication and self-discipline as virtues. Perhaps I simply don't have an "ultimate moral." To focus on only one virtue and hold the others irrelevant seems to me very morally risky.

It's just a huge party for plutocrats/propaganda vehicle/wealth transfer scheme paid for by everyone else. If people could see it for what it is there would never be one held again. (At least not in the current form).

Unless it can pay for itself through admission tickets/pay per view, it shouldn't be held. End of. There are better uses for the vast pots of cash it squanders.

It's just a huge party for plutocrats/propaganda vehicle/wealth transfer scheme paid for by everyone else. If people could see it for what it is there would never be one held again. (At least not in the current form).

Unless it can pay for itself through admission tickets/pay per view, it shouldn't be held. End of. There are better uses for the vast pots of cash it squanders.

BWAHAHA!

The Olympics is an NGO. It isn't squandering UN cash, it isn't squandering Government cash (they're begging for the Games, and paying up-front) and it isn't squandering Media cash (they beg for the broadcast rights, and paying up-front) ... so whose cash is being "squandered"?

BWAHAHA!

The Olympics is an NGO. It isn't squandering UN cash, it isn't squandering Government cash (they're begging for the Games, and paying up-front) and it isn't squandering Media cash (they beg for the broadcast rights, and paying up-front) ... so whose cash is being "squandered"?

The Olympics is costing the UK some billions, the Chinese government paid some 20 billion+

Taxpayers money?

As for Australia, the 'Where the bloody hell are you?' campaign was initiated due to the noticeable drop off in tourism after the Olympics, many cities/governments lose money on the Olympics.

The Olympics is costing the UK some billions, the Chinese government paid some 20 billion+

Taxpayers money?

As for Australia, the 'Where the bloody hell are you?' campaign was initiated due to the noticeable drop off in tourism after the Olympics, many cities/governments lose money on the Olympics.

As I said earlier, the Federal and State governments willingly sunk money into the Sydney Games. They lied to the electorate while Sydney was bidding (ie said the Games would pay back into government coffers) but before the Games even started they dropped that line and admitted that there would be a shortfall.

Bottom line: no Games can be held in any city or country without the consent of that city (its local authority in Sydney being the NSW-state government) and the national government. For what are they "squandering" their money, but a perceived benefit to their city or country?

Which country doesn't bid for the Games?

Hmm. Sealand 2016. Get on board!

... so whose cash is being "squandered"?
Taxpayers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/30/olympics2012).

Taxpayers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/30/olympics2012).

You would criticize the Olympic Games because the British government is being ripped off by their contractors?

That's kinda weak. As is your one word reply, expecting me to read a Guardian editorial to get your point.

As long as the Government gives us Bread ... I'll put up with the Circuses.

When it's all Circuses and no Bread, then I'll riot.

I tend to feel that people who protest the Olympics are selfish.

Actually, campaigning on behalf of those being murdered in Darfur and ruled unjustly in Tibet is pretty much the opposite of selfishness.

The Olympics go back to ancient Greece. They stopped wars for the Olympics.

What of it? Sure, it's possible, perhaps, to set aside political differences. But should we do it? This statement hardly helps establish that fact.

Why the #$%^ should we stop the Olympics because of some hippies?

Ad hominem. Whatever you (probably wrongly) think of the culture or lifestyle of the protesters, their arguments still stand on their own: we should not be aiding along an attempt by the Chinese regime to glorify itself, in the context of its actions in Tibet and Sudan. Attack the message, not the messenger.

Those atheletes have been training and preparing for four years. Some of them are in the prime of their lives, and some people want to crush their chances to prove themselves?

Some of us think there are more important than athletic fame and glory. Like respect for life and freedom.

*snip*

This, too.

In Turdovia we have our own olympic games where only the government wins. It seems fairer that way and avoids the disappointment that athletes usually feel when they lose, because they know in advance that a politician running in a pin stripe suit will win (even when invariably he or she is last). Simple! We never invite other countries to our games (we save money that way and our great country always gets the most medals). We can't understand why other countries don't adopt this pragmatic approach to an unnecessarily emotive subject. :p

But really, what's the importance of athletic competition? Isn't it just a luxury anyway, or a way to assert dominance over other human beings? Why should athletic competitions be held in higher regard than things like human rights or political tension?
Look, you ignoramus. It's not easy to be an athlete, even the very best work very hard.

They take it as a career because they have been proven to have capability, talent.

Look at the good things it promotes, such as good emotions, fitness, among other things. It promotes community also and great fun!

You people on this forum tend to generalize, and subsequently get things incorrect.

Use your intelligence people.

Also both issues should get attention, BUT, if the sports thing helps the human rights situation, its for the good.

The olympics gives us a peak into our neighbours' back yard, so to speak.

Love you all.

Bottom line: no Games can be held in any city or country without the consent of that city (its local authority in Sydney being the NSW-state government) and the national government. For what are they "squandering" their money, but a perceived benefit to their city or country?


Of course politicians bid for the games. It's all rather nice for them. They and their little buddies get to jet off around the world, staying in five star hotels in exotic locations in order to make their 'bid'. Not a bad job if you can get it.

Then, once the games is awarded, plenty of taxpayer money can be doled out actually preparing for the games: construction, Olympic committees, designing stupid mascots, consultants; paying for a whole bunch of stuff that the taxpayer neither wants nor needs.

Then there is all the expense of training the athletes and sending the delegations - again plenty of opportunities for junkets.

All so we can be treated to a dickwaving competition between the super-powers du jour for two weeks every four years. Absolutely ridiculous.

And the tourism argument is bogus too. It's not as if after the athens olympics people suddenly said: "Fucking hell, Greece, I'd never heard of that place before, I think I might go!"

It's a big con job mate.

Look, you ignoramus.

Fail.

Calling names not only doesn't win you a point, it's contrary to the guidelines of this forum.

"You are ignorant" might be acceptable, if followed by an educational rant. But "ignoramus" is personal.

Go read the guidelines (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573), newb.

In Turdovia we have our own olympic games where only the government wins. It seems fairer that way and avoids the disappointment that athletes usually feel when they lose, because they know in advance that a politician running in a pin stripe suit will win (even when invariably he or she is last). Simple! We never invite other countries to our games (we save money that way and our great country always gets the most medals). We can't understand why other countries don't adopt this pragmatic approach to an unnecessarily emotive subject. :p

In NSG we don't role-play.

But this post displays satirical talent, which will be as welcome here as in the role-playing forums (WA, II, NS and whatever other perversions of the declarative form NS2 has spawned.)

So, welcome. Read the guidelines and check a few threads on the General page. They aren't all alike. :)

*snip*
Bottom line: no Games can be held in any city or country without the consent of that city (its local authority in Sydney being the NSW-state government) and the national government. For what are they "squandering" their money, but a perceived benefit to their city or country?
Of course politicians bid for the games. It's all rather nice for them. They and their little buddies get to jet off around the world, staying in five star hotels in exotic locations in order to make their 'bid'. Not a bad job if you can get it.

But. They get to do that anyway!

Once, way back when I was a newb, in some forgotten thread which may soon be culled, I suggested that Representatives not only be modestly paid ... but that they should serve their term as jurors do when deliberating on controversial cases, sequestered from the rest of society.

It was impractical, of course. As most of my ideas are.

Anyway, how would you restrain politicians from making "glamorous" decisions? How would you form a political system where politicians CAN'T jet around and play fanboy to athletes, celebrities, luminaries of past politics, recognized academic authorities, historical figures on their deathbeds?

Would you institute a lottery? This tuesday, our Prime Minister is authorised to visit (drum rolls, chit is picked) ... Eugene Killroy, age 37, unemployed ex-manure salesman, at his place of resid -- hang on, at a coffee-shop on main street, with three of his mates to protect him from the big bad government?

Then, once the games is awarded, plenty of taxpayer money can be doled out actually preparing for the games: construction, Olympic committees, designing stupid mascots, consultants; paying for a whole bunch of stuff that the taxpayer neither wants nor needs

Government chooses. If we don't like the choices the government makes, we choose a different government.

I agreed that the process of "choosing a government" doesn't work perfectly. But CYNICISM towards government as such serves no-one ... except maybe your local gang-boss.

We delegate choices to governments. The choices that are beyond our individual power (were we to keep it) to make, beyond the power of our neighbourhood committees, beyond the power of our opt-in advocacy groups.

"Democracy is rubbish. But it's better rubbish than the alternatives" or something, Churchill said.

It's a big clue that when the Olympics have a serious chance to come to a city (and nation) where there is a two-party democratic government, BOTH parties are strongly in favour of it. The Opposition may quibble over the costs, they may quibble over the implementation, but do they oppose the hosting of the Games? They don't get to go on the junkets, they don't get the souvenir keyrings of solid gold from South Africa ... yet they support it because it's popular with the City-zens and it's good for the city and the country. Does the Opposition Oppose?

I think not. You may enlighten me ... with links please.

Then there is all the expense of training the athletes and sending the delegations - again plenty of opportunities for junkets.

That nations pay to train athletes is a different matter. I oppose it. Fair competition between athletes from different countries is corrupted by state-sponsored "training."

I oppose that strongly, but it's a whole other subject. A worthy one I would say, and if you want to pursue it, that would fit within "politics and the olympics."

All so we can be treated to a dickwaving competition between the super-powers du jour for two weeks every four years. Absolutely ridiculous.

It's both. It is a competition between athletes (admirable) and a competition between nations based on their ability to 'train-up' athletes (despicable.)

Let's not throw away this high-profile opportunity for athletes, because governments and sponsors and advertisers try to, and have had some success in, corrupting it into propaganda.

And the tourism argument is bogus too. It's not as if after the athens olympics people suddenly said: "Fucking hell, Greece, I'd never heard of that place before, I think I might go!"

It's not a bit bogus. When people go to Sydney, or to Athens, or the Beijing ... NOT to see the Harbour Bridge, or the Colloseum, or the Imperial Palace ... but because that's where the Games are: they see a city coping with their collective and massive needs to see the Games. They meet with people from all over the world, and they do it with a common interest.

It's not just "do you speak my language, hey cool, what's your name, where are you from? Hey check out the Colloseum, it's really awesome, let's exchange email addresses and have a great time!" but they are drawn there by a common interest.

I got a refresher on this recently with the Catholic World Youth Day in Sydney. Like a lot of Sydneysiders, I initially resented the special treatment this religious event got from our secular state government. "The Catholic Church is fucking rich, why don't they just employ their own security? Pay double to use the public transport? Bloody well subsidize their pilgrims to stay in a decent hotel instead of camping out?" I thought, but when it actually happened, and these young Catholics from all corners of the earth were riding our trains, eating in our restaurants, asking directions in the street ... well, it was a reminder of the good feeling of the Sydney Olympics.

So, lighten up mate. You'll hate it and resent it until it happens. It will melt your heart, really it will. Get out on the streets of London when it's happening, crowded though they may be then, because that's a glimpse of the future.

People drawn together by what they love, not huddled together and fearing what they don't know. It's just bloody great, it's a glimpse of the future when we don't each need a little patch of ground to feel safe from each other.

If you need a few square feet of the planet's surface to call your own, start digging now.

It's a big con job mate.

I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next nutter.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Look, you ignoramus. It's not easy to be an athlete, even the very best work very hard.

They take it as a career because they have been proven to have capability, talent.

Look at the good things it promotes, such as good emotions, fitness, among other things. It promotes community also and great fun!

You people on this forum tend to generalize, and subsequently get things incorrect.

Use your intelligence people.

Also both issues should get attention, BUT, if the sports thing helps the human rights situation, its for the good.

The olympics gives us a peak into our neighbours' back yard, so to speak.

Love you all.

First of all, you should re-read everything Nobel Hobos said for emphasis. Secondly, namecalling is especially out of place in a format such as this, since you don't even know if I do in fact hold the positions I was espousing. (As a matter of fact, I do not, and many of the things I posit on these forums are views to which I myself am scarcely sympathetic.)

Next, the fact that people are naturally inclined to be athletes is certainly not enough justification to have a worldwide event celebrating their career choice. Some people are naturally inclined to be murderers. As such, they choose it as a profession. Does this mean there should be a two-week long aggrandizing ceremony for them?

Fourth, you may say it promotes good emotions. Another may (perhaps rightly) say that it promotes emotions of hostility and arbitrary competition. Fitness is certainly a positive value to promote, but to the point of dedicating your life to it, often at the expense of relationships and human interaction? Probably not.

Finally, perhaps both issues should get attention, but certainly human rights should not take a back seat to athletics. This is the issue being discussed here. Contemplating whether the Olympics has a positive or negative effect in regards to human rights is probably a worthwhile discussion. Maybe we can approach it once you've decided to stop generalizing and start making points.


Welcome to NSG. :)

We need to realize that you will never, ever, in a million years achieve any kind of meaningful progress on human rights if you seek to isolate the offending nation. China's reforms on economic and human rights issues have been tied directly to their level of exposure to the rest of the world and if we attempt to isolate them (laughable given that we saw fit even to allow Nazi Germany to host them in 1936) it will do nothing but threaten that very progress.

The Olympics serve as a way of celebrating international friendship and encouraging competition in a sphere that doesn't involve blowing your opponent straight to hell with billion-dollar airplanes or gassing his people in death camps with Zyklon B. We need that kind of competition to break down the kinds of barriers that lead to war and we need to realize that like any community there are going to be those that we disagree with and whose actions may be quite repulsive to our sensibilities. Frankly, the fact that China has even allowed the Olympics to be held is a major step for a nation that was little removed from North Korea 30 years ago.

I would argue that the 1980 Moscow Olympics presaged the beginning of the dramatic reforms later seen in Gorbachev's era and that the 2008 Olympics will herald the same. Call me foolish or naive, but I sincerely believe that President Hu will implement new, greater and more meaningful reforms that ever before in the aftermath of these Olympics that will be a dramatic refinforcement of those pioneered by Deng Xiaopeng thirty years ago this December.

Actually, campaigning on behalf of those being murdered in Darfur and ruled unjustly in Tibet is pretty much the opposite of selfishness.

The opposite of selfishness?

I doubt you could define that.

I could give an opposite ("service" -- turning one's every effort to the benefit of known others) but I acknowledge that this definition is not universal. I don't consider enlistment in the armed forces "service" for instance ... though many do.

What of it? Sure, it's possible, perhaps, to set aside political differences. But should we do it? This statement hardly helps establish that fact.

I think we should sometimes set aside political differences. I see value in being only-athletes, or only-therapists, or only-politicians, in the daily cycle of a life. I would no more insist that politics be considered on the race-track, than I would insist that arm-wresting be required in the Parliament.

Before pursuing this, may I ask how many hours a day you have to argue it out?

I have about two hours a day, for the next week as I see it. Another two hours a day to research the philosophical underpinnings of your sometimes specialized jargon, but that cuts into other web-reading I should be doing.

I'd like to pursue this with you, but I don't want to over-commit myself, nor to burden you likewise. A discussion on NSG should not be a day's work.

I seek to protect my offline life here. The last time I disputed a point of yours, real life went to hell and my health suffered. It was good and all, but I won't do that again. :)

"Free Tibet!"

Other brutal, murderous, feudal regimes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEOSCIOnrs) also available at significant savings.

I have no problem with people protesting at the olympics, or people at home choosing not to watch them. However, i don't agree with nations boycotting the games because i don't think that's fair to the athletes. Olympic athletes only get the chance to compete every four years, it's not like teams competing for the Stanley Cup, or the World Series or something, their chances are limited. Besides, i think the best way to bring attention to these issues are to keep the focus on China for two weeks. If there's a boycott, it will make the news for a couple of days, then people will talk about something else.

I do care about Tibet, and i care about humanity, but the fact that i care about humanity is exactly why i love the olympics and why i will watch them this year. To me, they are about more than sports, they are about the spirit of co-operation, teamwork, sportsmanship and peace. They symbolize what we on this planet can do if we work together. I realize that is a romantic notion, but i have seen plenty of moments between athletes of various countries that illustrate those things. I think it's inspiring.

You would criticize the Olympic Games because the British government is being ripped off by their contractors?

That's kinda weak. As is your one word reply, expecting me to read a Guardian editorial to get your point.
I would criticise the handling of the Olympic games by each of the past few host nations, some of the conduct of the IOC, the myth that the games will have dramatic effects on the lives of host nation citizens beyond those that attend or take part in the games, and a few other quibbles.

The Grauniad's editorial highlights some of those quibbles nicely. Moreover, my one-word reply adequately answered your question; "Who'se cash is being squandered?" "Taxpayers."

I think it's inappropriate that China's been occupying Tibet since 1951 and people decide to complain about it now. The Olympics is about sport. Sport is not political, it's about lots of things that are so cliched I wont bother mentioning them, but not politics. If you really care about Tibet you'll care about it all the time, not just jump on a bandwagon because people have suddenly remembered due to the Olympics.