Amen, Brother.

America has its own Tibetan separatists: It's called Hawaii.

Any ways what is Human Rights? It is merely an attitude that one group of people with wealth and power adopt towards other less wealthy group of people they detest when it suits them.

These olympics will be a political freak show instead of athletic competition. The closest thing in historical memory will have been the Berlin games. Hostile governments throughout the world are pumped up on ideology and prepared for an orgy of one-up- man-ship. That it will drag on well after just as it did in '28 is the only assured outcome.

Over on Salon.com there is a book review on the a book about the relationship between globalization and rapid expansion of international organized crime ... and so many "human rights issues" are related to the suppression of dissidents, often related to civil rights and/or labor and/or economic/environmental ...

When we fail to stand up for the rights of others, we subvert out own rights ... When we turn a blind eye to the working conditions China and in the food processing plants in our own region (so often manned by poorly documented laborers unable/unwilling to effectively fight for better/safer working conditions)... we subvert our claims of "rights" as workers...

I totally agree.

you're right...athletic competitions are way too important to be interupted by human rights discussions. And because a rogue regrime in the US is responsible for atrocities, we should also be complicit in other countries atrocities. This article is complete nonsense.

Historical note.

The 'Olympic Torch' that has everyone so wound up about was created by Hitler and the Nazi's for the 1936 Olympic games. It's route from Greece was filmed by Nazi propagandist Leni Ruffenstahl. The route followed the countries that then fell to the German Army...

So, I propose that it's time to return the Olympic games to their roots. A quadrennial religious and agricultural festival celebrated by having naked people run fast.

I think boycotting the olympics is sort of like taking the day off from your cushy pto/health care benefit-providing job to drive to the Earth Day celebration in your Hummer ...

There have been LITERALLY years to object to the IOC's award of the 2008 olympics to china, literally YEARS to demand concessions in exchange for participation ... and -- for god sakes -- there is even precedent for a large scale international boycott -- this johnny come lately ad hoc boycott pretty well reeks ... imho. So, perhaps better to hold those scented hankerchiefs to your nose and admit your hypocracy ...

2 words: sports diplomacy

Every government considers the Olympics as sports diplomacy so by its very nature it is political. Saying that the Olympics athletes should not be political pawns is like saying soldiers should not be political pawns.

Didn't Hitler write, give me 2 million athletes and I will give Germany an army to conquer Europe. And then he went on to hold the Berlin Games. Same old same old.

WTF -

Don't forget Puerto Rico and Samoa.

susanparker,

China, in response to pressure throughout the country, tried to pass a major labor reform law last year. However, virtually all the major US corporations with established factories in China made the threat that they would remove all their factories from China if it carried through with the reforms. The corporate kleptocracy is at the heart of the problem, and they are very much in support of punishing China for Tibet, as that weakens China's position on the global stage and makes it easier for them to get what they want out of Chinese labor and the labor of other impoverished nations.

Most Americans are better off in worrying about the abuses of their own government, not those on the other side of the world that they know little about. The well-meaning and naive often get played by much more sophisticated participants in the global game.

As for the author's point about getting the gold for human rights, the Bush administration has no interest in that, but instead is going for the gold in hypocrisy, and my money is on them to win it.

Thanks Kivals -- interesting -- disappointing but unsurprising that this is even more of a "lipstick on the pig" rally for a token (but business as usual, for god's sake) boycott ...

I remember 20+ years ago, before Tianiamen Square even, when there was loud apparently widespread international concern about human rights in China ... and then we gave them most-favored-nation status and human rights was allowed to became irrelevant, and we were told of the happy, newly weatlthy Chinese success stories instead (who drove expensive cars and loved America)

China has sounded often on the verge of volcanic unrest. The environmental concerns alone are staggering ... thousands of "Love Canals," tens of thousands of potential "superfund sites" .... I gather the Russian petroleum industry is similarly unrepentant and uncontrolled environmentally.

We have to got to stop calling the kettle black. It is ridiculous to cast aspersions on anyone else when we are the world's biggest terrorist country.

Barack has NOT called for a boycott, and he's alone among the candidates in not having done so. He has been presidential, while Hillary was (as usual) polarizing....

In a prepared statement, she urged President Bush to break his solemn oath to China's Premiere that he would attend the Beijing Olympics' opening ceremonies. In this one swell foop, she managed not only to pander opportunistically to a xenophobic American public and carelessly mirror Bush's light-weight cowboy-style diplomacy, but also offended one-fifth of the world's population, permanently alienated Chinese leadership (as she recently insulted and dismissed Russian leadership off-handedly), and displayed a profound probity-deficit shocking for a Senator, let alone a Presidential candidate.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, responded extemporaneously and briefly to an audience question on the same topic by respectfully highlighting a list of legitimate U.S. trade, intellectual property and human rights concerns (including Tibet and Sudan) while diplomatically offering measured support for China's most-cherished long-term project, and reminding Americans, in his trademark non-polarizing way, that Olympic ideals bring the world closer together. Barack, in those few sentences, may even have brought his own adopted city of Chicago's dream of hosting a 2016 Olympics one step nearer to reality.

Now that is political genius.

Another example: Hillary used her brief opportunity to question General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker at the Senate hearing, to deliver a confrontational speech intimidating her perceived political opponents—Republicans of all stripes, war supporters, and others opposed to her Iraq agendas. Obama, on the other hand, listened to the answers to his questions, and then led Petraeus and Crocker so expertly to points of commonality that they were smiling and nodding like bobbleheads in Obama's direction. Barack concluded by thoughtfully challenging everyone at the hearing to work diligently together to clearly define "success" in Iraq, so that the war could be ended quickly and positively, as desired by all.

Hillary is a famously tenacious in-fighter, which is exactly what we DON'T need today or in the future. Barack Obama's whole life, like Hillary's, has been about taking on huge challenges, persevering, thriving and prevailing against great odds, but his consensus-building problem-solving approaches to meeting those challenges don't create the blowback that Hillary's belligerance does. He can get the job done by mobilizing the public. Although Hillary was at the center of power for eight long years, she didn't deliver on the big issues--even the big ones dearest to her heart, like health care. Why would we think she would be able to now?

The last thing we need is a paranoid President who bristles at perceived slights, sees enemies on every side, and creates new ones at every turn of events.

We need a President capable of vanquishing America's enemies via the best (and only) permanent approach to conquest: turn them into friends. Barack knows well that the best way to befriend anyone, whether Iraqi, Chinese, Republican or any other, is to generously support their most cherished projects and goals, and to always treat them with understanding and respect. Hillary knows how to talk tough, but we should all know by now where that will get us.

Americans and others throughout the world need Obama's statesmanlike vision, his wonderful people-skills and many leadership abilities, so that we can all come together to solve our common pressing global problems—disease, injustice, hopelessness, hunger, greed, environmental degradation, natural disasters, ignorance, addiction, prejudice, nuclear proliferation, crime, poverty, war, terrorism, and yes, violence itself.

Hillary's down-and-dirty-roll-up-your-sleeves-and-mud-wrestle approaches to resolving conflicts may have served in her old world, but in the new world of tomorrow, such competitive models will be sadly deficient. Unfortunately for Hillary, her street-fighting instincts so overwhelm her peacemaking ones that she can't yet find her way into the brave new world of tomorrow--Barack's world--not even in her dreams.

(Nancy Pace blogs on breaking news at the intersection of politics, peace, culture and spirituality at www.epharmony.com.)

How about all these concerned Americans buying all their Chinese junk at Walmart, then going home to feel superior about America by watching anti-China propaganda on Fox News. Hypocrisy doesn't get any better than that.

Boycott Walmart too, if you care so much.

The greatest irony still is America's utter disregard for human rights in Iraq. The Pentagon has done a splendid job of censoring inciminating photos and films of atrocities from Iraq. The threats to military personel for breeching the censorship rules must be significant.

Anybody know of a good film exposing atrocities in Iraq? I have talked to several returned vets who described horrible events. But there doesn't seem to be a nationwide access to stories.

The Winter Soldier event was not even mentioned in my local paper and the NY Times blew it off too.

telegroove April 16th, 2008 12:02 pm

"you're right…athletic competitions are way too important to be interupted by human rights discussions. And because a rogue regrime in the US is responsible for atrocities, we should also be complicit in other countries atrocities. This article is complete nonsense."

telegroove,

Athletic competitions are designed to make people wealthy; and putting an end to human rights abuses would interfere with their wealth-building strategies that are rooted in the "me" ideology which is so prevalent on Wall Street and in corrupt governments.

I certainly don't expect the kids who have worked their asses off to get to the olympics to understand the ramifications of this concept, but I sure hope their parents do!

Hey, let's have medals awarded for the countries which most abuse human rights. Guess which country would be on the top tier of the dais? It starts with 'A' and the next letter is 'm'.

America and its allies killed more people in this century that any other country. By far. Great achievement, really!

P.S. Are soldiers gunmen?

LaMarche has some good points, but to me it's not either/or, it's both/and. We ought to boycott all things Chinese, whether toxic toys, deadly drugs, awful appliances or genocide games. At the same time, we ought to clean up our own backyard by impeaching and trying Bush, Cheney and their acolytes and revising our laws to prevent future abuses. Human rights and the rule of law should always and everywhere apply.

Galen
naked people running fast. I will watch the Canadian coverage they won't pixel out the good parts. When Janet Jackson did her half time boo boo I saw it on CBC TV news at 6 PM and it was NOT pixeled out. Even the news people mentioned it was no big deal. The US is so up tight about the human body. Does anyone know when the women hurtles is on?
Sorry what was the topic again

Thank you Pat LaMarche, for an article which really epitomises the double standards at play today. We do not have the moral high ground, as some would claim, because as others have pointed out, the human rights abuses by the USA, at least equal those of China. The thing is, that we pass off these abuses as delivering "freedom and democracy". We in the UK are due to hold the 2012 games, but I do not see the difference, between China's actions against the Tibetan people, and our actions in Iraq, where we have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and the displacement of millions more. If we boycott the Beijing games, then I do not see any reason why the London games should escape a similar fate.
Gail, and others, who would think that athletes are training to make themselves rich, have never competed in any sport at elite level. Depending on their chosen sport, athletes will train for three to seven hours, every day of their life. They are doing this to compete in, or win gold medals at the Olympic games, which take place every four years. The Olympics are still the number one target for every sports person, and every country in the World competes at the games.
Why did the Olympic committee give the games to China? China is the emerging giant, and it is being wooed by our leaders in the West, who are well aware of the human rights issues, but would rather boycott the Olympics, and hurt the athletes, than place trade embargoes or sanctions on China.

The other interesting reality is that us consumers of crap worldwide are not really interested enough in fostering human rights and world peace to pay attention unless they threaten to take away our beloved collossium (spelling?) gladiator spectacle..."here we are now- entertain us"

So they have to get our attention somehow!

You are right Pat LaMarche. Our choices as consumers are the only indicators that ThePower reacts quickly to. Really in this consumerist society where votes dont always count, it is our primary method of wielding power. If you consider the amount of money spent on advertising to each American.. there is a tremendous investment on the corporations part, we must be pretty darned important AS CONSUMERS.

AndyUK April 17th, 2008 2:57 am

"Gail, and others, who would think that athletes are training to make themselves rich, have never competed in any sport at elite level. Depending on their chosen sport, athletes will train for three to seven hours, every day of their life."

AndyUK,

My intention was not to suggest that these Olympic athletes trained long hours simply to make themselves rich. I was simply stating that athletic competition (Red Sox v Yankees) is a HUGE money-making business for the owners of athletic teams that compete in addition to the players, vendors and the like.

The point that telegroove and me were trying to make is that people are more concerned with sports than human atrocities!

I completely understand that the majority of these athletes don't mind trainging the long hours out of love for what they do. The same can be said for musicians who practice 6 to 10 hours per day to perfect their instrument, but you don't see a musical Olympics being held for them. Do you get my point?

Gail - the comparison between musicians and athletes is ludicrous, because music is an art form, and sport is competitive. When was the last time you watched an orchestra trying to complete Beethoven's 5th in record time? But since you mention music, it may interest you to know that a group of musicians from Yale college in the US, is going to be touring China for two weeks in June. Why have we heard no calls to boycott that event?
It is probably irrelevant to use American football or baseball as examples, because they are not Olympic events.
If you are concerned with "human atrocities", then start by cleaning up the mess which you have created in Iraq and Afghanistan first, and then point the finger at other countries.

I would suggest to anybody that before you make a comment about China's action against Tibet, first read some historical books and find out the truth yourself. Find out what kind of slavery society Tibet was 50 years ago, find out what kind of human rights people enjoy back then. Find out who are the people exiled , why they exile, and what privileges they have lost, Find out how CIA sponsored them and how much your tax money were spending in their military trainings? If China is such an evil country as everyone described, how come with a history of 5000 years, China still has more than 50 minorities, with their own language, cultures, even dressing style preserved. Where are the Indians in north America? How long you have been here? 200 + years?
I would suggest you read something, at least something, rather than just listen to the media, before you make a comment. I would suggest the following link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsoc4-QnplY
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

There are many in the West who advocate boycotting Chinese goods to make China submit to Western demands. Well, boycotting is a two way street isn't it. I hope the Chinese people boycott the hell out of the Western junk that's imported into China. (Grassroots movements are now springing up all over China to do precisely that.) Westerners are after all the greatest perpetrators of genocide past and present. Let the Westerners get a taste of their own medicine and choke on their own arrogance and hypocrisy.

On US disregard for fundamental human rights, you just barely touched the tip of the iceberg. Human rights violations are so much a part of our policies that we don't even think about it. Entire chunks of US domestic policies, from our massive prisons system (increasingly financed with prison labor) to our celebrated welfare "reforms", we embrace policies that directly violate the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Remember when, back in the '90's,America displayed stunning hypocrisy in honoring the anniversary of this international human rights agreement -- which the US had refused to ratify?