Until now I didn't really care: while I have my issues with China, I am all for setting aside differences, when possible, for the Olympics.
But now China is banning American Olympians from the Olympics. And they are arresting protestors, and evicting them from their homes.
So much for the Super Awesome Smiling Beijing Traffic Police.
I dunno. Maybe Bush shouldn't actually boycott. It would be powerful to say, "yeah, I am already in China, but if you don't let our Olympians come, then I will just go home myself," but then again, that might be more harful for our relations with them in the long run. That's a decision for Bush to make. But if he doesn't boycott, he should at least say a lot against China while he's there. He's already spoken out in general terms about Chinese human rights abuses, and he should specifically address their latest violations, especially against our American Olympians. Maybe he should wear one of those black masks.
(Now, I realize it is possible that Cheek and and Zanotto were actually banned for good reason, but while China maintains that they do not have to give a reason, that should be considered unacceptable to us. China deserves no benefit of the doubt.)
China has a golden opportunity to turn things around for themselves here, at least in terms of public opinion, and they are muffing it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 07, 2008 09:51 AM | Email ThisJust to be clear.
That is completely unrelated, unless you mean some SPECIFIC "protest zone" or specific TYPE of "protest zone." There is nothing unreasonable or unconstitutional about restricting where protests are done, within certain limitations.
So broad, blanket complaints about "protest zones" (which were created by the Democratic Party in this country, by the way), are off-topic. More specific complaints and attempts to compare to what China is doing are welcome.
Why in the world would you assume they are currently competing Olympians, just because they are correctly called "Olympians"?
And no, in fact, we did NOT know they would ban our decorated U.S. Olympians for no reason.
Here in Tacoma, a few years ago we put on the Tall Ships Event...it cost the Tax Payers $400,000 dollars to cover the events losses.
Therefore, what do our fearless Tacoma leaders do two years later...you guessed it, "Let's put on a show" and they did another Tall Ships Event. Guess what...all the numbers are not in yet but it looks like it may only cost the Tax Payer $250,000 to cover losses this time.
At this rate, the Tax Payers may break even by 2050!!!
First, the venue may be in China, but most of the guests are our allies and friends.
Second, the Olympics are about the people of the world sending their best athletes to compete, not about the governments who oppress or defend their liberties. While we have many disagreements with the government of China, we have many values in common with the people who live under its tyranny, including hard work, innovation, and family.
Finally, the President has denounced--on Chinese soil, no less--their policies. He also met with dissidents in exile. If the Government of China won't let an athlete in to protest, I think the President of the United States is a pretty good alternative to make our voices heard.
Posted by: Chris from Lakewood on August 7, 2008 11:34 AMThe problem is that, while correct, Bush has kind lost a bit of credibility when it comes to this sort of thing.
Posted by: cpk on August 7, 2008 11:38 AMYou compare evicting people from their homes and arresting them, deporting people, and banning them from coming, to Protest Zones? Pathetic.
I have spoken out against many variations on the Democratic-created Protest Zones, including the ones that are out of eye- and ear-shot of the venue, like at the Democratic National Convention, supported by the Democratic Mayor of Boston, in 2004, so apart from your stupid equivalency fallacy, you're also committing the straw man fallacy by trying to link me personally to any such thing, not to mention lying by trying to give "credit" to Bush and Republicans for something Democrats created and continue to support (when it suits their purposes, of course).
Chris from Lakewood:
Yes, as long as Bush DOES speak for people like Joey Cheek while he's there, I support it.
The networks profitting from the advertising shown during their televising.
Which is why I don't watch.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 7, 2008 11:49 AMDo you liberals ever get tired of making false comparisons?
I have this thing called a "DVR". :-)
Posted by: pudge on August 7, 2008 12:08 PMWe should either Boycott, or have President Bush visibly, loudly and with the world stage severely impugn China for human rights violations, their failure to address air quality, their crushing of dissent and oppression, treatment of Tibetans, etc. And what of Al Gore who wants to dismisss all of the Chinese spewing of Coal burning byproducts in to the air, while forcing the US taxpayer to Pay. Nice. Sort of like the US taxpayer paying for Gore to get rich off of carbon offsets and jet around in his G5.
It's a bummer for athletes that have worked hard, but if we miss the opportunity to cast China in the very negative light they deserve, then we have only ourselves to blame when their is more Chinese bloodshed.
Your hypocrisy is the classic aspect of this. And all too typical.
Posted by: hinton on August 7, 2008 12:17 PMSo the Dream Team was not our best athletes?! Come on now.
Posted by: pudge on August 7, 2008 12:19 PMI don't mind getting beaten or challenged as long as the rules are enforced.
I feel for the Olympians who have trained and really probably don't want to be political at all. But it's a different thing for Bush or any other person representing the US who attends the games.
Posted by: westello on August 7, 2008 12:36 PMYou neglected to mention that the girls are both Chinese.
So, let's see.
The IOC says the Chinese air is fine, there are no significant Chinese abuses of civil liberties, and these Chinese 14-year-olds are 15.
The question after this is done, after the last scandals ... whether the IOC will have any respect left whatsoever.
You are not looking very closely. The two banned Olympians had no known plans to "bring politics" with them. One of them was to be there in an official capacity as a reporter for the Olympic News Service.
They were, by every indication, banned simply because they have in the past voiced disagreement with Chinese policies. It's bullshit.
Mitt Romney is trying to get Cheek's visa reinstated.
Posted by: pudge on August 7, 2008 12:45 PMSo give me the limitations, then. Should it be a mile away? Behind a fence? Where?
And hey, just because some Democrats agree with the idea does not make it right, nor widely accepted by progressives. Of course, there's a difference between saying that it's a bad thing, and using it as justification for doing it yourself.
More specific complaints and attempts to compare to what China is doing are welcome.
No denying that. I think that Bush is a coward for going. He's buckled to the Chinese government far too much, and if you look at how the US has been dealing with Taiwan lately, that really becomes abundantly clear.
@8: I think everyone who gets to fly there, at least Americans, should act as agents of change and risk.
With hypercapitalism running amok there, I don't think anyone really CARES anymore.
@13: Second, the Olympics are about the people of the world sending their best athletes to compete, not about the governments who oppress or defend their liberties. While we have many disagreements with the government of China, we have many values in common with the people who live under its tyranny, including hard work, innovation, and family.
Hate to stumble into Godwin's Law territory, but the 1938 Olympics were a disgrace, and purely a means for the Third Reich to get an international audience. Jesse Owens' win was great, of course, but if we knew then what we know now, I doubt that we'd have gone to Berlin.
Similarly, the US led a boycott of the Olympics in 1980 over the invasion of Afghanistan. There's a difference between respecting the Games, and kowtowing to the governments that sponsor them.
@19: demo kid, typical of the left, loving China despite obvious and massive human rights violations. But, hey, since they are collectivists just like the Progressives, just ignore that.
Ignoring what? As I said, our Republican president is a coward for going. Talking about human rights are one thing, but that is no more than a diplomatic parlor game. If you're keen on making an impact, it is the respect (or lack of it) that you show a person or a country that will send a message.
Your logic fails because you act like "amateurs" in the Olympics is some sort of unassailable principle. It's not. It's an arbitrary one, at best. If you think they should be amateurs, fine, but there's no reason I have to agree. The Soviets were bad not because they used "pros," but because they broke the rules.
"So give me the limitations, then."
Please be logical. YOU are the one comparing "Protest Zones" to China's acts. I simply pointed out the fact that such a blanket comparison is irrational. I have no obligation to make your argument for you, and will not "give" you anything.
"And hey, just because some Democrats agree with the idea does not make it right ..."
Of course not. It just means that trying to make this a Republican/Bush issue, as you and others did, is wrong.
"No denying that."
I meant, you could drop your broad and illogical comparisons, and provide specific comparisons that actually make sense.
"I think that Bush is a coward for going."
And I think that's stupid. We have strong relations with China. If you have a problem with those relations, fine, we should drop MFN status, put huge tarrifs on trade, etc. But as long as we have those relations, it is stupid to me to say we should pick the Olympics, of all things, to boycott over broad disagreements with China. (Note: my pseudo-call for a boycott was based on specific incidents regarding the Olympics itself.)
"Jesse Owens' win was great, of course, but if we knew then what we know now, I doubt that we'd have gone to Berlin."
If that knowing included the fact that Jesse Owens would win, then no way, we would have gone anyway.
"Actually Pudge part of the rules which applied to those who wanted to compete in the Modern Olympics was that they were amateur athletes in every sense of the word."
Ummmm. Yes, and? I nevber said otherwise.
But that has now changed, thankfully. You think amateurism in the Olympics is some Golden And Unassailable Principle. I do not. I think it was a dumb rule and I am glad it has changed. I could not care LESS whether someone is an amateur, and indeed, I almost prefer that they are not, because professionals are usually BETTER, and I want to see the limits of human capabilities put to the test.
"Perhaps you fail to remember that there was an investigation into Mark Spitz having his sneekers in his hands and when he raised his arms in victory."
Yes, that is precisely the kind of stupidity that we are good to have gotten away from.
"The Soviets et all were breaking the rules, what is the "proper" response?"
The proper response was to kick out everyone breaking the rules.
"you did not see the amateur only rule as being part and parcel of the spirit and intent of the Modern Olympics and I did."
Sure. And more power to you. My point, however, is that this is ONLY your opinion. It is not some objective principle, it's just your opinion. Same thing with my opinion. But you were talking about it as though it WERE some unassailable principle.
"I really don't give them any more relevence than I do professional wressling."
That's dumb. Actual competition vs. fake competition. Do the math, it's not hard.
"They are irrelevent and an Olympic Gold Medalist has no more cache' with me than does the guy that wins a hotdog eating contest."
Me neither. The difference is that I do value the competitive eating championships.
Put man to his limits. Competition is a good thing.
It mattered not a bit.
Games meant to inspire international cooperation and a feeling that, nationalities aside, we're all in this together, really aren't the place for this kind of thing. There are times you really should look at the bigger picture.
Posted by: Johnny on August 7, 2008 01:47 PMQuit your Bush whining. There would be good benefits to chastising China whether Bush did it by staying home, or making a statement in China. He probably won't do either, because he's not much better than Progressives when standing up to tyranny.
But it's not about Bush, it is about China. The best thing come November is those on the left won't have their Bush scapegoat any more. It's Bush this, Bush that. Sheesh.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 7, 2008 01:54 PMWould it best for the best if President Bush boycotted the Olympics? No. In fact, by showing up, he's STRENGTHENING the move towards freedoms and democracy in China.
How, you say? China is fundamentally a country that seeks to emulate the West. The Central Party does not, but the masses - all 1.3 billion of them (most of whom appear to ride the Line 1 subway in Shanghai, especially around 6 PM at night) - greatly desire not just the wealth and comforts of the West but the political and social freedoms we have.
China is moving towards more open government. Corruption is down, and more local control is being established. Protests are shut down if they are not properly licensed, but they still happen (last month, I walked by the Free Tibet protest on Nanjing Dong Lu in the heart of Shanghai).
President Bush will INCREASE the visibility of our leadership with the general Chinese population. Trust me, it's been BIG news in China that the President of the US is coming over. And that will continue! And with it the focus on the freedoms of the US as well.
Seriously, the CP knows the cat is out of the bag, and it is a matter of how and when the transition from a purely centrally-run communist government to a more socialist form (think a hybrid of India and Germany, for example).
The best move for the Chinese citizens was for Bush to attend. Politically in the US it may not have been smart, but he's not running again, is he?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 7, 2008 02:21 PMI agree. But I still think that Bush stands to weaken the U.S. position in China over time if he lets this slight go significantly unresponded-to.
Sucks to be you, I guess.
Posted by: pudge on August 7, 2008 02:59 PMNo, what sucks to be you is that you care so much about what adds to OTHER peoples' lives, so much that you feel the need to impugn everything you don't find enriches yours.
Clearly, the Olympics are a fantastic thing to a lot of people, and clearly, as history has proven, they do little if anything to create a false positive impression of a dictatorial, oppressive, regime. But you feel some need to lash out against them at every turn.
So, sucks to be you.
Ditto to Palouse. It's kinda like ex-Catholics, ex-Democrats, ex-Republicans ... it's like they have to put down what they have turned away from to feel better about their decision, or something.
I like the Olympics and I love sports and I enjoy watching them, and other things, on TV. I will not apologize for it, nor will I impugn the decisions of others to not enjoy those things. I will impugn the choice of others to attempt to impugn those things, especially through incorrect and irrational claims, however.
Posted by: pudge on August 7, 2008 03:21 PMI knew there was a reason I couldn't associate with the 'party'.
Posted by: swatter on August 7, 2008 03:29 PMTypical response from you, of course, as well.
If you're looking for atypical, the mirror won't guide you very well ...
Posted by: pudge on August 7, 2008 03:33 PMChina has every right to stop protests on their soil. Their country, their rules.
What is so hard about it. Go to Beijing. Sit in the stands. Cheer for your country. Visit the Great Wall. Buy a souvenir. Have fun. Go Home.
That's what China expects of its guests. Those are pretty reasonable expectations. Don't get drunk and tear up a bar. Don't go looking for Chinese hookers. Don't try to convert the poor heathen Chinese to your form of religion. Don't go whining about Tibet or how China handles its own dissidents. This isn't the time or the place. This is about the competition.
Note to "journalists". Your job is to tell us who won, by how much, and how cool they were doing it. Maybe a shot or two of the occasional loser if it is particularly poignant or spectacular. Once in a while do an UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL segment on some athlete who has overcome some unique form of tragedy or adversity.
If you want to support falun gong or the dali lama do it some other time.
Oh yeah, pudge, the guy who they kept out was a real pain in the ass to China. China gets to deny visas to such pains, regardless of past accomplishments.
Geez
Hairy Sports Fan
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on August 7, 2008 05:38 PMI got sick of the the economic calculations that are now part of the Modern Olympics, but that being said - if you enjoy them - watch them.
I have said they are not for me anymore. I enjoyed watching amateur competition. I don't enjoy watching what the Olympics has become, it's not for me.
As far as China is concerned, I have been entirely consistent.
Posted by: JDH on August 7, 2008 05:40 PMBush's visit sends a more resounding message than to not attend at all.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 8, 2008 06:18 AMInteresting take on the coverage of the Olympics is already having to pay dividends.
The Democrats just have to see the double standard being played out with respect to human rights, labor, environment and global warming. That they want to bring down the USA in order for more pollution, GW, or whatever other liberal cause they endorse has just seen the daylight, er smog of China.
This Olympics is actually going to be good for the world in the long run.
Posted by: swatter on August 8, 2008 07:07 AMCan't agree. China made this event political by banning our Olympians for political reason.
Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2008 07:07 AMHow is that clear? By going and making speeches that no one in China really cares about? If a Democratic president were going, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
Face it... when the chips are down and he really needs to stand up for ideals, this guy folds like a lawn chair.
Posted by: demo kid on August 8, 2008 11:03 AMEveryone I know of who knows much about China -- including our friend Dan here -- says many people in China actually do care about what Bush says in his speeches.
You force me to believe you're just making things up.
And I doubt you're correct about what Michele would say about a Democratic President. You're just making that up, too.
"In the spirit of the Olympic Truce, we issue a moral call for these essentials: a rejuvenated peace process, deployment of peacekeepers, a cessation of attacks, and unfettered access for humanitarian workers. The Olympic Truce period should be marked by an increase of effort by the organizations and governments you lead to secure peace for the people of Darfur. In the past the Olympic Truce has been invoked by the host nation. Now, just weeks before the Games, the People's Republic of China, given its considerable influence with the government of Sudan, is uniquely positioned to enact its resolution, "Building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal," for Darfur."
full letter here:
http://www.teamdarfur.org/files/Olympic%20Truce%20Unity%20Letter%20July%202008%20with%20signatories%207-21.pdf
I'm no fan of China, but I'm also not into atheletes with a personal agenda that may use their opportunity to expose the host country to considerable embarrassment at the Olympic games...no matter how noble the goal may appear.
Afterall, It's a slippery slope when it comes to personal agendas.
No, Joey Cheek did not politicize his attendance at the Games. He never got the opportunity to do that, because he never GOT to the Games. He never called for protests or boycotts or anything. China was scared that he MIGHT and so took preemptive action against free speech.
That anyone would support this is incredible to me.
Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2008 12:43 PMI'm not in support of this decision whatsoever, but should anyone be shocked that China would pull this stunt?
We know what to expect from this repressive government and so too should have Joey Cheek before poking at them with a stick a month before the games. In the end, Joey made his decision and the Chinese Government made theirs. A bit naive on his part I'd say. If he really wanted to compete, he should have left the political 'poker out of the fire' until after the games.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 8, 2008 03:48 PMYes, I am surprised that China, on the eve of the opening ceremonies, would ban U.S. Olympians. It's the kind of thing China should be AVOIDING to serve their own interests. It makes them look bad for no reason that actually benefits themselves.
And again, Joey Cheek wasn't going to compete.
And again, nothing you say to blame the victim will be considered reasonable by me.
Well, I guess the only thing we're going to agree about in total on this is that the IOC never should have awarded China an Olympics games in the first place at this point in their history.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 8, 2008 04:31 PMHonestly, I can kinda see your position, but I just can't get over my hangups as stated. But we're still on the same basic side here.
Posted by: pudge on August 8, 2008 04:35 PMI'm going to be real blunt here... So pardon some of the language.
How many of you have been to Sudan and China? Probably not a single person here has been to either. I've been to both, and live in China 50% of my time.
Here's the deal - some folks are being bleeding hearts and crying about the Darfur genocide. Well, it is an atrocity. But the real atrocity is that the West simply has neither the desire nor the balls to solve the problem.
Why? Sudan is like Somalia, or Congo - you will only straighten it out by going in and ruling with an iron fist. Literally. Someone gets out of line? You hunt him down, you shoot him in the street, then you shoot his family for good measure.
Is that barbaric? Yes. Absolutely. But it's the ONLY way to get through to the cretins and madmen who run the gangs that run Sudan. Power is the ONLY thing that they respect. Not words, not shows of force, not dollars. Violence and power exerted.
So we slovenly, "genteel" Westerners sit back and cluck cluck cluck about the shit going on in Darfur, and ask to sit down and talk. Well, it's not going to happen.
I spent 6 weeks on a medical team (mechanic, electrician and part time pharmacist) in Bor, Sudan at the end of their second civil war, in October 2005. The ONLY reason anything functioned was we had private guards who had no issue at all with simply shooting anyone that interfered. Primal violence and kill-or-be-killed is the order of the day. You are either a predator or prey - there is no humanity left.
Sudan reminds me of the areas of Haiti around Dessalines, back in the late 80s. Human life is worth less than a glass of water, and the "government" doesn't give a damn if you live or die.
The Chinese? Yes, they can be oppressive bastards. They can disappear entire families and entire villages in the middle of the night. But they are pragmatic. They're not going to slaughter people for no reason; mind your business, play within the rules - and that includes protesting the Chinese government, which can be done openly and publicly - and you're fine.
if Darfur is going to get solved, it's only going to be solved if tough-ass bastards move in, use whatever force is needed - unrestrained - and become the biggest, baddest asses around. And no one will mess with you. Then you can impose whatever order you desire, including starting to rehumanize the people. Yes, rehumanizing them. They have lost the understanding of what it means to be humans. I kid you not.
The Chinese have no problem with that. The "feeling" West can't stomach it. So we'll sit by, watch the Sudanese kill each other, and wring our hands in worry. And chide the Chinese for actually going in and enforcing some semblance of order.
Now, about China. I've been going to China since 1993, and the changes are astounding. Now I live there 50% of my time. China is quickly opening up - economically, religiously, and politically. Is it to US standards? No, but then neither is Germany or Canada or the UK. But it's light-years beyond where it was.
Pollution is getting under control, and the general infrastructure is improving. What we're seeing is a country not only re-invent itself politically (the provincial governments are gaining a lot more independence and and authority), but socially as well.
They're moving from a purely agrarian, 1880s US economy to a modern, 2000 US economy in the span of 20 years. A middle class is emerging, and it's a massive force. They are demanding cleaner water, air, and more political freedom. You now read editorials in the English AND Chinese newspapers taking the central or local parties to task for shortcomings. There is a desire for more freedom in all aspects of life.
The best thing we can do to encourage the emergence of a post-Communist China is to keep the economy humming, and keep ease-of-travel between the people. Freedom comes in, and it will keep coming.
Xie xie wo peng you!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 8, 2008 09:40 PM