Should fans boycott the Olympics?

[Jana]

Avery Brundage was right down there with McCarthy and J Edgar Hoover as far as his actions.

Here is a link to Tommie Smith's site
http://www.tommiesmith.com/

Note this quote from a summary of his autobiography: "He also dispels some of the myths surrounding his gesture of protest: contrary to legend, Smith was not a member of the Black Panthers, nor were his medals taken back by the Olympic Committee." He also has a doctorate, and he went to high school in the same town I was born in.

Pretty interesting stuff...

Still planning to watch the Canadian channel for the Olympics this summer. BTW, the IOC is now limiting the games to 10,500 athletes, so no new sports, and they are cutting back sports now, mostly team sports with high participation and venue costs (softball, baseball).

Given the large size of lacrosse teams, it's highly unlikely it will ever become an Olympic sport, unless there are major changes to the IOC's plan. In addition, there continues to be an imbalance of women's opportunities to compete compared to men, so more likely that wlax would get in before mlax.

doubtful that the federations will vote for wlax, they would much rather bring in an additional medal for an individual sport, because it's much less costly to finance a few women's boxers than finance 20 young women on a lacrosse team plus 3 coaches, trainers, doctors, etc.

[Jac Coyne]

The Olympics need to be euthanized.

What was developed as a way to bring the world together has, because of its coverage by the U.S. media, become a pawn for various factions to use it as a stage to broadcast their message. It started in 1972 with the killing of Israelis and has continued through the '68 games (and the embarassing display by the Black Power morons), '80 (the toughest stance Carter took on anything), '84 (right back at ya, peanut farmer), '96 (poor Richard Jewell), and will undoubtedly continue at the China games.

The idea of using the Olympics as a microphone for obscure causes has become such a ingrained part of the wingnut paradigm that those who trumpet this agenda don't even realize when they are being ironical.

To wit:

Don't let athletes and the Olympic Games become pawns of American foreign policy.

We will bring more attention to the problems in Tibet if we send our athletes, and do not put gag orders on them...

Now "anti-globalization" nutters are using the passing of the Olympic torch through Greece as a way to get their message out because they know it will be covered.(http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03 ... index.html).

It's time to shelve the Olympics. We all know the U.S., if it really cared about a sport, could destroy any other country in every event (with the possible exception of those damn Kenyan marathoners). And if we didn't right away, we'd certainly find the right chemical mixtures to push us over the edge in no time. The usefulness of the Olympics expired about 50 years ago but the Cold War propped it up through the '90s.

And these quadrennial events are no longer used to put on a good show, but rather to legitimize countries or continents (see: South Africa; FIFA) or bow to political pressure (see: 1936, 2008 Olympiads).

They create a meaningless bulls-eye for every crackpot with a message to put their cause on the map with NBC rolling live. It might have been worth the risk 40 years ago, but now that Muslims are flying planes into buildings packed with thousands of civilians the idea of throwing a grenade into a helicopter is almost quaint.

I'm all for a permanent boycott.

[KnoxVegas]

It started in 1972 with the killing of Israelis and has continued through the '68 games (and the embarassing display by the Black Power morons), '80 (the toughest stance Carter took on anything), '84 (right back at ya, peanut farmer), '96 (poor Richard Jewell), and will undoubtedly continue at the China games.

1968 occurred before 1972, just for the record. What about the boycotts in 1976 over South Africa? Or the others:

The 1956 Melbourne Olympics were the first Olympics that were boycotted by the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, because of the repression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union; additionally, Cambodia, Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon, boycotted the games due to the Suez Crisis.[22]
In 1972 and 1976, a large number of African countries threatened the IOC with a boycott, to force them to ban South Africa, Rhodesia, and New Zealand. The IOC conceded in the first 2 cases, but refused in 1976 because the boycott was prompted by a New Zealand rugby union tour to South Africa, and rugby was not an Olympic sport. The countries withdrew their teams after the games had started; some African athletes had already competed. A lot of sympathy was felt for the athletes forced by their governments to leave the Olympic Village; there was little sympathy outside Africa for the governments' attitude.[citation needed] Twenty-two countries (Guyana was the only non-African nation) boycotted the Montreal Olympics because New Zealand was not banned.[23]
Also in 1976, due to pressure from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Canada told the team from the Republic of China (Taiwan) that it could not compete at the Montreal Summer Olympics under the name "Republic of China" despite a compromise that would have allowed Taiwan to use the ROC flag and anthem. The Republic of China refused and as a result did not participate again until 1984, when it returned under the name "Chinese Taipei" and used a special flag.[24]


Countries that boycotted the 1976, 1980 and 1984 games
In 1980 and 1984, the Cold War opponents boycotted each other's games. Sixty-five nations refused to compete at the Moscow Olympics in 1980 because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but 16 nations from Western Europe did compete at the Moscow Olympics. The boycott reduced the number of nations participating to only 81, the lowest number of nations to compete since 1956. The Soviet Union and 14 of its Eastern Bloc partners (except Romania) countered by skipping the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984, arguing the safety of their athletes could not be guaranteed there and "chauvinistic sentiments and an anti-Soviet hysteria are being whipped up in the United States".[25] The 1984 boycotters staged their own Friendship Games in July-August.[26][27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games#Boycotts

Having worked several Olympics and been "in country" well in advance of them, I know what you are speaking of. These cities, and to a larger extent countries, whore themselves out, so that a lot of rich people and their corporate benefactors can commune for 16 days in the guise of world peace and athletic competition.

16 days. Think about it. Several billions of dollars are spent improving infrastructure, building venues, hotels, shopping and restaurants, etc... for 16 days. For 16 days these cities will look as great as the ever will be, their citizens will be as proud and courteous as ever. The torch is extinguished the night of of the 16th day and there is one last huge party to celebrate all that has happened.

On the 17th day (with the exception of Sydney where none of us wanted to leave), everyone bails. The tumbleweed stats rolling in and the sidewalks are rolled up. The cities (and countries) are left on the hook for all the expenses (i.e. Montreal).

Chicago is trying to get the games and it is not going to work out well. You will see, beginning with the games of 2020 that they will have to go to a rotation of large cities to host the the Games because financially it is impossible for the smaller ones to do it longer. One or two cities a continent would suffice.

Also, Tommie Smith and John Carlos were not Black Panthers. They were under the influence of a jacka$$ named Harry Edwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Edwards. Try to catch the HBO documentaries in the Sports of the 20th Century series:

Fists Of Freedom: The Story Of The '68 Summer Games
This will give you a background on the summer of 1968, the climate in the country and the riots of Mexico City. Also, it deals with Edwards, who in his own words comes off exactly as the wanna-be puppet master, no account ability having... I will calm down now.

:03 from Gold
This will help fill in the background of the 1972 games, with Brundage's decision and the aftermath with the athletes.

(If those description don't doit for you, watch it for Liev Schriber's voice-over. He is this generation Richard Kylie)

The Olympics have lost a lot with the fall of Communist Russia and the Eastern Bloc countries. I think that the ratings would be through the roof Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan were better at the mainstream sports. The USA is no bueno at men's field hockey and weightlifting and cares about wrestling just a little bit more than those sports.

[Jac Coyne]

1968 occurred before 1972, just for the record.

I'll have to recheck my calendar, but you might be right.

[KnoxVegas]

State school, my friend. Twice!

[Jac Coyne]

I had the pleasure of both private and state school. My middle name is Diversity.

From my vantage point the difference between 'Black Panthers' and 'Black Power' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommie_Smith) is a matter of semantics, but I'm sure that this nuance makes the "protest" more palatable for some. In the context of 1968, I'm guessing Smith and Carlos were viewed as poseurs by the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and others.

Bring back the Goodwill games. Ted Turner's never wrong.

[KnoxVegas]

Bring back the Goodwill games. Ted Turner's never wrong.

I am sure you stand right behind these beauties from the mouth of the South:

The United States has got some of the dumbest people in the world. I want you to know that we know that.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_turner.html

Of course, executives at Time Warner are used to this sort of trouble from Mr. Turner. He has compiled a long list of verbal, public offenses. Among them: He once called Christianity ''a religion for losers''; he referred to the 1997 suicides of 39 people in the Heaven's Gate cult as ''a way to get rid of a few nuts''; he made a derogatory remark about Poles and the pope; and he called opponents of abortion ''bozos.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEFDA133DF93AA25750C0A9679C8B63

Black Power vs. Black Panther:

Political Dictionary: Black Panthers

The Black Panther Party, formed in California 1966 by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, comprised a relatively small body of vociferous black militants, who dabbled in Marxism-Leninism, made some use of revolutionary rhetoric, and became involved in shoot-outs with police in California and New York. Despite a great deal of wild talk, however, the published programme of the Black Panthers was moderate, non-Marxist and non-revolutionary. By 1975 the party had become small and insignificant and fully committed to working within the existing system.

— David Mervin

http://www.answers.com/topic/black-panther

Political Dictionary: black power

A movement calling for fuller rights and more resources for black people, especially in the United States.

Initially, a vague and provocative slogan used by some radical black leaders in the United States during the 1960s, the most notable being Stokely Carmichael. For a while the ambiguity of the phrase appeared to be tactically deliberate, but Carmichael, in collaboration with Charles Hamilton, eventually provided an exposition of its meaning in Black Power (1969). This made it clear that those who advocated black power were part of the black nationalist tradition exemplified by Marcus Garvey and later, Malcolm X. They similarly emphazised the need for African-Americans to glorify in their blackness; they called on them to exhibit pride in their history and culture, and exhorted them to develop a sense of community embracing all members of their race. The evils of white racism were denounced, parallels were drawn between the conditions of blacks in the United States and the circumstances of oppressed colonial people elsewhere, and the integrationist tactics of moderate black leaders like Martin Luther King, were condemned as ineffective and futile.

There was no point in African-Americans allying themselves with the left wing of the Democratic party, trade unions, or any other groups, because it was self-defeating for weak groups to enter alliances with the strong. ‘Coalitions of conscience’, in other words, were unacceptable, but the exponents of black power, unlike black separatists, were not opposed to coalitions in principle, or indeed, to pluralism as such. However, ‘before a group can enter the open society it must first close ranks. By this we mean that group solidarity is necessary before a group can operate effectively from a bargaining position of strength in a pluralistic society’.

Contrary to popular impressions at the time therefore, black power was not about overturning the existing system, but about preparing African-Americans for participation within it. This meant instilling them with a new sense of militancy and solidarity. They were urged, furthermore, to build their own organizational structures, and to develop their economic and political resources so that they would then be able to participate in the American pluralist system not as subordinates, as had been the case hitherto, but as full and equal partners.

— David Mervin

http://www.answers.com/Black%20Power

Garvey, Dr. King and a post-Hajj Malcolm X, while believing in Black Power but would not have agreed with the Black Panthers (A pre-Hajj Malcolm, E.B. DuBois and Grover Cleveland Redding might have though but I digress). Black power is a cultural movement where the Black Panthers were/are a political movement in line with the philosophy of Black Nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism. To make the inference that all that believe in Black Power are Black Panthers or label the difference between the two a matter of semantics is ignorant. But then again in the current culture, why let the facts get in the way of your idea of the truth?

Frederick Douglass said that a true patriot is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200803/20080319_gatesjr.html. Is that not what Reverend Wright is being accused of? He is a subscriber to the Black Power philosophy but has never been a member of the Black Panther Party. He is someone who served in the Marines with distinction. Served as a Corpsmen and even participated in a surgery on President Johnson.

Contrast what Reverend Wright said in a YouTube clip of 90-seconds to this by Pat Buchanan from 27 March 2008 entitled A Brief for "Whitey":

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

(My note: I have always found it amazing that the very book that was used as a means to justify slavery was also offered (after decades of debate by pro-slavery side) as a means of salvation for the slaves. The stories in the Bible: GOOD. The ability to read the Bible: BAD! Knowledge truly indeed is power or so the pro-slavery faction believed. Like a dealer or enabler saying to an addict they will get help, right after the addict shoots heroin in their arm.)

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks - with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas - to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977294564

Buchanan is a racial arsonist and has been saying worse things for years but no one says anything about him and dismisses him a curmudgeon.

Some pundits have aligned Rev. Wright with the likes of armed insurrectionists like a Denmark Vesey did in 1822(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_Vesey) or Nat Turner in 1831 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner%27s_slave_rebellion). Wright says some perceived inflammatory remarks about America in a few sermons and he is labeled a militant Black Power Panther and Obama should be painted with the same broad brush. What Wright said is no worse than was said from pulpits during the period leading up and following the Revolution (about the tyranny of the British Crown) and the Civil War (slavery and states rights). Or has been said at other times in evangelical churches, synagogues and Islamic temples in this country since its founding.

Or what about in Catholic churches? When Al Smith (1928) ran for POTUS, the anti-Catholic rhetoric was extremely high.

In a speech on the Senate floor in January 1928, Sen. Thomas Heflin, D-Ala., warned that Catholics were trying to get the Democratic Party to denounce the Ku Klux Klan -- which he described as "the Protestant order" -- and were trying to control Southern newspapers to push Smith's candidacy for president.

"The Roman Catholic edict has gone forth in secret articles, 'Al Smith is to be made president,'" he said. "They will lay the heavy hand of a Catholic state upon you and crush the life out of Protestantism in America."

Smith was a Democrat as was Heflin. Kennedy faced this in 1960:

The Southern Baptist Convention unanimously passed a resolution voicing doubts that Kennedy or any Catholic should be president. Another statement -- signed by 150 Protestant ministers and laymen headed by the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale -- said a Catholic president would be under "extreme pressure from the hierarchy of his church" to align U.S. foreign policy with that of the Vatican.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0402050.htm

For the record:
Reverend Wright: leader of a single congregation in the south side of Chicago.

Southern Baptist Conventions: Represented at the time thousands, if not hundereds of thousands of Christians.

Obama must defend his pastor of 20 years for the pastors words but where was the outrage in 2005 when Barbara Bush, the mother of our current president and wife of a former, says in a radio interview after meeting with Katrina Refugees in the Astrodome:

What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2005/09/08/barbara-bush-on-hurricane-katrina-refugees.htm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/barbara2.asp

That is a former first lady saying that. Why was GWB not held accountable for his own mother's beliefs? Was Kanye West right after all? Can those words be laughed off or dismissed because she is old? You know like McCain seeming lack of knowledge on how our economy works? It was not an unnamed white bystander saying that but again, the mother of our current president and wife of a former. I can see no reason why a minority wouldn't be grateful to white America at all. Society likes their blacks happy but the moment they step out of line they are savages and are immediately demonized or it (see as examples Jack Johnson, O.J.Simpson, Jim Brown, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, Ray Lewis, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds ).

John McCain seeks out and receives the endorsement of Rev. John Hagee, who besides leading hilarious sermons on the evils of the Harry Potter (or as he says "Harry PAW-tor") is also an advocate of Israel for Israelis but not for the reasons that you might think. You know, the cute and fussy ones. No, ol' John wants the Jews to be there so when the Rapture begins they will be made to atone for killing Christ once and for all. He frequently refers to Jews as "Christ Killers" (http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06c/cufi02.html).

Hagee is a Dispensationalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism#Judaism), who ascribe to the belief that:

Nothing can or will be done by Christians to save Israel’s Jews from this disaster, for all of the Christians will have been removed from this world three and a half years prior to the beginning of this 42-month period of tribulation. (The total period of seven years is interpreted as the fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel [Dan. 9:27].)

In order for most of today’s Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movement’s support for Israel. It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians’ imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture.

Every time you hear the phrase, "Jesus is coming back soon," you should mentally add, "and two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will be dead in ‘soon plus 84 months.’" Fundamentalists really do believe that they probably will not die physically, but to secure this faith prophetically, they must defend the doctrine of an inevitable holocaust.

This specific motivation for the support of Israel is never preached from any fundamentalist pulpit. The faithful hear sermons – many, many sermons – on the pretribulation Rapture. On other occasions, they hear sermons on the Great Tribulation. But they do not hear the two themes put together: "We can avoid death, but only because two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will inevitably die in a future holocaust. America must therefore support the nation of Israel in order to keep the Israelis alive until after the Rapture." Fundamentalist ministers expect their congregations to put two and two together on their own. It would be politically incorrect to add up these figures in public.

from The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel by Gary North
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html

[laxfan25]

We all know the U.S., if it really cared about a sport, could destroy any other country in every event

Kind of like when we got mad about losing in B-ball and decided to stock the roster with the cream of the NBA? That worked out well, but then basketball ranks below futbol in popularity in the U.S.

With the fall of the Iron Curtain countries, it's a shame that the Olympics have become a stage for obscure causes, rather than the trumpeting of the superiority of the American Way. I can remember when the medal count standings were almost as heavily promoted as the body counts of Viet Cong.
As far as boycott efforts being a "recent" trend, perhaps you overlooked the kerfuffle around the '36 Games in Berlin?

[Sonny]

We all know the U.S., if it really cared about a sport, could destroy any other country in every event

Kind of like when we got mad about losing in B-ball and decided to stock the roster with the cream of the NBA? That worked out well, but then basketball ranks below futbol in popularity in the U.S.

We (the US) didn't want to put the NBA players in the Olympics.

The rest of the world (through FIBA) wanted to see MJ, Larry, Magic, & co. The USA Basketball was one of the few groups that opposed the change when it went through in the early 90's.

[KnoxVegas]

Both FIBA and IIHF (hockey) were behind getting the pros into the Olympics. The thought was that it would raise the level of competition around the world. In basketball, it has. BIG TIME! Our pros have shown themselves to be apathetic about international competition for the most part. The trashing of the Olympic Village (allegedly) in Nagano. The players who want to sit out international comp because it is too much after their regular season, etc...

As much as futbol is derided, those guys play two game a week (generally) and then if they have national team commitments, fly half way around the world to play for their country, then back to play for their home club. Baseball players whinge about flying to Japan to play opening day (I know, I know another argument entirely). The modern Olympics were founded by de Coubertin as a way for countries to compete in sport, rather than war. That ideal was been chipped away from the get go and evolved into what we have today. It used to be seen as the highest honor for an athlete to represent their country by wearing the jersey with U.S.A. emblazoned across the front. Look at these two pictures. The first is Jim Craig following the the win over Finland to win the gold medal at Lake Placid in 1980:


The second is Michael Jordan on the medal podium during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner after getting his second gold medal in Barcelona:


Both men are draped in US flags. Both men are in their prime and relishing in winning a gold medal for the US of A. But what if it is not that easy. What if Jordan is wearing the flag to cover the logo of Reebok, the US Olympic outfitter in 1992. Jordan is a Nike man and chose, along a couple of his teammates who did not have shoe deals with Reebok, to either drape themselves with the US flag or use their jacket lapels to cover the Reebok logo. This was done rather than be photographed wearing Reebok clothing. Now look at this photo:

Then, in the 1992 Olympics, the company hit its public relations nadir when the Nike endorsers on the Olympic basketball "Dream Team" refused to wear the official Olympic warm-up jerseys on the medal stand because they bore the logo of archrival Reebok. Nike was perceived as demanding that its athletes put shoe company before country. The incident became a symbol for those concerned with the inexorable and rapidly advancing influence of money in the world of athletics, obscuring or even warping the purity of the Games themselves.

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1997/janfeb/articles/knight.html

While the purity of the Games may be in doubt, I have always loved the games and think they are needed. Like the World's Fair before it, the current incarnation may not be what the founders had intended but it is what it is. And frankly, it is not that bad.

The hypocrisy of threatening to boycott the Games for human rights violations is laughable. Stop buying products made in China. See how that works out, if you want to protest the Games.

As for bring politics into the Games, the USA did a nice job of that during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, when a flag that had flown at the WOrld Trade Centre was walked around the track at Rice-Ecceles during the Opening Ceremonies:


A gesture like was unprecedented but the IOC, caught up in the fervor of the moment, allowed the SLOC request.

[JW]

The thing that everyone must realize about the Bible, Christians, and Religious leaders is that we are all fallen people (sinful people). Yes we have a faith in a God that offers salvation, but that will never make us perfect.

If you have ever truly read Genesis, you will see that their was so much disfunction. When a man relied on himself (for wisdom, decisions, and guidence), from Adam and Eve to now, MAN always fails. It is not until man relies on GOD that he recieves blessings and is considered righteous.

I am embarrased and saddened when I see foolish preachers saying foolish things. Any Christian in any message that does not preach love of every man, regardless of the decisions they make is an immature Christian and is not a great preacher. Any preacher that does not preach God's grace is an immature Christian and is not a great preacher.

I am sorry for all those who have recieved a negative impression from other Christians, but please know that one Christian does not speak for Christ. Christ Speaks for himself.

And Christ going to the Cross was part of God's plan for redemption, because only a man who was perfect can be the one to be the Sin Offering for all man kind for eternity. So, as a Christian, I am so grateful and thankful that Christ went to the Cross, and pray that my Jewish cousins realize that Christ is greater than Moses, Abraham, greater than the Angels, greater than the offerings of the Tabernacle, greater than the patriarchs, and the Judges.

God be with you.

[laxfan25]

We (the US) didn't want to put the NBA players in the Olympics.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. After the loss to the Soviet Union in 1988 there was much hue and cry along the lines of Mr. Coyne's that if we had our "best players" playing, we'd clean up on the rest of the world as we had been doing previously (except for the robbery during the '72 games). While USA Basketball might have objected (since it would involve the NBA infringing on their turf) the rest of the US was pretty much behind the idea.
It worked well for three straight Olympics, but Argentina showed that the rest of the world is catching up in 2004. One look at the overall NBA rosters shows the global impact of the game, which has been a windfall for the NBA.

[Adam Gamradt]

The White House left the door open today to President Bush skipping the opening ceremonies of this summer's Beijing Olympics to protest China's human rights record and its crackdown in Tibet. Bush is under pressure from some Democrats to boycott the opening.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/08/ ... index.html

I've copied the following verbatim from a friends blog.

If you are wondering what you can do to help with the current situation in Tibet, here are two charities that I and April like, and trust.

International Campaign for Tibet
ICT has a 20-year record of achievement advancing the Tibetan cause - and the vision and leadership of the Dalai Lama - in the halls of Congress and in international forums. We strive to mobilize international goodwill in support of the Tibetan people. Our focus today is centered on working with governments to demonstrate meaningful support for Tibet, reaching out to Chinese all over the world, and monitoring conditions inside Tibet.

Tibet Fund
The Tibet Fund is dedicated to helping Tibetans improve their lives and preserve their distinct cultural, religious and national identity. The Tibet Fund brings urgently needed resources to the educational, cultural, health and socio-economic institutions that sustain the Tibetan way of life, language, and traditions. The Tibet Fund's support helps to sustain the Tibetan refugee settlements in India, Nepal and Bhutan and provide rehabilitation services for the thousands of new refugees who continue to arrive from Tibet every year.

Additional information (and awesome Buddhist geegaws) are available from the Dharmashop and it's donations page.

And here are a couple things you can doto let your representatives in the US government know your opinion (if you're a US citizen).

[laxfan25]

An interesting bit of torch trivia that I learned courtesy of Jon Stewart - the first Olympic Torch Relay was instituted by Adoph Hitler for the '36 games.

[LaxRef]

An interesting bit of torch trivia that I learned courtesy of Jon Stewart - the first Olympic Torch Relay was instituted by Adoph Hitler for the '36 games.

I'm assuming the Olympic flame tradition was in place, but that his innovation was having the relay with the torch?