sorry, i really can't work up much effort re the olympics. how about directing that energy of outrage against the monstrous and criminal administration that has so defiled the values and standing of this country.

the silence greeting this week's revelation and confirmation what many of us knew in our gut, is depressing in what it tells you about the acquiesence and amorality of too many in our country.

One thing that would help is if the Olypic committee that selects the sites did not select countries with KNOWN problems with how they treat their citizens or that had a known history of suppression of civil rights.
The very act of selecting a country such as China to host the event was guaranteed to invoke the kind of reaction that we are seeing.
Countries that are selected to host the Olympics such be countries who at least support the theoretical ideals supposedly promoted by the Olympics

but the greeks were a bunch of homo's

some safe little neutral country like Liechtenstein.

The choice of Liechtenstein isn't completely arbitrary: I believe that they're the most successful country to participate in the modern Olympics, measured by the number of medals per capita. :-)

"find a permanent home for the games in some safe little neutral country"

yeah, right, I'm sure all the "take the politics out of the games" countries would be all for that, provided it was *their* country that had a huge influx of money and publicity every four years.

Notice that only Jon Stewart picked up on the fact that the whole torch relay was invented in 1936 by . . . the Nazis?

While the suggestion of having a permanent location for the Olympics is a good idea, I'm not sure if Greece is politically neutral enough to be a safe spot to hold it. Australia perhaps?

Maybe the idea of switching the location is a good idea because it stirs up awareness and discussion over issues such as these. Maybe the contention is a healthy step toward a better, more harmonious global society. After all, a better and more harmonious Olympics is a fine incentive towards clearing up one's own backyard.

I mean, maybe it's good that it provokes awareness and discussion of a country's human rights record.

China-- and certainly not China alone-- should not go without condemnation when they do something wrong.

What linda said. The modern Olympics invariably reflect current opinions - as when Tommy Smith and Lee Carlos raised their black-gloved fists in a black power salute in 1968. China deserves all the negative publicity we can give it.

I vote for eliminating the Olympics altogether. Since they have turned into competetions between professional, full-time, paid athletes, they no longer serve the purpose they were originally created to serve. The teams now are gathered by accumulating the cream of professional sports teams from each nation to see which nation can accumulate the most medals.

Nations fight each other to host the Olympics because of the billions (with a "b") of money that is to be made from doing so.

It's no longer about the athletes at all, it's a national competetion and it's about greed.

I fail to see what's wrong with the current system.

So China is currently in the world spotlight due to the Olympics? Good. It's about time the world's attention was focused on China. Can anyone seriously argue that the Tibetans and other victims of China's regime would be BETTER off without the Olympics?

What this experience is going to teach China and the rest of the world is that while you might be able to choreograph your own internal media and image, you can't do it internationally They now have a tiger by the tail.

In any event, show me a country with no human rights or ethical issues.

Australia? Huge and ongoing history of near genocidal treatment of the aboriginies.

Liechtenstein? Aids and abets dictators, criminals, billionaire tax cheats, international drug dealers and arms trafficers through its banking secrecy laws. Hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from the worlds poor in developing countries is no doubt earning interest in numbered accounts in "respectable" Liechtenstein banks.

Norway and Japan? Murder whales by the thousands.

United States? Iraq war crimes?

Greece? Has problems with its treatment of ethnic minorities such as Albanians, Jews, and Turks within its borders.

In any event, I rather like how the Olympics rotates around and gives us a spotlight on different parts of the world and different cultures.

I vote for eliminating the Olympics altogether. Since they have turned into competetions between professional, full-time, paid athletes, they no longer serve the purpose they were originally created to serve. The teams now are gathered by accumulating the cream of professional sports teams from each nation to see which nation can accumulate the most medals.

Yeah right. The "original" amateurism of the games 100 years ago was classism and racism pure and simple. Only white upper-crust athletes were able afford the cost of dedicating themselves to sport. Whereas lower-class and black athletes inevitably had to compete for money in order to survive. By imposing rigid amateur status on Olympic athletes the original organizers ensured that the early modern Olympics would be an exclusive playground for white upper-class athletes.

In any event, it was the communist countries in the latter half of the 20th century who made amateurism into a farce with all their so-called "student" and "soldier" athletes who were really professionals in disguise.

The teams now are gathered by accumulating the cream of professional sports teams from each nation to see which nation can accumulate the most medals.

Hardly. What you say is true for basketball, hockey, and tennis. But for the hundreds of other Olympic events? Not at all. Tell me about all those swimmers, runners, rowers, wrestlers, boxers, gymnasts, etc. who are members of professional sports teams.

I vote first for keeping the Olympics at one site for say, three Games (12 years).

I vote second for Greece as a symbol and because I suspect it might be more easily approved for that reason than any other site (or mebbe not.) But I would favor specific three-year terms for small countries that might receive a significant economic boost

I vote first for keeping the Olympics at one site for say, three Games (12 years).

I vote second for Greece as a symbol and because I suspect it might be more easily approved for that reason than any other site (or mebbe not.) But I would favor specific three-year terms for small countries that might receive a significant economic boost

I think good international relations was the the whole point of the original contest. Moving it around is a way of spreading the peace.

Also, I think might be seen as a bit Euro- or Western-centric to bring it back permanently back to Greece.

I think it was a blunder giving China the games, with their internal and external politics. We didn't have the troubles here elsewhere.

Who's going to compete for the title of "safe little neutral country?" It's a nice idea in principle but in the modern day, where hosting the games is an occasion for national chest-beating and billions in revenue, it's never going to fly.

I think, judging from some of the comments, some people set standards for the Olympics that are unrealistically high. I think it's ok to make some tradeoffs so we can have some nice games even if we can't guarantee the Olympics will live up to our fantasy of being an amateur, absolutely egalitarian competition that money and power touch as little as possible.

Obviously there are a lot of people it doesn't bother, but I think a good step for reform for the Olympics would be to include less competitions. Make it simpler so people appreciate the games more, and so the games are easier to follow. For example, some sports might really only have large followings in a few dozen countries- things like baseball. Chess and dancing have been included in the Olympics- so how long should it be before Olympic video-game playing and cook-offs and debating are included in the games? I think the games should be made simpler, and a lot of these new games should be left to their own little communities to host international competitions, without the Olympics. Stick just to sports that have universal or nigh-universal recognition across the world, instead of including more and more new games every year.

If the Olympics are permanently held at one site the rich of the world will lose the Olympics proposal parties they hold at sites around the world. Why would the rich change the system that works so well for them?

The world is a real place, not a fiction novel, and you just can't force everything to be exactly as you'd like it to be. It won't work.

Jim Lund: If the Olympics are permanently held in one place, it will become much more easy for one country (and in all probability, the most powerful country- us) to gain an inordinate amount of control over the Olympics that will compromise the integrity of the games. Not only would an eventually corrupt Olympics be less fun, but it would make the Olympics pointless as it would thoroughly undermine the purposes of having the games in the first place- the games would turn from an incident of world brotherhood into a device to shell out propaganda.

But of course, the rest of the world is not stupid, and they would see this from miles away, so of course they would never agree to abandoning something so egalitarian and democratic and rotating the location of the Olympics.

Greece, yes, but not Athens. Build something out where the air is cleaner, upwind of Athens.

And regarding what Swan said at 12:02, it should include only sports where performance can be measured objectively: how far, how fast, how heavy. Anything where they award style points should be taken out. There should be about 4 distances of running events. Rhythmic gymnastics is an activity, but it is not a sport. Neither is ice dancing.

"and rotating the location of the Olympics."

Oops, should have been "as rotating the location of the Olympics."

Also I should have put another sentence on the end of the first paragraph of that comment: Having a permanent location would thereby destroy the Olympics, and it would be no time before we had no Olympics at all, because it would only taken a few games or so for countries to realize the games had become a farce.

Personally I like how great Olympic performances are cemented in time and place by the Olympics.

Tommie Smith and Juan Carlos in Mexico city.

Jesse Owens in Berlin

Torvill & Dean in Sarajevo

US Hockey in Lake Placid

Wilma Rudolph in Rome

Mark Spitz in Munich

Bob Beamon and Lee Evans in Mexico City

Michael Johnson in Atlanta

Cathy Freeman in Sydney

etc.

I doubt those achievements would have quite the same impact if the Olympics were just a long string of events in the same location.

The politics is better than the games. Concern about the games derives from commercial interests, not Olympic ideals, which has degraded the games much more than politics.

The post mentions our boycott in 1980, but it should be remembered that the USSR and allies also boycotted the next summer Olympics in 1984.

If the Grecians won't agree, we could take the games and set them up in Eldorado, Texas, and take over that FLDS compound. They already have a fairly good start on spacious housing for athletes. Building oval tracks is easy, and similar compounds exist in Utah's ski country for the winter games.

I think they're going for the revenue model in which non-sports fans are watching just in case a monk gets beaten senseless at the finish line. Politics just makes it more exciting.

For the same reasons that China is being protested as an Olympic site, America has now put itself in that category with this administration's policies of illegal and immoral war, torture, destroying the US Constitution. Thus, I think the Americans who are doing what they are doing to disrupt the running of the flame, really need to sit down and think how much like China we have become. Except, China has more money than we have now and own our debt for all the illegalities listed above.

Racism and classism weren't the only reasons why the early modern Olympics were so rigidly restricted to "amateurs only". There already were a number of professional sports, and they were far more corrupt than anything nowadays. Just consider the Sherlock Holmes story, "Silver Blaze", and how chillingly casual it is about the extent of dishonest and even criminal activities in professional horse racing.

By keeping the Olympics strictly amateur, the original organizers were hoping to keep the criminal element out. It worked...for a while.

Good point Mazurka. The Olympic flame run is disrupted, but troop deployments to Iraq are not.

Seriously? We should be more concerned about international javelin throwing than democracy or human rights? The Olympics are pretty useless spectacle, really, a lot of money, effort and media attention that could be spent better in many other ways.

Why are you so interested in destroying Liechtenstein? ARE YOU CRAZY?

Why don't you consider a WAY more sensible idea--like holding the Olympics at some dedicated site in North Dakota?

That's a way better idea than doing all you can to destroy a small, charming middle-European country.

If we want to solve the the problem of politicization of the Olympics, then along with keeping it in Athens, should we also restrict the competition to only one country (which keeps the level of politcs to a minimum) and also to only of sex (since we don't want any potential politics from entering, and you know how "sexual politics" can be so disruptive...). end snark

Ever consider that the sites of "acceptable" political expression are being progressively eliminated, and the Olympics PROVIDES a political forum that is lacking in the marketplace (of ideas)?

I am Greek and I am intrigued by the idea of permanently hosting the Olympics.

Athens is fine and has greatly improved as a city precisely because of the investment for the Olympics.

We do have our share of problems but bad treatment of ethnic Albanians, Jews and Turks? Jews were wiped out by nazis in the 40s, Albanias are 99% immigrants and Turks, well there is a Turkish minority which still exists and is a source of problem. Then again, the key work is it exists. The Greek minority has been wiped out in Turkey as recently as 1955.

My biggest source of concern? That having the games permanently in Greece would be a source of corruption and cultural degeneration for a whole society in which selling Olympic and ancient folklore might become the main export industry. I love the Olympics, I hate kitch.

I hate to think of all that money that is expended, time after time, for the creation of massive sportplexes for hosting the Olympics. Greece is fine (although part of me would like to have St. Louis rehost the Olympics as it did in 1904). The winter olympics could go to Japan, which is on the other side of the world.

I think it might be a good idea to disourage new sports with style points, but at least for a few sports that are already admitted and much followed- figure skating, diving, snowboarding, and gymnastics- there should be an exception. I know it's an easy avenue (or an easier avenue than some) for corruption to enter the games, but really, if you really pay attention to something like a figure skating performance, it's not hard to see that the people who are judged better actually do a better job than those who score worse- even if you're not an expert. It would really just be too hard for there to be a lot of corruption, and the judges would shoot themselves in the foot for their efforts more than anything else. So I think we should keep at least some of the most-loved, traditional style-based sports, and just make good efforts to select good judges and keep them in line.

I like the Olympics the way they are now constituted: to show the worst in humanity in sports, business and politics. They improve every time to set new standards for the world to follow.

I like the idea of a permanant home for the Olympics, but Greece? If the intent is for the games to be there forever, the Greeks (lovely people, don't get me wrong) would take forever and a day to finish the venue!

If you don't want the Olympics to be disrupted by politics, then don't fscking base them on a political concept, namely nations.

People should be allowed to compete in the Olympics anyway they want. In individual sports, they go as individuals. In team sports, the teams can affiliate however they want. The Catholics team can compete against the Coca-Cola team. The Blonde-Haired team can compete against the Farmers team.

If this idea horrifies you, if you feel deep in your gut that, somehow, the only "honorable" way for Americans to appear at the Olympics is as members of Team America, well perhaps we've discovered the mystery of why the Olympics is a political exercise.

I like the idea of a permanant home for the Olympics, but Greece? If the intent is for the games to be there forever, the Greeks (lovely people, don't get me wrong) would take forever and a day to finish the venue!

Most Londoners would welcome this idea.

Uhm, DB? The last summer games (or the one before last?) was held in Greece. So they've got the structure already.

Maynard Handley has identified why the Olympics will continue to be political; the Olympic system is based on Nineteenth Century nationalist ideals. Because of that, Chauvinism prevails as its competition.

Paul, you’re wrong about the ancient Olympics.

Sparta was barred once, for example.

The reason why the Olympics will never be permanently stationed anywhere is Europe is because that is 5-7 hours ahead of the all important U.S. east coast media market. That is, after all, why Atlanta nabbed the centennial games rather than Greece.

Maynard Handley slices it exactly.

'36 was the first outright nationalistic propaganda event, but it took the cold war and US vs. USSR, West vs. East for 36 years to bring that nationalism to a climax. Now US coverage of the Olympics sees through no other lens.

Whatever the event, and no matter who the opposition, however great or graceful, it's the US competitor the focus is on. Medal tally the measure. Eff the rest of the world or individual performance. Watch another nation's coverage some time and the Olympics can become a different and multinational event.

But f*ck China anyway. This is the only reason they wanted the games: to showcase a propagandist view of their country. As someone above said, you can't fool the world.

keep it in greece - and all players should use 4th century BCE transport to get to the games too...

Uhm, DB? The last summer games (or the one before last?) was held in Greece. So they've got the structure already.

Many of the stadia were temporary, and have been dismantled. The Olympic Village has become a new apartment complex, IIRC.

Another point, if not handled up thread...is the fact that when you move the games around, all the "little people" get a chance to participate. Obviously not a factor to elites, and the fact that such minor monetary concerns are not an issue with them (Oh my, why I would never have looked at that way). That said, I will throw in with Linda...the first commenter's inkling of our own moral dilemma.

my post above.

how is it that the ancient Greeks managed to better insulate their Olympics from geo-politics? The answer is that they didn't move the venue every four years the way we do. Instead, with one exception, they always held the contests at the religious sanctuary of Olympia

A permanent venue might or might not be a good idea, but I don't see how it would insulate the Olympics from politics. The enormous counter-example is soccer's World Cup, which is hugely commercialized, moves venues every four years to bring big bucks to its hosts, and is almost completely apolitical (having the effect, as the ancient Olympics did, of providing worldwide truce days while people watch). The question might be: why does football do this so well and the Olympics do not? Is it because the Olympics purport to be idealistic (and inevitably fall short of their ideals), while football doesn't claim to be about anything but selling ads and tickets? Is it because the world's best football players frequently cross national borders to play professionally in other countries? That's an open question; I have no idea, myself.

For once, I find myself in complete agreement with Larson and Glastris. I, too, have long thought the games should be permanently located in the land of their birth.

The only reason there's not at Olympic Blogging Competition is you're all scared of Steve Benen.

...not AN Olympic...

Bob M wrote:

I like the Olympics the way they are now constituted: to show the worst in humanity in sports, business and politics. They improve every time to set new standards for the world to follow.

So your answer to everything is to sweep all the problems under the rug? Sorry, you don't cure cancer with a band-aid, man. Maybe you didn't intend to be sarcastic, but that's what it sounded like to me.

About Greece: that's great that the modern Olympics is inspired by the ancient Greek tradition, but cultures all across the globe have had athletic competitions, foot-races, archery contests, all kinds of sports, etc., and acting as if the Greeks were the only people who were smart enough to think (this very obvious) idea up is a little ridiculous. The modern Olympics' going across the globe recognizes this- that athletic competition is a worldwide, universal tradition- instead of just laying it all at the Greeks' feet, and it's better for that. I don't mind at all if the coverage every year incudes 5 or 10 minutes pieces on TV about the history of the ancient games, but the increased internationalism is an improvement, and consistent with the rest of the modern world (as opposed to a few thousand years ago).

My vote would be to rotate between three or so venues - my picks would be Greece, Japan and Brazil, with an option to add a fourth in Africa when it becomes feasible.

Even though I am Greek, I'd rather see the Olympics circulate among countries based on one single criterion: No nation that tortures should be allowed to host the Olympics, until it disavows torture and allows an international committee to investigate allegations of torture and arrest anyone who has ever authorized torture.

You get my drift, I trust.

____________________________________________

Well also the Greeks couldn't incinerate the entire human race and they gave us the concept of the "big battle" that settles everything instead of low level skirmishes.

Neither of which is feasible, but it DOES seem like a good idea, only, how would you pay for it? Would the countries contribute (ha!)?

What I would support is something like requiring that every 25 or 50 years the games have to be held in Greece, of that every 4 games or so have to be held in Greece (every 16 years).

It would be like a salute to the Greeks in recognition of their games being the most clear, direct inspiration for the modern games, but it would still keep all the value of rotating the games. Also it would be sort of a thank-you to a civilization that provided a lot of the rest of the foundation for modern civilization, besides just the Olympic games.

But, even if it was limited to every once-in-a-while, like that, I think there would be too much resistance to the idea to implement it, because the other countries have too much to lose by it.

No nation that tortures should be allowed to participate in the Olympics, until it disavows torture and allows an international committee to investigate allegations of torture and arrest anyone who has ever authorized torture.

The games have been political, and often elitist, for a long time. Avery Brundage, head of the USOC starting in 1929, and head of the IOC from 1952 to 1972 was a probably a fascist who admired Hitler and Franco more than little. He pulled two Jewish runners from the US men’s 400 meter run in 1936 to assuage the Germans. He also opposed returning Native American Jim Thorpe’s medals in the 1912 pentathlon and decathlon, where Thorpe had defeated all comers including a young Avery Brundage. He was adamant about excluding professionals, but did nothing to exclude Eastern bloc athletes who were fully employed by their governments. For good measure he opposed the inclusion of women athletes. There will always be some politics in the Olympics, but we still need to work to keeping them from getting over politicized.

she argued for planting the Olympics permanently in its ancient homeland

Vegas, bitches.

Kent from Waco writes:
It's about time the world's attention was focused on China.

Er.. you don't read the news much, do you?

To Kent from Waco: There's a pretty small Jewish minority in Greece, just a few thousand. It used to be pretty big, but was eventually wiped out in the holocaust. There is no mistreatment whatsoever and I've never heard of any incident. Albanians are quite sizeable, but they're not a minority in the traditional sense, as they have been in Greece for around 10 years, and gradually getting embodied in the population. I'll give you the muslim minority issue.

As a Greek who has lived almost all his life in Greece, the Olympics were a huge drain to the economy, and I hope to only see them on TV from here on. I understand the excitement of the editor, but Greece just doesn't have the resources to organise Modern Olympics (we're the smallest country ever to hold them).

Build an island of Atlantis (a continent is probably too much to ask for) in international waters and hold the summer Olympics there.

Hold winter Olympics in Antarctica.