That's precisesly why I think a boycott is necessary. By playing nice just long enough to win the Olympic bid, and then blatantly sliding back into major human rights abuses on the eve of being under the world microscope, they're sending a pretty clear message that they have no desire to work with the international community. If we just let the Olympics go ahead, we're rewarding them for that two-faced behavior.

No, by giving them Most Favored Nation status, by allowing them unfettered access to our markets, but doing nothing to actually sanction that government we are rewarding them.

Boycotting the Olympics is just saying "I'm very disappointed in you, son, so I've blocked VH-1 on the TV" when the primary watching of VH-1 is by the well behaved daughter.

That's why I didn't label it at meaningless. It mostly would be: two weeks after the brouhaha begins it will become moot when the games end and things go back to the way they are right now. Instead I used the word hypocritical, because it is to essentially say "this is an issue important enough to impose some punishment but it is important that neither the United States government nor China are actually impacted so we'll punish the athletes." That'll learn everybody.

And I don't see how it fails to put China on the world stage unless the U.S. government has the ability to prevent NBC from broadcasting the games. It doesn't and NBC has too much money invested to not air them.

If China doesn't care about the PR leading up to the Olympics, it is hard to imagine that they'll care about the PR during the Olympics

Good point, but how will a boycott change their desire to work with the international community? Wouldn't that do just the opposite?

We all know the Bush Administration was so deeply troubled by the human rights violations in Iraq that they invaded it. (That is still the current reason, isn't it? Goodness knows, it's hard to keep track when the reason changes so much.) Perhaps they should invade China as well. Another big win for Democracy! Oodles and oodles of more taxpayer money for his cronies' companies! Think of the legacy Bush will have.

And while we're at it, can we take our jobs and industry back?

With the human rights violations our own government has been committing, any stand we take would be on weak ground. Sad, but true.

I think I like the idea of tributing the monks for the opening ceremonies though, because any obvious display done by such a large group, especially if the commentators are informed of it ahead of time, would definitely elicit comment. But our government would have to be in on it in order to allow them to alter the team uniform.

Again, I don't disagree. And I do understand that it's a tough pill to swallow for an athlete to be asked to not participate due to a gesture that, admittedly, won't do a lick to change anything.

I guess what I really want is for a boycott of the Olympics to signal a sea change in our dealings with China. Use it as a very visible forum to say, "Okay, we gave you guys a lot of rope, you had the opportunity to shine with the world spotlight on you, you blew it. So now we're going to start actually taking steps to sanction you."

I suppose if that doesn't follow along behind it, I'd oscillate back onto the no boycott side. The symbolic boycott of the Olympics definitely needs to have some decidedly non-symbolic action moving forward. And maybe I'm hoping for too much. But to me, accepting the unchangeable fact that we've already missed decades' worth of opportunities to actually sanction China's actions, I see an Olympic boycott as an ideal opportunity to begin to fix that.

Like I said in my first post. If it is part of some larger package then I am much more open to it.

Since I haven't seen any mention of any real sanction against China, then yes, I do think you're hoping for too much. Engagement is the official diplomatic policy of our country when it comes to China and I don't see that changing (and I'm not entirely sure it should change; but without a wholesale change then just boycotting the Olympics strikes me as a truly empty gesture and perhaps more harm than good).

I'm not accusing you of this, but as always there is the kabuki dance of political opponents advocating whatever stance the other side isn't. Prior to the war, there was a large pro-engagement movement on the issue of Iraq (when war became the preferred option that morphed into a pro-sanctions movement). There is one for Cuba and North Korea. In China, where pro-business interests produce a strong pro-engagement movement the engagement people start to advocate sanctions. And I'm not criticizing one side over the other; if sanctions make sense for Cuba, then they make many times more sense for China.

I wholeheartedly support any athlete or team that decides the political issues far outweigh the athletic ones and so decline to participate. But since, I don't think there will be any larger package, asking a group of athletes to be the only symbols of our disapproval and the only ones put out by it, I am definitely anti-boycott.

So, I don't think we necessarily disagree. I just have no hope or expectation of anything larger happening unless China does something much worse than it already has.

I would, however, support leaving the decision up to individual sports. I would certainly support, indeed, encourage, a boycott by the world's rhythmic gymnasts. Also a boycott by the competitors in badminton, baseball, basketball, soccer, handball, ping pong, tennis and beach volleyball.

A voice or reason!

So, the French surrendered? I see some things never change.

You'll get your wish on that one come 2012.