Nana's Vibrator: Chronomorte: It seems that the writer of that article took offense at something the
IOC leader (and Fencing enthusiast) said and vigorously defended the
US and US executive branch from the apparent insult.  There might
have been a story in there under all that opinion and defensiveness,
but I'm not sure.


There was absolutely no point and there were no references to anything to help make his point.  I think he hates the IOC for certain reasons, but then takes his hate and points it at this statement:
Please understand what our responsibilities are and what your responsibilities are," Bach said. "Have the courage to address your disagreements in a peaceful, direct political dialogue and not on the backs of the athletes. People have a very good understanding of what it really means to single out the Olympic Games to make an ostentatious gesture which allegedly costs nothing but produces international headlines."

On this point, I 100% agree with Bach.  Olympics should be a peaceful, nonpolitical competition where athletes display to the world that citizens from everywhere are very much alike despite our politicians and their agenda / propaganda.

This is not to say the IOC isn't corrupt and that human equality is not an issue in many places, Russia and the US included.  But the platform for engaging in social and economic politics is on a political stage.  The olympics are a platform for diplomacy.    And politicians should be thankful for diplomatic displays like the Olympics that allow political communication lines to remain open and mutual rather than combative.

Anyways, the author is wrong and doesn't make his point well.

Nana's Vibrator: Dafatone: It's not "politics."  "Politics" implies two or more (semi) legitimate sides and a (semi) legitimate debate on issues.  This is rights.

Maybe, just maybe, using a world stage to shame Russia's horrible treatment of gay people could help turn around what's going on in other parts of the world.  Such as a whole bunch of countries in Africa where gays are being killed.

This is a bigger deal than disagreeing with Russia.  We have a moral farking duty here, and it's one of those super rare issues where the other side is only evil and that's that.

Similarly, it pisses me off to hear about people who support gay rights but don't think social issues are that big a deal compared to whatever fiscal stance they have.  While the world's sick of America on all sorts of geopolitical fronts, we're still pretty liked culturally.  We could be making more of a difference just by showing some more public support.

I extracted "politics" from the article.  Putting that aside, I'd still agree with Bach that the Olympics and the backs of the olympic athletes should not be used to advance an agenda of any kind.  While it's clearly a great opportunity for any statement, it bastardizes the entire intent of the Olympics and makes athletics secondary to something else.  Why even send the athletes?  Why not just call it a political summit?
Again, I'd prefer that the Olympics be a neutral display by athletes of sportsmanship, who through their example show the world that they can set their nations' differences (including tragic and catastrophic judgement) aside.  The foundation of the games represents individuals setting a good example of positive interaction despite being set against each other competitively.  This foundation can then be extended to the small-minded politicians who often forget their place in representing their people and projecting this good example.  This, in turn makes the Olympics a foundation of diplomacy and leads to open dialog which can then lead to diffic ...

Nana's Vibrator: justtray: Dafatone: Keep in mind, the issue at hand is whether or not Obama should be attending the Olympics, and whether or not we should be sending a gay designation of representatives.

It's not like Obama's demanding anything of Sochi or issuing ultimatums or conditions for his attendance. Deliberately not sending gay representatives is about as political as deliberately sending gay ones.

Which, as Nana's Vibrator's selective reading also missed, is covered in the article. Bach is making a point against something that does not exist. No poltical stance was made at all against the Olympics. We sent our people, we didn't force them to change their laws or anything.

He says I sound like subby, I say he sounds like Bach, or worse yet, Putin himself. While I'm not subby, I'm definitely not going to white knight the sham the Olympics have become, or pretend to be some idealogical douche.

The facts remain, politics DO have a place in the Olympics, AND next to nothing has been done by the United States to force anything on Russia over them. Complaining about something that isn't even happening, as Bach does in the quoted article, is whiny and pathetic, deserving of ridicule.

Now you're just being obtuse.  Politics is forcing a country to do something?  The United States purposely selected openly gay former athletes in their delegation, including Billie Jean King, known best for...Winter Tennis?  Tell me again that's not political.  Tell me Wetzell wasn't wrong for suggesting that something political wasn't...political.
Then tell us again what a sham the olympics are, and in the same post discuss how politics you speak of belong in what you consider a sham.  Try not to contradict yourself.
/You'll find that politics is exactly what's wrong.
//do you even know what a white knight is?
///dumbass to douche.  Brilliant.