Friday, July 11, 2008
The article makes plain (sorry) that they are not questioning Christian mission and care organizations that use utilitarian air transport for things such as delivering food and medical supplies in hard to reach parts of the world.
Monday, July 7, 2008
In March the ceremonial torch relay was under siege by people protesting
Amidst the cries of injustice the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has indicated that the show will go on and reminded people that the consistent nature of world conflict has frequently made the Olympics a source of political tension. And, despite the show going on many discussed and are still discussing boycott. Edward McMillan-Scott, European Parliament Vice-President said in a March ABC interview, “There will be a boycott of some sort, what kind of boycott is the question right now. … At a minimum I think the EU should require that no elected official from the 37-member states attend the opening ceremony, but that is the minimum." The purpose of this article is to further understand what exactly is happening in
The question of whether a country should be rewarded for partial improvements in the humane treatment of their citizens to me is still debatable; but, the IOC decided that whatever improvements they made combined with exposure towards the country merited their election as the 2008 Summer Olympics host. IOC Chairman Jacques Rogge put it this way, "We were not naive. We knew discussions would flare up in the last six months and that has happened. … We cannot deny one-fifth of mankind the advantages of Olympism. … We believe the games will be a catalyst for change and will open a country, which used to be mysterious to much of the world." Whether or not the Olympic Games have actually been a catalyst is subject to question. Amnesty International suggests that the media scrutiny, especially with
This may seem like a funny question; but, I will ask it anyway: What is the point of a boycott? Is it a) To demonstrate that you will not stand for the injustice that a country continues to exercise over its people or b) To affect change within the treatment of a country’s people. I do not believe that the two are mutually exclusive but that they walk a razor’s edge. Maybe because I am an economist I will address objective b. Historically speaking how instrumental have boycotts been in impacting the desired change?