http://x.go.com/cgi/x.pl?goto=http%3...-Story&srvc=sz
Apparently, that's the case. I want to see some people's reaction towards this.
Politics in the Olympics?
http://x.go.com/cgi/x.pl?goto=http%3...-Story&srvc=sz
Apparently, that's the case. I want to see some people's reaction towards this.
I find it disturbing that Bush would do something as this in his ads. I do believe he should pull the ads. Sure, his administration may have freed the two nations (Afghanistan and Iraq) and got them to be in the Olympics, but I think he shouldn't take credit and use it for his advantage. bleh.
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
Yes, it's wonderful that our lovely president is doing his part to spread democracy throughout the world, but there's absolutely no need to be a credit-monger on this occassion.
That's just low, really.
As the article stated, the USOC has exclusive domestic rights to Olympics and derivatives of it when advertising. What's more is that they should be an apolitical organization.
What Bush is doing is trying to affiliate the USOC with the Republican party, and that's what I never liked.
I hope they use their power to force him to stop. I wouldnt be asking Geroge bush, i would be telling
Let's have the democrats strike back with another advertisment of similar characteristics:
Images: A dead iraqi child, a child without arms nor legs, and more pictures of mutilated people.
Voice: This are the children that may have been in the future Olympic games if it wasn't for Dubya's War.
Sound effects: Mothers and children crying.
Music: Some moody, sad music that suddenly gets furious.
Gigantic bloody bright red letters on the screen: THIS ARE THE VICTIMS OF PETROL.
Scene change: Happy US flag with happy melody
Letters: Vote Kerry
WTF? Since when are the Olympics a trade-mark? It's a 3000 year-old tradition - how can anyone have a claim of rights over it?From the Article
"We own the rights to the Olympic name, and no one has asked us,'' said Gerhard Heiberg, the Norwegian IOC representative and IOC market commission leader.
As for the matter itself - whatever. There's really no grounds to prevent that ad or commercial from airing, as (despite what that idiotic organisation says) there are no grounds for doing so. Sure, people who don't like Bush or the wars he waged may find somewhat it disturbing, but that's hardly anything new, and not really any basis for... well, anything.
And in small print, below - Brought to you by the Department of Cheap PropogandaLetters: Vote Kerry
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
You misunderstood what the article meant and the law. The name Olympics is not a trade-mark. It is not like "Nintendo" or "Sony." Because the olympics is more generic than original, you can't possibly own that name. It's like us trying to own the word "clock."Originally Posted by War Angel
What the law states is that only in advertising and non-partisan (no party affiliation) funding may the USOC use the word "olympics" unless they give permission for someone else(no political party affiliated) to do so...like Home Depot.
The USOC is not an idiotic organization, without them we have no US team in the olympics. The USOC simply asked the campaign to avert their ads. The law that gave the USOC exclusive, but limited, olympic name rights also states that the organization be apolitical. Because in this case the ad used "olympics", it makes the USOC seem like it has a republican affiliation. That's why the USOC is asking for the ad to be taken down.
I still fail to see how any organisation can have the right to tell others when, and if they can use the Olympic name. Aren't the Olympics this international, universal, popular thing? Who has a right to limit others, when they use its name? Seems absurd to me.
How so? Are the words 'Olympics' and 'USOC' synonymous? I think not. So, when you use the word 'Olympics', it has nothing to do, nor reflects anything on some organisation, nation, or man.Because in this case the ad used "olympics", it makes the USOC seem like it has a republican affiliation.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
That's your opinion of what USOC is, but not what the law states. And yes, USOC and Olympics is synonymous. USOC = United States Olympic Committee.
And the irony is, is that one of the Iraqi Olympic footballers said that if he wasn't playing football at the Olympics, he'd be fighting US troops in Najaf...
I think that's how 3 of the players on that team feels. I know there were a few members on the team that use to be in the Iraqi army.
But anyways, Bush/Kerry/Nader, none of them have the right to use the olympics for their campaign.
The underlying assumption here is that people are so stupid, they'll swallow whatever tripe is spoon-fed them on TV. Mention the Olympics and people are going to reflexively, involuntarily think "GOERGE BUSH R GOOD" right? And the ad should be pulled to protect the stupid masses from having this opinion inserted into their collective brains rather than some other, approved opinion?
We all here know the fact (it is a fact, correct?) that Iraq wouldn't be at the Olympics if not for the US's actions there, or wouldn't be at the Olympics in the capacity that they currently are. That's fact, and you can interpret it any way you like. Is this a wonderfully good thing for the freedom and democracy of the world and cute kittens and bunny rabbits all around? Maybe. Is this something that has no significance compared with the costs of war and various other political and economic happenings around the world? Maybe. Is it wrong to give people facts and let them decide whether those statements are true, and if so what significance they hold? Does the ad say "George Bush's actions allowed Iraqis to go to the Olympics, and THE IRAQIS ARE HAPPY ABOUT IT AND LOVE HIM AND SEND HIM FLOWERS!" No. And if it did say something like that, well let the liars lie, and catch them in the act, and show the lies to the world, and then you'll know not to believe them. I don't agree with the tip-toeing that goes on in the political world, because it's dishonest. It's all a huge play on words. I don't agree with the fact that things which are historical, written-in-stone, factual events should be somehow forbidden from being spoken. Honesty is not allowed.
So far as this case where "Olympic" is apparently not allowed to be spoken in public without the Olympic board's approval, that seems dumb, but if it's a law, then people should follow it.
You misunderstood what the law stated. It says that the USOC and IOC has exclusive, but limited, rights to the word "olympics." It means that the word "olympics" cannot be used for any political propaganda whatsoever and cannot be used to endorse any product of any kind without permission of the USOC. You can still use the word "olympics" in public speaking, just as long as it has no endorsement affiliation attached to it...be it corporate or political.
[qq=Dingo Jellybean]You misunderstood what the law stated. It says that the USOC and IOC has exclusive, but limited, rights to the word "olympics." It means that the word "olympics" cannot be used for any political propaganda whatsoever and cannot be used to endorse any product of any kind without permission of the USOC. You can still use the word "olympics" in public speaking, just as long as it has no endorsement affiliation attached to it...be it coporate or political.[/qq]
That last comment of mine was hyperbolic.
Posting Permissions
