Arrogance

August 26, 2004 in Uncategorized
«
»

W. is so unbelievably arrogant it’s ridiculous.

I just wrote this post, and then accidentally deleted it, so I’m gonna make this one extra angry.


For those who haven’t heard, Bush has been running a new ad that essentially takes credit for two new countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) competing in this year’s Olympics. At first glance, not a huge deal—especially compared to the other commercial hijinks. So what’s the big deal?

First problem. Iraqi Olympians have publically said that they don’t want to be used by Bush for political gain, and want him to pull the ads. Quite understandably, they “find it offensive that Bush is using their team for his own gain when they do not support his administration’s actions in Iraq.”

Second problem? The USOC doesn’t want Bush running the ads because they own the rights to the Olympics in the US, and they have asked him to pull the ads, because “[o]nly the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC), or its sponsors and partners, are allowed to use the symbols in [advertisements], under American copyright law.”

And the third problem? Hm… We should top this all off with a really good one. Hm, let’s see… I know! our own Congress says it’s illegal! In 1999 Congress enacted the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act
that granted the rights to the Olympics to the USOC and stated that it “shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.”

But I guess none of this applies to our “president”.

To steal from Janeane Garafolo, at this point, wanting to vote for Bush is simply a character flaw.

5 Comments to Arrogance

  1. I hadn’t heard about the ’99 law… that’s great… and aweful… and… and… hey wait a second… didn’t we try to impeach the last president that broke the law? Surely some brave memeber of Congress will notice this and make a motion to impeach… right?

    2. Shad Reynolds on 26 August 2004

  2. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
    Man, fuck Bush.

    3. beth on 26 August 2004

  3. The problem with that commercial is that he doesn’t verbally mention the olympics. He just uses footage of the olympics… which they will probably try and argue is totally legal. The implied message of course is that back in the day there were only 40 “democracies” or nations that participated in the olympics and now there are 120 including two nations that “we” the USA “saved” from the “terrorists.” We all know it’s a bunch of bullshit, but Republicans just don’t seem to care what kind of lies they are told just so long as they have money in their pockets.

    4. dancepartydawn on 27 August 2004

  4. Actually, the commercial does mention “olympics” once or twice, but they never show any symbols from it. That’s ok because the 99 Act gives full use of even the word “olympics” to the USOC (with a few exceptions which definitely do not apply).
    However, the Act only provides for a Civil suit “if the person, without the consent of the corporation, uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition” the trademarked words or symbols. The only thing W. could be construed as doing is using the Olympics to promote his ads, a theatrical exhibition (although that might be a stretch).
    The part about not supporting a candidate only applies to the USOC, and unless they approved the ad or gave funding, then that part of the law hasn’t technically been broken.
    How about if the Iraqi soccer team follows each of those ads with one of their own…

    5. mas on 27 August 2004

  5. Hey, what’s up Mas? Long time.
    I’d love to see some Iraqi soccer team commercials. I’m sure there’s already a 527 out there already working on it…

    6. Mark on 30 August 2004




Leave a comment




Find Mark