Start boycott by watching TV Land

Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who revived the Olympic Games, said in 1894: “May joy and good fellowship reign, and in this manner, may the Olympic torch pursue its way through ages, increasing friendly understanding among nations, for the good of a humanity always more enthusiastic, more courageous and more pure.”

Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Because of Chinese repression in Tibet, many have called for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics.

Boycott the Games? No.

Not watch them? Yes.

Before we get to the politics of it all, let’s just look at the practicality of following it all.

The Olympics once were a quadrennial spectacle, a rare and fascinating window on the world. The Games crackled with transcendent sporting drama. Viewers anticipated glimpses of athletic achievement in far-flung lands.

Now, the Olympic Games is just programming.

The Winter and Summer Olympics rotate in even-number years – one ends and it feels as if the other begins. The bloom is off the rose, largely because the rose is blooming around the clock and, well, we can only wake up and smell so many roses in a given day.

I would’ve thought 200 hours of Olympic TV were sufficient; NBC and its cable networks will have 3,200 hours – 2,900 of them live – over 17 days. You do the math. It will also provide 2,200 live hours of coverage online.

I believe my microwave oven will be carrying synchronized swimming most of next week.

NBC will use 106 announcers, some of whom will actually be in Beijing.

(Bob Costas is now tethered to his Olympic host chair, wherever that may be. He cannot leave the studio, except for Christmas, Opening Day and deaths in the family. An I.V. will feed him baseball scores under an artificial sky – like the one at the Forum Shops at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas – that reproduces 24-hour cycles of sunlight and darkness. P.S. Under these conditions, it is understandable if Costas has gone completely out of his mind.)

Anyway, boycotts never work.

I’ve boycotted USA Today since, like, 1991 – they still publish a “newspaper” five days a week.

I’ve boycotted Starbucks since 1999 – they still overcharge for coffee seven days a week.

I’ve boycotted Whole Foods since 2002 and, well, just go stand in front of almost any Starbucks and look across the street.

Some believe we should engage oppressive regimes when it’s Olympic time. We tried this in 1936, at the Berlin Games, and Hitler still invaded Europe. Some believe we must boycott. We tried this in 1980, skipping the Moscow Games to protest the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, and the war there lasted until 1989.

By the way, how come Americans always occupy the moral high ground? If the next Olympics were held in the United States, shouldn’t other nations boycott because of our occupation of Iraq and because of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the CIA’s secret prisons?

(And why didn’t African nations, among others, boycott previous U.S.-based Olympics? America: Slavery Through 1865, Jim Crow Laws Through 1965 and Racism 24-7 Through Today.)

In fact, if I were Japan, I’d boycott a U.S.-hosted Olympics for “I Survived A Japanese Game Show” alone. Heck, if I were the rest of the world, I’d boycott a U.S.-hosted Olympics just for exporting “Growing Pains” to the rest of the world.

Alas, I believe everyone must answer to his or her own conscience.

So let athletes make their own choice, on whether to go or not. And let the rest of us make our own choice, on whether to view or not.

Me? I’ll take “Mad Men” and TV Land.

Ask The Slouch

Q. Any truth to the rumor you’re selling the naming rights to your column? (John Ackley; Waterford, Wis.)

A. This column has been written without fear or favor since its inception. Its values and sensibilities cannot be bought or bartered. Besides, Pabst Blue Ribbon has declined my overtures about a naming rights/keg-for-life deal.

Q. Don’t you consider it intrusive that “suspect” female athletes at the Beijing Olympics will have to undergo a gender-determination test? (Kyle Martin; Pittsburgh)

A. Actually, in Beijing I would be in favor of announcer-determination tests.

Q. If the Vikings played the Packers and Brett Favre started for both teams, who would win? (Ed Werstein; Milwaukee)

A. I assume the game would end on a Favre interception, so it depends which team has the ball last.

Q. How come you only answered two questions last week? (Mike Schuster; Brownsburg, Ind.)

A. Hey, look around you, pal – it’s called a “recession.”

Q. Do you think Bill Belichick’s strong video background gives him an edge when it comes to replay challenges? (Randy Long; Liberty Lake, Wash.)

A. Pay the man, Shirley.