Boycott has not done much. To say the Russian boycott of the '84 games was a "success" seems like a bit of a stretch, and to say that the American boycott in '80 was a success has more weight, but is still pretty damn thin. Whether or not it weakened Soviet propaganda efforts significantly is debatable, but what is not debatable is that the athletes who missed their chance there (some their first, some their last, some their only) did not see significant gains. Nor did the American people, who unceremoniously did away with Jimmy Carter's bungling shortly thereafter. Now as for the successes with the South African team, that's something different. There's nothing wrong with the Olympics boycotting a team to show it how isolated it is from the rest of the community, "You're so bad not even the Olympics will accept you." But for a team to say the same thing to the Olympics is completely different. I know that seems like a weird distinction to make, but as to the effectiveness of boycotting, it's absolutely true. It's the difference between a child quitting his family and a family giving up a child. Which one of the two ever has any effect? The child can throw a tantrum, but nobody cares. If the family gives the kid away? That's something serious and irrevocable. China has myriad human rights issues that need be fixed. I mean a bunch; Sudan, Tibet, the Falun Gong, political dissenters, the list goes on and on. But a boycott isn't bringing these problems to light any more than another Beastie Boys concert will.

Protesting is good. It's exactly why you don't boycott. The Black athletes of the Mexico City games wouldn't have gotten the chance to be heard had the US boycotted the games (not that they even had a legit reason to boycott Mexico). But just think how much more meaningful it would be if American athletes, exercising their birth-given right to free speech, marched around the Beijing Olympic Stadium during opening ceremonies with some symbol of protest flying bright and clear for the world to see. It would dwarf any sad protest being held half a world away because the team didn't even make the trip.
All that said, I was a bit surprised to see the Munich murders listed among the "successful" protests. This is a curious, but commonly held belief (that the Palestinians are somehow better off today due to the events of that night in Munich) that I find to be cynical and based in fantasy. Forget about the fact that calling murder "a protest" is in itself a pretty disgusting and cynical appraisal. Even if you think the cold blooded murder of the Israeli athletes to be an acceptable loss (as many surely do) and even if you subscribe to the frankly ludicrous assertion that it put the Palestinian issue at the forefront of world politics (it didn't, it just gave it a mascot), what cannot be denied is that the Palestinian people (not the comfortably compensated thugs and autocrats who have kept them in poverty; I'm looking at you Arafat, Abbas, Hanniyeh, Meshaal, etc.), the people in the street, are not better off due to the Munich murders. Their plight was never brought to the forefront, but instead, the petty race baited power struggle between their thieving leaders and the Israeli government was given some play, the people meanwhile rotted in refugee camps, becoming the world's charity case and a people fully dependent on anyone but themselves to survive. Yeah, thanks Black September, we owe you one.
So in closing, boycott is stupid, protest is not. China is effed up, and possibly, so are the Beastie Boys. The Munich murders were NOT a protest. They were a bunch of people murdering some others. And should never in a million years be compared to the show of strength of those 3 African American gladiators in Mexico City.

"I was a bit surprised to see the Munich murders listed among the "successful" protests"

They weren't they were listed under the politicization of the Olympics. And frankly the prospect of people refusing to watch the olympics on tv let alone the greater prospect of fewer people traveling to see the olympics would be a political and economic hit. The fact that the olympics is in China makes their actions that much more in the spotlight how many of the average joes out there know the long list of chinas human rights violations (way worse then sadam hussain in my opion) so of coarse China doesnt want to be called out on it and of coarse it makes taking actions at this time much more important.

Ygalot -

If I get your point, it's OK for the Olympics to refuse (boycott) a TEAM (South Africa) but not the HOST? Seems your argument would support the Olympic Committee banning the CHINESE TEAMS but still using the location????? . . . . gonna be a tough "sell", be a lot easier to just ignore the TV coverage and write a letter to the main sponsors and Chinese Government . . . either way it won't bother the Chinese, Tienanmen Square didn't stop good ol' Wal-Mart . . .

Amy, If you read it, the last thing it says before the list is "politicization," so yes technically she is not including Munich as a "successful protest" as I summarized it. However what is politicization other than the outcome of protest? My point is unchanged. The murders of Munich were not political hay, they were an act of murder, sabotage, and some might say, war. But by grouping them with the Americans in Mexico City and the Aborigines, is to compare it to historical protests of unimpeachable moral correctness. So I guess, what I'm saying is I agree with you, and myself. And yes you are indeed correct that losing out on international viewers would be an economic hit, and even the assertion that China is worse than the Baathists in Iraq (although in no way to minimize how atrociously awful Saddam's thugs were). But I guess my response would be that a) Olympic viewer ratings are not what they used to be, and I'd be shocked if more people tuned in to the Olympics than American Idol (a version of which literally every single country in the world now has), and b) how do the economic burdens of 2 weeks of sports stack up against their vast financial interests in: Sudan, Burma, Tibet, HK, etc. Something tells me we could cancel the games and it wouldn't make them budge on those fronts.

And Jess, if you read it, I am not saying what is "okay" or morally acceptable, I am talking about which is effective. I plainly disagree with the assertion that individual countries boycotting (at least without the help of several others) the games accomplishes anything. And I was attempting to delineate between that, and the very opposite situation, the entire community boycotting a single country. My point being, no we can't really do anything about China in terms of boycott at THESE games. We should instead focus on protest while we're there. Now at the next set of games, I feel it would be perfectly reasonable for the world community to dis-invite China, the only problem there being that it would simply cause a cascade of finger pointing (some of it very legitimate) as to how we decide who merits boycott. I for one don't remember the details surrounding it, but I'd be shocked if upon hearing their country wasn't invited that the South African delegation didn't immediately point out that Apartheid, racism and even slavery are still very much alive in other African countries (Sudan, for one) and Middle Eastern lands (Saudi Arabia, comes to mind), not to mention China, to whom accusations of human rights violations are not a new trend, or the United States, who more and more get lumped in with some pretty evil authoritarian regimes. (I'll volunteer here that many, VERY FOOLISHLY, would list Israel here too, but the white South African government wouldn't have burned Israel as their fates were, at the time, inextricably bound.)