The Olympics have been devoid of politics since the Cold War era. Now, we it see resurfacing as activists argue against China's grotesque human rights record. According to Amnesty International, athletes will compete just miles away from government propaganda, torture, poverty, gender inequality... (http://thereport.amnesty.org/page/1092/eng/)
The human rights abuses are atrocious and I'd be quick to say that the Olympics should be boycotted- but things aren't that simple. Athletes who have trained their entire lives for these Olympics will miss their chance, which is totally unfair to them. Most athletes will have a couple shots at the Olympics and a boycott could wreck their Olympic dreams.
Moral questions have a set of typical answers- it is choosing a equitable one that is difficult.
It would be unfair to the athletes for their government to boycott the Olympic games. It is unfair to those abused as a result of Chinese influence that an athlete would support that regime. The chain seems to have no real answer (with the naive exception that China would just stop being cruel).
I should mention that the Olympics have a great deal of political and demographic power. If you read about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, you'll see why (Hint: What happened between 1939-45)
I think there a two parties to blame.
1. China
2. The IOC
The IOC chose Beijing over Toronto. According to the mandate of the IOC, it should
"cooperate with the competent public or private organizations and authorities in the endeavour to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby to promote peace;"The service of humanity was not represented in 1936, or will it be in 2008. It is a terrible thing that history repeats itself. As a future preventative measure, I think the IOC should be re legislated as a division of the U.N.
So go on and blame.
Blame the IOC.
P.S. Any athlete who boycotts the games because of humanitarian reasons deserves a Pierre de Coubertin Medal.