A word about this article in the NY Times

The title, first of all: Dalai Lama Won't Stop Tibet Protests. Keeping in mind, of course, that the title is not part of the text, it names the text, how do we read this? As the Dalai Lama himself points out, he doesn't have the power to stop the protests. "Asked if he could stop Tibetan protesters from flouting Beijing’s deadline to surrender by midnight on Monday, the Dalai Lama, 72, replied swiftly: “I have no such power.”" There is a vast difference between "could" and "won't." Granted, he does say that he won't ask them to stop, there is, again, a vast difference between asking and stopping.

There's another article here about the protests, and while it definitely sounds as though violence is coming from both sides, who started it (as if that is the issue) is not clear. It sounds like the government is the side with the guns...

The article seems to be a little judgmental about the Dalai Lama's advocacy for Tibetan freedom within China, as opposed to Tibetan independence from China. A block quote:

"The Dalai Lama, for his part, seemed unfazed about the dissent among Tibetans over full independence versus greater autonomy. Even his elder brother, he recalled, had admonished him many years ago for not advocating independence from China. “ ‘My dear younger brother, the Dalai Lama,’ ” his brother told him. “ ‘You sold out the Tibetan legitimate right. Like that.’ ”

The Dalai Lama described dissent as “a healthy sign of our commitment to democracy, open society.”"

While this passage can be read as an unbiased description, it uses language that casts doubts on the Dalai Lama's position. He "seemed unfazed" begs the question: 'why is he unfazed? should he be fazed? shouldn't he be fazed?' The repetition of "dissent," the probable explanation for his being "unfazed," is separated by a paragraph break, as well as his admission that "even" his brother had "admonished" (cautioned, advised, scolded) him about that position.

So. What to do? There are certainly economic advantages to being part of China (access to education and healthcare, one hopes), but do they outweigh the disadvantages of violent suppression?

The Dalai Lama goes on to say that "some kind of cultural genocide is taking place," which is so sad. I've heard a lot in recent years about loss of diversity as a result of globalization, a leveling out because everyone has access to the same cheaply produced things and all that, but while those sorts of issues adversely affect poorer regions because they can't (don't, won't, whatever) compete in global markets (and why should they have to?), this kind of cultural loss has to do with governmental policy of outlawing what it labels as "dissent," whatever it deems that may be. What happens when a government declares war, essentially, on a word? It means they can define that word however they want to, meaning they can fight against whatever they attach that word to, indefinitely.

It always comes back to this, doesn't it? How do we elect officials who do this to their own people? Oh, that's right, we didn't... Except we did. We live in the world we live in. Let's do something about it.

Go read this article immediately: George Speaks, Badly. Thank you, Gail, I needed that. What we have here is what I like to call Aw, Shucks Diplomacy. The man went to Yale and Harvard and can't form a coherent sentence. Scary. Not nearly as scary as knowing some people don't regret their voting for him and obviously don't understand that you can't run a country like this. Well. Evidently you *can* but everyone rolls their eyes at you. And then stops listening. And then you can say or do whatever you... Yikes. YIKES.