I used to think non-violence was a cool idea, but then I took a Philosophy of Law class. In that class, we were taught that all law is only law if it is backed up by violent force. I still consider Dr. King a big hero, but he didn't see non-violence the same way as the Dalai Lama sees it, from what I can tell. Dr. King believed non-violence was a good political tactic that needed to be used as much as possible. But he never opposed violence entirely (for example, he carried a gun on him during some marches), which is what the Dalai Lama seems to be about.

But even The Dalai Lama recognizes the right to use violence in self defense, at least in an individual sense.

 I also think the Olympics vs human rights stories are very odd, as it seems to imply that the Olympics should not be hosted in about 70% of the world's countries. If China's human rights situation is too bad to be a good host for the Olympics, does this mean most of Africa and South America are off limits, too?  And why the criticism of the host, and not the participants? Many countries have horrific murder rates, like Jamaica and Haiti, far higher than what we see in China, and high murder rates usually indicate a corrupt government incapable of maintaining public safety. Should we ban Jamaica and Haiti from the Olympics? If not, why not? Is Rwanda participating in the Olympics, even while certain European countries are accusing their leaders of war crimes and genocide?

It is true, that you would imagine many countries could not host the Olympics. The United States would have a legitimate shot of getting DQ'd as well what with the shenanigans at Gitmo and in Iraq (although I imagine the loss of internal civil liberties here pales in comparison to China).

However, I don't think individual participants should be banned. There is a big difference between allowing a delegation to compete versus hosting. Hosting brings national prestige, money, commerce and trade. Why else would nations compete for the honor? By allowing athletes to travel and compete you are not necessarily condoning the actions of their home country -- no money is being spent inside the regime in question and in fact you are helping build international dialogue. Think of it like the UN -- many countries may have a problem in the past with Libya, but they didn't expel that regime's delegation from the UN. They still got the chance to communicate and be a part of the world stage, but without the endorsement that comes from any major leadership roles.

I think the Olympics actually have a decent chance of embarrassing China if protests get out of hand or journalists get access to domestic dissidents. I really question what they were thinking when they decided to go for the hosting bid.

I have a hard time thinking of anything that a drunk-with-power Lama could actually do, considering that China controls his country.  Perhaps he simply has lack of opportunity?  Remember that he wants to create a religious dictatorship, not a modern democracy.

Sure, he might not be able to act as a head of government to use force directly against China, but he could make their life.... interesting. Here are a few off the top of my head (in increasing order of severity):

1. Encourage a general boycott of the Olympic games. He has enough western support that it would cut somewhat into their profit margins, or at least cause the Chinese to lose face which I believe is a big thing for them.

2. Make an announcement to the people back home to start a general strike against the Chinese until autonomy is granted. Compare such a move to the non-violent protests of Dr. King or Ghandi against unjust laws and colonization.

3. Encourage armed resistance and sabotage to Chinese rule. Begin collecting donations abroad (much like Sinn Fein did for the IRA) to support partisans at home.

Sure, #3 is unlikely given his previous stance on peace and non-violent opposition to China. But, #1 and #2? I have to tell you, for a guy who is serving as a head of a government in exile and has a once in a lifetime chance to embarrass the occupiers he sure is being a lot nicer than he has to be.

I can't take someone who claims to be the reincarnation of someone else seriously, but I do hope something is learned by the Chinese reaction to his appearances. We think everyone is as individualist as we are, but that's just  projection.  

Perhaps demonstrating my basic ignorance of Tibetan Buddhism, but I thought the Dalai Lama was ordained by a higher power and, in order for a successor to be selected, the search has to begin years, perhaps decades, before the death of presiding Dalai Lama.

Sure, the process started when the Dalai Lama picked the Panchen lama (the guy who selects the next Dalai Lama). However, it has been halted because the day after he was picked China "disappeared" him and his family making him the world's youngest political prisoner at age five.

Don't worry, they picked a replacement, party approved Panchen lama. They trot him out from time to time to give important sermons like the one on loyalty to the State.

"Defending the nation and working for the people is a solemn commitment Buddhism has made to the nation and society"

Of course, since China is becoming an economic and military power due to its sheer size their shenanigans become cheeky and fun. If this was some 3rd world African hellhole run by General Mumbuto or something pulling this crap everybody would be quick to point out that their shenanigans are cruel and tragic which really wouldn't make them shenanigans at all, really. At best evil shenanigans.

But because its China we're ready to take them to a restaurant with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks. Disgusting, isn't it?

I should have been more clear. He's threatened to quit as head of the government. That is a different position from his post as spiritual leader, about which you and pO are both correct.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.