The internal structure of Dalai Lama Ltd

I just read this article (http://snipr.com/2342e) in the People's Daily and it is fairly obvious that it is a propaganda piece as it a blatant finger pointing. If you are used to reading the Chinese press though you get over that indignation fairly quickly and move on to see what you can actually extract from any news article. What I would love to read is someone from the Western media (not CNN I imagine) to verify those facts and then put their name on it!

In this article though won't comment on who I think is right or wrong (as in my previous piece it is obvious that I do not know right from wrong). I simple want to raise a very important question. What is the corporate structure of the Dalai Lama's organisation?

In most religions there is some sort of hierarchy. Growing up in a Catholic primary school and then a Anglican high school I got a glimpse of how these Christian organisations worked. In primary school I recall that the Parish Priest was just that. He was the priest. That was his job and thats all that he did. In high school the Anglican Reverend (who was married) was also a teacher, also coached a football team. So in my mind Catholic's are like full-time public servants and Anglicans are like part-time entrepreneurs.

I know that there is a heirarchy in the Islamic faith as well as the Jewish ones, but when it comes to Buddhism and particularly Tibetan Monks, I am at a bit of a loss. The reason is simply that Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Hindu's are exclusionary faiths. You can't really be a Christian Jew, or a Muslim Christian. You are one or the other but the way I understood Buddhism (and I am really illustrating my ignorance now) was a personal search of enlightenment. It it not a faith based on meditation and being "one with everything" (I will dispense with the hotdog joke). Also in Islamic Government's the head of state is normally not the spiritual leader. (aside from the pope who's landmass is somewhat limited anyway). But as far as the media has presented, the Dalai Lama is the head of state as well as the spiritual leader. How does this work?

Based on the article I mentioned before he has a Dalai Clique. Is this an inner circle type of Clique or is it the cool monks who used to smoke behind the tool shed at the monastery. Does this "clique" report to the Dalai Lama himself or are they like Oliver North and Ronald Reagan. Do they have their own power and make things happen without the Dalai Lama's expressed knowledge but he recognises their existance? Or are they like the IMF (Impossible Mission Force) that are disavowed if they get caught by the enemy.

Then there is the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC). This name is also quite misleading in that it sounds like the cross between a community social club and the Hitler Youth. From what I understand from the article they are organising guerrilla attacks. So obviously they are not Monks because guerrilla warfare would be quite useless if you are wearing orange robes. I know that there are non-priests working in the Vatican. The Swiss Guard for example are not even from Rome. I did however assume that those working within the Catholic organisation, even if they were not priests or nuns, they were at least Catholics themselves. So are the TYC a Buddhist organisation? Do they also seek enlightenment?

The article says there are also some other key players in this thing. Organisations that I have not heard of before nor have I read in the Western media. (Which I am not surprised because I really never read about Sunni's and Shiite's until after Sadam was caught and troops kept on dying.) These organisations include the "Tibetan Woman's Association" (TWA), "Students for a Free Tibet" (SFT) the /'National Democratic Party of Tibet" (NDPT) and the "Gu-Chu-Sum Movement of Tibet" (GCSMT). A name that I am ashamed not to have come across before as well is Samdhong the "Prime Minister" of the "Tibetian Government-in-exile". So hierarchically speaking, does that make the Dalai Lama like Tibet's Monarchy?

Now I am not sure if the same imagery is being conjured in your mind but I am seeing a Monty Python sketch in the "Life of Brian" film.

I'm confused! Can someone draw me an organisational chart please.

P.S. I wonder if the Shaolin Monks would have better luck at gaining independence. At least they are trained to fight.

Backlash 2.0

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to....aggregate?

Having just read the Facebook Suicide blog entry by SHL I began to consider my own web mortality. A couple of years ago my journey into the tangled web 2.0 began when I joined Friendster. Invited by my single friends who used this tool to pick up English speaking girls in Shanghai I realised that this was more than just an online singles bar. of course being married I could not partake anyway.

So Friendster led to Linked in, my attempt to waste my time in a manner that I could almost justify as business usage. I discovered MSN Spaces and MySpace where I promptly put up pages to express my feelings or show photos from my camera phone. Shortly after that I joined Facebook and reconnected with those whom I lost touch with decades ago. Then it became an obsession. I started tweeting, blogging, social bookmarking and RSSing. My time is becoming more scarce and now I have just discovered FriendFeed which aggregates and displays the extent of my obsession. I find that I do not hesitate in signing up to any new social network that comes about to the point where I am now signed up to some Chinese sites that I cannot even read.

But unlike the Facebook suicidee, who deleted his accounts in an attempt to regain his real life social networks, I realise that I have no such network to return to. Prior to this 2.0 addiction I used to vicariously live through the exploits of my single and promiscuous friends. Hearing about their parties and conquests allowed me to maintain my fulfilling "1st Life" as a father and husband without having to cheat or lie. I simply listened to the stories of the live of others to get my fill of adventure (of course I never got into the reality TV thing and have no real interest in Brad, Angie, Victoria or David). I didn't have the bandwidth to have a "2nd Life" and now what I have found was that my 2.0 life remained quite fractured amongst over a dozen social networking sites. In essence visiting and linking to me on any one of the dozens sites that I frequent would provide you with only a facet of my personality.

Throughout these proxy social interactions I have attempted to be true to myself and my mediocrity however, a tweet here, an article here, parts of my true identity were scattered amongst the various shards of the blogophere. Now with FriendFeed, Pulse on Plaxo and even through Facebook apps that aggregate feeds from my other existences, I am beginning to see the personality I am projecting with greater clarity, and to be honest, what I am seeing is somewhat frightening. I am now realising that my Freudian Ego and my Cyber Id do not necessarily correlate.

Who is this person that is looking back at me through my FireFox browser. I do not recognise him? This person on the other side of the mirror not only has a political opinion (where I in real life have none), is somewhat communist (something I would never admit in good company), has very cynical view of the world and holds the unpopular position on most issues. This is not the person I knew myself to be. In real life I see myself as a compassionate, friendly and mostly diplomatic being but this other me... he is downright offensive at times. He sees no compassion in the plight of the Tibetans, he doesn't give a hoot about the environment and feels no empathy towards those who in real life might cause me to feel hollow and sad inside.

Is this other personality the real me? or is the person I thought I was the real me? I shudder to think of the day when, through perhaps during a non-voluntary Earth hour, this online Mr. Hyde, without the internet to channel his persona overcomes the politically correct and sensitive Dr. Jekyll , becoming a real life monster.

Who is this facade that has become the one true me.
Please save me from myself Oh Timothy Berners-Lee!

Through the looking glass

I typed up this article over lunch today and I thought to myself, should I post it. It's very long and personal and maybe no-one will read it. But then I thought what the heck. If I am going to be ignored then I might as well be blabbering something while that's happening. So here goes.... Send.

---------

Watching the World from China is a unique perspective. Over the last 8 years in this country my views on the World have changed which makes me question whether this is the result of the Chinese propaganda machine or lack of the propaganda from Western nations such as Australia. I would like first however to explain that this is not a sociological study, not is it something that I have done vast amounts of research on. It is purely a representation of personal experience and observations from my life.

Growing up in Australia from the age of four I consider myself first an Australian Immigrant then a subject of the British Empire in Hong Kong. My ties to Mainland China has always been slightly prejudice as Hong Kong people were in the 70's. I make this point not because this article will look at China but because I want to make it clear that I am not trying to spew forth pro-Chinese propaganda myself.

Prior to the turn of the century my views of the world were pretty much the same as most Australians. I viewed Australia as the "Lucky Country" and view the British as annoying elder brothers. The US I viewed as the retarded cousin who married into a rich family that we had to put up with. My views on China at the time were that it was a huge expanse of peasants who were culturally raped by the Mao era. I believed that the last bastion of true Chinese culture came not from China itself but by those who had fled and brought with them the pre-Communist beliefs. This was in the back of my mind but honestly it was filed away so well that I barely gave it second thought in the 90's as I never thought I would come to be in China.

When I arrived in China in 2000 I knew that it was not a backward country, but I could not shake the feeling that touching down in Shanghai I would see rice fields and farmers wearing straw hats ploughing the water soaked fields behind an ox. When I arrived, I was taken to the Bund on my first day and saw something that could have come from an episode of Buck Rogers.

So for eight years I have worked and loved here, raised a family and I look outwards to what could have been and see things that an Australian wouldn't necessarily see. I feel things that in the circle of friends from my uni days would frown upon as insensitive and I ask myself, "Am I
odd one out or are they the ones that are disillusioned? Am I no longer able to see what is right and what is obviously wrong?"

When I talk to people in China about Taiwan, I ask them. "Do you really believe that Taiwan is a provence?" and from people who are born, educated and are about 25ish in age, they will tell you without hesitation. Yes! I sometimes ask if they feel democracy is better than communism and they will once again reply without hesitation that democracy is not as good because people do not always make decisions that are for the good of the people.

Hearing these honest opinions repeatedly in a country that censors the Internet, prohibits foreign media and where people do not vote is interesting because in Australia the freedom of speech, the freedom of information, and the right to elect those who will govern you is the basis of democracy. But are Chinese people oppressed? At least in Shanghai and Beijing and other major cities, they do not appear to be. The seem to continue their daily lives, earning money, dreaming of owning their own home, meeting a partner, having kids (or kid I should say). The need to vote does not seem to be as precious as democracy says it should be.

From inside looking out through my magic looking glass this is what I see. I see an American Empire making decisions for those who did not elect them in such as the Iraqi's, the North Koreans, the Taiwanese, the Tibetan's, Israeli's and the Afghans. I see Islamic fundamentalists
executing infidels but mostly white Americans, I see rioting in Tibet from monks for independence from China on the streets of Tibet and Sichuan but fail to see how overturning cars and destroying property in their home country will prove that an Independent government will make things better for the local inhabitants. I see the Islamic nation of Malaysia having it's first fair democratic election, the aftermath of which is political infighting, racial conflict that caused by the constitution and a parallel monarchistic system that chooses to flex it's muscle to destablise the national government. I see the removal & execution of a tyrant that resulted in anarchy and 4000 American troop deaths and a landscape littered with exploding devices and the nuclear
threat emerging from Iran that was formerly suppressed by that tyrant who in turn was originally armed by America. I see all this through the looking glass that is limited to only what I have experienced and seen before.

I ask this question from a Communist nation who is not being attached by anyone with WMD's, who is not interfering with domestic conflicts except when expressly asked to (ie they are talking to North Korea but not doing anything to ease the pain in Sudan) and who are experiencing double digit economic growth in major cities (as well as the inflationary affects thereof) and are increasingly harming the environment but not at a level that "First World" nations are yet. They
are also restricting the independence of Tibet and Taiwan (Of course if Queenland seriously wanted to be it's own country then I am sure there would be some resistance as well), arresting journalists, relocating entire towns beneath the 3 gorges dam and artificially manipulating the value of the RMB.

And the question I ask is What is Good and What is Evil? Are my views the result of being brainwashed by an oppressive regime for eight years or is it because I am now free from political spin that influences popular public opinion?

To be honest, I do not know, and until I find out I cannot with certainty distinguish right from wrong. Perhaps if I relocate to Fiji my view of the world will change again.

This is like the preface to a Sci-Fi movie

Before I get into my rhetoric about a recent article I read in the IHT I would like just to thank Diana from Rouse & Co. for saving my week from eminent disaster.

And now my rhetoric. This morning I was doing my usual scan of international news and the Bear Stearns saga and how JPM will be upping their offer to $10 per share to quell the cries of the Bear Stearns shareholders (obviously the American homeowners don't scream loud enough for the Fed to bail them out) and I saw an article at the bottom of the IHT page entitled "Star Spanish bull to be cloned in bid to preserve fighting genes". I couldn't resist so I clicked and found this:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/23/europe/journal.php

So let me summarize this in laymen terms. They are cloning a bull that dies spectacularly. The article goes on to describe "The bull allows the matador to create a work of art, a beautiful dance," said Lázaro Carmona, a veedor, or inspector, who visits ranches on the matador's behalf and helps select animals for the fight. "It's a joint performance."A strong, aggressive bull that runs at the matador's cape allows him to shine, he said. "I think the bull should take 90 percent of the credit for a matador's triumph," Carmona said.

I don't know about you but I find that creepy. Not only does bullfighting itself seem stupid but then copying a losing bull is like Dante's hell meets groundhog day. No matter how many times you kill it. It comes back the next day with no memory of dying, fully healed as if yesterday never happened. Except the matador continues to age. Day by day this endless onslaught of identical bulls are killed and weathers down the matador until one fine day......the bull wins. The matador (aged 50) is gored by the seemingly indestructible horn. The matador vision starts to blur as the blood loss causes his body to shiver. The sound of the screaming fans fade to silence and the blue sky above fades to white as his eyes close for what he thinks will be the last time.

The screen goes black and there is silence for a moment. Then suddenly, the sound of the crowd jolts open the matador's eyes and there he is standing upright in the middle of the arena again. Cape in one hand and sword in the other. Disoriented for a second, he realizes that he is facing the bull again. But this time his strength and his youth has returned. He too has been cloned to preserve the spectacular fight between man and beast.

The next scene is 3 men in thick spectacles and lab coats sitting in a room with no windows counting the money from the ticket sales of this gladiator style event......

Like I said creepy.