<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [lbo-talk] dalai lama foolishness</TITLE> <META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.3314.2100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY dir=ltr> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr> </DIV> <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr> </DIV> <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr>    C. Devine wrote: </DIV>  " I think the "dalai lama foolishness" (i.e., Hitchens-style dala lama-bashing) is a mirror image of the Hollywood-centered "dalai lama foolishness" (i.e., dilletantish worship of the d.l.) "      So what's your point?  Clearly nobody would publish the Hitchens thing if the Dalai Lama wasn't big news.  That's why I say Hitchens is being opportunistic.  As far as Hollywood dilettantes go, I don't see that they're doing any harm and they're likely doing some good.  Without the Dalai Lama's celebrity, where would the Tibetan people be?  Who would care?      Hitchens thinks he's making some important point about religion in flaming the Dalai Lama but he isn't.  Who's he helping, other than himself?      I still say you can dismiss Hitchens' argument out of hand.   He's making a small point loudly while large issues go begging for attention.      If the Dalai Lama can bring a message of non-violence and compassion to 65,000 people in Central Park in he midst of the post-9/11 Bush administration death cult, what the hell are people complaining for????       peace,       boddi</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>