At the center is the Hillary Clinton arm of the Obama administration who has been pissing off Chinese officials in the past two months. There are 3 main contentions:

(1) Stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons by imposing a U.S. lead U.N. sanction on Iran’s Islamic “republic” leadership. Everyone is on board, including Russia, which we thought may be a problem initially–everyone, that is, except China. China seeks to lose a major source of oil in their relationship with Iran by imposing sanctions. At a time when China’s economy is growing, this energy source is indispensable to China. So they are balking at any UN Resolution and they have Veto power.

(2) Obama has agreed to meet with the Dalia Lama, which really has pissed the Chinese off. This has been further aggravated by the U.S. currently agreeing to supply arms to Taiwan, including a fleet of F-16 fighters, 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, and some communications equipment. China has retaliated by saying they will provide medium range missiles to Pakistan.

(3) Clinton has sided with Google–against China–in a freedom of information dispute. China wants to censor Google.Cn and even Google.com from showing search results that include the Dalia Lama, Tiananmen Square, and other freedom issues that China deems inappropriate. This, too, was further aggravated when Google accused China of hacking into their Gmail accounts to obtain information about rebels who had been using Gmail to share information. Google has threatened to pull its operations out of China. Unfortunately, spineless investors pulled some stock out of Google since this conflict, and Google stock has plummeted a bit, along with the rest of the market which has seen a heavy decline over the past few weeks. Google’s moral stance being discouraged by investor greed and fear.

P.S. CNN–are you still covering Michael Jackson’s chimp’s reaction to his death? How’s that going?

In a society in which its people care more about what David Letterman said to Sara Palin in a childlike outburst, the internet has become a more reliable source of news and dissemination of knowledge than the mainstream U.S. media, which runs itself more like a business than a dispenser of truth.

Ratings matter. Truth–well, matters–when it enables TV stations to sell commercials.

In face of such a news-business model, the Internet and Facebook have become more legitimate in their dissemination of the news than CNN and FOX News combined.

While the U.S. media barely covers what is happening in Iran in 10 second clips and sound-bytes, the people in Iran risk their lives to capture video footage and spread it on the internet via Facebook, asking that their friends “share” the clips with others.

America considers Iran one of its greatest threats today. Even if not for the Iranian people who despise their government, shouldn’t U.S. news outlets at least cover current elections in Iran and its subsequent mass protests because it is in the best interest of America and it’s own citizens to do so?

In a society that cares more about American Idol and Reality TV Shows, it’s not surprising that the U.S. media does not feel it is important enough to cover the above protests in Iran.

One has to be shiveringly reminded of prophetic novels like Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and A Brave New World. Except this time it’s not “Big Brother” who is censoring our news … but we, the people.

It seems that whatever show I get into gets canceled. Deadwood and Life on Mars being the more recent fatalities. I tend to like shows that are not  completely mainstream. Therefore, when the masses lose interest, I’m just beginning to warm up to a show.

It doesn’t hurt to have formidable actors like Ian McShane (Deadwood & Kings) and Harvey Keitel (Life on Mars) to watch either, for they are deeply brilliant and likeable characters in and of themselves. They tend to carry the plot forward.

I admit the only reason NBC’s Kings interested me was not the plotline or the premise; in fact I had no idea what Kings was about until I decided to give it a try this Sunday night. My reason for watching was pure and unadulterated: Ian McShane.

But as I watched the show, I also slowly became persuaded by Christopher Egan that his character, David Shepherd, was to some degree worth examining as well. Much in the way that Sheriff Bullock might have been the light to contrast Swearengen’s darkness in Deadwood–until the lines got blurred somewhere along the way.

David Shepherd, of course, for those of you familiar with your Bible, is akin to the young David before the Prophet Samuel anointed him king and prophesied the death and “de-anointing” of King Saul and his kingdom (played here by King Silus).

The Biblical references were not subtle for anyone who’s read the Bible seriously. Of course, judging what course Kings will take based on the pilot alone is hazardous.

Judging by the eclectic, yet schizophrenic mood of today’s TV viewership, there are ordained to be many shocking and unexpected twists and turns–all of which will serve (I can only dream), to keep the rapacious masses interested long enough for networks to make bling, and for me, in my solicitude, to adore Ian McShane yet another day.

And now the real question: whether “adored” should ever be used in the same sentence as Ian McShane is blog fodder for another day.

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose” (Ecclesiastes 1:5). This verse, made famous in many ways more by Ernest Hemingway in The Sun Also Rises than modern-day Biblical readers, is roughly apt for today’s financial crisis.

Ultimately, time–and nothing else–will solve this problem; but at the risk of contradicting this very statement–I must agree with President Obama’s assessment in his February 24th speech to Congress:

“I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.”

Here Obama is rightly taking a jab at the Conservative POV which lauds free-market autonomy as the only viable methodology of our long-term economic condition. True conservatism essentially promotes the notion that the government should not interfere with natural economic conditions; that supply and demand and unadulterated competition will, in the end, produce the best and most enduring endeavors of our lifetime.

In some ways, this holds true over the very long-term. But lives are ruined in the process. If free markets are allowed to reign without some sensibility from a deliberately guided force, generations suffer.

Obama continues:

“For history tells a different story. History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world. In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.”

This, in my opinion, was the most brilliant portion of Obama’s speech in addressing the dangers of unadulterated and unfiltered conservative fiscal thought. When government deregulates business and does not allocate some measure of oversight to banking institutions and mega corporations, it results in jet-toating CEOs asking for handouts and $350 billion dollars being swallowed whole by banks who, first of all, take care of their own.

I’m not toting pure Liberalism either; I prefer a rational analysis and practical approach to all fiscal issues. But in fell swoop, Obama intelligently and formidably promulgates the Liberal notion of positive government interference.

Government as the catalyst of private enterprise. It’s a quaint picture of Optomistic-Liberalism marrying Practical-Conservatism.

What seems like a contradictory account of Government Liberalism converging with Capitalist Business, is actually a formidable explanation of a limited, but powerful, role of the federal government in providing a measure of much needed safety and oversight in the sometimes frail and unpredictable behemoth that is, today, the U.S. and World economy.

The sun will rise … it will set … and return again to the place from which it first arose.

The reaction, most had was astonishment, fear, an in some instances, outrage. But how do we feel now? Whether we have changed as individuals over the last decade or the shock of such a science-fiction-like event has worn off slightly over time, how is the story of animal–and potentially, human–cloning received today?

Proponents of cloning proffer the notion that cloning may one day help preserve endangered species, augment food supply, or provide organs for transplants.

Critics claim it is unnatural and unethical; that not only is cloning against God’s natural order of creation, but that the long term prospects of such social and scientific experiments are unpredictable and dangerous. Inbreeding, for instance, would pose a problem in such scenarios over the longterm, causing widespread birth defects and unexpected mutations.

And what about Dolly? After spawning four lambs of her own, she lived only 6 years–about half of the life expectancy of the average of her species, as she developed a lung cancer and was eventually euthenized. The Roslin Institue in Edinburgh, where she was born and died, pointed out that cancer is common in her breed.

Nuclear Transfer Technology

Using nuclear transfer technology, many animals have been cloned since the fantastical day that Scottish scientists cloned Dolly.

Nuclear transfer technology is the “procedure for making a clone, or exact genetic copy, of an existng animal.  In this procedure the nucleus containing the chromosomes is removed from the cell of one animal for fusion with an egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed. The life that results is the genetic equal of the animal that donated the nucleus.” (AAAS.ORG)

A lesser known fact is that the first actual clone was a tadpoal that was cloned in 1952, using embryonic cells. Hundreds of cloned animals exist today using nuclear transfer technology, including sheep, goats, cows, mice, pigs, cats, and rabbits.

How Close are We To Human Cloning?

Hhow close are we to sanctioned human cloning? Among current animal cloning experiments, the risks are extreme and the success rate are still fatally low. According to the Oakridge National Labratory, human cloning in its current form is highly inefficient. There are only about 1 or 2 viable clone offspring for every 100 attempts–that’s a 98% failure rate. Not only that, but of the ones that survive, 30% are effected by various debilitating conditions.

Clearly, cloning human beings under such low success rates and unpredictable results in unethical to put it mildly. But there is another component as well–that of human mental and psychological development. We cannot know for certain, for example, how a human clone’s intellect and mood would be effected by brain function and development.

The Future of Cloning

Some scary scenarios straight out of Brave New World or 1984 are being currently proposed by some pro-cloning groups and individuals.

Future.Wikia.Com, for example, brushes aside the ethical debate altogether: “People who oppose human cloning are stuck in the past, have lost touch with the people, and cling on to obsolete ideals and morals that no longer exist in the new millenium.”

This sort of thinking is clearly devoid of all forethought, when even the majority of scientists currently working on cloning agree that human cloning is unethical in the current scientific conditions.

Some foresee human cloning supplanting sexual reproduction as the method of choice for procreation and view natural sexuality as a pure hedonistic pleasure. In such nefarious visions of the future, therapeutic cloning or regenerative medicine (growing organs for transplants and health-related concerns) are taken to the new levels in which “imperfections” of the body can be purged by cloning a more desirable component–a sort of new age of “plastic surgery” in cloning.

Cloned Human Embryos

Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) was the first company to ever successfully clone early human embryos, which stopped at the six cell stage of development.

As recently has January 2008, Dr. Andrew Wood and Andrew French, chief scientific officer of Stemagen Corporation, announced that they successfully cloned five mature human embryos using DNA from adult skin cells. It was unclear whether or not the embryos would have lived, as they were destroyed in La Jolla, California’s Stemagen lab, since, claimed Dr. Wood, cloning human beings is unethical and illegal.

We are all fascinated by the topic–whether we believe it is a scientific achievement or an abomination of God’s natural order. We must ask though whether God would endow us with the ability to clone if He did not intend us to accrue such knowledge?

Until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that cloning a human being would be safe, ethical, and largely predictable, strong discretion should be used in employing such knowledge. Therefore we have the everlasting dilemna of choice: to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It is unlikely that we will ever be able to effectively prove that full-scale human cloning can be done ethically, not because it is an abomination to God to do so if we had the ability; but because it is improbable that we will be able to predict the outcome.

Blago’s hair was on a news interview tour de force the past several weeks. For us, the viewer, it was nothing short of surreal and somewhat unsettling to suddenly view the man on our High Definition Screens sitting next to the likes of Larry King and David Letterman.

Even comedian D.L. Hughley “broke the news” with Milorad “Rod” Blagojevich on CNN.

I like Blago for two reasons. First, the obvious: his wonderful hair has provided countless hours of entertainment.  Second: He’s easy to disparage in a time when people are livid about their lives and the world around them. With the loss of 600,000 jobs in January alone and the world economic meltdown, Blago is a large hydraulically filled punching bag.

“All I ask for is an opportunity to be able to address these allegations and show my innocence”, Blago told Larry King, on Jan. 26th, adding, “Snippets of conversations taken out of full context is unfair.”

As much as Blago disappointed everyone by reminding us of the true face of American politics, one important fact can be gleaned from Blago’s fantastic TV interviews: with the aid of the “drive-by” news media, we are very efficient at sentencing people to life imprisonment in the formidable court of public opinion. Blago is scummy.

But there is an “inconvenient truth” that we must deal with called the United States Constitution, and particularly, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which deals with the pesky belief that everyone deserves due process:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Blago was impeached and convicted on January 29th by a Senate vote of 59-0, but impeachment is a political, not a criminal conviction. Blago still faces federal indictment charges in the future, unless he changes his plea to guilty or nolo contendere, enters into a plea agreement, charges are dropped, or President Obama pardons him (yeah, unlikely).

I love to hate Blago too; it’s purely delightful. However, perhaps we should respect the Fifth Amendment and consider … oh, nevermind, who made it into the Top 36 on American Idol this week??

Even the mock-angry shock jocks don’t seem catastrophically upset enough over this one. Should I expect Rod Serling to soliloquy in the dim corner of my room? Or is this really happening?

Newly inaugurated President Obama promised stricter control over the now $850 billion bailout, which passed Congress today.

Even though it makes me want to puke on my laptop, we must consider this inanely stupid question: Is it possible that the first $350,000 billion was not enough and the $850,000 billion will actually stimulate the economy? Someone throw a shoe at my head!

* Stupid legal disclaimer for stupid people: please don’t literally riot, burn buildings, or bomb anything.

Image source: http://wcrnews.wordpress.com)