Minor Thoughts from me to you

A hypothetical: a friend of yours asks you for relationship advice.

See, he and the gay lover for whom he abandoned his pregnant, live-in girlfriend can't agree on which window treatment they prefer for their new apartment, and despite all the other personal differences they've managed to amicably settle - like your friend's being an Anglican Christian and his lover being a warlock in the First Order of the Antichrist - the issue is threatening to drive a wedge between them, just (this is eerie) as it drove a wedge between your friend's father and his father's own gay lover over thirty years ago.

Now, seeing as how you're a man of God, he says, surely you can give him good advice on how to properly and lovingly resolve the question. Should he (A) compromise on the window treatment issue (even though his lover picked a really icky color) or (B) stand firm, because this is important?

Well? How do you answer?

Believe it or not, the above scenario isn't too dissimilar from some questions I truly have been asked "as a man of God" - although in the worst situation I've ever been presented, the friend asking me for advice was a registered sex offender who quite literally believed himself to be a werewolf and (again, I am not making this up) now found himself blackmailed into a homosexual relationship with a Catholic missionary to Mexico.

In such situations, the base problem is the same: namely, is even bothering to answer at all a good idea? After all, the real problem here obviously isn't your friend's ridiculously petty feelings about household decoration; that's just the smallest symptom of the many, many totally selfish, wrong moves he's been making, each and every one of which dwarfs in importance the issue at hand. He shouldn't be dating someone who doesn't believe in the Christ Jesus. He shouldn't be in any homosexual relationship. He certainly shouldn't abandon the future mother of his child to start one. And he never should have had sexual relations with her in the first place, seeing as how she was not his wife. And - well, let's see here. Anything else?

Oh yeah, wait: and the reason all of this happened in the first place is because despite your friend's declarations to the contrary, he obviously doesn't care what the Christ Jesus thinks of his life.

Well, if you're like me, you tell your friend that the drapes have received way too much attention already and you're not going to give them yours too. Maybe your friend doesn't like this very much, says "If you were really concerned about me, you'd help me", but you answer that if he really wants help, you're perfectly willing to provide it; you'll help him move his furniture out of the apartment, play the part of Best Man at his wedding to the chick, and drive him to church every Sunday. But playing into his delusions won't help him out a bit, so as his friend, you won't do it.

And, if you're like me, you feel pretty much the same way about our country's problems.

Here's a confession for you: I don't like reading blogs.

I don't even like thinking of my posts on Minor Thoughts as part of a blog, even though they quite clearly are. Why I don't isn't the point of today's entry, but I touched on it once when I explained why despite my living in South Korea, Minor Thoughts never analyzed the Korean hostage situation in Afghanistan.

"During such crises, there’s very little one lone lil’ blogger can say that isn’t being said everywhere else. The very point of the blog-o-sphere (that’s still what the kids are calling it these days, right? I told you I’m out of touch) is, after all, the opportunity it presents to receive alternative perspectives generally unavailable from the mass media - that is, we no longer need to be told by news corporations what your typical man on the street thinks, because the man on the street is basically running his own newspaper, and what he thinks is sometimes far more interesting than previously reported, even if his presentation is inferior. Republican radio shows in the U.S. became popular for the same reason.

It should go without saying, of course, that if a blog is not providing content substantially different from what we can all get from the pros, then there's no compelling reason for anyone else to check the site - but no: it turns out a high number of people have apparently missed this point, leading to the creation of a seemingly infinitely-expanding cyber-world of political commentary sites even more vitriolic, less in-depth, and as devoid of logic and principle as the pundits for whom people pay.

Now I'm not an elitist in any meaningful sense; I'm perfectly happy that anybody who lives in a Western country can, by this point, throw up a blog about how much they hate someone in office. It's not their freedom which I disdain. It's not even their use of it. It's just most their product. Which is par for the course, I know, concerning any liberalized field - it's in the nature of the free market to produce the greatest number of misfires as well as the greatest number of successes.

Now with all that said, there is one blog I do check daily, and I'm going to recommend it to you. It's called Functional Ambivalent.

The tag line of Functional Ambivalent is "Politics. Culture. Pointless rudeness.", but the ideas on the site concerning the first two are predictably ignorable, interesting only for the webmaster's apparent political schizophrenia. One day Tom (that's his name) will post a perfectly reasonable assessment of why Hillary Clinton's idea of a national baby bond program is insane. The next, he'll turn his energies toward universal health care and deliver a typical you-just-don't-care-if-all-the-babies-in-the-world-DIE-you-monsters type screed. 'Tis strange.

It's the "Pointless rudeness" which makes Functional Ambivalent a site worth subscribing to. Whatever the quality of his logic, Tom is an undeniably gifted writer, and when he's writing to amuse us (as is generally the case), he's consistently far funnier than Dave Barry has been in over a decade. Trust Tom to not only uncover the most bizarre stuff online and bring it to your attention, but to do so with a headline and bite of commentary that doubles your laughs.

He's also both willing to play and donate to worthy causes. A wine connoisseur, Tom has started a pool amongst _Functional Ambivalent's _ visitors, in which one of them can win a bottle from his collection if that person most correctly predicts when Fidel Castro will die.

Where Tom's website shines, though, is in its longer, more personal posts, the product of those times when Tom sits down, shrugs the Great Democrat Chip from his shoulder, and just writes for a while. His most recent such post is typical of him: "Because Baseball Is A Game Fathers and Sons Can Enjoy Together" chronicles his pitched battle with his oldest son to come out the winner in a fantasy baseball league. It's good material, not just grammatically correct but actually well-presented.

And it still pales in comparison to almost any one of his "Sex Day" columns, which unfortunately he doesn't do nearly so many of anymore (they used to be weekly). Yes, it's probably telling that such features on the site are always the longest and most carefully written of F/A's content, but when reading them, you won't care. You'll just be laughing at his apology for writing only a short article about premature ejaculation ("I'm sorry, really. That's never happened before. I usually last a good 3,000 words."). Those who know me understand that I'm not easy to please when it comes to sexual humor, anymore than I am when it comes to toilet humor or Bush humor; I consider them all typically low-brow and unamusing. But Tom manages it (WARNING: That does not necessarily mean he can do it to you. Your preference may skew to the more conservative, in which case I suggest this blog here).

In a society slowly rendering one-man business all but obsolete, Humor is still very much a product capable of being generated only by individuals' personalities. I'd argue that makes it an all but tailor-made export for blogs. Functional Ambivalent is the best one I've seen at it. Please, give it a look.

My coverage of several extremely important news stories has prevented me until now from replying to the recent posts of my friend and webmaster Joe - but much like my standing up for terrorists' rights earlier this week, I now find myself wishing I'd acted far more quickly. Perhaps I could have saved Joe some embarrassment.

Embarrassment like this picture.

Or the substantially different but equal embarrassment of my correcting him when he declares, in reaction to news that America's Christian conservatives are considering forming a new party, that

"I’d love to see legitimate competitors to the Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, that would take an election cycle or two to fully emerge. Until then, the only thing a new party would do is pull votes away from Republicans and towards Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama... [and] the next election could have big consequences... Right now, I’ll take a candidate who merely promises to appoint originalist justices to the Supreme Court."

Alas.

The problem with Joe and The Anchoress's assertion that lack of conservative unity in '08 will lead to the Socialist States of America is one of perspective. Is saving our freedom important? Well, it's certainly not a non-issue, but it was never the primary focus of the Christian as portrayed in the New Testament. Despite living lives far more imperiled by an oppressive (and foreign) government than today's Americans, the Christ of the Gospels and His followers in Acts never bothered to chase the political freedoms for which so many of their fellow Jews longed. Jesus pointedly refuses to get caught up in an ongoing tax debate (Matthew 22:21). And if compelled (likely by Roman soldiers, many scholars say) to accompany a man one mile, Jesus recommends in Matthew 5:21 the faithful go with him two.

Clearly, Jesus and His early disciples placed far greater importance on social change "from the ground up" - fixing people's souls rather than fixing the system under which the people lived. Small wonder, too, if one considers their ministry within the context of the Bible's other teachings on the nature of Man; after all, when God has made clear that men are not capable of saving themselves, how useful can a government system created and run by men really be? When God has made clear that the war for Man's immortal self is an internal struggle, rather than dependent on external factors, why expend our limited resources in ultimately fruitless endeavors to sustain a safe environment in which to live?

And they are fruitless endeavors. We American Protestants probably need to be reminded of that more than anybody. Although we rarely say so anymore, many of us still vaguely believe the U.S.A. to somehow be a holy land - a God-loving, God-blessed sidekick to Israel. Its divinely-inspired protector. Its big, protective buddy in the cell block.

This is why in Christian fiction about the end of the world, such as the Left Behind series, the U.S. is usually defeated by the Antichrist rather than a party - or Heaven forbid, the vehicle - to his ascension. This is also why the U.S.A., in some form or other, always happens to still exist in Christian fiction during the end of the world; few of us consider the likelihood that much like the Romans, we're likely little more, ultimately, than a particularly bright flash in the pan, and one which will grow progressively dimmer as History marches farther and farther - who knows how far, before Judgment Day? - past our crumbling remains.

Because we think we're special, a nation-state worth preserving in God's sight. But we aren't. And if the concept of the U.S.A. isn't worth preserving, then why do we American Christians (not "Christian Americans", note) spend so much of our God-given time and energy trying to preserve it?

The answer is, I am told: so we can defend the Church.

After all, in the United States the Church is currently free from persecution, and capable of supporting other churches in more dangerous countries because of that. Children may be educated about their LORD Jesus without fear; so may adults. Surely, any reasonable person might claim such a state of affairs is worth saving.

Which is why it's a good thing people like me are around to provide an alternative to reasonable people - because sometimes they're wrong. Such a state of affairs is not worth having, at least not unconditionally, as its proponents basically suggest when they present us the false dilemma of choosing 'twixt two evils. It makes no sense to seek protection of our spiritual kingdom at the cost of our spiritual integrity; it makes no sense to gain even the whole world, if we lose our souls (Mark 8:36).

So what must we as followers of the Christ do? Dr. Dobson himself actually put it very well in a recent (albeit sickeningly fluffy) interview on Townhall.com.

"You start with a moral principle. You have to make your decisions about who’s going to lead you not on the basis of pragmatics—not on the basis of who can win or who’s ahead in the polls or who has the most money or who’s the most popular. You begin by saying what are the irreducible minimums that I believe in, that I care about; what are the biblical values I cannot compromise."

After that, you don't let a bunch of Chicken Littles scare you into budging from those values. Should they suggest that if you don't vote Republican, President Hillary Clinton will steal what meager treasure you have amassed here on Earth, you remind them that the only treasure you consider important waits for you in Heaven. Should they suggest that if you don't vote Republican, Democrats will decide how to run your health care, you remind them that government-run health care is scarcely persecution of the saints. Should they suggest that if you don't vote Republican, pro-abortion judges will sit on the Supreme Court, you remind them that what they are asking you to do is consider voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

Because it ultimately doesn't matter if the very fate of America is indeed at stake in 2008. Jesus doubtlessly knew His own chosen people were to be crushed and scattered by Rome within fifty years of His ministry's end. Even faced with that looming darkness, however, He did not sacrifice the purity and focus of His ministry.

He did not, and you will not, because you both know that whatever the situation today, you will scarcely remember it an eternity from now, when you walk in the fields sprung up from an old world's ashes.

Above: Oh yeah, Baby, what a... a... drawing...

We kid you not: in celebration of the release of X-Men 3 this year, entertainment site IGN.com released an article listing the "Top Ten X-Babes" - that is, the ten most physically attractive women featured in X-Men.

Not the women featured in the movies, mind you.

The ones in the comic books.

Jean Grey "burns with more than the Phoenix Force," moans the article's writer, and Storm will "never win a prize for congeniality, but it's impossible to deny her beauty." Psylocke can "stab our psyche anytime."

And IGN.com's number-one choice for hottest X-Babe (oh, you know you were going to ask)?

Emma Frost, the White Queen: "Emma's a hedonist, who wears lingerie to go jogging. And she's a teacher."

Guess there's always a bright side to these sorts of things: if these guys weren't so aroused by artist Jim Lee's pencils, the rest of us could conceivably have more competition for the real women.

(... Nah.)

Who decided that "red states" would be those which vote for Republicans and "blue states" those which vote for Democrats?

Wikipedia even notes:

"This system used in the United States of America is in stark contrast to the color system used in the vast majority of other nations. In most other parts of the world, blue represents right wing and conservative parties, while red represents left wing and socialist parties."

My bet is that's part of the point. Whenever the two colors began to be generally used in American election coverage, liberals probably felt that to have support for them labeled "red" would be rather like handing Edward McCarthy a posthumous victory. The United States spent half a century locked in potentially lethal stand-off with The Reds. Nobody in American politics, not even the Communists themselves, desires association with the color now.

So, when you think about it, it really is only fair: in order not to bias voters against the Democratic Party, best not to identify it with the people who embodied the logical progression of Democrat ideas.

Above: That is not Tony Snow. Not Depicted: Fan blowing her hair.

Below: Who cares? Not Depicted: Fan blowing their hair.

So, by now you've undoubtedly noticed (yeah, like fun you have) that radio and television veteran Tony Snow is no longer supplying the U.S. with its daily news from the White House. Mr. Snow vacated the position of White House Press Secretary on September 14th, citing his current level of pay as the reason; he informs us $168,000 per year is too small a stipend on which to raise his family (I'm actually not making this up). Let's all just give thanks real quick Mr. Snow was President Bush's Press Secretary, rather than his Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Leaving all that aside, however, I'm going to miss Mr. Snow. When the personality first took over the position of White House spokesperson, he was a breath of the freshest air, replacing former Press Secretary Scott McClellan's absolutely abominable performances with a friendly and unflappable show. McClellan seemed incapable or too scared of thinking outside of his pre-written script. He'd often repeat its wordage several times over the course of one interview to a plethora of very different questions, as though it were a magical chant that would eventually make all the bad reporters with their mean questions just - go - away. In short, the man was a dull robot.

Not so Mr. Snow: As a major player in news broadcasting, he had no problem dealing with his former brothers and sisters of the press - and what's more, he could keep his sense of humor as he did it.

From the 24th of '06:

MR. SNOW: [Saddam Hussein] willingly accepted the feeding tube today. It will be in, at a minimum, until Thursday. It has to be in for reasons that I don’t understand for 72 hours.

[REPORTER]: I don’t know the specifics, but how does one willingly accept a feeding tube?

MR. SNOW: I guess, you say, do you want a feeding tube? And he says, yes. And they say, okay, we’re going to give you one. This apparently was a consensual feeding tubing.

I wrote over a year ago on this site that "I can’t believe it; reading a press briefing transcript is no longer headache-inducing. Even if the next president is a Democrat, he/she should keep this guy." It's too bad his extreme poverty has led him from us.

That said, onto the much-begged question: how well's his replacement stack up?

Well, she's certainly easier to look at; in fact, judging from any picture you'll see of her, and taking into account her fiery temper, Dana Perino has a real shot of knocking out Ann Coulter as premiere Republican sex symbol*.

She's no stranger to the press office, either; she's been Tony Snow's deputy for a while now, so she's definitely up to snuff on how everything works.

But in front of the cameras?

I've already mentioned Ms. Perino's temper. She definitely gets flustered more easily than Snow ever did, and when she's been given a particularly tough stance by the President to defend, that's no help. Reading a transcript of one of her question-and-answer sessions with reporters, you'll be struck by how glad you are that you didn't watch it on television - because it really is that painful. The press pool and the situation in general practically begin out of hand and only deteriorate as the briefing goes on, until finally Helen, apparently altogether forgetting that she's there to interview Perino, starts passionately editorializing on U.S. torture tactics - at which point what is, again, supposed to be a "Q&A;" session totally devolves into outright argument.

Q How do we know that it's over now? How do we know -- there's testimony, there's still testimony, there's secrecy. Do you think that alleged terrorist is not going to know he might be tortured by the U.S.? Our whole methods are so abominable, horrific. And I think we're really a shame.

MS. PERINO: What about the people who cut off the heads of American soldiers and put them on the video --

Q That's horrible. We're not --

MS. PERINO: Yes, really bad. We don't torture. We get the terrorists here and we interrogate them.

Q The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11, which you keep bringing up...

Occasionally she allows her panic to result in her saying absolutely baffling things, too.

"Q Well, could you ask [the president his opinion on the bill]? I mean --

MS. PERINO: No, I'm not -- I'll see. If I see him I'll ask him.

You'll ask him "if you see him"? Um, Dana - you're his spokesperson.

On the plus side, Ms. Perino's willingness to fight back against a room full of Democrat reporters shows she has enough confidence and knowledge to speak off-script. That's impressive. And her mean streak isn't wholly unappreciated, either. It's rather endearing when she mutters that it's fine by her "if MoveOn.org and the unions, which seems like a match made in heaven, want to get together and waste another two weeks and lots of money to try to pressure votes, when any reasonable person can look at this and realize that in the House they are not going to get those votes to override the President's veto..."

Dana Perino clearly has personality, then, and more importantly, she obviously believes in what she's doing (something Mr. Snow actually didn't have going for him, having freely admitted at his tenure's start that he and the president didn't see eye to eye on all issues). Still, one must remember: there's a difference between calling the White House's press corps on when it crosses the line and establishing a regularly hostile environment, which is the last thing the president needs right now. Perhaps Ms. Perino errs too far in that very direction and bites off heads more often than she should.

Come to think of it, I notice a worrying propensity for her to interrupt reporters before they even finish their questions. If a reporter is jumping on a soap box or taking too long, asking them to hurry it up is obviously within the press secretary's mandate, but many reporters don't seem to manage to get a full sentence out before she starts answering.

Q Dana, do you know if the President has talked to Senator Domenici since Domenici made the --

MS. PERINO: Yes, I believe that Senator Domenici spoke to the President day before yesterday..

She needs to rein in her eagerness.

All told, I'll give her 2 stars out of 4 - serviceable. Perino's no horror like Mr. McClellan but nowhere near a star like Tony Snow. She hasn't yet found her footing on the stage, consequently appears awkward, not in control, grasping - which some might argue to be an accurate representation of the administration at present, but which is certainly not at any rate a helpful one.

Of course, as President Clinton's first press secretary George Stephanopoulos said during his first press briefing: "[This job's] OK... It's, uh... kinda hard."

That it is. One could go further and say the position of White House Press Secretary, like the position of POTUS itself, has the maddening ability to make some of our country's most capable men and women look like totally incompetent morons.

But at least Ms. Perino knows it. From her first solo press briefing on September 17:

Q On a personal note, what are your goals, your aspirations as Press Secretary?

MS. PERINO: Just to get through this.

*Which you wouldn't think would be that difficult. For my money, I never got what Conservatives saw in Ms. Coulter anyway. She's decently pretty, sure, but a skeleton, which doesn't exactly scream "Va voom!", y'know? Now, your correspondents here at Minorthoughts.com could show you "Va voom!", but the women in our lives have informed us quite bluntly they'd better never appear on here.

Above: "Achmed, they've just subpoena'd Osama!"

You could quite justifiably tell me I'm a little late to discuss whether captured terrorists should be allowed full trials according to American law; after all, the Supreme Court ruled the answer to be a big old Yes well over a year ago now.

But I've got something to get off my chest, so I'm gonna give it to the old college try anyway.

Even if you don't remember the reactions to the verdict, I'll bet you can probably imagine them without any help. The Democrats crowed over their latest victory; the Republicans jeered that the Democrat candidate's slogan for 2008 should be "The Party for Terrorists' Rights".

I wasn't one of the jeerers. I certainly wasn't on the side of the Democrats, though, either; despite being apolitical due to my religious beliefs, I still have a bit of the old soft spot left for the grand U.S. o' A, and that being the case, I've always tended to sympathize with Americans more concerned for their own safety than-... well, the safety of people who hate them and are trying to kill them. I'd write "That's not so hard to understand, is it?", but for today's Democrats, the answer stupefyingly seems to be yes. Their own soft spot for Lady Liberty hardened over a long time ago, it seems. Bring on the Socialist States of America.

I digress. I didn't want to support the bozos; I didn't quite feel right about supporting the conservatives. So I never entered into that particular debate.

I really should have. The answer was clear from the get-go - and the answer is, quite embarrassingly, exactly what the bozos and the Supreme Court justices have been saying all along.

It's also right there in the United States' Declaration of Independence, written in simply lovely penmanship:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The conservative argument for terrorists' lack of speedy trial and non-Geneva treatment has always been, at its core, that the terrorists are (a) not playing by the rules which guarantees them protection by the law and (b) are at any rate not Americans, thus not subject to its laws.

But the second objection is obvious poppycock, because one of the most beautifully brazen acts of the Declaration of Independence is not simply to declare Americans endowed with inalienable rights, but men (and later, we logically extrapolated "men" to include women). It's not just a smack in the face to anybody who would oppress us; it's a smack in the face to anybody who oppresses anybody else!

The first objection likewise doesn't hold up to any logical scrutiny. Basically, the Geneva Convention is a set of agreements amongst nations to treat each other's soldiers well, should they end up fighting, since those soldiers are fighting on behalf of their governments. It's a special dispensation of extra rights to soldiers ("Your uniformed citizens can kill ours without being criminally charged if our uniformed citizens can kill yours."). A theoretically good idea.

However, you can't enforce such a contract except by - er, force, which is a fairly useless threat in circumstances where the revocation of the Convention is an issue in the first place. That being the case, if one army decides not to play the game by Convention rules, the only proper response is to hit them with what the Geneva Convention was meant to protect them from: criminal charges.

Thus losing coverage under the Geneva Convention simply returns a killer to civilian status, to be tried under civilian law.

There, now. It all makes sense, doesn't it?

Yes. I think so, too.

I just wish I'd thought so before now. Sorry about that, Libs; score one for you.

Courtesy of The Jerusalem Post's Blog Central:

"Yale’s chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon, another fraternity, garnered infamy in 1967 for branding new pledges with hot coat-hangers... The Yale Daily News reported the incident, quoting one DKE brother who called the branding ‘insignificant’."

That brother lived on, of course, to be our 43rd president, Mr. George W. Bush, Class of '68. Which raises the following fascinating possibilities:

1: When President Bush claims the US does not treat terrorists inhumanely, and human rights activists claims the US does, is it possible this is all simply a misunderstanding, and what most of us wimps would call "torture", President Bush just thinks of as good old-fashioned hazing? Is the liberal media withholding photos of Iraqis chugging beer by executive order?

And:

2: Does our commander-in-chief have a question mark on his bum?

President Bush has cannily refused to comment, possibly in an attempt to increase interest in his forthcoming presidential library. Only conjecture is therefore currently possible, and even too much of that probably wouldn't be healthy. But comfortingly, it can be safely said that the truth will eventually come out, as while men of power in America may opt to take their secrets to the grave, we know our representatives in the media are perfectly willing to follow them there.

Above: A child exhibiting suspicious behavior.

Proponents of raising the U.S.'s minimum age for legal drivers are having a good week, as recent news stories seemingly lend credence to their dire warnings that today's U.S. drivers are simply too young for the responsibility of being behind the wheel.

Reports of a 4-year old in Wisconsin crashing his parents' SUV into their garage might be easily enough dismissed; after all, SUVs are very famously large vehicles, and even your Minorthoughts.com correspondent's father once dented his Baeur-designed beauty trying to park in his basement's limited space. But now we are told that an 11-year old boy has led Louisiana's state police on a high-speed chase, after an officer of the law tried to ticket him for going 20MPH over the highway speed limit (it was 60; he was doing 80).

One can't blame this egregious violation of road rules on simple lack of driving experience. According to police, the child had been driving without incident for a good six months prior to the time of the incident.

March 2, 2005's edition of USA Today pegs the issue as simply one of brain development:

"For years, researchers suspected that inexperience — the bane of any new driver — was mostly to blame for deadly crashes involving teens. When trouble arose, the theory went, the young driver simply made the wrong move. But in recent years, safety researchers have noticed a pattern emerge — one that seems to stem more from immaturity than from inexperience."

Will the age-uppers finally make some headway? They've got opposition; even some parents, traditionally the party-pooping nemeses of teens everywhere, oppose new laws regarding driving ages. After all, children who can drive themselves around are more useful. The previously-mentioned 11-year old boy was dropping off his disabled father at the hospital and heading over to pick up his mother from work when police noticed him.

_

Above: _Madame Secretary tactfully avoids Kim's gaze.

One interesting fact known by few around the blogosphere about North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is that the feared tyrant is himself a skilled surfer of the World Wide Web.

That's because he never told anybody until this week, when he informed R.O.K. President Moo-hyun during their "historic summit" (if they keep saying it, you will eventually believe it, damn it) that "I'm an internet expert too."

How much of an expert is he? Maddeningly, President Moo-hyun did not take the opportunity to press him on the question, so to what degree, say, North Korea's web page testifies to Kim Jong Il's personal programming savvy remains unknown. But the Leader likely does know how to e-mail, if you believe rumors that he asked former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for her address back in 2000. And your MinorThoughts.com correspondent has also found him registered on Facebook.

One thing's for sure: the ramifications of this newly-unveiled dimension to the dictator's character are enormous. It's much easier to coordinate six-party talks about nukes if everybody can just meet in a chat room.

Economists are turning en masse* to new careers in stand-up comedy.

The most well-known example of this new shift in the job market comes from the work of Yoram Bauman, a PhD. who teaches at the University of Washington to pay the bills when he is not performing shows like this.

But he is far from alone at this point; in fact, your correspondent's brother, a stand-up who will be receiving his own degree in Economics this Spring, recently performed an act at L.A.'s The Ice House.

And that's not all: Since writing his autobiography, speculation has been running high as to what newly-retired Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan will choose to do next. Now, in light of actions taken by his fellow economists and a few comments of his own (for instance, that Hillary Clinton "wouldn't be a bad president"), some* are beginning to wonder if America's Elder Statesman of Finance, who always did look like Woody Allen, is finally listening to the siren call of the mic.

• Meaning "at least two people"._

Jesus set us free from the Law, as any good Christian can tell you (and as any totally awful Christian will most certainly tell you).

So why do we keep making up new ones in its place?

This thought did not come to me because my contract prohibited me from sipping a spot of wine with my meal tonight. Really. I had the hankering for a Coke. But it reminded me anyhow of the basic trap that we as humans repeatedly fall into when given such an alien gift as spiritual freedom.

That is: we think to ourselves, "OK. I'm free! I don't want to sin anymore. So let's see... What's a sin? Well, the Bible says not to get drunk. So that's not right. Now, I know I'm a flawed man, so how am I going to insure that I don't screw up here? I know! I'll make it a rule that I can't even drink a sip of alcohol. After all, it's not like the stuff's essential to one's diet anyway, right? So there's no harm in drinking it... which means that if you want to drink any of it, in fact, you surely are in a manner sinning, because you are unnecessarily courting disaster! And when Jesus said to flee from Sin! Terrible drinkers of alcohol! Mired in their sinful lifestyles!"

Now, ya see? Badabing, badaboom - all of a sudden, the free Christian has created a brand-spankin'-new, iron law, and one preempting something which even Jesus Himself most certainly enjoyed now and then (unless you want to take the laughable position that Jesus and His disciples sipped Welch's).

Though the "free" Christian won't stop there, mind you, oh no; he or she will continue to draw the widest possible radius around every sin in The Book, and eventually term all that he or she has successfully included within the safety circumferences "sin", having of course eventually forgotten to distinguish between his or her safeguards against sin and the sin itself. Now anything which may or may not be unwise, according to one's conscience, is evil.

Smoking a cigarette? That's not just unhealthy and foolish, it's a sin.

Enjoying a waltz with a member of the opposite sex? Good Heavens, People, you're touching each other! Are you trying to tempt the sexual impulses?! Sinners!

Now you're married and having sex - with birth control?

Sinners! Sinners! Sinners!

And - well, I could go on, all the live-long day, but I sincerely doubt I have to. Odds are, you can think up a dozen examples of your own without me.

The Law returns from the grave into which Jesus tossed it when we create a system of draconian rules everyone must follow because, hey, after all, it does solve the problem of alcoholism if nobody is allowed to ever touch alcohol, right? And what about our weaker brothers? "It's only Christian to set a good example!"

As if anyone can seriously believe that's what Paul meant. If Paul truly believed one should exchange one's own entire lifestyle for his or her weaker brother's, He would have recommended Gentiles, in the name of their weaker brothers the Jews, adopt Judaic laws. But he didn't. QED.

Now, nobody is saying that rules do not have their place. Non-adults should be ruled by their parents, as non-adults by very definition lack the necessary discernment to be entrusted with their own spiritual health. Personal rules are certainly OK, too; if you have a strong history of alcoholism in your family, it is probably a very good idea that you steer clear of any fire water, and I'll abstain from drinking in your company to help you out. And authorities should certainly impose those rules necessary for order and safety, in the church and elsewhere. But all of this is a far cry from the rampant reinstatement of legalism we've been seeing for some time now from various parts of Jesus' Kingdom on Earth.

We need to care enough about our good Lord Jesus and ourselves to set boundaries against temptation, yes, but we also need to remember how the Law became so crushing a presence in the first place. The Pharisee law lovers of the New Testament were men and women devoted to the LORD; the mistakes for which Jesus put them on notice are not as alien to us as we'd like to pretend.

Trying to win our own salvation via Law is very tempting, even to those passionate for the Christ. How could it not be? Being free is such a truly strange, and perilous, state in which to find ourselves.

But we should safeguard it anyway, perhaps even as much as our own purity.

It is, after all, what Jesus paid for.

I know this entry's headline doesn't look promising, but stick with me. This is interesting.

In a column for FOX News' occasionally shameless entertainment section, Roger Friedman underscores the true challenge Britney Spears is currently facing in trying to save her career.

Summarily, Britney Spears has a new album out now, called "Gimme More", and she needs to promote it - 'cause those albums, y'know, they don't sell themselves. Since Britney long ago styled herself as a sex bomb, of course, promoting her new CD means doing her thing - making totally obscene music videos, holding totally obscene personal appearances, singing at totally obscene concerts, etc.

The problem with such promotional gimmicks, however, is that Britney Spears, who has just lost custody of her two small children due to her "glamorous" lifestyle, would look even less fit to be a mother if she engaged in them. And it doesn't matter whether Spears cares if she ever sees the children again. The public does. Almost nobody minds watching her play the part of America's Favorite Whore at her own expense, but even her die-hard fans will think her callous if she gives up the role of mother to her boys to do it.

Some fans, indeed, have already abandoned her; the administrator of her biggest fan site, the monolithic WorldofBritney.com,put in his resignation almost a year ago.

So has her latest manager.

But it gets worse. Suppose that she does become a role model of a mother. She would still be stuck between a rock and a hard place. That's because Motherhood is simply not, at least in the world of entertainment, considered sexy. Stories about how Spears can writhe well on a concert stage but always makes sure she's home to read at bedtime - those are stories swallowed up by the audience of Reader's Digest, not Rolling Stone.

What's a pop star to do?

It's not like her new album isn't going to sell, and at numbers many musicians will only ever dream about; it's already iTunes' most downloaded song and #3 on Billboard's Hot 100. But if the album fails to achieve the sort of marketplace dominance expected of a pro like Spears, the result could be her banishment to the mid-level range of musician, from which it is historically nearly impossible to immediately return.

Perhaps that shouldn't be looked upon as a badge of shame; I can't think of any musicians offhand who have kept the spotlight on themselves for too long, anyway. Invariably, they all fade into the background, remaining big names with tons of fans that don't buy tons of records. I know I'm not searching for Meat Loaf's "Bat Out of Hell V: Straddling the Border of Hell" or whatever he's doing now.

Still: one could reasonably object that Britney has been here before. Her third album didn't do very well, but her fourth brought her back to the charts. A good album (that is, what her fans would consider a good album) and buzz covers a multitude of sins. This album won't do well - but it may not end the Spears Saga, either.

Back to important political questions with Joe.

We'd all do well to occasionally remember what exactly we mean by the word "freedom".

I thought about that as I read through the Heritage Foundation's Freedom Index for 2007, a list which rates each of 161 countries in the world according to that country's level of economic freedom - that is, the level of control private citizens are given over their own earnings.

Now according to the Heritage Foundation's scale, the citizens of any country with less than a rating of 80% are not to be considered "free". Which is a fair enough suggestion, we Minor Thinkers will suggest; after all, who can really claim with pride, "I am master of 4/5's of my fate"? One might very forgivably consider the possession of 4/5's of freedom a good time to start planning a government overthrow.

Unfortunately, by that yardstick only seven countries in the world qualify as "free".

They are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Ireland.

In the various separate categories of ratings ("Freedom from Govt.", "Monetary Freedom", "Investment Freedom", etc.), only Hong Kong is found completely acceptable, save in the field of "Freedom from Corruption" (the only field not directly tied to government policy); all other countries dip below the 80% level in one category or another and simply possess an average of at least 80%.

Hong Kong.

It's a single metropolis in a world of metropolises, and it's presently the only society on Earth wiithin which you are always more than 9/10ths your own master.

And back in 1997, I notice, Great Britain tossed it to China's Communists.

From a letter to the editor of The Economist, concerning congressional hearings in the U.S. on subprime mortgages:

"Taking up the reference to Oscar Wilde, an English man of letters, we could say that, in contemporary credit markets, the cynic knows the listed but not necessarily transactable price of everything but neither the probability of default not the loss given default coefficients of anything."

According to a newly-published article:

"Some of the nation's most politically influential conservative Christians, alarmed by the prospect of a Republican presidential nominee who supports abortion rights, are considering backing a third-party candidate."

"Some" includes James Dobson, famous founder of Focus on the Family, and Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, both of whom attended a Las Vegas meeting with "more than 40 Christian conservatives" to discuss what to do about religious conservatives' "mistress" status in the Republican Party. It may have even included Tim LaHaye, author of the "Left Behind" books and now a mover-and-shaker himself as a founder of the shadowy Council for National Policy.

Should these names be lost on you, the AP's source concerning this event puts it plainly enough: President Bush "would not have been elected in '04 without the people in that room."

These are the people who have finally wizened up to the fact that religious fundamentalists are to Republicans what black people are to Democrats, and according to the source, they're ticked. So they're talking break-up.

Just maybe, that is. Perhaps, you understand.

Hopefully, you know - for oh so many reasons.

And I say that knowing I almost certainly wouldn't even vote for them.

The forecast for every day of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing is Sunny.

Because the Chinese army will be firing rockets at any clouds that dare to undermine full enjoyment of the spectacle, according to the Daily Mail. The paper writes:

"Boffins have come up with a cunning plan to force the heavens to open by firing chemical-infused rockets at storm clouds, forcing them to burst before the set-piece spectacle gets underway."

This is why I always say you need multiple perspectives on an issue. Who but the officials of China's government would have considered shooting the weather? It takes a special kind of mind to think like that - the kind of mind, for instance, which would also ban Buddhist monks from reincarnating without government permission, or allows for its people to meet at official churches, just so long as they never suggest that Jesus is coming back.

A new article posted on the website of my favorite news magazine, The Economist, wonders whether the International Monetary Fund's new managing director, Mr. Strauss-Kahn, can save the organization from its slide into irrelevancy.

"The organisation’s legitimacy is under increasing attack. Fast-growing emerging economies feel under-represented in an institution where Europe and America still hold sway. Even more worrying, there is a big question-mark over the Fund’s relevance. Its role in rich countries has long been modest. But ten years ago it was at the centre of emerging-market financial crises, acting as the world’s financial fireman. Now that many emerging economies have built up vast stashes of foreign-exchange reserves that role is dramatically diminished. And since the Fund’s income depends on its lending, growing financial irrelevance has also spawned a budget crunch."

What the magazine never bothers to do, however, is ask the more obvious question: If we are coming to live in a world in which there are no fires for the fireman to put out, is it actually a bad thing that the fireman's becoming irrelevant?

It's a little surprising that a news magazine willing to make the brave yet sensical suggestion that Belgium really needs to just go ahead and split into two separate countries lacks the proper perspective on such an issue as this. The main points of the article, to a sane reader, all combine to form a cause for celebration, not a call to action. The IMF was established as a lender to countries in need of money. Fewer countries now need money. The IMF is shrinking as a result. Good.

A better question than "How will the IMF save itself?" would be: should the day come when the IMF is simply not needed, will its administration have the character to kill itself?

Such a day is unfortunately far into the future, but it's a question The Economist, Mr. Strauss-Kahn, and others of their ilk probably should start rolling around their heads now. It would give them a better sense of place, and remind them that organizations are not values in and of themselves.

Here's how I knew I'd arrived back in the R.O.K. this morning:

After passing through "Wonderful Immigration!" (make whatever bizarre face you want, but that is what the sign says), I was almost immediately met by a middle-aged man, quite Asian in appearance, who asked me where I was going.

"Seoul," I replied - which wasn't quite true, actually, but a fair approximation. Like saying you're on your way to Atlanta instead of Mableton.

"I will take you," says he, smiling.

"No thanks," I said. "I'm jumping on the subway."

"Mmmm," says he. Then he points in the direction of a set of descending stairs on my right. Says: "You go down there."

And that is Korea. In the U.S., you find your taxi driver; he or she does not come to you. In Turkey, you will be all but bodily thrown into the vehicle of a driver, whether you want his or her services or not. In Colombia, you will see armored cars waiting to pick up many arrivals. In Ireland, you must find your taxi driver in the nearest pub, put him in the shower, etc. Here, the drivers come after you for your business, but upon being refused, assist without any prompting in helping you reach your destination anyway.

I do like this country. Never let it be said otherwise.

I haven't walked into a bar in a couple of months.

My contract with a Christian boarding school specifically forbids it.

But, that just makes jokes about walking into them even more special, so it is with a level of untempered mirth usually reserved for fat people that I now direct you to Postscripts, an "online large-print magazine" which has recently seen fit to publish an exhaustive list of bar jokes.

Wait! No! Come back! They're actually funny! Really, I promise!

Unless you don't think the following are funny, in which case I'll take no responsibility for the soul you've blackened:

A pair of battery jumper cables walk into a bar. The bartender says, "You can come in here, but you better not start anything!"

A grasshopper hops into a bar. The bartender says, "You're quite a celebrity around here. We've even got a drink named after you." The grasshopper says, "You've got a drink named Steve?"

A guy walks into a bar in Cork, in Ireland, and asks the barman: "What's the quickest way to get to Dublin?" "Are you walking or driving?" asks the barman. "Driving," says a man. "That's the quickest way," says the barman.

A baby seal walks into a bar. "What can I get you?" asks the bartender. "Anything but a Canadian Club," replies the seal.

A little pig goes into a bar and orders ten drinks. He finishes them and the bartender says, "Don't you want to know where the toilet is?" The pig says, "No, thanks, I go wee-wee-wee all the way home."

René Descartes is in a bar at closing time. The bartender asks him if he'd like another drink. Descartes says, "I think not," and he disappears.

Have fun.

And while you're at it, you may wish to read Postscript's other articles on the subject of humor (the list of bar-jokes is sixth entry in a series), specifically the first article ("Anatomy of a Sense of Humor: What's So Funny?"). In it, Postscripts repeats the findings of Dr. Richard Wiseman, who held an absolutely gigantic international survey via the world wide web - integrating over two-million entries - in order to find out if nationalities' senses of humor vary.

Turns out they do - and surprise, surprise: out of the eleven nationalities surveyed, Germans have the best sense of humor. According to Dr. Wiseman, we'll laugh at just about anything.

Those of you who know me personally are thinking right now that this explains a lot.

Canadians, interestingly enough, displayed the weakest senses of humor out of all nationalities polled - unless you count the Japanese, who apparently don't have a joke-telling culture.