While I didn't think I needed another example to supplement yesterday's post, the front page of today's Philadelphia Inquirer provided one anyway -- another skirmish that is not over socialism per se, but which represents a tactic designed to keep people fighting each other over emotional issues -- this time how and where to light up a cigarette.

After 18 months of sometimes-bitter legislative gridlock, City Council agreed yesterday by a narrow majority to ban smoking from almost all Philadelphia bars and restaurants by January.

Mayor Street privately told Council members that he would sign the bill, meaning the city would join New York City, Washington, and all of New Jersey in the ranks of localities that have adopted smoking bans.

Sidewalk cafes would be exempt. Private clubs and neighborhood taverns could seek exemptions.

The far-reaching bill was directed mainly at bars and restaurants but prohibits smoking at all public places - most of which already are smoke-free. The bill even makes it illegal to smoke within 20 feet of an entrance to a building where a ban is in effect.

Again, the point is not smoking. Prohibiting smoking no more leads to socialism than would legalizing smoking. The struggle simply wears people down, acclimatizes them to rule by others instead of rule by themselves, and distracts them from asking bigger questions.

Is the war on cigarettes part of what we call the "culture war"? If cigarettes are not a cultural attribute, then what is? It's not only cultural, but it's inevitably personal -- one of those things that each person is traditionally allowed to decide for himself.

As to "sides," the merits are completely irrelevant. Right now, the bureaucratic push happens to be against cigarettes. But if we assume they get their way (or let's say, smoking had been eliminated through legislation back in the 1920s) I could easily envision a heart-rending crusade in favor of "smokers' rights" -- led by pretty much the same people who lead the "struggle" for the "rights" of non-smokers today.

Lest anyone miss the "lifestyle" implications, the Inquirer's front page offers a photo as a reminder:

(Mind if I butt in? Tut tut!)

To find other personal choices dressed up as war in today's Inky, I didn't have to look far. . .

Woman battles her husband's right to sever a portion of their son's penis. (And if that didn't get your cultural juices flowing, elsewhere at the Inquirer web site, there's discussion of mandatory mouthwash requirements for ritual circumcisers.)

This is one of those things that could go either way, depending on what might generate the greatest emotional reaction (and on how the so-called "feminist" movement might be seen as weighing in). What we might see as "mutilation" varies from time to time; circumcision was once unheard of in Euro-Christian cultures, Chinese footbinding was once conservative. These "body mod" issues can be spun any number of ways; suppose that the boy was older, and mom wanted to let him pierce his tongue and eyebrows, while dad wanted to stop that. Viola! Not a question of common sense or loony parents, but more "Culture War!" Any analysis is, of course, further clouded by attributing to deliberate design what can often be a result of the need to sell newspapers or books, or entertain TV viewers, but IMHO, people who focus singlemindedly and obsessively on the merits of a particular issue do more than merely miss the point -- they actually help enable the divide and conquer strategy. (This does not mean that I won't sound off about ridiculous things like attack toilets or "potty parity"; but I am not about to imagine that by doing so I will "save" anyone's "culture.")

In the 1950s, integrating the segregated South, while the right thing to do, was nevertheless used by Communists as an wedge-issue tactic to cause Americans to surrender more of their personal freedom to bureaucratic power.

Of course, only a lunatic would maintain today that segregation is a good thing, right?

WRONG! Segregation alive and well, and this time the Commies are on its side. (I don't think I need to wear people down with examples.)

Evolution. It's been around long enough that most Americans would consider it a traditional idea. Yet the mere fact that it's been introduced as a culture war meme means now the same old religious battle must be fought again. In some circles, whether or not one is tagged with the "politically correct" label depends on one's view of evolution. (A new meme I touched on last year, but which has resurfaced now that the left and the right have designated Ann Coulter as a sort of Culture War standard bearer.)

Again, to wear ourselves out debating smoking, evolution, foreskins, segregated pools for Muslims, and the rest of it, is to ignore the larger threat: the systematic undermining and destruction of the American birthright.

I often analogize to the way the bull is distracted by the red cape. Every once in a while, a smart bull figures out that the enemy is the guy who's waving it. Such bulls are quickly identified and taken out of the gene pool.

But we're human beings, and I do not suggest humans act like bulls. People who see past these cultural diversions are not only smarter than the dumb bulls who charge the cape, they are smarter than the bulls who finally conclude that charging the matador is the only option. There's more than one way to play the game.

And there's more than one way to not play the game.

(Some games are rigged, you know . . . And not everyone is equally entertained by the same forms of, um "entertainment.")

MORE: Sorry for the suggestive title. (Hey, at least we're not in Britain, because I think their slang word for cigarette should be used only in the most niggardly manner possible.)