Been feelin' a little blue, lately?  Did it feel just like a sucker punch?  Uh huh.  That's because it was.  We thought we were going to a political election.  Instead, we went to the opening assault in our now clearly engaged culture war.  Now, I could tell you that all things considered, as a culture war battle, mustering barely enough christians to squeak by the election was not a terribly strong showing on their part, so keep it in perspective.  But then I would have to tell you that the importance of the victory is rather large, and they could easily be in a stronger position next time.  Or I could mention that the people who beat us believe that the earth was created in 6 days by a supernatural being, and that the final destruction of the world is a good thing, because they'll get to hang out with God in heaven.  But then I would have to mention that they of course control the world's biggest stash of nuclear (and conventional) arms.  So we didn't lose badly, but it is going to hurt.

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to plug my site.  I have been writing here on the culture war since 1999, and while I couldn't have called this last election ahead of time, at least I can say that the kind of arguments I'm writing are of primary importance,  because I write of our principles, we on the left, and of theirs.  These are the answer to those who just beat us, on their grounds - not the standard partisan distraction.

A look in my archive would reveal a column from May 9, 2000 called Not my kind of liberal .  In it I took a position against my side of the culture war, arguing against protesters in San Francisco who wanted the removal of Dr. Laura (a prominent christian psychologist) from a local radio show.  I argued: "if you feel her ideas are dangerous to yourself and others like you, quote her often to these others, so they don't forget what is arrayed against them."  Offering a principle,a ground and a consequence, I said:  The danger (of censorship)...has always been... how it doesn't work. It is silly to think that one stops thinking a certain way because one's speech is suppressed, yet...there is increased loyalty to suppressed ideas...[and] the ideas become subterranean and mean.  And then, liberal protesters, since you've succeeded in shutting the mouths of your oppressors, who will believe you when you say that you're oppressed?"

This is as relevant now as then, and is perhaps where we went wrong.  But if we want to fix this, we'll have to do two things.  First, we have to understand the battlefield, which means we have to understand what the other side thinks.  Second, we will have to start reviewing our principles, arguing about our principles and trying to arrange our principles in an easy to understand way, in order to take these principles onto the battlefield of our culture war.  I do both of these in my columns, even the old ones, so start reading.  If you don't understand something, of you want to start a dialogue, send an e-mail.  I answer them all.

Aw, what the hell do I know....

The New Bureaucracy - Why Bush made Homeland Security instead of fixing the FBI and CIA.
...it will be allowed to operate virtually unhindered by the constraints of the Constitution and the common law, since it will not have been determined what exactly is unconstitutional or criminal about its construction or operation.
(June 23, 2002)

Criminalize It - Taking the drug war to the next level.
...I know of a drug which comes from an entirely unregulated industry, raw, more addictive than alcohol, as immediate and as pronounced in effect as marijuana, also with undetermined but potentially serious physical effects, and used legally by millions of Americans (including children) daily.
(March 14, 2002)

Time to Listen Up - Bones tries to clarify the stakes in the war on terrorism.
...We are going to war with every country in the world which is hostile toward the United States.  And not only those which are now hostile, but also any who become hostile in the future, for any reason...this applies not only to countries, but also to groups and individuals..This latter group applies also...to American citizens.  No rights for these people, no courts...simply death at the hands of the military.  We are told that the administration will determine who poses a credible threat.  Period.
(October 23, 2001)

A Tragedy of Error - Another victim of the newest and bestest religion.
...What is almost more frightening is that the heavy drug use sanctioned by these idiots go without question, scrutiny or skepticism.  Not a single person has asked whether it is strange that a person was prescribed heavy drugs for years to solve a problem that normally lasts weeks...
(June 23, 2001)

300,000 Dead and Counting - On the continuing effects of Bush's first executive order.
...These are women who had families, who had experiences, memories, loved ones, who were themselves loved.  There is no doubt that they were living human beings.  They were not microscopic cells in a womb, which could be conceived as a living human being only if one is taught that they are.  They were women who until early this year could stand before you and speak of hopes, fears and dreams.  Now they are dead.
(May 22, 2001)

Queer Logic - Thoughts on the attempt to find a genetic disposition behind homosexuality.
...I think [the gay community has] fallen into the trap arranged for them by the conservatives, and a movement
which should have helped carry the banner for liberty in this country is now caught up in irrelevant
arguments over whether homosexuality is genetically determined.
(May 14, 2001)

America, the Chinese, and Propaganda - On the Pentagon's new 'propaganda bomb'.
...Do you remember, history buffs, what happens next?  Speech thus made so evil that it seeks to overthrow the government, and so frighteningly powerful that it could do so, can be identified with all sorts of American citizens - perhaps most importantly, with journalists....The Administration has just concocted a weapon (the propaganda bomb) aimed at the U.S., which they can use to discredit journalists who report unfavorable news.  They may even know what that news would be...
(April 25, 2001)

How to Beat the Chinese - A solution to our troubles with the Chinese.
...China by itself is not a huge threat, even with its large fighting population, but an alliance with Russia and its nuclear know-how spells immediate danger for the U.S.  Couple that with an anti-American sentiment in formerly friendly nations abroad, and we now see the result...Bush wanted to be tough, and instead handed power to China and put us in a cage.  It is the first result of ignoring the will of the people.  But we could regain our position and isolate China again in a week, if we took two steps...
(April 5, 2001)

China and Other Casualties of Our Culture War - The new cold war of the old guard.
...This is a problem borne solely and specifically by the actions of the U.S. under the new direction of GWB.  We are right now back in a cold war, as people will soon begin to realize.  The world is indeed against us again, but I am not afraid of the rest of the world.  I am afraid - again - of our own government.
(April 4, 2001)

And Around We Go - A report on the culture war in the new conservative administration.
...And now I'm beginning to think the old guard wants an Eastern alliance between Russia and China.  Maybe they don't think the cold war is over.  I know the Russians don't.  Hold on tight, folks.  This thing is starting to heat up.
(March 28, 2001)

The New Priests (Part 1)   - A little on Psychology and the culture war.
...I think the answers are still given in metaphysical terms which are, like the conservative arguments, hiding behind a scientific facade.
(December 27, 2000)

A Tree at the End of History - Julia Hill's tree and the aftermath of the environmental wars.
...I have news for the environmental groups engaged in this struggle, as well as for those whose money bought the laws that are killing us:
The worst is yet to come
(December 17, 2000)

A Real Crisis - Changes in the global environment bring a serious foreboding in this opinion.
...I wonder if some strange group hypnosis is occurring here, because nobody seems terribly concerned about something that more than likely has never occurred before in the history of the planet.
(December 4, 2000)

Nothing Left to do but Smile Smile Smile - Is the election contest a crisis or a circus?
...if there were more than two parties with a legitimate chance to win the election, this kind of thing wouldn't be happening.  It is only that these two parties are so established that pulling together a full compliment of attorneys is no problem.  Can anyone see Nader sending 20 suits to play tackle in a Florida Circuit court?
(November 28, 2000)

Blood on the Crossroads - Cultural aspects of the contested American presidential election.
...No matter who wins, the world will have gone to hell in a handbasket.  Suspicious conservatives will become certain of their fears: the elite are in charge.  Worried liberals will watch an election brutally wrested from the people in plain sight.  The people have spoken: they distrust each other immensely, and will be less tolerant in the coming days, regardless of the presidential thief.
(November 18, 2000)

The Most Boring Revolution - Napster and the internet revolution - ain't.
...Napster will lose their case if they made any money on their piracy, like endorsements or advertising. This will not stop piracy, but it will stop any from making money on piracy. In fact, this provides the industry with a cash cow: somebody else to sue besides their disillusioned artists.
(June 19, 2000)

Not My Kind of Liberal - Demonstrations against a talk-show conservative cheapen liberalism.
...We can't have it one way and the other. I like respect and I like love and I like to give and I prefer a sensitivity toward the human condition, but on the other hand I am not prepared to wad it all up in a ball and shove it down anyone's throat, any more than I would any other religion or philosophy...this is...why I cannot support [the liberal protestors] in their attempts to suppress free speech.
(May 9, 2000)

The Straight Dope - Mild moral positions are used to justify hundreds of thousands in jail.
...more than half of those in prison under three strikes are in for victimless, non-violent crimes, the majority of these for pot-related "offenses". We have a higher percentage of the population in jail right now for smoking
pot, than any country on the planet - capitalist or not - has in political prisoners.
(September 14, 1999)

The Problem with Liberty - The reason liberty is so annoying to so many.
...liberty without tolerance is an odd kind of liberty. It is the liberty of the powerful, who have always, in every political system - including despotism and theocracy - possessed it anyway.
(April 7, 1999)

The Abortion Debate - The real issue, not the made-up one.
...the shift of the religious right from 'promiscuity' to 'sanctity of life'...took the argument from something which could be decided (i.e., our moral position regarding promiscuity) to something which could never be decided (i.e., the metaphysical question of 'when life begins'). Their appeal to science to solve this distinctly philosophical question further insulates the argument from attack, and we are stuck with debates which claim scientific evidence to prove metaphysical positions.
(March 31, 1999)

US Interests in Kosovo - Thoughts on the eve of American bombing in Yugoslavia.
...If we will not take steps, even dangerous steps, to secure the real safety of real people in danger, then humanitarian excuses are nothing more than lies - and there truly are no US interests in Kosovo.
(March 21, 1999)

A Culture War - Gentle thoughts on American cultural development.
...We believe the only thing we can believe in the face of this whole mess. We think there is a prejudicial attempt to beat us down, weed us out, force us through whatever means to live by a moral standard which is irrelevant to living a decent, honest life. We don't understand this prejudice completely, but we can't deny it.  We didn't start this thing, but we can't simply believe differently.
(March 8, 1999)

Hatred and Free Speech - The trouble between Vietnam Vets and American Vietnamese.
...The political system, in this case, worked correctly, allowing both sides to express their loyalties and their hatred. This means that it is possible to engage in discussion about what these sides are about, rather than a purely academic question about free speech.
(March 5, 1999)

The War on Us - Strange twists in the arguments over the drug war.
...people who do drugs but commit no crimes go to jail daily, while those who do drugs and commit crimes have their sentences reduced in favor of rehabilitation programs. The former is misguided morality, the latter misguided compassion - all misguided reason.
(February 20, 1999)

Nuremberg Blows - Bones takes on the 'Nuremberg Files' decision to limit free speech.
Censorship, like any other punative measure, makes some feel good - as though eradicating an evil force. The opposite is actually the case...Laws protecting the security of women and their doctors could be passed, but instead a symbolic move to censor a website makes everyone feel satisfied - and when the Nuremberg Files are censored, who will be able to argue for the more relevant issue of protection? Who will be able to say that the threat has not passed?
(February 11, 1999)

So what I want to know is this: against what kind of person are we fighting?  I assume we have some boundary on this important aspect of our enemy, some definition?  Do not terrorists by definition wear the clothes of civilians?  Hoodlums in the streets of America can elude even the technologically advanced police forces who find them for a living, but somehow a soldier is going to tell an Arab civilian from an Arab terrorist?  What does he have to do?  Does he have to be a part of a terrorist network?  Does he have to have committed some crime?  Does he have to have said "I hate America", or "I am willing to die for my faith" publicly?  I have asked this question for a long time, and I've never heard anyone, including Rumsfeld, even start to define what constitutes a terrorist in the mind of the military.

For instance: when a soldier comes face to face with an Arab, what constitutes an act of warlike aggression?