i kinda feel like i ought to cross-link this particular entry to /main/sports… i mean, seriously, politics really are a sport, at this point.

so the other night, friday, i was walking over to the billy goat on washington to meet rachel to watch the debate, and i had this bizarre feeling. like, we’re so unprotected in terms of everyday things. specifically, my fear had to do with the trash bins on the corner.

as i discovered last year, there are no public trash bins in railway stations in the UK. a friend gently reminded me of ira terrorism, and of course it then made sense. if people are fond of planting bombs in your trash bins, you’ll get rid of the bins. but we, on the other hand, have trash bins everywhere. in downtown chicago, they’re nice little quasi-wrought iron things. in downtown milwaukee, they’re tacky green boxy things reading “keep milwaukee clean!” in where i was in new york, and you’ll have to forgive me but i wasn’t there — and not out of manhattan at all — long, they’re scuzzy things. but they’re everywhere. how hard would it actually be to have an orchestrated effort to drop tiny shoebox bombs in trash bins all over a major city, or cities? yet, it wouldn’t be as eye-catching as flying airplanes into several buildings on the same day, but, just imagine it.

i hate being so afraid and paranoid. i do. maybe i’d be more accustomed to fear if i lived in, say, israel, but i can’t imagine you ever really grow “used” to it. isn’t it just horrifying? busses blowing up, nightclubs blowing up, rail stations blowing up.

andrew sullivan:

Can we win in Iraq? Dumb question. We have to.

absolutely.

i feel defensive about this. i’ve gotten flak from a number of friends and others, because — while i didn’t support going into iraq the way that we did (i admit, i prefer the summit/coalition approach wherein we wouldn’t have alienated…uh…everyone) — i’m now solidly in the “we have to do this” camp. raise my taxes; just fucking do it right. send in more troops. give them more tanks, more ammo. we cannot lose, and it’s really just that simple.

yes, yes, of course iraq isn’t afghanistan, and iraq isn’t the taliban, and iraq isn’t al qaida. but losing the war by bits and pieces while we bicker isn’t the way to maintain our strength, as a country.

i’m a strong believer that — pardon the hackneyed phrase, i’ve been using it a lot lately — america is the leader of the free world. yes, yes, europe, you’re doing lovely things in some areas and i don’t mean to demean you. but — and this is possibly the only area in which i’ll cop a blatantly arrogant attitude — we own you all. the dollar may be down, but you just try and annihilate a group of people based on religion, and we’ll be there kicking your ass.

which is to say: my family will be there. my cousins will be there. a couple of years ago, my dad was there. quite possibly, at some point, i might be there.

…

at a bar a little over a week ago, i had a brief discussion with a couple of friends. one friend is virulently anti-war, possibly virulently anti-military. his sister is being deployed; it’s his prerogative to be angry and fearful. the other friend is someone with whom i don’t always agree, but who — i think; correct me if i’m wrong: i know you’re quite capable of doing so — understands why i’ll say that enlisting is still a noble and worthy thing even if you don’t necessarily agree with everything the administration, or the commander-in-chief, has to say.

of course there’s the family thing; many in my family have enlisted in various branches at various points. the navy has been favored by both the nixes and the downards. me, i guess i’d be an odd duck: i’ve always personally favored the army. in fact, i believe that i might be the only army person in either side of the family for a while. er, army-leaning? army-prone? since i’m not actually a member of the u.s. army. army fangirl, perhaps, although that trivialises it to an extent i’m a bit unwilling to commit to. at any rate, the military has had a lot to do with my family. and not just for the G.I. bill, either; my mother went to college (but dropped out), my aunt graduated with her bachelor’s in finance a few years ago, and my cousin is starting college this fall. i, of course, dropped out at the end of my freshman year and have been playing at college ever since. beyond that, and a few ancillary courses here and there, my family hasn’t had a whole lot to do with higher education, so the G.I. bill (although undoubtedly useful and productive) is not really all that relevant. although i won’t deny that that’s one of the reasons i’ve nearly enlisted three times now.

and it’s not the “romance” of being in the army. really, what is romantic about fucking boot camp? didn’t you people see full metal jacket? (yes, okay, that’s the marines; whatever.) what is romantic about being sent off for months and months to live in the desert where you’d be a target just because you’re american? people who suggest i like the army because of the “romance” of it all really piss me off.

in the end, i find it incredibly hard to quantify, or defend, my interest in enlisting. if you don’t get it, you don’t get it. i’m sorry. it doesn’t mean that i’m all of a sudden a raging bush fan. it also doesn’t mean that i secretly harbor a mad desire to go into politics once i hit 40, and think i need the military credential to get anywhere. for one, i’d never make it in politics — i’m way too blunt, and would probably tell people to fuck off far more often than is socially acceptable in such circles. for another, and why oh why won’t people get this, because the administration is transitory (though clearly effective; much more so in two-term presidents), it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the administration.

if i were to enlist, it would be to protect the sanctity of trash bins everywhere to hold trash, not bombs.

and, notwithstanding that i didn’t necessarily agree with how we went to war, i absolutely do not have the patience to deal with the constant bickering and mud-slinging and sheer shit that distracts from the war. i don’t care any longer if you didn’t support the war, either in afghanistan or iraq. the fact is that we are engaged in a war. the fact is that american soldiers are every day facing hardships that you and i, safe at home behind our nice computers in our nice cosy armchairs eating our nice tasty homemade dinners, will not have to face — whether their danger takes the form of people trying to blow them up, or the hardship of sitting in a camp for week after week while your tour is extended and you can’t come home even though you desperately want to.

the bottom line for me is: we went to war, and therefore, we have to win it. after we win, we’ll rebuild — that’s what america does; we forgive endlessly — but we have to win.

it’s a bit of a morass, i’ll admit: how do you “win” against an enemy that is ephemeral? “terrorists” are not a nation. “terrorists” are not even really a group that you can delineate. there are lots of terrorists. with all kinds of different agendas. tim mcveigh was clearly a terrorist, but of course he wasn’t the exact same sort of terrorist as al qaida. and with my previous commentary, it’s unfair to equate the ira with al qaida.

nonetheless, we’re committed to war in the middle east, to eliminate osama bin laden and his supporters, and we are failing, to the detriment of this entire nation.

i was reading something a week ago about how this has turned into a guerilla war, and one of our primary mistakes is that we’re not treating it as such. this is a mistake that can be rectified, but we have to commit to doing so.

i have lost patience with the bickerers, and the nitpickers, and the “but it was never right in the first place!” folk. we have to face the fact that we are in this war, at this time, and in that place, and that we must win it unequivocably. i’m sorry if you feel bad about it. i’m still a little cranky myself. but there’s simply no denying that if we fuck this up, we’re in a whole world of deep shit, for years and years to come.

which brings me (at long last) back to the topic that i started out intending to write about: the debates.

kerry… well, he speaks to me. i never thought that he would. seriously. i mean, that he had my vote was not in question at any point — i will not vote for a man that can’t form coherent sentences without assistance, and i’m bloody sick of having george bush embarass me by looking like an incompetent idiot in front of the world — but i was never that thrilled about kerry. actually, about any of the democratic nominees, as long-time readers of my crappy blog will recall. the only one that i mustered any enthusiasm whatsoever for was al sharpton, and that only because he’s a great spectacle to watch (though i thought that he would be an absolute train-wreck in any elected office). but the debates have gone gangbusters in making me feel better about voting for kerry.

the first debate was a slaughter. bush seemed unprepared, and when he didn’t seem unprepared, he seemed like a whiny brat. whereas kerry was authoritative and firm without being overly arrogant.

i came away from watching the first debate actually wanting to donate to kerry’s campaign. no shit. as i haven’t donated to any political office since the gore 2000 campaign, i feel that is fairly significant. (i’m pretty sure emily’s list is pissed off at me for not having donated, but they persist in sending me mailings. maybe once i have extra cash again… .) it’s a long way to go from “i’m voting for you, but i’m not voting for you” to “i want to give you some money because i actually think you’re a decent candidate.”

i didn’t see cheney/edwards, nor have i listened to it yet. maybe on the way to work tomorrow.

last friday’s debate was likewise reinforcing. i watched it at billy goat with rachel, as i mentioned earlier, but it was too loud so we only watched the television. it was incredible to watch the difference in posture between the two gentlemen candidates. bush was tight and overly emphatic. kerry was confident and open — and, man, he’s got the clinton thumb-point thing mastered. then last night i listened to the mp3 from audible, and got to hear what they had to say. and what i most wanted to say to bush was, “stop fucking whining.” if you believe you’re right, then support yourself! quit pandering. then kerry, again, was forceful without lecturing, and — importantly, for me — intelligent and well-stated without being lecturing. i kept coming away from bush’s statements — especially when he got all “let me rebut! let me rebut!” with charles gibson even after gibson said “i’m going to let you rebut–” — feeling like he was a snot-nosed brat.

all of which is to say: i support the troops, and i support the war, and i’m voting kerry. i don’t know if kerry will do a better job than bush, but there’s simply no way i could ever vote bush because of the damage he’s done to my civil rights and his absolute denial of any fiscally conservative responsibilities, and kerry speaks more to my socially liberal needs as a voter. so, i no longer feel so sheepish about voting kerry. he’s not my guy the way that white sox players are my guys, and he’s not my guy the way that clinton was my guy, and i still think his wife is kind of a twit, but he’s got my vote — not the DNC.

i guess i lost the train of thought partway through writing this, but that’s probably okay because i find it so hard to put some of my feelings into words. i hope everyone — all six of you reading this mess — can forgive me.

oh, and as for linking this to sports: go atlanta! kick houston’s ass!