Are you getting sick of the polititians knocking down straw men that they clumsily make of their opponents arguments instead of actually debating them on issues?  I sure am.  Everyone knows that there's a middle ground that the majority of Americans would agree on, but we're presented with false choices.  I've decided to make a list of the ones that came to mind, feel free to add you own in here.  (They're mostly from the current administration, but that's because that's what is being presented)

War

• Stay the course Vs. cut-and-run  
  (or the barely heard counter-straw man: Stay and die Vs. strategic re-deployment)


• support the president Vs. support the terrorists


• support Isreal Vs. be an anti-semite


• criticise Isreal == supporting Hezbolah


• vote for Bush Vs. vote for a terrorist supporter


• stay in Iraq Vs. victory for the terrorists
  (because there obviously isn't a way

Social issues

• make all abortions illegal Vs. encourage and subsidize abortions


• Prevent gay marriages Vs. allow polagomy and "man-on-dog" marriages


• repeal "Death Tax" Vs. hurt small buisnesses and farms
  (yeah, what a bunch of BS that one is - the better name is the "Paris Hilton" Estate Tax)


• raising the minimum wage == hurt small buisnesses and the economy


• un-doing the unnecessary tax cuts for the extremely wealthy == raising taxes on America


• support No-child-left-behind Vs. leaving children behind
  (failing to notice that under-funding the program actually leaves more children behind than if we didn't have the program at all)

Security

• Allow the UAE to control our ports Vs. not supporting capitalism


• supporting the illegal NSA program Vs. opposing listening in on terrorists conversations
  (even though you can spy on enemies and still do it legally - with the warrant required by both the constitution and the FISA law)


• vote Republican Vs. let the terrorists win
  (as if who is in charge will change their opinion of us)


• Building an electric fence across the border, or keeping our borders unsecure
  (expecially since all the terrorists came with valid visas, or snuck in from CANADA)


• Inspecting all cargo == unreasonably expensive and impractical
  (even though about one week's worth of Iraq spending would pay for it all)


• Taking off your shoes and giving up all liquids == reasonable searching
  (or have the terrorists won since we've given up our rights?)

Of course that's just one rhetorical device.  There's also the ever famous "Fox question" ("Is Bush the greatest president ever, or do you hate our troops?"), and also the "some say" line.  Word of advice, everytime you hear someone starting their rebuttal with "some say" or "some in Washington say"... you can bet that noone has ever said what is about to be said - expecially since they never mention a single person that has actually said it.  ("Some people say that we need to offer simpathy and therapy to terrorists")

I just get upset with all this doubletalk and flawed logical arguments... But I get really ticked-off when people buy it.

Well, I've finally got a few moments to myself and can update my few readers on my life.  I'm still commuting way too much for my tastes (25 mile, 40 minute drive - each way)  even though I know many people with longer commutes.  That's the main reason I don't have enough time or energy to post here much anymore.  It also doesn't look like there will be any change for quite a while.

On a more happy note, my wife is about 10 weeks pregnant and everything seems to be going well so far (morning sickness only once so far).  We've had a sonogram that looks like a white smudge in a black bag, and it'll be a couple more months until we can find out the gender.  It's due roughly around mid-March, and luckily, my wife's new job is giving her short-term sick leave, which covers 75% of her salary while she's pregnant.  So she'll work until she wants to leave, then she'll likely take the rest of the year off.  She hasn't decided if she wants to go back to work after the summer is over, so we'll see.  We're both pretty happy about the whole thing, and I'm looking forward to keeping all of you updated.

And since we've already been asked a couple of times...no, we're both still pro-choice.  I don't see why people seem to think that everyone who is pro-choice has either had or wants to have an abortion.  My wife and her mother has always been pro-choice even though she's had 7 children including my wife.  As Catholics, they both have never chosen anything but life for themselves and their children, but don't feel that they have any right to dictate what others can do - expecially since we don't do anything to help mothers out once the baby is born, or even with the medical bills when it is born. 

Me on the other hand, used to be pro-life, until I saw the difference between the results of the pro-life and the pro-choice movements.  Just like most people in the world, I'm not on either extreme, but somewhere in the middle.  However, I have changed my support to the pro-choice movement without changing my beliefs because of the results of a pro-choice environment actually has reduced abortions.  Under "Abstinance only" programs, unwed pregnancies and abortions have actually increased.  Under the more liberal sex-education programs, unwed pregnancies and abortions have decreased.  Again, under Clinton, poverty and abortions decreased, under Bush, poverty and abortions have increased.  I just think we need to have as few abortions as possible, but we should get there in a way that works, not in a way that has proven to be completely ineffective. 

If you haven't seen it, there's a "30 Days" episode on this week where a pro-choice worker volenteers to go and work and stay at a Christian pro-life maternity ward - a very good episode.  While I'm glad that there are a few pro-life people that are trying to actually help the women both before and after they're pregnant, I still don't approve of most of the tactics that were used.