Was Roe vs. Wade the Start?

This is an editorial on September 28, 2009 by David Gushee, a professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, and president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, published by USA Today. Mr. Gushee presents the argument that the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade started the downward spiral of political debate that allows people to demonize the opposing side.

Mr. Gushee observes that post Roe vs. Wade a person with an opposing view is now considered the embodiment of evil. He also contends that factors such as redistricting and a 24 hour news cycle boost this mentality. The most recent public symptom that continues to receive mass media play is Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during the presidential address. He ends with a call to people to consider open debate on the issues instead of attacking the person. The debate should center on the issues.

Mr. Gushee lists many other times in recent history that support his argument that the public and representatives are encouraged to demonize those who oppose have a opposing views by listing the examples of Roe vs. Wade, gay rights and the past presidents views on the death penalty and abortion. However, he neglects to point out on these issues one side believes there is a human life being debated, not just who might get more tax dollars. When a life or a person’s religions belief is at the center of the debate people become less objective and less willing to be open to debate.

However, he has created a supportable link between this heated debate between life and death bleeding over into policy issues that are more economic and diplomatic in nature. The willingness of people to contend people of the opposing view are the devil incarnate, or some semblance of an evil entity, not deserving of standard human courtesies has become way to easy of a leap for many during the present day. Whether the Roe vs. Wade decision was the turning point is debatable.

While points of his logic are fallible, his conclusion that encourages the reader to have open and honest debates without demonizing the people with opposing ideas is worthy of support. The other option will only continue to tear at the fibers of our nation. Hopefully the public as a whole will take his overall theme to heart and realize that we need to treat each other with standard human respect no matter what opinion another individual may have.

To Trade or Not to Trade?

This article in the New York Times gives a brief overview of the new tariffs on tire imports imposed by the United States on China. The Chinese reaction was quick and direct in political speak. The Chinese threaten to increase tariffs on chicken meat and automotive parts.

The dollar amounts of the exports are similar, $1.3 billion for tires from China to the United States, and a total of $1.176 billion for automotive parts and chicken meat from the United States to China.

The Obama administration is selling this as more strictly enforcing trade laws. China is using a similar political move by threatening to investigate possible subsidies of tires and chicken meat which would open the door for higher tariffs.

These two economic giants rely on each other for exports. Their economies are also intertwined. China buys up Treasury bonds and other dollar assets causing the Yen to be able to be held down allowing the Chinese goods to be inexpensive in foreign markets.

The impact this could have on our economy could be far reaching if China decides to start enforce all trade laws or slow down their investment in our economy, causing our already slowly recovering economy to stall or even back slide. This will definitely be a talking point during the president's visit to Beijing in November.