Sojo on 'what kind of america do we want to be?'

President Obama and previous Vice President Cheney both gave speeches on national security policies.  Their two perspectives stand in stark contrast. Here are some quotes from an entry in Sojourner's blog God's Politics about Obama's speech:

In short, there was a choice offered to us ... for exactly what kind of country and people we want to be – and what America will mean for us and for the world.

In a very powerful symbol, Obama chose the National Archives as the venue for this major address, pointing to the historic documents that are kept here—The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights—noting that these documents are “the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world,” and clearly suggesting that they have been violated in the policies of the United States over the past several years, policies that included the systematic violation of legal rights and even the use of torture.

[President Obama:] "… I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. … I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset … Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. "

The alternative perspective of national security offered by Cheney, is based on "fear and self-righteousness":

... the vision of America that Dick Cheney offers ... is decidedly evil, and has helped to spread even more evil around the world. Dick Cheney represents the dark side of America, a view of the world dominated by fear and self-righteousness—always a deadly combination.

[Cheney:] ... to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The argument that Cheney uses is simply: the ends justify the means. Any time you go down that path, you put yourself in danger of doing more harm than good. I think it is far more reckless to sacrifice the values integrity, justice, fairness and equality - which the Bush administration did repeatedly in their "war on terror". America's future will be much brighter if we return to our founding values.

Watch the original speech by President Obama

very real side-effects...of poverty

Several theories have emerged as to why all but one of the confirmed deaths from swine flu have occurred in Mexico. Much of it is speculation -- that Mexico City's 7,300-foot elevation exacerbates respiratory illnesses, that there may be a slight variation between the viral strain prevalent in Mexico and swine flu elsewhere, that Mexico is further along in disease transmission and other countries will eventually see severe cases.

Unfortunately, I bet that most people won't pause to think much about the fact that Mexico has taken the brunt of the Swine Flue "pandemic".  I bet that to the public, it will just reinforce the image that Mexico is a poor country, where conditions are bad, where people die... where I don't want to be.

However, the truth of the matter is that there are socio-economic forces at work that force people in poverty to make decisions that will hurt their health:

Delaying medical care is a characteristic of poverty. For people living close to the edge, taking off a day to visit a doctor or staying home sick is literally taking food out of their mouths.

- Paul J. Gertler, a professor of economics at the School of Public Health at the University of California at Berkeley, in response to why some in Mexico self-medicated before receiving hospital treatment for swine flu. (Source: The Washington Post)