I've put out a call for DoP precedents to Matthew Albracht of The Peace Alliance and Philip Henika of The Carter Center. Other governments have such Departments, and I want to see if they have anything to teach us. Philip answered me today with enough information to satisfy my research needs for a few days at least.

Elsewhere, I spoke of holding up our Constitution beside documents such as the World Charter to see whether or not it addresses the cultural revolutions and subsequent consciousness shifts of the past 200 years, and I made the point that we ignore such changes at our peril. Analysis of the six goals set forth in the Preamble by means of both cross-cultural and historical perspectives revealed that the noble intent has failed to be translated into practice.

• Form a more perfect union - An iron-clad charter to be amended "from time to time" does not address the ever-accelerating rate of cultural change. A more malleable substance - clay rather than iron - is needed.
• Establish justice - Once established, justice must be secured.
• Insure domestic tranquility - Not!
• Provide for the common defense - Overkill!
• Promote the general welfare - Inequitable distribution of resources has compromised the viability of the middle class.
• Secure the blessings of liberty - Those must be the blessings guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. How can we secure them?

I would have submitted the following from Lloyd Axworthy at the G-8 meeting in Cologne as a Quote, but it's too long: "The human security agenda is an effort to construct a global society in which the safety of people is an international priority and a motivating force for international action; where international humanitarian standards and the rule of law are advanced and woven into a coherent web protecting the individual; where those who violate these standards are held fully accountable; and where our global, regional and bilateral institutions are designed and equipped to enhance and enforce these standards."

The noteworthy thread that permeates this statement is globalization, and that is another one of the things the founding fathers did not forsee. Such a concept gives new meaning to "the common defense" where the "enemy" is any thing, individual, or group that causes depletion of resources and destruction of the biosphere.

Flexibility and globalization appear to be the two things for which there was no provision in the Constitution. The founding fathers had a more static, provincial view of the world. Again I find this country in need of a new charter that addresses at least these two things. It is some small comfort to realize that we are not alone in that need; rather, the need itself has become globalized. Therefore, it seems clear that before we even think about the National Caucus I called for in "Let's Reframe Our Nation," we need to think about a World Caucus and then develop our National Charter within the parameters of a/the World Charter.