BLOG ACTION DAY!

Pause and think about that for a moment!

Today is Blog Action Day concerning our need and access to WATER around the world.

Blog Action Day 2010: Water from Blog Action Day on Vimeo.

• Every 20 seconds a child dies from a water-related disease.
• 890 million people lack access to safe water.
• 2.5 billion people don’t have a toilet.
• $25 brings one person clean water for life.
• Over 200 million hours of labor each day are consumed each day to collect water.
• The majority of the world’s illness is caused by fecal matter.
• More people on earth have cell phones than toilets.

For more information about FACTS about the water crisis go here.

Black Friday

Black Friday is what the day after Thanksgiving is known as; a major shopping day in the USA. That is probably why I am staying an extra day in Austin with daughter MJ, but now I am re-thinking that reasoning because of learning about Buy Nothing Day. First I looked at this article by Eugene Cho here, on Jim Wallis' God's Politics blog.

So that sent me to the Buy Nothing Day site.

And now look at the short (1 1/2 minutes) video I found about it:



So what do YOU think?

Our next president. . . .

I can't get this Thomas Friedman editorial out of my mind, in the midst of grief and concern over Joe's death. Maybe I'm connecting stuff to the meditation upon Jonah 3 and 4 yesterday in our EFM class, where I realized our entire country needs to repent and turn around--and sacrifice. Give up using so much gas, less air conditioning (AAK--in Texas, too???), buying, consuming more than we need. . . We all would have come together after 9/11, but were not challenged to do so. Now we're fighting over side issues like a pig wearing lipstick when the economy is finally showing its true state of being.

I don't always agree with Friedman, but I think this editorial hits where it should about the next president. He ends with:

"The last president who challenged his base was Bill Clinton, when he reformed welfare and created a budget surplus with a fair and equitable tax program. George W. Bush never once — not one time — challenged Americans to do anything hard, let alone great. The next president is not going to have that luxury. He will have to ask everyone to do something hard — and I want to know now who is up to that task."

Go here to read the full article, which is entitled "No Laughing Matter."

Books I read on vacation (and still am)

Thanks to recommendations from bloggers, I took three books on vacation with me, plus I bought one while I was in WA:

• Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy by Jeffrey Feldman, which was recommended by Quaker Dave.

I wanted to leave this book for my daughter AE to read in Seattle, so I steeled myself from highlighting with yellow, which I usually do, much to her disgust. I actually took notes on this book in a little blue spiral notebook. So here are a few quotes:

"18th Century German military historian Carl von Calusewitz wrote, 'War is politics pursued by other means.'" (59)

"At the beginning of the 20th Century, Teddy Roosevelt broke the iron grip that industrial barons held over the rest of America; a few decades later, Franklin Roosevelt broke the grip of banking barons. In those waves of progressive reforms, a new era was ushered in whereby government stood between citizens and the private interests that sought to exploit." (71)

". . .the Bush administration chose to switch the public debate to the logic of hidden threats by arguing that Al Qaeda was not a network of individuals linked through a chain of responsibility, but an evil force lurking beneath the surface of all nations hostile to American interests. . . . so the logic of hidden threats leads to a radical form of government sponsored secret violence based on the idea that only a hidden cure can defeat a hidden threat." (168-169)

"Constant talk of murder, treason, gunshots and terrorism whip up the emotions and pulls people's attention away from analytical thinking. Public engagement becomes passive observation, participants become audiences, and conversation becomes entertainment. As John Dewey observed, sensationalism shuts down our curiosity about the relationship between things by overwhelming us with a focus on raw, isolated, and shocking events." (177)

• When Crickets Cry by Charles Martin, which was suggested by Yolanda.

This was the book I read on the flights to Seattle. It was easy reading, touching, and I even cried a few times. The story is about a little girl who needs a heart transplant and the man who can save her who is emotionally wounded from his own losses in life. I don't read much fiction anymore, so this was a good one for the plane ride.

• The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan, which was the one I bought at Fred Meyers in Bellingham and had been mentioned by a Corpus Christi friend and also KA, daughter AE's partner.

This book is the most personally monumental one that I've read recently. Learning how corn production, sponsored by the government, infiltrates all our food and lives is still reverberating in my mind.

"When food is abundant and cheap, people will eat more of it and get fat. Since 1977 an American's average daily intake of calories has jumped by more than 10 percent." (102)

"Most researchers trace America's rising rates of obesity to the 1970's. This was, of course, the same decade that America embraced a cheap-food farm policy and began dismantling forty years of programs designed to prevent overproduction." (102-103)

"Yet since the cleverest thing to do with a bushel of corn is to refine it into 33 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)." (103)

"That at least is what we're doing with about 530 million bushels of the annual corn harvest--turning it into 17.5 billion pounds of high-fructose corn syrup. Considering that the human animal did not taste this particular food until 1980, for HFCS to have become the leading source of sweetness in our diet stands as a notable achievement on the part of the corn-refining industry, not to mention this remarkable plant." (103)

Learning (again) how farms, even "organic" ones are run, is disheartening. Hope is given with people like Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms in VA--go read about this amazing family and place!

• The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power by Jeff Sharlet, which was reviewed by Sherry.

This is the only book I haven't finished reading. It's a very thick book and reminds me of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein, which is still only half-read at my house. (Daughter AE told me every person in America should read this book after she read it. Ironically, it was given to her by our Canadian cousin, but then Naomi Klein is a Canadian news reporter.) Both are heavily documented with much historical evidence. However, Sherry found it much easier to read; I suggest you go and read her review!

Christians in Iraq

Go to MadPriest's and read about what the video below says!

I'm a Christian who believes in non-violence, but having had both my parents serve in the U.S. Marine Corps, blogging with Wyldth1ng, hearing about son DC's friends in the military, and watching the "60 Minutes" segment about Christians in Iraq, I am wondering what the viable options are in Iraq. The segment on "60 Minutes" brought the violence home to me in ways the regular news has not.

Excerpts: The Purge

Four Years Ago in Iraq

I am trying to finish a book by Anne Garrels, NPR correspondent, that recounts her time in Iraq from October 2002 until May 2004-- Naked in Baghdad: The Iraq War and the Aftermath as Seen by NPR's Correspondent . I started reading it on the trip to Washington and am at the end of the book. I am struck by Garrels' observations of the events and people. The book is nicely interspersed with emails her husband sent to friends about her when she was in Iraq.

I am very struck by the questions that were asked four years ago on August 1, 2003:

"Now that no weapons of mass destruction have been found Amer (Garrels' aide in Iraq) wonders why the U.S. really came to Iraq. "If we were a poor country," he comments, "no one would come here, but we are a rich country, and that is our fate. America has the power to do everything, so why aren't things better? Do you want us poor?" He believes that Iraq is surrounded by hostile nations anxious to take advantage of its own weakness. We speak to shopkeepers, who echo is confusion. "We want to see why the U.S. really came here," says one man who once welcomed the troops. "We will help if we believe you. Please make us believe in you." This is a very unhappy place caught between the past and a very uncertain future." (221)

I am struck by the word "believe" and how behavior convinces one to have faith in something or not. The behavior of the U.S. has been mixed, beginning with the occupation in 2003:

"The flaws of occupation become more and more apparent: the lack of significant international support at the outset, the catastrophic looting that followed the fall of Baghdad, and the commitment of a grossly insufficient number of American troops to provide security, rebuild infrastructure, and fight a widening insurgency." (219-221)

Not much has changed four years later, especially as the "widening insurgency" has increased. Starting off in that muddled way did not help anyone to "believe" in the U.S. What belief that existed before from other times is diminished or lost in the world. It is very sad.

Why Gay Marriage is Un-American!

Why Gay Marriage is Un-American!

(Lifted from An Inch at a Time: Reflections on the Journey with thanks.)

Finally, some explanations that make sense!

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Highly Recommended

Mad Priest cited EPISCOPALOOZA for this video that explains WHAT causes ALL of our problems: "It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)." Downloading videos is still too complicated for me to wrestle with right now, especially because we are leaving town soon for a soccer tournament for 17 year old MJ in San Antonio. So I am directing you to my oldest daughter's website, where she downloaded it: 我不喜歡我的中文TA, and other thoughts.

Jim Wallis: The Right Thing to Do

Jim Wallis: The Right Thing to Do

Imagine a popular program that has existed for 10 years with bipartisan support, providing health insurance to about 6 million low-income children. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is up for reauthorization this year and Congress is debating how to extend the hope of coverage to 9 million children who are currently uninsured, while protecting coverage for the 6.6 million children who depend on SCHIP to see a doctor. But SCHIP is caught in the middle of a political battle—between a bipartisan majority in Congress and the nation’s governors on one hand and an isolated, defiant ideological president on the other.

A Senate bill was approved by the Finance Committee last week by a 17-4 vote, with six Republicans and all 11 Democrats supporting an increase of $35 billion over five years. Several leading conservatives were strong supporters. The New York Times reportedSenator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) as saying, "I am proud to support this important bill, which will provide health insurance coverage to approximately four million more children who would otherwise be uninsured." According to the Los Angeles Times, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of the original authors of the program, said: "It doesn't make me comfortable to advocate for such a large increase in spending. But it's important to note that [the program] has been tremendously successful. And one of the lessons we've learned is that it's going to cost more to cover additional kids." The bill is scheduled to be on the Senate floor next week.

For its part, the House is proposing legislation that would provide an increase of $50 billion, which would cover an estimated 5 million more children. Both versions would be at least partially funded by an increase in the federal tax on tobacco products.

Last weekend at their annual summer meeting, the National Governors Association sent a letter to the president and Congress. While not specifically supporting either bill, the governors said: "While we have not taken a position on the actual overall funding amount or the sources of revenue used as offsets, we are encouraged by the Senate Finance Committee's efforts to move a bipartisan reauthorization bill that provides increased funding ... "

And President Bush? He says he’ll veto either version. "It's a way to encourage people to transfer from the private sector to government health-care plans. ... I think it's wrong, and I think it's a mistake." A White House spokesman added that the president’s advisers "will certainly recommend a veto" of the Senate committee's proposal because of its size and the plan to fund it with a tax increase. The administration's plan for only an additional $5 billion wouldn’t even cover all the children currently insured.

Remember, this is a president who is content with spending $12 billion a month on war, yet finds spending $7-10 billion a year on making sure that kids have health insurance "wrong" and "a mistake." I can’t imagine a more clear case of utterly distorted priorities. Compassionate conservatism has been on life support for the last several years of this administration. President Bush's threatened veto of SCHIP will officially pronounce it dead.

We have been working with the PICO National Network, one of the leading groups organizing for SCHIP, to remind policymakers that children’s health coverage is a moral issue for the faith community. Father John Baumann, executive director of PICO, had this reaction to the president’s threat: "(SCHIP) is a highly successful program that has always had bipartisan support as a pragmatic way to help states reach children who are not poor enough for Medicaid but whose parents cannot obtain coverage for their children at work. SCHIP is a popular and successful program that should not be dragged down into a partisan political fight over health care ideology."

I agree. For far too long, Americans in poverty have been trapped in a partisan debate. Now, a strongly bipartisan program that works is trapped by a president who sees only ideology. Call your senators and members of Congress, and urge them to support the necessary expansion of SCHIP for America’s kids. It’s the right thing to do.

Take Action

Your congressional members need to hear that as a person of faith you believe that no child should go without treatment or depend on an emergency room for care because they lack health coverage. If we are judged by how we treat the least among us, we must make sure that all our children have coverage. Call your members of Congress today at (877) 367-5235, a free number set up by our friends at PICO National Network.

Tell them that people of faith are counting on them to stand up for the millions of uninsured children in the U.S. SCHIP has successfully reduced the uninsured rate for children by one-third over the past decade. Now Congress needs to pass a strong SCHIP bill by a veto-proof majority to provide hope to the millions of children in America who still go to sleep at night without health coverage.

For more information and other ways to take action, please visit www.coverallchildren.org.

***Go to The Quaker Agitator and read more about this at his post Your "pro-life" GOP & their president at work.

HIV and the Heart of God

An excellent book to read about HIV/AIDS is When God's People Have HIV/Aids: An Approach to Ethics by Maria Cimperman, one of my favorite professors at Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, TX. She was also the leader of our small group of OST students who went to Zambia in June 2006--I was fortunate to be one of those students!

HIV And the Heart of God
Around the world, and especially in Africa and Asia, the Body of Christ is HIV+. Thousands are stricken; thousands more are orphaned or widowed because of HIV/AIDS. Outside the Church, many thousands more suffer. The heart of God breaks over such pain. What does it mean to know the heart of God in the midst of the crisis? What are the medical, social, and spiritual questions to ask as we seek to respond? This conference will offer a chance to hear remarkable brothers and sisters in Christ from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East bear witness to the presence of God in the midst of the crisis that is HIV/AIDS. We invite you to join us as we discover together how to more faithfully serve Jesus Christ in a world suffering with HIV/AIDS.


©2003-2007 First Presbyterian Church of Berkeley
2407 Dana Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 U.S.A.
phone: (510) 848-6242 fax: (510) 848-3118 email: info@fpcberkeley.org

Dear Mr. President

By Pink and the Indigo Girls

Did you know that Emily Saliers of the Indigo Girls is the daughter of Rev. Don Saliers, Methodist minister and Professor at Emory University?

A Cruise with Conservatives

Wild and Precious posted an article from the UK that is very interesting--about a journalist who went on a cruise with readers of the National Review. Neocons on a Cruise

Sorry case of Iraqi refugees

Little is said of the thousands who are fleeing sectarian violence or direct threats because the matter reflects badly on U.S. policy.

By Trudy Rubin Inquirer Columnist

When Tamara Daghistani's cell phone rings in Amman, Jordan, the caller is usually another desperate Iraqi refugee.

As we sat together last month, the call was from a woman who had fled Baghdad with her husband and three kids. Her husband was killed during a visit back to Baghdad to bury his mother. Now the woman has no way to support three young children. She sends her boys out to nightclubs at night to beg.

Daghistani spends her time helping less fortunate countrymen. With around 2 million Iraqi refugees crowded into Jordan and Syria, and 30,000 arriving in Syria weekly, this exodus is the biggest Iraqi crisis almost no one discusses. Certainly not President Bush.

The first Iraqi refugees to reach Jordan in 2003 were mostly wealthy supporters of Saddam Hussein. But their numbers have been eclipsed by waves of refugees from Baghdad and other cities.

"Most of them are fleeing sectarian violence and have been directly threatened," says Kristèle Younès of Refugees International, who just returned from Amman and Damascus. "Either they've been told to leave their homes or be killed, or they are Christians told to convert or leave, or they have been threatened because they've worked with Americans." But it's politically inconvenient for the Bush administration to directly confront this problem, because it reflects our failure to stabilize Iraq.

The United States - and the Iraqi government - appear to hope the refugees will return home. This is unlikely for the foreseeable future. More likely: If the United States draws down troops, the Iraqi exodus will turn into a refugee tsunami. But, because Iraq is such a hot-button political issue, there is no international focus on helping the refugees and their host countries cope.

"The two countries caring for the biggest proportion of Iraqi refugees - Syria and Jordan - have still received next to nothing in bilateral help from the world community," the spokesman for the United Nations' refugee agency, Ron Redmond, said last week. So far, most Iraqi refugees have been left to flounder with little or no international aid.

Jordan, a resource-poor country with high unemployment, has closed its borders to most new Iraqi entries. Most Iraqi refugees can't work legally in Jordan, or attend schools, which are already overcrowded, nor can they get health care. Jordan desperately wants to avoid another permanent refugee population, like the huge number of Palestinian refugees it has hosted for decades.

Syria still takes Iraqi refugees. But only 32,000 out of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children there can attend school because there aren't enough classrooms. "A whole generation of Iraqi children is in danger of missing an education," Redmond says.

Middle-class refugee families are running out of funds in Jordan and Syria, with no prospect of working; some women are turning to prostitution. Unless a solution is found for this problem, it could turn into a major security threat. What better recruiting pool for terrorists than angry young Iraqi refugees with no education, no jobs, and no chance to go home?

What's to be done? There are three ways the Iraq refugee crisis could be defused, if the White House would lead.

First, mobilize international aid to help Syria and Jordan cope with the refugees in the medium term, in hopes that Iraq will one day calm down. The goal would not be to integrate Iraqis - neither country could handle the burden - but to help with local health, education and water systems during a prolonged stay.

Second, encourage the Iraqi government to use its oil surplus to help its refugee population. "They could create a temporary ministry for Iraqi expatriates," says Daghistani, "and could be planning for repatriation later. It would be a tremendous boost for Iraqis who feel no one cares."

Third, the United States must plan on absorbing a large number of Iraqi refugees, especially those under threat for working with Americans. We've only admitted a few hundred since 2003, but were supposed let a few thousand in during this fiscal year. The result, so far, is shameful. We let in a whopping 63 refugees in June, according to State Department figures, and one refugee - yes, that's ONE - in May. (Sweden, for heaven's sake, has admitted 18,000 Iraqis since 2006.)

After the Vietnam War, America resettled more than 131,000 Vietnamese. Maybe it won't come to that with Iraqis. But history will judge us extremely harshly if we leave Iraq's refugees to rot.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/trudy_rubin/20070711_Worldview____Sorry_case_of_Iraqi_refugees.html

---

Read her recent work at http://go.philly.com/trudyrubin.

This makes me feel ashamed and sad, just like the video Katherine posted here Other Christians are so Un-Christian At Times, Aren't They?

Gay Couple Show How to Live

I don't often read "Dear Abby," but today's title caught my eye. "Abby" did a great service today by printing and responding to this letter about an elderly mother being cared for by her gay son and his partner. What love, forgiveness, and generosity this couple has shown to this woman. I hope everyone in the USA reads "Dear Abby" today.

MOTHER LEARNS LATE IN LIFE TO ACCEPT GAY SON AS HE IS

DEAR ABBY: My husband and I raised our two sons and two daughters. One son and both daughters married well. Our other son, "Neil," is gay. He and his partner, "Ron," have been together 15 years, but Neil's father and I never wanted to know Ron because we disapproved of their lifestyle.

When I was 74, my husband died, leaving me in ill health and nearly penniless. No longer able to live alone, I asked my married son and two daughters if I could "visit" each of them for four months a year. (I didn't want to burden any one family, and thought living out of a suitcase would be best for everyone.) All three turned me down. Feeling unwanted, I wanted to die.

When Neil and Ron heard what had happened, they invited me to move across country and live with them. They welcomed me into their home, and even removed a wall between two rooms so I'd have a bedroom with a private bath and sitting room -- although we spend most of our time together.

They also include me in many of their plans. Since I moved in with them, I have traveled more than I have my whole life and seen places I only read about in books. They never mention the fact that they are supporting me, or that I ignored them in the past.

When old friends ask how it feels living with my gay son, I tell them I hope they're lucky enough to have one who will take them in one day. Please continue urging your readers to accept their children as they are. My only regret is that I wasted 15 years. -- GRATEFUL MOM

DEAR GRATEFUL MOM: You are indeed fortunate to have such a loving, generous and forgiving son. Sexual orientation is not a measure of anyone's humanity or worth. Thank you for pointing out how important it is that people respect each other for who they are, not for what we would like them to be.

You could have learned that lesson long ago, had you and your husband contacted Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) when you first learned that Neil was gay. Among other things, the organization offers support groups and education for parents who need to learn more about gender issues. (The address is 1726 M St. N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036.)

Fundamentalists' viewpoint

Kirk Anderson http://www.kirktoons.com/

On npr this morning, two political cartoonists were interviewed in "Cartooning Bush and President Next." (And I tried to link it through the title, but somehow it didn't work, so here's the site http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11794366)
There are other samples of political cartoons that are quite good, even better than this one. This one hit me about the problems of humanity from all time--too narrow a view of God and of his "chosen."
It's an interesting article to read (or hear).

Undercutting Democracy

By Trudy Rubin

Inquirer Columnist

A recent trip to the Middle East provides a sobering reminder of the uniqueness of our democracy - and the folly of thinking we can impose our system on far-off lands.

During a June visit to Iraq, well-educated Iraqis told me they yearned for another dictator, though not a psychopath such as Saddam Hussein.

"We want someone really firm who would implement laws," one young Iraqi journalist named Mohammed said, echoing many comments I heard. Who could blame him for preferring an autocrat to a so-called democracy that can't protect its citizens or provide for their welfare?

Mohammed's plaint should make us appreciate the limits on exporting our model, and reexamine our own democracy at home.

On July Fourth, Americans should ponder the historical uniqueness of the Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence draws not only on Christian beliefs in the rights endowed by the creator, and on Greek concepts of self-government. Our luckiest break: The Founders were steeped in the British concept of rule of law that had evolved over centuries - the idea that leaders must be subject to the same laws as citizens.

Many of the Founders were lawyers. To them, the idea of rule of law was essential; it served as a rallying cry in the struggle for independence. They also were exceptional leaders and, despite their differences, mostly agreed on the core principles of a new system.

Most Americans take this British heritage for granted and don't fully appreciate its value. Think of South America, where a strict patriarchal tradition undercuts democracy to this day. Or Russia, where leaders adhere to "rule by law," meaning laws are used as clubs by those in power.

In much of the world - including the Middle East - rule of law is a term with little meaning. In Iraq, which lived 40 years under a brutal dictator, a new constitution offers little to people beset by criminal gangs, militias and religious fanatics.

Iraq also is the victim of false analogies about the ease of exporting democracy. President Bush compared Iraq to postwar Japan and Germany - wealthy nations, completely defeated in battle, whose new leaders and publics were ready for a change. The president also compared Iraq, wrongly, to central Europe; this region quickly rebounded from communist dictatorships because it had a history of democracy and links to the West.

The most ludicrous comparison, by former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, compared Iraq to post-liberation France. Wolfowitz believed Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi could establish an Iraqi democracy as Charles de Gaulle did after World War II.

But the abolition of Iraq's main national institutions - its army, the Baath party, its state factories - left the country without a cohesive framework. Ordinary people fell back on the only available social networks: the mosque, new sectarian political parties and religious militias. Elections only solidified the divide, since people voted for sectarian parties. The educated middle class is fleeing abroad.

None of this says Iraqis don't deserve better than Hussein or the current chaos. Nor should it prevent U.S. aid to genuine Arab democrats, an endangered species badly undercut by our mistakes in Iraq.

But the Iraq tragedy should pierce the hubris of those who think the U.S. system can be easily imposed on another country. July Fourth is the right moment to reflect on what makes our own system work.

Just as the Bush team misjudged our ability to export our system, it has been cavalier toward rule of law at home. Guantánamo; Abu Ghraib; domestic spying without court order; White House efforts to expand executive power and install a radical, activist Supreme Court - all chip away at our system's core values. The White House seems bent on undercutting the checks and balances devised by the Founders.

The Islamist terrorist threat - which may continue for years - should not push Americans to abandon the values that set them apart from the non-rule-of-law world. If changes are to be made in our system, they should be made not in secrecy, but as part of an open national debate.

Our failures in Iraq have undercut the appeal of democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Our failure to adhere to our founders' values undercuts our own system. It does a disservice to the unique leaders whose legacy we honor today.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/trudy_rubin/20070704_Worldview___Exporting_U_S__democracy.html