expat voter

Anything Canada annexes, Canada must be prepared to defend militarily. This principle, very literally, goes with the territory. So maybe annexation of these islands could serve as an excuse to build up the Canadian military, at the expense of social programs. This would fit in with the Harper agenda. It's been a long time since the Royal Canadian Navy has had aircraft carriers! Oh, to be a country with an aircraft carrier again! What a boost in self-esteem!

In comparison, the new western conference currently has 6 of its 8 teams in the bottom half of the league, an illustration of why using winning percentage from inter-conference games makes sense for the final 2 playoff round seedings.

...after the break up of Canada and the USA. Maybe we are transitioning out of the era of nation states. Corporations already have. The over-arching bio-region of course is planetary. I just hope the regions will remain able to support the bios.

I agree that it would be tough to hammer out and get wide agreement upon an alternative justification for exercising authority in the territory now called Canada. "The authority vested in the Crown" - what is the source of that authority? The Medieval European idea of the Divine Right of monarchs to rule on earth? How did the original monarchs come to be? By military prowess and political acumen, by being able to secure and hold power? This is the origin of the authority to rule over the "dominion" of Canada. Some adventurers came over and planted a stick with a piece of fabric on the shore of the continent in the name of these monarchs. Trappers eager for beaver and bible thumpers followed. European technology and alcohol helped subjugate the original population. Skirmishes and negotiations occurred with those other European settlers who rejected monarchy and argued that the right to rule came from the people, at least the wealthy white male ones. Borders were more or less set and new influxes of people were selectively allowed in to labor on and populate the land. But more and more authority was slowly transferred to those who lived in the colony. In 1982 the Constitution was 'patriated,' a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does not refer to any Divine Rights, was adopted, and Canadians agreed on how to amend the Constitution without the monarch exercising any real power over the process. Symbolic power perhaps, but no real power. Historically the monarchy was at the "core" of Canada's constitution, but it's arguable to say that it remains so. We've come a long way since Runnymede, and are pretty much a republic in practice, with the GG and the monarchy called on to decide on affairs only in extraordinary circumstances. Had Michaelle Jean said no to Harper's prorogation, and had Harper then gone to QE2, the only right thing for Liz to say would have been "You live with what your GG decided." But there is less mobility up and down social classes if we accept a hereditary elite.

Ok, how do we report spam on this board? That new conference should help Florida ticket sales. Going by current overall rank according to win percentages, the Central Division would be a pretty tough neighborhood too: 2/3-Chicago & Minnesota, 6-Detroit, 7-St Louis, 11-Dallas, 13-Nashville = 6 teams in the top half of the league.

Don't know what to reply to the above, other than: This is getting close to the core of the matter.

No, not "equal." Not even close to "equivalent." The systems are different. Canada's head of state is not the head of its executive, 2 roles that the US president fulfills.

For now, the monarchy functions adequately as a symbol of state, as explained in the opening post. It's not bad to maintain some traditions and customs, for stability's sake. At least until Canadians agree upon something better - and I wish we could. But let's be sure to keep the monarchy at the level of a symbol. The layer of upper crust elitist privilege that you see in the UK is not what most Canadians want. It's illegal in the UK to talk about abolishing the monarchy - the mere idea of such a prohibition in Canada would cause revolt. Harper's love-in with all things "Royal" is childish, and not very true to his populist Reform roots. Demagogic-yes, populist-no.

I am. First, just for the novelty. More importantly, there will be some great rivalries built up, with more directly at stake in conference games. One suggestion to the Board of Governors: In order to give out-of-conference games more meaning and an extra edge, base the final 2 rounds of playoff seeding on winning percentage from inter-conference games. (Rather than total standing points, which will be skewed by play within the conferences.) Now if only concussions would cease...

This is about the new NHL conferences. Are you looking forward to the new format?

By allowing a few large telecom companies to charge high Internet fees, the Conservatives hurt innovation and small/medium size businesses. This is bad for the economy. The Conservatives should know better. http://openmedia.ca/community Big phone and cable companies charge Canadians some of the highest fees in the industrialized world. OpenMedia.ca opposes control of the Internet by non-citizens, be it by governments through surveillance or by big telecom through restricting access to online services. The Conservative government has not yet committed to an open, affordable and citizen-centered Internet- it's OpenMedia.ca 's job to make sure they do.

Save your money and the greenhouse gases, you can lobby for a yes vote by being close-minded from home.

I tried to erase that before it got quoted but you beat me to it. It was being very tongue-in-cheek. (ps Thanks, Smallc. Very civil of you.)

How to get the influence of money out of democratic politics? Who speaks for those with less monetary income? Canada is moving towards becoming a plutocracy, if not one already.

Including the Clarity Act.