Bodhi

Why do you think that we don't have the same/similar needs/desires?

So if i understand you correctly: Harper's work in the UN climate change conference in Bali (Dec 2007) is beneficial to the fight against pollution and climate change because it prodded China to commit to tangible progress?Is that right?

Thanks for your reply S.M Can you elaborate on that please.

What we need? I would argue we need self leadership. Being masters of our own capacities and potentialities. There is far too much waste. But that deviates a little from the scope of the discussion. People want different things from politicians. Some people want the politicians to play the role of Godfathers. Others want them to establish institutions. Others want them to beef up the institutions, while others want them to safeguard the current quality of the system. Personally, I want our Politicians to inspire us to and evoke radical innovation which takes us to the next step in our societal evolution. It only makes sense, as we already have solid institutions and a stable society. What we need i would argue is to innovate with the challenges of today AND tomorrow. Particularly, a more globalized but still very fragmented world, climate change, etc. I very strongly believe that Canada is in a pristine position to play a pivotal role in these challenges. As for the electioneering of the word leadership. Its plainly a populist attempt and evoking peoples basic instinct of red-meat-eating protection. I have seen some subtle semblances of real leadership in the campaign, but not enough to inspire a critical mass.

One of the greatest accomplishment of Americans was overthrowing the rule of the Monarchy over their land and people. The impetus of this rebellious and independent streak still reverberates today. Of course, the founding fathers and the inclusive American constitution that followed played a great role into tapping peoples potentialities and innovation. The system in the U.S is very resilient as a result. France is on its fifth republic while the single American constitution has been amended only 2 or so dozen times.I still fail to see how putting emphasis on a person/office (in this case the queen) can play an inclusive role. Perhaps that could be at the heart of whats missing our reconciliations as peoples united among a common purpose.

What about the incumbent? Anything your research produced?

Leadership is more about guiding, inspiring, evoking change. Maybe you're referring to Management which is a completely different ballgame. A leadership deficit we have. Managers, we have a lot.

A few NGO's and activists in the U.S are actively seeking out the homeless and encouraging them to vote. For place of residence/mailing address, they found that using the shelters' addresses is sufficient. Canadians can follow suit.

From the article: Which appears to be a sober assessment. Victory cannot and should not be gauged by a complete cessation of violence. It is realistic, however, to envisage a managed level of insurgency, a stronger Afghani army and a more substantial level of infrastructure.Working backwards we can conclude that the emphasis of NATO's effort should be investing in Afghani institutions and positive deviants and elements in its society. This does not preclude a withdrawal of troops, rather, a reorientation of methods.

Source? I was not under the impression Obama is vying to create a universal healthcare system as part of his platform. You do mean universal health care, correct?

Thank you A91.

How would Canada go about removing the moving the queen as its head? (practically speaking)