Somewhere in the course of writing Canada's history in the 20th century the story changed from "warrior nation" to "peace-keeper". Today as we re-dedicate our great memorial at Vimy in honour of 66,000 who died in the First World War, we also mourn 6 soldiers who died on Easter Sunday in Afghanistan.

Ask an old soldier what he thinks of war and you will get the truth. The horror, the filth, the despair and the simple things that affirm humanity amidst the depths of man's lowest ebb. The soldier will also tell you about honour, duty, mission and the act of being a servant to the civics of justice. Although we have reached a cynical watershed as a society, with our distrust of spin and manufactured fear, there are still reasons for engagement in the desolate heat of an opium infused land.

In the twisted shards of a LAV III our greatest sons and daughters, our hopes, our dedicated and dedications, our vulnerability to those who would hate us, our strength of character, our commitment to a world -- that even in this place -- there is the possibility for a reasonable society. With our guns, our youth, our money, our diplomats, our building of roads and schools, our belief in defending the defenseless, our desire to protect children and advocate for women, we must continue to believe in keeping the peace.

For the 66,000. For the six.

At 9:40 PM, the prairie sun begins to fall behind a curtain of rock that's 50 miles away. We watch from a grassy bluff amidst the wild roses, the city to our north and our future all around. A weathered old land forever new, fresh and alive. We celebrate all of what we are; east to west. Happy Canada Day 2006.

We're back in Calgary and off the foggy roads. Well, at least until the furniture arrives... Next month.

And let me just say that while I love Chicago, the State of Illinois Department of Highway Robbery is quite another matter. The rebuilding of I94/80? Oh yeah that's going really well. And thanks for making it even harder for out-of-state folks to pay for your tollways. Beauty. Illinois is managed kinda' like Canada. One party, for far too long.

Which leads me to my opener of the new blogging year; the Great Canadian Election of Winter 2006. People are starting to stir to the fact that they may elect a Conservative government but I'm going to doubt right here that it will be a majority. I am indeed filled with wonder and respect yet again for the people of Quebec. Not only have they moved the Conservatives from 8% to 20% in the Quebec polls; but also, they are definitely on to something in the likes of Gilles Duceppe.

Duceppe, destroyed the last vestige of Paul Minister Prime Martin's credibility over 2 nights of debate earlier this week. Duceppe is no master of the English language but, like Chretien, he is much better than he lets on. Drawing Martin into recognizing the "Nation" of Quebec on Monday was a great moment in Canadian politic debate. For me, the best I've heard since Mulroney's famous "You had a choice, Sir!" outburst in the '80's.

Harper's, 'aw shucks, I'm not a charismatic spin-doctor' routine was just what the spin doctor ordered. Now the race is his to lose.

Liberals had it all with Jean Chretien. They had the House, the Senate, the Privy Council. They built on the legacy of their enemy Mulroney - who began the process of great national transformation - and they let the economy throb to life. They had the trust of a majority of Canadians and they were embued with a heritage of entitlement that was firmly rooted in the legacy of the Trudeau and Pearson years.

Over the past 3 years -- for no good reason -- the Party has rusted and wrenched itself apart. We are witnessing no less than all out civil war in this election as Liberals fight Liberals for the crumbs of the legacy.

Into the breach steps an untested Conservative party. An amalgam of reformers, populists and progressives. The next stage of national greatness will once again be initiated by a Conservative government. Will Harper be a Mulroney or a Clark? A Macdonald or a Meighen? Will we define ourselves by the visions of a leader or the narrowness of a man?

Listening to the first English language Canadian election debate (listening, not watching -- I'm sick of the media focus on whether so-and-so blinked at the right time) I must say as an informed voter that I am insulted and appalled by the format that the party leaders have been compelled to follow.

There is no interaction, very little emotion and practically no depth. At one point, a question from a low income individual in Ontario about the GST was discussed with the earnestness of a bunch of first year political science students. Nobody -- not one of the leaders -- would honestly address the question and point out that low income citizens receive GST rebate checks on a regular basis. Low income Canadians get their GST money back! Why was this question even allowed in the rotation?

The format for follow-up comments -- steered by the moderator -- does not provide enough time for a reasonable answer. Eager sound engineers turned off the politicians' microphones mid-sentence thus making a mockery of their statements. It's completely disrespectful. The future of democracy? Hurry up! National unity? Beat the clock. Health care and social programs? There's no time! No time!

This format is dreadful and does no one any good. While voters have many reasons to be disrespectful of Federal politicians, this so-called debate format does a tremendous disservice to each of the party leaders.

(Follow-up: Gilles Duceppe -- the separatist -- called Canada a great nation at least twice; you've gotta' love the civility of our perennial national unity angst.)

I'm back from my self-administered cone of silence. And look what's happened while I was away; another Election!

You will notice that this site has removed it's articles from the last campaign. This time around I think I'll just point to other sites that will give a prospective voter some good background. My initial hunch is that the campaign will be very low key until the week after the New Year. A smart strategist may introduce some key discussion points for family and party conversation in mid-December, but I wouldn't expect the real scrapping to begin until after the Holidays. There is a possibility that the Liberals will have to go very negative in this campaign in order to hang on to what they have.

Best candidate-on-the-go site that I have seen to this point is Garth Turner's The Turner Report. It's fact filled, the comments look real and the response is pragmatic. Garth is a savvy journalist and a former cabinet minister. Experience and frankness in the quantities he delivers bode well for the team that could be forming the next government.

Today, a brief story about Dr. Francis Scrimger, a Victoria Cross recipient. Dr. Scrimger was also a personal friend of John McCrae, the writer of In Flanders Fields:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders Fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.

I'm not going to be in town too much longer but I still get the local newspaper. Today, on the front page no less, the local paper alleges a political cover-up at City Hall.

I don't know whether there is anything to their story but I do know that the local paper is not interested in sharing it with the world at large. That's because they have read the tea leaves and believe in walls going up around their data.

Many newspapers are doing it. Threatened by new distribution methods and alternate news sources they have decided that it is better to be off-line and invisible to search engines than front and center in the changing media space. Freedom of information is something they deserve; not something they practice. I know they run a business and I know they have a payroll. Their business is threatened by new actors and they have chosen to ignore the threat.

I would love to show you the main page on their web site but I'm not going to link to it. The page is covered -- literally crawling -- with advertising. You have to look hard for links to news. When you do find a link it's obfuscated by the inevitable "for subscribers only" sign-in page.

If I was an advertiser I would ask why they didn't boost CPM by opening their news pages. I would ask why the "pass on" factor (the number of people who read a newspaper greatly out-number the number of actual copies sold) does not work for the web. I would wonder why they are limiting ad and news copy only to people who already know that the copy exists on their web site (ie: search cannot look up anything on this site). With that in mind I might look for a portal or perhaps a TV or radio station's web site to advertise on, provided they could answer those questions.

When any media outlet tries to wall itself behind hide-bound concepts of information delivery that worked in the 1950's it's time to cut the ties. It's even more inconceivable to me that they would intentionally limit viewing of news that could be supported by advertising on-line.

The CBC lock-out in Canada has made news in many places, largely because of the response of some of the locked-out employees. Faced with an inability to get "on mic" some are now podcasting.

Radio master Tod Maffin has been covering the lock-out in detail and has publicized many of the efforts of the un-CBC podcasts.

In the midst of a major labour upset, triggered by management action, I see a certain irony in the actions of the "rebel" podcasts.

What is this lock-out about? Contract vs. full-time? Staffing levels? Flexibility to designate resources? Response to technology change? Costs in general?

5,500 people are out on the street because the future will not be like the past. Many of the locked-out workers must surely know that. When a crew of a few can post up a podcast, they are pointing to the on-demand future. They are high-lighting the profound delivery adjustments and resource allocation issues that make this event meaningful. In bootstrapping their own broadcasts and distributing them in the form of podcasts, they are fearlessly experimenting with petards at their own breakfast table.

When management and the union finally meet to resolve this dispute will the "solution" be based on a typical 2 or 3 year formula or will there be an opportunity to embrace the future? Imagine a broadcast network scaled back to staffing levels used by private broadcasters, with hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of CBC workers being redeployed to on-demand technologies, new media and local coverage of events. Imagine a public broadcaster responding to technological change by embracing it; imagine the employees having fun again. Imagine a CBC de-centralized and so much a part of the Canadian fabric again that public funding becomes a non-issue.

If the CBC were to integrate its broadcast strategy with an on-line strategy of unlimited download for made-in-Canada video and audio; we would be innovating a creative industry that would be years ahead of others. Imagine a CBC where data centers and servers were just as important as transmitters and towers. Imagine the CBC viewed again as a public service with offerings so diverse it would shatter the watered-down delivery of the thread-bare Country Canada and Newsworld. Imagine a national network involved in developing better, faster delivery mechanisms and think of the sweetness of using broadcast to promote and announce multiple offerings on-line.

Think of the competition it would spawn.

Imagine the CBC drawing so many eyes and ears that advertisers clamoured for exposure. Imagine a network flush with cash and think of profits re-invested in more creative industries throughout the country. Maybe Canadian TV and film wouldn't be a joke anymore. Maybe we could blow up the whole "Hollywood North" apparatchik and make really good stuff. Maybe the phrase "Canadian content" wouldn't spawn bursts of derisive, cynical, quota inspired laughter.

When the time comes, I hope that management and the union see a future full of incredible growth and dynamic possibilities. Or will they only think about what they have and how they'll keep it?