The United States has historically embraced the dichotomy of being both officially secular and culturally religious. But there has never been a period when religion was not a vibrant element of the politico-social milieu.

It has never been an easy fit, and the dissonance has become increasingly strident over the past generation.

The instant history lesson is that religious dissenters of one stripe or another — but uncomfortable with Church of England stringencies — founded many original colonies.

Thus you had Pilgrims/Puritans in Massachusetts; Quakers in Pennsylvania; Catholics in Maryland; and dissenters fleeing from Massachusetts religious rule in Rhode Island. Fleeing from British intolerance, however, did not make American colonists more religiously tolerant. Indeed, some colonies had “established” churches. For example, the Congregational Church was established by the Puritans in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. And the colonies were hard on Catholics and Jews

“Useless as tits on a boar hog.” — Southern slang

And some Canadians certainly so identify their Senate.

But, to offer another folk expression, “Give a dog a bad name and you have a bad dog.”

Because the Senate Canada could have is not the Senate that it does have.

Indeed, in political science/government terms, the Senate is virtually equal in power to the House. Other than money bills (restricted to the House), the Senate can offer legislation on any subject, and its concurrence is required for bills passed by the House. Much like the observation originally accorded the U.S. Senate, Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, described it as a body of "sober second thought" that would curb "democratic excesses." And, again akin to the U.S. Senate, it provides “regional” rather than “rep by pop” political presence in Parliament.

Indeed, the Senate’s “sober second thought” is not a 19th century throw-away characterization. The Senate has provided serious studies on

Recent news reports about three members of the Senate appear to have diverted Canadians from more important issues about the institution. What is its purpose? Is it relevant to a modern democracy? Should it be abolished?

Quite correctly in a parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons reflects Canada’s majority will on a representation by population basis. In practice, few MPs today provide effective regional voices — at least in House votes — because since about 1900 all MPs usually vote in uniform party blocs under one of the tightest party disciplines imposed in any democratically-elected assembly in the world.

This political culture and the fact that Ontario and Quebec still hold almost two-thirds of our national population are the main reasons why Canada needs an elected second chamber. Virtually all other federal democracies entrench legislative protection for smaller provinces in an upper house. For most of our history, the House of Commons has been dominated both

New Democratic Party leader Thomas Mulcair speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons.

It is a basic rule of politics, circa Political Science 101, that the “outs” get in and the “ins” (except in Alberta) are ousted. Or, to put it another way, any political leader with historical perspective knows that the day of victory is the first day on the track to eventual defeat. And conversely, any defeated leader knows that the day of defeat is the first day of the march to eventual victory.

So for the political observer, the rule of thumb is that “the time to get to know the government is before it becomes the government.” And this is the approach the U.S. embassy took in 1992 when Brian Mulroney's Conservatives were roadkill awaiting the electoral sweeper. We met the full range of the Liberal political hierarchy, not knowing which portfolios they would secure, but getting a sense of where they were “coming from” so we could make some estimate regarding where they would go when in power. Likewise, during the long Chretien-Martin/Liberal dominance, we checked the

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair speaks to the media outside the New Democratic Party caucus strategy session on Parliament Hill.

In politics, money can often buy attention, support and organization. In 2011, the Conservatives received $22.7 million in contributions from about 100,000 donors — far beyond the amounts received by all other political parties. A similar disparity in donations could win the 2015 election for the Tories, too.

In 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper attempted unsuccessfully to end the annual federal subsidy for political parties, claiming it would save taxpayers’ money and end continuous campaigning by then cash-rich parties. By 2015, the subsidy will be completely eliminated and the other parties will be feeling the pinch of dried-up tax dollars. The Conservatives, however, might well be flush with cash in that election year.

Harper’s Conservatives will no doubt use donations raised before the election is called to continue what they have done successfully in recent years: spending money to sell their message and build their brand. In the past, this began with media attack

CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier sailed into the port of Victoria after a four month deployment in the Arctic.

Canada’s military seeks to be future-oriented, adapting to advancing technologies, changing political dynamics and global economic shifts. Predictions about its future are currently difficult, partly because the March 29 federal budget is expected to cut $2.5 billion from defence spending.

Prime Minister Harper confirmed last May that Canada’s military role in Afghanistan will end once the current training mission concludes in March 2014. Our country will contribute $110 million per year over three years (2015-2017) to help sustain the Afghanistan National Security Forces.

Problems with the planned purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft have worsened with the latest controversy over its capacity for in-flight refueling. Confirmation of the multi-billion dollar purchase is still months away, but the new issue is particularly sensitive due to the earlier serious cost underestimates. Overall, buying the F-35 fighter appears to enjoy little support among Canadians.

In

The skyrocketing cost of the F-35 fighter jet program forced the Tories to "hit the reset button" on a planned purchase of the planes.

The Canadian Forces (CF) face an existential question.

It is not the quality of its individual members; they are thoroughly trained and individually highly professional, well-led soldiers, sailors and aviators.

It is not the quality of its equipment, despite substantial concerns over “rusted out” naval vessels, questionable submarines, and delays into the never/never decisions for next-generation aircraft.

Rather, the question is the mission the CF will pursue into the out years of the first half of the 21st century.

And mission equals money; money equals mission.

The CF mission statement is threefold: defend Canada; contribute to the defense of North America; and contribute to international security.

So the question is one for domestic politics. How much are Canadians willing to spend (and what casualties are they willing to accept) in pursuit of these objectives?

Unfortunately, Canadian political parties remain deeply divided regarding national security objectives. In contrast to

Smoking chimneys and cooling tower of a coal-burning power plant are seen on a hazy day in Wuhan, China.

Facing serious world economic problems as the year begins, Canadians can take comfort in a recent Angus Reid opinion survey conducted in Canada, the U.S. and Britain. It found that three in five Canadians rate the current economic conditions in our country as “very good” or “good,” compared to only 23 per cent of respondents in the U.S. and 11 per cent in Britain. Unemployment among household members, however, remains many Canadians’ weightiest concern. Our related problems include record household debt, continuing weak demand for exports from the U.S., and an uncertain housing market.

Most European countries expect little or no economic growth this year. Whether the Canada-European Union free trade negotiations, now in their third round, can produce an agreement that benefits economies on both sides of the Atlantic remains to be demonstrated to Canadians.

In America, Congress has approved a compromise, which should ultimately avoid more than $600-billion (U.S.) in tax