Today, July 1, marks Canada Day. "America's hat," as some have referred to the lovely North American behemoth, celebrates its 142nd birthday.

In honor of this special occasion, Ipsos Reid conducted a poll on behalf of the Dominion Institute to see just how many Canadians recognize their important political and historical figures.

Turns out not too many.

I'm imagining this playing out like Jaywalking, former late-night (now prime-time) host Jay Leno's signature segment where he interviews passers-by about basic facts that they get horribly wrong. While only four out of every 10 Canadians knew who their first prime minister was from a picture, nine out of 10 could pick out 90s pop sensation Celine Dion and eight out of 10 recognized hockey star Wayne Gretsky (the only two people I could identify as Canadian off the top of my head).

Granted, some of the "top 10 Canadians" included the man named the Father of Medicare and 2004's Canadian of the Year, as well as the guy who won the Nobel Prize for discovering insulin. I wouldn't be able to recognize the faces of the American equivalents of those historical figures either.

But not first Prime Minister Sir John McDonald -- whose face is on the $10 bill -- and your current ceremonial leader, Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean (whom only 50% recognized)? That's a little sad. I would seriously hope that most Americans could pick out George Washington and Barack Obama from 10 photos. But then again, the Jaywalkers could (and often do) prove me wrong.

All joking aside, Canadian leaders seemed a bit dismayed by the results.

Some Canadians attribute these less-than-stellar polling results on the country's lack of storytelling, crediting the United States for having a great deal of national pride that has not immigrated north.

Perhaps for its 143rd birthday, Canada's goal should be to tout more of its history so its citizens can learn the stories behind the figures they celebrate on Canada Day.

Photo: Residents of Kimmirut, Nunavut, join crowds as they take part in Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada on Wednesday July 1, 2009. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Sean Kilpatrick)

Oh, man up.

Pageant officials should just have yanked the Miss California USA crown away from Carrie Jean Prejean.

Now they've been bigfooted by pageant owner Donald Trump, who ruled today that Prejean can keep her crown after all, in spite of semi-topless photos that he said he didn't have a problem with [no surprise], and her ''very, very honest answer'' to the ''very tough'' question of same-sex marriage. [She's against it.]

California pageant officials had earlier bowed to The Donald, even though, as they said, Prejean evidently breached her contract by not being available to deliver the Miss California USA message to the world, whatever it is.

What she had been preaching instead was her opposition to gay marriage, and preaching it to her new choir of fans, supposedly including Sarah Palin, and like-minded people who, according to a California pageant official, insulated Prejean with ''handlers and advisers.'' Now everyone's supposedly kissed and made up. Today's announcement by Trump also means that if Prejean wants to speak out on same-sex marriage, as opposed to, as she quaintly put it, ''opposite marriage,'' she has to go through pageant officials.

[I've been thinking that the Miss America pageant reps must be livid. By now most people must wrongly believe this Miss California is part of the Miss America pageant -- which prides itself as a scholarship program -- rather than what she is, a state title-holder within Miss USA, which is a beauty pageant owned by Trump. Surely a Miss California candidate for Miss America would be smart enough never, ever to open her pretty yap enough to say what she thinks about gay marriage. I believe one Miss America, decades ago, was asked which of the presidential candidates was better looking -- Richard Nixon or John F. Kennedy. She demurely demurred.]

Prejean gets to keep her crown and title. As a consolation to the runner-up who would have inherited the bling and the bragging rights, California officials gave the backup beauty queen the portfolio of ''Beauty of California Ambassador.'' Lousy title. Put it on a pageant ribbon and it'd be too big even to swag across Dolly Parton's chest. 

Just give her the backup crown -- there must be one, like a backup Air Force One -- and her own title: Near-Miss California.

Credit: Timothy A. Clary / AFP / Getty Images

The Minnesota court ruling awarding a disputed U.S. Senate seat to Democrat  Al Franken is eliciting predictable reactions along party lines. Like his self-affirming "Saturday Night Live" character Stuart Smalley, Franken is good enough and smart enough to serve in the Senate (even though Republicans don't like him). "Good enough" is also a fair description of his victory, which is still being contested by former Sen. Norm Coleman.

Franken's victory -- like George W. Bush's in Florida in 2000  -- suggests another "enough" cliche: "Close enough for government work." Which is another way of saying that in such a close race whether Franken beat Coleman is ultimately unknowable. This is a useful reminder of a larger point: that legitimacy in democratic politics is a slippery and subjective idea.

Minnesota Republicans may think it unjust that they will be represented by Franken because of a misinterpretation of a few absentee ballots. But other Minnesotans may consider Franken illegitimate for another reason: that he won only a plurality of the vote because of the presence in his race of a third-party candidate, former Sen. Dean Barkley. So a truly democratic election would have provided for a runoff? Not so fast. Jesse Jackson argued (admittedly a generation ago and in the context of primaries) that runoff elections were quasi-racist, at least in the South, where he feared a black candidate who finished first in the original election would be edged out by a white candifdate when the field was winnowed to two.

In defense of Jackson, his position on runoffs isn't different in kind from notions we accept uncritically -- such as that Congress should be composed of seats won by the candidate who got a majority (or a plurality) of the vote. Winner-take-all is American as apple pie (it's called "first past the post" in Britain), but it's less democratic than the various forms of proportional representation used in some European countries and in Israel.

If the U.S. followed the Israeli system, in which even small parties are represented in the Knesset in proportion to the votes they receive, we'd have a more representative Congress -- and a more dysfunctional one, with Democrats and Republicans sharing space with Libertarians, Afrocentrists, Aryan Nationers, creationists, a few Marxists, maybe even a PETA representative or two.

Al Franken's supporters, like George Bush's in 2000, are loath to argue that some things are more important than democracy. But that's the best argument for sending Franken to Washington even if only God knows if he edged Coleman. The consolation for Coleman voters is that, even if their man "really" won, this wouldn't be the first time that democracy was trumped by other imperatives. Like stable government, two-party rule and giving Minnesota a second senator.

Credit: Jeffrey Thompson / Getty Images

In Wednesday's letters, Nancy Watkins of Lake Forest joins the chorus of animal lovers disappointed by the First Family's decision to adopt Bo, a purebred Portuguese water dog, instead of a shelter mutt.  She writes:

The Obamas have taken "limousine liberal" to a new level. They promised their daughters a puppy if they moved to the White House and, while they discussed rescuing a mutt, they in fact received a purebred Portuguese water dog from the Kennedy family, pledging instead to make a financial donation to the D.C. Humane Society.

The dog is absolutely adorable and has received worldwide media coverage, which will probably drive up demand for the breed exponentially.

What the Obamas have done is create a boon for breeders, while millions of equally adorable and sweet dogs suffer in shelters. They are role models for parents who recklessly promise pets to their children, creating even more shelter dogs. Shame on them.

In the meantime, others are already e-mailing in their frustration with the Bo backlash.  Bonnie Sloane, of Los Angeles, remarks this morning:

Regarding the kerfuffle over the Obama's family's choice of dog:  What a ridiculous waste of media attention.     

Adopting a dog is a family decision, not a fulfillment of a campaign pledge.   It's fine if the First Family chooses a rescue dog,  but these animals can have serious behavioral or health problems that not everyone is equipped to handle.   I assume the Obamas know their own pet needs better than we do.

I also recall that when our last three Republican Presidents -- Reagan, Bush I and Bush II -- chose purebred dogs, not a single protest was heard from the animal rights community.   Interesting.

Today's page also features three letters about Rosa Brooks' departure from the Opinion pages.  Most, but not all, of the correspondence we received was of the "good riddance" variety, including this note from James B. Davis of Beverly Hills:

I was overcome with tears of joy after reading the first sentence of Rosa Brooks' article last week: "This will be my last column for the L.A. Times." After suffering through her sanctimonious rants for years -- in particular her inability to write a single column without bashing former President George W. Bush -- I felt a great weight rise from my shoulders.

But then I read her second sentence: "After four years, I'll soon be starting a stint at the Pentagon as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy."

The Times will be better; the Pentagon will be worse. I guess we can't have it all.

Correspondence about HUD's dollar house programand Gil Cedillo's over-the-top spending habits, too.

Photo: Bo the dog meets the White House press corps.  Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

A Treasurer the world can trust? (Warner Bros Pictures handout)

The dollar is not going to be giving up the ghost as the world’s currency any time soon. Too many billions of them are ferreted away in boxes in gardens and into mattress ticking and under armed guard around the globe: President Grant’s face on a $50, Andrew Jackson’s on a $20, even the un-president Ben Franklin on the $100.

Maybe there are still a few out-of-print $500 McKinleys moldering behind some wallboard somewhere.

But if the day comes that we do convert to a new global currency, here is how we bypass all the rancor and nationalism and factionalism. We embrace a currency that already exists, one that is recognizable and beloved around the world, one that is devoid of political content: Harry Potter’s. The money of magic. Golden Galleons, silver Sickles and bronze Knuts.

Of course the world can’t operate on an actual gold standard like Potter’s magical banking world; the currency, like currency now, would represent values, not hold them. But hundreds of millions of children have grown up reading the books and knowing these currencies, so it would be easy to adopt.

(One fansite puts the value of a Galleon at nearly $10, and a knut at about two cents America. There are, not surprisingly, several websites to convert Potter money into many of the world’s currencies. Here's one. )

Harry Potter’s world also trades in Leprechaun gold, counterfeits which look and feel like the real thing, except they vanish shortly after they change hands. If only we required any potentially flighty financial dealings to use Leprechaun gold until it’s proven to be worth the real thing, we might have been able to tell bad money from good, avoided the Madoffs and AIGs of this world, and wouldn’t be in the pickle we’re in now. At this point, the goblins of Gringotts bank look a lot more trustworthy than the gnomes of Zurich.

In today's opinion pages, the editorial board calls on Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) to stay on the road toward dialogue with Iran, perhaps with an assist from Russia; and to play ball with the nations of the world, misguided as they may be, as they take up a draft document at the "Durban II" conference in Geneva.

To be sure, the draft document reportedly contains provisions that no freedom- or peace-loving nation could possibly support. Not only does it make outrageous allegations about Israeli "apartheid," but it seeks to equate "defamation of religions" with human rights abuses. This is a reprehensible attempt by Muslim nations to restrict speech in the free world by condemning depictions of Muhammad or any other expression they find offensive.

The point, the board says, is that the U.S. could be more constructive by showing up. sticking to its principles and shaping the final consensus document.

The board also gives Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. a, uh, high five for vowing not to raid medical marijuana dispensaries, but notes that this falls short of resolving the relationship between the federal drug laws and California's legalization of the use of medical marijuana.

On the Op-Ed page, Barbie turns 50. Novelist Amy Goldman Koss reflects on her childhood version of the doll, with its short hair and missing foot.

Columnist Gregory Rodriguez examines the link between recession (joblessness) and social networking(job offers). And, come to think of it, the clear relationship between layoffs and LinkedIn.And screenwriter Toni Ann Johnson continues the "Postcards from the Recession" series. Today's postcard is from Morningside Circle in South Los Angeles.

Folks here have always known how to get by in tough times. They grow fruit trees and vegetable gardens, clip coupons, re-sole shoes and repair clothing. They save on gasoline at Costco and find bargains at the dollar store. Most will live through the recession the way they've been living -- within their means.

Johnson's postcard follows up Sunday's by Susan Straight from the Inland Empire. Tomorrow: Silver Lake.

Photo: Timothy A. Clary / AFP / Getty Images

As though girls haven't drawn tattoo-like designs on their Barbies for years--in fact, one is famously decorated toward the end of Toy Story 2--parents are upset about a new version of the wasp-waisted doll that comes with tattoo stickers that can be attached to her plastic skin, and a tattoo gun that kids can use to put a temporary design on themselves as well.

"Barbie's going trampy!" is the cry from parents who think it's straight from here to an illicit visit to a parlor for a Hell's Angels design or worse. Actually, for a couple of decades now, temporary tattoos from colored stickers have been a popular party favor for even very nice children. Time to remember that parents are not actually forced to buy their children toys they think are inappropriate.

Besides, maybe Barbie's just going traditionalist--for her. She was modeled on a German doll for adults, and the earliest model featured hooded, come-hither eyes a la Marlene Dietrich along with her zebra-striped strapless swimsuit. It seems a little late to worry about her innocence.

Photo of original Barbies: Timothy A. Clary/Getty Images

When I was in parochial school in the 1960s, the advent (as it were) of Lent prompted recess discussions about what we would give up: comic books, television, candy or -- my suggestion --  gym.

Except for the spinach, these habits were all indulgences, though not the kind the pope grants. Now Italy's Catholic bishops want to reboot the penitential pre-Eastern season by asking the faithful to forgo text-messaging, Internet browsing and other technological thrills.  According to the archdiocese of Modena,  “It's a small way to remember the importance of concrete and not virtual relationships."

Some online activities are indeed analogous to candy, or eye candy, and abstention from them would be a form of edifying self-denial. It wouldn't hurt Catholic kids during Lent to close Facebook and turn off the texting. But, unlike candy, Internet access is sometimes a duty, not a pleasure.

A ban on all interaction with computers, self-imposed or otherwise, is impractical.  Even if compliance were a matter of faith, ingenious theologians would suggest the need for "prudential considerations" -- i.e., loopholes -- in cases where connecting to the Internet was necessary. There is a precedent in the church for suspending even mandatory observances for a higher purpose. Or a lower one: Catholic bishops suspend the Lenten requirement of meatless Fridays when St. Patrick's Day falls on the sixth day of the week.

The church might also want to reconsider its no-computer advice now that Catholic dioceses -- including Modena -- have their own Web sites and the Vatican has christened a Youtube channel. Or maybe Google could defer to the Holy Father and add Paternal controls to its Internet options.

The other day White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel  identified Rush Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." It wasn't meant as a compliment to either Limbaugh or the GOP.  Your party is so hard up, Emanuel was suggesting, that it has to seek star power in a blowhard radio personality  who preaches to the converted.

But maybe Limbaugh ought to accept Emanuel's tribute at face value and run for public office. It's not as if Americans won't vote for entertainers. Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor of California, and Minnesota may soon be represented in the U.S. Senate by "Saturday Night Live" alumnus Al Franken -- who is also the author of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot."  And a history of drug addiction isn't a disqualifcation for holding public office. Ask Patrick Kennedy.

It would mean a pay cut, but if Limbaugh really wants Obama to fail what better way to accomplish that than run for Congress, where he could vote against Obama's anti-capitalist schemes?

When Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for governor, movie mogul Jack Warner supposedly said: "No, no. Jimmy Stewart for governor. Ronald Reagan for best friend." How about Rush Limbaugh as senator,  and Ann Coulter as speaker of the House?

Run, Rush, run.

Photo of Rush Limbaugh speaking at "An Evening with Rush Limbaugh" by Brill Pugliano/Getty Images

I admit I am still miffed about Time Warner Cable dropping Turner Classic Movies from the basic cable lineup in Los Angeles -- home of Hollywood -- and giving us, in its place, the Golf Channel.

But that has nothing to do with my latest quibble, which is entirely professional. A Time Warner press release about a Valentine's Day weekend way ''to show customers how much they care'' with a 1-cent movie deal has some amusing misspellings of the big names it's offering for that bargain penny price.

There's the kiddie movie ''Bob the Bulider,'' and romantic comedies like ''Mama Mia!'' -- I guess consonants are too expensive to repeat -- and, my Jane Austen film favorite, ''Pridge and Prejudice.'' It rhymes with fridge, an appliance which too often winds up as the Valentine's Day date for millions.

And there are several films starring that charming leading man and big star, but not all that big: ''Huge Grant.''

What do you expect for a penny -- proofreading?