Might Shatner Boldly Lead Canada As Governor? 318
just fiddling around writes "Now that Michaëlle Jean is approaching the end of her customary five-year post as Governor General of Canada, the rumor mill has started on who Prime Minister Steven Harper will propose to the Queen in her stead. According to the CBC, the short list includes Captain Kirk, actor William Shatner. It seems that acting can lead to the highest offices in places other than California."
As a Canadian (Score:3, Insightful)
I say: fuck that noise.
Highest Offices (Score:5, Insightful)
"It seems that acting can lead to the highest offices in places other than California"
Absolutely. Forgotten about our 40th president of the United States, have we?
Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose I should qualify that statement. Everything I have read about William Shatner gives me the impression the man is a dick. If placed against someone (who has some reasonable buzz about him in this specific context) such as Romeo Dallaire [wikipedia.org], how does William Shatner measure up? This is no minor office - and the person who occupies it should be one of exceptional quality. Michelle Jean, my issues with her handling of Harper aside, was a person that could be looked up to for her journey through life and her efforts to support those less fortunate.
What has William Shatner done to deserve this?
As far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't even be mentioned among such people has Romeo Dallaire or Michelle Jean.
Re:You Do Realize You Are Reporting on a Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a retarded story. The only mention of Shatner in the whole FA is this:
There might have been another submission that could have been rejected that included this link [www.cbc.ca], but, again, basically right off the bat, you see:
The OP is an asshole for submitting this as a serious story and writing the summary as if it were legit, and Taco, representative of all the editors I suppose, is being irresponsible for posting such a bullshit story like this on the front page.
Many people have been lamenting that the quality of stories have been going down in Slashdot. I don't really have that much of a gripe about that. I don't come to Slashdot for breaking news or the like. But when you start to post flat out falsehoods (there is no shortlist, there's not even a rumour, it's just a god damn Facebook group), that's when you cross the line into tabloidism. Horrible.
Re:IS THIS WHAT YOU WANTED? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that one of the jobs of the GG of Canada is periodically meeting the Aga Khan:
http://archive.gg.ca/media/pho/index_e.asp?GalleryID=584 [archive.gg.ca]
http://www.akdn.org/photos_show.asp?Sid=47 [akdn.org]
Now, how would Shatner handle this situation..?
No... And it's 'Governor General' Not 'Governor' (Score:4, Insightful)
This is very old news in Canada. And no he won't. He doesn't even want the job, and the government is not considering him.
And it is "Governor General" not governor. It is an appointed position akin to say the most ceremonial presidential position in some republics. That is, before a law can come into effect it must be signed off by the GG. It is called Royal Assent. The GG represents the Queen of Canada (Elizabeth II) in Canada, and the monarch of the constitutional monarchy must approve all laws before they can come into effect. However, the GG by tradition always gives Royal Assent at the request of the Prime Minister. However most people don't realize that the GG doesn't HAVE to sign. It is a form of check or balance in the system. Of course this would likely never happen except in the rarest of circumstance.
Royal Assent must also be given in England as well before a law created in Parliament can go into effect. Of course in their case, the Queen signs it herself.
Before the 20th century, it was more common for the monarch to be able to withhold Royal Assent than today (less political repercussions back then). It is this ability to withhold Royal Assent that lent itself to the American Presidential Veto.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)
Alright, I'm going to take this in another direction. I've got more than enough karma to burn, and I haven't flamed someone in a while.
I don't know about you, but I'd like our purely ceremonial head of government to be taken seriously both at home and abroad.
No comment.
No comment? What fucking world do you live in? Do you not realize that perception may as well be reality in politics? The Governor General acts as the head of the Canadian Government. She meets with heads of state all the fucking time. She may not have any official power, but she wields a massive amount of influence. Access is power.
Get your head out of your ass. This appointment is not some minor office that nobody cares about. We are selecting someone to represent Canada to the world, and represent the Queen in this country. I expect that person to be one of the best of us. Do you honestly believe that William Shatner is one of the best of us?
Your posts demonstrate the problem with democracy. William Shatner is being considered alongside a man who has been internationally recognized for trying to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and speaking out about it ever since.
So I say to you, respectfully, go fuck yourself.
On the "until its not" comment: it wasn't that long ago. [wikipedia.org]
Re:As a Canadian (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think it's purely ceremonial, look back to December of 2008 where, at the behest of under-fire PM Stephen Harper, agreed to prorogue (suspend) parliament until the end of January to avoid a confidence vote scheduled for the following Monday in which the government was widely expected to lose.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/04/harper-jean.html
"Monday's no-confidence vote could have precipitated the rise of a proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Québécois, or could have resulted in another election, depending on the Governor General's response."
It followed several recent events that reflected negatively on Harper's Tories, and would have at worst forced them out, and even the best case put them on the back foot going into an election campaign.
Ceremonial my ass.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)
No you're being dense at not understanding how a parliamentry system works with a functioning GG, especially in Canada. More so in Canada because of the Charter, compared to other commonwealth countries.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Queen of Canada? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not listening.
The Queen of Canada isn't British, she's Canadian. She can only be advised by Canadians on Canadian matters. She is a completely separate legal person from the British Queen, or the Australian Queen, or the Queen of any other commonwealth country. In fact, we would be in just as much right to call ourselves "Australian" as we would "British."
The Brits could oust their Monarchy tomorrow and we would still have a Queen. And maybe I'm just strange, but I think of a "national identity" as being a shared experience with other people that live in the same arbitrary geographical grouping as I do, not by who the current leader-du-jour is. You don't call yourself an "American" when the Republicans are in power, and then something else when the Democrats are.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)
"Stunt"? She was participating in the traditional lifestyle of some of Canada's Native People. It was no stunt, it's called respect, and it's something I sure-as-hell hope our Governer General has in spades when it comes to dealing with the citizens of our country.
She speaks French in Quebec, She eats Lobster in Nova Scotia and she eats seal heart when she's visiting Inuit people.
Re:IS THIS WHAT YOU WANTED? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how that follows. Software is a good part of what makes a good cell phone, and Google certainly has a lot of talented software engineers.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)
[W]e LIKE the Queen. She's a classy dame
I remember singing "God Save the Queen" in grade school. The Union Jack had been replaced the red and white maple leaf flag, of course, but the Queen's image was still on our currency and no one but ornithologists gave much thought to loons.
So, yeah, you could say we like it that way.
Pomp, circumstance, and the trappings of culture may not hold the appeal they did in other times, but every time I watch televised coverage of a US president giving a speech and I hear "Hail to the Chief" being played by a military band, or attend an even where the national anthem is played and see people struggling to remember the less-than-inspiring words ("the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air") and/or hit all the notes (1-1/2 octaves), I think back to how things were in Canada.
As for the sovereignty argument, I'd suggest that's overblown. The US opted for armed insurrection, so I suppose it's natural for there to be a focus on such things as "rights" or "freedom and liberty" to the exclusion of everything else that's just as important. I find that approach naive and simplistic (something you'd expect from an adolescent, perhaps), but who am I to judge?
A Canadian writer once wrote something to the effect that Canadians defer to authority, while Americans bow to power. I suspect that's a distinction too subtle for most Americans to understand. Or appreciate.
Re:if there's nothing you'd fight for (Score:2, Insightful)
As I recall, the long, paper-strewn trail to independence for Canada started, along with the rise of Canadian nationalism, following their victory over the United States during the War of 1812 (repelling the US invasion of what was, at the time, British territory, and starting to think, "Hey, this is OUR land."). Your comments about them never having fought for what's important to them shows the kind of historical ignorance that suggests you probably aren't even aware of the fact that the USA lost the War of 1812. Ah well...
In any case, your logic is utter fail, even if the false "facts" you based it on were true. It can be argued that one has to be willing to fight for the principles, and one doesn't know for sure if they are unless they have, but your statement that a nation must have actually done so at some point is bizarre and absurd.
Re:As a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)