Might Shatner Boldly Lead Canada As Governor?
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."
I say: fuck that noise.
.
"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?
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, 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.
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
http://www.akdn.org/photos_show.asp?Sid=47
Now, how would Shatner handle this situation..?
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.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
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.
What's next? Search engine companies making cell ph.... Oh, wait nevermind.
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.
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.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."