Slashdot Mirror
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."
You...pitted...us...againsteachother. You...wanted...me..todoyourbidding. You...want...me...tobeyourgovernor. Well...I...WON'T...DO...IT!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I say: fuck that noise.
.
Might Shatner Boldly Lead Canada As Governor?
The only 'short list' I could find referenced was simply which Facebook groups had the most members. If anyone else can find anything worth noting from this article other than the fact that Star Trek fans are more numerous on Facebook than Leonard Cohen fans ... let me know. PROTIP: Facebook is not a cross section of the populace nor does that cross section necessarily think they are voting for William Shatner as Governor General when they click a tiny button to join that group. A flippant mouse click can be just as much a joke or laugh than it can be a true desire.
My work here is dung.
It's not Governor. It' Governor General. It's in the summary, but not in the headline.
Canada has a different system of government, and we don't have Governors per se.
It seems that acting can lead to the highest offices in places other than California."
Like... the United States (which isn't entirely composed of California, in spite of rumors)?
"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?
Shatner isn't bilingual, which is a serious strike against anyone vying for the GG position. Also note that the Canadian Governor General is essentially powerless in modern government - similar to the role played by the Queen. While, theoretically, the GG has the ability to impact parliamentary procedures in rare circumstances, it's not real power. Instead, the GG gives speeches, meets dignitaries, and spends a lot of time paying respect to unlucky soldiers arriving back from Afghanistan in coffins.
Yeah, as always - the summary is a little off. Shatner is by no means on the "short list". The "short list" has three people (who look like they're actually appropriate candidates) on it, the article happens to also mention two entries from the much longer list of "who the internet thinks it would be funny if they were nominated for this position".
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
KHHHHAAAAAAAANADA!
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.
In high school there was a small group of miscreants who took the phrase "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to new depths of depravity. To this group to "Shatner" was to eliminate bodily waste in a place where it was presumed "no man has gone before."
One year at homecoming it was reported that somebody had "Shatnered" on the 50 yard line.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Sorry, but the current queen is a queen regnant (her parent was the monarch, so she inherited), therefore her husband is not the king, he's simply the Prince Consort. So even if she wasn't married, you couldn't become king by marrying her. In other words, there's no point bumping off the current Danish / Greek incumbent.
bilingual if... by that... you mean ... that he... groups his... words in... groups of ... two? The... random emphasis ... and random... questions are... useless though?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Taco, representative of all the editors I suppose, is being irresponsible
Now I know you're new here!
Seriously, this is SOP. Learn to love it or learn to be disappointed.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.
(Hum, she's called Khan but looks like Uhura... conflict!)
*extends hand* - Denny Crane.
*Sigh* The lady is our current Governor General you insensitive clod.
The man is Kahn.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
however, you are forgetting that the GG is a shallow powderpuff position
therefore, give the shallow powderpuff person the shallow powderpuff position, and give the serious meaningful people you list serious meaningful positions
it would be insulting, as you say, to give a shallow powderpuff a serious meaningful position in spite of other serious meaningful candidates
but it is equally insulting to give a serious meaningful candidate a shallow powderpuff position
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Canadians have a long history of fighting for what we believe in. We have had troops in most major conflicts over the last 100 years (WWI, WWI, Korea), and we've had peace keeping soldiers in every place that the UN has ever needed them. We have people in Afghanistan, and have lost quite a few soldiers. We're not afraid to fight for what we believe in.
We just don't define our national identity in a way that we understand, let alone in a way that makes sense to someone else. :-P
In terms of the whole Queen thing, it's complicated, and really hard to explain. Some Canadians are of British descent and have historical attachments and fondness. Some are of French descent, and therefore resent the Queen as a symbol of subjugation. Depending on where in the country you live, there might be a particular ethnic tilt in the population since the late comers had to go further West, so in the middle you get a lot of Ukrainian descended people. By the time you get out to the left coast, you get a lot more Asians who have less historical investment in the monarchy and are probably somewhat indifferent. Of course, all of the above is grossly simplified. :-P
We variously have people who want us to return to the monarchy, people who want to get rid of it altogether, and people who don't give a crap. Within my lifetime, we've "officially" gotten the reins to or own Constitution and the like.
The Queen plays less of a role in our identities as Canadians and what that means than you think it might. It's both ever present (the money, and in the wording of government since everything is the "crown" or the "Queen"), and completely not there for the most part in that on a daily basis, I think about the Queen's relationship to us almost none at all.
We just have a less clearly defined national identity than you might expect. And there's not really any one common thing you can point to and say "A Canadian is ".
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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."