babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Why do we put up with the GG's bullshit?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why do we put up with the GG's bullshit?
quagmire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8028

posted 12 March 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for quagmire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Beggin' yer pardon Mum, but could ye tell a poor un-washed soul how much this little visit will cost us?
SLAP!!
Sorry Mum, won't ask again.

quote:
An advance team of 15 travelled to the Netherlands to organize the trip. Of that number, four are working on the itinerary of two people: Clarkson and her husband John Ralston Saul.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew defended the expense.

"My view is that Canada, when we visit countries like Spain or the Netherlands that are monarchies as well, you have to do things appropriately," he told CTV News.

He said Clarkson's advance team is relatively modest: "You should see when (U.S. President) George Bush comes. There are thousands for advance."

Rideau Hall is not revealing the cost of the European trip.


If it walks like another rip off and talks like another rip off...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110418871842_8/?hub=Canada


From: Directly above the center of the Earth | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 12 March 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I honestly donb't get the value of bashing the GG.

The office itself is a remnant of British rule in Canada. Get rid of the office, and you won't have any more stories of wasted money.

What's the point of keeping the office, but ranting away against the office holder? The GG doesn't control the spending of the office, parliament does.

From Barbara Uteck, Secretary to the Governor General

quote:
The office of the secretary to the governor general is a government agency that receives its funding, through the appropriations act, and with parliamentary approval, in the same manner as all other government departments.

I personally think the office should be abolished because the office is a waste of money. In the meantime ranting away at the current GG is just a diversion.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 13 March 2005 12:03 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the office of Governor-General was abolished, what would replace it? How would it be cheaper?
From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the office of Governor-General was abolished, what would replace it? How would it be cheaper?

If the office was abolished, why would we need to replace it with something?

I am sure that Canada can get by just fine without a token ribbon-cutter representing a long obsolete monarchy.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2005 12:20 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In my view, it is entirely appropriate that the Canadian head of state (or formal rep) should make such appearances, especially at the anniversary of the Liberation in the Netherlands.

It is a shame that M Pettigrew is ignorant enough to say that this is happening because there are "monarchies" involved. Monarchy has nothing to do with it. In diplomatic terms, the match-up that matters is heads of state, and I would rather that the Canadian version of same fill that role than that we leave it to the queen, whose presence isn't fully understood by anyone but us.

I will leave my recorded message about the crucial importance of maintaining the separation between state and government (and thus the crucial importance of having someone fill the office of head of state) to a later post.

Real Tories used to understand basic democratic structure. The ReformaTories are just vulgar opportunists.

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 March 2005 12:20 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Constitutionally we can't.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2005 12:27 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Constitutionally we can't.

Understood. But under the assumption that the office was ever abolished, it would mean that our constitution has been greatly changed.

We could always appoint an official ribbon-cutter in Canada based on merit rather than political connections.

Of course reality says that such a token position would quickly become a patronage thing in any system.

The only use I see for the monarchy and its inbred remnants is that they prevent me from having to look at Trudeau's ugly face on my currency.

Not that Elizabeth is looking any better with age and it should be a crime to reproduce Charles face on any image.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 March 2005 12:29 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Understood. But under the assumption that the office was ever abolished, it would mean that our constitution has been greatly changed.

And since we know that our constitution isn't going to change, it makes the whole discussion moot.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2005 01:38 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And since we know that our constitution isn't going to change, it makes the whole discussion moot.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the constitution isn't going to change.

Everything changes given enough time.

Only five years ago some people would have said that any discussion of gay's getting the right to marry would be moot as it would never happen.

Never say never.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 March 2005 01:46 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And those people would have been pretty damn ignorant, since that's when the cases were filed. The first case was filed in Manitoba in the mid-70s. This has been coming for a lot longer than five years -- and the majority of Canadians have been in favour of it for almost a decade.

In any event, bringing up the ignorance of the Charter of some people has little, if anything, to do with amending the constitution.

[ 13 March 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2005 02:08 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not arguing with you at all there.

Just saying that one should never be too confident about things not changing.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 March 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No political party in Canada has the guts to attempt the task of abolishing the monarchy, which is what eliminating the GG entails. I can't predict the future, of course, but it's not close enough to being on the horizon as to be possible in the next decade or so.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 March 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I feel the same way every time Steven Harper is on TV droning on and on - why the hell do we put up with him? His office costs us millions every year, why can't we just get rid of him?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 March 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As annoyingly dumb as he is, he is the Opposition leader, and, in theory at least, is supposed to oppose govt initiatives that don't make sense. This principle actually worked about a month ago when the combined opposition voted down the Liberals plans to split one federal agency into two. But, generally, listening to Harper drone on with mindless invective in the Commons makes me wince. I'm glad they're all limited to two minutes per question, and a follow-up. And I shudder at the prospect of the Liberals ever facing no Opposition in the Commons whatever. I'd love to see Jack take on the Offical Opposition mantle, I think he'd be really effective. As for Harper, there actually are people who like the guy, as unbelievable as that sounds - and consistently vote for him, or the party. Canada's not 100% leftist - yet.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 13 March 2005 04:54 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All the discussion of whether or not it is possible to eliminate the office of Governor-General is beside the point.

I brought it up to illustrate the stupidity of railing away against the current GG, when the problem is the office, not the office holder.

In any case, we could dispense with the problem by appointing the GG at random from the tax rolls.

That would give every Canadian a chance at being GG, cutting ribbons etc.

This could be done without any change to the constitution, as all it requires is the prime minister's consent.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
quagmire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8028

posted 14 March 2005 12:04 AM      Profile for quagmire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well perhaps we could get a GG who doesn't piss as much of my money into the wind and have such a great time holidaying while she does it.
quote:
At the centre of the Clarkson controversy is a 19-day, $1-million state visit she and Saul are taking to Russia, Finland and Iceland. They brought a 59-member delegation to promote Canada as a modern north. The trip is financed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but its no secret the couple enjoys the finer things in life.

This has many MPs asking questions, and its time the Governor General started answering.

Why isnt the trip coming out of Clarksons $19-million annual budget, which has increased by almost 75 per cent from $11 million since she took office in 1999.



From: Directly above the center of the Earth | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 March 2005 12:27 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Corporate welfare handouts in this country make that look like spare change. It's time to get the rich off welfare in North America.
From: Viva La Revolucin | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 14 March 2005 12:34 AM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is this the trip that was taken a while ago or one that is being planned for the future?
The fact that this GG is more active than previous GGs at promoting things 'Canadian' is IMO a better deal for our money.
Ribbon cutting and speech making along with tours of the parliament buildings are stupid activities for someone like the GG. If we are paying well for the office, hiring someone of sophistication that can meet foreign heads of state without embarrassing our country, then the person holding the office should be absolutely required to do more than ceremonial duties.
The tour of northern countries makes sense. Russia has long had a Canadian Studies project, studying the development of our culture particularly in relation to the US.Canada would do well to foster the development of new alllies and trading partners particularly when we look at the direction our largest trading partner is headed in. We have weather, geography, and many other things such as resource industies and the same agricultural challenges as Scandinavian and Russian cultures. A cultural exchange can promote increased trade, awareness of business opportunities, cultural exchanges in the arts, & comparisons on public healthcare. The GGs tour ,if handled succesfully could be just as worthy as the junkets provided for businessmen and politicos that globetrotted to exotic locales with Jean Chretien.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 14 March 2005 05:28 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well perhaps we could get a GG who doesn't piss as much of my money into the wind and have such a great time holidaying while she does it.

You muusta missed the post that explained that all the money the GG's office gets is overseen by parliament, and ok'd by parliament.

If you want to go after someone, that's where your energy should be directed.

Railing away at the GG is what right wingers do. It's a punching bag they take pokes at to cater to the fundamentalist whiners in their party.

"Look...someone's getting something you're not, doesn't that make you mad."

Objecting to the GG's [B]office[/B} on the grounds it is profoundly undemocratic (and as such a waste of money) is more to the point.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 14 March 2005 09:13 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Corporate welfare handouts in this country make that look like spare change. It's time to get the rich off welfare in North America.

That doesn't excuse any largesse by Clarkson, if such largesse actually exists.

Speaking of largesse and neocon blowhards, has anyone actually compared Clarkson's spending with that of her predescessors'? Is the GG's office really spending any more now (in proportional dollars) than before Clarkson's appointment? I don't know the answer, but if the accusers want something concrete to slam her with, that would be the first question to look at.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 March 2005 09:46 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm with Faith in regards to the position of GG .. we're not hiring some flag holder person for a highway paving project here, the position does require some skills that you don't always find by picking people at random.

In addition, I would be against any other method of assigning the GG position other than what is prescribled in the consitiution ... just as I am against "appointing" elected senators because that is not how the constitution tells us to do the selection (it is even against the spirit of what the process was meant to accomplish,) and will lead to a "slippery slope" where other constitutional requirements can be bypassed by similar means of trickery and slight of hand.

If we see a need to change something that is derived from the constitution, then we have to change it using constitutional means, and not by some "wink and a nod" piece of lawlessness.

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
sock puppet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7739

posted 14 March 2005 11:24 AM      Profile for sock puppet   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Agreed, No Yards.

And as for this...

quote:
We could always appoint an official ribbon-cutter in Canada based on merit rather than political connections.
Madame Clarkson and her husband are the most distinguished and qualified representatives of Canada to ever reside in Rideau Hall.

From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
gopi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6163

posted 14 March 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for gopi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We could always appoint an official ribbon-cutter in Canada based on merit rather than political connections.

I nominate the guy who played Relic on Beachcombers.


From: transient | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 14 March 2005 11:37 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A nice thought. Unfortunately Robert Clothier died February 10, 1999. I actually met him once years ago in the elevator at the Sheraton Inn in Regina. He seemed a decent sort...
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 March 2005 11:45 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting discord every time the GG comes up:

Member of Parliament, duly elected, "caught" eating at a decent restaurant on the public dime, or "caught" using "taxpayer's money" to fly home = corrupt politician enjoying the benefits of the pork barrel.

Governor General, not elected by any of us, openly declares love of fine wines, openly uses "taxpayer's money" to fly around the world on vacations, husband in tow, and even uses public funds for escort to cottage = our bestest GG ever! She's da bomb!


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 14 March 2005 11:51 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
At the centre of the Clarkson controversy is a 19-day, $1-million state visit she and Saul are taking to Russia, Finland and Iceland. They brought a 59-member delegation to promote Canada as a modern north. The trip is financed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but its no secret the couple enjoys the finer things in life.

This has many MPs asking questions, and its time the Governor General started answering.

Why isnt the trip coming out of Clarksons $19-million annual budget, which has increased by almost 75 per cent from $11 million since she took office in 1999.


When quoting, please provide links to the source. This one sounds like the old "scandal" about the Foreign Affairs budget.

But more to the point, why should Clarkson be the one answering these questions? She does not give herself a budget, the government gives her a budget. Direct your questions and sniping to the Prime Minister's Office. Clarkson was hired to do a ceremonial job, and she does it better than any Canadian GG has ever done before her. That's probably why she gets noticed more, for the same duties all GG's have carried out.

How dare she enjoy her job? Burn her!

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
sock puppet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7739

posted 14 March 2005 11:56 AM      Profile for sock puppet   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Governor General, not elected by any of us, openly declares love of fine wines, openly uses "taxpayer's money" to fly around the world on vacations, husband in tow, and even uses public funds for escort to cottage = our bestest GG ever! She's da bomb!
That would be fine Canadian wines.

FYI, many are closet monarchists in this country. Some of us are even 'out' about it.

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: sock puppet ]


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 March 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That would be fine Canadian wines.

Ah.

I don't think that takes away from my point though. When the GG lives large on the public dime, expensive Canadian wines included, it's written off as a necessity by her fans.

When an elected politician eats dinner at a restaurant and doesn't have the foresight to go someplace where they serve you in styrofoam, it's corruption of the worst order.

I don't get that. Is a few thousand dollars a big deal, or is it not a big deal? Is it an insult to the poor in Canada to enjoy "fine Canadian wines" when so many have none, or is it not an insult?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 14 March 2005 12:07 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wait...There are actual Canadians that like Adrienne Clarkson?
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 March 2005 12:20 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, of course. I wouldn't gauge her popularity across Canada just by the content of this forum. That said, I think the GG *has* been a touch arrogant and out of touch at times. She is the Queen's Representative, and while I think she's doing her job reasonably well, it wouldn't hurt to mingle with the common folk more. Her husband looks bemused by her office - he looks somewhat out of place at times.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
fuschiashock
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7616

posted 14 March 2005 12:36 PM      Profile for fuschiashock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see what Adrienne Clarkson has done as Governor General that has done a lot to help Canada, but that doesn't necessarily mean all Governor Generals are useless.
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 March 2005 01:17 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Ah.

I don't think that takes away from my point though. When the GG lives large on the public dime, expensive Canadian wines included, it's written off as a necessity by her fans.

When an elected politician eats dinner at a restaurant and doesn't have the foresight to go someplace where they serve you in styrofoam, it's corruption of the worst order.

I don't get that. Is a few thousand dollars a big deal, or is it not a big deal? Is it an insult to the poor in Canada to enjoy "fine Canadian wines" when so many have none, or is it not an insult?



Don't you think the Canada should be run like a business? Just think of it as taking your client out to the strip club and expensing it on "the public dime"! If it's a valid business activity, then what's the problem?


As for Clarkson herself ... I've met her before she became GG, and the impression she made upon me was that she was an arrogant priss that considered herself above everyone else. That said, I would think that supremely qualifies her for the position of GG ... either way, if people believe it is a position that needs to be elminated, then there is a proper way to go about it, and it isn't by sidestepping around the constitution.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 14 March 2005 01:19 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Her choice of handing out art grants made me wretch...Some of the stuff, like that one whack job.
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 14 March 2005 01:20 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think there are many Canadians who like John Ralston Saul, and concede that when he's invited to a party, Adrienne's probably gonna show up, too.

Colour me surprised that my questions above have not been answered. I'm not going to do the critics' work for them, ya know.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 14 March 2005 01:23 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lord Stanley gave us this..., and Vincent Massey left us with the Massey Lectures as a lasting contribution, so I guess GGs are not totally worthless, but all in all, I think we could find much better ways to spend our money. I don't have any problem with our head of state being elected, and all ties severed to that inbred gang of Germanic-Anglo parasites.

My 2 worth...

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 14 March 2005 01:50 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We need a governor general as a referee in the event of a minority parliament (although the idea of Romeo Leblanc, Ray Hnat... or Jeanne Sauve mediating such a parliament scares me).

Most of the ceremonial functions could be dispensed with.

The GG could probably also take over the function of the provincial lieutenant govs.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 March 2005 02:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But could she drive to the cottage?? Maybe in an armoured car, if the terrorism is that rampant in the Muskokas?
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 14 March 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know, it's easy to *say* ceremonial duties could be dispensed with. But the fact is that ceremonies happen. If someone eliminated them all tomorrow, they'd start growing back the next day. Someone has to do 'em, and if we didn't have a ceremonial head of state for it, someone with real work to do would end up having to do ceremonies instead of paying attention to their job.

And if we elected someone to the position, that would give it legitimacy to start having actual powers, which would just gum up the works and leave us in the same boat--no ceremonial head of state.

How much funding the position should have is another question. But we can't realistically expect a ceremonial post to operate without ceremony; if it did, it would just look chintzy.

But, take it as read that we spend too much on the GG--tell me, why are we making this any kind of priority? The press gabs on about the GG *because* it's unimportant. It's another smokescreen to stop us from paying attention to media concentration or corporate tax breaks/handouts or high unemployment or, basically, anything else that actually matters much. Following their lead on it doesn't makes us progressive, it makes us dupes.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 14 March 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
You know, it's easy to *say* ceremonial duties could be dispensed with. But the fact is that ceremonies happen.

Does that mean ceremonial duties are shit?! 'Coz I heard somewhere that THAT happens, too!


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 March 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey Magoo, perhaps you missed this little nugget of fact in an otherwise completely fact free Aperized "news" rant.

quote:
Randy Mylyk, a spokesman for Clarkson, said the RCMP makes all decisions relating to security for the governor general -- including how she travels. Like the prime minister, the vice-regal head of state does not travel commercially in the wake of 9/11.

But go ahead and blame her for her travel arrangements. It's getting big yucks for the CPC, you may as well pile on too.

Or is it the vacation you object to? Or that she has a cottage in Muskoka?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 14 March 2005 04:49 PM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quick question for all you armchair Constitutional lawyers out there...

I know the Constitution says that we can't do anything about the monarchy unless PEI agrees. But can we decide who the monarch will be?

The Act of Settlement prevents Roman Catholics (and people who marry them) from succeeding to the throne, and authorizes agnatic rather than cognatic primogeniture (Google that!).

Under the current Constitution, could the Canadian Parliament pass a law to change the line of succession? Or are we stuck with whomever the Brits decide?


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sock puppet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7739

posted 14 March 2005 04:58 PM      Profile for sock puppet   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
-tell me, why are we making this any kind of priority? The press gabs on about the GG *because* it's unimportant. It's another smokescreen to stop us from paying attention to media concentration or corporate tax breaks/handouts or high unemployment or, basically, anything else that actually matters much. Following their lead on it doesn't makes us progressive, it makes us dupes.
Very insightful.

From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 14 March 2005 04:58 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In response to Krago:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You want a Catholic queen? Well, what's Hinterland doing?

*hee* (sorry Hint, juuuuust kidding... calm down, just teeeeasing!)

[ 14 March 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 14 March 2005 05:36 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Like the prime minister, the vice-regal head of state does not travel commercially in the wake of 9/11.

Nor does the premier of Alberta nor his friends.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 March 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, if you were Osama Bin Laden, and you wanted to topple the mighty American hegemony machine, what would you do? I know I'd probably try and hit some Canadian politician. Y'know... 'cuz that's the last thing the Americans would ever expect, and boy would that bring them to their knees.

And since that's so obvious, the RCMP has to keep a step ahead. Rather than, oh, I don't know, driving in an unmarked car, they use a jet, since we all know that terrorists have no idea what to do with a jet. They're like "Huh? What now? We can't attack someone if they're in a jet!!!"

I'm sleeping just a little more soundly. You?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 March 2005 06:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Magoo: semi-funny.

But the hilarious paranoia is happening south of the border, down Washington way.

I don't think that Canadians take all that there terrist stuff quite so seriously, although it has occurred to me on the odd night, as I drift off, that Toronto might look like a tempting demonstration case to a determined antagonist -- sort of like Hiroshima, y'know?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 March 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The GG is far liklier to be targetted by an anti-abotions&C68 loon, particularly with all of the "wine loving, vacation-taking" class resentment shit that the Sun keeps shovelling.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 14 March 2005 06:26 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
The GG is far liklier to be targetted by an anti-abotions&C68 loon

That's probably why she's not allowed in the House of Commons.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca