You're not supposed to, though. You are simply parroting what has been in the press - perhaps you can give us your own analysis of her spending habits and explain why this is detrimental. Government does cost money, yes?
If you read my statement again, you should see that I was saying she appears to be popular because of the media attacks on her spending. The cost of supporting her position is not the issue, the value of her position is what I am questioning. It is of my opinion that I do not relate to her or see her position as something I consider to be of value. I do not see her as a good symbol of Canada. If I cannot relate to her, and I do not see her position as a good symbol of Canada then why would I want that position there at all?
And you never addressed the other point - would you really relate to British royalty more than a Canadian? Talk about delusions of grandeur.
I relate to the Queen better than I relate to the current G.G. Simply out of historical value. I feel that Canadians have very little to identify themselves with. Having a representative that extends from the bloodline of the kingdom that had such a major role in the establishment of Canada is a very powerful symbol, at least to me. I suspect that many people here would disagree.
And finally, you never addressed the question - why is it necessary for Canadians to "identify" with their Governor General. How man Canadians would truly identify no matter who it was? If Don Cherry was G-G, there would be thousands, perhaps millions, of Canadians who didn't know who he was, or disliked him personally.
The governor general should be the main head figurehead of Canada and a symbol of it's people. If this person is supposed to represent Canada, and the people cannot relate to her, then what is the point of having that symbol?
You have no reason to dislike her beyond a couple of articles you've read in the newspaper intimating that she spends too much. Tell me whom she visited on her northern tour without using google.
I have no reason to like her. She went to Russia, Finland, and Iceland from what I recall. That was splattered all over the news. Is her northern tour relevant to Canadians? Is it a requirement that I know the ins and outs of her position? or is the fact that her positions does nothing to speak to me about being a Canadian the point at hand? I think the latter question is the one that should be examined.
You've yet to identify a single reason why we should, beyond your visceral reaction to a couple of newspaper articles.
Because I think that people in Canada do not identify with the G.G. position as it is. I think having a more powerful symbol in it's place would allow for a greater sense of what a Canadian is. Again, this is just me.
How would you know?
Simple, my education extends beyond the undergraduate level. However, I don't have a degree in political science or any field related to it, so I am arguing these points as a layman. Do you have training in this field? If so, please explain why the idea appears to be impossible, and why it is impossible to alter the system to make it happen. I can see it being a big legal headache, but if there is a will there is a way.
How is this relevant? Was it the university system that got him where he is, or his own hard work? Really, since my point was that it is extremely easy to succeed in academia, what does that say about your friend?
You attacked his credentials for bringing up this the original question, so that was my response. I don't know what University system you have experienced, but not one of the Universities I attended would someone make it through the Doctorate level without knowing what they were doing. (Well, I am sure it happens to some level, as no system is perfect.) I guess some Universities really are that different, or more likely you have some serious misconceptions. I don't know anyone coming out of a Masters/Doctorate level without working their tail off.
Some people call imagination not rooted in reality "fantasy" or "pie in the sky." Your idea has absolutely no merit whatsoever, simply because you have yet to identify a single practical advantage to this proposal.
It has merit as the practical advantage, for me anyway, is having a figurehead that is someone I can identify with, that is a Symbol of Canada. I simply like the idea. Like I said, it is unrealistic, and requires one to have an imagination. In your arguments you have revealed that you agree/like the G.G. Do you identify with her? Do you feel she is a necessary and important part of the Canadian system? Why? Would you rather not have someone in her place that is a stronger and more representative of what a Canadian is, if the opportunity presented itself?
Fantasizing about Prince William porking some hot babe from Quebec isn't really an interesting or entertaining method of discussing governmental change.
I found it to be an interesting and entertaining idea. Sorry you can't see it that way. The original idea was to have a french Canadian in the mix so that the French population, who from what I know, are not particularly fond of the idea of a Monarchy would be more apt to accept the situation. It was said more for the entertainment value, but it does point out the problem that the French population may not agree, so it was a 'quick fix' solution to allow the discussion to continue.
You've identified neither
a) what mechanism we could use to effect these changes
b) a single practical benefit of having enacted these changes
c) a single reason to even consider these changes in the first place, beyond a visceral reaction to the current GG
If you want to couch your proposal in some form of coherent presentation, perhaps there would be something to discuss.
I cannot get into actual mechanisms, simply because the details of our legal system is not something I know about. Things in any Democratic system are supposed to be able to change given enough effort from my understanding. The practical benefit I think I explained in my posts. The single reason to go beyond the GG is like I said, it could be changed into a position that takes on more meaning to Canadians.
Again, I will reiterate that this was supposed to be a fun topic, so it requires a certain amount of open mindedness and imagination. If you take it too serious and literally, you are totally missing the point.
Poll