Oleg Bach Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 I don't know exactly, but medal ceremonies and the like seem like vestiges of the past to me. They're a sap on our resources and our imagination maybe. We should focus on things that matter to people. I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I do have an opinion. You mean you have no opinion. There is nothing wrong with being rewarded with an honourarium...Imagine Canada as a company. Imagine that the company gives you a token of their appreciation for your contribution to society...it's a good thing - but there should NEVER be a taking back of something given...when the order is given - what happens after that has nothing to do with the set of previous good deeds. It would be like giving your kid an allowance for being dutiful...you can not go back in time and demand the money back rhetroactively..what is given is given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 What a waste of a good man - to take away his remaining time on earth and cheer his down fall smells of green envy and hate. Those that do not understand this or choose to persecute one of our best are total fools....we all want success - and we all hate those that have it...why? We must hate ourselves! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 .what is given is given. Ok, but we don't need to keep this going. It doesn't seem useful to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Ok, but we don't need to keep this going. It doesn't seem useful to me. I concure. The Order is probably a defective thing to begin with - the fact that the Order Of Canada has been taken back on a few occassions means that it is useless to begin with. It most certainly is not based on charater...or the true reading of character - It seems to be based on a single perception of one good deed - if that is the case then we should all have a metal...all of us have done at least one good thing...there are no angels on earth...just people and they like the Order are defective - cheers Micheal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 What a waste of a good man - to take away his remaining time on earth and cheer his down fall smells of green envy and hate. Those that do not understand this or choose to persecute one of our best are total fools....we all want success - and we all hate those that have it...why? We must hate ourselves! Doesn't seem to deter good old fashioned class envy and wealth bashing around here. No suh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 I say let him keep it. What he did ,I don't think he would have been convicted here. And I think he made a mockery out of the US justice system that he is now paying the price for it. Yes he can be arrogant,but I enjoyed his writings at times. And I think they way he handled the situatiuon he is in, alot better then most.He took it in stride and is doing his time. Lets remember the americans even tried to black ball him with the stories about him having slaves or whatever in jail and it turned out to a total fabrication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Some Native leader stated that he did not like some Jews that he imagined were destroying Canadian society and they stripped him of his metal. So if you or I were to say that we did not like or approve of Jamacian gang bangers at Jane and Finch - then we should be persecuted formally also? That Native leader was wronged. He should never have been stripped of his medal. I haven't seen any evidence of that Native Leader renouncing his citizenship unlike Conrad who did.I repeat... He should have had it stripped from him the day he renounced his Canadian citizenship. Edited September 28, 2011 by Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 He should have had it stripped from him the day he renounced his Canadian citizenship You may have a point, one has to be a Canadian or dually to be nominated. Doesnt say if they have to remain that way but..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Reading this thread, I think of points in school, and the high school yearbook. Who cares about these medieval awards? In this century, can you feed your family with one? If I were in politics, I would sell them to the highest bidder (under the table) since anyone stupid enough to want one should pay top dollar to get one. But I wouldn't base a political campaign on such largesse since a fool and his money are soon parted. Obama, for example, wisely based his campaign on wide, small donations. This Conrad Black weakness for silly status ultimately explains his downfall: he's yesterday's man. ------ It is obvious that status symbols have changed: Black didn't have a Gulfstream, but he could afford a lordship. Edited September 28, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Sure...only Canadian law and convictions are to be taken seriously. Canadians on death row in the United States are really good 'ol boys who would be free in Canada! That's the 1812 spirit! U'll be UEL in no time, good stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) The Order is a pat on the head...for a job well done. Nothing wrong with showing respect to a loyal dog. Conrad was not disloyal to Canada - Chretian was! And, yet, not only was Chretien appointed to the highest level of the Order of Canada, he was granted the superior honour of membership in the Order of Merit (a distinction even more rare than a peerage in Britain). [c/e] Edited September 29, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 I don't know exactly, but medal ceremonies and the like seem like vestiges of the past to me. They're a sap on our resources and our imagination maybe. So I guess that I am questioning the existence of an Order of Canada. Why bother? I was going to say this is a very cold, Soviet attitude expressed by the two of you. But, then I remembered that even the Soviets had their honours, decorations, and medals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I was going to say this is a very cold, Soviet attitude expressed by the two of you. But, then I remembered that even the Soviets had their honours, decorations, and medals.Precisely, bambino. Sovereign or State Awards are very Soviet.When an entrepreneur meets approval in the marketplace, then this is a true reward. And to be sexist, women now make a clear distinction. Long term, I think Salma Hayek chose better than Kate Middleton - but the distinction itself is astonishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Precisely, bambino. Sovereign or State Awards are very Soviet. Then every country on earth is Soviet. Of course, I said that the idea of getting rid of state honours was Soviet: cold, bureaucratic and efficient to the point of brutality. But, even the Soviets weren't as bad as you; despite their generally grey demeanour, they still had their honours, just as did, and do, the Americans, the British, the Japanese, the Australians, the Norwegians, the French, the Brazilians, the Hondurans, the Indians, etc., etc., etc. Honours are a part of national life. Get used to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Precisely, bambino. Sovereign or State Awards are very Soviet. That doesn't even make sense. Awards of some form or another have been around for thousands of years. How could it possibly be Soviet when such awards were being presented before the USSR or even Communism existed? It is a longstanding practice, even in republics like the United States, to create meritorious awards to citizens who have accomplished great things. I doubt there is a country on Earth that ever tried to do without it. I think it was pondered by the Jacobins during the French Revolution, but they were a pretty crazy bunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) It is a longstanding practice, even in republics like the United States, to create meritorious awards to citizens who have accomplished great things. Leaving aside a Sir Mick Jagger or a Lord Black, I see a difference between a Congressional Medal of Honor (e.g. Jerry Lewis in Paris) and an Academy Award.Do you? More pointedly, I see a difference between Titanic (gross $2 billion) and American Beauty (gross $200 million). ---- Salma Hayek and Kate Middleton both, obviously, married up. But who married up more? IOW, which of the two will young girls emulate in the future? Edited September 30, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Leaving aside a Sir Mick Jagger or a Lord Black, I see a difference between a Congressional Medal of Honor... and an Academy Award. Good. Now, could you get to the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Good. Now, could you get to the point?Option A: A King/Queen knights men. Option B: A bunch of people vote to choose what is the best movie.Since all methods of selection/awards are subject to corruption/influence, I prefer a system where power is decentralized. [sarcasm]HRH Majesty Queen Elizabeth II decided to knight Sir Mick Jagger because she knows that he's another Lord Nelson/Sir Winston Churchill.... [/sarcasm] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the Order of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the Order of Canada. I think (though it's often hard to filter out August's point, if there is any) he equates popularity with merit; as though Paris Hilton deserves a medal and Doris Anderson did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the Order of Canada.Politicians/monarchs should not be handing out merit awards/Gold Stars. Politicians/bureaucrats cannot pick winners. If they try, the process will inevitably become corrupted.Margaret Atwood will receive an Order of Canada, Mick Jagger will become Sir Mick Jagger, Conrad Black will become a lord and... SNC Lavalin and Ellis-Don will always build government bridges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Conrad should get a hero medal for surviving all the Americans could toss at him...in their hope of destroying the old man...He did well - If he were striking for the Hells Angels - he would be a full patch member - having passed the test - lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Politicians/monarchs should not be handing out merit awards/Gold Stars. Politicians/bureaucrats cannot pick winners. If they try, the process will inevitably become corrupted. Margaret Atwood will receive an Order of Canada, Mick Jagger will become Sir Mick Jagger, Conrad Black will become a lord and... SNC Lavalin and Ellis-Don will always build government bridges. What about me - I want an award also! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Politicians/monarchs should not be handing out merit awards/Gold Stars. Politicians/bureaucrats cannot pick winners. If they try, the process will inevitably become corrupted. Explain, then, how the Order of the Garter has existed for more than 650 years, with no present corruption? Politicians are not the same as monarchs, unlike what you indicate. And, in fact, it's the honours granted by the monarch directly, without political involvement - the aforementioned Garter after 1946 and, more related to Canada, the Order of Merit and Royal Victorian Order - that have next to or absolutely no corruption. This is exactly why the Canadian honours system was developed in such a way as to keep the politicians out of the awarding process. [+] Edited October 3, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Explain, then, how the Order of the Garter has existed for more than 650 years, with no present corruption?Maybe it's the name: "I name you to the Order of My Garter".Bambino, I had to look it up. Wikipedia: However, King George VI believed that the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Thistle had become too linked with political patronage. In 1946, with the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, membership to these two orders became a personal gift of the Sovereign once again. And you - Bambino - naively believe that The Sovereign will always be wise, beyond reproach, unimpeachable, incorruptible. ---- One reason that I am a democrat and I favour a republic - a Federal Republic for Canada - is that we would establish now a civilized way to get rid of an idiot leader in the future. And ultimately, that's all that "democracy" is. A democracy simply means having a civilized, peaceful way to get rid of the lunatic, egocentric Saddam Husseins, Muamor Qaddafis, Fidel Castros - (dare I say) the George Bushes of this world. Edited October 3, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.