17 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFA false dilemma. It isn't the either or choice you pose. It stands or falls as something W did -- one can understand why a leftist would fail to appreciate the gesture. But the award of this medal to one such as Uribe reflects only on the President who made the decision, nothing more.
Has Bush discredited the Presidential Medal of Freedom forever by awarding it to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe or does awarding it Uribe actually help us to understand what the Medal really means?
Looking in context at past years, I think the awards have been made with better judgment to such people as Arthur Ashe, William J. Brennan, Jr.,Marjory Stoneman Douglas, J. William Fulbright , Thurgood Marshall, Joseph L. Raugh, Jr., Herbert Block, Ceasar Chavez, Dorothy Height, Barbara Jordan, Lane Kirkland , Robert H. Michel, R. Sargent Shriver, William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr. , A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., Frank M. Johnson, Jr., C. Everett Koop, Gaylord A. Nelson, Walter P. Reuther, William C. Velasquez, James Scott Brady. Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, Millard D. Fuller, David Alan Hamburg, Jan Nowak-Jezioranski, Antonia Pantoja, Rosa Parks, Ginetta Sagan, Arnold Aronson, Justin Dart, Jr., James Farmer, Fred Korematsu, Sol M. Linowitz, Wilma Mankiller, Margaret Murie, Mario G. Obledo , Edgar M. Bronfman, Sr., President Jimmy Carter, Rosalynn Carter, Sister Isolina Ferré, Max Kampelman, Aung San Suu Kyi John Chafee, Marian Wright Edelman, John Kenneth Galbraith , Monsignor George Higgins, Mildred Jeffrey, George McGovern, Cruz Reynoso, Simon Wiesenthal , Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Hank Aaron, Bill Cosby, and Plácido Domingo -- to name some, but not all of those awarded the medal.
Now, your point?
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFAre you suggesting that the office of the President be held accountable to a uniform standard? If that be the case and the President simply fulfilled a carefully proscribed role, why would you need to bother with an election, or even care about the calibre of the man you elect? You may as well get an actor to perform the role and allow the office and not the man to determine the correct course of action or appropriate response.
Are you suggesting that, in this instance, Bush's choice has no consequence in terms of the prestige or the meaning of the medal?
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by kmax87No. I am asking whether people think Bush has discredited the Presidential Medal of Freedom forever by awarding it to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe or does awarding it Uribe actually help us to understand what the Medal really means?
Are you suggesting that the office of the President be held accountable to a uniform standard?
17 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87The Presidential Medal of Freedom has no resonance with me. That's why I am asking what it means. One can take a look a list of recipients but that reveals little or nothing. You've got Aung San Suu Kyi on one hand. And Alvaro Uribe on the other. Scriabin seemed to suggest that the award of this medal reflects only on the President who makes the decision, "...nothing more". Nothing more? But isn't a medal supposed, by definition, to reflect upon the recipient? It is nothing if it is not a token of prestige that has some kind of meaning. If the award of this medal to somebody like Uribe reflects only upon President Bush, because he made the decision, then surely the meaning of the medal is undermined? Aung San Suu Kyi has the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has the Presidential Medal of Freedom. So what does this medal mean? And whatever that meaning is, has the prestige conferred by this medal been enhanced or tarnished by awarding it to Uribe? If, say, on hearing that Uribe had received it, Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela handed their Presidential Medals of Freedom back, would that reflect on (a) them, (b) Bush, (c) Uribe or (d) the medal itself?
Would you care to express an unguarded view on the matter to kick start this debate?
In other words what does having this medal mean? To be enlightened on this matter was my reason for starting this Thread.
17 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFPersonally I have a conflicted view on the value of this medal also, because one of my countries longest serving Prime Ministers (John Howard) a man whose politics I loathed, along with Tony Blair and Uribe, also received this honour on the same day. To actually hear Bush's warm gush in addressing Howard made me feel vaguely ill to be honest and it reinforced the notion of the Medal recipient being simply a person who would stoically defend America's definition and notion of freedom through the situational ethical relativity of pragmatic real politic goals and desirable free market outcomes.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom has no resonance with me. That's why I am asking what it means. One can take a look a list of recipients but that reveals little or nothing. You've got Aung San Suu Kyi on one hand. And Alvaro Uribe on the other. Scriabin seemed to suggest that the award of this medal reflects only on the President who makes the decision, "...no g this medal mean? To be enlightened on this matter was my reason for starting this Thread.
17 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87Methinks Aung San Suu Kyi would be squirming slightly to hear this. Tony Blair, I gather, has yet to go and pick it up. Been a few years. Wonder whether he'll wear it on his chest when he sits down with those who consider themselves victims of those "pragmatic real politic goals" when he's doing his Middle East envoy for the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia thing.
the Medal recipient [is] simply a person who would stoically defend America's definition and notion of freedom through the situational ethical relativity of pragmatic real politic goals and desirable free market outcomes.
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFNo, it doesn't tarnish the metal. Takes more than a couple of questionables to ruin it's reputation. A good example of this is the Nobel Peace Prize.
Has Bush discredited the Presidential Medal of Freedom forever by awarding it to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe or does awarding it Uribe actually help us to understand what the Medal really means?
17 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI'm not sure anyone can apply the old because good men do nothing rubric anymore. If you consider your own analysis on the pervasive influence over power exerted by corporatism(which you acquitted admirably) then it seems we are unfortunately trapped within an outer rim of a highly organised and structured machine, that sees as its natural constituency, the average suburban 2.3 kid mall addicted family.
Wonder whether he'll wear it on his chest when he sits down with those who consider themselves victims of those "pragmatic real politic goals" when he's doing his Middle East envoy for the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia thing.
So whether by design or pure accident we have juxtaposed the ribbon tied pig tailed innocence of western suburban consumerism in a sense, dictating the rate and degree of exploitation of under developed and developing countries. The fact that all of this has been made possible by grand stratagems of IMF and World Bank tinkering seems a moot point to either the mall rat wealthy or the third world starving, yet the competition among corporations to target the privileged, while driving consumption, are also being wagged into more and more inhumane activity.
Given that it is now nigh on impossible to decide which part of the circle/cycle one would have to change in order to halt the victimization, such that our Tony can wear his medal with pride, it seems to almost reduce into that perfect- resolution before destruction moment- of planet earth by the Vogons, where one woman realises that the solution to the world's problems is everyone just being really nice to each other. I wish there was an answer.
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by MerkWhat is its reputation? This is my question. I look at the lists of recipients and I see no "meaning" connecting them. Irving Kristol, Nancy Reagan, A. M. Rosenthal, Edward Teller, Norman Podhoretz, L. Paul Bremer III, Tommy R. Franks, George J. Tenet, Daniel Patrick Moynihan (with the blood of 300,000 innocent East Timorese on his hands)... and then Hank Aaron, Bill Cosby, and Plácido Domingo... and now Alvaro Uribe. You tell me: what is the 'reputation' of this medal?
No, it doesn't tarnish the metal. Takes more than a couple of questionables to ruin it's reputation. A good example of this is the Nobel Peace Prize.
As far as I am concerned the Nobel Peace Prize has no meaning. You are right to bring it up.
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFMedal of freedom shtuff can be read here.
What is its reputation? This is my question. I look at the lists of recipients and I see no "meaning" connecting them. Irving Kristol, Nancy Reagan, A. M. Rosenthal, Edward Teller, Norman Podhoretz, L. Paul Bremer III, Tommy R. Franks, George J. Tenet, Daniel Patrick Moynihan (with the blood of 300,000 innocent East Timorese on his hands)... and then Hank Aaron, ...[text shortened]... As far as I am concerned the Nobel Peace Prize has no meaning. You are right to bring it up.
http://www.medaloffreedom.com/
This great honor is reserved for individuals the President deems to have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.
Basically, it's reputation is that its forpeople who have done a lot to help the US.
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by MerkWell no, actually that's not what a "reputation" is. A "reputation" is not what something is "for". Its "reputation" is something gained from looking at to whom it is awarded and what they did to be deemed worthy of the award. That is what a "reputation" is. Has awarding it to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe enhanced this reputation or diminsihed it?
Basically, it's reputation is that its forpeople who have done a lot to help the US.