Sports news

Did you see that Kenyan lady runner who collapsed before the finishing line and pulled herself up on hands and knees, drooling and crawling over the finishing line?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31513159

What an inspiring image of true determination, dignity and spirit. Memorable.

Hmmmm! Is anything (other than defending one's life) worth that?? I didn't see anything 'dignified' in it. Courageous definitely but - - - - - -?

It does seem an extreme effort to win a running race, the determination to achieve whatever it is you set out to do is a rare and respectable quality.

Being one who always remains optimistic and determined, even to the point of lunacy, I can see the virtue, if any, of finishing what you start. I doubt I would push it to my own personal extinction. That has no merit as it obviously has no future. Fair fortune.

The lady runner didn't make herself extinct, she made herself a winner, well, third place. When her legs buckled beneath her, yards from the finishing line, she could have either given in or crawled the last few yards. Many people experience times in their life when they can either give in, or metaphorically, crawl just that bit further over the finishing line. On the question of dignity, there can be a dignity in vulnerability, Ghandi demonstrated that with his determined non-violence.

Yes. It's all a question of degrees. There are indeed a minimum of fifty shades of grey to say the least. I don't like vulnerability even as a concept and would therefore never use it other than perhaps to 'save' my life. I certainly wouldn't use it to 'endanger' my life. I consider that to push oneself to such an extreme as was witnessed by this lady is pure folly. I don't do folly either.
But - hey - that's just me.

The need to suceed motivates people in all areas of life. The Channel4 'sting' shows M.P.s crawling and drooling over the shoes of imaginary rich Chinese businessmen. These M.P.s must be exhausted, already working full time in parliament and as 'advisors', yet still desperately wanting more . . . money.

Having been born into riches (as most have). Having lived with riches (or good fat salaries). And having no concepts of how the rest of us live. Such people firstly don't KNOW they are expecting too much, secondly don't 'CARE' and thirdly have a mind-set for 'COMFORTABLE' amounts of recompense in everything that they do. It was quite apparent Rifkin seriously didn't think that what he was doing was both risky (in terms of morality) or selfish in the extreme. We live in a world of two haves - I'll have what I can grab - and have the rest of you f***** in the process.
So what's new people?

Perhaps you are more wordly-wise than me, Atlas. Following the expenses scandal and other information about members of parliament, I'd formed the opinion a lot of them are a waste of space, but the arrogance, stupidity, avarice and squirminess displayed by Malcolm Rifkind did shock me. Jack Straw wasn't quite as bad, with his Jack the lad act, but, with people like that in charge of the country, we would do better to sack the lot and ask the management of one of the big supermarkets, or one of the larger and more reliable second hand car dealerships to form a government instead.

Mr.Rifkind, over the last few days has brought parliament into disrepute. Not quite as bad as treason, hanging would not be called for. A suitable sentence, especially as he says he has plenty of spare time, would be community service.

But he hasn't broken any civil or criminal laws. The laws are made by the rich for the rich because they think that we are all rich. They don't know that there are poor people. They've heard of them of course, but they consider them to be figments of sad peoples imagination. Ergo - there's plenty to go around for everyone so if I take a big slice today (as is my right) who is going to care?

As for second-hand car salesmen forming governments. If enough lunatics vote UKIP this coming election we will have a government of second-hand car salesmen - certainly second-hand something anyway. Dearie me. What a shower.

It could be argued that Mr. Rifkind did bring parliament into disrepute, not because he broke any rules, but because, by his words and actions over a few days, he brought parliament into disrepute. It could also be argued that he simply brought into the limelight how many of our M.P.s normally and habitually think, act, and behave. In either case, as a result, some compulsory community service for him would be a good idea. 

The argument put forward for M.P. having second jobs is that it gives them experience of the world outside politics. There is merit in this, but preferably M.P.s should become M.P.s after they have had some such experience, and concentrate on being M.P.s once they are elected.

We should not underestimate the complexity and hard work that goes into running a sucessful supermarket chain or large second hand car business. There are many practical, technical, legal, diplomatic, communication and organisational skills involved, such management teams might serve well in parliament, getting things done.

One is not saying that their organisational skills won't be beneficial (supermarket staff/second-hand car dealers) but one does have issues with their morality as regards others.
Rifkind - yes CCS wouldn't do him any harm. But I doubt he could stand the pace.
And ALL MP's should have community experience before entering politics - but who would ensure the same and by what criteria. That's a non-starter I'm afraid.

The house of commons works in a very traditional way, set up for priviliged amateurs. In the world of a hundred years ago, it worked well enough, and continuity has it's value. More recently though, poorly informed and damaging decisions have been made, as usually becomes apparent some time after the fact. It's a more complicated and technical world now. M.P.s should be full time doing their job. A well thought out process, updating rules and procedures of parliament needs to be agreed on and started.

Couldn't agree more on MP's doing only the one job. However they need to be paid a proper salary and expenses if they are to do the job properly. A golden handshake should be given (as now) if they loose their seat at the next or subsequent elections to enable them to re-arrange their future occupation thereafter. Likewise all elections should be tax funded and it should be a criminal offense for any political party/politician to receive monies or expensive goods from so called 'well-wishers'. It should also be a criminal offense for politicians to accept, within the first five years, positions in any company or organisation that can be seen to have 'benefited' in the past from that politicians efforts in parliament during his tenure.
We will never get it right. There will always be 'ways' that people will corrupt the system given half a chance - but there is nothing stopping us from trying.

Are there enough unselfish people who would be willing and able to be M.P.s, to work hard and full time without the motivation of potentially being in a position to cream off some of the wealth they hopefully help to create? Or, is an underlying motivation for wealth and power a necessary personality trait to even survive in politics?

At the right salary and with the right motivation the answer is 'Yes'. MP's and Councilors did not get paid at all until early in the last century when it was thought that a salary would prevent too much corruption or self-interest to muddy the waters. The Queen must at least be perceived as being purer and whiter than white even if such be less than the case.