Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 17

= May 17 =

updates on shooting suspect
Has there been any updates on the perpetrator in the 2009 Maryville First Baptist Church shooting so far?69.203.157.50 (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I searched for "Terry Sedlacek" on news.google.com and it looks like he's still being held without bail and has pleaded not guilty. Tempshill (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

By any chance could it have been the Lyme disease that might have triggered the massacre?69.203.157.50 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"unit pricing" in retail markets, esp. Grocery stores
I cannot find a reference to the system of "unit pricing" in retail markets, i.e. the practice of advertising prices of packaged goods as "per kilo", " per pound" etc.' regardless of container size. This is *uncommon* here in Australia, but I understand is common elsewhere e.g. N America. Can someone point me to the right place, please ? Feroshki (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question. We have an article on unit pricing.  And it has references.  Dismas |(talk) 04:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have seen the article on unit pricing but it didn't seem to refer to retail. The reason I mention the matter is because it's a current consumer issue here in A/a, with some resistance from corporate interests...perhaps the practice of listing prices of packaged/canned goods as "per kilo" is known by some other name elsewhere to A/a, and that's why I can't find it. It may help to know that only one supermarket chain in A/a Aldiprovides this information to consumers Feroshki (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Canada has unit pricing in most stores. The price of the package is the first "large" price written on a shelf tag or on a package sticker. The price per unit (per gram or per kilo, for example) is then presented below or beside the package price in smaller type as a rule.  This is to aid the consumer in value comparison shopping across brands and container sizes. (Here's a sample of the type of tag used, though this one is from the U.S. ) I suspect that almost all countries use a form of unit pricing for retail fuel purchases, for example: currency unit per gallon or litre.


 * The EU has the unit price directive 1998/6/EC, the aim of which is "to ensure that the selling price and the price per unit of measurement (unit price) are indicated for all products offered by traders to consumers, in order to improve consumer information and to facilitate comparison of prices." Of course, there are obvious exceptions, as it makes no sense to compare the "page price" of two books or the "price per square metre" of a number of paintings.  Here  is some info from the EU / 2006.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside to Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM's comment about paintings-by-the-square-metre: within a single artist's portfolio, and for each medium (oil, acrylic, watercolour), the price does tend to vary more or less directly by the size. All such a method would tell you, compared between artists, is whose paitnings are currently valued more highly by the marketplace, which you likely already know if you are about to purchase the work of a specific artist. There is also a practice among decorators of buying "books by the yard" for their appearance rather than their contents. // BL \\ (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There used to be a bookshop in Sheffield which sold remaindered books by the kilo. And Bill Drummond cut a £20,000 painting into 20,000 squares, to sell for £1 each, using the price per square metre approach. Warofdreams talk 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Slightly off topic, but I found the abbreviation A/a for "Australia" intriguing. Does anyone know what field or discipline uses such an abbreviation? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"A/a" is used in government circles in Australia, but not widely elsewhere in my experience, even here in A/a. Grateful to know any parallels elsewhere e.g. Canada..?? Feroshki (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never seen "C/a" in Canada. The abbreviation is almost always either CA, if there is no chance of confusing it with the U.S. postal abbreviation for California, or, and more usually, "CAN" and "Can". // BL \\ (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other examples of a slash being used in an abbreviation - "w/o" for "without" (and, by extension, "w/" for "with"), for example. I've not seen it used with the first and last letter of one word, though. --Tango (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It must be a recent thing in Australia. I was intimately connected with "government circles" for over 30 years (hence my propensity to go off at tangents, and being diametrically opposed to all sorts of things, not to mention having a pi-eyed view of the world), and I never saw it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Intimately connected with government circles'? You mean you knelt naked on the kitchen table with your hands tied behind your back, a bin-bag over your head, and a tangerine in your mouth? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, that's the one. But that was nothing.  I'd tell you about some of the more exciting things we regularly got up to, but I'm prevented by the Official Secrets Act. :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Draw duel
What is the basis for the popular duel scenes in westerns? Were duels actually fought this way waiting for the first person to draw? Is it just a myth popularized as a good tension building device? Duel didn't help. 190.17.201.142 (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article Gunfighter in the section "Fact versus fiction, gunfights", although lacking references (and thus could suggest original research), suggest that the "duel" type of gunfight rarely happened. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Popular myth says it was OK to shoot someone while defending yourself; that the one to draw first was the guilty one. However, I'm with Saddhiyama on this.  It is likely that this type of duel rarely happened.  Astronaut (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember years ago reading in a book on gunfighters that the "quick draw", so crucial in Hollywood Westerns, was of no importance in the real West. More important than the fast draw was the ability to shoot well while your adrenaline is pumping. Someone who can draw fast or shoot great in target practice might actually be worthless in a real gun fight against someone who can keep cool. I think that the book agreed with the previous responses that the stereotypical duel at high noon is a myth. Real gunfights were messy affairs and people avoided them. Real gunfighters usually just murdered unarmed or unprepared opponents. —Kevin Myers 17:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that explained rather well by Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman) in the movie Unforgiven? Astronaut (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A medieval duel was supposed to take place at noon, so that neither side would have the sun in his eyes. Of course, they weren't using guns, but maybe that's where the "high noon" idea originated. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple reaction time to start drawing after seeing the opponent start his draw would be 1/10 second or more. Our article Reaction time says it takes an improbably long 190 milliseconds to detect a visual stimulus. The Fast draw article says 208 msec is the record to draw and shoot after a start signal, but also says some can draw and shoot in 145 msec. One factor helping to get a short reaction time is anticipation of the start signal: the shooter might draw early and hope he did not foul by too early a draw. The one waiting for the other to draw would lose every time unless he was really quick and the first to draw was really slow. A good strategy would be to draw first, win the fight, and have your buddies all swear the other guy drew first. Or have a fast horse ready and get out of town. Edison (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 21 July, 1865, Springfield, Missouri.&mdash;eric 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It could seem like it was this single example of a duel, that was the inspiration for similar quick draw duels in countless Western movies. Of course the quick draw duel also fits more easily into the old fashioned good guys bad guys narrative, that was (and is) Hollywood standard in these sort of movies. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I recall an anecdote of some prominent scientist who had a pet idea about quickdraw duels. He challenged all comers to a duel with toy dart-pistols, and he never drew first, his idea being that the one urgently reacting to the other's draw is likely to be quicker than the one who draws on his own initiative.  —Tamfang (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The instant death from one shot in western films is also doubtful. The person with a fatal shot to the gut or lung should still be able to fire his weapon for many seconds. Edison (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck, people have been drilled through the heart (with small bullets) and kept going for several minutes. —Tamfang (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Being shot in the gut often doesn't kill you for several hours, or even days. --Tango (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism, Evolution, Human Nature, and Capitalism
Are there any atheists or evolutionists who believe that human beings are born evil by nature, or at least does not believe that human beings are born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society? Are there any atheists or evolutionists who support capitalism, laissez faire, or free enterpise?

I am asking you this because of a passage from a book called The Battle For Truth by David Noebel:


 * The secular humanist and the Marxist's false ideas about economics and politics [socialism, communism, and world government] come from their misconceptions about human nature [good by birth but corrupted by corrupt society], which in turn come from their misconceptions about man's origins [evolution, no creation or Fall].

IS THAT TRUE? If so, then how do you respond to this statement? What would atheists and evolutionists who believe that human nature is evil or support capitalism think about that?

Bowei Huang (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what all the fuss is about, but there are certainly individuals of anarcho-capitalist leanings who are atheists... AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That statement is not true. The author claims that abiogenesis is a misconception without establishing (or incorrectly establishing) that it is in fact a misconception. Then he claims that this "misconception" somehow leads to an incorrect understanding of human nature. That doesn't make sense. Anything he says after that can be safely ignored. There are capitalist atheists and religious communists. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement is also false because it assumes that athiests and/or "evolutionists"(?) make any assumption about the "good" or "evil" in human nature. I speculate that most athiests reject the theological concept of original sin, but it does not follow that an athiest thinks that man is "good." Evolution neither supports nor rejects the idea of a "good" or "evil" nature. A consequence of evolution is that an individual's "nature" acts to maximize its own procreation, resulting in behavior that migh look like "original sin" to some people. -Arch dude (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The question begins: "Are there any atheists or evolutionists who believe...", and to that the answer must under all circumstances most likely be Yes, there are, since of the millions of atheists and evolutionists out there, there'll be people believing anything. If you look carefully enough, you'll find contradictory beliefs anywhere. If you're actually interested if "human beings are born evil by nature" is a majority belief among atheists, I think you should consider the fact that 1) We usually (by default as atheists, without adding some system of values, e.g. humanism) don't consider people being X by nature 1) 'evil' isn't a meaningful concept without an value system of some sort 3) Believe is precisely what we don't do. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Before you can really consider questions like this you need to define "good" and "evil". Religion gives an easy way to do that ("good" is whatever God(s) say(s) it is), but there is no such obvious answer for atheists. One big question in this regard is whether "goodness" is a property of a person or of that person's actions. If you choose the latter, then people aren't born either good or evil since they haven't done anything yet. --Tango (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe in any of these things about gods or psychics or ESP or anything like that and I'd have to say that the whole question strikes me as a bit meaningless. The bit in capitals is obviously supposed to denote something important, I determine truth by what can be determined by experiment or seems sensible using logic from what normally happens in the real world or is well verified for the past. I can't seem to apply that sort of criteria to the question or at least it would take an awful lot of reinterpretation. How can one determine if a person was born evil by nature? If a person supports capitalism or communism does the questioner mean a person who has a kind of non-rational belief in them where they will follow some teaching whether it conflicts with reality or not? Or would someone who thinks that some of what they say is right butcan 'believe' in both of them to an extent? The questioner is as far as I'm concerned some sort of alien talking in concepts that I simply do not understand. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now read the wiki article on secular humanist and I agree with most of the views expressed there. Dmcq (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Are there any atheists or evolutionists who support capitalism, laissez faire, or free enterpise?" Doesn't Ayn Rand fit that description? +Angr 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm an atheist and support free market economics. Humans are not born good nor evil, but neutral as babies don't have any concept of good and evil.  In any case, good and evil are human concepts, ideas that every culture decides for themselves.  Just my 2 cents.
 * Penn & Teller are famous libertarian atheists.
 * BTW, just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you are an atheist. There are many people who believe in god(s) and evolution at the same time.  They're not at all mutually exclusive.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True; see theistic evolution (a position of which I am an adherent). +Angr 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Man River
What is the name of the character in popular mythology who lurks in rivers and clambers on the backs of all who seek a passage to the other side, depleting them of their vitality until they waste away and drown? Is it Old Man River? I looked this up on the search engine and could only find a bunch of songs. Thanks, friends! MelancholyDanish (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)MelancholyDanish


 * Well, "popular mythology" is an awfully broad field. You could be talking about the Slavic vodyanoy or rusalka, the Finnish näkki, the Celtic kelpie, or even plain old mermaids. I believe "Old man river", however, typically refers to the Mississippi River rather than an entity. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Old Man River' makes me think of the Old Man of the Sea. Algebraist 17:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Following the same line, 'Old Man of the Sea' makes me think of Chicken of the Sea.--Wetman (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By any chance are you thinking of a D&D related character? I'm bringing up a mental picture of the B&W drawing of such a character which I would think I saw in the Deities and Demigods or perhaps Fiend Folio book, but I don't have my first-edition D&D books handy to look.  Tempshill (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See the fifth voyage of Sinbad the Sailor, when he generously offers to carry an old man across a river, and the passenger refuses to let go. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

21st century monarchism
I was reading about the hapless Emperor Bokassa I of Central Africa, and wondered if there are any successful recent (say post 1970) examples of a country adopting or restoring a monarchy. When was the last time it happened, and where? 86.162.195.195 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Monarchy was restored in Spain in 1975 under King Juan Carlos I. There is a strong possibility that monarchy of Georgia will also be restored because it was abolished by the Russians when they annexed Georgia. Monarchical movement in Georgia is strongly supported by very influential religious leaders. Read the article about monarchy of Georgia for more information. Surtsicna (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly restored monarchism, but I suppose it's close enough: Simeon II of Bulgaria, of royal blood, was prime minister of Bulgaria for a while (2001-2005). TomorrowTime (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The monarchy of Cambodia was restored in 1993. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How to contact an author
I have been trying to find one specific authors email for a few weeks and havent had any luck. I am very impressed with her writing and i myself am hoping to write some of my own and wish too ask her a few questions about her experience. any suggestions on how too find a way too con tact her?

(p.s. her name is Ann Rinaldi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Google: Her official website  gives an email address.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Vatican pornography
Several editors in the Russian Wikipedia debate the existence of a Secret Cabinet in the Vatican Palace. It is supposed to contain heaps of sexually explicit imagery from the ancient world, as described in an obscure 1920s book by a German art historian who was allowed to visit. I wonder whether this is just an urban legend... --Ghirla-трёп- 19:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. This book refers to the "Vatican bathroom decorated in erotic style by Raphael and his assistants". So there might be something behind the legend. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vatican Library does mention this. See e.g. http://www.snopes.com/risque/porn/vatican.asp and http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/63/does-the-vatican-have-the-worlds-largest-pornography-collection Шизомби (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Name of the 1920s german art historian?--Radh (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that nobody can recall it :( --Ghirla-трёп- 08:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * this is an interesting book you give as a reference, but I'd say it points to a hoax. Also: if it had been an established german art historian, wouldn't one know about it? :(--Radh (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Straight Dope column about this mentioned above is from 1982, and the answer probably hasn't changed since then. Tempshill (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily true. Religious figures have been known to have large collections of pornography on their personal computers, which were not common in 1982. :) Шизомби (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would not be unreasonable to find that there was a selection of pornographic material in the Vatican, confiscated from various places, or perhaps even occasionally commissioned by a resident. It seems improbable that they would have the world's largest collection, especially given the Kinsey Institute's collection. It'd be fun to poke around in the Vatican library for a year or two. Steewi (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in the Secret Museum, Naples, which kept the erotic treasures of Pompeii away from idle eyes. Such collections were known as gabinetti segreti. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

cemetary
what is the name and address of the main cemetary23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.82.224 (talk)
 * For which church or civil jurisdiction? // BL \\ (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, I've seen everything. Someone thinks Wikipedia has a place where we bury people. Unless it's just for dead subjects. :-)


 * Seriously, I know some forget this site is read around the world. But, at least give us a hint as to where. (Hmmm, maybe the person is driving, like the one who asked for directions on one of the desks recently.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this what you're looking for?--86.25.195.142 (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the original questioner's ISP is in Richardson, Texas. Though that doesn't help much. If you do check back, 75, and I'm trying to be helpful here and not annoying, if you do any searching for cemeteries online, remember that "cemetery" doesn't contain the letter "a". - Nunh-huh 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging from the ISP, the OP might be thinking of Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery. (2000 Mountain Creek Parkway, Dallas, TX 75211) or maybe the Texas State Cemetery (901 Navasota Street, Austin, TX 78702) or possibly Arlington National Cemetery (Memorial Drive, Arlington, VA 22211) but who knows really. —D. Monack talk 23:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Researching my MP, in the UK
The details published about the expenses of MPs shows that my local MP has spent just a few pounds short of the maximum expenses. 1) Is it possible to find out which location the MP considers her or his first home? Because if his local home here is the one he's claiming expenses for, then its difficult to think what he could spend all that money on, since this is one of the cheaper areas. 2) Is it possible to find out whereabouts an MP has a house? I have been told that my MP owns property in a location that has benefited (increased prices) from a multi-million pound road diversion scheme that he supported, even though local people were against it. I would like to find out if there is any truth in that. 78.149.113.72 (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that information is publicly available yet. Some of it should be released when the Freedom of Information request is fulfilled, which I think is intended to be in June sometime. I doubt they'll give out exact addresses of MPs, though, for security reasons. --Tango (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it holds it but theyworkforyou.com holds most of the publically available information about MPs. I would also note that you should be dubious of deciding conspiracy based on whether or not MP X benefits from approving a scheme. Correlation does not imply causation and all that. Similarly just because where you live is low-cost doesn't mean that that constituency is devoid of any high-income homes. Also it may be worth looking up the 'green book' on expense guidelines for MPs - often you'll find the "outrageous" press-things can be explained as being quite 'reasonable' when considered from a more reasoned perspective. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As in most places, many or most of the local councillors here are small shopkeepers. Merely by coincidence the same locally opposed road scheme resulted in car parking spaces being put outside the shop doors of at least two (edit: at least three) of the councillors shops. On the evidence I am forming the opinion that councillors will support any scheme no matter how ill-advised or wasteful, provided it gets a few more people into their shops. This town does seem to be ruin for the benefit of small shopkeepers rather than the locals. 89.243.221.140 (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

When you say "locally opposed" do you mean a few folks didn't like it? Were there any petitions, were there any votes against it? Do you believe that people in a small commnunity do not benefit from increased economic activity in their local area?

Given there are no details present it's tough to rationlise the decision making process too much...but logically - car parks are best located near businesses because A) many shoppers want to be able to park near shops B) It can bring income into the local ecnomoy C) It places car-parks next to commercial areas rather than in residential zones and D) Shops by and large, tend to be well located for throughput in towns/cities and so the car-park will be in a oft visited place.

All of the above reasons could easily be true in this case, but a cynic will just decide that it was only developed to line the pockets of the local politician - because, unfortunately, people are extremely cynical about politicians. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there were petitions. I do not know the extent of the voting against it - as far as I am aware that kind of information is never made public or published in this town. I'm not even sure if people are allowed to attend council meetings. The MP above appears to have used up almost all his secondhome allowance for each of the past few years. The amount each year is near the median average yearly salary, so goodness knows what he finds to spent it on. 89.240.108.251 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean did the public vote against this scheme in local elections, then the problem is that there were no local elections prior to the scheme being confirmed, so it was impossible to vote against it. A local referendrum would have been nice. Some of the political parties were against it. Like so many things, such as real-time government CCTV surveillance, the public never gets any opportunity to vote against them. I do not know of any political party that yet says it wants to axe them. Hence voter apathy - people think that one politician is just as bad as any other. 78.149.172.201 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the requirement, but I am almost certain that almost all 'Council meetings' have to be held open to the public (not all meetings to do with the council though, of course). Similarly your MP may be renting a second-home, this would explain the allowance largely being used. You should try to first start with the fair and reasoned expectation of their behaviour, rather than (as you appear to be) assuming that everything that is a cost is somehow dubious. Ultimately MPs are cheap in comparison to the average Director's salary (FTSE 100 listed firm) - an average FTSE 100 director's basic salary is £386,000 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/boardroom-pay-soars-in-ftse-100-companies-620425.html) wuth MPs considerably less than this. I don't deny that some take advantage of the allowance and that this is wrong, but the salary - including expenses - being paid is (for the level of role) reasonably modest. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at my local governments website, I did eventually find some minutes of meetings. They might have been planning meetings. The information is hidden away and very user unfriendly. It ought to be easily accessable from the welcome page, and have a clear timetable and guide to whats available. Unfotunately its the strong-arm aspect of local government that they emphasise, and the democratic aspect is all but ignored - no wonder few people bother to vote. I would like to see simple webcasts of council meetings - at least sound but preferably vision too, since as they spend a great deal of time and money watching us through municipal CCTV, we ought to be able to see them too. I do not think members of the public are allowed to attend council meetings in this town, I now remember reading about some obscure reason for this.


 * The MP involved is a Labour MP. MPs are meant to be representatives of the people. They lose that if they get paid high salaries. Currently the basic MP salary is over three times the median average full-time salary - cannot remember the exact figures. Taking three peoples salary for one job is a lot, even ingoring their perks. The salaries of the FTS100 execs are not comparable, you might as well compare them to what someone like Madonna or the Beckams earn. 78.149.232.7 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The design of local government websites could undoubtedly be improved - you can always lodge a request for copies of minutes with your councillor (though a small cost may be attached for production).

Salary wise - be reasonable. The role of MP is among the highest ranking roles in politics, it is a hugely important role and is easily comparable to being a director of a FTSE 100 company. The level of the role, the prestige and the skills required to perform the role are undoubtedly similar. It is borderline childish to expect that a role of such importance will carry a small salary. Their job is not to be an average person, it is to represent the interests of its constituents. I earn nearly the median salary and I am someone in a low-rank position in a large organisation. I have 6 tiers of management above me - each tier earning a chunk more per year. It's silly to expect my MP not to be paid significantly more than me. If you don't agree that they are comparable to a company director, maybe a comparison to the average judge salary (£128,000)? All i'm try to show is that what you think is a "huge" salary is, in comparable roles, quite modest. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Woah woah woah woah woah. The only reason salaries were introduced for MPs at all was to encourage the mix to be more representative of the people: when there was no salary, people could only be MPs if they had independent means of support, meaning only the wealthy or those sponsored by someone else could stand. It was never intended to give prestige. If someone is thinking about standing for parliament, and doesn't because the pay is less than they could make elsewhere (despite being enough to live on comfortably), then that person is unsuitable to be an MP. If the role already comes with prestige, there is no need to add additional financial incentives.
 * There has been a lot of talk lately about the change in ethos brought about by the rise of career politicians, generally from the point of view that this is a bad thing. Being an MP isn't supposed to be a role like company director, where you rise up through the ranks of a company. It isn't supposed to be the pinnacle of a career spent working your way up in politics. It isn't supposed to be something like company director where someone offers a better financial package and you jump ship. It's supposed to be something you do because you care about the decisions made by government, think these decisions would be better made with you there, and can convince the citizens of a constituency of the same. The salary is a living allowance, so you don't have to worry about personal financial issues. The same thing the expenses were there for. Anyone in it for the money should let us know so we can make sure we never vote for them again. 80.41.99.250 (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)