h a l f b a k e r yCaution!
Contents may be not!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
It is a widely-held belief that in the past, statemen were noble, selfless, patriotic, had high moral and ethical standards and were incorruptible; whereas today the political system is packed with self-serving toadies, out for nothing more than to make a quick buck and sort out sinecure jobs for their
grafting friends and relatives.
Clearly, the answer is to bring back the previous politicians.
However, this presents dificulties, one of the most insuperable being that they are by and large deceased (no bad thing in some cases).
A solution is at hand.
Alongside the other candidates in elections, an actor would stand. He or she would be chosen for his or her close physical resemblance to the original politician.
The Actor would not express their own views. Instead, a team of historians would suppy the answers that the real historical individual would have given in the same or similar circumstances. It would be futile to ask the opinion of the real Socrates on the topic of Internet Privacy, or Louis XIV on same-sex marriage. But the historians should be able to come up with a close approximation to what they would have said. Socrates would no doubt be able to put forward some very apposite arguments of the arguments of state power and freedom of the individual.
Subject to public approval, fictional characters could be elected. Bugs Bunny would make a wonderfully laid-back secretary of state, and crime figures would plummet if Judge Dredd were Minister of Justice with Extreme Prejudice.
Country under external threat ? Elect Winston Churchill. Need to deal with secessionist provinces ? Abraham Lincoln would be your man for that one. Mediterranean country bankrupt, and overwhelmed by refugees ? Well, how about the Emperor Nero ? A short life, but full of entertaining incident ...
Fantasy Leagues of Nations
Fantasy_20League_20Of_20Nations
[theircompetitor, Oct 06 2015]
"We Can Build You" by Phillip K. Dick
https://en.wikipedi...ki/We_Can_Build_You
A small company begins production of androids (intended at first for fairground attractions) based on famous Civil War figures, complete with all available historical knowledge of their thoughts, sayings and writings, and a conversation engine. The firm completes two prototypes, Edwin M. Stanton and Abraham Lincoln - and a John Wilkes Booth prototype. Though not mentioned in the link, the Lincoln bot becomes the company's lawyer. Hilarity ensues. [BunsenHoneydew, Oct 08 2015]
Meeting of Minds
http://www.steveall...eeting_of_minds.htm
It sounds like you want to do for elections what Steve Allen did for talk shows. [LoriZ, Oct 19 2015]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I was about to trash the idea as based on bollocks, but
reading beyond your first sentence I understand that
you're proposing to elect (or at least have standing as
candidates for election) not the true historic character,
many of whom were likely just as self-serving as today's
crop, but the sanitized and edited version represented in
history books, legends and, lately, Hollywood
blockbusters. |
|
| |
Perhaps the basis is not bollocks, but it surely trips over
plenty of them when it comes to choosing "the historians"
on whose analysis and judgement your avatar is to act.
The likely response to 21st century crises of even latter-
day heroes such as Batman and Judge Dredd would be a
matter of interminable debate, unless you severely
restrict the panel, in which case all the power lies with
the panel selectors, potentially a bunch just as self-
serving as the politicians you're trying to avoid. |
|
| |
// I was about to trash the idea as
based on bollocks, // |
|
| |
Seems fair. What stopped you ? |
|
| |
// but reading beyond your first sentence I understand // |
|
| |
Who or what are you, and what are you doing in the halfbakery ? |
|
| |
//all the power lies with the panel selectors// |
|
| |
I unagree. Most people can imagine the likely
responses of Winston Churchill, Ken Livingstone
(may he rest in peace), Emperor Schlatzburg-
Köningen-Köningen or Socrates to a given situation
- and those imaginings are not always in accord
with ones own views. |
|
| |
Howevertheless, I would suggest that we do away
with the panel of historians (most historians are a
waste of valuable minerals), and rely instead on
the judgement of the Actor. Actors are often quite
good at getting into character, and would probably
make a better job of it than the historians. More
importantly, they would make a better job of
politicking than most politicians. |
|
| |
(damn, this is a difficult one to squeeze out) |
|
| |
Incidentally, has anyone noticed the resemblance
between a [+] and the rear view of a Manx cat? |
|
| |
Ah, so this is how King Arthur will return! |
|
| |
First order of business: [+] |
|
| |
//Country under external threat ? Elect Winston
Churchill.// |
|
| |
There's a problem here. Much of what made Churchill an
excellent wartime politician was innovation and political
acumen. An actor and a group of historians could not
create these qualities. |
|
| |
I suspect that an actor in character as Churchill
would make less harmful decisions than, say,
Cameron in character as Cameron. |
|
| |
Churchill was every bit the Tory upper class twit Cameron is. Arguably worse. |
|
| |
Arguably, but not provably. |
|
| |
At least you'd get a better class of oratory with Winston. |
|
| |
Personally, I like upper class twits. Most of them are
fairly OK, and they seldom do a lot of damage. I also
like lower class oiks, for much the same reason. |
|
| |
Ultimately, politicians don't accomplish a lot. They
just oversee whatever disasters or triumphs are
happening to the country while they're in office, and
maybe tweak a few of the details. Unless there
happens to be an important war on, in which case I
reckon Winston has the advantage. |
|
| |
//they seldom do a lot of damage//
sp: they seldom do a lot of damage to anywhere important (i.e. the home counties). |
|
| |