陳冲／公雞當首長 有何不可

陳冲／公雞當首長 有何不可

http://udn.com/news/story/7340/2176302

龍應台：公雞可以做市長

http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5075978

公雞可以當市長？　柯文哲表示...

http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5076287

蔣丙煌當部長從「不裝會」：制度若強，公雞也能當市長

http://health.ettoday.net/news/701249

馬上天下 第1集

http://www.dramaq.biz/immediately-world/ep1.php

There're two kinds of policy-making, one being a politician version, the other civil servant's

為何不說清楚 非核的代價 | 評論 | 聯合新聞網

http://goo.gl/W0AGbf

​I used to introduce a very credibly funny BBC TV series 'Yes, Minister'. In one of the

series, there were very farciful and ironical conversation on how government policy

was made. In a nutshell, it boiled down to there were 2 versions of policies, one being

what touted by the politician, which always were vague, false, twisted, and trying to hide the

truth, and other being the civil servant's, which aimed to do everything possible to 

​would move heaven and earth not to do what they're told. 

Specifically, a "brave" decision was one that would lose you votes, whereas a "courageous" 

one was one that would lose you the election.

​james​

This is such a key point I couldn't help lift it from XpCourageValue

On the subject of courage, there was a set of comedy programmes in the UK called Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. The minister, Jim Hacker, was a mediocre politician whose permanent secretary, Sir Humphrey, was the bane of his life. The PS was a civil servant who saw his job as maintaining the status quo. Occasionally someone with a good idea would talk to Jim, who would then formulate a policy which Sir Humphrey would have to implement. Of course, since that would change the status quo, Sir Humphrey would move heaven and earth not to do what he was told. Jim would override all Sir Humphrey's objections. The PS would always get his way in the end: he described the new policy as courageous!

So the interaction would go something like:

• Jim Hacker: So I fully plan to do X ...
• Sir Humphrey: How very courageous Minister.
• Jim Hacker: Oh dear ... is it, why? (backs down)

Specifically, a "brave" decision was one that would lose you votes, whereas a "courageous" one was one that would lose you the election.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

: I foresee all sorts of of unforeseen problems. 
Jim Hacker

: Such as? 
Sir Humphrey Appleby

: If I could foresee them, they wouldn't be unforeseen. 

Sir Humphrey Appleby

: If local authorities don't send us the statistics that we ask for, then government figures will be a nonsense. 
James Hacker

: Why? 
Sir Humphrey Appleby

: They will be incomplete. 
James Hacker

: But government figures are a nonsense anyway. 
Bernard Woolley

: I think Sir Humphrey want to ensure they are a complete nonsense.