6 ms·

Uruguay's population is 3.3 million, which is a bit smaller than Oklahoma, for comparison. It's not shocking to me that a head of state of a small country lik

Uruguay's population is 3.3 million, which is a bit smaller than Oklahoma, for comparison. It's not shocking to me that a head of state of a small country like that doesn't have all the trappings and security a of a country of 100mm / 300mm / a billion people.

jules 13y ago
I'm pretty sure Uruguay can afford a palace and a motorcade ;-)
- tcdent 13y ago
  The article states there is a palace, but he has repurposed it as a shelter for the homeless. This is is a deliberate decision, not becasue of a lack of resources.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    Such a meaningless populist gesture. I suppose the symbolism is...something.
    - deletes 13y ago
      He is showing what kind of person he is. The gesture is probably unprecedented in the world.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      A homeless shelter is "meaningless"? Wow. I could understand downplaying its significance (e.g. the leader of a country could do more good with policy that improves his country's economy) but giving people shelter is not "meaningless" no matter how you slice it.
      - macspoofing 13y ago
        Nothing wrong with a shelter. However the the act of designating the presidential palace as a homeless shelter is meaningless because it a) doesn't actually fix anything (one shelter does not a social policy make and has no wider impact - and that's what national governments concern themselves with) b) there is no good reason to re-purpose that particular building, as opposed to another building or spending a few extra bucks and building another. I may be showing my cynical side, but it seems the only reason this was done was to score some cheap PR points with the voters.
        SamReidHughes 13y ago
        It sets the tone.
        mikeash 13y ago
        I see the problem. You meant "meaningless" as in "it doesn't tell us anything about whether this person is a great guy or not". I interpreted "meaningless" as in "this act has no consequences and does not actually help people as it intends to do".
    - malandrew 13y ago
      The man spent two years in solitary confinement at the bottom of a well. He has a much greater appreciation for simple living than the typical head of state and how even small gestures can mean a lot to people. Using the palace for himself and his family provides far less marginal utility than using it to house many homeless people.
  - notanidiot5 13y ago
    Or...maybe a political decision? Who would have thunk!
- bpodgursky 13y ago
  Oh I'm sure they COULD if they really wanted one, you just don't generally have the same security concerns you have with a large country. It's just not as surprising to me that they decided they didn't need one.
  - ojii 13y ago
    how is security of the head of state, or anyone for that matter, related to the size/population of the country?
    - sokoloff 13y ago
      The security should scale in some relation to the threat. The more resources a country has, the higher the profile a target that head of state will be. Would a politically motivated group want to make a name for themselves or make a statement, they're more likely to attack a first world leader than a third world leader. Domestic threats also likely scale at least linearly, and possibly more quickly, with population. I think we overdo it with our post-9/11 security theater, seemingly more interested in full employment than meaningful improvements in the life of Americans, but I'm quite sure that large, rich nations' heads of state face greater threats than smaller, less wealthy nations.
mb_72 13y ago
Estonia has a population of 1.3 million, and the head of state certainly has all of those 'trappings' and security etc. It's more about a deliberate choice of how the country's money is spent.
- crdoconnor 13y ago
  Your parliamentary debate chamber looks like an overgrown classroom though. Quite austere I thought.
  - mb_72 13y ago
    I think the 'current' design of the parliamentary chamber is from the '20s - the austerity is probably accidental and a sign of it's age more than anything else. Some (English) history of the parliamentary building is here, should you be interested: http://www.riigikogu.ee/index.php?id=37659 http://www.riigikogu.ee/index.php?id=37659
cwp 13y ago
He doesn't even have the trappings of the Governor of Oklahoma.
grecy 13y ago
These size comparisons always seem strange to me. Uruguay has 3.3 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The US has 310 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The fact that the US has more people to collect taxes from means it's spendings pot is obviously much bigger, but that absolutely does not mean it can be wasted on "trappings" for the leaders. Each and every person still needs all the basic services, so at the end of the day, there is the same basic amount per person to spend. Why do you think that a country with more taxpayers has more money for "trappings"?
- bpodgursky 13y ago
  I agree with you on stuff like schools, firemen, and healthcare. But it's a different calculation for a head of state. When 300mm people look to an individual as a leader (rather than 3mm people) there are 100x as many threats to their security via disgruntled citizens, crazy people, etc, so physical security has to scale. It's like saying, "why does the mayor of my town not need the same number of secret service as the president?" There are just far fewer things they feel the need to defend from.
  - Of_Prometheus 13y ago
    The comparison, then, should be with the governor of Oklahoma, who lives in the Governor's Mansion.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin
  - Of_Prometheus 13y ago
    The comparison, then, should be with the governor of Oklahoma, who lives in the Governor's Mansion.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin
  - grecy 13y ago
    Rather than spending money "defending" your leaders, wouldn't it be better if you addressed the issues and actually figured out why people want to cause harm to their leaders? You know, many developed countries don't even have a security force for their leaders, and for example, the ex-Prime Minister of Australia went jogging all the time by himself, in whatever city he happens to be in.
locusm 13y ago
So did New Zealand 20 years ago. Not sure what your point is.
abrahamsen 13y ago
The Oklahoma Governor's Mansion, if anyone else is curious: http://www.ok.gov/governor/Mansion.html http://www.ok.gov/governor/Mansion.html
rbanffy 13y ago
Maybe not the trappings, but the security is a function of how many enemies the politician in question and its country have. The downside of "liberating" countries by invading them (or funding revolutions) and installing puppet governments is that some part of the population gets really annoyed with that. I'd love to live in a world where every president could live without a human shield around them, not because they would be more accessible to their people (which would be a nice plus) but because it would be a symptom the world has become a safe place.

jules 13y ago

I'm pretty sure Uruguay can afford a palace and a motorcade ;-)

tcdent 13y ago
The article states there is a palace, but he has repurposed it as a shelter for the homeless. This is is a deliberate decision, not becasue of a lack of resources.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  Such a meaningless populist gesture. I suppose the symbolism is...something.
  - deletes 13y ago
    He is showing what kind of person he is. The gesture is probably unprecedented in the world.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    A homeless shelter is "meaningless"? Wow. I could understand downplaying its significance (e.g. the leader of a country could do more good with policy that improves his country's economy) but giving people shelter is not "meaningless" no matter how you slice it.
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      Nothing wrong with a shelter. However the the act of designating the presidential palace as a homeless shelter is meaningless because it a) doesn't actually fix anything (one shelter does not a social policy make and has no wider impact - and that's what national governments concern themselves with) b) there is no good reason to re-purpose that particular building, as opposed to another building or spending a few extra bucks and building another. I may be showing my cynical side, but it seems the only reason this was done was to score some cheap PR points with the voters.
      - SamReidHughes 13y ago
        It sets the tone.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        I see the problem. You meant "meaningless" as in "it doesn't tell us anything about whether this person is a great guy or not". I interpreted "meaningless" as in "this act has no consequences and does not actually help people as it intends to do".
  - malandrew 13y ago
    The man spent two years in solitary confinement at the bottom of a well. He has a much greater appreciation for simple living than the typical head of state and how even small gestures can mean a lot to people. Using the palace for himself and his family provides far less marginal utility than using it to house many homeless people.
- notanidiot5 13y ago
  Or...maybe a political decision? Who would have thunk!
bpodgursky 13y ago
Oh I'm sure they COULD if they really wanted one, you just don't generally have the same security concerns you have with a large country. It's just not as surprising to me that they decided they didn't need one.
- ojii 13y ago
  how is security of the head of state, or anyone for that matter, related to the size/population of the country?
  - sokoloff 13y ago
    The security should scale in some relation to the threat. The more resources a country has, the higher the profile a target that head of state will be. Would a politically motivated group want to make a name for themselves or make a statement, they're more likely to attack a first world leader than a third world leader. Domestic threats also likely scale at least linearly, and possibly more quickly, with population. I think we overdo it with our post-9/11 security theater, seemingly more interested in full employment than meaningful improvements in the life of Americans, but I'm quite sure that large, rich nations' heads of state face greater threats than smaller, less wealthy nations.

mb_72 13y ago

Estonia has a population of 1.3 million, and the head of state certainly has all of those 'trappings' and security etc. It's more about a deliberate choice of how the country's money is spent.

crdoconnor 13y ago
Your parliamentary debate chamber looks like an overgrown classroom though. Quite austere I thought.
- mb_72 13y ago
  I think the 'current' design of the parliamentary chamber is from the '20s - the austerity is probably accidental and a sign of it's age more than anything else. Some (English) history of the parliamentary building is here, should you be interested: http://www.riigikogu.ee/index.php?id=37659 http://www.riigikogu.ee/index.php?id=37659

cwp 13y ago

He doesn't even have the trappings of the Governor of Oklahoma.

grecy 13y ago

These size comparisons always seem strange to me. Uruguay has 3.3 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The US has 310 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The fact that the US has more people to collect taxes from means it's spendings pot is obviously much bigger, but that absolutely does not mean it can be wasted on "trappings" for the leaders. Each and every person still needs all the basic services, so at the end of the day, there is the same basic amount per person to spend. Why do you think that a country with more taxpayers has more money for "trappings"?

bpodgursky 13y ago
I agree with you on stuff like schools, firemen, and healthcare. But it's a different calculation for a head of state. When 300mm people look to an individual as a leader (rather than 3mm people) there are 100x as many threats to their security via disgruntled citizens, crazy people, etc, so physical security has to scale. It's like saying, "why does the mayor of my town not need the same number of secret service as the president?" There are just far fewer things they feel the need to defend from.
- Of_Prometheus 13y ago
  The comparison, then, should be with the governor of Oklahoma, who lives in the Governor's Mansion.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin
- Of_Prometheus 13y ago
  The comparison, then, should be with the governor of Oklahoma, who lives in the Governor's Mansion.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin
- grecy 13y ago
  Rather than spending money "defending" your leaders, wouldn't it be better if you addressed the issues and actually figured out why people want to cause harm to their leaders? You know, many developed countries don't even have a security force for their leaders, and for example, the ex-Prime Minister of Australia went jogging all the time by himself, in whatever city he happens to be in.

locusm 13y ago

So did New Zealand 20 years ago. Not sure what your point is.

abrahamsen 13y ago

The Oklahoma Governor's Mansion, if anyone else is curious: http://www.ok.gov/governor/Mansion.html http://www.ok.gov/governor/Mansion.html

rbanffy 13y ago

Maybe not the trappings, but the security is a function of how many enemies the politician in question and its country have. The downside of "liberating" countries by invading them (or funding revolutions) and installing puppet governments is that some part of the population gets really annoyed with that. I'd love to live in a world where every president could live without a human shield around them, not because they would be more accessible to their people (which would be a nice plus) but because it would be a symptom the world has become a safe place.