5 ms·
I'm pretty sure Uruguay can afford a palace and a motorcade ;-)
by jules 13y ago
I'm pretty sure Uruguay can afford a palace and a motorcade ;-)
- tcdent 13y agoThe 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 agoSuch a meaningless populist gesture. I suppose the symbolism is...something.
- deletes 13y agoHe is showing what kind of person he is. The gesture is probably unprecedented in the world.
- mikeash 13y agoA 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 agoNothing 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 agoIt sets the tone.
- mikeash 13y agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoOr...maybe a political decision? Who would have thunk!
- bpodgursky 13y agoOh 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 agohow is security of the head of state, or anyone for that matter, related to the size/population of the country?
- sokoloff 13y agoThe 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.