Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

Post by mynameishere » Sat, Dec 14, 2013, 1:11 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #42

bpodgursky wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Post by singold » Sat, Dec 14, 2013, 1:14 AM UTC

xweb wrote: post #43

Gee, it sounds awful. On recent tax reform: "Especially surprising was the lack of opposition from the upper strata of Uruguayan society, who would almost assuredly pay more taxes as a result of the reforms.... There are few associations or organizations that unite the country’s elite even today, and Uruguay’s political parties tend to develop broad “catch-all” coalitions that refrain from aligning to closely with th…

Post by tcdent » Sat, Dec 14, 2013, 1:17 AM UTC

VladRussian2 wrote: post #25

jere wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar thought. AMURICA ? More like A Mujica ? Am I right? >1972 Imprisoned again. Remains in jail for more than a decade, including two years' solitary confinement at the bottom of a well, where he speaks to frogs and insects to maintain his sanity. There's something amazing about politicians who spend decades in prison but still have the drive to go into politics afterwards (e.g. Mandela).

fascinating. "The president is a former member of the Tupamaros guerrilla group, which was notorious in the early 1970s for bank robberies, kidnappings and distributing stolen food and money among the poor. He was shot by police six times and spent 14 years in a military prison, much of it in dungeon-like conditions." Is t-word applicable here ? :)

Post by unhe » Sat, Dec 14, 2013, 1:38 AM UTC

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #18

xweb wrote: post #2

Immediately searched for "moving to Uruguay" after reading this. The thought of a sane politician is so refreshing.

Not so fast. South america is a weird place (disclaimer: I live in Brazil). The overall vision is that the coming of democracy, after a history filled colonization, monarchies and military dictatorships in most countries, has been a net win; but at the same time, the presidential figure gets a disproportionate amount of worshiping in all of those, which is a sign that the democracy has not fully matured. As positive…

Post by mistermumble » Sat, Dec 14, 2013, 1:47 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #58

glesica wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is actually wrong with it? Nothing you mentioned sounds bad at all (and the translation of that article seemed pretty poor, so hard to draw conclusions). I would LOVE to live in a more "socialist" country. I'd much rather be poorer in a place where my basic needs are met and I don't have to fear starvation or freezing to death if I catch an unlucky break. Instead of a rising tide lifting all boats, I'd rather…

According to the article he is a former bank robber who had shootouts with the police. I hope he's changed since then, but robbing banks tends to lead to long prison sentences in any country I know of (unless you're a banker, but that's another story...). Now, I'm not claiming to know anything specifically wrong with him, though an endorsement from the Daily Mail generally has the opposite effect for me.