Evil Dictators and Wild Animals

Have you ever noticed that evil dictators live forever and hard working leaders die too young? If you want a clear example look at President Obama, it looks as if he's aged twenty years in the past four years.

That picture is from an article comparing other presidents. Why has he aged so much? Whatever your political ideology, you have to agree that these past four years have been some of the worst in recent memory, and it shows on the president's face. 

Now think about people like Kim Jong-Il, Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe, just to name a few. All these men are brutal dictators that have been in power for years without it affecting their health. Granted, Castro and Kim are no longer in power, but look at how long they lived and how well their health was. I have a  theory as to why this is.*

I used to volunteer at the San Francisco Zoo when I was younger. Whenever someone asked you what the lifespan for a particular animal was, you had to give them two answers: in the wild and in captivity. Most people know that animals in captivity live longer than their wild brethren. The same principle that keeps animals in captivity alive keeps brutal dictators healthy. 

Kim lives a life of opulence while his people starve to death. He eats like king and lives like a prince. He is pampered beyond compare but unlike a real leader, he does not have to worry about political opposition or even a revolution. He lives the life of a panda in captivity.

Compare that to Obama's life in "the wild." No matter what choice he makes, someone is going to get mad and will want him out of office. Wether it be attacks from republicans or uncooperativeness from democrats, Obama's job is never done. He's a zebra in the wild, ever vigilant for the next threat.

* My wife was the originator of the theory that dictators don't age as fast because they don't have the stress of trying to please the people.

Public Officials

It has been a while since I last updated my blog, but I hope to write more often and hopefully increase the number of people that read it. Thanks for reading.

Over the past two weeks I have read two stories that to me, appear connected. About a month ago a California wildlife official found himself in the middle of a controversy. Daniel Richards is the president of the California Fish and Game Commission. His job it is to regulate and protect California's living natural resources like fish, game, plants, and habitats. To make a long story short, Richards went on a hunting trip in Idaho to hunt a mountain lion. Hunting mountain lions is legal in Idaho, but illegal in California. Here is a news article if you want more details. Some are claiming that Richards should be removed because he "thumbed his nose" at California law by traveling to another state to do something that is illegal in  the state he helps regulate. My two cents is that he did something very stupid, but not terrible enough to remove him from office.

Californians frequently travel to Las Vegas to do many things they cannot do in their home state. But this comparison is not entirely fair. Richards is a public official, and that means he is subject to more scrutiny than a private citizen. To make a drastic comparison, if a the attorney general of California went to Amsterdam specifically so he could smoke marijuana, many would call for his resignation. I understand this. While I do not agree with the lynch mob asking for Richards' head, I do understand why they are upset.

So, this brings me to another, possibly unrelated matter. Last month while in Egypt, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” I am not sure if this is just me, but I was thoroughly disappointed by her statement. Here we have a justice of the highest court in the land, a court whose job it is to interpret the constitution, giving it the thumbs down. I can understand that she may not entirely agree with the document, or feel that the constitution may not suit the specific needs of Egypt, but she could have said that the Egyptians should incorporate language from other constitutions. If Richards is derelict in his duty by hunting a mountain lion, then so is Ginsburg for her statement on the constitution. Am I crazy? I would really love to hear other's opinions on this.