Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston3
tsar |zär| (also czar or tzar)
noun
an emperor of Russia before 1917 : Tsar Nicholas II.
• a South Slav ruler in former times, esp. one reigning over Serbia in the 14th century.
•
DERIVATIVES
tsardom |-dəm| noun
tsarism |-ˌizəm| noun
tsarist |-ist| noun & adjective
ORIGIN from Russian tsar’, representing Latin Caesar.
Maybe?????
|
Yes, this is the origin of the word. But we don't have any Russian monarchs serving in our administration. Could the word now have a different application? And if it does, what exactly does the term "czar" describe in this context?
We've had people say that Obama is creating a "shadow" administration with these appointments, and that the appointments subvert Congressional oversight.
But not all of the people being called "czars" are appointed by Obama.
Not all of the people being called "czars" are even reporting directly to Obama. Fox News itself says only about ten of these people report directly to the President.
Many of the appointments are actually reviewed and confirmed by Congress. Many of the appointees submit reports to Congress and have already been called to Congress to testify and report on matters which Congress oversees.
Obama is not calling these appointees "czars" (except for the Drug Czar, which has been widely known and referred to by that title for decades). None of the other appointees have been called "czar" by Obama. None of them.
Since when do we call special envoys "czars"?
People have extrapolated that these "czars" are wielding an undue amount of power. I have pointed out that some of these people being called "czar" don't seem to have much power at all. The "payroll czar" has authority at seven companies that received bail-out money. His review extends to only the top executives at those seven companies. He is reviewing the compensation packages for around 115 executives at companies that had to be rescued by the federal government. 115 executives. His job is short-term. He reports to the Treasury Department, not Obama. He isn't even being paid to do this job. Why are we calling this person a "czar"?
I've been attacked repeatedly on this thread for simply saying that when we use a word, especially a word that is loaded and controversial, that we should have a common understanding of what that word means. That if we are saying that all of these "czars" are Presidential appointees, then they should all be appointed by Obama. If they are appointed by someone else, then they shouldn't be called "czars". If we are saying that they all report directly to the President, then if they report to other officials, they shouldn't be called "czars." If we are saying that they all craft policy, then if an appointee isn't crafting policy, because, perhaps, they are a diplomatic envoy for instance, then they shouldn't be called "czars".
I've been called a liar, when I haven't lied about anything. I've been called an Obamatron and a lot of other negative things, when all I've asked for is a solid definition of the term "czar" in the context that it is being used to describe these people in the administration, and that the term then be consistently applied. I don't see that this is unreasonable, though I'm sure I'll be informed how stupid, irrational, dishonest, etc, that I am.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
