“We need a Czar Czar, to crack the whip on all the czars. ”¦ P.S.: Also a federal czar policy. Right now, czar decisions are made on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, with no attempt at czar harmonization.”
“We need a Czar Czar, to crack the whip on all the czars. ”¦ P.S.: Also a federal czar policy. Right now, czar decisions are made on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, with no attempt at czar harmonization.”
Is there a proper blessing for the czar?
A blessing for the czar? Of course. May God bless and keep the czar… far away from us!
How about a Tsar?
2 comments. First from my Canadian wife: “I can’t believe in America they even call it a czar. And they don’t even try to hide it.”. Good point I thought.
Second, I think the Anglican church needs some czar czars…but then I believe priests are supposed to function this way to our bishops, at least in areas of erroneous doctrine.
Whenever a politician proposes to “jump start” something, get ready for a half-baked idea dressed up in a lot of hustle and bustle.
Similarly, when American politicians start pining for a czar, look closely to see if the problem is actually [i]czarable[/i]. Some problems are (e.g., a new challenge necessitating a new sort of coordination among existing agencies)—just as some problems are susceptible to quick fixes. But in a properly functioning democracy, czars should have term limits, lest the quick fix become another entrenched institution.
I agree. why do we need a ‘czar’ at all? Why not just leave it as “director of ____” or “head of the department of ____” or program instead of department?