GLSEN Santa has gay sex with Geppetto

kevin s.
I've been reading this recently. Is it now going to be argued that Obama did not appoint czars, based on some technicality by which czars cannot be appointed? Have at that, my man.

He cannot appoint czars because there's no such thing as czars. It's just what the media, and, at this point, the government when talking to the media, calls people running various offices.

Why do I have to explain this? Oh, yeah. Glenn Beck.

Correct. He has not explained the nature of these appointments.

I just said a lot of these czars are put in positions Congress created. If you want to know why Obama appointed people there, perhaps you should look at the job description of the office that Congress created. By law, Obama is supposed to fill them. Does he need to explain why he follows the law?

In fact, by law, they're filled anyway...whoever was in their previously, or the deputy if they resigned. Obama has no power at all to not have someone in that job, all he can do is put someone in there, or have someone be in there by default.

Sometimes these Congressional-created positions require Senate confirmation, sometimes not, it's whether or not Congress chooses that when it creates the job.

Man, people on the right really don't understand how the executive branch works, do they? They really think it's out there operating by itself, which under Bush gave it the power to do whatever it wanted, and under Obama gives them the ability to complain about whatever the executive is doing...even if Congress has decreed he do that by law. (Which is helped by their utter lack of any sort of memory. I halfway expect them to complain about Obama calling it the 'Department of Defense' instead of the 'Department of War'.)

Now, the rest of the 'czars' are in offices created by executive orders of former administrations, usually as a presidential liaison to an existing sub agency buried somewhere deep, or between two sub agencies in entirely different areas of the executive.

Obama technically doesn't have to fill those offices, he could randomly dissolve the office via executive order if he wanted...but is that your complaint? He didn't instantly undo what previous administrations did, and instead went along with it?

And the others 'czars' are just policy advisers to himself, who have no power at all. They're part of his personal staff, not part of the executive branch that can actually do things. Generally, the president has whatever staff he wants. The media calling them 'czars' makes no sense, considering they invented the term for people with broad power, and presidential policy advisers have no power at all, but it does.

Since the whole 'czar' thing is bogus, can you advise who first introduced the term?

The media under, as far as we can tell, invented it under Woodrow Wilson. Although records are spotty, it appears that Woodrow Wilson had someone referred by the media as at least once as the 'industry czar'. (He ran the War Industries Board.)

However, it wasn't until FDR, during the second world war, that the use of the term appears to have become common. According to Wikipedia, there was a transportation czar, a manpower czar, a production czar, a shipping czar, and a synthetic rubber czar

Unless you're very old, the media has been referring to such positions as czars your entire life.

And, yet, somehow, you've instantly become concerned about a vague term the media applies to a bunch of disparate positions in the executive branch. (Heck, it's escaped the executive branch now...the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP is now called the oversight czar.)

Sorry, you are repeating a talking point, whether or not you know it.

"He cannot appoint czars because there's no such thing as czars. It's just what the media, and, at this point, the government when talking to the media, calls people running various offices."

Right, that's why I'm calling them czars. It's also why I call eggs, "eggs", because that's what we know them as. Helps ease confusion, you know, language.

"Why do I have to explain this? Oh, yeah. Glenn Beck."

By your own admission, you have to "explain" (though I am not at all sure what it is you are trying to explain... You and I seem to have the same understanding of what a czar is and isn't) because of the media and the government.

"If you want to know why Obama appointed people there, perhaps you should look at the job description of the office that Congress created."

I said that Obama has done a poor job of explaining these positions. I am aware that Obama appoints people. It's a shame he appointed this guy.

"And, yet, somehow, you've instantly become concerned about a vague term the media applies to a bunch of disparate positions in the executive branch."

I fail to see where I have demonstrated that much concern about the terminology. My concern is that Kevin Jennings is the safe schools czar, not that the media calls things czars.

I do think Obama has given too much power to ad hoc coalitions, and it is curious that he has made no effort to clarify the term (if that indeed is his desire) but that's a different discussion.

"Sorry, you are repeating a talking point, whether or not you know it."

What talking point might that be? And if I inadvertently reiterate a talking point, how is that instructive? Appealing to Glenn Beck as some sort of ubiquitous bogeyman from which all conservative thought emanates is hardly original or constructive.

"Rabies has infected a wing of the GOP"

Thanks for that sentiment.