Comments on: Line of the Day

by: Dr. Steven Taylor

Thu, 17 May 2024 11:35:16 +0000

Alan,

I’m with you: I don’t get it either.

by: Alan Cross

Thu, 17 May 2024 04:10:26 +0000

Steven,

I thought we had a Commander in Chief or something or other. Why do we need one more person who has no authority or cannot make decisions? Don’t we have a Secretary of Defense? A President? Can this get any more surreal?

Plus, why the affinity with Tsarist Russia? The Romanovs did not end up that well off, if I remember correctly.

by: Dr. Steven Taylor

Thu, 17 May 2024 00:14:08 +0000

Indeed.

by: Max Lybbert

Wed, 16 May 2024 23:34:16 +0000

I’ve wondered about the czar thing as well (and I’ve found it funny that it’s not “drug tsar”). I don’t remember the czar being considered any more aggressive than other royalty (aside from Peter the Great).

Of course “I’m going to appoint a drug king to handle this” just doesn’t send the same message. Maybe a President with German heritage can propose a “war kaiser,” a Hispanic President can suggest an “energy rey” and a less-cultured President can just say a “drug emperor.” Even those don’t have quite the ring.

by: Barry

Wed, 16 May 2024 17:09:47 +0000

I’m wondering why he took the job. It seems to carry no power (unless he can back down Gates, Rice, Cheney and a bunch of 4-star generals), just responsibility.

by: Dr. Steven Taylor

Wed, 16 May 2024 15:14:57 +0000

Czargate!

Indeed, yes, it is a time-worn tradition.

by: Peter Bakke

Wed, 16 May 2024 15:13:54 +0000

‘…why do we keep appointing “Czars”?’ I know this is a rhetorical question, I just want to point out that I think the term ‘czar’ originated when President Nixon named William Simon “Energy Czar” during the energy crunch of the 1970’s … just about the same time that we started appending ‘gate’ to any scandals (as in Watergate)!