At the risk of deflating my capital (even further) here at the Mighty Corrente Building, I'm voicing a concern/pet peve. Much like the abuse of the term "gate", the word czar is now tacked on to every government appointment that doesn't currently have an official label. Besides having a major problem with these appointments, in and of themselves, I'd rather not give the appointees the idea that they can exercise power without concern. Didn't we have 8 years of that w/ our own little dictator, George Bush, who intoned that running our country would "be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship."

I think my gag reflex kicked in when the cutesy "car czar" was coined.

Besides, how do the real monarchs feel? I'm speaking for all the real czars out there, the monarchs who have inherited, bribed, blackmailed or screwed their way to becoming a supreme ruler. A czar. That takes patience and determination, something I don't think our current "czars" have exercised.

*UPDATED: I thought a link of some sort might validate this fluff piece. Apparently, this fellow shares my concern.

"But a "czar," which translates literally as "monarch" or "emperor," operates exclusively thorough coercion and force. Yet that's the direction in which our government is rapidly headed. The prevailing notion in Washington is that free markets don't work, that capitalism is destructive, disruptive and hurts the "public good." A government-appointed "car czar," so the thinking goes, would ensure that the "right" decisions get made about how auto contracts are structured, what products are developed and how the companies are run.

Of course, that's precisely what the government has already done since March in forcing taxpayers to support companies they wouldn't dare touch otherwise, and what it will continue to do as it exercises power over a larger and larger swath of the economy, including the soon-to-be-named "car czar."'

http://www.smartmoney.com/Investing/Stoc...