"Czars"

It seems many more people are upset with the appt of "emergency financial managers" on the state and local levels than with the appt of "czars" in the federal gov't. Both are, without question, anathem to the principle of democratic rule. In 1864, during the midst of the Civil War, it was suggested to A. Lincoln that he scrub the Presidential elections and just continue on as President. He, of course, said no. Cancellation of the elections would go a long way to proving what many, esp in Europe, had held--that people weren't capable of ruling themselves. This is esp poignant in that Lincoln faced the real possibility of defeat in 1864.

I wonder if it's the party doing the undemocratic thing that matters, with critics. The Reps are, by and large, the ones behind the "EFM" movement and the Dems have all the "czars." (Isn't that an odd name to give them, "czars," named after some of the strongest autocrats/tyrants of the day? Then, again, maybe it's not so odd.) Regarding the "EMFs", people have a right to elect who they want, good, bad, or somewhere in-between. That's why we have a democracy. That some folks think they can appt someone, temporary or otherwise, reeks of elitism. Read the views of the nobility in Europe during the Enlightenment, when all these ideas of popular sovereignty and individual freedom evolved. Those views sound like what's coming from our own elitists. We have a right to be wrong, to elect bad people--the key concept there is having a right to do so. We don't have an aristocracy. Like I tell my students, "you may think Hitler is St Adolf--you'd be wrong, but you can think that. This is a free country. You have the right to be wrong."

And these "czars" and other federal agencies who are accountable to--well, to nobody. What's with them? Where's the outrage? That they can, whether stupidly or otherwise, make decisions that affect our daily lives, often making them less pleasant, without oversight is patently undemocratic. Why do people put up with this? Is it because only a minority of us understand? This, too, stinks of elitism, that some people know more and better than we do. (The supreme irony is that their policies are often stupid and lead to disaster. But, of course, they aren't held responsible.) Even if they do (and I obviously don't think so) know more and better than we do, such an attitude is anathem to rule by the people.

Is it true, as I read this AM, that a recent USA/Mex World Cup soccer game held in Los Angeles, a largely hispanic crowd not only wildly cheered the Mexican team, but booed the Americans and disrespected the US flag and/or national anthem? OK, see above, but this is America and people have the right to do both. But I still can find such actions despicable and, in fact, incomprehensible. It goes to a core question I have. Why do so many people immigrate here, then try to turn the US into the place whence they came? If what they wanted to do was get away from a less than desirable place to go to a more desirable place, why try to change the latter to the former? I understand about bringing part of one's culture with him/her--and I appreciate that, from the music/symphonies to the foods--but why try to create something from which one was trying to escape?

Sometimes I just sits and thinks and sometimes I just sit.

Regardless, both are rotten things and need to be eliminated right now!