I'm sorry but this point is crazy. There are no czars in the United States government so being worried about them is pointless. Czar is a term used by opponents of government bureaucracy and is lazy and dishonest. Nobody has the title of czar, they are advisers. How can you criticize someone for a title that has been imposed upon them? This entire point is complete Bullshit and dishonest.
@azazloraine It's a term that's decades old (Since FDR). As far as being an "adviser" they're not. They're granted complete power within their given field (hence the given moniker).
@Rensune What difference does it make how old the term is? And why do you have adviser in quotation marks? Do you know what an adviser is? Also they do not have complete power at all, there is no autonomous czar. But again as they are advisers to the executive branch it is the president who has the authority. Like any bureaucracy there are officials who are appointed to see that a policy is enacted, but they aren't not the ultimate authority on policy. In what way is that a czar?
@azazloraine an adviser is a person that gives someone advice (in a political position they act as a soundboard against which that ruler bounces off ideas) Now, these Czars may also be advisers, but when it comes to their given duty, they are given full authority by the president to act within their given field. I suppose a more proper term for them would be vassal.
Penn might not have any say in this at all.He doesn't seem like the type who would only let it be seen here. Get enough like minded people to contact a news agency Redstone doesn't have a connection with, Fox comes to mind, and tell them your story. If enough people contact them, They will be more than happy to run a story trashing another network. Enough bad press might force them to stop this copyright stuff.
they just used Czar cuz it rymes with car, it's all aboot marketing. most people don't even know what a czar is, so it's not evening really hurting that much.
It is, as much as Kaiser is German for Caesar. A lot of countries back in the day were controlled by the Roman empire, and the terms stuck for a while.
These are bits of old news, but they still chill me to the bone, but I haven't seen you address them. There are now sharia courts in the UK, which means basically Islamic law has been adopted in the UK. Also, Holland is also trying to make it a criminal offense to "slander" Islam. I'm terrified the US could be next! Why aren't people more upset about these things? Are people so afraid of being called "racist" (and btw last time I checked, religion isn't a race) that they'll allow this? Why?
Probably the most important difference between a Pure Democracy and a Constitutional Republic is that a Constitutional Republic is supposed to use its constitution(s) to define what types of issues are on the table for vote.
In America, the Constitution enumerates limited powers for Congress, and explicitly reserves rights like Freedom of Speech. A majority is not supposed to be able to vote that right away.
Strike that. It is probably closer to a democracy than I'd like. It's really an oligarchy at this point, although few people have the balls to admit it.
All Americans bristle at the word "King", and I was no different until i lived some time in Thailand. There they have a constitutional government ( a very shaky one , but one indeed), but they also have a monarchy that is mostly ceremonial. The king is a very benign and much beloved person, and by all reports a champion of civil rights and a learned and gentle soul. I was impressed by his relationship with his subjects, and I feel I learned a little about humanity by the experience.
We are not a democracy. We are supposed to be a republic. As I heard it said recently "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.
what a czar(in the us) actually is is a person who the president lends his authority to over a specific issue. I think it's a good idea. It's not really the executive branch gaining any more power so much as the executive branch spreading it's power over more decision makers.
Penn may not think czar is cool or badass, but it may seem that way for others. In my case, it's a combo of differing viewpoints or perhaps because I was born in the late eighties.
Direct democracy would result in factions, which are never good! ... Without a representative form of government, minorities would be subjected to the tyranny of the majority, without the means of controlling the effects.
Direct democracy when thought of to a greater extent and given greater intellectual attention is almost always thought of as being wholly daft and absurd. It is only truly plausible in a utopia.
Using those words is a psi-op meant t diminish the negative connotation of the word czar and redefine it as a good thing in the minds of the people by making it official and commonplace. It's a mind trick.
"Czar" is a term in which has power because of people. The actual term is an informal way of referring to the high heads of one particular policy subject: Drugs, terrorism, cybersecurity, etc. In such a place, totalitarianism is necessary as they are the heads of specific departments in the gov, like head of a company has to dictate over their business like a...umm...dictator.
It doesn't matter though, but it is getting old with all the "Czars are the proof that the gov is unjust!!" speak.
Not really, just policy making in their specific department or field. The terrorism czar can not pass laws by himself or change policies in...say...the Food and Health department. Listen, really, because some of the people who hole the czar title are congressmen in charge of congressional commissions. Czars are a part of Congress and every branch of the gov. It's a informal title of high officials, like a class president in a class room, they don't make rules for the class room.
That would only be true with an educated and intelligent population. Most Americans are ignorant. If we had a direct democracy, it would look like the movie "Idiocracy".
Idiocracy describes the extreme progression of our country's consumerism that is a result of the corruption that turned our capitalist society into a corporatist society. With direct democracy, no represatives of the state would be able to stroke the cock of big buisness. No big business = no consumerism = no dystopian world described by Idiocracy.
I don't see how Direct Democracy would prevent representatives of the state from stroking business cocks. In a Direct Democracy, popular policies would almost always be in place, and corporatist policies are often extremely popular, especially when they're promoted as 'protecting jobs'.
The old "mob rule" argument. Yes, direct democracy is not completely flawless, but the alternative aristocracy is hardly preferable. Or do you propose total decentralization (anarcho-capitalism, other market anarchism, etc.)? Anarcho-capitalism and other forms of market anarchism inevitably lead to oligarchic fascism.
"Czar" is the new buzzword for the loony right to whip up the rabid masses. Nixon had czars. Reagan had czars. KKKarl Rove was a czar for GW Bush, but, for some reason, all of a sudden, czars are anti-american somehow. Go figure.
You're confusing Libertarians with Republicans. When this country was founded, States and the Fed Gov't had roughly equal power. Now almost all the power resides in the Fed Gov't. When it was founded the highly diffuse legislature was the most powerful branch. Now most power resides with the executive. Libertarians like weak decentralized gov't. Both Republicans and Democrats like centralized power that can "get things done." The Czar's are symbols of the centralization of power.
Could u plz point out where i said anything about "well he did it first"? No u can't becuz its not there to be seen. I was merely pointing out the fact that the right wing machine is all of a sudden up in arms about "czars" yet they had no issues with them until Obama got in office. I made no judgment of whether it is right or wrong. Maybe if you can take off your "I miscomprehended your comment" hat for a minute you'd realize that your comment is a non-sequitor to mine. Congratulations.
Chubchaser is 100% right to point out hypocrisy. And you're 100% right to point out that hypocrisy is not a good excuse to let your side get away with it. So, you're both right. Issue settled.
I agree. It's definitely hypocrisy. However, this country is going down the tubes because we are allowing leaders to commit bad acts because there is a precedent of commting bad acts.
Obama cries... Bush was the one who started these massive bailouts... Bush started these wars... Bush put the country $13 trillion in debt, so what's the problem with Obama adding on a few trillion dollars?
Exactly. I"m conservative and I am willing to admit Bush messed up this country. In fact, Bush and friends are the reason I stopped supporting the Republican party.
We put up with 8 years of lying and deceit, then runs a campaign on doing things different. There are clips of Obama saying "I didn't start this, Bush did it first."
Then Obama renews the FISA act, continues bailing out irresponsible corporations and many other things. Yet his supporters aren't questioning this?
The way I have heard it, the liberal congress leaked information to the liberal media about the where about of Binladen and many other efforts in the war against terrorist. Binladen always knew when to move on simply by listening to the American media. it may have been in the best interest for Bush to act without approvals.
Libertarians were decrying "Czar" positions during both Republican and Democrat presidencies. Penn didn't say "Democratic Czars". He said he doesn't like the term or what it implies. Do you?
The only other time in history that the most powerful nation on earth was a republic was during Rome's early years. In 49 BC, Julius Caesar rebelled against the republic and (effectively) turned it into a monarchy. The words czar, kaiser, and king are derivations of the name Ceasar. So effectively, top executive officials in the U.S. have titles based off of the name of the only man in history to turn a world super power republic into a monarchy. Sadly that seems accurate to me.
A Czar is essentially a cabinet appointment that has all the power of a Cabinet member... but he/she doesn't have to receive approval from Congress to attain the position.
It's a good way of side-stepping the constitution.
Yeah, its all part of the continuing trend for the Executive Branch to act as if it has ultimate, unchecked power. And, frankly, we feed the beast by ignoring congressional races and acting as if the presidential race is all that matters, making it seem "normal" for the President to take an active role in so many fingers of govt.
Cool vid. I was watching John Adams the mini-series and the way they showed how the King wanted to rip away the freedoms of our forefathers. King idea is so stupid.
Am I the only person who remembers that the term "Czar" originated with the Nixon Administration?
panterguy 1 year ago
@panterguy Nope
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@panterguy Go right ahead and push your factionist bullshit - do you think Penn cares?
IoEstasCedonta 1 year ago
I'm sorry but this point is crazy. There are no czars in the United States government so being worried about them is pointless. Czar is a term used by opponents of government bureaucracy and is lazy and dishonest. Nobody has the title of czar, they are advisers. How can you criticize someone for a title that has been imposed upon them? This entire point is complete Bullshit and dishonest.
azazloraine 1 year ago
@azazloraine It's a term that's decades old (Since FDR). As far as being an "adviser" they're not. They're granted complete power within their given field (hence the given moniker).
Rensune 1 year ago
@Rensune What difference does it make how old the term is? And why do you have adviser in quotation marks? Do you know what an adviser is? Also they do not have complete power at all, there is no autonomous czar. But again as they are advisers to the executive branch it is the president who has the authority. Like any bureaucracy there are officials who are appointed to see that a policy is enacted, but they aren't not the ultimate authority on policy. In what way is that a czar?
azazloraine 1 year ago
@azazloraine an adviser is a person that gives someone advice (in a political position they act as a soundboard against which that ruler bounces off ideas) Now, these Czars may also be advisers, but when it comes to their given duty, they are given full authority by the president to act within their given field. I suppose a more proper term for them would be vassal.
Rensune 1 year ago
Czar actually means Caesar, which I suppose can mean a lot of things to different people.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 1 year ago
What the Hell is a Czar?
RHINODISC1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Make this video available to everyone why don't you? Or is it only USA that matters to your pathetic liars pay check.
TornadoCreator 2 years ago
Penn might not have any say in this at all.He doesn't seem like the type who would only let it be seen here. Get enough like minded people to contact a news agency Redstone doesn't have a connection with, Fox comes to mind, and tell them your story. If enough people contact them, They will be more than happy to run a story trashing another network. Enough bad press might force them to stop this copyright stuff.
dveeant 2 years ago 2
It is definitely a rights issue. Blame Sony.
Raykak 2 years ago
@Raykak We're working to make some Penn Says episodes available in the UK, Canada, and Australia by the end of April.
pennsays 2 years ago
American czars? How about some freedom on the web to view content?
Drop the association Penn, this is embarrassing.
Cheebzsta 2 years ago
penn keeps talking about FREE SPEECH... seriously crackle, 94% of the world cant hear you!
copyright restriction = BULLSHIT
brandtproduction 2 years ago 2
Cut the bullshit crackle, get rid of the copyright restrictions now!
gamerska 2 years ago 2
Stop this censorship bullshit. I'd very much appreciate not treating me like garbage, thank you.
lodevijk 2 years ago
Let Penn speak!
Eldxale 2 years ago 2
stop the censorship NOW!
firebark 2 years ago 4
Enough with the copyright BULLSHIT.
The world wants too see and hear what Penn has to say.
Remove the copyright restrictions outside the USA.
hal2017 2 years ago 10
they just used Czar cuz it rymes with car, it's all aboot marketing. most people don't even know what a czar is, so it's not evening really hurting that much.
Chronosagaaddict 2 years ago
Usage of the word czar is prophetic, the time of kings may come again.
gonyea12 2 years ago 2
What do you mean "may"? That time is now. We have King Obama. The nobles of the Senate. And the working poor Serfs who pay all the bills.
No, the time of the American Republic is over. The time of the tyrannical oligarchy is now.
God help us all.
SugarMonkey528 2 years ago
don't forget king god, god help us all.
f4anc1sWhit3 2 years ago
sorry, the below comment was @SugarMonkey528
f4anc1sWhit3 2 years ago
I'm in your internets, commenting your video
(a test from Canada, even though I can't watch, at least I can comment)
Joshbuckler 2 years ago 2
I believe Czar is Russian for Ceaser, maybe I'm wrong, but what kind of name for any American government position is that anyway???
JONFATSARNOTT 2 years ago 2
It is, as much as Kaiser is German for Caesar. A lot of countries back in the day were controlled by the Roman empire, and the terms stuck for a while.
Lancenova 2 years ago
good point
codediporpal 2 years ago
These are bits of old news, but they still chill me to the bone, but I haven't seen you address them. There are now sharia courts in the UK, which means basically Islamic law has been adopted in the UK. Also, Holland is also trying to make it a criminal offense to "slander" Islam. I'm terrified the US could be next! Why aren't people more upset about these things? Are people so afraid of being called "racist" (and btw last time I checked, religion isn't a race) that they'll allow this? Why?
demonesque 2 years ago 2
Probably the most important difference between a Pure Democracy and a Constitutional Republic is that a Constitutional Republic is supposed to use its constitution(s) to define what types of issues are on the table for vote.
In America, the Constitution enumerates limited powers for Congress, and explicitly reserves rights like Freedom of Speech. A majority is not supposed to be able to vote that right away.
VeniVidiVid 2 years ago
Welcome to the Union of Socialist States of America.
BlackIceOldGuy 2 years ago
Penn, What do you like better? Mac or PC
ColdCoffee25 2 years ago
It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
Strike that. It is probably closer to a democracy than I'd like. It's really an oligarchy at this point, although few people have the balls to admit it.
But it was supposed to be a republic.
chordchaser 2 years ago 4
All Americans bristle at the word "King", and I was no different until i lived some time in Thailand. There they have a constitutional government ( a very shaky one , but one indeed), but they also have a monarchy that is mostly ceremonial. The king is a very benign and much beloved person, and by all reports a champion of civil rights and a learned and gentle soul. I was impressed by his relationship with his subjects, and I feel I learned a little about humanity by the experience.
pretorious700 2 years ago
We are not a democracy. We are supposed to be a republic. As I heard it said recently "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.
buddahbubba 2 years ago
"czar" is just a stupid title.
what a czar(in the us) actually is is a person who the president lends his authority to over a specific issue. I think it's a good idea. It's not really the executive branch gaining any more power so much as the executive branch spreading it's power over more decision makers.
KarateKidX 2 years ago 2
Yes, the executive branch is great at "spreading it's power" and also making dimwits buy into it.
How about limiting some of it's unconstitutional powers? Oh what's that you say, the genie is out of the bottle?
Our judicial branch has abdicated it's responsibilities, and congress is a carnival of corruption, special interests, and greed.
But their failures pale in comparison to the executive branch.
pretorious700 2 years ago
and what's the problem with multiple people sharing authority?
KarateKidX 2 years ago
It's only a figure of speech... The positions they are talking about are appointed not some sort of autocracy or monarchy.
Teenagefreedomfightr 2 years ago
Keep it up Penn. I subscribe, and enjoy every episode.
Thanks to SONY also, and to CRACKLE. Great content.
coffeefish 2 years ago
clarification - It's not that czar is cool because a czar is a king, it's that czar (the word) sounds cool.
LegionnaireXim 2 years ago
Penn may not think czar is cool or badass, but it may seem that way for others. In my case, it's a combo of differing viewpoints or perhaps because I was born in the late eighties.
LegionnaireXim 2 years ago
Direct democracy would result in factions, which are never good! ... Without a representative form of government, minorities would be subjected to the tyranny of the majority, without the means of controlling the effects.
Direct democracy when thought of to a greater extent and given greater intellectual attention is almost always thought of as being wholly daft and absurd. It is only truly plausible in a utopia.
StevenG8291 2 years ago
LOL @ Penn thinking "gag me" is hip. 1985 called, it wants its slang back. Also I am not hip for talking like Chandler from Friends.
culwin 2 years ago
Using those words is a psi-op meant t diminish the negative connotation of the word czar and redefine it as a good thing in the minds of the people by making it official and commonplace. It's a mind trick.
ZombieX13 2 years ago
The word Czar has never bothered me.
mdisen 2 years ago
"Czar" is a term in which has power because of people. The actual term is an informal way of referring to the high heads of one particular policy subject: Drugs, terrorism, cybersecurity, etc. In such a place, totalitarianism is necessary as they are the heads of specific departments in the gov, like head of a company has to dictate over their business like a...umm...dictator.
It doesn't matter though, but it is getting old with all the "Czars are the proof that the gov is unjust!!" speak.
ajr5086 2 years ago
Doesn't a Czar also have the authority to bypass the congress as well?
exacerbatedtaboo 2 years ago
Not really, just policy making in their specific department or field. The terrorism czar can not pass laws by himself or change policies in...say...the Food and Health department. Listen, really, because some of the people who hole the czar title are congressmen in charge of congressional commissions. Czars are a part of Congress and every branch of the gov. It's a informal title of high officials, like a class president in a class room, they don't make rules for the class room.
ajr5086 2 years ago
Always been a Chevy man myself!
gothamjediknight 2 years ago
Penn this country isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. I thought you knew that.
sniper6081 2 years ago
A constitutional republic is a form of democracy... I thought you knew that.
Scrapheap71 2 years ago 11
Comment removed
sniper6081 2 years ago
No. It has democratic processes in it, as it would be impossible not to have any in a free society, but it's not a democracy.
sniper6081 2 years ago
Representative democracy would never be as good as Direct Democracy
TheNihilAdvocate 2 years ago
That would only be true with an educated and intelligent population. Most Americans are ignorant. If we had a direct democracy, it would look like the movie "Idiocracy".
Scrapheap71 2 years ago 2
Idiocracy describes the extreme progression of our country's consumerism that is a result of the corruption that turned our capitalist society into a corporatist society. With direct democracy, no represatives of the state would be able to stroke the cock of big buisness. No big business = no consumerism = no dystopian world described by Idiocracy.
TheNihilAdvocate 2 years ago
I certianly wish that you were right, but unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that.
Scrapheap71 2 years ago
I don't see how Direct Democracy would prevent representatives of the state from stroking business cocks. In a Direct Democracy, popular policies would almost always be in place, and corporatist policies are often extremely popular, especially when they're promoted as 'protecting jobs'.
kittyprydekissme 2 years ago
Except if you're ever in the minority, then it wouldn't be very "good".
In fact direct democracy is one of the worst forms of government imaginable.
ronrutherford 2 years ago 3
The old "mob rule" argument. Yes, direct democracy is not completely flawless, but the alternative aristocracy is hardly preferable. Or do you propose total decentralization (anarcho-capitalism, other market anarchism, etc.)? Anarcho-capitalism and other forms of market anarchism inevitably lead to oligarchic fascism.
TheNihilAdvocate 2 years ago
the point stands, either way
sbmillionair 2 years ago
Yeah. I'm denying that. I'm just saying it would be important for him to know the difference is all.
sniper6081 2 years ago
Comment removed
VeniVidiVid 2 years ago
"Czar" is the new buzzword for the loony right to whip up the rabid masses. Nixon had czars. Reagan had czars. KKKarl Rove was a czar for GW Bush, but, for some reason, all of a sudden, czars are anti-american somehow. Go figure.
chubchaser69 2 years ago
You're confusing Libertarians with Republicans. When this country was founded, States and the Fed Gov't had roughly equal power. Now almost all the power resides in the Fed Gov't. When it was founded the highly diffuse legislature was the most powerful branch. Now most power resides with the executive. Libertarians like weak decentralized gov't. Both Republicans and Democrats like centralized power that can "get things done." The Czar's are symbols of the centralization of power.
Prytonis 2 years ago 5
If you can tale off your partisan hat for a minute. You should realize it isn't right, no matter who does it.
I will never understand people who use the excuse... "Well he did it first!"
Isn't that an argument 5 year old children make?
fivestarmichael 2 years ago 5
Could u plz point out where i said anything about "well he did it first"? No u can't becuz its not there to be seen. I was merely pointing out the fact that the right wing machine is all of a sudden up in arms about "czars" yet they had no issues with them until Obama got in office. I made no judgment of whether it is right or wrong. Maybe if you can take off your "I miscomprehended your comment" hat for a minute you'd realize that your comment is a non-sequitor to mine. Congratulations.
chubchaser69 2 years ago
Chubchaser is 100% right to point out hypocrisy. And you're 100% right to point out that hypocrisy is not a good excuse to let your side get away with it. So, you're both right. Issue settled.
eirefrance 2 years ago
I agree. It's definitely hypocrisy. However, this country is going down the tubes because we are allowing leaders to commit bad acts because there is a precedent of commting bad acts.
Obama cries... Bush was the one who started these massive bailouts... Bush started these wars... Bush put the country $13 trillion in debt, so what's the problem with Obama adding on a few trillion dollars?
It all needs to stop.
fivestarmichael 2 years ago
Didn't Obama base his entire campaign on 'change', specifically changing all the horrible policies put in place under Bush?
Doesn't that contradict using Bush's precedent to justify these things?
kittyprydekissme 2 years ago 3
Exactly. I"m conservative and I am willing to admit Bush messed up this country. In fact, Bush and friends are the reason I stopped supporting the Republican party.
We put up with 8 years of lying and deceit, then runs a campaign on doing things different. There are clips of Obama saying "I didn't start this, Bush did it first."
Then Obama renews the FISA act, continues bailing out irresponsible corporations and many other things. Yet his supporters aren't questioning this?
fivestarmichael 2 years ago 6
The way I have heard it, the liberal congress leaked information to the liberal media about the where about of Binladen and many other efforts in the war against terrorist. Binladen always knew when to move on simply by listening to the American media. it may have been in the best interest for Bush to act without approvals.
ChrmDome1 2 years ago
The 'Liberal' media is only as liberal as the Conservative corporations that own them.
popecorkyxxiv 2 years ago
yeah man i feel the same way. i aint voting republican for a long time.
grassmaster180 2 years ago
Libertarians were decrying "Czar" positions during both Republican and Democrat presidencies. Penn didn't say "Democratic Czars". He said he doesn't like the term or what it implies. Do you?
VeniVidiVid 2 years ago 2
The only other time in history that the most powerful nation on earth was a republic was during Rome's early years. In 49 BC, Julius Caesar rebelled against the republic and (effectively) turned it into a monarchy. The words czar, kaiser, and king are derivations of the name Ceasar. So effectively, top executive officials in the U.S. have titles based off of the name of the only man in history to turn a world super power republic into a monarchy. Sadly that seems accurate to me.
Prytonis 2 years ago 4
the whole czar thing is ludicrous i don't know where it even came from
why do we need a czar to begin with? what is wrong with our goverment to even use this term....
hellshade2 2 years ago 3
A Czar is essentially a cabinet appointment that has all the power of a Cabinet member... but he/she doesn't have to receive approval from Congress to attain the position.
It's a good way of side-stepping the constitution.
fivestarmichael 2 years ago 6
it seems to me this czar bullshit should be stopped. it reeks of monarchy and sidestepping the rights of the people....
hellshade2 2 years ago 3
Yeah, its all part of the continuing trend for the Executive Branch to act as if it has ultimate, unchecked power. And, frankly, we feed the beast by ignoring congressional races and acting as if the presidential race is all that matters, making it seem "normal" for the President to take an active role in so many fingers of govt.
eirefrance 2 years ago
Like the Boston Observer of the 1770's, You will be remembered Penn Jillette.
PistoleroJesse 2 years ago
bullshit = great show
13LIGHTER 2 years ago 7
Cool vid. I was watching John Adams the mini-series and the way they showed how the King wanted to rip away the freedoms of our forefathers. King idea is so stupid.
TiktaalikRoseae 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
iParadox1989 2 years ago
wow now you can die because your life is fulfilled
mcrlover1234567 2 years ago