On Election Promises
We're in the midst of an election, and promises are flying-a-plenty. The Oxford American English dictionary (as conveniently supplied with Mac OS X) defines promise as "a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that guarantees that a particular thing will happen". If we look back in history at what politicians have promised versus what they have delivered once they've been elected, we will see that politicians clearly do not share or understand this definition.In my opinion, I think election promises should be binding agreements. Without any means to ensure that one is held to a promise that one makes, it is pretty much worthless. Actually, could one consider an election promise the same as a verbal agreement? And if so, would it be possible to sue a politician for breaking said verbal agreement? (And by "verbal agreement", I do not mean "a morpho-syntactic construct in which properties of the subject and/or objects of a verb are indicated by the verb form.")
At any rate, anything that any politician says is a load of bullocks. At no time do you ever see politicians answering the same question that is asked, and I don't understand why reporters don't take a more firm stance, insisting that the politician actually answer the question with even an ounce of respect for the question itself and for the intelligence of those listening.
PS: I'd like to take this opportunity to fore-welcome our new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. While I don't much care for you, at least you don't sound like a bumbling fool, a salesman, or a circular-logic-using separatist. Though, in their defense, you do sound like a bastard, right-wing, homophobic robot.
Comments
|  |
Post a comment |
