The recent and most blatant example of our current government's cynical assessment of the electorate's intelligence and its abuse of language is the "conditions-based commitment," as in "...the change in command (a farce in and of itself) in Afghanistan will not affect our conditions-based commitment to start withdrawing our troops by July, 2011."
.
Does anyone comprehend what a "conditions-based commitment" is? Is it like telling someone if he lends me a thousand dollars, I'll give him my conditions-based commitment to pay him back next month? Or perhaps like to a girlfriend: "Sweetheart, if you let me, you have my conditions-based commitment to withdraw before ejaculation"?
.
Good old lies are noble compared to linguistic chicanery such as this, which not only incorporates the lie but the assumption that the target audience has not collectively the brain of an amoeba and will moronically allow this lie-for-the-future, this oxymoronic manipulative bullshit to pass or be greeted with a mass Hoo-Ahh!!!
.
And, of course, come July, 2011, "...a responsible government recognizes the necessity to alter, however reluctantly, the plans for troop withdrawal in the best interests of the nation, the people of the area and the safety and welfare of our troops..." don'cha know!
.
What we, the electorate, should consider is to give this government our conditions-based commitment of support, then boot them out at the first opportunity, and replace them with folks less abusive of the truth and more respectful of the credulity of the electorate. That shouldn't be difficult -- even old fashioned liars would be an improvement.
.
Some of you may note that this bit of writing follows my announcement a month ago that I would forever quit political commentary. Well now, did I neglect to advise you that was a conditions-based commitment? Dayem, what have I missed by not pursuing a career in politics?!
