Right or Effective?
February 4th 2007 01:50
You know what bugs me the most about the Howard Government? The fact that they’re so often right. Like about the Sorry issue. Exactly which point do you want to argue with them on? That they should be responsible? That they should say sorry, even though it could be seen by a majority of Australians to implicate innocent individuals?
I mean you’ve got to hand it to them; on a very specific technicality, they’re right.
However, being right, I would argue is useless, if being right makes you ineffective.
Again, we return to the Howard Government. Look once more to the Sorry issue. Now sure, it’s certainly arguable that all point they have made are, to some extent, on some technicality, accurate. However, what good is being technically correct, other than for self-righteous gloating, if it makes you about as handy as tits on a ball?
The Howard Government is like an unpleasant parent. So arrogant in their power trip, they determinedly push each point to prove themselves right. It doesn’t matter that allowing their kid to finish their game of marbles would do no harm and a lot of good – they said that they’d be going home at 3.00, so they’ll bloody well be going home at three o’clock!
Likewise, if the Kyoto protocol doesn’t judge everyone equally, then it won’t bloody well be signed until it does. It doesn’t matter if prolonging the process puts no pressure on anyone else to clean up their act, or that global warming isn’t going to just wait around. The Howard Government have a point – valid mind you – and they don’t care whose toes they step on to get that point across.
Which is not especially pleasant.
Or effective.
However, being right, I would argue is useless, if being right makes you ineffective.
Again, we return to the Howard Government. Look once more to the Sorry issue. Now sure, it’s certainly arguable that all point they have made are, to some extent, on some technicality, accurate. However, what good is being technically correct, other than for self-righteous gloating, if it makes you about as handy as tits on a ball?
The Howard Government is like an unpleasant parent. So arrogant in their power trip, they determinedly push each point to prove themselves right. It doesn’t matter that allowing their kid to finish their game of marbles would do no harm and a lot of good – they said that they’d be going home at 3.00, so they’ll bloody well be going home at three o’clock!
Likewise, if the Kyoto protocol doesn’t judge everyone equally, then it won’t bloody well be signed until it does. It doesn’t matter if prolonging the process puts no pressure on anyone else to clean up their act, or that global warming isn’t going to just wait around. The Howard Government have a point – valid mind you – and they don’t care whose toes they step on to get that point across.
Or effective.
| 69 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Activist Links: (Request one)
Vitamins are criminal?
Just say Know
Could Corporate Interests Destroy The Internet as we Know it?















Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Amercia won't sign it so why should Australia? Right or wrong? You'd have to say right.
Refusing to sign it, not putting pressure on anyone else to and contunuing to mess up the environment instead of taking productive action. Effective or innefective?
Ineffective.
Just depends on whether you prefer to make positive change, or grin and say 'i told you so'.
Comment by Damo
From my simple viewpoint, perhaps too simple, If it is a choice between doing what is right and doing what is effective, I would do what is right.
The question is whether the Kyoto protocol is correct.
If it is bothe the correct path and effective the answer is simple. Go for it.
But politics is an animal that eats its young.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
I guess the idea I'm trying to express is just because a point can be made that is true - does not make it the best course of action.
Eg, This rock in in the way. It takes less effort to walk around it every time, than move it so we won't move it.
This is an argument that doesn't really have a flaw. IT is correct.
However, this argument being correct doesn't make it automatically better then the alternative argument.
Like arguing over the color of a bluely green car (it's blue! not it's green!) politicians present either view of reality, and both sides can be proven right to some degree. And just because one is more right that the other doesn't actually make it better. I certainly think that the Howard government are right in their analysis of the Kyoto protocol being flawed. But I still theink they've made a terrible decision.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Thats how nazi's become nazi's
Thats how neo-cons will become the modern day nazi (if they haven't already, they just need a swastika now)
heh, heres a nice line 'most suicide bombers are muslims', well theres one thing wrong with that on the surface in that it isn't allowed in Islam to kill people, but anyway, lets take that as fact, so it might be true right? Well it isn't the whole truth since most muslims are not suicide bombers. It isn't that the point is true or not, it just isn't the whole truth.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Politics is something i love and hate _ hate for obvious resons _ love because it"s all about being good with words< which i am
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Jacinda
At least tits on a ball look attractive ...
can't say so much for the Howard government
I love the way you play with words. It tickles my inards