Friday, October 17, 2003
Rubbishy thing from SMH - go to the end of the third paragraph. Er... Have Australians not noticed that Ferrero Rocher isn't exactly a luxury brand? Little balls of sickly gunk in stale cardboard, a bit like over-excited Maltesers that have wet themselves. They're nearly on a par with Liebfraumilch, and either given as an insult or in jest. Did they not get that infamous advert? The "Excellente" one. Which the company pulled when they realised it was widely mocked. It took them a decade to notice, but hey I'm sure that's not important. Only now they've realised how popular it was. So they brought it back? Nope they remade it, and modernised it. So it's still cringingly bad, but without any obviously quotable bits. No more "rilly spooling oos" with "the host's exquisite good taste". Society will just have to note something else.
BTW that was all "an opinion" type stuff, so please don't sue (and also I have no money, so if you're lucky you might get the chance to owe the student loan company money).
Which reminds me: what would you do in the following situation?
Party 1 wants to give stuff to Group A. To do this they need Party 2 or 3 to help. Party 2 wants to give stuff to Group B as well. Party 1 does not want to do this, and will abandon their plans if Party 2 insists on it. Party 3 refuse to help Party 1.
So does Party 2:
i - Abandon Group B, and agree with Party 1 to give Group A stuff.
ii - Demand Group B receives stuff, although this would stop both Groups A and B getting any.
iii - Let the members of their party decide to do whatever they want, which might result in Group A, but not B, receiving stuff, but could also block Group A from getting anything.
So which is it?
Now factor in that: Party 2 has a reputation for equality, and not being biased against Group B. Party 2 has voters in Group B. Party 2 also has voters from Group A. Party 2 has fairly low levels of support.
So does Party 2 lose voters and damage their reputation by blocking Group A receiving stuff [although possibly gaining support from Group B], or do they lose voters and damage their reputation by letting Group A receive stuff but not Group B, or do they try and opt out, and thus lose voters and damage their reputation through their weak leadership?
Seems like Party 2 are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Party 1 = Australian Liberal Party.
Party 2 = Australian Democrats
Party 3 = Australian Labor Party.
Group A = Married heterosexual couples.
Group B = Long-term homosexual couples.
Stuff = superannuation [pension] rights for the partner.
Tricky huh?
Other stuff:
I've forgotten how to do it. And you can't even cheat and dismantle the thing in this version (use the handle on a spoon, or a steel rule, but don't do it in mid-air). Although this version has weird B3ta-ish tinges.
Anyhoo, I'd better be gone.
BTW that was all "an opinion" type stuff, so please don't sue (and also I have no money, so if you're lucky you might get the chance to owe the student loan company money).
Which reminds me: what would you do in the following situation?
Party 1 wants to give stuff to Group A. To do this they need Party 2 or 3 to help. Party 2 wants to give stuff to Group B as well. Party 1 does not want to do this, and will abandon their plans if Party 2 insists on it. Party 3 refuse to help Party 1.
So does Party 2:
i - Abandon Group B, and agree with Party 1 to give Group A stuff.
ii - Demand Group B receives stuff, although this would stop both Groups A and B getting any.
iii - Let the members of their party decide to do whatever they want, which might result in Group A, but not B, receiving stuff, but could also block Group A from getting anything.
So which is it?
Now factor in that: Party 2 has a reputation for equality, and not being biased against Group B. Party 2 has voters in Group B. Party 2 also has voters from Group A. Party 2 has fairly low levels of support.
So does Party 2 lose voters and damage their reputation by blocking Group A receiving stuff [although possibly gaining support from Group B], or do they lose voters and damage their reputation by letting Group A receive stuff but not Group B, or do they try and opt out, and thus lose voters and damage their reputation through their weak leadership?
Seems like Party 2 are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Party 1 = Australian Liberal Party.
Party 2 = Australian Democrats
Party 3 = Australian Labor Party.
Group A = Married heterosexual couples.
Group B = Long-term homosexual couples.
Stuff = superannuation [pension] rights for the partner.
Tricky huh?
Other stuff:
I've forgotten how to do it. And you can't even cheat and dismantle the thing in this version (use the handle on a spoon, or a steel rule, but don't do it in mid-air). Although this version has weird B3ta-ish tinges.
Anyhoo, I'd better be gone.
