See: http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_012808.html

dr.e

Shika_one, thank you for the proverb and the translation; that's a good one. And, your differentiation about NOW-Ny is also a good one. There are many NOW chapters across the US. I imagine, if this pans out, we will hear from them. If this whole thing is true, and we do not hear from them; that'll be another story altogether.

Idiosyncrat, I think to a huge group of women, it would be one of the most shameful footnotes indeed.

cosmo, I swear you should do stand-up. You're funny

nicrivera: disheartening, you named it. But let's not cooperate. Let's keep our hearts, ok. Fie on absurdist pronouncements

DLS, you too I swear could be tag-team funny with cosmo.

The odd thing about this missive 'from NOW' is that it reminds me of the same odd kind of screed that Judith Regan wrote defending her intent to publish OJ's book, IF I Did It… Too, there was this strange loud assertion that it was being done for the 'women' of the world.

I have been contemplating both letters today. They are both filled with psychological cues that I feel fairly certain the writer may not have intended.

The shrillness of the letter in question is puzzling to me; It has High Oratory in it (which incidentally Obama uses sometimes too, not nec a bad thing, but a noticeable departure from Standard English…) and sometimes this particular letter seems more Ego-look-at-me-as-I-Attack-Famous-Person, and Thereby-Hope-I-Am-Almost- Garunteed-to Be-Covered-by-Media… than substantive humane message meant to right a grievous wrong.

Just my .02

And the beat goes on.

dr.e

Them's be mighty lonely women.

Baka wa shinanakya naoranai

Which literally translates to “Unless an idiot dies, he won't be cured”. But we'll just go with the meaning of you can't cure stupidity. Don't want the 'Net police to think I want to ax Ms. Pappas. Just flog her with her own nonsense.

Consider the utter idiocy of NOW's argument. By choosing to endorse Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton, Senator Kennedy has betrayed ALL women. Why, because Hillary Clinton is a woman, and therefore, not supporting her must be a rebuke to all women.

Yet, using NOW's tortured logic, one might argue that by refusing to endorse Barack Obama, NOW has betrayed African-Americans.

I certainly hope that whoever made this unfortunate statement does not speak for the entire NOW organization, because it's not only idiotic. It's insulting. The idea that we should vote for a candidate based upon his/her gender . . . is this the type of “progressive” thought that NOW is encouraging nowadays?

On a side note, what's so good about garnering Senator Kennedy's endorsement anyway? I mean, I realize that he's a powerful person in the Democratic Party, but he's a partisan, divisive figure, and his endorsement is not likely to help the Democratic nominee in the general election.

NOW-NY also has an astounding press release on their website, comparing how Hillary has been treated by her opposition candidates to a “gang-bang”.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/20...

[Superdestroyer, note the last selected comment here.]

“Maybe they should put their weight (no pun intended) behind Condoleeza Rice! … The voters, to include women, are sending a clear message this election, that the good ole' boys network in DC is no longer wanted, and that closed minded groups with narrow politcal agendas, such as NOW, have no place in the future of this nation. … This is the problem the Democratic party now faces in general. For years they have divided everyone up into groups. All the minorities over here (and then subdivided them further; Black, Brown, Asian, Islander, Indian, etc). Now all the women over here (oh, and subdivide them too). Now all you GLTB over in that corner. Get the poor over here. Put the rich and well off over their, under the spot lite. ETC. Worked fine as long as you had some White Guy who could pander to all of the individual groups, feel their pain so to speak. Regardless of whether the annoited one actually ever did anything to solve the problem.
Now you have 2 major candidates from 2 of the major subsets.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/28...