Advocacy group Women Deserve Better says PETA abuses defenseless, simple-minded women by forcing them to remove their clothing and participate in humiliating, degrading stunts to promote their cause.
Few things in this world could be less interesting or more phenomenally trivial than the silly-season editorial hubbub in the media over the NDP possibly re-branding themselves by dropping the adjective “New” from the party’s name.
As some have opined, this may just be symbolic (literally and figuratively) of more serious conflicting ideological and/or shifting generational currents within the party… But on the other hand, if one was being terribly cynical, it could also be speculated that it was just perhaps a cheap and easy way of whipping up some superficial media interest in their federal convention that might otherwise have been notably absent in the dog-days of summer…
For whatever it’s worth, looking at it from a purely marketing perspective, I think it would be a remarkably dumb idea to drop “New” from party’s name. Sure, some have called the adjective “irrelevant” and have pointed to its vestigial absurdity, but that’s entirely beside the point. “NDP” is a brand that — whether you agree or disagree with the party’s ideology and despite the fact that some polls have indicated most people either: a) don’t care; or b) it would make no difference whatsoever to their voting preference — is firmly entrenched in the psyche of our traditional political landscape.
To use a somewhat counterintuitive and contradictory example in reverse as a cautionary example, consider the infamous case of Coca-Cola that in the mid-80s attempted to re-invent itself with the “New” Coke brand. The reformulation was a dismal flop with consumers and the company quickly had to revert to re-introduction of its “original” formula and brand. I would argue that “NDP” is the original formula in this case and that “Democratic Party” (or whatever) is the insipid reformulation of the brand that’s doomed to fail.
Yeah, I know… what’s new? Nonetheless, here are three pretty stellar examples regarding the issue of living wills (aka “advance derectives about end-of-life care” or as some prefer, “death panels”).
Actually, the biggest example of hypocrisy is the present assertion being made by “conservatives” that politicians and government shouldn’t be involved in end-of-life decisions is right here.