How to pronounce then and now in English

Shipping companies definitely ordered too much because they tried to get these ships with a Tier II compliance, what happens now is some who optimistically have done that are getting cold feet. They thought maybe we can get away with it - the ships will be delivered in 2017, the market would have recovered by then and now they say, 'we're digging our own grave'.

Sadly, I feel that not much has changed in 25 years, there was a time between then and now where I thought we were making progress but one of the things that was clear to me from the election cycle was that not much has changed.

, } The woman, we all know, was Anita Hill. And I was there as her story unfolded. Twenty-seven years ago, on Yom Kippur eve, I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in my role as President of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, which became National Partnership for Women Families for Women Families. I was joined by wonderful colleagues, including Professor Patricia King of Georgetown University and Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. At the time I testified that Judge Clarence Thomas appeared to lack a demonstrated commitment to equal justice. I stated that Judge Clarence Thomas record cast grave doubt on Judge Clarence Thomas commitment to affirm and support fundamental principles of equal employment opportunity, the constitutional protections against gender discrimination and reproductive freedom. Judge Clarence Thomas record had shown an extensive pattern of disregard of principles of fundamental importance to women and Women Families. The ugly double standard over Kavanaughs so-called youthRead MoreOf course, the parallels between then and now are unmistakable. Shortly after my testimony, Hill's story was leaked to the press, and Anita Hill was asked to testify before the Senate. What happened next continues to be one of the most disgraceful episodes in our country's modern history. Anita Hill came before the Senate and was greeted by an all-male panel, led by Republicans who sought to prosecute Anita Hill, while Democrats, at best, remained neutral fact-finders. This phony trial resulted in a gross imbalance of power and meant that no one defended Anita Hill and no one prosecuted Judge Clarence Thomas. What was on trial was not the fitness of Judge Clarence Thomas to be the next Supreme Court justice but instead Hill's moral character and reputation as a woman. Immediately after the hearing, it was branded as a.