One of the most memorable questions that Donald Trump took during a bipartisan convention here on Monday came from a college student.
“So, maybe I’m wrong, maybe you can prove me wrong,” said Lauren Batchelder, a student at St. Anselm College in Manchester. “But I don’t think you’re a friend to women.”
Trump launched into his defense, one that he has given a lot lately as he faces accusations that he doesn’t treat women with respect. Trump said he gave women positions of power at his construction sites “many years ago… before anyone would have even thought” to put women in such jobs. Trump complimented his wife, eldest daughter and mother, who he said “was one of the great people of the world.” He promised to “take care of women” and stated: “I love women, I respect women, I cherish women.”
Batchelder listened with her arms folded, face in a scowl. She then finished asking her question: “If you become president, will a woman make the same as a man, and do I get to choose what I do with my body?”
After the crowd cheered, Trump answered quickly and curtly: “You’re going to make the same if you do as good of a job, and I happen to be pro-life, okay?” Batchelder listened, her hands now on her hips.
As Trump supporters googled Batchelder’s name, they found a resume listing “intern at Jeb Bush for President 2016” and a Twitter feed containing pro-Bush tweets. Daniel Scavino Jr., a senior adviser to Trump, accused Bush of having “planted” an intern at the event. Conservative blogs quickly picked up the story.
And Trump weighed in Tuesday morning:
Allie Brandenburger, a spokeswoman for Bush’s campaign, said Batchelder is not a paid staff member and attended the convention on her own.
“While this question was not sanctioned by the campaign,” Brandenburger said in an e-mail Tuesday morning, “we can’t help but notice Mr. Trump does seem to be very sensitive about being challenged by women.”
Bush’s lead spokesman, Tim Miller, reiterated that sentiment in a tweet.
Batchelder appears to have deleted her Twitter account. She has yet to respond to requests for comment.
Seriously in today’s day and age they need to resort to something that is so easily proven????
The have never heard of facial recognition? Google image? What the fuck is wrong with these people.
A woman sued her 12-year-old nephew in Connecticut for $127,000 for injuries she says she suffered from his exuberant greeting at his birthday party four years ago. She lost.
The Connecticut Post reports that New York City resident Jennifer Connell said the Westport boy acted unreasonably when he leaped into her arms at his eighth-birthday party.
She says he caused her to fall to the ground and break her wrist. She is asking a six-member Superior Court jury to find the boy liable.
A listed phone number couldn’t be found for the youngster’s father. The boy’s mother died last year, the Connecticut Post reported.
CBS New York reports that Connell testified before a jury that when the child jumped, she tumbled to the ground as she tried to catch him.
“All of a sudden he was there in the air, I had to catch him, and we tumbled to the ground,” Connell told jurors.
“I remember him shouting, ‘Auntie Jen I love you,’ and there he was flying at me.”
The 54-year-old Connell testified she loves her nephew but thinks he should be held accountable.
According to the Connecticut Post, Connell testified that she has a hard time walking up to her third-floor walkup apartment in Manhattan and her social life has been affected as well.
“I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said.
Connell admitted in court that she did not complain about the injury at the time, but did mention the injury made life tough over the next two years.
According to the Connecticut Post, the lawsuit states: “The injuries, losses and harms to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the minor defendant in that a reasonable eight year old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff.”
“I thought it was over and then Butterfield had 20 boxes of things that we had not seen before,” Woodward told “CBS This Morning” Tuesday.
Woodward spoke in length of one of the documents in particular – the top-secret “zilch” note, in which Nixon acknowledges in his own handwriting that the U.S. bombing campaign in Southeast Asia achieved “zilch,” contrary to his public comments that it was effective.
“When I first read that memo frankly…I was really shocked that this is the other side of Watergate. When you crack and connect all the dots, you see that he’s managing the Vietnam War, not to win the war, but because of the popularity of the bombing to win reelection,” said Woodward, who called Nixon a “criminal” who would “do anything to be reelected.”
A taped conversation between Nixon and Henry Kissinger further confirms Nixon’s disturbing motive. Immediately after Nixon intensifies bombings in the region, Kissinger tells him, “That’s the day you won reelection.”
“That’s the sabotage and spine of Watergate,” Woodward said. “Then we see it on the most sacred trust a president has — is that role of commander in chief — and he’s also engaged in that deception and manipulation.”
The discrete details in the memos also reveal much about Nixon’s character, particularly his obsession with John F. Kennedy. Memos reveal that he investigated staff who had displayed Kennedy’s photos in their offices and even ordered a “sanitization.”
While the book is centered on Nixon’s presidency, Woodward pointed to his hope that it would offer a greater message — a “warning,” as Americans look ahead to future leaders.
“Now is the time to really engage in that full biography so we understand who these people are because we missed Nixon and when you look at this story…it’s mind-numbing that this was the president of the United States,” Woodward said. “I really want to know who’s going to be the next president and I think there’s a journalistic obligation to find out everything positive, everything negative, a full excavation.”
Playboy impresario Hugh Hefner and Anna Berglund share a front row center box in a capacity crowd at the 32nd annual Playboy Jazz Festival at the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles on Saturday, June 12, 2010. Reed Saxon AP
Last month, Cory Jones, a top editor at Playboy, went to see its founder, Hugh Hefner, at the Playboy Mansion.
In a wood-paneled dining room, with Picasso and de Kooning prints on the walls, Jones nervously presented a radical suggestion: THE magazine, a pioneer of the revolution that helped take sex in America from furtive to ubiquitous, should stop publishing images of naked women.
Hefner, 89, but still listed as editor-in-chief, agreed. As part of a redesign that will be unveiled in March, the print edition of Playboy will still feature women in provocative poses. But they will no longer be fully nude.
Its executives admit that Playboy has been overtaken by the changes it pioneered. “That battle has been fought and won,” said Scott Flanders, the company’s chief executive. “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”
For a generation of American men, reading Playboy was a cultural rite, an illicit thrill consumed by flashlight. Now every teenage boy has an Internet-connected phone instead. Pornographic magazines, even those as storied as Playboy, have lost their shock value, their commercial value and their cultural relevance.
Playboy’s circulation has dropped from 5.6 million in 1975 to about 800,000 now, according to the Alliance for Audited Media. Many of the magazines that followed it have disappeared. Though detailed figures are not kept for adult magazines, many of those that remain exist in severely diminished form, available mostly in specialist stores. Penthouse, perhaps the most famous Playboy competitor, responded to the threat from digital pornography by turning even more explicit. It never recovered.
Previous efforts to revamp Playboy, as recently as three years ago, have never quite stuck. And those who have accused it of exploiting women are unlikely to be assuaged by a modest cover-up. But, according to its own research, Playboy’s logo is one of the most recognizable in the world, along with those of Apple and Nike. This time, as the magazine seeks to compete with startups like Vice, Flanders said, it sought to answer a key question: “If you take nudity out, what’s left?”
It is difficult, in a media market that has been so fragmented by the Web, to imagine the scope of Playboy’s influence at its peak. A judge once ruled that denying blind people a Braille version of it violated their First Amendment rights. It published stories by Margaret Atwood and Haruki Murakami among others, and its interviews have included Malcolm X, Vladimir Nabokov, Martin Luther King Jr. and Jimmy Carter, who admitted that he had lusted in his heart for women other than his wife. Madonna, Sharon Stone and Naomi Campbell appeared in the magazine at the peak of their fame. Its best-selling issue, November 1972, sold more than 7 million copies.
Even those who disliked it cared enough to pay attention – Gloria Steinem, the pioneering feminist, went undercover as a waitress, or Playboy Bunny, in one of Hefner’s spinoff clubs to write an exposé for Show Magazine in 1963.
When Hefner created the magazine, which featured Marilyn Monroe on its debut cover in 1953, he did so to please himself. “If you’re a man between the ages of 18 and 80, Playboy is meant for you,” he said in his first editor’s letter. “We enjoy mixing up cocktails and an hors d’oeuvre or two, putting a little mood music on the phonograph, and inviting in a female acquaintance for a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex …” He did not put a date on the cover of the first issue, in case Playboy did not make it to a second.
Hefner “just revolutionized the whole direction of how we live, of our lifestyles and the kind of sex you might have in America, said Dian Hanson, author of a six-volume history of men’s magazines and an editor for Taschen. “But taking the nudity out of Playboy is going to leave what?”
The latest redesign, 62 years later, is more pragmatic. The magazine had already made some content safe for work, Flanders said, in order to be allowed on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, vital sources of Web traffic.
In August last year, its website dispensed with nudity. As a result, Playboy executives said, the average age of its reader dropped from 47 to just over 30, and its Web traffic jumped to about 16 million from about 4 million unique users per month.
The magazine will adopt a cleaner, more modern style, said Jones, who as chief content officer also oversees its website. There will still be a Playmate of the Month, but the pictures will be “PG-13” and less produced – more like the racier sections of Instagram. “A little more accessible, a little more intimate,” he said. It is not yet decided whether there will still be a centerfold.
Its sex columnist, Jones said, will be a “sex-positive female,” writing enthusiastically about sex. And Playboy will continue its tradition of investigative journalism, in-depth interviews and fiction. The target audience, Flanders said, is young men who live in cities. “The difference between us and Vice,” he said, “is that we’re going after the guy with a job.”
Some of the moves, like expanded coverage of liquor, are partly commercial, Flanders admitted; the magazine must please its core advertisers. And all the changes have been tested in focus groups with an eye toward attracting millennials – people ages 18 to 30-something, highly coveted by publishers. The magazine will feature visual artists, with their work dotted through the pages, in part because research revealed that younger people are drawn to art.
The company now makes most of its money from licensing its ubiquitous brand and logo across the world – 40 percent of that business is in China even though the magazine is not available there – for bath products, fragrances, clothing, liquor and jewelry among other merchandise. Nudity in the magazine risks complaints from shoppers, and diminished distribution.
Playboy, which had gone public in 1971, was taken private again in 2011 by Hefner with Rizvi Traverse Management, an investment firm founded by Suhail Rizvi, a publicity-shy Silicon Valley investor, who has interests in Twitter, Square and Snapchat among others. The firm now owns more than 60 percent. Hefner owns about 30 percent (some shares are held by Playboy management).
The magazine is profitable if money from licensed editions around the world is taken into account, Flanders said, but the U.S. edition loses about $3 million a year. He sees it, he said, as a marketing expense. “It is our Fifth Avenue storefront,” he said.
Flanders and Jones feel that the magazine remains relevant, not least because the world has gradually adopted Hefner’s libertarian views on a variety of social issues. Asked whether Hefner’s views on women were the exception to that rule, Flanders responded that Hefner had “always celebrated the beauty of the female figure.”
“Don’t get me wrong,” Jones said of the decision to dispense with nudity, “12-year-old me is very disappointed in current me. But it’s the right thing to do.”