06-28-2016, 06:05 PM
Some more posts from Trumps blog
Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/200605070200...tem=121537
There's a lot to celebrate this holiday season. Elton John married his long-time partner David Furnish on December 21. That's the first day that civil partnerships between gay couples became legal in England under the new Civil Partnership Act.
Elton credits David with helping him kick drug and alcohol addictions that nearly killed him. The pair has been together for 12 years. I know both of them and they get along wonderfully. It's a marriage that's going to work.
Elton made the ceremony a small private affair involving only his and David's parents as witnesses. The couple just didn't want to make a big deal out of the wedding. They really wanted to keep things low key.
By all accounts, Elton and David had every tabloid and every entertainment magazine knocking at their door begging for exclusive rights to the affair. By some news reports, the couple turned down an offer of $11 million to record their wedding for British television. But Elton said, "Our relationship isn't up for grabs. It doesn't come with a price tag."
In any event, I'm very happy for them. If two people dig each other, they dig each other. Good luck, Elton. Good luck, David. Have a great life.
(But because I wasn't invited, do I still have to send them a toaster?)
Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/200605070201...tem=115383
The New York Times has made the headlines again: investigative reporter, Judith Miller, has announced her "retirement" after 28 years at The Times. I wonder who she was actually working for. I'd like to have The New York Times investigated for its reporting.
Judith Miller said that as a reporter, she had become the news, "something a New York Times reporter never wants to be." I personally think journalists should be in the public eye as much as possible. They would be more closely scrutinized.
It's headline-worthy when a reporter goes from being a Pulitzer Prize winner and martyr for press freedom to an employee who misled her own editors in the CIA leak. Is it any wonder she decided to retire? She must be exhausted from those dizzying and headline-grabbing feats.
I know The New York Times has to come up with headlines. That's their job. Still, I would like to see them focusing on the facts once in awhile. Otherwise, they might as well hire some fiction writers and poets and get some really high quality literature on their pages instead of potboiler news. If I'm going to spend my time reading, I want to make sure it's quality time.
Maybe Judith Miller shouldn't "retire," but instead investigate The New York Times for their reporting practices. I'm sure that after 28 years with them, she could find the right "unnamed sources." Even though she is not a very good reporter, she could put her journalistic experience to good use, and figure out what happened to this once great paper.
Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/200605070120...tem=112200
I think anyone who has lost a son, a daughter, or a loved one in the war in Iraq should sue The New York Times for Judith Miller's false reporting about the so-called "weapons of mass destruction" as a premise for that war. It's one thing to get a bad review, it's another to lose more than 2,000 lives because of false or inaccurate reporting. Imagine having the Judith Millers of the world working for you and getting away with things that are inconceivable to a journalist. We have to draw the line somewhere, and that's where I draw the line. All the news that's fit to print seems to have evolved into "whatever we decide to print is the news, whether it is correct or not!"
This past weekend I was playing golf with a friend who was irate with The New York Times. His investment portfolio has never been lower. His stock in the company is at the lowest it has been in ten years, and he can only blame the behavior at the so-called "paper of record" for this plunge.
In addition, the current mess with Judith Miller has made me wonder what is going on there. What kind of reporting is The New York Times doing? Who are they really working for? Can we afford to believe anything they print? Do they have a conscience? Do they know that power includes responsibility? Do they even know what they are doing?
I think The New York Times has some big-time cleaning up to do, but I wonder if it's too late.
Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/200605070118...tem=103779
Often I'm asked whether I think there is a glass ceiling for women in the corporate world. I admit that in many offices that obstacle may still be in place, but I like to think there isn't one in the Trump Organization.
There are several high-ranking women in my organization. Anyone who has watched The Apprentice is familiar with Carolyn Kepcher, who is an executive vice president as well as general manager and chief operating officer for two Trump National golf clubs. She's very smart, very shrewd, and tough as nails. Those are qualities I admire in someone, male or female.
Early in the first season of The Apprentice, I warned the female contestants that they were relying too heavily on their sex appeal to win the tasks. I think women have a tough situation in the workplace because of the sexual undertones. The business environment is so cutthroat that men and women learn to use whatever they can to get ahead, including their sexuality. Yet, when women do this, the perception of them changes. That's why women have to work harder to overcome obstacles.
I expect my employees to work long hours and to be available whenever I need them. Sometimes these expectations are more difficult for women to meet than men because they often have more family obligations than men do. I think sometimes this is where the obstacles come into play. It's not that the opportunities aren't there. It's just that the priorities can be different. Men are often more willing to put their jobs before their families--and I don't think that's a good thing. Women usually will put their families first, or at least give them equal time. The families win, but often that's why women perceive a glass ceiling looming overhead.