As marriage rates have declined, the share of U.S. adults who have ever lived with an unmarried partner has risen. Amid these changes, most Americans find it acceptable for unmarried couples to live together, even for those who dont plan to get married, according to a new Pew Research Center study. Still, a narrow majority sees societal benefits in marriage. The study also explores the experiences of adults who are married and those who are living with a partner, finding that married adults express higher levels of relationship satisfaction and trust in their partner than do those who are cohabiting.

Here are seven key findings from the report:

1 A larger share of adults have cohabited than have been married. Among adults ages 18 to 44, 59% have lived with an unmarried partner at some point in their lives, while 50% have ever been married, according to Pew Research Center analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth. By contrast, in 2002, 54% of adults in this age group had ever cohabited and 60% had ever married. Most adults ages 18 to 44 who have cohabited (62%) have only ever lived with one partner, but 38% have had two or more partners over the course of their life.

Looking at present relationships, 53% of adults ages 18 and older are currently married, down from 58% in 1995, according to data from the Current Population Survey. Over the same period, the share of Americans who are living with an unmarried partner has risen from 3% to 7%.

2 Most Americans (69%) say cohabitation is acceptable even if a couple doesnt plan to get married. Another 16% say its acceptable, but only if the couple plans to marry, and 14% say its never acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together.

Younger adults are more likely than their older counterparts to find it acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together. About eight-in-ten adults younger than age 30 (78%) say that cohabitation is acceptable even if the couple doesnt plan to marry, compared with 71% of those ages 30 to 49, 65% of those 50 to 64 and 63% of those 65 and older.

While most Americans say cohabitation is acceptable, many see societal benefits in marriage. A narrow majority of Americans (53%) say that society is better off if couples who want to stay together long-term eventually get married, while 46% say society is just as well off if they decide not to marry.

3 Married adults have higher levels of relationship satisfaction and trust than those living with a partner. Married adults are more likely than those who are living with a partner to say things are going very well in their relationship (58% vs. 41%). They also express higher levels of satisfaction with specific aspects of their relationship, including the way household chores are divided between them and their spouse or partner, how well their spouse or partner balances work and personal life, how well they and their spouse or partner communicate, and their spouses or partners approach to parenting (among those with children younger than 18 in the household). When it comes to their sex lives, however, similar shares of married and cohabiting adults (about a third) say they are very satisfied.

Married adults are also more likely than those who are cohabiting to say they have a great deal of trust in their spouse or partner to be faithful to them, act in their best interest, always tell them the truth and handle money responsibly.

The link between marriage (vs. cohabitation) and higher levels of relationship satisfaction and trust remains even after controlling for demographic differences between married and cohabiting adults (such as gender, age, race, religious affiliation and educational attainment).

4 Many cohabiting adults see living together as a step toward marriage. About two-thirds of married adults (66%) who lived with their spouse before they were married (and who were not yet engaged when they moved in together) say they saw cohabitation as a step toward marriage. Among cohabiting adults who were not engaged when they moved in with their partner, 44% say they saw living together as a step toward marriage.

Among cohabiters who are not currently engaged, half of those with a bachelors degree or more education and 43% of those with some college experience say they saw moving in with their partner as step toward marriage. Smaller shares of those with a high school diploma or less education (28%) say the same.

When U.S. adults are asked about the impact that living together first might have on the success of a couples marriage, roughly half (48%) say that, compared with couples who dont live together before marriage, couples who do live together first have a better chance of having a successful marriage. Another 13% say they have a worse chance and 38% say it doesnt make much difference. Younger adults are particularly likely to see cohabitation as a path to a successful marriage: 63% of adults younger than 30 say couples who live together before marriage have a better chance at a successful marriage, compared with 52% of those ages 30 to 49, 42% of those 50 to 64 and 37% of those 65 and older.

5 About four-in-ten cohabiting adults cite finances (38%) and convenience (37%) as major reasons they moved in with their partner. By comparison, just 13% of married adults cite finances and 10% cite convenience as major reasons why they decided to get married.

Among both married and cohabiting adults, love and companionship top the list of reasons why they decided to get married or to move in with their partner. Nine-in-ten married adults and 73% of cohabiting adults say love was a major factor in their decision. About two-thirds of married adults and 61% of cohabiting adults cite companionship as a major factor.

Cohabiting women are more likely than cohabiting men to say love and wanting to have children someday were major reasons why they moved in with their partner. For example, 80% of cohabiting women cite love as a major factor, compared with 63% of cohabiting men. No gender differences are evident on this question among married adults.

6 Many non-engaged cohabiters who want to get married someday cite finances as a reason why theyre not engaged or married. About three-in-ten cohabiting adults who are not engaged but say they would like to get married someday cite their partners (29%) or their own (27%) lack of financial readiness as a major reason why theyre not engaged or married to their current partner. About a quarter (24%) say their partner not being ready financially is a minor reason, and 29% say the same about their own finances.

Roughly four-in-ten (44%) say not being far enough along in their job or career is at least a minor reason why theyre not engaged or married to their partner. Cohabiters who are not engaged but want to get married someday are more likely to cite their partner not being ready (26%), rather than themselves (14%), as a major reason theyre not engaged or married.

7 Most Americans favor allowing unmarried couples to have the same legal rights as married couples. Roughly two-thirds of adults (65%) say they favor allowing unmarried couples to enter into legal agreements that would give them the same rights as married couples when it comes to things like health insurance, inheritance or tax benefits, while 34% oppose this.

Democrats and those who lean toward the Democratic Party are far more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to favor allowing these types of legal agreements for unmarried couples. About three-quarters of Democrats (77%) favor this, including 45% who strongly favor it. By contrast, Republicans are about evenly split: 50% favor and 49% oppose this. Party differences are also evident in views concerning the acceptability of cohabitation, the societal benefits of marriage, the impact of cohabitation on the success of a couples marriage and whether cohabiting and married couples can raise children equally well.

Note: See full topline results and methodology.

Read more from the original source:
Key findings on marriage and cohabitation in the U.S. - Pew Research Center

JOHANNESBURG Having recently reached a milestone of being in operation for five years, raising more than R50 million in their latest funding round, while most importantly having created more than 15 000 employment opportunities for previously unemployed or underemployed domestic workers, it cannot be denied that domestic cleaning services app, SweepSouth is a South African startup success story.

While the company looks towards its future with plans to expand into new markets and offer services beyond domestic services like handymen, plumbers, electricians, locksmiths, carpet cleaners, and nannies, as well as the growing its online SweepSouth Shop which sells a range of home products, SweepSouths co-founder and CEO Aisha Pandor took a moment to look back and give her tips on personal and business success.

When setting out in business, particularly if youre going to be striking it out on your own as an entrepreneur, think big. Focus on unique challenges and solutions that have the potential to change peoples lives. In South Africa, these are a plenty. Through technology, SweepSouth was able to address a core consumer issue struggling to find reliable & vetted domestic help at decent rates that are also affordable. But it has done so while also addressing unemployment and underemployment, and domestic worker wage issues.

See original here:
WATCH: Having raised over R50m SweepSouth's Aisha Pandor gives her tips to success - IOL

This is the third installment in a five-part series on Philanthropy. Its devoted to gifts of time.

If creating your legacy means developing a strategy for the most effective use of your resources, then your time should certainly be considered as one of your resources. Time is a finite resource, which resets daily.

While each of us start with the same amount of time each day, our personal values create different priorities for spending it. For some, time with family has the most value, while others value work as a way to create a larger financial impact. Each person is different, and your overall philanthropic strategy should guide you in determining how to use your time to create your personal legacy.

Traditionally, when considering how gifts of your time contribute to community well being, and humanitarian causes, activities such as volunteering for bake-sales, fun fairs, coaching sports or sitting as a director for a local non-profit group immediately come to mind.

According to Volunteer Canada volunteering builds confidence, competence, connections and community. Involved Canadians build strong and connected communities.

Volunteer Canada is a national organization established to increase participation, quality and diversity of volunteer experiences. Their website contains resources, training, tools, research and programs for organizations to better understand the issues and trends affecting volunteerism.

While volunteerism is certainly an invaluable source of community support, each person can make small changes in their everyday activities which lead to impactful change in the community.

There are plenty of opportunities to gift your time in a way that contributes to the wellbeing of others. You may donate an hour of your time to giving blood or supporting those who do. This gift of yourself and your time, could save up to three lives, and has a dramatic impact on many other people.

Choose to shop local whenever you can. This supports local businesses, who in return support local sports, charities, and service clubs. Consider starting your holiday shopping at the Hospital Auxiliary Gift Shop where proceeds are used to support patient care, or perhaps at a Bazar or other fundraiser hosted by local service groups. It may not always be the most

convenient but choosing to spend your time and money locally is a gift to your community.

If your legacy involves building a sense of community, then small things may matter the most. Say hello to strangers and smile at customer service staff (believe me theyll appreciate it). Reach out to someone who you suspect may be struggling. Check in with them and let them know you will listen. Invite a newcomer over for tea, or to join you at the Santa Claus Parade. Building a sense of community is vital to engaging people in the causes which are important to you but plays an equally important role in solving the root problems of many social issues. Connecting with another person may literally save their life.

Mentoring, or gifting of your time, your experience and your skills can be a formal experience, through programs such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, or more informal through coaching, work or a personal commitment. Mentoring is taking a personal interest in the success of another person and impacts the mentor as much as the mentee.

Whether through a formal commitment to the causes you support, or through your everyday actions, focus on spending your time advancing the ideals that are important to you. Your time is a resource. Be careful how you spend it.

See the original post here:
Gifts of Time - Kincardine News

Monty Rakusen | Cultura | Getty Images

Question marks over whether consensual workplace relationships are ever OK have come to the fore this week after the high-profile firing of McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook.

Experts say there are no hard and fast rules, however, when it comes to policy (and policing) of romantic relationships within organizations.

The firing of Easterbrook, announced Sunday, has served as a timely reminder to workers of the pitfalls of workplace relationships however consensual they may be and it's no surprise that most people prefer discretion when it comes to romance in the workplace.

A study on work romances in the U.K., released by jobs website Totaljobs Tuesday, showed that the majority (76%) of the 5,795 Brits surveyed would much prefer to keep their workplace relationships a secret yet one in five (22%) of those surveyed said they had met their partner through work more so than through friends, online dating or while at a bar or club.

Other key findings in the study were that two thirds of workers (66%) have either dated a colleague or would consider it, but a third of people (34%) would rule it out. A word to the wise, over half (51%) of those who had dated a colleague experienced gossip from peers a factor that promotes the culture of silence that surrounds workplace romances.

Easterbrook was widely credited with turning the company's fortunes around since taking over the leadership in 2015. The share price more than doubled during his tenure. But McDonald's said Sunday that it dismissed the chief executive because "he violated company policy and demonstrated poor judgment involving a recent consensual relationship with an employee."

McDonald's code of conduct states that "in order to avoid situations in which workplace conduct could negatively impact the work environment, employees who have a direct or indirect reporting relationship to each other are prohibited from dating or having a sexual relationship."

For his part, Easterbrook said the relationship was a mistake and agreed "it is time for me to move on." McDonald's did not provide any further details on the relationship.

While many people have expressed sympathy for him, there is a general consensus that "rules are rules" and workplace fraternization policies (also known as dating orworkplace romance policies) or even non-fraternization policies are designed to protect employees and potential workplace harassment, especially from those in the chain of command.

There are a number of other reasons why workplaces might want to discourage romance from developing, aside from any larger concerns over potential accusations of sexual harassment.

Steve Easterbrook, CEO McDonald, poses with Ronald McDonald.

Getty Images

Workplace relationships could prompt concerns over individual productivity and accusations of favoritism to maintaining a professional and comfortable environment and avoiding possible disruption to that especially in the event of a breakup.

Kerry McGowan, managing director of The HR Specialists, told CNBC Thursday that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to workplace policies on relationships.

"The issue is often that there are competing requirements you have the business requirements and personal requirements. In a large organization it might not be such an issue if two employees start a relationship because if they work in different departments it won't impact the business. But problems can occur when two people work in the same department or when there's a subordinate relationship (with a senior colleague)," she said.

She said that while organizations don't have to have (and many don't have) a specific policy on romantic relationships in the workplace, it's good to set out rules to employees about what standards of behavior are expected within the company. She also pointed out that friendships between colleagues can go sour too and lead to problems in the workplace.

When it comes to the Easterbook case, most workplace and human resources experts agree that he should have known the rules and should have demonstrated the standards of behavior expected from everyone in the organization.

Colin Ellis, author of "Culture Fix: How to Create a Great Place to Work," also said that while he has "some sympathy" for Easterbrook, "rules are rules," and that workplace culture, and even success, depend on these norms being followed.

"It very clearly states in the company policy manual that employees aren't allowed to have 'consensual relationships' with other employees. You may think this is unfair or possibly even irrational, however, McDonald's makes it clear that's what it is, and it applies to everyone That's the thing about corporate culture, it belongs to everyone and therefore applies to everyone."

Ellis added that as soon as you start having one rule for one person and another for someone else, you create "special" people who are above the law. "This is the kind of action that undermines workplace cultures around the world and leads to falling productivity, engagement and profitability," he said.

Employers have rushed to review and strengthen workplace policies aimed at preventing workplace harassment and sexual misconduct in recent years, particularly in the light of campaigns to end sexual harassment like the #MeToo movement which emerged in the wake of sexual abuse allegations against Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein.

The Weinstein scandal might have been set against a backdrop of Hollywood glamor, but it also shone a light on everyday workplace relationships and complex issues surrounding power and authority, influence and consent.

Since then, focus on sexual assault and harassment in (and out of) the workplace and how to prevent such behavior has come to the fore and companies are keen to put policies in place protecting their employees from potential abuses of power. Legal experts tend to agree that some workplaces are bound to have become stricter in recent years.

Stephen Woodhouse, an employment solicitor at Stephensons Solicitors in the U.K., said on Monday that McDonald's nonfraternization policy was "influenced, at least in part, by the recent MeToo movement."

"In today's working world we spend more time at work than at home and as an inevitable consequence of this, relationships will form. There is nothing in law which restricts co-workers from engaging in relationships. However, complications can arise particularly when there's an imbalance of power or where colleagues complain of favoritism as a result of these close relations," he said in an emailed statement.

"Some companies will look to impose a policy which seeks to balance the rights of individuals, against the need to protect the business and its employees. Under such policies employees can be required to declare a relationship if one arises. Stricter employment policies may require one of the employees to move departments or even leave the business," he said.

Commenting on the Easterbrook case specifically, Woodhouse said the stance from McDonald's does appear to be a strict one "but as we know very little about the other individual we are not party to all factors in the decision."

Here is the original post:
Workplace relationships: Are they ever OK? - CNBC

David M. Dorsen, Opinion contributor Published 5:00 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2019 | Updated 11:09 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2019

Impeaching a U.S. president might not be the be-all-end-allfor their career. We explain why this is the case. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

Don't trivialize the Founders. They didn't want presidents impeached for embezzlement but not for selling us out to foreign powers for personal gain.

When House Republicans voted unanimously against the impeachment resolution setting rules for investigating President Donald Trump, they reflected not just blind partisanship but also a misunderstanding, perhaps willful, of what constitutes grounds for impeachment. And Watergate is partly to blame for that.

The 1970s Watergate investigators weresuccessful in ferreting out wrongdoing, including the massive obstruction of justice that emanated from the highest levels of the executive branch of our government.The news media initially uncovered facts demonstrating that those responsible for the Watergate burglary and its cover-up went far beyond the arrested burglars. The Senate Watergate Committee presented a comprehensive picture to the public that has withstood the test of time. The special prosecutor succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to order President Richard Nixon to produce all his tape recordings (including the Smoking Gun Tape of June 23, 1972). The House JudiciaryCommittee forcedNixon to resign. Andthe special prosecutor convicted Nixons top aides.

So what is Watergates negative legacy?

Because the investigations were so thorough and the wrongdoing, which included bribery as well asobstruction of justice, so severe, some of Trumps supporters are arguing that a crime is essential to an impeachment and conviction, and that abuse of the presidents constitutional powers thatdoes not constitutecrimedoes not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.After all, White House counsel John Dean famously talkedto Nixon about paying $1 million (in 1973 dollars) to continue to buy silence from the Watergate burglars evidence of a crimeright there.

But the premise is false.

Bronze sculptures of the signers of the Constitution at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia in 2003.(Photo: Eileen Blass/USA TODAY)

Asassistant chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, I was part of the investigation. Our success at demonstrating the criminality of Nixons actions created a sense that criminality is required. Yet it is absolutely clear that criminal conduct is not a requirement and that abuse of presidential power is sufficient.

The constitutional standard is high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a term of art that the Founders borrowed from England and is satisfied by proof of a serious abuse of power.Sacrificing the national interest for personal gain or aggrandizement satisfies the constitutional standard, especially when it is accompanied by lies, threatsand other misconduct.The term is archaic, but its meaning is clear.

Originally, the framers inserted into the draft constitution terms like malpractice or neglect of duty.They changed the language to require more serious conduct, but did not change the nature of the impeachable offense. Itwas always connected to the official duties of the president, not to crimes committed by ordinary citizens.The framers wanted a government that would not kowtow to the powerful European powers.The very survival of the republic was at stake.

To restrict the constitutional language to ordinary crimes demeans the work of our Founders, who sought to create a virtuous nation built on democratic principles.By saying that a president can be impeached for a run-of-the-mill embezzlement while going scot-free for selling out the country to a foreign power for personal gain, defenders of Trump are trivializing the founding generation.

David M. Dorsen, formerlyassistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee and an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, is the author of"The Unexpected Scalia: A Conservative Justices Liberal Opinions" and, most recently, "Moses v. Trump, a contemporary novel." Follow him on Twitter:@DavidDorsen

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/01/trump-impeachment-watergate-crimes-not-relevant-column/4110595002/

View original post here:
Downside of Watergate: We found crimes. Now people think that's what it takes to impeach. - USA TODAY

In the fall of 1984, a few months after arriving at Random House as a senior editor, I was at lunch with the publishing houses proprietor, S. I. (Si) Newhouse (whose family owns Cond Nast, which publishes The New Yorker), and its C.E.O., Robert Bernstein, who had hired me away from the Washington Post. We were in the Bahamas, at a sales conference. Newhouse was ordinarily a quiet, phlegmatic man, I had been told, but on one subject he was very animated: Donald Trump. By then, Trump, who had recently completed the construction of a shimmering tower on Fifth Avenue, had been around for a decade. A profile in the Times, in 1976, had called him New Yorks No. 1 real-estate promoter. He is tall, lean and blond, the story noted, and he looks ever so much like Robert Redford. More recently, at the suggestion of Roy Cohn, the notorious New York lawyer and fixer, who had been Newhouses close friend since their days together at the Horace Mann School, Trump had appeared on the cover of GQ, a Cond Nast magazine. The issue had sold especially well.

This Trump fellow, Newhouse now said, was more than a comer. He had arrived. The word was that Newhouse was hands-off when it came to acquiring books, but on this occasion he emphatically was not. He said, Lets do a book with Trump. I had been brought to Random House to acquire and edit, among other things, high-profile books by public figures. Newhouse said that he would arrange a meeting with Trump, and it was decided that Howard Kaminsky, the new publisher of the Random House trade division, and I would accompany him. Kaminsky was a friend of Newhouse and was clearly his choice as publisher, not Bernsteins.

The day of the meeting arrived, and we were led into Trumps office, on the twenty-sixth floor of Trump Tower, by his personal assistant, an elegant woman named Norma Foerderer. (She would later have an assistant of her own, Rhona Graff, who is still Trumps personal assistant in New York.) The office had a spectacular view of Central Park and the Plaza Hotel, which Trump coveted. The walls were covered with magazine spreads hed appeared in and some plaques. There was a large phone console, but Trump summoned Norma and others with a shout.

Newhouse made the pitch. We had brought along a cover proposalblack background, a photograph of Trump, and his name and the title in gold letters. Trump liked the cover but said his name should be larger. It wasnt clear to me whether he was being serious or engaging in self-parody. In any case, by the end of the meeting, Trump was ready to do the book. We soon learned that a writer named Tony Schwartz, who had worked at Newsweek and the Times, had come to Trump with a concept for a book they could do together, to be called The Art of The Deal. All the pieces were in place. The advance was five hundred thousand dollars, to be split evenly, from the first dollar, with Schwartz as the co-author. I dont remember dealing with either an agent or a lawyer.

It was now 1985 and I was acquiring other books, including the memoirs of House Speaker Tip ONeill, and Rosalynn and Jimmy Carters Everything to Gain: Making the Most of the Rest of Your Life. I also contracted with Natan Sharansky, a Russian-Jewish dissident I had known while working as a reporter for the Post in Moscow, a decade earlier. We had both been attacked by Soviet authorities: he for supposedly being a spy and I for supposedly being his American handler. Sharansky was tried for treason and went to prison for nine years. When he was released, in 1986, Bernstein, a staunch human-rights activist, flew with me to Israel to meet him and sign him up.

I was still learning how to be a book editor and publisher. With ONeill and the Carters, I was a reporter as well as an editor, asking questions and reviewing interview transcripts. When Sharansky had a draft, I went to Israel again and he read it to me in Russian. The Trump process, however, was quite different. In 2016, Tony Schwartz told Jane Mayer that he now deeply regrets being Trumps writer. But he was not a ghostwriter exactly, certainly not an anonymous one. His name got full billing on the cover. I have no reason to doubt that Schwartz is sincere in his chagrin, but he did do a masterly job on the book. He shadowed Trump, channelled his stories, and made the narrative readable. He presented Trump in the best possible waythe way Trump wanted to be seen. Tony left very little for an editor to do.

Instead, my responsibility became all the publishing elements: how the book looked, how it would be marketed and publicized. I became the Random House sponsor of what we thought would be a significant seller during the holiday buying season of 1987. Kaminsky would normally have been at the helm of our efforts, but in October, 1987, he was fired by Bernstein, who had kept a distinct distance from the project. Kaminskys successor was Joni Evans, who came from Simon & Schuster. While she was getting her bearings at Random House, I was the point person on The Art of the Deal.

I accompanied Trump to meetings with the heads of major book-retail chains, the biggest of which at that time was Waldenbooks, which had more than a thousand stores in malls and storefronts around the country. The C.E.O. was Harry Hoffman, a big man with considerable self-regard, who tended to think that publishers were fusty and backward in their understanding of how books should be sold. Over lunch at some swank French restaurant in midtown Manhattan, I watched Hoffman and Trump bond. They agreed that they could make The Art of the Deal a No. 1 best-seller.

The book party took place in December, 1987, in the atrium of Trump Tower. It was a black-tie affair, with photographers and spotlights everywhere. On the receiving line, standing next to Trump, Newhouse, and Schwartz, I found myself shaking hands with Mike Tyson, Barbara Walters, Barry Diller, and Norman Mailer, who had been, surprisingly, a close friend of Roy Cohn. I gave the celebratory toast. The mood was jubilant. At that very moment, my wife, Susan, was in Moscow with a delegation from Human Rights Watch, where she worked, meeting with prominent dissidents who were under the surveillance of the K.G.B. Susan and I have been a couple since the early seventies. Never in our marriage can it be said that we were farther apart, in terms of both distance and circumstance.

The book went to No. 1 and stayed there. The media interest from the outset was intense. The top shows of the timePhil Donahue in daytime, Larry King at night, and everyone in between, including programs in the United Kingdomwere eager to book New Yorks glamorous young real-estate mogul. Random House had put out about a hundred and twenty-five thousand copies in the first printing. They disappeared very quickly. Reprints were ordered and shipped on an almost daily basis to keep up with demand. Trump was thrilled. Schwartz, on the other hand, was frustrated to learn that some booksellers were out of stock. He had stores on speed dial and would report shortages back to us in furious calls. Ive always believed that of the books two credited authors, Schwartz was the more frenetic. Given the fifty-fifty split in the contract, he was on the way to making a fortune in royalties.

There was a rumor adrift that Trump was buying his own book to boost his sales numbers, which seems unlikely: Trump doesnt spend money when he doesnt have to. He was hardly passive, however. Joni Evans told me that Trump called her at home a few days before Christmas to say that he wanted a thousand copies delivered to Aspen for his upcoming ski vacation.

Donald, its Christmas, she said. All the warehouses are closed.

Figure it out, was his command. He offered the use of his plane.

Evans managed to reach Newhouse. The warehouse was mobilized. The copies reached Aspen and were sold. By mid-1988, The Art of the Deal had sold a million hardcover copies.

Through all this, my relations with Trump were smooth. He was so glad to have been solicited by Newhouse, and he had, in an easy climb, become a national celebrity. The Times review ended with this notable sentence: Mr. Trump makes one believe even for a moment in the American dream. Then there was this ambiguous closing line: Its like a fairy tale.

The following spring, my son, Evan, who was then about twelve years old, expressed a fascination with professional wrestling. There was a World Wrestling Federation extravaganza coming up in Atlantic City. This was a Trump-promoted event. I called Trumps office, spoke to Norma, and was sent three free tickets. On the day of the event, Trump arrived at the arena to wild applause. This was well before his days on The Apprentice, but he was already at least as big a star as Hulk Hogan or whoever was in the ring that day.

As was probably inevitable, either Trump or Newhouse eventually proposed doing a sequel to The Art of the Deal. And so the planning began. Newhouse and I were invited to lunch on Trumps yacht, the Trump Princess, a two-hundred-and-eighty-foot vessel that hed bought from the Sultan of Brunei. The Trump Princess was anchored in the East River. What I most remember was that, by dessert, Newhouse had authorized an advance of two and a half million dollars, five times what we had paid for the first book. Once again, I was to be the editor.

At the time, I sensed that Trumps world was starting to darken. In October, 1989, three of his top casino executives were killed in a helicopter crash. When I expressed my condolences to Trump, he replied, as I recall, You know, I was supposed to be on that chopper. Then word spread that Trump and Ivanas marriage was faltering, despite her executive role in his recent acquisition of the Plaza. There was reportedly a new woman in his life, but her identity had yet to be revealed. Trump was still opening casinos in Atlantic City, most notably the Taj Mahal, but there were rumors that he was becoming overstretched.

By the end of May, 1990, we had a manuscript in draft. (Schwartz was unavailable, so we recruited Charles Leerhsen, a gifted Newsweek writer who had co-authored the memoirs of the pilot Chuck Yeager.) The only time I ever saw Trump lose his temper came when we sent a photographer to do a cover picture in his office at Trump Tower. Arriving early, the photographer attached black garbage bags to the ceiling, in order to reduce glare. When Trump saw the bags, he demanded that they be removed and angrily told the photographer that he would be charged for any damage to the paint job. The photograph that we eventually chose was of Trump tossing an apple into the air. The text on the back of the jacket said, This is Phase Two of my life, in which the going gets a lot tougher and the victories, because they are harder won, seem all the sweeter. I know that whatever happens, Im a survivora survivor of success, which is a very rare thing indeed.

The big annual convention of publishers and booksellers was in Las Vegas that year, in early June. Trump was invited to be a speaker at a breakfast at which about three thousand people would be in attendance. The night before, Random House hosted a reception for about a thousand people at the Mirage hotel, in honor of Trump and of the novelist Jean Auel and her Clan of the Cave Bear series.

I was to be Trumps escort at the event. Our arrangements were elaborate. I went to the airport in a stretch limo, and, when Trump exited his jet and settled into the car, he said that he had a surprise. And there was Marla Maples, his secret paramour. At the Mirage, Trump and Maples checked into an enormous suite, which was equipped with its own swimming pool. At the appointed hour, I went to pick him up for the party. Maples opened the door wearing a bikini.

After the book party, Trump, Newhouse, Alberto Vitale, who was now the C.E.O. of Random House, Joni Evans, and I went to dinner in a private room with a small group of top-tier booksellers, including the owner of Barnes & Noble, Leonard Riggio, and E. Bronson Ingram and his wife, Martha, the owners of the countrys largest book wholesaler. As we were about to start, Maples appeared. Given that she was still supposed to be incognito, her presence caused a stir.

Early the next morning, I picked up a copy of the Wall Street Journal, which featured a front-page story about Trumps finances. To summarize, they were a mess. He was billions of dollars in debt. The Journals account was, by any measure, a full takedown. At the bookseller breakfast that morning, Trump gave a spirited talk. My assumption was that the only people in the ballroom who had read the Journal story were those in the Random House contingent. The enthusiastic audience seemed oblivious.

Trump left the stage and we rushed off to his plane to fly to New York. Vitale whispered to me, in effect, Get this book out fast. He is a wasting asset. On the flight, I was watching Trump carefully to see how he was doing. I couldnt spot a trace of anxiety. I dont remember anyone mentioning the story or his finances. After a sumptuous lunch of shrimp, charcuterie, and assorted desserts, Trump took Maples into his private cabin and remerged about ninety minutes later. Considering the Journal story, I would not have been surprised had he opened the jets door and jumped out. And yet he seemed unfazed. We landed in early evening.

Our Random House team scrambled to get the book finished and distributed as quickly as possible. The publication date was moved to mid-August. Around that time, I learned that New York magazine was planning to run a feature on the book and Trumps financial and marital dramas. I was asked to provide a picture of myself to accompany the story. My private dread was that the caption would be something like He edited this dog. I called Ed Kosner, New Yorks editor, whom I knew slightly, and asked him if he would leave me out if I could find a better picture than mine to go with the story. He told me to try.

Along with Carol Schneider, Random Houses publicity director, I studied contact sheets of snapshots taken at the Mirage party. We found one of Trump with Newhouse, Vitale, Evans, and John Updike. That satisfied Kosner, and I was spared, although I was quoted in the piece saying that we had positive expectations for the book, which was to be titled Surviving at the Top.

Random House shipped hundreds of thousands of copies. Reviews this time were sparse and not altogether friendly. In the Times, Michael Lewis wrote that the book was a portrait of an ego gone haywire. Nevertheless, the book spent seven weeks in the top fifteen on the Times best-seller list. Warner Books bought the paperback rights for a million dollars. (They changed the title to The Art of Survival and released it in July, 1991.)

I havent looked at the book since, but I found a copy recently and discovered that it included a paragraph excerpted from a Times editorial that was published shortly after the Journal story about Trumps finances broke. The paragraph closed: Arrogance? For sure, and yet in a world lacking individual heroes, even some of Donalds critics must confess to a sneaking respect for his insistence on being himself, however outrageous, and catch themselves hoping that hell find the strength and luck to escape.

With Surviving now in the past, my regular contacts with Trump came to an end. He continued to flounder in business. In 1990, Trump hired Stephen Bollenbach, who was previously the C.F.O. of the company that owned Holiday Inn, and gave him a mandate to straighten out Trumps debts. It would be hard to penetrate how Bollenbach undertook this task, but a number of Trump assets, including the Trump Shuttle, the Plaza Hotel, and his yacht were off-loaded. At the time, the word was that Bollenbach put Trump on a four-hundred-and-fifty-thousand-dollar monthly allowance. In two years, Trump was apparently out of the worst trouble. When I asked Trump how he had found Bollenbach and persuaded him to salvage his finances and the standing of the Trump Organization, he said he had read about him in Businessweek. Like that.

I am often asked if I regret having been the editor of the book that made Trump a national figure. The answer is no. I was trained in journalism and Trump was a terrific story. I was tasked by Si Newhouse to manage him on that first book. On the second book, I was working with a successful repeat author. A decade or so after the publication of The Art of the Deal, I was asked to edit a third Trump opus. By then, I could sense that my time at Random House was coming to an end. I was eager to start a small publishing company called PublicAffairs. I left Random House a year before The Art of the Comeback was published, in 1997. And that is a fact that I definitely have never regretted, then or any time since.

A previous version of this post misidentified an attendee at the book party.

See the original post:
Editing Donald Trumps The Art of the Deal - The New Yorker

Healthy food concept.

Rightness of limitation is essential for growth of reality. Unlimited possibility and abstract creativity can procure nothing. The limitation, and the basis arising from what is already actual, are both of them necessary and interconnected. Alfred North Whitehead

I have always been a fan of limitations. I know this way of thinking doesnt fit in with todays message of pushing back against self-limiting beliefs and cultivating an abundance mindset. Where many people seek a life where they need nothing and succeed at everything, I believe that abundance and unchallenged success holds us back from being the best we can be. Instead, we must welcome restrictions, economic, temporal and emotional, to create bigger and better things for ourselves and others. When Ive had few resources and have hit bottom, these are the times when my best ideas have sprung to life. Its during these sparse times that Ive found that limitations are crucial to maintaining my creativity.

Limitations Can Work Towards Our Benefit

Limitations can indeed be advantageous, but only if you have the sight to recognize the upside of the meager offerings life is handing you at the moment. How you view these limitations either promotes or shuts down your creativity. Ask yourself this question, When I have been limited on time or resources, have I found creative options?

Imagine youre packing lunches for the kids and you have everything imaginable in the fridge. Having ingredients for any lunch item your kids want would make preparing meals easier, but it also means you wouldnt have to twist and challenge your brain to find something nutritious and delicious to prepare for them. Why is this struggle important? Well, according to researchers, obstacles exercise the brain and are necessary to keep us moving forward. Limitations give us the boost we dont realize we need to create something epic and wholly new.

Innovation Is the Reaction to Limitations

When there is a shortage of something, this gives us the chance to dig into our creative inclinations. In this space of lack, we innovate change and promote advancement. For creative individuals, that innovation is a positive reaction to limitations.

Take, for example, a 2015 study that investigatedhow people think when they experience a lack of something versus how the thinking process changes when they achieve abundance. The study showed a massive difference between the creativity and the innovation of people who had many resources and little challenges compared to those who had greater limitations. Individuals who were living in a state of scarcity, economic, emotional or both, could create more using fewer resources because the limitation motivated them to carve their own way.

I want to take a moment to emphasize that I am not a fan of being on the brink of famine and starving ones creativity to innovate more. Thats not what Im saying at all. The point I want to make is that were not always going to have an abundance of resources at hand when we need to come up with fast solutions. This is true in business and our personal lives. What we do have is control over how we view the situation. Thinking of limitations as blessings instead of burdens lets us grasp onto the limitation and ride with it through all the twists and turns to a place where we find solutions we would never have thought of if we didnt have those challenges.

A couple of years ago, I heard about the Japanese floral art call Ikebana. The method behind the art is to work deliberately to limit itself to create floral art that is sharper and more beautiful using limited resources. The idea intrigued me, and I wanted to try a self-limiting experiment of my own to sharpen my creativity, but Im not a floral artist by any stretch of the imagination. So, I went on a clothing diet. I decided that for 12 months, I would not allow myself to own more than 36 pieces of clothing. It was a relatively harmless and accessible challenge that is easy for most people to try, and it expanded my perception of how much I can do with so little.

Its actually quite beautiful how creativity thrives when its limited. Consider Twitters unique platform, which forces you to communicate ultra-briefly. Although the restriction can seem quite limiting, it forces you to make your communication concise, sharp and witty.

As we move into a new year and a new decade, I challenge anyone reading this to consider embracing your limited resources. Find the space within whatever you lack to create something that is yours and no one else. Time and money never guarantee success or happiness but leaning into our lack is where we can shine the most and find more abundance and joy than we ever imagined. So, limit yourself and discover limitless opportunities!

Read the original post:
Appreciate The Possibilities In Limited Living - Forbes

KEITH Flint's prized possessions including a 20,000 gothic bed and his iconic nose ring are being sold at auction this week.

Around 170 items belonging to the Prodigy legend go under the hammer on Thursday after his death in March.

Other treasured possessions include a gold chest of drawers, an MTV award, an archive of solo music recordings, artworks and his clothes.

Singer Keith, 49, took his own life at his home in Essex in March.

He rose to fame in the 1990s in the Brit Award-winning electronic band, who were known for hits including Firestarter and Breathe.

The sale at Cheffins in Cambridge on Thursday will help settle his estates 7.3m debts.

It reflects the frontman's personal taste in art and fashion, as well as his interests in music and beyond.

Among the items are music awards and presentation discs from around the world, commemorating the global success of The Prodigy.

COLD AS ICE Snow 'to hit Britain this week' in coldest November of the DECADE

CHICKEN LITTLE Mum finds Sainsbury's chicken meant for family of 5 is smaller than a FORK

'I DARE YOU!' Furious mum confronts her son's bully and rages 'I'll rip your face off'

mr luck Man who won 'punching above weight' gong & 1m Lotto spends it on his autistic kids

BONFIRE CHAOS Yobs bombard cops with fireworks & boy, 17, stabbed in Bonfire Night violence

'ULTIMATE SACRIFICE' Last pic of parents who drank poison before mum was accused of murder

Auctioneer Martin Millard said: The items highlight the difference between Keiths stage persona and his private life.

"Valuing items with such provenance is almost impossible, and therefore we will not be publishing any pre-sale estimates, but expect there to be lots to cater to most budgets."

2

2

GOT a story? RING The Sun on 0207 782 4104 or WHATSAPP on 07423720250 or EMAIL exclusive@the-sun.co.uk

Follow this link:
Keith Flints prized possessions including 20k mythical beast bed and iconic nose ring up for auction after - The Sun

I was 15 when the Berlin Wall came down. Everything changed: the east adopted not just the West German currency, but all its laws and rules and values. Thousands of companies were privatised within four years of the wall falling millions lost their jobs, and millions more migrated to the west in search of better paid work. In 1994, only 18% of East German employees still worked at the same place as they had in 1991, according to the historian Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk.

There were new and often completely disorientating experiences for many: unemployment had not existed in the GDR. No one even knew the meaning of betriebsbedingte kndigung compulsory redundancy or where unemployment benefits came from. In the GDR, work had been so much more than a source of income; life revolved around the workplace. Companies often had their own singing or sports clubs, and their own childcare and health services. My dad, a metal worker, lost his job after the unification. It was a shock he felt guilty and ashamed. But it took him years to find the words to express his feelings. I didnt realise the gravity of the situation, he said to me 20 years later.

The AfD's success in the east has spurred debate: they have freedom yet they're still so angry. What is wrong with them?

Everyday life was dramatically altered after 1989, from the price of rent to the way health insurance was organised. Most people struggled to find a sure footing in the new world. Many were overwhelmed by these events but they were unlikely to speak openly about it.

My father worked again, but on and off; in the 90s and early 00s there remained a lot of economic problems in the east, despite the overall prosperity of Germany. Today, GDP per capita in the east is around 20% lower than in the west; wages and salaries are 15% lower. Not a single major corporation has its headquarters in the east.

I went to a boarding school in Eisenhttenstadt, an industrial town near the Polish border. The town has lost more than half of its population since 1990 several housing districts have been demolished altogether, and a whole generation is missing. Even today, if you are a young person in eastern Germany and want a traditional, well-paid career in a large corporation, you have to leave your hometown and go west.

In the 90s, most people in the east had quite different existential problems. The unification of Germany was not between equals but between a poor, community-orientated, working-class society and a wealthy, middle-class society that prized self-improvement.

In the 00s, the pace of change slowed, but that was also a time when nobody wanted to hear stories from the east. There was no room at all for criticism of the west in public debate. Major media outlets, headquartered in the west, often indulged in cliched portrayals of east Germans, mainly as Stasi officers, neo-Nazis or unemployed. If anyone criticised the hardships of the transformation, they were very quickly discredited as Jammerossi the whining east German.

For a lot of west Germans, nothing changed with the fall of the wall it seemed that the Bundesrepublic just got a bit bigger with unification. The hardest thing most of them had to stomach was the change of the postcodes and, as the joke went, that the chocolate bar Raider was suddenly renamed Twix. It seemed that capitalism and democracy had won, that the world would only become more free, more open.

It is often stunning to see how little west Germans know about history and culture of the GDR. I knew nothing about East Germany, I felt mentally and emotionally much closer to France or England, said a woman who invited me to a talk in Cologne. On a book tour in west Germany a couple of years ago, I often felt that, to those who came along, the east seemed as far away as Beijing.

The official narrative over the past 30 years has been of unification as a great German success story. But in the last few years, the divisions between east and west have grown deeper than ever. The electoral successes of the far-right AfD in eastern federal states such as Saxony and Brandenburg has prompted much media debate about what the matter is with the east. They have freedom and yet they are still so angry. What is wrong with them?

One government survey found 57% of east Germans feel like second-class citizens. But another study by the Pew Research Centre has found that, despite much hardship, life satisfaction has dramatically improved for east Germans since the fall of the Berlin Wall. In 1991, only 15% of east Germans felt happy about their personal life; in 2019, it was 59%.

These statistics are not as contradictory as they might first appear. For a long time, east Germans lacked the inner freedom, the time and simply the words to explain how the transformation of their world after 1989/90 affected them. Disappointment may have been brewing for a long time, but it was not openly discussed or heard. But since life satisfaction has improved for east Germans, people have become more capable of expressing what happened to them over the previous 30 years. People needed to find stability in their personal life in order to be able to express their anger and frustrations.

In 2019, the debate in Germany is finally changing: other voices and perspectives have taken the floor. Previously taboo topics are now being talked about, maybe for the first time since 1990: the trauma of the post-unification period; the controversial heritage of the Treuhand the institution which oversaw the privatisation of thousands of state-owned companies; the lack of representation of east Germans in leading positions around the country (Angela Merkels years as chancellor continue to be the high-profile exception to this rule).

Many west Germans might now begin to realise, for the first time since 1989, that the end of communism and the dismantling of a dictatorship wasnt such a clearcut victory. Something was also lost. The end of the GDR opened up many opportunities for the east Germans, but it also made them more sensitive to change. There is a fear of suddenly losing the life satisfaction they have built up in the years since 1989.

A lot of the things that are a source of pain in east Germany rural exodus, ageing populations, lack of infrastructure are problems that permeate everywhere: throughout Germany and in many western societies with growing inequality. Its about time that a proper debate about these issues takes place.

Sabine Rennefanz is a writer for Berliner Zeitung

The rest is here:
I was a teenager in East Germany when the Wall fell. Today we are still divided - The Guardian

Pebble, of course, was eventually acquired by Fitbit, which makes Googles purchase today a kind of wearable turducken, as CNETs Scott Stein put it on Twitter. Jawbone failed, badly. Basis Science sold itself to Intel. Misfit went to Fossil. Lark become a software company focused on chronic conditions. Mio Global was split into two businesses; the software still exists under a different name, while its hardware became a part of Lifesense. Microsoft never bothered to ship another Band.

Fitbit continued to develop new wrist wearables at a steady pace, evolving its product line from clip-on trackers to wristbands to a sport watch to smartwatches and back again to lightweight wristbands. Since its inception, Fitbit has sold nearly 100 million devices.

Fitbit has really been an early success story, says Jitesh Ubrani, research director at IDC. They were early in the space, and they became the de facto standard. Consumers would look at other wearables and still call it a Fitbit.

That wouldnt always be the case, though, and analysts say two major factors contributed to this: The launch of the shiny, covetable Apple Watch in the spring of 2015, and the squeeze from Chinese electronics giants Xiaomi and Huawei. Xiaomis Mi Band, launched in 2014, cost just $15, and could do most of the things a $130 Fitbit could do.

On the day that Fitbit became a publicly-traded company, in June of 2015, Fitbit cofounder and CEO James Park sat for an interview on Marketplace that might be haunting him a bit today.

Lets say, just for arguments sake, Tim Cook comes to you and says, Ill give you, James, $2 billion for your company. What do you say? the reporter asks Park.

Um, Park says, and after a pause continues, Weve never really been focused on exits as a company. Really, the key to our success has been being really heads-down and focused on growing the business over the years.

Well Worn

Now that Google has scooped up Fitbit, the question becomes whether its good for the personal health-tracking market that few wearable startups still exist, and that the power and control over our data lies in the hands of a few giants: Apple, Google, Samsung, and prominent Chinese companies whose internal operations are even more opaque.

Thats what regulators will likely be asking as they examine the deal. In the immediate term, Google says it will never sell personal information to anyone and that Fitbit health and wellness data will not be used for Google ads. Fitbit, likewise, says the company never sells personal information, and that Fitbit health and wellness data wont be used for Google ads. (Both companies declined requests for interviews.)

One of the potential negatives for consumers, says Ubrani, is that even if Google vows not to sell ads against your health data, it could find other creative ways to monetize whatever youre sharing through your wrist.

They have the data, so they can tie software and services together to try to sell more of their other services, he says. Thats both the upside and downside of interoperability, of your software working across your phone, your laptop, your smartwatch, or potentially even your smart glasseswhen it works, it works, but its another access point into your life for one of the tech giants.

Consumers may also be rightfully concerned about privacy and security. Facebooks privacy missteps have been a watershed moment for these issues in the tech sector, Ubrani says, and privacy policies are being scrutinized more.

But ultimately, its these same large tech companies that should, in theory, have the resources to address privacy and security problems as they pertain to consumer health, too. When it comes to my own data, I would trust a much larger company that has checks and balances in place and the resources to secure my data, Ubrani says, because they also have the best talent thats out there.

Read more from the original source:
What Google's Fitbit Buy Means for the Future of Wearables - WIRED