The New York Times building in New York City ( Gary Hershorn/Reuters )\nMaybe this deserves a prize , but not one for honest history .\nNRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE J ournalism and academia are supposed to honor , as their highest value , the fearless pursuit of truth . If you tried to parody the sad decline of prestige awards in those fields into an ideologically blinkered self-congratulatory echo chamber for progressive agitprop , it would be difficult to find a more on-the-nose example than the Pulitzer Prize awarded to Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times for commentary . Hannah-Jones was , according to the Pulitzer committee , honored for “ a sweeping , deeply reported and personal essay for the ground-breaking 1619 Project , which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America ’ s story , prompting public conversation about the nation ’ s founding and evolution . ”\n“ Deeply reported ” is one way to describe an essay that required the Times to append a correction and a separate “ Editor ’ s Note ” regarding an incendiary assertion that was presented without factual support , and that resulted in Hannah-Jones ’ s eventually admitting , after seven months of defending the claim , scrambling to find scholarly support for it , and bitterly denouncing her critics in racial terms , that “ in attempting to summarize and streamline , journalists can sometimes lose important context and nuance . I did that here. ” One hesitates to think what the runners-up for the award looked like .\nTechnically , the Pulitzer is for Hannah-Jones ’ s lead essay in the 1619 Project , and not for her role as the self-described architect of the rest of the essay collection . So , we can set aside the errors ranging from American political history to basic economics that plagued other submissions and focus on the lead essay .\nThe most dramatic and controversial assertion in Hannah-Jones ’ s essay was that , in 1776 , “ one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. ” Her essay cited nothing to support this , nor did it show even the slightest awareness of how radical a claim this is . She continued :\nBy 1776 , Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere . In London , there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade . This would have upended the economy of the colonies , in both the North and the South . . . we may never have revolted against Britain if some of the founders had not . . . believed that independence was required in order to ensure that slavery would continue .\nThis is ahistorical nonsense , which is why it was met almost instantly by a chorus of derision from the leading lights of the historical profession . It gets the chronology on both sides of the Atlantic wrong . While Hannah-Jones openly scoffs that there is “ no such thing ” as objective history , there are absolutely such things as objective facts . Dates are one of those .\nThe first real strike against slavery was the 1772 Somerset judicial decision in Britain , which declared that slavery was alien to the English common law and thus could not exist within Britain without a positive act of Parliament . As Princeton University history professor Sean Wilentz has noted , however , the reaction to the Somerset case , which did not apply to British colonies , was relatively muted even in the southern colonies ; it provoked nothing even vaguely resembling the furious responses to the Tea Act the following year . Most of the southern colonies had positive laws about slavery anyway ; Virginia ’ s , for example , was enacted by the House of Burgesses in 1705 .\nOrganized , popular movements against slavery , and laws restricting or abolishing slavery and the slave trade , were considerably more advanced in the American colonies in the 1770s than in Britain , where Parliament would not ban slavery in Jamaica and other British colonies until 1833 , after many years of failures by William Wilberforce and other anti-slavery leaders . The world ’ s first organized anti-slavery society was formed in Pennsylvania in 1774 , and the first legal ban on slavery anywhere in the world was in Vermont in 1777 . Five of the original 13 states followed suit either during or immediately after the Revolution , passing bans on slavery between 1780 and 1784 . The first federal ban on slavery , in the Northwest Territory , was drafted in 1784 by Thomas Jefferson and passed by the Confederation Congress in 1787 . Its language would later be adopted directly into the 13th Amendment .\nSlavery as such had died a natural death in Britain and most of Western and Central Europe over the ten centuries between the fall of Rome and the age of exploration , but Americans of the Founding generation were the first people in world history to set seriously about the business of killing it on principle . This in an age when , in the words of Seymour Drescher ( one of the leading historians of global slavery and abolition ) , “ personal bondage was the prevailing form of labor in most of the world . . . Freedom , not slavery , was the peculiar institution . ”\nBy contrast , anti-slavery agitation was still getting off the ground in Britain in 1775 and remained a long way from becoming a potent political force . Wilberforce himself would not even enter Parliament until 1780 and became a publicly committed anti-slavery advocate only in 1787 , the year Britain ’ s Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed . Hannah-Jones cites the Constitution ’ s 20-year ban on Congress prohibiting the slave trade , but she leaves out three rather important facts : that multiple colonies and states legislated against the trade before and during the Revolution ; that Congress banned the trade at the first possible moment , in 1807 , at the insistence of President Jefferson ; and that Britain , with no such constitutional restriction , only got around to banning the slave trade the same year .\nThis is the tip of the iceberg ; the reality , known to anyone who has studied the period with any degree of intellectual honesty and curiosity , is that the rhetoric and ideals of revolutionary America were a major driving force in compelling people on both sides of the Atlantic to think about human liberty and how it could be reconciled with slavery and other forms of forced labor . The same dynamic happened in France , where anti-slavery went from the talk of a small intellectual elite to a matter of serious legislative debate only with the French Revolution . This is human nature : People want rights and liberties for themselves and their own , and only in the fighting for those things are they brought to face the question of why those same principles should not apply to everyone .\nIn order to paint the American Revolution as a fight to protect slavery from an anti-slavery Britain , you not only need to ignore the whole history of anti-slavery , you also must invert the chronology and geography of the Revolution . In reality , the Revolution began in Massachusetts , and the colonies with few slaves and early slavery bans were its most enthusiastic backers , while those with the most slaves tended to have the highest concentrations of Loyalists . Banastre Tarleton , the notorious leader of the Loyalist militia in North Carolina , was heir to a Liverpool slave-trading fortune and went on to a long career after the war as a vocal defender of the slave trade in Britain . Hannah-Jones ’ s alternative history also requires discarding the whole historical literature of the public and private arguments of the men who made the Revolution . Virtually none of them ever attempted — in speeches , in pamphlets , even in private letters — to convince anyone else to rebel to protect slavery .\nIt is telling in this regard that one of Hannah-Jones ’ s defenders , Adam Serwer of The Atlantic , entitled his essay on the controversy “ The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts , ” and that Hannah-Jones cited as a “ brilliant analysis ” an essay from left-wing historian David Waldstreicher ( the only historian she named in her own essay ) saying that those taking Hannah-Jones ’ s view of the question of what motivated the American revolutionaries “ do not take for granted that the story is primarily one of uncovering the motives and beliefs of the founders. ” This is quite an admission , given that the entire debate is about Hannah-Jones ’ s claim about the “ primary ” motives and beliefs of the Founders .\nWaldstreicher takes the position of every conspiracy theorist : that the men who led the public debates over the momentous decision to separate from Britain were too embarrassed to mention in public or in private their real reasons , so that the absence of evidence is proof against them . But if you have read anything of the debates at the Constitutional Convention , or the 18th-century arguments over abolition in the northern states , or the rest of American politics between 1775 and 1861 , you know that American slaveowners were not shy about asserting their interests . We know that the states that seceded in 1860-61 did so over slavery because they said so . Slaveowners were horrified by the 1775 effort by Lord Dunsmore to raise a slave rebellion in Virginia , after the war had started , and said so . But virtually nobody argued that this had been the casus belli in the first place ; at most , it aggravated an existing breach that had already come to war . The chief self-interested cause of Virginia slaveowners such as George Washington was the opening of the Ohio Valley to settlement — and when they had secured that territory , they banned slavery from it .\nHannah-Jones ’ s invented history of the American Revolution attracted the most scholarly denunciation , but other parts of her Pulitzer-winning essay were misleading , at best , in their retelling of American history . She described slavery in the 13 colonies as “ unlike anything that had existed in the world before , ” but racial chattel plantation slavery existed in Haiti and the Spanish and Portuguese colonies before 1619 . In fact , she noted that the first slaves in 1619 were stolen from a Portuguese slave ship , but never asked where it was headed . She wrote of the Declaration of Independence , “ the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst , ” ignoring the fact that two of the three men on the drafting committee ( John Adams and Benjamin Franklin ) were opposed to slavery . On the Constitution , relying on Waldstreicher , she offered half-truths :\nThat the Constitution “ protected the ‘ property ’ of those who enslaved black people ; ” in fact , it protects property rights in general , but was specifically written to avoid giving explicit federal recognition to “ property in man , ” as detailed in Wilentz ’ s book No Property in Man . Instead , it pointedly refers to slaves as “ persons. ” Its only specific protection for ownership of slaves is the fugitive slave clause , with which Hannah-Jones takes separate issue .\nThat it “ allowed Congress to mobilize the militia to put down insurrections by the enslaved ; ” in fact , this power refers generally to any insurrection . It was invoked against the Whiskey Rebellion and against the Confederacy , and was cited by Congress as authority for the Militia Act of 1862 , which authorized the enlistment of “ persons of African descent . ”\nSpeaking of the civil-rights movement , she wrote : “ For the most part , black Americans fought back alone. ” Unlike the movements against slavery and the slave trade , in which free black Americans — while important voices — were too few and too powerless to be a driving force , African Americans took the starring role in the civil-rights movement in its crucial period between the mid 1940s and late 1960s . But never alone . Other Americans marched and , in some cases , died for civil rights . Branch Rickey hired Jackie Robinson . Harry Truman desegregated the Army . An all-white Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education . Dwight Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock . Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act , with bipartisan support from an almost entirely white House and an all-white Senate .\nHannah-Jones spent five paragraphs on Abraham Lincoln , dwelling entirely on an out-of-context quote from the 1858 Lincoln–Douglas debates and a meeting in August 1862 when he proposed to black abolitionist leaders “ to ship black people , once freed , to another country. ” Contrary to the implication in that phrasing , Lincoln was proposing voluntary emigration , but more importantly , both his disclaimer of black equality in 1858 and his push for colonization in the summer of 1862 ( while a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation sat in his drawer ) were part of Lincoln ’ s political strategy to bring wavering whites over to the anti-slavery cause . It is fair enough to criticize Lincoln for a certain political cynicism , or for sharing some of the endemic prejudices of his age , but to paint the Great Emancipator — who was gunned down for supporting the vote for freed slaves — solely as an enemy of black liberty is not honest history at all . Worse , Hannah-Jones claimed that “ Lincoln was blaming [ black people ] for the war , ” which no fair-minded reader of the 16th president ’ s public statements from 1861 to 1865 could believe with a straight face .\nHannah-Jones ’ s essay , and the 1619 Project as a whole , were sharply criticized by a who ’ s who of America ’ s leading historians of the Revolution , the Founding era , and the Civil War , most of them political liberals . The World Socialist Web Site , a Trotskyist publication , did surprisingly good yeoman work in interviewing many of these scholars , among them :\nGordon Wood , professor emeritus at Brown University and perhaps the leading living scholar on the revolutionary era ;\nJames McPherson , professor emeritus of history at Princeton University and author of the preeminent single-volume history of the Civil War era ;\nJames Oakes , Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York , and a leading writer on abolitionism , Lincoln , and Frederick Douglass ;\nVictoria Bynum , distinguished emerita professor of history at Texas State University and a writer on the social history of the Civil War era ; and\nClayborne Carson , professor of history at Stanford University and director of its Martin Luther King , Jr. , Research and Education Institute , a job for which he was hand-picked by Coretta Scott King .\nThe interviews make brutal reading . Wood , McPherson , Wilentz , Oakes , and Bynum wrote an open letter to the Times “ as historians to express our strong reservations about important aspects of The 1619 Project. ” None of the scholarly critics argued against the idea of publishing a project on this topic , or disputed that some of its content was valuable . They took issue , instead , with its sloppy treatment of the facts : “ These errors , which concern major events , can not be described as interpretation or ‘ framing. ’ They are matters of verifiable fact , which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism . They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. ” They also noted how very few of the leading experts had been consulted by the Times . Noticeably , Princeton ’ s Kevin Kruse ( who contributed a piece to the 1619 Project on traffic in Atlanta and styles himself as the leader of “ Twitterstorians ” ) went rather silent on the controversy once the gray eminences of his own department weighed in .\nThe knee-jerk reaction by Hannah-Jones to historical criticism was to tweet , “ LOL . Right , because white historians have produced truly objective history. ” This was part of a general pattern of unserious and dismissive antics by Hannah-Jones , who calls herself the “ Beyoncé of journalism. ” At some point , this should probably have given the Times pause in entrusting her with the paper ’ s good name . It is also a symptom of the toxic Twitter environment ; in a talk with Henry Louis Gates in December , she was less confrontational , admitting that Newt Gingrich and others had a valid point in asking why her history ignored white Northerners who fought against slavery in the Civil War .\nNew York Times Magazine editor in chief Jake Silverstein responded to the historians ’ letter with a long , mealy-mouthed response : “ Historical understanding is not fixed ; it is constantly being adjusted by new scholarship and new voices . Within the world of academic history , differing views exist , if not over what precisely happened , then about why it happened , who made it happen , how to interpret the motivations of historical actors and what it all means. ” Silverstein took the scholarly vivisection of Hannah-Jones ’ s work as proof of “ what we hoped our project would do : expand the reader ’ s sense of the American past . ”\nFinally , in March — seven months after publication — Politico published a whistleblowing essay by one of the 1619 Project ’ s fact-checkers , Northwestern professor Leslie Harris , taking issue with a number of things said in Hannah-Jones ’ s essay , and specifically observing that she had been asked to fact-check the most controversial passage and had her objections ignored :\nI vigorously disputed the claim . Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution , the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war . . . Far from being fought to preserve slavery , the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies . . .\nThis , at last , compelled Hannah-Jones and the Times to make one correction to the essay , changing “ one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence ” to “ one of the primary reasons some of the colonists decided to declare their independence. ” Hannah-Jones conceded , at last , that her original sentence had been devoid of context and nuance . Silverstein appended an “ Editor ’ s Note ” conceding that “ we recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists . The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists. ” Of course , in any popular movement , you can find somebody who believes a thing ; ascribing historical causation is supposed to aim rather higher than the search for a fig leaf .\nThe facts are , of course , the central thing — both the hard , provable facts and the broader narratives of causation , motivation , and effect that historians draw from them . It is apparent enough that Hannah-Jones dug in so hard on her particular claim about the American Revolution because she was wedded so deeply to the narrative that the 1776 founding of the nation could not be allowed to be regarded as a milestone in the idea of human liberty . That is why her essay gave her attack on the founding such prominent placement .\nIn public statements , Hannah-Jones has been open that her objective was agitprop : “ When my editor asks me , like , what ’ s your ultimate goal for the project , my ultimate goal is that there ’ ll be a reparations bill passed. ” “ I write to try to get liberal white people to do what they say they believe in . I ’ m making a moral argument . My method is guilt . ”\nAs for her employer , Slate published a transcript of a town-hall meeting held by Times executive editor Dean Baquet in August 2019 , in which he responded to a staffer asking\nto what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting . Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point , you know ? . . . I just feel like racism is in everything . It should be considered in our science reporting , in our culture reporting , in our national reporting .\nBaquet pointed , in his response , to the 1619 Project : “ I do think that race and understanding of race should be a part of how we cover the American story . . . one reason we all signed off on the 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that . ”\nAs for the Pulitzer committee , which is run through Columbia University and ( predictably ) includes Gail Collins of the Times , one way to pitch a piece of journalism as Pulitzer-worthy is to have it embraced by the ( unaffiliated ) Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting . At the time of the 1619 Project ’ s publication in August 2019 , the Pulitzer Center issued a press release touting its pride in its educational arm being “ selected as the education partner ” by the Times to create a school curriculum out of the 1619 Project , complete with a glowing quote from the head of the Pulitzer Center :\n“ We are honored to have the opportunity to work with The New York Times on this landmark initiative , ” said Jon Sawyer , executive director of the Pulitzer Center . “ The education network we have built over the past 13 years is premised on the belief that journalism can be the engine for public education and civil discourse . It is hard to imagine a topic more resonant , or more important , than ‘ The 1619 Project. ’ ” . . . Hannah-Jones and other contributors to the ‘ 1619 ’ issue will visit Pulitzer Center partner schools in the coming months . A schedule of public speaking appearances by Hannah-Jones and other ‘ 1619 ’ contributors will appear on the Center ’ s events page when available .\nOn August 13 — the day before publication — the Times held a live rollout event , at which Silverstein “ thanked the Pulitzer Center and . . . mentioned the sheet in the [ Times ] magazine highlighting the Pulitzer Center ’ s education materials. ” In September , the Chicago Public Schools announced : “ Thanks to our partners at the Pulitzer Center , every CPS high school will receive 200–400 copies of the New York Times ’ The 1619 Project this week as a resource to help reframe the institution of slavery , and how we ’ re still influenced by it today. ” In October , “ Pulitzer Center staff ventured to high schools and colleges in Illinois and North Carolina ” to promote this initiative .\nYou know , and I know , and everybody else on this planet knows , that nothing full of as many shoddy errors and untruths , and subject to such withering scholarly rebuttal , as the 1619 Project would be awarded an accolade such as a Pulitzer if its politics were of the right rather than of the left . Nor , for that matter , would the Times devote such effort to defending an assertion as outlandish as Hannah-Jones ’ s view of the American Revolution unless it had strong ideological and institutional reasons to be wedded to the argument . Maybe this deserves a prize , but not one for honest history .


If someone had simply stopped and double-checked some math , they might have saved MSNBC ’ s Brian Williams and New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay some embarrassment and an apology Thursday night .\nInstead , both Williams and Gay marveled on air in reaction to a Twitter user ’ s post about Mike Bloomberg ’ s campaign spending .\nTrouble is , the post had gotten the math all wrong – yet neither Williams nor Gay seemed to notice .\nMSNBC 'S RACHEL MADDOW TELLS WARREN HER 2020 EXIT IS 'CRUSHING , ' A 'DEATH KNELL ' FOR A FUTURE FEMALE POTUS\nThe Super Tuesday evening post , now deleted , said : “ Bloomberg spent $ 500 million on ads . The U.S. population is 327 million . He could have given each American $ 1 million and still have money left over , I feel like a $ 1 million check would be life-changing for people . Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST . ”\n“ It ’ s an incredible way of putting it . It ’ s true , ” Gay agreed .\nIn reality , however , had Bloomberg divvied his advertising dollars among all Americans , the per-capita cash-out would have been more like $ 1.53 per person – not even enough to take a ride on New York City ’ s subway .\n“ Turns out Mara and I got the same grades at math . I ’ m speaking of the tweet we both misinterpreted . He could give each American $ 1 . Again , I did n't have it in high school . I do n't have it tonight . I stand corrected . Sorry about that . The tweet is wrong , ” Williams told viewers later in the show . “ Garbage in , garbage out . ”\nOne Twitter user who took notice of the bad math was writer Michael Salfino of New Jersey .\n“ What is wrong with these people ? ” Salfino wrote . “ This would be right here if there were 327 people in the US . And this reflects horribly on the NY Times too . Can someone stop and think for two seconds ? ”\n`` The 11th Hour '' eventually pointed out the mistake on social media .\n“ Tonight on the air we quoted a tweet that relied on bad math . We corrected the error after the next commercial break and have removed it from later editions of tonight ’ s program . We apologize for the error , ” the verified Twittter account for Williams ’ show wrote after the gaffe .\nBERNIE SANDERS FIRES BACK AT MEDIA FOR ITS 'WILLFUL DISTORTION ' OF HIS ATTACKS ON 'THE ESTABLISHMENT '\nAs for the author of the original post , her account was set to private -- and in her Twitter bio she wrote : “ I know , I ’ m bad at math . ”\nNational Review editor Charles C. W. Cooke wrote that the math is obviously “ spectacularly off ” but so it ’ s also very telling .\n“ This , right here , is why so many left-leaning Americans think that ‘ the billionaires ’ can pay for everything . It ’ s why Elizabeth Warren was enthusiastically boosted by the media despite her ridiculous pretense that she could pay for a series of gargantuan initiatives without raising taxes on anyone but the extremely rich , ” Cooke wrote . “ It ’ s why Democrat after Democrat promises not to raise ‘ middle class taxes ’ while promising programs that require the raising of middle class taxes . How did this bad tweet make it onto TV to be endorsed ? Why did Mara Gay agree with it ? Why didn ’ t Brian Williams notice ? Because the people involved in this clip thought it was true . This is how they see the world . ”\nOther critics took to Twitter to mock Williams and the Times :


Sen. Elizabeth Warren with Sen. Bernie Sanders at a Capitol Hill press conference introducing Sanders ’ s “ Medicare for All ” plan , September 13 , 2017 . ( Yuri Gripas/Reuters )\nWholesale seizure and control of private property ? With 2020 in her sights , Warren woos the hard Left .\nSenator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has one-upped socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez : She proposes to nationalize every major business in the United States of America . If successful , it would constitute the largest seizure of private property in human history .\nWarren ’ s proposal is dishonestly called the “ Accountable Capitalism Act. ” Accountable to whom ? you might ask . That ’ s a reasonable question . The answer is — as it always is — accountable to politicians , who desire to put the assets and productivity of private businesses under political discipline for their own selfish ends . It is remarkable that people who are most keenly attuned to the self-interest of CEOs and shareholders and the ways in which that self-interest influences their decisions apparently believe that members of the House , senators , presidents , regulators , Cabinet secretaries , and agency chiefs somehow are liberated from self-interest when they take office through some kind of miracle of transcendence .\nUnder Senator Warren ’ s proposal , no business with more than $ 1 billion in revenue would be permitted to legally operate without permission from the federal government . The federal government would then dictate to these businesses the composition of their boards , the details of internal corporate governance , compensation practices , personnel policies , and much more . Naturally , their political activities would be restricted , too . Senator Warren ’ s proposal entails the wholesale expropriation of private enterprise in the United States , and nothing less . It is unconstitutional , unethical , immoral , irresponsible , and — not to put too fine a point on it — utterly bonkers .\nIt is also cynical . Senator Warren is many things : a crass opportunist , intellectually bankrupt , personally vapid , a peddler of witless self-help books , etc . But she is not stupid . She knows that this is a go-nowhere proposition , that she will be spared by the Republican legislative majority from the ignominy that would ensue from the wholehearted pursuit of this daft program . It is in reality only a means of staking out for purely strategic reasons the most radical corner for her 2020 run at the Democratic presidential nomination . The Democratic party in 2018 , like the Republican primary electorate in 2016 , is out for blood and desirous of confrontation . So Senator Warren is running this red flag up the flagpole to see who salutes .\nTo propose such a thing for sincere reasons would be ghastly stupidity . To propose this program for narrowly self-serving political reasons is the sort of thing that would end a political career in a sane and self-respecting state , which Massachusetts plainly is not and has not been for some time .\nWhen the owners of Apple wish to hold on to their own after-tax earnings , they are denounced as greedy . When Elizabeth Warren wants to seize those earnings for her own use , what is that ? It is covetousness , which is what you get when you have greed compounded with envy .\nTo those on the left who look at Senator Warren ’ s proposal and think that giving the government a stronger whip hand over American businesses is just the ticket , I would like to present four questions : Who is the president of these United States ? Who is the majority leader in the Senate ? Who is the speaker of the House ? How would you evaluate the composition of the Supreme Court , either as it stands or after President Donald Trump has the opportunity to nominate another justice or two ? The power you give the federal government will be there during Republican administrations , too . Any future populist demagogue who finds his way into the White House will have access to the same power . No one should be trusted with that kind of power .\nAnd nobody who seeks that kind of power should be trusted with any power at all .\nIt is worth keeping in mind that the fabulous goose was slaughtered not in spite of the golden eggs but because of them . Politicians are covetous . When the owners of Apple wish to hold on to their own after-tax earnings , they are denounced as greedy . ( Apple ’ s shareholders are corporately the largest taxpayer in the world . ) When Elizabeth Warren wants to seize those earnings for her own use , what is that ? It is covetousness , which is what you get when you have greed compounded with envy . Senator Warren , a former Sunday-school teacher , apparently has a keen appreciation for the vices that lurk in the human heart , and she intends to leverage them to her benefit .\nAnother thing about these kinds of proposals : They are , at heart , acts of cowardice . There are politicians who wish to provide benefits to certain constituents and who would like those benefits to be paid for by other parties who are politically disfavored . There is an easy way to do that : Tax x to subsidize y . The problem with doing that is embarrassment . Politicians such as Senator Warren lack the courage to go to the American electorate and say : “ We wish to provide these benefits , and they will cost an extra $ 3 trillion a year , which we will pay for by doubling taxes. ” Why spend the money to subsidize , say , health insurance , when you can just pass rules that make businesses do the subsidizing for you ? It ’ s a way to spend money without putting the expenditures on a budget line . It treats the productive capacity of the United States as a herd of dairy cows to be milked by Senator Warren et al . at their convenience . And , of course , Senator Warren and her colleagues get to decide how the milk gets distributed , too .\nIt is a fairly easy thing for an established American business to move its corporate domicile to some other country , as with all those corporate inversions in the pharmaceutical industry that gave the Obama administration the willies a few years ago . It is also a fairly easy thing for a new business being founded by Americans to incorporate in some other country from the beginning . There is no insurmountable reason for , say , Microsoft or Altria ( formerly Philip Morris ) to be domiciled in the United States . Silicon Valley ’ s competitive edge comes from people , and people are mobile .\nNearly half of the total sales of the S & P 500 businesses come from overseas customers . Many big U.S. manufacturers such as Caterpillar get more than half of their sales from abroad . Exxon , the target of a political jihad being conducted by Senator Warren ’ s party , gets more than half of its revenue from overseas sales . You can serve the growing Asian markets as easily from Singapore as from California or Virginia . Watching American cities scurry around to prostrate themselves before Jeff Bezos ( pbuh ) in the hopes of attracting the new Amazon campus has been amusing . Imagine Apple or Google doing that in a global search for a new home . Fanciful ? Yes .\nRecep Tayyip Erdogan , Hugo Chávez , Huey Long : The rogues ’ gallery of those who sought to fortify their political power by bullying businesses is long , and it is sickening .\nBusinesses historically have chosen to locate in the United States for a number of reasons : It was long the world ’ s largest market , and businesses had faith in American law and the American dollar . It ’ s still a big market , and the dollar is still the world ’ s favorite currency . But if American law or American lawmakers are going to treat profit-seeking enterprises as an Enemy of the People — Zurich is pretty nice . Lots of places are . There are a lot of big American businesses with targets painted on their backs , and those that do not already have a Plan B are doing their shareholders a disservice .\nRecep Tayyip Erdogan , Hugo Chávez , Huey Long : The rogues ’ gallery of those who sought to fortify their political power by bullying businesses is long , and it is sickening . Senator Warren now nominates herself to that list , at least in her aspiration . It is not an honorable aspiration .


It 's 7 a.m. at the Kimball 's Washington , D.C. , home . Peter and Leslie Kimball are running up and down the stairs , changing diapers and trying to feed their kids breakfast .\nThey 're packing for a work conference in Orlando , Fla. , but they 've also planned a surprise for their daughter Lane 's birthday : a visit to Disney World .\nThis summer , more than 200 million people are expected to fly out of U.S. airports . The Kimballs are one of many families flying with their kids .\nIn the car , the Kimballs go over Mom 's rules for the airplane . No . 1 : Do n't kick the seat in front of you . No . 2 : Do n't hop in your seat ( or the seat in front of you ) . No . 3 : Speak quietly . And the last rule : Have fun .\nThey made their flight with time to spare and Leslie says they enjoyed the flight . But for many families , flying is anything but fun .\n`` It is stressful when you have three kids , you 've got carry-ons , you 're trying to comply with all the rules , you 're being yelled at by a TSA agent , that all raises your blood pressure , '' says Christopher Elliott , a father of three young children and a consumer advocate based in Orlando . He writes about the TSA for publications like National Geographic Traveler and The Washington Post .\nElliott says he understands why kids have to go through security checkpoints — but still .\nHow To Get Through Security With Kids Have your boarding pass and ID ready . Children are not required to show ID . Remove all items from your pockets , including your wallet . Take off your belt , bulky jewelry , money , keys and cellphone . Remove shoes and place them directly on the belt . Children under 12 do not have to take off their shoes or light outerwear jackets . Remove animals from their carrying cases and send the case through the X-ray machine . Hold your pet in your arms and proceed through the metal detector . All liquids , gels and aerosols must be in 3.4-ounce ( 100-ml ) or smaller containers , and packed in a 1-quart , clear plastic , zip-top baggie . Each passenger can take one zip-top bag in his or her carry-on . This is the 3-1-1 rule . Medically necessary liquids and gels — including medications , baby formula and food , breast milk and juice — are allowed in reasonable quantities above the 3.4 ounce limit . These liquids are not required to be in zip-top bags . Let a TSA officer know you are carrying these items . They may be screened . Put any items in the stroller pockets or baskets in a carry-on bag and place it on the X-ray belt for inspection . Take infants and children out of baby carriers and strollers and carry them with you through the metal detector . ( Folded strollers , booster seats , slings , children 's toys and baby carriers go through the X-ray machine with your bags ) . Source : TSA : Traveling With Children\n`` When I see my daughter go through the checkpoint , I 'm always thinking , 'What if she 's singled out for a more thorough check , and how am I going to react ? ' `` he says . `` As a parent , that kind of freaks me out . I would not want anyone touching my kids like that . ''\nTSA spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein says last fall , the agency began to reduce — though not eliminate — the number of pat-downs for kids .\nIf they set off an alarm , kids can now go through the metal detectors more than once . If they continue to set off alarms , instead of getting a pat-down , they 'll be swabbed — usually on their hands . The swab then goes into a machine to check for explosive residue .\nPat-downs are among the top five complaints the TSA received last year .\n`` One of the things that is going to be met with much happiness , from the parents anyway , is that passengers who are 12 and under no longer need to take off their shoes , '' Farbstein says .\nShe says there 's a reason agents screen kids and their belongings . Last month , in Providence , R.I. , a parent had sown gun parts into a child 's stuffed animal . Once on the plane , the parent could have reassembled the handgun if TSA officers did not screen the child 's toy .\nAmy Selco is a mother of two boys in Silver Spring , Md . She says the new rule allowing her sons to keep their shoes on has been very popular with her family .\n`` The first time my son had to take off his shoes , he flipped out , '' Selco says . `` I mean , that 's kind of a violation . He was in this new environment anyway . And he screamed and he cried . ''\nMonika Sakala , a mother of two young girls , writes about her experiences for her blog , Wired Momma . She says for her , the most difficult part of traveling with kids is often dealing with the adult passengers .\n`` People see little kids coming on an airplane and they immediately recoil , '' Sakala says . `` Parents do not want their kid crying or acting out at all . It 's their nightmare . ''\nShe says she 's surprised when people do n't offer to help a parent traveling alone with their kids . Families have to think about a lot of things other passengers do n't : packing strollers , car seats , baby formula , diapers , snacks and entertainment for their unpredictable kids .\nWilliam Clark , a relatively recent parent , says becoming a father has changed his perspective .\n`` I 'm always just worried about other passengers . Sometimes they 're in a bad mood , '' Clark says . `` I remember when I did n't have kids , being disturbed by a kid kicking the back of my seat . Now I 'm much more understanding . ''\nAs for other parents flying with their kids this summer , Selco has a word of advice : patience . Lots of it .


Protesters rally against the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd , at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn , New York City , May 31 , 2020 . ( Jeenah Moon/Reuters )\nThe hot protest slogan and hashtag of the moment is “ Defund the Police. ” At times , it ’ s also framed as a call to abolish or disband the police . Ordinary speakers of the English language would naturally assume , listening to people chant “ defund the police ” in the streets , carry “ defund the police ” signs , and literally paint “ defund the police ” on the streets of D.C. , that such people mean “ defund the police . ”\nBut not our media ! There ’ s been an immediate rush to write pieces explaining that , of course , “ defund the police ” does not actually mean “ defund the police. ” From a Washington Post op-ed by Georgetown Law professor Christy Lopez , entitled “ Defund the police ? Here ’ s what that really means ” :\nBe not afraid . “ Defunding the police ” is not as scary ( or even as radical ) as it sounds . . . Defunding and abolition probably mean something different from what you are thinking . For most proponents , “ defunding the police ” does not mean zeroing out budgets for public safety , and police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight — or perhaps ever .\nFrom an Associated Press explainer by Michael Balsamo , Zeke Miller , and Michael Sisak entitled “ When protesters cry ‘ defund the police , ’ what does it mean ? ” :\nBut what does ‘ defund the police ’ mean ? It ’ s not necessarily about gutting police department budgets . . . . Supporters say it isn ’ t about eliminating police departments or stripping agencies of all of their money .\nFrom Matt Yglesias at Vox , “ Growing calls to “ defund the police , ” explained ” :\nThe basic idea , though , is less that policing budgets should be literally zeroed out than that there should be a massive restructuring of public spending priorities . . . . Police abolitionists are proposing a scaling-back of the scope of police activities that is far outside the horizon of current political possibility , so they may not articulate the most fine-grained details .\nFrom Emily VanDerWerff at Vox , “ The narrative power of ‘ abolish the police ’ : It isn ’ t just a policy proposal . It ’ s also an idea of what the country could be ” :\nApplying these storytelling rules to the political realm shifts the introduction of the main character and the goal — the first act , in other words . Different sides advance different ideas of what goal should be accomplished ( in this case , police reform ) , and which protagonist should be at the forefront ( in this case , a broad sociopolitical movement often defined by key individuals ) . The audience ( in this case , the American public ) ultimately chooses which story it most wants to hear… So it is with “ abolish the police. ” Here , the “ protagonist ” is a combination of over-policed black communities and the protesters who have rallied to those communities ’ side in the last few weeks , and the goal is to dismantle the de facto police state those communities live in . Setting goals versus proposing solutions is a big divide in how people on the left talk about politics…\nThere ’ s been much more in this vein , but you get the idea . Notably , articles of this nature seek to draw the eye towards legislative and think-tank proposals and away from the voices of the people actually chanting in the streets .\nIn part , of course , all this explaining is a reflection of what a radical and politically explosive idea “ defund the police ” is in an election year , and how it divides the Democrats along ideological and generational lines . Leading Democratic politicians are running headlong away from the slogan while trying to embrace the people chanting it . Joe Biden , who for years proudly touted his role in the 1994 “ put 100,000 more cops on the street ” crime bill , visibly wants no part of the slogan . But unlike the party ’ s leadership , many of whom were born in the early 1940s , influential younger lawmakers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are pushing the idea . These are the folks who may run the party when the age-77-and-up crowd moves on .\nDefunding police is also wildly impractical . The Minneapolis City Council grabbed headlines by voting to defund and disband the city ’ s police department , but they don ’ t actually have the legal authority to do that ; defunding would require a revision to the city charter , which the voters would have to approve . Until then , the cops report to the city ’ s mayor , not the city council . Camden , New Jersey actually went forward with disbanding its police department — in theory . In practice , what Camden did is just old-fashioned union-busting : disband the department to get rid of the union , then hire the same cops back at lower salaries and benefits .\nWhat makes the media ’ s Voxsplaining of “ Defund the Police ” all so astonishingly brazen is when you compare it with how they routinely treat popular slogans , protests , and broad-brush assertions by politicians on the right . When Tea Party protesters and Republican politicians called for repealing Obamacare , for example , they were roundly mocked in these same quarters for not having a single , comprehensive , CBO-scored plan on which the entire party agreed , notwithstanding the presence of plenty of think-tank proposals and general agreement on a lot of individual pieces . A whole cottage industry exists to lampoon protestors on the right for not fully grasping the nuances of their own slogans . When Tom Cotton wrote an op-ed that the New York Times titled , “ Send in the Troops , ” it was widely treated as a call to sic troops on peaceful protestors even though Cotton explicitly said otherwise in the op-ed . Conservative politicians and pundits are assumed to be responsible for the literal content of “ abolish the IRS , ” or “ close the border , ” or “ build the wall. ” Liberal media commentators spent years mocking Salena Zito ’ s description of Trump supporters who “ take him seriously , but not literally ” — which is precisely what these same voices are now trying to do with “ defund the police . ”\nAs always with these sorts of double standards : They think we can ’ t see what they are doing .


WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans and Democrats reached a tentative agreement on Wednesday on a two-year bill to finance highways , ending a partisan stalemate that had left transit projects under a cloud of uncertainty .\nThe bill , which would provide $ 8.4 billion each year , is similar to a bipartisan measure passed by the Senate earlier this year . House Republicans worked on their own ambitious and unwieldy bill that never even made it to the floor for a vote .\nIn the agreement on Wednesday , House Republicans gave up on two key points : a provision that would have sped up the authorization of the Keystone XL pipeline and another that would have loosened restrictions on coal ash from power plants .\nThe new bill would reduce the average time it takes to complete a highway project by streamlining administrative processes and consolidating a variety of programs , as Republicans desired . “ That was one of the things we insisted on , ” said Representative John Mica of Florida , chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee .\nThe bill is almost certain to rile groups that are concerned with sustaining projects that have received money in the past . For instance , the measure now permits states to opt out of federal mandates that required them to spend highway money on programs like beautification and bike paths .\nNewsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you 're not a robot by clicking the box . Invalid email address . Please re-enter . You must select a newsletter to subscribe to . Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times . You may opt-out at any time . You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times 's products and services . Thank you for subscribing . An error has occurred . Please try again later . View all New York Times newsletters .\n“ The bill is funded at current levels , and it will protect and create three million jobs , ” said Senator Barbara Boxer , Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee . “ This job creation is the critical focus of Democrats because we know that the unemployment rate in construction is at an unacceptable level . ”


On Tuesday evening , as 12 Democratic presidential hopefuls debated policy ideas about healthcare , gun control measures , and protecting reproductive rights , President Donald Trump once again vetoed legislation that would end his declaration of a national emergency at the southern border and prevent him from building his wall .\nIt ’ s the sixth veto of Trump ’ s presidency and comes seven months after he first vetoed a similar measure in March , which had been passed by the Senate in a 59-41 vote , with twelve Republicans siding with Democrats . This bill would have halted the president ’ s emergency declaration to funnel $ 3.6 billion in Defense Department funding to build more sections of his wall at the Southern border ; the bill the president vetoed last night was nearly identical . “ In short , the situation on our southern border remains a national emergency , and our Armed Forces are still needed to help confront it , ” Trump wrote in his message to the Senate Tuesday just after 9 p.m. , an hour into the Democratic debate . Congress could override the President ’ s veto with a two-thirds majority of votes in the Senate , but that is unlikely to occur , the New York Times reports .\nBuilding a wall at the southern border has long been a drawn-out battle at the center of Trump ’ s aggressive and contentious crackdown on immigration reform . And Democrats have fought tooth and nail throughout Trump ’ s presidency to block his efforts to succeed in that plan , as well as to put a halt to his detention of refugees and his controversial family separation policy .\nBut during Tuesday ’ s three-hour Democratic presidential debate , there wasn ’ t a single question about immigration . Even some of the candidates later expressed disappointment with how this subject , as well as ones on climate change and LBGTQ , were not part of the discussion .\nThree hours . Not one question about the climate crisis . Not one question about LGBTQ+ rights . Not one question about immigration . These issues are too important to ignore . # DemDebate — Kamala Harris ( @ KamalaHarris ) October 16 , 2019


Next week , North Dakota voters will decide whether to add an amendment to the state 's constitution that supporters say will guarantee religious freedom . But the ballot measure has prompted debate over precisely what it safeguards ; opponents argue that it 's a solution in search of a problem and worry about its consequences .\nMeasure 3 is worded this way : `` Government may not burden a person 's or religious organization 's religious liberty . '' Its supporters call it the Religious Liberty Restoration amendment ; they say it 's needed because of a 22-year-old U.S. Supreme Court decision they believe has put limits on religious freedom .\n`` What this amendment is attempting to do is to restore that level of protection to what it was pre-1990 , '' says Tom Freier , who heads the North Dakota Family Alliance . The group led the effort to put the measure on the ballot .\nFreier says that making Measure 3 part of the constitution would give it permanence and help prevent attacks on religious freedom .\n`` So , the analogy would be : We live in Fargo , and most recently in Bismarck and in Minot , you 've had floods . And you want to prepare for that . You do n't know exactly when or how things are going to happen , but you want to make preparation , '' he says . `` This measure would really put in place the protection for North Dakota that would make sure that people are protected , and religious organizations are protected , when and if they do need that protection . ''\nBut the measure 's opponents worry about unintended consequences . They say it could allow parents who abuse children to hide behind the curtain of religious liberty . One opponent is Tim Hathaway , executive director of Prevent Child Abuse North Dakota .\n`` We are urging a 'no ' vote on Measure 3 , '' he says , `` because it will seriously undercut protection for children in our state by opening the door for people to claim religious freedom as a justification for maltreatment . ''\nRenee Stromme of the North Dakota Women 's Network agrees , saying if it passes , Measure 3 could also lead to discrimination .\n`` An employer could use religious beliefs to fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried , '' Stromme says . `` So let 's think that through : We now have a single mother , unemployed , struggling to make ends meet , to care for the welfare of her family — and her employer would have a protected defense for his action . And a judge would have to determine otherwise . ''\nBut Measure 3 supporters like Christopher Dodson , who heads the North Dakota Catholic Conference , say those claims are unfounded .\n`` The measure itself says that it does n't affect those acts which the state has a compelling interest in preventing , '' he says . `` And it 's somewhat irresponsible to even imply that the state does n't have an interest in protecting children , women and vulnerable persons . ''\nNorth Dakota 's Legislative Council , the state Legislature 's research arm , agrees with that assessment . Still , opponents argue the measure is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous — and could raise new ways for people to define their own extreme religious views .\nGladys Cairns , the former administrator of North Dakota Child Protective Services , says she worries that criminals will hide behind a religious cloak .\n`` If I were a defense attorney , I 'd be making sure that my client would be doing that , '' she says .\nRecent polls point to a close vote . Both sides are running a number of radio and television ads between now and the June 12 election .


US Congresswomen have protested for the right to bare arms in parts of Washington DC 's Capitol building .\nThe National Rifle Association may be disappointed to learn that this is not a typo . They are not campaigning to bear weapons , but to stand against the Congressional dress code .\nThe protest comes after a number of women have recently reported being told their outfits violated the rules .\nFemale reporters have said they had been prevented from entering the lobby area , where the press meets to ask questions of US politicians .\nOn Friday , Representative Jackie Speier tweeted to encourage colleagues to dress in clothes that showed their arms , calling the protest `` Sleeveless Friday '' .\nA group of around 25 women gathered on the steps of Congress , wearing sleeveless shirts and dresses .\n`` It 's 2017 and women vote , hold office , and choose their own style . Time to update House Rules to reflect the times ! '' tweeted Congress member Chellie Pingree .\nAlthough the rules are long-standing , they are rarely enforced , and so those affected recently expressed surprise .\nNews network CBS said one reporter tried to fashion makeshift sleeves out of her notebook so she would be able to work .\nThe sleeves rule also applies to men , who are required to wear suit jackets and ties to enter the same areas .\nPolicing of the rules is left to the chamber 's security team , under the guidance of the house speaker .\nAfter a backlash , House Speaker Paul Ryan emphasised that the code had not been devised under his term , and agreed it needs to be modernised .\n`` It came to my attention that there was an issue about dress code , '' he said in a press conference on Thursday morning , with a laugh .\nSpeaker Ryan said , earlier in June , that members should wear `` appropriate business attire '' .\nIn the UK , a similar debate recently erupted when House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said he was happy to relax the rules .\nIn June , he accepted a question from a member of parliament who was not wearing a tie .\nYet what this constitutes in 2017 - especially with the rise of more casual media and tech companies - is not always clear .


Controversy and the government shutdown greeted marchers who gathered in the Washington cold Saturday for the third annual national Women ’ s March .\nThe event , which kicked off near Freedom Plaza blocks from the White House , drew thousands , a number far fewer than the hundreds of thousands who descended on the National Mall for the first Women ’ s March , the day after Donald Trump ’ s inauguration in 2017 .\nA National Park permit issued Thursday anticipated a crowd of 10,000 , The Washington Post reported . Weeks ago organizers anticipated a crowd of several hundred thousand in a permit application .\nWASSERMAN SCHULTZ OPTS OUT OF WOMEN 'S MARCH : ' I CAN NOT STAND ALONGSIDE IT '\nSister marches in other cities included one in New York City . Bronx Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke at that march . She was also expected to attend a separate “ Women ’ s Unity Rally ” in downtown Manhattan .\n“ Last year we brought the power to the polls , and this year we need to make sure that we translate that power into policy , ” Ocasio-Cortez said at the New York Women 's March in Columbus Circle . “ That means we will not let anyone take our rights away - in fact we will expand them . ”\nShe told the crowd it also meant working to pass an Equal Rights Amendment .\nThis year ’ s Women ’ s March has been hurt by accusations of anti-Semitism that have trailed the group ’ s organizers . Two of them , Linda Sarsour , a Palestinian activist who has embraced the Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions movement , and co-President Tamika Mallory , have been criticized over their ties to Nation of Islam firebrand Louis Farrakhan .\nMallory refused recently to condemn Farrakhan for incendiary remarks about Jews during a speech in February that she attended .\nAs a result , the Democratic National Committee bowed out as a Women ’ s March sponsor .\nThe original plan for Saturday called for gathering on the National Mall , but with snow and freezing rain in the forecast and the National Park Service no longer plowing the snow because of the shutdown , the march ’ s location and route was altered this week to start at Freedom Plaza and march down Pennsylvania Avenue past the Trump International Hotel .\nNear Freedom Plaza , protesters carried singed that were playful and pointed , including “ Wonder Woman in a pink pussy hat , ” “ Our Rights Are Real , ” and “ Protect Women , ” according to the Post .\nA small group of counter-protesters , surrounded by D.C. police , marched toward Trump International Hotel with signs that said “ America you need to bless God , ” “ Abortion is murder ” and “ Islam is a religion of blood and murder , ” the paper reported .\nShannon Lydon , a recent Boston College grad , told NBC News that she was excited to be attending the Women ’ s March in Washington .\n`` It ’ s such a movement , and it ’ s so empowering to be around so many people who are celebrating women and fighting for change , '' she said .


Some of our most dedicated feminists are trying to make a good thing of rape , heretofore regarded as one of the more horrific crimes . Once upon a time rape was even a capital crime , like murder . Many men went to the gallows or the electric chair for it .\nThe mere accusation of rape , like the accusation of molesting children , was usually horrific enough to guarantee conviction . Would a woman lie ? Some men accused of rape died at the hands of a mob and many at the hands of the state and were often not actually guilty .\nRape was serious , dreadful business then . But now , sometimes , not so much .\nAnger , unfocused resentment and high dudgeon have lately inspired certain young women — abetted by men and women in responsible positions who ought to know better ( and probably do ) — to make uncorroborated claims of abuse that trivializes one of the meanest and most brutal crimes that a human can inflict on another .\nOne young woman , Lena Dunham , has made a television career of a sordid sex life and of being raped , or at least she thinks she was . She wrote a book about it .\nInnocent reputations suffer . Institutions are damaged when , like men , they pay for crimes that did not exist . Bearing false witness is a crime , too , and a serious one , legally no less than morally .\nRolling Stone magazine , the journal of rock music that sometimes aspires to big-boy journalism , is the current cause celebre , out with a sensational story of gang rape on the campus of the University of Virginia . Colleges and universities build their reputations slowly and sometimes inadvertently . The University of Alabama is celebrated as the nation ’ s foremost football factory . Georgetown is famous for having educated Bubba and infamous for the drunken students who have blighted the quiet residential streets surrounding its campus in Washington . And now Tom Jefferson ’ s university has become , fair or not , a place where cautious parents are wary of sending their daughters for a college education . Rolling Stone will now live in infamy as a rag that put a dent in the credibility of modern media everywhere .\nThe story in the magazine was a horrific one , more a tale from an Arabian night than from the cultured precincts of an American university town . A young women , identified by Rolling Stone only as “ Jackie , ” said she went to a party in a fraternity house in Charlottesville and was set upon by a gang of ruffians , raped and scratched and beaten and left to make her escape without help . The details were set down in a story by one Sabrina Rubin Erdely in Rolling Stone .\n“ Jackie ” provided neither corroborating evidence , and the magazine did not ask for a witness to go on the record with details . Her story was told in the usual purple ink , as evidence of the “ rape epidemic ” said to be roiling campuses everywhere . “ Who would lie about rape ? ”\nWhen her story began unravel , as others sought but could not find corroboration or evidence to support her story , Rolling Stone was left to explain the greater sin of the story . Feminists trotted out their usual shock that anyone could question a rape accusation ; “ rape denial , ” said one , “ is like denying the Holocaust. ” Maybe nothing happened , but it could have . Isn ’ t that enough ?\nRolling Stone ’ s only defense was an apology , subject to revision , which in an earlier day would have been an unanswerable indictment of both its editors and its publishers . The apologies , such as they were , suggested that the university ’ s “ troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults ” was to blame for its careless disregard for the fundamental canons of journalism . Newspapers and magazines have slipped into the newspaper graveyard for less .\n“ Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie ’ s story , ” wrote Will Dana , the managing editor , “ we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed participated in the attack , for fear of retaliation against her. ” Facts have destroyed many a good story , and the magazine didn ’ t want that to happen to its account of Jackie ’ s lurid tale .\n“ In the face of new information , ” the apology continued , “ there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie ’ s account , and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. ” It wasn ’ t Rolling Stone ’ s fault , it was Jackie ’ s . “ We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. ” It wasn ’ t Rolling Stone ’ s fault that it sold fiction as fact , it was society ’ s fault . Lawyers are now on the scout for an identifiable plaintiff against the Stone .\n• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The ███ .


I feel your pain , bitter , lonely , nerdy guys . I really do .\nIt sounds corny to say it like that , but I don ’ t know how to say it and be believed . I know that because , having experienced this emotion from the inside for most of my life , I sure as hell resisted believing it when I heard people saying it .\nThere ’ s no one more resistant to being empathized with or more prone to call attempts to do so “ patronizing ” than the bitter lonely guy , especially when women try to do it but even when other nerdy guys try to reach out . People like Captain Awkward and Dr. Nerdlove and the founders of the Good Men Project spend huge chunks of their lives trying to help nerdy guys , but still get regularly blasted with extreme vitriol as “ feminist SJWs ” by said nerdy guys .\nI ’ ve tried to write sympathetically about this stuff in the past : the guilt , the shame , the constant feelings of inadequacy . Indeed , part of the reason I am so determined to write and speak up and be an activist is a shamefaced admission of how lucky I ’ ve been to get away from where I was a few short years ago , how amazing a turning point 2014 was for me while being a terrible year for everyone else .\nThe viral meme that inaugurated 2015 as the New Year of the Bitter Male Nerd is MIT professor Scott Aaronson leaving an emotionally vulnerable comment on his blog during a heated argument about misogyny and sexual harassment in the STEM community .\nHe talks about how in the “ battle of the sexes , ” awkward shy guys damn sure don ’ t feel “ privileged. ” How he , in particular , was plagued with guilt and fear over approaching women , constantly self-castigating over the possibility that he was a sexual harasser or a rapist , to the point where he asked a therapist about the possibility of chemical castration . He talks of reading Andrea Dworkin and other radical feminists who make him feel , as a man , like a monster .\nAnd he concludes as a result of this that feminism is a destructive force for men like him , that the bias of the world is tilted in favor of women and women ’ s issues because everyone is talking about how to help victims of harassment and sexual assault and no one is talking about how to help him .\nAnd it sucks . I ’ m not trying to deny that it sucks . Although I was never as bad off as Scott Aaronson I ’ ve felt a lot of those feelings and , more importantly , I ’ ve known my share of guys who were that bad off . It seems in every group of nerdy guys I ’ ve known there ’ s one guy who ’ s trapped in a feedback loop of anxiety and self-loathing when it comes to women that goes around and around in circles .\nFeminists on the Internet have tried to respond to Aaronson ’ s piece , some sympathetically , some less so .\nI don ’ t want to rehash all the points Amanda Marcotte and Laurie Penny made . Nor do I have some magic way of squaring the circle and making everything okay for guys like Scott -- for both him and me , high school was a long time ago , and the only thing that really heals these wounds isn ’ t any stirring speech or specific program of self-improvement but just time .\nBut I will say something that , as a guy who ’ s Been There , seems obvious to me and necessary to say .\nNone of the pain Scott talks about came from things that happened to him . They came from things that happened inside his head . He speaks in generalities about “ sexual assault prevention workshops , ” or of feeling targeted by feminist literature -- himself saying that he was perversely drawn to the most radical and aggressive rhetoric he could find , eschewing more moderate writers for the firebreathing of Dworkin and MacKinnon .\nHe doesn ’ t talk about anyone targeting or harassing him personally -- indeed , how could he be targeted by books written by second-wave feminists when he was a toddler ? -- but of feeling targeted , of having an accusatory voice inside his mind tormenting him with a pervasive sense of inadequacy , uncleanness , wrongness . It doesn ’ t seem like anyone in his life was particularly giving him a hard time , but that he was giving himself a hard time and picking up on any critical or negative messages directed at men in general as a way to amplify his negative thoughts .\nAs someone who ’ s no stranger to those conditions we call depression and anxiety , I can relate to Scott . As someone whose circle of friends is also no stranger to those conditions , and as someone who ’ s read David Foster Wallace ’ s seminal take on the topic , I also can ’ t blame anyone for being frustrated with Scott .\nDepression , at its core , doesn ’ t really make sense , but it ’ s really great at hijacking the rest of your brain to make itself make sense , and when the depressed person in question is highly intelligent , you end up with an immaculately logical tower of reasoning for why their depression is wholly rational and inevitable .\nThat ’ s how I feel when I look at Scott ’ s impassioned argument that the dating scene is set up to grind “ shy awkward nerds ” into the dirt while letting jockish “ Neanderthals ” have all the women they want . I could point out plenty of evidence , statistical and anecdotal , that this is not in fact the case , as commenters in that thread in fact do -- but what would be the point ? You can ’ t argue with emotions that deeply ingrained .\nWhat ’ s striking to me is that this comes up because Scott very passionately wants to debate that nerds don ’ t have “ male privilege ” and that nerdy guys are the victims , not perpetrators , of sexism . He is arguing this to a commenter posting under the name “ Amy , ” who argues that shy , nerdy guys are in fact plenty dangerous on the grounds that she has been raped by a shy , nerdy boyfriend , and that in her life experience around shy , nerdy guys she ’ s seen plenty of shy , nerdy guys commit harassment and assault and use their shy nerdiness as a shield against culpability for it .\nTo be blunt , Scott ’ s story is about Scott himself spending a lot of time by himself hating himself . When he eventually stops hating himself and , as an older , more mature nerd , asks women out , no women mace him , slap him or ritually humiliate him -- instead he ends up with a girlfriend who ends up becoming a wife . So far , so typical .\nAmy ’ s story is about being harassed and groped by men in the tech world and , eventually , being raped by a shy , nerdy guy she thought she trusted . So far , so also typical .\nWhat ’ s the biggest difference between Scott 's and Amy ’ s stories ? Scott ’ s story is about things that happened inside his brain . Amy ’ s story is about actual things that were done to her by other people against her will , without her control .\nAnd Scott , and his commenters , are treating the two as worthy of equivalent degrees of scrutiny .\nThis isn ’ t a new or unique instance of this kind of blind spot going on . We all know about the Gamergate firestorm where a bunch of anonymous guys on the Internet felt harassed and insulted by an article making general criticisms about “ gamer culture ” as a whole and deciding to react by harassing specific , individual women , including calling a SWAT team to someone ’ s house , and treating it as though these two things are equivalent .\nIt ’ s similar to an earlier instance when “ nerd persecution ” was cried , when Rebecca Watson talked publicly about being made to feel uncomfortable in an elevator at a conference for atheist thinkers by a guy hitting on her at 4:00 a.m .\nWatson didn ’ t name the guy , didn ’ t share the guy ’ s social media handle , didn ’ t show a photo of the guy . The guy remains anonymous to this day . She wasn ’ t even particularly mean to him -- her “ Guys , don ’ t do that ” is exactly the kind of blunt , well-intentioned advice guys like Scott say they want .\nBut people acted like Watson , by speaking up about something a guy did to make her feel uncomfortable , had viciously attacked the guy -- and , by extension , viciously attacked all shy , awkward guys -- and therefore felt justified in viciously attacking her in return .\nThis turns out to be a pattern . For most of us , sex is a big part of our lives , and our relationship to gender therefore a weighted and fraught thing . We all have hang-ups and neuroses , and they ’ re much more likely to manifest in the way we see sexual attraction and relationships than in the way we do our taxes . No one actually said men have it easy .\nBut men are the ones who by and large get to deal with this as an internal matter . Women are the ones who have to deal with internal hang-ups and , as Laurie Penny points out in her piece , external threats from other people . Guys deal with Women in the abstract , as a category ; women deal with specific men who physically threaten them .\nGuys claim to be harassed more often online than women do , but when guys are “ harassed ” it means being exposed to a generalized atmosphere of nasty comments and rude behavior . By contrast , women are the ones who get singled out , stalked , who become unwilling celebrities with a horde of people dedicated to “ taking her down . ''\nThis is what Laurie Penny means -- or one of the things she means -- when she says that the harm the “ patriarchy ” causes women is “ structural. ” Not that all women have it worse than all men . Not that anyone gets away without getting at least a little screwed up by the arbitrary , unreasonable demands our culture makes of us . But that it ’ s women who disproportionately bear the burden of actual harm , of being directly victimized by other people .\nI don ’ t know what the best way is to help guys like Scott Aaronson who wrestle with internal demons . Internal demons are slippery things . I do know that what could help women like Amy is to find the guys who are doing bad things to her and stop those guys from doing that . That ’ s why feminism is more focused on women ’ s issues than men ’ s , because women ’ s issues are the things happening out in the world where we can do something about them .\nSimilarly , no one gets away without having hang-ups and neuroses about race , but racism -- the systematic denial of access to financial and social capital , the being kept out of jobs , the being harassed and shot by law enforcement -- is something that happens to black people in this country and not to whites .\nThe questions of how to deal with the roles we ’ ve been handed down by our parents and our culture and how we parse how much of it is our own personality problems and our own psychology versus our cultural inheritance -- that ’ s a problem all of us have and maybe will continue to have for the rest of human history .\nBut the problem of people being assaulted , harassed , raped , killed ? That ’ s an external , physical problem . That ’ s something we can do something about .\nI don ’ t know how “ women , ” as a group , can help men with the problems he describes . I can testify from my own experience that getting laid does not , in and of itself , magically make anything better and that if Scott believes ( as he says ) that living in an era when he would ’ ve had an arranged marriage at a young age would ’ ve made his problems vanish , he ’ s probably wrong .\nBut meanwhile , women are getting stalked and raped and killed . That ’ s something that men are doing and that men can stop other men from doing .\nAnd , with apologies to my fellow emotionally tortured guys , that really ought to be our priority .


Many women are left feeling defeated after Elizabeth Warren ’ s exit from the presidential race .\nWith a crushing loss on Super Tuesday , and voter after voter quoted in the media saying they ’ d vote for a woman , just not Warren , it made some wonder if a woman would be president in their lifetimes . Warren spoke about the bind women candidates face while talking with reporters Thursday afternoon .\n“ Gender in this race — you know , that is the trap question for every woman , ” Warren said , standing outside her home in Cambridge , Massachusetts , after announcing she would be suspending her campaign Thursday . “ If you say , ‘ Yeah , there was sexism in this race , ’ everyone says , ‘ Whiner. ’ And if you say , ‘ There was no sexism , ’ about a bazillion women think , ‘ What planet do you live on ? ’ ”\nFor the second time in four years , an exceptionally qualified female candidate lost to her male counterparts — some objectively far less qualified . Warren ’ s loss was not as sudden or shocking as Hillary Clinton ’ s in 2016 . But what stung for many was the depth of voters ’ rejection , so much so that Warren came in third in her home state of Massachusetts on Super Tuesday .\n“ I can ’ t stress to you how tired I am of answering the same questions , ” Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Connie Schultz told ███ in an interview Thursday , after publishing an essay on Warren ’ s loss . “ We ’ ve just asked for one chance for a woman to lead the country . Just once , let ’ s try a woman . ”\nSexism was a big factor in Warren ’ s loss — though it was far from the only one . The specter of President Donald Trump and Democrats ’ obsession with finding the most “ electable ” candidate to beat him loomed over everything in the primary . It also relied on long-held assumptions about what a “ successful ” candidate looks like .\n“ I am so disappointed with voters in this country , I wonder if a woman could win , ” New Hampshire voter Chris Hurley , a self-described progressive woman , told ███ in January . “ I hate to say that . It may be a white middle-aged man . We ’ ve got to beat Trump . ”\nWarren certainly made missteps during the campaign . But America apparently isn ’ t ready for a woman president — at least not yet .\n“ One of the hardest parts of this is all the pinky promises and all those little girls who are going to have to wait for four more years , ” Warren said Thursday , her voice cracking slightly .\nWhat we know about the role that sexism played in the 2020 primary\nThere ’ s no doubt sexism played a major role in the way women running for president were treated throughout the primary .\nCandidates , including Warren , were questioned for their likability , their ambition , and their ability to win in ways men simply were not , echoing long-held double standards that still exist for women candidates . Biases about both gender and race likely intersected on myriad other fronts as well .\nFor instance , a July poll of likely New Hampshire voters found good favorability numbers for both Warren and then-candidate Sen. Kamala Harris ( 67 percent for Warren , 54 percent for Harris ) but dismal “ likability ” ratings for them . Just 4 percent of likely voters thought Warren was “ likable , ” and 5 percent for Harris . Compared to that , 20 percent of likely voters thought Biden and Sanders were likable .\nWhile 38-year-old former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg was rarely questioned about his ambition running for the highest office in the land after governing a city of fewer than 102,000 people , Massachusetts residents registered their displeasure with Warren for her presidential bid before it even started .\nAn October 2018 Suffolk University poll of Massachusetts voters found just 17 percent thought Warren should run for president , compared to 68 percent who said no ( about 10 weeks before she announced her candidacy ) . Warren ’ s favorability ratings in the state were decent , but not many wanted her to try for the presidency . That could be viewed as Massachusetts voters not wanting to lose Warren , but it could also be seen as disliking a woman ’ s ambition .\n“ It ’ s another version of , ‘ Know your place . We ’ ve already given you this thing ; how dare you aspire to more , ’ ” Schultz said . “ I don ’ t see that message telegraphed to men . There should be no guilt about being ambitious . ”\nWomen running for president also needed to prove their qualifications more than the men they were up against .\n“ It ’ s one thing for voters to support a woman as part of a deliberative body , like a legislature , as ‘ a ’ decision-maker . But in order for her to be ‘ the ’ decision-maker , voters have to be that much more convinced she ’ s qualified , ” says Amanda Hunter , a communications and policy director at the Barbara Lee Foundation .\nWomen candidates were more than aware of this expectation , tailoring their speeches and rollouts to highlight their experience , policy bona fides , and track record of winning .\n“ Every office I ’ ve run for — no one like me had ever done the job , ” Harris said in an interview with NBC News . “ Based on gender , based on race . Every time , pundits said the people weren ’ t ready for it . But I won. ” Warren , too , got so many questions about this subject that her campaign signage was tailored to emphasize how she could win .\nClinton ’ s shocking 2016 defeat elicited voters ’ fears that a woman couldn ’ t beat Trump again in 2020 , even though women candidates had won in droves during the 2018 midterms .\n“ When it comes to the difference between the midterms and today , I think voters are terrified of anything that looks or feels similar to 2016 , ” said Democratic strategist Meredith Kelly , the former communications director for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ’ s presidential campaign , as well as for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018 . “ And because of that almost blinding fear , I think female candidates were at a particular disadvantage in the race to take on Trump . ”\n“ Male candidates have the benefit of being judged by their potential for greatness , and women have to bring receipts , ” Kelly added .\nPrejudices about women could well have translated to voters ’ decision-making : A study from YouGov ’ s Sam Luks and Tufts University ’ s Brian Schaffner , released in July 2019 , found Democratic primary voters who scored higher on a “ hostile sexism ” scale were less likely to choose either Warren or Harris as their top choice for the primary when polled .\nLuks and Schaffner established this scale by asking voters a battery of questions about their attitudes on gender , a panel developed by social psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske . Voters were asked to agree or disagree with statements like “ most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them ” and “ women seek to gain power by getting control over men . ”\nLuks and Schaffner concluded that dealing with such sexism was an obstacle that women candidates in the Democratic primary continued to face with a subset of voters , though they added that voters pushing back against sexism could flock to the Democratic Party during the general election and boost a woman candidate .\nIn an updated survey released this week , Schaffner and Data for Progress co-founder Jon Green polled voters before the Iowa caucuses and found the same trend : Voters who had more sexist attitudes were less likely to support Warren .\nQuestions related to candidates ’ gender were abundant during the primary , particularly on the issue of electability : Throughout the race , women candidates had to answer questions over and over again about electability — even though none of the most prominent women had ever lost an election before .\n“ When people say it shouldn ’ t be a woman this time because a woman lost last time , well , men have been losing the presidency for hundreds of years , ” Hunter told ███ .\nIt is ultimately difficult to pinpoint just how big a factor sexism was during the 2020 primary — and whether it was the factor that hurt women candidates ’ chances .\n“ Gender , broadly speaking , is always interacting with and influencing factors that are important to a candidate ’ s success or defeat , ” says Kelly Dittmar , a political science professor at Rutgers University and scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics .\nFor the five women who have so far dropped out of the 2020 race , there are 20 men who also exited . The Democratic field was massive from the get-go , and male candidates of color like Sen. Cory Booker and Julián Castro struggled to find their footing before ending their campaigns as well .\nJust like the men running in 2020 , the women all had individual strengths and weaknesses that respectively bolstered and impeded their bids .\nWarren , for example , established herself as an effective and detailed policy wonk who has a plan for everything , but she peaked early in the polls and was bogged down at times by the rollout of her health care proposal and her use of a DNA test to try to prove Native American ancestry .\nShe wasn ’ t the only one . Harris was known for being a charismatic leader who struggled with a consistent message and had to reckon with a sometimes-contradictory record on criminal justice reform . Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , who came in a surprisingly close third in the New Hampshire primary , was dogged by early allegations of staff mistreatment . Despite hammering a message of being electable in Midwestern states that Clinton lost , and rattling off a long list of legislative accomplishments in the Senate , Klobuchar also bowed out . Gillibrand ( D-NY ) , a candidate focused on women ’ s issues , could not shake blowback from the Democratic base and donors alike for her role in the ouster of former Sen. Al Franken ( D-MN ) for his alleged sexual harassment .\nMale candidates have faced electability questions , too . There were plenty of concerns about Biden ’ s spate of gaffes and the Trump administration ’ s intense interest in his son ’ s ties to a Ukrainian energy company ( so much interest , it led to Trump ’ s impeachment ) . There are lingering concerns about Bernie Sanders ’ s October heart attack or whether his ideological agenda is too risky for the general election . But these things were ultimately easier for primary voters to accept than almost all the women candidates when the Republican opponent is Donald Trump .\n“ The electability argument was so frustrating , and is so frustrating , ” Schultz said . “ This narrative had the force of a storm in terms of , you ’ re battening down the hatches instead of throwing the windows open wide to see what the possibilities are . ”\nOne of the most disheartening takeaways from the recent developments in the 2020 race is the feeling that progress around gender equity in politics has remained stagnant .\nColumnist Jessica Valenti said as much in a Medium post :\nLast night , my nine-year-old daughter came over to me because I looked upset . When I told her I was sad because I felt like I would never see a woman be president , she told me , “ Well , you ’ ll see at least one — me. ” I want her to be able to hold on to that optimism because the truth is that I ’ m fresh out of hope to give her .\nWhile it is undeniably — and devastatingly — true that the United States has still yet to elect a woman president , there is progress taking place in the US Congress that is building up an even larger bench of women lawmakers to keep pursuing higher office .\nIn 2018 , Democrats ’ efforts to retake the House were driven heavily by women candidates . Of the 41 seats that Democrats flipped from red to blue during the midterms , 23 were won by women , many of them in purple districts in states like Iowa and Michigan . Both Senate pickups the party had — in Arizona and Nevada — were also won by women . On top of that , four out of seven gubernatorial flips were won by women , including in Michigan , Kansas , and Maine .\n“ I think that people are forgetting the lessons of 2018 , ” Rep. Katherine Clark , vice chair of the House Democratic caucus and a surrogate for Warren , told ███ in a January interview . “ When people are scared , which they are , they kind of look for what they ’ ve always known as the safe choice . ”\nIt ’ s worth noting , too , that after Clinton ’ s run in 2016 , there were a groundbreaking number of women vying for the Democratic nomination this cycle , who helped further normalize the idea of running for president .\nIt ’ s also true that for whoever emerges as the nominee , there will be incredible pressure to pick a woman for the vice presidential spot . As Errin Haines writes for The 19th , female activists have ramped up their focus on the No . 2 slot and called on Biden and Sanders to prioritize choosing a woman for the role .\nAs more women run for office at different levels across the country — a number that spiked dramatically in 2018 — more will be in position to run for executive office down the line . And candidates ’ willingness to call out sexism , though it can be seen as hurting the chances of women candidates in the future , also enables people to confront the problem head-on .\n“ The more that women push these institutions , the more that we see sexism playing a less pervasive role , ” says Dittmar .


HAMBURG — First daughter Ivanka Trump moved up to the front row of global diplomacy Saturday , leading an effort to promote women entrepreneurs and then taking over President Trump 's seat at the G-20 summit .\nAs an unpaid adviser to her father , Ivanka Trump has championed women and family issues like paid leave , child care and a World Bank fund to promote women-owned small businesses in the developing world .\nBut as President Trump stepped away from the a G-20 session Saturday to meet with the president of Indonesia , Ivanka literally took his seat among world leaders , sitting between between Chinese President Xi Jinping and British Prime Minister Theresa May .\nIvanka Trump was caught at the head table by an aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin , who tweeted out a photo of the event . The aide later deleted the tweet , but not before it made the rounds on the Internet .\nA White House aide not authorized to speak publicly about the matter confirmed Ivanka Trump briefly joined the main table when the president stepped away . The aide insisted the arrangement was not unusual .\nThe aide also noted the issue being discussed — African development — was one that Ivanka has taken an interest in , and was related to her work on women 's empowerment .\n' I will be going to London , ' Trump says in meeting with U.K. Prime Minister May\nTrump pushes Vladimir Putin on election interference , reaches agreement with Russia not to meddle\nJohn Podesta claps back after President Trump tweets about him at G-20\nPresident Trump himself is using the summit of the world 's top economies to showcase his daughter , who has now played a visible role in each of the seven countries Trump has visited as president . Ivanka Trump could be seen coming and going from several of her father 's one-on-one meetings with world leaders Saturday .\n`` I 'm very proud of my daughter Ivanka , always have been from day one . I have to tell you that , '' Trump said at an event for the women 's entrepreneurship fund . `` If she were n't my daughter it would be so much easier for her . It might be the only bad thing going for her , if you want to know the truth . ''\nTrump lent his support to that effort Saturday by pledging $ 50 million from the United States to jump-start the effort .\n`` By investing in women around the world , we 're investing in families , we 're investing in prosperity and we 're investing in peace , '' Trump said at the G-20 summit in Hamburg , where global leaders embraced the World Bank-led program .\nThe Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative , or We-Fi , will provide loans , mentorship and other services to small businesses run by women around the world , and especially in its poorest countries . The World Bank is seeking $ 1 billion in pledges .\nGerman Chancellor Angela Merkel , who hosted world leaders for two days of meetings in this German port city , said the program will be one of the most lasting accomplishments of the summit .\n“ If everything went so quickly by the World Bank as the creation of such a fund , we 'd have more success on the international stage , ” she said .\nTrump cast the effort in both moral and economic terms , saying that including more women in the workforce would also provide `` a lot more competition for people like me , prior to becoming a politician . ''