Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

King Charles III snubs Prince Harry, gives William his military title

King Charles III has reportedly bestowed a military title reserved for Prince Harry to Prince William, making his eldest son and heir to the throne the next colonel-in-chief of the Army Air Corps despite Prince Harry's tenure with the unit in Afghanistan.

According to The Independent, Harry would have retained the military appointment had he not elected to step back from royal family duties and move to the United States with his wife, Meghan Markle, in 2020.

“His Majesty the King will officially hand over the role of Colonel-in-Chief of the Army Air Corps to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement, per the report. “In August 2023, following His Majesty’s Accession, the King was pleased to announce military appointments including that the Prince of Wales would become Colonel-in-Chief of the Army Air Corps. The role was previously held by His Majesty the King, as Prince of Wales, for 31 years.”

The news follows reports that Harry, Duke of Sussex, will not see his father while visiting the U.K. for the tenth anniversary of his Invictus Games, a sporting events initiative he launched for wounded veterans and servicemen. 

"It unfortunately will not be possible due to his majesty’s full programme," a spokesperson for Harry said, per Reuters. "The duke of course is understanding of his father's diary of commitments and various other priorities and hopes to see him soon."

“Colossal blunder”: Legal experts warn Trump lawyer’s “bullying” of Stormy Daniels may backfire

To remain in Donald Trump’s good graces as one of his lawyers, it helps to be seen as aggressively fighting for his interests – even if, by doing so, one actually undermines them.

Take the multiple contempt hearings that have now been held in Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial. Rather than concede his client crossed a line, maybe confused about what was and wasn’t allowed in Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order, attorney Todd Blanche powered through with a “did nothing wrong and would probably do it again” defense, claiming a constitutional right to attack jurors and witness. It has, to date, resulted in Trump being found in violation new fewer than 10 times and threatened with incarceration.

Following Stormy Daniels’ at times disturbing testimony on Tuesday, in which the adult film star described in intimate detail an alleged sexual encounter in a hotel room with the former president, it came as no surprise that Trump’s defense team sought to undermine her credibility. Given this task was Susan Necheles, who had to that point taken a back seat to her two male colleagues.

Shan Wu, a former federal prosecutor writing for The Daily Beast, argued that Necheles – like Blanche, a respected criminal defense attorney before joining Trump’s legal team – erred as soon as the cross-examination began.

“She chose to try to outdo her two male co-counsel in aggressiveness by starting her examination with a substantively weak question, suggesting that Daniels had ‘rehearsed’ her testimony,” Wu wrote. Indeed, Necheles pushed Daniels to admit that she’d undergone “several grueling prep sessions, which included brutal mock cross-examinations”; Necheles emphasized the word “brutal,” per a write-up from Lawfare, and her tone was “pointed” and “adversarial.”

That is, frankly, a dumb way to start, Wu argued. “[J]urors are specifically instructed by judges that it’s proper to prepare witnesses, and that lawyers would not be doing their jobs if they just threw witnesses cold onto the stand,” he wrote. What Necheles should have done is kept it simple: establish the fact that Daniels does not know whether Trump falsified business records to cover up the $130,000 hush payment that she received. Instead of going all-out on Daniels, who jurors may find sympathetic, the defense could have stuck to arguing that, legally speaking, she was irrelevant.

“If Necheles and her co-counsel are performing for their client — and even channeling the strongman image Trump likes to project — that may prove to be a colossal blunder,” Wu wrote. “Bullying may work well on the schoolyard, but doesn’t often go so well in courts of law.”

We need your help to stay independent

With Daniels appearing on the stand again Thursday, Trump’s legal counsel will have an opportunity to try a softer approach. If they elect to go with the same aggression as last time, Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, told CNN that it is likely the strategy “backfires.”

“I think it backfires especially if [they’re] going after Stormy Daniels in order to protect Trump’s reputation… publicly, not [with] the jurors,” Goodman commented. If the former president’s team goes after Daniels to the degree that their client would probably like, it could just mean dragging out an embarrassing and damaging spectacle in front of the twelve people, the jurors, who actually matter.

“It could just mean she testifies more and more about the details as to why she is now saying she felt uncomfortable, and some of the testimony she gave is toward the end of the spectrum of non-consensual sexual encounter, and the more they elicit that it could be worse for him [before] the jurors,” Goodman said.

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig agrees that no good can come to the defense by keeping Daniels on the stand. He has argued that her testimony, including that she “hates Trump,” could help the defense – and that the former president’s lawyers should count their blessings and end it there. Trying to catch contradictions in Daniels' account will only result in airing more details that the defense shouldn't want to air, especially if it intends to appeal based on the argument that those details were prejudicial and should not have been heard in court.

“Do another hour, just remind the jury that she's biased, she hates Trump, and she is desperate to see him behind bars,” Honig told CNN. “Leave it at that. You don't need to go back in that hotel room. It's the last thing you want to do."

A return to facts over “fake” news

According to former co-counsel for Trump's first impeachment and Obama White House Ethics Czar Norm Eisen, within the next three weeks, the leading contender for the presidency in the Republican Party may be a convicted felon. Watching Donald Trump on trial in Manhattan “having to sit in front of a jury of his peers,” Eisen said, renews his faith in the “Constitutional process,” established when we became our own country at the end of the 18th century.

“Everyone is equal in the lies of the law,” he reminded me. That’s a fact worth remembering.

I’m just thankful Eisen is sitting in that courtroom in close proximity to Trump instead of me. I spent four years being in close quarters with Trump during his term in office and it felt like viewing the bears in the zoo from within their enclosure.

There are many issues more serious than Trump’s raw dog mentality.

Holding Trump accountable for his actions is something many have dreamed of, and many thought would never happen. It is of particular interest because of what Trump has said he wants to do if he’s re-elected this fall: The dismantling of our democracy and the institution of an effective monarchy where he would act as a King. “We don’t want a King. We got rid of that a long time ago,” Eisen said.

Trump’s proposed policies remain frightening. That’s a fact worth remembering.

There is apparently no low ground Trump won’t inhabit. Yet, Democrats remain upset with current President Joe Biden’s chance of re-election. “It’s frustrating,” one Democratic operative recently told me. The Democrats are worried because no matter how bad Trump is or could be, Biden cannot seem to eclipse him in national polls. “Biden has done great work,” I’m often told, so “how can we possibly be trailing Trump? Hopefully, if Trump’s found guilty, people will stop supporting him.” Democrats blame Biden’s communication team for most of the trouble the president has encountered in making his case for re-election, yet seem unable to impress upon the president the dire circumstances in which he finds himself. It’s a sign of our political environment that the incumbent president may have to rely on a felony conviction of the former president just to give him a legitimate chance of a second term. 

That’s one sentence I’d never thought I’d have to write in my lifetime.

I also thought I’d never have to say this: The former president allegedly didn’t wear a condom when he had sex with a porn star.

I’m tired of watching President Joe Biden drop the ball, and equally tired of the lurid talk surrounding Donald Trump’s lifestyle.

Years ago, during the height of the Gennifer Flowers scandal involving president Bill Clinton, I interviewed James Carville for Playboy Magazine. I met him on the movie set of the “People Vs. Larry Flynt.” The movie was shooting in a Tennessee county courthouse and Carville was playing the role of a conservative prosecutor in the movie. We did the interview in fits and starts for about three days, and then Larry Flynt allowed Carville the use of his private airplane to fly to Portland Oregon over Valentine’s Day so Carville could meet with his wife Mary Matalin. The bulk of the Playboy Interview with James Carville was thus conducted on the owner of Hustler Magazine’s private jet. That’s a fact.

Several times Carville told me he may have been naïve, but he was sure he was one of the few people who didn’t believe Clinton had sex with Flowers. I replied I was sure I was one of the few people who didn’t care. I didn’t. What a man does when he’s conducting business as president has always been of far more interest to me. Thus, it’s hard to listen to the sordid details of Donald Trump’s peccadillo with Stormy Daniels with any kind of interest – prurient or otherwise.

I do not care how he did it. When. Where. Why. Or any of the intimate details of the consummation of his lurid act. I am far more concerned with his authoritarian policies and the anti-democratic stance he’s taken toward the Justice Department, Congress, federal programs for the poor, education, taxes and our international obligations should this country be cursed enough to see him in office again.

At the same time I’m increasingly concerned with the current administration and how the press staff in the White House has tried to bully and intimidate reporters into limiting our interaction with the press secretary; reducing that interaction to just asking questions in the briefing room. I’m also concerned that Biden has, without a doubt, the worst communication staff I’ve ever worked with in the 40 years I’ve been covering presidents – next to Trump’s staff of course. 

Biden’s staff hasn’t threatened to pull any press passes, they’ve just repeatedly told several reporters that they are making them “uncomfortable” and refuse to allow reporters any access to the press secretary or the president outside of the briefing room (which Biden has never entered). A reminder for those who don’t know any better: It is our job to make the president uncomfortable by holding him and his administration accountable for what they do.

We need your help to stay independent

Mike McCurry, one of the finest to ever hold the job of press secretary, welcomed a healthy give and take with reporters and said the exchange of facts, informally and formally, publicly and privately helped the administration and the country. McCurry was a smart guy. That’s also a fact. 

The lurid nature of Trump’s life is the stuff of legend. His indiscretions are voluminous. His narcissism is unparalleled. His personality is corrosive and his appearance both slovenly and increasingly disheveled. Watching him meltdown in real time has the allure of a WWE smackdown. Watching Biden flounder over Trump in the polls does nothing to increase the public confidence in our national leadership – although Biden’s handling of COVID, infrastructure and student debt should.

Those are real issues with real results. 

But those do not get the attention of Trump’s alleged lack of condoms. Yet there are many issues more serious than Trump’s raw dog mentality.

The Biden administration should relish the opportunity to engage with the press – that they do not is one of the biggest reasons the electorate is still having trouble being more comfortable with a Biden second term. And my colleagues in the press who are obsessed with prurient reporting are doing everyone a disservice by ignoring the serious issues this country faces while failing to illuminate the stark and serious policy differences between Trump and Biden. 

Wednesday afternoon at a House Subcommittee public hearing on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence entitled, “Silent Weapons: Examining Foreign Anomalous Health Incidents Targeting Americans in the Homeland and Abroad,” lawmakers heard for the first time about a problem some thought had been debunked. Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Greg Edgreen of the U.S. Army, Christo Grozev, investigative journalist Christo Grozev and attorney Mark Zaid outlined ongoing energy weapon “attacks against the best of our people,” on U.S. soil and abroad. Able to be concealed in a backpack, the experts testified, “wave weapons” from sonic waves to microwaves may be responsible for more than 68 serious attacks, with some causing death. People attacked have included those who brief the president and a variety of other public servants who were called heroes by the legislators and witnesses.

Few reporters attended the event, however. It got little or no coverage compared to the noise we heard about Donald Trump, his lack of condoms and his attraction to porn star Stormy Daniels because she reminded him of his daughter. And Wednesday was a break for the court.

How important is Trump’s lack of condoms compared to a foreign power systematically targeting our diplomats and analysts across the globe and even on our own soil? That is an act of war.  What should be of interest are the issues that affect us all – not just Donny and his boys. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


In short, we should never forget the existential threat of Donald Trump and at the same time we should never drop our guard and fail to report on Biden. There is no false equivalency involved. There are merely journalistic standards.

“The Democrats do not understand that the Republicans don’t play the rules,” I’ve been told often by many Democrats, some who say it’s justification for fighting as dirty as the Republicans. “How will you feel about your morals if the Democrats lose?” I’m often asked.

I will feel just fine. I believe that by doing our job, we will expose the facts that need to be reported, and the best candidate for the job of president will become readily apparent. 

For the record, that is obviously not Donald Trump. If we cast our lot with those who think we should concentrate solely on Trump and his childish, shallow antics, what we really do is give Trump a win the only way he can get one; we give credence to Trump’s pernicious, authoritarian movement.

We play right into his hands. He can say we have chosen sides. I won’t do that. We risk empowering the most repressive voices by failing to question all voices. It isn’t the question that should be of concern – but the answer.

Donald Trump’s only answers involve the twilight of Democracy. Everything isn’t a political narrative. Politics builds its narrative from the facts, not the other way around.

Wednesday in a search for facts, another encouraging bipartisan effort in Congress led to the latest, clearest efforts to find out how serious AHIs are and how to deal with them.

The relentless search for facts, as seen in court and mentioned by Norm Eisen show how the facts can hold Trump accountable. 

The press should not abandon its pursuit of facts either. Today many young journalists see themselves as advocates for a noble cause. If that is the case, then the most noble cause is the search for facts – irrespective of ideology or other bias.

There is a reason why Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene was roundly booed in the House late Wednesday when she introduced a motion to remove Mike Johnson as speaker. The facts show he’s been able to work both sides of the aisle and make progress for the country. Greene is a Trump acolyte who wants to tear it all down. The facts show the American public does not favor such action – when the facts are known. 

The facts show Robert F. Kennedy had a worm in his brain that died. It’s merely conjecture to say it died of starvation. Expose the facts and expose the stupidity. Play games with the facts and you risk it all – including our democracy.

Investigation launched into Judge Engoron’s “very troubling” chat with lawyer about Trump case

The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is investigating a conversation between the judge who oversaw former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case and a lawyer who wanted to discuss the case, according to NBC New York.

Attorney Adam Bailey, a high-profile real estate lawyer whose law license was once suspended, told the station he approached Judge Arthur Engoron to offer unsolicited advice about the case three weeks before Engoron penalized Trump $454 million.

"I saw him in the corner [at the courthouse] and I told my client, 'I need to go.' And I walked over and we started talking … I wanted him to know what I think and why…I really want him to get it right,” Bailey told the outlet.

Bailey, who said he is not a Trump fan, said he knew Engoron because he appeared in court before him “hundreds of times” and said he “explained to him” that the law in the case should not be used to shut down a major company.

"He had a lot of questions, you know, about certain cases. We went over it," Bailey said.

Bailey argued that he didn’t think the judge did anything wrong.

"We didn't even mention the word Donald Trump," Bailey said, but “obviously we weren’t talking about the Mets.”

The judge through a court spokesperson told NBC that he was “wholly uninfluenced” by Bailey.

"No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person. The decision Justice Engoron issued February 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual,” court spokesman Al Baker told the outlet.

Baker did not respond to NBC’s questions about whether Engoron engaged with Bailey or asked questions.

We need your help to stay independent

Judges in New York are barred from considering communications outside of the presence of the parties in a case but the rules allow an exception to "obtain the advice of a disinterested expert” — if the judge notifies the parties in the case and gives them a chance to respond.

The state commission is looking at whether the rules were violated in this case.

"The code doesn’t provide an exception for 'well, this was a small conversation' or 'well, it didn’t really impact me' or 'well, this wasn’t something that I, the judge, found significant," Trump attorney Chris Kise told NBC. "No. The code is very clear."

Retired New York appellate judge Alan Scheinkman told the outlet that if Engoron had “any substantive dialogue” about the case “it should be disclosed.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


"The fact that this lawyer made these statements — unprompted — during a recorded TV interview should raise serious concerns," he said, calling Bailey’s allegation “very troubling.”

Professor Bruce Green, director of Fordham Law School's Center for Law and Ethics, told the outlet it is not against ethics rules to discuss a law in the abstract.

"Judges don't have to live in a bubble,” Green said. "Whether a judge's hallway conversation with a lawyer is permissible or impermissible depends on the conversation."

Biden vows to cut off offensive weapons for Israel if it invades Rafah

While some Palestine defenders on Wednesday welcomed U.S. President Joe Biden's threat to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel if it launches a major invasion of Rafah, critics noted that an invasion is already underway and accused the American leader of walking back a previous "red line" warning against an Israeli assault on the southern Gaza city.

Biden said for the first time that he'll stop sending bombs, artillery shells, and other arms to Israel if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu orders a major invasion of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians forcibly displaced from other parts of the embattled Gaza Strip are sheltering alongside around 280,000 local residents.

Referring to Israel's use of U.S.-supplied 2,000-pound bombs—which can destroy an entire city block and have been used in some of the war's worst atrocities—Biden told CNN's Erin Burnett that "civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers."

Even the U.S. military—which has killed more foreign civilians than any other armed force on the planet since the end of World War II—won't use 2,000-pound bombs in urban areas. But Israel does, including when it launched a strike to assassinate a single Hamas commander by dropping the munitions on the Jabalia refugee camp last October, killing more than 120 civilians.

"If they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities," Biden said Wednesday.

Israeli forces have already gone into Rafah, and it was reported Tuesday that Biden was taking the unusual step of delaying shipments of two types of Boeing-made bombs to Israel to send a message to the country's far-right government. It was, however, a mixed message, as the president also earlier in the day reaffirmed his support for Israel's war on Gaza.

Critics noted the shifting and subjective language used by Biden—who previously said that any Israeli invasion of Rafah would constitute a "red line" resulting in unspecified consequences.

"He said invading Rafah was a red line. Israel invaded Rafah anyway, bombing buildings, burning and crushing children to death," political analyst Omar Baddar said on social media. "Biden is now moving the goal post by adding a completely subjective descriptor: 'Major.' Now Israel has a green light to destroy Rafah in slow motion."

During the course of the seven-month Israeli assault on Gaza—which has killed, maimed, or left missing more than 124,000 Palestinians—Biden has said Israel has killed "too many civilians" with its "indiscriminate bombing," even as he's pushed for more and more military aid for the key ally.

Wednesday's interview came on the heels of Biden's approval of a $14.3 billion emergency military aid package to Israel, multiple moves to sidestep Congress to fast-track armed assistance, nearly $4 billion in previously authorized annual military aid, and diplomatic cover in the form of several United Nations Security Council vetoes.

Reporting that the Biden administration will delay a highly anticipated report on whether Israel is using U.S. military aid in compliance with international law also drew backlash Tuesday from human rights advocates.

Referring to Israel's U.S.-funded anti-missile system, Biden continued his supportive rhetoric during Wednesday's CNN interview, telling Burnett that "we're going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks."

But the president added that Israel's use of devastating weaponry against civilians is "just wrong," and that "we're not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells."

Some peace groups welcomed Biden's threat to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel, even while urging him to do more to stop his ally's genocidal onslaught.

"Biden's statement is as necessary as it is over overdue," Jewish Voice for Peace executive director Stefanie Fox said in a statement. "The U.S. already bears responsibility for months of catastrophic devastation: The nearly 40,000 Palestinians that the Israeli military has killed, the two million Palestinians being intentionally brought to the brink of famine, the decimation of all universities and almost every hospital in Gaza."

"Today's statement shows that Biden can no longer ignore the will of the majority of Americans who want a permanent cease-fire, release of all hostages, and an end to U.S. complicity in Israeli war crimes," Fox added.

 

Editor's note: This article has been updated to remove a mischaracterization of the International Justice Court's findings on Gaza.

MTG’s bid to oust “MAGA Mike” Johnson badly fails as Democrats derail “GOP chaos caucus”

The majority of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday saved far-right Speaker Mike Johnson from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's attempt to oust him after less than seven months in the leadership position.

Johnson's (R-La.) election to the role in October—following the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who then left Congress early—was seen as a signal of the MAGA flank's hold on the Republican Party. However, since then he has faced criticism from Greene (R-Ga.) and others for, among other things, not shutting down the government.

Greene delivered on her threatened motion to vacate—provoking boos from fellow lawmakers—after meeting with Johnson for hours on Monday and Tuesday. The final vote to table her resolution was 359-43, with 196 Republicans and 163 Democrats backing the far-right speaker. Seven Democrats voted present and 21 lawmakers did not vote.

Ten Republicans joined Greene in trying to give Johnson the boot: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Eric Burlison (Mo.), Eli Crane (Ariz.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Alex Mooney (W.Va.), Barry Moore (Ala.), Chip Roy (Texas), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.).

Addressing the position of most Democrats, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) said in a statement:

Our decision to stop Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from plunging the House of Representatives and the country into further chaos is rooted in our commitment to solving problems for everyday Americans in a bipartisan manner. We need more common sense and less chaos in Washington, D.C.

Marjorie Taylor Greene and the extreme MAGA Republicans are chaos agents. House Democrats are change agents. We will continue to govern in a reasonable, responsible, and results-oriented manner and to put people over politics all day and every day.

Some of the 32 Democrats who supported ousting Johnson framed the vote as proof that—in the words of Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Fla.)—the "GOP really can't govern" and the "chaos caucus is on display."

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) similarly declared on social media that "the GOP chaos caucus continues to do nothing for the American people and instead waste time infighting."

"Speaker Johnson organized an amicus brief effort to overturn the 2020 election. He opposes abortion rights, trans rights, and voting rights," Jayapal also said. "That's why I did not vote to save his speakership."

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) also explained his vote on social media, saying: "Mike Johnson is the most ideological, right-wing speaker since the 1830s. His views and values are directly antithetical to mine. He stands for everything we, as freedom-loving Democrats, proudly stand against. I will never vote to keep him in that chair."

Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) was one of the members who voted present, which does not count for or against passage.

"Did I vote with the extremist white Christian nationalist who called a motion to vacate the speakership or did I vote to save the extremist homophobic Christian nationalist speaker to keep him in office?" Pocan said. "Neither. I voted 'present' on this sideshow."

Stormy Daniels testimony reveals the triumph of #MeToo

Until her long-anticipated testimony at Donald Trump's Manhattan fraud trial Tuesday, the mainstream media had leaned on misleading terms like "affair" and "tryst" to describe the alleged 2006 sexual encounter between Stormy Daniels and the criminal defendant. So I was braced for callous reactions to her time on the witness stand, where the adult film actress described an encounter with Trump far more harrowing than titillating.

While making it clear that she was "not threatened either verbally or physically," what Daniels described also doesn't meet any common sense definition of the word "consensual." Trump, she said, bullied her. She didn't want it but didn't say no. "My hands were shaking," she recounted, telling the court that she felt "ashamed that I didn’t stop it." Still, she does not consider it assault. I worried, in that case, that her description would be treated as permission by the press to ignore some of the most alarming and uncomfortable aspects of what Daniels testified happened to her nearly two decades ago in Lake Tahoe. 

But when I observed the media response, I was glad to see that, despite such anxiety-producing ambiguity, mainstream journalists openly grappled with the darker implications of what Daniels recounted. The headline at the Washington Post report by Perry Stein and Devlin Barrett spelled out that Daniels' testimony "at times sounded like a nonconsensual sexual encounter." On MSNBC, host Nicole Wallace expressed regret for previously reducing Daniels to her job, noting that she's also a mother and a human being. One of the New York Times live reporters noted that earlier versions of her story were less "ominous," but then immediately offered context: "Experts on traumatic sexual experiences say that a person's perception of such encounters can change over time, and that the most traumatic details may emerge only later." David Graham at the Atlantic wrote that Daniels described Trump as a man "dripping with sexual entitlement and presumption." 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


This all feels like a shift from how such matters were written about less than a decade ago. In the past, most journalists took a legalistic, black-and-white approach to the issue of sexual consent. If a description of an encounter didn't meet a criminal definition of sexual assault, it was assumed both parties were willing and eager. Sex was treated as either fully consensual or rape, ignoring the icky truth that there are a lot of nonconsensual-but-not-provably-illegal encounters. 

This matters in helping the public understand the complexities when it comes to issues like sexual violence and consent. But it also matters in understanding this specific criminal case. 

So what changed? Part of it is no doubt the unique circumstances of this situation. Because it's on-the-record testimony about a former president, news outlets have legal leeway to speak more freely than they would stories not offered under oath or about a private citizen. But much of the change is likely due to the rise of the #MeToo movement, which exploded in activity during Trump's first year in office. Inspired by the brave women who stepped forward to recall sexual abuse at the hands of Trump and Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, victims from all over the world and all walks of life started to speak out. 

Two major lessons were learned by journalists, most of whom followed the pile-up of #MeToo allegations closely. First, most sexual abuse is committed by repeat offenders, men who will target one person after another, until they've often amassed dozens of victims or more. Second, the range of predatory behavior can vary wildly, depending usually on what the abuser thinks he can get away with in any given situation. 

There's been over two dozen accusations against Trump of everything from harassment to outright rape. Taken together, the stories paint a picture of a man constantly assessing how far he can take the coercion without facing potential legal repercussions. In the story found to be true by a New York civil jury, E. Jean Carroll described how Trump got her alone in a department store dressing room before, as the judge recounted, "Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape.'" Other women describe him using the darkness of nightclubs or a closed room to grope them, which is also what Trump himself described on the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape. In other cases, witnesses were possibly nearby, so Trump reportedly limited himself to a forced kiss or leering with harassing comments.

What the press coverage of Stormy Daniels' testimony shows is that journalists have a far more developed understanding of how to place an experience like what she recalled into context. It may not have been a sexual assault by the legal definition — and Daniels has repeatedly denied that is what it was — but alongside other stories, it fleshes out a picture of Trump as a man with coercive tendencies. (Something he brags about publicly when talking about matters outside of sexuality.) This matters in helping the public understand the complexities when it comes to issues like sexual violence and consent. But it also matters in understanding this specific criminal case. 

Trump's team demanded a mistrial after Daniels testified, arguing that the vivid telling of the ugly encounter was prejudicial. Judge Juan Merchan denied the request, as well he should have. As unpleasant as it was for everyone to hear about how Trump pressured Daniels into unwanted sex, it was necessary to establish the prosecution's case. As MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin explained on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday, the prosecution wants "the jury to understand is what the impact of her story would have been, had Michael Cohen, in the final days of the campaign, not rushed to reach settlement with her." 

The coercive elements are crucial to that understanding. Remember, Trump's campaign only got serious about paying hush money to Daniels after the "Access Hollywood" tape came out. The impact of that tape was not due to Trump's desire for sexual promiscuity, which was already well-known by the public and something he had spent years hyping in the press. That tape was alarming because it's Trump bragging about repeatedly committing the crime of sexual assault. Daniels' story would have been damaging not as much because of the adultery, but because it would be corroborating evidence that, as he says in the tape, he bullies women into acquiescing to unwanted sexual contact.

We need your help to stay independent

This is also why it matters now that the media is willing to deal with the complexities of the testimony Daniels offered Tuesday. This isn't just a salacious tabloid story. It cuts right to the heart of the bigger, more impactful issue of what it means to let men like Trump have power. This is the same man who, after all, made a promise to end abortion rights — and it was one of the few promises he kept. His misogyny and male entitlement matter not just to the unfortunate women who cross his path, but the millions who now have lost basic rights to bodily autonomy. 

It's hard to know how the jury is taking all this, of course. Regular members of the public likely weren't quite as attentive to the #MeToo movement and its lessons as journalists were, since following the news closely isn't in most of their job descriptions. It's quite possible some jurors still adhere to pre-#MeToo sexist tendencies, like blaming a woman for being alone with a man, instead of blaming him for taking advantage of her. Whatever the jury concludes, however, it's still a sign of progress that the press has brought a more complex understanding of sexual consent to their coverage.

There's been a lot of backlash to the #MeToo movement in the past few years, but in this one aspect, it seems real progress has been made. 

Trump trial delays bring focus to crucial Supreme Court case

Donald Trump’s hush-money trial in New York is like an insatiable maw or some type of blackhole or a galactic vacuum cleaner that is sucking up everything around it.

In my conversations about these last few weeks, I have taken to describing the exhausting experience as Trump Trial Time (TTT).

This is in many ways to be expected. Trump’s criminal trial(s) are truly historic. He is the first former president to be put on trial for committing a felony. The hush-money trial has now taken on even more importance. Judge Aileen Cannon has indefinitely postponed Donald Trump’s federal trial in Florida for stealing classified documents. On Wednesday, Trump's trial in Georgia for election interference was also indefinitely delayed pending an appeals court decision. Trump's criminal trial for the coup attempt and plot to end democracy on Jan. 6 is also likely to be delayed as well. This means the New York hush-money trial may be the only opportunity before the 2024 election to hold Trump accountable for his crimes.

The storytelling and dramatic elements of Trump’s hush-money trial also explain why it has attracted obsessive attention from the news media. It is a story about a man who became president and paid money to his mistress, who at the time was an adult film star, to hide potentially incriminating evidence from the American people before an election. Stormy Daniels is also a compelling personality on her own terms because of how she overcame poverty, rose to fame, and the force of her personality and intelligence.

The hush-money trial also has other traits that make it so compelling for the mainstream news media: It is fundamentally a story about the law, money, crime, a cover-up, a scandal, and power. In all, this is a far more familiar and comforting story for the American mainstream news media to cover than the larger democracy crisis and the rise of neofascism.

And of course, sitting at the center of the spectacle is Donald Trump, who, mostly for horrible reasons, is one of the most discussed and fascinating public figures in recent American history.

During the hush-money trial he has mostly lived up to that role, acting the part of a mob boss and wannabe dictator and strongman who is sleeping in court, threatening the judges and witnesses, using profanity, generally being contemptuous and disrespectful, and acting like he wants to provoke Judge Merchan into finding him in contempt and putting him in jail.

But the mainstream news media’s obsession with the hush-money trial is committing the error of mostly ignoring Donald Trump’s attempts to convince the United States Supreme Court that he is basically a king and above the law because of “presidential immunity.” The court’s right-wing justices – three of whom were appointed by Donald Trump – appear likely to grant, in part or in whole, Trump’s demand for nearly unlimited power and by doing so to fundamentally betray the Constitution and American democracy.

Yes, the hush-money trial is vitally important. But it is Trump’s Supreme Court case that is of paramount importance for the future of American democracy.

Using the logic of television, Donald Trump’s hush-money trial is the main storyline. The Supreme Court case has been made into the B plot when it actually merits its own series – or perhaps even a big-budget film. When considered together, they are a type of split-screen event, where two things are happening simultaneously, but the public’s attention is divided, as Politico observes:

It will be a historic and surreal split screen: a former president, current presidential candidate and four-time criminal defendant whose lawyers will be fighting two very different sets of felony charges in two courthouses simultaneously. It’s a reminder of Trump’s ability — even while sitting in his New York trial about hush money payments to a porn star — to command the attention of every branch of the government he once again seeks to lead.

What has been glossed over, if not subsumed by TTT, are the horrible implications of what it would mean if Donald Trump is given the powers of dictator by a Supreme Court that has determined the president is basically above the law.

At the New York Times, Jamelle Bouie summarized this dangerous absurdity:

Donald Trump’s claim that he has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy: that no man is above the law.

More astonishing than the former president’s claim to immunity, however, is the fact that the Supreme Court took the case in the first place. It’s not just that there’s an obvious response — no, the president is not immune to criminal prosecution for illegal actions committed with the imprimatur of executive power, whether private or “official” (a distinction that does not exist in the Constitution) — but that the court has delayed, perhaps indefinitely, the former president’s reckoning with the criminal legal system of the United States….

Trump has asked the Supreme Court if he is, in effect, a king. And at least four members of the court, among them the so-called originalists, have said, in essence, that they’ll have to think about it.

The details and specifics of Donald Trump’s claims to presidential immunity need to be emphasized if one is to fully see and comprehend their true horror.

We need your help to stay independent

Trump’s attorneys are trying to convince the United States Supreme Court that a president can order his political rivals (or anyone else for that matter) killed by the military, for any reason, and it would be “legal.” Likewise, per this argument, a president can engage in wantonly corrupt behavior such as accepting bribes and that too would be “legal.” In theory, the courts and Congress and other parts of the government would provide checks and balances on presidential authority. In practice such a conclusion is ridiculous because what reasonable person would oppose a president who has the power to order them murdered, imprisoned, disappeared, or to suffer some other horrible fate without having any real fear of being held responsible for committing such “crimes.”

There is a way to describe a leader and country where such things are “legal”: a dictatorship.

Writing at the Nation, Elie Mystal shares his assessment of the American mainstream news media and its failures to properly cover the Supreme Court and Trump’s claims of unlimited power:

In the few days since the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. United States—the case that will determine whether Donald Trump has lifetime immunity from crimes he committed while in office—the national media has failed. The reports about what happened during the hearing, and how the Republican justices are likely to rule, range from credulous simplicity to outright gaslighting. The court will almost certainly take the extreme, unprecedented, and previously unfathomable position that Trump cannot be held criminally accountable for all of his actions—and the reason it is likely to do so is that the court knows the media will carry its water and normalize its ruling to a public that lacks the time and acumen to fully appreciate what it’s doing.

I’m not talking about Fox News or Newsmax, whose coverage I have not read or watched but assume it’s ranged from cultish to clownish, as it always does. I’m talking about the mainstream press, the so-called “liberal” press, which is taking its cue from the Supreme Court and trying to normalize the proposition that presidents should be immune from at least some crimes.

The idea of presidential criminal immunity is wholly unprecedented in the American experience. Other than Donald Trump, only Richard Nixon has claimed it, and Nixon’s argument was roundly rejected, not just by the courts but also by the media-industrial complex. This time, however, Trump’s claim—and the court’s bankrupt willingness to back it—is finding purchase in the national media.

Mystal concludes:

The president is not above the law, which means he cannot be immune from accountability for the rest of his life. The president should be, must be, and always has been subject to prosecution for crimes. Anybody telling you anything else is trying to keep you docile and compliant while they pretend that the Supreme Court has access to mystical knowledge we little people cannot comprehend.

The Supreme Court is poised to crown Donald Trump as king of America. That is the headline. That is the thesis that should be nailed to a church door.

The American news media, and especially the elite agenda-setting news media such as the New York Times and Washington Post, have a responsibility to adequately cover both the hush-money trial and Donald Trump’s plans and aspirations to be a dictator. Moreover, the elite agenda-setting news media possess the necessary resources to practice that type of essential pro-democracy journalism if they so choose.

Unfortunately, as an institution, the American news media, and its most elite outlets, have decided not to do it.

To that point, in a much-discussed new interview, New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn directly explains that he believes it is not the responsibility of the news media in a democracy to stop an aspiring dictator:  

It’s also true that Trump could win this election in a popular vote. Given that Trump’s not in office, it will probably be fair. And there’s a very good chance, based on our polling and other independent polling, that he will win that election in a popular vote. So there are people out there in the world who may decide, based on their democratic rights, to elect Donald Trump as president. It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It’s the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening.

Ultimately, the spectacle of Donald Trump’s hush-money trial is too alluring and enthralling for the American news media.

It may not have been part of their strategic plan, but Donald Trump and the MAGA movement and the other right-wing and neofascist enemies of democracy are benefitting from the news media’s hyperfocus on the New York hush-money trial. How? Because that obsession diverts the American people’s attention away from how the Supreme Court is preparing to make Donald Trump and his successors de facto kings and dictators.

Does healthy narcissism exist? Why experts say there are positives to this personality disorder

When most people picture narcissists, we think of self-centered, awful people who lack empathy. But it's a real mental disorder that is more than just an insufferable personality trait — and in some cases narcissism may even have some benefits.

"Not every inconvenience is trauma, not every person you have difficulty with is a narcissist and not all trouble focusing is ADHD."

Clinically speaking, narcissistic personality disorder is "a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy," according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Psychologists and armchair critics alike enjoy warning the public about narcissists in their midst. This can be seen in the realm of politics, like Donald Trump's refusal to concede in the 2020 presidential election, and popular culture, such as the infamous defamation trial involving actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Most people have also had to experience terrible narcissists, whether it's family, friends or people at work.

Certainly no medical expert would defend narcissistic behavior like violent outbursts, malicious deception or petulant refusals to admit defeat. At the same time, some experts observe that some narcissistic traits can be healthy. To understand why, one must start with comprehending that narcissism does not make a person totally lack like the ability to be concerned with how others perceive them. If one defines "good" as "caring about other people," narcissists can still be good people up to a point.

"'Psychopath' is a clinical term that is used to describe a person who lacks remorse or has a cold, calculating kind of interpersonal style and exploits interpersonally," says Dr. Ramani Durvasula, a licensed clinical psychologist and professor of psychology who talks about narcissistic abusers. "They are exploitative with a tendency towards a parasitic lifestyle. But the big thing with psychopathy is that, again, there is a very cold calculated piece to everything. There is a willingness to use other people for their ends, and we often see a complete and utter lack of anxiety."

By contrast narcissists "care about what looks good to the world. A sociopathic person isn't driven by that. And as a result, they will violate social norms and rules. Relationships with them are characterized by a lot of betrayal, and they also tend to be a lot more reactive and hotheaded," Durvasula said.

Narcissists are not defined by these types of behaviors. Hannah Alderete, a PhD student who specializes in narcissism among other psychiatric disorders, explained why this is the case.

"Narcissistic personality traits can absolutely be healthy, given that they are innate inside all of us, and do help us take action toward bettering ourselves," Alderete says. "Most of us would not likely get out of bed if we did not possess a healthy degree of narcissism."

Narcissistic traits are only harmful when they are fix and rigid; if balanced by self-awareness, an ability to change and a humble willingness to express compassion for others, "it stays in the realm of healthy," Alderete says.

Harvard Medical School lecturer Dr. Craig Malkin, a clinical psychologist and author, told Salon that "narcissism" itself is not an official diagnosis and never has been, but is rather a "trait" defined as "a pervasive universal human tendency called 'self-enhancement'" or "the drive to feel special — to stand out from the other nearly 8 billion people on the planet in some way."

Since happy and healthy people usually don't feel average or boring, regardless of whether that is true, it makes sense that having a degree of narcissism can be healthy. Why not feel like one is exceptional or unique and therefore persist in ambitious plans despite persistent failure, if a person is happier and lives longer as a result?

"This moderate self-enhancement is healthy narcissism," Malkin says. "It’s not self-confidence or self-esteem or self-love. Think of it instead as slightly rose-colored glasses for self (world and future). It’s at the heart of all narcissism and in moderation it’s completely healthy."


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


"I saw a post about Hitler being a narcissist. I dare say that was the least of his problems."

Narcissism is not just healthy for individuals in small doses; it can only benefit human civilization as a whole.

"Societies benefit from connection and cooperation among individuals, which seems antithetical to possessing narcissistic traits," says Alderete. "However I believe that when we can acknowledge and endorse our strengths and skills as individuals (which requires healthy narcissism), we are giving ourselves opportunities to grow and flourish."

In other words, humans need narcissism in the same way that they need most of their basic personality traits — in moderation.

"We need both," says Alderete. "The ability to take care of ourselves and the ability to tend to the community at large by taking in the needs and perspectives of others. Both are valuable traits to keep in balance."

By contrast, people who talk about "narcissism" today are usually describing people who act in deliberately cruel and self-centered ways, which is completely separate from more innocuous narcissistic behavior.

"Most of what people describe is 'narcissism' is either [narcissistic personality disorder] or psychopathy," Malkin says, describing a pattern of remorseless lies and manipulation to maintain power over others. "Narcissism has become a stand in in for every attribute people don’t like and every dangerous behavior imaginable. I saw a post about Hitler being a narcissist. I dare say that was the least of his problems," he added.

In addition to just being clinically inaccurate, it is also deeply harmful to use terms like "narcissist" against people without having clinically diagnosed them. Just ask Dr. Jessica January Behr, a licensed psychologist who practices out of New York City.

"While it is positive that stigma related to mental health — and even Axis II personality disorders seems to have reduced drastically — and as a society we are more comfortable talking about it and bringing it to light, [but] the tides may have shifted too far in the other direction," says Behr. "The term 'narcissism' seems to have become a colloquial catch-all for anyone you don't like or anyone that does something to upset you. Not every inconvenience is trauma, not every person you have difficulty with is a narcissist and not all trouble focusing is ADHD." 

We need your help to stay independent

Dr. David Reiss, a psychiatrist and expert in mental fitness evaluations, argued that "if I am being attacked, I really don’t give a damn if the attacker is narcissistic, psychopathic, sociopathic or acting out of some disability – the important issue is to protect oneself based upon the specific nature of the toxic/abusive/attacking behaviors, not any psychodynamic, psychological or even neurological factors contributing to 'why' the person is acting dangerously/abusively."

Yet even though one should not tolerate harmful or abusive behavior from narcissistic people, that does not mean that we should rule out the possibility of benefiting from their more positive traits. You can still be narcissistic and capable of helpful traits like compassion — and being a narcissist does not mean that you are incapable of caring about others, a point that Dr. Durvasula emphasized.

"As a clinician I have to spend a good chunk of time with a person to be able to adequately discern between narcissism, sociopathy and psychopathy," Durvasula said. "Keep in mind too, there's a lot of overlap between these terms, and so that could, that also muddies the water. But I think again, they're rather nuanced terms and it takes a while to get some sort of mastery of them. I think people can use them because they kind of sound cool and descriptive, but I'm not convinced everyone's using them correctly."

The world’s oceans just broke an important climate change record

As climate change worsens, experts anticipate worsened tropical storms, more frequent wildfiresrising sea levels and shortages of important products like food and microchips. Humanity needs every break that it can get in offsetting the greenhouse gas emissions causing this overheating, which is why a recent report from the European Union's Copernicus Climate Service raises such concern: It reveals that global heating has fueled such massive overheating in the world's oceans that over the past year they broke temperature records every single day.

Not only do the world's oceans absorb around a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans produce, they similarly absorb roughly 90% of the planet's excess heat. As a result, they play a critical role in limiting the degree to which climate change causes extreme weather and other problems. Yet the new data suggests that the world's oceans are straining under this burden. The research reinforces a recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change, which identified human-caused climate change as the driver behind two important increases in the sea surface temperature's seasonal cycle amplitude, or how life on Earth responds to environmental variations. On both occasions, the science demonstrates that humans are overtaxing our oceans' ability to offset climate change.

"The fact that all this heat is going into the ocean, and in fact, it's warming in some respects even more rapidly than we thought it would, is a cause for great concern," Professor Mike Meredith from the British Antarctic Survey told the BBC.

"These are real signs of the environment moving into areas where we really don't want it to be and if it carries on in that direction the consequences will be severe."

These are not the only problems in terms of rising ocean heat content. Dr. Michael E. Mann, a professor of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, told Salon last year that rising ocean heat content is equal in significance to rising global surface temperatures because "the warming of the oceans is helping destabilize ice shelves and fuel more powerful hurricanes and tropical cyclones."

“I’m in menopause!” Halle Berry shouts to end stigma

Actress Halle Berry, 57, took to Capitol Hill last week to lobby for bipartisan legislation aimed at increasing clinical research into — and de-stigmatizing — menopause. Sponsored by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.), the bill would allot a total of $275 million in federal funds for menopause-related initiatives.

$125 million would be set aside for clinical trials, and public health research into hormone therapy treatments used to manage symptoms like hot flashes. The other $150 million would be spent improving menopause detection and diagnosis among doctors, and educating the public on the long-stigmatized topic in women's health. 

"I'm here doing this work because it has to be de-stigmatized. The shame has to be taken out of menopause. We have to talk about this very normal part of our life that happens. Our doctors can't even say the word to us, let alone walk us through the journey of what our menopausal years look like," Berry said. "I'm here as a citizen of the United States, as a woman who is demanding that our government give us what we need because we deserve it. We have been overlooked. We have been discarded for far too long." 

In a video by the Associated Press, Berry described an encounter with her physician during her Washington D.C. appearance, during which her physician's reluctance to say the word "menopause" threatened to prevent the actress from receiving an accurate diagnosis.  

"I finally realized he wasn't going to say it. So I thought 'OK, I have to do what no man can do. I have to say it.' I said, 'I'm in menopause! OK? And that's why I'm having this issue," Berry shouted. 

YouTube accused of censoring Macklemore’s pro-Palestine song, “Hind’s Hall”

YouTube is facing allegations that it has censored Macklemore's pro-Palestine protest song, "Hind's Hall."

The rapper, formally known as  Ben Haggerty, released the track on May 6 on social media in response to the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. The song's title refers to the name given to Columbia University's Hamilton Hall by student protestors to honor six-year-old Hind Rajab, who was killed by Israel's military in February. The accompanying video, which Macklemore also dropped on Monday, has garnered more than 27 million views on X/Twitter alone. 

On YouTube, where the video has more than half a million views, users encounter the following message before clicking play: "The following content may contain graphic or violent imagery. Viewer discretion is advised." Newsweek reported that users under the age of 18 or viewers who aren't signed into an account are unable to watch the clip.

Macklemore in the song argues that the campus protests, which have steadily unfurled across the U.S. in recent weeks, are not the problem. "It’s what they’re protesting/It goes against what our country is funding/Block the barricade until Palestine is free," he sings, also calling out the ongoing feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar, whom he claims are "complicit in their platform of silence."

 

 

“I know what the truth is”: Andy Cohen on the many “Real Housewives” lawsuits and critiques

The Bravo reckoning is finally being addressed by Andy Cohen, the face of the "Real Housewives" franchise, Bravo itself and longtime host of "Watch What Happens Live."

In a profile for the Hollywood Reporter, the Bravo producer and host said, "Obviously, it’s no fun to be a target. So, yes, it’s hurtful." Cohen and Bravo have been mired in sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits, allegations of drug use on set and questions about pay and exploitative labor tactics that have darkly clouded the network and its popular "Housewives" franchise.

Earlier this year, former "Housewives" alum Caroline Manzo sued Bravo, NBCUniversal, Warner Bros. Entertainment and Peacock for claims that a fellow castmate, Brandi Glanville, sexually harassed Manzo. According to Deadline, the lawsuit also claimed that Bravo & Co. "allowed, condoned and even encouraged" Glanville's "sexually aggressive and offensive conduct on others on the sets" while "ply[ing] Glanville with copious amounts of alcohol so that she would act outrageous."

This hasn't been the only lawsuit leveled against Bravo this year. Former "Real Housewives of New York" cast member Leah McSweeney is suing Cohen and Bravo for discrimination and retaliation because, as she claims, she is "a woman with disabilities, such as alcohol use disorder and various mental health disorders, all in the name of selling drama,” The New York Times reported. Last year in a bombshell piece by Vanity Fair, McSweeney alleged that producers would hide liquor bottles on the set to sabotage her sobriety.

McSweeney has also accused Cohen of doing cocaine with other Housewives cast members. Cohen’s attorney denied the allegations, saying the complaint was “littered with false, offensive, and defamatory statements.”

In the profile, Cohen said while he couldn't address all the allegations, "What I’ll say about the alcohol is that we have so many sober people and people who have gotten sober on the show. We have people who’ve never had a drink during the entire run of the show," listing cast members like Luann de Lesseps, Jill Zarin and Kandi Burris.

"So sure, there are people who drink. There are many people who never drink. We don’t force anyone to do anything. But no one is secretly hiding liquor bottles on set. That’s ridiculous. We’ve been very supportive of people’s sobriety," he clarified.

Additionally, outside of the lawsuits, Bravo has been at the center of union organizing efforts from ex-"Housewives" personality Bethenny Frankel. Since the dual Hollywood labor strikes last year, Frankel has been pushing for reality TV stars to bring forth their own set of labor terms including fair compensation. Frankel told Salon last July that she made just $7,250 for the first season of "RHONY." 

Cohen, who used to be close friends with Frankel, said that his take as an independent producer is that reality stars should not be treated like actors because "Reality stars typically have other jobs. They’re bar owners, they’re designers. They’re doctors."

We need your help to stay independent

"I think the way that Bravo pays people is that it’s a buyout — they’re buying them out for a show that can be distributed in certain ways, and the longer you stay on, the higher your salary gets. And salaries for people who have been on a long time are really high," he concluded.

When asked about the criticism from former friends like Frankel, Cohen said, "Obviously, it’s no fun to be a target. So, yes, it’s hurtful." 

However, the long-time host has "no regrets about the way I’ve handled anything. I think everything that happens in your life informs the next thing that happens in your life. That’s the way I look at all this."

"I know what the truth is and I know how I’ve conducted myself, and I walk tall every day on that," he said.

Major media outlets linked to company behind fake AI writers: report

AI-generated content from the same company that broke Sports Illustrated snuck its way into Us Weekly, Hollywood Live, and even the Los Angeles Times.

Futurism reports that AdVon, a “content solutions” company which published scores of articles by fictional writers in Sports Illustrated, ultimately leading to its publisher losing the rights to the name Sports Illustrated, placed work in Hollywood Life and Us Weekly, as well as the Miami Herald and Los Angeles Times.

AdVon initially employed overseas contractors to write product reviews, which employees alleged was used for language model training purposes before they were ultimately entirely replaced by AI.

Per Futurism, the L.A. Times and McClatchy, a publisher of several regional papers, have cut ties with AdVon, which denies the sole use of artificial intelligence in content creation and instead says it uses the practice responsibly in conjunction with human efforts.

AdVon previously made news for publishing reviews on a USA Today affiliate site attributed to individuals who couldn't be found online with AI-generated headshots and names, alongside content. Union representatives notified Gannett, USA Today’s parent company, which pulled down the content.

Screenshots from AdVon’s content management system acquired by Futurism suggest that the company has published over 90,000 articles for hundreds of publications.

Coinciding with the uptick in AI-generated content on popular websites, search engines are taking steps to mitigate the reach of non-human-generated material.

Google’s crackdown on so-called “site reputation abuse,” the practice of using a top-ranked publication’s domain to boost low-effort or affiliate content in search results, is aimed at keeping spammy suggestions, especially AI-generated content, off the engine.

Content posted “without close oversight of a website owner” and “intended to manipulate Search rankings” will be deprioritized under the new rules, and major search rank changes to queries like “coupon” were already visible on the engine.

Protecting endangered foods one bite at a time

In the late 1990s, “Louisiana Eats!” podcast host Poppy Tooker began working to revive a New Orleans delicacy: Creole cream cheese. She’d come across this fresh cheese, a French-influenced style indicative of New Orleans’ rich and diverse population, by way of her grandmother, but noticed it was on the decline as local dairy farms were overtaken by conglomerates. The motto of her campaign to get this local product back onto the table: “Eat it to save it.”

Today, thanks in part to Tooker’s advocacy, Creole cream cheese is once again commonplace, represented in markets and grocery stores in and around the coastal town and in establishments like Emeril Lagasse’s storied Creole restaurants. But in bringing a favorite New Orleans classic to new audiences, Tooker was also helping introduce Americans to a nascent (but historically rooted) approach to cooking and eating. Creole cream cheese couldn’t be the only delicious food that was both accessible and deserving of a reintroduction into the country’s culinary canon, she thought. Surely, there were other cheeses, other fruits, other recipes. “They were these precious indigenous ingredients with significant cultural ties that I knew I wanted to know more about,” Tooker says.

Tooker became an early member of Slow Food, a border-resistant movement spearheaded by an eclectic group of chefs, historians and home cooks around the world looking to record heritage foods and reintroduce them into the communities they come from. Slow Food originated in the 1980s in Italy, where a group defending the country’s traditional cuisine blocked the opening of a McDonald’s near the Spanish Steps in Rome. The spread of fast food had birthed a devoted group of civilians determined to protect local foodways and resist a shift towards industrialization and globalization. Slow Food became immensely popular in Italy and has since expanded to 160 countries, including Tanzania, Belarus, Peru and Kyrgyzstan, where in late January the newest Slow Food Presidium was created to support the endangered Kyrgyz Mountain horse, an ancient breed used for meat and milk.

The “eat it to save it” strategy is now part of Slow Food’s toolkit, with interpretations and practices varying by region. In South and Central America, where the movement of seeds is often policed, there are many seed libraries, says Slow Food USA director of programs Mara Welton. Throughout Central and West Africa, school and community gardens are helmed by local communities that have long respected the value of growing one’s own food, creating biodiversity and food security for younger generations. In Japan, where there’s a significant cultural respect for agriculture and plant life, certain items, such as dried persimmons (hoshigaki), are recognized as cultural properties and thus designated as national treasures. A crucial global project is Slow Food’s Ark of Taste, a living collection of small-scale, culturally significant, often-endangered foods that documents regional produce, grains, livestock, wild plants, insects and even sweeteners and seasonings, such as Chaco stingless bee honey from Bolivia and Malaysia’s Rimbàs black pepper. “They connect you to communities, they connect you to people, these foods,” Welton explains.

Some U.S. foods in the Ark of Taste are fairly recognizable. You might’ve heard of the Cherokee purple tomato; maybe even the Italian-originated Jimmy Nardello pepper; and most certainly the slightly sweet Wellfleet oyster. But others, like the Hidatsa Red bean, prevalent in the Dakotas, and the Ojai Pixie tangerines grown in Southern California, are newer additions to the ever-growing catalog. Success stories include Northern California’s Gravenstein apple, which in the 19th century became a signature crop of Sonoma County — especially Sebastopol, home of an annual fair since 1973. In recent years, however, orchard owners began to decamp to the increasingly profitable wine and marijuana industries. Slow Food’s Gravenstein apple presidium has been working for two decades to reverse this decline, enlisting Bay Area chefs to feature the fruit on their menus, building a community apple press for local residents and ultimately helping the remaining orchardists once again secure a sustainable livelihood.

Slow Food USA has compiled many of our country’s recovered food products and heirloom varieties in a recent book, “The Ark of Taste: Delicious and Distinctive Foods That Define the United States,” by food scholars Giselle Kennedy Lord and David S. Shields. Between informative entries, producer profiles and colorful illustrations, there are recipes from chefs and home cooks that highlight the unique culinary offerings the United States: Arkansas Black apple doughnuts with Tupelo honey, from “Foods of the Americas” authors Fernando and Marlene Divina; North Carolina chef Kurt D’Aurizio’s mojo-marinated Guinea hogmanoomin (wild rice) with grilled sunflower from Wild Bearies founder Elena Terry. It all points back to the “eat it to save it” mentality, promoting the regular use of heritage foods in everyday cooking and dining; many of the contributing chefs are also members of the Slow Food Cooks’ Alliance, which sees restaurants as key to creating awareness and demand. “To save [a food], what it really translates to is this,” says Welton: “If you don’t create a knowledge around it and interest in it, and if you don’t create a taste for it, and make people want to eat it, then it’s gonna die.”

“To save [a food], what it really translates to is this: If you don't create a knowledge around it and interest in it, and if you don't create a taste for it, and make people want to eat it, then it's gonna die.” -MARA WELTON, Director of programs, Slow Food USA

Shields, one of the book’s authors, has dedicated much of his career to the recovery of heritage foods. A longtime professor at the University of South Carolina and chairman of the Carolina Gold Rice Foundation, he has tracked down 45 ingredients over the course of 20 years, helping bring back into recognition and cultivation crops such as the Abada date, in California, and Carolina Gold rice — famously saved from the brink of extinction by a network of researchers, farmers and chefs. Regional figures such as Anson Mills founder Glenn Roberts and Gullah Geechee chef and foodways expert BJ Dennis have assisted in his decades-long search for underrepresented or forgotten ingredients, and, importantly, their origins. Research in South Carolina helped identify what had been mislabeled “flint corn” as the Catawba flour corn, which had been previously lost in the Catawba Nation, and unearthed a sugar cane variety called Purple Ribbon on South’s Carolina’s Sapelo Island, inhabited exclusively by African American descendants of those enslaved at a 19th-century sugar plantation. The plant is now a source of revenue for the community.

“One of the things we want to do is get everyone back their heritage ingredients,” says Shields. “If you have a plant that was yours, and it’s been lost — if it can be found, let’s put it back into the hands of the people.” As opposed to solely white researchers or scientists “discovering” different native species, diverse groups of community members and researchers can help recover seeds, reinstate Native names for indigenous foods and figure out how the “reintroduction” of an ingredient will benefit those who have contributed to its resilience and proliferation. Welton notes that, in recent years, many Slow Food chapters have made it a priority “to connect their farmers of color with the chef community” and other potential buyers.

So what does success look like for “eat it to save it”? Sometimes, it means a food once nearing extinction is made available at select farmers’ markets or specialty stores. If that sounds elitist, you’re not alone in your thinking: Even among those who advocate for the expansion of Slow Food practices, for example, the movement has regularly been critiqued as being inaccessible to some communities of color and other economically marginalized groups, with longtime members advocating for less expensive items and more public engagement. But often, the “eat it to save it” approach is less about getting new people to buy a given food and more about rekindling interest and creating access in the community it came from.

Examples of this can be found in the work of Indigenous food sovereignty movements in the U.S. and beyond. One Ark of Taste stalwart is the Southwest’s Navajo Churro sheep, a source of mutton and wool and once “a fixture of Diné life as central as corn,” according to Lord and Shields, was critically endangered by the late 1970s after decades of culls by the U.S. government; efforts to protect and revitalize the landrace sheep led to the creation of Slow Food’s Navajo Churro presidium, which now includes 11 Indigenous herders who have helped bring the breed back from extinction. Tepary beans, long used by the Indigenous peoples of the Southwest but on the decline after colonization as food systems were eroded, “were among the first foods the Tohono O’odham successfully reintroduced into cultivation 20 years ago in an effort to move away from the obesity- and diabetes-inducing Western diet,” Lord and Shields write, noting that the strategy was conceived both as a public health initiative and a reclamation of identity. The beans — which have a nutty flavor and come in white, black and many colors in between — are also available through Native-led projects like Ramona Farms and on the menus of Native chefs around the country: James Beard Award-winning Indigenous chef Sean Sherman pairs Tepary beans with scallops, chayote, epazote and chile at Owamni, in Minneapolis; at Th_Prsrv, a restaurant just outside Houston that celebrates Indigenous Thai and Indigenous American cuisine, the beans feature in a thoughtful interpretation of the Three Sisters.

For culinary historian Sarah Lohman, author of the recent book “Endangered Eating,” this work can be a vehicle for cultural understanding: “You can often connect with local communities in a way that you wouldn’t have otherwise,” she says. And creating appetites for heritage foods is by no means an impossible task. “It’s a very simple thing of putting an idea in someone’s head,” Lohman suggests. “One box of dates, one bag of rice, one pint of cider — those are all successes to me, because that means that some small producer is being supported and doing something that they love.”

Feeling inspired by the “eat it to save it” approach? Here are a few Ark of Taste ingredients you can use in your kitchen:

Squash from New York

Chef and restaurateur Fabrizio Facchini, a member of the Cooks’ Alliance, has been a longtime slow food advocate in both his native Italy and his current home of New York City. He features the Long Island Cheese pumpkin, a native squash variety, in a risotto recipe for the recent “Ark of Taste” book, pointing out that this winter squash gets its name not from its taste, but rather its appearance — the round, flattened squashes cultivated by Indigenous peoples across the Northeast looked, to colonists, like wheels of cheese. Still, the earthy richness does pair well with sharp cheeses like Parmigiano Reggiano.

Pork from Georgia

The origin story of the Ossabaw Island hog is one for the history books: Spanish colonists, anticipating shipwrecks, purposefully populated various deserted islands in the Americas with pigs that could provide food for future stranded sailors. Among those islands was one off the coast of Georgia, where the descendants of those Iberian black pigs have been roaming for up to 500 years. The hogs of Ossabaw Island have evolved to be smaller but with a high percentage of body fat, making their meat great for barbecue and charcuterie and earning them the praise of chefs like Tom Colicchio. The island itself is now a nature preserve, but in past decades small numbers of the critically endangered breed were brought to the mainland — populations now stewarded and sold by small farms in the region.

Beans from the Southwest

Rancho Gordo founder Steve Sando literally wrote the book on beans and has spread the gospel of the globally beloved crop for years. He describes Christmas Lima beans, a colorful, mottled American variety popular in the Southwestern U.S., as a “gateway bean.” Brought to the U.S. from Peru in the 19th century, Lima beans are a different species from the common bean, Sando explains, offering a slightly vegetal flavor; the Christmas variety is more substantial, more savory, less “cloying sweet” than its Lima relatives. Sando has a hearty recipe that pairs the meaty beans with an elegantly sweet gorgonzola sauce.

Experts: Trump lawyers “went too far” — but Stormy Daniels testimony may give them ammo for appeal

Adult film star and director Stormy Daniels provided graphic detail in her 2006 sexual encounter with Trump during her testimony Tuesday in Manhattan – but legal experts say whether the tryst ever happened is irrelevant to prosecutors' case and that Daniels' explicit testimony could provide fodder for Trump's appeal.

"Whether they had sex and the details of that encounter, doesn't matter to the central question of whether he falsified payments, and whether he did it to win the election," Fordham Law School professor Cheryl Bader told Salon.

"Even if even if she made up the whole story, it doesn't give Trump license to violate campaign finance rules," Bader said.

Bader said prosecutors likely wanted to pump up the veracity of Daniels' story to make it easier for jurors to believe that Trump was trying to cover something up.

Prosecutors probably felt they could "sell the case better" if jurors believe the affair actually happened "rather than Daniels was making it up," Bader said. "What's relevant is that Trump was consumed with making sure the American people would never hear it, and therefore wouldn't believe it."

But in doing so, Bader warns that prosecutors may have given Trump ammo for an appeal, if he's convicted.

"I think they made a choice to try to bolster her credibility, but it's at the risk of creating evidentiary issues on appeal," Bader said. 

In cross-examination Tuesday, Trump lawyer Susan Necheles grilled Daniels about her memoir and her ire for Trump in a bid to impugn her credibility in front of jurors.

In response to Necheles’ questions, Daniels said she hates Trump, that she has tweeted about him landing in jail and that she refuses to pay $500,000 in legal fees she was ordered to pay Trump by a court.

Trump and his lawyers have sought to portray Daniels as an extortionist out to get Trump.

But Chris Truax, an appellate lawyer in San Diego who has served as a legal advisor for the Republican Accountability Project, said that Trump's team asked Daniels so many questions that it provided her the opportunity to refute them.

"The defense went after Stormy Daniels' credibility quite hard," Truax said. "And I think that that was a decision driven more by their client's demand than by legal strategy. Simply because whether or not she's telling the truth isn't something that the prosecution has got to establish. So going after Stormy Daniels, it's kind of a sideshow in terms of the charges and, in fact, the defense kind of went too far in their leading questions."

Truax said that Necheles would "ask one question too many in a lot of cases where Stormy Daniels would say, 'False. That's not true.'"

"I don't think there was anything in there that made anybody on the jury more sympathetic to Donald Trump," Truax said. "So from a purely tactical standpoint, it's not a win for the defense."

Truax said if Trump did not deny the tryst with Daniels, he wouldn't have given prosecutors room to drag out unwanted details and try to bolster her version of events. 

"If Donald Trump had stipulated that: 'Yeah, the affair happened. I'm not proud of it, but it happened,' then the defense probably would have been able to put a lot more limits on what Stormy Daniels was able to testify to," Truax said.

We need your help to stay independent

During direct questioning, Judge Juan Merchan himself issued an objection as Daniels offered lengthy and explicit testimony on her interactions with Trump – including claiming that Trump was blocking the door following their tryst and that she “blacked out” during the act.

Merchan touched on Daniels’ own credibility issues when he agreed to allow prosecutors to ask Daniels limited details about the sexual act. He's said he'll provide jury with instructions about how they can and cannot use evidence provided in trial. 

“I agree with you that she’s got some credibility issues… so it’s more important for the people to establish some information,” Merchan said.

The judge, however, denied Trump's lawyers’ latest request for a mistrial, and said the defense should have objected more. Trump's lawyers, in response, said they had made a general objection to Daniels testifying about the sexual act before she began. 

Daniels also shared that Trump didn't use a condom, and she provided the name of the sexual position they used.

"The encounter is not completely irrelevant to the prosecution's theory of the case," Bader said. "The payments were directly related to the sexual affair. So there is some relevance there."


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


But, Bader said, "there was a lot of the evidence that came in was probably more prejudicial than probative, which is the standard for admissibility."

Prejudicial evidence is unnecessary information that can unfairly impact a case, while probative evidence can prove a relevant fact. 

"There's relevance or some relevance to this testimony, but there's also the risk that it confuses the issue for the jury, and it sort of demeans the defendant and might inadvertently become used as character evidence," Bader said.

Bader said the defense team's apparent lack of objections could also end up hurting their appeal.

"The judge on his own admonished the witness at times to simply answer the questions," Bader said.

"You don't want to create appellate issues, if you can avoid it, and I think that these could have been fairly easily avoided," Bader said.

Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, with prosecutors saying that audio recordings, internal business records and witness testimony prove he was scheming to kill damaging stories ahead of his 2016 campaign in violation of state and federal election law and state tax law. Each count is punishable by up to four years behind bars. 

Trump denies those charges, as well as the affairs. 

This week, prosecutors have begun to focus on those 34 pieces of paper — including checks and invoices — that they allege shows how Trump paid off Daniels and tried to cover up that payment by falsifying business records. 

On Monday, former Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney testified that he was told Trump was reimbursing Cohen for an unknown reason. McConney said former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allan Weisselberg told him the payments should be “grossed up” to help cover Cohen’s state, federal and city taxes. 

McConney also said that nine of 11 checks to Cohen came from Trump's personal account, that Trump signed the checks from the Oval Office, and that the accounting department labeled the payments as “legal expenses.”

Truax said that Daniels did provide evidence in her testimony that she got paid — but, he added, prosecutors could have established that without having her testify.

Daniels is back in court Thursday.

How “Baby Reindeer” empowered trans actor Nava Mau to play a woman so “entitled to her own emotions”

The "Baby Reindeer" cast on Tuesday at the Directors Guild of America in Los Angeles chatted about their experience starring in Netflix's wildly popular limited series, and Nava Mau is no exception.

The transgender actress, who plays the love interest to Richard Gadd's Donny Dunn — a flailing comedian who is stalked by a woman (Jessica Gunning) — said she was immediately captivated by the script. “I stayed up all night and I started journaling about it,” she said, per The Hollywood Reporter. “It really kind of found a place in my mind and in my heart and never left."

In the series, Teri (Mau) is the character who is the most honest with herself and sets clear boundaries about how she would be treated. That means despite her attraction to and sympathy for Donny, she also sees how his emotional issues don't serve her in a relationship.

“I had no idea that I internalized so much anger and that I shut it down," Mau continued. "As a trans woman, as a Latina woman, I have had to do that in order to survive, in order to make my way into the world as far as I have, it’s kind of been my responsibility to take care of other people’s emotions. It was so difficult and challenging, honestly, to play a character who felt so entitled to her own emotions and was not too concerned about taking care of other people’s emotions. That was very empowering for me to get in tune with my body again.”

 

 

“Fani Willis messed up badly”: Appeals court deals another blow to Trump’s Georgia election case

The Georgia Court of Appeals has further delayed Donald Trump’s election interference case in the state, revisiting the question of whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be removed for alleged misconduct.

In a Wednesday filing, the court granted an interlocutory appeal to the former president's legal team, allowing them to argue once again that Willis should be removed from the case. Trump's legal team has 10 days to file a notice to appeal.

The case, concerning Trump's effort to get Georgia officials to change the results of the state’s 2020 election, has faced a tumultuous path since the DA’s office launched an investigation more than three years ago.

Willis has faced significant scrutiny for her relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade, which Trump lawyers argued created a conflict of interest. Earlier this year, experts also warned that her continued comments on the case, even after a judge ruled she shouldn’t be tossed, posed a threat to the continued prosecution of the case. For example, Willis' remarks on cable news  that "the train is coming" –could be construed as violating the requirement that public comments on a case be limited to those that serve a "legitimate law enforcement purpose," per Georgia attorney Andrew Fleischman,

The Georgia appeals court made it clear that questions on Willis’s potential misconduct remain unanswered.

University of Georgia Constitutional Law professor Anthony Michael Kreis put it bluntly in a post to X: “Fani Willis messed up badly.”

According to Kreis, delays have pushed the case on Donald Trump’s 2020 efforts to interfere in the Georgia presidential race to beyond the upcoming election, allowing him to stand for re-election despite criminal allegations in his conduct in the last race. 

“There will be no Georgia trial before 2025. Period. Full stop,” Kreis added

“It is entirely possible that the Manhattan case is the only one that makes it to verdict before the election,” Attorney Bradley P. Moss wrote on X, referencing ongoing proceedings on the 2015 incident, where Trump allegedly tried to interfere in that election by making hush money payments to bury a damaging story.

As legal analyst Anna Bower noted, the legal challenge opens questions broader than Willis’s disqualification, which Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee ruled against in March.

“One major consequence of this decision: The defendants can now use their disqualification appeal as a hook to add a bunch of other issues to the appeal (i.e., Judge McAfee’s denial of the defendants’ challenge to the RICO charge),” Bower wrote on X.

Judge McAfee, who ruled Willis did not have a clear conflict of interest, said that the “appearance of impropriety” could be remedied by removing Wade from the case. Some legal experts said this remedy didn’t go far enough, including Federalist Society attorney Will Chamberlain.

“Judge McAfee's ruling was logically incoherent,” Chamberlain said on X. “I strongly suspect that the Georgia Court of Appeals will reverse Judge McAfee and throw Willis and her office off the case.”

Trump’s broad strategy of delaying efforts to hold him accountable until after the 2024 election has paid off in numerous jurisdictions, with the Supreme Court currently holding up a federal inquiry into Trump’s actions on January 6 via arguments on presidential immunity.

The Georgia case is the second Trump trial to face similar delays this week, with federal Judge Aileen Cannon indefinitely postponing a Florida case involving Trump’s mishandling of classified documents.

But some don't think all hope is lost, such as attorney Jefferey Evan Gold, who argues that the appeal won’t necessarily stop proceedings from taking place.

“Judge McAfee said he was moving on with case ‘regardless of whether the petition is granted … and even if any subsequent appeal is expedited by the appellate court,’” Gold wrote on X, adding that the appeals court would actually need to stay the case to stop McAfee from moving forward.

Are natural flavors better than artificial?

One year for my birthday, when I was a kid, my grandma gifted me a red velvet bag of deluxe jelly beans.

The flavors ranged from the standard raspberry and peach to the kinds of flavors most people spend their lives actively trying to avoid, like rotten egg and “barf.” I loved poring over the attached flavor guide, matching the pictures to the candies spread out on the kitchen table in front of me and offering my brother the strangest flavors I could find without telling him he was about to eat a booger-flavored jelly bean. I wondered how it was possible to capture the essence of green apple or cantaloupe in the form of a tiny, plastic-y candy. As it turns out, it’s complicated.

“Flavor comes from millions and millions of chemicals inherent in our food and drink,” says Catherine Piccoli, curatorial director at the Museum of Food and Drink in Brooklyn, New York. Each of these is able to “trigger our chemical senses,” she says — “smell, taste, sight, touch, hearing.”

Flavor chemicals can be found in whole foods, like fruit, vegetables and meat. But food scientists can also play with them and find new ways of deriving them to help companies create processed foods like dill pickle-flavored potato chips or cherry soda — or, as it happens, barf-flavored jelly beans. Those distinctive or innovative taste profiles typically come from both natural and artificial flavors. But what actually are they? And how do they line up with the “real” thing?

 

The process of taste-making

“Many, but not all, artificial flavors are chemically identical to natural ones,” says Arielle Johnson, a flavor scientist and author of the new book “Flavorama: A Guide to Unlocking the Art and Science of Flavor.” In many cases, the only difference is where they come from.

“Natural flavors come from a food source,” Johnson explains — but what food source, exactly, it doesn’t matter. “So that could be orange oil pressed from orange peels, but it could also be, like, a molecule that smells like a grape extracted from some kind of a non-grape herb, then marketed as a grape flavor.”

Artificial flavors, on the other hand, are simply flavors derived from non-food ingredients. Chemically processed wood pulp, for example, can be used to create flavor molecules that are chemically identical to those in vanilla. “There’s no real difference there with how they interact with the body, and the body can’t tell if something is a natural or artificial flavor,” Johnson adds. “There’s no unique or universal chemical signal for ‘artificial.’”

 

What’s in a name?

So why would a company choose one kind of flavor over another? Sometimes, it comes down to the price tag. “Artificial flavors have fewer restraints around them, so they tend to be cheaper,” Johnson explains. But some artificial flavors are easier to make than others: Vanilla flavoring, she says, gets its characteristic flavor from a single compound, vanillin. The flavor of strawberry, on the other hand, can’t be attributed to only one molecule; instead, chemists may need to use five or six to capture the complexity of the fruit and mimic its true flavor.

There are also incentives to using natural flavors, even though they tend to be more expensive. Most consumers don’t understand the difference between natural and artificial flavors, but they may feel like the word “natural” has a positive connotation that’s worth paying more for. “The word ‘natural’ is there to make buyers think the food is the real thing, whether or not it really is,” says food scholar Marion Nestle, author of “Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health.” Often, she explains, “people who care about such things do not like the term ‘artificial’ and avoid foods with artificial ingredients.”

Companies are responding accordingly. “Many companies are removing artificial flavors from their products in response to consumer demand for more natural foods,” explains Piccoli. “This doesn’t mean added flavors have disappeared. As technology becomes more sophisticated, the flavor industry is making more flavors that can be labeled ‘natural.’”

Still, Nestle thinks there is a limit: “Flavors in foods are complex, and the synthetic ones cannot approach that complexity.”

Jennifer Boggiss, CEO and cofounder of Heilala Vanilla, agrees. “When you are drying your vanilla beans, part of your sort of quality control is you can do a vanillin test to see what the vanillin level in your vanilla,” she told FoodPrint in the most recent episode of our podcast, “What You’re Eating.” But that doesn’t mean vanillin alone will capture the bean’s entire essence: “A vanilla bean has over 200 flavor compounds, of which vanillin is one.”

 

Are flavor additives cause for concern?

Natural flavors are the fourth-most common ingredient in packaged foods, but that doesn’t mean foods labeled “naturally flavored” are what most of us would think of as natural. According to David Andrews, senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, natural and artificial flavors alike are combined with other chemicals that work to keep molecules separate — which helps preserve their chemical structure, and therefore, functionality of flavor — and prevent spoilage. “These other chemical solvents or preservatives do not need to be naturally derived, even in [foods with] natural flavor,” he says.

Still, is one kind of flavoring better for us than the other? “There is little information differentiating the safety between natural and artificial flavors,” Andrews explains. In fact, he says, there are unanswered questions about both: “A major concern with flavors and other food additives is that the food industry can self-determine the safety of added ingredients without oversight from the Food and Drug Administration.”

Johnson notes that, regardless of health concerns about the flavors themselves, these additives can be used as a “smokescreen” to make highly processed foods appear more palatable or pure. For example, she says, “most orange juice is made by totally removing the aromas from orange juice, then adding orange flavoring back to the juice to make it taste like oranges again.” Practices like this, Johnson adds, can be an issue of informed consent if consumers don’t truly understand what they’re eating.

Andrews echoes the observation about the role of flavor in processed foods: “Both natural and artificial flavors change or modify the taste of a product in a way that is designed to make you want to consume more.” And when you consume more of a food, you buy more of it, too.

 

The case for flavor

Though flavor additives, both natural and artificial, may largely be used to coax us into buying and consuming more processed foods, there is another part of the story: They can help more people experience flavors that would otherwise be out of reach.

“Added flavors can certainly democratize the flavors of luxury ingredients,” says Piccoli. “They can also be used to create flavors of ingredients facing global shortages due to unprecedented consumption, climate change, political upheaval and crop disease.” As climate concerns and political instability continue to impact yields and supply chains, additives could play a more important role in our food system. But even today, food additives are ubiquitous — and avoiding them is difficult.

“The flavor industry and the industrial food system grew up together, and added flavors are integral to processed and packaged foods,” Piccoli adds. “When we demonize added flavors, we are demonizing nearly all packaged foods, which can have their place as quick and convenient sources of food and nutrition.” It’s possible to think critically about the industrial food system without shaming those whose diets include flavor additives, many of whom must rely on processed foods for economic or geographic reasons. After all, it’s not really the flavors that are the problem.

I don’t know whether the jelly beans in that velvet bag were naturally or artificially flavored. It likely doesn’t make a difference — you can’t really eat a food more processed than a packaged jelly bean. But I’ll never forget the thrill of experiencing what seemed like a world of different flavors, some familiar, some completely new.

With “Hind’s Hall” Macklemore finally delivers an allyship effort that isn’t embarrassing

Macklemore is corny. People have been saying that for years. His corniness worked when “Thrift Shop,” his megahit with Ryan Lewis, put them on the global map in 2012.

It was less acceptable when the duo strutted off with Grammys for best new artist, best rap song and best rap performance for “Thrift Shop,” along with beating Drake, Jay-Z, the artist formerly known as Kanye West and Kendrick Lamar to take home best rap album for “The Heist.”

Even Macklemore knew better, while also suspecting that letting the world know he agreed with most hip-hop fans that Lamar should have won might be worth something. He was right. It earned a headline-generating diss from Drake in Rolling Stone and made him the modern poster child for Black music appropriation.

That image was not ameliorated in 2016 with the release of the nearly nine-minute “White Privilege II,” an unlistenable corn-cob stab in the auditory canal doubling as a rumination on the Movement for Black Lives.

The thing about corniness, though, is that it is in some respects unassailable, especially when at its core is an effort to be better and do better. Corny folks tend to be honest and earnest in their aims, and the best don’t care what people think.

This is the general impression of the rapper whose government name is Ben Haggerty. He means well, regardless of the overall impression that his lyrical skills are mediocre and his backing tracks flaccid. Macklemore may be to hip-hop what fellow Seattleite Kenny G is to jazz, but it should not go unnoticed that he and the saxophonist share another key commonality: the ears and hearts of white folks who claim to love their versions of jazz and rap, and who may also think Charles Mingus is a medical condition and J. Cole manufactures sensible footwear.

“Hind’s Hall” won’t change that . . . much.

Sure, it’s generating a little heat due to the artist jamming a Drake swipe in there, along with announcing that he’s not voting for Joe Biden in November.

Plus, the idea of Macklemore of all people being congratulated for spitting “white supremacy is finally on blast” when Black artists have been railing against it for decades to little notice among the dominant culture is its own exhibition of white supremacy at work. The same logic had white liberals swooning over Eminem freestyling an anti-Trump tirade during BET’s Hip Hop Awards telecast in 2017.

The thing about corniness is that it is in some respects unassailable.

But the level of Macklemore’s artistry on the pro-Palestinian protest track dropped Monday hasn’t even entered the chat and probably doesn’t need to. It’s the fact that it exists at all and goes as hard as it does – again, by Macklemore standards – that is noteworthy.

Borrowing its title from the name Columbia protesters assigned to Hamilton Hall in remembrance of six-year-old Hind Rajab, whom Israeli military forces killed in February, “Hind’s Hall” is both an activist anthem and a classic Macklemore breakdown for his white fans who don’t understand why college students are making so much trouble. Lines like, “The problem isn’t the protests, it’s what they’re protesting/ It goes against what our country is funding,” are directed toward them.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C6o4830yMvE/?hl=en

Much of “Hind’s Hall” isn’t for that constituency, though. Macklemore plugs into a ferocity reminiscent of ‘90s hip-hop anthems, to which he tips his hat by namedropping N.W.A.’s Ice Cube and Eazy-E. He expands his aim to decry the government and corporate power structures stifling dissent by, among other tactics, equating anti-Zionism to antisemitism (“I’ve seen Jewish brothers and sisters out there and ridin’ in/ Solidarity and screamin’ ‘Free Palestine’ with them”) and citing the U.S. government’s unequally applied standards when it comes to global military intervention (Who gets the right to defend and who gets the right of resistance/ Has always been about dollars and the color of your pigment”).

But the track’s harshest beatdown is reserved for a final verse indicting the music industry’s silence.

We need your help to stay independent

“What happened to the artist? What d’you got to say?/ If I was on a label, you could drop me today,” he rhymes, before asking a few lines later, “What you willin’ to risk? What you willin’ to give?/ What if you were in Gaza? What if those were your kids?”

Progressives can’t be faulted for wishing for a better allyship option. Macklemore’s drop was met with the reminder that in 2014 he appeared at a Seattle show in a getup resembling an antisemitic propaganda cartoon. He apologized, claiming the costume was his effort to create a disguise from a mishmash of second-hand Halloween gear. (It’s stunning that nobody warned him that his prosthetic nose and beard combo might be misinterpreted.)

Still, the positive response dominating the opening round of the “Hind’s Hall” discourse is assisted massively by a thumbs up from the likes of Rage Against the Machine’s frontman Tom Morello, who posted on X, “Honestly @macklemore’s “Hind’s Hall” is the most Rage Against The Machine song since Rage Against The Machine.”

With “Hind’s Hall” Macklemore presently has the hip-hop summer protest anthem market cornered.

There’s an atypical righteous fury burning through “Hind’s Hall,” augmented by the mindful signaling provided by the artist’s looping a sample from the song “Ana La Habibi” by the Lebanese singer Fairuz, a passionate advocate for the Palestinian people.

Joining Morello’s endorsement are endless admissions from folks that Macklemore’s drop isn’t one they would have seen coming a decade ago. Back then few blinked at the fact that nearly every major hip-hop star was signed to a label that is now under the umbrella of Universal Music Group, whose CEO Lucian Grainge is a supporter of Friends of the Israel Defense Forces.

Right now more people are obsessed with Drake and Lamar’s feud than questioning why neither has been more vocal about the Palestinians’ plight beyond signing an industry-generated letter calling for a ceasefire last fall. DJ Khaled’s social media silence on the matter is especially noticeable since he’s the son of Palestinian immigrants. All of them work for Universal-backed labels. Could that have something to do with it?

Macklemore has long released music as an independent, although pushing “Thrift Shop” into constant radio rotation more than a decade ago was achieved with hefty assistance from Warner Music Group. Regardless, with “Hind’s Hall” Macklemore presently has the hip-hop summer protest anthem market cornered.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


The question is how many people will buy it and keep on bumping it. Where there may not have been much of an urgency to absorb his perfectly acceptable 2023 release “Ben” into our cells, proceeds from this track’s sales will be donated to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, the artist says.

But this circles back to questions of structure and flow. The stickiest protest songs have hooks and refrains that concisely summarize the stakes. That includes everything from Public Enemy’s eternal banger “Fight the Power” to Johnniqua Charles’ 2020 Internet meme “You About to Lose Your Job,” remixed into a dance hit built out of nothing but a looped refrain freestyled by an inebriated woman being detained by a security guard. “Hind’s Hall” does not.

“White Privilege II” suffered the same problem magnified nine-fold, along with evoking the quality about Macklemore that is both his superpower and his Kryptonite: despite his best intentions and progressive messaging, he’ll always struggle with the notion that his music is less intended for the groups he’s supporting than white listeners who are more comfortable hearing about their struggles from him.

“It’s undeniably admirable for a famous pop music figure to use his/her work to foreground a social issue. But it’s not an artist’s job to be admirable,” wrote music critic Sean Nelson in The Stranger, Seattle’s alternative biweekly, in his 2016 analysis of that track. To him, “White Privilege II” was “a brazen effort to be approved of.”

Later Nelson unclenches his hypothetical other hand to wonder aloud, “[W]hat about that nine-year-old in Sheboygan whose parents talk about Sandra Bland like she must have done something to deserve whatever she got? . . . You can’t leave that kid out of the equation when thinking about this song, because that kid is almost certainly the target audience of this song, just as moderately homophobic swing voters were the target of ‘Same Love.’

It is, as Nelson points out, a famous white rapper using his privilege and platform to start conversations about injustices baked into our society. Those went nowhere because the song was a stinker.

“Hind’s Hall” at least clears that hurdle in a shorter runtime while channeling our collective outrage into rhymes and direct monetary action. It may not turn Macklemore’s image around completely for some, but you have to hand it to him for grilling up a legitimately spicy cut, and for the first time in a long while.

 

 

Meghan McCain stokes claims that Trump and Biden had plastic surgery

Meghan McCain on the latest episode of her "Citizen McCain" podcast attempted to debunk widespread speculation that each of the likely 2024 presidential nominees has at some point gone under the knife, cosmetically speaking. 

McCain, daughter of the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and her co-host Miranda Wilkins addressed the yearslong conspiracy theories that both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have undergone cosmetic modifications. Referring to Biden's recent appearance on "The Howard Stern Show," Wilkins stated that his "face looks like it's been stretched within an inch of his life," she and McCain both noted how Trump's hairline has long been a topic of debate. 

McCain invited Dr. Anthony Youn, whom she observed to be the "most followed plastic surgeon on TikTok and YouTube" onto her show to analyze each politician's past procedures, opening Youn's segment by asking him directly if he believed either man had work done. 

"Yes. I think both of them have had work done, and I think President Biden has had a bit more than President Trump," Youn said, though he acknowledged that he doesn't believe either of them had any major work done during their respective tenures in the White House.

"They’re way too high profile," he added. "I get celebrities coming to see me asking for surgery and I’m like, ‘Look, people are going to notice. They look at you every day and if you have a little skin taken out from your eyelid or get a little facelift, they’re gonna notice right away.’”

Starting with Biden, Youn acknowledged that public speculation regarding his appearance is well-founded, asserting that "he is different!"

"So the first sign is really the hair. That was the first thing I think he had done. Back in ’83, it appears he had hair plugs. Now the hair transplants of today are very different than what they were back then. Now when we do hair transplants we will literally transplant one to two hair follicles at a time. So it can be very hard to tell if it’s been done," Youn said.

He continued: "But back in the ‘80s when he had it done — I think he had one done in ’83 and then possibly a second one in ’93 — they were hair plugs. They were sort of what you’d see in the heads of dolls. And so you can actually see, when you look at old photos of him from the ‘80s and ‘90s, you can see these little plugs of three to five hairs at a time at his hairline probably taken from the back of his head. Because the actual crown is very very thin, but he does have a full hairline in the front, and that was definitely changed over the years."

We need your help to stay independent

Youn then explained the hair transplant process, noting how small incisions are made to add new hair follicles in their desired location, "and you just plant them like you’re planting seeds, planting a tree essentially."

"It's is a tedious operation and you do need to hide out for quite a while," the doctor clarified. "I don’t think he’s had this done anytime recently, although I do think he’s had some surgery done in the fairly recent past."

Regarding other hypothetical modifications Biden may have had, Youn said he feels "very strongly" that Biden had upper and lower eyelid surgery. 

"Back around 2012 or so — sometime when he was either in office or right before he came to office as Vice President, I do believe he had his upper and his lower eyelids done," he stated. "The upper eyelid surgery is removal of excess skin and the lower eyelid surgery is mainly removal of fat. And you can see today, that for a man of his age, he has very little excess skin on his upper eyelids. And he does not have puffy lower eyelids, which he did back in the early 2000s."

The doctor also alleged that Biden likely had a facelift, an alteration Youn feels was confirmed by his changed earlobes, a "telltale sign."

"I believe he had a facelift done, not while he was in office, but in those four years when Trump was in office," Youn said. "And you can look at photos of him closely — there are scars around his ears that are exactly what you see with a facelift. They used to be hanging earlobes, now he has a pixie ear deformity on the right side. That’s when you actually suture the earlobe to the side of the head and the earlobe pulls down … making it look more like an attached one than a detached one."


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


McCain eventually turned to Trump, citing his appearance at a Mar-a-Lago fundraising event over the weekend, saying, "I can't tell if it's just good lighting or Facetune." 

Youn claimed that he doesn't believe the former president's dabbling plastic surgeries is "nearly as much as Joe Biden."

However, he did acknowledged that "it does appear that around 1980 is when he first had hair transplants, because just like Joe his hairline changed and his forehead shortened."

"But I do believe — and this was actually corroborated by Ivana Trump, she gave a deposition at a trial — saying that Donald had a forehead, scalp type of surgery," he added. "You can literally do a rotation where you take skin and scalp from the back of the head and you rotate it up to the front of the head to create a new hairline."

"And that’s why if you ever see him pull his hair back up front, it’s like a very straight line," Youn said. "If you look really closely, my guess is you would see a scar there. My guess is that’s why he wears his hair the way he does. The other thing is that the direction his hair goes is kind of odd. It’s not likely a typical direction that hair flows — it kind of goes in different directions and he has it combed a certain way. I do believe that when you rotate that scalp from the back to the front, it changes the direction of your hair."

For Trump, Youn said, "it's all in the hair."

"I also think he had some liposuction on his chin done around 1990, also corroborated by Ivana at some type of a deposition as well," he said. "But other than that I don’t actually think he’s had actual plastic surgery. I don’t think he’s had a facelift — he’s got a pretty darn heavy neck. He hasn’t had his lower eyelids done – he’s got really heavy lower eyelid with a lot of puffiness — the only thing he may have had done is his upper eyes, but I don’t see time in the past where his upper eyelids have changed … I f he were to have a facelift, his neckline would look much better than it does. He does not have a sharp neckline — that’s what a facelift does."

Youn concluded by observing, "I think honestly we’re dealing with two very image conscious men, and I would guess to maybe even a bit narcissistic men. And so they’re very into their appearance. I think we all know that Trump is — you can see he doesn’t mind people knowing that. But I think that’s something Joe Biden has really flown under the radar a bit. People haven’t really talked about it. But Joe likes to look good."

Fine dining has embraced the hot dog

One of my all-time favorite food memories is going to The Hot Grill (and its now-defunct sister restaurant, The Rascal House) with my dad and brother. My brother and I would often bring our own Mountain Dews from home — do not ask me why — scoot into one of the corner booths under the TV, and settle in as our dad went to the counter to order our food. 

The Hot Grill, a real local stalwart burger-and-dog “joint” with fervent, voracious fans, specializes in deep-fried hot dogs “all the way,” with their traditional, secret recipe chili sauce, chopped onions and yellow mustard. 

The people who work the counter have their own parlance, shouting over the din of the restaurant to the cooks in the back, frantically cooking up tons of food for the enormous amount of customers always packed into the eatery. My dad would then round the corner with tons of food stacked atop styrofoam platters and we’d all eat up, happily dipping and dunking, drowning in used napkins to clean our chili-sauce-streaked-fingers. 

As a child, I sneered at this, instead opting for their amazing cheeseburgers with the same sauce, often with onion rings and fries and my Mountain Dew (I’d sometimes also opt for their papaya milkshake because I thought it was such a unique offering at a New Jersey hot dog place). But at some point in my teenage years, I thought I'd try a hot dog "all the way" — and I haven't looked back since.

Of course, I absolutely love them on the grill in the height of summer. In the 90s, my mom would serve us macaroni-and-sprinkle-cheese with sliced hot dogs and that became a cherished weeknight meal. She also used to bring us home "Italian hot dogs," which were standard hot dogs in big, fluffy buns with fried potato rounds, peppers and onions. They were stellar. 

For years, though, I think I was still dismissive of hot dogs, thinking of them as a “lower” protein option, but when I think of their presence in my life and in my meals, I realized their importance. Coincidentally, as I’ve grown to really appreciate the hot dog, so has the broader culinary world. 

For instance, the most recent "Top Chef" episode featured hot dogs in a starring role — and both hot dog dishes were declared two of the best of the week. Cheftestant Soo's, inspired by a Korean corn dog, was a french-fry-battered hot dog with wasabi and jalapeño mayo. Meanwhile, competitor Danny served a bacon-wrapped hot dog with cabbage and beet relish. Soo came out on top, but the judges all agreed that Danny’s was excellent, too. The notion of hot dogs celebrated on "Top Chef" may at first seem contradictory — but it shouldn't. 

We need your help to stay independent

Of course, let’s be clear: Hot dogs are not a prime protein choice. That said, they also inherently contain a certain iconography and nostalgia. Take for example the magical allure of a NYC hot dog cart: the steam, the sauerkraut, the relish, the gigantic jugs of ketchup and mustard, the soft, pliable, warmed rolls. 

So to place hot dogs in a “fine dining” context has an inherent high-brow-low brow dichotomy that many have enjoyed tinkering with in recent years, at both high-end restaurants, mom-and-pop stores, hifalutin hot dog carts and more.

One particular example is courtesy of the (unfortunately now-closed) Mischka, Alex Stupak's Midtown restaurant, which garnered scads of coverage and lots of chatter over its $29 hot dog, complete with headlines like Robert Sietsema's “I Hate That I Loved the $29 Hot Dog,” published in Eater in May of last year. "To Stupak’s credit, the hot dog exudes a pungent hot dog taste,” Sietsema wrote. “There are no extraneous flavors here, no duding up of the dog with funny ingredients or novel cooking methods. This frank has not been Cryovaced, nor is there a speck of ketchup in sight." 

Stupak's hot dog instead came with "an artist's palette of sauces," which the diner could then decide on how to use. Sietsema also wrote that "it refused to lie flat, glistening with fat in its snappy natural casing, crammed into a freshly baked potato bun of perfect fleecy texture and density. It’s giant." At the New York Times, Pete Wells called it “a highbrow-lowbrow stunt right out of Jeff Koons, it’s the star dish at one of the year’s most inventive restaurants.”

Speaking of highbrow-lowbrow stunts, there’s a story restaurateur Will Guidara, who was the co-owner and operator of Eleven Madison Park at the time, likes to tell, including in a 2022 TedTalk. It’s about how he once “overheard a table of food-obsessed vacationers lamenting the fact that despite going to all of the city’s finest restaurants, they hadn’t had time to get a regular New York hot dog." 


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


So, Guidara decided to actually run outside, buy a hot dog for $2 and serve it to the table at one of the world’s most celebrated restaurants so they could have that iconic experience. Guidara said “No one had ever reacted to anything I served them better than they reacted to that hot dog." 

While writing this up, I thought of a hot dog that I believe I once ate at a restaurant. It had a pillowy, very tall brioche bun filled with some sort of savory cream to “anchor” the hot dog atop it. It was then decorated in dollops of various colorful sauces, purees and aiolis and then garnished with Brunoised and pickled vegetables, fresh herbs and the like. I realize now that I may have possibly just inexplicably conjured this image in my head? Who knows — but it sure sounds good.

So no matter if you want a chili dog, a NYC dog, a simple boiled hot dog, or you want to try out a plant-based version in your air fryer, the hot dog is a humble protein that deserves lots of respect. 

Abortion restrictions increase risk of intimate partner homicide, study finds

A new study published by scientists at Tulane University in Louisiana found that pregnant women in anti-abortion states face an increased likelihood of experiencing intimate partner homicide. Since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which provided Americans with the constitutional right to access abortion care, more states have enacted TRAP laws, which stands for targeted regulation of abortion providers. According to Guttmacher Institute, 23 states in the U.S. have laws or policies that regulate abortion providers.

In the study, published in the peer-reviewed health care journal Health Affairs, researchers looked at data from 2014 to 2020 to observe the connection between anti-abortion laws and intimate partner violence before Dobbs. Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant and postpartum women in the United States. The researchers found that the enforcement of one TRAP law was linked to a 3.4 percent increase in the rate of intimate partner violence-related homicides.

“We estimated that 24.3 intimate partner violence–related homicides of women and girls ages 10–44 were associated with TRAP laws implemented in the states and years included in this analysis," the researchers wrote. “Assessment of policies that restrict access to abortion should consider their potential harm to reproductive-age women through the risk for violent death.”

“The Contestant”: The 9 wildest moments from Hulu’s documentary about Japan’s extreme reality show

"I have always wanted to make people laugh. But there is a difference between making people laugh and being laughed at."

This is what Nasubi, a Japanese actor and comedian, tells viewers in a new documentary about the 15 months he spent naked in isolation, entering magazine sweepstakes to earn food. His ordeal, lasting from January 1998-April 1999, was broadcast to millions of people for the nascent and massively popular Japanese reality show, "Susunu! Denpa Shonen.”

Clair Titley's "The Contestant," which saw its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2023, was released on Hulu on May 2. The documentary traces more than a year in the life of the 22-year-old Tomoaki Hamatsu, better known as Nasubi, who leaves his home in rural Fukushima to pursue a career in entertainment in Tokyo. It's there that he entered a challenge segment of "Denpa Shonen" called "A Life in Prizes." 

"A Life in Prizes" is something of a predecessor to "The Truman Show" starring Jim Carrey, which was not released until later that year. "The Contestant" draws on archival footage of what audiences saw in real time, week to week: an unclothed, starving Nasubi's every movement captured on camera, which he was told would only potentially be aired once the challenge had concluded. The documentary also features exclusive interviews with Nasubi, his mother and sister, and Toshio Tsuchiya, the producer of “Susunu! Denpa Shonen" and the mastermind behind the game's deeply unsettling and strange premise. 

Here are the most unbelievable moments from "The Contestant":

01
Nasubi's showbiz dreams stemmed from being bullied
The ContestantTomoaki "Nabusi" Hamatsu in "The Contestant" (Disney)
The origin of Nasubi's nickname points to the social challenges he faced growing up. The word nasubi, which means eggplant in Japanese, was attributed to him at a young age by classmates who poked fun at his physically long face.
 
Being bullied made it difficult for Nasubi to make friends . . . until he made them laugh. "I learned as a child that it was the best way to protect myself," Nasubi says of entertaining others. "Maybe when I was six or seven, I noticed that by making people laugh, I could change my situation. That's when I realized my face could be a strength."
 
Towards the end of the documentary, as he speaks about the mental duress he suffered throughout his time alone, Nasubi likens the treatment he received by producing mastermind Tsuchiya and all those involved in "A Life in Prizes" to the bullying he endured as a child. "That people could push others to such limits, plunge them into despair. It's the same with bullying. I realized how cruel people can be."
02
Nasubi never signed a contract for "A Life in Prizes"
The ContestantTomoaki "Nabusi" Hamatsu in "The Contestant" (Disney)
Perhaps one of the more shocking technical aspects of "The Contestant" is the lack of legality in the challenge. Part of this had to do with the ruse used on Nasubi, who was told that the footage would likely not be broadcast. Tsuchiya in the documentary even admits that he lied to Nasubi about his intentions, calling himself "the devil."
 
Given that it was his first genuine foray into the world of comedy and entertainment, Nasubi tells us, he didn't mind being filmed since it would not be aired (or so he thought) .
 
"The reason Nasubi believed Tsuchiya that it wouldn't go on air is because he was so inexperienced," says Seiche Hirai, Nasubi's manager since 1998. "Rather than naive, he was gullible." 
 
Nasubi wasn't merely taken advantage of visually, either. Diaries that he kept throughout the entire duration of his time in isolation were copied and disseminated to the public, allowing viewers of the show to access his private thoughts and feelings. 
03
The eggplant emoji's phallic meaning may relate to Nasubi
The ContestantTomoaki "Nabusi" Hamatsu in "The Contestant" (Disney)
In contemporary times, the eggplant emoji has become colloquially representative of a way to reference male genitalia. According to Juliet Hindell, a former BBC News Correspondent in Tokyo during the 1990s, this meaning may have originated with Nasubi. 
 
Seeing as Nasubi was taped while entirely nude, the production crew for "A Life in Prizes" initially masked his genitalia with a large black dot in the broadcast footage. This method of concealment was quickly swapped for a cartoon eggplant in reference to Nasubi's name, but also which as Hindell points out, "has become parlance for penis."
04
Nasubi nearly succumbs to starvation
The ContestantTomoaki "Nabusi" Hamatsu in "The Contestant" (Disney)
At his peak, Nasubi estimated that he was filling out between 300 and 400 sweepstake postcards per day. In the first week of the show, however, he submitted more than 900 applications to no avail. Unable to collect any prizes on which he was supposed to survive on, Nasubi consumes nearly nothing for a stretch of days. "Obviously we couldn't let him die," Tsuchiya blithely observes, noting how the crew intermittently gave Nasubi crackers to sustain himself. 
 
Throughout "The Contestant," we are given a glimpse into the eclectic array of food and other inedible prizes Nasubi receives: rice that he must cook without a pot, bags of dog food, women's underwear, strawberries, a live lobster, a vacuum cleaner and more. 
05
The heavy toll on Nasubi's mental health
The ContestantTomoaki "Nabusi" Hamatsu in "The Contestant" (Disney)

“Being alienated from human contact for this long makes you absolutely long for human warmth," Nasubi says, acknowledging that he eventually began to feel "robbed of his spirit." 

 

We see clips of him dancing giddily and making silly faces in ostensibly high spirits; however, as Nasubi recounts his experience, it was simply evidence of a steadily unfurling mind, asserting that "being driven to the edge brought out a madness in me."

 

Nasubi's loneliness and emotional turmoil was compounded by the fact that Tsuchiya forbade members of the crew from ever interacting with him. Though the door to his room was never locked, Nasubi shares that over time, he lost the will to escape. "Psychologically you feel that rather than escaping or doing something radical, staying put, not causing trouble is the safest option," he says. "It’s a strange psychological state."

06
Nasubi wins his challenge but is forced into another
The ContestantTomoaki "Nabusi" Hamatsu in "The Contestant" (Disney)
Nasubi's completion of the game was contingent upon his earning one million yen worth of prizes. When he succeeds, Tsuchiya ambushes him while he's asleep with feigned congratulations, before flying him to Korea. Tsuchiya entices Nasubi with Korean barbeque, fresh kimchi and a trip to an amusement park before sending him hurtling back to "rock bottom," in the producer's own words. Nasubi finds himself in yet another room with magazines and postcards, but this time in Korea. Tsuchiya orders Nasubi to strip once more, and over the course of three hours, manages to persuade him to partake in another round of the challenge.
 
It's at this point that Nasubi begins to truly unravel — feeling utterly wracked with loneliness and despair, and certain that death is his only recourse, he even contemplates suicide. Ultimately, he says, "I didn’t have the courage to end my life so I decided to keep going till the end”
07
Tsuchiya tricks Nasubi for one last public hurrah
The ContestantTomoaki "Nabusi" Hamatsu in "The Contestant" (Disney)
Nasubi eventually finishes the Korea challenge, but is unaware of where he is being brought upon his departure from Korea. He fears the worst – that he'll enter into yet another challenge that would extend his isolation and loneliness. Though his trials and tribulations are finally nearing an end, he is wholly unaware of this fact, as he is blindfolded and fitted with earmuffs each time he is removed from his room.
 
Tsuchiya brings him back to the "Denpa Shonen" studios in front of a live crowd, on which a false room that is identical to the one for "A Life in Prizes" is constructed. He leads Nasubi inside, and after he removes his blindfold, automatically strips in resignation and sits down for another sweepstakes challenge. That's when the room's phony walls give way, revealing his true location in front of the laughing audience.
 
While Tsuchiya maintains a smugness around the footage of the show's finale — he tells viewers that he thought it would "go down in history" — Nasubi is visibly stunned. He heartrendingly tells the show's hosts, "My house fell down," an observation that is met by a sea of laughter. 
 
“It was impossible for me to comprehend it all," Nasubi says in "The Contestant." 
08
"I lost my faith in humanity"
The ContestantTomoaki "Nabusi" Hamatsu in "The Contestant" (Disney)
The fallout from the back-to-back challengse is bleak for Nasubi. He recounts how his heart was enduringly "wrapped in loneliness" and how he struggled to interact with others normally. The show, he alleged, did nothing for him in terms of teaching him about the comedic profession.
 
"All I gained from 'A Life in Prizes' were the skills to survive 'A Life in Prizes'," Nasubi says grimly. As for adjusting to his bizarrely and unethically acquired fame, Nasubi states that it was impossible to keep up with people's expectations of what they had seen onscreen. 
 
A "big black hole" is etched in Nasubi's heart as he suffers an existential crisis and grapples with his sense of personhood.
09
Nasubi heals by helping victims of natural disasters
The ContestantTomoaki "Nabusi" Hamatsu in "The Contestant" (Disney)
In 2011, the Tōhoku region of Japan faces a devastating tsunami and radioactive fallout in the wake of a high-magnitude earthquake. Nasubi decides that he wants to climb Mt. Everest in honor of those affected in Fukushima, which is badly hit by the natural disaters. When he embarks on the trip with his mountain guide Kenji Kondo and a hiking group, further calamity strikes. An earthquake in Nepal triggers an avalanche, which pummels the group's base camp and claims the lives of 19 people. 
 
Nasubi escapes unscathed, and elects to remain at the camp for weeks on end to assist in the rescue efforts. “I realized that by helping those around you, you can find deep resources of inner strength,” he says. When Tsuchiya contacts Nasubi and offers to help fund his second attempt at the Everest summit, Nasubi acquiesces, despite still holding a deep-seated resentment toward the producer. As Nasubi discloses in the final minutes of "The Contestant," he feels he gained "something significant" from Tsuchiya and "A Life in Prizes": “I realized that humans cannot exist alone."

"The Contestant" is streaming on Hulu.