Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Supreme Court announces it will hear abortion pill case

The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would issue a ruling on whether a commonly used abortion pill should be widely available. Specifically, the court said that it would review earlier decisions by various appeals courts that held the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) overstepped its authority in broadening access to mifepristone. Although U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas issued a ruling in April to outright revoke the FDA's authorization of mifepristone, the Supreme Court halted that decision the same month.

As a result, mifepristone's availability in the post-Dobbs v. Jackson era has remained unchanged, while lower courts have litigated the matter. President Biden's administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit also issued a decision to curb mifepristone's availability. Much of the movement against mifepristone comes from groups like the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, an organization of anti-abortion activists backed by the Christian right-wing lobbying group Alliance Defending Freedom, which controversially backed the case that led to Kacsmaryk's ruling, even though legal experts pointed out they lacked direct standing for the case.

The medication in question, mifepristone, is used to stop a pregnancy from continuing to form inside of a patient. After the patient has taken it, they then follow the pill with a medication called misoprostol, which expels the fetus. Patients who induce abortions with only misoprostol are more likely to experience side effects like discomfort, cramps, vomiting, fevers and incomplete abortion.

Do you get a headache after a good red wine? This might be why

Headaches affect 16% of the world's population on a daily basis, and alcohol consumption is one of the main causes.

Although excessive consumption of any alcohol can cause headaches, red wine is the biggest culprit: The headaches it causes come on more quickly than those caused by white wine, beer or spirits. Another important difference is that red wine headaches can be caused by only a glass or two, while other drinks only cause problems once a large amount has been ingested.

When our livers metabolize ethanol (the chemical name for alcohol), it turns into acetate via a two step process. The first stage is the reaction that converts it into the to the highly toxic substance acetaldehyde. When we consume large amounts of alcohol, our bodies accumulate this chemical, which is twenty times more toxic than alcohol itself and highly carcinogenic. This molecule is the main cause of the characteristic hangover symptoms: nausea, sweating, facial flushing and headaches.

The second step is the subsequent conversion of acetaldehyde to acetate by an enzyme called aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH). One particular type of this enzyme, ALDH2 from the levels it reaches in the liver.

An accumulation of acetaldehyde is responsible for the strong facial flushing effect which is seen in approximately 40% of people of Asian descent. This is because of a genetic predisposition to producing a dysfunctional variant of ALDH.

Certain drugs, such as disulfiram, can even be used to discourage alcohol consumption by inhibiting ALDH production, causing an accumulation of acetaldehyde. This leads directly to unpleasant hangover-like effects when alcohol is consumed, including headaches, without the prior intoxication.

 

Headaches and wine

Red wine headaches are often attributed to certain components in the drink, such as amines, sulphites, or tannins, but so far no convincing evidence has been found to support these hypotheses, nor has an alternative explanation been proposed. However, the higher concentration of flavonoids in red wine — which is ten times higher than in white wine — makes them the main suspects for causing headaches.

A research paper published on 20 November may well have identified the culprit: a flavonoid called quercetin, one of the 9,000 recorded flavonoids found in many foods such as cabbage, onions, capers, coriander, cranberries, green tea, apples and grapes.

When several flavonoids in wine known to block ALDH2 were tested, the most potent was quercetin-3-glucuronide. This compound inhibited ALDH2 almost three times more than any other. This suggests that when we drink red wine, the liver converts quercetin into quercetin-3-glucuronide, which causes us to accumulate acetaldehyde.

It is important to note that quercetin alone does not cause headaches. Onions, for example, contain much more quercetin than wine, but few people complain of headaches after eating them: Alcohol and quercetin act together to cause a buildup of poisonous acetaldehyde.

 

The better the wine, the stronger the headache

If the combination of quercetin and ethanol causes headaches, why is it that some people can drink red wine without any effect, while others experience headaches when they drink it? There are several potential factors that may explain this.

Although red wine has a significantly higher quercetin content than white, concentrations can vary considerably between red wines of different types and origins. This has been found in, among others, Spanish wines.

Different winemaking processes, such as fermentation and aging, also affect the chemical content that ends up in a bottle. One well-known factor is the amount of sun exposure that grapes receive. In vineyards that produce high quality wines, practices such as trellising, vine thinning and defoliation (removing leaves) cause the grapes to receive more sunlight and accumulate more quercetin than conventional vineyards that produce cheaper wines.

A study showed that the total flavonoid content was four times higher in "ultra-premium" wines than in lower quality ones. This suggests that one way to avoid headaches might be, unexpectedly, to buy cheaper wine.

Lastly, it is possible that the enzymes that digest quercetin differ from one person to another. Acetaldehyde may also trigger headaches only in genetically predisposed individuals, as is the case in a higher proportion of Asian people.

Manuel Peinado Lorca, Catedrático emérito. Director del Real Jardín Botánico de la Universidad de Alcalá, Universidad de Alcalá

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“A mistake”: Fox News panel pans GOP’s “botched” Biden impeachment rollout

After Hunter Biden skipped a closed-door deposition on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, choosing instead to call out House Republicans in a scathing public statement, a Fox News panel slammed the GOP's "botched" effort to begin an impeach inquiry into President Joe Biden.

Shortly after the 9:30am deadline, Biden appeared outside the Senate in front of a bank of microphones and announced that he’d defy a subpoena from the GOP-led House Oversight Committee unless he could testify publicly. 

“For six years. I have been a target of the unrelenting Trump attack machine shouting Where’s Hunter? Well, here’s my answer. I am here," Biden said defiantly. “For six years. MAGA Republicans, including members of the House committees who are in a closed door session right now, have impugned my character, invaded my privacy, attacked my wife, my children, my family and my friends,” he said. “They have ridiculed my struggle with addiction. They belittled my recovery and they have tried to dehumanize me all to embarrass and damage my father, who has devoted his entire public life to service,” he said of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim JordanR-OH, and House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer, R-Ky.

“Yet here I am, Mr. Chairman, taking up your offer when you said we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose,” he concluded. “Well, I’ve chosen I am here to testify at a public hearing today to answer any of the committee’s legitimate questions. Republicans do not want an open process where Americans can see their tactics, expose their baseless inquiry, or hear what I have to say. What are they afraid of? I’m here. I’m ready.”

We need your help to stay independent

In response, Republicans rushed to tell reporters that they planned to continue their pursuit of Biden. Comer, for his part, said Wednesday that Republicans would initiate proceedings to hold Biden in contempt of Congress and could take action sometime after the holidays.

"Hunter Biden today defied lawful subpoenas and we will now initiate contempt of Congress proceedings. We will not provide special treatment because his last name is Biden,” Comer and Jordan said in a joint statement.

Contempt proceedings first require a vote by the committee that issued the subpoena. It is then forwarded to the full House floor for a vote. The Department of Justice then decides whether to pursue the case or not. Biden is already facing prosecution by the Justice Department for his failure to pay taxes.


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


The full House is set to vote on opening an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden on Wednesday. In their statement, House Republicans claimed the inquiry vote would "strengthen our legal case in the courts as we face obstruction from the White House and witnesses."

Fox News, which had a live stream going in anticipation of Biden's anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill event, immediately slammed Republicans for getting played by the president's son. 

On Wednesday's edition of "Outnumbered," Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen called the GOP's impeachment effort a "mistake." Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy, meanwhile, said Republicans "botched" the rollout. 

Another Fox News legal analyst, Gregg Jarrett, recently told Sean Hannity that he would “advise against” Republicans pursuing a Biden impeachment. 

The intraparty criticism for House Republicans also spread to CNN on Wednesday.  

"Jim Jordan is an absolute hypocrite,” former Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger said after Jordan announced his intentions to pursue contempt of Congress charges against Biden, telling CNN: 

Jim Jordan in front of the Rules Committee when we were talking about holding Steve Bannon or somebody in contempt. He said in front of the Rules Committee that the Department of Justice and the FBI should be the ones investigating Donald Trump. And that would be their role. Now, of course, he’s against the Department of Justice and the FBI investigating Donald Trump. He’s for the sanctity of the subpoena by the US Congress until he’s the one that gets subpoenaed by the US Congress.

And he also voted against enforcing subpoenas against people like Steve Bannon and against people like Mark Meadows. I mean, this is — the hypocrisy is mind numbing.

Brewing change: The impact of the 2023 Starbucks boycotts on the labor movement

Early last month, Starbucks Workers United organized what it described was the largest work stoppage in Starbucks history.

Thousands of workers at more than 200 Starbucks locations nationwide went on strike on “Red Cup Day,” an annual promotion that’s also one of the most infamously understaffed days for the coffee chain’s baristas. Aptly called “Red Cup Rebellion,” the day-long strike drew attention to mounting criticisms of Starbucks’ unfair labor practices and union-busting efforts.

Starbucks Workers United — the union representing Starbucks baristas — has been at the forefront of a compressive campaign against the coffee corporation for the past two years. The union previously scheduled a nationwide Day of Action on Sept. 14 to urge “customers and allies to join the fight” to get Starbucks to “respect workers’ fundamental right to organize and bargain a fair contract,” per The Guardian. Last year, unionized workers also went on strike on “Red Cup Day.”

After winning its first representation vote at a New York-based Starbucks store, Starbucks Workers United has won more votes at 368 company-operated stores in more than 41 states. The union is seeking to tackle a slew of worker issues, including short staffing, low wages, unaffordable healthcare, unfair discipline, workplace favoritism, unpredictable schedules and more. Starbucks, however, has yet to reach a collective bargaining agreement with any of the stores that have voted to unionize.

As of recently, the union is in talks about when and whether to initiate a consumer boycott of Starbucks, as more people are cutting ties with the corporation and its goods. Supporters argued that a boycott would “aim to use consumer power to pressure Starbucks to stop its union-busting and illegal actions and to finally negotiate its first union contract,” The Guardian further explained.

Calls for a consumer boycott intensified after students at Cornell University began pushing the administration to cancel its contract with Starbucks in May, when Starbucks announced it would shut down two union stores located in Ithaca, New York. The university announced in August that it will stop serving Starbucks products at its dining facilities at the end of June 2025.

The University of Washington and the University of California are also planning on rolling out similar campaigns to pressure their administration to stop serving Starbucks on-campus, a Starbucks Workers United spokesperson told Higher Ed Dive.

Mass boycotts against Starbucks have also been fueled by social media in the wake of Israel war with Hamas. In an effort to stand in solidarity with Palestine, protestors are targeting major corporations, like Starbucks, which have publicly stood by their pro-Israel stance. In October, Starbucks sued Starbucks Workers United over a post the union made on X that said “Solidarity with Palestine” following the Oct. 7 attack. Starbucks claimed the post angered several of its loyal customers and damaged its reputation. Workers United, in turn, filed its own lawsuit, saying Starbucks defamed the union by suggesting that it supports terrorism and violence.

TikTok data obtained by NBC News shows that the use of the hashtag “#boycottstarbucks” peaked in early November but remains on the rise. The hashtag has been used on 7,000 TikTok videos in the United States this past month, with a combined 51 million views.


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


The boycotts coupled with employee strikes have hit Starbucks hard. Starbucks lost over $11 billion in value this last quarter and unsuccessfully attempted to bounce back during Red Cup Day. The company has since seen its market share crash by 8.96 percent, which equates to a nearly $11 billion loss, the lowest Starbucks has experienced since 1992, according to Newsweek.

Consumer boycotts are continuing to take place alongside on-the-ground protests around the world. Dozens of Howard University students gathered outside a Starbucks in Washington, D.C., to write pro-Palestine messages with chalk on sidewalks. Videos across social media also show protesters assembling outside various Starbucks locations, chanting, “Starbucks Starbucks you can’t hide, you make drinks for genocide!”

According to The Guardian, some labor experts claim Starbucks is the country’s most “notorious union buster” since JP Stevens, one of the biggest firms in the American textile industry that launched an anti-union campaign in the 1960s and 1970s. Following a nationwide boycott launched against Stevens by the textile workers union in 1976, the company finally signed a union contract four years later.

Starbucks said in November that it would raise hourly pay for its U.S. retail workers by at least 3% from 2024, Reuters reported. Starbucks has also reached out to Starbucks Workers United in an effort to resolve tensions with its frontline employees, according to a letter obtained by the outlet.

Trump seeks “immediate review” from Supreme Court after losing presidential immunity appeal

An appeals court on Wednesday ruled that Donald Trump can't claim presidential immunity from a defamation lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape.

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan maintained a federal judge's rejection of Trump's assertion of immunity on the grounds that Trump had waited too long to raise it as a defense. "A three-year-delay is more than enough, under our precedents, to qualify as 'undue,'" the three-judge panel, who heard Trump's appeal on an expedited basis ahead of a scheduled January trial, wrote in its opinion, per Reuters.

Carroll sued Trump in November 2019 and seeks at least $10 million in damages over comments he made while in office that June after she first publicly accused him of raping her in the mid-1990s. Trump denied knowing Carroll, said she was not his "type," and alleged she fabricated the rape claim to promote her memoir. He didn't claim absolute presidential immunity protected him from the suit until December 2022. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan previously rejected Trump's effort to have Carroll's case dismissed and later refused to let Trump use immunity as a defense, citing the delay in attempting to invoke it. 

Trump lawyer Alina Habba called the ruling "fundamentally flawed" and said Trump would pursue an "immediate review" by the Supreme Court. Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan said in a statement, "We are pleased that the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Kaplan's rulings and that we can now move forward with trial." Carroll was awarded $5 million in a civil trial against the former president in May after a jury in a second lawsuit found Trump liable for sexual abusing and defaming her. Judge Kaplan ruled that the findings applied to Carroll's 2019 suit, making Trump's denial defamatory and leaving the January trial to decide how much Trump is to pay Carroll in damages. 

Nonalcoholic beer: New techniques craft flavorful brews without the buzz

The holiday season for me includes socializing over drinks with friends and family. But all the celebrating tends to catch up with my waistline, and by New Year's Day, it's time to get back in shape. Besides vowing to hit the gym more, my approach involves a "Dry January." But as someone who teaches brewing science, spends a lot of time around breweries and bars, and thoroughly loves beer, abstaining is no easy task.

Thankfully, I can still enjoy beer while cutting back on my alcohol intake and calories by switching to nonalcoholic beers.

To some people, nonalcoholic beer sounds like an oxymoron, but newer techniques are producing tasty, high-quality options in this growing beverage category.

A nonalcoholic beer is usually a malt beverage that is more than 0.0% and less than 0.5% alcohol by volume (ABV). Producing a beer this low in alcohol requires the brewer to use practices and equipment uncommon to the general brewing process and to consider additional food safety precautions.

 

Brewing regular beer

Regular beer has four main ingredients: malted barley, hops, yeast and water.

When brewing beer, brewers extract sugars from malted barley — barley grains that have been partially germinated and then dried to make available the starches in the grain and enzymes that break them down. The malted barley then goes into the mash. That's where the enzymes in the grain wake up and get to work breaking down the starches into smaller sugars. This step results in a sweet wort.

The brewer then boils the sweet wort and adds hops to provide bitterness, aroma and flavors. The hopped wort is then cooled and transferred to fermentation vessels where the brewer adds yeast. The yeast breaks down the sugars in the wort, releasing carbon dioxide and ethanol. Ethanol is the alcohol that makes beer "alcoholic."

At this point we have beer. Beer's alcohol by volume ranges from 3% to 13%, with most styles falling between 4% and 7%.

 

The challenge of removing alcohol

Some of the more traditional approaches to making nonalcoholic beer are skipping the fermentation step or diluting a regular beer. These techniques can produce beers that are too sweet or one-note, lacking in flavor characters that come from fermentation. Advances in two alternative techniques — controlled fermentation and de-alcholization — have led to improved nonalcoholic beer quality.

Controlling fermentation involves using either low temperatures to limit yeast activity, strains of yeast that are unable to break down certain sugars, or wort that is less fermentable. Remember, it's the living yeast cells that add alcohol to the mix as they digest sugars in the wort. By keeping yeast from doing its thing, brewers prevent the typical amount of alcohol from getting into the beer in the first place.

Alternatively, there are a few common techniques to de-alcoholize regular-strength beer.

Both steam distillation and vacuum distillation separate out the ethanol by heating the beer. Alcohol has a lower boiling point than water, so it gets removed as steam while the water portion of the beer is left behind. One problem with steam distillation is that it also takes out volatile aroma molecules and give the beer a cooked flavor. Vacuum distillation, however, significantly lowers the temperature needed to evaporate ethanol. The gentler temperatures help the nonalcoholic beer retain aroma and minimize the impacts on flavor.

Membrane filtration usually relies on reverse osmosis. This process uses filters with small pores that allow alcohol and water molecules to pass through, but not the larger molecules — like sugars, hops acids and oils, and proteins — that provide flavor, aroma and body in the beer. Rather than the liquid flowing through the membrane head-on, reverse osmosis uses cross-flow filtration. The liquids flow parallel to the filter surface.

The brewer establishes a pressure differential so the side where the beer starts is at higher pressure than the other side of the filter. This pressure pushes the alcohol and water molecules through the membrane pores. The filtration process results in two liquid streams being collected: a concentrated syrupy beer liquid and an alcohol-water mix. The final step is adding water back to the beer concentrate.

Of the de-alcoholization options, most beer lovers agree that vacuum distillation and reverse osmosis produce the best results.

 

Challenges for brewing nonalcoholic beer

These techniques often require additional brewing equipment that can be cost prohibitive to many smaller craft breweries.

One significant downside associated with the production of nonalcoholic beer is that removal of alcohol creates a product that is not as shelf-stable. Alcohol normally acts as a preservative — without it, the beer can be vulnerable to contamination by microbes that are dangerous or spoil the beer. Because some of the common methods to produce nonalcoholic beers can use less hops, produce beer with more sugars and increase pH, the resulting product can be even more susceptible to bacterial growth.

Brewers need to take additional steps such as pasteurization, sterile filtration or the addition of preservatives to make nonalcoholic beer safe.

 

Nonalcoholic beer is a growth market

Regardless of the challenges and costs to produce safe nonalcoholic beer, the market is growing steadily. While nonalcoholic sales in the U.S. are comparatively small, currently representing around 2% of total sales, they experienced 31% average growth over the past four years even as other alcoholic beverage market segments languished. In other global markets, nonalcoholic sales have performed even better.

A few factors explain greater interest in nonalcoholic beers.

First, there's been a steady decline in alcohol consumption among younger generations, along with a trend toward adopting more healthy lifestyles.

Second, nonalcoholic products have been successfully marketed not only to nondrinkers but to regular beer consumers. Regular beer drinkers who enjoy the taste of beer and not the intoxicating aspect, like me, can guiltlessly enjoy a nonalcoholic beer, even during the workday. Marketing campaigns have also focused on nonalcoholic beer being a lower calorie alternative since it doesn't contain calorie-dense alcohol.

It also doesn't hurt that the quality of nonalcoholic beer has significantly improved since its early days. Nonalcoholic today is not the watery, overly sweet or one-note product that it was in the past. Many recent technological advances in production help nonalcoholic beer maintain fermentation characteristics derived from the malts, hops and yeast, thus providing a more balanced and pleasant product that tastes like "real" beer.

Clark Da​nderson, Assistant Professor of Hospitality Management and Director of Brewing Science and Operations, Auburn University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Fox News is no longer the GOP’s safe space: Republican boycotts network for criticizing impeachment

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said he stopped accepting invitations from Fox News to appear on "Fox & Friends" after the conservative network criticized the impeachment proceedings House Republicans are pursuing against President Joe Biden.

In an interview with Newsmax's Eric Bolling Tuesday, Comer singled out "Fox & Friends" host Steve Doocy, insisting that he has been skeptical of the Republican-led committee's investigation into the president for some time. 

"He's had that position from the very beginning. I quit going on Fox and Friends because of Doocy," Comer told Bolling. "He's the one guy on Fox that's been very critical of the investigation. I have my theory why, we'll talk about that at the later point. At the end of the day, he's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think the average viewer of Fox News agrees with Doocy one bit."

Doocy on Monday said that House Republicans aiming to call for a formal impeachment inquiry vote against Biden "have not shown where Joe Biden did anything illegally." The Fox host added that they have "a lot of ledgers and spreadsheets but they have not connected the dots" on the president despite doing so on his son, Hunter Biden, who was charged last week with nine federal tax offenses in California. 

The House Oversight Committee is seeking to impeach President Biden over alleged business scheming with his son, with House Republicans expected to vote Wednesday on formally authorizing the impeachment inquiry former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced in late September. The White House has consistently denied the president committed any wrongdoing, and the committee's investigation has not yielded any substantive evidence to the contrary. 

 

Republicans have already lost the American public on impeachment

I know this will come as quite a shock, but the current U.S. Congress is the least productive in almost a hundred years. Not since the first years of the Great Depression under Herbert Hoover has the legislative branch been so ineffectual. This may seem surprising considering that the Republican majority has dominated the news from the moment its members took the oath of office last January, but it has barely managed to do the one thing it's supposed to do, which is pass any legislation. They certainly have been busy though.

They started with an epic battle for the speaker's office that ended even before the year was up with the dramatic defenestration of that same speaker for committing the cardinal sin of compromising with the Democratic Senate and White House to keep the government running. That took weeks of effort leaving little time for anything else. Then they had to hold "oversight" hearings to yell at administration figures and provoke fights with witnesses. There was also the huge issue of the Senate dress code. And they needed to get to the bottom of that UFO thing, and it's vitally important that they obtain Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs. They've got a lot on their plates. 

Republicans announcing they are using the tools of government to attack their enemies is considered smart politics among their voters.

But nothing has been more important than the investigation into Joe Biden's son Hunter and the alleged corruption that supposedly took place among Biden family members when Biden was vice president and out of office. Today is the big day. They plan to vote for an official impeachment inquiry into these charges. Then they plan to recess and go home for the holidays. They're all worn out. 

The impeachment was inevitable. The leader of the GOP, Donald Trump, demanded it and when he says jump they all start running around in circles and leapfrogging over each other. And it's put the new speaker in what should be an extremely uncomfortable position, although it won't be, because he's totally shameless. Having even just recently been reported to have said that he didn't think impeachment should be on the agenda, he has completely reversed course and has authorized this vote to launch a formal inquiry. That is in glaring contradiction with many statements he made arguing against the impeachments of Donald Trump:

We need your help to stay independent

When confronted with his blatant hypocrisy by Fox's Bret Baier, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., explained that this is totally different because that was a sham and this totally isn't. Except, of course, it totally is. 

There's not been even one shred of evidence that ties Joe Biden into any corruption. In fact, it's gotten so ludicrous that Oversight Committee Chair James Comer has been out there waving around copies of checks from Hunter and Biden's brother James that he says proves Biden was on the take when in reality they were loan repayments. Hunter's supposedly nefarious checks were in the amount of $1380 a month for a car payment reimbursement. It's become that absurd. 

Tim Burchett, R-TN., appeared on CNN earlier this week to spread the salacious details that were included in the recent felony indictment of Hunter Biden for paying his taxes late and insisted that one of the proofs of his corruption was the fact that his only qualifications for the jobs he held were "hookers and crack cocaine" saying "the guy is bad news." (Hunter Biden was much more qualified than either Ivanka Trump or Jared Kushner, who worked in the White House and then cashed in immediately to the tune of billions of dollars from foreign governments the minute they left the White House.) 

I won't go into all the reasons why the Ukraine business is completely nonsensical again. It's ridiculous and even the Republicans must know it since they're focusing more on silly things like Hunter paying back his father for covering his car payments for a few months. And while it looked for a while as if the so-called moderates were prepared to vote against the inquiry, the fact that the White House is not rushing to help the Republicans with this bogus inquiry has provided them with the lame excuse they've been looking for to appease the rabid MAGA horde so Speaker Johnson says that he's pretty sure he has the votes. We'll see later today if he is right. And we'll also see whether those Republican House members who came from districts Biden won are as self-destructive as they appear to be.

Even Fox News isn't all in on this one.

“The House Oversight Committee has been at this for years, and they have so far not been able to provide any concrete evidence that Joe Biden personally profited from his son Hunter’s overseas business, but they are going to try again with this impeachment inquiry set to start next week,” White House reporter Peter Doocy recently told the Fox News audience.

That might explain why the Oversight chair has said he no longer wants to appear on the network

The GOP's Biden impeachment is not popular. According to a new Morning Consult poll support for it has collapsed among Independents. (Needless to say, the vast majority of Democrats oppose it and a similar number of Republicans support it.) Apparently aware of this, Speaker Johnson has been careful to hedge his bets saying, "We’re not going to prejudge the outcome of this because we can’t because again it’s not a political calculation." 

Nobody believes that. Certainly nobody should believe it after Republicans have already admitted this is merely a political ploy and power play:


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


That's the kind of public comments that cost former Speaker Kevin McCarthy his first shot at the job back in 2015. But these days, Republicans announcing they are using the tools of government to attack their enemies is considered smart politics among their voters so announcing it isn't a problem. 

Here's the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, the man who is quarterbacking this impeachment "inquiry" admitting that he had his mind made up months ago:

“I would vote to impeach right now," Comer told Newsmax months ago. 

Some Democrats aren't afraid to tell it like it is with these people. Jasmine Crockett of Texas had the Republicans calling for the smelling salts when she appeared on the Charlamagne The God podcast (you know how delicate they are) and told it like it is:

You know, when I sit there, the Oversight Committee is where all the drama is. This is where the impeachment inquiry is. And, you know, it’s insulting that we have idiots like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, Jim Jordan. I mean, you just name all of the nonsense Republicans.

And they sit on this committee, and they sit there so high and mighty. And they talk noise constantly and they’re like, “Oh, the Biden crime family.” And I’m like, “I’m sorry. Have you met the Trumps?!”

It's insulting to the American people that these kooks have hijacked the American government with a tiny majority and instead of negotiating in good faith to fund the government or provide needed aid to Ukraine and other priorities, they're about to put on another of their embarrassing little freak shows for the entertainment of the Fox News audience and Donald Trump. "Nonsense Republicans" is right.

“Review bombing” and lost book deals: The Goodreads scandal explained

The literary world is no stranger to scandals, but the latest is certainly strange: It involves the popular book-reviewing app Goodreads, first-time author Cait Corrain and a practice now referred to by some as "review bombing." 

Corrain, a science-fiction romance author, was set to debut her novel "Crown of Starlight" in March 2024, however it was announced recently that she was dropped from an imprint of Penguin Random House. 

People have alleged Corrain created fake accounts to review-bomb upcoming authors — some of whom are people of color — and books with similar themes on Goodreads. Typically, review bombing is used as a trolling tactic by online fandoms to skew the ratings of media on review sites; in this case, it's books on Goodreads. The goal is to create an illusion that the book is a flop by intentionally giving it one-star reviews. It's happened in many different fandoms but most notably the first "Captain Marvel" audience score on Rotten Tomatoes was review-bombed by disgruntled Marvel stans before the movie even came out. 

In Corrain's situation, writers connected the fake Goodreads accounts back to the author. Since then, she has been dropped by her publisher and the backlash directed at her (and the Goodreads platform itself) has been immense. 

Here is a timeline breaking down the events of the scandal: 

June 2023: Cait Corrain snags a book deal and distributor for "Crown of Starlight"

The first-time author officially secured herself a book deal with Del Rey Books, an imprint of Penguin Random House, and book distributor Daphne Press.

Corrain said of her debut novel: "While it’s absolutely a snarky, sexy, slow-burn, space-opera romp, at its core, this is a story about love, sacrifice, sexual agency, embracing your identity as a form of rebellion against oppression, and the difficult choices we all make between facing our fears, or losing the chance to become who we’re meant to be."

December 2023: Rumblings on social media of fake accounts review bombing new authors 

For months, online several authors had been noticing strange activity on Goodreads. They noticed that an unnamed author had been writing one-star reviews on Goodreads for unreleased books that were slotted for an early 2024 release — just like "Crown of Starlight."

The reviews dated as far back as April 2023. Nine accounts gave only one-star reviews to the same upcoming debuting novels. The accounts liked each other's reviews. The reviews were left on mostly authors of color like Bethany Baptiste, Molly X. Chang and Kamilah Cole.

According to Gizmodo, one of the fake reviews on Chang's unreleased book coming in spring 2024 said: “I can’t believe Del Rey spent half a million dollars on this when they could have spent half a million dollars on anything else. Sorry not sorry.” 

But also, the reviewers gave "Crown of Starlight" positive reviews, adding the book to lists and liking each other reviews again. According to the authors involved, when they began tweeting about it in early December, the accounts disappeared. The authors tried to handle the situation privately but were frustrated by Corrain's alleged deflection. 

Tuesday, Dec. 5: Author Xiran Jay Zhao tweets about the alleged review bombing

Internet personality and sci-fi author Xiran Jay Zhao tweets: "If you as a debut author are going to make a bunch of fake Goodreads accounts one-star-bombing fellow debuts you're threatened by can you at least not make it so obvious by upvoting your own book on a bajillion different lists with those same accounts."

They refuse to name names in the X thread but the tweet went viral across all platforms. It was viewed 1.6 million times on X. The book community began piecing the story together even though it was never revealed that Corrain was who the group of authors suspected of review bombing.

Wednesday, Dec 6: Corrain deflects and says her friend "Lilly" a diehard "Star Wars" fan was the person review-bombing

Shortly after the Goodreads accounts were discovered and beginning to be linked to Corrain, they denied they had any involvement in it, saying, "I did NOT review bomb anyone. I did not positively review my own book with false accounts.”

In a Slack group for debut authors, Corrain claimed she had evidence that linked the view bombing to her friend "Lilly." The evidence was screenshots of conversations between the two of them where Lilly admitted to writing the negative reviews because Corrain had mentioned certain books that may cloud her debut. People including the authors involved have theorized either they were in on the review bombing together or Corrain was just talking to herself.

When the authors in Slack said they wanted to talk to Lilly, Corrain did not facilitate a conversation between the parties. But she did reveal that Lilly was a Reylo stan or Kylo Ren and Rey super fan from "Star Wars." But Reylo stans on Reddit said that they did not know a Lilly and claimed she didn't exist.

The afternoon of Dec 6: Zhao posts a TikTok that alludes to Corrain being responsible for the alleged review-bombing 

As Zhao's tweets picked up traction, they took to TikTok to reveal to the book community in a six-minute video, explaining the fake accounts review-bombing debuting authors. Then they shared a public 31-page Google document online. The document shows screenshots of the fake accounts and their views, connecting the review-bombing to Corrain.

According to Zhao, the conversations Corrain had with "Lilly" also mirrored Corrain's writing style. 

Dec. 11, Corrain’s literary agent drops her

Corrain's book agent, Rebecca Podos, said on X that she was cutting ties with them.

“Cait and I will not be continuing our partnership moving forward,” Podos tweeted. “I deeply appreciate the patience of those directly impacted by last week’s events as I worked through a difficult situation.”

Tuesday, Dec. 12: Corrain admits to review-bombing and apologizes to all the people she's wronged

At midnight on Tuesday, Corrain posted a lengthy apology on X, sharing that they had suffered from addiction, alcoholism and mental health issues that they were hiding. She admitted to making eight profiles during a "complete psychological breakdown," boosting the ratings of her books, review-bombing debuting authors and leaving abusive reviews. 

She said that she felt no ill will towards any of the authors she review-bombed.

"It was just my fear about how my book would be received running out of control," Corrain wrote. "My memories of this are extremely fuzzy, so it's possible there are a couple other authors. If so, please know I take full ownership of what I did to you as well. I'm sorrier than you'll ever know. There's nothing I can say to erase what I did to you."

Corrain also admitted to making up "the world's sloppiest chat with a non-existent friend who was supposedly to blame, and sent fake apologies for the actions of said 'friend,' which only made things worse." 

She added that she will be checking into rehab and will eventually reach out to everyone directly impacted: “All I can do going forward is to try to live my life in a way that shows you these aren’t empty words."

Dec. 12, 7:02 PM: Del Rey Books tweets that they have dropped Corrain as an author and "Crown of Starlight is no longer on their 2024 schedule

After her apology, Corrain's publisher Del Rey Books announced on X that "We are aware of the ongoing discussion around author Cait Corrain. 'Crown of Starlight' is no longer on our 2024 publishing schedule."

NASA astronauts have finally solved the mystery of the missing space tomato

What is being described as one of the first tomatoes ever harvested in space has finally been recovered after it went missing for eight months. NASA astronaut Frank Rubio was among an International Space Station (ISS) team that worked on VEG-05, an experiment to grow red robin tomatoes in the ISS’ Vegetable Production System (a.k.a. Veggie). After completing the 100-day planned duration, the tomatoes were harvested and studied for crop growth, nutrient composition, microbial food safety, flavor and more. 

It was Rubio’s tomato that eventually went missing. Rubio recently made history for spending a record-setting 371 days in space. Following his return to Earth in late September, Rubio spoke at an October NASA briefing, where he shut down rumors claiming he had eaten his lost tomato.“I put [the tomato] in a little bag, and one of my crewmates was doing [an] event with some schoolkids, and I thought it'd be kind of cool to show the kids, ‘Hey guys, this is the first tomato harvested in space,’” he said. “Then, I was pretty confident that I Velcroed it where I was supposed to Velcro it, and then I came back and it was gone.”

Rubio continued, “Hopefully, somebody will find it someday, some little shriveled thing in a Ziploc bag, and they can prove the fact that I did not eat the tomato in space.”

That day has finally come for Rubio. During a NASA video talk from the ISS earlier this week, astronaut Jasmin Moghbeli said the tomato has indeed been found: “Our good friend Frank Rubio who headed home has been blamed for quite a while for eating the tomato — but we can exonerate him: We found the tomato.”

Astronomers search for sources of mind-bending gravitational hum permeating the universe

In June, scientists presented compelling evidence that they discovered a massive "hum" of low-frequency gravitational waves rippling through the universe.

Similar to the ripple effect that occurs when a stone is thrown into the water, a similar phenomenon happens in space. Instead of creating waves that can be seen by the human eye or optical telescopes, the shockwaves that are produced from gravitational energy merging are called gravitational waves.

Physicist Albert Einstein first theorized about the existence of gravitational waves in 1916. But it wasn't until 2015, when the Laser Interferometry Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) made its first detection of gravitational waves in the universe, that scientists were able to confirm their existence. Since then, the discovery of gravitational waves have allowed scientists to peer inside neutron stars and discover the wobbliest black hole ever detected.

In June, the researchers posited that the massive hum they found was coming from the merging of two supermassive black holes, a type of explosive collision almost too big and too powerful to imagine. But as Salon reported at the time, that wasn’t the only candidate as a source.

"We found the choir, but we don't know who's singing in it — the pop stars are the supermassive black holes, they're the ones that are the most obvious candidates," NANOGrav scientist Chiara Mingarelli told Salon in June. "However, there are other potential sources of gravitational waves, like quantum fluctuations in the early universe that were driven to the size of the whole universe by inflation."

"We found the choir, but we don't know who's singing in it."

The mission to figure out the source is an international one, as scientists gather data and put it together in an attempt to construct an atlas of this background hum. In an email to Salon, Kai Schmitz, a cosmologist who is part of the international search, said scientists have been sharpening their tools and analyses further. While they don’t expect a next round of data sets to be available for another few months and / or years, "primordial gravitational waves from inflation" remains a viable option as a source, Schmitz said. 

Taking a step back, Schmitz explained that the possibility that the hum is coming from the merging of two supermassive black holes got the most attention because it’s the most realistic option. We know that supermassive black holes exist, he said. Most galaxies have supermassive black holes at their center. 


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


“So, it's easy to imagine that when two galaxies merge, each with a supermassive black hole at its center, we ultimately end up with one big galaxy that hosts a pair of supermassive black holes at its center,” he said, adding that a possibility like primordial gravitational waves from inflation is more “speculative.” 

“Whenever we speculate about gravitational waves from the Big Bang, we need to assume ‘new physics’ — [for example] new interactions, new particles, new forces that go beyond the Standard Model of particle physics,” he said. “One such scenario of ‘new physics’ is cosmic inflation, which denotes a stage of exponentially fast expansion in the early Universe.”

In other words, the theory of cosmic inflation suggests that right before the Big Bang, a faster-than-light expansion of the universe occurred in the fraction of a second. The rapid expansion occurred due to an unknown source of energy and could be the cause behind the Big Bang

“Whenever we speculate about gravitational waves from the Big Bang, we need to assume ‘new physics.’"

“Recall that gravitational waves are exactly that: ripples in spacetime, perturbations of the fabric of space and time, that stretch and squeeze distances between objects floating through spacetime,”Schmitz said. “So, the primordial quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuations of the spacetime that are stretched to cosmological sizes during inflation continue to propagate through the Universe in the form of — drum roll — gravitational waves.”

Basically, these waves could be the sounds of the universe forever growing and reproducing. According to the cosmic inflation theory, the universe is eternal, leading to the speculative theory of pocket universes, which would mean that the universe is forever growing and reproducing. Our universe is just one pocket in this. 

Another possible explanation is that the hum is also coming from cosmic strings, which are remnants from the early universe when it cooled down quickly and left cracks that are floating around in space. This could mean that we live in a cyclic ekpyrotic model, in which there is no beginning or end of the universe. 

We need your help to stay independent

However, in order for theorists to find evidence for this they’re going to have to work extra hard. 

“The standard picture of simple vacuum fluctuations of the spacetime metric will result in a signal that's too weak,” Schmitz said. “Instead, more complicated processes need to be at work during inflation in order to source a sufficiently strong gravitational-wave signal.”

But that doesn’t mean it’s not possible. And Schmitz has some ideas on how to proceed. 

“Primordial gravitational waves from inflation may lead to an appreciable contribution to the energy density of dark radiation in the early Universe, which is a prediction that can be tested in future observations of the cosmic microwave background and measurements related to Big Bang nucleosynthesis,” he said. In other words, the more we study that massive explosions that set our universe in motion, the better we can understand how it came humming along.

How Republicans convinced themselves America was meant to be a “Christian nation”

As a progressive black sheep who has drifted politically from my lily-white Republican family, I have ample opportunity to witness the damage that the MAGA movement has been doing to people I once considered reasonable-if-conservative. Most of it sadly predictable: People who denounced Bill Clinton's gross-but-consensual affair now make excuses for Donald Trump's sexual assaults. There's the willing participation in conspiracy theories they know full well are nonsense. And, of course, when utterly unable to make any sense of their own political "beliefs," the fallback of dumb "let's go Brandon"-type jokes. 

Trump and the MAGA movement have cemented the GOP as an ethno-nationalist party.

What has genuinely surprised me, however, is the way a bunch of folks who were previously not very religious have become all about Jesus. Maybe not enough to go to church, mind you, but enough to start littering their social media posts and other communications with Bible verses and the sentimental religious imagery. Not too long ago, many of these folks used to mock the showy piety of the fundamentalist neighbors. I fully blame the MAGA movement, of course.

Polling data shows my experience is not unique. Despite the obviously fake Christianity of Trump, this has been an era where most Republicans have abandoned their secular impulses. Instead, being a performative Christian has become an increasingly mandatory part of having a Republican identity. Even for those who never actually go to church. 


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


In 2010, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) polled Republicans about their views on conservative Christianity and the Tea Party movement, which we now can see was a precursor to MAGA. Back then, only 31% of Republican or Republican-leaning voters identified with conservative Christianity. Fast-forward 13 years and the landscape has dramatically shifted. PRRI polling shows that a majority of Republican voters don't just align themselves with conservative Christianity, but with Christian nationalism. Fifty-four percent of Republicans mostly or completely agree with sentiments such as "Being Christian is an important part of being truly American" and "God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society."

These numbers likely are not the result of millions of Americans suddenly finding Jesus, but about the way that Trump and the MAGA movement have cemented the GOP as an ethno-nationalist party, instead of merely a conservative party. Which is to say, now that they're a tribe they need ways to define their tribal identity. Religion offers one aspect of that identity. (Whiteness, too, though most will rarely, if ever, so say out loud.) This is why polls show over 40% of self-described "evangelicals" don't even go to church. "Christian" has morphed from a faith tradition to a marker of ethnic/political identity. 

How did so many people go from being mildly indifferent to religion to centering Christianity in their self-conception as an American? It certainly wasn't by accident. This is the result of decades of work by Christian fundamentalists to generate propaganda and disinformation, all to prop up the myth that the U.S. was founded to be a Christian nation. Then Trump came along with his authoritarian "us vs. them" messaging, creating a need for Republicans to define exactly what they mean by "us." Christian nationalists were ready to fill that "us" with their own notions that Christianity is a mandatory part of the American identity. 

The central figure in this tale is David Barton, a Christian huckster who has made a name for himself on the right by passing himself off as a "historian." Barton got a bachelor's in religious education from Oral Roberts University in 1976 and has no academic training in history. His "research" is a joke, to the point where even conservative Christian academics reject his claims. For instance, Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute rejects the theory of evolution, but even he had to admit Barton's field of work is full of "embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims." 

By waving around a Bible he doesn't read and talking up a Jesus he doesn't believe in, Trump has underscored how much "Christian" is a tribal identity marker more than a faith tradition, at least in the MAGA world.

And yet, as Tim Alberta describes in his new book, "The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism," Barton is treated as a major historical authority in Republican circles for one reason: "He believed the separation of church and state was a myth. He believed the time had come for evangelicals to reclaim their rightful place atop the nation’s governmental and cultural institutions." Barton has been discredited over and over again by real historians, with one book even being deemed "the least credible history book in print" by the History News Network. 

And yet, Barton's influence is so vast in the world of Republican thought it's immeasurable. He's heavily promoted through right-wing media and consults with major Republican leaders, including the new speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. But even people who have never heard his name have likely absorbed his ideas through the right-wing media ecosystem, which is infused with them. When Republicans repeat false talking points, like "separation of church and state is a myth" or "the Founders envisioned a Christian nation," most of that goes straight back to Barton and his fake histories. 


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


That this all got supercharged under Trump is a little odd, no doubt, because Trump's "Christianity" is as transparently false as Barton's historical research. Perversely, however, Trump's fake faith likely boosted the widespread embrace of an "evangelical" identity by Republican voters who previously weren't especially religious. By waving around a Bible he doesn't read and talking up a Jesus he doesn't believe in, Trump has underscored how much "Christian" is a tribal identity marker more than a faith tradition, at least in the MAGA world. That's encouraged a lot of people who don't really want to get involved in a church community to start projecting a "Christian" identity out into the world, without worrying overmuch about their lack of faith at home. 

I have no doubt that most of the people who have embraced this performative piety think it's a fairly harmless, even a socially beneficial practice. Jesus talk can feel very self-righteous and benevolent, even to people who don't back up the public performance with private prayer. But the fact that Christian identity is ever more linked to a far-right, authoritarian worldview is dangerous. After all, if "real" Americans are Christians, then the question of what to do with the majority of Americans who don't subscribe to conservative Christianity invites dangerous answers. For instance, far-right influencer Nick Fuentes is out there calling for the mass execution of anyone who doesn't proclaim a Christian identity. 

Tempting, of course, to dismiss him as a troll that no one takes seriously. Except, of course, he's had dinner with Trump. Oh yeah, and the Texas GOP recently refused to pass a rule barring members from associating with neo-Nazis after a major fundraiser took a meeting with Fuentes. Keeping Fuentes in the fold must be important to Republicans, if they're willing to take the "neo-Nazi" headlines rather than disassociate with him. 

As I wrote about yesterday, there is simply no way to square the Christian nationalist ideology with traditional American values like equality, free speech, and freedom of religion. It is, of course, perfectly fine for people to be Christians, just as it's fine if people identify as Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan or a worshipper of Odin. But what these trends suggest is that, for Republican voters, the idea has taken root that being a "real" American requires calling yourself a Christian. But, as the Fuentes example shows, that necessarily means marginalizing non-Christians, who are now over a third of Americans

Texas Republicans drove Kate Cox out of her own state. What her abortion story means for America

It's impossible for any man, without the experience of pregnancy, to fully comprehend the unbearable trauma that Kate Cox just endured. At the same time, every one of us can appreciate the service she performed for America. Her suffering has viscerally exposed the harm to women and their families that has come from the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org’n, the June 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. 

May we remember it next fall when we elect a president who will appoint the next Supreme Court justices. They will be people who either understand that harm or who sacrifice it on the altar of their religious beliefs and ideology.

The conflict between Cox and Texas embodies the larger battle for the soul of America.

Cox is the Texas woman who last week asked a trial court for permission to terminate her unviable pregnancy. She initially won, only to have the permission rescinded Friday by the state Supreme Court’s stay of the lower court ruling. Texas’s MAGA Attorney General Ken Paxton couldn’t wait to bring the court an emergency petition to force Cox to continue her doomed pregnancy. 

Testing showed a fatal genetic abnormality in her fetus, a mutation that would kill it in utero or shortly after birth. Ms. Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two, sought simply to accelerate the inevitable, avoid any threat to her health from continuing a pointless pregnancy and potentially dangerous labor, grieve and try again in the future.

We need your help to stay independent

Under Texas law enacted after Dobbs, however, that was not to be. Once the Texas Supreme Court issued its stay last Friday, Ms. Cox saw the handwriting on the wall. On Monday, hours before the Texas court announced its final decision permanently stopped her right to have an abortion, Ms. Cox left the state to seek medical care before her condition worsened.

Texas bans abortions after six weeks. There’s an exception for threats to the mother’s life, but not to non-terminal risks to physical or mental health from carrying a fetus that has no serious prospect for surviving. 

The state tied a mother’s hopes for compassionate relief to a stake and burned them in the public square. The cruelty is shocking. Yet Cox, knowing what could be coming, stood until she saw that she might be forced – literally – to deliver. 

It took undaunted courage for a woman in her straits to stick around at all, file a lawsuit and risk the emotional torture she faced last week from Texas officials and the laws enacted by them.   

The conflict between Cox and Texas embodies the larger battle for the soul of America. 

On one side of the battle lines is the state, which claims the right to subject its pregnant women to agony of the kind that Ms. Cox just experienced. Ultimately, she had the means to escape to another state, but millions of poor Texas women do not.

On the other side stands Cox, representing those willing to face personal peril to insist, to the point of intolerable pain, on the rights to health and bodily safety that the state should safeguard. Texas has now said it will not. 


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


Citizens can change this in the answer we give in our votes 10 months from now. Our answer will decide not only who represents us, but also the larger question posed by Cox’s case and by political philosophers over the centuries: Can humans sustain societies in ways that benefit all, not just those with money and power who believe that the government can take away fundamental rights that existed for 50 years. 

Donald Trump and his MAGA enablers are making plans if he is elected to benefit only themselves by installing the Ken Paxton’s of the country as our governing class and to destroy the constitution’s checks and balances on their power. If Trump returns to the White House, we are all Kate Cox. 

In the meantime, however, she has illuminated the choice before us. Her torment by the state may sear into the public consciousness the understanding that freedom from oppressive government control is truly on the ballot in 2024. 

We have already seen the redoubtable power of abortion rights in virtually every election since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Voters have affirmed the right in seven initiative measures on the ballots of states red and blue over two election cycles. The issue has carried decisive weight in competitive candidate elections like Justice Janet Protasciewcz’s 11-point victory in Wisconsin, a state known for tight elections.

As for the coming presidential contest, the many of us who care about freedom can work to ensure the future of a republic in which the law protects individual rights. The need for a government and law of compassion can be understood by anyone, including those not built to carry a baby.

Trump’s claim of presidential immunity a “bigger loser” than Nixon’s: Legal expert

Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while he was president. It's an unusual move, but legal experts say it suggests Smith is confident of winning

Smith urged the court to expedite its decision in order to avoid potential delays that might postpone Trump's federal trial related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election of the Republican front-runner, which is scheduled to begin on March 4, until after the presidential election next November.

The special counsel has requested that the justices issue a ruling even before the federal appeals court that is now considering the same question. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, recently ruled that Trump is not entitled to protection from criminal prosecution for actions he took during his presidency.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that the former president’s alleged actions regarding the 2020 election results were within the scope of his official duties at the time, which would presumably shield him from criminal prosecution. In their filing with the district court, his legal team also indicated their intention to challenge Chutkan's ruling by filing an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But Smith emphasized the need for the Supreme Court to resolve the matter once and for all. "It is of imperative public importance that respondent's claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent's trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected," Smith wrote. "Respondent's claims are profoundly mistaken, as the district court held. But only this Court can definitively resolve them."

The Supreme Court has agreed to speed up consideration of Smith's request and directed Trump’s legal team to respond to the petition by Dec. 20.

Smith is taking a “calculated risk” by bypassing the ordinary appellate process and seeking immediate Supreme Court review, Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, told Salon. 

“I believe he feels very confident that given previous Supreme Court decisions on presidential immunity, his chances of winning are very high,” Gershman said. 

Gershman added, however, that the court decision to consider Smith’s request on an expedited basis does not mean that the justices will actually agree to hear the case on the merits. It's possible the Supreme Court will wait until after the lower appellate court has issued a ruling.

Trump's legal team argues that his involvement in challenging the election results falls within the "outer perimeter" of his official duties as president — a term established in a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity that pertained to Richard Nixon. According to that precedent, Trump's team argues that he is shielded from prosecution, as NBC News reported.

But Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is a “far bigger loser” than President Nixon’s claim in 1974 that he could ignore a grand jury subpoena seeking secret White House tape recordings in an investigation into a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, Gershman explained. 

In the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that in a civil damage lawsuit the president is granted absolute immunity from liability "for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility." The key word phrase here, Gershman said, is "official responsibility."

If Trump successfully claims "absolute immunity," that would suggest that "any president, anywhere, anytime and under any circumstances, cannot be criminally charged and prosecuted.”

“It must be emphasized that a criminal prosecution against a president is of far greater public importance than a civil case against a president,” he added. “Clearly, criminal actions taken by a president well outside the ambit of his official responsibilities should receive no immunity.”

It would be “astounding,” Gershman said, for any court to conclude that a president was carrying out actions within his "official responsibility" in attempting to “thwart” the lawful transfer of power after a lawful presidential election. 

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, further expanded on Gershman’s point, explaining that presidential immunity is “unlikely to apply” to Trump’s conduct, even in the context of a highly conservative Supreme Court with three Trump-appointed justices. 

In the civil context, courts have “routinely held” that campaigns and elections are not part of a president’s official duties, and therefore the president is not immune from lawsuits related to campaign activities. That same logic “should apply” to a criminal prosecution, Rahmani said, although it has not yet been tested in court.

Trump is making every effort to delay the trials, Rahmani explained, adding that while the former president has had “some success” with Judge Aileen Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago documents case in Florida, Chutkan has so far “held firm” to the proposed March trial date. 

In a "best case scenario" for Smith, the Supreme Court would move "relatively quickly," Rahmani suggested, but the case could well drag on for months before the high court. “In that scenario, the criminal case could still proceed before Judge Chutkan while the Supreme Court continues to deliberate on this question raised by Jack Smith." That "could ultimately derail the case" in the unlikely event that the justices side with Trump.


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


If the court agrees to review the question of absolute presidential immunity, it seems likely that every criminal case involving Trump’s actions — except for the New York fraud trial involving hush money charges, where the alleged offenses occurred before Trump was president — will be put on hold, Gershman said. Given the “uncertain timing,” it remains unclear how these cases will impact the 2024 presidential election.

Should Trump successfully claim absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed as president, it would establish a “shocking” precedent, Gershman said. That would suggest that "any president, anywhere, anytime and under any circumstances, cannot be criminally charged and prosecuted” for actions undertaken during their presidency. “The framers of our Constitution would be aghast at that idea."

Humans are trashing the Moon. Some scientists argue it’s another sign of the Anthropocene

When Justin Holcomb described the future for humans on the Moon, the Kansas Geological Survey postdoctoral researcher began with a commonplace answer about the rapid pace of human progress.

"The first crewed airplane with an engine that actually flew occurred in 1905," Holcomb said, referring to the Wright Brother’s Flyer. "A little over 60 years later we were walking on the moon. Where will we be in another 60 years?"

"The return to the moon has begun, and I believe we will be across the transition by 2050."

While this may have sounded like an invitation to wax poetic about the wonders of human space exploration, Holcomb's enthusiastic summary of space races (old and new alike) soon took a more prosaic turn. Holcomb is also preoccupied with the physical legacy left by humans on the Moon — intentionally and otherwise.

This is the central idea behind the concept of the "lunar Anthropocene," or the theory that the geologic history of the Moon has entered a new phase because of human interference. On Earth, we divide different geologic eras into epochs. The oldest is the Hadean, which marks the period in which our planet first formed some 4.5 billion years ago, around the same time our moon formed as well.

Together, our homeworld and our largest satellite have gone through many dramatic changes over the centuries, from volcanic eruptions to powerful meteor impacts. Earth is currently in an epoch known as the Holocene, but some scientists argue that the Industrial Revolution is so impactful, we have shifted into an entirely new era: the Anthropocene, from the Greek word for human. The term was popularized more than two decades ago by atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer, an ecologist and paleolimnologist.

Not every geologist agrees with this assessment — some argue our impact will be minimal in the geologic long-term, though devastating for us and most other species in the short-term. Nonetheless, while it's not an official term, the concept of the Anthropocene helps illustrate how humans have changed Earth through climate change, plastic pollution, light pollution, biodiversity loss and in many other ways.

"The lunar surface preserves two distinct periods of human activity, including the space race of the mid-twentieth century and our
more recent robotic lunar exploration."

The question is, if we live in the Anthropocene, does the same concept apply to the Moon? That's precisely the argument a group of anthropologists and geologists propose in a recent commentary in the journal Nature Geoscience. If accurate, Holcomb and his co-authors Rolfe David Mandel and Karl William Wegmann believe the lunar Anthropocene began thanks to the Space Race of the mid-twentieth century.

Examples of archaeological artifacts and features on the Moon (University of Kansas/Justin Holcomb et al)

"The lunar surface preserves two distinct periods of human activity, including the space race of the mid-twentieth century and our
more recent robotic lunar exploration," the authors write. The first phase includes the Cold War era, during which the United States and Soviet Union competed for military dominance through a proxy war of scientific progress in outer space. A newer phase of the space race, which commenced with the onset of the 21st century, is fueled by the private sector as well as government endeavors.

"Since 2001, private companies acting semi-independently from government agencies have funded and promoted novel and relatively affordable access to space," the authors explain. "Their activities include the development of space tourism, investments in lunar surface habitation and mining, research and development in space manufacturing and assembly, new cislunar orbits and satellite internet constellations."

"Footprints and rover wheel tracks are extensions of the human presence on the Moon and should be considered important cultural features of our species’ dispersal across our solar system."

To understand the consequences of all this activity, it is first necessary to break up the Moon's history into its official phases. Much as the Earth's history has been shaped by geology and climate, the Moon has a geologic timescale based on lava infilling and impact craters. Its five time periods include the Pre-Nectarian, Nectarian, Imbrian, Eratosthenian and Copernican. The last of those, the Copernican, covers the last 1.1 billion years of history — long before mammals, let alone human beings, even existed.

So what kinds of materials could be left behind by human activity, and to such an extent as to break the Moon out of the Copernican period? The list is quite various and includes, as Holcomb and his co-authors put it, "discarded and abandoned spacecraft components, bags of human excreta, scientific equipment, and other objects (e.g., flags, golf balls, photographs, religious texts)." The authors add that "footprints and rover wheel tracks are extensions of the human presence on the Moon and should be considered important cultural features of our species’ dispersal across our solar system."

These pollution concerns do not even begin to cover the issues that arise with spacecraft debris. According to the U.S. Space Surveillance Network, there are more than 36,500 pieces of orbital debris at least 10 cm in diameter or larger, and "only minimal effort is being made to track the deposition of space heritage on the Moon and elsewhere."

Writing to Salon, Holcomb cited historical archaeologist Pete Capelotti when the latter identified five categories of lunar artifacts: "lunar module ascent stages, lunar module descent stages, Saturn V third-stage rockets, subsatellite science probes, and lunar rovers."


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


"One downside to the privatization of space exploration is that literally anyone could land on the moon and disturb various areas."

"Each of these categories would have further artifacts," Holcomb added, "but especially scientific equipment."

There are several problems with leaving behind all of this stuff, as well as with the human activity which causes it. One is that some of the scientific and other materials left behind by humans retain historic significance. No one wants the sites of Apollo 11 or Chandrayaan-3 (India's impending Moon mission) to be lost forever. Additionally, as the authors write, "we know that while the Moon does not have an atmosphere or magnetosphere, it does have a delicate exosphere composed of dust and gas, as well as ice inside permanently shadowed areas, and both are susceptible to exhaust gas propagation." They urge future missions "must consider mitigating deleterious effects on lunar environments."

This naturally raises questions about whether the private or public sector is best equipped to handle lunar exploration going forward. On this, Holcomb takes a nuanced view.

"I think that it’s a good thing that the New Space Race involves more than just government entities, because it allows more diversity in the space industry, which means more unique problem solving and innovation," Holcomb said, emphasizing that he is against neither space exploration nor humans returning to the Moon. "One downside, however, to the privatization of space exploration is that literally anyone could land on the moon and disturb various areas. We do need to ensure legislative oversight as we move into this new space future, and this should be an international endeavor."

We need your help to stay independent

He added that although the 2020 Artemis Accords lay out a foundation for law on the Moon, they are non-binding "and only has one line dedicated to space heritage. Regardless, it is a step forward and we should begin ensuring efforts like this are at the forefront before the colonization of the moon begins."

When asked if there were any other important points he felt needed to be broached, Holcomb returned to the subject of preparing for humanity's inevitable colonization of the Moon — and the role that archaeologists can play in preparing our species.

"The return to the moon has begun, and I believe we will be across the transition by 2050," Holcomb explained. "Our goal with this paper is to initiate discussions about what this means now, rather than later. One way we could discuss this historical point is by placing it in the theoretical context of the Anthropocene (age of humans). In this way, we can place our recent impact on the moon into the history of human evolution as a species and measure it through the archaeological record produced by humans since our exodus out of Africa."

This is why, Holcomb concluded, a robust conversation must occur including multiple fields not normally associated with planetary science including "anthropology, ecology, and of course, archaeology."

Andre Braugher, star of “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” and “Homicide: Life on the Street,” dies at 61

Andre Braugher, the two-time Emmy winner who starred in such critically acclaimed series as “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” and “Homicide: Life on the Street,” died Monday after a short illness, according to Deadline. He was 61.

Braugher’s charisma and versatility made him a magnetic screen presence, notably in the role of the egotistical, driven Baltimore Det. Frank Pembleton in “Homicide.” That performance still ranks among the best in TV history and earned him his first drama lead actor Emmy in 1998. Following his work on that NBC procedural he assumed a gentler role in the short-lived, Peabody-winning TNT series “Men of a Certain Age” alongside Ray Romano and Scott Bakula.

His second Emmy win in 2006 was for “Thief,” a limited series in which he traded Pembleton’s cutting intensity for smolder as the leader of a heist crew grieving his wife’s death. But he also parlayed the gravitas he honed through years of Shakespearean stage performance in deadpan comedic delivery in 2013’s “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” an audience favorite casting him as unflappable, rarely smiling precinct Captain Raymond Holt.

The Chicago-born, Julliard-trained actor made his screen debut in 1989’s "Glory," in which he co-starred with Denzel Washington and Matthew Broderick. His next role would have been in Shonda Rhimes' “The Residence,” a Netflix production. Four episodes of its eight episodes had been shot before production suspended filming due to the Writers Guild of America strike. It was set to resume production in early January. 

He is survived by his wife Ami Brabson, with whom he co-starred in “Homicide: Life on the Street,” and three children.

House Republican admits vote for Biden impeachment inquiry despite lack of evidence is for election

Some House Republicans are openly admitting that they have no evidence to impeach President Joe Biden as they prepare to vote to officially launch a probe into him later this week. 

When asked if Biden committed high crimes or misdemeanors, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told reporters on Tuesday, "Probably not."

"They're getting millions of dollars off the Biden name," Bacon said, but added, "that's not to say there was a crime by the president."

Bacon told Fox News that he changed his position from opposing the inquiry in the last two weeks because Biden's administration has indicated it would not be providing documents if the House doesn't hold a formal impeachment inquiry.

"Well I translate that to say, 'We better pass an impeachment inquiry so we can get this information," Bacon explained. 

We need your help to stay independent

The lower chamber of Congress is set to vote formally approve the inquiry on Wednesday. Ahead of the vote, the resolution to authorize the was considered by House Rules Committee on Tuesday. 

A separate resolution the committee will consider would assert that any subpoenas issued after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced the investigation in late September — but before the full House vote — carry the same legal weight as subpoenas issued after the vote.

House Republicans have a slim margin for error in the vote as they can only afford to have three dissenters within their ranks — down from four due to Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. expulsion — to approve the impeachment probe if all members are present and Democrats vote no. 

Several of the 17 Republicans in district Biden won in 2020, along with other center-right lawmakers, have been skeptical about proceeding with the inquiry. Speaker Mike Johnson, who recognized many Republican representatives don't believe Biden has committed impeachable offenses, has floated the vote as an opportunity to imbue the investigation with greater powers. 

The GOP, like Bacon, has also argued that the move is now necessary in order to get around what they claim is the Biden administration's stonewalling of the inquiry.

“The concerns are very real, and the evidence is stacked up to a level where I believe going forward in a formal impeachment inquiry is justified,” Rep. John Duarte, R-Calif., one of the 17 Republicans told the Washington Examiner. “We need the complete set of facts. And I am going to support the committee to get the complete set of facts.”

Despite plans to move forward with the vote, more Republicans are saying there isn't enough evidence to impeach Biden, who has been under congressional scrutiny since the GOP assumed control of the House earlier this year. 

Republican Main Street Caucus chair Dusty Johnson, South Dakota

, said Monday that "there's not evidence to impeach," but said the vote this week was not about whether the party would impeach the president or not. 

"I’m not an expert,” he told reporters. He declared that “we have had enough political impeachments in this country” and said he's willing to go along with leadership's direction because he believes the Biden administration has failed to comply with everything. 

“I don't like the stonewalling the administration has done,” Johnson added. “But listen, if we don't have the receipts, then that should constrain what the House does.”

Republicans have argued that the formalization of the probe will give the party greater purchase in potential legal battles over compliance with subpoenas in the investigation. The party is already involved in a high-profile sparring match with Hunter Biden, the president's son, over his testimony in the inquiry. The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the younger Biden to testify behind closed doors, but he has previously refused to sit for deposition, instead offering to testify in a public hearing. 

GOP investigators haven't produced any evidence that directly links the president to his family's overseas business activity, which have been a key factor in the probe. Witnesses in the investigation have also negated allegations of a bribery scheme involving then-Vice President Biden.

Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., told the Messenger he views the impeachment inquiry as a "necessary step" and as a "kind of formality" to give investigators stronger tools to carry out the probe. That said, Newhouse, one of two House Republicans still serving in Congress who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, clarified that the official opening of an inquiry does not mean the chamber with ultimately vote to impeach the president. 

"I don't think that's a foregone conclusion," he told the outlet, noting the inquiry is designed to "get the answers to the necessary questions in order to be able to make that decision."

Bacon echoed those sentiments in an interview with the Washington Examiner, adding that "more likely than not" articles of impeachment won't be drafted when the inquiry comes to an end.

"Frankly, my thought is, and I may be an outlier on this, I think it's more important to have this information for the elections. Let the voters decide,” Bacon told Hill reporters. “I don't know that you're going to see a high crime or misdemeanor, but I think the voters deserve to know what did the Bidens do with $25 million. Where did it come in from? Where did it go? I think the voters should know what's going on.”

Bacon explained that he didn't believe a vote to formalize the inquiry would hurt the Republicans representing Biden-won district but acknowledged that “an impeachment is a different story.”

"With the information we have now, you wouldn’t get a single Democrat vote. It would just die in the Senate,” he told the Examiner. “We've seen the history. … Whatever party pushes on impeachment loses seats. And so we'd be the minority if we do it with the current information we have. You got to have high crimes and misdemeanors. We should do it right, play this by the book.”

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., has voiced his decision to vote against formalizing the inquiry, telling NBC News last week that he believes he's the only GOP representative planning to vote no. 

Democrats also pushed back against the vote on Monday.

“If House Republicans took the time to look at their local newspaper, they would know that the public isn’t interested in wasting any more time on a sham impeachment," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Viet Shelton told NBC News. "The American people want results on the kitchen table issues that matter to their day-to-day lives — not MAGA Republicans’ obsession with Donald Trump’s reckless revenge quest.”

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., on Tuesday criticized Bacon for saying he'd vote in favor of formalizing the Biden impeachment inquiry despite his admission to reporters. 

"I guess the question is when are people going to stand up and end this extreme political stunt?" McGovern said. "This is not the beginning of something. This should be the end of something. You've been doing this for over a year, and there's nothing there. There's no smoke. So this is a colossal waste of time." 

 

Universal health coverage is “urgently needed,” World Health Organization says

This week, the World Health Organization published its 2023 global health expenditure report, revealing how much of a financial toll COVID-19 took on health systems worldwide. According to the report, spending on health in 2021 reached a new high of $9.8 trillion, an estimated 10.3 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP).

While the report found that spending on health increased across the world, low-income countries only accounted for 0.24 percent of global health expenditure, despite having 8 percent of the world’s population. Taking a deeper look, the report stated that 11 percent of the world’s population lived in countries that spent less than $50 per person, per year on health. In contrast, the average per capita spending was an estimated $4,000 in high-income countries. The WHO said that the report highlights how the growth in disparities can’t be sustained long-term, and that universal health coverage is desperately needed. 

“Sustained public financing on health is urgently needed to progress towards universal health coverage,” said Dr Bruce Aylward, WHO Assistant Director-General, Universal Health Coverage, Life Course in a statement. “It is especially critical at this time when the world is confronted by the climate crisis, conflicts and other complex emergencies. People’s health and well-being need to be protected by resilient health systems that can also withstand these shocks.”

 

Free-ranging cats kill thousands of species — and some of them are endangered, study finds

Free-ranging cats are "invasive carnivores" and among "the most problematic invasive species in the world," according to a recent study published in the journal Nature Communications. Defining "free-ranging cats" as "owned or unowned cats with access to the outdoor environment," researchers from the United States, Australia, New Zealand and France reviewed 533 studies on free-range cat diets to learn more about their impact on local ecosystems. In the process, they discovered there are at least 2,084 species eaten by cats — of which 347 are of conservation concern. "Birds comprised 47.07% (981 species), followed by reptiles (463 species, 22.22%), mammals (431 species, 20.68%), insects (119 species, 5.71%), and amphibians (57 species, 2.74%)," the authors explain.

The scientists also noted the shocking range of cat diets, characterizing them as "extreme generalist predators" who will feed off of animals as large as American bullfrogs, emus, green sea turtles and domestic cows. "Approximately 9% of known birds, 6% of known mammals, and 4% of known reptile species are identified in cat diets," the researchers add. While their omnivorous dietary skills are impressive, they also have a dire impact on native species. The scientists point out that the confirmed 2,084 species known to be eaten by cats is almost certainly quite low compared to the total number, given how many regions in the world (including Africa) have scant research on domestic cat diets. Yet their final conclusion is inescapable.

"Cats depredate and scavenge a large fraction of the species present across the range available in the landscapes they forage in," the authors write. Experts urge cat owners to keep their animals indoors. In the United States alone, outdoor cats kill 2.4 billion birds every year and have contributed to the extinction of at least 63 species of birds, mammals, and reptiles.

“Probably president”: Megyn Kelly pushes Tucker Carlson to become a politician

Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly told former Fox News star Tucker Carlson that he would "probably" serve as president or vice president of the United States one day during the Monday edition of "The Megyn Kelly Show."

Carlson joined Kelly's program to discuss his departure from the conservative network where the two were primetime stars and his new streaming service among other subjects, including the 2024 election. After playing a clip of Trump saying he likes Carlson "a lot" and would consider him as a potential running mate, Kelly asked if Carlson would accept the role. 

“It’s just so unimaginable,” Carlson replied, arguing that he hasn’t “led a life that prepares a person for politics.”

Carlson added, "I’m a total sucker for Trump, I think he’s- you know personally I get along with Trump really well. The closer I am physically to Trump, like if I’m with him in the room, I always love Trump and I think it’s impossible not to, and you know the experience. He’s just charming, OK? And he’s funny as hell, and he’s brave in his way I think.” Despite his admiration for the former president, Carlon reiterated that he isn't "suited for that."

Kelly, however, disagreed.

“If I had you on that debate stage, Tucker — I actually thought about this — if you were out on that debate stage last week as one of the candidates, it would be so fun because you really would just be saying what’s real, there’s be no massaging of message, and everyone would respond so well to you,” Kelly asserted. “When someone is as authentic as you are, the people know! I just don’t think there- you’re not gonna end your life without having been, probably president, maybe vice president, I just don’t think you will.”

Julia Roberts predicts where her iconic “Pretty Woman” to “Notting Hill” characters would be today

Julia Roberts is best known for her iconic roles as leading ladies in romantic comedies throughout the '90s, capturing the hearts of people everywhere in films like "Notting Hill" and "Pretty Woman." In an interview with Gayle King for CBS Mornings, King asked Roberts where all her characters would be today. She began with Vivian from "Pretty Woman," in which Roberts played a sex worker who fell in love with one of her clients, a wealthy businessman played by Richard Gere.

Roberts theorized that Vivan and Edward would no longer be together because she thinks "he passed away peacefully in his sleep from a heart attack, smiling. And now she runs his business." Another one of Roberts' popular movies, "My Best Friend's Wedding," involves a love triangle with Roberts' character Julianne, who is in love with her best friend Michael (Dermot Mulroney). Unfortunately, Michael is getting married to the young blonde Kimberly (Cameron Diaz). Roberts said "He's married and faithful to his wife. And George (Rupert Everett) and Julianne start a do-it-yourself show on HGTV and become wildly famous."

Last but not least, Roberts shared a "fan theory" about the beloved rom-com "Notting Hill," in which Roberts played a famous American actress Anna Scott who falls in love with a normal British bookstore owner named William, played be Hugh Grant. "She's retired. She has six children and has maintained her waist size, amazingly. And yeah … he runs the bookshop still. And now there's a little knitting annex to the bookshop that she runs," she said.

 

IKEA’s brand-new holiday offering is a ginormous, Turkey-Sized Swedish meatball

IKEA knows that its loyal shoppers are fans of the food court Swedish meatballs — especially during the holiday season. The furniture retail company previously released a meatball-scented candle, which was available for a limited time only. This time, IKEA is rolling out its biggest offering yet: giant, turkey-sized meatballs.

Initially believed to be a hoax, the meatballs were officially announced on IKEA UK's Instagram page last week. And on Dec. 9, IKEA shared that 30 lucky winners will be able to get their hands on the meatballs as part of a special giveaway. IKEA is also giving away 30 of its Veggieball Christmas Trees, made just for those who prefer to go meatless. 

Unfortunately, only those who live in the U.K. are eligible to participate. Winners will be able to pick up their meat (or veggie) meatballs from their designated IKEA store right before Christmas on Dec. 22 or Dec. 23.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0eAn-4h1XX/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=f2d8006a-4205-482e-813e-12fe8ebfa467

https://www.instagram.com/p/C0oGCZ0JDdp/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=e647438e-5b57-467c-b09e-872f66d99fdd&img_index=1

 

During the holidays, make your French toast even better by soaking it in eggnog

If you love eggnog and enjoy French toast, putting the two together is a match made in Heaven.

The basic ingredients of eggnog — eggs and cream — along with its spicy, melted-ice-cream-like flavor all but beckon to be added to your pain perdu, especially once cartons of eggnog appear at the grocery store in every conceivable sort of dairy and non-dairy styles imaginable. And can we agree that starting the morning off with a shot or two of rum might be just what the doctor ordered by mid-December?

I jest, any alcohol added or already steeped in your eggnog will more than likely be cooked away . . . but the spirit of such a wild and rebellious act does remain.

Speaking of pain perdu, this is French toast. Most of us have certainly Americanized it by not caring much about the quality of the bread we use or the flavor of our eggy-creamy batter, because we are more than likely going to drench it all in syrup and butter anyway. I am not advocating that we abandon that glorious sugar puddle on our plates necessarily, but if we are coachable, we can learn something from the French here. 

Number one, if we want superior French toast, we should be a bit more finical and discerning when choosing our bread; and number two, we should mix up a batter that will yield something flavorsome even if we were to serve it . . . [*gasp*] . . . sans-syrup. 

Choosing a proper bread is simple: Step away from your favorite bag of sliced sandwich bread. Choose instead a stale or dried out brioche, French bread or baguette, sourdough, or even stale Texas toast or challah. Whatever you choose, it should be an inch or more in thickness.


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


The batter is where things get a little trickier. It's still easy, but a bit less exact. How stale your bread is, as well as the type you opt for, will impact how much liquid you need and how much of said batter is absorbed. The proportion of eggs to cream is really all you need, which is about 2:1 eggs to cream, to make up enough to have on hand. Then adjust the amounts of sweetener and spices accordingly. 

Another variable when making French toast is the makeup of the eggnog you are using. For most store bought varieties, consider it simply the cream portion in the recipe and add an extra egg yolk. If you have leftover homemade eggnog that is thick and made with plenty of eggs, add only one or two yolks when making up your batter. What results should be rich and custard-like.

Without a doubt, eggnog is a great way to impart more flavor into your French toast while making breakfast time more festive during the holidays. Whether you slather yours with syrup, or step outside the typical and opt to top yours with sweetened, vanilla-spiked, fresh whipped cream, berries, and a sprinkling of grated orange zest, Eggnog French Toast will put you in the mood to sing carols and wrap presents.

And you may decide to save your maple syrup for pancakes once you treat yourself to these.  

We need your help to stay independent

Eggnog French Toast
Yields
04 servings
Prep Time
10 minutes
Cook Time
10 minutes

Ingredients

1 1/4 cup eggnog

2 to 3 egg yolks (omit the whites for better flavor and texture)

Dash of vanilla extract

1 to 2 tablespoons dark rum, optional

2 to 3 tablespoons coconut sugar, maple syrup or brown sugar

Hefty shake of cinnamon

A little nutmeg

Pinch of salt

8 slices of dried out French bread or stale bread of choice 

4 to 6 pats of butter to cook toast, may need more

Options for serving: Sweetened whipped cream, berries, powdered sugar, grated orange zest, nutmeg, cinnamon, maple syrup

 

Directions

  1. Whisk to thoroughly combine all ingredients except bread slices and butter in a shallow, wide bowl.

  2. Using a large skillet or griddle over medium heat, add a pat or two of butter, enough to coat the surface when melted. 

  3. Prepare bread in batches according to how many slices your skillet or griddle can hold at one time by dipping each slice of bread into eggnog mixture. After fully soaking each side of bread, place it onto hot skillet. Then prepare the next piece in the same fashion.

  4. Cook until when the corner is lifted, the bottom is nicely browned, about 3-4 minutes. Flip like a pancake and cook the second side until also golden brown.

  5. Plate and keep warm in a low oven until ready to serve.


Cook's Notes

Why omit the the egg whites and use only the yolks? You will love the richer flavor and superior texture. Egg whites are more difficult to blend fully with yolks and cream which can leave you with funky bits of unincorporated egg that is neither appealing to see or to taste.

Experts praise Jack Smith’s “leapfrog” to SCOTUS: “It is hard for Trump to logically object”

Legal experts are singing special counsel Jack Smith's praises after the federal prosecutor dodged an effort from Donald Trump to delay his criminal case in Washington, D.C. by asking the Supreme Court to rule expeditedly on whether the former president's claims of presidential immunity from prosecution.

In an effort to have the indictment thrown out, Trump put forth the argument that he can't be prosecuted for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results because he was president at the time. He's also argued that he can't be prosecuted because, while he was impeached by the House of Representatives, he was not convicted by the Senate.

U.S. District Judge Tanya denied his motion to have the case dismissed earlier this month, declaring that Trump is not immune from prosecution for criminal acts. 

“Defendant’s four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens," Chutkan wrote.

The former president's subsequent appeal of Chutkan's decision and request that the case be paused while its decided prompted Smith to file his Monday petition to the Supreme Court to rule on the question of presidential immunity for Trump in an effort to circumvent the former president's delay tactic and allow the case, which is scheduled to go to trial in March, to progress. 

We need your help to stay independent

According to CNN, the Supreme Court agreed to expedite consideration of Smith's petition Monday evening and instructed Trump's team to respond by Dec. 20.

"The petition for cert/motion to expedite before judgment is one of those moves that look obvious after you see them, but nobody I know had anticipated," Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "It was a masterstroke."

In an appearance on MSNBC earlier Monday, former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissman explained that while Smith's effort to skip over the D.C. Court of Appeals to go directly to the high court is unusual, it's employed to expedite a case, citing the Supreme Court's expedited ruling on President Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal investigation.

"The real issue is the delay because if this takes a long time, they're going to lose that trial date, and this is a case where putting a jury together can take months," Weissman said, referencing reports that Chutkan has already started the jury selection process.

"That kind of delay could jeopardize this case actually going to trial before the general election, which is why what Jack Smith is doing is a smart move just in terms of timing," Weismann added.

The former federal prosecutor expanded on his analysis of Smith's petition on X, explaining how it would theoretically benefit Trump. 

“It is hard for Trump to logically object to Smith’s request today for expedited Supreme Ct review since it is Trump who is claiming he [should] not be subject to the indictment at all,” Weissmann wrote. “Expedited review only helps alleviate that harm, if he is correct (which he is not).”

He also took note of the newest member of Smith's team: "the storied appellate lawyer Michael Dreeben. Argued over 100 cases in Supreme Court, and was head appellate lawyer on SC Mueller team."

Steve Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, lauded Dreeben's presence on Smith's team, asserting that "if I were taking a criminal procedure issue to the Court, there's no one I'd want as my special counsel *more* than Michael Dreeben."


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


Litman also called Smith's petition a "game changer" among other praises.

"Do you get the impression that I think that the petition for cert before judgment on the immunity issue is a huge and possibly brilliant move by Jack Smith and Company? That’s because I think that it is a huge and possibly brilliant move, a game changer one way or another," Litman tweeted

twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1734278709971165602

"DOJ could’ve played it passive, and tried to suggest to the court that it didn’t need to take up the immunity issue. But it realized that was a longshot and not candid besides; so they very smartly decided to jump the gun," he added, noting in another post that the move also ties Trump's hands. 

Before the Supreme Court agreed to Smith's request, Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe said Smith's petition is "exactly the right move."

"The issue is purely legal and delay hurts the country," he added.

"Unwilling to play Trump’s stupid reindeer games, Jack Smith takes the reins and seeks an expedited answer from the Supreme Court on Trump’s baseless claim that he is above the law and can’t be prosecuted for his crimes," former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner added