Ten people from a cruise ship quarantined off Japan have tested positive for the novel coronavirus that has sickened more than 24,000 people in mainland China and killed 490, officials said.
Japan’s health minister, Katsunobu Kato, said Wednesday local time that the 10 people from the Diamond Princess will be escorted to a facility in Kanagawa prefecture, where Yokohama is located.
Princess Cruises identified the 10 who tested positive as nine guests — two Australians, three Japanese, three from Hong Kong, and one from the U.S. — as well as one Filipino crew member.
Princess Cruises has said a guest who later tested positive for coronavirus sailed from Yokohama on Jan. 20 and disembarked at Hong Kong on Jan. 25.
The person did not report any symptoms while on the ship but tested positive Saturday after visiting a Hong Kong hospital, the cruise line said.
Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.
The confirmation set off a round of testing for 273 people who either showed symptoms or had close contact with the patient who disembarked in Hong Kong, Kato said.
Ten of the first 31 people tested were positive for the virus, he said. Samples from the 242 other passengers and crew are still being tested.
The 10 people showed signs of novel coronavirus, but none needed to be carried off the ship on stretchers, Kato said.
About 3,700 people are aboard the cruise ship — 2,666 guests and 1,045 crew — according to the cruise ship company. They will be held in protective quarantine for 10 to 14 days, Kato said at a news conference.
Download the NBC News app for breaking news
“Princess Cruises will continue to fully cooperate with and follow the instructions of global medical authorities and the Japanese government,” the company said. It added that the ship would ensure that those who are quarantined have internet and phone access and would be made comfortable.
Princess Cruises said in a statement that two cruises that had been scheduled to leave Yokohama on Tuesday and Feb. 12 have been canceled.
By Tuesday, more than 20,000 novel coronavirus cases had been confirmed in mainland China, with 425 deaths, China’s national health commission said. The illness was first detected in Wuhan, which is at the center of the outbreak.
There are 11 confirmed novel coronavirus cases in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Other people are being tested. The U.S. has suspended entry for foreign nationals who have visited China in the last 14 days, and it has announced other measures for people coming into the country from China.
Standing behind Trump, Nancy Pelosi rips up a copy of his State of the Union speech right after he finishes
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore a copy of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech in half Tuesday shortly after he concluded his address in the House chamber.
As is custom, Trump had given Pelosi, D-Calif., a copy of his remarks before he began the speech. But as soon as he was finished and while Republicans were cheering his remarks, she stood up behind the president and ripped the speech papers in half.
The unprecedented gesture was just one of many signs of contention between the two leaders and, more broadly, among members of both political parties.
Earlier in the evening, after Trump reached the lectern before starting his remarks, he did not shake Pelosi’s outstretched hand. He went on to deliver a deeply partisan speech, prompting audible groans from Democrats in attendance at various points as Republicans often cheered loudly and chants of “four more years” rang out. At other points while Trump was speaking, Pelosi was seen shaking her head.
Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.
Trump’s address comes amid his impeachment trial in the Senate, which will vote Wednesday and is widely expected to acquit the president on two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Pelosi, leaving the House floor, said she tore up the speech “because it was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternative.”
The White House responded to with scorn, claiming Pelosi was tearing up the Americans the president honored in his address.
Moments later, Pelosi tweeted in reference to the apparent handshake snub.
As tempers simmered after both leaders left the House chamber, Pelosi issued a statement elaborating on her problems with Trump’s speech.
“We had been told the President would have a positive message on health care,” Pelosi said in the statement. “However, President Trump’s address tonight gave no comfort to the 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions or the families struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need.”
Pelosi accused Trump of not being truthful about his administration’s “actions in court to destroy pre-existing condition protections,” and she accused him of ignoring a bill approved by the House aimed at lowering prescription drug prices.
“The manifesto of mistruths presented in page after page of the address tonight should be a call to action for everyone who expects truth from the President and policies worthy of his office and the American people,” Pelosi said.
Frank Thorp V, Julie Tsirkin and Haley Talbot contributed.
WASHINGTON — On the eve of his likely acquittal on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, an emboldened President Donald Trump delivered a defiant State of the Union speech that was light on olive branches, heavy on partisan broadsides.
Standing before the very body that has been debating his removal from office, and in the same chamber where he was impeached, Trump delivered a prime-time address strikingly similar to the campaign speeches he uses to rouse his base, with references to God, guns and the evils of socialism.
While the word “impeachment” wasn’t in the president’s remarks, the tensions were palpable from the start — Republicans chanted “four more years” as Trump entered the chamber and pointedly avoided shaking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand — to the end, when Pelosi, D-Calif., still seated behind him, ripped up a copy of his speech.
It was clear from the moment Trump entered the chamber that his speech, which carried many of the same themes as his last State of the Union address, was coming in a much different climate.
This time last year, a swarm of uncertainties hung over Trump’s presidency. He had just been through a politically bruising government shutdown in a bid to secure funding for his border wall. Special counsel Robert Mueller had yet to release the results of his investigation of Russian contact with the Trump campaign. And Democrats had just taken control of the House of Representatives, vowing a range of new investigations of the president and his administration.
Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.
On Tuesday, Trump delivered a triumphant re-election-year State of the Union, taking the stage in what was shaping up to be one of the better weeks of his presidency.
It began Monday, as he seized on the reporting meltdown in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa to launch attacks on the Democratic Party’s competence and trustworthiness. On Tuesday, hours ahead of his speech, a new Gallup poll indicated the highest approval rating of his presidency. And on Wednesday, the Senate is expected to acquit him on the articles of impeachment, with few signs of any Republicans willing to even consider breaking ranks.
In the nearly 80-minute address, which contained many elements of his campaign rally stump speech, Trump rattled off one metric after another of economic gains under his administration, which he described as a “blue-collar boom.” And he used the moment not only to tout his accomplishments, but also to belittle his adversaries.
“If we had not reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration, the world would not now be witnessing this great economic success,” Trump said to cheers from Republicans and boos from Democrats.
Trump’s administration has continued an economic recovery that began under the administration of President Barack Obama, which inherited an economy in free fall.
Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics
The president’s remarks came just hours after the first of the delayed Iowa caucus results were released. The partial results showed former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at the front of the pack.
While Trump didn’t mention any of his Democratic opponents by name, referring to them instead as “the radical left,” he took on their policies — particularly around health care. Trump said there were some in the room who “want to take away your health care, take away your doctor and abolish private insurance entirely.” In response, several Democrats shouted “you!” and pointed back at him.
The partisan split reached its apex when Trump took the unprecedented action of giving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who’d announced Monday that he was suffering from advanced lung cancer. As first lady Melania Trump placed the medal around Limbaugh’s neck, someone in the gallery screamed, “Thank you, Rush!” — prompting groans from Democrats.
In the end, the bipartisan moments were few, including a perennial hat tip to the need for infrastructure funding and a nod to Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó.
White House officials said beforehand that the speech was intended to strike an optimistic tone focused on the theme of “the great American comeback,” a stark contrast to the dark “American carnage” imagery he used in his inauguration speech just over three years ago.
In the end, Tuesday’s speech retained many of the same notes of Trump’s first presidential address, with graphic examples of threats he said faced the nation from within and without. But as he faced Congress for the last time before voters weigh in on his re-election, it was also loaded with an unmistakable tone of triumphalism.
As the Senate prepares for its final impeachment vote Wednesday — a vote that, by all accounts, will acquit President Donald Trump — Democrats are scrambling to find other ways to hold Trump accountable. One suggestion, thrown out by Joe Manchin, a moderate Democratic senator from West Virginia, would be to censure Trump. Manchin said Monday that he believes that a “bipartisan majority of this body would vote to censure President Trump.”
Manchin is most likely wrong, unless private conversations with Republicans not named “Romney” hold up when exposed to the glare of Twitter. But what would a censure of Trump look like? Or accomplish? The first and only time the Senate censured a president was in 1834, when it condemned Andrew Jackson, whose portrait hangs in the Oval Office where Trump now sits.
Jackson, like Trump, read little and spelled poorly — the president he defeated in 1828, John Quincy Adams, labeled him a “barbarian.”
Jackson, like Trump, read little and spelled poorly — the president he defeated in 1828, John Quincy Adams, labeled him a “barbarian.” Jackson also had an authoritarian manner, which he’d developed as a major general, and he claimed to understand, at the gut level, all issues a president needed to confront. He boasted, swore, insulted perceived personal and political enemies and demanded unquestioned loyalty from all who served his administration. He was caricatured as “King Andrew I,” a would-be monarch. Among our early presidents, he was the one most associated with the aggrieved white common man. He was, incidentally, as he exited the presidency in his 70th year, the oldest man to have served as president up to then.
Get the think newsletter.
In 1834, exhausted by the seventh president’s antics and unpredictable outbursts, senators in the rising Whig Party blew off steam by voting to censure Jackson for withholding documents relating to a tirade he had directed at the Bank of the United States, an institution that afforded economic stability but that Jackson claimed was anti-democratic — and out to get him.
An obvious question in this murky business concerns the non-punitive character of congressional censure. The purpose of censure is to discredit both the president’s act and the motive behind it. The desirable outcome must be reformation of bad behavior. Do any “conscience” Republicans who may privately be saddened believe censure will do any good in altering the actions of the current president?
If historical example helps, Jackson did not change one iota. He was, at least on the surface, unfazed. Despite attacks from the likes of Henry Clay of Kentucky, Jackson’s chief antagonist in the Senate, Sen. Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri described Jackson as “perfectly mild in his language, cheerful in his temper, firm in his conviction.” In fact, Jackson was never known to be perfectly mild — not a day in his life. As a general facing censure back in 1819 for having exceeded his orders in Spanish Florida, he had threatened to cut off the ears of the senators who dared to investigate his behavior.
The Constitution provides for censure in the case of an errant member of Congress, but it does not specifically grant Congress the option to censure an executive whose behavior falls short of the impeachment standard. The first clear attempt to censure a president was pursued by Rep. Edward Livingston of New York against John Adams for improper interference in a judicial matter. As mayor of New York a few short years later, Livingston was implicated in a financial scandal and found a safer haven in rough-and-tumble Louisiana. There, he assisted Gen. Andrew Jackson during the Battle of New Orleans at the end of 1814, returned to Congress when Jackson was president and served his friend as secretary of state and as an occasional speechwriter in the years leading up to the Whig censure vote.
Lest anyone assume early 19th-century politics was less combative or less confusing than it is now, there were actually many more partisan-driven censure votes over the course of the century. The famously independent Rep. John Quincy Adams, who despised Jackson, opposed the Whig-led censure in 1834 because he recognized it as a purely partisan device; in 1842, Adams sought a remedy for the veto-happy President John Tyler by formally studying whether to censure him, impeach him or rein him in by constitutional amendment.
Falling short of impeachment, censure was meant as a moral statement absent any more serious punishment.
Historically, Congress (either the House or the Senate) has weighed censure of a president as a form of reprimand for one or another abuse of power. Falling short of impeachment, censure was meant as a moral statement absent any more serious punishment. Most of those attempts have gone nowhere — as will most likely happen with Trump given the Republicans’ majority. In 1972, months before the Watergate break-in, a House resolution considered censuring President Richard Nixon over his conduct in prosecuting the war in Southeast Asia.
So Congress has generally dealt with censure in a haphazard way. Modern philosophy is only slightly more informative. It tends to define an act of censure as the institutional means of informing a person that an action was morally wrong and inexcusable.
Still, in the case of Trump, the question would appear moot. His threats to the disaffected in his own party are blatant, and his divide-and-conquer approach amid demands of fealty have somehow kept a host of elected representatives in line, or at least malleable. Reporters show these members of Congress dodging direct questions when they are presented in terms of moral leadership. It is hard to imagine enough of them accepting censure to limit their exposure to unhappy voters back home.
Even if a censure vote were to succeed, the magnitude of the infraction in Trump’s ill-considered Ukraine-Biden gambit is likely to remain as debatable as before. Regardless of where senators come down on the censure question, if history is any guide, we will be in as gray an area as before Manchin floated his alternative. One can just imagine a White House spokesman brushing off reports to the contrary and insisting that Trump, like Jackson, greeted the news with his well-known cheerful temper.
Food plays a huge role in our lives. It brings people together, introduces new cuisines and cultures, and nourishes our bodies — and minds. So when you give someone on your list a cookbook, you’re offering them a gift that keeps on giving (and indirectly feeding). That’s especially true when they have some of the best gadgets for home cooks to help them along.
And 2019 has been a great year for cookbooks. From Alison Roman’s “Nothing Fancy” and Antoni Porowski’s “Antoni in the Kitchen” to JL Fields’s “Fast & Easy Vegan Cookbook” and Toni Tipton-Martin’s “Jubilee,” there are plenty of options for the discerning home cook to learn more recipes. Whether you’re shopping for a serious foodie, an avid home chef, a vegan, a health nut, or a passionate grillmaster, we have more than two dozen options in this updated annual cookbook guide to help you find a perfect fit.
Best cookbooks to gift
1. “Indian-ish: Recipes and Antics from a Modern American Family” by Priya Krishna
This illustrated cookbook ( aims to help anyone recreate their favorite Indian dishes at home. The recipes are approachable and flavorful, melding together American and Indian classics: Roti Pizza, Tomato Rice with Crispy Cheddar, Whole Roasted Cauliflower with Green Pea Chutney, and Malaysian Ramen are just a few of the creative recipes included. In between recipes, Krishna shares heartwarming stories about her Indian-American family. In 2014, Krishina penned “Ultimate Dining Hall Hacks: Create Extraordinary Dishes from the Ordinary Ingredients in Your College Meal Plan.”
2. “Zaitoun: Recipes from the Palestinian Kitchen” by Yasmin Khan
Explore the bright and colorful cuisine of Palestinian culture through the eyes of cultural writer Yasmin Khan, who wrote 2016’s “The Saffron Tales: Recipes from the Persian Kitchen.” Zaitoun covers stories from various Palestinian kitchens — from Akka and the Jordan Valley through Gaza City — accompanied by Khan’s own images. Recipes cover everything from mezze-centric dishes to chicken and lamb stews with regional standouts from eggplant to za’atar.
3. “You Suck at Cooking: The Absurdly Practical Guide to Sucking Slightly Less at Making Food: A Cookbook“
Amateur chefs with a sense of humor will appreciate this cheeky cookbook. Based on videos from popular YouTube show “You Suck at Cooking,” this practical guide offers more than 60 beginner-friendly recipes from “Muffin-Type Things” and “Eddie’s Roasted Red Pepper Dip,” along with a hefty helping of the mystery chef’s signature sense of humor throughout.
4. “Half Baked Harvest Super Simple: More Than 125 Recipes for Instant, Overnight, Meal-Prepped, and Easy Comfort Foods: A Cookbook” by Tieghan Gerard
Tieghan Gerard’s skills as a food photographer, recipe developer, and food stylist come together in perfect harmony in her second cookbook, which includes comfort-food classics such as lobster tacos, slow roasted Moroccan salmon, and fresh corn and zucchini summer lasagna. From her home in the Colorado Rockies, Gerard delivers 125 approachable dishes that can be made using just the beginner-friendly basics of cooking. In fact, many can be made in one pot, in a slow cooker, or even the night before.
5. “Save Me the Plums: My Gourmet Memoir” by Ruth Reichl
While this pick may be more of a memoir than a classic cookbook, it’s a must-read for any home chef or aspiring food writer. In it, Ruth Reichl, a Berkeley hippie turned editor-in-chief of Gourmet, tells intriguing tales from her days at the famed food publication during a time of major shifts in the way Americans eat and cook. The book includes several recipes so you can get a taste of Gourmet at home.
6. “JGV: A Life in 12 Recipes” by Jean-Georges Vongerichten
In this memoir-slash-cookbook, Jean-Georges Vongerichten, one of the most famous chefs in the world, looks back on his career so far. From his food-focused childhood in Alsace, France, to building his Michelin-starred restaurant empire in New York City and other cities around the world. In a down-to-earth manner, Vongerichten recalls creating some of his most famous dishes. With hand-drawn sketches and intimate photographs of his life, it’s a great gift for any aspiring chef.
7. “Pastry Love: A Baker’s Journal of Favorite Recipes” by Joanne Chang
The owner and baker behind Flour, one of Boston’s most beloved bakeries, shares 125 desserts in her latest book, from simple recipes like Mocha Chip Cookies to more complex masterpieces such as Malted Chocolate Cake. While Chang’s first two books center on recipes that you’d typically see on bakery shelves, like pastries and cookies, many of the recipes in her latest cookbook include dishes more apt for a dinner party that should be served fresh.
8. “Vegetables Unleashed: A Cookbook” by José Andres and Matt Goulding
Get the better newsletter.
Spanish chef Jose Andrés really likes vegetables. Here, he shares recipes through a photo-heavy cookbook that may very well convince even the most committed carnivores. In it, Andres and Emmy- and James Beard Award-winning Matt Goulding provide plenty of tips, tricks and advice to go along with a variety of veggie-centric recipes, ranging from lentil stew to a towering beefsteak tomato burger.
9. “South: Essential Recipes and New Explorations” by Sean Brock
Southern or not, any home chef will appreciate this definitive guide to Southern cooking in their kitchen. Within the pages of South, Brock, an award-winning chef, bestselling author, and born-and-raised Southerner, includes recipes for key staples of Southern cuisine, including fried green tomatoes, grits, smoked baby back ribs, biscuits, and more. He also shares helpful and insightful tips for using essential Southern cooking tools and techniques, from a stone hearth to a cast-iron pan.
Best cookbooks to gift for the holidays
Our 2018 cookbook suggestions for holiday gifting are still good options and very much still in print. If you want more to consider, check out the list below.
10. “Breakfast: The Most Important Book About the Best Meal of the Day” by the editors of Extra Crispy
Perfect for anyone who loves eggs for dinner, this book, from the editors of ExtraCrispy.com, covers how to make all the breakfast and brunch essentials. Perfect everything from crispy French Toast and fluffy pancakes, to barista-style drinks and even commercial favorites, like Entenmann’s Cake Doughnuts and Taco Bell Crunchwraps.
11. “Cook Like a Pro” by Ina Garten
Ina Garten, a.k.a. the Barefoot Contessa, has written twelve cookbooks, has a tv show, and has built a massive food empire — without any classic training. In her latest cookbook, she shares her secrets to cooking like a pro, including her tips for custardy, slow-cooked Truffled Scrambled Eggs, as well as the juicy Fried Chicken Sandwiches.
12. “Red Truck Bakery Cookbook ” by Brian Noyes
This rural Virginia bakery counts Barack Obama and Mary Chapin Carpenter among its fans, and its charming new cookbook contains 85 southern baking recipes for cookies, cakes, pies, and more. Between the sweet-as-can-be recipes, the book is also filled with touching stories and photographs of beautiful landscapes.
13. “At My Table: A Celebration of Home Cooking” by Nigella Lawson
With more 100 mouthwatering food photographs, Lawson’s latest cookbook will help you create a fine dining experience right in your own kitchen. The recipes are simple, with unique ingredients and rich flavors, from fresh vegetable dishes such as Eastern Mediterranean Chopped Salad and Carrots and Fennel with Harissa to entrees such as Chicken Fricassee and Chili Mint Lamb Cutlets.
14. “Food for Thought” by Cristina Ferrare
With a foreword by Maria Shriver, this new cookbook provides the ultimate “brain food.” It’s filled with recipes that promote brain health, as well as overall well-being, such as Avocado Toast and Peanut Butter Amazeballs. Plus, a portion of the proceeds from the book will go to the Women’s Alzheimer’s Movement.
15. “Magnolia Table: A Collection of Recipes for Gathering” by Joanna Gaines
Gaines believes there’s no better way to celebrate family and friendship than through sharing a great meal together. Now, you can take a page from her (cook)book, and share one of her personal favorite recipes with your own family. Choose from 125 delicious recipes, like Chicken Pot Pie and Asparagus and Fontina Quiche.
16. “30-Minute Cooking for Two: Healthy Dishes Without All The Fuss” by Taylor Ellingson $14, Amazon
A perfect present for newlyweds, this book is filled with recipes that require no more than eight staple ingredients per recipe. Plus, they’re healthy, fresh, and use limited amounts of processed food. This book also provides shopping lists with pantry stables and essential cooking equipment.
17. “Cravings: Hungry for More” by Chrissy Teigen and Adeena Sussman
Chrissy Teigen proves that models can cook — really darn well. Her second book, a follow-up to the bestselling Cravings, features her relatable (and hilarious) voice, along with drool-worthy dishes jalapeno parmesan-crusted grilled cheese. She includes lighter options too, like a butternut squash and pomegranate salad with garlicky honey-Dijon dressing.
18. “Waste Not: How To Get The Most From Your Food” by The James Beard Foundation
Did you know that 40 percent of all food produced in the U.S. — where one in six people go hungry — gets thrown away? This cookbook taps into chefs’ innate knowledge of preventing food waste to help you make the most of food that might otherwise get tossed. Curated by the James Beard Foundation, recipes in the book include Swiss chard stem gratin, tahini pomegranate snapper collars, and asparagus bottom aioli.
19. “Ottolenghi Simple: A Cookbook” by Yotam Ottolenghi
“Simple” isn’t usually a word associated with London chef Ottolenghi’s recipes. But his newest cookbook proves that his signature Middle Eastern–inspired meals can be prepared without as much effort as you think. In this book, all recipes fit at least one of these criteria: It can made in 30 minutes or less, with 10 or fewer ingredients, in a single pot, using pantry staples, or prepared ahead of time.
20. “Solo: A Modern Cookbook for a Party of One” by Anita Lo
Lo, a Michelin-starred chef and Iron Chef contestant, has written a cookbook that’s empowering and practical. Along with personal stories about life as a chef, she gives readers 101 simple yet sophisticated recipes that serve one, such as chicken pho, slow cooker shortrib with caramelized endive, duck bolognese, and even a single-serving New England clambake.
21. “All About Cake” by Christina Tosi
In her latest cookbook, Tosi, the mastermind behind Momofuku Milk Bar, covers all the sugary sweets you could possibly dream of. Her signature naked layer cakes are included, but there’s also more approachable recipes for bakers who aren’t quite there yet, including two-minute microwave mug cakes, buttery Bundts and pounds, and much more.
22. “Sweet Home Café Cookbook: A Celebration of African American Cooking” by the National Museum of African American History and Culture
Bring home the taste of the Sweet Home Café, housed inside DC’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. Showcasing dishes with African, Caribbean, and European influences, this beautiful book includes recipes such as Pea Tendril Salad, Fried Green Tomatoes, Hoppin’ John, Sénégalaise Peanut Soup, and more, along with stories that illustrate the pivotal role that African Americans have played in American cuisine.
23. “Chloe Flavor: Saucy, Crispy, Spicy, Vegan” By Chloe Coscarelli
Chef Chloe Coscarelli’s New York City restaurant, By Chloe, revolutionized how people think about vegan food. She’s proven that plant-based recipes can be exciting, flavorful, and filling — and healthy at the same time. Even carnivores won’t miss the meat in recipes like Smoky Grits & Greens, Mango-Guacamole Crunch Burgers, and Sea Salted Chocolate Chunk Cookies.
24. “Giada’s Italy: My Recipes for La Dolce Vita” by Giada De Laurentiis
In De Laurentiis’ latest, she goes back to her Italian roots, while adding her own unique Californian and American influences. Here, shares somewhere lighter, no-fuss versions of authentic Italian classics, such as Spaghetti with Chianti and Fava Beans, Asparagus with Grilled Melon Salad, and Avocado White Bean Dip.
25. “Michael Symon’s Playing with Fire: BBQ and More from the Grill, Smoker and Fireplace” by Michael Symon
Give this to the grillmaster in your life. Symon’s recent release covers his favorite food — meat — with over 70 finger-licking recipes that draw inspiration from all over the country, including dry ribs from Memphis, wet ribs from Nashville, brisket from Texas, pork steak from St. Louis, and burnt ends from Kansas City, to name a few.
26. “The Instant Pot Bible” by Bruce Weinstein and Mark Scarbrough
This book will make a perfect gift for your friend who’s obsessed with her new Instant Pot. With more than 350 recipes, along with instructions and timing for every type of Instant Pot, this book is the most Instant Pot cookbook ever published. You’ll find recipes for everything from hearty breakfasts to healthy sides, from centerpiece stews and roasts to decadent desserts.
More Gift Guides from BETTER
DA to drop charges against California doctor and his girlfriend accused of drugging, assaulting women
Charges are being dropped against a California surgeon and his girlfriend after the Orange County district attorney announced Tuesday that prosecutors found no evidence the pair drugged and sexually assaulted women, despite his predecessor’s assertions.
Dr. Grant Robicheux was charged in 2018 with assaulting a total of seven women, with his girlfriend Cerissa Riley charged as an accomplice in at least five of the cases. Both Robicheaux and Riley pleaded not guilty in 2018 and denied the accusations of nonconsensual sex.
Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said his team found no evidence of any assaults by the couple, despite the county’s former prosecutor insisting a year and a half ago that he seized “thousands of videos” and there could be “more than a thousand” victims.
“There is not a single piece of evidence or video or photo that shows an unconscious or incapacitated woman being sexually assaulted,” Spitzer said Tuesday. “Not one.”
Two prosecutors from Spitzer’s office conducted a 3-month-long review of the case and all its evidence before determining that the county would not be able to meet the burden of proof to convict Robicheaux and Riley.
Representatives for both Robicheaux and Riley did not immediately respond to an NBC News request for comment.
Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.
Spitzer said that he would file a motion to dismiss the charges in the coming days. He also said he would meet with the alleged victims to explain to them the case did not sustain the burden of proof.
“If you lose your prosecutors, society loses faith in the entire criminal justice system,” Spitzer said. “And I will not let that happen in Orange County.”
He accused former District Attorney Tony Rackauckas of using the case to promote his re-election efforts in 2018, in what Spitzer called a “blatant abuse of power.”
Robicheaux previously appeared on a Bravo TV show called “Online Dating Rituals of the American Male,” prompting the case against him to garner international headlines.
Rackauckas said in a deposition with the couple’s lawyers last year that he expected to receive publicity for the trial.
“This is not the way the system is supposed to work,” Spitzer said.
Rackauckas in a statement to NBC Los Angeles on Tuesday night hailed the courage of the women who came forward.
“Any prosecutor should think long and hard before dismissing such a case where multiple women have independently come forward,” Rackauckas said. “I just hope they’re not being sold down the river for some twisted political motive,” he said.
Rackauckas also said that the case was brought to his attention in 2018 after it was initially investigated and that “dozens of complainants” came forward with allegations of drugging or sexual assault after media attention.
Rackauckas said he then reassigned the case to a senior deputy district attorney who gave a fresh review of the case and then filed the criminal complaints which are to be dismissed.
The former DA also said he has had no information or involvement in the case since he left office a year ago, and he does not believe the dismissal of the case is warranted.
“My heart goes out to the women who had the courage to come forward with their complaint, because I believed their complaints based on the evidence I had before leaving office,” Rackauckas said.
Last spring, the dean of Iowa political journalists, David Yepsen, presciently warned the Cook Political Report that the Iowa Democratic Party’s new caucus bells and whistles — four different measurements of results, satellite caucus sites, and a new reporting system — could make for a nightmare in reporting results.
On Monday, after his prediction came true and the party was unable provide any results on election night, Yepsen was even more morose: “RIP caucuses. And after the GOP fiasco of 2012, Iowa probably shouldn’t even try.”
But the real danger for Democrats goes beyond one state party’s reputation. It’s that the chaotic count and the muddled result could presage a messy, protracted primary slog that could go all the way to the Milwaukee convention in July and imperil party unity heading into the fall.
With results from 62 percent of precincts reported by the state party Tuesday afternoon, it’s possible — even likely — that Pete Buttigieg will win a narrow plurality of state delegate equivalents and Bernie Sanders will have won a plurality of caucusgoers’ first preferences.
Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.
If the “split decision” holds, Buttigieg would almost certainly owe his delegate lead to a second-choice surge from supporters of Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar whose groups didn’t reach the 15 percent viability threshold in their precincts.
At first glance, the biggest loser of that process would seem to be Biden, currently in fourth place behind Buttigieg, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on all counts. But the media spotlight on the tallying debacle and the muddled finish at the top — rather than Biden’s finish itself — may be welcome news for the former vice president.
It’s important to remember how unrepresentative Monday’s caucus electorate was of the larger Democratic primary electorate, and how much it played into Biden’s weaknesses. Entrance polls suggested about 90 percent of caucusgoers were white (compared to 60 percent of 2016 primary voters nationally), and a robust 21 percent of caucusgoers were under 35 years old — a confluence of Biden’s weakest groups.
And, caucuses tend to reward candidates with liberal, passionate supporters, but nationally, over 95 percent of delegates to the DNC will be decided by much higher-turnout primaries.
A strong Buttigieg finish also isn’t the worst development for Biden. Buttigieg’s coalition is notably short on nonwhite voters, which could make him less of a threat to Biden in South Carolina on Feb. 29 and more diverse Super Tuesday states on March 3. And in a way, the fact that neither Biden nor Klobuchar were in contention to win (based on the early evidence Monday night) freed them to seize the stage while many cable watchers were still awake, while other candidates were waiting for more evidence to “declare victory.”
Based on current returns, this probably wasn’t a spectacular showing for Warren. The caucus format, with its emphasis on organizing liberal party loyalists, was supposed to play to Warren’s strengths. But despite finishing ahead of Biden, Warren is likely to finish a middling third and is the only one of the top five candidates who isn’t currently leading in any one of Iowa’s 99 counties.
If President Donald Trump wins re-election in November, no one will look back and blame the Iowa counting debacle. But there was a lot to like for Trump in the results. First, the Iowa Democratic Party’s indications of lower-than-expected turnout, closer to that of 2016 than 2008, suggests that having so many choices may be making it harder for Democratic voters to actually make a choice.
Second, the more muddled outcomes and close bunching we see, the higher the probability of a protracted battle that results in no candidate attaining a majority of the 3,979 pledged delegates by the July convention. That could make it much harder for a fractured party to come together in the fall.
President Donald Trump promoted the economy and trade deals on Tuesday night in his third State of the Union address, a speech that mixed theatrics with overt partisan appeals.
The address ended in spectacularly bitter fashion, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ripping up her copy of the speech as the president finished.
The unprecedented action was one of several instances of intense partisanship during Trump’s speech.
Earlier, Trump used a chunk of his address to give the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor, to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
As Trump recognized Limbaugh, almost all of the Democrats in the chamber remained seated, while many Republicans cheered loudly. First lady Melania Trump then placed the medal around Limbaugh’s neck, prompting someone in the gallery to scream, “Thank you, Rush.” Democrats in the chamber were heard groaning.
Limbaugh said Monday that he’s suffering from advanced lung cancer.
At another tense juncture, Trump, in his speech, appeared to take aim at a key tenet of the policies of 2020 presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and at another point referred to the “radical left” while talking about another policy.
“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor and abolish private insurance entirely. One-hundred-thirty-two lawmakers in this room have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans,” Trump said.
“To those watching at home tonight, I want you to know, we will never let socialism destroy American health care” — an apparent attack on the “Medicare for All” policy proposed by Sanders and embraced by others in the field.
He also later slammed “the radical left” over a bill supported by some Democrats that would provide health care to undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.
“Over 130 legislators in this chamber have endorsed legislation that would bankrupt our nation by providing free taxpayer-funded health care to millions of illegal aliens, forcing taxpayers to subsidize free care for anyone in the world who unlawfully crosses our borders,” Trump said.
“If forcing American taxpayers to provide unlimited free health care to illegal aliens sounds fair to you, then stand with the radical left,” he added.
At various other points during Trump’s address to the nation — which came as he remains on trial in the Senate — Democrats at various points remained seated or stood up to protest.
Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.
As Trump was announced, there was loud applause on the Republican side and in the galleries.
A trio of House impeachment managers, however — Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Jason Crow, D-Colo. — did not clap at all.
After he reached the lectern and handed copes of his speech to Vice President Mike Pence and Pelosi, Trump appeared to refused to shake her outstretched hand.
In addition, many Democrats remained seated and still during many of the lines Trump delivered to raucous applause from Republicans.
Eight Democratic House members skipped the event altogether, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
Later, another two members of Congress announced that they’d up and left during the speech.
Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio tweeted that he’d “walked out” because, “I’ve had enough.”
“It’s like watching professional wrestling. It’s all fake,” Ryan said.
Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey tweeted that he left because “he can’t stand a liar.”
“This man’s presidency is a national tragedy,” he said.
During another point, while Trump was discussing prescription drug pricing policy, several Democrats stood up, in apparent protest, chanting “H.R. 3” — a bill that had been supported by the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
Trump, for the most part, however, largely focused on an economic message, taking credit for a booming economy and pointing to what he says are his numerous economic accomplishments.
Three years ago, we launched the ‘Great American Comeback.’ Tonight, I stand before you to share the incredible results,” he said.
“In just three short years, we have shattered the mentality of American decline and we have rejected the downsizing of America’s destiny,” Trump said. “We are moving forward at a pace that was unimaginable just a short time ago, and we are never going back.”
“Our country is thriving and highly respected again,” Trump said. “The years of economic decay are over.”
“The state of the union is stronger than ever before,” he added.
Trump focused large chunks of his speech on job creation and the record-low unemployment rates in the U.S. — dubbing the growth a “blue-collar boom” — as well as his signing of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
Trump, however, didn’t touch on impeachment in the speech. One administration official told NBC News that Trump, by speaking “past” impeachment, will be able to send the message to Americans that he’s working on behalf of them and not getting distracted by the trial.
Trump’s nationally televised address comes amid his Senate impeachment trial. The Senate is widely expected to acquit the president on Wednesday on two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The articles stem from the accusations against Trump that he withheld almost $400 million in aid to pressure Ukraine’s president into announcing an investigation into his potential 2020 rival, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Among Trump’s guests at his State of the Union address were Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido.
Trump dedicated a portion of the speech to him, announcing him as the “true and legitimate president of Venezuela.”
“Mr. President, please take this message back to your homeland. All Americans are united with the Venezuelan people in their righteous struggle for freedom,” Trump said. “Socialism destroys nations. But always remember, freedom unifies the soul.”
Other guests, according to a list provided by the White House, included military families and “hardworking local leaders.”
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of only two Republicans to vote to hear witnesses at President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, announced Tuesday that she will vote to acquit him.
Collins said Trump’s request that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy investigate Joe Biden and his son in a phone call on July 25 was “improper and demonstrated very poor judgment.”
“It was wrong for President Trump to mention former Vice President Biden on that phone call, and it was wrong for him ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival,” Collins said. But, she added, “I do not believe the House has met its burden of the showing the president’s conduct, however flawed, warrants the extreme step of removal from office.”
“It has been 230 years since George Washington first took the oath of office. There are good reasons why during that entire time the Senate has never removed a president,” she said, noting that she’d also voted to acquit President Bill Clinton at his impeachment trial in 1999.
Collins, who is facing a tough re-election battle in November, had been one of the Republicans who Democrats had hoped would cross party lines and vote to convict the president of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The other Republican who voted to hear witnesses, Mitt Romney of Utah, has not said how he will vote Wednesday.
Collins told NBC News after she made her statement that she would have considered censuring Trump but that she believed that the impeachment proceedings had likely taught the president enough of a lesson.
He’s “only the third president to be actually impeached in history, and [that] both Republican senators such as myself and Democratic senators have criticized his conduct strikes me as a reprimand.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urged all senators to vote to acquit the president earlier Tuesday, arguing that it was House Democrats who had abused their power, not Trump.
“It insults the intelligence of the American people to pretend this was a solemn process reluctantly begun because of withheld foreign aid,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.
McConnell said House Democrats had been plotting to impeach Trump “for years” for having defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, and he derided their arguments that they were trying to protect democracy.
He said Democrats were the ones shattering norms, adopting the “absurd proposition” that “we think this president is a bull in a china shop, so we’re going to drive a bulldozer through the china shop to get rid of him.”
McConnell, who said before the trial that he was working in “total coordination” with the president’s defense team, said partisan fever “led to the most rushed, least fair and least thorough presidential impeachment inquiry in American history.”
Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.
“We must vote to reject the House’s abuse of power,” McConnell said, and “vote to keep factional fever from boiling over and scorching our Republic.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., dismissed McConnell’s “talking points” and accused Senate Republicans of working with the White House to cover up the president’s wrongdoing.
“This is the first impeachment trial of a president or impeachment trial of anybody else that was completed with no witnesses and no documents. The American people are just amazed,” he said.
A trial with no witnesses “fails the laugh test,” Schumer said. “It makes people believe, correctly in my judgment, that the administration, its top people and Senate Republicans are all hiding the truth. They are afraid of the truth.”
Other senators took to the Senate floor to declare how they’ll vote Wednesday and why, and they were clearly split down partisan lines.
Rob Portman, R-Ohio, took a stance similar to Collins’ — that Trump’s actions were “inappropriate and wrong” but not at the level required to remove him from office.
Republicans John Thune of South Dakota, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Pat Roberts of Kansas, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Steve Daines of Montana and Roger Wicker of Mississippi said that what Trump is accused of — withholding almost $400 million in aid to pressure Zelenskiy into announcing an investigation into Biden and his son Hunter Biden — doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense and that House managers hadn’t proven their case.
Republicans Ray Lankford of Oklahoma and John Boozman of Arkansas also announced that they would vote to acquit, decrying the House investigation as rushed and flawed. Boozman said he would “reject the weaponization of Congress’ authority to impeach the duly elected president of the United States.”
While none of those lawmakers criticized Trump for his actions, Republicans Ted Cruz of Texas, John Kennedy of Louisiana and David Perdue of Georgia went further, saying the president’s actions involving the Bidens were appropriate because he was concerned about “corruption.”
Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky also announced that he’d vote to acquit — and he used his speech to again name a person who has been identified in conservative media as the whistleblower who alerted congressional committees to Trump’s Ukraine request.
Paul said that he doesn’t know whether the person is the whistleblower or not but that the American people should know the identity. As he spoke, he had on display behind him a question he tried to ask during the impeachment trial that included the person’s name. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, refused to read it aloud.
In remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday, Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said attempts to “out” a whistleblower to “score a political point aren’t helpful.”
“It’s not the treatment any whistleblower deserves,” he said.
Download the NBC News app for full coverage of the Senate impeachment trial
Democrats Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Tina Smith of Minnesota, Robert Menendez and Cory Booker of New Jersey, Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Gary Peters of Michigan said that the managers had proven their case and that they would vote to convict on both articles of impeachment.
Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California, who’d said she was concerned about voting to remove a president during an election year, said she felt she had no choice but to convict.
“President Trump has taken the position that there are no checks on his presidential authority, effectively placing himself above the law, and I don’t believe the Senate can let this stand,” she said.
Democrat Jon Tester of Montana, a frequent Trump target from a state Trump won decisively in 2016, said he, too, would vote to convict.
Democrats Tim Kaine and Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Tom Carper of Delaware said they would vote to remove Trump, as well.
“While the president’s actions have not been surprising, the Senate’s capitulation has surprised me,” Kaine said.
Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he’d vote to convict the president, and he disagreed with Collins, his fellow senator from Maine, that Trump was likely to have learned his lesson.
“This president in this matter was attempting to undermine [this] very election, and he gives every indication that he will continue to do so,” King said. “He has expressed no understanding that he did anything wrong, let alone anything resembling remorse.”
We’ve all been there: you’re on a long Sunday stroll or hiking with friends on the weekend when your “dogs start barking.” It may be an aching pain in the soles of your feet, toe cramps or a shooting pain through your arch or heel. Whatever the discomfort, your walking shoes may be to blame.
But shopping for new, comfortable sneakers for walking can be tricky. To help walk you through the process, we’ve tapped a couple of podiatrists and a shoe fitting specialist for what to look for in a new pair, how to break them in, and some top picks that may be a right fit for you.
What to look for when shopping for walking shoes
First of all, the time of day you do your shopping is important. Miguel Cunha, DPM, podiatrist and founder of Gotham Footcare in NYC, says that you should always buy your shoes in the evening when your feet are most swollen. “If the shoe feels comfortable at the end of the day, they will most likely feel comfortable throughout the day.” Here’s what else to look for in the right fit:
Examine your old pair of walking shoes
Olga Shvets, DPM, a podiatrist in New York City, recommends looking at your current sneakers for clues as to the right fitting shoe. She says that looking at the soles of a well-worn pair of sneakers to see where the sole is worn out will suggest where you are making most of your impact. “Knowing your foot type is important,” she says. “You can be a pronator, supinator or neutral. You can identify your pronation by paying attention to which part of your foot hits the ground first. If you find that you have flat feet, you are likely a pronator and the opposite can be said for high arched feet and supination.” A neutral foot type tends to wear most evenly in the back of their heel.
Find the best designed walking shoes for your feet
Cunha says to look for a shoe designed with smooth, solid leather uppers that are not only highly durable, but also flexible and comfortable. “It is important to pick a shoe that offers as much durability and protection as possible without sacrificing comfort or flexibility,” he says. Another thing to look for? The flex point of a walking shoe, which is the point at which it bends while walking. For optimal comfort, the flex point of the shoe should match the bending point of your foot; when it doesn’t align with your foot it can cause problems like arch pain or plantar fasciitis. You can check the flex point of the shoe by holding it by the heel and pressing the toe of the shoe onto the ground; The point where the shoe bends and creases is the flex point. (Shvets adds that most runners/walkers would benefit from a shoe with a stiff sole that doesn’t bend in half.)
Re-think your walking shoe size
Cunha says that it’s important to remember that sizing can be different across different brands, due to their design and the materials used. Also keep in mind that the length and width of a person’s foot tends to change over time due to falling arches or because of hormonal changes that occur during pregnancy. The tip of your thumb should fit between the end of the shoe and the end of your longest toe. Make sure the toe box is wide enough to accommodate your toes; make sure there is enough room to slightly wiggle your toes. If you can’t move your toes at all then the shoes are too tight and will eventually become painful. Try at least three different shoe models and try two different models at the same time, wearing one model on each foot, to better compare.
Getting fitted for sneakers: What to expect
If you have any concerns about your foot shape, pain or injuries (like plantar fasciitis), or specific support needs, getting fitted by a professional is a smart option. At these locations, you will speak with a professional about your activity level, goals or limitations, and then hop on a treadmill so that they can watch the mechanics of your hip rotation, knee alignment, and degree of pronation or supination when walking.
“We are always looking at the characteristics of the foot which includes bunions, the volume of the forefoot (the padding of the bottom of the foot), wide or narrow widths, and perhaps plantar fasciitis if that is a concern,” says Cindi Binder, a footwear expert at Healthy Feet at Canyon Ranch. “The data we gather and observe is used to determine the category of athletic shoes that would be most beneficial for the individual’s goals. If somebody has perfect efficiency and no injuries they typically can go between a neutral and stability category of running shoe or orthotic, versus someone with excessive pronation and knee pain.”
Some locations will also take a 3D scan of the customers feet, which takes measurements such as width and arch height to better fit you with a shoe that matches your individual needs. “We have a special video app we use on iPads to access one’s foot balance and body in motion as well as a foot scanning tool, which will show us the structure and shape of one’s foot as well as give us measurements of arch length, height and instep height, as well as pressure mapping,” explains Nathan Hohenstein, owner of Tortoise and Hare Sports. “When data from a body in motion is combined with data from the foot scanner, we are able to really dial in on the style and shape of a shoe that will work best for the foot.”
Orthotics: Do you need them in your shoes or sneakers?
Our experts agree that most people can benefit from a pair of orthotics — inserts that offer custom support to alleviate pain or discomfort and ensure you’re maintaining proper alignment.
“Although orthotics are of greater importance for people that suffer from flat feet, everyone, regardless of their foot type can benefit from orthotics, as they help redistribute weight evenly across your feet,” says Cunha. “Although I prefer to recommend custom foot orthotics over pre-fabricated insoles, some health insurance companies do not provide coverage for custom orthotics and they can be expensive when paying out of pocket.” When this is the case, he highly recommends a good insole such as PROFOOT Triad Orthotics, Superfeet, or Stride Insoles.
Get the better newsletter.
Shvets says to beware of some over the counter orthotics. “Most drugstores sell cushion orthotics that fold and roll — they don’t offer support and are basically a pillow for your feet.” She prefers a stiffer insert, which generally aren’t available in the average drugstore. “I just had a patient injure himself because he was wearing inserts that were not correct for his arch height,” she says.
Here’s how to break in your new sneakers and walking shoes
The best way to break in shoes is to wear them in two-hour increments per day for four days and then wear them all day on the fifth day (i.e. you wear them 2 hours the first day, 4 hours the second day, and so on). This allows the shoe to expand gradually while minimizing any pressure or friction that would otherwise cause pain or discomfort, swelling, calluses and blisters. Cunha notes that while there is a natural break-in period where the shoes will give and accommodate your feet more comfortably, shoes should feel as comfortable as possible when you first try them. If they hurt at all upon try-on, consider a different pair.
If you are completely new to walking as a form of exercise, ease into it. For the first week, make it a goal to walk 3 times for 15 minutes each time. You could walk around the block, in your house, or at the gym on a treadmill. For the second week, add in a fourth day, and pick 2 of the days to add in some hills or intervals. You could walk for one block at your comfortable pace and then the next block at a faster pace, or if you’re on the treadmill, walk for 1 minute at an incline of 0 and then increase the incline to 3.0 for the next minute, and continue alternating.
And don’t forget: Form is key. We typically don’t pay as much attention to form when we are walking versus other kinds of exercise like running or weight lifting. But experts say proper form is just as important here. Cunha advises that when walking, one should take a comfortably natural step that is not too long in stride so that when your foot strikes the ground you are striking less through the heel and more through your midfoot or forefoot. “Also make sure you unlock one knee prior to striking the foot down and that your hips are over the foot at foot strike, and not behind it.” This can take a lot of self-analysis, but thankfully if you head to a running store you can have a specialist help you break this down.
Best walking shoes for women
With more than 1,100 positive reviews on Amazon, these walking shoes seem to be a customer favorite. They’re lightweight, breathable and not too bulky.
Binder likes this shoe because it has a “GuideRail” system, which offers passive stability. “This technology keeps the foot in a neutral position and only comes into play when needed,” she explains. If the walker pronates (Binder says the majority of people have some degree of pronation), the guide rails balance the foot back into position. If there isn’t any pronation, then the shoe doesn’t overcorrect.
This shoe falls in the stability category and can be identified by the medial side of the shoe where you see the marbleizing. Binder loves this shoe (and the Brooks above) because these running shoes provide more comfort than typical walking shoes due to the additional cushioning that helps absorb the impact and protects the joints. If you do have inserts or orthotics, she says that both of these shoes can accommodate them comfortably.
This walking shoe for women is considered one of the lightest walking shoes currently available on the market. In addition to being lightweight, the shoe is very padded with extra cushion and is made with synthetic material making it durable for long-term use.
“I highly recommend these for neutral-arched or low-arched people,” Cunha says. “They provide great stability and have extra padding for shock control.
These shoes are heavier, but durable, and can be worn for longer periods of time as they have been specially designed for walking on rough and rocky surfaces. Recovering from a foot or ankle injury? Cunha says this is your best option.
Did you do a foot diagnostic test at a running store and determine that you have flat feet? Shvets says this is your best bet and is a great supportive running shoe that can be used for walking.
For when summer is right around the corner, Schvets says that this is a comfortable walking shoe that offers arch support (much better than your standard flip flop) and looks great on your foot.