Ron DeSantis, who officially launched his presidential campaign last week, presents himself as a champion of individual freedom against overweening government. But as governor of Florida, DeSantis has repeatedly contradicted that stance by blurring the line between state and private action, a distinction that is crucial to protecting civil liberties.
During the pandemic, DeSantis not only opposed government-imposed vaccination mandates. He decreed that business owners could not ask customers to present proof of vaccination, and he proudly signed legislation prohibiting vaccination requirements by private employers.
That law also barred school districts from imposing mask mandates. But DeSantis did not stop there: He pushed legislation “permanently prohibiting COVID-19 masking requirements at businesses.”
DeSantis said that bill, which he signed into law a few weeks ago, was aimed at curtailing the “biomedical security state.” He thereby equated business owners’ voluntary decisions with coercive government policies.
DeSantis’ insistence on overriding those private decisions belies his description of Florida as “an oasis of freedom” with a “business-friendly environment.” When it comes to vaccination and masks, he recently told John Stossel, Florida has “consistently sided with the individual,” which is accurate only if you ignore individuals whose business policies DeSantis does not like.
The same is true of the Individual Freedom Act, the Orwellian name of a Florida law also known as the Stop WOKE Act. Among other things, it purported to dictate private employers’ training practices, a provision that a federal judge blocked last year because it violated freedom of speech.
A Florida law that required social media platforms to carry messages from political candidates met a similar fate. Although DeSantis presented that mandate as a response to “Big Tech censors” who discriminate against conservatives, three Republican-appointed judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit unanimously concluded that it was squarely at odds with the editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment.
“Platforms are private enterprises, not governmental (or even quasi-governmental) entities,” the appeals court noted. “While the Constitution protects citizens from governmental efforts to restrict their access to social media,” it said, “no one has a vested right to force a platform to allow her to contribute to or consume social-media content.”
DeSantis’ determination to punish private businesses for exercising their First Amendment rights is even clearer in his spat with Disney, whose former CEO irked him by criticizing a Florida law restricting discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools. DeSantis retaliated with legislation aimed at seizing control of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which had governed the area surrounding Disney World since 1967.
DeSantis complained that “a corporation based in Burbank, California,” was using its “economic might” to “attack the parents of my state.” But who is the real bully in this situation: an executive who makes constitutionally protected comments or an elected official who wields state power to exact revenge for those comments?
DeSantis’ conflation of private and state action is also apparent in a new state law that sharply restricts real estate purchases by Chinese citizens who legally live in Florida but do not have green cards or U.S. citizenship. He says that law reflects his “commitment to crack down on Communist China” by resisting “the United States’ greatest geopolitical threat—the Chinese Communist Party.”
The Florida residents who recently challenged the law in federal court, who have nothing to do with the Chinese Communist Party, are understandably puzzled by that rationale. They have lived in the United States for years with student or work visas, and they do not understand why they should suffer for the crimes of an oppressive regime they left behind.
Whether the putative target is the “biomedical security state,” wokeness, “Big Tech censors,” or Chinese Communists, DeSantis’ grandstanding poses a clear threat to individual rights. It reflects the agenda of supposedly conservative culture warriors who have embraced state power as a solution to their grievances, recklessly abandoning the distinctions on which their own liberty depends.
This episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast features the second half of my interview with Paul Stephan, author of The World Crisis and International Law. But it begins the way many recent episodes have begun, with the latest AI news. And, since the story is squarely in scope for a cyberlaw podcast, we devote some time to the so-appalling-you-have-to-laugh-to-keep-from-crying story of the lawyer who relied on ChatGPT to write his brief. As Eugene Volokh noted in his post on the story, the AI returned exactly the case law the lawyer wanted – because it made up the cases, the citations, and even the quotes. The lawyer said he had no idea that AI would do such a thing.
I cast a skeptical eye on that excuse, since when challenged by the court to produce the cases he relied on, the lawyer turned not to Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw but to ChatGPT, which this time made up eight cases on point. And when the lawyer asked ChatGPT, “Are the other cases you provided fake,” the model denied it. Well, all right then. Who among us has not asked Westlaw, “Are the cases you provided fake?” and accepted the answer without checking? Somehow, I can’t help suspecting that the lawyer’s claim to be an innocent victim of ChatGPT is going to get a closer look before this story ends. So if you’re wondering whether AI poses existential risk, the answer for at least one law license is almost certainly “yes.”
But the bigger stories of the week were the cries from Google and Microsoft leadership for government regulation of their new AI tools. Microsoft’s President, Brad Smith has, as usual, written a thoughtful policy paper on what AI regulation might look like. Jeffery Atik and Richard Stiennon point out that, as usual, Brad Smith is advocating for a process that Microsoft could master pretty easily. Google’s Sundar Pichai also joins the “regulate me” party, but a bit half-heartedly. I argue that the best measure of Silicon Valley’s confidence in the accuracy of AI is easy to find: Just ask when Google and Apple will let their AI models identify photos of gorillas. Because if there’s anything close to an extinction event for those companies it would be rolling out an AI that once again fails to differentiate between people and apes.
Moving from policy to tech, Richard and I talk about Google’s integration of AI into search; I see some glimmer of explainability and accuracy in Google’s willingness to provide citations (real ones, I presume) for its answers. And on the same topic, the National Academy of Sciences has posted research suggesting that explainability might not be quite as impossible as researchers once thought.
Jeffery takes us through the latest chapters in the U.S.—China decoupling story. China has retaliated, surprisingly weakly, for U.S. moves to cut off high-end chip sales to China. It has banned sales of U.S.—based Micron memory chips to critical infrastructure companies. In the long run, the chip wars may be the disaster that Invidia’s CEO foresees. Certainly, Jeffery and I agree, Invidia has much to fear from a Chinese effort to build a national champion in AI chipmaking. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is building a new model for international agreements in an age of decoupling and industrial policy. Whether the effort to build a China-free IT supply chain will succeed is an open question, but we agree that it marks an end to the old free-trade agreements rejected by both former President Trump and President Biden.
China, meanwhile, is overplaying its hand in Africa. Richard notes reports that Chinese hackers attacked the Kenyan government when Kenya looked like it wouldn’t be able to repay China’s infrastructure loans. As Richard points out, lending money to a friend rarely works out. You are likely to lose both the money and the friend, even if you don’t hack him.
Finally, Richard and Jeffery both opine on Ireland’s imposing – under protest – a $1.3bn fine on Facebook for sending data to the United States despite the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) two Schrems decisions. We agree that the order simply sets a deadline for the U.S. and the EU to close their third deal to satisfy the CJEU that U.S. law is “adequate” to protect the rights of Europeans. Speaking of which, anyone who’s enjoyed my rants about the EU will want to tune in for a June 15 Teleforum in which Max Schrems and I will debate the latest privacy framework. If we can, we’ll release it as a bonus episode of this podcast, but listening live should be even more fun!
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.
Please note: this article was pulled down offline from Forbes. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to why. Factually, there was no justification for it.
This list could be closer to 50 but let’s just stick to a handful of them. I literally live in this business every day, and I’m just so confused.
1. In a world that is apparently getting both warmer and colder because of global warming, how is it that we can increasingly rely on non-dispatchable (i.e., intermittent, usually unavailable), weather-dependent electricity from wind and solar plants to displace, not just supplement, dispatchable (i.e., baseload, almost always available) coal, gas, and nuclear power? In other words, if our weather is becoming less predictable, how is it that a consuming economy like ours can, or should even try, predictably rely on weather-dependent resources? ERCOT exemplifies this: the Texas grid operator has around 31,000 MW of wind capacity but goes into winter expecting only 6,000 MW (just 20%) of wind farms to be available to generate electricity. Again, in the marketplace, the “alternatives” you keep hearing about are proving to be far more supplemental than alternative.
Further, good wind and solar spots are finite, based on geography, so new builds, naturally, will be forced into areas that are less windy and less sunny, lowering their already very low 35% capacity factors. And because they devour immense swaths of land, interrupting a whole host of things, that Renewable Rejection Database is mounting very quickly. If wind, solar, and electric cars too are as effective and low-cost as so many keep promising us, there would obviously be no need for government subsidies for broad adoption. Yet, there is, gigantically so. Huge amounts of taxpayer money going into this, what I call “the holy climate panacea triad,” are vulnerable to changing politics and bound to become politically untenable at some point: “Ford Is Losing $66,446 On Every EV It Sells.” Our limited financial resources are obviously very precious, so these NEVER CONSIDERED and wasted opportunity costs forcing wind, solar, and electric cars into the energy complex are truly catastrophic. Schools investing in electric buses over STEM? The $200 Billion Electric School Bus Bust. How can any of this be justified? I’m so utterly confused.
2. Climate change is a global issue, so how is it that we can claim climate benefits for unilateral climate policy. For example, U.S. gasoline cars constitute just 3% of global CO2 emissions, so how will getting rid of them impact climate change? But this dose of real science doesn’t stop California leaders, a state responsible for just 1% of global CO2 emissions, from telling us that energy policy in the nine-county region of Northern California alone is “responsible for protecting air quality and the global climate in the nine-county Bay Area.” No wonder then that a Biden administration official was incoherent when asked how $50 trillion in climate spending in the U.S. will lower any global temperature rise. Indeed, despite the Sierra Club in 2014 promising us that “China’s Thirst for Coal Is Drying Up,” the Chinese Communist Party approved two coal plants a week in 2022. But, don’t worry guys, China promises to be net-zero by 2060. On climate, you don’t matter nearly as much as some want you to think.
So, it becomes very obvious very quickly that no energy policy in northern California has any relevance in terms of changing the climate. The region could literally disappear and there would be no discernable impact on climate change. Even our climate czar John Kerry, loving the CO2-devouring life in a private jet and $250 million, has been forced to admit that the U.S. could even go to zero emissions and it would make no material impact on climate change. Talk about all pain, no gain. The real science is that incremental global emissions are “not here but over there” U.S. CO2 emissions are in structural decline regardless of what policies we pass (save 2021 and the rebound from Covid-19’s devastation in 2020). So, where is the climate benefit for Americans when it comes to U.S. climate policy? Because we’re continuously told to “believe science,” any positive answer to that question can only be deemed as anti-science. In fact, common sense and science itself tell us that unilateral climate policy can actually be really bad for climate change because it encourages carbon leakage (e.g., climate policy in the U.S. increases costs and just pushes a manufacturing firm to re-locate to coal-devouring China).
3. Back to electric vehicles. Even green-tinted but surely practical Bloomberg admits that more than 85% of Americans can’t afford an electric car, since they are well more than double the price of oil-based cars. How can a product bring racial justice for Black Americans when the vast majority of them can’t afford it? Worse then, huge and growing subsidies for electric cars are a “reverse Robin Hood,” taking money from poor taxpayers to give to the rich ones that are, actually, in the market to buy an electric car. Forcing electric equipment over natural gas? Sorry but “gas is four to six times cheaper than electricity.” Battery costs might be much higher than expected: 1) rising global demand, 2) rising costs and unavailability of their raw materials, 3) mining complications and environmental damage, and 4) China flexing its muscles since it controls the supply chains and uses hoarding as political leverage (see Covid-19 and medical supplies). Reality check, unlike what we keep hearing about “green energy,” no technology continues to decline in cost in perpetuity: “EV battery costs could spike 22% by 2026 as raw material shortages drag on.”
And this one I’m really confused on. President Biden promotes his climate agenda as a way to create jobs. Besides lacking in economic literacy (i.e., jobs are costs not benefits), the truth is that electric cars, for instance, entail far less jobs because they, for one thing, have far less moving parts. And there’s all kinds of evidence that electric car life-cycle emissions could be way worse than advertised, mostly because of the massive amounts of mining required to make them. We all know about child labor and your electric car, but even pro-EV outlets are being forced to report on the mounting problems from mining, the latest on how bauxite for the aluminum needed is destroying the Amazon. And about our President’s we’ll need oil for “another decade” claim? The U.S. Department of Energy just modeled that our oil demand will actually slightly INCREASE, not decline, to over 21.1 million b/d by 2050. Reality check: planes, industry (petrochemicals), heavy trucking, and sheer Energy Inertia will have oil dominating way longer than you’re being told.
4. How on Earth could anybody expect those in Africa and the other horrifically poor nations to “get off fossil fuels” when the rich countries haven’t come close to doing it. Germany and California, the world’s two greenest governments, are still overwhelming fossil fuel-based and overwhelmingly dependent on imports (dangerously so in Germany’s case). This comes despite decades of huge subsidies, scores of mandates, deploying the best engineering expertise, and having low population growth and thus low incremental energy needs, all giving them a huge advantage in “going green.” The energy stat to remember most? No U.S. state will ever “try to go green” like California has over the past 20 years, yet oil and gas still supply 70% of the state’s energy, even above the national average of 65%.
Germany and California have shown us what these climate policies bring: Germany has the highest electricity prices in the world; and California’s are the highest in the continental U.S. and soaring out of control (Figure). How the heck can we push for “deep electrification” to fight climate change if we are going to follow policies that surge the price of electricity, while also lowering grid reliability? And rich Westerners, spare us the judgments, demands, and hypocrisy on climate change: Germany thrives on a GDP per capita per year of $51,200, compared to a horrifically sad $2,260 for India.
5. But, perhaps I’m most confused about the whole air quality thing. The obsession over it gets attached to all energy policies. But there’s clearly a strawman to the “we need cleaner air now” demand. First, the air quality conversation in the U.S. reminds me of Voltaire’s “the perfect is the enemy of good.” Americans seem completely unaware how drastically our air quality has improved. Check data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), our criteria pollutants have been plummeting over the past many decades. The risks seem exaggerated. Let’s just take Los Angeles, which for a big city notoriously has the worst air quality in the country. Tell me, please, if air quality is such a problem and such a health concern for Americans, why is it that Angelinos have a life expectancy of 82 years, a hearty three years above the national average. Just think of all the coal that China has devoured since 2000 (I figure around 70 billion tonnes), yet the country’s life expectancy, apparently shockingly to so many, is up a very impressive six years to nearly 78 since then. Maybe it’s because Chinese GDP per capita per year has skyrocketed nearly 9-fold to over $18,500. Even for rising asthma rates in the U.S., smoking is way down, coal usage is way down, and criteria pollutants are way down. So what gives?
“Better air quality and environment” are not free, as attaining government standards cost businesses hundreds of billions of dollars per year. These costs are ultimately paid by Americans in the form of higher prices, lower wages, and less choices. And at some point, the cost of the regulation to achieve better air outweighs its benefit. We’ve won on water too: the water in your toilet is cleaner than what the vast majority of humans on Earth drink. For every time that we hear “environmental justice” we need to say “economic justice” 100 times. In this country for all Americans, Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos make 30% less money than Whites and Asians. Too many politicians focus on the endless pursuit of “better air quality” and other abstract, seemingly impossible to measure benefits because they have no clue on the real ways to help communities of color and other low-income Americans: help them get a better education, help them get a better job, and help them make more money. Career politicians love bottomless, money-devouring pits the most: “America’s $100 billion climate change flop.” And although its entire existence is based on never being able to declare victory (imagine a football game with no time and no keeping score), EPA should consider that it’s wealth that matters most for health equity.
‘Don’t Rule Out Lab Leak’: China’s Former CDC Director
The former head of China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention says the chance Covid-19 originated from a laboratory can’t be ruled out.
That said, George Gao – who headed China’s CDC during the pandemic – also said that Chinese officials have investigated the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and found no “wrongdoing” in the lab.
Gao told BBC Radio 4: “You can always suspect anything,” adding “That’s science. Don’t rule out anything.”
2. “Risky”
On the surface, Prof Gao’s comments about not ruling out a lab leak appear seriously at odds with China’s publicly stated position. Risky even.
“We really don’t know where the virus came from… the question is still open,” Prof Gao told the BBC
— Billy Bostickson 🏴👁&👁 🆓 (@BillyBostickson) May 30, 2023
When asked about the WIV, where US-funded scientists were genetically manipulating Covid strains to be more transmissible to humans, Gao said the lab was “double-checked by the experts in the field,” (who would never lie, we’re sure).
“I think their conclusion is that they are following all the protocols. They haven’t found [any] wrongdoing,” Gao continued in what marks the first public confirmation from a Chinese official that an investigation was conducted at the lab.
Last month, Gao told a London pandemic summit that there’s been “no evidence which animals [were] where the virus comes [from],” after an international group of scientists posited a laughable theory about raccoon dogs and Covid-19 in Wuhan.
The alleged investigation was carried out by a “government” department, and didn’t involve China’s CDC, he continued, without naming said department.
More than three years have passed since SARS-CoV-2 caused a global pandemic that resulted in some 7 million deaths, but the world is still none the wiser regarding the origin of the virus.
One theory is that the virus originated from bats, but views differ on how it became transmissible among humans.
Some believe the virus was passed on to humans by some sort of intermediary animal hosts, while others believe it more likely leaked from a lab, particularly the WIV, which has been researching bat viruses and is located in the centre of Wuhan, where the pandemic began.
The Chinese regime has repeatedly dismissed the theory that the virus was leaked from the WIV, but its lack of transparency has fuelled more suspicion. –Epoch Times
The US House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic wants to question Gao and other officials regarding the origin of the virus. The committee has also asked to speak with Dr. Shi Zhengli, director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases; Drs. Ben Hu and Huang Yanling, researchers at the institute; and Dr. Chen Wei, a general in the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Liberation Army who took over the lab in February 2020.
In February, FBI Director Christopher Wray announced that the bureau believes Covid-19 most likely came from a lab – a conclusion also reached by the US Department of Energy.
It can strike at any time and at any age. When someone develops a chronic disease, it can cause debilitating, life-altering changes that penetrate every aspect of daily life.
The prevalence of these conditions has surged over the past decade, creating a twofold health care and economic crisis affecting nearly half of Americans. By 2030, the number of U.S. residents struggling with at least one chronic illness is expected to surpass 170 million.
That’s more than half of the entire country, for perspective.
The expanding elderly population and adults aren’t the only age groups seeing an uptick. More than 40 percent of children and adolescents currently have at least one chronic illness,according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
There’s also a tremendous cost burden. The spectrum of chronic diseases comprises a disproportionately large segment of U.S. health care costs. Of the nation’s $4.1 trillion annual health care expenditures, chronic diseases account for 90 percent.
That’s more than $3 trillion dollars of annual direct costs alone.
At an individual level, the price tag doesn’t look any better. Estimates for the treatment and management of chronic conditions—on average—tally more than $6,000 annually per patient.
Some chronic disease specialists and health practitioners say that figure is spot on, depending on the condition.
Beyond the Numbers
“For example, if you have type 2 diabetes, you are often checking in with your provider every three months. Four visits a year, times $300 a visit, plus the amount spent for medications per month … quickly adds up,” nurse practitioner Lola MacLean told The Epoch Times.
MacLean has worked in family and internal medicine for the past five years. In that time, she’s noticed a spike in the number of patients suffering from chronic conditions walk through the door.
“I have seen an uptick in chronic conditions, especially those related to metabolic disorders, [like] type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression,” she said.
Many chronic diseases require specialist care for management. Providers in these fields have also witnessed a surge in patients.
“Indeed, I have noticed an uptick in the number of patients with chronic diseases, particularly those with respiratory diseases such as asthma and COPD [Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease],” John Landry told The Epoch Times.
Landry is a licensed, registered respiratory therapist and founder of the education platform Respiratory Therapy Zone. He noted chronic respiratory diseases often require expensive medications, frequent doctor visits, and hospitalizations.
“I find the estimate of $6,000 USD for the annual cost of treating chronic diseases to be plausible … This doesn’t even take into account indirect costs such as time off work for the patient and their caregivers.”
Landry says it’s important to remember that doctor’s visits and prescriptions aren’t the only factors in the final bill.
“Chronic illnesses often result in loss of work productivity which indirectly increases the financial burden.”
Conditions with some of the highest direct health care costs in the United States are diabetes at $189.6 billion in annual expenses, Alzheimer’s disease at $185.9 billion, and osteoarthritis at $115.5 billion.
But the price of living with a chronic disease goes beyond dollars and cents. For many, it’s a daily battle that demands vigilance, patience, and emotional support.
Uphill Battle
For Deb Borchert, a trip to the hospital is almost as routine as folding laundry. The 47-year-old Wisconsin mother of two knows most of the emergency room staff at her local hospital by their first names.
On March 10, she arrived at the emergency room with her miniature medical assistance dog, Molly. Her specialist’s phone number was already on file, and she was promptly admitted for treatment without delay.
There was no red tape or extra paperwork. Borchert was put in a bed and hooked up to IVs and machines that would help save her life.
Because despite her outwardly calm demeanor, she was on the threshold of cardiac arrest. Again.
“Your pulse oxygen drops, and your entire body just collapses. It can’t even function,” Borchert told The Epoch Times.
She suffers from a condition known as hypokalemic periodic paralysis, which causes consistently low and dangerous potassium levels. It’s an illness that has landed her in the hospital more times than she can count over the past 20 years.
For most people, healthy potassium levels are between 3.5 and 5.2. Anything below 2.5 is considered a life-threatening condition.
Borchert was admitted on March 10 with a potassium level of 2.2.
“I’ve had it since my 20s, but they’ve never known how to really treat it. Every time, they try different drugs, but I’m allergic to a lot of those,” she said.
It’s a tune heard often among those suffering from chronic diseases. Lengthy, exhausting, and a sometimes dangerous trial-and-error process with treatment. Some conditions can also be difficult to manage with traditional Western medicine.
This is the case for Julie Walters, whose 14-year-old daughter suffers from a rare form of epilepsy called PCDH19, which is caused by a gene mutation. It’s also challenging to manage with medication.
Moreover, it causes intense clusters of seizures that can stop someone’s breathing. It’s a side effect her daughter has endured many times and, as a result, Walters’ daughter sleeps with a pulse oximeter and supplemental oxygen nearby.
“It’s changed our entire lives,” Walters told The Epoch Times.
Walters is co-founder of the PCDH19 Alliance, an online support network promoting early diagnosis and supporting families struggling with the condition. She also runs The Connected Parent, which is a free platform for families and caregivers that also reviews resources.
Walters is acutely aware of how important resources are for parents who have children struggling with PCDH19 and other chronic diseases.
Her daughter’s illness requires constant monitoring and vigilance. Family vacations, attending school, or just going out to dinner must be planned carefully since her daughter might have a seizure at any moment.
Things like sharp corners on furniture, balcony seating, and other details most people don’t give much thought to are an act of strategy and planning in Walters’ household.
But it’s absolutely worth it to watch her daughter grow and enjoy as good a quality of life as possible.
Many PCDH19 patients can go years without a seizure. Yet when they return, it can be harrowing. She recalled a nightmare episode when her daughter suffered a seizure that lasted for over an hour, requiring hospitalization.
Borchert and Walters battle conditions beyond their control, but health care professionals say some chronic diseases are the byproduct of unhealthy lifestyle choices, diet, and excessive stress.
One study asserts that non-communicable diseases that are chronic account for 70 percent of all global deaths annually. That includes various ailments and severity, from food allergies to heart disease.
Some of these conditions are called “lifestyle diseases,” many of which have an established cause-effect relationship with daily choices.
Heart disease and obesity fall under this heading. And while certain illnesses may not stem directly from unhealthy life choices, they’re made significantly worse by them. Diseases like diabetes, certain cancers, inflammatory conditions, and asthma are all under this umbrella.
“The vast majority of chronic diseases in the United States are related to lifestyle choices, and contributing factors include dietary choices, lack of regular physical activity, [and] mental-emotional stress,” MacLean said.
The CDC says the main factors contributing to this subset of “lifestyle diseases” include tobacco use, poor nutrition, being overly sedentary, and excessive alcohol usage.
But beyond the price tags and life hurdles, chronic diseases remain the biggest killers in the United States. They claim the lives of 7 out of 10 Americans every year.
Further, the tidal wave of chronic diseases has occurred in lockstep with a sharp rise in ultra-processed food consumption over the past two decades.
An 18-year study published by New York University showed that consumption of ultra-processed food climbed steadily during this period and comprised 57 percent of America’s daily calories by 2018.
During that study period, an additional 15 million people developed chronic diseases. Medical professionals say this is no coincidence.
Yet a more subtle shift from acute to chronic illnesses as the dominant U.S. health concern began in the 1950s. Some researchers place the blame for the current health crisis squarely on the shoulders of a lethargic medical industry.
A 2020 study published in the National Library of Medicine summarized, “The medical profession and its leadership did not recognize or respond appropriately to the rising prevalence of chronic disease. As a consequence, a health care crisis emerged, with inadequate access to care and quality of care, together with excessive costs.”
Finding Hope
“It’s taken away my ability to do whatever I want and enjoy the best of what life has to offer,” Borchert said.
Though her condition has also given her a different perspective on life. She says you’d never know how sick she was at a glance or even during a normal conversation on her good days.
This is the case for many, including Walters’ daughter. Chronic illness is a constant battle with an invisible enemy that, for some, has no end in sight.
But this is where Borchert found a surprising and important new mission: spreading kindness.
“What’s most important is kindness and giving back. If I see someone struggling or having a rough day, I’ll do something nice. I’ll pay for their groceries if I’m ahead of them in line or buy their coffee,” she said.
Over the past two decades, Borchert watched her son and daughter grow into responsible adults, which inspired her to be a better person. The loss of so many little freedoms through the veil of her disease has given her an appreciation for the little things.
“When I was younger, I used to take those things for granted. I don’t want to be like that anymore. It’s made me more kind, more empathetic. There are so many chronic illnesses you can’t see.”
For Walters, her fellow “medical moms” have been a critical lifeline in her family’s journey. Because it takes a proverbial “village” to tackle chronic disease, especially when there’s no cure.
“Community, friendships, and the alliance. My daughter has friends with the same mutation, and they chat every weekend,” she said.
“A lot of the families have created these friendships … because they get it.”
As the world prepares to observe World No Tobacco Day tomorrow (May 31), Statista’s Felix Richter looks at smoking prevalence in selected countries around the world, with a special focus on Asia and its astonishing gender gap in tobacco use.
While Indonesia and China for example, are among the countries with the highest prevalence of tobacco smoking among the male population at 63 percent and 44.5 percent, respectively, the smoking rate among women in both countries is among the lowest in the world at 2.2 and 1.5 percent.
While there is a significant gender gap in tobacco use at the global level – the WHO reported a global prevalence of 36.7 percent among males and of 7.8 percent among females in 2020 – nowhere is the difference as pronounced as it is in Asia and the Pacific.
While smoking among men is often associated with masculinity or social status in the region, it is stigmatized or frowned-upon for women to smoke.
Meanwhile countries with less traditional gender roles, like France, Germany and the United States see significantly higher smoking rates among women, while smoking among men is often much less common than it is in many parts of Asia.
World No Tobacco Day is a global initiative aimed at raising awareness about the risks associated with tobacco use and advocating for effective policies to reduce tobacco consumption. The day serves as a reminder of the devastating health effects of tobacco use, including various types of cancers, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory ailments. It also highlights the socioeconomic impact of tobacco use on individuals, families, and communities.
He was a kind, respectful, peace-loving man, she said, making his shooting death by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents even harder to accept.
“I’m angry. I can’t believe it. I don’t want to believe it. Our lives will never be the same,” Nevarez said, struggling through tears.
“He was like a dad to me. And now, he’s gone.”
Family members say that on May 18, Mattia contacted tribal police to report illegal migrants trespassing on his property in Meneger’s Dam Village, a remote southern border community of the Tohono O’odham Nation reservation about 52 miles from Ajo by car.
During a brief encounter with CBP agents, family members say Mattia was shot approximately 38 times for reasons as yet unknown.
“It was literally at his doorstep,” Nevarez told The Epoch Times at a protest gathering near the Ajo Border Patrol Station in Why, Arizona, on May 27.
Tribal members and supporters held another demonstration in Tucson on the same day.
“We feel that how they took his life was unjust. There’s no justification for it,” Nevarez said.
The family released a statement calling the shooting a “grievous” incident as “it is apparent what happened.”
“Raymond called for help and, in turn, was shot down on his doorstep. Raymond’s rights were violated by the authorities whom we trust to protect our Nation. Improper and unprofessional actions of the agencies involved were witnessed by family members present near the crime scene.
“Loved ones sat in agony, not knowing of Raymond’s condition until they were told that he had passed away hours later. Raymond lay in front of his home for seven hours before a coroner from Tucson arrived.
The statement added, “In our eyes and hearts, we believe Raymond was approached with excessive and deadly force that took his life. He was a father, brother, uncle, friend, and an involved community member. Raymond always fought for what was right, and he will continue to fight even after his death. This is not an isolated incident, but it should bring awareness of the oppression our people live through.”
The family has launched a GoFundMe page to raise $10,000 in legal defense fees.
So far, the effort has garnered $2,954.
CBP Responds
On May 22, CBP issued a statement detailing the events leading to Mattia’s death.
The statement said that at 9:04 p.m., the U.S. Border Patrol Tuscon Sector Tactical Operations Center notified the Ajo station that the Tohono O’odham Nation Police Department had requested assistance responding to a report of shots fired near Mattia’s property.
At least 10 CBP agents met with tribal police at the local recreation center to coordinate a joint response.
At 9:32 p.m., a tribal police officer and several CBP agents arrived near Mattia’s residence and “spread out while searching for the man.”
“The officer and agents encountered an individual approximately 103 meters (about 337 feet) northwest of their parked vehicles, outside a residence, at approximately 9:03 p.m.”
At that point, Mattia allegedly “threw an object” at the police officer as they approached.
The object landed “a few feet” from the officer.
“Shortly after the individual threw the object, he abruptly extended his right arm away from his body, and three agents fired their service weapons, striking the individual several times.”
“The individual fell to the ground, and the officer and agents slowly approached the man,” according to the statement.
The statement made no mention of whether Mattia was armed or whether warnings were given before he was shot down.
Agents began administering CPR after they could not detect a pulse and requested emergency medical services.
However, there was no air life evacuation available due to bad weather. The agents continued administering CPR without success.
Mattia was pronounced dead at a Pima County hospital at 10:06 p.m. The medical examiner’s office took custody of the body pending an autopsy on May 19, the statement added.
The agents involved in the shooting will remain on administrative leave according to standard practice while authorities investigate the “use of deadly force.”
“All three agents who discharged their weapons and seven additional agents activated their body-worn cameras during the incident.”
The statement added the CBP is “committed to the expeditious release of the body-worn camera footage of this incident as soon as is appropriate to do so without impacting the ongoing law enforcement investigation.”
The Tohono O’odham Police Department and FBI are currently investigating. CBP said the agency’s National Use of Force Review Board would review the incident following the investigation.
Tohono O’odham police referred the matter to the department’s public information officer Matt Smith, who did not return a phone call or text requesting comment from The Epoch Times.
At the May 27 protest in Why, family spokeswoman Ofelia Rivas said tribal members have reported many negative encounters with an “aggressive” Border Patrol in the past.
“This has been going on for quite a while,” Rivas told The Epoch Times. “The Border Patrol claims to have supreme authority on the reservation.”
These Are All The Renewable Energy And Battery Installations In The US In 2023
Renewable energy, in particular solar power, is set to shine in 2023. This year, the U.S. plans to get over 80% of its new energy installations from sources like battery, solar, and wind.
Nearly every state in the U.S. has plans to produce new clean energy in 2023, but it’s not a surprise to see the two most populous states in the lead of the pack.
Even though the majority of its power comes from natural gas, Texas currently leads the U.S. in planned renewable energy installations. The state also has plans to power nearly 900,000 homes using new wind energy.
California is second, which could be partially attributable to the passing of Title 24, an energy code that makes it compulsory for new buildings to have the equipment necessary to allow the easy installation of solar panels, battery storage, and EV charging.
New solar power in the U.S. isn’t just coming from places like Texas and California. In 2023, Ohio will add 1,917 MW of new nameplate solar capacity, with Nevada and Colorado not far behind.
The state of New York is also looking to become one of the nation’s leading renewable energy providers. The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) is making real strides towards this objective with 11% of the nation’s new wind power projects expected to come online in 2023.
According to the data, New Hampshire is the only state in the U.S. that has no new utility-scale renewable energy installations planned for 2023. However, the state does have plans for a massive hydroelectric plant that should come online in 2024.
Decarbonizing Energy
Renewable energy is considered essential to reduce global warming and CO2 emissions.
In line with the efforts by each state to build new renewable installations, the Biden administration has set a goal of achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and a net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050.
The EIA forecasts the share of U.S. electricity generation from renewable sources rising from 22% in 2022 to 23% in 2023 and to 26% in 2024.
Canadian oil and gas producer Crescent Point Energy Corp on Monday said it had brought back online full production volumes at its operations in the Kaybob Duvernay play that were shut in due to the wildfires in Alberta in the past few weeks.
Several other operators in Alberta have also resumed partial production after rainfalls helped stop some of the wildfires in recent days.
Following a brief respite in the middle of May, the wildfires in Alberta began raging again last week as temperatures rose, threatening the oil sands operations in the province and forcing operators to shut in oil and gas production.
Earlier this month, the wildfires in Canada resulted in the shut-in of 319,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) from the country’s oil and natural gas production or 3.7% of all output.
Most of those shut-ins and subsequent resumption of production concerned gas output early this month, but as the situation with wildfires in Northern Alberta deteriorated, the oil sands production was threatened.
Rystad Energy has warned that nearly 2.7 million barrels per day of Alberta oil sands production is in “very high” or “extreme” wildfire danger rating zones in the month of May.
But at the end of last week, heavy rains helped the situation, and operators started restoring part of the previously shut-in production.
Crescent Point Energy said today it had brought back on stream the full 45,000 boe/d of Kaybob Duvernay production previously shut-in due to the Alberta wildfires.
Last week, Chevron Canada said it had safely resumed partial operations in the Kaybob Duvernay outside the active fire area, although it continues to monitor the evolving wildfire situation in Northern Alberta.
Obsidian Energy said it had restored 5,650 boe/d of operated and non-operated production that was temporarily shut in due to wildfires, evacuation orders, and third-party constraints in Peace River and Pembina.
US Flexes With Low B-1 Bomber Flyover As Balkan Tensions Boil
At a moment tensions are on edge in the Balkans over a fresh crisis between the Serbian minority of northern Kosovo and ethnic Albanians, which over the weekend saw dozens of NATO peacekeeping forces injured while trying to quell fierce protests, the United States decided it was time for some muscle-flexing.
Two US Air Force B-1B Lancer bomber aircraft conducted a low flyover of Sarajevo and other cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) on Tuesday. It had been pre-announced at the start of this week and described as “a sign of the strong partnership between the United States and the Armed Forces of BiH, according to a statement in the English language news portal Sarajevo Times. A US Air Forces statement cited in the publication said it would serve further as a sign of the “permanent dedication of the US to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and multi-ethnic nature of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
While the US has chastised Kosovo authorities for making brash, unilateral moves which have inflamed ethnic tensions with Serbs, and resulted in Belgrade sending Serbian national troops to the Kosovo border, it seems Washington still wants to remind Serbia of US military power in the region.
On the same day Russia, which has long been a staunch supporter of Serbian interests, called on the West to silence its “false propaganda” regarding ethnic Serbian issues and Kosovo taking away their rights.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blamed NATO forces for exacerbating the past days of violence which started when Albanian mayors were installed over Serb-dominant communities in Kosovo. “Not only have they shown their incompetence… [they] themselves became a source of unnecessary violence, an escalation factor,” she said in reference to peacekeeping forces that clashed with Serbian protesters.
She said that instead of protecting Serbs from the crackdown of a suppressive state, they “supported Pristina’s xenophobic aspirations, basically turning into terror accomplices” by defending local authorities.
2 x U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer heavy-bomber aircraft conducted a low altitude flight above Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. pic.twitter.com/YjxexoD1vO
Zakharova then in the briefing told the West to “silence its false propaganda” and to stop alleging that its Serbs provoking the clashes.
“While looking for the guilty, mediators from the US and the EU should muster up some courage and look in the mirror,” the FM spokesperson continued. “To de-escalate, decisive steps are needed, and not half-measures like an idea proposed by the US to temporarily ‘move’ the newly-minted ‘mayors’ from municipal buildings to other facilities,” Zakharova stressed.
Behind the latest violence is a long-running demand that Kosovo establish Serbian municipalities for Serbian strongholds in Kosovo. Pristina authorities, however, worry that this would be precursor for a breakaway statelet. Multiple dozens of NATO troops KFOR troops have been injured in the clashes.
An official NATO statement on Tuesday said, “NATO strongly condemns the unprovoked attacks against KFOR troops in northern Kosovo, which have led to a number of them being injured. Such attacks are totally unacceptable. Violence must stop immediately. We call on all sides to refrain from actions that further inflame tensions, and to engage in dialogue.” NATO also plans to send hundreds more troops.
