Rep. Mary Peltola and Democrats could side with American ‘Union made,’ but instead support China’s slave labor
By SUZANNE DOWNING
It wasn’t even a year ago that President Joe Biden declared a national electricity emergency. In doing so, the president used the flimsiest of national security rationales to affix his seal of approval to well-documented genocide, ethnic cleansing, and slavery in communist China, where more than 80% of solar energy components are made, much of them through forced labor.
There was no electricity emergency in America, if not for the one Biden and Democrat governors like California’s Gavin Newsom created with their anti-energy policies designed to end America’s reliable supply of oil and gas.
There was no emergency until Biden drained of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which resulted in America’s sudden return to dependence on anti-democracy nations, such as Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. He never refilled the tanks, and today, the SPR is at the lowest level since the 1980s.
As he signed the edict, Biden specifically gave China the privilege of exporting billions of dollars worth of solar cells, panels, and modules to the United States, without normal tariffs. His order says even if those components are laundered through any intermediary country in Southeast Asia, specifically Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the one-party, communist Socialist Republic of Vietnam, no regular tariffs apply.
Instead of focusing his efforts on strengthening the grid through other means, Biden hobbled the ability of America’s free market to scale up and provide solar energy, because this tariff suspension is, in every conceivable way, a taxpayer subsidy to China.
This week, House of Representatives Republicans voted to end the “carve-out for communists,” who use oppressed minority slaves in faraway provinces to build solar components for Americans, who are then purchasing solar systems with taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Not a single Democrat got behind the resolution to restore normal tariffs and take a stand against forced labor and ethnic cleansing.
Not a single Democrat, not even — not even Alaska’s Rep. Mary Peltola, New York’s Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or California’s Nancy Pelosi — stood against genocide and cultural annihilation of the Uighur population in Xinjiang, the far-flung region of China where the government has detained, imprisoned, and oppressed the Muslim minority, including through forced labor and concentration camps.
It’s all out of sight, and out of mind for Democrats, yet the atrocities they choose to ignore are well documented by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the New York Times, and even Human Rights Watch, to name a few. These are all reliably left-of-center organizations that recognize the horrors committed, while America plays dumb.
Democrats, who want solar farms in every field without having to pay union wages for their manufacture at home, are whistling past the graveyard of millions of slaughtered Chinese ethnic minorities.
This comes as no real surprise; historically Democrats have supported slave labor for a large chunk of America’s history. It took a new party, called the Republican Party, to end it in America in the 1860s.
Let’s look at just a couple of the laws that Biden is overriding with his two-year “electricity emergency.”
Section 307 of the Trade Act of 1930 “prohibits importing any product that was mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced labor, including forced or indentured child labor.” That seems like an American value.
But our enforcement agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, has its hands tied by the president’s Green New Deal emergency.
The president also ignores the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was passed by a bipartisan majority in Congress and signed by Biden in December of 2021, prohibiting the importation of products manufactured by forced labor.
Yet just six months after he signed that bill, Biden flipped hard and declared the electricity emergency, revealing that his commitment to human rights was nothing more than political theater.
The religion of climate change orthodoxy and the Green New Deal doxology has become the highest priority for the Left, for whom the ends justify the means.
China is expected to dominate over 90% of the solar component market in two years. Ironically, at the same time, China is building six times the number of coal plants than any other country –two coal plants a week in 2022.
Biden’s policies make no sense for American energy independence, security, environment, or international human rights.
By threatening to veto the restoration of normal tariffs, he maintains his devotion to China and the Green New Deal, and continues his war on America’s sovereignty as he weakens what is left of our country’s moral high ground.
Rep. Mary Peltola, Alaska’s only member of Congress, is complicit, as usual.
On Wednesday, the State of Alaska opposed the Department of the Interior’s motion to dismiss an appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that proposes a life-saving road between King Cove and the State’s all-weather airport at Cold Bay.
Interior’s motion is based on Interior Secretary Deb Haaland’s March 14 decision to withdraw from the binding land exchange agreement between Interior and the King Cove Corporation that was approved in 2019. Haaland’s decision was presented as a final and unreviewable termination of the agreement.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy of Alaska said, “Secretary Haaland’s decision to halt the land swap means King Cove residents will remain at the mercy of the weather if they need lifesaving medical treatment.” He said the residents of King Cove deserve access to medical care just as much as any other American.
The remote village of King Cove, located on the Alaska Peninsula, has a population of 850 and has argued for a road across the refuge to reach an airport in Cold Bay for medical emergencies.
Opponents argue that a road will harm the refuge. King Cove Corp., a long-term partner with the State in developing a safe and reliable connection across the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, filed a motion for preliminary injunction with the 9th Circuit to prohibit Interior from taking any actions to implement Secretary Haaland’s March 14, 2023 decision.
King Cove Corp. is a village corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and it intends to enforce the binding KCC-DOI agreement to finalize the land exchange. The village corporations motion for injunction asks the 9th Circuit to enjoin Interior from taking any actions under Sec. Haaland’s recent decision until after the 9th Circuit issues its decision on the pending appeal.
The State’s opposition to Haaland’s motion to dismiss requests that the 9th Circuit denies her the request and issues its decision on the pending appeal, and then remands to the district court all issues relating to Haaland’s recent decision to withdraw from the land exchange. Before Haaland threw a wrench in it, the land exchange with KCC was nearly completed, with the litigation being the only cause of delay. The only remaining task before the exchange of deeds is for Interior to complete environmental surveys of the exchange lands, which had to wait until the completion of litigation.
Same song, different day. Alaska’s legislators are about to overhaul the state’s oil tax laws based on the worst government policy known to man: the need for more spending money.
We would like to think our elected officials set policy targeting Alaska’s most important private sector industry based on what would lead to more oil production, more investment dollars coming into the state, or what would ensure the energy security of most of the state’s population. Now, the policy being considered in the State Senate appears to be nothing more than a cash grab.
Anti-oil legislators have consistently cried about how the State could be getting more from producers, and over the years, have introduced bills to increase government’s portion.
This year’s iteration – Senate Bill 114 – is reactionary, over-the-top legislation, as not only does it substantially increase costs for the various oil producers and change the way fields are looked at from an accounting standpoint, but it would change the tax status for a number of Alaska’s small producers, as well as one of its two majors.
That change, where “S-corporations” would pay the same amount of income tax as the “C-corporations” doing business in Alaska, would supposedly raise $100-200 million annually.
Sounds rational, right? Ah, but as we all know, the devil is ALWAYS in the details. So, let’s look at what those millions might really cost us Alaskans.
Increased costs have proved time after time to lower investment, risk jobs and actually bring in less revenue in previous tax schemes. In this case, we are certain history will repeat itself, and Alaska will once again face accelerated decline in the Trans Alaska Pipeline, which is good for no one besides extreme environmental activists.
But here is the punchline that should scare us the most: The instability associated with changing tax structures will be felt most heavily in Cook Inlet, which already faces fights from environmental zealots looking to thwart leasing and exploration activities in an area that produces much of Southcentral Alaska’s natural gas, which is used for both heat and power for residents and businesses.
Alaska’s utilities have already said publicly they are anxious about where to get their energy in the next ten years; without serious new investment in Cook Inlet, the “old faithful” oil basin that has kept energy costs relatively cheap in Southcentral for decades won’t be able to meet demand.
So, the Alaska Legislature has some explaining to do about why its members think enacting a huge new tax on the Inlet’s largest natural gas producer will help that situation. It is not complicated, and not hard to see how disastrous such a policy would be for natural gas consumers, who will see energy bills spike when gas runs low and gaps must be filled with crazy-expensive alternatives like imported LNG.
Here’s a better idea: Instead of asking current companies to pay more, Alaska should be helping grow the number of producers by creating a stable, win-win environment that grows the overall barrels of oil and cubic feet of gas, rather than threatens their production.
With 25 percent of Alaska’s private-sector employment directly or indirectly tied to oil and gas development, anything that threatens production and future investment also threatens jobs. If jobs go away, the consistent outmigration from Alaska to more stable resource environments will continue, and those jobs and families who leave take with them philanthropic activity, community involvement and begin to shred the fabric they helped create throughout the Great Land.
With this much risk, and such little potential gain, it is amazing the Legislature hasn’t rejected outright this year’s legislation.
There’s still time to send a message that Alaska is going to continue to be fully open for business, that economic stability is more important than budget gluttony, and that SB 114 would be horrible for Alaska.
Rick Whitbeck is the Alaska State Director for Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs and opportunities. Contact him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @PTFAlaska.
One of the most controversial issues facing the Alaska Legislature is whether K-12 education funding should be increased, and by how much. The Senate and House leadership disagree on the amount.
In the past few weeks, the House Democrat minority wanted a $321 million increase of education, which would result from a base student allocation formula increase of $1,250 per student, as seen in HB 65. Importantly, this would be a recurring expense because it is proposed for the funding formula going forward.
The House Republican majority offered a $175 million increase, but put it outside the per-student funding formula. Thus, it would be a one-time increase, not a recurring cost.
During the House floor debate this increase in funding would have to come out of the Constitutional Budget Reserve, which requires a three-quarter vote of the Senate and the House.
The final House vote on funding K-12 from the reserve fund failed by one vote. Thus, the House sent the operating budget to the senate with no increase in the education formula.
On April 26, the Senate Finance Committee made several changes to the operating budget, which can be seen below. The Senate decided to fund K12 at approximately $175 million, the same as the original House figure.
The Senate did not put this money into the education funding formula. Like the original House budget, the Senate decided to fund this outside of the formula, as a one-time allocation. Here is a look at the senate’s final budget changes to the house budget:
Note that the nearly $175 Million increase is a $680 BSA equivalent increase. This is because the $175 Million increase is divided by the magnified student number of 257,000. Remember, the actual number of students enrolled in brick-and-mortar schools is about 107,000 and the 257,000 number of students that is used in calculating the funding results from the the funding formula multiplier effect.
In reality, if the K12 funding is increased by $175 Million, the per student increase is about $1,635. This would be a 27% increase in per student funding, not the 14% a Senate Finance member stated.
If the entire Senate votes for this budget, then it will go to the House for approval. If the house approves, then it’s done. If the house disapproves, then the operating budget goes to a conference committee made up of members of the House and Senate leadership, including Finance Committee leaders.
One budgetary plus for the teachers’ unions is the Senate sent a message to its allies in the education industry and the governor, when it deleted $209,000 from the Department of Law for a Parental Rights in Education Advocate, as seen in the budget detail below:
But the big question is, “Will this increase in K12 funding improve academic outcomes?”. There is no accountability required from the school districts for how to spend the extra funds. Will it be spent on salary increases? Will it be spent on more Diversity, Equity & Inclusion training? Will it be spent on bonuses for district administration personnel?
Or will the extra funding actually go to the classroom to improve student outcomes?
The Senate Finance Committee has released its version of the Alaska state operating budget, which includes a split of the Alaska Permanent Fund’s earnings.
Under the proposal, the government would receive 75% of available oil revenue earnings, while Alaskans would receive 25% in the form of Permanent Fund dividends of approximately $1,304. Additionally, the Finance Committee has budgeted a one-time allocation of $174.9 million for education, which amounts to $680 per student.
Sen. Bert Stedman of Sitka said the budget lives within the state’s means, is balanced, and does not dip into the Constitutional Budget Reserve, which is the account the Legislature may borrow from to meet demands. The fund is reaching the bottom after having been borrowed from repeatedly over the past decade, and never replenished. It has just $2.4 billion left.
“The constitution mandates us to deliver to the governor a balanced budget. Within the confines of the spring revenue forecast and not dipping into our perilously low reserves, we balance the budget with the potential opportunity of revisiting it next January to deal with further maintenance and capital needs,” Stedman said.
The committee used the spring oil revenue forecast of $73 per barrel for the next fiscal year. The budgeters were conservative in that they also left a $93 million surplus, which is a rounding error in a budget, but gives the State a little wiggle room if the price of oil dips.
If oil comes in higher than forecasted, the Senate is proposing replenishing the Constitutional Budget Reserve with the first one billion dollars, and after that, it would up up to $1.1 billion toward the Public Education fund to forward-fund education.
Alexei Painter, director of the Legislative Finance Division, told the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday that the surplus could be swallowed up by even a small drop in oil prices below the $73-per-barrel forecast.
At the same time, the Senate is weighing a permanent increase to the base student allocation, with is the funding formula for schools. If it comes to an agreement on making the $680-per-student increase a permanent fixture for future legislatures, the senators will back out the one-time increase.
On the House side, the budget proposal has a $600 million deficit and a nearly $2,700 dividend, which is still not a statutory PFD, but is what the House offered as a compromise to the governor’s proposal of a $3,500 PFD.
The Senate also produced a new version of the capital budget — spending on construction and maintenance around the state. SB 41 has $30 million for school maintenance and $32 million for the University of Alaska capital improvements and repairs. The Finance Committee set four goals: Capture as much federal matching money as possible and provide grant writers for communities so they can apply for federal funds, establish food security and resource preservation, strengthen statewide energy programs, and deal with deferred maintenance items.
“We have limited resources to work with, making this capital budget one of the smallest we have seen in a long time. But we have focused on putting in money for major maintenance for schools and the university system to prioritize our existing structures,” said Sen. Lyman Hoffman, capital budget chair of the Senate Finance Committee. “We’ve chosen not to do any individual district projects, but are concentrating on shoring up statewide existing infrastructure.”
The Senate budget totals about $6.2 billion and, unlike the House version, does not require a three-quarters vote of the entire Legislature to access the Constitutional Budget Reserve funds, which is always a major hurdle for lawmakers.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s budget, with its $3,500 dividend, has no increases to education, and would require dipping into the Constitutional Budget Reserve to get $900 million needed to balance.
The House and Senate budget differences are normally ironed out through a negotiation in an appointed conference committee at the very end of the session.
Late Tuesday, without much fanfare, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Pacific Division ruled that its Alaska Division erred when it denied the Pebble Limited Partnership’s permit to develop the copper, gold, molybdenum and rhenium mine in Southwest Alaska.
Noting that the rejection was based on faulty science, the Pacific Command returned the process to Alaska, ordering that team to review and correct the errors.
While noting that this doesn’t mean Pebble’s entire mine plan — one which received a clean Final Environmental Impact Statement from the Corps — should be approved, the order does bring to question whether the ultimate decision to deny Pebble’s permit was political in nature, as groups like ours believe, or scientific, as radical environmentalists claim.
Pebble still faces a pre-emptive veto of its project by the Environmental Protection Agency, who, working in conjunction with environmental organizations and wealthy ideologues, halted the established permitting process with clear political shenanigans. That move is still under legal and regulatory scrutiny by mine proponents.
Still, yesterday’s announcement is good news for Pebble, its trillion-dollar deposit, the hundreds of jobs an operating mine would bring and the State of Alaska, as Pebble’s landholder.
We’ll continue to update this story, unabashedly promote Pebble and jeer the hijacking of a non-political permitting process for purely political purposes.
Rick Whitbeck is the Alaska State Director for Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs and opportunities. Contact him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @PTFAlaska.
Maybe that’s because the Right side has @DC_Draino, the social media name for Rogan O’Handley, who has taken the art of political memes to a whole new level. He’s the king of the political meme and no Leftist seems to be able to match him.
O’Handley was the guest on the Must Read Alaska Show on April 26, and he’ll appear in the Mat-Su and Anchorage on June 1 and 2, as a keynote speaker for the Alaska Young Republicans. Ticket information is here:
‘OHandley didn’t start out as a national political force. In fact, after law school, O’Handley went to Hollywood and started putting together deals for movies and movie stars.
But it was an extremely liberal environment, where conservatives must hide their opinions or be shunned. When he started his Instagram and other media accounts, he used a pseudonym — “DC_Draino,” a reference to draining the “DC swamp.” He had to keep his identity secret, but the success of his memes rocketed him to having 50,000 followers in just six months, and he knew that eventually the small world of entertainment would discover who DC-Draino really was.
And thus, Rogan went rogue. In 2017, he sold his house, moved to Florida, and now has over 4 million followers across social media platforms, where he provides commentary and savage observations about the politics of the day. He is closely associated with former President Donald Trump and has made many trips to Mar-a-Lago.
O’Handley’s Instagram content regularly surpasses 150,000 “likes” and he has had more than 1.5 million views of his Instagram reels. He has one of the highest engagement ratios in the industry and his account is ranked among the top 50 most influential in the world.
O’Handley has regularly appeared on the Tucker Carlson Tonight show, is an invited CPAC speaker and Turning Point USA speaker. He has done hundreds of local and national conferences, speaking engagements and political and community events.
Listen to O’Handley talk about his bold career move and why conservatives had better get active before the nation devolves into a Marxist dystopia, at Spotify, iTunes, GooglePlay, Amazon, Pandora,iHeart, and wherever you listen to podcasts.
Americans are getting used to failures by government experts. Government economists have a dismal forecasting record. Government actions and advice during the pandemic were often misguided. And dozens of former government intelligence experts got the Hunter Biden laptop story wrong.
A less recognized but also important failure may be in nutrition. Federal experts appear to have issued faulty advice for decades, even as American obesity exploded from 15 percent in the 1970s to 42 percent today. Federal guidance on nutrition has a large influence on health practice across society. Some researchers argue that Americans have generally respondedto the guidance, yet obesity has nonetheless soared.
A clue to shortcomings in federal nutrition guidance comes from calorie data. A new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study shows that average daily calorie intake increased 21 percent from 1977–78 to 2003-04, and then started trending down. By 2017–18, calories were up 15 percent from the 1970s, but as the study notes, “the rise in obesity rate outpaced the increase in calorie intake.”
In a 2022 article, Professor of Nutrition Dariush Mozaffarian noted that “over the last 20 [years] we are not eating more calories, nor exercising less, but are still becoming more obese.” As average calories have dipped, the obesity rate rose from 31 percent in 2001–2002 to 42 percent today.
How can that be? Obesity is caused not just by the amount we eat but also what we eat. Generally, the government advised us to emphasize carbohydrates and deemphasize protein and fat, as shown in thefood pyramid. But some nutritionists are now saying that was backwards. As a libertarian, I don’t want the government telling us what to eat, and our diets may have been better if that had been the case.
Like government experts, private‐sector experts get things wrong. But the government uses mandates and subsidies to impose its will, and its strong positions often displace other views. In a presentation at Cato, author and science journalist Nina Teicholzdiscussed the government’s flawed nutrition standards and the harm she believes they caused.
She observed, “the level of certainty you need to have for public policy of an entire population ought to be very high,” and federal directives on nutrition fell far short of that level.
The chart shows average daily calorie intakes of Americans, based on the new USDA data. Carbohydrates are up 22 percent since the late 1970s, fat is up 12 percent, and protein is unchanged. It appears that we mainly want to look at carbs to explain the rise in obesity.
Below I excerpt from two studies that sync with Nina Teicholz’s views about the record of faulty government advice on protein, fats, and carbohydrates. I understand that other experts have conflicting views. Nutrition is a complex field and scientists have not figured it all out yet.
However, the costs of bad diets to individuals, the medical system, and society are huge, so we should pay close attention to government interventions. This is particularly true this year because Congress is set to consider another large farm and food subsidy bill, which may adversely influence American diets.
First, an excerpt from a 2015 study by Evan Cohen and colleagues in Nutrition. Note that the latest USDA data show fat calories up somewhat since this study was published.
Americans in general have been following the nutrition advice that the American Heart Association and the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services have been issuing for more than 40 [years]: Consumption of fats has dropped from 45% to 34% with a corresponding increase in carbohydrate consumption from 39% to 51% of total caloric intake. In addition, from 1971 to 2011, average weight and body mass index have increased dramatically, with the percentage of overweight or obese Americans increasing from 42% in 1971 to 66% in 2011.
… Since 1971, the shift in macronutrient share from fat to carbohydrate is primarily due to an increase in absolute consumption of carbohydrate as opposed to a change in total fat consumption. General adherence to recommendations to reduce fat consumption has coincided with a substantial increase in obesity.
… Since the late 1970s, the US government, following the American Heart Association (AHA) and much of academia, has consistently recommended lowering the dietary percentage of fat and saturated fat, as well as the absolute levels of dietary cholesterol, based on a theoretical link between those food components and higher risk for coronary heart disease. This government guidance suggested that the reduction of dietary fat would be accompanied by a concurrent increase in the dietary share of carbohydrate. Taken together, these recommendations were also considered to be beneficial for the prevention of overweight and obesity, along with diabetes, cancer, and other chronic diseases.
… In 1961, spurred by emerging medical and epidemiologic research, the AHA issued dietary recommendations to ‘reduce the intake of total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol. In 1977, the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs issued Dietary Goals for the United States, which recommended that fat consumption be reduced to 30% of energy intake, and that carbohydrate consumption be increased to account for 55% to 60% of energy intake.
Following this report, Dietary Guidelines for Americans, issued by the USDA and the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services; DHHS) in 1980, recommended a reduction in the consumption of the share of total macronutrients attributable to fat and saturated fat, and a reduction in the absolute consumption of cholesterol. To compensate, the guidelines recommended increasing consumption of carbohydrate as a share of total calories because “carbohydrates contain less than half the number of calories per ounce than fats.”
During the 1980s, the federal government continued to issue reports and recommendations encouraging Americans to limit fat consumption. In 1982, the Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer of the National Research Council issued Interim Dietary guidelines that recommended fat intake be lowered from 40% to 30% of total calories in the diet, officially endorsing the AHA’s recommendations from 1961 and the Senate committee’s recommendations from 1977. The USDA and DHHS recommendations have remained largely unchanged since 1980. In 1992, the Food Guide Pyramid was released, urging Americans to use fats, oils and sweets “sparingly,” and to consume between 6 and 11 servings of bread, cereal, rice, and pasta.
… There is a strong relationship between the increase in carbohydrate share of total intake and obesity.
… this study demonstrated that general adherence to government dietary recommendations to decrease fat share of total dietary intake has been accompanied by a rapid increase in obesity rates.
Second, an excerpt from a 2022 study by Joyce Lee and colleagues in Frontiers of Nutrition:
[From 1800 to 2019] processed and ultra‐processed foods increased from <5 to >60% of foods. Large increases occurred for sugar, white and whole wheat flour, rice, poultry, eggs, vegetable oils, dairy products, and fresh vegetables. Saturated fats from animal sources declined while polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils rose. Non‐communicable diseases (NCDs) rose over the twentieth century in parallel with increased consumption of processed foods, including sugar, refined flour and rice, and vegetable oils. Saturated fats from animal sources were inversely correlated with the prevalence of NCDs.
… Ancel Keys’ Diet‐Heart Hypothesis posited that the mid‐nineteenth century heart disease epidemic resulted from “a changing American diet”: increased consumption of fats, especially saturated fatty acids (SFAs), and decreased grain consumption.
… The unprocessed elements of our nineteenth century diet–animal fats, whole fat dairy, fresh vegetables, and fresh fruits—were progressively replaced with more processed elements, including industrial seed oils, HFCS, and ready‐to‐eat snacks and meals. The data do not support the widely publicized [Ancel Keys’] “changing American diet” of increasing animal‐derived SFAs over the first 60 years of the twentieth century.
Rather, polyunsaturated fats and partially hydrogenated fats from vegetable oils progressively replaced lard, butter, and other animal‐derived fats. Across the twentieth century, rising rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer were associated with stable SFA consumption. Yet, large increases in sugar and refined carbohydrate consumption and more modest increases in total calories make refined carbohydrates and total calories more likely factors than SFA in NCD pathogenesis.
… The increased consumption of red meat and SFAs as the cause of the heart disease epidemic was one foundation for Keys’ Diet‐Heart Hypothesis, strengthened by authoritative repetition, including McGovern’s Senate Select Committee’s Dietary Goals for America (1977), Science in the Public Interest’s (1978) monograph The Changing American Diet, the New York Times columnist Jane Brody’s (1985) Good Food Book, Surgeon General Koop’s Report on Nutrition and Health (1988), and the World Health Organization’s Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases (1990). However, neither the USDA nor other data supported this narrative.
… The alleged increase in American SFA consumption in the twentieth century was considered the cause of the dramatic rise of non‐communicable diseases (NCDs) … [But] our findings suggest that SFAs are unlikely to drive obesity, diabetes, or other NCDs.
… US and international agencies and medical associations strongly supported a low‐fat/low‐SFA, high‐carbohydrate diet for everyone over age 2 years, and through 2008, advocated sugar as healthy for diabetics and the general population.
… Evidence supports both the roles of energy balance and refined carbohydrates‐insulin mechanisms in obesity, with their relative roles likely varying based on genetics and other factors.
… our findings suggest that increased sugar and refined carbohydrate consumptions during the twentieth century in America may have played a larger role than total calories or physical activity, although this remains a speculation without accurate data on all variables.
Data Notes: The chart shows average daily calories for all Americans over age two. USDA data on grams were converted to calories using 4 grams per calorie for protein and carbohydrates and 9 grams per calorie for fat. Using this approach, the sum of calories in the chart matches the USDA total for 1977–78 but understates the total for 2017–18 of 2,093 calories. More on nutrition and the farm bill here and here. The Nutrition Coalition explores these issues here.
Anchorage Assemblyman Chris Constant is now a heartbeat away from becoming mayor of Anchorage. He was sworn in on Tuesday as the chairman of the Assembly. Assemblywoman Meg Zaletel, who runs the Anchorage homeless industrial complex, is now vice chair.
Sworn in as new members of the Assembly were Scott Myers, Anna Brawley, Karen Bronga, Zac Johnson, and George Martinez.
Constant has been working in the background since Mayor Dave Bronson was elected in 2021, and has been holding the threat of impeachment over the head of the mayor. Constant has been keeping a file on Bronson, starting from the time when the mayor turned off the city’s fluoride temporarily, after an employee had complained about it causing respiratory irritation. Last year, Constant and the liberal Assembly members passed an ordinance that will make it easier for them to simply remove the mayor if they choose. The mayor is up for reelection in 2024 and has filed to run for a second term.
The ordinance allowing the Assembly to simply remove a mayor pertains to these actions:
Acceptance of cash gifts from one doing business with the municipality
Violation of chapter 1.15
Perjury
Falsification of records
Filing false reports
Nepotism
Making personal use of municipal or school district property
Destruction of municipal or school district property
Actual or attempted official misconduct, as defined by state law
Ordering a municipal employee or contractor employed by the supervisory board to undertake an unlawful act
Substantial breach of a statutory-, Code- or Charter-imposed duty
Failure to faithfully execute the directives of a duly enacted 9 ordinance.
Currently, the mayor is in jeopardy with the Assembly because Bronson wants to pay a contractor for work done last year, and the Assembly won’t authorize it. If Bronson pays Roger Hickel, he’ll probably be impeached. Hickel will probably have to sue the city for the payment.
But on Tuesday, Constant played the statesman: “This election, now certified, comes at a crucial time in our city’s history, as we emerge from a long and dark period of the pandemic, and enter a new day of what I hope will be characterized as collegial accountability from the Assembly.”
It’s unclear if Constant was sideswiping former Assembly Chairwoman Suzanne LaFrance with that comment about a long and dark period. LaFrance, Pete Peterson, Austin Quinn-Davidson, Joey Sweet, and Robin Dern are now off the Assembly. Six of the 12 members are newly sworn in.
#/media/File:USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif){kind=link}