USA can't have salad

Yesterday, a couple minutes into "The Check-In" with Jared Yates Sexton and Danielle Moodie, Part 1, Danielle says:

"On top of the lettuce, you can't eat. On top of the jalapenos, you can't eat. The guacamole, you can't eat. The salsa, you can't eat. The peppers that you can't eat. The eggs that are recalled. They recalled 30,000 tons of of raw beef from Argentina.

Why did that happen? Oh, oops, because it didn't go through a second inspection when it came into the United States and was distributed to Texas and I forget the other state...you don't have any inspectors anymore because, when Elon Musk came in, you fired all of them because Taylor Farms can pay off Donald Trump with a million dollars. All of these other Big Food, Big Ag can pay off so that they get rid of the inspectors, they get rid of the regulations, and you, you get to sit on a toilet or potentially end up in a fucking ICU for weeks on end. Because this is what it's like to live in an underdeveloped country...to sit down and eat a bowl of lettuce, to sit down and eat a bowl of perfectly ripe tomatoes shouldn't be a fucking luxury.

But now it is, because they're not concerned with what you and I are eating in the U.S. because they have their organic farms. Their kids are getting their vaccinations from private doctors. They're getting all of the things that they need done...You and I, however, unless you have a few bucks, unless you want to roll the dice, you're pretty much fucked...The country that is known for its obesity, hypertension and diabetes, we can't now have fucking salad."

Jared talks about the ICE electric gloves and says he's been saying for a long time:

"whenever fascism comes around, you have three choices: One is to put on the armband and possibly get some spoils.
Second is to close your door and hope that it never knocks on your door and don't say anything.
And third is to fight it and risk being destroyed.
Well, guess what? That question, it's not asked in a vacuum. Eventually, we're going to reach a point where we're not going to have anything. We're not going to have any conditions that are conducive to living a life of dignity and longevity...If you suddenly have...total censorship and criminal of dissident critiques, all of a sudden that question becomes very clear, especially in this new era with digital surveillance, especially now."

"In one extreme case, a 43-year-old man died after allegedly being shocked 40 times by officers with a combination of the gloves and a Taser in a county jail in Kentucky, and the man’s widow is suing authorities."

[image or embed]

— Erin Fogg says Free Link (@criminalerin.bsky.social) August 24, 2026 at 11:17 AM

A couple minutes into Part 2, there's a discussion of how this results from what I call chainsaw conservatism:

Danielle: "You can't, your kids can't get vaccinations. A majority of people are now out of work. Are they connecting the dots back to the cause of this, or is the way that it's being narrated, as if this is all just an anomaly, kind of the way that they talk about wildfires and the fucking climate, it being 100 degrees, like in Europe, it's like, Oh, well, isn't that just weird? No, it's not fucking weird. Like, it's the product of what happens when you deny climate science. Like, it's not just weird that you can't have lettuce and tomatoes and jalapenos and beef. Those things are not just happening. They are the product of what happens when you dismantle agencies, fire inspectors, and have no one minding the fucking store or the health of 330 million Americans...I guess my curiosity is, like, Do people get it? Are they connecting these things or are they just thinking it's like whack-a-mole and it's just coming out of nowhere?"
Jared: "I think the answer is complicated, and I think that there are some people who do understand it. I think there are other people who intuit it, but they lack the information to articulate it, largely because they are consistently given a narrative that doesn't have anything to do with it."

It did not come from nowhere.

Suggest 'climate and mental health' books for a podcast

"We must reframe our understanding of the problem. Climate change is not the problem; climate change is the most horrible symptom of an economic system that has been built for a privileged few to extract every precious resource out of this planet and its people — from our natural resources to the fruits of our human labor."
Colette Pichon Battle, interviewed by Leah Penniman. Black Earth Wisdom: Soulful Conversations With Black Environmentalists. Amistad, 2023. Chapter: "Rising Waters."

Here's that Grist list.

Also: "Climate Fiction Won't Save Us" As the world burns, readers increasingly look to climate fiction for hope, predictions, and actionable solutions. But can the genre really be a manual for useful change? Jeff VanderMeer, Esquire, April 19, 2023

Conscience and Religious Freedom...isn't

On Jan. 18, 2018, the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that its Office for Civil Rights would have a new "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division." The idea of a need to protect "religious freedom" has been around for a while. Outwardly, it is based on the concern that a religious person might be forced to do something that violates their conscience or religious belief. Political scientist Andrew Lewis said recently:

"Federal religious freedom laws gained some steam in the mid-1990s, and a decent number of conservatives were involved in them, but there was very little public awareness that they were going on.

It’s not until you see the legalization of same-sex marriage that you see this real drive to protect religious freedom. The day that the Obergefell case was decided...They knew that they were losing this cultural battle and this was a way to preserve what they thought was their orthodox faith in action."

During the 1990s and 2000s while same-sex marriage was debated nationally, many people claimed to oppose legalizing it on the premise that clergy should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings. This threat was never real, since clergy have always been free to refuse to marry people (divorcees and interfaith couples) and to impose religious requirements on the couple before and during the wedding. Since same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, no clergy have been forced to perform one. The obviousness of the non-threat did not stop it from seizing people's imaginations. Having lost the same-sex marriage battle, Christian conservatives now aim for "religious freedom" laws to ensure that religious people are not forced to do...well, anything that they claim offends their beliefs.

For now, the new HHS division does not directly create or change laws (though it might encourage them). It is supposed to enforce whatever federal laws exist. Its activities will depend in part on what federal laws are created or struck down and what complaints are filed. Its new website does not contain a comprehensive list of all possibly relevant laws, so it is hard to predict what will happen.

The agency is already being selective about how it promotes what it does. Its website talks a bit about abortion and euthanasia and the nondiscrimination provisions in the Affordable Care Act that relate to them, but it doesn't mention the ACA’s Section 1557 which forbids discrimination based on markers including “pregnancy, gender identity, and sex stereotyping" and whose enforcement has been in question since Trump’s election. Its website doesn't mention transgender people at all, but this is one of the points at issue in the public consciousness. If that part of the ACA is repealed, the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division will have responsibility for enforcing the right of healthcare workers to discriminate against people based on pregnancy and gender.

Drilling down through the website’s complaint process reveals a list of a wide range of relevant employment situations including agencies for adoption, foster care, and social services; mental health centers; drug rehabs; homeless shelters; nursing homes; researchers; insurance companies; and pharmacies. This suggests that religious people anticipate wanting to reserve the right to deny service based on a client’s identity or behavior, not just on specific procedures.

Someone might want the birth control pill or the "Plan B" pill to interrupt a possible pregnancy. Someone might want pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. It would be good if one's pharmacist would dispense it. The pharmacist's prerogative to make judgments about others does not seem to outweigh the client's prerogative to make choices about their own life. That doesn't seem to be a good definition of political freedom.

If a cosmetic implant ruptures it would be nice to think that one could just get it taken out without starting a debate about whether the patient is really a woman, whether it's really an emergency and exactly how many hours are estimated to remain to allow a different healthcare staff to be recruited,, whether repairing it counts as a sex-reassignment surgery as opposed to only removing it and sending her elsewhere to get it fixed. What kind of moral calculus is that, and what is the benefit? It is much simpler to accept that this is a person who needs the same kind of treatment as anyone else with that problem. But the insistence on so-called "religious freedom" is the endorsement of just that kind of presumptuous, time-wasting, anxiety-provoking, us/them polarizing moral calculus, and there is now a federal agency to attempt to culturally legitimize it.

The scope of the types of discriminations allowable under "religious freedom" is likely to increase. State laws branded under the same “religious freedom” concept are not all healthcare-specific. Some apply more broadly to general business dealings. So, even though this new federal agency may not have the mission of enforcing state law, we should pay attention to how the idea of "religious freedom" is variously interpreted and what versions politically succeed.

#WarIsPeace
#DiscriminationIsFreedom
#HateIsReligion
#IgnoranceIsConscience

In 2018, did Republicans intend to ban abortion?

Do Republicans want to ban abortion after 20 weeks with no exceptions?, Analysis by Salvador Rizzo, Washington Post, February 5, 2018

Rizzo's conclusion, following his fact-check:

"NARAL says the bill bans abortion after 20 weeks with “no exception to protect a woman’s health.” Smith also says there’s “no exception to protect a woman’s health.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists warned that “there are many reasons a woman may seek abortion care at 20 weeks, including fatal or serious medical conditions to the woman.” None of these statements makes reference to the exception for life-threatening cases.

Because some of these statements give an incomplete picture of the exceptions in the bill, we award One Pinocchio.

That's interesting, an exception for the woman's life. Hey — where are we in 2023?

"The Republican Party remains bitterly divided on abortion, with some pushing for a 15-week national abortion ban, while others, such as newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, have supported a proposed federal ban on abortion as early as six weeks." — Republicans face 2024 dilemma after abortion rights issue powers Democrats Gabriella Borter and Tim Reid, Reuters, November 8, 2023

To clarify: Plan B is to prevent ovulation/implantation w/in 72 hrs of sex. Available over the counter many places. Plan C / Abortion medication is to terminate a pregnancy /help w/miscarriage up to about 10 weeks’ gestation (from last menstrual period). After implantation. Get online in the US.

[image or embed]

— Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg (@theradr.bsky.social) February 2, 2025 at 12:10 AM

---

They want to get rid of Obergefell too:

Liberty Counsel, the Christian hate group behind Kim Davis’s attempt to have the Supreme Court overturn its marriage equality decision, says their fight to end LGBTQ+ equality is far from over.

“I have no doubt that Davis’s resolve will serve as a catalyst to raise up many more challenges to the wrongly decided Obergefell opinion,” wrote Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver in a message on the group’s website. “Until then, we must pray, fight, and contend for when Obergefell is no longer the law of the land.”

* * *

Staver’s argument is similar to an argument that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito made in 2020 that the mere existence of married same-sex couples is a violation of Christians’ religious freedom because seeing married same-sex couples encourages people to judge Christians “as bigots.” (That opinion was delivered in the context of a different appeal filed by Davis.)

“Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy,” Thomas wrote at the time.

— Alex Bollinger, Christian conservative group that tried to overturn marriage equality vows that it’s not over: "The fight to overturn Obergefell and protect religious liberty has just begun," the group's president said ominously. LGBTQ Nation, November 13, 2025

Religious “Liberty” Commission Just Another Buffoonish Trump Reality Show: We need to call this what it is: a sham, a joke, a mendacious misuse of the fundamental American principle of religious liberty meant to lay the groundwork for the obscene Christian Nationalist policies this administration wants to implement. Fish Stark, Common Dreams, Sep 30, 2025

The surge in OxyContin abuse in the United States

OxyContin is Purdue Pharma's brand name for the opiate painkiller oxycodone; the generic version of the drug became available in 2004.

Originally posted to Helium Network on Dec. 25, 2012.

OxyContin tablets are designed to be swallowed so that the medication releases slowly over twelve hours. When the drug is abused, the addict generally crushes the tablets to enable faster delivery, after which the drug is swallowed, snorted, or injected.

The drug can be legally prescribed, and some addictions begin inadvertently. The patient may ingest too much, or a family member may be tempted to try the drug or sell it to others. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that the street value of OxyContin can be up to ten times its retail value. When someone dependent on OxyContin begins to withdraw from the drug, they may experience coughing, yawning, heart palpitations, insomnia, and general "jitteriness" – accompanied by a desire to use the drug again.

Some unscrupulous providers will sell large bottles of the pills that far exceed the amount that most patients need. In the United States, serious government-level efforts to introduce legal requirements for online pharmacies to disclose their "owners, locations, doctors, affiliated pharmacies, and telephone numbers" were made in 2000, but an actual federal Food and Drug Administration requirement was not implemented until 2009. On the state level, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed legislation in 2012 to mandate that doctors register for a tracking program designed to flag drug abuse.

The New England states of Maine and Vermont have a treatment rate for oxycodone abuse that is high above the U.S. national average, according to federal data from the years 1998-2008. The abuse rate seems to be climbing. In 2010, the number of OxyContin pills prescribed in Maine was five times the number that were prescribed in 2006, and the number of pharmacy robberies in Maine in 2010 increased tenfold over 2008.

In the New England state of Massachusetts, between 2002 and 2007, the number of residents who died from overdosing on opiates was shockingly more than 40 times the number who died in military service in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Other regions of the United States are also affected, especially in rural areas. Kentucky's Rockcastle county, with a population of 16,000, has an average of one drug-related death every week. In Knott County, "more than half of the children have lost their parents due to death, abandonment or legal removal....And in nearby Johnson County, so many children have lost parents that school administrators there changed 'Parents' Day' to 'Guardians' Day.'" CNN's story on this topic implied that much of this drug abuse involves prescription medications. Operation UNITE, an organization fighting drug abuse in Kentucky, said that drugs killed more people in the state in 2011 than did motor vehicle accidents. Over a two-year period, the organization's mobile medical incinerator destroyed over 1 million pills surrendered by individuals, medical providers, and police.

Purdue Pharma and three of its executives pled guilty in 2007 to providing misleading information to its sales representatives about the drug's addictive properties, which the legal system considers to be only a misdemeanor. The company had falsely promoted the claim that OxyContin was less addictive than other painkillers on the market. It agreed to pay $634.5 million in fines. While the executives were sentenced to probation and community service, Judge James P. Jones commented at their sentencing that he wished that prison could have been an option.

This outcome did not seem to much injure the health of the company. Erin Baldassari wrote for the Boston Phoenix that "Purdue's Oxy profits soared from $800 million in 2006, the year before the federal settlement, to over $3 billion in 2011." However, the company's current patent on the drug will expire in 2013.

Information about treatment options is available on the website of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.