I'm not a preachy vegetarian, don't be an asshole omnivore

One of my brothers appreciates how I'm not super vocal and preachy and over the top about the things that make me even more of a minority than what I already might be considered. I'm not a super swishy over the top out gay man, and I am not a pushy, preachy, holier-than-thou vegetarian. I figure, just respect people whoever they may be, and let them make their own decisions even if you may not agree with them. In other fronts I may be a little less forgiving, or push back against views I don't necessarily agree with, and my decision to be vegetarian has seldom been one of them. Overtime however, there is the accumulation of small snippy comments along the lines of "more meat for me", and "How could you not like bacon?!" which pile up. They are like small pebbles thrown at my head. They are more annoying then damaging. However if you get enough of them, they accumulate, and maybe slip into your shoes, and eventually fester and aggravate. I have remained respectful of other people's decision to eat meat, and I do not think that it is too much of a stretch of the imagination to expect similar respect in return. However when you crack a joke like pigs are vegetarian, so ham is actually vegetarian too; you are not being clever. You are not being funny. You are being a disrespectful asshole who has become worthy of my contempt. I try to do vegetarian right. I eat plenty of vegetables, and fruit. I try to avoid the bread and pasta pitfall some people fall into sometimes at some restaurants, or at family gatherings where the menu is poorly thought out. I don't constantly preach about how you can actually get more than enough protein being vegan or vegetarian if you eat the right grains and legumes, or how it helps you lose weight, and lower blood pressure, or the other multitude of benefits that being vegetarian can bring (if done correctly). If you crack a joke like the ones I mentioned above when I mention I am vegetarian to you, do not be surprised if I smack you upside the head for your blatant disrespect. Granted, I tend to avoid physical violence, as we are supposed to be a civilized people. But I do hope you understand if I do not speak to you again and that you enjoy your heart disease, and diabetes 20 years from now.

A Really Late response to the Tucson Arizona Shootings and the surrounding politics

Last weekend a very unfortunate and gruesome event occurred in Tucson Arizona, when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot point blank range through the head by an unwell gunman Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner had a high capacity clip for his pistol which allowed him to fire 31 total rounds before having to reload, which resulted in 6 deaths, and numerous injuries. I have the benefit of hindsight and the distance of time and space from this event in which I had plenty of time to digest the on-goings as they unfolded in the news media and the responses of the nation and myself to the shooting.

My first thought for good or for ill, and a shortcoming in my own judgments was "what right wing gun-happpy nutbag is responsible?". That judgment is a very broad generalization as I know most conservatives while strong in their convictions, and sometimes misinformed (something I am guilty of myself) are generally not bad people. As more information emerged about the shooter various news networks tried to paint him as an extremist of either the right or left based on what is altogether an arbitrary and wide-spanning selection of "favorite books" from Loughner's myspace page. All judgments about the shooter's politics opinions and conjecture piece-mealed and selected by presenting what was altogether only a limited selection of his readings.

As more information about the tragedy unfolded, we found out that Representative Giffords was part of Sarah Palin's Political Action Party's site to take back twenty districts from Democrats who voted to pass the Federal Health Care Reform. The districts marked off under a rifle scope's cross-hairs (I don't care what spin you try to retroactively put on the images, they are NOT surveyor's graphics, I know a rifle scope cross-hairs when I see it.) There are people who believe that symbolism and language riddled with gun euphemisms, and metaphors. This sparked a debate as to whether or not the political rhetoric was responsible for generating an environment in which politicians play on the public's fears and that in turn results in acts of violence seeming justified; a "do onto others BEFORE they do on to you" kind of mentality. I thought it was amusing to see the response from either side of the political spectrum, as it is telling when someone feels they are being called out on the offending behavior. It seemed a lot of the conservative news media and politicians responded with a "what are you accusing us of?" kind of response, where as some of the liberal media outlets acknowledged what might constitute their own infractions and adjusted their speech accordingly. My favorite example of the adjustment is Keith Olberman's satirical segment "Worst Person in the World" usually poking fun at people whose disregard for their fellow man may not be necessarily dangerous, but certainly deplorable if comedic in how it is presented. Olberman did not run this segment in the past week, acknowledging that not everyone may be able to appreciate the segment's satire.

What has been brought to light as well in terms of the shooting was the long history and frequency of mass shootings which have occurred in the United States. I do believe we have the second amendment for a reason, however I think that we should look at the Right to bear Arms with reason and a sense of wisdom. What sorts of things are perfectly admissible in terms of owning firearms, and why is it justifiable. This week Congress has introduced a Bill which would ban the public sale of high capacity magazine clips. High-capacity magazines are not used by any part of public service. Policemen do not have them, and many members of the military do not use them, so why should any civilian individual need them? There is public acknowledgment that automatic weapons are also effectively banned on a federal level, and depending on the state, actually banned. What I mean by 'effectively banned" is that access to certain kinds of materials involve a rigorous process and series of background checks as well as some large fees which need to be paid and are a hassle. If you are willing to go through the process, and your state does not have an outright ban on automatic weapons, you can get a machine gun.

These events of course are not without their heroes. For every sociopath who has no regard for their fellow man, there is a selfless courageous individual who you would swear has ice water running through their veins, and the well being of others becomes tantamount. In the Arizona shooting, this person is Daniel Hernandez, a 20 year old, Latino intern who happens to be gay. Three traits which are no more important that any other, but given Arizona's recent controversial political history, three traits which should not be left out of the dialogue about the shooting (Also three traits which as one reader of the Dan Savage Blog, will guarantee a teabagger's head to explode). Daniel ran TOWARD the gunfire once he heard bullets and attended Gabrielle Giffords' injuries, keeping her upright and applying pressure to the wound. Danile has been lauded as a hero by the nation, including President Obama. During the Memorial, Daniel Hernandez while appreciative of the sentiment "humbly rejected the mantle of 'hero'" to a standing ovation of everyone in attendance. My thoughts on his response were ironically "spoken like a true hero". He really is, in spite of his rejection of the title. I certainly sympathize with the rejection of the sentiment.

Overall, the events are unfortunate, however they are just another series in a chain of a bloody and violent history of shootings here in the state. The shooting in Tucson is horrible, but it is anything but inconceivable.

Glenn Beck can have free reign on criticizing veterans groups when I see his DD214

I found out that just earlier today Glenn Beck made a certain criticism of Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America when a listener of his radio show stated they received funding from the political action group MoveOn.Org. Glenn Beck stated that IAVA a nonprofit, nonpartisan veterans group is secretly a front for a socialist agenda. While I do not believe that veterans groups are above reproach or criticism, I do believe in the criticism being founded on something more substantial than a phone call, or that the group receives funding from a political action group. I am certain that there are many veterans nonprofit organizations that receive funding from groups with opposing ideals. But that a IAVA is secretly a socialist/communist front group? SERIOUSLY? It is veterans who allow for Beck to make these cowardly, panic induced, deluded accusations. I suppose that Beck achieves his goal of getting more media attention by saying such baseless appalling and grotesque accusations that a veterans group basically started on the grounds of picking up the slack where the government was not doing what it could as a "socialist" front. When he completes a tour of duty with the marines or the army, gets deployed overseas for Operation New Dawn, or Operation Enduring Freedom, and has an honorable discharge... I might let him slide for saying something like that.
And like Rachel Maddow stated in her show this evening. the saddest part is now thousands of listeners will now believe that IAVA is a socialist group.