Going Somewhat Vegetarian: Or, How We Mostly Stopped Buying Meat

To be clear (if the title of this post wasn't enough), we have not gone vegetarian. This week, we did the lunch buffet at the Indian Oven where I ate more Chicken Curry in one sitting than anyone ever should, vegetarian or no. The week before that, we got big, meaty subs from Logan's Heroes. And the week before that, we did pick up the Gourmet Vegetarian pizza from Papa Murpheys (but that's just because it's their best pizza -really, try it). That being said, I cannot remember the last time I bought meat at the grocery store (with the exception of two organic chicken breasts that we paid $10 for and served to some company).

It happened gradually. I was actually going to title this post, “Taking the Plunge” or something exciting like that, but it's really been more like taking a ride on a long, gently sloping slide (which didn't make for nearly as good of a title). It had a lot to do with the Cache Valley Gardener's Market ending in the fall -where we had been buying local meat that had been raised in a more humane -not to mention in a more environmentally-friendly- manner. Once it ended, we kept holding off on buying meat until we could find a seller we'd feel good about. And maybe that's all it took. Just a few weeks of not buying meat. I'd find myself wandering through the meat section thinking, “Well, we've been fine without it for this long...” Maybe it was Dave getting this disappointed look on his face when I said I'd planned meatloaf for dinner. Maybe it was just one Netflix food documentary too many (you know how Netflix does this thing?: “Because you watch Food Inc. here are a zillion other distressing food documentaries that you need to watch!”)

Like I mentioned before, I do often order meat at restaurants. I also eat meat that others have prepared (like at a ward party or when eating with friends or family). I just don't feel much desire to buy the stuff anymore. I still wonder what the point of it all is. I mean, why go half-way? What kind of mixed messages I am trying to send? (As you can tell, this is still a bit of a moral dilemma that I like to ponder on occasionally). Well, there are a few reasons. For one, I know myself and the limits of my own willpower all too well; I think if I were to quit eating meat entirely I would probably go nutsy and splurge in other terrible ways. Also, despite what any vegan will tell you, I believe that meat does in fact have some important nutritional value. That being said, I don't think we need to eat it every day (thank you “Word of Wisdom” for clearing that up). What's more, I am discovering that many meals are fine -if not better- without it. I suppose that the most fundamental reason why I am not a vegetarian is that I don't believe that man eating beasts is inherently wrong (again, thank you “Word of Wisdom”). I could be called a “speciesist” for saying that, and I suppose I am. So be it.

And there's another important reason: convenience and “do-ability.” That might sound a bit on the selfish side, but I'm very aware that many people simply don't have the resources or the time to go to the lengths that Dave and I have gone to. They can't spend 30 minutes driving across the valley to buy local, free range eggs. They can't pay $30+ dollars for a roast at the farmer's market. What's more, they may have a picky spouse or child and are just doing their best to get something edible on the table. Basically, it is hard to eat healthy –let only to eat conscientiously in our society. No one has unlimited resources, and Dave and I are no exception. (For example, we couldn't really afford to buy organic on everything, and we rarely do buy organic -partly because we got disillusioned after reading, The Omnivore's Dilemma). But, I figure this is at least something I can do. And I like to hope that a lot of little somethings will eventually add up to...well, something more.

A Follow-up And a Rant

The “follow-up” portion of this post will be very brief (I can already sense your collective sigh of relief!). Basically it is just to say that I am increasingly respecting both sides of this particular debate (well, except for the NRA's complete refusal to budge -I have zero respect for that), and I am increasingly appreciating the complexity of this issue. Objective, fact-ridden articles such as this one http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/gun-violence-in-america-the-13-key-questions-with-13-concise-answers/272727/
have been especially good at helping me see the “bigger picture” and ask the important questions. Questions such as: Would lowering total gun violence necessarily lower the incidence of mass shootings? How do we close the “private sales background check” loophole? Would banning assault weapons even be effective at this point (considering how many are already in circulation)? What would be effective and how do we access this type of data? You get the idea. Complex stuff.

So, on to the rant (I hope you are as excited as I am). While I've grown in respect for those arguing gun rights, I am more and more bothered by posts such as this one: 

 

or this one:  

or this one: 

or even this one:

(Disclaimer: if it was you, dear reader, who posted these memes, please do not take this as a personal attack. I am going after the meme here -not the meme-poster)

If someone can explain to me the redeeming value of these types of politically-charged memes, please do. I can certainly see purpose, but I wouldn't call it “redeeming.” I can see how they serve to “fire-up the base.” I can see how they lead to mob-think mentality and an added certainty that your chosen group is right because they are very good at pushing emotional buttons while ignoring considerations such as reason and civility.

So, let's take the first one. Let's assume that all the numbers are accurate (which I didn't check, but I would hope the person who posted it had). Even if accurate, the figures lead to a very distorted take-home message. There's a quote I recently came across that really hit home with me: “Figures don't lie, but liars figure.” Like I've said before, if someone is of the opinion that our efforts are misdirected in going after gun control –that there are much more effective ways to save the greatest number of American lives, I would respect that opinion. I would love to discuss it. Clearly though, that is not the take-home message of this particular internet meme; rather, it seems to be to trivialize the negative effects of gun violence on our society in a most insensitive manner. What do these numbers mean to someone who has lost a loved one in a senseless act of gun-violence? How can a figure, like the one presented here, begin to account for the toll that tragedies like Sandy Hook take on our National morale?

I'm discovering that what really bothers me about political memes isn't so much what is said, but all the things that are left unsaid --the second meme being my case-in-point. It conveniently looks over the profound differences in nature that exist between a car and a gun (e.g. a car was invented to transport people from point A to point B, a gun was invented to hunt and kill), the profoundly different ways their misuse as well as their appropriate use affects society, and the profoundly different ways we potentially deal with each problem. It also jumps to the conclusion that guns will be completely taken away, when, so far anyway, I haven't heard any politician putting that idea forward. But none of that matters because it accomplishes what it was meant to accomplish; it pushes on all the right emotional hot-spots.

Even the third meme, which I find least offensive, still gives me some pause. I appreciate the comparison it is making (really, I do), but as you follow this comparison further, some important differences become apparent. Like the idea that increasing the availability of fire extinguishers, as opposed to guns, isn't going to increase the likelihood of more fires occurring (i.e. the need for the fire extinguisher in the first place).

And the last meme. It really seems innocent enough. But think of how easy it would be to find some contradictory statement from a different general authority (or even from the same general authority) given at a different place and time and to then use that quote to “challenge” the first quote. I also don't like quotes like this being taken out of context without the whole background being given. Mostly, I just don't like seeing our general authorities being paraded around on facebook like puppets being made to support this or that political opinion (I know that sounds harsh. Does anyone else feel this way?) Sharing quotes by general authorities to bare testimony or to uplift others seems like a different matter entirely.

Before I sign-out, it's confession time. Amid all this meme-angst, I actually sought out a pro-gun control meme. I wanted to make a statement. I wanted to “fight back.” And I had a very specific meme in mind. It was going to be The Doctor (from BBC's Doctor Who) looking totally awesome, saving planets right and left, feared by villains throughout time and space, and armed with only a humble sonic-screwdriver. There would also be some pithy quote or text to drive the message home. I'd like to say it never got posted to my wall because I saw the error of my ways. Because I realized the hypocrisy. Because I didn't want to add to the meme-induced idiocy. I'd like to say that, but it wouldn't be true. It never got posted because I couldn't find one out there, and I lacked the ambition and know-how to make one myself. And yet, as I type this, I am starting to see some value in the memes that increasingly fill our social-media world. As long as we don't view any particular meme as an end in and of itself. As long as we view it has a starting point -as a springboard into deeper waters.