Apparently, reading Jonathan Safran Foer’s book Eating Animals transformed her from a vegetarian to being a full-fledged vegan activist:

I’ve always been shy about being critical of others’ choices because I hate when people do that to me. I’m often interrogated about being vegetarian (e.g., “What if you find out that carrots feel pain, too? Then what’ll you eat?”).

I’ve also been afraid to feel as if I know better than someone else — a historically dangerous stance (I’m often reminded that “Hitler was a vegetarian, too, you know”). But this book reminded me that some things are just wrong. Perhaps others disagree with me that animals have personalities, but the highly documented torture of animals is unacceptable, and the human cost Foer describes in his book, of which I was previously unaware, is universally compelling.

But she somehow managed to overcome those fears and tell you exactly why you should think the way she does. Well done, Natalie!

I have not read the book, so I can’t comment on it in full. But when someone tells you that usually she doesn’t like to be “critical of others’ choices” or come across as if she “knows better than someone else,” you pretty much know that she’s about to be critical of your choices because she knows better than you do.

You know, there are plenty of reasons for being a vegetarian, or a vegan, if you so choose. Some, like Natalie, think eating animals is “mean.” Some people are vegetarian for religious reasons. Others do it because they think it’s a healthy choice and still others because they have difficulty in digesting meat and other animal products. That’s all fine and dandy. I have no problem accepting these personal choices because that’s what they are: personal choices.

I do, however, take issue when others feel the need to lecture the rest of us, intoning, as Natalie does, “We are not them. But, [Jonathan Safran Foer] urges, how will we define who we are?”

How does Natalie define herself? Well, she did sign the Free Roman Polanski petition and, in her HuffPo article, described Safran Foer’s philosophy by saying, “He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma,’ which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don’t believe in rape, but if it’s what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).”

Nice moral equivocation: comparing not wanting to offend meat eaters with not wanting to offend rapists. Almost as charming as PETA comparing eating meat to the Holocaust.

But I’m not a Harvard grad, so perhaps I’m not as familiar with nuance as Natalie is.

Last year, in 10 Questions for Natalie Portman from TIME Magazine, she was asked if she thought Michael Vick should be allowed to play again for the NFL. Her answer:

I think mistreatment and cruelty to animals should be treated with the same seriousness as cruelty to people if not more. Animals are clearly never at fault.

I’m sure the family of 19-year-old Taylor Mitchell, an up-and-coming country music star in Canada, would agree. Mitchell was attacked by two coyotes while hiking solo at a national park in Nova Scotia. Sadly, she died from her injuries. Perhaps the coyotes didn’t like the way Mitchell looked at them. Or maybe they didn’t like her music. After all, animals are never at fault. I wonder: had someone else been there, armed with a gun, and shot the coyotes in order to save Mitchell’s life, would Natalie have decried it as barbaric? When animals attack humans, should we just step aside because nature is taking it’s course? “We are not them,” after all.

Here’s a question, Natalie: If a person and a dog were drowning and you could only save one, who would it be?

And one wonders what her stance on animal research is. Does she agree with PETA, a group that would ban not only eating animals and having them as pets, but all animal testing – even though their own vice president benefits from insulin for her diabetes, which was developed via animal research? Just curious.

Don’t misunderstand: I don’t approve of animal cruelty either, and believe that there should be some level of punishment to offenders – especially as cruelty toward animals is a sign that such barbarism and cruelty can escalate to violence toward people. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, started out by killing animals by impaling them on stakes [shudder]. And I also believe that animals raised for food should not suffer needlessly. Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon concurs:

Portman’s galling assumption is that because most of the modern meat industry is notoriously fast, cheap and out of control, there’s no room for cleaner, more ethical practices. That there’s no distinction between the bird that came from a factory and the one that sustains a family farm. It utterly dismisses the efforts of farmers and consumers alike over the last few years to create a healthier, more locally based culture of eating. There’s certainly no mention of any of that in her article.

During my decade or so as a what I call a Star Trek liberal, I was also a vegetarian. I certainly didn’t grow up that way – as a child, I remember enjoying liverwurst sandwiches and steak tartare. It started out as a “health” thing, but eventually became more. I subscribed to a magazine devoted to vegetarianism, dabbled with all sorts of unusual recipes that took forever to cook, and brought my own main dishes to family dinners and veggie dogs and burgers to cookouts. I’m still teased, nearly a decade later, about the lentil loaf I brought to a holiday meal – Thanksgiving or Christmas; I can’t remember which one.

But being a vegetarian, or a vegan, does not necessarily guarantee good health or a great body. Ever look at Moby? Seriously, despite abstaining from meat (but not eggs or dairy), I struggled for years with the weight that I gained during two pregnancies. So much for health.

And it ain’t cheap to be a vegetarian unless all you eat is rice and beans. I understand Natalie is partial to soy cheese.

Also, looking back, I was very priggish about my vegetarianism and tended to lecture others about the perils of eating meat, how it was bad for you and the planet, blah blah. My older sister would call me on it, but I denied being boorish at the time. But now, I admit she was right. And boy, did I miss liverwurst! Slap some on bread with a thick coating of mayo – mmm, hits the spot.

Here’s what it comes down to: “If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.”  Nothing like “defining who we are” by trying to define who everyone else is, too.

Natalie says it’s not only fine for celebrities to try to influence people on issues like elections, but she might run for office herself one day:

“Maybe I can go into politics once I’m too ugly for Hollywood.”

Just what we need: another holier-than-thou lib running for office. Please, Natalie, stick to acting and leave the decision-making to the individual – as it should be. You don’t want to eat meat? Fine. But leave the rest of us alone.

And before you go, please pass the mayo.

… Anywhoozer, I’m thinking later how crazy it was that they even got Hogan’s Heroes on the air, but at least the fascists were the bad guys and the Americans were the good guys. CUT TO: Any given night this week, no less than three contemporary movies are running on cable where the fascists are the good guys and the Americans are the bad guys… wow, talk about crazy.

And everyone over 35 remembers that, amazingly, the farcical sitcom Hogan’s Heroes grew out of the Hollywood-made drama; “Stalag 17,” where – get this – the fascists were the bad guys and the Americans were the good guys! Hey Sandy, looks like all you gotta do is make the Gitmo terrorists the good guys and the Americans the bad guys, and its green-lightville, baby!

But it’s all moot because our new president signed an executive order to shut down Guantanamo Bay Prison requiring it be closed within a year. And I say; “More power to ‘ya, President Obama – close down Gitmo!” Now I know what you’re thinking: “But Rodney Lee, if you close down Gitmo, where do you put the prisoners?” Answer: American prisons… “But Rodney, then they’ll get the same rights under the Constitution that regular American prisoners get.”

This is true.

But for you folks who don’t want Gitmo closed and the “detainees” relocated to American prisons to get fair trials and rights and lawyers and book deals and remote interviews on Oprah; I ask you: What good are rights under the Constitution when you, yourself are under a 270-pound Samoan cellmate named; “Chester”?… Say what? Chester lost a friend in the 9-11 attacks? Ouch, mommy!

And good luck chatting with your ACLU lawyer with a mouthful of shower soap and a shiv in your ear. Oh, and about that speedy trial? Hope it’s speedier than ten minutes because that’s about how long these guys are going to last in an American prison. “But Rodney, they’ll segregate them from the other prisoners – they’ll be protected.” … Oh yeah, a lot of good that did Jeffrey Dahmer, who was “protected” in prison – yet was beaten to death with a meat tenderizer (kind of ironic, eh?).

But I digress… Back to Guantanamo – I hear you get to read the Koran, eat three squares and what – pray five times a day? I got bad news for the idiots who think the enemy are being treated poorly at Gitmo: Put these guys in Rikers Island and the only thing they’ll be praying for is to be back in Cuba. Give these fanatics a choice between San Quentin and Abu Ghraib and they’ll form a naked pyramid faster than you can say; “Thank-you Slave-mistress Lynndie, may I have another?”

Put them in American prisons, my friends, and as Ross Perot used to say; “Problem solved.”