Putting the “Star” in “Starvation”

Why the “rolling hunger strike” strikes out

There are some things that positively boggle my mind. The hypocrisy of the modern left on so many issues. The media’s near-constant attempts to propagandize the current Iraq war. How Michael Moore fits through normal-sized doorways without using either butter or heavy machinery to knock down walls.

One of the things I don’t understand is the concept of the hunger strike. It’s a form of protest where a person or people refuses to eat until some goal is met, usually connected to a social cause like saving the whales, stopping war, or gay animal marriage rights to drill in ANWAR. The purpose is to get public opinion to change because they feel sorry for the hunger strikers or to “raise awareness” about the issue.

Now, from the people who brought you “Gigli” and “An Inconvenient Truth” (Who knew a slideshow featuring Al Gore would bomb at the box office?) comes an innovation to the hunger strike: the rolling hunger strike. The Hollywood chapter of the anti-war left introduced this idea over the Independence Day holiday to protest the war in Iraq. People like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon joined Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink in Washington, DC, but here’s the twist. The Hollywood anti-war left is going to hunger strike for ONE WHOLE DAY! Then, they “tag in” another Hollywood hunger striker who will then strike for ANOTHER WHOLE DAY!

Or, to put it another way, blither, wince, repeat.

Seriously, there are two major problems I have with the “rolling hunger strike” of the Hollywood anti-war left. First, it takes a dumb idea and makes it dumber. Maybe Tim Robbins didn’t get the memo out to his pals, but the idea of a hunger strike is to make it last for a while so that people can see how committed you are to the cause. The “rolling hunger strike” is essentially a hunger strike with ADD. And really, how big a deal is it to go without food for one day? Some starlets may join up simply to lose a few pounds for their next role.

The other major problem is that nobody cares about the anti-war protests in the first place. Unlike Vietnam, the public these days isn’t being swayed by the anti-war movement because they’re too self-absorbed to care. The way most Americans look at the anti-war movement is the way some men treat their mother-in-laws: try to have as little contact as possible, make as nice as you can, and pray that they go home soon. This is why there isn’t an appreciable shift towards the Democrats even though the Iraq war is unpopular. To get the American people motivated these days, you’re going to have to say George W. Bush’s actions disrupts the all-important Frappuchino flow from the Middle East. Do that, and I guarantee there will be rioting in the streets by noon.

So, the “rolling hunger strike” idea stinks on ice, but what would be a better replacement? My crack research staff (I call them that not because they’re really good, but rather because they’re on crack.) and I have come up with a few ideas.

- The “put your money where your mouth is” protest. We keep hearing from the anti-war left how badly George W. Bush is prosecuting the war in Iraq. Sounds to me like you kids have the answers, so why not stage a protest where you join the military and show us all how a war should be waged? After all, conservatives and Republicans who support the war are only going to prolong it by following orders, so it’s up to the anti-war left to lead the fight to stop the war.

- The cubicle sit-in. There seems to be one commonality amongst the anti-war left: they don’t tend to have real jobs. That’s how they’re able to protest on weekdays while the rest of us have jobs and families to take care of. So, let’s take the best of both worlds. The anti-war left can come into a corporate office, sit in a cubicle to protest the war, and at the same time do mundane office tasks. Heck, I’ll even suggest that we pay you for your protest! And, hey, you’ll be multitasking!

But there’s only one, in my opinion, that would benefit both sides of the Iraq war.

- The “shut up and go away” protest. I understand you have a First Amendment right to protest when you feel the government is doing wrong, but you’re not really making George W. Bush change his mind, and he’s the guy you need to convince. From what I understand, he’s convinced he’s right, so you might as well pack it in and try harder next time. Maybe you can even move out of the country! Cindy Sheehan even said she would rather live under Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s rule than under George W. Bush’s rule.

Cindy, I’ll make you a deal. I’ll take up a collection for a one-way plane ticket to Venezuela for you. All I ask is that you agree to let us revoke your passport within seconds of you lifting off. You’ll be happy, I’ll be happy, and the Hollywood anti-war left can go back to doing what it does best.

Making flaming pieces of crap like “Gigli” and “An Inconvenient Truth.”

And that’s the Bottom Line.

Archives of "The Bottom Line"

Send an e mail to Thomas Lindaman