Global issues today

Actors on strike

I could be wrong, but I thought the point of a hunger strike was to shock decision makers into action for fear that their inaction might actually kill the fasting person. So I have to wonder, what exactly do political activist actors like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon hope to achieve with their so-called “rolling fast” (SMH, July 4, 2006)? Apparently they’ll go without food for a whole 24 hours before passing the food-ban to the next in line.

I’ve never heard of a 24-hour hunger strike.

I’ve heard of the 40-hour famine, the World Vision organised fast largely participated by teenagers hoping to raise funds and awareness for starving children around the world. Participants go without solid foods (but can eat glucose sweets and drink plenty of water) for the duration of 40 hours. Participants seek sponsorship from family and friends and the proceeds go to the World Vision charity. Apparently 40 hours without real food is something of a challenge, but completely achievable and the effects aren’t exactly lasting.

So again I wonder, what’s with the 24-hour fast?

I feel gypped. I adore Susan Sarandon, she’s my numero uno favourito actress. She was perky and brilliant in Rocky Horror Picture Show, sexy and strong in Thelma and Louise, hot and seductive in Bull Durham, and heart-breakingly tragic in Anywhere But Here. She’s a glory to watch and I appreciate her being politically active and a hell of a lot more than a set of abundant boobs, but 24 hours? Come on Susie, you can do better than that!!

We’re expected to believe that Sean Penn can throw a good punch and survive being married to Madonna, but he can’t go any longer than 24 hours without food? What gives?

I’m far from impressed, and I like these people. So how can they expect any politician, especially no-soul Bush to give a rat’s arse that they’ve got nothing on their plates for a day?

posted by Eliza @ 1:12 pm