Mia Farrow is going on a hunger strike to show her “personal outrage” over Darfur. And apparently, we’re all supposed to care.
Mia Farrow plans to begin a hunger strike next week in solidarity with the people of Darfur.
The 64-year-old actress and humanitarian says she will begin a “fast of only water” on Monday “as a personal expression of outrage at a world that is somehow able to stand by and watch innocent men, women and children needlessly die of starvation, thirst and disease.”
Farrow was moved to begin the hunger strike after the Sudanese government expelled international aid agencies from the country last month. Farrow says she is calling on world leaders to “help build a credible peace process” to end the violence in Darfur. Her protest is part of Genocide Prevention Month, a campaign to stop genocide worldwide.
I always love celebrities and activists who go on hunger strikes. Do they honestly think their hunger strikes actually change anything? It’s like Cindy Sheehan going on a hunger strike (consisting of only Jamba Juice, coffee, and ice cream) to stop the Iraq war. I’m pretty sure President Bush didn’t care. And I’m pretty sure that Sudan doesn’t care about Mia Farrow’s hunger strike, either. I’m pretty sure that no one cares about Mia Farrow’s hunger strike… except me, apparently, since I’m writing about it. Hmm.
Anyway, the point is, hunger strikes are completely pointless. How long is Mia Farrow really going to starve herself? She says she’s going on a water-only diet, so is she willing to fast until she dies if things don’t change in Darfur? I’m pretty sure that the world will keep turning, even if Mia Farrow does starve herself to death on this ludicrous hunger strike.
She will accomplish nothing by doing this. Yet here she is, sending out the prerequisite press release announcing that she’s going on a hunger strike to save Darfur. Could it possibly be that she’s just looking to get attention for herself? Gee, I wonder.
Mark says: Mia and her ilk should go on a talking fast…imagine that Sound of Silence!
Back during my college years, I remember a few students who set up tents in front of the Student Center, planning to spend the night in 40 degree weather to highlight the plight of the homeless. What a farce!
mj says: It would be nice if it were possible to, so simply, shame people into behaving better. Fasting is apt to draw more attention to Ms. Farrow than it is to the problem she’s presuming to address.
Genocide Prevention Month? Good grief! There is even a website for this. She’s got one, too.
She’s certainly not pushing for an effective solution.
btenney says: I intend to keep eating in order that when and if there is anything I can actually contribute to solve this problem, I will be physically able to do so.
Don Carl says: I hope she dies from it.
She’s an adult and should not be resorting to tactics my son used at age 2. Anyone cowed by some idiot refusing to eat should be drummed out of what ever position they are in.
Jim Nelson says: Judging by the picture in her wikipedia entry, I’d say she stopped eating long ago.
Michael Fiano says: Does anyone remember when Dick Gregory held his regular food fast protests?
I remember him but not his cause, case in point. It’s much more about the person fasting than the cause itself.
I just posted an article on my blog about the Tamil Tiger protests up here in Canada, and some of those folks have taken to hunger strikes. What I said applies just as well to Ms. Farrow:
“I really don’t get hunger strikes…. I don’t like people being victimized (really victimized, not made uncomfortable). If A is hurting B without a really good reason, and I can intervene to make them stop, I will. However, if B is deliberately hurting themselves, and they seem to be of sound mind otherwise, then I see no reason to be sympathetic.
I don’t understand how “Do what I want or I’ll hurt myself” is supposed to be persuasive. My answer is pretty much always going to be, “Ummm… go ahead.” Not only does it not persuade, it hurts your cause by making you look childish. There’s a very fine line between a protester on a hunger strike and a toddler threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue if they don’t get a cookie right now. Threatening a hunger strike lets me file you under “Silly person, safe to ignore.” Threatening others is reprehensible, but at least it gets you taken seriously. Holding yourself hostage just implies that you’ve seen Blazing Saddles.”
-Zirbert, The Irritable Saint
http://zirbert.blogspot.com
I disagree and think she and the others do achieve what they want with hunger strikes–they bring attention to whatever story. The media loves movie-star news and this is a stunt that requires no skills to do.
Bobv says: She could quietly and discretely donate a large portion of her money to some aid agency that is involved in helping people in darfur. That may actually get some results, but then, that isn’t really the point is it?
Stephen J. says: Slamdunk is right. The entire function of the media is to focus attention on particular facts, situations and issues; celebrities who perform unusual actions in an attempt to bring particular issues to the forefront of the pop culture consciousness are basically using the resources at their command in what they see as the most effective and efficient way possible. Just because it’s a publicity stunt doesn’t make it a bad thing. In their own way, pretty much every action Gandhi took in his campaigns was “only” a publicity stunt. They worked all the same and accomplished something worthwhile.
That said, Gandhi’s actions worked because he was appealing to a civilization which already had the necessary conscience embedded within it, and which already had the direct power to act as he begged. Ms. Farrow’s admirable compassion for Darfur’s people notwithstanding, her problem is that the people who will be moved by her actions have no power to do anything, and the only people who do have that power — the Darfurese themselves — will be unmoved by what she is doing.
So given that the only practical effect will be a boost in Ms. Farrow’s public profile — and given that it is unlikely she’s dumb or naive enough not to know this — a certain skepticism is nonetheless warranted.
J David says: I beg to differ, Cassie…she might accomplish something positive in ridding the world of at least one wing-nut, moonbat liber-tard.
Cylar says: I have a question. Why does anyone care about someone’s hunger strike?
Lee says: Not to be callous, but I protest that the world can stand by and watch while idiots in C4 leisure suits blow up innocent Men, Women and Children that don’t happen to adhere to the tenets of their death-cult.
Besides, if Mia wants to make a positive impact she could devote her time and efforts toward helping needy citizens in our neck ‘o the woods. Plenty here could use a leg up. Missing a meal don’t do squat for nobody-
Lee
CaptDMO says: I’m sorry but, Mia WHO?
What exactly has this person actually done to empower me to care why her doctor supervised, defined duration, “protest” is of any more value than “I’m dedicating my traditional Hollywood diet to a popular cause celebe”, because when a waist is a terrible thing to mind, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”.
Turn the page, “catering” to the mental malnutrition that manifests itself with illusions of attention based anorexia has proved itself insufficient to attract and maintain a woody from anyone.
Toa says: I don’t seem to recall any such concern from the Left when the Khartoum Mass-Murderers-in-Chief were killing off hundreds of thousands and enslaving Christian and animist Sudanese a few years ago…but then, the current victims are Muslims. I guess “Liberals” don’t obtain any cathartic satisfaction from advocating for Christians’ rights, because, after all, we all know that Christians are “haters”, so they don’t matter.
OK, I’m making an assumption here, but I think it’s a pretty safe one. Not only is Farrow accomplishing nothing, she would actually be OPPOSED to an y violent act that could ACTUALLY accomplish anything. They screech endlessly about evil acts, but if you kill those committing the evil, they start screeching about YOU.
Diggler says: Your writing sucks. But you do have big tits.
Philip Yuen says: I think hunger strikes are a great way to bring attention and maybe solve a problem. Instead of pouring money on a problem, which will probably lead to the corrupt rulers more than anything, if you get worldwide attention (if say the fast catches on) then that would be more helpful than billions of dollars. I don’t know who Mia Farrow is but good job.
Tony says: Don Carl Says:
“I hope she dies from it.
She’s an adult and should not be resorting to tactics my son used at age 2. Anyone cowed by some idiot refusing to eat should be drummed out of what ever position they are in.”
Come now Don, I’m sure you don’t really mean that, do you?
I agree the woman is a nitwit but DEATH? Hardly a fair punishment for offending our sensibilities.
Tony says: It strikes me that some of these celebrities who have extremely privileged lives are merely unloading a bit of guilt by these token actions. After all if they “really” cared they would pull up stakes and actually get involved in some of their pet causes. E.g. Dr Steven Greer is former chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Caldwell Memorial Hospital in Lenoir, North Carolina, and a lifetime member of the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society.[3]
This guy gave up his $500,000.00 PA career and threw all his energy into the Disclosure Movement which, as far as I can see, is the only cause worth fighting for at the moment. Once Disclosure is achieved, the technologies that will be uncovered will within a short time (15-20 years) solve most of the world’s problems.Worldwide poverty as well as ALL of our environmental problems will be a thing of the past. The 50 year old Zero Point Energy technology (suppressed until now) will make coal and oil based energy technologies OBSOLETE OVERNIGHT.
Greer isn’t alone, hundreds have made similar sacrifices to bring the suppression of these technologies to the light of day.
These aren’t merely theoretical, the US Military Industrial Complex has been quietly and secretly developing them for their own uses, i.e. weapons while ignoring the destruction of our planet caused by the traditional energy production methods.THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE NOW!
So why don’t these tree huggers do the same? We don’t need to be intellectual giants to figure that one out.
20 Comments