...are being cruelly mocked. By the cruelest mocker of all, Mark Steyn.

...other celebrities rushed to show their support for the anti-war movement: ''I'll not have what she's not having." Winona Ryder is telling waiters, ''Hold the haunch of venison.'' Keira Knightley is saying, ''Hey, I'll just go with the short stack this morning. And the low-fat simulated-maple syrup substitute.'' Ice T has given up iced tea. Disgusted by the callousness of the Bush war machine, William Powell and Myrna Loy have decided to go without the olive in their fourth martini. Willie Nelson is said to be gaunt and sounding croaky. Michael Moore, hovering dangerously at 300 pounds, has told friends, ''You can never be too rich but you can be too thin.''

[Update in the afternoon]

People magazine, of course, reports this as though it were a real hunger strike. Would it hurt them to point out that no one, in fact, is going to be truly hungry, at any point of this laugh fest?

The only thing in the Sun-Times worth reading but well worth it. He is one of the best.

Would it hurt them (People Magazine) to point out that no one, in fact, is going to be truly hungry, at any point of this laugh fest?

Probably. People thrives on fawning over the rich and famous. If they point out egregious loony behaivor they'll find their media sources drying up in favor of the competition.

Cindy signs on with a detox diet, holywood passes on the fat goose liver (I don't speak or spell surrender) and I should be impressed?

I will be more impressed when they spend 4 days out of every week eating the same thing for lunch as they do for dinner, because on sunday you have to prepare most of your eating for the week in a single gigantic pot, so you don't have to wrestle with the stove every evening after selling your soul to your daily work. Let them eat chili for 4 days next week (they can add cheese, or pour it on fries) and then "treat" themselves with one of the mom and pop foods you grew up loving. Let them spend 4 days eating the vegetable soup your mom taught you to make, then have a whopper on friday.

Do these people, any of them? remember what it's like being a normal person? (especially a normal single person)

"rolling hunger strike". I came up with some snark of my own ...

* That's not a hunger strike - that is a diet.

* That's not a hunger strike - that is a hissy fit.

* Fasting for a day and calling it a hunger strike - ya that's going to really impress your fellow travellers - not.

This is Hollywood--they're all anorexic and bulemic anyway.

If they really wanted to show their devotion to a cause, they'd get fat. That's a sacrifice.

These people deserve all the contempt and more that will surely be heaped upon them for their phony, shallow, pathetic exhibition.

Winona Ryder won't swallow. Film at 11.

Anybody want some burnt meat..hell,it ain't too bad...

I'm just baffled as to what a hunger strike is supposed to accomplish. Doesn't it presuppose that the Power you're trying to speak Truth to is relatively benign and cares about what happens to you? And if the Power really was as cruel and mean and nasty as you claim it is, wouldn't it just say, "I'm supposed to care if you starve yourself? Go ahead, knock yourself out."

I can see a hunger strike working as a desperation measure in extreme circumstances. A high-profile political prisoner in a totalitarian state might go on a hunger strike to get international publicity and embarrass the regime just when it's trying to look legitimate in dealings with other countries. Letting the guy starve to death would look bad so the regime relents in some way.

But here and amongst the Hollywood notables... I think it's possibly a misunderstanding of the circumstances in which a hunger strike can work (the reasons are forgotten and it just seems vaguely noble somehow), mixed with demonstrating Commitment. "I'm making a sacrifice, so it proves I'm Really, Really Serious About My Cause!"

I'm just baffled as to what a hunger strike is supposed to accomplish.

Much like "nude protests" it is not supposed to accomplish anything. Such protests are not about getting anything done -- they are about making participants feel good about themselves. If whatever they demand comes to pass, they claim credit. If it does not, they still feel good about themselves.

After further consideration, a rolling hunger strike is typical of the Hollywood concept of devotion and commitment to a cause. Look at how they support a cause they agree with: a one night dinner gala or a few hours working the phones for a telethon. So why not expect them to deride a cause they don't agree with by not eating for one day.

Meanwhile, people like Rand show their devotion to space exploration by maintaining a 24/7 blog. I'm sure in that effort, Rand has skipped a meal or two, but I doubt he listed it as a "hunger strike to support the cause".

What is a hunger strike supposed to acomplish? Simple, media attention. And it is working already, even though there is no "real" hunger strike.

What is a hunger strike supposed to acomplish? Simple, media attention.

Which I've been doing my part to deprive them of.

[...]

Until now. DAMMIT!

More specific, the purpose of the hunger strike is for media attention to the people performing the act more than for the cause the act is trying to promote. Which is really contrary to what the reported reason for the hunger strike. Alas, we know more about who is on hunger strike than we really know the reasons for doing the act and how it will cause the US to pull out of Iraq.

Which I've been doing my part to deprive them of.

[...]

Until now. DAMMIT!

The best recipie for people like this (on both sides of the aisle) is a gentle but firm application of mockery and derision.