Cindy's not eating till the troops come home...

[Devastatin Dave]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-07-04T001123Z_01_N03375286_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-PROTEST.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Good. How long does it take someone to starve to death?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Dearborn said 2,700 other activists nationwide, including actors Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, would work as a relay team passing the fast daily from one to another.

Relay strike, Dave. Nobody's going to starve.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Looks like she could lose some weight, though starvation is not a good diet plan.

Anyways, who thinks Bush'll blink on this? Not me.

That leaves two possibilities:
1) They follow through and all die. Probably better overall impact for the US.

2) They give up. Show their weak willpower.

EDIT:
Relay strike, Dave. Nobody's going to starve.
Well...
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, said she would drink only water throughout the summer, which she said she would spend outside President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.
So, they probably won't die.

Crazed Rabbit

[GeneralHankerchief]

You can last around a month without food. Water is 1/10th that.

Assuming she intends to stay until around September, she would have to go through double the time it takes a normal human to starve. Now, she probably hasn't gone through any David Blaine-type training so I give her odds of actually fulfilling that promise as 250:1.

[Vladimir]

Relay strike, Dave. Nobody's going to starve.

DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN!

[Aenlic]

Hunger strikes are so stupid. It worked for Ghandi because he was respected and even revered by his opponents. A bunch of famous people giving up their champagne brunches does not constitute a hunger strike by someone who is so respected that his or her imminent demise might matter and bring about a solution. :no:

[Xiahou]

I wonder what she wouldnt do for a headline?


Hunger Strike huh? Sucks to be them. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Even when it's themselves they are holding hostage. Hah, that's not bad. :bow:

[discovery1]

Hunger strikes are so stupid. It worked for Ghandi because he was respected and even revered by his opponents. A bunch of famous people giving up their champagne brunches does not constitute a hunger strike by someone who is so respected that his or her imminent demise might matter and bring about a solution. :no:

That and wouldn't his death have triggered massive riots in India?

On topic: this is pointless. Who cares? You know she won't carry through with it anyway.

[Csargo]

This lady annoys me who cares if she is going to starve herself. One less person to listen too whine.

[Ice]

Let her starve. The dead still can't talk, right?

[Banquo's Ghost]

This lady annoys me who cares if she is going to starve herself. One less person to listen too whine.

Quoted as typical of the thread so far.

I find it quite extraordinary that in the USA of all places, you have such a scathing disregard for peaceful protest. Hunger strikes (which do not necessarily result in death, but are a way of gaining publicity and recognition of a cause) have a long tradition in non-violent protest. That is why Gandhi used the method.

You disagree with this woman's political protest, fine. But wishing her dead, dismissing her as a terrorist (though I suspect GC's famous hyperbole for effect) and such raw nastiness demonstrates to me, that she hits a nerve.

Oh, and celebrities are allowed to exercise their democratic rights of protest too, BTW.

:dizzy2:

[stalin]

Looks like she could lose some weight, though starvation is not a good diet plan.


Crazed Rabbit

https://img95.imageshack.us/img95/4610/genimage0re.jpg

You gootta be kidding me, look at her protruding cheekbones...

[mercian billman]

While I doubt Cindy Sheehan will survive the summer if she decides to fast, I'm pretty sure that if 2700 people decided to relay their fast they would actually succeed. Assuming that each person agreed to fast 1 day per week, roughly 385 of them would have to fast one day per week until the troops come home, which is very doable. Fasting one day per week is not hard and in fact there are health benefits associated with it.

I'm pretty sure these people will succeed in their fast and eventually the troops will come home, but not because of the fast.

[Aenlic]

Hunger strikes (which do not necessarily result in death, but are a way of gaining publicity and recognition of a cause) have a long tradition in non-violent protest. That is why Gandhi used the method.


This isn't entirely correct, I think. Ghandi made it quite clear that he was prepared to starve to death. Everyone was deeply afraid that if he died the result would be chaos, as Discovery1 noted. It wasn't the notoriety and publicity that Ghandi used. He was already a very public and noted figure, and his issues were clear to everyone. He deliberately used his leadership, and the respect that people gave to him, even his enemies. He put his life where his convictions are, in a very real way. This is a far cry from the modern hunger strike which is a publicity tool.

Now I'm not saying I disagree with Cindy Sheehan's position. I'm far closer to her position on Iraq than I am to the Bushistas. But I think hunger strikes are just rather silly now. Done by people who are highly revered and respected, with the real danger of death, they might have some point. Done by people who can get their message out just as easily in other ways and who have no intention of really risking anything with their stunt, seems rather lame. It's not the message with which I disagree; it's the cheapening of a legacy that I abhor.

[Banquo's Ghost]

This isn't entirely correct, I think. Ghandi made it quite clear that he was prepared to starve to death. Everyone was deeply afraid that if he died the result would be chaos, as Discovery1 noted. It wasn't the notoriety and publicity that Ghandi used. He was already a very public and noted figure, and his issues were clear to everyone. He deliberately used his leadership, and the respect that people gave to him, even his enemies. He put his life where his convictions are, in a very real way. This is a far cry from the modern hunger strike which is a publicity tool.

I didn't make myself clear then. I agree with what you say about Gandhi's preparedness for death, but the idea of a hunger strike is as a non-violent protest. It lasts a long time, and thus garners publicity. It was exactly that notoriety and publicity he used so effectively. He was by far the cutest manipulator of PR there had been - non-violent protest has to rely on this. Gandhi knew full well that if he had died, it would have precipitated a bloodbath far worse than the one he was trying to quell and ruined his life's work. He actually took an enormous risk by being willing to die, and Nehru for one was terrified of the results of the mahatma's stubborness.


But I think hunger strikes are just rather silly now. Done by people who are highly revered and respected, with the real danger of death, they might have some point. Done by people who can get their message out just as easily in other ways and who have no intention of really risking anything with their stunt, seems rather lame. It's not the message with which I disagree; it's the cheapening of a legacy that I abhor.

Here I disagree. Non-violent protest has few effective weapons to manipulate the media which will tend to ignore anything that doesn't involve rioting or blowing things up. Very few strikers command the respect of all sides - remember Bobby Sands of the IRA who starved to death in the Maze prison? The republicans watched him die slowly as a martyr, the British as a bloody fool. Didn't achieve a thing except more bombs in his name.

Hunger strikes (which I reiterate, are not about starving to death primarily) as witnessed by the outrage provoked in this thread, make people sit and up take notice. There's no cheapening of a legacy here, just a proud tradition.

"The job of a civil resister is to provoke a response." Mahatma Gandhi.

[InsaneApache]

Quoted as typical of the thread so far.

I find it quite extraordinary that in the USA of all places, you have such a scathing disregard for peaceful protest. Hunger strikes (which do not necessarily result in death, but are a way of gaining publicity and recognition of a cause) have a long tradition in non-violent protest. That is why Gandhi used the method.

You disagree with this woman's political protest, fine. But wishing her dead, dismissing her as a terrorist (though I suspect GC's famous hyperbole for effect) and such raw nastiness demonstrates to me, that she hits a nerve.

Oh, and celebrities are allowed to exercise their democratic rights of protest too, BTW.

:dizzy2:

I agree BG. Wishing someones death because they have a different take on life is unforgivable. For one I'm not at all surprised that this lady campaigns about the war, after all her son died fighting in it. I just wonder how any of us here, with children, would take it on the chin from a manipulative and dishonest governments policy that led directly to our childrens death?

The Land of the Free. (but only if you agree with me) :shame:

[rory_20_uk]

What's this wimpy "relay starve" then? When the Irish did it in jail they did it properly. I forget how many of the sods died, but it was a few.

I would have thought that she'd have better things to do with her life than waste it in this manner, especially now her son is dead.

~:smoking:

[doc_bean]

I think a hunger strike does show how serious a person is about something, if they're willing to die for it.

[Husar]

Good. How long does it take someone to starve to death?
I once heard a general rule would be:

3 Minutes without air, 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food.

Obviously just a general guideline and exceptions prove the rule.~;)

[Joker85]

It would sure be a shame of she died...:idea2:

[Divinus Arma]

When do these things end in anything other than the person eating?

She'll eat.

[solypsist]

refrain from pot-shots and keep on topic

[Devastatin Dave]

Well, lets kkep it civil, less pot shots. I posted this because I DO feel that hunger strikes are good ways of protesting. In fact, Cindy should have done this at the very start and would probably have more clout than the route she has taken thus far (hugging dictators, etc). Let's discuss the nature of this ptrotest and if it would have been more effective at a different time possibly.

[Divinus Arma]

When do these things end in anything other than the person eating?

She'll eat.

ahem

[Kralizec]

A person doing a hunger strike by not eating for a fairly long time does garner my respect and show that the person is being serious, willing to torment him/herself to make a statement. Good for Cindy Sheehan, shows her commitment regardless of whatever drives her.

A relay strike though- now there's something else. Not eating for a single lone day does not qualify as a significant hardship in my book. Do something the right way, or don't. Tossing a whole bunch of people together, each willing to do very little does nothing to earn my admiration.

Here's an idea: I will starve myself for the coming hour as a civil protest against whale hunting. Local time here is 21:30 so I need somebody to carry the torch from me at 22:30. We have plenty of people against whaling to fill an entire day- we could continue indefinitely.
Together, we'll bring those Japanese and Norwegians down! :idea2:

[GeneralHankerchief]

I agree that a relay strike is kind of stupid.

Now if those 2,700 people had camped in front of the WH and not eaten at all, that would be impressive and I think the high-ups would listen.

[Divinus Arma]

Imagine if 2,700 people held a "poop-in" on pennsylvania ave. Now that would be a bold statement.

[Devastatin Dave]

Shouldn't it be a "poop-out" DA? A poop-in might cause some serious health issues!!!:laugh4:

[Aenlic]

I once heard a general rule would be:

3 Minutes without air, 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food.

Obviously just a general guideline and exceptions prove the rule.~;)

It's called the Law of Threes. It's not scientific, and not even close to exact; but it's close enough to be useful. You left out warmth though.

It's 3 minutes without oxygen, 3 hours without warmth, 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food.

More on topic:

Giving up a few meals is not a hunger strike. There is no risk. It's the equivalent, in our fat and happy fast food world, of protesting by saying "Unless X, Y and Z, I'm going to not put 75 cents in the junk food machine for a bag of stale Cheetos!" Yeah, that'll show them! It's pathetic.

It's the same with civil disobedience. Too many people read Thoreau, or follow Ghandi or MLK, and get this silly idea that civil disobedience means not following the law and getting away with it. Wrong. The very core of civil disobedience is to get caught. It's the getting caught part that is the heart of the matter, not the doing the crime. Get caught publicly and with the full intent of being punished. Just breaking the law, and saying you're doing it to protest the law, with no expectation of being caught and punished is lame. As an example, if you think marijauna should be legalized and while smoking it say insipid things like," I'm getting high because it's civil disobedience, man!" then you're just a fool. Civil disobedience means you go light up on the steps of the court house, or you and your friends sit in the gallery during a possession trial and all light up at once. That's civil disobedience.

I see echoes of the same silliness in this "hunger strike" with its chain concept. No, no, no. There's no risk! You're missing a few meals! You're Saddam Hussein skipping lunch but having dinner. That's not a hunger strike, it's a diet.

Instead of losing a few pounds for your cause, with no real risk and thus no real respect for the effort, do something that really makes a statement. Get your friends together, hopefully with a few respectable ones included, and all go on a real hunger strike. Threaten to stop eating until X,Y or Z and carry through with the threat! All the way. Risk your health, and die if necessary. That's a hunger strike. Anything less is just the protest equivalent of holding your breath like a child until you turn blue; and has as much effect. :no:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well said.

Reminds me of a fellow who said he was going to gamble on the internet on the steps of the capital here in Washington after internet gambling was banned.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

I'm with Aenlic. This relay business is about a shallow as you can get.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

maybe it's a secret conspiracy so Cindy can lose those extra few pounds we all saw when she got arrested (and her midriff was exposed).

That way she may be able to get herself into Playboy for her cause (mebbe)

:idea2:

[doc_bean]

The problem with hunger strikes these days is that they have just become too common. At least around here. It's the standard immigrant reaction after being todl to leave the country it seems :dizzy2: We never let them die and the cops just arrest them and throw them into a hospital when it goes on for too long. I kinda wish they wouldn't do that. It cheapens a very strong protest. The common reaction to hunger strikers here is indifference since they won't die anyway...


Imagine if 2,700 people held a "poop-in" on pennsylvania ave. Now that would be a bold statement.

Wouldn't that be illegal ?

[Spino]

Hunger strikes are generally more effective when the participants are considered to be respected and/or sympathetic figures by the target population. When taken within the context of India's struggle against British rule Gandhi's passive resistance tactics struck a sympathetic chord with the decidedly Christian, post-imperial mindset of the west (I wonder how well those tactics would have worked against the Romans or any 20th century communist government... heh). Now despite almost constant media coverage Cindy Sheehan's attention whoring tactics have garnered more scorn than sympathy from the average American. It also doesn't help that every time Cindy Sheehan opens her mouth she sounds like a typical attention whoring fool who has a knack for spewing out gross generalizations and tired sound bytes. Despite the media's general bias to the left I'm willing to grant that its coverage of Miss Sheehan's antics are now firmly rooted in the inherent entertainment value these tactics provide; as in 'let's see what the silly old girl does next'.

Let's all hope... no, pray (this coming from an atheist) that Miss Sheehan doesn't resort to the ultimate attention whoring tactic; protesting in the nude or worse, participating in some horrid 'Nude Military Moms Against the War' calendar type atrocity, like the one some old bats in England did for some charity not too long ago... Ye gods ladies, keep those wrinkles under wraps! :no: :inquisitive: :sweatdrop: :dizzy2:

[yesdachi]

I don’t care if she stops eating, it’s the talking I wish she would stop doing.

[Csargo]

I'm with him.

[Vladimir]

Maybe the club Gitmo diet plan would be good for them. They refuse to eat so we shove some food down their nose. Hell I’ve even seen some guy named Peter eat an entire hotdog through his nose, then some mustard. All though, it wasn’t as creative as that South Park episode.