Hunger Advocates: Not an Oxymoron, But a Movement to Promote Hunger

What is a "hunger advocate?"  Well, I did not know anyone would be so stupid as to embrace that phrase, until a few months ago--in El Pas--hwere such a creature I heard such a creature on the rradio, or described in a news report on the radiio.  This news report was at least mildly favorable--rather than giving the group the RIDICULE it deserves--describing a GROUP of people "conncerned" that no ENOUGH people are getting food stamps, and taking advantage of Federal Government programs designed against "hunger". I kid you not.  This "hunger advocate" said that "only 5%" of people "entitled" to food stamps are getting them. 


Back up here.  I live in El Paso.  For at least a year, and more, it has been a well publicized statistic that 40$ of all El Pasoans receive food stamps.  Therefore, what is thiss group of "hunger advocates" saying?  I will tell you EXACTLY what they are saying.  Thyey are saying that 80% of El Pasoans SHUOLD be on food stamps.  No, they did nto draw that obvius conclusion, but that is the ONLY conclusoni yu can draw from an assertino that "onlyl" 50% of El Pasoans "entitled" to food stampls are getting them.  Now El Paso is a "poor" city, but this is INSANE.


Now, an itmem of news in the past few days is that the Federal Government is HEAVILY ADVERTISING that more peole should apply for fod stamps.  Yep.  I just called the entire Federal Government INSANE< because they are obviusly totally on board with these "hunger advocates". Newt Gingrich was dead right;  President Obama is the FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT. 


What is really gong on here?  Right,  Thee peole, including Prfesident Obama, really are "advocating hunger".  They WANT as many peple as possible to be DEPENDENT on the Federal Government, and to believe that they are "benefitting" from Federal polices that KEEP THEM NEEDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE THEM WITH FOOD (or perceiving such a "need", with help from "hunger advocates" and the Federal Goverfnment).  Forget the idea that yu huld only apply for welfare if you REALLY NEED IT.  These "hungar advocates"--again, including Obama--WANT a many people as possible to apply for benefits, even if they don't think they areally need them.  It is not going to far that these people--again incuding Obama--WANT people to be HUNGRY , or at least PERCEIVE themselves to "need" the Federal Government to SAVE them from "hunger".  Notice how these people--again incuding Obama--GAIN from "hunger", and a lack of a healthy private economy (especiallyl if that healthy private economy does not DEPEND on Federal "stimuuls" and control). Is this why we are going backwards on "hunger"?  YES (at least in part). The whole idea here is to MAKE more and more people PERCEIVE that they are DEPENDENT on the Federal Government for the every food they eat--a well as everything else. 


There is also, by the way, that Phantom statistic" that 1 in 5 children in this country"go to bed hungry.  I am sure that this absurd statistic comes form the SAME people who are "hunger advocates'.  No. It is ABSURD-an Orwellian Big Lie, Someone did an ABSURD "survey" as to how many children (not objectively reviewing every child, but some sort of "sample" using methods that guaranteed the result) hwave "gone to bed hungry" at least ONCE in the previous year (or month, or some such rather long period of time).  Then, this basically MADE UP number was "morphed" into the FALSE statement that 1 child in 5 goes to bed hungry (not ture, even in thisbiased survey, as the "survey" deliberatelly basically asked whether children EVER go to be "hungry"). 


Now you may well wonder here whehter one part of the Federal Government ("hunger advoates") is trying to KILL children (according to another part of the Federal Government).  Doubt me?  Never, ever do that.  What else can you say when part of the Federal Government is saying that the MAJOR problem facing children in this country is OBESITY--not "hunger".  One lpart of the Federal Government obviusly thinks that we would be a loot better off if MORE children "went to bed hungry" in this country.  Thi is expecially true when you consider that 'hunger" is a SUBJECTIVE sensatin.  My only female friend, Sylvia, is CONSTANTLY on a DIET.  She is CONSTANTLY "gooing to bed hungry" (by her own choice).  The whole concept ("going to bed hungry") is a MEANINGLESS concept. 


I know.  I know  "hunge advocates" (lol) would say that I "miss the pont'--that you can't tehir "meaning" of "hunger" (which they would try to say is not having enough food to eat to LIVE) wwith my meaning of 'hunger" (being hungry).  Hogwash.  What they really mean is that they don't want to be CALLED on usnig an entirely PHONY concept/analysis in place of a REAL "study" on exaclty what CALORIES children in this country are getting.  Obviously, even that is not 3enough.  Even "hunger advocates" would almot have to AGREE that almost all children in this country are getting ENOUGH CALORIES (most too many, if the "obesity advocate" are to be beliefved).   But is this really a matter of not having the "right' foods "available", or a mattrer of BAD EATING HABITS.  That is, instead of Mayor Bloomberg concetratin on eliminating Big Gulps, would we be better off SEVERELY RESSTRICTING the use of food sstamps to "only" HEALTHY "foods".  OR, would that cause MORE HUNGER (law of unintended consequences).  There is certainly more JUSTIFICATIN for SUPERVISING the fodds purchased with food stamps than there is denying t the FREEDOM of those of us who PURCHASE OUR OWN FOOD. This idea that FREEDOM should be RESTRICTED, while TAXPAYERS should ahve nothing to say about how THEIR MONEY is spent, goest BYEOND INSNE all of the way to PSYCHOTIC. 


How can you summarize all of this?  Well, here is one possible bumper sticker:  "Save a child by putting him to bed HUNGRY tonight."


P.S.  No proofreading or spell lchecking (bad eyesight).