Maybe “Food Stamp President” is a much needed title for a president lacking in the polls. It is to say…”this is a president who will not let you starve.”

Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich made this a talking point, apparently a view cherished by many on the Right, criticizing President Obama in the GOP debate in South Carolina. He attempts to conflate food stamps with some sort of sought-after lifestyle as if poverty was largely a choice and the Great Recession never happened. I know a counter to this view may point out that Obama has not “created jobs but destroyed them,”  a view that manifested BEFORE it was buttressed with scant evidence. But of course issuing out food stamps is irresponsible. Imagine if the opposite had occurred, where at least tens of thousands of the hungry are lining up in sparse and ill-equipped shelters for soup.

“Obama starves the market and the poor!” He has been called a Fascist-Socialist-Islamist for less.

A July 14th 20011 article titled “The Struggle to Eat” from the Economist (no author posted) informs the reader that individuals eligible for food stamps can get an average of $133, $200 maximum, a month… I spend that much on food every two weeks!

Also from the same article:

“Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend to spend them immediately. When Moody’s Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less.”

I guess it’s a bit of good news considering the increase on the graph.

Case in point: Which increase you are concerned with most kinda reflects your values, no?

When he destroys your argument its called a “hitchslap!”

An iconoclast of neither Left or Right. A polemicist who can make any opponent blush. One of the greatest essayist of the English language well after his departure. Although Christopher Hitchens has earned these accolades, what is more sorrowful than his death is the deprivation of these traits in a well-published and well-watched figure from the world stage. More still, these accolades are just a fraction of traits where any single one can make a person immortal in cultural consciousness. For me, he epitomizes a form of excellence that I have not yet heard from any other. Considering he thought, spoke, and fought for causes for several decades beginning in his late teenage years, Hitchens was…no… is still, a prime example of an activist lifestyle.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with his works, Christopher Hitchens is a writer of the first order, high up there with Salmon Rushdie, Ian McEwan, Julian Barnes, and James Fenton, to name a few of his closest friends. Some of his best books include “Letters to A Young Contrarian,” “god is not Great,” and “Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.” His polemical gifts served him very well as a secular humanist arguing against religions. He often compared all-knowing/powerful/loving deities to dictatorships where the state is aware of everything, can do anything, and always has your best interest at heart (even when severely punishing you for minor, or made-up offence). Kim Jong-il loves you.

What made Christopher Hitchens a true activist is that he stood up for numerous causes and became intimately involved in practically all of them. What made his activism a lifestyle is that his lifetime of activism was honest hard-work and not a fiesta designed just to organize people together to make them feel righteous about themselves. You know what paragon means when you study a man like Christopher Hitchens.