She is taking this from an editorial in the WSJ, an opinion piece by Bret Stephens.
Madam, you do know the problem with opinion pieces, don't you? They are usually written with hyperbole and flair! They tend to over dramatize the validity of one set of beliefs and denigrate any opposing beliefs.
It does this through shock and faulty logic.
For example:
"Hunger in America is an imaginary enemy. Liberal
advocacy groups routinely claim that one in seven Americans is hungry—in a country where the poorest counties have the
highest rates of obesity. The statistic is a preposterous extrapolation from a dubious Agriculture Department measure of “food insecurity.” But the line gives those advocacy groups a reason to exist while feeding the liberal narrative of America as a savage society of haves and have nots."
Do you see the problem in hi argument here?
Liberal advocacy groups routinely claim that one in seven Americans is hungry—in a country where the
poorest counties have the
highest rates of obesity.
His claim suggest that since the poorest counties have the highest obesity, then it should follow that poor people, in America, are eating more than required.
However, the location of America's obese citizens has no direct relationship to the existence of hunger in the US. His 'argument' does not support his claim that hunger does not exist in America. If anything, it suggests that obesity is possible among the poor.
There is more to the first paragraph, but the xample is enough to state my point. Do not take an opinion piece as true, word for word. In fact, the best thing to do to such an opinion piece is to dissect the argument and point where the author goes wrong. That is a part of the entertainment value of such articles.
First--Read it and become shocked/stun by what the author says
Second--dissect the argument and point out where the author 'jumps the rails'
If you want, you can construct a new argument that is either stronger than or undermine the authors position.
But do not take an editorial word for word. It is normally badly argued BS.
