Cynthia Davis has caused a stir in recent days after she posted a rebuttle to a report from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services arguing the importance of summer food programs for hungry kids.

Her stance is this - government shouldn't be the place where hungry kids get their food from in the summer while school is out. OK. Doesn't seem too unreasonable. Many who argue for limited government would agree.

Many of those same people who agree with her premise would also agree that how Cynthia Davis went about arguing her position is embarrassing. Those who disagree with her are more likely repulsed.

Let's dig through some of her comments. Prepare your cringe reflex...

Here she discusses the merits of faith-based food vs. state-based food:

Cynthia Davis: When churches offer a meal, they can serve the individual with a sense of love and caring for those less fortunate. Government cannot match that. Bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another.

Interhsame: You say "churches" and "government", but these entities aren't the ones providing "a sense of love an caring" - it's the people that work for them. You're an active member of your church and a member of government. So, does your position about feeding the hungry change for the couple hours you spend sitting in a pew on Sundays? Is it acceptable to provide for the needy if the funds needed to do so are voluntarily placed into a basket, but unacceptable if those funds are collected by the state? Your argument is so devoid of reason, my stomach churned to while reading it.

Of course, the comment that has given Davis the most trouble in the media was her response to the availability of the program to anybody under the age of 18:

Cynthia Davis: Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can't they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals? Tip: If you work for McDonald's, they will feed you for free during your break.

Intershame: I'm not going to touch the "hunger can be a positive motivator" comment. It's callous and insensitive, but perhaps worse it's used to set up the premise that better meals are just around the corner for anybody who gets a job at McDonald's because you can eat for free during your breaks. Waaa? Ah yes, "Cheeseburgers! The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast".

This might be my personal favorite:

Cynthia Davis: Who's buying dinner? Who is getting paid to serve the meal? Churches and other non-profits can do this at no cost to the taxpayer if it is warranted. That is what they did when Louisiana had a hurricane.

Intershame: Are you really going to juxtapose the words "Louisiana" and "hurricane" in a sentence when trying to make an argument on how situations should be handled and expect not to be mocked? "That's how Bernie Madoff handled our money" would carry more weight.

Cynthia Davis seems to be asking for greater community and family involvement to provide aid for those who need it, but she so poorly articulates her position her message is lost completely. It's impossible to get past the asinine way she tried to justify her belief. And how we back our beliefs reveals much about how we came to formulate them. And Cynthia Davis revealed much.

If you haven't already, I encourage you to read her entire post. You can also read more about this on stltoday.com.