Did I miss something?
I didn't see anything in this article that shows a verifiable statistical correlation between hunger and terrorism. All I saw was a couple of Congresscritters trying to find a market for their constituents' surplus produce:
Quote:
Take, for example, the program she sponsored with McGovern. What is praised for its international humanitarian achievement also makes smart political sense for Emerson: The farmers in her heavily rural district now have an outlet for their unused soybeans and corn.
|
Translation:
<blockquote>"The asshats in my district grow more food than they can sell, and I'm up for reelection this year. I'll make up some bullshit story that people would be afraid to argue against, like feeding starving children, and convince Uncle Sucker to buy my constituents' surplus. Then, we'll dump the food in some Third World country, drive the local farmers out of business by distorting their market with artificially low prices, make the local population dependent on foreign supplies of food, and... here's the best part... stick the American taxpayers with the bill!"</blockquote>
I don't think starving people spend a lot of time being terrorists. They're too busy starving. The majority of starving people, it seems to me, spend most of their time looking for something to eat. You have to be well-fed and unemployed to be a successful terrorist. That's why Ireland and the West Bank are overrun with terrorists, and Bangladesh and Ethiopia are not.
Hey! I have an idea! Instead of pissing away all this money on corn and soybeans from Missouri, why not buy every family in Sudan an iBook with an AirPort card instead? They can surf the 'net, and it'll give them something to do while they're starving, and surely Apple is as deserving of Federal subsidies as Missouri soybean growers. (And
my program is more politically correct... we don't have to worry about upsetting the Sudanese computer manufacturers.)