There's a real battle for information going on right now. We're even to the point where the accusation doesn't have to be true -- it's just has to feel true.

Unfortunately, when that happens we all lose.

Wanting to see what 'blue' libs write is as repulsive as wondering what Rosie's ass looks like.

Most people will do just OK w/o it.

I change my over/under estimate of the demise of Blue from 6 months to 4. *bows*

Jay Tea, I've got to say I share the same impression of Wizbang Blue, but I hope it gets a little better with time. After all, it takes a bit of adjusting from derailing discussions to starting your own.

Now, I have two objections to your post

1: Democracy and free markets are not necessarily a cure for famine. Sure, we've seen plenty of examples. It is mostly a function of surpluses, distribution and food storage capability, and that may exist in strict plan economies as well. In fact, market speculation may also create artifical market scarcity of a product. So I think it's poverty, and not just a lack of market-economy that makes these societies

2: Nominal democracies do in fact sometimes end up at war with each other. Democratic peace theory is a well established field (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/BIBLIO.HTML). The Kargil War between Pakistand and India is one oft-cited example, and the Spanish-American war is another.

Consider also that wars these days more often are civil-wars and regional conflicts that are not necessarily between states.

Preview is my friend.

Point 1 was supposed to end

"So I think it's poverty, and not just a lack of market-economy that makes these societies vulnerable to hunger. After all, poor countries often have volatile and rather unregulated street markets."

and point 2 was supposed to end

"The Kargil War between Pakistand and India is one oft-cited example of an exception to this, and the Spanish-American war is another example."

Good thoughts 89. I'd think though that Jay is generally correct as in both instances the people make the choices rather than the govt. Unfortunately there will always be contra examples and these same people wind up doing the suffering.

The first time I ventured over there there was a the top two articles were both kook conspiracy theories. One was conspiracy theory about how that evil mastermind Karl Rove wasn't using the proper mail sever (OMG! teh ebil!) and the other was even more forgettable.

"the cost has been astronomical -- my own rough estimate puts it at between 2.4 and 2.6 zillion metric assloads of money".

Nice description of an idiot idea. which only resulted in turning thousands of normal people into drug addicts. Don't work, here's some taxpayer money has proven to be the worst thing to happen to Americans.

I remember when (60's) the losers from the North came to the mountains to teach people new crafts. Most left with a car load of real crafts, provided free by a bunch of independent people who nither needed or wanted the 'phony' help offered by the 'democrats'. It was just another crazy attempt to eleminate poverty where it wasn't considered poverty but a normal laid back life style. Actually we did have a good laugh at them.

The total cost of "poverty" programs such as welfare and food stamps over the last 35 years is estimated at seven TRILLION dollars.

In the 1960, we had about 10% "poor" people.

Today, we have about 10% "poor" people.

Pay no attention to those "poverty" figures the press throws around.

AFDC essentially destroyed poor black families by paying women not to marry and to have kids they couldn't afford. We see the results today: two generations of welfare lifers who breed more welfare lifers. Kids raised by single mothers are SEVEN times more likely that others to committ crimes, go on welfare, or go to jail.

Feral youth, preying on anyone and everyone, have turned black inner city areas into war zones. Anyone with brains and a rental truck is leaving.

I work in the "welfare bidness". I see this every day.

There is a formula for success in America. There is a formula for staying out of poverty. It's simple:

1. Graduate from high school
2. Get and keep any full time job
3. Don't marry before your twenties
4. Don't have kids until you can afford them.

Among married couples, of any race, poverty is about 4-5%.

Among families headed by single white women, poverty is about 24%.

Among families headed by black single women, poverty is about 34%.

This is not rocket science.

my own rough estimate puts it at between 2.4 and 2.6 zillion metric assloads of money

Is your degree in economics? Mine is and I d believe that this is an official measure of an amount of money.

At least, it sounds real enough.

I wouldn't have reviewed them directly. I would have just posted the counter Youtube video or a link to where it was debugged.

A quasi-war between Blue and Base isn't becoming, imho. Although I honestly believe Blue needs improvement. But I get to say that because I'm not staff.

$7 trillion spent on the WoPoverty? And we still have 10% poor people?

Figure a population of 300 mil, so 10% equals 30 mil, and dividing the $7 tril among them would yeild $233,333.33 per person. Enough for a GOOD education and a stake in life to get going with...

But then, you've got a problem with maintaining a bureaucracy to administer that money. Don't feel like looking it up right now, but I'd be guessing that about 30-50% of that went into the infrastructure to provide a regular pittance to the folks who really needed the money.

Remember - teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for the rest of his life, but give a man a fish and he'll be back the next day... and then you'll have control over what he'll eat, and when.

Scott,
I agree with your 12:57 post. Although #4 really doesn't count, as a father of 5, we somehow made ends meet and never went for any type of aid. Years ago the state of IL tried to get welfare people to work, such as picking up trash along the roads, streets, vacant lots, etc. Guess what, the city workers stopped that as it would put them out of work.

Any person can be in a money bind and need help. However to have generations on welfare is wrong. If any single unmarried women have more than one child and is on welfare, and has another child, she should then have her tubes tied. Cruel, yes, but we tax payers are paying for her to sit on her lazy butt and become a baby factory.

Limit welfare to 4 years, and during that time they learn a profession, educate themselves, etc. After 4 years, no more welfare.

I'm disappointed, Jay. You didn't see fit to target any of my submissions... :)

With those two elements in play, I find myself wondering: how many lives would have been spared if we had taken even half the money we spent fighting poverty in the United States and instead channeled it directly into the military, and charged them with overthrowing dictatorships around the world and replacing them with democratic governments dedicated towards preserving free markets?

This could be true. However, it would mean that the US would have to actually be interested in freedom of other nations.

Our government and the people who run it actually doesn't want the people of other nations to be free and make their own decisions. It's not an accident that the US ends up aligned with strongmen dictators, from Iran to Indonesia. We want these countries run by dictators because

a) it's far easier for us to deal with one person we can buy off

b) if bought off, a dictator can make decisions for our country that's in our perceived best interest, even if it runs contrary to the best interest of our country.

So, I would actually applaud the use of our military to spreading freedom around the world.

But to actually be interested in spreading genuine freedom and self-determination around the world, just for the sake of freedom, would be a shocking shift in the direction of US policy.

Personally, I think the best way up from poverty is education. The education system remains very unequal in America, besides currently doing a terrible job of giving kids the critical thinking and information skills they need to move American forward as grownups.

There is such a wide disparity of what's available in public schools, in part because of public schools receiving funds from their area, and not being properly baselined in terms of minimum resources and teachers.

And if you want better teachers, you have to have better salaries. Mediocre salaries mean smart people go into other professions. Some people are dedicated enough that they will teach at any price, but you can't build a good system by depending on altruism.

In my homeland of NJ, in Newark, a teacher I knew would scrounge in dumpsters to find enough freakin' desks for the students in her classroom. Meanwhile, 50 miles away in Long Valley NJ, the kids had a $250,000 robot-operated lathe in the metal shop - which was a joke, 'cause every single kid was going to college and then a white-collar job anyway.

Proper education means marrying later, pregnancy later, adaptability, self-esteem, and productivity throughout life. It can fix poverty like nothing else, because it improves the present and focuses on the future.

That's my $.02.

Ahem - point b) in the post before last should read:

"b) if bought off, a dictator can make decisions for our country that's in our perceived best interest, even if it runs contrary to the best interest of the dictator's country.

"Personally, I think the best way up from poverty is education."

I take that as an affirmative vote for vouchers!

Two pieces in a row were not only pretty damned poor, but not even fresh and original.

Like this piece is really interesting and stimulating Jay? How long did it take you to write it? About 5 minutes?

I can bang out a slam piece on Wizbang Main anytime I want. Instead, I choose to try and come up with something new and original so we can draw more readers to Wizbang Blue and promote the Wizbang franchise in general. I don't think you should judge the entire site just by two posts.

Our government and the people who run it actually doesn't want the people of other nations to be free and make their own decisions

Are all leftist kook conspiracy theorist or is it just that a lot of kook conspiracy theorist are leftist ?

Although, you might have a point. The 'Liberals' here certainly don't want U.S. citizen to be free and make their own decisions - government knows best!

If vouchers could work, then yes.

However, vouchers by themselves don't at all solve the main problems of:

a) low teacher salaries resulting in lower-quality teachers
b) resources in poor areas not matching resources in rich areas

In fact, they're a distraction from these issues.

Let's take the Newark NJ vs. Long Valley NJ example. There are just far more kids in Newark than Long Valley. All those kids simply won't be able to attend Long Valley, even if they have vouchers.

So right there, you can see that vouchers won't actually fix the problem.

Mike, prove me wrong. Show me a dictator that we've gone in and overthrown militarily, and installed a Democracy that we let do whatever it wants, even if it's contrary to our own best interest.

(crickets)

JT:

I had high hopes for Wizbang Blue.

Tsk, tsk, tsk... How many times have you bought some Carney barkers line and wasted an inordinate amount of time and money to "win" a 2 buck stuffed toy?

Anyway, I make an occasional stop over there however pretty much wrote the place off early on based on a piece written by Lee on Bush's plan for a missile defense system.

Mush of the comment thread was "points and counterpoints" on "intercepters," i.e. F-16's and FA-18's that have zero to do with the program and the Patriot system.

To paraphrase Lee "OMG 10 Patriot systems equals 160 missiles!"

Nevermind the fact that the Patriot is a purely defensive system and has no guidance/targeting system that would allow it to be targeted on anything other than a incoming supersonic missile and pay no attention whatsoever the Patriot isn't part of the Bush plan that has rutten-tooten Putin screaming like MSNBC's OlberFool on steroids.

The thread was pure comedy gold.

Oh, and Mike - it's your own current conservative President who's brought about an unprecedented increase in the size and power of the Federal gov't., and an unprecedented assault on the rights and abilities of free US citizens to remain free. Just sayin' maybe liberals don't make up all of the Constitution's enemies.

Jim,

Ever heard of Japan and Germany?

Soooo... where's all the "You're right, Jay. We'll try to be more careful" posts from the liberals?

The cognative dissonance at Wizbang Blue is so astounding, it's almost comical.

jim:
Show me a dictator that we've gone in and overthrown militarily, and installed a Democracy that we let do whatever it wants, even if it's contrary to our own best interest.

As vaildog said, ever heard of Germany or Japan ?
And no, it's not our responsibility to install freedom elsewhere, but that's not the same a not wanting freedom to exist elsewhere.

Oh, and Mike - it's your own current conservative President who's brought about an unprecedented increase in the size and power of the Federal gov't., and an unprecedented assault on the rights and abilities of free US citizens to remain free. Just sayin' maybe liberals don't make up all of the Constitution's enemies.

Firstly, I don't consider Bush a conservative. Socially, yes, but in every other aspect, no.

'an unprecented assault on the rights and abilities of free US citizens to remain free' ?

Oh, please! You can't be that historically illiterate. Hell, for just one example, the internment of U.S. citizens during WWII ? And please cite examples on how these 'unprecedented assaults' have affected you personally.

[crickets]

Jay:and instead channeled it($) directly into the military, and charged them with overthrowing dictatorships around the world and replacing them with democratic governments dedicated towards preserving free markets.
That approach is certainly working wonders in Iraq...Actually, the US military since Johnson has supported and helped train and strong arm authoritarian regimes against democratic movements to preserve US corporate interests, particularly in South and Central America, in the 70's and 80's, and the US is still doing that, maybe a little more subtly, in places, as diverse as petroleum rich Kazakhstan and Equatorial Guinea, both with terrible human rights records.

Mike, you ignored this part:

...even if it's contrary to our own best interest.

Sure, we did the right thing in Germany and Japan.
It was also in our best interest to remove Hitler and Hirohito. And then it was in our best interest to rebuild Germany and Japan, so they could have economies strong enough to trade with us and buy our goods. And these governments both, by and large, kept their policies in lines with our own desires. (At least up until the Bush administration wanted Germany's help in the Iraq invasion and Germany balked...)

The real test of whether the US actually wants democracy in other nations, or just leaders we approve of, is when those nations choose something that is *not* in our best interest.

That's what I'm asking you to show. Show one time the US overthrew a dictator who was hurting his people and installed a Democracy that we let do whatever it wants, even if it's contrary to our own best interest.

Because there are plenty examples of:

a) dictators who are doing horrible things to their citizens that we don't really care about (Darfur, Rwanda),

b) plenty of cases where we've supported brutal dictators AGAINST their people because the dictators are doing things we like (Saddam Hussein, the Shah, Suharto, Batista, etc. etc.)

c) cases where we've overthrown democratically-elected governments to put in governments *we* wanted, even though that required the killing of tens of thousands of peasants. (Guatemala, El Salvador)

Understand what I'm saying:

- I'm not saying Americans are evil.
- I'm not saying Bush does this and other presidents haven't. Clinton's done it, Carter's done it, Ford did it, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Sr., both did it, etc. etc.

What I'm saying is, this is a policy of the US government, both the politicians that we call "Liberal" AND the politicians that we call "Conservative". The US gov't likes to propagandize and claim that we overthrow governments only because we love freedom - but this is simply contradicted by history.

If we only meddled in other countries because our government wants other people's to be free, then Darfur never would have happened, Rwanda never would have happened, and Battista never would have been propped up in Cuba by the US gov't in the first place. And these are only a few of the most direct examples.

Gee Jim, just how many ways can you screw up your history in one post. Just to go for the simple, we did not overthough Hirohito. We did in the Japanese military and Prime Minister Tito. Hirohito was allowed by MacArther to be the titular head of Japan and his son is today. He was also all but the titular head under Tito.

jim,

To get a valid perspective the U.S. actions in history you have to look a larger piece of it. What nations have overthrown existing governments and set up governments that would benefit them? How about Rome, or is that too far back? Looking back to the time of Columbus how does the U.S. stack up with Portugal, Spain, England, France, Japan, and Germany? You list a number of south American countries the U.S. has toppled governments in, yet the existence of all these countries were the result of conquest and expansion of some of the nations I just listed.

In late 1945 the U.S. was the undisputed military power in the world not only because our homeland was unscathed by WW2, but the U.S. had the atomic bomb and the B29. What other nation in history was in such a position and instead of adding to it's conquests, withdrew and even rebuilt the nations that it defeated in war? I think you'll find the answer is none.

Dominate countries have always imposed their will on others in the world. The U.S. is likely coming to the end of it's period of dominance due to internal factors. Those within the U.S. who work to hasten that day may come to regret their short sightedness (from a historical perspective) as it's unlikely the next dominate nation will be so beneficial to as much of the world as the U.S. has been.

David, fine. Hirohito was the figurehead, fine; then overthrew Tito and re-installed the figurehead.

Do you have anything more substantive to disagree with?

Mac, I'm not talking about who started it. And I'm not saying the US is any worse than other nations.

Rome did this, Russia did this, China does this, Britain does this (the Opium Wars are particularly interesting), the currently peace-loving Dutch and Belgians both did this, etc. etc. All nations do this.

My only point is that the US gov't doesn't intervene militarily in other nations, because we care about their citizens and want them to be free. We intervene ALWAYS AND ONLY to serve our own self-interest.

And the US gov't does not at all, ever, intervene just to give some citizens freedom and democracy. Our gov't, whether being run by a liberal or conservative, honestly doesn't give a **crap** about their having genuine freedom and democracy. In most cases we prefer to set up a strongarm dictator because it makes things easier for us.

jim, you're right in that our self-interest is always a factor, but to say we don't "give a crap" about freedom is hyperbole. Otherwise, we'd have just played ball with Saddam for cheap oil, like a lot of other countries did. We'd dump Taiwan in a heartbeat. And I