I wanted to use this article to demonstrate the statist spin on a typical news article:

(CNN) -- Recent threats and attacks from militant groups have made it almost impossible for the World Food Program to get food to hungry people in southern Somaila, the aid agency said Tuesday.

The actions by militant groups have led to a partial suspension food distribution in much of southern Somalia, the agency said in a statement.

This has left more than 1 million people in the area in peril, the United Nations food agency said.

"WFP is deeply concerned about rising hunger and suffering among the most vulnerable due to these unprecedented and inhumane attacks on purely humanitarian operations," the agency said in a statement.

One of the recent threats to the food agency occurred in late November when Islamist militants in Somalia warned the agency to buy food from Somali farmers or stop sending aid to the impoverished African country.

That threat came from al-Shabaab, a group that has waged a bloody insurgency against the U.N.-backed government of transitional President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed.

Four of the agency's staff members were killed in Somalia between August 2008 and January 2009.

Despite difficulties in southern Somalia, the agency says it is still dispensing food in the capital city Mogadishu and several other areas.

The agency says it is still able to reach more than 60 percent of those in need or about 1.8 million people.

Of course, all news always has some kind of spin.  Some of the spin originates from the government organizations while some originates from the news organization itself.  For this article, can you find it?  If you will indulge me, I would like to reword the article with an anti-state spin:

Recent threats and attacks from militias have made it almost impossible for the World Food Program to interfere with the agricultural economy of southern Somaila, the meddling agency said Tuesday.

The actions by militias have led to a partial suspension of meddling in much of southern Somalia, the agency admitted.

This has left more than 1 million people in the area in peril, the United Nations food agency claimed.

"WFP is deeply concerned about rising hunger and suffering among the most vulnerable due to these unprecedented and inhumane attacks on purely humanitarian operations," the agency claimed in a statement.

One of the recent threats to the food agency occurred in late November when Islamist militia in Somalia warned the agency to buy food from Somali farmers or stop sending aid to the impoverished African country.

That threat came from al-Shabaab, a group that has waged a heroic resistance against the illegitimate U.N.-backed "government" of puppet President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed.

Four of the agency's staff members were killed in Somalia between August 2008 and January 2009.

Despite difficulties in southern Somalia, the agency says it is still meddling with the agricultural economy in the capital city Mogadishu and several other areas.

The agency says it is still able to reach more than 60 percent of those in need or about 1.8 million people, in contradiction to the assertion that it was "impossible" as implied by the first sentence to this story.

First, I do not want to excuse overt violence by insurgency.  I think they should use non-violent, passive resistance.  The "Islamist militants" would get more sympathy from the world if they avoided violence.  But I also see the WFP as a violent organization.  They are systematically promoting hunger which is killing many more people than the militants.  The WFP is also funded with violence (via taxes of the world's citizens, but mostly the US taxpayers).

The reason I called the Islamist militants "heroic" is because that's what they would be called if this happened in America.  If a group of armed patriots resisted an underhanded devious international group from destroying the US economy, they would be painted as heroes.

I am trying to illustrate that when the statists send food to help out a region alleviate hunger, they are in effect messing with the economic structure as well.  These are the consequences to welfare.  Ask yourself, why would the "militant groups" demand that the U.N. buy food from Somali farmers?  Doesn't that demand seem a little out of left field?  The problem is, the news organization didn't bother to explain.

So I will explain.  When free food comes in, it effectively undercuts the farmer and the free market.  Why would anyone ever buy food from the farmers if it's free?  The US does the same thing in Haiti.  The US sends rice to Haiti, which undercuts the locally grown rice.  This free rice completely screws up the regular economy.

Necessity is the mother of invention.  If there is a lack of food, that means food is in high demand.  That means the price of food should be high.  Higher prices are market signals that stimulate production by getting more farmers to produce more.  As farmers produce more, prices will fall because of higher supply.  That's basic economics.  Free food just destroys this dynamic.

You might ask if it's reasonable to sacrifice human lives to hunger in order to preserve the economy.  But that's a dialectical argument (what's that?).  The fact is, the more the statists meddle, the worse it'll get and the more dependant the economy will be on free food.  More free food, more death.  It's a vicious cycle.

True, it's not the only reason for the food shortage.  Civil war in Somalia contributes.  Yeah, the civil war partially induced by the U.N.-backed "government."

So that's my spin.  You decide.