[Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund

[Joe Campbell]

I -- Joe Campbell -- was the one who said the reply to Tom was petty. It
was not a snide comment. It was spot on. I gave my reasons; I'm sorry you
don't understand them.

Below is just a rant, so I'm not going to take the time to fully read it
let alone give it an adequate reply. It is hard to know where to begin and
I have a day job.

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Jay Borden <jborden at datawedge.com> wrote:

> Wait, Tom Hanson [yet again] inserts a snide retort… but I’m the one that
> gets the “petty reply” comment?  (I swear, there are times that I think Mr.
> Hanson has some “diplomatic immunity” card when posting here, as few seem
> to point out the fact that “liberal swaying” opinions seem to be held to a
> much different posting standard than anyone who carries a conservative
> point of view.****
>
> ** **
>
> In any case…my comment is not “petty”.  Tom Hanson [gleefully] loves to
> “snip and post” other people words in his responses… it’s not petty to take
> his words as his argument, since… that’s what he said.****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom Hanson used the word “guarantee” in his post.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> From here, we can either assume Tom is under the illusion that the FAA
> does, in fact, guarantee his safety when he flies… since **that’s what he
> posted**.  Or, we can say that “that’s not really what Tom meant”, in
> which case we can [gleefully] toss out much of what Tom’s posts under the
> convenient “that’s not really what Tom meant” category. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Frankly, I’m fine with either assumption.****
>
> ** **
>
> From here, yes, of course there are no guarantees in life.  (Well, “death
> and taxes”, to beat the old saying yet again).  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Are the FAA, Agriculture, Education, and the EPA “OK”?   I’m not sure how
> to answer that… the liberals have the far easier case to make in favor of
> programs that assist us in flying, food, teaching, and the environment.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Insert traditional [ridiculous and loaded] arguments:  “What?  You aren’t
> in favor of airline safety?  What?  You want to return to the days of Upton
> Sinclair?  What?  You want don’t want our students to learn?  What?  You
> want to destroy the environment?”****
>
> ** **
>
> These are the typical [and tiring] responses when any conservative opens
> their mouth on any of these fronts to ask the simple question “does it
> truly require a government agency to achieve these goals?  Are there any
> other alternative ideas out there that could achieve the same goals without
> creating a juggernaut government agency in the process?”****
>
> ** **
>
> Each of these agencies listed (and, frankly, most if not all government
> agencies) has a “greater good” in mind.  And each of these agencies has
> their genesis in that thought process of “doing good”.  But, each of these
> agencies (like many/most government entities) goes down the path of
> expansion, regulation, and eventual encroachment into areas that may not
> have been initially intended.****
>
> ** **
>
> Rather than tackle all of these examples, I’ll tackle one… the FAA.
> (Since I used to have my private pilot’s license…)****
>
> ** **
>
> The initial kernel of intent behind the government’s plan was to simply
> boost airline safety as the world witnessed the airplane transmogrify from
> a backyard tinker-toy into a viable commercial vehicle.   FDR signed the
> legislation into law, tasking a new agency with coming up with the rules of
> engagement for air traffic, issuing pilot licenses, etc etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> Fantastic.****
>
> ** **
>
> Just a few years later, the new agency worked with airlines to establish
> common routes between the larger cities, and to establish (airline run and
> managed) ATC centers.****
>
> ** **
>
> But just a few years after that, FDR also signed into law legislation that
> suddenly expanded this agency greatly, and created a few new ones.  These
> new agencies  had the authority to take over ATC from the airlines.  In
> addition, that same legislation allowed another new agency to suddenly
> regulate air fares, and start determining routes and divvying them out to
> individual carriers [government price fixing]. ****
>
> ** **
>
> In WWII, the agencies expanded again… and took over the operation of all
> city airport towers… (for security and defensive purposes)… but after the
> war, the federal government maintained this control.****
>
> ** **
>
> Somewhere in the 1950’s, the FAA was born.. wrapping up all of these
> independently created government entities into one larger one… the FAA… and
> again, the powers were expanded.****
>
> ** **
>
> At the same time the FAA was created… an agency FOR the purpose of airline
> safety was also created… the NTSB.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> So… wait a minute… if the initial intent was to bolster airline safety…
> and that agency is the NTSB… what exactly is the FAA?  ****
>
> ** **
>
> The short answer, is… everything else.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Ok… so what is the FAA responsible for?  Well… in addition to doing a lot
> of good things that DO need to get done… they are also involved in projects
> that really have nothing to do with their initial intent.  According to
> their 2012 budget requests (as I glance through it…)… they’re involved in
> research projects for “Environmental Sustainability”… they are introducing
> a CAAFI initiative “to qualify and approve new types of aviation fuels” …
> on their budget they have line item requests for funding for “Improved
> Public Transit Experiences”… and “Improved networks accommodating
> Pedestrians and Bicycles”… “Improved Access for Special Needs Populations”…
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.dot.gov/budget/2012/budgetestimates/faa.pdf****
>
> ** **
>
> The FAA, while it DOES do many good things, is just one example of a
> government agency that has slowly expanded and bled into other areas that
> have nothing really to do with the intent behind the initial formation.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> Does this automatically mean that I’m against airline safety, or the
> creation and adherence to safety guidelines in the aviation world?  Does
> this automatically mean that I’m some sort of anarchist that wants planes
> to fall out of the sky? ****
>
> ** **
>
> No… of course not… it means that I look at the GROWTH of a government
> agency, and question whether or not that GROWTH is necessary, and at what
> point the government has overstepped boundaries from its initial creation.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> It’s interesting to note, as an aside, that many on the left view too much
> growth of business (approaching monopoly) as an evil… they see it as a
> concentration of too much power in the hands of greedy people wanting
> nothing more than to control, until eventually they start to encroach on
> the lives of others.****
>
> ** **
>
> To a certain extent, I agree… (insert tired comments regarding monopolies
> being impossible in TRUE free market societies… debate ad-nauseum).****
>
> ** **
>
> But the same is true when it comes to government agencies as well… as
> government agencies grow, they begin to amass power… they expand their
> regulations, their scope of responsibilities, their power… their control…
> and they start to meddle in things and affairs that perhaps wasn’t their
> creators initial intent.****
>
> ** **
>
> Let’s not forget that businesses and governmental agencies are both run by
> the same common denominator:  people.  Too much expansion in either flavor
> results in the end-result… too much power, resulting in someone else losing
> personal choice, freedoms, and options as a result.  And, those same people
> bemoan the loss of power, whether it comes in the form of a business
> potentially being broken up for anti-trust issues, or whether it be a
> government agency threatened with decommissioning by an up-and-coming
> politician promising smaller government.  (That sounded like a
> thinly-veiled Ron Paul endorsement… I assure you, it wasn’t intended that
> way).****
>
> ** **
>
> On a much broader scale… on a much bigger picture… I tire of government
> expansion.  It’s frustrating to me that no matter who is in charge in
> Washington.. (Republicans, Democrats, whoever)… the “ratchet” that
> continually introduces new RULES, REGULATIONS, HOOPS, RED TAPE just keeps
> on turning.  With very few exceptions, it seems each new rotation of
> elected representatives simply result in additional rules created,
> additional freedoms taken away from us and hoarded by the government, and
> additional agencies and firms created by the government to create even more
> of said same.  Rarely do we see agencies TRULY decommissioned… instead we
> see agencies rolled up and consolidated… creating an ever expanding
> bureaucracy that continues to just expand on itself.****
>
> ** **
>
> For example…. WITHOUT MAKING THIS INTO A “GUN” DEBATE :  We’re a
> gun-carrying country… does anyone really believe that the government would
> actually LESSEN the TSA and their “air marshall” program, and let
> passengers with a concealed carry permit actually carry on an airplane?
>  No.. instead we’ll introduce MORE legislation, and take away individual
> freedoms (like 3oz limitations on carry-on liquids) to maintain an illusion
> of security… passing along our freedoms to the TSA as we stand in line to
> get strip-searched by a government agency.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Wait… Mr. Hanson… I’ll beat you to your own predictable reply:****
>
> ** **
>
> ------****
>
> “Mr. Borden stupidly suggests:****
>
> ** **
>
> “…. let passengers with a concealed carry permit actually carry a gun on
> an airplane…”****
>
> ** **
>
> “That’s great!  I wonder if Senator McGee has his concealed carry permit!”
> ****
>
> ------****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m merely point out that as Americans we have freedoms… but as government
> expands the powers they take on have to come from somewhere…and that
> government expansion and regulation comes at the cost of our personal
> choices… one regulation at a time.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> That’s my .02… which (after a long work day… and now a long after-midnight
> post… ) has expanded to about $20.00.  And I’m sure my inbox will
> practically be on fire by noon tomorrow.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> And, Joe… (if you even read down this far)… if you are still truly
> interested in my economic take on “Universal Health Care”… let me know… and
> I’ll summon up the energy for another “War and Peace” sized reply… my short
> answer spans the topics of economics and philosophy… and my longer answer
> will wind up wearing my fingers to nubs.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Jay****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2012 10:00 PM
> *To:* Jay Borden
> *Cc:* Tom Hansen; lfalen; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund****
>
> ** **
>
> Petty comment, Jay.
>
> Take "guarantee" out of it. In life there are few guarantees. Your car
> does not guarantee your transportation; oxygen, food, and water do not
> guarantee life. (Were this a logic class, I would note the difference
> between necessary and sufficient conditions.)
>
> Which institution stands a better chance of securing your travel from
> Lewiston to Seattle? The federal government or the state? That was Tom's
> point. Since there is no single state involved in this transportation,
> Tom's example of the FAA is another good example of the need for federal
> government programs.
>
> So far it seems that these federal governmental programs are OK: FAA,
> Agriculture, Education, and EPA. Again, I'm willing to hear objections to
> these points but as I see it the cases have been clearly made. I'm unaware
> of substantive arguments against these programs, just nifty slogans like
> "Big government is communism."
>
> Note that Roger's comment about the federal government not telling us what
> to eat is something that liberals can hang their hat on too since it
> concerns the matter of civil LIBERTIES and the State's (broadly concerned
> to include the federal government) right to limit your behavior. I agree
> with Roger on this point: the State should not tell you what to eat but
> neither should your state (Idaho).
>
> One last matter, and I'm genuinely interested in your reply. What is wrong
> with universal healthcare? It is a fact that insurance is influenced by
> numbers: the more people insured, the lower the costs. This is why my
> insurance benefits are better than those you can get at some smaller
> company. And it is a fact that uninsured people have a financial impact on
> the insured. Doctors, hospitals attempt to run at a profit (if they can) so
> the costs incurred by those who don't pay will be passed on to those who do
> pay. Knowing just these two facts, how could it not benefit us all from a
> purely economical point of view to have universal heath care? I'm aware of
> spurious arguments about "limitations of doctors" but that is BS since
> anyone with insurance suffers these limitations. This is an argument
> insurance in general. Maybe we should do away with insurance and have
> everyone be responsible for saving enough money to pay for their doctor
> bills as they go. Is that your view?
>
> But I'm a philosopher, not an economist and since you know so much more
> about the business world than I do, I realize I might be missing something.
> What is it?
>
> Best, Joe****
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Jay Borden <jborden at datawedge.com> wrote:*
> ***
>
> FAA doesn't "guarantee your safety" any more than Medicare guarantees
> your health.
>
>
> Jay****
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Tom Hansen
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 1:17 PM
> To: lfalen
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund
>
> How about the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), Mr. Falen?  Or am I
> gonna have to rely on the state of to guarantee my safety when I board
> an aircraft at Boise, Lewiston, or Moscow . . . as Senator McGee taxis
> the aircraft down the tarmac.
>
> Seeya later, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Spokane, Washington
>
> "If not us, who?
> If not now, when?"
>
> - Unknown
>
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 12:56 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> > There are some things the federal  government should do. Namely things
> that can not be none by state or local government, Protecting the food
> supply is one of them. In conjunction with private bussiness the
> government should insure that the food supply is safe and also provide
> education on the nutritionall value of food and health supplements. What
> government at any level should not do is prohibit people from eating
> what ever they desire, so long  as it does not harm someone else.
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:17:50 -0800
> > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund
> >
> >> Roger,
> >>
> >> I hope you don't take this as my being antagonistic. I know we've had
> our
> >> issues in the past. But how is this not "Big Government" in action?
> If we
> >> dismantle the government in the way that some Republicans advocate,
> how are
> >> initiatives like this going to be made more possible? And how can we
> >> "address high priority food hazards" with restricting businesses in
> certain
> >> ways? These are honest questions.
> >>
> >> Best, Joe
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From The December.January issue of Food Safety. The Grocery
> Manufactures
> >>> AQssociation joined U. S. Government and World Bank officials in
> announcing
> >>> an innovative public-private partnership that has pledged $1million
> toward
> >>> the creation of the world's first Global Safety Fund. to be managed
> by the
> >>> World  bank. The fund is expected to grow to $15 to $20 million  in
> the
> >>> first decade. They will address high priority food hazards, such as
> >>> aflatoxin in grain, Salmonella, Literia, Escherichia coli, and viral
> and
> >>> bacterial pathogens in seafood. They will also strengthen testing
> and other
> >>> problems involved with food safety.
> >>> Roger
> >>>
> >>> =======================================================
> >>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>              http://www.fsr.net
> >>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>> =======================================================
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120108/4669b7fa/attachment-0001.html>