[Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund

Sun Jan 8 10:11:52 PST 2012

Yes... I know... the comment I made after Tom Hansen made HIS comment
was called petty.  If you don't see what I'm pointing out, then you're
helping make my point for me.

As far as the rest of my post?  

You said:

"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..."

If my objections are too long-winded for your taste, then just file them
under your simple "Big government is communism" category... 

Jay

From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:03 AM
To: Jay Borden
Cc: Tom Hansen; lfalen; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund

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/20120108/5673d7ad/attachment-0001.html>