[Vision2020] Global Food Safety Fund

lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Sun Jan 8 10:28:15 PST 2012


Thanks Jay, good job.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Jay Borden" jborden at datawedge.com
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 03:10:00 -0800
To: "Joe Campbell" philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund

> 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
> =======================================================
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list