[Vision2020] Global Food Safety Fund

[lfalen]

Just a rant huh, what do you call most of your posts. I think your reply is a copout.
Roger


-----Original message-----
From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 09:02:32 -0800
To: Jay Borden jborden at datawedge.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
> > =======================================================****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> 
>