[Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund

Sun Jan 8 17:50:20 PST 2012

Jay,

Yes indeed, both Democrats and Republicans have created and expanded government programs. My point was that the Republicans complain about the very programs they create and expand. The EPA and expansion of the FAA, and Government authority to strip us naked, seize our property, and lock us up indefinitely without a trial were all the children of the Republican leadership, not Democrats. 

Donovan Arnold

________________________________
 From: Jay Borden <jborden at datawedge.com>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> 
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2012 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund

Both parties are responsible for the creation of numerous government agencies… it’s not just Republicans.  

Jay

From:Donovan Arnold [mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 3:35 AM
To: Jay Borden; Joe Campbell
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Globaql Food Safety Fund

What I don't understand is why the Republicans invent these government agencies, like the EPA, and greatly expand their authority and the power of Federal government, like the FAA and the Patriot Act? If you don't like them, stop creating them, highly funding them, and writing legislation to expand them. Perhaps it is just because they don't have enough to complain about so they invent the very things they don't like. If the Republicans would vote for the Democrats they would get exactly what they want.  

Donovan Arnold

From:Jay Borden <jborden at datawedge.com>
To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> 
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2012 3:10 AM
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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120108/a69eed08/attachment-0001.html>