Food Safety Bill Passes House/Senate, President to sign, Gardens illegal?

[Patriotxi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptUeglSvhAM
Organic Farms, Back Yard Vegetable Gardens and animal farming destroyed by "The Food Safety Modernization Act"

"[S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food." ~ Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistle blower.

"Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it's entirety. section 103, 206 and 207- read in it's entirety.
Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.

Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic.
Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.

Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with? [italics mine]
Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
Section 207 requires that the state's agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment."

S. 510 the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.

[AxisMundi]

As usual the usual suspects do not expect Americans to actually read the document.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510

For example, from the summery page...

Exempts certain establishments that sell food directly to consumers, such as roadside stands, farmers markets or participants in a community supported agriculture program, from specified requirements of this Act.

This bill is designed to improve food safety inspection for domestic large scale operations already under the auspices of such laws, and to improve the safety of imported foods. The bill also addresses other concerns such as increasing manpower for the purpose of being able to adequately inspect said already effected production facilities, and provide protection for employee whistle blowers.

Beck has already proven himself nothing more than a media whore looking for ratings. He accomplishes this by spinning the most mundane bills generated by the Dems into some horrific Orwellian plot fantasy.

[dannno]

As usual the usual suspects do not expect Americans to actually read the document.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510

For example, from the summery page...

Exempts certain establishments that sell food directly to consumers, such as roadside stands, farmers markets or participants in a community supported agriculture program, from specified requirements of this Act.

This bill is designed to improve food safety inspection for domestic large scale operations already under the auspices of such laws, and to improve the safety of imported foods. The bill also addresses other concerns such as increasing manpower for the purpose of being able to adequately inspect said already effected production facilities, and provide protection for employee whistle blowers.

Beck has already proven himself nothing more than a media whore looking for ratings. He accomplishes this by spinning the most mundane bills generated by the Dems into some horrific Orwellian plot fantasy.

The exempt portion was added only a few weeks ago, originally the bill included small farms, roadside stands and farmer's markets. It would have destroyed these industries.

The fact is that it would be really easy to take this exemption away, all they need to do is manufacture a crisis involving a food stand or small farm and they can get congress to pass it in a day.

The second fact is GOVERNMENT CANNOT IMPROVE FOOD SAFETY.

[Anti Federalist]

The exempt portion was added only a few weeks ago, originally the bill included small farms, roadside stands and farmer's markets. It would have destroyed these industries.

The fact is that it would be really easy to take this exemption away, all they need to do is manufacture a crisis involving a food stand or small farm and they can get congress to pass it in a day.

The second fact is GOVERNMENT CANNOT IMPROVE FOOD SAFETY.

That ^^^

As usual, AxisMundane is a day late and dollar short.

Although he does have this part right:

Beck has already proven himself nothing more than a media whore looking for ratings.

Bills like this popped up on a regular basis under the GOP regime, with nary a word of protest.

[AxisMundi]

The exempt portion was added only a few weeks ago, originally the bill included small farms, roadside stands and farmer's markets. It would have destroyed these industries.

The fact is that it would be really easy to take this exemption away, all they need to do is manufacture a crisis involving a food stand or small farm and they can get congress to pass it in a day.

The second fact is GOVERNMENT CANNOT IMPROVE FOOD SAFETY.

Your point?

What is in the bill when it is signed into law is what matters.

And you freely indulge in the same Beck style hysterics as well in your reply above.

And yes, g'ment can indeed improve food safety by insuring that manufacturers adhere to certain standards for food safety.

[Anti Federalist]

And yes, g'ment can indeed improve food safety transportation security by insuring that manufacturers citizens adhere to certain standards for food transportation safety.

Fixed that for you.

Once allowing the premise, then nothing falls outside government's authority.

[dannno]

And yes, g'ment can indeed improve food safety by insuring that manufacturers adhere to certain standards for food safety.

Government can pass bills that say they will improve food safety, but they can't improve food safety. For one thing, the people who run government are the people who own the large food manufacturers. All they do is increase regulations that fit their business model so that more innovative, safer and better food manufacturers are forced to compete on the same business model rather than developing their own more innovative business model that might not adhere to the regulations set forth by the food manufacturers who write them. Regulations kill innovation, and they help keep together the large food monopolies.

The only thing that you mentioned that I liked at first was the whistleblower clause, but then I realized that was anti-free market so instead of thinking that the free market had a flaw, I thought about ways that the free market could combat corporations who are breaking the law and had employees who wanted to tell on them but did not want to lose their job. After a couple of minutes of thinking, I came up with a solution. First. Whistleblower laws are AWESOME when applied directly to government!! Nobody in government should ever be fired for whistleblowing on the government or on a government institution essentially run by private business (which should never happen, but this is a good protection against that). So we should definitely have whistleblower laws for government institutions. Second. Whistleblower magazine. You could have Whistleblower Food magazine, too!! You start off small.. You have a few thousand subscriptions. You offer anybody who wants to blow the whistle on their private corporation for breaking the law $5,000 or $10,000 and you do a whole write-up on the business and what laws they were breaking. So it has to be legitimate in order to receive the money. Innevitebly these people will probably be fired. Sure, a lot of people aren't willing to take $5,000 or $10,000 to lose their job and have to find a new one, but some people are. Then as it becomes more popular, soon you have hundreds of thousands of subscriptions and you can offer people a $50,000 to blow the whistle on their corporation, or more, or less depending on the offense of the corporation. Now you have all sorts of people coming out of the woodworks to blow the whistle on corporations.. and instead of getting a measly promise that you'll get to work for the same law-breaking corporation that you probably hate, and who now hates you, you get a years worth of salary and get to go find a new job.

[dannno]

bump

[speciallyblend]

I am a terrorist!! I grow my own food(working on that) and i will never pay a dime to private insurance or gov insurance(scum of the earth)!!

[AxisMundi]

Fixed that for you.

Once allowing the premise, then nothing falls outside government's authority.

Did you have something of substance to add to this thread?

[AxisMundi]

Government can pass bills that say they will improve food safety, but they can't improve food safety. For one thing, the people who run government are the people who own the large food manufacturers. All they do is increase regulations that fit their business model so that more innovative, safer and better food manufacturers are forced to compete on the same business model rather than developing their own more innovative business model that might not adhere to the regulations set forth by the food manufacturers who write them. Regulations kill innovation, and they help keep together the large food monopolies.

The only thing that you mentioned that I liked at first was the whistleblower clause, but then I realized that was anti-free market so instead of thinking that the free market had a flaw, I thought about ways that the free market could combat corporations who are breaking the law and had employees who wanted to tell on them but did not want to lose their job. After a couple of minutes of thinking, I came up with a solution. First. Whistleblower laws are AWESOME when applied directly to government!! Nobody in government should ever be fired for whistleblowing on the government or on a government institution essentially run by private business (which should never happen, but this is a good protection against that). So we should definitely have whistleblower laws for government institutions. Second. Whistleblower magazine. You could have Whistleblower Food magazine, too!! You start off small.. You have a few thousand subscriptions. You offer anybody who wants to blow the whistle on their private corporation for breaking the law $5,000 or $10,000 and you do a whole write-up on the business and what laws they were breaking. So it has to be legitimate in order to receive the money. Innevitebly these people will probably be fired. Sure, a lot of people aren't willing to take $5,000 or $10,000 to lose their job and have to find a new one, but some people are. Then as it becomes more popular, soon you have hundreds of thousands of subscriptions and you can offer people a $50,000 to blow the whistle on their corporation, or more, or less depending on the offense of the corporation. Now you have all sorts of people coming out of the woodworks to blow the whistle on corporations.. and instead of getting a measly promise that you'll get to work for the same law-breaking corporation that you probably hate, and who now hates you, you get a years worth of salary and get to go find a new job.

I agree with the whistle blower laws protecting g'ment employees, sounds grand.

As for the rest of your argument, you appear to adhere not to actual Free market ideals, but the Free-For-All Market pushed by the Republicans, along with their supply side economics, since the Reagen era, economic theories that have only served to drive the Nation nearly into the ditch.

This Free-For-All Market idea would see hundreds if not thousands, of people poisoned by "innovation" (read as corporate greed finding short cuts that cut food safety) before people realize that a certain company has unsafe practices.

Do companies let things slip through today? Certainly, and this legislation appears to be an attempt to plug a few glaring and wide holes, such as a lack of inspectors and imported foods.

Whether it works remains to be seen.

[speciallyblend]

Did you have something of substance to add to this thread?

he did he fixed your post It said alot it is called common sense! He made his point perfectly clear you just choose to ignore it!

[Anti Federalist]

Did you have something of substance to add to this thread?

LoL, nothing more than what I already posted, and to bust your balls.

[AxisMundi]

LoL, nothing more than what I already posted, and to bust your balls.

he did he fixed your post It said alot it is called common sense! He made his point perfectly clear you just choose to ignore it!

Since when does unrelated garbage constitute "saying a lot"?

Besides the implied ad hominem by hinting that I support TSA policies.

[Anti Federalist]

Besides the implied ad hominem by hinting that I support TSA policies.

You do.

I'd be hard pressed to find the constitutional authority for the fedgov to regulate food in any manner whatsoever.

You say they have a valid role to play.

Then I say they have a role to play in transportation "security" using your reasoning.

And I could certainly find more constitutional authority for the feds to do that than to regulate food.

[AxisMundi]

You do.

I'd be hard pressed to find the constitutional authority for the fedgov to regulate food in any manner whatsoever.

You say they have a valid role to play.

Then I say they have a role to play in transportation "security" using your reasoning.

And I could certainly find more constitutional authority for the feds to do that than to regulate food.

Feel free to provide even ONE quote from myself stating that I support TSA policy.

[TCE]

Feel free to provide even ONE quote from myself stating that I support TSA policy.

That's a stretch, fine, but with your argument, it is easy to take what you say to its logical conclusion. If government has a role to play in food safety even though it isn't authorized anywhere in the Constitution, then they probably have a role in everything. I mean, the government has to save everyone, right? This is another thread where you've toed the line about big government involvement, then when someone accuses you of it, you attack them by claiming you never said anything about that specifically. Patterns?

[AxisMundi]

That's a stretch, fine, but with your argument, it is easy to take what you say to its logical conclusion. If government has a role to play in food safety even though it isn't authorized anywhere in the Constitution, then they probably have a role in everything. I mean, the government has to save everyone, right? This is another thread where you've toed the line about big government involvement, then when someone accuses you of it, you attack them by claiming you never said anything about that specifically. Patterns?

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Firstly, all government levels have issued food safety measures since the 1800's. Nothing new, as some people here have been hinting.

Secondly, the Feds have been involved with airline safety regulations since commercial flight became commonplace. See the Airline Commerce Act of 1926.

The issue is not IF the federal government has the authority to create legislation concerning food and airline safety, but how far those powers extend, and how effective are those policies.

The current TSA policies of hysteria from the feds is an example of highly ineffective, costly, and simply way, way too far. The current TSA policies must be eliminated as they are invasive, too expensive, and simply counter productive to airline safety.

The bill in the OP seeks to expand not control, but increase inspectors, firm up existing food safety guidelines for domestic and imported foods, and provide protection for employees who report their employers for violations, violations that have led to the recent massive food recalls.

Don't know about you, but on those occasions that I have to buy hamburger from the supermarket, I would like to be reasonably sure it's edible and won't kill me.

[amy31416]

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Firstly, all government levels have issued food safety measures since the 1800's. Nothing new, as some people here have been hinting.

Secondly, the Feds have been involved with airline safety regulations since commercial flight became commonplace. See the Airline Commerce Act of 1926.

The issue is not IF the federal government has the authority to create legislation concerning food and airline safety, but how far those powers extend, and how effective are those policies.

The current TSA policies of hysteria from the feds is an example of highly ineffective, costly, and simply way, way too far. The current TSA policies must be eliminated as they are invasive, too expensive, and simply counter productive to airline safety.

The bill in the OP seeks to expand not control, but increase inspectors, firm up existing food safety guidelines for domestic and imported foods, and provide protection for employees who report their employers for violations, violations that have led to the recent massive food recalls.

Don't know about you, but on those occasions that I have to buy hamburger from the supermarket, I would like to be reasonably sure it's edible and won't kill me.

If you've ever worked with the FDA (and I have), you might just realize how ridiculous it is to promote their expansion and believe that they make things safer, except mostly by accident. They are quite effective in driving up the costs of everything from food to medicine to medical devices though. They do not deserve your faith or defense.

[TCE]

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Firstly, all government levels have issued food safety measures since the 1800's. Nothing new, as some people here have been hinting.

Secondly, the Feds have been involved with airline safety regulations since commercial flight became commonplace. See the Airline Commerce Act of 1926.

The issue is not IF the federal government has the authority to create legislation concerning food and airline safety, but how far those powers extend, and how effective are those policies.

The current TSA policies of hysteria from the feds is an example of highly ineffective, costly, and simply way, way too far. The current TSA policies must be eliminated as they are invasive, too expensive, and simply counter productive to airline safety.

The bill in the OP seeks to expand not control, but increase inspectors, firm up existing food safety guidelines for domestic and imported foods, and provide protection for employees who report their employers for violations, violations that have led to the recent massive food recalls.

Don't know about you, but on those occasions that I have to buy hamburger from the supermarket, I would like to be reasonably sure it's edible and won't kill me.

The bill has hundreds of pages and over 30 separate sections, no one knows what is in it. It expands funding for the FDA, which is easily the most criminal organization ever unleashed on America. Having worked in the fast food industry and in factories, the government has absolutely nothing to do with how safe food is, it is all the companies. The government politely asks the companies for a sample, they test it for effectiveness, and they are allowed to go on their merry way. Years can go by without safety inspectors entering a factory of food facility. The danger is, people think the government is protecting them, and it's not. You, for instance, expect your hamburger to be pure because the government supposedly inspected it. Dollars to donuts, the government has never been close to your hamburger and has no clue whether it is safe or not.

And our current food safety expenses are efficient and justified? The federal government has missed every single food outbreak in recent memory. The companies, lawsuits, and the media have uncovered every single one before the government has gotten knowledge of it.

There is absolutely an issue of the federal government having the authority to create legislation regarding something. Again, as has been pointed out, that argument can be attributed to anything. Sure, they don't have the authority, but it is effective, so go for it. Who decides what is effective? Who decided what is efficient?

[AxisMundi]

The bill has hundreds of pages and over 30 separate sections, no one knows what is in it. It expands funding for the FDA, which is easily the most criminal organization ever unleashed on America. Having worked in the fast food industry and in factories, the government has absolutely nothing to do with how safe food is, it is all the companies. The government politely asks the companies for a sample, they test it for effectiveness, and they are allowed to go on their merry way. Years can go by without safety inspectors entering a factory of food facility. The danger is, people think the government is protecting them, and it's not. You, for instance, expect your hamburger to be pure because the government supposedly inspected it. Dollars to donuts, the government has never been close to your hamburger and has no clue whether it is safe or not.

And our current food safety expenses are efficient and justified? The federal government has missed every single food outbreak in recent memory. The companies, lawsuits, and the media have uncovered every single one before the government has gotten knowledge of it.

There is absolutely an issue of the federal government having the authority to create legislation regarding something. Again, as has been pointed out, that argument can be attributed to anything. Sure, they don't have the authority, but it is effective, so go for it. Who decides what is effective? Who decided what is efficient?

I've worked driving trucks for produce companies, in juice production factories, cheese factories, and several other food related production facilities. In some I was a simple day laborer, in others I had positions of authority. I've been a busy guy in my half century of life.

Yes, food production is indeed governed by federal guidelines.

I also offered the link to this legislation earlier in the thread. It is not that long, compared with other legislation, and it is quite readable. Beck and his guests rely on people not actually reading the legislation to further their hysteria, and Beck's ratings.

Who decides? We the People.

[AxisMundi]

If you've ever worked with the FDA (and I have), you might just realize how ridiculous it is to promote their expansion and believe that they make things safer, except mostly by accident. They are quite effective in driving up the costs of everything from food to medicine to medical devices though. They do not deserve your faith or defense.

Since it is a past employment, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly what you did in the FDA.

[speciallyblend]

Since when does unrelated garbage constitute "saying a lot"?

Besides the implied ad hominem by hinting that I support TSA policies.

i was just referring to the slippery slope of gov regulations which is what i thought af was implying by fixing your post

[dannno]

i was just referring to the slippery slope of gov regulations which is what i thought af was implying by fixing your post

Axis doesn't "get" the slippery slope analogy.

[amy31416]

Since it is a past employment, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly what you did in the FDA.

I did not work for the FDA, I worked for a medical device manufacturer, which is regulated by the FDA. They have numerous and massive problems internally, and a very poor grasp on science to boot. They stifle innovation and justify their existence with poor measures that can actually harm safety, efficiency and function in a manner that merely strikes fear into a business, but does not improve it in any way.

Perhaps this is too specific to be understandable, but two examples: 1. The auditor who was "investigating" the environmental lab that I ran at one point declared all of my samples to be contaminated with fungus--meanwhile it was stress on plastic, and I had to take a week from my regular duties to prove that it was not fungus. And this douchebag was allegedly a microbiologist...who couldn't tell the difference between stressed plastic and fungus. He was angry at being "humiliated" and targeted my lab for anything and everything after that.

In another round, I had changed the quality control procedure for testing an antibiotic cocktail used in the detection of tuberculosis. They shut down our production for a week because they didn't understand the statistics or the science behind it. The company went on backorder and the third-world countries who rely on the product couldn't get it, because they froze sales. I had to, yet again, take another week and dumb my research down so they could understand it. Who knows what effect that had on actual people--did people die because of their bull$#@!? I don't know...but they certainly didn't give a $#@! when I mentioned how many thousands of people relied on this testing in order to get treated.

Moral of the story is that they aren't actually looking to save lives, they're looking to justify their existence and "get" someone. Very much like cops....it's a "score" to harm a company--and I'm sure there's payoffs as well, for those companies who are operating unsafely.

In my experience, gov't agencies and facilities have to do these things so they don't end up on the chopping block when it comes to funding, whether you're the TSA, the FDA or the FBI--the structure needs to change dramatically.

Though I will say that NIST (for all their flaws in other areas) makes really good analytical sample standards to calibrate equipment with--but they're outrageously expensive, of course.

[TCE]

Speaking from factory experience, in the pizza manufacturing industry, there must be a certified USDA agent on duty or else there is a penalty. The USDA inspector required us to start at 6:00 am everyday. 5:59 was not acceptable. We asked if we could start at 5:30 and he said no, he wanted sleep.

* One time, his parking spot (that he demanded be right up front, right next to the handicap spaces) was taken, and he ordered us to find the person and make them move their car or else he would find some rule we were breaking and report us.
* A separate time, we made a pizza with 18 pepperonis and he ordered we throw it out because there were only supposed to be 17. We said that was ridiculous, we were breaking the rules and it had to be disposed of. We said we could just take a pepperoni off and he said no, it had been tainted.
* Yet another time, there was one piece of plastic on our floor and he came out of his office, ordered we stopped every single machine in the factory, and then finally he told us the stoppage was because of that one piece of plastic.

I could go on and on, but there were insane, time wasting, money consuming rules we had to follow that increased the price of our product and killed our productivity. Did I mention this guy makes $100,000 a year plus benefits?

[Anti Federalist]

Slippery Slope Fallacy

If you think that's a "fallacy", meaning a false premise, then we're just wasting our time here.

We're living the nightmare of the "slippery slope" and government "mission creep" every day.

It's a logical, linear progression that is very clear, you give government the authority to restrict and regulate air travel, and eventually, you'll have sweaty government goons feeling up pre pubescent children at airports, and coming soon to subways, buses, highways checkpoints, shopping malls and any large gathering of people.

And if not specifically mentioned in this bill, since people raised nine kinds of holy hell about it, rest assured, it will be in the next bill, if government has the authority to regulate food production, then why should it not regulate it right down to your backyard garden? That's food production, isn't it?

Twenty years ago, people like you were mocking people like me, when we told you that government would regulate your toilet or ban your light bulbs or ban smoking pretty much everywhere or setting up roadblocks to ticket and arrest people for not wearing seatbelts, among a hundred other things.

That's what government is, it's what it does, it's all it knows, growth and power for growth and power's sake.

[speciallyblend]

I will make it easy for axis mundi I will follow just laws and i will not follow unjust laws! I think I can figure out the difference without any help from the domestic terrorists aka the us gov thanks to God/Higher Being/ or what ever makes you comfy in life!!! Stay the hell out of My Garden is all i can let the domestic terrorists know!!
I know the difference between right and wrong something the us gov lost credibility on years and years ago!!

[AxisMundi]

I did not work for the FDA, I worked for a medical device manufacturer, which is regulated by the FDA. They have numerous and massive problems internally, and a very poor grasp on science to boot. They stifle innovation and justify their existence with poor measures that can actually harm safety, efficiency and function in a manner that merely strikes fear into a business, but does not improve it in any way.

Perhaps this is too specific to be understandable, but two examples: 1. The auditor who was "investigating" the environmental lab that I ran at one point declared all of my samples to be contaminated with fungus--meanwhile it was stress on plastic, and I had to take a week from my regular duties to prove that it was not fungus. And this douchebag was allegedly a microbiologist...who couldn't tell the difference between stressed plastic and fungus. He was angry at being "humiliated" and targeted my lab for anything and everything after that.

In another round, I had changed the quality control procedure for testing an antibiotic cocktail used in the detection of tuberculosis. They shut down our production for a week because they didn't understand the statistics or the science behind it. The company went on backorder and the third-world countries who rely on the product couldn't get it, because they froze sales. I had to, yet again, take another week and dumb my research down so they could understand it. Who knows what effect that had on actual people--did people die because of their bull$#@!? I don't know...but they certainly didn't give a $#@! when I mentioned how many thousands of people relied on this testing in order to get treated.

Moral of the story is that they aren't actually looking to save lives, they're looking to justify their existence and "get" someone. Very much like cops....it's a "score" to harm a company--and I'm sure there's payoffs as well, for those companies who are operating unsafely.

In my experience, gov't agencies and facilities have to do these things so they don't end up on the chopping block when it comes to funding, whether you're the TSA, the FDA or the FBI--the structure needs to change dramatically.

Though I will say that NIST (for all their flaws in other areas) makes really good analytical sample standards to calibrate equipment with--but they're outrageously expensive, of course.

I stand corrected, having reviewed your post and noticing "worked with the FDA" and not "worked for".

However, your personal anecdotes merely highlight the need for better trained investigators.

And yes, I have indeed worked with the FDA as well, one of the reasons I support this bill.

I sincerely hope it will result in better trained inspectors.

[AxisMundi]

If you think that's a "fallacy", meaning a false premise, then we're just wasting our time here.

We're living the nightmare of the "slippery slope" and government "mission creep" every day.

It's a logical, linear progression that is very clear, you give government the authority to restrict and regulate air travel, and eventually, you'll have sweaty government goons feeling up pre pubescent children at airports, and coming soon to subways, buses, highways checkpoints, shopping malls and any large gathering of people.

And if not specifically mentioned in this bill, since people raised nine kinds of holy hell about it, rest assured, it will be in the next bill, if government has the authority to regulate food production, then why should it not regulate it right down to your backyard garden? That's food production, isn't it?

Twenty years ago, people like you were mocking people like me, when we told you that government would regulate your toilet or ban your light bulbs or ban smoking pretty much everywhere or setting up roadblocks to ticket and arrest people for not wearing seatbelts, among a hundred other things.

That's what government is, it's what it does, it's all it knows, growth and power for growth and power's sake.

You indulge freely in this fallacy exercise.

1. The Feds have been regulating air safety for nearly a century.
2. The current TSA policies were put in place due to terrorist activities, not some black helicopter, Catcher in the Rye buying conspiracy. And as long as the American public en large puts up with it, the policies will remain in place.

I've inundated my congress-critters with email and snail-mail. What have you done?

And once again you've put your skis on and zipped down the slippery slope fallacy.

People raised holy hell to get language removed from the food safety bill. What in your hell makes you think people won't raise hell again?