- Status
Another Consideration
Thanks for the posting, Rick. In addition to each of our own personal readings of the proposed law and its implications, I suggest that we consider that in many cases it is helpful in making up your mind to see which organizations, who have a LOT more resources than we as individuals do, are opposed to or supportive of certain issues. Hmm, BoatUS and non-commercial fliers aren't in favor. Wonder why... Stu
Thanks for the posting, Rick. In addition to each of our own personal readings of the proposed law and its implications, I suggest that we consider that in many cases it is helpful in making up your mind to see which organizations, who have a LOT more resources than we as individuals do, are opposed to or supportive of certain issues. Hmm, BoatUS and non-commercial fliers aren't in favor. Wonder why... Stu
Nothing is free
I keep reading "a free service." Please folks nothing is free (TAXES). Anything our gov't does for us is waay overpriced.
I keep reading "a free service." Please folks nothing is free (TAXES). Anything our gov't does for us is waay overpriced.
Hurricanes 3, Ground 0
Here in Polk County, Florida, we survived 3 hurricanes last year: Charley, Frances and Jeanne. http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/27/State/Third_blow_to_Polk_is.shtml My favorite free internet weather resources: Intellicast http://www.intellicast.com/ Weather.com http://www.weather.com/ NOAA http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ BoatUS (just links to NOAA) http://www.boatus.com/hurricanes/tracking.asp Hurricane Alley http://www.hurricanealley.net/ If I spent any time in the open ocean, I would definitely subscribe to one of the satelite weather services such as: http://onboard.weather.com/twcmarine/demo/default.asp Free is rarely worth what you pay for it! Happy sails *_/), MArk
Here in Polk County, Florida, we survived 3 hurricanes last year: Charley, Frances and Jeanne. http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/27/State/Third_blow_to_Polk_is.shtml My favorite free internet weather resources: Intellicast http://www.intellicast.com/ Weather.com http://www.weather.com/ NOAA http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ BoatUS (just links to NOAA) http://www.boatus.com/hurricanes/tracking.asp Hurricane Alley http://www.hurricanealley.net/ If I spent any time in the open ocean, I would definitely subscribe to one of the satelite weather services such as: http://onboard.weather.com/twcmarine/demo/default.asp Free is rarely worth what you pay for it! Happy sails *_/), MArk
A Different Opinion
I found these Florida newspapers with editorials against S786. Fair Winds, Clyde Florida newspapers against S786 Florida Today Columnist http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050426/COLUMNISTS0106/504260307/1047/LIFE Palm Beach Post Editorial http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/editorial/entries/2005/04/floridians_would_pay_for_private_weather_news.html St. Petersburg Times Editorial http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/01/Opinion/Forecast_for_a_fee.shtml
I found these Florida newspapers with editorials against S786. Fair Winds, Clyde Florida newspapers against S786 Florida Today Columnist http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050426/COLUMNISTS0106/504260307/1047/LIFE Palm Beach Post Editorial http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/editorial/entries/2005/04/floridians_would_pay_for_private_weather_news.html St. Petersburg Times Editorial http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/01/Opinion/Forecast_for_a_fee.shtml
S. 786 IS1S a good thing
We in Florida are very familiar with those "news" papers you sited, Clyde. They each print the DNC talking points regardless of the facts. The actual bill does just the opposite of what these "editorialists" would like you to believe. It reinstates the mandates that were in effect from 1948 to December 2004. But don't take my word for it either. Unlike those editor and columnists, you can read it for yourself. It's not long (single page) or complicated. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.786: Fact is, S. 786 SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS the NWS and NOAA from entering into a contract with a private company that would delay dissemination of weather information to the public. MArk
We in Florida are very familiar with those "news" papers you sited, Clyde. They each print the DNC talking points regardless of the facts. The actual bill does just the opposite of what these "editorialists" would like you to believe. It reinstates the mandates that were in effect from 1948 to December 2004. But don't take my word for it either. Unlike those editor and columnists, you can read it for yourself. It's not long (single page) or complicated. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.786: Fact is, S. 786 SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS the NWS and NOAA from entering into a contract with a private company that would delay dissemination of weather information to the public. MArk
Why change what's been working?
I seen no reason to limit, change or modify the way NOAA has been doing its weather reporting. The only editorials that I can find on the Internet are against this bill. I haven't found any newspapers that support this bill on the Internet. Senator Santorum is the sole sponsor of this bill. The largest commercial weather service company is in his district and he is running for re-election. No other senators have publicly come forward and supported this bill. If this was such a humanitarian issue where taxpayer money could be saved, senators from both sides would be fighting each other to get their names associated with this bill. I see no need to change the way NOAA has been providing weather information to recreational sailors, private pilots, surfers, skiers, hikers, small farmers, small ranchers, and outdoors people. Sure, a commercial company can make money providing this service for a charge when the infrastructure that the taxpayer has paid for is already in place and has been working for a long time. If the information NOAA is providing to the public competes with the commercial sector, so what. If people want to go first class and spend their money on the private sector for weather information, let them. But don't give the private weather sector a monopoly by having NOAA stop providing general weather information to the public. The government wastes more money on other issues, having a few extra government meteorologists providing weather information is a drop in the bucket. The idea that the government will save the money and will use it for something useful is a fallacy. Everyone has an opinion and a vote, I believe that this bill only supports a small commercial sector and won't help the public sector. Politics is politics, whenever politicians gets involve in a good thing, the good thing usually turns into something completely different Fair Winds, Clyde
I seen no reason to limit, change or modify the way NOAA has been doing its weather reporting. The only editorials that I can find on the Internet are against this bill. I haven't found any newspapers that support this bill on the Internet. Senator Santorum is the sole sponsor of this bill. The largest commercial weather service company is in his district and he is running for re-election. No other senators have publicly come forward and supported this bill. If this was such a humanitarian issue where taxpayer money could be saved, senators from both sides would be fighting each other to get their names associated with this bill. I see no need to change the way NOAA has been providing weather information to recreational sailors, private pilots, surfers, skiers, hikers, small farmers, small ranchers, and outdoors people. Sure, a commercial company can make money providing this service for a charge when the infrastructure that the taxpayer has paid for is already in place and has been working for a long time. If the information NOAA is providing to the public competes with the commercial sector, so what. If people want to go first class and spend their money on the private sector for weather information, let them. But don't give the private weather sector a monopoly by having NOAA stop providing general weather information to the public. The government wastes more money on other issues, having a few extra government meteorologists providing weather information is a drop in the bucket. The idea that the government will save the money and will use it for something useful is a fallacy. Everyone has an opinion and a vote, I believe that this bill only supports a small commercial sector and won't help the public sector. Politics is politics, whenever politicians gets involve in a good thing, the good thing usually turns into something completely different Fair Winds, Clyde
I am sorry, I can't take it anymore.
We are all adults and if you are not Have your father or mother read this. Seriously, I am not pushing one way or another. I know my stance on this. I will not impose it on anyone. My point from the beginning is lets quit the politics as American citizens. I really don't care who wrote this bill, my concern is that we as Americans will have no problem slandering someone without facts and degrading our system that runs our country. Point #1: you don't like this bill? Attack the bill. Point#2: If you cannot read and understand this bill, Don't rely on others to translate it. Opinions may come from someone that doesn't understand it either but is paid to write about it. Point#3: It would be great if we as Americans would look at each Bill being written and ask why it was written from the author of the bill. Get it in writting and if the bill turns out to be something different, then expose the author for a bad bill. Problem with much that has been written about this bill, including some of my initial responses, is they are WRONG.( They don't pay private industry for info. they generate their own. No one picked up on that.) RichH posted the intent that the author of the Bill had, which was to focus NOAA and NWS on what they have done in the past and asking them to improve the serice that they have provided. He also stated that it did affect jobs. How much more honest could he be. All of the sports organizations noted (BY the way when you say these names it doesn't mean that everyone is in agreement.) Right here sailors don't agree and I am sure not all of any sport agrees. When someone says something is not free anymore, YES the kneejerk reaction is to reject the idea. The Author of this bill did not say to eliminate NOAA nor NWS broadcasts. Politically, someone else has. I like people like John McCain that realize that we elected a congress (Majority or not) to do a job and if it that job was not done how could they justify their positions in our government. What I am saying, if you oppose this Bill oppose it for the bill not for the author or the party or the spin. Then as americans we will be doing our jobs. I am sorry to all here that my previous words that I would not respond again was broken. Integrity is all we own as individuals. I thought that I was done. r.w.landau
We are all adults and if you are not Have your father or mother read this. Seriously, I am not pushing one way or another. I know my stance on this. I will not impose it on anyone. My point from the beginning is lets quit the politics as American citizens. I really don't care who wrote this bill, my concern is that we as Americans will have no problem slandering someone without facts and degrading our system that runs our country. Point #1: you don't like this bill? Attack the bill. Point#2: If you cannot read and understand this bill, Don't rely on others to translate it. Opinions may come from someone that doesn't understand it either but is paid to write about it. Point#3: It would be great if we as Americans would look at each Bill being written and ask why it was written from the author of the bill. Get it in writting and if the bill turns out to be something different, then expose the author for a bad bill. Problem with much that has been written about this bill, including some of my initial responses, is they are WRONG.( They don't pay private industry for info. they generate their own. No one picked up on that.) RichH posted the intent that the author of the Bill had, which was to focus NOAA and NWS on what they have done in the past and asking them to improve the serice that they have provided. He also stated that it did affect jobs. How much more honest could he be. All of the sports organizations noted (BY the way when you say these names it doesn't mean that everyone is in agreement.) Right here sailors don't agree and I am sure not all of any sport agrees. When someone says something is not free anymore, YES the kneejerk reaction is to reject the idea. The Author of this bill did not say to eliminate NOAA nor NWS broadcasts. Politically, someone else has. I like people like John McCain that realize that we elected a congress (Majority or not) to do a job and if it that job was not done how could they justify their positions in our government. What I am saying, if you oppose this Bill oppose it for the bill not for the author or the party or the spin. Then as americans we will be doing our jobs. I am sorry to all here that my previous words that I would not respond again was broken. Integrity is all we own as individuals. I thought that I was done. r.w.landau
R.W.!
Morning: To start with, your insinuations that everyone that does not agree with you needs help with reading or understanding is not appreciated, more than a little sarcastic, and is unnecessary. Your point #1 is exactly what's going on here and pretty much in proper fashion. Your point #2 lays directly in the lap of the folks that write these bills and other legal documents. They are hard to understand and can reverse themselves several times and leave no one that reads them with a clear understanding of what the exact intent is. I've often suspected that this is done on purpose to leave some wiggle room just in the event that the politician needs deniability in the event something he/she has done costs them votes. We don't know what Santorum's true intentions are, but it is apparent, based on the comments made that everyone pretty much has a suspicion of personal interest. I'm kind of cloudy about point 3, it kind of wanders around. There has been good honest debate on this bill going on here. It would be hard to debate any thing of this nature without getting into politics a little, but there has been very little finger pointing about party preference and apparently Phil somewhat agrees with me and others due to the fact he hasn't hit the delete button. R.W. just because most of the posters disagree with you does not mean that they can't read, nor does it mean that they are below average in their ability to think. It just means that they disagree with your viewpoint and they also don't live in Pennsylvania. That's my last word on this matter. Thanks Phil!
Morning: To start with, your insinuations that everyone that does not agree with you needs help with reading or understanding is not appreciated, more than a little sarcastic, and is unnecessary. Your point #1 is exactly what's going on here and pretty much in proper fashion. Your point #2 lays directly in the lap of the folks that write these bills and other legal documents. They are hard to understand and can reverse themselves several times and leave no one that reads them with a clear understanding of what the exact intent is. I've often suspected that this is done on purpose to leave some wiggle room just in the event that the politician needs deniability in the event something he/she has done costs them votes. We don't know what Santorum's true intentions are, but it is apparent, based on the comments made that everyone pretty much has a suspicion of personal interest. I'm kind of cloudy about point 3, it kind of wanders around. There has been good honest debate on this bill going on here. It would be hard to debate any thing of this nature without getting into politics a little, but there has been very little finger pointing about party preference and apparently Phil somewhat agrees with me and others due to the fact he hasn't hit the delete button. R.W. just because most of the posters disagree with you does not mean that they can't read, nor does it mean that they are below average in their ability to think. It just means that they disagree with your viewpoint and they also don't live in Pennsylvania. That's my last word on this matter. Thanks Phil!
J.B.
I do like your greetings. J.B. Good afternoon. I have expressed to this forum on more than one occasion that I am a small contractor and deal mightily with the written word. I have to work at spelling and I will read a response or reply two or three times to make sure I understand the question or reply. Then it takes me minimum 20 minutes to reply to try to express what my response is and correct the spelling the editing my original post to tune it. I am not making light of anyone. J.B. Every time a politicians name is next to a response, you are playing politics. You have earmarked it as a republican or democratic issue. Yes, I did write some sarcasm ( it took me five minutes to spell sarcasm by the way) it was not to insult but a wake up call. I was one that likes to listen to opinions and reviews until my son challenged me on an issue and I started to read issues like this. ( Not for fun reading but when they come up. ) My point here is that many people reading ( or in organizations that the officers have made stances on this bill, heck the bill is not really on the floor yet so my guess is that most senators and their staffs have not read the bill) this thread have still not read the BILL. The author of this bill stated that 400 jobs were on the line. Would you not want someone to look into why your job might be lost? Then the author (my veiw after reading the Bill) says why are 400 jobs going to be lost? Then sees it is NOAA and NWS threatening to compete with private companies. More investigation finds that NOAA might be better off upgrading and improving thier current system. NOAA nor NWS will stop forcasting and the availability will be the same as it was and is. However this Bill would charge NOAA and NWS to be better than what they are now. That NOAA web site won't change but it may get better. And you won't have to pay for it and yes it is a government agency and we already pay for it. The weather you watch on TV will not cost you anymore either. I asked a good friend this weekend if he has heard about this Bill 786. He had an angry face and replied, I cannot believe that they are going to shut NOAA down. He admittedly has not read the bill and listened to hearsay. I am saying that Republican or Democrate issues need to be broken down to the intent and not labeled. This allows the real issue to come forth. Previously I said this could be a good thing but with the investigation I have put into it I would say, Don't shoot yourself in the foot and give up the chance that NOAA may be charged with doing a better job than they are doing now. r.w.landau
I do like your greetings. J.B. Good afternoon. I have expressed to this forum on more than one occasion that I am a small contractor and deal mightily with the written word. I have to work at spelling and I will read a response or reply two or three times to make sure I understand the question or reply. Then it takes me minimum 20 minutes to reply to try to express what my response is and correct the spelling the editing my original post to tune it. I am not making light of anyone. J.B. Every time a politicians name is next to a response, you are playing politics. You have earmarked it as a republican or democratic issue. Yes, I did write some sarcasm ( it took me five minutes to spell sarcasm by the way) it was not to insult but a wake up call. I was one that likes to listen to opinions and reviews until my son challenged me on an issue and I started to read issues like this. ( Not for fun reading but when they come up. ) My point here is that many people reading ( or in organizations that the officers have made stances on this bill, heck the bill is not really on the floor yet so my guess is that most senators and their staffs have not read the bill) this thread have still not read the BILL. The author of this bill stated that 400 jobs were on the line. Would you not want someone to look into why your job might be lost? Then the author (my veiw after reading the Bill) says why are 400 jobs going to be lost? Then sees it is NOAA and NWS threatening to compete with private companies. More investigation finds that NOAA might be better off upgrading and improving thier current system. NOAA nor NWS will stop forcasting and the availability will be the same as it was and is. However this Bill would charge NOAA and NWS to be better than what they are now. That NOAA web site won't change but it may get better. And you won't have to pay for it and yes it is a government agency and we already pay for it. The weather you watch on TV will not cost you anymore either. I asked a good friend this weekend if he has heard about this Bill 786. He had an angry face and replied, I cannot believe that they are going to shut NOAA down. He admittedly has not read the bill and listened to hearsay. I am saying that Republican or Democrate issues need to be broken down to the intent and not labeled. This allows the real issue to come forth. Previously I said this could be a good thing but with the investigation I have put into it I would say, Don't shoot yourself in the foot and give up the chance that NOAA may be charged with doing a better job than they are doing now. r.w.landau
- Status