Shame on you Dave for thinking that I initiated it. The topic was already off
of cruising, and I bent it back to something that had to do with cruising
which is the impending loss of the free internet based weather services.

You have the right to your opinion, and you've stated it. Others have
the right to their opinions, and they've stated them. You seem to want
to take things back to where they were before the internet made free
dissemination of government data inexpensive for the government to provide.

Are you being paid to engage in this discussion? Do you have a conflict of
interest that you ethically ought to disclose to the newsgroup?
Are you employed by or do you have a financial interest in one of the for
profit weather services that these new bills would financially help? Are
you employed by one of the congressmen or senators who have introduced these
bills?

Can you explain rationally your objection to the government making tax funded
information that they already collect available over the internet?? The only
additional cost to the governement is for the web sites. Do you really want to
see the US Government provide _less_ services when the services are inexpensive
and arguably save lives of mariners and pilots??

What you seem to be saying is "Lets go back to the good ole days when those with
unlimited pocketbooks had access to all the weather information that they wanted
to pay for. The biz jet and megayacht set never complained about having to pay
for these services. Who cares if Joe Shmoe gets his family killed in his 4-seat
Piper Warrior? Who cares if Bob Smith and his fishing buddies end up missing along
with their 29' bay boat? You know you really shouldn't be out there if you can't
afford to pay the freight for first class weather info. Who cares if Sally Jones
and her family get killed in a tornado when they could have watched it coming in
real time on their DSL connection and known to get out??"

I'm sure that Sally would have signed up for a paid weather subscription if she'd
realized that it was a matter of life or death.

Cmon now... Explain yourself and you'll get a fair hearing. Otherwise shame
on you for insulting the members of this forum and wasting our time with your
blather.

Don W.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:54:56 -0400, DSK said:


Let's try and
keep this one on topic, just a little bit.


Shame on Don W for initiating a political discussion.

"DSK" wrote
But you are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it. The proposal
is not private funding of the weather services, but to continue to use
tax money for weather services, which will then be given *only* to
for-profit weather advisors, and sold to you... in other words, everyone
will pay for it, those who use it will pay twice, and those who are
smiled on by our benevolent gov't are guaranteed a profit.

Don't they do this with maps already?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:27:57 -0400, "Vito" said:

unless there is some prohibition in the Constitution or in
underlying common law then "real Constitutional judges" would have to
rule
as the majority just did.

Wrong premise, Vito. Until this ruling there was no common understanding
that taking one man's property and giving it to another private individual
because you prefer the use he intends to make of it has not been regarded
as
equivalent to "public use."

As I understand it the Constitution grants only certain powers to the
federal government, and forbids others to states. For example, it says that
no private property may be taken without just compensation. As far as I can
find there is no "public use" restriction on what local, state or federal
governments do with the property once they have "justly" compensated the
owners. In fact LBJ's "Urban Renewal" took (bought) private property then
gave it to favored developers. Ergo, "real Constitutional judges" would have
to rule as the majority just did.

If that's not right then we need to pass laws or even amend the Constitution
to forbid it. My only point is that strict interpretation of the
Constitution does not seem to forbid it.

"Dave" wrote

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:18:22 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
said:

That is pretty simple. Now what part do you not understand?

You've been reading too many propaganda sheets. Actually, the intent is to
restore the policy the NWS had in effect from 1991 to 2004, under which it
would provide basic information but would not compete with private
industry
in providing detailed analyses being provided by commercial services such
as
Accu-weather. In 2004 the weather service decided to change that policy
and
use our tax dollars to go into competition with the private sector
providers.

I am reading Mr. Santorum's bill period and it clearly robs the public of
the data that it has paid for and gives it free of charge exclusively to the
private companies of his State.

The 1991 NWS policy was just that, a policy. Not a law. In 2002, under the
Shrub's administration, that policy was criticized because it is a violation
of the Paperwork Reduction and Management of Federal Resources Act of 1995.
That LAW requires "all Federal agencies make their information available in
commonly accepted formats and distribute it over publicly accessible means,
such as the internet." In 2004 the NWS did nothing but follow the
recommendations of a non-partisan study commissioned by the Congress. The
primary recommendation of that study was that the NWS should improve access
by the public to the data. The NWS did it and did it well at a minimum
cost.

Now, because a Federal agency did its job to well it gets slapped down and
we loose a valuable resource that we will continue to pay for. If you think
that is the path to good government you deserve what you get.


--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:37:02 -0700, Dave wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere said:

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

On the contrary, it's an example of what happens when an administration is
so eager to appoint someone acceptable to the other side of the aisle that
they pay insufficient attention to a judge's fidelity to the Constitution.
David Souter was a great mistake, and Justice O'Connor doesn't seem to
appreciate the difference between a judge and a legislator.


Right.

The first concern of every administration is what is "acceptable to the other
side of the aisle".

Like I said, facts don't matter to those who create their own reality.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:20:02 -0700, Dave wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:46:38 -0400, DSK said:

On the contrary, it's an example of what happens when an administration is
so eager to appoint someone acceptable to the other side of the aisle that
they pay insufficient attention to a judge's fidelity to the Constitution.

Ah yes, the executive shouldn't be afraid to TRAMPLE the minority... and
also any members of his own party who are insufficiently inflexible,
doctrinaire, and ideology-driven.

TRAMPLE= what you call a majority vote when you're in the minority.
OBSTRUCT= what you call it when you're in the majority and don't get to
vote.
INVLEXIBLE, DOCTRINAIRE AND IDEOLOGY-DRIVEN= what you call someone who sees
things differently from the way you see them.
SPENDING= what you call it when you don't like what money is going for.
INVESTMENT= what you call it when you do like what money is going for

The only way America can remain FREE is if we have an executive who rams
his choices down the throats of those who are charged by the
Constitution to review & approve.

Doug, the words are advise and consent, not review and approve. Big
difference. Judges are appointed by the chief executive, not by 2/5 of the
Senate.

If you would advise me without REVIEWING relevant facts, your advise would be
worthless, mere uninformed opinion.

To "advise" implies "prior review".

Consent:
1 : to give assent or approval

Yeah, "consent" not "approval". BIG difference.

Judges are appointed by the chief executive WITH THE ADVISE AND CONSENT of
the senate, not merely, "by the chief executive".

Big difference.

And by all means, let's have more politics in *this* newsgroup too. Lots
of name calling, too. We just don't seem to have enough of it elsewhere.

???????

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:24:42 -0700, WaIIy wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere
wrote:

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

I guess, "facts" don't matter to those who create their own reality.

Oh boy, check the records of the SC Justices.

This was clearly a liberal decision.

Call it any name you want, Wally.

To me, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless.

For example, Bush claims to be a "Conservative", who just happens to believe
in a strong central government, weakened state's rights, blundering into
international entanglements, and deficit spending (all "Liberal" positions).

The FACT is that Republicans (whether you consider them "liberal" or
"conservative"), appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices.

THEREFORE, when someone says, "Now maybe you Demorat dufus's will listen,
when we Repub's want to appoint some real Constitutional Judges to the
Supreme Court.......", as if to say "look what happens when Democrats appoint
Judges to the SC", I have to point out that REPUBLICANS appointing Judges to
the Supreme Court is WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

This was my only point. I had no intention to characterize the court's
decision.

Though, in my opinion, the decision was another in a long line of decisions
that increase the power of government at the expense of individuals and the
Constitutional rights the court was SUPPOSED to protect.

"Dave" wrote
I direct your attention to the text of the Fifth Amendment. The public use
restriction of that Amendment has its roots in the Magna Charta, and the
courts have held that a legislative act transferring private property from
one individual to another (as opposed to taking the property for a public
use) are void.


" nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation. "

So, is fixing up the town by replacing bad parts with good a "public use"?
There is a long history of land grabs for private use going back to
railroads being given sections of land along their tracks and LBJ's "urban
renewal" scheme in which "blighted" private property was condemned then
handed to whatever developer offered the "best" use.

The historic buildings comprising downtown Rockville, Md., were condemned,
purchased using tax money then raised and the land sold to a developer for
pennies on the dollar to build a mall. Dozens of successful, tax paying
family businesses leasing space in the old town went broke waiting for the
mall so when it was finally done it sat empty and paid little or no taxes.
This was 30+ years ago.

I don't say any of it is/was morally right, but it happened and set
precidents and, since the plaintives cannot rely on the court, they need to
lobby their legislatures. I suspect that in the real world where we have the
best government money can buy they're screwed.

"Paul Revere" wrote
Dave wrote
Paul Revere said:

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision
is an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

On the contrary, it's an example of what happens when an administration
is
so eager to appoint someone acceptable to the other side of the aisle
.....

This may or may not have been true "once upon a time" but the people running
the GOP are no longer constitutional conservatives like, say, Barry
Goldwater. They have no desire to appoint "real Constitutional Judges" to
the Supreme Court or any other court. Their only goal is to pack the courts
with judges who believe that their churches trump the Constitution. And,
since the "other side of the aisle" lacks the votes to stop them, they
intend to appoint whoever they please. Won't be long before your kids or
grandkids will be forced to say good Baptist, Catholic or Mormon prayers
(depending where they live) in school daily. It won't hurt them to chant
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, ...." will it?

Dave wrote:

Having spent 35 years dealing with guvmint bureaucrats of various stripes, I
want to have as few tasks performed by them as possible, particularly when
the job can be done by private industry. The contrast with for-profit
enterprises is stark.

I soloed my first airplane in 1973 (age 16), and I've been involved with general
aviation ever since. That is ~32 years of watching developments in weather reporting,
and reading accident reports. Also, a family member was/is an accident investigator
for the FAA. My considered opinion is that governement funded internet weather services
provided by the NWS help make aviation and boating activities more safe, and lead
to less fatal accidents involving airplanes and boats. A secondary opinion is that
these services should be encouraged and expanded, not thrown into the private sector.

BTW, since this is a boating forum, I've also been a boatowner for the last 18 years,
and a sailboat owner for about 7 years.

Let me ask you a second time since you dodged this question in your response:

Can you explain rationally your objection to the government making tax funded
information that they already collect available over the internet?? The only
additional cost to the governement is for the web sites. Do you really want to
see the US Government provide _less_ services when the services are inexpensive
and arguably save lives of mariners and pilots??

your response:

You clearly haven't bothered to learn the facts. After you do, come back and
we can talk about it.

I'll ignore this condescending statement, and ask YOU to explain your background
and your 35 years dealing with the "guvmint". I've had a few years of dealing with
the US "guvmint" myself. So have quite a few others on this forum.

So far you haven't provided much in the way of arguments for your point of view.

Don W.