Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21   Report Post  
Eric Schneider
 
Posts: n/a
Default

They responded by indicating that the bill has been sent to committee and
they would take my concerns into consideration if/when the bill is presented
to the full senate.

Eric Schneider


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:flEEe.176065$sy6.6710@lakeread04...
"Eric Schneider" wrote

Send them an email. That's what I did and have received replies from

both
(probably their staffers). Due to enhanced postal security my Senators
have
indicated they prefer email.


I would be interested to know how they responded. Both Georgia Senators
responded with mealy mouthed BS. Either they don't have a clue what the
bill says or they are waiting for instructions from the Republican
leadership.

--
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





  #22   Report Post  
Geoff Schultz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

WaIIy wrote in
:

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:33:01 -0500, Geoff Schultz
wrote:

I can not fathom why anyone would support this bill, unless they're in
the pocket of some company who would benefit from the NWS being
prohibited from disseminating these forecasts.


Yup, an insult usually gets great results.

You might want to rethink your letter.


I guess that I don't see this as an insult. It's calling things the way
that I see them. Perhaps you think that politicians should be treated with
kid gloves. I don't. It might even get a smile from their staffers. :-)
You know that the actual senator will never read the e-mail.

-- Geoff
  #23   Report Post  
Glenn Ashmore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Eric Schneider" wrote

They responded by indicating that the bill has been sent to committee and
they would take my concerns into consideration if/when the bill is
presented
to the full senate.


That is almost word for word what mine wrote except that they quoted from
the nice sounding first paragraph of the bill and ignored restrictions in
the second.

--
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


  #24   Report Post  
Glenn Ashmore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"WaIIy" wrote

I see, Glenn.... all the democratic senators are against it?

Wake up.


As a mater of fact, yes. Of the 27 Senator who have gone on record against
the bill all have been Democrats. To date, no Republican senators have
spoken out against the bill.

--
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


  #25   Report Post  
Glenn Ashmore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

WaIIy" wrote

Do you have a url about the ones against it?
I couldn't find anything.


Not everything is on the web but if you break away from the tube every now
and then and put a little effort into it it is not hard to find out. I have
been actively following this bill since April when it was introduced. I
read newspapers and call around to lobbyist and political committees. Thus
far I have talked to government relations people at: the NWS Employee's
Union, Boat US, National Marine Manufacturers Association, National Boating
Foundation and the AOPA. As of my last poll on June 29 the AOPA claims 31
Democrats. The others say 27. All have found the Republican senators to be
uniformly non-committal on the subject.

--
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





  #26   Report Post  
Larry
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:ZsEEe.176066$sy6.72742@lakeread04:

because they figure that Congress is bought and paid for anyway..


And, they'd be correct...

--
Larry
  #27   Report Post  
mickey
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm glad to see this bill is of interest to a few people, even if we
are just a few. I'd like to point out that the BoatUS website's
article has a link to a sample letter which you can use to send to your
congressperson. (Did I mention I live in DC so I don't have any such
luxury?) I'm including the text here without permission from BoatUS.
You can find a word file on this link:
http://www.boatus.com/gov/Sample786ltr.doc
which is from this article:
http://www.boatus.com/gov/sb786.htm
The text is at the end.

As a matter of personal opinion, I'd like to say that what I find most
disturbing about this bill is that it does not limit the types of data,
files, forecasts, etc. that NOAA will provide. It only limits the
dissemination fo that information. In other words, NOAA will likely
continue to produce the same files and forecasts that we are used
to--but they will only be available to private, for-profit companies.
So, all taxpayer-funded NOAA work will no longer be available to the
public for free, but will continue to be available to for-profit
companies (assumedly for free). As I said on my last post, I do not
mind paying for weather. (In fact, I _do_ pay for weather, and by that
I mean I pay in cold cash, not in seeing ads.) But I feel that if I
pay a company for weather, I expect them to do their own legwork and
provide me with their own analysis--I certainly don't want to pay them
for files which they have for free.

on a different note, There was a post herea bout an alternative to the
recently-purchased WeatherMatrix...does someone know what it is?

The text from BoatUS:
--start of letter--
Sample letter Regarding S. 786 Weather Bill

The Honorable Sen. ________
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator ________:

I am writing to ask you to oppose S. 786, legislation introduced by
Sen. Rick Santorum that calls for giving private, commercially operated
weather services exclusive access to weather data now developed by the
National Weather Service.

Such a drastic change in the public's access to critical weather
information could endanger the safety of boat owners who routinely rely
on this information to make basic decisions about when to head out of
port or when to return.

The bill would limit the National Weather Service to issuing severe
weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property.
This would be detrimental to mariners because "non-emergency"
weather data such as wind speed, tides, currents and the movement of
fronts that would not be considered "severe" or life threatening
for those on land could easily lead to hazardous conditions at sea.

Both recreational and commercial mariners rely on NOAA Weather Radio
for constant updates on conditions and under the Santorum bill; these
would be halted and become the exclusive domain of commercial
providers. Boaters would be required to invest in special equipment and
pay costly subscription fees for a commercial service or go without.
One existing service costs $1,500 for the receiver and $695 a year to
subscribe.

Furthermore, S. 786 will not save the federal government money because
the National Weather Service will still have to collect and monitor all
the same weather data in order to only issuing warnings of severe
weather. Boat owners, like all citizens, would be paying twice for the
same information, once in their taxes to support the Weather Service
and again to buy weather forecasts from a private provider. This, in
our opinion, would set a bad precedent for many other federal services.


S. 786 is ill-conceived legislation that would establish a dangerous
precedent. I urge you to oppose this legislation and vote against it
should it be considered in committee or on the floor.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,

_____________

--end of letter--

  #28   Report Post  
Don W
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Although its good to have a starting point, I would advise against
copying someone elses boilerplate. From what I've read some in
congress feel that if you don't care enough to take the time to
write your own letter then you don't care very much.

Also, there are professional organizations that inundate congress with
copied letters in much the same way that professional spammers hit
our email. The result is that copies of letters are mostly ignored.

If you are opposed to the bill, you might want to take the letter
and paraphrase it.

Don W.

mickey wrote:
snip

Sample letter Regarding S. 786 Weather Bill

The Honorable Sen. ________
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator ________:

I am writing to ask you to oppose S. 786, legislation introduced by
Sen. Rick Santorum that calls for giving private, commercially operated
weather services exclusive access to weather data now developed by the
National Weather Service.

Such a drastic change in the public's access to critical weather
information could endanger the safety of boat owners who routinely rely
on this information to make basic decisions about when to head out of
port or when to return.

The bill would limit the National Weather Service to issuing severe
weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property.
This would be detrimental to mariners because "non-emergency"
weather data such as wind speed, tides, currents and the movement of
fronts that would not be considered "severe" or life threatening
for those on land could easily lead to hazardous conditions at sea.

Both recreational and commercial mariners rely on NOAA Weather Radio
for constant updates on conditions and under the Santorum bill; these
would be halted and become the exclusive domain of commercial
providers. Boaters would be required to invest in special equipment and
pay costly subscription fees for a commercial service or go without.
One existing service costs $1,500 for the receiver and $695 a year to
subscribe.

Furthermore, S. 786 will not save the federal government money because
the National Weather Service will still have to collect and monitor all
the same weather data in order to only issuing warnings of severe
weather. Boat owners, like all citizens, would be paying twice for the
same information, once in their taxes to support the Weather Service
and again to buy weather forecasts from a private provider. This, in
our opinion, would set a bad precedent for many other federal services.


S. 786 is ill-conceived legislation that would establish a dangerous
precedent. I urge you to oppose this legislation and vote against it
should it be considered in committee or on the floor.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,


  #29   Report Post  
mickey
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don,
I agree. In fact, there was a show on NPR today about just that. It
seems that even a personalized note ahead of the form letter will
attract attention. The idea is to personalize the message so the
reader knows it's coming from an actual person rather than a spamming
organization.

mickey

Don W wrote:
Although its good to have a starting point, I would advise against
copying someone elses boilerplate. From what I've read some in
congress feel that if you don't care enough to take the time to
write your own letter then you don't care very much.

Also, there are professional organizations that inundate congress with
copied letters in much the same way that professional spammers hit
our email. The result is that copies of letters are mostly ignored.

If you are opposed to the bill, you might want to take the letter
and paraphrase it.

Don W.

mickey wrote:
snip

Sample letter Regarding S. 786 Weather Bill

The Honorable Sen. ________
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator ________:

I am writing to ask you to oppose S. 786, legislation introduced by
Sen. Rick Santorum that calls for giving private, commercially operated
weather services exclusive access to weather data now developed by the
National Weather Service.

Such a drastic change in the public's access to critical weather
information could endanger the safety of boat owners who routinely rely
on this information to make basic decisions about when to head out of
port or when to return.

The bill would limit the National Weather Service to issuing severe
weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property.
This would be detrimental to mariners because "non-emergency"
weather data such as wind speed, tides, currents and the movement of
fronts that would not be considered "severe" or life threatening
for those on land could easily lead to hazardous conditions at sea.

Both recreational and commercial mariners rely on NOAA Weather Radio
for constant updates on conditions and under the Santorum bill; these
would be halted and become the exclusive domain of commercial
providers. Boaters would be required to invest in special equipment and
pay costly subscription fees for a commercial service or go without.
One existing service costs $1,500 for the receiver and $695 a year to
subscribe.

Furthermore, S. 786 will not save the federal government money because
the National Weather Service will still have to collect and monitor all
the same weather data in order to only issuing warnings of severe
weather. Boat owners, like all citizens, would be paying twice for the
same information, once in their taxes to support the Weather Service
and again to buy weather forecasts from a private provider. This, in
our opinion, would set a bad precedent for many other federal services.


S. 786 is ill-conceived legislation that would establish a dangerous
precedent. I urge you to oppose this legislation and vote against it
should it be considered in committee or on the floor.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,


  #30   Report Post  
Larry
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nomen Nescio ] wrote in
:

That's how a Repub says he's going to ignore you...

These people have no idea about how to treat constituents.
Follow the Party Line, just like the Soviets did. The rich
folks and corporations continue to benefit on the backs of
the poor. Anyone who doesn't realize this nation is becoming
a Fascist government doesn't know history...


(Yawn)....doesn't matter who is in power...it's always the same.

--
Larry
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT Just for Jimcomma John H General 1 April 8th 05 05:11 PM
OT--Great headlines everywhere NOYB General 26 December 4th 03 01:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017