Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Just for Jimcomma | General | |||
OT--Great headlines everywhere | General |