As a follow-up to my earlier post on the bill Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced to get the National Weather Service out of competition with commercial weather providers, a good friend of mine emailed some questions to the Senator, and received the following response:

Senator Santorum asked me to respond to your questions about S. 786, the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005. I understand that there is some confusion about the bill, Senator Santorum's motivation for introducing it, and its intended consequences.

Let me first assure you that in no way does Senator Santorum wish to "do away" with the National Weather Service. To the contrary, he wishes to strengthen the NWS and focus the agency on its core mission -- (1) maintaining a modern and effective meteorological infrastructure; (2) collecting comprehensive observational data; and (3) issuing warnings and forecasts of severe weather that imperils life and property. He also recognizes that there is a robust commercial enterprise in the United States that employs hundreds of Pennsylvanians, and that it would be nearly impossible for a business to attract advertisers, subscribers, or investors when the government is providing similar products and services for free.

Last year, NWS pulled the plug on the non-competition and non-duplication policy with the private sector. This indicates that NWS might want to expand its services into other areas already provided by the private sector. S. 786 simply restores the NWS' non-competition policy that was in effect from 1991 to December 2004. However, the legislation leaves NWS with complete and unfettered freedom to carry out its critical role of preparing and issuing severe weather warnings and forecasts designed for the protection of life and property of the general public.

As stated in the bill, the National Weather Service shall be responsible for: (1) the preparation and issuance of severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property of the general public; (2) the preparation and issuance of hydrometeorological guidance and core forecast information; and (3) the collection and exchange of meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic data and information.

This bill makes clear that severe weather information that imperils life and property is to be handled by NWS. Amateur radio operators will continue to get this information from NWS. In addition, the computer program that you use as a SKYWARN coordinator would likely continue to be available to you, as we know of no similar service offered by the commercial weather industry.

You ask if this bill calls for the NWS to cease dissemination of regular daily forecasts, weather information and climatalogical data. The NWS has always provided daily forecasts in a simple, text format. Under Senator Santorum's legislation, they should still be able to do so. What we are trying to prevent is the NWS providing more consumer friendly formats that compete with private sector offerings, for instance a "golf forecast." The simple answer is that it would require the NWS to stop disseminating regular daily forecasts, as several commercial weather services currently provide this information to the public, in most cases free of charge. However, the more detailed and specific information will continue to be distributed at taxpayer expense.

I hope this helps.

Zack Moore
Legislative Director
U.S. Senator Rick Santorum

I'm sure my friend's position as an Archbishop in the Episcopalian Church didn't hurt his chances of getting a prompt reply. But since Mr Moore's response already makes this post fairly lengthy, I'll examine it in closer detail in a follow-up post.

David Anderson informs me via email that ISOU is suffering from some technical difficulties today, but he expects (and his loyal readers hope) everything is back to normal mañana.

Bumper stickers seen on the back of a Toyota Camry this morning:

I love my country...
but I think we should start seeing other people.

Veteran for Kerry

And the one I just can't get my head around:

We flushed the Johns in 2004 (with a drawing of a US flag-patterned toilet with two hands sticking out of the bowl)

You never know what you're going to see in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Update: This was the latest post that Blogger munched on. While I was writing this last night, I worked myself up into a righteous fury by the time I got to the end. I don't think I can recapture that entirely, but I'm going to give it a shot.

Disclaimer: I have been trained by the National Weather Service to assist them in their duties as a Skywarn weather spotter, and volunteer in that role whenever severe weather hits the local area.

Disclaimer II: By the time you reach the end of this post, my calm, matter-of-fact, reportorial approach will have descended into raw emotion. [Well, it had a lot of raw emotion before Blogger ate that part. But that's another story. - Ed.] You're forewarned.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) wants the National Weather Service to get out of competition with commercial weather information providers.

Do you want a seven-day weather forecast for your ZIP code? Or hour-by-hour predictions of the temperature, wind speed, humidity and chance of rain? Or weather data beamed to your cellphone?

That information is available for free from the National Weather Service.

But under a bill pending in the U.S. Senate, it might all disappear.

The bill, introduced last week by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with companies such as AccuWeather and The Weather Channel, which offer their own forecasts through paid services and free ad-supported Web sites.

Apparently, the bill [PDF] specifically exempts forecasts which would protect "life and property," but critics say that it's worded so vaguely that there's no way to tell what NWS services would be banned.

"I believe I've paid for that data once. ... I don't want to have to pay for it again," said Scott Bradner, a technical consultant at Harvard University.

He says that as he reads the bill, a vast amount of federal weather data would be forced offline.

"The National Weather Service Web site would have to go away," Bradner said. "What would be permitted under this bill is not clear — it doesn't say. Even including hurricanes."

Naturally, not everyone interprets the bill that way.

But Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice president, said the bill would improve public safety by making the weather service devote its efforts to hurricanes, tsunamis and other dangers, rather than duplicating products already available from the private sector.

"The National Weather Service has not focused on what its core mission should be, which is protecting other people's lives and property," said Myers, whose company is based in State College, Pa. Instead, he said, "It spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, every day, producing forecasts of 'warm and sunny.'"

It's a bit tough to view Mr Myers response as objective, since he's the head of one of the handful of companies which would benefit from this bill. And is it a coincidence that his company is based in Pennsylvania and the bill was introduced by Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania?

Here's the key provision of the bill:

Section 2.(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR.—The National Weather Service shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a service or product (other than a service or product described in subsection (a)(1)(A)) [the preparation and issuance of severe weather warnings and forecasts designed for the protection of life and property of the general public.] that is or could be provided by the private sector...

So, the NWS isn't going to save any money. They're not going to close offices or stop forecasting (all to the good, mind you). They're just going to quit providing us with information that they already have.

So, the real purpose behind this bill is to benefit commercial weather services, who were established to duplicate work that the NWS was already doing. Work that NWS must continue to do just to support their governmental operations.

Senator Santorum, what are you thinking? This is clearly just blatant pandering to a very small industry, the major player of which is based in your state. All of us taxpayers are going to continue to pay for NWS operations, but we'll have to pay (directly or indirectly) to get the same information from AccuWeather.

This bill isn't intended to help America. It's going to take more money out of our pockets and give it to commercial interests who have tried to horn in on the NWS and turn a buck. If they can do that (and they've been doing that quite well for several decades now), fine. But don't make me pay for it.

Senator Santorum, you should be ashamed of yourself. Withdraw this lousy bill.

Twice in the recent past I've written long, insightful, really interesting posts (no, really!) that ended up getting eaten by the Blogger engine.

I'm frustrated. Maybe I'll be able to reconstruct tonight's post later.

As you undoubtedly know by now, the conclave of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church has selected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to be the next Pope, who has taken the name Benedict XVI.

Now, no one reads my blog to get breaking news, nor do they come here to learn anything about the Catholic Church. While I'm a Christian, I'm a Southern Baptist. While I have a benevolent attitude toward Catholics in general, and their Pope specifically, he holds no religious authority for me. The passing of Pope John Paul II and the election of his successor are merely interesting world events for me.

And yet...

I'm working from home today, and I've had cable news on the TV, softly murmuring in the background to see if a new Pope would be named today. As the smoke started streaming from the chimney atop the Sistine Chapel shortly before noon, I turned my attention to the TV to try to determine its color (black for an inconclusive vote, white for a successful election). Like the disembodied voices reporting the events, I couldn't quite tell at first if the smoke was black or white. While the smoke became whiter and whiter, the excitement and anticipation began to build in me.

As I watched the joy of the gathered crowd and heard the descriptions of people running to St Peter's Square, the emotions seeped into my heart, and tears of joy began to leak from my eyes.

What? I'm crying because a new Pope has been chosen? I don't know yet who has been elected, or have any idea what effect his ascension will have on the Catholic Church, or the world at large; I know virtually nothing about the Papacy, and the Pope has little impact on me, and I'm crying?

Admittedly, I've turned into a bit of a crybaby over the years, at least when I'm confronted with highly emotional situations. But I can't for the life of me figure out why these tears of joy (yes, I've at least figured that part out) are erupting from me.

I suppose it's because I'm happy for the Catholics, who have suffered through the recent loss of their much beloved John Paul II, and now have his successor at the head of their church. Their joy is infectious, even at a distance.

I extend my congratulations to my Catholic friends, and I join you in your prayers of thanks and supplication for the election of Benedict XVI, who arguably has the most demanding job in the world now.

It was April 15, 1969, and for sailors at Atsugi, Japan, a day that started out like many others. For 30 sailors and one Marine, the Plan of the Day was another reconnaissance flight off the eastern North Korean coast. This day, they're flying aboard Deep Sea 129 (PR-21), a Lockheed Constellation EC-121, a model known among those who loved (or hated) it as the Willy Victor.

These intrepid men were doing what they did, day after day. Little did they suspect that the People's Republic of Korea's Air Force would loose a missile at their aircraft that fateful day.

We lost all 31 dedicated men while they were faithfully serving their country. We remember you, shipmates. We honor you, shipmates. We thank you, shipmates. You gave your lives serving your countrymen.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

We thank you for your dedication and your sacrifice.

You can learn more about the sacrifices of Navy Cryptologists in the service of their country in this National Security Agency document (PDF).

I frequently conflate libertarianism with conservatism. Partly that's because I'm one of those libertarian-ish Conservatives, which could be described as wanting government to provide those things that, realistically, only government can provide, such as roads, the military, diplomacy, law enforcement, etc., while staying out of individual lives as much as possible. This latter category includes decriminalizing much drug use and avoiding (well, at this point, getting out of) the charity business, also known as Welfare. I'm realistic, though, so I view them as unattainable goals that I strive for.

Bill Ardolino has noticed a couple of discussions on the dependence of the Republican Party on libertarians, especially relatively middle-of-the-roaders like Bill and me. It seems like a lot of folks want to credit President Bush's reelection primarily to religious fundamentalists. But as Bill notes, "we're the crucial (and politically reasonable) voting block that handed Bush the election with nearly as much verve as the vaunted evangelicals." Although I'm not so sure about the "nearly" part. I guess I'm more conservative and less libertarian than Bill.

Also, Bill asked for a random hug. So Bill, here's your hug.

Now will you go out on a date with me?

No links in this post. If you get into the thick of this post and have no idea what I'm talking about, click on a link in my blogroll or something. It will only get murkier if you keep hanging around.

One thing that gets to me is something that could be described as "sibling rivalry." I'm using that term to describe what appears to be a pretty popular activity lately, at least among several of the blogs I read regularly, where bloggers who tend to agree generally on most things, start taking potshots at each other, on their own sites and in the comments of other blogs.

For those of you who are familiar with what I'm talking about, I'll point out to you that one blog, actually one person at one blog, is always in the mix. What's the common thread here?

While I tend to disagree with this person on the substance of the two subjects that have recently generated a lot more heat than light, that's to be expected. We all come to our own opinions in our own ways, rather than have them dictated from on high by Karl Rove, so that we'll all agree all the time. No, what really gets my goat is that this person, whether I agree with him or not, makes it his standard (not common, not usual, but standard — meaning, all the time) response to anyone who disagrees with him an insult. Call them "idiot" or "moron," then make often-vacuous arguments that undermine his position more than supporting it. Of course, if you try to point out that his responses are counterproductive, you just get added as a target for his ad hominem attack.

I wish things weren't this way, but it's not my call. I wish the owner of the blog in question would realize that his guest's venom undermines the attractiveness of his blog. But it's his call. Just as it's the call of his readers whether or not they continue to read.

And I wish that those folks who have taken sides, either attacking this individual or supporting him, would just stop. I wish they would limit themselves to addressing the issues instead of attacking the "other side." But that's their call.

As for me? I'll just keep reading as long as I can continue to stand it, but steer clear of the childishness my friends are displaying.

Jeff Harrell is grieving the loss of his good and faithful friend, Nelson. Those of you who have gone through similar experiences know how much Jeff is hurting right now.

Jeff, I feel for you, pardner. I cry for you. I pray for you. It's a tough time right now, and no words could ever change that.

Nelson, I wish I gotten to know you directly, rather than just reading about you. You gave Jeff, and others, much joy through your too-short life. But thanks for being a great friend to Jeff, because there were many times when you were exactly what he needed.

Rest well, Nelson.

Bill Dollinger, Washington Director for Friends of Animals, in a Letter to the Editor in today's Washington Post, reminds us that Leo Tolstoy gave us a key to eliminating war:

Leo Tolstoy, for example, once warned that as long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.

I'll freely admit I haven't read War and Peace, or even Anna Karenina, so I don't have Tolstoy's philosophy on peace floating around my head, but a Google search failed to turn up anything linking Tolstoy, slaughterhouses and battlefields. But maybe he did say something to that effect. Either he didn't mean what Dollinger ascribes to him, or he was just as loopy as Dollinger.

By the way, Dollinger was writing in response to an earlier Post article on the growing popularity of meat in the People's Republic of Takoma Park, a long-time liberal bastion in Maryland just across the DC line. Here's a representative quote from the article:

Jennifer Gillispie, 60, said she never imagined that meat consumption would become so conspicuous -- and that she would be one of the guilty ones.

The Takoma Park yoga teacher once told her most devoted students to become vegetarians. Now, she suggests meat eating as a path to karma.

Of her salad days, Gillispie said, "I was forcing my own being to do something that, clearly, that being was saying wasn't working."

Gillispie, who had been a vegetarian for more than 10 years, said she was feeling weak and unmotivated a couple of years ago and didn't know why. When two formerly vegetarian friends suggested a new diet, she figured she had nothing to lose. She went to Whole Foods, ordered half a roasted chicken and found a table.

"I said a blessing, and I asked forgiveness for the chicken. I took one bite -- and it was like all my cells exploded, 'Yes!' " Gillispie recalled. "I ate the whole thing, bones and all. I couldn't get it into my mouth fast enough. People were staring."

As a Texan, you won't find it surprising that I'm nodding my head with a knowing smile on my face, although I think she would have been better off with a nice ribeye. Anyway, in his letter, Dollinger goes on to say:

And Alice Walker sees a vegetarian diet as an essential component of achieving a peaceful world.

Alice Walker? Who's that? Oh, she's apparently a vegan activist. But I fail to see where she gets any credentials as an authority on peace. Vegetables, sure. Ask her about corn sometime. But peace? Erm, thanks, but I think I'd consult with Jimmy Carter first.

But now we know that, as long as humans continue to eat meat, there will be no peace. Yeah. Sure.

Knuckleheads like these do their movement no favors.

If you've ever wondered what David Anderson's life (well, his house, at least) is like, I've started a tour around his place while he's away for the weekend. C'mon over and check it out.

Just be careful not to trip over any bottles that may happen to be lying around.