All right, Carl. I'll go one more round with you, but keep in mind I hold you in high regard and thought I was careful to not get personal in my last post. I love debate, I love spirited discussion, and I love my country where I'm still free to participate in this sort of heady exercise rather than breaking my back under a cracked millstone until it's too dark to see in order to earn enough to feed my kid.

First, I don't need to counter your quotes from the Fair Weather report - I'm the one that brought it up to begin with. I agree with the report. I think you do too, so the next point might surprise you.

The report was funded by NOAA, not Congress as you stated. It is not and was never intended to fuel the legislative process, as you thought. It was for NOAA's use, recognizing that there were some points of "friction" between the NWS, academia and private industry. It was proactive and coincides with the changes made that prompted private industry to begin lobbying individual Senators. I'm sad to say it has become a partisan issue now, with both extremes making smoke.

As for Accuweather - the title of their "news" story (here) is "Protecting Your Access to Weather Information." I already have that access - I don't need legislation to protect it. NWS is free (after taxes) and advert free, both over the airwaves and on-line. They say that Senator Santorum's bill (he's from Pennsylvania, as you pointed out, which is also where Accuweather is headquartered) is the only currently-proposed legislation that guarantees my unfettered access to NWS and NOAA information - while a true statement, it is important to remember that I already have that access without any legislation at all. "The Bill Requires NWS Information to be Fully Available to the Public." Already done, without legislation. But by making the statement, it again is suggested to the reader that information is not currently fully available to the public. "NOAA/NWS currently can, and sometimes does, delay and withhold information from the public and the Commercial Weather Industry" Gasp! Oh my! We must stop them! Somebody write a bill! Wait... I wonder why they do that, and under what circumstances. Hmm. Doesn't say, here... must not be important.

"The Bill Causes the NWS to Focus on Its Core Mission of Saving Lives and Property." That's right! Yeah! Let's MAKE them to do that because, well... oh. They already do that, don't they... Oh I get it - Accuweather doesn't want NWS focusing on forecasting... This is my favorite quote from Accuweather executive vice president Barry Myers - "The National Weather Service has not focused on what its core mission should be, which is protecting other people's lives and property. It spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, every day, producing forecasts of 'warm and sunny.'" Did they get it right? Is 'warm and sunny' somehow not worth forecasting? And, as a NWS and National Hurricane Center devotee, I feel that they have ABSOLUTELY focused on their 'core mission', at least as it is defined by Accuweather. NWS defines itself thusly - "The National Weather Service is the primary source of weather data, forecasts and warnings for the United States. Television weathercasters and private meteorology companies prepare their forecasts using this information. The NWS is the sole United States official voice for issuing warnings during life-threatening weather situations."

In response Mr. Myers quote, NOAA's director of strategic planning and policy Ed Johnson said "If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time. You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."

I did, in fact, read. I am, in fact, cognizant. I'm now not surprised that the things that bother me make you laugh a little and move on - that affectation is straight off the Factor. Which I watch, too.

Not sure what you mean by self indemnification - check that word and let me know what you were trying to say. I'm fairly confident you weren't changing the subject to the insurance industry - sheesh... don't get me (or anyone else from Florida) started on that subject.

Carl, surely you can see where someone might take offense at your suggestion that nobody who enjoys the benefits of a free enterprise society has a right to criticize it. That's one of the basic tenets that vaulted some upstart colonists to superpower status in just 200 years. That attitude, that hubris, is what grates so harshly in the ears of the international community.

Here I always figured you for one of those never-trust-anyone-over-thirty guys. Hm. This would have been a great way to pass a 10-hour light air beat - what did you and Jake talk about all day?