An other interesting thing is first snow.
We know it comes every year, we can even predict when, despite that it is almost always a "disaster". (so as my English)

Quote: Original post by zeroKnots
Focal point is the Obama destructions.

Excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about?

Wait a minute...you aren't one of those birth certificate people, are you?

Quote: Original post by Programmer One

Quote: Original post by zeroKnots
Focal point is the Obama destructions.

Excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about?

Wait a minute...you aren't one of those birth certificate people, are you?

Yes, he is. His birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory.

Quote: Original post by Joseph Leo

Quote: Original post by Don Carnage
Practical for Mother Earth that she usually brings a bucket of water along with those lightning bolts.

A fire can still survive during rain if it's not pouring so hard. Here in Florida (I know, not the same.) we have the strangest rain. It can be raining cats and dogs on one side of the street, but the other is bright and sunny with people taking sunbaths.

Not to mention you don't always get rain with lightning. Even when you do get rain, if it strikes old growth forests, then it can be pouring rain and still get fires. The tree tops catch and hold the rain, leaving the ground bone dry and full of fast burning hot fuels.

Lightning strikes, sets the undergrowth alight, spreads up the trees and keeps burning. Either the blaze simply over powers the rain and burns through it, or it stays alive till the rain passes, then spreads.

Quote: Original post by frob

Quote: I just saw an observatory in danger of being engulfed by the flames, why on earth would they let the forrest come so close to such an important building? They know it's going to burn sooner or later.

It has to be built somewhere. Really it was just a good photo op. An alternative story is "Environmentalists decry government deforestation for science project".

You build a building where it makes the most sense.

Yes you do build observatories where the make the most sense and when that observatory was built it was built on a mountain in the middle of nowhere. That's not just any observatory either: Wildfire Threatens Historic Observatory Used by Edwin Hubble. In the 100 years since it was built the city has crept up around it and now it's in the middle of what is essentially a very large urban park. The night time lights from Los Angeles make the observatory useless as an observatory. It's mostly a museum now.

If you ever watched Star Trek Voyager, you might recall the episodes where they went back in time to Santa Monica beach and all that? Iirc, they shot some scenes at the Mount Wilson Observatory - the scenes with Sarah Silverman. I'm pretty certain the exteriors were shot there.

Quote: Original post by zeroKnots
Lot's of us are wondering the same thing here. To foist a tangentially related issue in a dubious way, there are illegal immigrant pot growers in California who accidentally set off one of the nastier fires. They also rig shotgun shells up as trip-mines. That makes it a military matter to me. A couple choppers equipped with vulcans would clean them out and defoliate in one dispassionate sweep. :)

Some suspect the pot-farm limelight is orchestrated by those for legalization.
Pick a conspiracy theory, but lots of fires are being deliberately lit and various motives are never sorted out.

NO ONE in Goebbel's mainstream media is reporting the illegals.

None of that is true. First off, someone who advocates a military response to illegal marijuana growing operations in the mountains has no grounds to spout off on "Goebbel's mainstream media", at least not if they want to be taken seriously. You're advocating turning portions of the United States into a war zone, in violation of the Posse Comitatus act. What's up with that? Even if you're joking, it's not funny.

Second, the illegal grows are organized by the Mexican drug cartels as a way to get around the clampdown at the border. It's easier for them to set up operations on this side of the border than it is for them to smuggle across the border. The most obvious solution to this problem is to legalize the growing of marijuana by farmers in the United States, so that the national forests aren't turned into illegal grow sites. It would seem however that rather than end the drug war you would rather escalate it into a hot war on illegal aliens. The guys who man the grow sites are probably just poor schmucks trying to survive like any other poor schmuck from Mexico who went through hell to get to the promised land. They're not calling the shots, they're just taking orders like any other farm laborer.

Thirdly, there is no pot-farm limelight. Pro-legalization groups are not in favor of growing pot in national forests. The notion that these fires were set deliberately is completely nuts. Furthermore, the pot origins of the Los Padres fire was reported by the corporate media. Here's the AP story: Suspects who sparked fire may be linked to cartels. Here's the LA Times story: Santa Barbara County wildfire blamed on marijuana growers. And there has been a ton of reporting in the national corporate media about Mexican cartels growing pot in the national forests. Take your pick of stories from google: marijuana+national+forest.

Quote: Original post by zeroKnots
Pot farmers somehow get all the water they want, but for some reason.. Oblamer declines to turn on Californian water over a stupid FISH whose habitat Californians CREATED. California could pull the whole U.S out of this rut if prosperity was temporarily decriminalized.

Dude, that's just flat out ignorant. The pot farmers in the mountains divert their water from the streams near their grows. They don't get it from the Federal Government. And California did not create fish habitat, it created a water system on top of what used to be fish habitat. Obama didn't have anything to do with that. If you were at all familiar with the issue, you would know that the farmers are primarily angry with Diane Feinstein over this. Now, I don't expect you to agree with my point of view on this, but there is a lot more to the issue than you seem to be aware of. Here are a few links to bring you up to speed.

As Arturo Rodriguez of the UFW said about recent protest "'This is a farmer march orchestrated and financed by growers.'' Hundreds Protest Cuts in Water in California (April 16, 2009 ).

"...of the 5.6% increase in unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley counties over the past year, only 0.3% of it comes from water shortages. " "Drought impacts on unemployment are grossly overstated" (August 12, 2009)

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance accused Westlands of hording 275,000 acre feet of water. Westlands hordes surplus water while fish die and unemployed farm workers beg for food and work (August 19, 2009)

The notion that California could pull the US out of recession if the spigot was opened is baseless.

Quote: Original post by zeroKnots
Did I say "some reason"? He also hands Brazil billions in taxpayer confederate confetti for offshore drilling in the middle of his prohibition of prosperity here. Did I make anything clearer? Of fog it all over even worse? Focal point is the Obama destructions. All else is minor irritation.

Do you know the difference between a giveaway and a loan? Petrobras May Borrow $5 Billion From U.S. Ex-Im Bank Do you understand how export-import banks operate? Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development Would you rather that China be the sole foreign investor in Brazilian oil development? In ten years from now when the oil starts flowing I suppose you'll be just as angry that it's all going to China and calling for a war to save our oil from the commies.

Dude, it sounds to me like you're more interested in ranting against Obama than you are in forest fires or California water issues or export-import banking.

Pot farmers are easy patsies, we get the same kind of media nonsense over here. We don't have the terrain (or the weather) so most pot farms are set up in private homes where they supposedly cause urban fires due to crappy electrics.

Mostly nonsense of course as it's probably a bad business move to set your house block and pot on fire (not to mention the fines). Even dopeheads can handle electrical plugs. Never had a problem with them myself. :)


Anyway, if these fires are annual occurences why not cut back the forrests even further? Glowing embers shouldn't set ablaze modern (fire resistant) buildings, or even housing treated with a fire resistant coating.

[Edited by - Kirl on September 2, 2009 8:28:42 PM]

Quote: Original post by zeroKnots
"It's kind of like how in the US (tornado risk) they build these light prefab (cardboard origami) houses, while in Europe (no tornado risk) we build stone bunkers."

Nebraska is nothing BUT brick bunkers by my count. There are some very old buildings there which survived lots of natural assaults. They're also known for flood-planes.

Well, looking out my window, I see a mixture of steel, brick, concrete, and wood structures, along with trailer homes, that I would expect to see most other places (at least, in the US)[grin]. Tornadoes are not known for massive swaths of damage repeatedly hitting the same areas (unlike, for example, hurricanes). Having your particular home wiped out from a tornado is unlikely (though unfortunate for the unlucky). It isn't worth the extra cost to "tornado proof" a home compared to the risk.
Floods do strike the same areas periodically, enough so that those areas are statistically analyzed and designated by the federal government. For example, depending on local topography, you may be in a "2% annual chance flood plain" zone. In which case, you are usually required to purchase more (expensive) home insurance.

EDIT: Oh yeah, about the pot farm thing, +1 pretty much what LessBread said...

Quote: Original post by laztrezort
It isn't worth the extra cost to "tornado proof" a home compared to the risk.

Look up Earth Ships. They are easily modified to be basically tornado proof, fire storm proof, and even flood proof if you take the time to look at flood plane maps. (Aka, don't build in the bloody Flood PLANE!)

Quote: Original post by Talroth
Aka, don't build in the bloody Flood PLANE!

I hear ya. Even ignoring the risks, I am intimately aware of all the financial and legal hassles associated with designated flood areas, even when said properties are never touched by flood waters. I'd never even think about living in such an area just to save a buck on the front end.
But it seems that generally, people don't think that way. I even recall hearing a little while back about a significant amount of people getting mortgages that they couldn't end up supporting...




edit: wow, I used the word 'even' alot up there. Do I even get a prize for that?