Questions for our American friends

[awboy33]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

I saw a couple of videos with former Secret Service members who were less than complimentary about Hilary Clinton to say the least. One of the men may have had a wider agenda politically. The other had written a book and seemed more plausible. Are these stories with any credence? Is there a belief that she is arrogant and nasty with a dislike of the military and law enforcement, or are they just stories that cropped up during an election?

There are so many stories out there about her disdain for anyone who she felt was beneath her. Here is one about her and her security detail.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ce-refusing-c/

Of course, many of these stories are from people who were eventually trying to either sell books or shop around a book idea. During the 1992 election though, I had law enforcement friends who would tell me stories of the Clinton's. Prior to Bill getting secret service security, each state law enforcement had to assist his Arkansas security detail while he was on the campaign trail. Most of them liked Bill but the majority of them said Hillary was a complete bitch. She would cuss at them worse than any sailor, and would verbally demean them.

I would tend to believe most of these stories because as it has been shown even more recently, she will throw anyone under the bus in order to save herself, and she will never admit fault in anything she does.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

So that's more or less like in New Mexico?
You could be surprised, but I want to quit my area, because it's too sunshining.

I like cloudy sky, but not rainy weather.
The worst countries I met in my life? Spain and Egypt. Too too dry, too too sunshining, too warm.

The pictures of Brecht look nice.

I will suggest the northern California coast. Not clouds or too much rain, but consistent fog for much of the day. Fort Bragg is a nice little town, for example.

[tsunamiSD]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I will suggest the northern California coast. Not clouds or too much rain, but consistent fog for much of the day. Fort Bragg is a nice little town, for example.

Fort Bragg might be alright, but you can't always tell about that the Pacific Northwest (including NoCal). Lots of those areas are broiling right now.

Blistering Heat Wave Threatens Seattle, Where Only a Third Have Air-Conditioning

Much of the country is used to occasional 100-degree days. Seattle, which has had just three in the past 123 years, is not.
So unaccustomed is Seattle to scorching heat that, in 2015, only one-third of the housing units in its metropolitan area had air-conditioning.
That’s going to make this week dangerous.

In Portland, Ore., the second-largest city in the Pacific Northwest, highs of 104 to 107 are expected on Wednesday and Thursday, threatening the record of 107 degrees, which was set in 1965 and tied in 1981. Friday, too, is expected to reach 100, which would make this week only the seventh time since 1940 that Portland has had three consecutive days of triple-digit heat.

It got to 105 in Portland today, and is still 97 right now (2:30pm).

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by tsunamiSD

Fort Bragg might be alright, but you can't always tell about that the Pacific Northwest (including NoCal). Lots of those areas are broiling right now.

Blistering Heat Wave Threatens Seattle, Where Only a Third Have Air-Conditioning





It got to 105 in Portland today, and is still 97 right now (2:30pm).

These kind of heat waves in the Pacific Northwest are recent phenomena. There was one back in 2009. It was startling then as it is now to see the jet stream move north and a high pressure system develop in an area known for having rain 200+ days a year. We will probably see another drought there as well.

I have often wondered about the extensive logging carried out on the West Coast over the past 150 years. Here in the Bay Area, vast redwood forests used to extract water from the fog and made the forest floor very wet. The water would roll down hill in streams that spawned tremendous numbers of fish. We know from tree rings that abundant rainfall was a relatively recent development in Northern California. It is possible that our deforestation practices have caused droughts in addition to the destruction of fisheries. Damning up the rivers has also caused major disruption to the fisheries.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by tsunamiSD

Fort Bragg might be alright, but you can't always tell about that the Pacific Northwest (including NoCal). Lots of those areas are broiling right now.

It got to 105 in Portland today, and is still 97 right now (2:30pm).

It seems that I finally have to live in Alaska.

Sadly that's the state of Sarah Palin.

[Roubignol]

I'm watching episodes of the TV serie "Chicago PD".

And I've got several questions.

How secure do you feel when you walk in the street in a big city with all these unbalanced people who could have a gun in their pocket, with all these drugdealers, these gangs?
Do you sometimes move to another sidewalk when you see some strange people coming in front of your view? Do you look always behind you when you get out of your car?

Do the American medias and films expose a violent side that is not really American? Is it safer to live than what we can read or watch?

Are there states that are a lot more unsecure to live?

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I'm watching episodes of the TV serie "Chicago PD".

And I've got several questions.

How secure do you feel when you walk in the street in a big city with all these unbalanced people who could have a gun in their pocket, with all these drugdealers, these gangs?
Do you sometimes move to another sidewalk when you see some strange people coming in front of view? Do you look always behind you when you get out of your car?

Do the American medias and films expose a violent side that is not really American? Is it safer to live than what we can read or watch?

Are there states that are a lot more unsecure to live?

Just as the American news media doesn't reflect the views of most of the population, Hollywood doesn't reflect real America, either... It's so boring, nobody would watch.

There are parts of America that you'd be better off not going into-- primarily the ghetto/slum areas of big cities.. but that's the case with not only Los Angeles and Chicago, but any big city like Hong Kong, Paris, London, Munich, wherever. There are areas along our southern border that are also quite dangerous.. the problems with the Mexicans and the drug cartels result in bad things happening all the time.

Overall, much of America is farmland, rural areas that are mostly peaceful. I live in a suburban area of a large Great Lakes city and I never look over my shoulder nor worry about getting shot when sitting on my front porch having a beer. My grandkids ride their bikes up and down the sidewalks without fear.

When heading into the city for an NFL or NBA game or a concert, the risk is also pretty low.. the downtown area is quite nice and plays host to conventions of all kinds. The police presence is adequate, and 99% of the time, everything is fine. Other than the odd homeless person pestering people for their change, there's not a lot of risk.. as it would kill tourism, conventions, restaurants, museums, sports, and other money makers that keep that area alive. If you were to wander 20-30 blocks to the east.. it would be a different story. But there's no reason to go to the 'hood unless you're specifically looking for trouble.

So, no.. Hollywood couldn't make any money portraying America as it truly is.. as I said, nobody would watch. The only way to get a return is to find the worst/most dramatic parts of life in America and portray it as the norm, rather than the exception.

[sandhunter]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I have often wondered about the extensive logging carried out on the West Coast over the past 150 years. Here in the Bay Area, vast redwood forests used to extract water from the fog and made the forest floor very wet. The water would roll down hill in streams that spawned tremendous numbers of fish. We know from tree rings that abundant rainfall was a relatively recent development in Northern California. It is possible that our deforestation practices have caused droughts in addition to the destruction of fisheries. Damning up the rivers has also caused major disruption to the fisheries.

So which is it first you say that the tree rings tell us that heavy rainfall is fairly recent phenomena, the last couple of hundred years and before this a time of sparse rainfall but not to drought standards ,
Then you tell us deforestation may of led us to our current drought , we did have drought conditions until this last year and we are not sure if the drought is gone yet ,
We live on very dynamic planet that is ever changing , until about 15 years ago scientists said we were still coming out of the last ice-age and we do know that there was a mini cool-down of the planet that lastedover 200 years until the late 1800s. Then environmentalist decided to change the facts to push there agenda to stop our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels
Bottom line scientists don't really know what an average temperature should be as no one knows , what we do know is it is changing + but we don't have a set average temperature or conditions .

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by sandhunter

So which is it first you say that the tree rings tell us that heavy rainfall is fairly recent phenomena, the last couple of hundred years and before this a time of sparse rainfall but not to drought standards ,
Then you tell us deforestation may of led us to our current drought , we did have drought conditions until this last year and we are not sure if the drought is gone yet ,
We live on very dynamic planet that is ever changing , until about 15 years ago scientists said we were still coming out of the last ice-age and we do know that there was a mini cool-down of the planet that lastedover 200 years until the late 1800s. Then environmentalist decided to change the facts to push there agenda to stop our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels
Bottom line scientists don't really know what an average temperature should be as no one knows , what we do know is it is changing + but we don't have a set average temperature or conditions .

I suspect that redwood forests gradually spread along the coast in Northern California and created the much wetter conditions found by the white man when he arrived here to settle in 1776. Even then, we had the 6 wet years followed by 6 dry years cycle that is still prevalent as the El Nino/La Nina cycles dictated by the Pacific Ocean play out. (It is silly to talk of average rainfall here as we mostly get way more than average or way less. At least it's been that way in the 60 years I can remember.) The drastic reduction in the fish populations seems to the most obvious consequence of our activity. We do know that human activity has made substantial changes to the environment since 1850, but have little to go on in what must have been a relatively dynamic weather system since the glaciers retreated 10 to 12,000 years ago.

The scientists I know tend to believe that we ought to be entering into an ice age, but human activity has kicked the planet into a greenhouse effect with accelerated warming. We haven't had snow in the Bay Area since the early 1970s, other than a rare light dusting in higher elevations. Cutting down most of the trees, filling in two thirds of the marsh land, and paving over large areas is bound to have some effect. But the larger influence seems to be temperature changes in the equatorial waters of the Pacific.

Think about it. If you have a system that is semi-arid for thousands of years until the forests spread far enough that the trees can begin altering rainfall patterns and the area becomes wetter. Then a critter comes along that drastically scales back the forest. Wouldn't you expect that the area would revert back to semi-arid?

"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain

[Puhbear69]

Indeed we are on the way into an other ice-age in a few thousand years. Nevertheless the way into it is accompanied with periods of 20, 30 ... 50 years of periods with an enormous heat. So both of you are right, appending of the period you watch this effects. It seems to be a dissent but in reality it isn't.

Is the climate of the earth man made since the time of the industrial revolution? It seems to be, because of deforestation without reforestation, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (those numbers are very, very small). The increasing is form 280 ppm in the late 18th century to 2006 381 ppm (parts per million). The content of the CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0,03 %; much less the noble gases (~ 1%).
But those small numbers are meaning millions of tons carbon in it.

More critical is the increasing of the humidity of the atmosphere which is responsible for the escapades of our weather.

Also our sun is a factor. It isn't the constant energy source as it seems to be or anybody expects it. The nuclear fusion processes in it are running more or less chaotic (as we are knowing it) and it shines in periods of about 10, 12 years (as a remember it, but not sure of the years) stronger or less strong. The percentage of it is also very small, but is has in influence of the weather.

Also an influence are having a the Vulcan activities. Or how was the winter in 1991?

To be fair we had to say: The increasing temperatures now seems to be man-made, but we don't know for sure. An insight of a few generations are not enough for the history of our planet.