Ten oz

In situations like the one unfolding in Ferguson who is right and who is wrong often gets too much attention in my opinion. Blame matters but so does crisis and incidence management. The example I often use is; if I own an amusement park and on one of my rides young thrill seeking kids somehow purposely unbuckle themselves and stand during the ride resulting in injuries I would do something about the safety of that ride. I would not just point my fingers at the kids for intentionally putting themselves in jeopardy. I would improve safety mearsures on the ride regardless of the fact the injuries weren't my or my amusement parks fault. During Katrina reports of violence were everywhere. On the news it was reported that people were being murdered in the superdome, Coast Guard helicopters were being shot at, roving gangs were attacking people on the streets, etc, etc, etc. All those reports were one of several things that effectively shut down the rescue response. People were left in standing water, left on roof tops, left in the super dome, and etc for days. Many blamed the people of New Orleans. If they just stopped the looting, stopped the shooting, and stopped misbehaving FEMA could get in there and help. Of course what we all found out later is that there were no gangs killing people in the super dome, helicopters weren't being shot, and so on. It was just a bunch of false and or exaggerated reporting. Ultimately the response was a total failure. The final congressional report on Katrina is very insightful. http://www.uscg.mil/history/katrina/docs/USHouseOfRepKatrina2006MainR1eport.pdf I make the Katrina comparison because with the "rioting" in Ferguson because all the reporting seems familiar. Daily the media is reporting things like "Police said they acted in response to gunfire, looting, vandalism and protesters who hurled Molotov cocktails." http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/18/molotov-cocktails-thrown-ferguson-police-again So gunfire is being reported and Molotov cocktails are being hurled? Those reports if true justify tear gas and military grade equipment. But are those reports true? Don't Molotov cocktails catch things on fire. I don't see video or photos of any fires and there are thousands of cameras in Ferguson right now. No video or photos of bullet holes in buildings or cars. What I have seen are images of a few people trashing a liquor store and lots of tear gas. That isn't to say there havent been shooting, fires, and other types of violence but I just can't help but wonder if a lot of the reports aren't exaggerated or out right made up. A shooting last night doesn't justify the weeks worth of blasting people with tear gas proceeded it. Going back to my amusement park analogy; rather than making the ride safer image if I was more interested in catching and punishing the bad kids for standing up on my ride. So I hire extra security guards and have them posted all over the park catching and detaining kids. Would that really be a better solution? I believe that all of this could have been avoid had the Ferguson police immediately released the information they had and embraced protests. Wheeled out portable toilets, portable lights for after hours, and did public Q & A with the people rather than the media. In the United States we have a right to protest. Tanks and riot gear should not the governments initial response to protest. That isn't to say there are no bad people looting in Ferguson, there are. Crisis and incident management at the government level should be better.

Lots of really good comments in here. Reading comments beneath new articles about this all week has been depressing. This conversation is considerably more reasonable and makes me feel more hopeful.

Segregation just ended in the 60's. I think a lot of people (not necessarily you) make the mistake of viewing the end of slavery as the point where healing began. Segregation was long lasting and impacted the black community deeply. It wasn't merely about where blacks had to live or which bathrooms they had to use. Blacks receives unequal and lesser treatment in all areas of society from banking, education, medical, to employment opportunities. While segregation, like slavery, was southern thing it was tolerated by the rest of the country which speaks volumes. The protests are about the police. If group "A" is protesting group "B" and then group "B" shows up with helmets, guns, tanks, and tear gas the end result will be negative more often than not. I personally think there is a bit of an exaggeration by the media going on here also. Is this rioting or is this violent protest dispersal? How many people have by killed or injuried? How many business looted? How many flipped cars have been set on fire? Seems to me there has been more damaged caused by mobs following sporting events. Is there a difference between angry protests and rioting? Do you think race of the protestors place a role in the labeling? Many blacks do leave the South. There isn't a State in the country without black people. However most people prefer a community. Whether it is Latino, Asian, LGBT, or what have you people are comforted by being around others like themselves. Everyone isn't comfortable moving hundreds of miles away from their family and friends. Plus racism easily follows. The South is the worst but there isn't a racism free State in the country.

@ Irbis, lots of things can have positive influences. A positive person with empathy and consideration for others is what's key. I don't believe the bible, quran, torah, or any other religious book actually inspires people to be better than they are otherwise based on their unbringing and background. Which is why religion is so easily turned ugly by ugly people. Some peoplfibre positively influenced by painting, music, sports, and yes religion. I don't think merely being a positive influence is a good criteria for making a value judgement for or against something. For some people mixed martial arts cage fighting is a positive influence. Something to keep them away from crime. Some female adult film stars insist their careers make them feel empowered and liberated. I don't think either cage fighting or adult film are positive influence regardless of the positive impact they superficially appear to have on some peoples lives.

Israel being singled out? I am not sure what you are referencing? Are you talking about the opinions of posters in this thread or are you implying something about the world community? I did not rationalize it. You asked me a question and I answered it noting I was not terribly familair with the subject. No value judgements were made. Please don't extrapolate. Hamas are considered terrorists. That is partly why the United States supplies Israel with 3 billion dollars worth of military aid per year. Since World War II ended no other country has received more military support from the United States than Israel has. From purchasing equipment, sharing nuclear technology, to joint training missions the United States has supported Israel. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–United_States_military_relationsI do not understand the connection you are trying to make between the way Israel is treated in relationship to Hamas and the Russian Chechen conflict? Ghandi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King pushed for major transformations in government and law. What major transformations do you think I am advocating? I just want to see Israel ease up on their response and stop advancing on land. I am not advocating Israel give chunks of land up. I just want to see Israel killing less civilians. It should not take a Ghandi or Mandela to achieve that.Hamas are bad actors. That doesn't mean any response to them is a good. Hamas can be bad actors and Israel can be responding poorly. Both can exist at once.

No population density isn't the criteria for determining anything. It does reflect how much space people in a country have though. Land is a resource. Mexico was not left without land. Palestinians are slowly losing what little land they ever had. My point about population density was that the two aren't apples to apples comparisons. Both Mexico and The United States had and have enormous amounts of land. If the area in dispute between Israel and the Palestinians was anywhere near the size of the disputed areas of the Mexican American War there would've been a two state solution a long time ago. Besides, no one here is claiming the United States didn't mistreat people. From the brutality against the natives to slavery the United States has a long history of things to be ashamed of. I am not sure how you think that lends credibility to the actions of countries in conflicts today? I am not terribly familiar with the Russian Chechen conflict but it seems that the Chechen relationship with Islamic Terrorist groups is why the western world sided with Russia. Again, I don't understand what that has to do with Israel today?

I am not sure I understand the question? Land is used for a lot of things. When a people's are living in a population density of over 9,000 people per square mile they don't have much free land for anything but homes. Things like agriculture, energy production, resource mining, basic economic expansion, and etc require usable space. Even simple things that parks and sport areas require space. The Palestines have very little space and very little land. It is unclear if they could even support a society with what they currently have even if a two state solution was reached.

Mexico has a per square mile population density of 145 people while Gaza strip has one of 9,713 people. Had the United States taken so much land that the people of Mexico had none left to manage I think there would have been many ongoing conflicts over it since. At the time of the Mexican American War there were only something like 75,000 Mexicans living in the states. That is 75,000 people total living in California, Arizona, Utah, Neveda, New Mexico, etc. Even with the loss of the land Mexico remained one of the largest countries in the world land wise. Still is today. Plus Mexico itself, like the United States, was all stolen land. Stolen by the Spanish while the United States was stolen by the English. Mexico, like the United States, had only recently become a country. There were no true historical roots to any of the land for either side. An estimated 25,000 people died fighting in that war. Manifest Denstiny was a terrible thing and I don't think any would argue otherwise. If the United States tried take more land from Mexico there would be a military conflict. The world community would not tolerate it either. The Mexican American War was over 160yrs ago. It does not justify the taking of land today.

@ Unity+, for people that are highly capable in different systems it probably does matter to much. However we live in a world where a lot of people dont know the basics. I believe the metric system is superior because it is consistant and even. Twelve inch in a foot and 3 feet in a yard is not clear as 10 millimeters in a centimeter and 10 centimeters in meter. Same goes for working in the garage with tools. What is the next size above and below a 7/32 wrench? You kind of got to think about it. For a metric wrench 6mm the next size above and below is very straight forward, 5 & 7. On top of all of that the whole world uses the metric system so it would, if nothing else, prevent a lot of unnecessary conversion.

Science has unfortunately made some very powerful political enemies. The long history between science and the church is well known. In more recent year though Science has butted heads with capitalism. Climate, environmental, and medical science has made enemies of trillion dollar a year industries around the world and challenging governments to rethink many areas of modern living. Today both God and treasure seek to undermine science. As Swansot pointed out science simply isn't held in high regard. I think one important step, which is also a simple step,would be getting the United States on the metric system. The United States is a technological world leader in many areas yet we willfully use an antiquated system. Everyone with any type of science or engineering degree has to learn the metric system. Why we put it off till college when it could be the standard in itself is a rejection of science. Or at least a rejection of good sense in favor of habit and pride. Teach people that changing to a better system is worth doing rather than telling people there is some sort of patriotic honor in refusing to change.

I think you are on to something. Science is terrific but hasn't necessarily been the spark that's driven wonderment thoughout history. Art has inspired humans from the begin. Whether it was poetic oral history or giant architectural achievements like Pyramids the desire for beauty was at the very least equal to the desire for technology.

1 - No one is saying the Big Bang happened with a cause. 2 - If I am to focus on the bold why did you make the other statements? As for the what you put in bold; the Big Bang is theory supported by physics and observation. Creation is a theory supported by what? Simply saying if appears as though the universe is too complicated to be natural without intelligence is not suppoprt. It is merely an opinion.

@ S1eep, your orginal post asked - "The question I’m bringing to the table is, beyond God, why did the big bang occur? There has to be a reason for such an event, especially one that’s considered scientifically, super-massive." You opened this thread asking a question which can only be answered with pure speculation. Big Bang theory doesn't cover what happened before the big bang. Only what happened during and after. Posters have adressed your question and you've sense seemed to have evolved from asking a question to defending a position. We are 98 posts in and I have lost sight on the purpose of this thread. Are you looking for information from or looking to explain your beliefs to others? "Why did the Big Bang occur?" It is unknown. However, not knowing how something happened does not support any and all theories equally. For example we still don't know what happened to flight Malaysian 377 but it most likely had nothing to do with the ancient God Apollo. Researchers would better spend their time focusing on passenger backgrounds, weather anomalies, and equipment characteristics. "There has to be a reason for such an event?" IMO the first step towards understand WHY the Big Bang occurred is figuring out the physics. Quantum Fluctuation is promising. Applying a motive without facts doesn't seem productive to me. How can we scientfically figure a "reason" or motive without physics that would ever be anything other than pure speculation?

The circle could be broken. Ever heard the saying "it takes two to tango". Long as we focus on a single component of this it will appear as a never ending chain.

Time did not exist at the moment of the "Big Bang". None of our physics apply. Time theoretically doesn't exist inside a black hole. Is that enough information to draw a conclusion? I don't think so. Black hole have massive amounts of gravity. Like time gravity did not exist at the moment of the "Big Bang". It is unclear what happens to any of the forces inside a black hole. Saying "I don't know" can feel unsatifying but it is often the only honest response.

Either way, forgive or not, I wonder if there will be any land left for Palestinians in the future. A look at their shrinking real estate over the last 65yrs does not appear promising. http://www.worldliteraturetoday.org/sites/default/files/2012/May/palestinian-loss-of-land-1946-2010.jpg Hamas and Palestinian people are not synonymous. Seeking to "defend ones self" from rocket attacks by crippling the infastructure of heavily populated communities and killing civilians sure seems a lot like seeking "revenge" to me. You ask where the road ends; the dead civilians are not the ones driving. As for Hamas, they don't care. Terrorist pick fights. That is what they do. They pick fights and love it when they get one.

Patrick Henery's "give me liberty of give me death" is a more popular mantra than what you are suggesting. In Patrick's case he was ready to lay down his life over taxes. Imagine if the British were killing his family and taking his land.

@ Acme, I read the first study referenced in the OP http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/ConsevatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.pdf You are referencing other material I have not read. I will have to read through it and get back to you.

Interesting you mentioned religion. I had initially thought religion played a role in Conservatism and the research you presented should have made more mention of that. The two things most conservatives have in common are race and Jesus. As I that about it I realized that the race component trumps religion. There are many people of color that are very religious and thus socially conservative yet they won't vote Republican. IMO this implies that most people in general liberal, moderate, or conservative vote based on what they believe is in their best personal interest. As more people become educated and the global economy becomes less driven by a monopoly, change becomes inevitable. Since white male Christians have unequivocally had the most authority and influence in the 11 countries mentioned in the research (ironically even in Israel) they have the most to lose from any change or push toward greater equality. While at the same time minorities, ethnic or religious, have the most to gain. So if "reasoning" is the driving force of change conservatives will be against reason. Being against reason makes them appear insane.

While the moments before the expansion/Big Bang are unknown and the events during are often misunderstood. All the matter (in the form of atoms) did not pure out into space. All matter in made of energy. Energy expanded out and some of it transformed into matter."What E = mc2 says is that matter and energy are interchangeable. There is a continuum between the two. Energy can transform into matter and matter can transform into energy. They are different aspects of the same thing." http://www.energytribune.com/2771/understanding-e-mc2#sthash.C3SBWd5V.dpuf Following the moment of expansion/Big Bang - "After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter. " http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm If we start by looking at a Tree you are right; it certainly does appear wisdom is necessary. Starting at energy and the following transitions of particles the universe seems a lot less manicured. Look at the radiation levels and temperature fluctuations on the surface of moon and the universe becomes outright chaotic and disorderly.

@ Barfbag, green screen and Computer Generated Images (CGI) are not the same thing. Green screen allows images to be overlayed. CGI creates an image.

Peace in the Middle East is like a Rubiks Cube. You get it all lined up on one side but the rest is still scrambled. A Palestinian state is just one of many things that people in the Middle East have to feel put out about. Slave like conditions for millions to help support western capitalism is another. Oil rich countries have caste systems that have created mass amounts of indentured servitude throughout the region. United Arab Emirates has has a population of 9.2 million. Only 1.4 million are citizens and recieving UAE benefits. The other 7.8 million are migrant labor brought in from India, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/labor-migration-united-arab-emirates-challenges-and-responses Qatar has a population of 2.1 million with 1.4 million of it being migrant labor. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/14/qatar-reform-labout-laws-outcry-world-cup-slaves Kuwait has a population of 3.6 million with 2.3 million of it being migrant labor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kuwait Oman has a population of 3.3 million with 1.3 million of it being migrant labor. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-oman-jobs-foreigners-idUSBRE9160S020130207 Bahrain has a population of 1.2 million with 600,000 of it being migrant labor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bahrain The above countries are small enclaves of wealth. They are the size of large cities yet they are given country status and protected by western interests. Rather than being Banana Republics - ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic ) They are Oil Republics. Such a wealth drain and manipulation of the region over the last century has fueled the instability we see in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and etc. In turn that has provided a platform for terrorist and political extremist to call themselves freedom fighters. The pitch isn't that difficult. You point to the opulence of Israel and then ask the crowd of poor Palestinians if they feel it is fair. Many members of Hamas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and so on are poor stateless people. Forgiveness is a beautiful thing but it won't put food in your children's mouths or guarantee a future that includes opportunity.

Okay, you caught me. I have been purposely avoiding a direct reply to "Conservatism as a motivated social cognition". My views wade into areas that are difficult to discuss openly and can polarize people. I assume that is why it (it will be defined shortly) was left out of the research on this issue. So I will just apologize in advance to anyone may be offended. I am merely trying to be honest about my thoughts toward the supporting research presented toward original topic. That send I can already feel all the negative reputations coming. Of the several theories presented IMO only Social Dominance comes close to exampling the conservative state of mind as it applies to the western world: "According to social domi- nance theory, human societies strive to minimize group conflict by developing ideological belief systems that justify the hegemony of some groups over others". Still, in outlining this theory RACISM was carefully avoided as the root cause. Racism was replaced with hegemony. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 LBJ famously said "we have lost the south for a generation". The "we" was a reference to the Democratic party. He was right. The southern states of the United States have staunchly been Republican since. The switch to "conservatism" having everything to do with race and little to do with: Fear and aggression, Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, Uncertainty avoidance, Need for cognitive closure, and Terror management. The Republican Southern Strategy is a real thing. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy A quick look around the United States at voting regions which are safely conservative reveals the role race plays. States like Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and etc where the populations are overwhelming white the politics also happen to be overwhelmingly conservative. The only demographic the Republican party wins is whites. All other groups: blacks, hispanics, and Asians heavily favor Democrats. http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.U-ayL2t5mSM http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html Of course the analysis did not only look at the United States. It looked at Canada, England, South Africa, Israel, Germany, New Zealnd, Scottland, Poland, Sweden, and Italy. However all those countries have similar ethic strife and racial division that mirrors that of the United States past. The research fails to acknowledge or address the reason those countries were chosen. I am not calling anyone who votes conservative a racist. There are legitimate agruments made by Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Socalists, libertarians, and so on. I am just pointing out what I feel is a rather obvious component that has been talk around rather than directly about. When groups like the Tea Party scream "we want our country back" who is the we?

This is your thread. If it is your preference that I not comment in it I will most certain respect that?

This is how I once viewed myself. Fiscally conservative and Socially liberal. More I followed politics the more I began to wonder if either classification truly existed as stances that could be without conflict. For example:Is raising the minium wage a social issue or a fiscal issue? Is providing Healthcare a social or fiscal issue? Is the Social Security program a social or fiscal issue? Is corperate personhood a social or fiscal issue? Is Climate Change a social or fiscal issue? Is Afghanistan and Iraq a social or fiscal issue? There is a lot of overlap. Worse still is that we (USA) have a two party system. So it often feels like a choice between the better of two evils. For me, I identify the two party system as absolute. Because for now I feel it is. Beyond the rhetoric of any campaign politicians are either Democrat or Republican. They will yield to the will of there party. They will no matter the issue be opposed by the other party. This makes it naive, IMO, to vote for the person and not the party. So as a fiscal conservative who is socially liberal which party do you most feel represented by? For me that was tough question to answer. So tough I realized I was not a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Neither made sense when comparing the two party we (USA) have.