Slashdot Mirror
The World Is Not Falling Apart
An anonymous reader writes: As much as we like complaining, and as much as the big media stations like to focus on the most horrible news of the day, the world is actually becoming a better place. Stephen Pinker and Andrew Mack have an article in Slate going through many of the statistics for things like homicide rates, child abuse, wars, and even autocracy vs. democracy. They're all trending in the right direction. Maybe not fast, or even fast enough, but it's getting better.
They say, "Too much of our impression of the world comes from a misleading formula of journalistic narration. Reporters give lavish coverage to gun bursts, explosions, and viral videos, oblivious to how representative they are and apparently innocent of the fact that many were contrived as journalist bait. Then come sound bites from "experts" with vested interests in maximizing the impression of mayhem: generals, politicians, security officials, moral activists. The talking heads on cable news filibuster about the event, desperately hoping to avoid dead air. Newspaper columnists instruct their readers on what emotions to feel. There is a better way to understand the world. ... An evidence-based mindset on the state of the world would bring many benefits."
They say, "Too much of our impression of the world comes from a misleading formula of journalistic narration. Reporters give lavish coverage to gun bursts, explosions, and viral videos, oblivious to how representative they are and apparently innocent of the fact that many were contrived as journalist bait. Then come sound bites from "experts" with vested interests in maximizing the impression of mayhem: generals, politicians, security officials, moral activists. The talking heads on cable news filibuster about the event, desperately hoping to avoid dead air. Newspaper columnists instruct their readers on what emotions to feel. There is a better way to understand the world. ... An evidence-based mindset on the state of the world would bring many benefits."
Economic inequality is just getting back to its historical levels. Starting with the Great Depression, the US government realized it had to do some serious wealth redistribution to avoid societal collapse. Then came World War II, another big wealth redistribution. After the war there was the GI bill and the Cold War, where the United States, in order to look good compared to Communism, tried to build the Great Society. After the Cold War there was no reason for those in power to reduce economic inequality, so now it's going back to the norm for history.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
I think that "conservatives" have a huge gap between what they say they want and what they actually achieve.
Were corporations historically people? Did conservatives change that. Yup.
Was america historically a torture state? Did conservatives change that? Yup.
Was america founded on religious principles, being one nation under god? Or did conservatives change that? Yup.
Was hemp and marijuana historically demonized? Did conservatives change that because they feared the blacks and mexicans? Yup.
I can obviously find hundreds of more examples of conservatives changing things for the worse. Saying that conservatives want things to stay the same does not equate with the rise of corporatism in the us in the last 40 years. Nor does it equate with the greed is good and inequality is great mentality which predominates conservative thought.
You might just have to realize that "conservatives" are far from the historical definition of conservatives "resistance to change" and other attributes. Oh how I wish it were so. America wouldn't have killed hundreds of thousands in iraq, corporations wouldn't be people, wealth inequality would go back to 1950s levels, and do nothing bankers would be vilified as the enemies of real working people.
In short, there is absolutely nothing conservative about today's so called american conservatives. It's a fiction, a more friendly name on the pro corporate anti public interest party. I would name it the fascist party, matching it up to a proper historical definition. If anyone was allowed to use that term anymore.
-