Let's see. It depends what you mean by "in control." Obviously not directly. But ... who do I know to vote for at all levels of government if I don't follow US politics? How do I know what to do with my money if I don't follow world finance? How do I know where to vacation and where not to vacation if I don't follow world news? Those are fundamental questions (and yes, you might respond that I could just "ask an expert" -- but come on). To go further -- how do I avoid looking like an idiot if someone wants to talk about the recession, Chechnya, the currency debates... How can I have any opinions at all without shame if I don't know what I'm talking about? It's human nature to have opinions on things; most of our opinions are frankly pretty stupid because we don't pay attention to the world around us. (I know you're playing devil's advocate, but to the thread at large: I can't even believe I'm having to argue for being informed over being not informed.)

In the late 19th century, a bunch of northeastern farmers started a legitimate political movement, the Populist, because they were informed about what the gold standard, debt and inflation would do to their livelihoods. It led directly to one of the most famous debates of all time. They were farmers in the 1890s. They probably got news from the big cities once a week. They probably owned a Bible, an almanac and not a damn thing else. But because they cared about the politics of their country, they were able to contribute to it. There lies my biggest problem with this article; putting aside whether I can influence the news or not -- what I know is that if I am not aware of it, I definitely can't influence it. Saying goodbye to being informed is saying goodbye to activism and making an impact. (And yes, hell yes I can shape the events that happen. I can write my congressman, I can donate to organizations that I only know about because I spend time learning about such things. I can go to rallies, and when they start axing educational programs and firing teachers in the state of Texas, I can help reverse the trend. Or I can sit under a rock and one day when I get to first period the door will be locked and I won't have a Latin class anymore.)

The history of the present is applicable history. Why does anyone study history? To learn. To be entertained. To understand the impacts of the names and places we've heard all our lives. Why do I read what we should no longer be calling the news in this discussion but rather "the state of the world" or something? To learn, to be entertained, and to understand ... as events are unfolding. That's a thousand times more interesting than reading about the 1450s, and I already find that pretty damn interesting.