General

I worked the Kennedy ‘80 campaign in Champaign-Urbana (I’ve forgotten what Congressional district that was then) and co-organized a campus campaign visit.  The campaign was rough and the visit was rougher as the Senator was stuck in Chicago by weather and a firemen’s strike.  He was almost two hours late and the crowd in the Auditorium got rowdier and worse.  It came close to recent town hall meetings and the Senator had a lousy cold.  But, he came on, after introduction by, I believe, Penny Severns, who was running as both a Kennedy delegate and for Congress.  After comments, he took questions.  The one I vividly remember was from some know-it-all grad student who asked something specific and technical about a bill from a committee hearing four years earlier.  Not only did Kennedy remember, but he corrected on the details and responded w/ a technical answer to the scientific point made.  Several others have made the same point today about his incredible memory for legislative details and how it made the difference in his ability to negotiate legislation.

Last night I had a lengthy debate with my very intelligent friend Robert after a concert. Our debate swirled around whether humans are making progress or whether we are creating a greater probability that we will destroy ourselves and our planet. I am a naive, heedless optimist and he is a depressing, Gulliver pessimist. I find it interesting that two people can view the world with such different colors painted over their lenses.

I believe that humans are becoming more intelligent, more educated, more moral, less violent, and more human. By more human, I mean that we have more leisure time to consume and to create art, politics, music, literature, etc. We also have more and more leisure time to help other humans or to heal the environment, as evidenced by the enormous number of NGOs and donors who fund them. Free trade and technological development are two primary factors that have allowed humans to escape the cruelties and monotony of the non-industrialized life and to become “more human.”

My friend and others who think as him (a significant portion of Prof. Freyfogle’s Individualism & its Critics class), often romanticize the non-industrialized, agrarian, hunter-gatherer world. I always find it curious that when I hear that romanticization and the denunciation of the industrialized world that it always comes from someone who lives in the industrialized world, but who visits nature. They visit nature during their leisure time as a vacation, but I have not yet met one who has had the courage to abandon civilized society to live an entire life on an isolated farm or in a forest with hunter-gatherer opportunities. A quick Google search reveals many such opportunities.

Regardless, the answer to the question asked in the title of this post is not obvious, even to a naive, heedless optimist. The amount of evil in the world is decreasing as humans become more educated and more connected through technology and the radii of our circles of empathy expand. Our humanity might be increasing, but the technologies of destruction that we develop are also increasing.

The equation would look something like this: (Proportion of Evil in the World) x (Ability of Existing Technology to Destroy Humanity) = Probability that Humans will Commit Mass Suicide. The existing technology could be nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs, the factors that cause global warming, a killer virus, or anything else. Therefore, the probability of mass suicide might be increasing. This equation serves as a general comment and also as a slight critique of Pinker’s presentation below.

I have posted two TED videos below that support my argument and I invite him to share material that supports his views. I maintain my optimism in the face of the arguments presented by Robert and myself. My thoughts on this subject are not well organized or articulated, but I am mostly curious what y’all think.

The following is my final product from Prof. Leon Dash’s Immersion Journalism class. Prof. Dash is a two time Pulitzer Prize winner, author of Rosa Lee and a great professor. Immersion Journalism allows journalists to conduct extensive, personal, in-depth interviews with a single person over multiple weeks, months, or years. Read more…

Recently, the New York Times wrote an article that discussed how many smaller news-gathering groups and freelancers are at a huge disadvantage covering events overseas in comparison to larger news corporations. The most recent example of this was the detainment of Laura Ling and Euna Lee in North Korea, who worked for Current TV, a small YouTube-style news organization. Current TV, one of many similar start-up groups, has begun sending its journalists overseas to cover hot-topic stories in an effort to stay competitive with larger, more well-known news organizations. According to the article, in an effort to gain a greater news audience, these start-up organizations have begun “vanguard journalism” as a “unit assembled to cover untold stories around the globe”. The article continues that many say these small news groups are the “consequence of the fragmented media landscape and the declines in international news coverage by traditional outlets”. Read more…

Hey Urbanagora! My name is Rosie Powers, I’m a sophomore at U of I, and an aspiring journalist. I’m currently on staff with the Daily Illini, and I was linked into Urbanagora thanks to the deep intellectual insight of Billy Joe and Josh.

University of Chicago student starts “Men in Power” advocacy group

According to a recent Chicago Tribune story, University of Chicago student Steve Saltarelli recently founded a male advocacy group entitled “Men in Power”. The group was founded to celebrate male achievement while promoting entrance into the competitive workforce. The article also mentions how many members of the group see it as a necessity as a result of the job market shrinkage with the advent of more women reaching higher career positions. Saltarelli proposed the idea in a satirical column, but started the group after he received an overwhelmingly positive response. In this column, Saltarelli wrote, “Anyone with an interest in both studying and learning from men in powerful positions, as well as issues involved with reverse sexism, may become a member of MiP.”

While I believe that this group has the same right as any other gender or cultural group to assemble, its premise seems a bit blurry. It is true that in many male-dominated professions, women are now being offered more jobs in an effort to diversity the workplace, putting some men out of jobs. But “reverse sexism”? Really?

I am not at all advocating against merit. I don’t believe a woman should be hired instead a man merely because of her gender, paying no attention to his or her qualifications. But I find this group’s viewpoint a bit skewed. For example, Corporate America continues to be a male-dominated career field. According to CNN, only 15 of the current Fortune 500 company CEO’s are women. Certain fields, yes, are dominated by women. But similarly, many professions continue to be associated with men.

I support this group in that there are already many other advocacy groups which focus specifically on women or certain minority groups. Consequentially, yes, males have this same right to celebrate their role in society. However, I sometimes think that the presence of these groups (regardless of what race, ethnicity or gender that they focus on) can promote a feeling of segregation and isolation in society. American society has often been described as a sort of “melting pot” of cultures, in that various cultural backgrounds and beliefs coexist to mix together, culminating into a sort of multicultural national stew. Do we always have group ourselves with people exactly like ourselves? From the same socioeconomic backgrounds, with the same ideals, political leanings, ect.? Joining groups like this that promote these ideals can be positive and proactive. But I can’t help but be concerned as to how groups like this, especially with a name like “Men in power”, will promote single-mindedness.