Though I couldn't comfortably say I know anything about the science or machinations of politics, from a sheer observer standpoint, I'd like to comment that the environment of this presidential election is very different than it ever has been -- it's completely changed from even the last two or three. A whole new generation has "come of age," has reached a place in their professional lives where voting feels necessary, feasible, and worthwhile for the first time. Add to that a candidate's ability to interface with his constituents directly through all the various online channels without needing the major backing of The Important People, and I'd bet it'd be hard for anyone to discount his chances completely.

I've heard people smarter than me say that the younger generations were the ones who elected our current president. If that's true, I'd say Bernie Sanders's chance is as good as anyone's, because he's mobilized the Millennials even more. And if it works -- even a little bit, even if he doesn't win -- this idea of a kickstarter candidate could at the very least change the way these campaigns are run!

I eventually figured out that she couldn't conceive of the possibility that I could understand what she was thinking and not agree with her. She thought it, therefore it must necessarily be true.

I've observed this behavior before, but I was never able to think of it in such clear terms, to get to the root of it as you have here. This small-minded, self-assured thinking typically scares me. Whenever I encounter someone who cannot imagine that they may be even partially wrong, I start to judge that person as dangerous (whether or not that's the right thing to do, it's certainly what happens).

People who aren't able to question their own perceptions, who aren't able to be skeptical of themselves, are the ones who can rationalize and justify the most horrible, "means-to-an-end" actions. And when I see that behavior, alarm bells go off.

Here's something I've never understood.

If it is your opinion -- and you freely admit it to be an OPINION -- why would you rage out attempting to defend or preserve that opinion?

An opinion is just a thing you think, based on the information you have, that you admit may or may not be true.

I adore discussing opinions and the differences between them, but I'm never going to lose my mind because something I voluntarily deem an opinion isn't being respected or agreed with, because by nature of calling it an "opinion," I'm admitting to the existence of a potential margin of error!

THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE WORD!

Otherwise -- if you're convinced your opinion is not wrong and could not be wrong -- you'd call it "truth"! (Even if what you deem "truth" is, in fact... not.)

The idea of journalism being for-profit at all continues to vex me. If the purpose of journalism is to present objective facts and report on happenings, then for-profit models automatically corrupt that purpose. Journalism should be funded in ways similar to nonprofits -- if we want the service and believe in the work, we contribute, we volunteer our efforts, we hold fundraising events. Ad blockers are the least of the industry's problems. It needs an overhaul, a new direction.

As soon as a reporter's salary is determined by administrators looking to turn a profit, journalism becomes entertainment geared toward generating controversy. And if those profits come largely from paid advertising, then any potentially unbiased message has to sit next to specifically persuasive, manipulative ads, confusing the whole thing.