There are certainly problems with the state of journalism, but anyone who tries to “view the news as a person” will be as woefully uninformed as those who try to “run government like a business.”

Yeah,I’m not gonna lie, I’ll enjoy the chance to march with the Northside Coalition again.

Hmm… Sounds a bit like Humankind’s system.

Coincidentally my problem is, in fact, that no one is paying me.

Cheap rent with a friend and the ability to move right back out again. I was laid off recently just as I was about to move for work and the choices were be homeless in LA, be homeless in Dallas, or move back into my old room in Jacksonville.

I enjoyed living in Florida, and I’m moving back, but I can confirm that they are both visually,and societaly, North America’s dong.

So you’re saying my father was wrong; crying will solve something?

They’ll pick someone who covers Harris’s demographic gaps for VP, like they did Biden for Obama. Probably a moderate from a swing state. Edit: spelling.

You raise a good point. The bias towards action, real or perceived, and the catharsis of self-righteous anger are both strong motivators at work in the political realm. We’d all do well to guard ourselves against those wishing to exploit them.

You’d think so,but education and experience doesn’t really get rid of the underlying tendency so much as it inoculates you to it in specific areas of experience/expertise. Plenty of experts in their own field will look at a screw-up in another field they’re not familiar with and exclaim “just do/don’t do x, y,or z.” That’s why it’s such an insidious tendency, insight really only let’s you see how complicated certain things are while leaving the shroud of your own ignorance around everything else.

Think of a clerk having trouble with the register when you’re in a hurry to get home. You’re likely to think to yourself "come on! It’s your one job and it’s not that hard. But if you’re made to stop and think about it you realize there’s a whole litany of functions to remember for the different scenarios that come up, an encyclopedia of produce numbers to remember, company policies to be observed,and all sorts of smaller jobs to be done.

This isn’t to say that people willing to hurt others for an easy solution to their problems have an excuse. This is just to say that we would do well to remember that everyone is susceptible to the urge to oversimplify.

Edit: spelling

His appeal is the same appeal that takes each of us in at some point; he offers easy answers to complicated problems. It’s tempting to believe that only the profoundly stupid will fall for this, but when a problem is outside your knowledge or experience and someone confidently announces they have a solution its pretty easy to let yourself stop thinking any further.

Also, there are a ton of racists and xenophobes out there who already believe they have the easy answers and like the confirmation of having them parroted back at them.

Side note: port isn’t the only terminology aviation has stolen from seafaring. For example: airspeed is measured in knots. Captain, pilot, and first officer were all used aboard ships first as well.

Here I am calling them air fields.

Of course it’s the folks taking it back to the ancient Greek and calling them aerodromes that are on the real next level.

Surprisingly, no. They counted deaths from exposure, drowning, etc as fatalities in this study: https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/the-myths-of-ditching/

This is just a review of NTSB data and some ditchings may have gone unreported. The main point is that ditching, even in the open ocean is very survivable.

Remember kids, according to an FAA review of accidents, no type of water ditching has lower than an eighty percent survivability rating. So putting it in the drink is always an option.

Do you have a suggested solution?

Several of the trade groups that sued New York “vociferously lobbied the FCC to classify broadband Internet as a Title I service in order to prevent the FCC from having the authority to regulate them,” today’s 2nd Circuit ruling said. “At that time, Supreme Court precedent was already clear that when a federal agency lacks the power to regulate, it also lacks the power to preempt. The Plaintiffs now ask us to save them from the foreseeable legal consequences of their own strategic decisions. We cannot.”

This has to be one of the better, legal “go fuck yourselves” I’ve ever seen.

Isn’t this just the story of the allied powers in World War Two repackaged into science fiction? The members were:

The British who were sort of friends with the Americans but regarded them as less civilized and less experienced in running a nation.

The French who literally fought the Hundred Years’ War against the English.

The Soviets who didn’t like any of those people and proceeded to argue with all of them thereafter.

The Americans who had existed for a little over a century, invented the nuke after winning a fight with a World power in an ascendant phase, and decided it was on them to guarantee World peace.

Well, this is awkward…

I love the topic, and the passion, but if you’re looking for constructive criticism I personally feel that this piece could benefit greatly from a few academic sources and a little reorganization.

On the whole the article is focusing on voter apathy, of which the statement “I’m non-political” is a symptom. Try to focus more on the subject of voter apathy and less on the particular statement. The statement is fine for a headline and an intro but as another commenter has already noted there are other reasons individuals might attest to apolitical feelings. If you reference a study on voter apathy in your introductory paragraph you can pick out the leading causes or use a few of the findings of the study to structure the rest of your article. Focus each section on one cause or finding with references back to the original source and another work or two that are focused more specifically on that subject. This will lengthen the article and lend it more true substance.

Consider combining the what can be done and where to look sections into your summation. As the purpose of this piece is to examine a social ill it is ideally suited to a “call to action” summary and these are the perfect sections for it.

Lastly, you would do well to cut down on “I” statements. They rarely engage the reader and can feel out of place when writing about a subject as universal and academic as voter apathy. For your opener think about something along the lines of “How many times has this happened to you: You’re discussing the events of the day with a friend or acquaintance only to get into the meat of the discussion and suddenly be met with the phrase ‘I’m not political’…” It directly engages the reader by asking them to participate in the thought exercise and makes the anecdote personal instead of second-hand.

I hope any of this helps. I think you’ve got a good start here and I look forward to what it could be with a little more meat on its bones.