Daily Topics - Thursday February 21st, 2013
By shawnt56
Catch The Thom Hartmann Program LIVE 3-6pm ET M-F!
Hour One: Fox News...5 against 1? John Fugelsang
Hour Two: Profits up, pay down & no raise for you...what's wrong with this picture? Economist Harry Veryser, "It Didn't Have To Be This Way"
Hour Three: Will the Supreme Court dismantle our vote?
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"With the ever-growing influence of corporate CEOs and their right-wing allies in all aspects of American life, Hartmann’s work is more relevant than ever. Throughout his career, Hartmann has spoken compellingly about the value of people-centered democracy and the challenges that millions of ordinary Americans face today as a result of a dogma dedicated to putting profit above all else. This collection is a rousing call for Americans to work together and put people first again."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a creative thinker and committed small-d democrat. He has dealt with a wide range of topics throughout his life, and this book provides an excellent cross section. The Thom Hartmann Reader will make people both angry and motivated to act."
When debating with someone with the intention of getting them to agree with you, it seems best to start with the most superficial thesis, and if there is disagreement, move to the closest underlying thesis, and repeat until you find a point of commonality. Then work back up using raw data, interpreting those data as you go, until you reach back up to the original superficial thesis. I'm certainly not skilled in the execution of this process, but I can tell that it's probably the best one to use. Most people end up arguing in circles or digressing sideways through the tree of beliefs. You need to work down to the trunk, then back up to the same leaf.
I'd like to see political debates conducted as if the debators are a two-person legislature, working out a solution together, agreeing on what the problem is, then agreeing on a basic idea, then hammering out details and exceptions to that basic plan.