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 Cracking the Code:
"No one communicates more thoughtfully or effectively on the radio airwaves than Thom Hartmann. He gets inside the arguments and helps people to think them through—to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts, but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear."
From Screwed:
"Hartmann speaks with the straight talking clarity and brilliance of a modern day Tom Paine as he exposes the intentional and systematic destruction of America’s middle class by an alliance of political con artists and outlines a program to restore it. This is Hartmann at his best. Essential reading for those interested in restoring the institution that made America the envy of the world."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Right through the worst of the Bush years and into the present, Thom Hartmann has been one of the very few voices constantly willing to tell the truth. Rank him up there with Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers, and Paul Krugman for having the sheer persistent courage of his convictions."
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.