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
At Mondragon - both the mountain and the cooperative city - in Spain (written about in "Threshold" book)
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Through compelling personal stories, Hartmann presents a dramatic and deeply disturbing picture of humans as a profoundly troubled species. Hope lies in his inspiring vision of our enormous unrealized potential and his description of the path to its realization."
From Cracking the Code:
"Thom Hartmann ought to be bronzed. His new book sets off from the same high plane as the last and offers explicit tools and how-to advice that will allow you to see, hear, and feel propaganda when it's directed at you and use the same techniques to refute it. His book would make a deaf-mute a better communicator. I want him on my reading table every day, and if you try one of his books, so will you."
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.