Hypothetical dinner invitation

If I were presented with the conversation-starting hypothetical - With which living American would you most like to have dinner, and why? - my answer today and this month and for who knows how long would probably be Thomas Friedman. I admire his writing deeply. I admire his research and his tenacity and all of the conclusions that he draws. The World is Flat was selected by my book club a couple of years ago, and it changed the way I think about global issues. I enjoy Friedman on the New York Times opinion page too. He writes in the way I want my students to write - with attention-getting, respectful, yet firm urgency. He is one of my writing heroes, an exemplar of compassionate rationality.
     I would like to post this column in its entirety but that wouldn't be a good use of space, would it? Instead, I recommend that you click on the link and check out "What They Really Believe." I'm not saying there isn't room for debate on the issue of climate change, but Friedman knows what he's talking about. (He is from Minnesota, after all!) He has literally criss-crossed the globe as a reporter and has access to some of the best minds and some of the best data. He shouldn't be dismissed.
     He also does a really nifty thing with warrant analysis in this piece too. Warrant, or the underlying values/worldview/assumptions found in every argument whether or not the writer recognizes its presence, is a concept I work hard all semester to convey to my students. It is one of my fall 2009 semester triumphs, in fact, that my current students have, by and large, grasped it. For starters, I created an outline/template that required them to state the warrant for every listed reason. We also spent a fair bit of time in class verbalizing warrants. Over and over, I wrote reasons on the board and then helped them brainstorm the values that shore up those reasons. To state the unstated is an eye-opening experience, and to the extent that an argument writer can verbalize warrant(s), he/she has the ability to create common ground with the intended audience and then provide backing (support for the warrant) that adds an extra layer of persuasiveness. Backing is like that little piece of fudge at the bottom of a ice cream novelty cone.