The article very rightly criticizes what passes for thinking in the press. He is absolutely correct in pointing out that they engage in "bad thinking" and illogic, and they do it on a daily basis. Most of us here at FR would agree that liberals don't know how to think. The problem I pointed out was that the article then went on to use some examples and engaged in some of the very same "bad thinking" the press does!
Example 1: The author discusses the decision on virtual child pornography and relates that to CFR. He starts by pointing out that editorialists defended the decision, stating the reason that even offensive speech deserves protection. Then he points out that the same papers argued for CFR. But he omits the reasoning behind the papers position on CFR and claims they are hypocrital. They may be, but the accusation goes to motive and an honest analysis of their position that DOESN'T use "bad thinking" must take into account the reasoning behind the paper's position on CFR. Do they acknowledge that CFR violates the 1st Ammendment but support it anyway? Then he'd be right, they are hypocritcal. More likely, they don't think that at all and believe (rationalize if you prefer) CFR doesn't infringe on the 1st. In which case it would be wrong, but wouldn't be hypocritical. In refusing to deal with it and defining his opponents views in his own terms to make a point the author engages in "bad thinking".
Example 2: The author says the press is hypocritical for being on opposite sides of two 1st Ammendment issues. Yet the author himself is guilt of precisely the same offense. In a previous article, which he cited in this one, he argues against the Supreme Court's decision on virtual child porn, yet it is clear from the context of this article that he believes CFR is wrong because it is a 1st Ammendment violation. That is exactly the same hypocrisy he accuses the press of, he's just on the other side of each issue.
Example 3: He again falls in the same "bad thinking" trap on the cloning issue. He says people that think using cloning to produce a baby is wrong also think using cloning to produce embryos for stem cells is OK. These are in fact two different things, and it's easy to see that if such a person believed a cellular embryo did not equate to a baby, how they could come to these seperate conclusions (again, since I know this is a sensitive subject and some of you fly off the handle easily, this isn't about whether any embryo IS a baby, it's about the process of analyzing what people think). So how does he make his case for "bad thinking"? By redefining the terms and attributing beliefs to his opponents that they don't have. He says, "In other words, it is wrong to use cloning technology to produce a living baby. But it is right to use cloning technology to produce a baby that is killed for its spare parts." But nobody says it is right to kill a baby for parts. The people who support therapeutic cloning don't believe harvesting an embryo is "killing a baby". They could be wrong about that, but it's what they think, and the author dishonestly uses terms that distort their views in order to make his point. That is very "bad thinking".
Example 4: The last example I'll cite is so blatant I wonder that he couldn't see the irony of it when he wrote it. He says, "But clear, logical thinking requires the ability to make distinctions." Very true, and he goes on to make the distinction between being pro-life and pro-death penalty, "It is wrong to kill an innocent person. It may not be wrong for the state to kill someone who is guilty." Exactly so. And right after making that point he says, "The contradiction is really on the other side. How can you oppose the death penalty, but be in favor of abortion? How can you be against executing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 innocent men, women, and little children, but be for executing, without trial, a baby who isn't even born yet and who hasn't hurt anybody?" Where he ignores his own requirement to "make distinctions" and again uses loaded terms to describe his opponents views. Most pro-choicers probably don't consider abortion to be executing a baby, and they consider it a distinction that the baby exists inside another person. An honest analysis of their views deals with these facts directly, it doesn't distort them or ignore them.
Now he's entitled to his political views, as are all of us. This is a good piece of political persuasion. But it poses as a lesson on logic and good thinking and it is certainly NOT that.
More likely, they don't think that at all and believe (rationalize if you prefer) CFR doesn't infringe on the 1st. In which case it would be wrong, but wouldn't be hypocritical.
The people who support therapeutic cloning don't believe harvesting an embryo is "killing a baby".
Most pro-choicers probably don't consider abortion to be executing a baby
Hmmm...I suppose one could argue that some people see things differently, and are logical in their thinking. But I don't buy that. Just because you THINK that you can jump 6 ft across a ravine doesn't mean you can - your still a gonner as you argue "my math was wrong but my logic was right!"
Take the death penalty vs. abortion for example. Most left wingers support one and are against the other (guess which). I don't think they are too stupid to know that both are killing, I think they simply rationalize that one is a "life" but the other is not, until the baby is born from the womb. (Your choice of the word "executing" babies was a strawman IMHO). Are they therefore logically correct? No, they are not logically "correct." They are morally, truthfully, and logically - seriously incorrect.
I agree with much of what the author says. But you, mlo, HAVE made some points worth considering. So I would reverse the authors conclusion.
Moral clarity is a prerequisite for Mental clarity.
Basically this is saying that logic alone won't save us, especially if our "logic" is based on false beliefs and rationalizations. But we all knew that...didn't we.