A husband arrives home after his wife spent a few hours at the beauty shop enjoying a “makeover day”.   Upon noticing his wifes new hairdo he remarks your hair looks beautiful.   She responds:

 “do you like my hair better this way, or the way I used to have it”?

There is no way to answer this   question safely because the Mrs. has just presented an example of “Prog Logic Thought”.   If the Mr. says the new style is best, the Mrs. will proclaim “how come you never told me you hated my old hair”; conversely if the Mr. says the former style was preferred, well, watch out…. nuf said.
This cognitive framing of progressive logic (prog-logic) extends into many areas of discussion, including Mark O’Mara.   But before talking about the specific examples of Mark O’Mara lets review some more easy to frame historical examples.
How frequently did you hear the Chinese Tiananmen Square crackdown by the hardline government was an example of a hard-right government crackdown?   I’ll bet so frequently, that it is actually embedded in the psyche of the majority.
Yet in reality a move by government to take control is a move to the left on the freedom continuum.   Considering the Left and Right framing on the political scale, one must remember the on the far left you have governmental control or Totalitarian Communism, on the far right you have the absence of any governmental control or Anarchy.
For the sake of simple intellectual honesty this truth has to be accepted regardless of how uncomfortable it may be to recognize.   The indoctrinated flaw might still exist as the Prog individual’s historical reference point or psyche.  But the truth is as described.
So the Chinese Government making the decision to call in the Mongolian enlisted army to take control of Tiananmen Square by force, was, in actuality, a move to the hard left.  To claim otherwise is to be cognitively dissonant, or express Prog logic.
Another more recent example is the Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMD, argument in Iraq.  Most notably used to attack one element of former President Bush’s decision to justify invading Iraq.
According to Prog Logic there were no WMD’s ergo Bush lied.   However, 300,000 Kurdish people were previously murdered with the use of Mustard Gas and other chemical weapons in Iraq during Saddam Hussein’s genocide campaign against the Kurds circa 1988.   The Al-Anfal Campaign constituted a systematic genocide of the Kurdish people in Iraq (see Halabja poison gas attack for one well documented example).
So the issue was not whether Saddam Hussein “had” WMD, the issue was did he still “have” the biological and chemical weapons at the time decision makers were contemplating action.
Again, to argue “as if” there never were WMD in Iraq is intellectual dishonesty and Prog-Logic.    However, you still see this argument framed today that Iraq never had WMD.
Another keen aspect of those who hold such ideological belief is the question posed: If you had known then, what you know now, would you still support invasion?    Like the hairstyle question this is a prog-logic question without answer.

What you know today can impact or affect what you do tomorrow; but what you know today cannot, in any way, impact the decisions you made yesterday.

Prog Logic is not owned exclusively by Democrats or Liberals.  It is, however, most abundantly evident in those who self-define as such.  But it is far more accurate to state that Prog Logic encompasses the entire political continuum; and unfortunately extends into other elements of any discussion related to society.
The prog-logic approach is based on emotion, embedded and ingrained over years of flawed cognition which some describe as indoctrination.
Some entire professions are filled with people well versed in prog-logic viewpoints and arguments; mainly obvious are politicians and lawyers.   It is no coincidence the vast majority of modern-day politicians are lawyers.   By trade, indoctrination, and values or beliefs, they see their role as needing to “convince”, sway, or impart their cognitive beliefs onto others.
But you see it in every day people too.
If you are debating with someone and hear the words “I’ll let you do that” or something to that effect, then more than likely you are in an argument with a prog.    Just see the red flag in such a statement and walk away or disengage, you will not be able to converse.   They are NEVER going to give you an inch of ground toward validity in your position.  They are constitutionally incapable of pragmatism – they are ideologues.    And if you stand your ground – you will be labeled the ideologue, so it is better to just exit and retain your sense of peace.

Another important and widely held trait of similarity for prog-logic thinkers is their constitutionally incapable capacity to associate a whole frame of reference based on the sum of individual parts.

Rather than address how dots connect to form a whole they establish argumentative inconsistencies to frame their logic.   They dissect, or spit the point of discussion into more easily deconstructable portions.   As they break the big picture apart they find it easier to maintain their internal belief system.
It is almost best considered a defense mechanism designed to avoid rational logic which does not align with their ideology.

A fairly complex contrary opinion cannot be accepted into consciousness in its entirety because it contains aspects that are both acceptable to a person as well as unacceptable.

Remember Progs are indoctrinated, this way of thinking becomes embedded in their psychological DNA so-to-speak, and it is rooted in emotion.    Relatively underdeveloped independent thinkers, most progs, have a hard time incorporating into consciousness seemingly contradictory aspects of the same argument or thing.
Hence lawyers defend lawyers and will not accept a flawed skill set as existing in the profession they affiliate with.
So, they unconsciously separate or “split” considerations into two categories, seeing the “good” side, or agreeable portion, as the part they find acceptable; and the “bad” side of the argument as the part they find painful or unacceptable.    And, it’s much more than just seeing both a good and a bad side to every argument.

They intellectually “split” a single example into two opposing realities, conceptualizing for example a lawyer who has both a good skill set and a weak aspect as alternately “good O’Mara”, or “bad O’Mara.”
This way of looking at things is fundamentally flawed because it fails to see the picture as a whole, and instead only focuses on the individual pixels that make up the picture, while simultaneously needing to project their opinion of what the visible image is – because of their proximity to the individual elements.    They simply cannot step back and see.

As a result, they will often alternate between over-idealizing, until irrefutable proof is provided, and then devaluing the same thing they idolized with visible anger.
This is exactly what you are witnessing with the staunch Mark O’Mara supporters.   They are necessarily bound to avoid looking at the big picture, or his entire representation, as a whole; and need instead to argue each individual element in deconstructing the justification of failure.
The best visible example of this mindset is exhibited by former guests MichaelNotMike (a lawyer) and txantimedia.   Who have penned the following blog post:

(Via txantimedia Blog )The Conservative Treehouse is a blog that has done tremendous work on the Trayvon Martin case.  […]   Recently, however, they have taken to attacking Zimmerman’s lawyer, Mark O’Mara, accusing him of being incompetent, not up to the task of trying such an important case and even of being in cahoots with the prosecution to ensure that George goes to trial.  Given that none of the posters are lawyers, it’s hard to see how they are qualified to judge the actions of a lawyer who is described as “a savvy litigator”, “a brilliant lawyer”, “very ethical” and who was selected as a Florida Super Lawyer.
The site has deteriorated to the point that they are now calling O’Mara “O’Mara of Nazereth” and “Orlando Jesus”, and anyone who dares to argue with their opinion is ridiculed and insulted.  Although they have done great work uncovering facts in the past, they have now resorted to calling opinions facts in an attempt to buttress their case.
Here’s are some examples, with my commentary interspersed. (continue reading)

I strongly, in the most passionate of terms, request those of like-minded sentiment to MNM and txantimedia to go and join them both on the blog available CLICK HERE.
It has become increasingly annoying to see the same arguments page, after page, after page.   Please, if you are an advocate of Mark O’Mara, or if you think Mark O’Mara is a great attorney for George Zimmerman – Then join txantimedia and Michael.

Please.