Bolt v. Dawkins (and Singer, sort of)

Imagine a boxing match between Andrew Bolt and Richard Dawkins. I say boxing match instead of debate since it would have to be some kind of physical attack if the former were involved; after all, he and I know that Mr. Bolt isn't one to bother himself with reason and well structured arguments.
Take his recent 'And another thing' piece.
(http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,11516941%255E25717,00.html)

Can anybody find an argument in there? I'm not being facetious. I cannot find anything syllogistic there at all. All he is doing is taking a candidly controversial statement from its context and holding it up for ridicule, as if there was something self-evidently bad about what Singer is saying.

Not only is Bolt demonstrating his abilities as a demagogue to his readership (note his oversimplification of every issue), he is also demonstrating an arrogant lack of intellectual pursuit. It is one thing to form an opinion based on careful consideration of facts, but another to decide on an opinion and mock anything that disagrees with that, without consideration.
Bolt is deliberately misconstruing and decontextualising Peter Singer's words; he is making an assumption that humans are worthy of life regardless, whereas animals are somehow subordinate in every way.

To illustrate, the ever-reliable Richard Dawkins:
'The 'worth' of an animal's life is just its replacement cost to its owner--or, in the case of a rare species, to humanity. But tie the label Homo sapiens even to a tiny piece of insensible, embryonic tissue, and its life suddenly leaps to infinite, uncomputable value.'
(http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/mind_gap.html)

With that in mind, note Bolt's comment that 'Singer proves yet again that those who demand that animals be treated like humans, are in fact demanding that humans be treated like animals.'

Well, let's think about that. Bolt suffers from what Dawkins calls the 'discontinuous mind', unable to think outside classification and cannot contend with the sorites paradox. The discontinuous mind cannot bear to think that the human is an animal and realated comletely to the 'animal kingdom'.
Dawkins, once again: '"Human", to the discontinuous mind, is an absolute concept. There can be no half measures. And from this flows much evil.'

Apparently it is self-evident that humans and 'animals' are very different and should not be treated as equal. Well, maybe not equal, but surely there are animals that are smarter, more sentient and more 'alive' than some disabled/imperfect infants. You know, the ones it is apparently self-evident should be 'saved'.
Oh, but we don't want to treats animals and humans are if they are related. Why don't we just go and deny evolution by natural selection while we're at it? After all, if evolution shows us anything it is that you cannot essentialise humanity.

As we can see, this issue is very thorny. I've not even scratched the surface and don't claim to be any authority. But it's more thought than what did Bolt gave to it. This is an important issue and he didn't even give it more thought than 'how do I fill up the bottom of this page?'.

This is a disagreement on principle. I have little problem reading things I disagree with, but it is disingenuous and an insult to my intelligence to read something clearly pandering to those who wouldn't think twice. It's not only unfair on those who might dissent, but on those who might support your cause if you had been more thoughtful.
I have no idea whether, as Bolt suggests (without citing anything, mind you), Singer has said certain things, and if they stand up to reason and argument. The point is that Bolt didn't care about that.
I could be swayed to Bolt's line of thinking if he had bothered to back up his claims. Who knows, maybe Bolt is right. But we can't tell, since he didn't bother to defer to those annoying little things like reason and argument.