One can read my post, its accompanying link and draw their own conclusions.
Since you offered no reason as to why you thought the information about the author, or his father, was particularly noteworthy, you left your readers with no choice but to do just that, which I did. .Rather than jump to conclusions, we instead can use your post, the link you provided, Ragman's linked article, and your historical positions and reactions to the information relevant to the above.
We know you tend to be somewhat defensive when encountering criticism (real or imagined) of conservatives, and like many conservatives view criticisms from the right towards the left as proper, correct and justified, while at the same time rejecting criticisms of the right from any position as being totally unfounded. And you tend to lash out at the criticism in an attempt to discredit it, but unfortunately most often employing arguably the most common logical fallacy in existence on the Internet, the "argumentum ad hominem" logical fallacy, which is arguing against the person making the statement, rather than the statement itself. This usually manifests itself, as you normally do, as dismissing information from any source, be it a politician, TV network, radio station, Web site, or otherwise, almost always pointing to a particular bias from the source, and then therefore claiming that it cannot be trusted. The problem with that, of course is, bias doesn't trump facts. If a biased individual makes a factually correct statement, his or her bias does not somehow, as of by magic, make the statement factually incorrect.
The only other things we have to go on is the use of the phrases "a chip off the old block" and "noted Northeastern liberals." The phrase "a chip off the old block," of course means similar in character from where and whence it came, usually applied to a male to indicate a similarity to his father. It can be used both for high praise, or more often, for biting criticism. Knowing that you generally go not hold liberals in particular high esteem, especially those who criticize conservatives, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude you use the phrase to mean biting criticism rather than high praise. The phrase "Northeastern liberal" is a generally regarded euphemism for "even more out of touch with reality than a pedestrian liberal," and your addition of "noted" would seem to indicate you view him as a Northeastern liberal of particular note, even more even more out of touch with reality. So, it would appear that you used both phrases pejoratively.
Te conclusions I reached, based on all of the above, is you made a post to point out the liberalness of the author, rather than comment about what the author said, and even went so far as to try and taint the author by closely associating him with his father, in what seemed to be one of your classic "argumentum ad hominem" logical fallacies, in an attempt to discredit the article posted by Ragman. And oddly enough, by pointing out the pedigree of the author, rather than simply addressing the article itself, you gave the article even more credibility than it would have otherwise received, and further elevated here by referring to him as an expert.
However, your response and its implicit misrepresentation is itself a logical fallacy,
For one, it's not a logical fallacy, as my conclusions were drawn from the above, none of which is a logical fallacy. It doesn't surprise me at all that you fail to see the logical fallacies when you use them, but can somehow find them where they don't even exist in others' arguments. Second, my response was, in total, my own conclusions. Trust me, I in no way implicitly misrepresented my own conclusions. to assert that I misrepresented my own conclusions is, not to put too fine a point on it, pointedly butt-stoopid. If you're going to try and back peddle and claim what you
meant to say was that my conclusions presented somehow an "implicit misrepresentation" of your position, I'd advise against it since you're going to be on the same butt-stoopid point since you never explicitly presented any position at all which could then be misrepresented by anyone.
even hypocrisy - especially considering recent condemnations of certain websites and pundits for their biases and agendas in their written opinions.
I'm truly at a loss as to why you would make such an ignorant, and wrong, accusation. All of the possibilities have you coming off not looking very good, I'm afraid. Did you just make it up because you're mean? Frankly, that's the one that makes you look the best. Do you seriously have such a high level of reading comprehension and obtuseness that you can't understand what I write? Or perhaps you are so steeped in your own conservative bias that anyone who doesn't share the same bias is therefore liberal, and whatever they say you view as a criticism of a conservative, even when it's not there? I have never, ever condemned certain websites (whatever that means) or pundits for their biases and agendas in their written opinions. Not once. I highly value the opinions and biases of those with which I do not agree. It's the only way to learn what the other opinions are, and enables me to at least try and look at differing opinions from another point of view. There are sometimes certain parts of an agenda that I may condemn, if it's a destructive agenda (such as many parts of the Gay Rights Agenda, parts of the anti-abortion agenda, parts of the pro-abortion agenda, the "rob from the rich and give to the poor" liberal agenda, and the "I have a deep-seeded need to tell you what to do, how to live and what to think" conservative agenda, etc.). I have certainly disagreed with many websites and pundits, but that's hardly any kind of condemnation of their presenting their bias or agendas.
I will certainly condemn a website or a pundit if they
use their bias or agenda
in such a way as to present their opinions or agenda as factual rather than opinion or philosophy, and I will unmercifully condemn them if they use their bias or agenda to intentionally mislead, misinform, misrepresent, or in some cases, fabricate the truth, because doing so is beneath contempt and should be condemned by any intelligent thinking human being. And while I won't make statements of condemnation, I will, absolutely, ridicule the pee out of someone who believes that biased, agenda driven lies are actually unbiased factual news if they try and use it to support their own arguments.
Schlesinger's article is not without spin that favors the Kennedy legacy.
Yeah, so? Bias doesn't trump facts. It never has, and it never will. Just because someone is biased doesn't in and of itself mean that what they said should be dismissed. If that were true, then you'd have to dismiss as untrue every stated fact by Fox News, CNN and every other news organization on the planet because they are biased. That's patently absurd.
The fact that his father was a member of Kennedy's inner circle certainly makes him an expert on the Kennedy administration, but by no means an objective observer.
He didn't present himself as an objective observer. The article linked by Ragman is not an objective news article, it's in the OPINION section of the US News ad World Report. You seem to want to dismiss it out of hand, or at the very least mitigate (lessen the gravity of, which is ironic since you've made him an expert on the matter) and diminish (to make less impressive and less valuable, which is again, ironic for the same reason) the article solely because it isn't an objective opinion, and do so not based on what was written, but rather based on the person who wrote it, which is a stellar example of a logical fallacy (not to mention a massive failure in critical thinking - the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment).
