Sunday, November 22, 2009

Facts and Opinion

A Sunday that sort of began with my having a telephone "conversation" of sorts, on, among other things, some unknown author, who I suspect was either Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Now, I invariably find myself agreeing with Hitchens and Harris when they discuss religion. However, there views on politics leave something to be desired. Anyway, there was my friend on the other end of the phone reading a direct quotation from Dershowitz and something that was either plagiarised from Dershowitz, or paraphrased in such a way that it made no sense whatsover. Plagiarising Dershowitz, now isn't that a world turned upside down?

No sense, or nonsense, to anyone, except those who have come to believe that opinions should not be contradicted by facts and are even then sufficiently naive as to mistake someone quoting facts as an expression of that person's bias and opinion while they themselves continue to rely on an opinion that is misinformed and liable to bias. Of course, opinions have to be informed by facts if they are not to rise into the air like some soap bubble where they burst and evaporate and the fact is that Dershowitz's lack of any academic credibility whatsoever is admirably exposed by Norman Finkelstein who reveals Dershowitz's "masterpiece", 'The Case for Israel', as being the plagiarised piece of junk that it is. He shows that the books "arguments" rely largely on source material that is taken directly from Joan Peter's monumental hoax, "From Time Immemorial". Finkelstein writes, "Dershowitz not only copies Peters shamelessly, but knowingly does so from a book serious scholars have uniformly condemned."

Unfortunately, Dershowitz has not yet risen into the air like the metophorical soap bubble, he is here, there and, indeed, everywhere, as seems evident by my friend, who until recently had never read anything at all by him, actually quoting him. It is this that should worry us and while the great pretender can resort to being ingratiating, as he appears to be at times during his attempted monologue" with" Noam Chomsky,  and, while he can be vindictive, as he was when he was orchestrating pressure to have Dr Finkelstein relieved of his tenure at DePaul’s College, it is the uniformed mind that is left exposed; Chomsky and Finkelstein are immune to the vile bile, the nonsensical drivel of Alan Dershowitz and his ilk. Indeed, it is for them to expose the charlatans. However, the mind that ignores facts, or mistakes drivel for facts, provides fertile ground for these gobblydegookers, these newspeakers, these falsifiers of history.   

No comments: