> But the review itself isn't nearly as scornful. The reviewer's
> Samantha Powers, and she goes back and forth on Chomsky's book in ways
> that aren't entirely bullshit.
I read her back-and-forth (which I agree is very noticeable) as a pretty standard CYA maneuver, so that her colleagues wouldn't tar her as a Chomsky-lover. (She has issued some strong criticisms of US foreign policy, but she would not be classifiable as a radical.)
In general, I though the review was pretty positive. And as you say, a number of her criticisms were justified. If I recall correctly, she pointed out that he is sometimes sloppy with his references to sources, and connected this with the fact that he has been talking mainly to people who agree with him. When you can't get anyone who disagrees with you to seriously engage with your arguments, you can fall into the habit of not documenting your points with the utmost care.
Of course, it can get much worse than that. When I was a graduate student back in the '60s, the book "None Dare Call It Treason" (can't remember the author's name) came out. It was fairly standard John Birch-type stuff, but this guy's claims, all backed up with neat footnotes referring to NY Times articles, etc., were so outrageous that I decided to check some out. Having a university library available, I went to the microfilmed newspaper articles he referred to and found that he had made up every single one of them -- there was nothing on any of the pages he referred to that was anything like what he claimed was there. At least Chomsky is not that unscrupulous!
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile