This is among your best and most important pieces, Glenn. Thank you. I'm posting first and then will read the letters, so I apologize in advance if I'm repeating anything.

I have no dog in this fight. As a curious intellectual, I couldn't help but wonder over the years what all this talk about the Israeli-Palestinian situation really was about. My interest started back in high school, when Jimmy Carter got the two sides together. From then till now, it's been nearly impossible to get neutral information, a frustrating phenomenon for someone like me who likes to research the hell out of anything that captures my interest or feels important. And that particular corner of the world seems to have enormous play in global politics, resulting in enormous influence in trade and military policy for people everywhere.

I can't stand suppression of ideas. Someone in another thread on salon made the good point that Obama's seeming hesitation to reject wholesale the Farrakhan support (as opposed to "merely" renouncing Farrakhan's anti-Semitism) was, rather than an equivocation to garner black votes, a demonstration of his truly transformational outlook on politics: He genuinely wants to eschew the traditional divisive labels and sit down with everybody, enemy and friend. Another poster asked snarkily if Obama would as easily denounce David Duke without more forcefully rejecting his "support" and I have to say that I think in fact Obama would. That is, I can actually picture Obama sitting down with members of the KKK (IF that were a large, influential, or otherwise relevant group today, which it's not) to gain a better understanding of where they were coming from, achieving of course the outcome of transmitting to them a better understanding of himself.

If this seems off track, it goes to the heart of Glenn's post: We--and candidates--shouldn't be afraid to make an intellectual argument that supports listening to alternative views, even if those views seem associated with, at first glance, something reprehensible. There is usually more to movements than meets the eye, especially if thoughtful, intelligent people are involved (not saying that about Farrakhan--I don't know anything about him at this point).

The Israel Lobby book mentioned above has been stonewalled and thwarted and dismissed as anti-Semitic by AIPAC. Here in Cleveland last fall, the authors (from U. of Chicago and Harvard) spoke at Case Western Reserve University after much controversy and over knee-jerk objections by many. These same two authors' were apparently cancelled in New York and Chicago b/c of the influence of AIPAC. The funny thing is, their book PRIMARILY focuses on the suppression angle. That is, the authors clearly support Israel as a state and U.S. support for it. But they abhor the lack of intellectual debate about Israel's influence on US policy and the reflexive "anti-Semitic" label that accompanies any position that isn't 100% supportive of whatever Israel wants.

According to a student account of the speech about Walt: His main point of contention was that "reasonable people ought to be able to discuss openly the Israel lobby."

Also this, which supports Glenn's post: Walt indicated that the pro-Israel lobby works in two ways in the American government – both in politics and by shaping public discourse. To the first point, Walt provided some quotes from various government officials, the most pointed being, "Everyone in Congress knows that you are playing with fire if you question U.S. support for Israel." To the second, he remarked that American public views of Israel are much more narrow than the views of Europeans or those inside Israel itself, where the actions of the state are more often called into question.

Here is the link to the student's account: http://observer.case.edu/Archives/Volume_40/Issue_5/Story_1936/

Has Chomsky ever appeared on Charlie Rose? That's the perfect forum for someone like him. (Not that that would make him mainstream, LOL. I don't know anybody in my robot world--neighbors, family, coworkers, etc., who ever watches Rose. What a shame.)

Maybe a little bit. But so much better than the cable talking heads. The point is, there is time to make your point on his show. He actually lets his guests talk.

Given that GG's question was about how to get Chomsky's message out to the regular folk (ie, if C regrets not doing so or if we think he should have), then we sort of have to get into the cesspool of television, no? I mean, that's where it's at, like it or not.

Anyway, I admire that you've turned off the tube. In a similar vein, I have thought lately that I spend too much time online. It has the potential for more intellectual stimulation, of course, but it remains that there's a whole world to be actually lived.

I've been thinking about the chilling effect that accompanies the stifling of ideas counter to conventional wisdom. In a way, this is the same complaint of the right during the nineties, and I remember feeling a thread of sympathy for conservatives who were frustrated that they couldn't, for example, make an intellectual argument against affirmative action without being labeled racist. Same for feminism, environmentalism, etc. Reasonable people can disagree, of course; the problem is that those countering the "correct" (read: politically correct) views often provide unwitting cover for the actual racists, sexists, and anti-Semitic. So, if there really were anti-Semites lurking on salon, this is the piece they'd jump all over and agree with. It's a price well worth paying, in my view, as I value independent thinking above almost all else.

I suppose that's why a good scientific foundation is so important, as well as training in logic and critical analysis. That way, lurkers hiding in the shadows of real debate can so easily be exposed.