Chomsky is an academic fraud. His degree rests on a non-falsifiable linguistic view of an underlying structure that is rendered suspect by several languages, semantics, and common sense. His popularity rests on several poorly reasoned left-anarchist Anti-American Polemics (outside his field of "expertise", btw). Also, look at Chomsky's funding sometime. He receives so much funding that he basically works for the government. That makes him either a hypocrite or a government shill. Take your pick. Either way I wouldn't buy his books (though I've read most of the linguistic and a few of the political ones). At least go with Bookchin. Kropotkin and Tolstoy are my favorite Anarchists though Bakunin and Stirner are also of interest.
I think Zinn's book is interesting taken on its own, the problem is that it's convinced several textbook folks to write minoritarian history as itself majoritarian. And yes, that's a problem. Big men do impact history. Alexander the Great or Napoleon weren't products of the times, they anticipated them. They were heroes, not oppressors. Also, dates matter. If you don't realize Zinn is historiographically radical (he's anti-Big Man, anti majority, against "significant" events, and averse to dates) you're a tad daft.
Liberalism = Imperialism? LOL. God help you if you see things so black and white. Look at the USSR some time and its relationship to the Eastern Bloc. Also, see Mercantilism - which if you want a cookie cutter answer was most obviously responsible for the onset of colonialism. Oh and the rum trade and about a half-dozen other things, including the complicity and factional struggles of "the conquered". Oh, and the gravest consequence of Colonialism was of course a monarchy - see: Leopold II.

I'd say 'For Aliasalpha!', but Disney and the cast of The Chronicles of Narnia would kick my ass. I'd love to do that, what you wrote I mean.

Chomsky an academic fraud? Hahahaha, are you serious? I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about at all. Even conservatives don't try to touch his linguistics career because he completely revolutionized the field, I know you're trying to sound like you know much about it but if that's what you think he did you obviously haven't taken any classes on the topic.
Every university's linguistics program is influenced by him because of generative grammar; it's still taught after it replaced behaviorist theorists like Skinner. His political works are completely separate but he's been doing it for 50 years and with great veracity so he's leagues more knowledgeable than you can hope to be. You're also wrong about his funding; I don't know where the hell you get the laughable idea that the government pays him (considering you earlier said he was anti-American lmao) but his income comes mainly from his tours and his books, he also still works for a MIT which is private.
And yes, I know you don't understand classical liberalism, or neo liberalism surely, because your understanding apparently comes from, well, who the hell knows? Even wikipedia would do a world of good on any of the topics, and trust me, wikipedia doesn't have a leftist bias ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics#Generative_grammar (for added fun, search how many times Chomsky shows up under the page for linguistics)
You sound smart (surely you are since you shop at GoG!) but seriously, don't pretend like Chomsky is some nobody anarchist when he is by far the biggest figure in the field of linguistics in the 20th century.

Eh, I wouldn't cite Wikipedia to support your claims about a controversial figure.

Fixed. =)

If I were to use academia he'd probably accuse it of being leftist. If you want a brief introduction to anything, wikipedia is pretty good. Like I said, some people are concerned one way or another of it being biased, but there's no particularity. The idea that wikipedia purposely distorts things in one direction leads to the hilarious creation of sites like http://www.conservapedia.com
Go there and it'll be hard to take wikipedia for granted as much

The Wikipedia pages for figures such as Chomsky are overrun with delusional followers and vicious opponents.

That sort of comment is no less idiotic and backwards than what the Texas BOE just passed.

It's kind of like seeing a little brat of a kid calling his mom a stupid bitch and saying "Well, he's not my kid, who care how he acts".

Does it look like I care? Great thanks bye now.

So wait, the way you worded your sentence the kids says 'he's not my kid' bit right? Yeah, learn proper english, schools still teach sentence construction last I checked. But at the rate Texas is going other schools tend to follow trends so maybe they won't in the near future.

Incorrect. That is why I rarely correct people on grammar :p
You see "a little brat of a kid". He is "calling his mom a stupid bitch". You remark "Well, he's not my kid, who cares how he acts"
I would say something regarding reading comprehension and the like, but I don't care enough. Plus, I sort of have horrifyingly bad grammar.
And also, for reasons already mentioned (read the thread next time), this can potentially affect a large number of non-Texans.

Apparently Obama is attempting to institute federal guidelines for curriculum in a revision of the no child left behind act.

Just FYI, the "Texans are removing Jefferson entirely" thing is a misconception, due to a biased report that has started a firestorm on the web. They actually only dropped him from a list of writers whose writing has started revolutions, which is fairly accurate. The only thing he wrote that might qualify him for that list, IIRC, was the Declaration of Independence and that was really more summing up the reasons for a revolution that was going to occur anyway.