>>Hi Mark,
>> Here's some more info that might provide more backgound:
>>
>>http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/feature/microsoft/chomsky.html
>
>I have scanned some it for now, but I must say, he lost some credibility at the beginning by referring to MS as a parasite. That gives me the impression of personal bias against MS. I also have a BIG problem with the following
>
>CW: What would it look like if it [internet] were under public control?
>
>NC: It would look like it did before, except much more accessible because more people would have access to it. And with no constraints. People could just use it freely. That has been done, as long as it was in the public domain. It wasn't perfect, but it had more or less the right kind of structure. That's what Microsoft and others want to destroy.
>
>One of his assertions that the internet was free to everyone and is not now. This is basically false. Free to any one with the right kind of computer [which ain't free]. The government [taxpayers] can not and should not pay for everything. Routers, servers, software, etc., cost money.

Hmmm. I didn't find that assertion. 'Free' doesn't denote 'no cost', rather it connotates available for public use and, yes, even support, unencumbered by private interests.

>Once the internet opened up the the general masses, it opened the door for free enterprise which does not mean free access to private sites. Just as I have the right to start up my own web server, I am expending my own capital and have the right to charge for access. You, on the other hand, have the right to not patronize my site.
>

Curious. Who is Microsoft's largest customer?

>While some of what he says is true, I disagree his basic principals which are socialistic at best.

A typical response from most (myself included once upon a time) who are not familiar with Chomsky. 'Libertarian' is a more accurate assesment by his own admission and concurs with other scholars as well. He actually claims 'anarchist'. He's a linguistics Prof at MIT. Words have impact upon our world views. His schtick is that power tends to coagulate and look out for it's own interests, and then expand them without regard to other interests (i.e. becomes a parasite). (Yep, a gross oversimplfication vulnerable to attack. :-)) The use of word phases like 'free market' come to mean something different in an individuals world view than what may be actually going on. Then we banter unsubstantiated sentiments back & forth (presupposing it's an 'either/or' choice) like gangs retaliating for the most recent drive-by of some other gang. There are lots media resources spent this way. Our emotions get pricked, our eyeball time is captured, then there are a couple of commercials. Then we do it all again. Wow, at least UT Chatter is commercial-free. So I think I'll go pee and have another beer now. Let us toast to distraction and Homer Simpson... ha, ha :-)

Thanks for purusing the article Mark! Later-