> The wording seems expansive, but that is misleading. Excluded were “unpeople” (to borrow Orwell’s useful concept), among them Native Americans, slaves and wom

> The wording seems expansive, but that is misleading. Excluded were “unpeople” (to borrow Orwell’s useful concept), among them Native Americans, slaves and women, who under the British common law adopted by the founders were the property of their fathers, handed over to husbands. Indeed, it wasn’t until 1975 that women gained the right to serve on juries in all fifty states. "Misleading" is how I would characterize Chomsky. Every passage of his that I encounter seems to include at least one sucker punch. In a way, I admire him, as sort of a rhetorical chess master. Makes one think. Would there were less poison included.