For a more critical, albeit general take, on Chomsky (if one were interested), one might see here, and here. And just in case it wasn't clear, I agree with all necessary caveats, giving respects where respects are due.
In any case this metafilter thread picking up on the Foucault/Chomsky "debate" that has been (re)making the rounds lately, begs the necessary corrective (tho stupidities continuing to have popular purchase is hardly news, and time is better spent showing instead of telling, and in other forms, I fully realize):
What's the most widely held misconception about you and your work?
That I'm a skeptical nihilist who doesn't believe in anything, who thinks nothing has meaning, and text has no meaning. That's stupid and utterly wrong, and only people who haven't read me say this. It's a misreading of my work that began 35 years ago, and it's difficult to destroy. I never said everything is linguistic and we're enclosed in language. In fact, I say the opposite, and the deconstruction of logocentrism was conceived to dismantle precisely this philosophy for which everything is language. Anyone who reads my work with attention understands that I insist on affirmation and faith, and that I'm full of respect for the texts I read.
More thoughtful, original posting, hopefully, in about a week (it is (other peoples') wedding season, and hiking time again).