I appreciate these answers. Certainly the general comments about adjusting to time and place are true. Certainly it is fine for Chomsky to focus on those areas where he has been so incredibly successful and not others. Still, I find this response to my blog to be very unsatisfactory. Of course, this is not at all about Chomsky, (and need not really be taken as a criticism of him,) it\'s about the movement. Chomsky is merely important in that he serves as a powerful magnet for the comments Peters highlights. She uses this empirical data to explore the question. Looking at this comment, I see a tremendous gap between Chomsky\'s detailed dissections of world events and the various suggestions for describing movement strategy and tactics: Chomsky here described as wanting to be vague, Albert here said to justify this vagueness, and McGee himself. I am reminded of the point repeatedly made by Roger Fisher in his writings, that we (ie. Israelis and Palestinians) will never agree on the facts of history, (and that our lack of agreement can serve as a basis for successful resolution of conflicts, or at least not stand in the way of it). I concede that \"what happened\" is much more concrete than \"what we could do that might work,\" but still the gap, (as rendered by McGee,) is too large. Or rather, people in the movement are taking concrete actions, and they, judging by the huge volume of comments to Chomsky from people involved in these actions, are often less than effective, poorly focused, etc. In the end, however, I am amazed by the large body of concrete, focused conclusions in the work of Roger Fisher, in stark contrast to what is claimed here on behalf of vagueness. Perhaps we await the Chomsky of strategy and tactics. Or perhaps, as I am arguing, the movement simply hasn\'t done it\'s homework and doesn\'t know much about what\'s already been done on the important and large concrete differences between those with long records of success vs. those who are just charging at windmills. Perhaps Roger Fisher, though not proposing a group strategy is the Chomsky of strategy and tactics. (Here I suspect few of those asking these questions to Chomsky have any idea that there exists somewhere, for example, the 65 very specific, tightly organized action ideas that you find in Fisher\'s book International Mediation. Certainly I think there is a large literature justifying the lack of movement success. I see this, for example, among those who repeatedly get arrested in nonviolent protests without ever even asking a \"person with the power to decide\" to do anything of substance on the specific issue. Finally, I find that organizers are persons \"of action,\" very concrete. For example, some of the most significant writings came from off time, in jail. I also find that the descriptions of what to do as written by a master organizer like Shel Trapp are very simple and concrete. The art comes in choosing how to use them in specific situations, in response to the ongoing progress, small victory step by small victory step, of moving the issue forward.