Just saying, he's not quite Alex Jones. In principal, what he's talking
about is nothing essentially 'new'. Just in a lot more detail. I definately
realize though, why he would be questionable. I don't think he's too far
out (referring to Chomsky) and the points of criticism on wikipedia didn't
really impress me that much, but as always, I remain naturally critical
of everything.

But wouldn't it be neccessary to show at least some evidence for
someone to require a whistleblower status? And he does hold one, right?