Reason in their current issue has a review of The Anti-Chomsky Reader. Nothing strange about that; what's weird is that even though it was published way back in August 2004, Julian Sanchez calls the Reader a new book. Heck, National Review had it in July 2004, and even Keith Windschuttle, busy fighting wombats in the wilds of Australia, found time to review it last September. Can a book published 8 months ago qualify as "new?"
And no, I haven't read it.