1) "I can't read most academic po-mo papers (with exception of Foucault)"
2) "I also can't read some academic mathematics and physics paper"
3) "Physicists and mathematicians can readily explain their papers in terms that are understandable to me, no one seems to be able to do so for po-mo papers."
He then gives specific criticism of Foucault (whom he understood), and then makes a logical statement about po-mo:
1) Either po-mo is so incredibly advanced, it can't readily be explained by one academic to another academic (and while Chomsky is known in public for his political writings, his real contribution manifests itself every time you are using a parser, interpreter or compiler).
2) or.. po-mo is incomprehensible and can't be treated in a logically rigid manner, which means it would be pointless for Chomsky to speak more on the matter.
Both 1) and 2) are logically valid conclusions, but facts seem to align themselves closer to 2)
I thought he said "I don't get postmodernism, either because there's nothing to get or because I'm not capable of getting it, and I have my doubts that it is the latter."
His attitude here reminds me of people who proudly say "I suck at math!"
The next time a Chomsky article shows up here, I really hope that it's in an area that he actually knows something about!