Noam Chomsky, "Chronicles of Dissent: Interviews with David Barsamian"
So I was reading at a bench on campus yesterday when a signature collector came up and launched into his speech about a bill they�re trying to get on the ballot. Most of these guys are paid for each signature they collect, particularly for petitions sponsored by big bad corporations. I cut him off quickly, saying I don�t sign anything without knowing exactly what it�s about.
�I just told you what it�s about,� he said. He pointed at the wordy summary to accentuate his point, which was written out in Orwellian legalese. �What, you don�t care about children?� he added.
�That�s an incredibly loaded question,� I shot back. �But actually � no, now that you mention it. But that�s beside the point. You told me. Where�s the other side of the argument? Who�s sponsoring this bill, anyway?�
�Ah, forget it, it�s not that important,� he said, scowling as he started to walk away. His friend sporting the 25-dollar airbrushed shirt with the portrait of Che Guevera wasn�t finished, though, and approached me, trying to look menacing.
�Yeah, you fucking Republicans probably want all tax dollars to go toward bombs,� he said accusingly.
I blinked two or three times. Finally I spoke. �I�m sitting here reading Noam Chomsky, I�m wearing a shirt with an upside-down flag that says �Today�s Empires, Tomorrow�s Ashes� on it. And you�re calling me a Republican? How fucking stupid are you?�
�You calling me stupid, punk?�
Anyway, nothing happened. Signature gatherers are only supposed to stay in one section of the quad, and they were breaking regulations by approaching me. One guy took Guevera Man�s arm and they walked off. I returned to reading.
And the next time I read a longish Chomsky book, I need to intersperse it with some fiction, �cause man, these are murder to get through. I already said Chomsky can be incredibly dry, and at least now I understand why. He�s trying to illuminate the situation in a matter-of-fact manner, because that�s what he�s dealing with � facts.
He doesn�t need to sensationalize incidents of torture or mass killings, because they happen with regularity. Also, to sensationalize the incidents shifts the focus to the individuals, when Chomsky thinks we need to look at the institutions. Okay, point taken. But man, would it kill you to use an exclamation point once in a while? C�mon Noam, you�re a linguist, you know the difference that tone makes! Think of it this way:
Fuck.
Fuck!
Which one sounds like I mean it?
