Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Chomsky's Not Happy, and Trump's Not the Main Issue
Noam Chomsky: Donald Trump is a Distraction
ANONYMOUS | 3.III.2018
Supposing you are right on global warming, Chomsky ... I can think of an analogue.
Nimrod projecting to launch from Göbekli Tepe or perhaps Harran a three step rocket fueled, not by "controlled Uranium," but by an atomic bomb like explosion.
I do not know whether global warming is happening or not, but am for measures which would if so reduce petrol use - and am for them on other grounds. As a distributist I think a more local economy is excellent for more widespread ownership of means of production.
If you buy an ecco shoe, in most towns in the world, getting the shoe to you has cost petrol or perhaps in trains electricity (Harrisburg, Chernobyl, anyone?). But also, in most towns where you can buy an ecco shoe, you are hard set to earn your living as a local producer of a similar footwear (in some ecco shoes are well balanced by locally made sandals or ... looked it up ... Espadrille shoes, but in Paris I think the cheap Espadrilles are from elsewhere (also, not ideal to walk the streets in)).
While bakers are very well employed and self emloyed in France, Harry's and Banette are taking away some opportunities - perhaps not too many, though. Banette also at least gives a local baker some opportunity to finish the work and get a margin while concentrating on making, perhaps, flan, chocolate breads and croissants, or sth. Harry's and Banette obviously get to most places in France (outside Marseille for Banette and I don't know where for Harry's) in trains or on roads.
So, a more localised economy in the physical sense (leaving perhaps internet as the most globalised thing, not as a byproduct of globalisation) would be good in my view and would also do good on the view of those deploring petroleum use.
I can agree on Republican Party.
Under Trump they did not try to vote any bill outlawing abortion.
Have you seen William Tapley's video on that one?