Nothing is as simple as it sounds, is it?—

“Bait dogs” are docile victims to some pit bull advocates,  “urban legend” to others

BY MERRITT CLIFTON, ANIMAL PEOPLE

Many of the 216 surviving pit bulls seized in a December 2,  2011 dogfighting raid in Indang, Cavite province,  the Philippines, “are not in need of rehabbing,  as they were baitdogs,”  Island Rescue Organization founder Nena Hernandez asserted in an April 4,  2012 e-mail to 25 other dog rescuers.

But the Animal Farm Foundation,  of rural Dutchess County,  New York,  involved in pit bull rescue and advocacy for nearly 30 years,  on January 16,  2012 appealed to pit bull advocates to “stop using the term ‘bait dog.'”  Said the Animal Farm Foundation,  “The dogfighting investigators we’ve consulted overwhelmingly agree that ‘bait dogs’ are mostly an urban legend.”

Both Hernandez and the Animal Farm Foundation,  funded chiefly by literary agent Jane Rotrosen Berkey,  sought to improve the image of pit bulls.  To Hernandez,  however,  the term “bait dog” appeared to connote a non-threatening victim.  To the Animal Farm Foundation,  “bait dog” appeared to connote instability and risk.

The Animal Farm Foundation noted “many possible explanations why a shelter dog might present with injuries:  getting hit by a car, mange,  having a scuffle with another animal, birth defects,  etc.  When we label these dogs as ‘bait dogs,’  we’re implying more than we actually know,”  the posting reminded.  “The ‘bait dog’ label carries baggage,”  the Animal Farm Foundation continued,   “and people make assumptions about how ‘bait dogs’ will behave. Every time you use the ‘bait dog’ label, you demonize the ‘fighting dog’ who supposedly caused those injuries.”

Ubiquitous as the term “bait dog” has become,  it appears to be of surprisingly recent origin. Using the search engines NewsLibrary, NewspaperArchive,  Culturomics,  and the archives of the New York Times,  ANIMAL PEOPLE found no mention of “bait dogs” in mainstream media predating January 13,  1996.  But that first mention,  in an Albany Times Union item headlined “Pit Bull is More Victim That Criminal,”  linked the concept of “bait dog” to the centuries-old use of “baiting dogs” to torment tethered animals as a cruel amusement.  “Baiting dogs” could be either the dogs used to attack tethered bulls, bears,  or other species including other dogs, or might be tethered for other dogs to kill.  The term was not used consistently.  The same dog who was set against tied victims when young and healthy often became the tethered victim later, after suffering a disabling injury or showing a lack of interest in killing a baiting opponent.

Setting closely matched dogs against each other as a gambling pursuit gained popularity in the fast-growing waterfront cities of the 19th century,  where bulls and wildlife for traditional baiting were relatively inaccessible.

After the U.S. Civil War,  however,  the intertwined rise of societies for the suppression of vice and the early humane movement combined to drive dogfighting out of most of the north and west.

Dogfighting survived mainly in the South, where fighting conducted according to “Cajun rules” became the predominant style.  Most of what is commonly believed about dogfighting by people other than “dogmen” is based on literary and film depictions of Cajun rules dogfighting.

But even within the conventions of Cajun rules dogfighting,  dog training regimens vary.

Moreover,  as dogfighting spread back out of the South to the rest of the U.S. and the world in recent decades,  the emphasis shifted,  from matched events held as a vehicle for gambling, back toward setting dogs on other animals as sadistic entertainment,  with no pretense that the victim animals have any chance to “win.”

Classically,  in the early stages of training,  a prospective fighting dog is offered the opportunity to attack several relatively helpless victims,  such as stray dogs,  puppies, kittens,  or crudely declawed cats.  These “bait” animals do not survive the encounters.  For many “dogmen,”  this is the extent of the “sport,” but for those participating in serious gambling matches,  a prospective fighting dog who demonstrates the instinct and ability to rip harmless animals apart may next be introduced to one or more “sparring partners” whose behavior and abilities will more nearly approximate what the dog will later encounter in a gambling fight. The purpose is not only to prepare the fighting dog to win in a fight for money,  but also to reassure the trainers that they will not lose their investment.

Many dogfighters these days skip this second phase of traditional fighting dog training,  and sometimes the first phase too. Some test their fighting dogs only in muzzled “rolls” with related dogs, to avoid injury to the fighting dogs which might inhibit their success in a gambling match.

But among dogmen who still follow the traditional training regimen,  the second-stage “bait dogs” will usually be other pit bulls. Submissive pit bulls who whimper and cringe, roll over,  or run away will not give the fighting dog adequate training.  The “bait dog” at the second stage of training is a dog who will respond to aggression with aggression,  and will put up at least the semblance of a fight.  This “bait dog” may be a stolen pit bull who has not actually been trained to fight,  or a pit bull who has flunked out of fighting training at an earlier stage,  or a fighting pit bull who has been injured beyond having a good prognosis for winning a gambling fight.

To ensure that the future fighting dog wins and the “bait dog” loses,  “bait dogs” are often starved and dehydrated,  as were the dogs seized in Laguna.   But a second-level “bait dog” has to be willing to fight–to retain the trait of “gameness.”  And promoters of televised dogfighting spectacles,  such as those that were conducted at Laguna,  the Philippines,  may be more interested in the “show” of a fight, however one-sided,   than in staging an actual contest.

Since the promoters in the Laguna case owned the dogs on either side of each fight,  the outcomes may have been rigged to reap maximum profit from gamblers in South Korea who had no ownership stake in the dogs.

Every dog in such a situation may,  in short,  be both a “bait dog” and a “fighting dog,” depending on the match,  and must be considered “armed and dangerous.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Merritt Clifton is a veteran journalist and ecoanimal activist who currently serves as editor in chief for ANIMAL PEOPLE (which he co-founded with Kim Barlett in 1992), the world’s leading independent news resource on animal questions. His duties for ANIMAL PEOPLE include researching and writing more than 200 articles and filling more than 2,000 information requests per year. Clifton was a founding member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, and is a four-time winner of national awards for investigative reporting.

 SPECIAL From ANIMAL PEOPLE,  May 2012

Originally: Wednesday, 07 January 2009  by Jim Meyers
INCONVENIENT FACTS

In the report below the phrase to keep an eye on is  “domestic tranquility” which the military is supposed to enforce under “extreme circumstances’, all of which is left to the powers that be to define. It doesn’t take a genius to see that “domestic tranquility” is nothing but an euphemism for the current status quo dominated by the global plutocracy, in other words the capitalist world order. Domestic tranquility = capitalist way of life, a nifty equation, indeed.

Police State?

A new report from the U.S. Army War College discusses the use of American troops to quell civil unrest brought about by a worsening economic crisis.The report from the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute warns that the U.S. military must prepare for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States” that could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.”

Entitled “Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development,” the report was produced by Nathan Freier, a recently retired Army lieutenant colonel who is a professor at the college — the Army’s main training institute for prospective senior officers.

He writes: “To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD [Department of Defense] would be required to fill the gap.”

Freier continues: “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order … An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home.”

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned last week of riots and unrest in global markets if the ongoing financial crisis is not addressed and lower-income households are beset with credit constraints and rising unemployment, the Phoenix Business Journal reported.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Rep. Brad Sherman of California disclosed that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson discussed a worst-case scenario as he pushed the Wall Street bailout in September, and said that scenario might even require a declaration of martial law.

The Army College report states: “DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.

“Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.”

He concludes this section of the report by observing: “DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.”

As Newsmax reported earlier, the Defense Department has made plans to deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 to help state and local officials respond to emergencies.

The 130-year-old Posse Comitatus Act restricts the military’s role in domestic law enforcement. But a 1994 Defense Department Directive allows military commanders to take emergency actions in domestic situations to save lives, prevent suffering or mitigate great property damage, according to the Business Journal.

And Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military operations to liberate Iraq, said in a 2003 interview that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

By Rakhee Ghelani

I really struggle with seeing the poverty in India, and I have posted before about my struggles with poverty, charity, apathy towards the poor and my observations of some of the middle class. I have come to the conclusion that here in India it is not in the interests of anyone with power or money to help anyone less fortunate than them.  In fact, I think its part of the core values in India to keep the poor down and do your best to step on anyone you can on the way up.

Keeping as many people down as possible is part of India’s grand growth strategy. There I have said it!  This article I read today really drove that home.

Whilst India is seen to be growing in wealth, none of the benefit is going into jobs for the poor.  According to the article, India needs 23 new jobs a minute and yet only creates 3. In desperation, the poor is migrating from agriculture to urban centres, but all that is growing are the slums and poverty. The majority of Indians rely on agriculture, but agriculture is contributing less and less to the country’s GDP, so people leave it to look for money elsewhere. But there are no jobs for them.

Yet at the same time, according to this article about 95% of Indians has wealth of less than $10,000 per annum, yet the number of millionnaires in India is expected to grow by over 50% in the next 4 years.  On a per capita basis, wealth per adult in India has grown from $2,000 to $5,300 between 2000 and 2011, but I am sure that the growth is due to a small proportion of the population not the masses, confirmed by the President  who has said growth is being driven by increased per capita income and the growing middle class.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

There haven’t been any significant changes in quality of life for the poor. According to WaterAid, 63 out of every 1,000 children die before the age of 5 due to preventable diseases like diarrhoea.  Only 30% of the population has access to a toilet, let alone clean drinking water.  This is mind boggling and heartbreaking, and it feels so incredibly hopeless to me. These are huge issues, and ones that will stop the poor from ever making it out of a cycle of poverty, because daily life isn’t about trying to find a way out, it is simply just about surviving.

Sitting in my own little world, I see some sad things.  I watch people argue with their local vegetable seller over Rs5 (less than 10 cents) and hear those who are better off complain about how their maids are ripping them off.  Keeping people poor means that they can continue to live a more comfortable life.  After all, if salaries increased then one may not be able to afford a maid, a driver, a nanny, a cook and a runner.  How on earth would one survive without all their staff?  Who would do all the unpalatable work if it suddenly cost more and less people were desperate to do it?

Even the government doesn’t want to recognise the problems.  After all the planning commission claims that anyone who has Rs28 a day (about 50 cents) is not in poverty. Yes for Rs28 I can buy a kilo of carrots and potatoes so I can eat. Alternatively I can buy 2 litres of clean water to make sure I don’t hydrate myself to death. Or I can buy half a litre of milk. I can’t afford shelter or anything else for that matter. I would sincerely like to see the people that come up with these figures survive on rs28 per day for a month and see how healthy and rich they feel at the end of it.

This makes me so sad and frustrated.

So what do I do about it? I can’t change 1.3 billion people, but I can influence my little corner of the world.  So in my contribution to a more equitable growth strategy for India, I try to treat those around me who may not have as much with respect. Whilst I don’t allow myself to be blatantly ripped off, I don’t tend to bargain for my vegetables every day unless the price is ridiculous. I pay my maid an amount that reflects the value she provides to my life. I let my auto-rickshaw drivers keep the change.  I thank my lucky stars every day for what I am fortunate to have. I personally fight against myself every day to ensure that I don’t change my values and become a different person whilst living here.

This is my contribution to India’s growth strategy.  What is yours?

RAKHEE GHELANI is an Australian of Indian descent who recently went back to India to live there and search for her roots.

OpEds—

Marat: Still relevant?

BY JOOST Van STEENIS
Changing the fundamental paradigms that rule society opens the door to a completely different future.

“Despite their defeats, the princes do not lose anything” (Jean-Paul Marat).

The world is dominated by the 1%, the Happy Few with a surplus of power and money. Despite wars, revolutions, economic and financial crises, natural catastrophes, etc. they rule the world already for ages. Is a world possible where decisions are not taken because of the pivotal role of money but because all people have the same status?

Thomas S. Kuhn wrote in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: “….when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new paradigm scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before.”

Though his studies concerned the smaller world of science, also in the much more complicated big world unsolvable problems can be solved by applying new paradigms. Then we see things we could not see before. Copernicus could not foresee the influence of his new paradigm expressed in the small sentence: “The Earth is not the centre of the Universe”. The future is unknown but we can take the road to that new future by using a new paradigm, another small sentence that states that “all people have the same status”.

The future is not a simple extrapolation of the present. Extrapolations do not change the basic paradigms that determine our world. The predecessors of Copernicus explained the movements in the sky time and again with new calculations but could not solve many problems by assuming that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. “The failure of the existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones” (Kuhn). Copernicus wrote in the Preface to the De Revolutionibus that “the astronomical tradition had finally created a monster”. Our society based on the money paradigm has also become a monster in which nearly ten million kids die each year before they are five years old.

This problem cannot be solved when decisions are ruled by money. By adopting a new paradigm this becomes a prime problem. Now it is a secondary one because the kids are not important in the money economy. When the thinking of people is inspired by new principles, the world will start to change.

To open the door to a completely different world we must replace the old assumptions with new paradigms. Advancing on the road to that world is more important than the new world itself. The far future will be organised by people who live then. The transition is determined by a paradigm shift, a catastrophe, a revolution. The Catastrophe Theory of the French mathematician René Thom tells us that predictions are impossible. We can only strengthen the factors that lead to a revolution. When the fundamentals start to change, society will change also. To open the door we need new paradigms as guidelines for human activity.

Most political activities take place inside the borders determined by the money paradigm. Tobin tax, Robin Hood tax or higher taxes for millionaires do not undermine the power relations. It are examples of extrapolating the already known to the future. Such ideas deceive The People by proposing a change that is not fundamental. A new paradigm is necessary to replace the idea that the ruling 1% is the centre of the world and to find unknown action ideas to proceed on the road to the future.

The new paradigm

That all people have the same status should replace the pivotal role of money in all decisions.

The 1% uses the money paradigm to rule.
Who are the 1% and why do they have so much power?

The Theory of the Three F’s (Finance, Function and Family) gives insight. Members of the 1% have a lot of capital at their disposition, the Finance-factor. They have Functions that give them entrance to the decision-making process. And they have Family-members in comparable positions who can provide valuable information that is not available to more common people.

But money is the central factor, money rules the world.

The new paradigm should be applied in any action. Copernicus applied his paradigm and advanced on the road towards a new future without knowing where he would arrive. But it took about 150 year before the new paradigm was widely accepted and only then most scientists had entered the new astronomical world. A new political paradigm in our time with fast electronic means of communication can change the world faster though even now it will take some time before the minds of most people are changed.

When money is not anymore the guiding element in decisions, power relations will change. One of the action targets will be the undermining and destruction of the power-pyramid – causing that the 1% gets the same status as the 99%.  The new paradigm: ”All people have the same status” will guide us in our thinking and our activities.

The French Revolution at the end of the 18^th century was also guided by new paradigms. The slogan “Freedom, Equality and Fraternity” activated the masses but already some years after the Revolution the paradigm was discarded. The power taken away from old leading groups returned to new leading groups that included parts of the old 1% and The People lost their same status. The new society started to resemble to a great extent the old one with a small group at the top and the masses down below. The paradigm was not carried through and old paradigms got again the upper hand.

Just before the Revolution the Count de Montesquieu introduced the Trias Politica to solve conflicts within the elite. He separated the Judicature, the Executive and the Legislature. The Count used the new paradigm (Freedom, Equality and Fraternity) only for the top of society. The Machiavellian way to decide with a lot of deceit and violence was replaced by the Trias Politica. In the relation between elite and mass, deceit and violence remained the principal way of treating the 99%. Only one part of the Trias Politica, the Legislature, is partly elected, members of the other two parts are nominated by peers. The 1% control all three power instruments and the money paradigm rules the Trias Politica. The Trias Politica is in violation of the status-paradigm.

When all people have the same status all should have independent power instruments. In the system of Montesquieu the 99% have no power instruments to confront top-people. The Trias Politica can only be used by people with money, lawyers are too expensive. The influence of common citizens is minimal, there is no independent Fourth People’s Power and thus not the same status.

Actions should be judged by the question if they contribute to diminishing the power of the few. Actions that do not comply with this idea should not be carried out. Petitions, most demonstrations but also the blowing up of a factory do not bring the same status nearer. The insurance pays the damage and the power structure is not challenged.

Jean-Paul Marat (1743-1793)

Jean-Paul Marat, one of the leaders of the French Revolution, demanded a Fourth People’s Power. Common citizens must not transfer their power to elected officials who decide without further influence from beneath but must have an independent power. He emphasized the Freedom aspect of the new paradigm by stating that ”The only goal is the punishment of the perpetrators of crimes against public and individual freedom…”. That is not guaranteed by the Trias Politica,

Marat was soon murdered and his ideas were afterwards hardly used in revolutionary circles. Paradigms that did not challenge the power relations had hardly success. The life of people after Revolutions improved but in Russia and elsewhere a new 1% arose and society started to resemble societies in the rest of the world.

Marat wanted to protect the achievements of the French Revolution and the new paradigm by Patriotic Clubs to prevent that the old leading class should regain power or that a new 1% could arise. The organisation of society in the time of Marat does not differ principally from the present situation. Our democracy has its roots in the ideas of Montesquieu about the Trias Politica. There still exists a deep separation between the 1% and the 99%. The Trias Politica regulates conflicts inside the 1%. The influence of the 99% is two hundred years after the French Revolution still negligible. We need a Fourth People’s Power!

The ideas of Marat can be distilled from the next quotations:

“Patriotic Clubs will only pay attention to people in the civil services and unite the forces of the people in order to make up for the grievances of citizens. They will punish the agents of the authorities who are guilty, stop the continuation of their bad deeds and safeguard the well-being of the people …… but we will never be a club that is involved in the process of making decisions. That should be a serious mistake: a free union of citizens is not allowed to meddle in public affairs, to govern or to

administrate. That must be clear: a club has only the simple and pure right to make propositions, to give advice and to ask questions. But when the freedom and the safety of the people is attacked it is not only advisor but also agitator, censor, punisher and even killer ……”

“The only goal is the punishment of the perpetrators of crimes against public and individual freedom and safety. Therefore the clubs are not open for people who are attached to the Royal Court, for Queens’ Commissioners, for members of leading academic clubs, for gentlemen of independent means, for captains of finance, for speculators on the bourse, for attorney-generals, for members of the Parisian military

police and for members of the town council. And one should be very careful to admit noblemen, members of the judicature or high army officers…..”

The first quote points at the power to control while rejecting meddling in public affairs or involvement in governing or administrating. Though Marat was in the first place concerned about the public sector, his ideas can also be applied to the private sector. Leaders propose and The People control, accept or reject propositions. Patriotic Clubs are not political parties embedded in the system but independent clubs without paid leaders.
The second quote emphasizes that people with high functions or belonging to the 1% may not become members of Patriotic Clubs, they have their own power instruments.

Temporary Autonomous Clubs 

I prefer the name Autonomous Clubs over Patriotic Clubs. It are temporary, alternating minorities of active, interested and involved citizens. They must not degenerate into political organisations that obey the Iron Law of Oligarchy as Robert Michels remarked a hundred years ago about trade-unions. Such institutions will soon be controlled by an elite. When a goal is reached Clubs dissolve and former members return to their private life or join another Club to control, correct and punish.

Only people without power may belong to Autonomous Clubs. A multitude of such Clubs form the new controlling Fourth People’s Power. The three separated powers of Montesquieu increased the freedom of the leading class, the new autonomous People’s Power will increase the freedom of common citizens. The paradigm of the French revolution again becomes alive.

Autonomous Clubs challenge decisions taken by selfish leaders. The goal is to control and veto decision-takers and punish faulty ones who are immune against any influence from the masses. This can be achieved by putting pressure on the private life of decision-takers on the time, the place and the how the activists choose. This also complies with the status-paradigm. The 1% harasses the 99%, we should return the gesture. The dynamics of many unpredictable Clubs will fundamentally change society and a new Humane World will arise in which all people have the same status.

The new paradigm has great influence on activities of the 99% who put pressure on the 1% who think they have a higher status. The status-paradigm leads also to the golden action rule that “actions should minimise damage to the 99% and maximise pressure on the 1%”.

The actions Marat proposed comply with the new paradigm and the golden rule. He said: “Revolution will be a kind of guerilla in which we can attack the enemy in all places where the army cannot be used. This means that we can deprive the enemy of all his advantages”.

A long series of small successes undermines the power of the 1%. Power and money are hand in glove. While power is a vague concept and difficult to attack, money expresses itself in worldly goods. The huge differences in income and wealth clearly contradict the status-paradigm. Money should become the principal target to reach the Human World. By preventing the use of vast amounts of money, the necessity to amass the filthy lucre will disappear. When the reason (and the possibility) to have a vast surplus of money is taken away, the effect of the possession of money (resulting in having power and a higher status) will lose its basis in society.

Simply said actions should prevent the 1% to use extravagant goods and services. The slogan “Spending 200.000 euro in one year should be the limit!” (200.000 euro is an arbitrary amount) makes all goods and services that cannot be bought or used by “200.000 minus people” action targets. To escape the continuous pressure from down under on their private living situation the 1% will take different decisions. The actions are like a War of the Flea, harassing people like fleas do. Many small actions disturb their quiet and extravagant life and the fleas will hardly be hurt.

“The Flea bites, hops and bites again, nimbly avoiding the foot that would crush him. He does not seek to kill his enemy at a blow but to bleed him and feed on him, to plague and bedevil him, to keep him from resting and destroy his nerve and morale………… All this requires time. Still more is needed to breed more flees. What starts as a local infection must become an epidemic, as one by one the areas of resistance link up, like spreading ink spots on a blotter”. (Robert Taber, The War of the Flea)

Mass actions mostly failed to give the 99% more freedom and do not agree with the status-paradigm. Imprisoned, wounded or killed activists are contrary to the idea that all people have the same status. Mass actions in town centres or in front of government buildings hardly challenge the power of the 1% and certainly not their money and wealth. In big demonstrations only the text on the placards differs, protesters behave in the same way contrary to having the same status. People are different, should have the possibility to act and think on their own way and contribute independently to the struggle.

A world without a 1% demands that the present 1% start to lose their power. In the end they will have the same status as all other people. The new paradigm does not speak about dead instruments of power but about living people who should get the same status. Though sometimes power instruments of the 1% may be attacked, most actions against banks or other symbols of power are not in accordance with the paradigm that turns around living people and not around dead institutions.

In smaller groups people have the same status, using their own capabilities, characteristics and creativity in actions. Some spread flyers in the neighbourhood of the targeted 1% with texts that disclose their criminal and greedy activities. Others disturb his exclusive clubs or expensive restaurants. Or remove the most beautiful flower from his garden to replace it in a park where everyone can see it. Or invade his second, third or fourth house, throw a rock through a window, puncture the tire of an extravagant car, or order a wagon load of earth or hundred bottles of an expensive wine (without paying of course). The Club will disconnect the target from all contacts he needs to exercise power.

The concept of Creative Disturbance of the exclusive life of the 1% complies with the idea that all people have the same status which means that nobody has the moral right to have an extravagant life – at the cost of the life of other humans [and the planet itself]. Because of the continuous – and increasing – pressure on the 1% their minds will be influenced by the idea that nobody has the right to have a different status and that getting or using too much money will be prevented. When money is replaced by the idea that all people have the same status, decisions change. Leaders will not anymore be influenced by the idea of getting more money but by the idea that people are the most important item there is, that they all have the same status.

Autonomous Clubs control if decisions are compatible with the new paradigm and veto wrong ones. In the end they will punish selfish faulty leaders.

The new world with autonomous people will be beautiful.

Joost van Steenis

Joost van Steenis is a veteran activist from The Netherlands who among other things took part in the Provo, Squatters and Anti-nuclear Movements.

Blog of Joost van Steenis: http://downwithelite.wordpress.com “Take the power and the money away from the 1%”

Joost van Steenis, “From Chaos to Change, entering a new era”, free to download from the site “Down with any elite” http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis
Facebook “Occupy the 1%”

Thomas S. Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”,

Jean-Paul Marat, “Les Chaines de l’esclavage”

Robert Michels, “Les Parties Politiques”

Robert Taber, “The War of the Flea”

René Thom, “Paraboles et Catastrophes”

 

By Peter Hart, FAIR  

Spanish protesters who evidently aren’t reading the Washington Post. (Photo: Reuters)

With an unemployment rate at just over 26 percent and regular street protests against government austerity policies, it’s hard to imagine anyone holding up Spain as a model.

But here’s Howard Schneider, writing in the Washington Post (1/16/13), doing just that–warning France (unemployment rate: 9 percent) that it had better shape up and be more like Spain:

It was a small sign of what could become a defining trend in the euro zone. The most troubled nations, including Spain, have slashed wage costs and overhauled labor and social rules in an effort to become more competitive.

So France is talking about nationalizing a steel plant and raising taxes on millionaires–the wrong way to do it, evidently. Spain is on the right track–becoming more “competitive” by slashing “wage costs”–otherwise known as how much workers get paid.

As Schneider writes:

See how ‘competitive’ Spain is? (TradingEconomics.com)

The assumption here is that Spain’s harsh “medicine” is working. The only problem for the Post is that they can’t seem to find any evidence to that effect–the anecdote about auto plants expanding is all you get. After just barely beginning to recover from the devastating 2008 economic crisis, Spain’s GDP has been contracting for the past year. But the Post is focused on things in France that have  “worried public officials in Washington and elsewhere”–like “attacks” on the rich.

The article is a crystal clear example of how corporate media cover the economy, when the facts don’t matter as much as what are consider to be the “right” policies–and media have decided, against all available evidence, that austerity is the right answer for what ails Europe.

As Schneider puts it:

As neighboring countries retool their labor laws, trim social benefits and overhaul Europe’s social contract, they may be forming a new baseline France will have to match.

In other words: “Hey–there’s a race to the bottom. Hurry up or someone else will beat you to it!”

PETER HART is a senior editor with FAIR.