The rich need jobs

There has been a fair amount in the press of late about the anger of the rich, both articles and columns. The rich, the people whose incomes put them in America's top 1%, seem to be increasingly upset about historically mild attempts to reign in some of the advantages they enjoy, steps like letting the Bush II tax cut for the top echelon expire, or limiting the bonuses paid to the top executives of the companies bailed out by the taxpayer, or closing tax loopholes for hedge fund executives, or levying the same Social Security tax on their wages as are levied on most workers, or even - horror of horrors - taxing some of their unearned income at rates corresponding to those levied on the sweat of the working man's brow.




The irony is that what the very rich need more than anything else is political stability. In the final analysis, their wealth and their way of life depend on the great mass of people less affluent than them being sufficiently satisfied with their lot to support the political, social and economic structures which permit the wealthy to exist, and to enjoy their wealth.

But persistently high unemployment and underemployment, increasing disparities in wealth, increasing poverty and increasing hopelessness imperil that stability. It is in the interests of America's very wealthy to support economic and social reforms and policies which would dampen such threats to stability, and they're not doing it.

Too many Americans need jobs, and they need them now. Allowing the Bush II tax cuts for the wealthy will not stimulate the economy or produce jobs. What will work is getting the unemployed back to work, and to do that, we as a nation need to start creating jobs, and the best way to do that would be to start investing in the infrastructural improvements, new technologies and new markets that can keep us competitive in the 21st Century.

Unless we create those jobs, more and more people will become increasingly desperate, and desperation brings enormous risks to stability. I don't wish to sound alarmist, but America is today approaching a point where all bets will be off, and political chaos could be a distinct possibility. The wealthy, just as much as the rest of us, have a vested interest in getting Americans back to work, and restoring hope and optimism throughout our land.

Go Skins?

Why do Washingtonians support a football team with a racist name?

Washington D.C. has a long and proud history of confronting racism and celebrating diversity. The city has seen so many demonstrations, rallies, marches, legislative actions and presidential initiatives denouncing racism or celebrating racial and ethnic diversity that one can justly consider it to be the epicenter of American equality.

Washington, D.C. is also at the heart of a large and proudly diverse populaiton. The city itself has a majority black population. The larger metropolitan region is extremely diverse and is on the threshold of having a majority minority population (i.e., no one ethnic group will comprise a majority of the population). Washington's elected mayors have all been African American or had significant African American ancestry.


Why then are its football fans so loyally committed to a team with a racist name? Why do they permit that team's owners to perpetuate their brand of racism? The term is offensive to large numbers, probably most, of the Native American community.

Some defend the term on various and mostly specious grounds, but consider putting "the shoe was on another foot" for a moment. Let's imagine using racial slang for another ethnic group as the team's name. Would Washingtonians support it if the team were named, say, the " Washington Darkies"? Or "Chinamen" or "Wops" or "Honkies" or "Dagos" or "Coolies" or "Crackers" or "Ragheads," or any other name used disparagingly to describe an ethnic group and offensive to a significant population of that group? I seriously doubt it. It the team's owners tried to change the name in such an odious way, fans and the general public would be outraged.

Why then do we accept the name "Redskins"? The name must be changed, and area fans should refuse to support the team - and especially its owners - until it is.