Views in brief

The Washington Weasels

IN RESPONSE to "Time to change the name": I agree with Dave Zirin that the NFL franchise in Washington, D.C., should change its name from "Redskins" to something more tolerable (especially since, as far as I can tell, no person actually HAS red skin unless they've been sunburned--so in addition to it being racist, it's inaccurate).

I have yet to see or hear of any suggestions as to what the team name should be, so I'd like to offer a recycled suggestion that was rejected (or more likely, ignored) when it came time to name the Major League Baseball team that became the Nationals.

What I suggested then, and I suggest now, is to re-name the team the "Washington Weasels." First of all, it's sort of alliterative. Secondly, it stands in for what many of us in the nation think of most professional politicians and lobbyists, of which there are so many. Thirdly, it's an animal and can easily be represented with a cute cuddly mascot.

Oh wait--I forgot: this is football and "cute and cuddly" is probably not what the NFL wants to put forward as an image.

Okay then, how about the "Washington Wolves"? It stands in for a nearly endangered species that needs to be preserved, and it has the proper level of ferociousness for a football team and yet can easily be represented with a furry, ferocious and still funny mascot.

I don't necessarily expect the NFL to adopt either of my suggestions, and given that D.C. is chock full of people with no sense of humor, I especially think that the Weasels will not be adopted (even if the halls of Congress are jam-packed with people with ferret-like features). But if it helps at all, I believe that weasels and ferrets are both related to mongooses, which are quite adept at killing venomous snakes--not because they are immune to the venom, but because they are nimble and fleet of foot, and quick with the kill bite.

Now is that a football animal or what?
Jay Kenny, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Socialists and elections

I HAVE been reading and hearing about the Millennial generation's lack of faith in capitalism and their interest in socialism. I don't think that an election is the way to make significant change in this country, but I do think a very public socialist campaign is a very viable educational and recruitment tool.

Have you considered lending some of your considerable expertise and resources to running a member, or members, of your organization for Congress or Senate, or for local offices?

This would, as I'm sure you are already aware, be a vehicle for your union members, students and other supporters to counteract the huge sway of the Democratic Party in pulling progressive folks into what is a party of war, capitalism, corruption and inequality and would give them the ability to explain their socialist ideas in discussions and debates, and in materials and bumper stickers.

We don't really have the kind of mass movement that could involve these young people at this time and it would be a shame for them to all become disillusioned. Are you thinking along these lines? It would be great to read an article dealing with how to reach out to people at election time.

I voted for Nader and for Peter Camejo, and many people argued with me about being a "spoiler," but it least it gave me the opportunity to talk about who really controls the Democratic Party. I don't think the Green Party is the answer, however.
Kitty Cone, from the Internet

Our right to be lazy

IN RESPONSE to "In defense of free time": An earlier work on this subject is the pamphlet The Right to Be Lazy by Paul Lafargue. He was socialist leader in France who became a well-known proponent of May Day and the eight-hour workday.

Writing from prison in 1883, Lafargue makes the case that given the development of industry and the level of unemployment, a "three-hour" workday could produce for all and allow people to pursue other things--i.e., to be "lazy." This was at a time when the 11-hour day was common in industry.

The introduction to the 1973 edition, published by Charles H. Kerr, includes a quote from Benjamin Franklin's essay "On Luxury, Idleness and Industry," which is referred to in Scott McLemee's article.
Henry Hillenbrand, from the Internet

Cheering Cameron's failure

IN RESPONSE to "Britain's poisonous hypocrisy": This is a resounding piece. Why we in the U.S. should celebrate Cameron's failure is even more fundamental than all of what this article outlines, which is bad enough--why we in the U.S. should celebrate Cameron's failure is purely, and simply, that Cameron and his ilk are scum.
Max, from the Internet