Forces on both the right and left of American politics have become so enthralled to the interests they protect that they have forgotten how to do math. The numbers don’t lie; if we care about long-run solvency, we’re going to have to make some difficult decisions very soon. We need look at things from the point of view of both revenue and spending. Yes, that means in order to undo the bad things we’ve been doing, we’ll have to both raise taxes and cut programs. While there are certainly innovative and responsible ways to do this, it will hurt a little bit. That’s the thing about healing, it’s usually not pain-free. We have to take responsibility. Therein lies the problem. Unlike Great Britain where some people are actually excited about the Cameron/Clegg government, righting the ship, and the austerity that it requires, Americans are unwilling to wake up and smell the coffee. Conservatives vilify progressives as “tax and spend liberals” (when did liberal become a swear word, by the way? I’m fairly certain that the framers of the Constitution, and those who inspired them, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, would have considered themselves liberals) who play fast and loose with taxpayer money, while those on the left decry conservatives as heartless corporate hacks who care nothing for the general welfare as long as their fat cat corporate supporters are well-paid.  While these rather dour interpretations of both ideological ends once aptly represented the dark side of the liberal and conservative movements respectively, this is no longer really the case. Out of fear of alienating the Baby Boomer crowd, both movements and the parties that claim to represent them have moved into the “don’t tax but spend anyway” column. Here’s the thing, if your revenue substantially falls and your expenditures increase, what happens? Insolvency. That is where we are headed.

Even with a strong electoral mandate (though in the face of obstruction of epic proportions), the left has largely failed to deliver solutions. Either inadequate or exorbitant stimulus (I’ll let you decide, either way it was not nearly as effective as desired), a healthcare law that is, in my opinion, fatally flawed (though maybe not quite as flawed as the current system), and no action on either immigration reform or, in my mind the most vital issue in the long-run, energy reform ( which could be comprised of climate change legislation/carbon regulation coupled with incentives for innovation and investment in green technology.) I will give the Democrats points for FinReg. Somebody had to curb the bad behavior in the banking/investment industries and restore consumer confidence. The recently passed law seems to be a fairly responsible way of doing it. The ideas coming from the conservative side aren’t any more promising. The ‘Pledge to America” proposes to add $3.8 trillion (you read that right) to the deficit in tax cuts without any major compensatory cuts in spending. “Cutting waste” doesn’t count. That’s code for “we actually don’t know how we’ll pay for this.” I’m sorry, tax cuts aren’t a policy cure-all, I don’t care which revolutionary figure you’re dressed up as. The Tea Party is mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore, only, heaven help us if they actually start governing. Lacking a a coherent plan, their energy seems to come from mutual anger, anger at taxes, anger at immigrants, anger at people who don’t look or act like them in general (including a certain person who doesn’t look like them and just happens to live in the White House). Throw in an imagined moral superiority and distrust of any and all government action and you’re looking at every anti-intellectual populist movement from the Know-Nothings down to George Wallace. What they do advocate is repeal of the 14th Amendment.  You know, that’s the one that guarantees equal protection under the law, the one that says the state can’t seize your property, imprison you, segregate your school, disenfranchise you from state affairs, etc. That sounds like a good one to get rid of… Let me know how that works out for you. While the goals of the Tea Partiers themselves are classic populist fare, if you want to know what the engine that drives the Tea Party (and there is a powerful financial engine) is about, follow the money. Dick Armey, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch et al. While they share with their populist puppet a disdain for the president and progressive politics, their goals are far from identical. If you think this is a spontaneous movement springing up to lead America to the promised land you’re getting hosed. Sorry. Oh yeah, and President Obama is not Adolph Hitler, Karl Marx, the Joker, or Joseph Stalin. There is no subversive Kenyan, anti-colonial agenda in his policy, neither is there a secret Marxist plot. Though he promised to be transformational, he has, unfortunately, been little more than pedestrian as president. Where were your signs and rallies when Bush was expanding Medicare, cutting taxes, starting wars, and allowing the deficit to balloon out of control?

The Tea Party is disingenuous. The liberals are ineffective and unimaginative. Conservatives are having trouble with basic accounting. I would like to believe that a large, moderate swath of the population is disenfranchised and disillusioned. I fear that we are simply unwilling to sacrifice, and more than happy to continue with the irresponsibility and dishonesty, switching brands from time to time but demanding no real accountability. We wouldn’t want to raise taxes or cut the programs that benefit us personally. The policy debate in America is merely a reflection of American values. Conspicuously absent from all sides of the debate is any semblance of discipline. America is suffering from a responsibility deficit. Here are the facts.

1. No serious budget balancing can be accomplished without addressing Social Security and Medicare. I’m not sure what the best course of action in regard to these hemorrhaging programs is, but the majority of our long-run debt obligations are tied up here. If we want to get serious about deficit busting, we need to start with S.S. and Medicare. They are the twin fiscal albatrosses dominating the Federal budget.

2. Tax increases are going to have to be part of the equation. We have to make up the difference somehow and at the point we’re at, I don’t think spending cuts are going to bridge to chasm alone. This just isn’t a realistic idea. Regardless of whose fault it is, the time has come to pay the piper. We have to take responsibility for our collective fiscal sins, even if they aren’t our fault personally.

3. The ideological posturing must stop. I don’t care if you believe the income tax is theft or if you believe Social Security is the sacred cow of Federal spending. Whether you find yourself on the left or the right, compromise is necessary. There are going to be parts of any solution that you’re not going to like. Deal with it. This is what mature and serious people do when they have differing opinions. The framers of the Constitution had very different ideas about what the national government should look like, many of them didn’t like each other very much. There was bitter disagreement on many fronts. They still found a way to create something meaningful; a document that has served as the foundation for the American system of government for over 200 years. While I respect Jim DeMint’s vision for America, taking the American government hostage is not a constructive way to accomplish anything. If we’re going to fix this we need a little more consensus building and a little less partisan anger. The same goes for those who would engage in class warfare on the far left.

The topic of this post has been on my mind for some time now. We need someone who won’t lie to us. You can’t balance the budget with massive tax cuts and token spending cuts, you can’t solve the healthcare crisis with an overly-complex, unpaid for healthcare bill that expands coverage but doesn’t seriously address the issue of runaway costs. It’s time for America to pony up and face the consequences of leaving the national menu planning to people who promise dessert first and don’t make us eat our vegetables. We’re going to have to have serious discussions about taxes and programs, and we may not like the obvious conclusions. We need to stimulate real, sustainable growth. We need to embrace creative solutions to our current problems and start planning to avoid future ones.  We have to start making the difficult, adult decisions as a country or accept mediocrity.

Brooks

Krugman

From the African Studies Department at UPenn:

“Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]“

16 April 1963
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against “outsiders coming in.” I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham’s economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants–for example, to remove the stores’ humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?” We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham’s mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene “Bull” Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: “Why didn’t you give the new city administration time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad’s Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro’s frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible “devil.”

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as “rabble rousers” and “outside agitators” those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies–a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: “Get rid of your discontent.” Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . .” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime–the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle–have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as “dirty nigger-lovers.” Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful “action” antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: “Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.” In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?”

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America’s destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping “order” and “preventing violence.” I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather “nonviolently” in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: “My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest.” They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’ sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I’m afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Published in:
King, Martin Luther Jr.

Now for the actual reason for this post. Paul Krugman’s Monday NYT column lays out my fears concerning a Republican-controlled Congress. In a perfect world full of politically literate people and reasonable politicians, I would place myself as a centrist, a little more liberal socially but actually leaning center-right on many important economic issues. Unfortunately, the world is not reasonable. 27% of Americans (and 41% of self-identified Republicans) believe the President of the United States was born in a foreign country, and the loudest voice in the Republican party is this guy.

Here’s the deal. Contrary to what Krugman will tell you, there are some good ideas coming from rising stars in the Republican party. Paul Ryan’s economic plan shows promise as a conservative roadmap for fiscal responsibility and limited government. My fear is that in the current age of 24-hour news cycles and perpetual campaign mode, the Republican party will be more interested in casting blame on the sitting president than in trying to help solve the mess we’re currently in. We’re going to need constructive and reasonable input from both sides to avoid our own “Lost Decade.” I fear that giving the car keys to people such as Rand Paul and Sharron Angle will only serve to exacerbate the problem in the name of ideological purity and conservative hypocrisy. America needs strong and reasonable voices coming from the right to provide a counterbalance to those on the left. The elements currently controlling the Republican party are not these voices. They preach fear, anger, and extremism, the exact opposite of what America needs right now.

“Our mission is to partner with philanthropists, foundations, activists, and organizations across the country and across the globe to promote economic justice, robust democratic processes, and the opportunity to live in a healthy and sustainable environment where human rights are preserved and protected.”

Ominous isn’t it? None of this is new. Remember Van Jones, Acorn, and all the other groups and individuals sullied by Beck and his ilk before later being exonerated by the truth? The difference here is that somebody has taken Beck way too seriously. I’ve always contended that the problem with Glenn Beck is that although he isn’t likely to put a bullet in the President of the United States or bomb an organization that promotes social justice, one of his more unstable acolytes might. My fears appear to have come true. The anti-American, anti-government vitriol being perpetuated by the extreme right-wing fringe found the ears of one Byron Williams who set off with firearms locked and loaded, covered in body armor, to execute a one man assault on Tides Foundation headquarters in hopes of sparking a political revolution. Williams expressed his intent to reporters as, “to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU.” Williams was pulled over en route for drunk driving and opened fire on officers, wounding two. While Williams’ inspiration for the almost-lethal attack is unclear, it is known that he watched evening “news programs” and was, according to his mother, angry at Congress for “railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.’” A study performed by Media Matters (an admittedly liberal media watchdog organization) found that the Tide Foundation has been mentioned  twenty-nine times on Beck’s Fox News program since its inception in January 2009.

I do not mean to imply that Glenn Beck is himself responsible for Mr. Williams’ actions or that all Beck aficionados are violent and deranged. I know many good and decent people who thoroughly enjoy Beck’s programs. I simply wish to illustrate the effects the irresponsible excuse for journalism practiced by Mr. Beck can have on people who are already unstable. The categorical portrayal of political opponents as villains can lead to tragic consequences. America deserves better than this.

Mr. Beck, in the words of Voltaire. “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” However, I suggest you take a long look at what you say and the way you are saying it before someone else gets hurt by one of your unhinged viewers.

1. WikiLeaks, a shadowy whistle-blowing organization founded by the equally mysterious Julian Assange, recently released over 90,000 classified Pentagon documents regarding the Afghan War. While I’m certainly a fan of access to information, I question Mr. Assange’s motives and his grasp of the situation on the ground. It appears the man is attempting to illegitimize the American presence in Afghanistan. Although I don’t necessarily agree with all that has transpired, the image of two smoking towers in the New York skyline makes the Afghan War legitimate enough for me. We already knew the war was going badly Mr. Assange. You’re not really helping anything.

2. The US Senate has tragically decided to scrap climate change legislation. Barring a miracle, we appear to be headed down the destructive path we are on for the foreseeable future. We need to take responsibility and limit our carbon emissions. Unless it is mandated, I find it unlikely that this will happen.

3. In a similar vein, President Obama has threatened to veto a bill in Congress restricting, at least temporarily, the EPA’s ability to set guidelines for carbon emissions. As if scrapping energy reform wasn’t bad enough. Is it any wonder that this bill is being sponsored by Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia? I know it’s hard to accept for many but coal-fueled power needs to be phased out. It’s slowly killing the planet for the rest of us.

4. Under immense pressure, the almost comically inept Tony Hayward has stepped down as CEO of BP. (If you’ve been living in a bomb shelter, BP, or British Petroleum, is the company responsible for the big hole gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico.) He will be replaced by American Robert Dudley as of October 1st .

5. Shirley Sherrod is still in the news after the Breitbart/Fox News debacle last week. What does this say about the current state of journalism? About the concept of race in America? Right-wing white paranoia? The ability of the current administration to separate fact from fiction and act accordingly? Really, nobody looks good after this one. A few commentaries on the incident here, here, and here.

6. Speaking of racism, the controversial Arizona immigration law goes into effect on Thursday. Challengers to the law will seek a stay in federal court until a decision is reached.

7. Iran is still defiantly moving forward with its nuclear development program in the face of new EU sanctions. Keep an eye on this one. It may come to blows with Iran before all is said and done. Hopefully we can find another solution.

8. Chevy has begun taking orders for a new electric plug-in vehicle, the aptly named Volt. The car will start at $41,000 and will be available starting in November.

1. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is now the law of the land. The bill that ended up passing was much stronger than I thought was possible. I hope we learned something from the catastrophic deregulation that allowed a real estate bubble to spiral into a financial crisis.

2. A new cap was successfully installed on the Deepwater Horizon well. Although the new cap is in place the well continues to leak oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The only real chance at a solution we have left is the relief well currently under construction.

3. The Senate finally approved an extension of unemployment benefits. As I mentioned earlier, in a recessionary economy the normal rules don’t apply. It’s about time Congress gave this much needed (and relatively inexpensive) relief to the unemployed.

4. Senate Democrats look to have abandoned the last real shot at passing comprehensive climate change legislation for the foreseeable future. If the Republicans take control of the House as many are predicting, any kind of climate legislation will be a political non-starter. It’s sad that the single most important issue facing our generation is continually ignored.

5. After a highly edited video of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod making what appeared an admission of racial discrimination against a white farmer was released by Andrew Breitbart and trumped up by Fox News in a thinly veiled attempt at race baiting, Ms. Sherrod was forced to resign from her post, her resignation demanded immediately by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. When the full video surfaced revealing far more innocent remarks, the Obama Administration came away with egg on its (or their?) face. President Obama and company, please  show a little backbone. You really need to demonstrate to the rabid right-wing blogosphere and Fox Opiniotainment er… News that you will not be intimidated. Ms. Sherrod was offered her previous post. She has not decided whether or not she will accept the offer.

6. Mel Gibson is still nuts. No news here.

7. According to the latest Mason-Dixon poll, Harry Reid has a seven point lead of Sharron Angle in the Nevada Senate race for Reid’s seat. Seriously, Harry Reid needs to send the Tea Party a thank-you card for saving his job. Just a month ago he was a dead man walking. Republicans, this is what you get when you nominate a small-minded ideologue from the fringe to run for statewide office. Take notice.

8. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) will officially be tried in the House for ethics charges. When the Democrats swept into power in the 2006 mid-terms they promised an end to corruption. How does it look when one of your most senior members is found out to be completely devoid of ethics or morals?

1st Assumption: Climate change is a real phenomenon and it is caused by humans. If you disagree with this fact don’t take issue with me, talk to the 99+ percent of actively publishing climate scientists that support this conclusion. (That is an accurate figure, by the way, over ninety-nine percent.) Also, there is no secret conspiracy among climate scientists to push a devious liberal agenda on an unwitting populace. If you prefer wild conspiracy theories to fact and logic this post probably isn’t for you; I hear the Glenn Beck traveling circus is making its rounds, that may interest you more.

2nd Assumption: People (and corporations) respond to incentives. This is rationality, a basic tenet of economics and a mainstay for conservative economists. Rational actors will do what is advantageous for themselves. If you want to change behavior, change incentives.

3rd Assumtion: The majority of America’s oil comes from countries that are not sympathetic to her ideals. Ending America’s addiction to oil will end her dependence on would-be enemies.

These are all pretty reasonable starting assumptions, no? Let’s build a case for climate legislation that will (hopefully) appeal to conservatives.

Referring to our second assumption, people respond to incentives. Fossil fuels are responsible for the bulk of carbon released into the atmosphere which, in turn, exacerbates the climate crisis. The excessive use of fossil fuels, employing technology that dates back to the First Industrial Revolution, is undoubtedly detrimental to the environment, and hence all inhabitants of the planet, in the long run. So why are fossil fuels still the major source of energy in a technologically advanced, innovative nation like the United States? There is no immediate incentive to put the time and money into developing cost-effective, clean energy tehnology. Fossil fuels are relatively cheap and the the immediate cost of switching to power sources that are viable in the long-run makes doing so unprofitable. Basically, although it makes sense for everybody to cut down on fossil fuels, thereby reducing carbon and alleviating climate change, it doesn’t make sense for any one corporation to switch if the others don’t because such a massive change will put the company that invests in clean energy at a disadvantage in the short-run while allowing all other firms to reap the benefit of their discoveries in the long-run. For this reason all firms will conclude it is more profitable to stick with fossil fuels. This type of situation is called an “n-person prisoners’ dilemma.” Without delving too deep into game theory, the most efficient solution to this type of problem, especially in a case where transaction costs are high (as they tend to be in situations dealing with national governments and multi-national corporations), is to put a price on the undesirable action, in this case carbon production. This type of solution, known as a Pigouvian tax is the idea behind cap and trade (and the simpler “carbon tax”) legislation. A Pigouvian tax reverses the incentive structure for players in the game (in this case firms) and brings the goals of an individual firm into line with the best possible solution for the group. I completely understand that a new tax, regardless of the justification, doesn’t generally sit well with conservatives and so does Friedman. In order to offset the effects of the carbon tax, Friedman proposes a combination of payroll tax cuts, income tax cuts for the middle class, and deficit reduction funded by carbon tax revenue. These are all actions conservative legislators should be able to support and would make the necessary “carbon tax” more palatable for conservatives. Furthermore, middle class tax cuts would likely stimulate spending, leading to economic growth. In addition, the development of clean technology would create an entire new industry, providing jobs for potentially millions of Americans. The workforce expansion would be made considerably easier through the relief provided by the payroll tax cuts.  From the point of view of a responsible inhabitant of Earth, limiting carbon emissions just makes sense; from the point of view of a fiscal conservative, a system of environmental controls that stimulates private sector growth and reduces tax burdens should make sense as well. Tax cut funded stimulus, new industries spurring private sector growth, deficit reduction, and saving the planet, what’s not to like?

Let’s shift gears and look at this from the angle of national security. This is a far simpler case to make. Looking at OPEC nations provides a who’s who of countries unsympathetic to the United States. The development of green energy provides a path to energy independence, allowing us to end our reliance on foreign oil and our enslavement to reactionary states and despotic dictators, all without the risk of oil-induced catastrophes at home. (need I explicitly mention the Deepwater Horizon tragedy?) The ability to end U.S. reliance on oil imports will also strengthen the dollar, another conservative rallying cry. Aside from freeing ourselves from a damaging oil addiction, devoting our time and resources to solving the clean energy puzzle would put us ahead of the curve on the next great technological front. From the assembly line to the internet, the United States has led the way in technological innovation. In clean energy, the next chapter in world technological advancement, the U.S. is in serious danger of falling behind. We’re already beginning to lose this race to a highly motivated China. If you want to talk about America in decline (as apocalyptic neo-cons have been prone to do of late), this is where it starts. If we expect to keep pace with China we must start making a legitimate and substantial investment in clean energy solutions.   From a national security standpoint, both militarily and economically, a self-reliant clean energy sector would be a serious advantage for the United States.

We are at a critical juncture in American history, one in which we can leave an America, and a world, that is better than the one we were given, or we can turn a blind eye to what may be the greatest threat to our long-term prosperity and comfort. The choice is ours. This is not a conservative/liberal issue, this is a human issue. Let’s not let petty politics get in the way of one of the few chances we have to make a lasting positive impact on the lives of future generations.

1.LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh all signed six-year contracts with the Miami Heat marking the largest free-agent coup in NBA history. All players agreed to less than maximum salary to make the deal work. Perhaps more of a story, LeBron James went from being the most loved athlete in America to possibly the most reviled by announcing his decision to join the Heat in an hour-long ESPN special called the LeBrachelor… I mean “The Decision.” Whoever does the PR for this guy needs to be taken to the woodshed and soundly beaten. Bad move, LeBron. (“The Decision” was almost immediately followed by the most ridiculous break-up letter of all time from Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert.)

2. BP removed the marginally effective cap from the oil-spewing hole in the Gulf of Mexico in order to attempt to replace it with a new, tighter fitting, more effective cap. In the meantime oil is continuing to spill unmitigated into the gulf. Supposedly, the new cap will be installed today.

3. Roman Polanski will not be extradited from Switzerland to face his rape conviction in the United States. You shouldn’t be able to get away with forcing yourself  upon a thirteen year-old girl, I don’t care how good you are at making movies. This guy makes me sick. The deepest circle of hell is reserved for child molesters. (I may have reserved this circle for Goldman Sachs executives previously. I now amend my previous position.)

4. Spain won the FIFA World Cup by defeating The Netherlands 1-0 in Sunday’s final match. This marks Spain’s first time winning the World Cup but probably not their last, as the players who comprise the  nucleus of “La Furia Roja” (primarily Barcelona footballers) are extremely talented and relatively young. Barring catastrophe, Spain looks to be a serious contender in upcoming 2012 European Championship and the 2014 World Cup as well.

5. Scott Brown (R-MA) has voiced his support for the Senate version of a bill designed to overhaul regulation of the financial industry. In a break from the party line (not his first) Sen. Brown has proved to be more closely aligned with pragmatism and progress than the vitriolic Tea Party wave that helped spur his election.

6. Mel Gibson has revealed himself as (make sure I don’t forget any) a wife-beating, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynist, arrogant, rage-aholic, pigheaded buffoon. Congratulations on showing us your true colors Mel.

7. Sharron Angle is steadily losing ground to Harry Reid in the Nevada senate race. The contest, once solidly in Republican hands, is now regarded as a toss-up. No surprise here, Sharron Angle is crazy and people are starting to realize it. Bob Bennett (R-UT) predicts Reid will win the tight election. In an unusually entertaining move, Reid’s camp released Ms. Angle’s pre-nomination website in order to highlight her extreme reactionary views previous to nomination.  In other news, the once untouchable Kentucky senate seat being vacated by Jim Bunning is now back in play as well due to concerns with Republican candidate Rand Paul’s out-of-the-mainstream policy positions. You’d think they would have learned after NY 23, America is scared of right wing extremism. The Tea Party movement appears to be the Democrats’ only hope of retaining power in the 2010 mid-term elections. Ironic.

8. The Department of Justice has expressed its intent to contest Arizona’s controversial new immigration law. As naturalization (and hence, immigration) matters are expressly reserved to the federal government as per US Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 8(4), this should be a fairly open-and-shut case. The real story lies in the constitutional disconnect prevalent throughout the conservative movement. If one is going to claim strict adherence to the Constitution, it has to be consistent, meaning you can’t just invoke the document when it coincides with your narrative. This farcical attempt at claiming the moral high ground is simply intellectually dishonest.

These are the things you should know.