People think of Mark Twain as a kindly uncle with a twinkle in his eye. Actually, Twain’s humor–especially in his later life–had a dark underbelly. “The Mysterious Stranger” and “Letters from the Earth” mercilessly skewered religion. But even the relatively light “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” has such moments. For example,  Huck describes the pigs who go into the local church during the week to get cool: “If you notice, most folks don’t go to church only when they’ve got to; but a hog is different.” (101)

I thought about the lopsided way Twain is represented when I started receiving, from several sources, this quotation from George Carlin:

“Now, there’s one thing you might have noticed I don’t complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: ‘The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.'”

Like Twain, Carlin is not one to let religion off the hook, as you can see in a YouTube video, but this posting is about his many pronouncements on politics: You can take a look for yourself, but let me offer a few:

“Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.”

“The owners of this country know the truth: It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.” (Watch George Carlin rant about the American Dream)

And another longish one:

“I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,’ but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.” (Watch George Carlin rant about voting.)

The news reports after Carlin’s death, though, focused on how much people loved Carlin’s riff on seven words you can’t say on television. Maybe that’s because the public was ready to hear that message and much less ready to hear what he thought about religion and politics. Darrin Bell, the writer of Candorville, thinks so (follow the links to large, easy to read versions of these two strips):

But whatever the public may have thought, Bell appreciated Carlin’s cynicism about politics:

He means we deserve Claire and Barack folding on FISA? Yes. I listened to newsmen on Diane Rehm’s Friday News Roundup recently talking about Obama caving on that issue. They calmly explained that he had figured the political calculus and done himself some good by being seen as a moderate. No one so much as mentioned the Constitutional damage being done. The discussion was all and only about the numbers. Obama isn’t voting for new citizens. He’s dealing with the selfish, ignorant ones he’s been given.

I know that sometimes I tend to focus on races close to home, but this kind of crap has implications across the state. Mike Roberts is challenging HDCC co-chair Rachel Storch in the primary for House District 64. Fine – I have no particular problem with primaries, because incumbents shouldn’t feel like they have an automatic claim on the seat until term-limited.

I do, however, question the wisdom of a Democrat challenging one of the incumbents in charge of recruiting, coordinating, and fundraising for Democratic candidates all over Missouri. Further, I can’t even tell why he’s running against Rachel. Looking at his website, Roberts doesn’t have any specific beef with Rachel about ideology or process. He lists his qualifications, but they don’t outshine Rachel’s. And now he’s making stuff up in order to gain some sort of traction.

At a joint reception with Maria Chappelle-Nadal last month, Rachel was asked how she felt about getting a primary challenge. She answered (with just a hint of frustration) that she didn’t understand why someone who never contacted her about any concern he might have had for the district would suddenly jump in the race against her. Now she has to take time off from raising money for House candidates in competitive districts, because she can’t do that, run in a primary, AND serve her current duties as state representative and hope to do all three very well.

Perhaps someone could fill me in on why Mike Roberts is running, other than vanity?

Gird your mathematical loins and see if you can follow what Chris Koster has been doing with his campaign funds. No, this is not about the Economic Growth Council; this is about … secretly … lending his campaign money, from his own campaign chest.

The story, unraveled in all its Byzantine glory by Missouri Political News Blog, basically is that last January Koster lent money to three different political committees ($10,000 each) so that they could send it back to him.

Say what? Word. His campaign lent his campaign money.

And furthermore, says MPN:

Two of these three committees are directly tied to Rodney Hubbard through a shared address (1401 Comet) and a shared campaign treasurer (Joy Camp). Hubbard is not only a Koster supporter but also a fellow recipient of funds from Republican millionaire political activist Rex Sinquefield.

The funneling of contributions through these committees, along with an earlier report from MPN, beget this question: is Koster directing the flow of campaign contributions back to his committee to inflate fundraising totals?

I assume the right hand knows what the left is doing, so what other reason could there be?

Sometimes we’re saved from ourselves.

Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace company that our legislature tried to lure into building a plant near Kansas City by offering $240 million in tax credits, has turned K.C. down.

If you’re going to grant tax credits, pass them to a business that’s likely to stay afloat:

But opponents such as Matt Bartle of Lee’s Summit look at appraisals of the company’s health from some investment firms and find recommendations that investors sell Bombardier stock. Fellow Senator Jeff Smith of St. Louis read the investment firm’s recommendations to fellow senators. The analysis says Bombardier has financial problems, has lost share of its segment of the airline market, and has a pension program that is under funded by $1.2 billion dollars.

So, let’s see. How do I type a sigh of relief? Oh, I remember. “Whew!”

At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (“Tokyo War Crimes Trial”) the United States prosecuted individuals as war criminals for waterboarding civilian detainees and military prisoners of war.

The ACLU released documents pertaining to torture of detainees obtained from the government today as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Openeness and transparency in America today. The three memos released because of an ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuit are heavily redacted.

The American Civil Liberties Union issued the following press release:

ACLU Obtains Key Memos Authorizing CIA Torture Methods(7/24/2008)

Memo Instructed CIA To Document Both Torture Techniques And Agents Participating In Interrogations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today obtained three redacted documents related to the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation policies, including a previously withheld Justice Department memo authorizing the CIA’s use of torture. The government was ordered to turn over the documents in response to an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought in 2004 by the ACLU and other organizations seeking records on the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody overseas.

“These documents supply further evidence, if any were needed, that the Justice Department authorized the CIA to torture prisoners in its custody,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The Justice Department twisted the law, and in some cases ignored it altogether, in order to permit interrogators to use barbaric methods that the U.S. once prosecuted as war crimes.”

One of the documents obtained by the ACLU today is a redacted version of a previously undisclosed Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion from August 2002 that authorizes the CIA to use specific interrogation methods, including waterboarding. The memo states that interrogation methods that cause severe mental pain do not amount to torture under U.S. law unless they cause “harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoners.” Initially, the CIA took the position that it could not confirm or deny the existence of this memo; it dropped that position after President Bush disclosed in September 2006 that the CIA had been operating detention centers overseas.

The other two documents, from 2003 and 2004, are memos from the CIA related to requests for legal advice from the Justice Department. The 2003 memo shows that CIA interrogators were authorized by OLC to use torture practices known as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The memo also indicates that, for each session in which these techniques were used, the CIA documented, among other things, “the nature and duration of each such technique employed” and “the identities of those present.” The documentation relating to the CIA’s torture sessions, including the names of agents who participated, is still being withheld.

The 2004 memo shows that CIA interrogators were told that the Justice Department had concluded that certain interrogation techniques, including “the waterboard,” did not constitute torture. The document also indicates that, after the Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that courts can decide whether foreign nationals held in Guantánamo Bay were rightfully imprisoned, CIA interrogators were told to take into account the possibility their actions would ultimately be subject to judicial review.

“While the documents released today do provide more information about the development and implementation of the Bush administration’s torture policies, even a cursory glance at the documents shows that the administration continues to use ‘national security’ as a shield to protect government officials from embarrassment, criticism and possible criminal prosecution,” said Jaffer. “Far too much information is still being withheld.”

In May, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York overruled some of the CIA’s claims that the documents released today were exempt from disclosure under the ACLU’s FOIA lawsuit. The judge is still considering the ACLU’s motion to hold the CIA in contempt of court for destroying hundreds of hours of videotape depicting the abusive interrogations of two detainees in its custody.

The documents released today are available online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/36104res20080724.html

To date, more than 100,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU’s FOIA lawsuit. They are available online at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia

Many of these documents are also compiled and analyzed in “Administration of Torture,” a recently published book by Jaffer and ACLU attorney Amrit Singh. More information is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/administrationoftorture

In addition to Jaffer and Singh, attorneys on the case are Alexa Kolbi-Molinas and Judy Rabinovitz of the national ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the New York Civil Liberties Union; Lawrence S. Lustberg and Melanca D. Clark of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons P.C.; and Shayana Kadidal and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

[emphasis added]

The “cover your ass” memo signed by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

January 20, 2009 can’t come too soon.

To fully appreciate Bert Atkins’ candidacy, first you have to know the backstory:

In late April, Democratic Representative Bruce Darrough (HD75 in North St. Louis County) unexpectedly withdrew from the primary race for his district. The other person who had filed in the primary was Representative Juanita Head Walton’s brother, Charles.

Uh-oh. Head’s brother-in-law, Elbert Walton, uses his Unity PAC to run a slate of candidates in North St. Louis County every election year. Sometimes when one of his people gets elected to a city council or fire department board, Walton is hired as that entity’s attorney and, lo and behold, it turns out that that poor city or that poor fire board needs extensive legal work at top prices. Not that they can afford it, but they pay. Boy, do they pay.

I’ve written about Walton:

here

here

here

and here.

Walton has made it plain that he wants more African-Americans in elected office. Unfortunately, his focus on race seems to have generated some bad results: allegations of racial intimidation have been leveled at Walton and his people from time to time. Just this week, an article in the Post-Dispatch chronicled the latest complaint from a white deputy chief who was nudged pretty hard into early retirement in the Northeast Ambulance and Fire District.  

When Darrough withdrew from the race last April, North St. Louis County progressives did not have to fret long over the prospect of Walton’s brother-in-law going unopposed in the primary. Anytime a representative withdraws after the filing date, filing immediately reopens. And the man who had been planning to run when Darrough was termed out in 2010 stepped up to the plate: Bert Atkins.

No Republican is running in the general; the primary is the last stop for this district this year. And Bert is the kind of person you want winning this primary. He’s focusing on health care, full funding for schools, and protecting working people, speaking of which: Bert is a working guy; he’s a machinist at Boeing, so he’s gotten quite a bit of labor support. Of the $12,265 he had taken in at the end of the second quarter, he had eleven  $325 contributions from labor groups, one from the MNEA, and others from various local Democratic groups.

If Unity PAC is helping out Charles Head, though, I don’t see it. Head filed a limited activity report with the Ethics Commission.

But enough about crass money matters. Let’s look at what Bert hopes to focus on as a representative.

On health care he hits the same theme that most Democrats are hammering home this year: that the Republican legislature has put its eggs into the tax credits for jobs basket, with little to show for it. And they’re paying for those tax credits with Medicaid cuts–cuts that have cost the state almost two billion dollars in federal matching funds so far.

And our Medicaid policy is so stingy that even those who can get it suffer from odd quirks in it. They can apply for an electric wheelchair, for example, but not for the batteries to run it. Anybody poor enough to eke Medicaid payments out of this state is going to be scrounging for pennies on the sidewalk in an attempt to pay for batteries. Same story with people who need oxygen. They can get the apparatus but not the oxygen bottles. We’re talking here about people who live on about $800 a month. They can eat and maybe have a roof or they can breathe. Some choice.

Bert is outraged about Republican hardheartedness. He’s also distressed at what they’ve done to the funding formula for schools. When Republicans rewrote the school funding formula, they allowed less for districts than many districts were currently drawing. That didn’t mean that such districts suddenly got less money, but it did mean that they could get no raises in funding until such time as the built in annual increases caught up with them.

If District A, for example, had been getting $10 million a year from the state, the new formula might say the district was entitled to $8 million, with annual increases built in to account for inflation. Until those annual increases finally inched up to $10 million for District A, that school system would get no annual raises. Their income would be frozen for years, thus throwing the burden of new costs onto local property tax payers. (And by the way, Republicans are now howling about the unfairness of rising property taxes.) You can see the rock and the hard place wedging in our schools.

The beauty of the full funding change, from a Republican perspective, is that it’s complicated enough that few citizens will comprehend how their schools got screwed–and who is responsible.

Bert is incensed.

And, finally, he wants to stop Republican attacks on working people. He’s proud of the union movement’s commitment in this arena. Unions worked, for example, to get the minimum wage raised, even though union members make much more than the minimum wage.

Bert’s out there knocking on doors every week. He’s got eleven more days to get his message out. He says that at bottom his message is that he tries to conduct his life so that any part of it that came to light could go into a front page newspaper headline without embarrassing him–or his mother.

Maybe Charles Head feels the same way. I don’t know. All I know about him is that he has no background politically, but that he has a brother-in-law I wouldn’t trust as far as I can spit.

Joe Volpe (D) is challenging incumbent Will Kraus (r) in the 48th Legislative District. We’ve previously covered this race:

Joe Volpe (D) in the 48th Legislative District

48th Legislative District – first quarter campaign finance reports

Joe Volpe (D) filed his second quarter 2008 campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 13th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR JOE VOLPE

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $2,105.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $3,625.00

3. ALL LOANS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $0.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $5,730.00

11. EXPENDITURES MADE BY CASH OR CHECK THIS PERIOD $834.92

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $2,553.52

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $3,326.48

35. TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD

(SUM 29 + 30 + 31 – 32 – 33 – 34) $730.00

[emphasis added]

Let’s look at contributions:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS FOR JOE VOLPE

Report Date: 7/13/2008

Missouri State UAW PAC Hazelwood, MO 06/16/2008 $325.00

47th Dist. Legislative Committee Lees Summit, MO 06/26/2008 $325.00

48th Dist. Legislative Committee Raytown, MO 06/28/2008 $2,000.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $325.00

[emphasis added]

Legislative District Committees step up. And the UAW. Let’s look at expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR JOE VOLPE

Report[ ]Date: 7/13/2008

Printing $49.33

Printing $60.00

Postage $73.80

Office Supplies $29.59

Computer Supplies $69.75

Computer Supplies $32.25

Food/supplies for volunteers/meetings/canvas $74.65

Internet Fees $68.15

Internet Fees $81.81

Service Printing & Graphics Kansas City, MO 04/25/2008 Printing $188.52

ATT Dallas, TX 06/17/2008 Internet $107.07

I sense door to door activities, don’t you?

Will Kraus (r) filed his second quarter 2008 campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 14th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR WILL KRAUS

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $40,102.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $4,940.00

3. ALL LOANS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $0.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $45,042.00

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $199.28

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $47,806.13

[emphasis added]

That’s some serious cash. Lete’s see where some of it came from (this quarter):

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS FOR WILL KRAUS

Report Date: 7/12/2008

Teamsters 245 PAC Springfield, MO 04/12/2008 $350.00

MO Medical PAC Jefferson City, MO 06/30/2008

$325.00

Heavy Constructors Assn. PAC Kansas City, MO 06/08/2008 $100.00

MO Organization of Defense Jefferson City, MO 06/28/2008 $325.00

AGC of St. Louis PAC St Louis, MO 06/25/2008 $325.00

Taxpayers Unlimited, Inc Kansas City, MO 06/24/2008 $325.00

MO State Council Fire Fighters St. Louis, MO 06/23/2008 $325.00

MO School Administrators PAC  Jefferson City, MO 06/09/2008 $250.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $1,035.00

A little bit of organized labor and a few more PACs. Let’s look at expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR WILL KRAUS

Report[ ]Date: 7/12/2008

Portrait Innovations Lee’s Summit, MO 05/25/2008 Photos $124.28

Mall Worx Independence, MO 06/28/2008 mailings $75.00

Not much organized action evident here. He’ll probably dump a lot of signs and a lot of direct mail on the district before the general election. The thing is, a disciplined door to door operation from a determined challenger could be very effective.

A campaign can always raise more money. It can get more volunteers. It can print more literature and signs. What it can’t get is more time. The general election is a lot closer than a candidate may think.

This is another David and Goliath race. You all know what to do.  

Chris Ruggles (D) is challenging incumbent Brian Yates (r) in the 56th Legislative District. We’ve written about this race before:

Chris Ruggles (D) in the 56th Legislative District

Chris Ruggles (D) filed his second quarter 2008 campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 15th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR CHRIS RUGGLES

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $0.00

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $695.00

3. ALL LOANS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $882.52

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $1,577.52

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $662.06

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $915.46

[emphasis added]

Let’s take a look at contributions:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: CITIZENS FOR CHRIS RUGGLES

Report Date: 7/15/2008

47th legislative committee Lee’s Summit, MO. 06/19/2008 $325.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $370.00

C. LOANS RECEIVED

Chris Ruggles Lee’s Summit, MO. 05/19/2008 $882.52

[emphasis added]

Expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe[e]: CITIZENS FOR CHRIS RUGGLES

Report[ ]Date: 7/15/2008

Office Supplies $75.00

Service Printing and Graphics Kansas City, MO. 05/02/2008 Printing $188.52

Service Printing and Graphics Kansas City, MO. 05/28/2008 Printing $226.22

Service Printing and Graphics Kansas City, MO. 06/04/2008 Printing $172.32

Door to door, one brochure at a time.

Brian Yates (r) filed his second quarter 2008 campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 15th:

Detailed Summary of Committee Disclosure Report

Committe[e]: YATES 2008

1. TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THIS ELECTION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED $19,299.99

2. ALL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED THIS PERIOD $4,025.00

9. TOTAL ALL RECEIPTS THIS ELECTION(SUM 1B + 7A – 8A) $23,324.99

14. TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES MADE THIS PERIOD (SUM 11A + 12A + 13A) $430.72

15. TOTAL EXPENDITURES THIS ELECTION (SUM 10B + 14A) $7,272.62

20. TOTAL ALL CONTRIBUTIONS MADE THIS ELECTION (SUM 16B + 19A) $4,000.00

28. MONEY ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THIS REPORTING PERIOD (SUM 25 + 26 – 27) $26,366.98

[emphasis added]

Let’s take a look at the contributions:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: YATES 2008

Report Date: 7/15/2008

Missouri State Teachers Association Legislative Impact Committee Columbia, MO 06/12/2008 $325.00

Missouri Schools Administrators PAC Jefferson City, MO 06/19/2008 $250.00

Missouri Medical Political Action Committee Jefferson City, MO 06/30/2008 $325.00

Heavy Constructors Assn. PAC Kansas City, MO 06/25/2008 $325.00

Missouri Land Title PAC Jefferson City, MO 06/16/2008 $325.00

MBA State PAC Jefferson City, MO 05/16/2008 $325.00

HCA Missouri Good Government Fund Jefferson City, MO 06/27/2008 $325.00

MO Assn of Insurance & Financial Advisors PAC Jefferson City, MO 06/13/2008 $325.00

AGC of St. Louis PAC St. Louis, MO 06/12/2008 $325.00

Express Scripts, Inc. St. Louis, MO 06/05/2008 $325.00

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. St. Louis, MO 06/24/2008 $325.00

Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc.  Louis, MO0 6/04/2008 $325.00

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $200.00

PACs. Not one itemized individual contribution. Not one. If that isn’t symbolic of the last four years in the State of Missouri, I don’t know what is.

Let’s look at expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: YATES 2008

ReportDate: 7/15/2008

Banking Fees $30.72

06/23/2008 Salary for campaign work $400.00

C. MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS MADE (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT)

Blaine for Congress Columbia, MO 06/24/2008 $500.00

That’s it. What’s the campaign worker doing? Playing computer solitaire all day?

This one is David and Goliath. You all know what to do.