The Washington Post retracts its claim that wages are rising and Kerry’s just a downer on the ecnony:

On June 19 we wrote that wage increases had kept pace with inflation in the year to May, and criticized Sen. John F. Kerry for suggesting that wages had fallen behind. We were wrong and Mr. Kerry was right: Hourly wages for non-supervisory workers rose 2.2 percent, while the consumer price index rose 3.1 percent.

Then again, I’m sure that wages for members of the editorial board of the Post are rising faster than inflation, so one can see how it could be easy for them to get confused.

A year and a half ago, congressional representation of my home neighborhood in Pennsylvania (Bala Cynwyd), right outside of Philadelphia, fell from the moderate but comparatively much better Democrat Joe Hoeffel (who looks even better in comparison to having Arlen Specter in the Senate) to Republican Jim Gerlach after the kind of redistricting that made our state the Supreme Court’s test case for gerrymandering. This November, it looks like NARAL PA President Lois Murphy (with the help of my friend the ferocious Lucy Kauffman) has a good shot at taking the seat for a real progressive:

Lois Murphy is challenging freshman Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), a narrow 51 percent to 49 percent winner over Dan Wofford (D) two years ago in a newly created district. Murphy, 41, lives in upper-crust Lower Merion Township in Montgomery County, graduated from Radcliffe and Harvard Law School, and has served as president of NARAL Pro-Choice Pennsylvania for more than 10 years. But that profile may give you the wrong impression about Murphy. She knows her campaign nuts and bolts, and I got the distinct feeling she has that relatively rare ability to connect with people of various backgrounds, She has a natural, down-to-earth quality. In other words, Gerlach, who doesn’t have the reputation of raising cash or running great campaigns, is in big, big trouble. Sure, Murphy is a liberal, and that’s a problem in parts of this district. In addition, since most of the 6th district is in the Philadelphia media market, it will be difficult for the challenger to get the visibility she needs to oust an incumbent. But her fundraising has been good, and Gerlach still has plenty to prove after his 2002 squeaker.

The Bush administration finally gives up on its campaign to convince the United Nations that war crimes prosecutions should only apply to other people:

“The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate,” the deputy American ambassador, James B. Cunningham, said on emerging from the council. The envoys from the 15-member council had spent the morning in closed session discussing a rewritten version of the American troop exemption resolution circulated among them Tuesday night to try to meet the widespread objections. A resolution granting a year’s exemption had passed the council the past two years, but this year the attempt to renew it ran into difficulties because of the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq and a strong statement of opposition from Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Harold Meyerson on Andy Stern and John Lewis:

This level of global union cooperation is new, but much about this campaign takes a leaf out of John L. Lewis’s 70-year-old book on industrial organizing. Like Lewis, whose United Mine Workers funded the rise of such new unions as the United Auto Workers, the SEIU and UNITE-HERE envision a new union rising for the workers in these three companies. Like Lewis, who signed the first company-wide contracts with General Motors and U.S. Steel, Stern and UNITE-HERE’s leaders, Bruce Raynor and John Wilhelm, believe the only way to build back union strength is to organize entire companies at a time, rather than go facility by facility.

And like Lewis, whose frustration at the American Federation of Labor’s opposition to industrial organizing led him to break away and found the CIO in 1935, Stern called on Monday for the AFL-CIO (the two groups got back together in 1955) to radically change its structure. Currently, the AFL-CIO has 65 member unions, the vast majority too small to fund organizing campaigns, though some — or their locals — have been known to pick up new members when employers, facing the prospect of real unionization by the likes of the SEIU, have cut sweetheart deals with them. Stern would like to see the unions consolidated into about 15, with clear sectoral responsibilities and enough resources to organize. On Monday Stern told his delegates that it was time either to “change the AFL-CIO or build something stronger.” At that, the floor erupted; delegates stood and whooped for a full minute.

The international community ponders whether to identify the genocide in Darfur by name:

The Brussels-based International Crisis Group says Darfur can “easily become as deadly” as the Rwanda genocide of 1994. Then, soldiers, militiamen and civilians of the Hutu majority killed more than 500,000 minority Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus in 100 days. All along, Sudan has denied allegations of complicity with the Arab militias and has blamed rebels for rights violations. In February 2003, the Zaghawa, Fur and Masalit black tribes rebelled against what they regarded as unjust treatment by the Sudanese government in their historic struggle over land and resources with their Arab countrymen. Countless thousands of tribesmen have died in a brutal counterinsurgency. The conflict has uprooted more than 1 million, and the U.S. government believes this many could die unless a peace settlement is reached and relief supply deliveries are greatly accelerated. Sudanese cooperation has been limited but is improving. The Muslim-vs.-Muslim conflict is separate from the 21-year war between ethnic Arab Muslim militants in northern Sudan and the black African non-Muslim south. That three-decade-long struggle may be ending thanks to peace accords signed last month.

A U.S. interagency review is aimed at judging whether the Darfur tragedy qualifies as genocide under a 1946 international convention that outlaws the practice. “I believe what is occurring in Sudan approaches the level of genocide,” says Jim Kolbe, a Republican lawmaker. He and several colleagues are pushing for $95 million in emergency assistance for Darfur’s victims…A role for the United Nations is made clear under Article 8 of the Genocide Convention: “Any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the U.N. to take such action under the Charter of the U.N. as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide.”U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he wasn’t ready to describe the situation in Darfur “as genocide or ethnic cleansing yet,” but he called it “a tragic humanitarian situation.” For now, the U.S. government seems to be tilting against the genocide label but is sticking with ethnic cleansing to describe the situation.

Meanwhile, as Human Rights Watch reports, the killing is spreading:

Human Rights Watch documented at least seven cross-border incursions into Chad conducted by the Janjaweed militias since early June. The Janjaweed attack villages in Chad and refugees from Darfur, and also steal cattle. The same Arab and African ethnic groups live on both sides of border in Chad and Darfur. Meanwhile, Chadians living near the border are organized into self-defense groups to protect their families and livestock from Janjaweed raids. These self-defense groups have reportedly clashed with the Janjaweed militia. “The Sudanese government must take full responsibility for the militia raids into Chad,” said Jemera Rone, Sudan researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Janjaweed are the government’s militia, and Khartoum has armed and empowered it to conduct ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Darfur.”

A Dkos poster replies to me:

If you think drug laws are unfair, work to change the drug laws so that drug offenders are no longer convicted felons.
But don’t let convicted felons have a position of fiduciary trust in the voting process. Let them have jobs, apartments, let them vote, yes. If this bothers you, ask yourself: would you want a convicted felon (and I don’t mean a drug offender; I mean a child molester, white-collar criminal, or gunpoint robber) to be president? I wouldn’t. Sure, maybe his rehibilitation made him especially wise, but I wouldn’t want to take a chance. The risk is just too great. And where did Nader or the firm he hired find 19 convicted felons to put on payroll? Did they recruit especially for that demographic?

Would I vote for a convicted felon for President? Well, it would depend on what his platform was, who he was running against, and (to a lesser extent) the circumstances under which he became a convicted felon. Would I want to be denied the chance to vote for that candidate by having him purged from the ballot? Sure as hell not, no matter who he is.

For those who don’t know, the proportion of convicted felons among young men of color in many communities in this country – including some here in Florida, where I’ve been registering voters the past few weeks – is as high as one in four. So no, you don’t have to be looking to find them. As for fiduciary trust, there’s no justification for barring felons as a class (and let’s be honest about the size and demographic of the class we’re talking about) from working for the government, from voting, or from working to give those who desire the chance to exercise their democratic right to sign their name to a petition. What the process needs is oversight of signatures as they come in, not purges of the people who collect them.

Connecticut Governor-to-be Jodi Rell, interviewed in the Times, spends a lot of time talking about ethics rules and bipartisanship and public trust and doesn’t devote much attention to policy issues. But then again, it’s not like anyone in the media seems to be either:

Mrs. Rell, in a series of interviews on Tuesday, said she and Gov. John G. Rowland had a working relationship, not a personal one, and that she should not be held accountable for his conduct. “If I had known, I can assure you I would have spoken up and things would not have gone this far,” said Mrs. Rell, sitting at a small table in her usually quiet Capitol office, which was crowded with reporters, cameras and added security staff on Tuesday. “At least I hope they would not have.” Mrs. Rell said her staff members were so strict about their ethical standards that they did not exchange birthday or Christmas gifts, and she noted that the two times she or her family has come under scrutiny – once when her husband accepted free state military-surplus items, once when her son was found with a motorized water scooter that turned out to be stolen – investigators found “no wrongdoing.” “It is ‘case closed,’ ” she said.

…Mrs. Rell answered questions about topics ranging from her past accomplishments to her relationship with the governor to her plans for how state government can restore its image from the taint left by Mr. Rowland and members of his administration who have faced criminal investigations. “The first order of business right now is to restore faith, honor and confidence in state government,” she said. She offered no specific solutions beyond saying she would focus on streamlining state agencies, building bipartisan alliances and strengthening ethics and campaign finance laws…”It’s too early for a legislative agenda,” she said. “Let’s get through this first couple of weeks.”

…On the day that Mrs. Rell, a Republican, becomes governor, Kevin B. Sullivan, a Democrat who is the Senate president pro tempore, will replace her as lieutenant governor. The party divide between the two offices will be the first time in nearly 60 years that the major parties have shared the two highest executive offices. “Kevin and I actually have a good working relationship,” she said. “We need to come out working together.” But Mrs. Rell made clear that she does not expect to share power. She noted that Mr. Sullivan acknowledged in a radio interview on Tuesday that the state can have just one governor. “He’s absolutely correct,” she said, “and I appreciate that.”

An outrageous and deeply cynical comment by Kos, who should know better:

In addition to suspect signatures, entire reams of signatures can be invalidated if the person collecting them is a felon. Turns out that out of the 122 paid people who gathered the Nader signatures, at least 19 are confirmed felons. One of them was convicted for forgery. Considering that these same felonious petitioners were also soliciting signatures for an anti-immigrant initiative and an effort to invalidate Arizona’s clean election law, invalidating those petitioners and their signatures may actually serve triple duty, helping defeat Nader’s cynical presidential effort AND two nasty Republican-backed ballot efforts.

Not much new to say about this. Voting for Ralph Nader is, I firmly believe the wrong choice for someone concerned with progressive change in this country to make, and overlooks the tremendous difference between the greater and lesser of the two evils for those most directly affected by government policy be it creating jobs, protecting the right to organize, keeping bigotry out of the constitution, or sustaining the earth. But how should Kerry supporters respond? By organizing voters behind the Democratic candidate, and organizing the candidate behind a progressive agenda which co-opts Nader’s issues rather than demeaning his supporters. Not by drawing from the other side’s playbook by seeking out ways to disenfranchise voters by narrowing their democratic choices. Kos, unfortunately does this and descends one step further by lauding Democrats for taking advantage of this country’s abysmal treatment of former convicts, a group whose make-up (in case Kos has forgotten) is disproportionately minority, disproportionately poor, and shamefully swelled with first-time non-violent drug offenders. Felon disenfranchisement is the closest parallel this country maintains to a poll tax. Progressives should be working to undo it, not to exploit it for electoral gambits.

William Greider on the Washington Post on Ronald Reagan:

My condolences to the staff and management of The Post. I had no idea you felt so deeply about Ronald Reagan. I was a reporter and editor at The Post during the launch of Reagan’s “revolution,” and we had a somewhat different take on his presidency then…A disturbing meanness lurked at the core of Reagan’s political agenda and was quite tangible at the time, though evidently forgotten now. We wrote tough stories about that and other contentious questions; I remain proud of the coverage. I would rank Reagan’s place in history right up there with Warren G. Harding’s. You want to put him in the company of FDR, maybe even Lincoln. Future historians will decide who’s right. Meanwhile, I read your funeral coverage as a lengthy, lugubrious correction.

The Bush administration corrects itself after caught manipulating the facts to bolster its claim that it’s made Americans safer:

Correcting an inaccurate report, the State Department announced Tuesday that acts of terror worldwide increased slightly last year and the number of people wounded rose dramatically. The department also reported a decline in the number of people killed — to 625 from 725 during 2002. But in April, the department reported 307 people had been killed last year — a much bigger decline. The findings had been used by senior Bush administration officials to bolster President Bush’s claim of success in countering terrorism.