It is one of the central tenets of effective communications to not repeat a bad story, but we will violate it in the spirit of making a point about the WaPo’s sloppy journalism

Exhibit A is Steve Pearlstein’s piece in Wednesday’s Post entitled, “No Longer No. 1 and No Wonder.” As we noted yesterday, we released a study on the cost disadvantage we have with our trading competitors. We embargoed the study — or any stories on it — until our press conference at 9 a.m. on Wednesday. Pearlstein wanted a dispensation from the embargo since he was writing about the new World Economic Forum report and wanted to tie in our study but we held firm. And, we figured it’d be a bad story anyway. As you’ll see, not having the facts didn’t really deter him.

Early in his piece he says of the WEF and our study, “Don’t be fooled. These reports speak to the embarrassing failure of a decade of Republican rule in improving US competitiveness.” Uh, Steve, your partisanship is showing. Pearlstein’s WaPo bio includes the fact that, “he was founding publisher and editor of The Boston Observer, a monthly journal of liberal opinion.” He likely doesn’t support Republican candidates in federal elections. We’re happy to correct the record if we’re wrong.

In what can only be described as a screed, he goes on to critique the two studies, noting that, “Indeed, a reasonable inference from the World Economic Forum rankings is that the best way to compete is to adopt the Nordic model of high taxes, a generous social safety net and lightly regulated labor markets.” Wow. Not many folks long for higher taxes except the WaPo. Remember that Sweden just threw out its existing government in favor of a conservative one. Maybe they don’t read the WaPo either. Pearlstein apparently also believes that we somehow oppose the concept of OSHA as well, when in fact our study didn’t look at workplace regulations at all.

So as we read this bile and venom, we were irritated, we’ll admit, thinking, “He missed it by a mile!” And then we realized:

He never read the study.

That’s right. He didn’t see it, never got a copy. And so he was writing this piece having only had cursory — and partisan — conversations, and never having read the study.

We know this is an opinion piece, not an article, per se, but shouldn’t some basic standards apply, like you can’t offer an opinion — or a stinging critique — unless you’ve actually seen the study? Note we said “seen”, not even raising the bar as high as “read.”

One wag commented today that Pearlstein should get the “Carnack ” Award, named for the great Johnny Carson character, the swami who would famously guess the contents of various envelopes. Pearlstein guessed yesterday and guessed wrong. Along the way, he laid bare his politics, in case they were ever in doubt. And he showed once again that the WaPo will give you a pass on your homework as long as your conclusions — and your politics — are right.

Here from the Office of the White House Press Secretary is a updated schedule for the President this week. You’ll see some more road trips, and some more visits with heads of state.

Click here to see it.

How strange that a successful businessman, entrepreneur, individualist has embraced an economic philosophy of command-and-control.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed into law a sweeping global warming initiative that imposes the nation’s first cap on greenhouse gas emissions, saying the effort kicks off “a bold new era of environmental protection.”

We won’t reprise our arguments here about the questionable science and economic consequences — lost jobs, stagnation, etc. — of a regulatory regime designed to punish the use of energy. (Do click on our global warming archives if you’re interested, especially with respect to the media hype.)

Still, one bill warrants special critical attention:

Schwarzenegger also signed a bill that will prohibit California utilities from signing long-term contracts to buy electricity from out-of-state, coal-fired power plants. About a fifth of the electricity used in California comes from coal-fired plants out of state. The law will not affect contracts already in place.

The law requires new out-of-state coal-fired power plants to meet California’s stringent emissions rules for new natural gas-fired power plants. This requirement in effect prohibits new coal-fired plants from selling power to California.

Quick, sparsely researched observations:

Major news conference just concluded here at NAM Central, highlighting the release of our new cost study, The Escalating Cost Crisis, an update of a 2003 review of the structural costs imposed on manufacturers in the United States compared to our nine major global competitors.

The news release is available here. The full study (pdf file) and other materials can be found here.

The studies examine the costs of natural gas, civil litigation, environmental regulations, employee benefit mandates and corporate taxation. Bottom line: The burdens are rising. Dramatically rising. The 22.4 percent structural cost disadvantage has climbed 42 percent in just three years, reaching the 31.7 percent level in the new study.

The biggest villain? Corporate taxation. Save for Japan, the United States is burdened by the highest statutory corporate tax rates among our competitors. Countries like Japan and Mexico have cut their taxes, becoming more competitive, while the United States stood still. And by standing still, we’re falling behind.

Here’s the Reuters story on the news conference. AP story here. More on this huge competitive disadvantage soon.

Our thanks to Jerry Jasinowski of The Manufacturing Institute and the study’s author, Jeremy Leonard of the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI for their critical role in today’s big announcement.

[UPDATE: by Blogger's Apprentice]: Here’s a link to a video to watch the press conference from today.

Later today the NAM will be releasing our new study, How Structural Costs Imposed on U.S. Manufacturers Harm Workers and Threaten Competitiveness, an updating of the Manufacturing Institute and the Manufacturing Alliance/MAPI’s 2003 cost study. The analysis examines the ever-increasing structural costs manufacturers face because of wrong-headed government policies.

So we note with interest this story from Tuesday:

Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. lost its position as the world’s most competitive economy to Switzerland as budget and trade deficits prompted a slide to sixth in the World Economic Forum’s annual rankings.

Switzerland jumped from fourth place last year and Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Singapore all overtook the U.S. with Japan, Germany, the Netherlands and the U.K. rounding out the top ten in the study of 125 nations by the Geneva-based forum.

Different studies, different methodologies, different conclusions…and we have our doubts. The sponsors of the annual Davos conference tend to favor big government budgets, high taxes and managed economies. And the U.S. does have a defense budget matching the nation’s size and responsibilities, unlike the other leaders. But, still worth noting.

Check back with us for more on the NAM cost study later in the day.

We were really glad that Keith Romig Jr. of the United Steelworkers participated Monday in the announcement of a new certification program for skilled “production technicians.” Romig is the labor chair of the Manufacturing Skills Standards Council (MSSC), which developed the certification process. (NAM news release here.)

As Romig says in this “Working for America Institute” newsletter (pdf file):

Manufacturing production workers’ skills are not widely recognized because workers in the U.S. tend to acquire them through on-the-job training. MSSC addresses this issue by formalizing a set of skills that will help workers prove their capabilities to their employers. Through MSSC, American workers will gain greater skill recognition so that we can keep manufacturing jobs here in the United States.

For all our differences with labor, we are absolutely on the same side in wanting employees to gain the skills to succeed in manufacturing, skills that lead to high-paying jobs with lots of career prospects. In the United States.

Which brings us back to George Leef, the executive director of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education in North Carolina. We posted earlier about Leef’s thought-provoking critique of higher education as an economic panacea. Leef contributes to the National Review’s Phi Beta Cons blog, and last week he passed on this anecdote from Bill Conerly, an economic consultant from lovely Lake Oswego, Oregon, and chairman of the Cascade Policy Institute. (Bill’s website here.)

I was meeting with sheet metal contractors and their union representatives in Seattle. I learned that they could not find enough people to fill their apprenticeship program. Here’s their deal: they need people with solid arithmetic and algebra skills, and good work habits. The person is paid to work as an apprentice, taking some classes at the same time. Classes are free. After 3 to 5 years, the person becomes a journeyman sheet-metal worker. The compensation package is then about $50 an hour, which is both wages and benefits. That works out to about $65k wages and $35 k benefits per year. And the person has no college loans. The bright, ambitious ones can go into management. Yet they cannot fill the apprenticeship program openings. Nobody wants to do blue collar work; everyone has been told to go to college. The high-school counselors are the worst.

Like we said, the labor guys are serious about the need for skilled employees. And they see the same problem of perception about manufacturing careers that we do — a perception we’re working to fix with the Dream It. Do It. campaign. So thanks to Keith, George and Bill — and Bill’s sheet metal contractor — for bringing real-world insight to a problem that labor and employers can agree on: the skills gap.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is absolutely tireless when it comes to rebutting the global warming alarmists, those who abandon a balanced approach toward science — and skepticism — in favor of activism. (Activism in favor of a vastly expanded, intrusive, expensive, and freedom-constraining government, of course.)

On Monday, Inhofe took to the Senate floor for an extended indictment of the media’s central role in the hype and hysteria, a point-by-point examination of their excesses. His discussion about the media’s periodic switch between warning against global warming versus a new ice age is particularly amusing. (Thanks to Drudge for highlighting the speech. Given the little coverage it received, we would have missed it otherwise.)

As if to prove Inhofe’s point, a day later ABC’s Good Morning America hauled out its best hype-steria. Now, we don’t watch the show since Katie Couric left, but Newsbusters keeps track of it for us. Key quote:

…Another 2 degrees doesn’t sound like much, but scientists say that it means over the next four or five decades at least, the world will suffer increasingly frequent heat waves, more wildfires, droughts as even more mountain glaciers and snow pack vanish, no longer sending water to the valleys below. As we approach 2 degrees hotter, it will mean mass extinctions, say many scientists. Animals and plants simply unable to adjust.

Mass extinction? Ayee! But wait, there’s another point of view? Oh yes. Newsbusters notes a useful example, that of the 60 scientists who wrote Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper in April calling for a balanced review of the science of climate change.

“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” … It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

Apparently that includes the predetermined political agenda of most of the mainstream media.

We’ve said many times before, we welcome an honest, fair and balanced debate on the science of global warming. Too bad we rarely get one in the media.

You know we like to do these “Reports from America” whenever we travel outside the Washington Beltway. Well, last night we traveled outside the Washington Beltway, but we did it by car, and were only about 10 miles outside the Beltway, but it qualifies, right?

We got invited to address a group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology — otherwise known as “NIST.” They were having a forum on innovation and competitiveness and so we went up to give our spiel on manufacturing.

We promised them we’d post our slides on the blog today so here they are. Unfortunately, by the time your read this they will already be dated in that the cost figures are from our old study. The new data was embargoed until 9 a.m. today, so we couldn’t use it. It would have painted a more dire picture.

In any event, thanks to the irrepressible Nina McClellan of NIST and Mike Taubitz of GM for the invite and for hosting. You can’t help but feel the manufacturing vibe at NIST.

Our regularly scheduled “blogger’s briefing” featured Sen. Rick Santorum (PA). Most of the questions were election-related, so we’ll skip reporting on that part because we want to focus on three key issues for manufacturers…

(continue reading…)

Thanks to David All for passing along this story from the Washington Times highlighting further proof that blogs are becoming more acceptable to society.

Once referred to as a bunch people sitting around home writing in their pajamas, now they are being invited to a White House bill signing ceremony. Legislation that President Bush will sign into law today will establish a searchable database of all federal contracts and grants and most other spending.

Our humble blog was invited to the bill signing but, unfortunately, our board meeting this week prevents us from attending.

With bloggers being invited to this bill signing, we wonder: Can an invite to the press gaggle be far behind? Or maybe a bloggers-only meeting with the President?

UPDATE (By Carter Wood): Instapundit has lots of links-rich coverage here. White House transcript and video here. The NAM did not take a position on the legislation, but we applaud the spirit of bipartisan accomplishment! Now, if they could just do something about accessing domestic energy supplies in U.S. coastal waters.