Sitting here in Washington, one could think the entire nation is obsessively following the health care debate, shouting at the TV for interrupting House whip counts with that stupid March Madness.

But people do have other things on their mind, and you don’t even have to travel to flood-threatened Fårgo to realize that. The corners of 13th and F Street NW are close enough.

The lead headlines in the newspaper boxes indicate differing interests. Yes, health care, but also escalators and Sunday’s pro-immigration march on Washington.

• Washington Post, “House unveils $940 billion health accord”
• Washington Times, “Democrats make final reform push“
• El Tiempo Latino, “Llega el dia de la marcha” — The day of the march arrives.
• Washington Hispanic, “Immigrantes salen a las calles” — Immigrants take to the streets.
• USA TODAY, “Upsets Rattle the Brackets” — Hoya Saxa?
• Washington Examiner, “Death by iPod” — It’s dangerous to jog and bike when wearing headphones.
• The Express, “Broken Down and Fed Up” — Washington Post’s commuter tabloid highlights Metro’s infuriating escalator breakdowns.

The Spanish-language newspapers have been promoting Sunday’s immigration march on Washington for quite a while, but other D.C.-based media have paid little attention.

The Washington Post runs a Sunday feature in it Outlook section, “Five Myths,” a generally interesting rebuttal of the conventional wisdom on hot policy and political issues. As a journalistic exercise, it’s problematic: The conceit requires a supposedly disinterested reporter to write an opinion column that communicates to the readers that sources are feeding them a line of garbage, courtesy of the same supposedly disinterested reporter.

Also, by requiring the analysis to be iconoclastic, the reporter is obliged to come up with five myths, even if the myth being debunked happens to be true. “Darn. I only have four ‘myths.’ Well, if I twist this around a little …”

This Sunday, it was Alec MacGillis’ turn in the box, “Five myths about the labor union movement,” including No. 4, “The Employee Free Choice Act would radically reshape the job market.”

Not really. While the proposal would bring the biggest change in generations, it would leave some union challenges unaddressed. The bill as written would let workers form a union if a majority of them sign cards in favor of one, without having to hold a secret-ballot election at the workplace. Unions argue that such elections are unfairly influenced by employers. But even before Democrats lost their filibuster-proof Senate majority, they had all but jettisoned that part of the bill — dubbed “card check” by opponents — because it lacked support among conservative Democrats. Instead, the measure would now ease the process by shortening the window before elections, giving employers less time to sway workers, and by increasing the penalties for employer violations, both relatively incremental changes.

MacGillis’ argument boils down to “not really.” Well, that’s one opinion. Organized labor has made the Employee Free Choice Act its top priority because forced unionization is the only thing that can save the labor movement from further private-sector decline. Harold Meyerson, the Post’s most left-leaning opinion columnist, wrote last week, “For the unions, the Senate’s inability to pass EFCA is devastating and galling,” arguing that the bill’s failure would allow continued “deunionization” of the private sector. “Devasting” suggests a radical reshaping, doesn’t it? Furthermore:

Robert Bruno, a labor relations professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, doubts reforms short of card check can work. It is unrealistic, he said, to create neutral, civic-style elections in workplaces dominated by employers.

Employers “would have to agree to an environment where they give up a lot of control, a lot of prerogative,” he said.

That’s from a March 29, 2009, Washington Post story, which MacGillis leads off by describing EFCA as “a landmark pro-union proposal.”

Got that? It’s landmark, but not radical. As opinions go, that’s too nuanced for us. Or maybe it’s just a case of the “myth” being true, after all.

From a CNBC news release, “CNBC Tapes Show With Powerful Americans On CMU’s Campus“:

ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J. — Manufacturing led the United States to become the richest nation in the world and has been the backbone of this country. But times have changed and today’s economy values innovation and design over manual labor — emphasizing mind over matter. This sea change has spurred many questions: Are the manufacturing jobs in the U.S. gone forever? Does an economy that doesn’t produce anything have any real value and has ‘Made in the USA’ died, taking with it the soul of our country?

On Wednesday, December 2nd at 8PM ET, in a CNBC special, “Meeting of the Minds: Rebuilding America,” hosted by CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo from Carnegie Mellon University, a world-leading research university in Pittsburgh, PA, CNBC assembles some of the most influential leaders in the manufacturing industry and government to answer those questions and chart a path forward.

Panelists: Bill Ford, Executive Chairman, Ford Motor Company; Daniel R. DiMicco, Chairman, President & CEO, Nucor Corporation; Leo W. Gerard, International President, United Steelworkers; Jeff Immelt, Chairman & CEO, General Electric; John Engler, President & CEO, National Association of Manufacturers; and Hilda Solis, U.S. Secretary of Labor.

Bartiromo sets the stage further:

“Manufacturing companies have traditionally been a growth engine in the United States, but with unemployment at double digits, there is a growing concern whether or not that will continue to be true, said Bartiromo. “Americans are at a critical time wondering what their future looks like and it’s vital we bring this issue front and center.”

From The Boston Globe, with a reviewer who strikes a tone we hadn’t see in the other reviews of the anti-Chevron movie, a world-weary cynicism. The inaccuracies are still the same, though.

From “An ecological disaster meets a media circus“:

In “Crude,’’ the anger onscreen spreads as slowly and inexorably as toxic sludge. The documentary follows a pending class-action lawsuit filed by 30,000 Amazon tribespeople against the US petro-giant Chevron for contaminating an area of land the size of Rhode Island.

But it’s not a class-action suit and it wasn’t filed by 30,000 Amazon tribespeople.

Even the Amazon Defense Coalition’s PR person, Karen Hinton, eventually admitted this basic fact — a basic fact that the Globe gets wrong.

Gee, if the reviewer starts off with a glaring error, wonder what else in wrong in the piece?

P.S. Today is the movie’s last day in Washington, D.C. It had a two-week run at the E Street Cinema, which the producers must regard as a success.

The Washington Post today leads its front page with a story, “Public Option gains support,” a story based on a Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

Attorney, law professor and talk show host Hugh Hewitt examines the polling methodology and reports the sample:

Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats.

ABC News/Washington Post pollsters called just over a thousand people, only found 20% who said they were Republicans, and they think it’s news that Obamacare is now winning the day in American public opinion overwhelmingly. I’m stunned. I think I need to go lie down.

Hewitt notes that Rasmussen reported that at the end of September of this year, the party breakdown in the country was 32.1% Republican, 37.5% Democrat. If all the rest were independents, you’d get 30.4% independent.

It’s always been a matter of principle for mainstream journalists to insist “We don’t make up the news.” But every story based on public opinion surveys blows that claim out of the water.

Here, by the way, is the .pdf text of Senate Finance Committee’s health care bill, released the week after the committee approved the measure.  It’s 1,502 pages.

UPDATE (10:40 a.m.): Kellyanne Conway (president & CEO of the polling company™, inc./WomanTrend) does a deeper analysis of Washington Post poll:

Asking an under-informed public in a poll about “public option” is incomplete. It calls for a response to feel-good phraseology rather than a probing of underlying ideology. “Public option” in health care is not so different from “campaign finance reform,” “Violence Against Women’s Act,” “revenue enhancements” or for that matter, “world peace’ and “no rain this Saturday.”

The New York Times features a longish piece today about the litigation brought by a New York trial lawyer and the Amazon Defense Coalition against Chevron over claims of environmental damage in Ecuador, “Ecuador Oil Pollution Case Only Grows Murkier.”

Well, maybe it’s murky because the paper doesn’t bother to report basic facts, like who actually brought the lawsuit. It’s as if the $27 billion in legal claims just appeared.

The lawsuit is being financed by the Philadelphia law firm of Kohn, Swift and Graf, directed by New York trial lawyer Steven Donziger, and marketed by the Amazon Defense Coalition, which would receive the money from any settlement. And the legal/activist lawsuit is indeed a shakedown intended to force a settlement from Chevron for pollution supposedly left by Texaco, which Chevron purchased in 2001. Texaco operated in Ecuador as Texpet in a joint exploration and production venture with the government-owned oil company, Petroecuador, up until 1992. (See this Texaco history, “Chevron in Ecuador.”)

1992. 1992. 1992. 1992. We stress the year because any oil now appearing as liquid in Ecuador is the responsibility of Petroecuador. First, TexPet remediated all the sites assigned to it for clean-up by the government of Ecuador, which released the company from future claims. Second, oil doesn’t stay liquid on the surface for 17 years!

Those facts notwithstanding, here are the photo and caption the Times used to illustrate today’s story. (In the paper, it’s a five-column black-and-white photo, 6-1/2 inches deep, i.e., big.)

A pool of oil in Lago Agrio, an Ecuadorean town in the Amazon where Texaco left contamination. Chevron, which acquired Texaco, has inherited its legal troubles.

So the Times has illustrated a story about charges of pollution against Chevron with a photo of an oil pit (and flare-offs) created by Petroecuador. And doesn’t bother to tell the readers what they are seeing in the paper has nothing to do with Chevron.

The activists use the trick all the time, pointing to unrelated pollution and claiming Chevron is to blame, but shouldn’t the Times have higher standards? The truth isn’t THAT murky.

In reading up on European Union trade developments, we happened upon the European Commission’s news website.

Sacre livret bleu! Uff da Uppsala!

Between 12:00 (noon) and 20:27 (10:27 p.m.), the Commission’s press shop posted 155 news releases on everything from world-class dance to VAT rates on performances to telecom must-carry rules to Estonian advertising regs.

Here’s the list:

• 08/10/09 20:27 - Fredrik Reinfeldt spoke to Czech President [Council Presidency]
• 08/10/09 19:03 - Meet the Chairman: Indicators to measure animal welfare [Council Presidency]
• 08/10/09 18:41 - Citizens’ rights: MEPs shape the Stockholm programme [European Parliament]
• 08/10/09 18:00 - 22 High quality European tourist destinations receive the European Destinations of Excellence 2009 awards [Rapid]
• 08/10/09 18:00 - The twenty-two European Destinations of Excellence (EDEN) in tourism and the protected areas [Rapid]
• 08/10/09 18:00 - 89/2009 : 7 October 2009 - Information [Court of Justice]
• 08/10/09 17:55 - 88/2009 : 6 October 2009 - Formal sitting [Court of Justice]
• 08/10/09 17:48 - Neelie Kroes European Commissioner for Competition Policy Tackling cartels - a never-ending task Anti-Cartel Enforcement: Criminal and Administrative Policy - Panel session Brasilia, 8th October 2009 [Rapid]
• 08/10/09 16:47 - 90/2009 : 7 October 2009 - Information [Court of Justice]
• 08/10/09 15:09 - EU and Australia move closer to one another [Council Presidency]

At today’s townhall meeting in Lebanon, Pa., Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), responded to a questioner who objected to the Employee Free Choice Act. The Senator’s response:

You raised a question of Employee’s Choice. That bill is in a process of being negotiated. There will not be a timeline which will be so fast that people will not have an opportunity to understand what the issue is.

You comment about the secret ballot. I think we have to maintain the secret ballot, which you agree with. (Applause). We tried to work through the other facet of it, arbitration for last-best offer, but we’re….bearing in mind the concerns and worries that you raised.

Thereby confirming that final-offer arbitration remains the supposed point of “compromise.” (Background on arbitration from The Competitive Enterprise Institute and a recent AP story.) And we repeat the observation that Sen. Specter and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) are talking “compromise” only in the most narrow of senses, i.e., an agreement between the two men. A more accurate description is a “a version of the legislation that could reach 60 Senate votes.”

And, oh yes, it was a raucous, loud, combative townhall meeting. Shown on live national television.

To the media, townhall meetings are this year’s version of shark attacks. Looking back at the risible coverage of summer of the shark, we should now know that hamsters bite more often than constituents.

UPDATE (2:40 p.m.): In the Mid-Atlantic states, we also experienced The Summer of the Snakehead. It’s quieted down in Crofton, Md., since then.

UPDATE (2:50 p.m.): Granted, snakeheads have established themselves in the Potomac. The Washington Times recently had good column on catching and cooking them.

In our continuing series of grousing about the inadequate attention being paid to the trial lawyers’ convention in San Francisco, we note that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, chairman of the National Democratic Committee, spoke to the American Association for Justice on Sunday.

Governor Kaine’s travels and divided duties have been a big political issue in Virginia, with the Republicans and media demanding the release of travel records. So you would think that Kaine’s cross-country travel to San Francisco to speak to a key political constituency, lobbying organization nd powerful opponent of health-care reform would be a big news item. Right?

Here’s the Richmond Times-Dispatch story from June 22 and the relevant paragraph, “Kaine travel for DNC is detailed“:

Kaine said yesterday that he might be going to San Francisco and Seattle for the rest of the weekend. He said he will perform both DNC and gubernatorial duties when he addresses the Latino organization La Raza in Chicago next Tuesday.

Might be going to San Francisco? Surprised the reporter and/or editor were satisfied with that non-answer.

Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Friday conducted the best single interview we’ve heard on the topic of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a three-part segment with Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources, Inc. The interview features a timely focus on the permanent product label requirements that go into effect August 14.

The entire interview is available via an .mp3 file, starting at about 10:30 in. Hewitt also has a brief blog report here. (Thanks for the Shopfloor plug, Hugh.)

The strength of the interview is that Hewitt uses his lawyerly skills to build step-by-step the case against the CPSIA’s excesses, starting with the origins of the legislation.

The fundamental problem with the bill? Woldenberg:

The worse thing about the law is that under the guise of safety, they have taken all concepts of safety out of the law. I know it doesn’t make any sense, but the law has removed from the CPSC the ability to assess risk.

Hewitt asks about when the CPSC provided guidance on how to implement the new product tracking labels. Rick responds: Two days ago. (Wednesday). Woldenberg:

The mistake the agency I believe has made is not just admitting that it took too long and then slow the process down to allow for the kind of discussion for industry and the time for a smooth, reasonable implementation that a process like this would require.

The idea that you could put a six-page document out three weeks before it’s due and that would make everything OK just doesn’t make it any sense. It affects 60 percent of the economy.

The NAM has petitioned for a one-year extension of the labeling requirements, which remain overwhelming and unclear.

Why won’t anyone fix what’s obviously a disaster? Woldenberg:

I personally think it’s message control. Back in August of ‘08, Congress was heading into a re-election campaign, they were three months from the polls, and they wanted to look tough on safety. They invented a crisis. The recalls in ’07 and ’08 did not result in injuries, but they were so hysterical about it they invented a crisis and then they solved it in order to look active.

Why has the media not picked up on the excesses of the law?

It’s hard to understand. I think that it has an air of unreality to it. How could anyone believe that the U.S. government would outlaw rhinestones on jeans? It doesn’t make any sense and when you say it to people, they look at you like something’s wrong with you. It’s just hard for people to get their arms around the fact that this could really be happening.

But the fact of the matter is that across this country, many, many resale shops – Salvation Army, Goodwill and so on – have discontinued selling children’s merchandise because of this law. So come winter it’s going to be tough to buy a used children’s coat. And that’s Congress’ fault.

Congress should rewrite the law to restore the ability of the CPSC to consider risk in implementing the law, Rick contends.

The entire interview is invaluable and should be widely disseminated.