“J.K. Rowling has completed her first book after her wildly popular series on teen wizard Harry Potter – an illustrated collection of magical fairy stories titled ‘The Tales of Beedle the Bard.’ Only seven copies of the handwritten book have been made, Rowling said Thursday. One will be auctioned next month to raise money for a children’s charity, while the others have been given away as gifts.” (Wired)

“Esther Dyson… asked a great question at the Behavioral Advertising Town Hall today in Washington. As quoted by MediaPost, Ms. Dyson wondered whether the way people are controlling information on social networks shouldn’t also apply to advertising: “If I curate my profile… and if I can decide which of my friends can see which part of my profile, why can’t I do that for marketers?”” (New York Times)

Paul Krugman: ‘“My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent,” says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.”

It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isn’t. And thereby hangs a tale — one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, I’m sorry to say, about what’s wrong with political news coverage.

Let’s start with the facts: Mr. Giuliani’s claim is wrong on multiple levels — bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear. ‘ (New York Times op-ed)

N. Gregory Mankiw: ‘With the health care system at the center of the political debate, a lot of scary claims are being thrown around. The dangerous ones are not those that are false; watchdogs in the news media are quick to debunk them. Rather, the dangerous ones are those that are true but don’t mean what people think they mean.

Here are three of the true but misleading statements about health care that politicians and pundits love to use to frighten the public…’ (New York Times op-ed)

Frank Rich: “…what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.” (New York Times op-ed)