Well, HR676 and S703, but leave them aside. Times via Economic Populist:

In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The only reason the Howler repeats himself is that our famously free press does. As for example:

This morning, the gods rocked with laughter: On Olympus, that is. Reason? On the front page of the New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg penned a report about the way current health reform bills would deal with American health care spending. On Olympus, her opening paragraph produced some muffled laughter:

STOLBERG (11/10/09): As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama's promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending.

Note that definition again: We’ll accept a rise in health care spending—it just can’t be a runaway rise! As Stolberg continued, the muffled laughter became full-throated—almost a roar:

STOLBERG (continuing directly): Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.

Can you see why the gods, and their guests, were now openly laughing? In the face of a “runaway rise in health care spending,” Stolberg almost seemed to suggest that a “trim” in growth, of 1.5 percent, somehow connected to the idea that “cost containment” was “a centerpiece” of Obama’s agenda! And then too, the gods, and their guests, had all seen the OECD figures—the figures which show the baseline of American health care spending. Can you see why the gods, and their guests, were now laughing hard at us mortals?

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007
United States: $7290
France: $3601
Germany: $3588
United Kingdom: $2992
Italy: $2686
Spain: $2671
Japan: $2581 (2006)

There’s the baseline for any future rise. In 2007, the U.S. spent 102 percent more than the French! In Stolberg’s account, it seems that we’re planning to “trim” 1.5 of those 102 points! But then, cost containment is a centerpiece of our health care agenda!

On Olympus, the sides of the gods are starting to split in the face of our culture’s year-long clowning—clowning which is mainly conducted at the very top of our “press corps.” Our advice: Surrender the prejudice of your youth! In a hundred different ways, you were told that “man” is “the rational animal!” As your society flounders and drowns, you—like the gods—can learn to see something quite different.

By contrast, here's how they do it in France:

[cross posted at NPR Check]

On Friday I was staying late at work and before leaving heard this promising start to a story on All Things Considered:

"This week, we've been reading a vivid narrative in the New York Times by the journalist David Rohde. He was held captive for seven months by the Taliban. He was moved frequently from house to house all over remote parts of Pakistan. And one detail in this story made us particularly curious."

Holy cow! I thought, NPR is going to allude to the three rather stunning observations contained in Rohde's articles which Glenn Greenwald so aptly wrote about a few days ago:

I am no expert on healthcare, and nor do I play one on TV. But unlike the summer's theatrical extravaganzas staged in "town hall" terms, there's good information headed to Congress, and I know good information when I see it. So does Bill Moyers.

She's written a previous book not about medicine but about money.

Paul Krugman praises Maggie Mahar's work in The New York Times:

Surprise! They're bogus. They reproduce the same "bait and switch" tactics that "progressives" used to help the Obama administration take single payer off the table.

I'm shocked. And so are the American people, but without the irony:

Google says: "All your data are belong to us":

The uber-geeks who run Google don't like to think about the messy world of law and politics. But it can't be avoided. The latest example: A Bear Stearns manager done in by a GMail account he thought was closed.

Matthew Tannin may have shut down his account, but Google keeps backups, and the company provided government prosecutors with "a CD-ROM disk... of Mr. Tannin's emails from November 20, 2006 through August 12, 2007," according to the New York Times. The prosecutors are trying to prove fraud in the collapse of two hedge funds, managed in part by Tannin, and have been helped along by his personal emails, one of which reads "a wave of fear set over me that the fund couldn't be run the way that I was ‘hoping'... And that it was going to subject investors to ‘blow up risk'." ...

[E]very police department and district attorney's office in the country knows they can extract valuable data from the company. Google has little motive to fight much against these authorities.

Yves comments:

Morton Mintz at Neiman Watchdog:

During President Obama’s five back-to-back Sunday television interviews, “No one…asked an unexpected question,” Alessandra Stanley wrote in the New York Times. That was a powerful and warranted indictment of the ascendant non-journalism masquerading as journalism.

The interviews, on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and Univision, were “as tightly choreographed – and eerily similar – as the multiple Magritte bowler-hatted men milling in the remake of ‘The Thomas Crown Affair’,” Stanley wrote. “The president’s talk show grand slam…was a remarkable – and remarkably overt – display of media management….Mostly…Mr. Obama demonstrated that the news media are catnip to presidents.”

The media would have been less catnippy had just one of the interviewers decided to be catsnippy enough to be less managed, i.e., to seize a golden opportunity to ask fundamental questions that should be but rarely if ever are asked of this or any past President.

• Mr. President, a standard definition of criminal negligence is, “The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.” Tens of thousands of Americans die every year from treatable diseases that were not treated because the victims could not afford treatment.

My question is, can our government be fairly accused of criminal neglect for failing to provide universal health care?

Well, that's hardly a Serious question.

Anne Applebaum on Roman Polanski:

He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar.

Richard Cohen on Cap Weinberger:

Based on my Safeway encounters, I came to think of Weinberger as a basic sort of guy, candid and no nonsense – which is the way much of official Washington saw him,” Cohen wrote. “Cap, my Safeway buddy, walks, and that’s all right with me.”

"Mortgage Servicers Behaving Badly":

The New York Times has a story tonight, “Judges’ Frustration Grows With Mortgage Servicers,” which narrowly speaking, is not bad, but illustrates a frustrating propensity of the budget and time constrained MSM to fail to dig into the meaty issues behind its articles.

The piece is yet another sighting in the Servicers Behaving Badly saga. Earlier installments included Servicers Show Up in Court With No Proof That They Really Own the Mortgage, Services Go Missing in Action When Customers Try to Straighten Out Errors, and Mods? You Must Be Joking.

Today we learn Judges Try to Shame Services...