Medary.com

Science Daily--Computers can now lip-read better than humans:

A new study by the University of East Anglia (UEA) suggests computers are now better at lip-reading than humans.

A research team from the School of Computing Sciences at UEA compared the performance of a machine-based lip-reading system with that of 19 human lip-readers. They found that the automated system significantly outperformed the human lip-readers – scoring a recognition rate of 80 per cent, compared with only 32 per cent for human viewers on the same task.

This may not--in the long run--be a good thing.

(It's about 7 minutes into this clip . . . but what the heck, you've got the seven minutes to spare, don't you?)

Via Jungle Trader, this from the New York Times:

When the government killed all the pigs in Egypt this spring — in what public health experts said was a misguided attempt to combat swine flu — it was warned the city (Cairo) would be overwhelmed with trash.

The pigs used to eat tons of organic waste. Now the pigs are gone and the rotting food piles up on the streets of middle-class neighborhoods like Heliopolis and in the poor streets of communities like Imbaba.

Oops.

I successfully resisted the temptation to title this post "Monkey see, monkey do."

In Ars Technica (which did not resist that temptation, you will note if you click through to the article):

Empathy isn’t only limited to humans. The chimpanzee and many of our other primate relatives are fully capable of processing complex emotions and behaviors. Chimps can also learn new abilities by watching their peers' actions and copying them. Matthew Campbell, a post-doctoral fellow at Emory University who studies primate behavior, and his colleagues wanted to see whether chimps identify with computer animations the same way they do with expressions from real-life animals. The (perhaps) surprising answer: yes, they do.

That's what President Obama says, so you can't get more official than that.

CNN as quoted at Cato@Liberty

"For us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said in response to persistent questioning, later adding: "Nobody considers that a tax increase."

So, that means that Senator Baucus, who wrote the Senate health care bill, is a nobody, too. The Foundry blog of the Heritage Institute explains ("MAGI" is "modified adjusted gross income," "FPL" is "family poverty line"):

The Merriam Webster Dictionary is not the only document that identifies the Baucus bill mandates as a tax middle class tax increase. There is also the Baucus bill itself, whose text on page 29 reads:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer’s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the minimum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer’s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800.

And who would be enforcing what President Obama insists is not a tax? Heritage’s health care team explains:

In order to enforce these provisions, the Baucus bill would require individuals, health insurers, employers, and government health agencies to report detailed health insurance information on all Americans to the IRS, adding significant administrative costs and reducing privacy protections. The IRS would also be required to report personal income data to state exchanges, insurance companies, and employers, because premium credits and out-of-pocket limits would depend on income.

And the individual mandate is not the only middle class tax hike in the bill:

[B]eginning in 2013, the bill would impose a new federal excise tax on high cost health insurance plans. The tax would be applied to health plans valued at $8,000 for single policies and $21,000 for family policies. Because not all workers in such plans are high income, many will likely be on the receiving end of a middle class income tax increase, which contradicts President Obama’s promise that “if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

I think the President is a liar. I must therefore--I'm told--be a RAAAAACIST!!!

I can feel the sixteen eyes of my eight loyal readers glaze over already. But stay with me, this is actually an important question:

Does the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution) render the entire rest of the Constitution, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, null and void?

If not, as Coyote Blog asks, what economic behavior--if any--does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause?

The question is important, because there are Constitutional lawyers who believe that a large chunk of the Democrats' plans to revamp the American health care system--including and especially the Federal mandate that individuals purchase health insurance--is unconstitutional.

Or, is that even important any more?

In the quadrennial game of Expose the Corruption, played by media big and small where the goal is to expose the shady dealings of those in power and their friends and allies, our early score in the 2009-2013 Game is:

Citizen Journalism 2, Old Media 0.

This is the result of two dramatic goals scored by Andrew Breitbart's Big Government site, scoring on plays featuring ACORN and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Admittedly, both scores were "own goals" by Old Media, who utterly failed to pick up on the obvious threads of the ACORN and the NEA stories in their focused concentration on defending their own. The forces of Citizen Journalism struck quickly, with Breitbart's Big Government blasting both scores through the goal into the national psyche.

Big Media is now forced to play catchup in the game of Expose the Corruption. There are many though who believe their hearts are not in the game. Some would even say they're trying to throw the game entirely.

But if Big Media loses this match, they risk relegation to the minor leagues of information society.

Will they rally to a dramatic come-from-behind win? Is the lead that Citizen Journalism building insurmountable? Or will Big Media pack it in and crawl deeper into the tank?

UPDATE: Yes, I know that the opponents don't actually score an own goal, you do it to yourself. That's the point. Work with me here.

UPDATE II: If you read all of the articles at Big Government and still don't understand what the problem is, then take a look at this general definition of "corruption" and this description of political corruption.

UPDATE III: No, really, go to Big Government and read. Here is a sample of what you'll find:

All of this – particularly the government-sponsored conference call itself – is in blatant violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act (19 U.S. Code §1913), which explicitly provides: “No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation …”

Violation of this law, in turn, violates 31 U.S. Code §1352, which bans use of “funds appropriated by any Act [from being] expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any Federal action …”

Is violation of Federal Law "just playing politics?" Before you answer that, consider very, very, VERY carefully the ramifications of your answer.

THAT'S what the problem is.

Article bumped to the top for a while.

UPDATE IV: That should be 18 U.S. Code §1913, not 19 U.S. Code §1913 above. Sadly, only civil penalties apply to that particular offense.

My previous post discussed primarily political corruption, which is a special case of the general phenomenon of corruption. Corruption can of course happen within or outside governments.

The general definition is:

* Pronunciation: \kə-ˈrəp-shən\
* Function: noun
* Date: 14th century

1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity b : decay, decomposition c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
2 archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts
3 chiefly dialect : pus

Are we, as an entire society, becoming more corrupt? Less virtuous and moral? More depraved? More willing to "bend the rules"--to do wrong by improper and unlawful means? Have we departed from the original purpose of the American Experiment?

It's pretty simple to understand, really. This definition of political corruption comes from the Wikipedia article:

"Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain."

My only quibble with that definition is the inclusion of the word "legislated" in the definition. I suppose that the author is saying that corruption only includes the use of "legitimate" government power for private gain. But then, if it's used for private gain, wouldn't that use of government power be by definition illegitimate?

More after the "read more."

From the book Power in the People by Felix Morley, as linked by Gary Galles at the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Although the democratic ideal encourages individualism, the actual operation of a democratic system produces a centralization of power hostile to self-reliance.

From the book Power in the People by Felix Morley, as linked by Gary Galles at the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

In America the individual, retaining sovereignty, intended to fulfill his destiny through a free Society, holding the State in leash.