Three recent events -- the foiled Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner, the Dec. 30 assassination of seven CIA officers and contractors by a Jordanian double agent in Afghanistan and the difficulties that U.S. Marines in Marjah, Afghanistan, have encountered -- all have something in common: inadequate intelligence.

To lower the odds of similar troubles in the future, the government has launched a swarm of spooky, out-of-the-box research projects known collectively as the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity.

WASHINGTON — NASA and the National Academy of Sciences are joining the government's effort to figure out what caused the sudden acceleration problems that led to Toyota's massive recalls.

NASA scientists with expertise in electronics will help the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study potential electronic ties to unintended acceleration in Toyotas. NASA's knowledge of electronics, computer hardware and software and hazard analysis will ensure a comprehensive review, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Monday.

In a separate study, the National Academy of Sciences will examine unwanted acceleration and electronic vehicle controls in cars from around the auto industry, LaHood said. The National Academy is an independent organization chartered by Congress.

The academy study, expected to take 15 months, will review acceleration problems and recommend how the government can ensure the safety of vehicle electronic control systems.

"We believe their outside expertise, fresh eyes and fresh research perhaps can tell us if electronics have played a role in these accelerations," LaHood said.

Toyota has recalled more than 8 million vehicles worldwide, including 6 million in the United States. Toyota said in a statement it was "confident in our vehicles and in our electronics" and would cooperate with the government review.

"These studies are just the kind of science-based examination we have been calling for. Bringing some sunshine to this subject is bound to separate fact from fiction, which will be good for Toyota, the industry and the motoring public," the company said.

LaHood has told Congress the department will dig deeply into what has caused hundreds of complaints of unwanted acceleration in Toyotas.

LaHood said he has asked the Transportation Department inspector general to review whether NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation has what it needs to identify and address safety defects.

Some lawmakers have criticized NHTSA for failing to investigate Toyota complaints earlier and more thoroughly.

"Carmakers have entered the electronics era, but NHTSA seems stuck in a mechanical mindset," House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said last month. "We need to make sure the federal safety agency has the tools and resources it needs to ensure the safety of the electronic controls and on-board computers that run today's automobiles."

Toyota has attributed the problem to sticking gas pedals and accelerators that can become jammed in floor mats, and has cited no evidence of an electrical problem. The company has noted that other manufacturers also have had reports of cars surging forward.

Consumer groups contend electronics could be the culprit, and dozens of Toyota owners who had their cars fixed in the recall have complained of more problems with their vehicles surging forward unexpectedly. Regulators have linked 52 deaths in Toyotas to crashes allegedly caused by accelerator problems.

Reviews of some recent high-profile crashes have failed to find a mechanical or electronic problem.

A police investigation of a March 9 accident in suburban New York involving a 2005 Prius found that the driver, not the car, was to blame. Tests following a March 8 incident in San Diego in which a driver reported the gas pedal on his 2008 Prius got stuck, leading to a 94 mph ride on a freeway, found that the hybrid's gas pedal, backup safety system and electronics were working fine.

NHTSA's review of Toyota's electronic throttle control systems is expected to be completed by late summer. The safety agency, with NASA's help, is looking at electronic systems used in Toyotas and whether they have flaws that would warrant a defect investigation.

The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council will review industry and government efforts to identify possible sources of unintended acceleration, including electronic vehicle controls, human error, mechanical failure and interference with accelerator systems.

The experts will look at software, computer hardware design, electromagnetic compatibility and electromagnetic interference. They will make recommendations to NHTSA in mid-2011 on how the government agency's rulemaking, research and defect investigations could help ensure the safety of vehicle electronic control systems.

The two studies together will cost about $3 million, including the expense of buying cars that have allegedly had unintended acceleration. Both studies will be peer reviewed by scientific experts, the Transportation Department said.

____

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

National Academy of Sciences: http://www.nas.edu/

More on NASA

Fox News hosts are used to being mocked by Comedy Central. Now Bill O'Reilly seems to be taking some friendly fire from Shepard Smith.

An intense outburst many years ago during O'Reilly's stint on 'Inside Edition' (warning, video contains NSFW expletives) turned into an internet meme, with all the bells and whistles. Or perhaps that's multiple t-shirts and punk albums. Regardless, his "We'll do it live!" cry was named one of the top 10 celebrity meltdowns by Time Magazine. It was also used by Smith to introduce O'Reilly on Monday. The moment was captured by Mediaite.

WATCH (WARNING: VIDEO CONTAINS NSFW EXPLETIVES):

More on Bill O'Reilly

President Obama has taken heat in recent weeks for his so-called lack of a Black Agenda. Despite the passage of last year's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and this year's HIRE Act and Healthcare Reform Bill, some would suggest that the President isn't moving fast enough to help underserved communities.

Although the cumulative effect of the above mentioned legislation, all of which President Obama has signed into law, will provide hundreds of billions of dollars in aid and necessary resources to minority and impoverished communities, his lack of a "Black Agenda" is making headline news as prominent civil rights leaders and media personalities debate the merits of President Obama's action and intentions toward the Black community.

Now, I'm a tech guy and I don't pretend to know all the subtle nuances of politics and policy. But as I step back and survey the current landscape, it seems that this notion of a Black Agenda has also steeped into discussions about national broadband policy and media reform. These days, some are not just pursuing a National Broadband Plan, but are looking to discern a Black Internet Agenda and establish the parameters of what such a plan should look like. They want to decide who gets to participate in this discussion, and dictate to the masses whose views are right and wrong, and determine who is able to support the interests of the Black community.

I have noticed a decided tone by some in the blogosphere that there is only one way to create broadband opportunities for minority and underserved communities. There is an underlying assumption that we should all "be on the same side", and those who think of different ways to pursue broadband equality and digital inclusion are in the wrong, or are somehow having their voices bought and bartered to the highest bidder.

Personally, I ascribe to the philosophy that 'there is more than one way to skin a cat,' and I encourage a variety of opinions and methodologies geared toward the same end goal. Be clear, we may advocate different ways of getting there, but we all want broadband equality to become a reality for every American.

I grew up in Trenton, New Jersey and was able to create a successful career path for myself because of my understanding of media, technology and the Internet. I would hope that my experience is not anomalous, and would like nothing more than to see every low-income, minority, underserved and underrepresented child in this country get the same chance at success and prosperity that I had and still enjoy today. I understand that broadband access and adoption are fundamental to this goal, which is why I have devoted a substantial part of my talents to increasing and encouraging online entrepreneurship by kids who look like me and grew up in circumstances similar to mine.

We no doubt have a long way to go, but this new tenor of infighting that is emerging, I think, stands in the way of true progress. I am not interested in tearing other people down, or engaging in race baiting and name-calling just because their opinions differ from mine. I don't think it's progressive or productive, but I am increasingly aware that not everyone shares my same vision of finding common ground.

Within the new generation of civil rights thinkers and activists, there are a few people who think that progress requires destruction of those who came before us. Many of these people are my contemporaries. They are people whose work I've followed and whose principles I can respect, even though I may choose to disagree with them. The people who these modern activists choose to criticize and disregard, however, share a tremendous legacy of civil rights leadership at a time when life wasn't as easy as we have it today. Many of the leaders who have been called out in recent discussions about broadband policy and digital inclusion have been beaten and jailed because of the color of their skin and their defense of principles which resulted in me having the multitude of opportunities that I enjoy today. It is for this reason that I cannot blindly dismiss their concerns for the impact that some broadband policies presently taking shape at the FCC could have on communities of color.

It's easy to sit behind a computer and smear vile invective at those you disagree with, especially when you feel emboldened by the wrath of hundreds of people who think just like you. But as the civility fades, some among us seem to be losing sight of our real purpose in battle: we are trying to combat digital inequality; we are trying to fight digital illiteracy; we want to bring an end to the 49% and 59% broadband adoption rates among Hispanics and African Americans respectively; we want to eradicate the digital divide across economic lines, where people making less than $20,000 a year adopt broadband at a rate of 40%, while those making $50,000 or less only adopt broadband at a rate of 52%.

Since battle lines have been drawn, what does this Black Internet Agenda actually look like?

I don't have all the answers, but I do have a few suggestions for what should be included:

• Affordable, accessible broadband for all communities - urban and rural;
• Programs that promote broadband awareness and digital literacy;
• Incentives for minority businesses to get and stay online;
• A variety of affordable devices that can be used to access the Internet; and
• Relevant applications that transcend entertainment (i.e. government services, financial literacy, and economic development tools) to help spur adoption.
• Entrepreneurial Education programs that show how to use the Internet to create new businesses.

If we can poke our heads above the endless prattle and hateful clamor long enough to focus on what a Black Internet Agenda really looks like, we'd find that we're really on the same side; we just have different ways of arriving at a solution. That said, if the concerns leveled by some about broadband policy turn out to be false, great, the better for us all. But if their concerns point to legitimate problems, if there is a chance that minority communities can be negatively impacted by certain net neutrality principles or other policies, isn't it better to examine those issues now before we create an even greater digital chasm in this country?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have had us "turn the other cheek" while Malcolm X taught that we should pursue equality "by any means necessary." Though their methods were different, their advocacy was necessary and sincere. And it is precisely because of their joint presence and activity in history that we have been able to level the playing field to the extent that we have today.

In a game of winners and losers where broadband adoption is key, we can't waste time bickering among ourselves when we have a real battle to fight and win. We cannot rely on divisive tactics that would separate us and dissuade us from achieving our common agenda. President Obama said it best while campaigning for our country's highest elected office, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours." If we hope to effect positive change, we must work collectively around issues of consensus.

Change will only come if we work together to support the greater good.

More on Barack Obama

NEW YORK — Authorities say a 21-year-old man has plunged to his death in an apparent suicide jump off the Empire State Building during the evening rush hour.

Police say the man was dead when rescue workers arrived at the 102-story skyscraper shortly before 6:30 p.m. Tuesday. Authorities wouldn't immediately release his name or say from which floor he had jumped.

The Empire State Building is the third-tallest building in the United States. More than 30 people have committed suicide at the building since it opened in 1931.

Before Tuesday, the most recent was believed to have been in 2006, when a man jumped from a vacant office on the 66th floor.

The skyscraper reaches 1,454 feet to the top of its lightning rod.

On Tuesday, March 30, the President signed H.R. 4872, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. This past weekend, in his weekly address, President Obama addressed the two issues that make up this law: health care and higher education:

Education. Health care. Two of the most important pillars of a strong America grew stronger this week. These achievements don't represent the end of our challenges; nor do they signify the end of the work that faces our country. But what they do represent is real and major reform. What they show is that we're a nation still capable of doing big things. What they prove is what's possible when we can come together to overcome the politics of the moment; push back on the special interests; and look beyond the next election to do what's right for the next generation.

These are also the issues on which we spend most of our waking hours working. There's a nexus between the two that extends beyond the reconciliation bill. Health care costs have had an outsize impact on the costs of higher education. As health care costs climbed, support for higher education from state governments has declined. In our first post here at Huffington Post, we encouraged the higher education community to take an active role in the health care debate. That didn't really happen. But, the two issues ended up intertwined in the final package.

As a result of the reconciliation package, vital new dollars will flow to low-income college students attending school on a Pell Grant. The increase is a tribute to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his team, as well as to the tenacity of Senate HELP committee chairman Tom Harkin and House Education and the Workforce chairman George Miller.

No doubt, increasing financial aid during a time of high unemployment, stagnant wages and increasing tuition is a necessary step. Hopefully, this will get more people into higher education. Our economic sustainability demands a better educated work force But, it's not enough - especially when the latest attempt to focus some efforts on postsecondary education reform, the reconciliation bill, ended up being one more example of education sacrificing new resources to pay for rising health care costs.

The next step for federal and state policymakers must be to keep our students in school until completion. While lots of people having been talking about such a goal, federal policy needs to start putting its money where its mouth is.

Last year, expert long-time state higher education leader, Gordon Davies, was prescient when he explained the challenge that still lays ahead: increasing completion rates.

Higher education is a national priority and increasing completion rates is an absolute necessity for our economy. The President has issued a challenge to increase graduation rates to unprecedented levels. He's doing his part. Now, the states and higher education have to do their part. It is not an understatement to say that our country's future depends on it.

It's not an understatement. That's why it's also unfortunate that the perception moving forward is that "state policy makers" were viewed as "Losers" in the outcome of the reconciliation package according to Inside Higher Ed.

Unfortunately, it's not state policy makers who lose if we don't deal with "retaining and graduating students." It's our entire economy that suffers. As Anthony P. Carnevale, Research Professor and Director at the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, said in his testimony before Congress, "Jobs that require at least some postsecondary education will lead the recovery. The future of job growth in the United States is one in which more and more workers will require postsecondary education or training." With or without additional resources, we need higher completion rates. If our institutions of higher education don't retain and graduate students, we won't have the workforce we need in the future.

At this point, everyone involved in higher education, from federal and state policy makers to the leaders of institutions needs to get focused on completion. At the Rethinking Student Aid national forum earlier this month, Michael McPherson, a scholar on student success, former college president and head of the Spencer Foundation, remarked that higher education policymaking at the federal level lags behind other national priorities, such as the K-12 Race to the Top investment and key provisions in the health care legislation, for its lack of attention to evidence about what works, and particularly what works to promote more graduates. We can start with real expectations for completion as a requirement for accessing the $2 billion Congress allocated for job training at the nation's community colleges.

Aside from this one-time investment in job training, significant new additional resources to fund what works in college completion is not likely in the near term. But the federal and state governments spent billions to support public higher education. According to a 2007 report from the Center on Law and Social Policy, the federal government invests $55 in access for every $1 it spends on completion. With this new investment in Pell grants, that disparity will continue to grow. Some of these vital taxpayer dollars need to be reallocated to reward progress in completion.

Reallocating resources towards college completion will mean improving productivity - serving more students, without sacrificing quality. That is no easy task. And, it requires a commitment from the higher education community itself.

What would a more productive higher education system look like? Our campuses are united around undergraduate student success and thriving regional economies. Budgets align with that simple priority. College presidents are amazed and inspired by faculty, who come to work to make sure the flood of new, first-generation and adult students find a sense of place and complete their courses. Legislators and trustees cite like proud first-time parents their campuses' local progress on simple measures like retention. Graduation. Cost per degree.

Moving forward, the goal should be clear: We should be investing our existing tax dollars in students who complete college.

Our future depends on it.

More on Barack Obama

Today, the day after the Commission on Wartime Contracting held a hearing on managing contracting during the Iraqi drawdown, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report that confirmed some of the same points the Commission made.

The CWC noted that the Pentagon had often not provided the necessary guidance contractors need to do their job

The GAO report "DOD Needs to Improve Its Planning for Using Contractors to Support Future Military Operations" found that although DOD guidance has called for the integration of an operational contract support annex--Annex W--into combatant command operation plans since February 2006, the department has made limited progress in meeting this requirement. Planners identified 89 plans that may require an Annex W. As of February 2010, only four operation plans with Annex Ws have been approved by the Secretary of Defense or his designee, and planners have drafted Annex Ws for an additional 30 plans.

Four out of 89 is 4 percent. Even if the additional thirty plans were approved today that would still only be 38 percent. That is not what one calls outstanding work.

According to combatant command officials, most of the draft Annex Ws developed to date restated broad language from existing DOD guidance on the use of contractors to support deployed forces but included few details on the type of contractors needed to execute a given plan, despite guidance requiring Annex Ws to list contracts likely to be used in theater.

Remember that this is not just an issue for Iraq or Afghanistan. Starting in September 2007, each of the six geographic combatant commands was allocated joint operational contract support planners to assist them in drafting these annexes. These contract support planners have been reviewing existing operation plans to determine the extent to which they address operational contract support. Based on their review, the planners identified 89 plans that may require an Annex W.

Let's remember that the United States is the only country in the world that divides the world into military fiefdoms, oops, I mean "combatant commands." And every one of those American proconsuls, darn, I mean combatant commander, now relieves heavily on private contractors to accomplish his mission.

Yet combatant command planners told the GAO that they are unable to identify specific contract support requirements as called for in Annex W guidance because of the limited amount of information contained in most operation plans.

Meanwhile back at the Puzzle Palace, oops, I meant the Pentagon, military officials are pointing fingers at each other, saying it is the other guy's responsibility to develop Annex W plans.

According to the GAO:

We found that several senior DOD officials have the expectation that most combatant command plans should at least identify the capabilities that contractors may provide, regardless of the level of plan. For example: • Office of the Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Program Support) (ADUSD(PS)) officials told us that the Annex W should provide details on the numbers and roles of contractors required to support an operation. • Other senior DOD officials involved in reviewing plans for contract support requirements told us that they expected that planners could figure out the major force elements needed under a plan and then determine the contractor support required.

However, the contract support planners and other officials responsible for developing the Annex Ws disagreed, stating that given the limited amount of information on military forces in most operation plans

The report makes one wonder just how aware are the Keystone Cops, oops, I mean Department of Defense officials, that private military contractors are now integral to U.S. military operations. The GAO said:

DOD acknowledges that contractors will likely play a significant role in support of future operations and has long recognized the risks inherent in its use of and reliance on contractors. However, combatant command officials responsible for writing operation plans told us that they were not aware of any assumptions specifically addressing the potential use or role of operational contract support in their base plans.

This is not just comical but potentially deadly. As the GAO report concludes:

DOD's challenges to integrating the potential use and role of contractors into its operation plans are exacerbated by shortcomings in guidance and a lack of institutionalization of the department's organizational approach to requirements definition for contractors and developing and funding personnel with clear roles and appropriate expertise. A one-size-fits-all approach to defining Annex W requirements has contributed to an expectations mismatch between senior DOD leadership and combatant command planners regarding the level of information the annexes should contain. Similarly, a lack of specific guidance has enabled combatant commands to choose varying approaches with regard to what plans require Annex Ws. As a result, DOD senior leadership is unable to look across the combatant command plans and assess or address the department's overall reliance on contractors to execute future operations. Similarly, the limited discussion of operational contract support in other sections of operations plans, including the base plan, limits the ability of combatant commanders and senior DOD leadership to evaluate and react to the potential risks of reliance on contractors. With contractor personnel equaling or at times outnumbering military personnel in current operations, the failure to include the likely use of contractors among base plan assumptions or the lack of discussion of the role contractors may play in the various phases of an operation could create significant risks in executing plans.