Archive for 2013

WELL, THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY, YOU KNOW: DARPA’s Plan to Flood the Sea With Drones, Carrying More Drones. “Hydra, named after the serpent-like creature with many heads in Greek mythology, would create an undersea network of unmanned payloads and platforms to increase the capability and speed the response to threats like piracy, the rising number of ungoverned states, and sophisticated defenses at a time when the Pentagon is forced to make budget cuts. According to DARPA, the Hydra system ‘represents a cost effective way to add undersea capacity that can be tailored to support each mission’ that would still allow the Navy to conduct special operations and contingency missions. In other words, the decreasing number of naval vessels can only be in one place at a time.”

READER BOOK PLUG: Douglas Hufnagel writes: “I’ve been reading for years, and I just released by third book, Battles, which is available for Kindle here. It is the sequel to my very first book, Beginnings. I would be extremely thankful if you would be able to give me a plug. Thank you!” Done!

UPDATE: D’oh! Had it as Thomas Hufnagel for some bizarre reason. Fixed now.

SHIELD LAW NOT AS BAD AS REPORTED? Charles Glasser recommends this article from the L.A. Times, commenting (on Facebook): “Finally, an accurate story about the new federal shield law. As I have been pointing out, earlier stories referencing a ‘track record’ to qualify for the protection are incorrect. This bill DOES extend protection in most cases to bloggers, podcasters and others, and without regard to ‘professional’ engagement nor for any particular length of time.”

I’m against shield laws in general, but if we’re to have one, it should cover everyone who does journalism, not just people who draw a paycheck from corporate media.

UPDATE: Mark Tapscott: Senate journalist shield law gets mixed reviews.

THE COUNTRY’S IN THE VERY BEST OF HANDS: Replica Enterprise bridge used to sell surveillance to Congress. “He sold members of Congress by letting them sit in the big chair and ‘play Picard.'”

Nothing creepy about a facility named the “Information Dominance Center,” either.

MICHAEL WALSH ON THAT LOUSY SENATE “SHIELD” LAW: “As I’ve written elsewhere, under the guise of ‘protection,’ the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party is moving toward its real goal of licensing journalists and creating an American version of Britain’s Official Secrets Act. The Senate bill has nothing to do with protecting journalists, and everything to do with the Government Class protecting itself from those who would expose its activities. Having successfully co-opted what used to be the national media — so much so that there is now a veritable revolving door between Washington and old-media institutions — Congress now seeks to shut down via exclusion all those who do not toe the party line. And if you don’t believe me, just ask Senator Dianne Feinstein.”

My thoughts on the subject are here. And, to a related degree, here.

CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS: How to Make School Better for Boys: Start by acknowledging that boys are languishing while girls are succeeding.

Women in the United States now earn 62 percent of associate’s degrees, 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 60 percent of master’s degrees, and 52 percent of doctorates. College admissions officers were at first baffled, then concerned, and finally panicked over the dearth of male applicants. If male enrollment falls to 40 percent or below, female students begin to flee. Officials at schools at or near the tipping point (American University, Boston University, Brandeis University, New York University, the University of Georgia, and the University of North Carolina, to name only a few) are helplessly watching as their campuses become like retirement villages, with a surfeit of women competing for a handful of surviving men. Henry Broaddus, dean of admissions at William and Mary, explains the new anxiety: “[W]omen who enroll … expect to see men on campus. It’s not the College of Mary and Mary; it’s the College of William and Mary.”

Boys in all ethnic groups and social classes are far less likely than their sisters to feel connected to school, to earn good grades, or to have high academic aspirations. A recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research documents a remarkable trend among high-achieving students: In the 1980s, nearly the same number of top male and female high school students said they planned to pursue a postgraduate degree (13 percent of boys and 15 percent of girls). By the 2000s, 27 percent of girls expressed that ambition, compared with 16 percent of boys. During the same period, the gap between girls and boys earning mostly A’s nearly doubled—from three to five percentage points.

This gap in education engagement has dire economic consequences for boys. . . . Young men in Great Britain, Australia, and Canada have also fallen behind. But in stark contrast to the United States, these countries are energetically, even desperately, looking for ways to help boys improve. Why? They view widespread male underachievement as a national threat: A country with too many languishing males risks losing its economic edge. So these nations have established dozens of boy-focused commissions, task forces, and working groups. Using evidence and not ideology as their guide, officials in these countries don’t hesitate to recommend sex-specific solutions.

Well, I’ve proposed a Title IX approach to make K-12 schools less hostile to boys. We might also want to revisit the way colleges have been turned into anti-male feminized environments.

THE ATLANTIC: The Death Of Gun Control: Why the recall of two Colorado legislators is a major setback for gun-safety advocates nationally. “Here’s what matters for the future of gun control: Advocates needed to send a signal that politicians could vote for gun control without fear of ending their careers. Instead, they sent the opposite message.”

Related: When the Little Guy Wins: In Colorado, Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun lobby lost. And Victor Head’s grassroots movement won.

TITLES OF NOBILITY: James Taranto on the Senate’s Definition of Journalism:

To answer the question our July headline posed, this column is “legitimate,” since there’s no question our employer is “an entity that disseminates news or information.” In fact, if we left The Wall Street Journal and retired to Florida tomorrow, we would continue to enjoy the privilege (if it is enacted) until 2033–and longer if we only went into semiretirement and continued to work professionally on a freelance or part-time basis.

The idea of extending the privilege to retired and semiretired journalists as well as active full-timers seems unobjectionable. But what about ex-journalists who switch to a nonjournalistic field? Jay Carney started his journalistic career in Florida and was an employee of Time magazine for well over a year (indeed, nearly 20) before he went to work for Vice President-elect Biden in 2008. It seems odd that the White House press secretary would qualify as a “covered journalist,” but apparently Carney would, for the remainder of the Obama administration and until 2028.

Carney is not alone. His erstwhile Time colleague Rick Stengel also plans to leave journalism for government; he has been nominated to serve as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs–Foggy Bottom’s top flack. The Atlantic’s Elspeth Reeve reports that if confirmed, Stengel would be “at least the 15th reporter to go to work for the Obama administration.”

While it’s likely that more journalists go into government under Democratic administrations, the revolving door operates during Republican ones as well. The late Tony Snow became George W. Bush’s press secretary in 2006-07 after a long career in journalism, and several journalists we know did stints in the Bush White House’s speechwriting shop. Many private-sector public-relations practitioners are also former journalists, and one could argue that a PR firm is as much an “entity that disseminates news or information” as is a newspaper or broadcast station.

The bigger problem with the proposed definition is that, like most government regulations, it would give an advantage to established corporate players over challengers. That is to say, it would create a barrier to entry. Whereas a newspaper or TV reporter’s promises of confidentiality would be backed by the authority of the federal government, those of an upstart blogger or pamphleteer would not.

It’s crony constitutionalism. The First Amendment isn’t about freedom for the institutional press — it’s about freedom to publish. It’s a lousy law, designed to reward insiders and marginalize outsiders.

UPDATE: Reader Lee Murrah writes: “Under the proposed definition of journalist, Thomas Paine would not have qualified.” Yes. I don’t think that’s by accident.

WELL, PUTIN WILL APPRECIATE THAT: Obama’s FERC nominee, Ron Binz, wants to kill natural gas.

Related: Investor’s Business Daily: Gain Leverage Over Putin With Some ‘Shale Diplomacy.’

First, we need to sober up and recognize the source of Putin’s power: petro-dollars. Half of Russia’s state budget comes from foreign oil and gas revenue. So if we want leverage over Putin and his cronies, we need to break his petro piggybank.

While surging U.S. natural gas production already is applying pressure on the Russians, more can be done. Exporting U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) and spreading the shale revolution abroad offer opportunities for undercutting Putin’s power.

The early shale boom stunned global energy markets and caught Russia flatfooted. Its state-owned gas company, Gazprom, was forced to renegotiate supply contracts with European customers and book billion-dollar losses.

Russia’s gas exports ran up against an unlikely competitor: cheap U.S. coal, which flooded the European electricity market as U.S. electric utilities switched from coal to low-cost and abundant natural gas.

However, Gazprom has since recovered, and its profits are climbing again. Exports of Russian gas to Europe are at a three-year high. Since more than half of Gazprom’s revenue comes from such exports, Putin’s coffers are flush again, and he’s flexing his muscles.

Exporting more of our natural gas and technological expertise would be effective ways of hitting Putin where it hurts. With major shale formations scattered across Eastern Europe, the potential is there to pull Gazprom’s largest export market out from under Putin’s nose.

Yep. But Obama doesn’t seem interested in standing up to Putin.