‘Smart Grid’ May Be Vulnerable to Hackers

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-20/tech/smartgrid.vulnerability_1_smart-grid-power-grid-blackout?_s=PM:TECH

March 20, 2009|By Jeanne Meserve CNN Homeland Security Correspondent
If someone hacked into the Smart Grid, experts say it could cause a blackout that stretches across the country.
Is it really so smart to forge ahead with the high technology, digitally based electricity distribution and transmission system known as the “Smart Grid”? Tests have shown that a hacker can break into the system, and cybersecurity experts said a massive blackout could result.
Until the United States eliminates the Smart Grid’s vulnerabilities, some experts said, deployment should proceed slowly.
“I think we are putting the cart before the horse here to get this stuff rolled out very fast,” said Ed Skoudis, a co-founder of InGuardians, a network security research and consulting firm.
The Smart Grid will use automated meters, two-way communications and advanced sensors to improve electricity efficiency and reliability. The nation’s utilities have embraced the concept and are installing millions of automated meters on homes across the country, the first phase in Smart Grid’s deployment. President Obama has championed Smart Grid, and the recent stimulus bill allocated $4.5 billion for the high-tech program.
But cybersecurity experts said some types of meters can be hacked, as can other points in the Smart Grid’s communications systems. IOActive, a professional security services firm, determined that an attacker with $500 of equipment and materials and a background in electronics and software engineering could “take command and control of the [advanced meter infrastructure] allowing for the en masse manipulation of service to homes and businesses.”

Latino Producers Meet, Pitch Projects and Lament

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-latinos24-2009apr24,0,6502064.story

At the National Assn. of Latino Independent Producers’ conference, participants say more Latino faces are needed in film and TV.
By Alicia Lozano
April 24, 2009
advertisement
On a breezy afternoon in Newport Beach, hundreds of Latino filmmakers descended upon the swanky Island Hotel to celebrate “A Decade of Influence” at the National Assn. of Latino Independent Producers’ 10th annual conference.
For three days last weekend, the screenwriters, producers and directors attended panel discussions, pitched projects and mingled with like-minded professionals. Conversations varied, but participants agreed on one thing: Despite a noticeable improvement in Latino films and roles, there is much work left to do.
“There are a lot of victories, a lot of solid successes,” said Kathryn Galan, executive director of the association. She pointed to television shows such as “Ugly Betty,” “The George Lopez Show” and “Resurrection Blvd.” as triumphs in the industry but lamented that many other segments of the film and television industry don’t represent the 15% of the population that calls itself Latino.
“The inside thinks ‘Three Amigos’ is a diversity effort,” Galan said. “Nothing reflects the voice of U.S.-born, English-speaking American Latinos.”
Munching on sliced prosciutto and pieces of cheese at the opening reception, screenwriter Anita Palacios Collins expressed frustration at the attitudes of some non-Latino members of the industry.

Michelle Obama to Enter Campaign Fray

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/aug/17/nation/la-na-michelle-obama-20100817

The White House may risk tarnishing the first lady’s nonpartisan image by sending her to campaign for Democratic candidates this fall.
August 17, 2010|By Peter Nicholas, Tribune Washington Bureau
Reporting from Washington —
First Lady Michelle Obama will soon take her first real plunge into partisan politics since her husband won the presidency 21 months ago, making select appearances for Democratic candidates hoping that her popularity will excite crowds and donors in a bleak election season.
Her campaign schedule won’t be a heavy one, the White House said Monday. She makes public appearances about three days a week, and any campaigning she does for the midterm election will be within that time frame, a White House official said in an interview.
The first lady’s itinerary won’t be set until Labor Day, when the White House political team determines travel plans for the president and vice president, the official said. The idea is to deploy all three in ways that avoid overlap.
Michelle Obama will deliver a campaign speech that is largely upbeat. She won’t castigate individual Republicans, said the White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
The first lady has enlisted Republicans in her anti-obesity campaign, so she would risk antagonizing hard-won allies were she to deliver a fiercely partisan message.
Instead, she’ll keep the focus on her husband’s legislative successes.
“This won’t be a red-meat partisan speech,” the official said. “That’s not her nature, and it wouldn’t necessarily be effective. Things like her Let’s Move campaign have been entirely bipartisan.”
Rather, the first lady will tell voters, “We have a lot on the agenda, and the person I’m standing next to here is an ally in that effort,” the official said.

The White House may risk tarnishing the first lady’s nonpartisan image by sending her to campaign for Democratic candidates this fall.August 17, 2010|By Peter Nicholas, Tribune Washington BureauReporting from Washington —
First Lady Michelle Obama will soon take her first real plunge into partisan politics since her husband won the presidency 21 months ago, making select appearances for Democratic candidates hoping that her popularity will excite crowds and donors in a bleak election season.

Her campaign schedule won’t be a heavy one, the White House said Monday. She makes public appearances about three days a week, and any campaigning she does for the midterm election will be within that time frame, a White House official said in an interview.
The first lady’s itinerary won’t be set until Labor Day, when the White House political team determines travel plans for the president and vice president, the official said. The idea is to deploy all three in ways that avoid overlap.
Michelle Obama will deliver a campaign speech that is largely upbeat. She won’t castigate individual Republicans, said the White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
The first lady has enlisted Republicans in her anti-obesity campaign, so she would risk antagonizing hard-won allies were she to deliver a fiercely partisan message.
Instead, she’ll keep the focus on her husband’s legislative successes.
“This won’t be a red-meat partisan speech,” the official said. “That’s not her nature, and it wouldn’t necessarily be effective. Things like her Let’s Move campaign have been entirely bipartisan.”
Rather, the first lady will tell voters, “We have a lot on the agenda, and the person I’m standing next to here is an ally in that effort,” the official said.

Wind on Capitol Hill: Bloomberg, 2012

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/11/15/101115ta_talk_mcgrath

November 15, 2010

John B. Anderson, the former Republican congressman from Illinois and 1980 Presidential candidate, said that his mind was “in a whirl,” late last week. Anderson, who now lives in Florida, was a Charlie Crist supporter, and, despite his long-standing disaffection toward the two-party system, he feels no affection for the ascendant Tea Party movement. “I break out in a cold sweat at the thought that any of those people might prevail,” he said. Nationally speaking, Anderson remains an Obama man—for now. “But I’m still fiercely independent, and believe that only an independent might take us to a higher plane,” he said.

On November 4th, Joe Trippi, the Democratic consultant and former campaign manager for Howard Dean, was “cruising down the beach,” as he put it, in Mexico, recuperating. “I would put the odds of an independent candidacy for President in 2012 or 2016 at probably sixty to seventy per cent,” he said. “People make the mistake of saying that this was a big Republican victory. They were the only other option. The question is: Who? It’s not going to be like Ross Perot coming from out of nowhere.” He added, “The White House seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time with Bloomberg, keeping him close.”

So, that again: the maddeningly perennial game of speculating about the next move of New York’s mayor. Last month, the CNBC host Larry Kudlow announced on his show that, according to a “serious insider,” Michael Bloomberg would be the next Treasury Secretary. “The deal has been done,” Kudlow reported, perhaps prematurely. Then, the week before the election, Bloomberg’s grander ambitions were publicly revived by New York’s John Heilemann, in a cover story titled “2012: How Sarah Barracuda Becomes President.” The scenario, in short: Amid ongoing polarization and a stalled economic recovery, Bloomberg declares his candidacy, wins a handful of coastal states, thereby denying Obama the requisite electoral votes, and the Republican House awards the office to Palin.

Speaking at Harvard, the day before the election, Bloomberg said, “I think, actually, a third-party candidate could run the government easier than a partisan political President,” and then he went on, as he always does, to deny that he intends to pursue the position. He is, as he is fond of saying, Jewish, unmarried, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-immigrant, and pro-gay-marriage. Add to that a strong allegiance to Wall Street, a weekend house in Bermuda, and his vehemence, last summer, in defense of the mosque near Ground Zero, and it’s hard to see how he plays to the populist moment. A recent Marist poll indicates that only twenty-six per cent of New Yorkers favor the prospect of his running.

Yet the dream persists. “I think it’s a strong possibility,” Clay Mulford, the chief operating officer of the National Math and Science Initiative, and, as it happens, Perot’s son-in-law, said the other day. “The mood of the country is not ideological but more practical. The timing is unusually right.” Mulford mentioned that a Google search of his name and Bloomberg’s would reveal that the two of them met, a couple of years ago, to discuss ballot logistics. “His people put the story out,” Mulford said.

“He would probably get my support,” the former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said of Bloomberg, or “Blomberg,” as he pronounced it, explaining that he refuses to vote for either Democrats or Republicans, on principle. Ventura then brought up the recent losses of “Linda McMahon and that lady in California,” Meg Whitman, who spent roughly fifty million dollars and a hundred and sixty million dollars, respectively, as a way of suggesting that wealth is not enough. (This has surely been a concern, at times, of Perot and even of Silvio Berlusconi, two of Bloomberg’s weekend neighbors, who, with the Mayor, make up a kind of Bermuda Triangle of rich politicos.) “If Bloomberg could finance me for the Presidency, I would win it,” Ventura said. “So, if he doesn’t want it, he could hire me to do it for him.” Ventura now hosts a show on truTV called “Conspiracy Theory.” He promised that in an upcoming episode he would be revealing the real murderer of J.F.K.—“and it’s not Lee Harvey Oswald.”

In 2006, when Heilemann first floated the Bloomberg-for-President trial balloon, in another New York cover story, his sources told him that the Mayor would be willing to spend between two hundred and fifty and five hundred million dollars for the cause. Now, apparently, the range is one to three billion. There’s a moral there: the longer you wait, the more expensive the solution. In some circles, this is called throwing money at the problem. Democrats and Republicans have already tried it.