The Leaky Pipe of Information Known as 'Wikileaks'

As a reminder, the views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the College Democrats of Fordham University, Fordham University, the College Democrats of New York, the College Democrats of America, or the Democratic National Committee.

Wikileaks is at it again. They published a series of internal wires with State Department officials. Obama Administration officials fear that the 250,000 documents released will irreparably harm U.S. foreign policy and relations. They also had the same belief about a series of documents released about the War in Afghanistan.

I posted the paragraph at the top for a reason. What I am going to say is not a popular opinion. It is my own and I take full responsibility for it.

I don't think these leaks are necessarily a bad thing.

There, I said it. You can start sending the angry letters now.

Now, I have to defend my stance, don't I?

I will begin by saying that there are many documents that I will be the first to say should NOT be put into the public eye. I will also say that there are many documents that really won't harm us that much.

With both the Afghanistan and the State Department leaked documents, you have to ask yourself: what real harm has come from these documents? In my opinion, not much. The most damning part of the Afghan ones was how Pakistan wasn't as close an ally in defeating Al Qaeda as we once thought (big surprise there). The new ones do more of the same with our foreign allies while also using some less-than-appropriate terms for many of their leaders (of which, I am certain, are nicer than what many bloggers have said of the same foreign leaders).

Also, all that these documents really do is solidify things we already believed to be true. (Warning, I am about to go computer nerd on you all.) The best example I can give you is the report that China hacked Google for their codes. (Most techies already knew for months now.) I will give you the story of Google and China in short-form.

Google sets-up base in China. China says Google must comply with censorship rules. Google agrees. In early 2010, Google says they will no longer censor their search results in China. In retaliation, China hacks into Google's systems. Google sees this breach and then installs a program that "shadows" each of the users that accesses it's servers. (Think of it as a private investigator program. A user accesses a Google server and the PI sees it and then follows the user's activity. It literally is a computerized PI.) Guess where the results of the hack went to? If you guessed "China," you are right.

Guess where and when I learned of all of this? If you answered Wikileaks, you are wrong. If you answered "Computer Security Systems" taught by Dr. David Chen in the Spring Semester of 2010, you are right.

Get this through you: I knew the facts of a story that was leaked Wikileaks ALMOST A YEAR BEFORE IT WAS LEAKED.

Coming back to point, why are leaks bad? I have never gotten that. Does the government think that they are smarter than us? Do they think that we cannot 'handle the truth?' What is so wrong about knowing the activities of our tax-payer dollars?

People think that releasing classified documents is treasonous. Frankly, I have never understood why. The public has the right and the responsibility to know what is happening on their behalf as a nation. If the government is refusing to do so, they will take the "democracy" out of our political process. Many people have ridiculed me for saying (half-jokingly) that were I to be elected President, the first thing I would do is declassify all information regarding Area 51 and extraterrestrials. (This is neither the time nor the place to have a discussion on other forms of life in the Universe, so, please don't comment below about it; it's just off topic.) Why would I do this? It's not because I think there are aliens out there but because a responsible government would be as open as possible.

I tell people that I hate both Fox News and MSNBC, not because of the political message, but because they have commentators work as reporters. That is why I prefer ABC and CNN because they report the news first and primarily. They only add commentary when it helps supplement a story. They let US come to our own opinions.

People say that the health care debate was by no means transparent. That is false. These past two years have been the most transparent in American History. What was not transparent were the discussions that happened in congressional offices. But, almost all of the floor debates and committee hearings were public. Furthermore, the White House has taken proactive steps to make government data open to the public. The White House, in particular, has posted all visitors to on its website as well as open-sourcing many modules it built to power the website.

Transparency is accountability. I am not saying that I condone or endorse the leaking of classified information, personal correspondences, or personal opinions to parties that have no business in knowing that information. What I am saying is that why does government have to be so secretive? Why does information have to be kept so secret? I do believe that the American Public is intelligent enough to come to opinions by themselves. But they cannot even come to an opinion without facts. An informed public is essential in keeping a responsible government. If we know our foreign policy and we do not agree with it, we can express our feelings and make our government change. But we cannot change government to fit the vision we want unless we know what is in need of fixing in the government.

Jon Stewart Takes on Glenn Beck

How many people thought the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" was meant to be a political rally just to find out that it was a comedy show?

In truth, I found it to be a play that depicted the struggle between reason and emotion in our political discourse in the form of comedy.

Well, last night, Jon Stewart was at it again. This time, he went after Glenn Beck for his conspiracy theories that George Soros wants to take over the country. How did he do it? He became Glenn Beck.

Part 1: George Soros Plans to Overthrow America

Part 2: The Manchurian Lunatic

Juan Williams Firing Helped Maintain NPR Image

The controversy of the week this time is the firing of Juan Williams from NPR after he said on the O'Reilly Factor:

Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts. But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it's not a war against Islam.

Sarah Palin and her crew are saying that it is proof of how the 'liberal media' is trying to stay politically correct. House Minority Leader John Boehner has called on Congress to stop funding the National Public Radio. I do understand their argument, but the opponents of the firing seem to forget one thing: NPR is a brand first and foremost.

NPR is a company with an image to maintain, if one of their commentators says something that can endanger the image they worked to build, I agree that they have the right (and need) to fire the employee in order to maintain the image. Just because NPR is publicly funded does not mean that it is not indifferent from any other company. Just like most employers, NPR expects its employees to say things that would not reflect poorly on NPR. Yes, Williams' words were his own opinion, but as the saying goes "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." NPR, I assume, wants to keep a pro-Islam image; if an employee says something publicly like what Williams did, it endangers that image.

In social media, there is an adage: "it takes hundreds of posts to build a reputation, but just one to ruin it."

My Take on the Debate

Carl Paladino's Campaign Manager Michael Caputo reportedly said that Jimmy McMillian (Rent Is Too Damn High) won tonight's gubernatorial debate. I would say it was a tie between all of the 3rd-party candidates. By no means am I endorsing any of the candidates, but if anyone watched the debate, all of the 3rd-party candidates provided great one-liners and gave innovative, new ideas. For example, Kristen Davis (Anti-Prohibition) thinks the state's fiscal crisis will be solved by legalizing marijuana and casinos; Charles Barron (Freedom) wants the Governor to control the MTA; Warren Redlich (Libertarian) wants the MTA to be made a private corporation.

I watched the debate recap by NY1 and WABC and the overwhelming response is that the 3rd party candidates won. I have to agree. The debate rules provided that each of the 7 candidates had equal time to state their cases. Paladino and Cuomo have dominated the airwaves and chose to hold their lines. The other candidates, I felt, said the things and the ideas, no one else wanted to say. Since they suddenly had the free airtime to promote their ideas, they put in the one-liners people would remember.

However, as each person responded to questions, the Cuomo campaign actually tweeted responses to all attacks and supplemented all ideas said during the debate in real time. In terms of new media, then, Andrew Cuomo won the debate.

Every candidate, I will admit, had good ideas. Each of them would pursue their plans in different fashions. Frankly, I like the fact that the debate wasn't limited to being just Cuomo vs. Paladino because political campaigns are supposed to be about the exchange of ideas and when candidates hear minority opinions, they have no choice but to answer to the public about the issues affecting the average Joe or Jane. Having open debates, I feel, keeps our democracy open and accountable to us in that no issue is off the table and every opinion is available to be discussed, debated, and scrutinized.

---

On a semi-un-related note: I was watching the debate with my parents. The camera came to Paladino and my mom saw how he was wearing a few plastic bracelets and asked about it. My father responded, jokingly, "He is out on parole." I found the line funny and I tweeted it (I have since deleted the tweet). After the debate, I saw this @ reply to me from Caputo "@seamuscampbell Paladino's bracelets were made by his daughter to remind him of her and his late son who died last year. Thanks, tho. #cuomo." I gotta admit, Caputo put me in my place and I do apologize for my insensitivity.

Best Quotes from the NY Govenor Debate

"Businesses will leave this state quicker than Carl Paladino at a gay bar." - Kristin Davis 

"The difference between the escort service I ran and the MTA is that I had one set of books and provided on-time, reliable service" - Kristin Davis

"The career politicians in Albany are the biggest whores in this state, I may be the only person on the stage able to deal with them" - Kristin Davis

"The Rent Is Too Damn High believes if you want to marry a shoe, I'll marry it" -Jimmy McMillian

NY used to have great government, it can comeback. I have most experience. Go Yankees in the meantime. -Andrew Cuomo 

I'm not a career Albany politician, I'm a builder - I scare them, that's why they call me crazy. - Carl Paladino

An Open Message to the President

President Obama and Vice-President Biden took it upon themselves this week to fight voter apathy in the Democratic Party, encouraging liberals to stop "sitting on their hands" and buck up. Their message, essentially, is "we need your support right now, so do what we need you to do." They're taking on their own party, because apparently a hostile Republican minority in Congress, energetic Tea Party candidates across the country with very real chances to win, the challenge of selling the virtues of unpopular legislation to a mildly depressed populace, and fixing the economy while fighting a couple of wars don't quite present enough challenges.

The President and Vice-President seemed to suggest that waning liberal enthusiasm was nothing more than the product of sheer laziness and an unwillingness to look at the results. That's where I have to draw the line. As someone brought into politics by Aaron Sorkin's "The West Wing," I consider myself a fairly liberal voter. If I had been old enough, I would certainly have voted for Barack Obama, and even though I wasn't, I drove 4 hours to Nevada on my dime to campaign on his behalf. I'm glad I did, because I think given the polarization of our national discourse in the past couple of years and the gradual closing of the political center, I believe the country would be much worse off in the hands of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

But that said, Mr. President, there's more to how we feel than just sloth. I can't speak for everyone else, but I follow the news closely. During the first year of your term - when you had the Presidency, a supermajority in the Senate, and a firm grip on the House, the only major legislation you signed was the stimulus bill. Admittedly, the ban on federal funding for stem cell research was lifted, you instituted Fair Pay, and you brought our economy back from the brink. You put Sotomayor on the bench, not to mention receiving a Nobel Peace Prize and restoring our relationships with foreign countries across the world. And in your second year, you brought health care back from the grave - no one thought it had a chance after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. But you brought it back, and because of that, millions more Americans will be insured in the years to come. All while managing two wars and fixing Wall Street. None of that is easy, and all of it was productive.

But sir, no one elected you because we thought the job would be easy. We supported you because you told us that if we did, you would usher in a transformative era in American politics. You told us that you would push to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because it doesn't make sense to discharge qualified and patriotic soldiers at a time when our military needs all the help it can get. You told us you would close Guantanamo Bay, and told the world in your inaugural address that "we reject as false the choice between our security and our ideals," promising to end wiretapping. You advocated fierce reform for public schools in our country, not just $4 billion in more funding without addressing the key issue we face. Most importantly to me, you promised environmental protection and a push for greener, cleaner energy to wean us off of foreign oil. Instead, you lifted a ban on offshore drilling and put off a fight on climate change legislation, despite the fact that Senator Lindsey Graham was willing and eager to help.

I'm 19 and I don't see the policy briefs or the data that you see, nor do I have entire buildings full of incredibly qualified advisors, so I'm sure there are some technical problems with that analysis. Moreover, you're the smartest person in the room - that's why I campaigned for you, and why I'll continue to support you. But please don't tell me the reason I don't feel enthusiastic right now is that I'm sitting on my hands.

You had one full year - a whole year with our allies in the White House and Congress. In 2008, even Alaskans elected a Democrat to the Senate. You had a full year, and all you could come up with was a stimulus bill? I know it's hard to handle the economy, but was it really that paralyzingly difficult, so unimaginably constrictive that you could not mentally handle anything else? I don't work there, but you could have told some aides to spend a week, maybe, figuring out how to push forward on cap-and-trade, or on repealing DADT, or on meaningful education reform. You had a whole year, sir, with our allies. A golden opportunity that Bill Clinton and I both know doesn't come around that often, and what do we have to show for it? The fact that our unemployment rate isn't quite as high as it would have been otherwise?

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if you actually disagree with me on any of this. I think you truly believe that there is something to be gained from offshore drilling, and I think you believe there is a legitimate enemy in Afghanistan. I trust your judgment, and I support your decisions. What I can't stomach is the fact that you're not willing to fight about the other stuff - the stuff we do agree on. That's what I elected you to do! I heard you say last week that your legislative accomplishments were mild thus far because, and I'm paraphrasing, "it's hard getting stuff through Congress." Did you really not know that going in, sir? Because if so, I should have worked harder for Governor Richardson. Where are you on education reform, on energy policy, on civil rights? We need you to lead, sir.

Here's why I think you haven't, so far. With all due respect, I think you don't want to start the discussion on any of these issues because you think you're going to lose the debate. And frankly, I'd be scared of that if I were you too. If I didn't know any better, and took my cues from the way your communications staff runs the message, I would think we were all socialist, godless, and amoral. I, too, would think we were trying to set up death panels and destroy the private sector, guided by a deep-rooted, anti-colonial, non-American-born ideology. Because when Republicans come out with their ridiculous scare tactics to scare voters into opposing legislation, you usually come out with some variation of "well, to be fair..." instead of slamming them for embracing a deceitful campaign of propaganda in lieu of actually debating the facts.

My point, sir, is pick your battles - you have too many as it is. I'll vote on November 2nd, and I'll line up and vote for the Democrats, because I think they're a lot better than the alternative. But that's why I'm not inspired, because that's my motivation for voting Democratic on election day - they're better than the alternative, not because I believe strongly in our capacity for the progress you promised.

If you want my enthusiasm, sir, and I think you're going to need it when you run against Mitt Romney, I suggest you hire a new communications team, tell them to stop making our party look like a bunch of clowns, and most of all, gear up for the policy fights I expected you to fight.

How the DNC Rules New Media

This afternoon, I received an email from Organizing for America (namely Natalie Foster, the OFA Director of New Media). OFA wants testers for a new tool they are going to deploy. The tool is meant for phone-banking from your own home without the need for a call sheet. As described from the College Democrats of America website

The tool detects where you are, automatically brings up contacts in your area, and takes you straight to a script. And you don't even have to create a new username -- you can sign in using either your Facebook or my.barackobama.com accounts

In other words, if you're like me and hate canvassing, but don't mind phone-banking and have any sort of free time, you can help ensure a Democratic victory this November. I tested the program and it is very easy-to-use and straight forward. You bring up the website, a person information is listed (name, address, age, sex, and phone number); a script is provided; you call the person and record the results with the online form (this is all on a single web page). And you can do as many or as few calls as you wish.

However, if any of you have been following any of the other improvements OFA and the DNC have been developing, you know that this tool is the tip of the iceberg.

Currently, both the DNC and OFA have iPhone and iPad apps. They allow for you to read recent blog posts, get discussion points, find events, and contact members of Congress.

On the OFA app, you have an option to "Go Canvass." The app will determine your location and provide you with a listing of residences in the neighborhood to persuade to vote for the Democratic candidates. Once you get to the house, you can bring up your canvassing script. Instructions are provided on what questions to ask and when to stop. Once you're done, you reply back with the result and that gets sent back to OFA. As an incentive, with the more people you contact, the more awards you receive (like FourSquare badges).

Of course, none of the phonebanking or canvassing really matter if the people aren't registered to vote. So, the Technology Department at the Democratic National Committee created a website widget called "Raise Your Vote." Simply, it is an online form that you can add to any website. Users open up the form, enter their information, and a PDF which the user has to print and mail in is generated. We currently have it on our website (http://www.fordham.edu/democrats), if you choose the "Register to Vote" link on the left navigation.

Finally, as proof that the Democratic Party is the Party of open government and politics, they open sourced much of their codes on Open.Democrats.org. Of course, they do not have their core codes listed (that would lead to users finding possible security lapses), but the source codes for the peripheral programs and widgets are freely available for anyone to download.

I don't know any other way to put it, but the work by the DNC's new media and technology teams is nothing short of awe-inspiring.

Fordham Dems Blog Need Contributors

Hey Fellow College Democrats!

As some of you may know, we have a blog (http://fordhamdems.blogspot.com/). However, we don't have that many contributors (currently, I am the only regular writer for the blog).

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of ideas and bringing together people from all different walks of life and have them exchange their ideas in order to create the best decisions possible for the people. Having one writer for our blog is the antithesis of the ideals of our party.

If you have any sort of opinion about the political process (which, considering you all are reading this, you all MUST have), I urge you to contribute to our blog. There are no right or wrong answers or discussions. But it is imperative that the College Democrats of Fordham University hold true to the spirit of the Democratic Party and the democratic process.

If any of you are interested in writing for our blog, please email us at fordhamdems@gmail.com and we'll add you as a contributor.

Lazio Out

The rumors are true. Rick Lazio will be dropping out of the race for Governor today. However, he may still appear on the ballot in November.

According to election law in the State of New York, there are three ways for his name to be removed as the Conservative Party's nominee for Governor: he dies, he moves out of New York State, or he gets nominated for a judgeship (the deadline, for which, I should add, is today).

Due to Paladino's use of "hateful rhetoric," Mike Long, the Chairman of the New York Conservative Party, does not want a Paladino win (source: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/09/rick-lazio-out-of-governors-ra.html).

Provided that Lazio's name was removed from the Conservative Party line today, Paladino has 1 day (deadline: tomorrow 9/28/2010) to get the Conservative Party's nomination (source: http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/law/2010OfficialPoliticalCalendar.pdf). I mention this because no Republican has won any statewide office without the endorsement of the Conservative Party of New York.

To all of you, I suggest you follow the news closely for the next 36 hours to see if there will be any political game changers.


Update (12:29 PM): The Bronx County Republican Chairman Jay Savino has announced that Rick Lazio will be nominated for a judgeship tonight. In other words, Lazio will be out of the race for Governor following tonight's proceedings.

Update (12:37 PM): Rick Lazio has announced that he will not endorse Carl Paladino for Governor

Update (1:08 PM): Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long has said he will recommend to party leaders that Carl Paladino receive the party's nomination.

Some Numbers May Actually Lie

We all heard about how Carl Paladino is a mere 6 percentage points behind Andrew Cuomo in the race to be the next Governor of New York. Well, that was just one poll. Cuomo said that Paladino was up because of the media coverage regarding his from-behind win to becoming the the Republican nominee for Governor. Well, that was one poll.

Since the first one, by Quinnipiac University, two more have come out. One by SurveyUSA and another from Siena College. I don't know how the polling for SurveyUSA was conducted, but I do for the other two. The Quinnipiac poll surveyed "likely voters" and only gave two options (Andrew Cuomo or Carl Paladino). The Siena poll surveyed "registered voters" and gave three options (Cuomo, Paladino and Rick Lazio). What is the difference between "likely voters" and "registered voters?" Likely voters do not include first-time voters (and, may, exclude voters that did not vote in recent elections).

Below is a break-down of the results of the polling data for all of the state-wide races:

Governor	Quinnipiac	SurveyUSA	Siena
Andrew Cuomo	49%	49%	57%
Carl Paladino	43%	40%	24%
Rick Lazio		8% (listed as "other")	8%
Undecided		3%	10%
Attorney General	Quinnipiac	SurveyUSA	Siena
Eric Schniederman	37%		45%
Dan Donovan	36%		32%
Undecided	27%		23%
Comptroller	Quinnipiac	SurveyUSA	Siena
Tom DiNapoli	46%		51%
Harry Wilson	30%		25%
Undecided	24%		25%
Senate (Full Term)	Quinnipiac	SurveyUSA	Siena
Charles Schumer	54%	54%	63%
Jay Townsend	38%	53%	30%
Undecided		3%	6%
Senate (Special)	Quinnipiac	SurveyUSA	Siena
Kirsten Gillibrand	48%	45%	57%
Joe DioGuardi	42%	44%	31%
Undecided		4%	12%
Democratic Republican Conservative