THE MOBILIZER

Health Care Reform

2009-11-12T13:35:00.000-08:00

Why is that the United States spends more money on health care than every country in the world, yet ranks 37th in overall health coverage? How much money will it cost to provide health insurance for approximately 320 million Americans? The Democrats’ proposed health bill, Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), costs $1.2 trillion and pales in comparison to the already $12 trillion amassed in national debt.

Even though it has been over a year since Obama was elected President, partisan beliefs still keep the White House divided. The GOP and several Democrats recently battled over passage of the Democratic sponsored health bill in the House which passed by a narrow margin of only two votes. The proposed bill proved to be extremely partisan, with only one Republican, Congressman Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, voting for passage of the bill.

While supporters are eager to move along into the Senate, opposition forces will attempt to filibuster the proposed health bill. It is difficult to discern the real reason why most Republicans are so vehemently opposed to the bill. One can only assume that the GOP is deliberately obstructing passage of the bill to prevent a Democratic 'victory'. Nonetheless, those in favor of the bill are pushing for action and seek to have the Act signed into law before the year’s end.

One reason that the bill was met with opposition in the House was due to the overwhelming cost that will be forced upon American taxpayers. According to Congressman Burton (R-IN), a naysayer for the proposed health bill, the outcome of passing this bill will increase taxes by about $730 billion over the next ten years. Understandably, many Americans were alarmed by the immediate impact of tax increases amidst a deteriorating economy.

In addition, the Stupak/Pitts amendment, named after Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joseph R. Pitts (R-PN), raised controversy over the issue of abortion. The amendment prevents government funding from covering abortion under the proposed health coverage. In addition, President Obama maintained that federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. But before the President can sign anything into law the planned health care overhaul must overcome many obstacles.

Overall, the fate of health insurance in the U.S. is yet to be determined as opponents of the proposed bill seek to halt its progress through delayed legislative proceedings and extended speech making, subsequently drawing out the process of passing the bill along to the Senate. Having barely eked out of the House with the minimum required number of votes, the proposed bill faces an even more hostile crowd in the Senate where the approach to health care reform differs from that of Congress. Many analysts predict the bill to fail once it reaches the Senate because the Democrats do not hold as much swaying power there as they do in the House. The bill may succeed in the Senate, but not before undergoing amendments. As a result, the House and Senate will need to convene thereafter in order to compromise over a unified bill for President Obama to sign into a law.

PARTISAN BICKERING

2009-11-12T13:31:00.000-08:00

I absolutely despise partisan politics, albeit an ubiquitous component of U.S. legislation. The political culture in the United States is a war of attrition conducted by two rival parties bent on dominating the political landscape. The Democrats and Republicans vie for power in not only the House and Senate, but at the state level, too.

Sensationalist dialogue erupted in every news forum following the gubernatorial election results on Tuesday, November 3. The same story was regurgitated over and over, merely spewed out in a different manner more akin to the appropriate medium be it radio, television, or newspaper. Victory for the GOP in New Jersey and Virginia! A Democratic miracle happens in New York’s 23rd Congressional district! All the rage over how long Obama’s coat tails are. Meaningless babble to determine if the Democratic administration in the White House can extend its reach to the state legislature, or if the Republicans can regain power from the ground up.

The main point to take away from these reports is that the majority of Americans are more concerned with job security, unemployment, and economic stability than party affiliation. No matter if a state previously dominated by Republicans is now Democratically controlled, or vice versa. The issue universally represented in every state election still to come is that Americans expect their representatives to comply with their demands. As Charles Babington of the Associate Press writes in his Voters' memo to politicians, "We're angry and fearful, mostly about jobs and the economy. We want tangible solutions, not partisan bickering or intraparty spats. And we'll vote either party out of office if we don't think you're listening."

Are Halloween costumes more than just a holiday fad?

2009-10-30T14:38:00.000-07:00

Ah, the infamous orange jumpsuit… Simultaneously, a prison garb, Halloween costume, and a protester’s fashion statement. Following the Abu Ghraib scandals and controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay, the orange jumpsuit underwent a fashion makeover and transformed from a mere Halloween gag to a stylish political mockery. Can a Halloween costume actually have a detrimental effect on society worthy of taking offense? How far will a person push the limits of his/her costume before they become offensive to someone else? The orange jumpsuit continues to evolve and proves to be exceptionally versatile since developing into the latest Halloween craze, a gross depiction of an “illegal alien.”

The “illegal alien” costume idea stems from a similar line of Halloween attire that mock anything and everything from over-size sombreros and ponchos to fake beards and a turban. During Halloween time people always find it as an excuse to play dress-up and mock another’s religion, ethnicity, or culture.

Naturally, many spoke out against the costume claiming it is racist and simply perpetuates a false stereotype of immigrants. Chicago’s own Jorge Mujica, affiliated with the March 10th Committee, condemns the costume because it presents a mockery. The Coalition for Humane Immigrants has taken the offense a step further by petitioning major retailers like Target to stop marketing the costume.

Apparently, the pressure from outraged customers and immigration reform organizations has successfully halted sales of the costume at Target. However, other prominent corporations including Walgreen’s, Wal-Mart, and Amazon.com have yet to publically declare their position towards selling the costume.

After 9/11 people began parading around wearing Osama Bin Laden costumes and fake terrorist uniforms during Halloween. Imagine a Muslim person answering the door to a bunch of youths dressed up as terrorists. How would this person respond to such a shock? HA! The Muslim would laugh off the insulting masquerade, and hand them some candy. Or, do the adolescents and their parents, or better yet the major Halloween retailers need to be taught a lesson about insensitivity and offensive costumes?

Whether or not a person can take a joke is arguably irrelevant within the context of Halloween. Will allowing controversial costumes like the “illegal alien” to stay on the market perpetuate the existence of degrading stereotypes? Or, can we just ignore the insult and enjoy some candy?

Abandon all hope ye who sit here; Governor's seat plagued by corruption

2009-10-27T10:15:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Union League Club of Chicago
BREAKFAST @65 WEST
Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Forum
Moderator: Chris Robling

Reema Ahmad, the Government Affairs Coordinator, and I recently attended an Illinois Gubernatorial candidate forum at the Union League Club of Chicago, just down the street from CAIR-Chicago’s Jackson Boulevard office. The event provided an introspective observation of several leading contenders on the campaign trail for Governor, one of the most powerful and absolutely crooked positions on the Illinois legislature. This particular presentation exclusively featured the prominent Republican candidates, namely Adam Andrzejewki, Bill Brady, Kirk Dillard, Dan Proft, and Bob Schillerstrom. The Democratic Party’s candidates will participate in a similar forum at the same location in a couple of weeks.

Illinois regrettably has an infamous reputation for being one of the most corrupt cities in the United States. It is no coincidence that Chicago is depicted as Batman’s Gotham city. The rampant fraudulence runs from the heart of Chicago all the way down to the capital in Springfield, infecting the entire Land of Lincoln. The current path to Governor is inundated with corruption scandals, lying, bribery, and every other foul mannerism that accompanies a high-ranking seat in the Illinois government.

Former Governor Rod Blagojevich, succeeded by interim Governor Pat Quinn, was recently removed from office amidst corruption allegations. He may soon undergo impeachment for a number of crimes, namely for attempting to auction off the vacant Senator seat left by current President Obama. As the candidates took to the podium promising a revolutionary change in Illinois politics the audience struggled to maintain a sense of objectivity due to the large elephant in the room, not the GOP mascot, but an obvious embodiment of a still fresh wound inflicted by Blagojevich and the incurable disease of corruption. The candidates faced off against one another during one of the most tumultuous eras in Illinois’ history. It was clear no one wanted to suffer another political scandal that has plagued the state of Illinois.

One of the main topics addressed in the forum and repeatedly discussed by candidates was the idea of “transparency of government” which stipulates openly displaying local and state finances for public scrutiny. This policy reform would allow Illinois taxpayers to view how their money is spent, specifically revealing how much and where the bulk of the state’s resources are being allocated. While a few of the candidates touted to having already exhibited their own finances on their campaign websites, others disagreed with the notion that their personal assets need to be publically disclosed in order to validate their candidacy.

Clearly, the most significant issue of the debate was the enormous budget deficit of Illinois, which according to provisional Governor Pat Quinn’s website currently stands at $11.6 billion for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. One of the questions during the Q/A session asked how could any of the candidates even attempt to balance the budget without raising taxes? The subsequent answers given by each candidate encompassed the several important policies in relation to balancing the state’s budget including education funding, changes in taxation, job creation and security, Medicaid and pensions.

I mistakenly may have heard that every candidate said they would never think of raising taxes, rather they would erase the debt through spending more intelligently. Also, some candidates even proposed cutting taxes which would grant businesses more incentives for coming to Illinois, and more importantly staying here to provide jobs. This topic penetrated deep into the hearts of those in attendance who have struggled to pay their bills and remain fearful of losing their jobs, if they already have not lost them. This debate would ultimately make or break an audience member’s support for a particular candidate.

The candidates ranged in terms of age and experience, and all were fairly wealthy middle-aged Caucasian males, not too unlike the audience. Also, the fact that these were Republican candidates vying for power over the Governor position in a majority Democratic administration was not left unmentioned. Every candidate proffered an obvious Republican style reformation to corruption, almost implicitly stating that those currently in power, or more importantly Democrats, were to blame for the current political humiliation and economic hardships afflicting Illinoisans.

Overall, the event provided first hand experience in political campaigning at the state level as opposed to the national arena which is more familiar to the average American. Prospective constituents obtained the insight to discern who among those candidates participating in the forum will lead the charge in most effectively alleviating their political and financial woes. More importantly, the audience aimed to be vigilant in preventing the past from repeating itself and clouding their present judgment. Republican or democrat, Illinoisans do not want to be duped and inveigled into electing another typical crony Governor like Blagojevich.

2009-10-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

CHAUVINISM OR PATRIOTISM?

2009-10-15T13:33:00.000-07:00

The USA PATRIOT Act, or Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, is up for revision yet again. On December 31, 2009, three of the Act’s controversial provisions will sunset or potentially become reauthorized for a prolonged period.

Will the Obama administration recognize the PATRIOT Act’s immediate significance to the American public or circumvent the issue as the health care debate and foreign policy are deemed higher priority?

Capitol Hill has been holding its breath over the issue and at the forefront of the approaching sunset stands Section 215.

Previously, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required federal law enforcement agencies to provide a substantiated formal request for any wiretapping devices used in counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations. Those restrictions were eliminated immediately following passage of the PATRIOT Act.

Section 215 of the Act permits federal law enforcement agencies limitless access to personal property (e.g., computers and laptops, telephones including mobile devices, private banking and financial statements, as well as library records).

Nowadays, wiretapping methods are legally implemented without disclosure meaning the alleged enemy will never be informed of the investigation. Consequently, Section 215 of the Act is arguably in violation of the 1^st and 4^th Amendments, specifically freedom of speech and association, and rights to privacy and personal property.

The extent to which one will or already has been affected by the PATRIOT Act remains unspecified. As technology and daily life continue to become fused together, the capacity of Section 215 to infiltrate one’s livelihood becomes painfully obvious.

Here we go again...

2009-10-08T15:21:00.000-07:00

Surely Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) did not intend on peeling the scab off of a healing wound when he spoke last Thursday at a conference in Washington D.C., but his comment drawing a contrast between being Muslim and being "good" has done just that.

When questioned by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg about groups within the Republican party that play on conspiracies surrounding President Obama, Graham expressed his disdain for some fringe elements of his party and conservative media. He denounced Fox News host Glenn Beck as a "cynic" and called the birther community, who question the president's U.S. citizenship, "crazy."

After discounting the claims that Obama was born outside of the United States, Graham went on to insist President Obama "is not a Muslim. He's a good man."
SEE: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid30183074001?bctid=42981023001

While it is outrageous - to say the least - that such broad ranging contrasts may be drawn between one’s moral composition and their religious affiliation, comments such as Senator Graham's are not new among our elected officials.

Americans were just beginning to heal from the alienation they endured last year when Islamophobia flared-up during the Presidential election and Americans across the nation accused Obama of being a Muslim, implying that this is something antithetical to being American.

Such views were also expressed by presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, nearly a year ago today at a campaign rally at which one of his supporters stated, “I don’t trust Obama… he’s an Arab!” McCain responded, “No, ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with. He’s not [an Arab].”
Read: http://www.ahmedrehab.com/2008/10/identity-insults-and-democracy/

In a country composed of individuals from numerous ethnic backgrounds, faiths, and lifestyle decisions, it is deeply saddening to observe such blatantly discriminatory and ignorant comments made without a second thought by those representing us in government.

We have not yet arrived at the post-racial society many claim President Obama's election embodies in the U.S. today - though this ideal is not beyond the scope of reality one day.U.S. Senators and others entrusted with shaping public opinion, must challenge bigoted and un-American sentiments and serve as the enlightened vanguard that guides our nations toward peace and prosperity for all.

Threats to Obama Continue

2009-10-06T16:47:00.000-07:00

By Nadia Ahmed

President Obama has been in office for approximately ten months. That is not nearly enough time to change the nation from the topsy-turvy state it was in, to a perfect utopian country in which everybody is at peace with each other and all is well.

If people have problems with Obama’s proposed policies towards health care, education, immigration, or abortion, they should voice that opinion. They should articulate their arguments, hold debates, or possibly join organizations that fight for their desired causes.

What Americans should not do is what Arizona pastor Steve Anderson did on August 22, 2009. Anderson publicly declared his wish for Obama’s death, claiming that Obama is set out to destroy the country and that his death would “save the nation.”

Anderson furiously preached to his congregation, “Why should Barack Obama melt like a snail? Why should Barack Obama die like the untimely birth of woman? Why should his children be fatherless and his wife a widow?” He goes on to say “Well I’ll tell you why…” and ends with a distasteful comment on Obama’s views towards abortion.

Anderson’s words are malicious and downright dangerous. They provoke more anger and mistrust within a nation that is already hotly divided. He is also inciting hate within his congregation – a group of people who believe his words and are willing to act on them.

Even if one’s views on homosexuality and abortion rights differ from those of our leaders, using such language is despicable, and possibly a sign of racism. How many of our previous presidents had Americans calling for their death? Has Obama even been in office long enough, or done anything substantial enough, to arouse so much anger?

Everyone has different opinions. Our job as Americans is to express our views— sensibly and respectfully. President Obama has at least three more years left in office. Let us make the most of these years and work together, discuss issues rationally and civilly. We don’t have to always agree – the beauty of a democratic system is that we are entitled to our opinions and granted free speech – but we do need to adhere to that self-same system that gives us our rights when it comes to our elected government and leaders. Disagree all you like, but at least have the dignity to respect the individual elected by a considerable majority of Americans to be our President.

Nadia Ahmed is a Communications Intern with CAIR-Chicago

Health Care Reform Prompts Expressions of Hate

2009-08-25T12:00:00.000-07:00

Disagreements about the future direction of America’s health care system have some Members of Congress facing discrimination over more than just their views. Recent health care tensions have given rise to an outbreak of hate crimes against representatives who support reform. According to CNN.com, African-American Congressman David Scott of Georgia “received death threats and found Nazi graffiti outside his office.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution explained that the escalation of negative calls, letters, and racial slurs was after an argument Scott had with a citizen who opposed health care reform at a town hall meeting. The CNN.com report also profiled some of the hate mail Congressman Scott received, such as a cartoon of Barack Obama, depicting the president as a clown with a swastika on his head in addition to a swastika painted on a sign outside his office suggesting that those who support the reform policy promote a Nazi socialist state.

Unfortunately, Congressman Scott’s situation is not isolated. Democratic Congressman Brian Baird from Washington has also reportedly received death threats that convinced him to cancel several public appearances. The Atlanta Journal Constitution also reports that, “Brad Miller of North Carolina, has received death threats for his support of health care reform. Two other Democratic Congressmen, Lloyd Doggett of Texas and Frank Kratovil of Maryland, were hanged in effigy by protesters opposed to President Barack Obama’s health care reform.”

These prejudiced attacks serve as perceptible evidence of the passion and anger the health care topic has stirred up in Americans. But, their significance spans far beyond the political realm. Threatening our elected officials with racist symbols and hate mail in lieu of the legislation they support sets a disturbing precedent that must not spiral out of control. Turning a blind eye to these acts could condone hate as an acceptable way to express one’s discontent. Hate crimes could grow in popularity and receive less severe prosecution if the government does not aggressively fight against these incidents now. Congressman Scott himself acknowledges the “hate and racism bubbling underneath the surface” in America and wonders if the health care debate will be the catalyst for its ultimate release. The popularization of hate crimes would be dangerous for minority communities of all ethnicities and religions in the United States who already suffer from persecution. It would ultimately cause Americans to take one giant step backwards in their fight for equality.

Going forward, the amount of media attention these hate crimes are receiving serves as a dilemma for the Republican Party. Huffington Post comments that despite the media attention, the GOP now, “risks being perceived as tolerant of an angry mob-like mentality that freely throws out charges of Nazism against the President of the United States,” proving they are also knowledgeable of the potential downfalls of these expressions of hate.

The country is approaching a defining ethical moment. As citizens, and active participants in forming the policies of our national government, it is important to not let freedom dissolve into displays of bigotry and hate. Spokesman for Representative Betsey Markey from Colorado leaves Americans with this advice, “Even as tempers flare on both sides of this debate, we need to remember that we are all Americans and we all want the best care for our families and our loved ones. And to that end we need to have a respectful and constructive conversation about one of the biggest issues that our country is facing."

Choices Surrounding Health Care Reform

2009-08-04T11:35:00.000-07:00

Health care reform has recently taken center stage in American politics, and for good reason. Currently, the nature of the American health care system threatens our ideals of opportunity and prosperity. While we spend $2.2 trillion on health care — almost twice as much as other similarly developed nations — many American families’ livelihood are threatened by rising health care costs. The amount that we collectively spend on health care also threatens our relative prosperity. As the White House has argued, America cannot continue to compete on the global market if so much of our wealth continues to be consumed by health care costs.

Fortunately, Congress has taken notice and is currently working on legislation geared towards health care reform. As Politico.com reports, part of the debate surrounding this legislation is about finding a way to pay for it. Congress has proposed many ways of paying for reform. One plan is to increase income tax on families making over $250,000. Another is to tax health benefits for employees receiving more then $17,000 in coverage a year from their employers. A third option exists and involves creating new smaller taxes such as a surcharge on soft drinks and a repeal of tax benefit on health care advertisements.

But there is also another side to the debate. As Salon.com reports, the debate has shifted towards the type of reform that Congress should pass. On the one hand, traditional liberals prefer the President’s recommendation of a public option system. This type of reform would create a government run health care system that individuals could use as an option to employer provided health care. On the other hand, conservative Democrats known as Blue Dog Democrats have proposed a co-op system which would create non-profit state level health care agencies which would exchange the health care plans that individuals buy for large plans from private insurance companies. The type of reform that Congress eventually focuses on will depend on the politics of the situation, and proponents of both systems are leveraging their positions on other issues as clout for their system.

The debate on health care reform directly affects the American Muslim population. According the Pew Research center, nationally 59% of Muslim American families make $50,000 or less. Additionally, a significant number of American Muslims families, 24%, are self employed or small business owners. The rise of health care cost affects the ability of the self employer and small business owner to provide health insurance for their families and employees.

More generally, the choices that Congress faces in paying for health care reform reflects broader choices than just who is going to foot the bill. A tax on health benefits would be a tax on mostly middle class families, a tax no one wants to levy in these economic times. A tax on families making over $250,000 would avoid this but faces its own political risks. Perhaps the most interesting choice is a tax on soft drinks and advertisements. Many countries tax soft drink both as a way to raise money and to curb consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks.

The two debates are not simply choices based on demographics, money, or politics- they are choices of values as well. Which value should the nation tax: our security, our material success, or our unhealthy vices? And furthermore, how should one govern: do we compromise our ideas of what the better system is to pass some legislation, or wait for the perfect conditions to pass the perfect plan? The debate questions our ideas of pluralism and democracy.

State Budget Cuts Affect Social Services

2009-08-04T11:00:00.001-07:00

Illinois citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about the recent revisions to the state budget. In hopes of avoiding an immediate economic collapse, the legislature has implemented a new “stop-gap” spending plan that allows them to borrow $3.5 billion in order to avoid a hike in income tax rates according to progressillinois.com. Many legislators see this new budget as a compromise compared to the original “50 Percent Budget” plan they suggested in early June that slashed budgets even more radically. The 50 percent plan would have passed, however, if it were not for fervent citizen protest and the ultimate veto by Governor Quinn.

Regardless of the new plan’s attempts to minimize budget cuts, it has still resulted in a severe cutback of funding for many social services vital to the welfare of Illinois citizens. Pslweb.org has reported that social service organizations will suffer a cut of $2.1 billion immediately, and an additional $1.1 billion later this year. In anticipation of revisions to the state budget, many non-profit and social service organizations began to prepare for the worst by prematurely laying off employees. This has caused the Illinois unemployment rate to jump higher than the national average in the last month. The new budget attempts to save money by shutting down so called “duplicate” service agencies that share similar aims and objectives. But, this creates the even bigger problem of how to handle the overflow of displaced clients that will inundate the remaining organizations. As a whole, progressillinois.com reports that social services are proposed to receive 85% of what they did in the previous budget, which is sure to have an effect on the individual organizations that aid the Muslim community.

A likely target is the Inner-city Muslim Action Network (IMAN), a non-profit that advocates for social justice, provides a free health clinic, youth services, and food pantry. Another agency that is anticipated to suffer from the new state budget is Arab American Family Services (AAFS) which helps those who suffer from domestic abuse, child abuse, and youth behavioral issues. It is feasible that the state will view these organizations as duplicates of other anti-abuse or social justice agencies and will be cut in favor of more generic agencies that do not cater specifically to the Muslim community. The budget cuts, therefore, make it possible for Muslims to lose the special attention they rely on from these agencies.

The specific details of the cuts Muslim non-profits will undergo have not yet been released by Governor Quinn, but the decrease of funds allocated to the social services sector holds little promise for equitable distribution among its smaller organizations. Agencies such as IMAN and AAFS fall under the category of community health programs, which are already facing budget cuts of around $108 million, therefore, it is likely to anticipate they will be greatly disadvantaged as will the Muslim community as a whole.

Do You Know Your Rights?

2009-07-30T14:27:00.000-07:00

Being questioned is one thing; being interrogated in an excessive, branching manner is another. Too often, Muslim Americans are caught in situations where they are found questioned about something and feel forced to answer in a detailed, submissive way, trailing themselves into what may become a creation of their own misfortune. In actuality, many do not realize that they are not required to disclose anything and everything given their rights, provided by the United States government.

Whether it is a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee questioning you in the airport or an FBI agent knocking on your door at your place of residence, Muslim Americans have been caught in uncomfortable situations that are complicated because of their unconditional desire to act as law abiding citizens.

In their willingness to assist in the security process, Muslim Americans have been, and continue to be, seen as potential suspects because of the way they mishandle interactions with government officials. These interactions play a significant role in what causes the problem of targeting Muslims through misunderstandings, which has developed even on a federal level. The media and public misconstrue the information they see in a way that perpetuates the misconceptions about Muslims all over the world. This damages any efforts to improve the image of Muslims, whether here or abroad.

The problem in the way we handle uncomfortable situations is perhaps due to an unconscious inability to communicate effectively, allowing the government to misinterpret what is being said in a way that is seemingly suspicious. Such misunderstandings are often due to something as simple as a language barrier. On the other hand, it may very well be that we just do not know how to approach a situation like this, so we become nervous and submit to anything that is being asked of us, essentially making it appear that we have something to hide when in reality we do not. For example, if asked at the airport during TSA questioning what your opinion is on your country of origin’s political leader and his political stances, you have a right to refuse to answer due to irrelevancy and that you would be more than happy to answer any questions that are relevant to the matter at hand.

The solution to preventing such invasive interrogations is not to target the government and demand that we be free of any questioning; after all, they are merely doing their job in their attempt to maintain security for all Americans. Instead, the solution is to concentrate on the source: our knowledge of the system and how to work with it. By learning our rights as Muslim Americans, and more importantly, as American citizens, we are furthering our loyalty to the law by understanding how to react while preserving our dignity. Only when we educate ourselves can we form and maintain a positive image of Muslims in America and finally put an end to the disposition that Muslims are a threat to the security of our country and the rest of the world.

CAIR-Chicago is committed to the education of the rights of American citizens and is seeking more opportunities to help the Muslim community grow in knowledge and participation in the community through the implementation of know your rights workshops and information distribution. If you would like more information on getting your community involved, please contact Reema Ahmad, Government Affairs Coordinator for CAIR-Chicago at 312-212-1520, or visit the CAIR-Chicago website at www.cairchicago.org

Home interrogation tips:
Step 1: Talk to an attorney before answering questions. Lawyer directory- www.muslimadvocates.org
Step 2: Step outside. Do not let law enforcement into your home without a search warrant.
Step 3: Ask for business cards.
Step 4: Say your lawyer will be in touch. Contact your lawyer immediately.
Source: www.muslimadvocates.org

Airport interview tips:
Step 1: Be prepared for a search.
Step 2: Ask why you’ve been selected. Ask for a supervisor or Watch Commander.
Step 3: Object to inappropriate questions about religious or political beliefs. “What mosque do you attend?” “How often do you pray?” “What do you think of ____’s government?”
Step 4: Keep a record and file a complaint later. Get receipts for seized property. Write down the agents’ badge numbers.
Step 5: Confirm your legal status.
Source: www.muslimadvocates.org

Airport search tips:
Step 1: Remain calm and courteous during the process.
Step 2: You have a right to request the pat-down process rather than the body-scanner. Passengers also have the right to ask the pat-down screening to take place with screeners of the same gender and in a private room.
Step 3: If you believe you have been singled out solely based on your race, religion or ethnicity, contact CAIR-Chicago at (312) 212-1520, or contact civilrights@cairchicago.org immediately.
Source: http://www.mlfausa.com

Iran in Perspective

2009-07-30T11:27:00.001-07:00

Few stories have been commanding as much attention recently as the elections and protests in Iran. This attention is deserved. There are few moments in history when both issues and actions culminate as they have in Iran. Despite the complexity of the situation in Iran, it is an important milestone that demands our focus and attention.

First, I want to make a plug for anyone interested in following the election protest. This blog, written by a Persian Literature professor at Washington University and native of Iran, is highly recommended for anyone interested in following the election protests more closely. The blog has been providing detailed and well reasoned accounts of the political, social, and cultural effects of the Green movement protests in Iran.

The outcome of the election appeared to be very certain at first, and many groups within Iran had little hope that anyone could present a challenge to Ahmadinejad’s populist appeal and control of government. However, nationally televised debates that exposed the holes Ahmadinejad’s economic record, and an election campaign by the challenger Moussavi that focused on civil liberties and political freedom, made the election seem close during the campaign. For the first time in a long time, the presidential campaign had people excited about the possibilities of reform politics in Iran. When the results of the election were announced and evidence of fraud and corrupt voting polices emerged, the people were too overwhelmed and their emotion spilled over into protest.

Most information about the protest in Iran should only be used to make the public aware of what is happening in that country. However, the experiences of the people of Iran should generally shape our understanding of Iranian politics and culture in regards to other issues. There are two obvious questions that the public should ask in regards to this issue: 1) What has the United States done about these elections; and 2) What should the United States do about the elections and protest? Our response has been limited and well measured. The U.S. has consulted with its allies about the situation, extended an invitation to Iran to talk about human rights and other issues, and tried to protect its citizens from harm when possible.

The second question is a little more difficult to answer. Many people familiar with the situation, including this commentator, who is also recommended for anyone wanting more perspective on the protests, want the United States to take as limited an approach as possible. This appears to be what the Obama administration is doing. However, it does not appear that the administration is following the tenor of these commentator’s arguments. One of the underlying assumptions of many who seek a hands off approach is that it is inherently difficult for the U.S. to ever understand Iran’s politics and, furthermore, even more difficult to take any constructive action with regards to Iran’s politics. I believe that this is not the position of the administration. If the administration seems limited and well measured, it does so because it is in the interest of the United States in pursuing our foreign policy goals that we seem limited and well measured. But this approach does not change the United States’ goals of a world where freedom and individual liberty is respected. Sometimes the biggest stick just happens to be the one that makes the least amount of noise.

The latest reports from Iran are of protesters being abused during their time in Iranian prisons. Mr. Moussavi and others are continuing their protests despite government arrests and reports of abuse. Meanwhile, Mr. Ahmadinejad has been experiencing backlash from conservatives in Iran over his cabinet appointments because of the continuing protests.

For anyone interested in reading more then this brief summary, this article provides an in-depth account of the issues at stake during the campaign.

Apparently He's Had Enough

2008-09-15T13:01:00.000-07:00

Clearly, Barack Obama is frustrated, and legitimately so. His record and his words have been on the Republican chopping block for a while now and recently have turned into outright attacks which provide some "facts" worthy of skepticism. Now Obama is trying to really fight back. From CBS we find that his campaign has released a new television ad that quotes major news sources as having written about McCain's dishonest and less than honorable campaign tactics. It's even more interesting to note that in using these quotations, Obama never attacks or accuses McCain himself; he allows the media to do that for him. Furthermore, it seems like Obama may be altering his message in order to adapt to changes in the campaign that have frustrated his desire to use his message of hope and change. Politico reports that his slogan has recently been modified from "Change We Can Believe In" to "Change We Need". His speeches also have become less "inspiritional", favoring a more partisan, us v. them perspective than his audience has grown accustomed to.

Obama isn't the only one calling McCain out on his less then noble campaigning. FactCheck.org, a group dedicated to delivering the truth about misleading claims by both candidates in a non-partisan fashion, has also accused McCain of gross distortions. According to a recent posting on their website, the McCaim camp quoted a previous post in a television ad and skewed it to make it look as if Obama was saying false statements about Gov. Palin. According to FactCheck, the purpose of that previous post was to say the exact opposite. Yes, false statements were made but there is no reason to believe, no evidence to suggest that they came from Obama's campaign.

Now CNN reports that even the notorious former presidential adviser Karl Rove is saying that the McCain campaign has gone too far in some of its television ads. Let's be honest for a second. If one of the key architects of the Swift Boat smear campaign against John Kerry back in 2004 is telling you you've gone too far, clearly you really have crossed a line.

So, will pointing out these inconsistencies make a difference in the race for the White House? I think that these findings of impropriety could spell trouble for McCain if and only if people are actually paying attention to these findings and take the time to really think about what has been and will be said during this election cycle.

What About Biden?

2008-09-12T11:59:00.000-07:00

In all the hoopla surrounding the newly minted Republican VP candidate Gov. Sarah Palin, Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden seems to have been lost in the crowd. So what has he been doing the past couple of weeks?

It seems to be business as usual for the nominee, aside from the fact that at every event he attends, he must politely answer questions about the Palin phenomena. The senator does not appear to be phased by his opponent's sudden popularity. Though he may have been eclipsed by the media frenzy over Palin, Biden doesn't seem to be worried. And frankly judging by the way Palin not-so-successfully attempted to dodge some of Charles Gibson's more probing questions, I'm not so sure he needs to be.

To many, the Democrats may have underestimated the strength of the Palin choice in the very beginning. This may be true but it appears that Biden is not trying to appear intimidated by her star-status and vigor, though many others are. He seems to be taking on an approach which says that sure, she became a celebrity overnight and people are loving her but that initial wave will die as quickly as it came and then we'll have to examine the substance of what she has to offer. It seems like we may be hitting this new lull in her stardom, considering the hits and misses of last night's ABC interview. While he has no solid personal judgment on his opponent as of right now, he maintains that once she really starts to open up about key policy issues, like she did last night, the fascination exhibited by the American people will turn into critical assessment. When this happens I think Palin will need to be on her guard, prepared to answer questions she hasn't had to really talk about since she was chosen to be McCain's No 2.

Basically, Palin and the McCain campaign have been riding an intense wave of refreshed excitement, coasting along in the Gallup polls, not having to respond to the other side for a change. However, I think this ride will be ending very soon. Excitement and new faces are great but when the novelty wears off, people want to know exactly what they are left with. Wait for October 2, the day of the vice presidential debates. I think that is when we will really see if Biden was right in just sitting out the Palin storm.

Check out Politico for more.

Discord in the GOP

2008-09-08T08:56:00.000-07:00

While I am very much over reading articles about her leadership and how her husband is a "true Alaskan", some interesting and relevant information does indeed emerge from the coverage of Gov. Palin. In a couple articles posted today, writers explain how the running mates for the Republican Party do not see eye to eye on a couple issues. What is interesting is that these are no minor issues.

In one article from Politico, the claim is that McCain and Palin differ when it comes to the issue of global warming. Though, McCain has remained relatively silent on the issue after reversing his stance on offshore drilling a few months ago, he has been more vocal than most in his party about his support for finding energy alternatives to oil. At the very least he constantly maintains that global warming has been accelerated by man-made technologies and practices. Gov. Palin is much more skeptical. As recently as one month ago, the Alaskan executive claimed that “I'm not one … who would attribute it to being man-made." There is no ambiguity here and it appears that the two are certainly not on the same page with respect to this issue.

The second issue which divides the two is sex education, according to the LA Times. Departing from GOP standards, Palin supports contraception education alongside discussions of abstinence. McCain and most Republicans, on the other hand, disagree. A spokesperson for the McCain campaign has been quoted as saying that McCain believes abstinence to be "the only safe and responsible alternative." Where's the harmony in these views? Well, simply put, there is none.

The problems presented for the GOP are troubling in terms of winning and maintaining the support of various voters. In terms of the global warming issue, some people who were once drawn to McCain by his unique stance on global warming may be alienated by the fact that not only does Palin not show any strong commitment to the issue but she also may not even believe it is an issue which can actually be effected by humans. With respect to sex education, socially conservative supporters may feel a bit unhappy with the new Republican ticket, as many are staunchly opposed to any sex education program that includes more than abstinence as a lesson for today's youth.

So how are voters to get past these seemingly irreconcilable differences? My advice would be, if neither running mate changes his/her view come November, assess the opinion you think is most valid and weigh that against the likelihood that the other opinion might interfere with the opinion you believe would be more dominant if the Republicans were to maintain control of the White House. That's really the best I can do because, realistically speaking, if this kind of discord continues, if neither Palin nor McCain back down from their original views, they are going to make it that much harder for undecided and just-barely-right voters to choose them in November.

All About Palin

2008-09-05T11:39:00.000-07:00

In trying to find something to write, dear readers, I was struck by the overwhelming capacity of media outlets I reviewed to churn out stories about Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin. There were writers claiming her speech was the climax of the RNC, others comparing her to Dan Quayle and still more reporting on the defensive stance many major news publications are taking after they came down hard on Palin after her nomination.

My question: How does this coverage actually effect the Republican Party?

On the one hand, it really helps. Her entrance provides a much needed boost in the way of excitement for the Republicans. McCain hasn't exactly been earning charisma points lately so any little bit she can contribute helps. Not only that but she also brings along this image of change and reform, something the McCain campaign has been struggling to convey in months past. She can help return McCain to his once seemingly lost "maverick" status. She seems to be making Republicans excited about their nominee again.

On the other hand, the GOP could be hurting as well. The female vote is not a sure thing as many women may feel that Palin's nomination is a political ploy aimed at capturing their collective vote (if such a thing exists). Also, though I did not catch the whole thing, I have seen bits and pieces of Palin's acceptance speech. Indeed, it was a fiesty oration but where's the substance? Yes, we hear the constant jabs at your opponent but what are you going to do that is so different? Many on the left cringe at the overt attacks on Obama's record and such but at the same time this may be a motivator for the Democratic Party. They've been going strong for the duration of this campaign, breezing by while the McCain camp faltered. Not to say that the Democrats are struggling but this kind of attack without support from a solid and substantial message could be yet another boost for Obama's party. Essentially her speech only adds fuel to the fires of change on the left side of the aisle.

So what can we conclude now that both conventions have reached their conclusions? Both sides have some pretty good speech writers but that's not going to ensure victory in November. Happy trails gentlemen (and lady).

Interesting Choice

2008-08-29T11:46:00.000-07:00

Still reeling from the spectacle that became the Democratic National Convention, culminating in Barack Obama's momentous speech, John McCain announced his running mate today. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will be the second name on the Republican ticket in November, ending months of eager speculation surrounding the VP choice. This choice comes as a surprise to many as McCain passed up more well known candidates like Mitt Romney for the female from the north.

Various news outlets explain the hits and misses of this decision. In one sense, she's perfect. As a woman, she may be able to draw in some of the former Clinton supporters still reluctant to support the now official democratic nominee. And she fits right in with the traditional Republican views on key social issues, such as her opposition to both abortion rights and gay marriage. Another huge draw is her support for offshore drilling. Voters don't have to be concerned that she's an Alaskan preoccupied with preserving nature's integrity either. She recently signed a bill allowing the construction of a 1,715 mile pipeline, to be built by TransCanada Alaska.

The main flaw in this choice is the same criticism Republicans have been throwing at Obama this whole time: inexperience. Palin, 44, is three years younger than Obama, has not served in Congress and, as the former mayor of a town of just 9,000, has minimal foreign policy experience. But she would only be the vice president you say? With respect to experience, McCain's the one that really matters? Ah, but I think we may be forgetting that, in the event that, for whatever reason, McCain were to be incapable of serving, Palin would be next up to bat. And considering his age, something voters have been bothered by from the start, do voters want to take the chance of replacing the war veteran and highly experienced nominee with a rookie? Not to say that this would be a complete deterrent but it is certainly something to consider. The choice also screams of strategy in its use of a woman to draw out the more undecided or centrist voters and, potentially, some democrats too.

So, is this going to be a big enough boost for McCain to win in November? Let's face it, I'm no psychic. We'll just have to wait and see.

For more on this story visit the New York Times, CNN, the LA Times, Politico and MSNBC.

Obama Selects VEEP

2008-08-28T08:47:00.000-07:00

There has been such an effort to undercut each other’s announcements by both parties. What announcements, you may ask. The announcements for VEEPS (Yes, it’s a term for vice president that was coined in the middle of the 20^th century but a candidate’s grandchild). Barack Obama has just announced that Joe Biden is his running mate, who by the way gave his acceptance speech last night.

Meanwhile, to undercut the media coverage for this announcement, John McCain’s campaign announced that McCain will inform the candidate of his choice on Thursday, the day after Biden delivered his speech to the masses in Denver. In the meantime, in another effort to divert the media coverage from Obama’s speech, scheduled for later today, McCain and company will make the announcement to the rest of the world on Friday, midday.

It is also official, Hilary Clinton has stepped out of the race, saying very emphatically that there needs to be a very strong cohesiveness in the Democratic party. Right she is, given that Obama/Biden face a tough battle in the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, who are all hurting from the economic slump. The Clintons said this much in the last two nights, as both Hilary and Bill made a big production of their exit and handed over the party reigns to the Obamas.

How effective will this succession be? Well, we’ll know when the votes are tallied up!

A Nation Divided

2008-08-20T12:46:00.000-07:00

Presumptive Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain and presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama are neck-and-neck as the season draws us into Party Conventions, debates, and soon, Election Day.

Researchers continue their scramble to analyze political stance and opinion an candidates scramble to mobilize support. A recent Reuters/Zogby poll indicates that McCain is leading Obama 47 percent to 41 percent. A LA Times/Bloomberg poll indicates that Obama's lead from the past few months has dropped, where the Pew Research Center pegged Obama at 46 percent to McCain's 43 percent, a shift from Obama's one 48 percent lead against McCain's 40 percent. With the fluctuation of political opinion, only one thing is certain: American are still largely, fairly equally, divided in choosing their leader.

This data come at the heels of Senator McCain's rounds of aggressive ads and the positive reviews about this talk at the Saddleback Forum last weekend. Additionally, it picks up on the preparation for the Party Conventions within the next few weeks and speculation about "veeps".

One of the major criticisms about the media's coverage of the election process was its imbalanced focus on Senator Obama, sometimes advantageous for Senator McCain who could slip past the sidelines unnoticed, though other times at his expense, for example when people are more interested in Obama's VP selection than McCain's. As Politico reads Obama's tea leaves and NY Times reports a tight-lipped McCain when it comes to prospects, both candidates work to sharpen their messages in preparation for the last leg of the race.

The selection of a running mate could very well be the deciding facto for either of the candidates, as they each seek to unite this divided nation in their favor. With options like Hillary Clinton and Joe Binden for Obama, and Mike Huckabee and Charlie Crist for McCain, among many others, the choice is not an easy one. We won't have to wait much longer, though, as they have both resolved to announce their VPs soon (and strategically, right after one another!), in what is likely to be another media frenzy that will simultaneously influence and be influenced by opinion polls.

Let's just that one of them truly an provide the unification this nation so desperately needs.

The Price of Making a Statement

2008-08-15T11:37:00.000-07:00

As a war veteran, you'd think it'd be relatively easy for John McCain to get the support of veterans groups from across the country because, simply speaking, he understands what they go through from his own experience as a soldier and POW. However, an article from the L.A. Times suggests that this perhaps expected support is not a voting bloc that the McCain camp should depend on too heavily.

In order to battle what McCain has called political pork barrel spending, during his years in the Senate, McCain opposed 4 important veteran benefits bills, according to some members of Disabled American Veterans, among others no doubt. McCain has developed a reputation for voting against bills that on the whole he agrees with but which also have been inserted with "pet projects" from various colleagues. These added expenses, in McCain's view, are extraneous or unnecessary and waste precious tax dollars. And he's certainly right on that point. Millions of taxpayer's dollars are wasted each year on extra, sometimes even ridiculous, projects benefiting only a few. However, the problem McCain faces is not whether people believe he is right or wrong about that. Rather the problem comes when a perception develops and voters, veterans in this case, begin to believe that McCain is more concerned with making a point in Washington rather than helping people in the rest of the country, regardless of what the cost is. What these voters see is that McCain does not always do everything in his power to help.

It's a sad state of affairs when standing up for the right thing could cost a person so much. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" certainly appears to be a dream of past political eras and gone seem to be the days when an elected official could defend responsible politics without fear of electoral retribution, though I'm not sure when these days truly existed. To be sure, the democratic nominee has faced or will face similar criticisms but the fact is, for McCain, they come from a somewhat unexpected group of people.

The Value of the American Muslim Vote

2008-08-15T09:06:00.000-07:00

With only a few months left in the election season, communities across the nation are scrambling to organize their constituents, registering voters, educating citizens about the issues and the stances of the candidates, and working to make sure their needs are recognized and their voices are heard. With the state of our political and social climate, American Muslims have been registering in record numbers over the past 4 years, overcoming misgivings and cynicism about political participation in a nation where many of them face discrimination and violations against their constitutional rights.

While there are many cultural, linguistic, sectarian, and other natural social variations within the American Muslim population, as with any other community of Americans sharing another identity, the mobilization of Muslims as a bloc, not blindly voting for candidate or another, but as a solid group of millions of voters, looking for inclusion, working with other communities on common causes, and delivering on election day. When American Muslims do vote as a bloc, like over 70% did in support for John Kerry in 2004 whereas over 40% did in support for President George Bush in 2000 as reported by Zogby, our influence is recognized. American Muslims know: the stakes are high.

Of a population of 300 million people, only about 230 million are of voting-age, of which only 150 million register, and 100 million turn out. Even fewer play an active role in primaries, making the numbers decrease to about 6-8 million people that actually choose the president of this nation. The American Muslim vote could be enough to tip the scales, and with coalition-building and outreach to other communities with similar interests, can be a very powerful force. [Great article here that covers the importance of the American Muslim vote!]. Compare this to American Idol, with performers winning by votes of up to 100 million (though granted, it’s much easier – no restrictions on age, citizenship, etc., and you can just text immediately, but could it still say something about where our values lie?)!

Information provided by research institutions, such as the Pew Forum, indicates that American Muslims have interests and values that align with those of the rest of the American population. A report issued by CAIR gathered data about the demographics and beliefs of American Muslims, indicating the diversity within the American Muslim population, committed to concerns shared by many, including national security, the economy, the environment, education, health care, inner-city development, immigration, protection of civil liberties, and foreign policy.

As the Muslim voice is dismissed with shameful displays of our nation accepting its prejudice, such as with the recent resignation of Mazen Asbahi as an Arab American and Muslim American outreach liaison for the Obama camp, American Muslims must continue to test their capacity to participate and succeed in this nation’s political system, while engaging with fellow Americans, and measuring the extent to with this nation is willing to return the favor to its diverse communities.

I urge all citizens of this nation to exercise their right to vote. American Muslims especially must reject passive citizenship and, despite the fact that democratic participation has unfortunately become a path of resistance, we must stand together for our rights. Register to vote now at your local election office, at a voter registration drive, at the DMV, or through various online initiatives. Read up on the issues or research information about the candidates. Many organizations have already compiled the information for you, like CAIR here, or you can become informed in other ways. Take advantage of the right to vote, so that you don’t have to lose it in order to recognize its value.

Not Getting Any Easier

2008-08-11T08:44:00.000-07:00

A L.A. Times article published today illuminates one of the problems that Republican nominee John McCain will be facing in the coming days and weeks. The senator has been known for years as something of a "maverick", constantly going against the grain of traditional G.O.P platforms and voting patterns. Now, after setting that title aside in order to actually win the nomination, his campaign is trying to reclaim that title. The reason: after efforts to ensure conservative voters of his Republican credentials, McCain now has to win back the independent and ultra centrist voters that used to see him as the forward-thinking, not-so-typical Republican senator from Arizona.

And the Obama campaign senses an opportunity. This can be seen as a chance for a new attack on their rival. McCain's re-assertion of his past departures from traditional G.O.P. politics gives his opponent the opportunity to paint McCain as a politician, shifting his course just to get what he wants; in this case, the Republican nomination. The article from the L.A. Times calls it the "dilution of the McCain brand." In other words, McCain does not appear to be the trail-blazing politician voters think he used to be. And I'll have to admit, I may be one of them, considering I grew up with a McCain who was known for constantly being more popular among democrats than his colleagues in his own party.

This is not to say that Obama does not also face a few challenges in the days ahead. First of all, Obama seems to be taking this week off, letting McCain have the spotlight for once and therefore, more opportunities to improve his image and strategies generally without interference from his democratic opponent. Second, another article from Politico quotes one pollster as saying "Every poll shows that people want a Democratic president, the problem is they’re not sure they want Barack Obama.” So for Obama, the challenge is to prove that he is not just a Democratic presidential candidate but the Democratic presidential candidate. Tall orders for both candidates. Good luck to all. You're going to need it.

To Drill or Not to Drill?

2008-08-05T07:58:00.000-07:00

John McCain isn’t the only one who makes fun of his rival. Barack Obama did something similar the other day where he mocked Senator McCain in a speech. Politico.com reports Senator Obama, poked fun at the McCain plan for drilling, sparked by the rising gas prices in the last few months.

Barack Obama mocked John McCain's call to "drill here and drill now" this morning in eastern Ohio.

"'I want to drill here, I want to drill now.' -- I don’t know where he was standing," Obama laughingly told a Youngstown, OH crowd. "I mean, I think he was in a building somewhere."

Full Story

Better Than That

2008-08-04T08:57:00.000-07:00

Up until now, I've had such high hopes for this election year. Both nominees are respectable candidates with great credentials and a history of being above average politicians. So it saddens me to learn that both McCain and Obama are getting a bit dirtier than they've been known to become with their latest PR pushes against one another.

In a new television commercial, McCain, in an attempt to paint Obama as out-of-touch, compares his opponent to the likes of infamous tabloid stars Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Republicans seem to be divided on the tactic. Some applaud the move, while others fear that it could lead to a backlash from voters sick of bad politics. Part of the reason for the new method is to counteract certain weaknesses in his own campaign, such as the continuous lack of a clear and uniform message. This may not be the easiest thing to remedy but it certainly does not require the kind of negative campaigning coming out of the McCain strategic handbook.

In another turn toward dirtier tactics, accusations are flying from both sides of the aisle. After officials on Obama's side accused the republican nominee of inserting race into the campaign, McCain replied with a similar criticism, claiming that Obama is trying to play the "race card" and that "there's no place in this campaign for that." But apparently it's ok for McCain to put out what is frankly a ridiculous advertisement attacking Obama's perceived celebrity status, though I cannot be sure if there is any truth to race card accusations or not.

But let's not allow Obama to get off too easy. Focusing on his and McCain's energy policy, a new strategy from the democratic nominee has me skeptical about the likelihood that this campaign season will remain a clean, fair and policy-focused one. Obama has begun a fresh wave of attacks criticising McCain's connections to big oil companies and how this influences his decisions and perspectives on energy policy, namely his support for offshore drilling. CNN reports that the ad charges that the Republican nominee has recieved $1.1 million in contributions from oil and gas companies. In truth, though a significant portion of these contributions (about three-quarters) came after McCain announced his support for offshore drilling, they also came from executives and employees of these companies, not from the companies themselves.

Sure, maybe McCain's just frustrated. Obama has the kind of widespread popularity and grassroots support that McCain can only dream of right now and perhaps the Republican nominee is a bit jealous. And perhaps Obama is simply trying to combat some of his opponent's more negative attacks. And maybe they're both just following the tradition of mud-slinging in American politics that we as voters come to expect (though not welcome) from our campaigning legislators. But really? Why not try to break from this absurd and unnecessary tradition? We all know both candidates are so much better than pot-shots and low-blow political rhetoric. My advice is this: focus on a clear, positive, policy-oriented message and perhaps they will not have to resort to the politics we have come to expect in this country.

Visit Politico and the New York Times for more on this discussion.