Throughout the campaigns of Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, both candidates’ agendas have been bought and paid for by corporate interests. One of the primary corporate sponsors for both the Democratic and the Republican National Conventions was AT&T, as its “official wireless provider,” according to the Washington Post.

Big surprise AT&T received telecom immunity under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Obama and McCain both supported. (In turn for the senators’ vote for telecom immunity, which freed telecom companies from lawsuits for violating federal privacy law, the telecom companies funnel millions of dollars into their campaigns, which perpetuates solidarity between the company and government.)

Additionally, did anyone notice the debates are sponsored by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, a coal industry front group?

Obama and McCain were clear in their agreement upon “clean coal” as a primary source of alternative energy that Americans should be “tapping into,” and they both wax lyrical about its essentiality. Neither address the fact that “coal” and “clean” are antonymous:

“What we need to understand is there’s not a single coal plant in the country that can actually capture its greenhouse gas emissions. The coal industry itself will say the technology to capture and store greenhouse gas emissions is at least a decade away. And so, the difference between clean and dirty is that one is real – coal is the dirtiest form of energy production and dirtiest energy source on the planet – and one is a marketing creation,” said Michael Brune, executive director of Rainforest Action Network.

It’s still remarkable to me how little people know about the candidates they zealously support. It’s even more fascinating how people, upon hearing new information or facts, do all they can to defend their position instead of incorporating the new information.

Why are people more concerned with their pride and justifying their unwillingness to move on the issues? Why are people so reluctant to critically analyze the situation, keep an open mind and really listen to new information, and let that dictate their feelings instead of defending a party-loyal and predetermined stance? Why are we seeing such an adversity to reconsideration? Why aren’t people weighing new knowledge against an ethical code on what is genuinely right or wrong or who encourages justice and who opts out?

Students at an institute of higher education should be at the forefront of critical analysts. Because of this, the degree to which students refuse to participate in civic responsibility and to synthesize political information seems unacceptable. We have the means not only to stay informed, but the room to make mistakes, and the tools to assess the value of our choices.

- Elizabeth Kinnamon is a senior from St. Simons majoring in gender studies and history.