Obamas peace prize

I think this is a truly unique circumstance, warranted? not really. Publicity stunt? Most likely. I have nothing against Obama at this point in time, it is just odd to me that he got a Noble peace prize, seemingly just for not being Bush. Never before has anyone been given such a prestigious award for what they say they are going to do. Now that he has his bling i hope he can back it up. All i know is i would not want to be in his position as if cleaning up after bush wasn't bad enough now he has to live up to something, gods speed Obama.

Church and State

Radical North Carolina Conservatives are threatening to take their city to court if Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell in sworn into office. Bothwell, who believes in ending the death penalty, conserving water and reforming government happens to not believe in god "The question of whether or not God exists is not particularly interesting to me and it's certainly not relevant to public office," the recently elected 59-year-old said.You would think that since this is the 21st century that this would not be an issue when running for office, but it is just the opposite, North Carolina conservatives are outraged. The unfortunate thing for Bowell is that the constitution is backing these "jesus freaks". Bothwell's detractors cite a little-noticed quirk in North Carolina's Constitution that disqualifies officeholders "who shall deny the being of Almighty God." The provision was included when the document was drafted in 1868 and wasn't revised when North Carolina amended its constitution in 1971. One foe, H.K. Edgerton, is threatening to file a lawsuit in state court against the city to challenge Bothwell's appointment. In this nation with all the freedom and so called equality floating around, i believe politicians should not be judged by thier believes but by their ability to do their job and serve the people.

Response: Should we be taxed on sugary beverages?

I'm going to have to disagree with you, if they can tax cigarettes and alcohol, they should be able to tax soda and other foods that are potentially harmful to your health. I acknowledge that cigarettes and alcohol are much more damaging to health but a much larger population drinks sodas as opposed to smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Today Soda is filled with artificial chemicals and sweeteners and if you are drinking 6 or 7 soda's a day the damage is very real, not to mention its influences on childhood obesity. So it is my opinion that if the government is going to restricted any potentially harmful product such as cigarettes or alcohol they have the right to do it to soda as well.

Source of original argument: The New York Times, Proposed Tax on Sugary Beverages Debated