Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The committee voted for Obama just twelve days after he took office, so their decision was not influenced by the work he has done since becoming president. It was made because of such things as his stance on international cooperation, promoting democracy abroad, closing Guantanamo Bay, commitment to addressing both the Israeli and Palestinian concerns, increased global discussion on climate change, de-escalating the Iraq war, the looming threat of Iran’s nuclear program, North Korea’s ever-defiant behavior, and numerous promises to making America respected in the world community.

The Nobel Peace Prize is not simply a blue ribbon to show that you came in first place at the fair. It’s not a gold medal to show you were the strongest or the fastest. And it’s not a certificate that shows you’ve completed a course in Peaceology. Think of it more as a scholarship. Aside from the financial benefit, scholarships are a declaration that the individual has the support of other people. More importantly, it’s a form of social contract that says the individual now has a responsibility to use the privilege appropriately.

It’s mostly symbolic, like the olive branch, but it’s important. Winning this award does not declare that the winner has saved humanity from its woes; it says that the winner has committed to attempting to save humanity from its woes. In Obama’s case, it is the Nobel Committee’s way of saying, “Dear America, we realize you allowed yourselves to be hijacked by fundamentalism and fear for the past few years, and we appreciate you taking the steps to correct it. Now do something about it!”

Contrary to popular belief, evolutionists make no claim that biological evolution proves that God does not exist. In fact, many leaders in the field of evolutionary theory are theists, and many of them have no problem reconciling their beliefs with their work. All attempts to disprove evolution have proven futile. Considering this, doesn’t it make more sense that God created evolution than the idea that proving evolution happened somehow disproves God’s existence?

This untruth was born out of a mix of religion and politics. Creationist’s primary goal these days is to force the teaching of their beliefs in public schools, and they know that something must have a scientific basis in order to be a part of public education. (Notice we have no classes on astrology or acupuncture.) A Creationist’s beliefs are centered around the idea that God created the universe, and anything that appears to prove their beliefs is important to them. Makes perfect sense. The problem is that Creationism as a workable theory is so vague that it can never hold up to scientific rigors; not to mention the fact that it is obviously a political movement working under the guise of religious freedom.

All believers in God (whichever one you’re talking about) believe that the universe was created by a higher power. Evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; the only debates now center on each of the many processes that drive it. Given this, Creationists should view evolution as one of the many “miracles” performed by God. But their political motivations have distorted the debate to the point where their main argument now is that evolution a man-made concept intended to improperly teach people about the origins of life.

Oh, the irony.

There has been a persistent rumor that Glenn Beck raped an murdered a young girl in 1990. Though it has never been proven, Beck has yet to deny these claims. In fact, he has offered no proof whatsoever that could exonerate him. It is very likely that this rumor is just an attempt to highlight Beck’s tendency to raise questions that are unfounded, but Beck was an alcoholic for many years and has admitted that he used to drink so much that he would black out and lose track of where he’d been. Until Beck can prove that he did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, millions of people could be misled into believing something that may or may not be true.

The suggestion that President Obama’s so-called czars are unprecedented or a violation of the Constitution has been thoroughly debunked. People that continue to talk about this idea are either poorly informed or intentionally misrepresenting ideas in order to create controversy. These people are legally appointed by the president, they must be approved by the Senate, they do not have executive power, and they are merely there to serve an advisory role. The term “czar” was conjured up by the media (just at the term Dubya was) and is only used as shorthand to simplify the titles of actual titles.

Some people also believe that Obama is shying away from the controversy, but he and his administration continue to address the czar issue. This is very likely an attempt to distract from the Republican party’s hypocritical stance on czars, having once praised George W. Bush for doing the same thing. Some people claim that Obama has appointed an unprecedented number of czars, but George W. Bush appointed over 30 czars during his time in office.

Just because some Republicans are racist doesn’t mean that all (or even most) of them are. In fact, no political party is immune to racism because it is based on natural human traits that have been bred into us over millions of years. Xenophobia is one of those traits, and it sometimes serves social groups of organisms well because it promotes harmony within the social group and tends to keep us from interacting with potentially hostile groups. But with the evolution of human intelligence, it has become increasingly difficult to set people apart based on arbitrary things like skin color.

We are still in a transitional phase, so sometimes our ancient heritage (fear, rage, xenophobia) conflicts with our newfound intellect (science, art, medicine). We haven’t evolved beyond racism yet, but we have reached the point where we recognize these natural feelings as archaic and barbaric. Consequently, most people aren’t aware of their racial bias and the rest are smart enough to know they should hide it. And while some of the more outspoken and visible closet racists may align themselves with Republicans, they do not represent the party or the vast majority of people who call themselves Republican.

It is well-documented that police officers are tasered at least once during their training to help them understand how it feels. However, a person that is being subdued by law enforcement is in a completely different situation. When police are tasered it’s for demonstration purposes only, it happens in a controlled environment, they willingly let other people tase them, they usually know the person who is doing it, and they know that it will be over in the next few seconds. That is never the case when a civilian is being tasered.  From the civilian’s perspective, it is frightening, oppressive, painful, and potentially life-threatening. Police may know what it feels like to have electricity zap through them, but they have no idea what it’s like to be cattle prodded by a group of armed aggressors.

Terms like “best-selling” and “most-watched” are used in place of “high-quality,” but it is simply a marketing trick intended to play into hype. While it is true that quality things tend to be watched or consumed at higher rates than things of poor quality, don’t put the cart before the horse. Many times (and, arguably, most of the time) the success of something is directly related to how well advertised and marketed it is. Just because a million people buy something horrible doesn’t mean it suddenly ceases to be horrible. It just means the advertisers did their job. Just think about how many movies/books/albums you’ve paid for only to find out it was a pile of junk.

Yes, evolution is just a theory. But it isn’t a theory in the sense that most people use the word. The confusion comes from the fact that theory has multiple meanings. The differences are really subtle, so it’s easy to confuse them.

Definition 1: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

When you read in a textbook (that wasn’t written by Creationists) you will see them call evolution a theory. This is the definition they’re using. Gravity is just a theory, too. But our understanding of gravitational theory has given us the ability to land on other planets, place satellites and space stations in the sky, and bullseye comets from thousands of miles away.

Definition 2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

People who claim that evolution is just a theory are using this definition. The synonym to this particular definition is hypothesis, and that’s really what most people mean whenever they say theory.

From a technical perspective, most people are misusing the word theory and should instead be using hypothesis. However, from a linguistic perspective, if enough people are breaking a rule, the rule breaks. So we end up with two irritatingly similar definitions of the same word. Anyone who claims that evolution is just a theory is correct…there are just less confusing ways to express it.

Barack Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian. There are numerous examples of people debunking this untruth.

Some people have accepted that he is currently a Christian but have wondered if he used to be a Muslim. Though there have been some interesting theories that ex-Muslims risk execution, the truth is that he was raised as a Christian and practices Christianity today.

If he is a Muslim, he is a very poor example of one. He does not engage in Salah (the prayer that Muslims must do five times a day) and he professes Christianity (which is a direct contradiction that Allah is the one and only God). As to the question of whether Obama is a secret Muslim: get a life.