Battle of the Brands - Coke or Pepsi?

So when it comes to carbonated, non-alcooholic beverages, i'm sure theres only two that stand out apart from the rest. the two obviously being coke and pepsi.

Believe it or not, I actually choose neither. Nothing wrong with that, certainly.. I'm not a big carbonated fan. But Pepsi seems a tad smoother, a lot sweeter, and it doesn't have a bitter aftertaste. There's something strange I find about Coke's drink that causes an odd taste to linger in your mouth after you've drank it.

So that sums up my personal opinions. But what about the bigger picture? How has the battle between Coke and Pepsi been playing out? Both companies go through extremley competitive streaks, and the 'weapons' they use come in the form of advertising campaigns, marketing slogans, and cool packaging. If you ask me, I think it's kind of a tie between the two when it comes to the quality of their respective marketing strategies - I think Pepsi has put out a lot of cool ads that speak to the youth, and I believe Coke was slacking within the last decade in terms of reaching this demographic.

Overall, it's a close call and ultimately depends on your own personal taste. And remember, even though declining in popularity, soda is still an American icon, and don't forget that both companies also make a wide variety of non-soda beverages.

Toronto's 2010 Election - Please Go Green!

With the election only days away, I’m beginning to consider what and who to vote for. I couldnt vote before, obviously i was too young but i feel like having just turned 19 months ago, it would probably be the more responsible thing to do. So upon stumbling across the topic, I came to realize that there are certain things we need to take into consideration while choosing who to vote for. I think the number one problem we’re having is forgetting that the way we make decisions and policies can be just as important as the decisions themselves. An issue that I feel has been largely neglected in the upcoming election is how we make decisions that end up affecting the environment. If a decision making process increases the chance of making bad environmental rules and regulations, shouldn't we avoid it? Some candidates hoping to become Toronto's next mayor are promising us that they’ll change these ‘key decision making processes’ which, in fact, could result in bad environmental policies. An example of this is changing how the TTC makes decisions. As of right now, the TTC is made up of city councilors. When the TTC is functioning well, people generally tend to leave their vehicles at home, which results in less pollution. However, when the TTC is not functioning well, the opposite tends to happen. Many of us will claim the TTC isn't working well, and will also say that politicians making bad decisions is probably the main cause of this. They claim their solution is hiring experts, not politicians, to run the TTC. Without TTC Commissioners that can relate to the public, we have no way to assure us that they will make decisions that are good for the public and the environment. Their decisions could be motivated by the public good and improving the environment, or they could be motivated by personal gain or a bunch of other things that harm our environment. Without public oversight, there is no way to ensure decisions that are good for the environment will be made. I personally feel that as voters we should consider which mayoral candidate has the best environmental outlook. We need to look at how the candidates intend to make decisions about these issues and look at which truly has the best intentions on doing the right thing for our environment. I'm definately voting.