Effects of Coca Cola on your body...

In the first 10 minutes:
10 teaspoons of sugar hit your system. (100% of your recommended daily intake.)

Within 20 minutes:
Your blood sugar spikes, causing an insulin burst from your pancreas. Your liver responds to this by turning any sugar it can get its hands on into fat.

Within 40 minutes:
Caffeine absorption is complete. Your pupils dilate, your BP rises, and your liver dumps more sugar into your bloodstream. The adenosine receptors in your brain are now blocked preventing drowsiness.
Your body ups your dopamine production stimulating the pleasure centers of your brain. This effect of Coke is physically the same way heroin works.

The phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and zinc in your lower intestine, providing a further boost in metabolism. This is compounded by high doses of sugar and artificial sweeteners also increasing the urinary excretion of calcium.

The effect of Coke's caffeine diuretic properties comes into play - you have to urinate. It is now assured that you'll evacuate the bonded calcium, magnesium and zinc that was headed to your bones as well as sodium, electrolytes, and water.

Within 60 minutes:
As the "high" inside of you dies down, you'll start to have a sugar crash. You may become irritable and/or sluggish. You've literally urinated all the water that was in the Coke, but not before infusing it with valuable nutrients your body could have used for nourishing your system or building strong bones and teeth, etc.

This will all be followed by a caffeine crash in the next few hours. That could be a shorter time frame if you're a smoker. But, there's a way you can make yourself feel better.

You can alaways have another Coke!

Mulclair feels like a crook.

 I look at Mulclair and think...Harper in a few years.



from: By Murray Dobbin, 26 Mar 2012, TheTyee.cawho summed it up as I would have:

NDPers will be analyzing the various campaigns of the frontrunners, looking for weaknesses to explain how they could collectively have let Thomas Mulcair, the right-wing Liberal, pro-Israel, political bully become head of their party.
Two things shocked me about this race and its final two days. The first is that so many NDPers, part of a tightly-knit, hyper-loyal political culture steeped in progressive values could so casually elect a man who contradicts so many of their principles. Besides the disastrous result for the party and all progressives in the country, the election of Mulcair raises profound questions about the health of the party. There are two possibilities, neither attractive. One is that NDPers, like increasing numbers of Canadians in general, simply don't read as much and that information about Mulcair did not get through to them. To what extent did NDPers devote time and energy to finding out about the candidates? In general, what is the state of member education and engagement in the party?
More worrisome is the possibility that many thousands of NDP members had indeed heard the negative aspects of Mulcair's politics and voted for him anyway. That's a very different problem. It reflects what I have observed about the NDP for decades now: its decreasing emphasis on policy and philosophy and the increased -- political machine driven -- preoccupation with winning seats in elections, often out of context of the political moment and oblivious to unintended consequences. One prominent NDPer I spoke to responded to my shock that he was supporting Mulcair with a sort of football game enthusiasm. "I think he can take on the bastard [Harper]."
Facing a ruthless tough guy? Get your own ruthless tough guy. And possibly create a monster you can't control. It is as if policy, philosophy, and vision for the country have simply been devalued to the point where they are an afterthought or some vaguely interesting historical relic. There seems to have been a kind of "We'll worry about policies later, let's pick someone who can win first."

Will Zimmerman, the Dr Jackson of Sanctuary?

Many have drawn the comparison, as of course it can be drawn, in more fan like-extracurricular backed ways.
However I am just someone who recently discovered the show and simply fail to understand why I did not jump on the wagon at the get go. The show is simply amazing and a great way to fill the void of the stargate saga. A simply comment on the current stargate; it simply is a different kinda show.
But back to our comparison.
Both characters have the most amazing things happen to them. Encounters with higher beings to becoming so close as to be with their power, death, rebirths, great losses, and always having the most phenomenal events revolve yet not around them.
The lead, Magnus/O'Neill, are not the ones undergoing these awesome journeys. This allows them to remain in their character, their role, to abstain from evolving beyond what it is that makes them the likeable characters to carry the show.
But for the show to evolve there must be transformation. So it the entourage that must evolve, grow, develop to expand the boundaries of the show.
Zimmerman and Jackson both serve the purpose of being that character around which the main group can evolve. Once it is established that the audience can accept change it the character, the changing aspect of the character eventually becomes the character.
Both Zimmerman and Jackson have in some elevated to a greater understanding, are pure of heart, and strong-willed. They both saved the world, but then again they do that everyday, and have both died, had life changing afterlife experiences, and came back.
They are doctors, but not medical but of understanding, thus setting the course for greater understanding by nature and desire to communicate.
Yes, it could be argued that Zimmerman is the Jackson of Sanctuary. But could he leave and then get asked back under fan pressure?
Would fans and the show miss him so much?
Yes, because remember, most of the development was always based on this character so this part of the show is missing.
But would it be as crucial to the show and is he as awesome as Jackson?
Well...I don't know.