"I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it...."

When I was a boy, I LOVED to get new toys. Be they GI Joe, Transformers, a new plastic gun, whatever. I loved them all, and getting them was one of the greatest feelings ever. The only thing I liked more than getting a new toy, was showing my friends my new toy.

I never did it to say "Ha ha I got this and you didn't!" It was more that I was excited to get something and I wanted my friends to share in my excitement and to be excited both for, and with me. Fortunately, or unfortunately this feeling never really goes away.

This explains to me why men still like toys. At least this explains why I still like to get toys. For instance I got a new watch Tuesday (I ordered it); I got it because my current one is eroding and (while I am no engineer) I believe that's bad. So the watch came and I love it, I need to take it and get it adjusted to fit better, but it's great.

I also had to go shopping yesterday for some new stuff. While I am still excited about the new things, there's no reason to show others because while they are new (out of the box), they are really more of a replacement. What did I get? Let me share some of my excitement and tell you.

I first had to get a new bedframe. I was sitting on the edge of my bed, heard a creak, then noticed I was sitting considerably lower than I was mere moments before. If ever a sign appeared that I am too fat, there it is. While I am certainly happy with the new frame (not the price, mind) I can't really show it to people ("Yes it's new, so get on your hands and knees, and have a look! I'll hold the flashlight").

I also bought a memory foam mattress from Costco. My dad generously gave Jaci and I one many months ago and it's GREAT! Very comfortable, my back pain lessened considerably. I highly recommend them. Now I know what you're thinking, if my dad gave me one, why did I buy a new one? Did I get a new and bigger bed? No. Am I putting it on the spare bed? No.

So why spend the money? I'll tell you: t h e d o g. That's right, Jaci's dog ate my mattress. This is not the first time, it's actually the third. The first time I just flipped it over, annoyed, but no big deal. The second time I was able to maneuver it so the dents were on Jaci's side of the bed (it IS her dog after all), but the third time the hole was big enough for a Chewie sized head. It must be replaced. Off to Costco we went.

We are hoping to use the good parts of the chewed up one for pillows of some sort because it is very comfortable. So I unwrapped it and dutifully spread it out on the bed to expand while I am at work but while I am still excited about my new toy, I can't really get others involved. There are several reasons. One is that it's a replacement, two is that it is only a mattress, and three involves how the conversation looks ("come to my bedroom and see my new mattress"). Yeah. Right.

So after all of that I am excited to go home and sleep on my new mattress, even though it will feel similar to the old one. At the end of the day however, I'm still excited.

I have a new toy!

You've come a long way baby!

I don't know if some or all of you are familiar, but a short time ago Chile, in a free election, elected as its president the person of Michelle Bachelet. This is significant for two main reasons, first being that it hasn't been all that long that Chile has been able to hold a free election and two, President Bachelet is a woman.

This, along with another news article set me to thinking about women in politics, specifically women in serious power positions. There have been a number of countries that have put women into the big office, including Pakistan, India, Israel, Germany, Great Britain, and even our little corner of the world here in Canada. Granted the reign of Kim Campbell was very brief (9 days or so), she does have the distinction of being Canada's first woman Prime Minister.

In the United States however, no woman has come close. Women in U.S. politics are definitely in the minority with only eight governors (out of fifty), and fourteen senators (from one hundred). There is a slightly larger percentage in congress, but can you name the last U.S. President to come straight from the congress? Me neither. The road to the White House it seems is down the gubernatorial or senatorial roads. With men the definite front runners.

Recent polls in the U.S. are showing some interesting numbers however, they say that ninety percent (of those surveyed) would vote for a woman in a presidential race if she were the right candidate. The same poll also says that only fifty-five percent believe that the country as whole is ready for a woman president.

So how did other women get to the top? Maybe it has to do with the parliamentary system. Where the woman in question is elected by a much smaller number of people, and not the nation. There is also the political dynasties to take into account, like the Bhuttos in Pakistan or the Ghandi/Nehrus in India. Maybe there just hasn't been a full generation in the U.S. where young girls believe that they can grow up to be president.

Can a woman do the job of U.S. President? Absolutely. I am firmly convinced that women can do just about anything a man can do and in many cases do it better. There are some things men are generally better at but those are related to genetics, and there's ought to be done there.

There has over the years been arguments (not all serious) that a lady commander-in-chief might choose to coddle an aggressor instead of launching an exocet missile into his window. My answer to that is to point to Golda Meir, who led Israel during the war in 1973; and anyone who says Margaret Thatcher "coddled" Argentina wouldn't do it to her face let me tell you! So I don't think that's really an issue.

I honestly don't think that there has been a woman in the U.S. who honestly believed she could win the white house and therefore didn't position herself early enough. Until now. For those who watch U.S. politics, you know of whom I speak. Democratic U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This lady is a dynamo. She is a political power house and definitely has the brains to pull off the job in the oval office. There are many who said she was the behind the scenes co-president during Bill's eight years in office; so she has the right experience. And really, who can the democrats field in 2008? John Cain looks like he's poising to run again but he lost huge in the last democratic primaries; and who really wants a loser.

I think the 2008 elections are going to be very interesting because I don't see Dick Cheney running for the top job. Mainly because he isn't going to win. So both Republicans and Democrats will have to look for new, fresh candidates. Will Hillary be one of those candidates? I hope so. Even if you don't like all of her voting decisions, she doesn't try to hide from her voting record. She will say straight up "I voted for this because of that and would do it again tomorrow!" No coddling there!

So for you politicos and U.S. watchers, pay close attention in the coming 12-18 months. It's gonna be a good show. For my money, Hillary's great is '08!

Stay tuned.

How bright am I?

Normally I don't post about stuff that happens to me during the routine course of existence, but I thought that this should be an exception.

As most of my loyal reader base knows, the love of my life went in for surgery on the 31st of May. In order to properly care for her afterwards, I planned to take a week off work and during that time her sister Talie came down from Kingston for a week to help as well. Turns out that I took almost an entire second week off because my love wasn't healing as well as I would like so I didn't feel comfortable leaving her, even with Talie there.

So my first shift back to work was a night shift on Monday the 12th. I went in to work for an 1830h start time and as is par for the course, we were sent on a call around 1835h. I pull the ambulance up to the front door of an apartment (and here comes the good part), as I get out of the cab, I step on something, my ankle goes in a very unnatural direction and I'm now off work until Friday with a sprained ankle.

So to sum up, after being off for almost two weeks, my first call of my first shift I sprain my ankle without even SEEING a patient! Really, how bright am I?

My ankle is healing nicely now and the only thing left is for the big bruise on my ego to go away. Luckily my ego is big enough that I don't really notice the odd bruise! HA!

I hope all is well with you folks.

Cheers!

Da Vinci Debate

Since Dan Brown put his book The Da Vinci Code on the market more than two years ago, it has been a runaway best seller. It has generated discussion, debate, and in many cases anger (as do many things that challenge religious ideas). Now the movie is out and the uproar has continued. The Catholic Church (which features prominently) has asked its member to NOT see the movie or to read the book. To me that smacks a little too close to censorship. However, I think it's time I sound off on the subject because I have read the book, I have seen the movie, and I think I know a thing or two of some of the topics therein.

To start off we have to accept that Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius. Absolute, without a doubt, gob-smacking genius. He was a master painter, an accomplished sculptor, wonderful musician, a chef, and a mathematician. Just to name some of his hobbies. The man was a guidance counselor's dream. So the genius part we have to accept as fact.

Next is the painting of The Last Supper. When you look at Brown's theories for thinking that John (the Apostle?); seated to the right of Jesus was Mary Magdalene, I don't buy it. For one, Da Vinci usually painted John as young, and Da Vinci's young men were always slightly androgynous. Maybe this was because of the widely held belief that Da Vinci was very much homosexual. I don't know. That's just a theory.

One then has to wonder, why would Da Vinci paint The Last Supper AGAINST what the church wanted or believed? The Catholic Church of the 16th century was not the kind, loving, and forgiving organization that it is today.

But what about Opus Dei? What about it? It does exist as an ultra conservative sect of the Catholic Church (I know, I know, who woulda thunk it). Does it go around killing for its beliefs? I think not. I believe they are to the Catholic Church what the Amish are to Protestants. A group of people who want to live life by a simpler, stricter code. It's not like the Amish do drive by shootings (clop clop, clop clop, BANG, clop clop, clop clop) to protect their way of life. One accepts it, or doesn't participate.

The Priory of Scion. Did it exist? Most believe that it did but it died out years ago. Even at the beginning of the book Dan Brown says evidence was found that it existed. There was nothing that said what it existed for. Maybe it was a bible study for gap-toothed geeks. Maybe it was code for a group of Dungeons and Dragons players. Who knows? Not Dan Brown and he really didn't need to know. He made a story that fit into his book; which is what any good author would do.

So what about Jesus and Mary Magdalene? Did they marry? Did they have a child? Devout Christians will say no, because it doesn't say that they did in the bible. Point of note, it doesn't say they didn't either (bearing in mind I am no biblical scholar, I asked for informed opinion). There is also about 18 years of His life (from 12-30) that isn't in the bible. So is it possible he married and fathered a child, or a horde of children? I think yes it is. Do I believe he did? I don't know; but I didn't know before I read the book either. I don't make my mind up by heeding religious zealots or by fiction authors. In this instance, my mind isn't made up.

So what does all this mean when you tie it all together? I'm going to give you my interpretation. Ready? Here it comes; it's a book. It is a fanciful story that is very well told using famous images and playing on the largely western need to find conspiracy everywhere. Is it real? No! It's crap. Dan Brown said so in dozens of interviews during the books initial publication but he then started to say very little when the media hype continued to crescendo. That's good PR because there is no such thing as bad press.

I think the media hype would have died much sooner if instead of condemnation, religious leaders took more of a neutral position. Saying something like; "Yes I read the book. I don't believe a word of it but its well written." and leave it at that. I think that trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't read is what can get religions into real trouble. See founding of the Prodestant faith.

There are some who would refuse to read the book because they think it's blasphemous. In my own opinion, how can you try to refute something you have never read? Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of it. Particularly if you might get asked questions because of it.

So at the end of the day, I read the book, I saw the movie, and I enjoyed both. I don't believe it, but it's still a good story