JerrySeinfeld

It would be an impossible comparison. No two individuals are alike, so even if they had the same qualifications, experience, education, time off work, client base, seniority etc, how do you assess that the performance in the job is exactly alike? OK we're getting to the heart of it. First of all it's tough to do. So we rely on statistics that are likely misrepresentative of the facts and cry "discrimination" which is an easy sell in today's PC world. But is the goal optics? or FAIRNESS? Example: We all know Chinese families have a long history in Vancouver. We also know that Chinese and other Asian families tend to live together as an extended family unit for longer periods of time. That means you OFTEN will have a very large dwelling that holds perhaps 3 generations of chinese people. This kind of arrangement also keeps down living expenses as a bonus. Presumably the home will be in the name of perhaps the "parents" (as opposed to grandparents or grand childeren) - ie the "middle" generation. I could be wrong in this assumption but it is irrelevant for the hypotheical discussion. Now would you consider it fair for the government to start some kind of program to help "correct" the "imbalance" in a statistic that shows chinese couples in their 20's don't have the same proportion of home ownership as, say the rest of Canada? Should we start writing government cheques to "help" with the first downpayment to "correct" this "injustice"? Of course not. The issue has nothing to do with inequality or discrimination. It has to do with a chosen lifestyle of a large group of people. So it is with women. Just because the majority of women make certain life choices which may ultimately hurt the paycheque dosn't mean we need some cosial engineer to ride in with his white hat and "save" the day.

For the better or worse? Much better - despite the hopes and prayers of the New York Times, CNN and your friendly neighbourhood anti-bush zealot.

That doesn't exclude discrimination as a reason, though. Fair enough. But at least we're talking in the right semantic. Instead of assuming that it IS discrimination, we're simply not ruling out the POSSIBILITY. Now we're getting somewhere! Now about discrimination. Let's figure this out. Large number stats say that women don't earn as much money. We already know about the myriad possibilities as to reasons why. But here is the rub on the discrim. argument. Has anyone or can anyone please provide specific present day example(s) of a case where a woman and a man have equaly quals, experience, education, time off work, client base, seniority etc. and the woman is earning less? ISN'T THE WHOLE IDEA OF "PAY EQUITY" (IE. EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE) DESIGNED TO AVOID AND AVERT THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THIS STRAGHTFORWARD QUESTION?

That doesn't exclude discrimination as a reason, though. Fair enough. But at least we're talking in the right semantic. Instead of assuming that it IS discrimination, we're simply not ruling out the POSSIBILITY. Now we're getting somewhere! Now about discrimination. Let's figure this out. Large number stats say that women don't earn as much money. We already know about the myriad possibilities as to reasons why. But here is the rub on the discrim. argument. Has anyone or can anyone please provide specific present day example(s) of a case where a woman and a man have equaly quals, experience, education, time off work, client base, seniority etc. and the woman is earning less?

Fair enough. But is it due to discrimination? I doubt it. Where is the evidence? Think of all the other reasons why this discrepancy may exist. The most glaring and obvious one (among all the other possibilities) is taking time off work for childbith/child rearing. Of course I could also point to the value women place upon balance in their lives, versus the more gritty get-to-the-top male approach to work. Some women and some men don't fit the mold (there are always exceptions), but women generally value the balance of life, including excercise, relationships, time off, time with family, travel, etc. more so than men do. This might translate into less hours at the office, and subsequently less compensation. Again, there are countless other possible reasons OTHER than discrimination.

How the hell this topic about government intervention still has legs is mindboggling. Reagan is the most populcar president in American history and the Soviet Union collapsed. It's over.

Depends on the profession, and another interesting factor - whether or not the woman has children. On the average, women with children earn 75cents for a man's dollar (for the same job), vs. 92 cents for the dollar when they don't have children. They say it's because of the career interruptions. And then there are professions where the discrepency is just ridiculous. For example, in BC full-time female paralegals and fullt-time male counterparts earn $40,300 and $48,500, respectively. This is pure bullshit hocus pocus. Maybe it's because I work in a meritocracy, but I frankly have NEVER seen a case of favoritism for females OR males. In my industry there are very few women participants, but the women who DO participate are among the MOST successful and HIGHEST earners. One of my best friend's wife is a lawyer at a major firm and outearns ALL of those in her firmwho were called to the bar at the same time she was. There are countless reasons why some people make more than others. Number of hours worked, number of vacations taken, amount of commission earned, amount of billable hours worked, amount of time developing relationships with clients, quality of decision-making, education, time off, etc. etc. etc. Why are people drinking the social-engineering koolaid so quick to assume that the gap between men's and women's earnings is due to some conspiracy against women? Maybe it comes from the incorrect belief that we actually CAN control who earns what in the world - and they're assuming that there is some entity out there called "big bad big business" which is hell bent on sticking it to the women. Can't you social-enginers even open your MIND to the possibility - or in fact LIKELYHOOD - that the gap exists for many reasons OTHER than discrimination? Get off it already - it's getting old and sounding pathetically like passing the buck of responsibility. But then again - when did social-engineers ever actually conceptualize the idea of WORKING for money instead of blackmailing it from government.

NOYFB OK...touchy subject. Well let's make the stretch and ASSUME for a minute that you do. Now here's the scenario. You're interviewing for a new management position both externally and internally. This position has above average compensation because it requires specific skills and performance. What factors are you going to consider when making your decision?

Well you need to go to the root of the problem. These are the people who have exported their hardcore interpretation of Islam to places like Chechnya, Somalia and the rest of the world. Talk about globalization!!! ummmm - maybe if you're the Taliban . But the infidels in tanks are probably looking pretty good to the women whose hair and teeth hav fallen out from lack of sunshine on their faces. 60-100 years is a short period of time in history. That's the difference between short-sighted people like you and the zombie media you follow. For you, 3 years at war is too long and not worth the struggle. But for the taliban and the pan-Islamists, 60 years is a short period of time. That's why GW Bush is smart - he understands the natur of the long term struggle. You understand 30-minute Jon Stewart bits.

As far as a "boom" - Alberta's booms are always pretty ugly. I thought they would've learned from the 70's. I was there for that one. Tons of homes and condo's built on the cheap, and quick, with no regard for styling or architechture. And hurried construction of stripmalls in the middle of nowhere. Has anyone actually seen the suburbs of Calgary and Edmonton? They are BUTT ugly. It seems Alberta's boomtime mentality has no regard for longevity or urban planning. It's just plain ugly. The houses are all built with faux stucco and other materials that look nice now but end up looking cheap and ugly within 5-10 years. The neighbourhoods have no trees or back allyways and the "community" revolves around a strip mall with an esso station, a rogers video and a mac's convenience store. Sure, there are the petroleum clubs, the brand new jazz clubs and wine bars in downtown calgary or edmonton, but that's a small percentage of the overall picture. Most people who move to Alberta from the east are in for a lack-of-culture shock. Unless you want to join the throngs of wal-marters hanging around the mall's food-court bragging about your measly $5K per year raise, consider some other options...

CA are you saying women get paid less because they might get preagnant? Women, on average, make less than men. That is, in part, due to the time off for maternity leave and time out of the workforce. It's also due to the fact that women do a lot more unpaid labour (ie. housework) than men. And it's also due to the fact of institutionalized sexism that sees women as little more than potential breeding machines. Let's get to the day-to-day decision making about compensation. Do you employ anyone black doggy?

If you're going to give women with less experience, seniority, or merit the same money as men, you'll have to do it for everyone else too, which would completely anihalate the main criteria for compensation as we know it and replace it with a bunch of centralized bureacrats telling business how it should compensate/insentify (word?) it's employees. Come to think of it - isn't that what the wacko social engineering marxist who support these plans dream of on a daily basis anyway? It's all a ploy to undermine the entire capitalist system.

It's more than him just not appreciating football, but belittling it. That's where the wannabe eurotrash comes in. I never grew up with soccer but I can appreciate it as a sport to play and I can understand why people watch it. Belittling soccer in comparison would be just as bad as what Blackdog did. Weather is irrelevant to Canada getting an NFL team. Any NFL team in Canada would have to play in a domed stadium, no questions asked. Yea - I watch soccer from time to time. It's a sport and I love all sports. But it's still the lamest of sports. Not really, but you if you took the number of snot-noses who pretend there is something more briliant to it than meets the eye, and divided it by an integer representing actually excitement and quality of the game - you'd have a huge number.

Let me add some balance here. I used to live in Alberta but found it to be generally ugly and cold. Most of Alberta is kind of like Saskatchewan with nicer roads, some new neighbourhoods and some tall buildings. Oh and don't forget the people who think $80K a year is "lots of money" Besides the rockies, which are on the very western edge, Alberta has really shitty campgrounds and lakes. In fact, most of the lakes are dying or dried up from water usage in the oil industry. The other ones are sloughs with leeches surrounded by 10 foot poplar trees. It's really pretty bad. I actually know lots of newfies who moved to Alberta for greener pastures and then decided they hated it and moved back home for less money. But really it's a good thing that people are improving their lives in Alberta. In reality the whole splash about Alberta comes down to this: if you don't have work or are willing to uproot your life for an extra 10-20K a year, then Alberta is the place for you. The sign should read: "give us your uneducated, your displaced, your newfies, your burger flippers..." Certainly life is better in Alberta for the unskilled or limited-skilled. For lots of us, though, we can find work anywhere and prefer more beautiful, cosmopolitan locations. From an Albertan "lifer" (me), the question you need to ask yourself is: do you want to live in a shitty climate with a baron landscape for a few extra bucks? And since Alberta no longer has a low cost of living, how much are you really gaining? There is lots of work in the country.

Lived in Toronto for 2 1/2 years. Met dozens of people who fit the stereotype and had the condescending attitutde towards westerners. "Dozens", eh? Did you know about 4 million people live in the Toronto area? In reality lots of Torontonians do sterotype the Rest Of Canada. But I think more to the point, Torontonians don't really frame most conversations in terms of the ROC, they frame it inn terms of Toronto. In other word's they're too busy worrying about what everyone thinks of THEM to look outside. Who do you think coined the "ROC" idea? Someone from Calgary? bwaaahahahahahaha

Sounds like a sunday afternoon under Saddam or the Taliban. Keep on fighting boys. Only 3,000 dead US soldiers is tiny. That's like one MONTH in Vietnam. Since the Bush admin detained combatants in Gitmo, took out Iraq and Afghan and developed a presence in the Mid East we've been taking the war to them. Now we're talking about a subversion in Syria. That would be great. Slowly but surely the plan is taking shape. If only the skittish ADD media trained zombie left would have some visino and patience to see it through...

Yes or no?

Back in 1993 or 1992 (early '90's) I lived in Edmonton. They had an unbelievably warm winter - people were golfing on xmas day. They called it "el nino". "Luckily" for us , the frigid cold returned the following year and for many years to come. Just because you have a balmy winter isn't evidence of anything, really. The most accurate and unbiased way to describe the situation is this: The earth has historically fluctuated in temperature, prior to industrialization and after industrialization. Before industrialization, the earth warmed during interglacial periods, glaciers receded (even further han they have recently) and global temperatures got warmer. Then they cooled again. Now they're warming again. We only have a cursory idea as to why the earth warms and cools and always has done so. There is a hypothesis, backed by some evidence (but certainly not conclusive), that humans may contribute partially to the change in global temperature. Other than that, the rest of what you hear is hogwash.

May be - but the timing now is better than ever. Admit it - GW Bush is a foreign policy soothesayer and the anti war wingnuts are shortsighted.

I LOVE THAT LINE "why can't you muslim gals show a little more cleavage". That's funny stuff. If the whole show is like that - I'll watch for sure.

In addition, watching the fairies in soccer feign injury and writhe in pain one minute, only to get up and sprint down the field the next is ridiculous and embarassing. NFL rocks. Playoffs next week YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

OK. So the earth is warming up / cooling down (whichever the enviros are on this decade). Cooling down in the '70's, now overheating. Heck. Let's make it easy, say the watermelons. "Climate Change" should cover it ...whatever new crisis "it" happens to be. Here is my advice: Everyone out there should go out and buy a copy of "An Inconvenient Truth" (you know - the one where Al Gore hops on board a private jet while his voice over talks of the important of changing our lifestyles?). If you're smart - you'll own one. Because it's gonna be a collector's item in 10 years - that's the "tipping point" where the world will come to an end - according to Al Gore (by the way, not a scientist). Wasn't it Jimmy Carter who said we'd run out of fossil fuels by the mid-90's? Gosh, Fat Albert sounds alot like that doesn't he? The end of the world cometh. Anyway. Buy a copy and hang onto it - it'll be like one of those outdated black and white "how to be a good wife" films they used to make back in the 50's - a great gag to show to your kids at parties. My rant is over. Contribute if you wish.

I heard it on CBC radio - I believe "as it happens" interviewing the NYT reporter who broke the story. I don't really want to spend hours looking for it online so you'll have to take my word for it. C'mon - is it really so hard to believe? Why would I make it up.

The patch is a conversation starter: things like "oh, your from Canda you must know an old friend of mine living in Toronto...." I agree - curiosity, inquisitiveness and conversation go a lot farther than a patch. And actually - if you need a patch to get by in a foreign land, you probably shouldn't be travelling. For me it's the Italians. It's worse than american arrogance - it's sheer social retardation. A running joke across the rest of Europe and seriously annoying on the beaches of the caribbean. I have always found americans to be somewhat uninformed about other lands, but genuinely curious and friendly. I'd rather sit next to a curious hokey yank on a long flight than a self-important euro any day of the week.

This might have been covered already (I've been sunning myself for a couple of weeks) but did anyone hear about the New York Times reporting on some classified US proposal to undermine and subvert the Syrian Dictatorship? First of all I think it's a great idea and further illustrates the longer-term, visionary thinking of the Bush administration in it's mid-east policy. This as opposed to the short term ADD "I'm tired of the war" routine. Since Syria and Iran and the principal sources of insurgency, it would only make sense on the way to victory, to take out Syria's rulers, cutting off the supply of arms to Hezbollah and corner Iran. Over the long term this could mean democracy in the region and ultimately mid-east peace. Cue the New York Times, who seem to be making entire careers out of "de-classifying" classified military information. They published the proposal. Better yet, the CBC interviewed the reporter on the radio in some bastardized attempt to make it look like a "bad" idea. So much for "winning one for the gipper". It seems the New York times is more interested in discrediting GW Bush than protecting american interests and soldier's lives. The plan, again, demonstrates GW Bush's advanced and forward looking foreign policy genius and highlights the short term thinking of johnny come lately way opponents.