JerrySeinfeld

What do you mean by "whatever floats your boat"? I never once said it was beautiful -- there's friggin blood and sweat everywhere -- ick! How old are you Jer? Old enough to know I don't want kids - but as I say; different strokes for different folks. You're not going to try to change my mind are you?

There's your trouble. ... Christian nation ... Muslim nation ... Buddist nation ... Secular nation What difference does it make? The United States of America has ALREADY demonstrated that it WILL use nuclear weapons against another nation. Who's the bad guy? The guy that MIGHT one day use nukes? Or the guy that HAS used them in the past? Who's the bad guy? The guy that MIGHT use his gun one day to kill someone? Or the guy who HAS used his gun to kill others in the past? C'mon drea you're smarter than that. Don't lump the USA in with a country like Iran, whose prime minister (president?) has publicly expressed his desire to wipe israel off the map.

Do you have any children Jerry? My son's father did not wait out in the waiting room. He came in there with me when I gave birth and he cried like a baby when he saw his son. My brother was there for the birth of his first child. He too cried at the amazement of it. If you don't have kids yet, when you do, go in with her. It's something you shouldn't miss. Ok, monthly cycles really suck. But some things (children) are worth it. I got back to my "size" within 1 year so no problemo there. Breast feeding (although I didn't for reasons I won't go into here) is also incredibly amazing. It's amazing that a woman's body can nurture and sustain another human being. Those who did breastfeed say it's the best, being so close and bonding with your baby. Hey - whatever floats your boat. Not for me. As a close friend and physician once said "whoever says childbirh is a beautiful thing has never witnessed it."

Yes it's an absolute unbelievable feeling to carry a baby. It's an absolute unbelievable feeling to give birth to a tiny human being. It's utterly amazing -- makes me very very glad to be a woman. Although I was never planning on having children -- I am sooo glad that I did. If men could experience this wonder -- I think our world would be a much different (kinder) place. There is nothing like the love between a mother and child. Which is why, when women spout off about the endless "work" of childcare, I call BS. You guys LOVE it.

Yes it's an absolute unbelievable feeling to carry a baby. It's an absolute unbelievable feeling to give birth to a tiny human being. It's utterly amazing -- makes me very very glad to be a woman. Although I was never planning on having children -- I am sooo glad that I did. If men could experience this wonder -- I think our world would be a much different (kinder) place. There is nothing like the love between a mother and child. No offense - I'm sure it's great. But I'll go without the monthly cycles, breast feeding, weight gain etc. and stick to my cigars in the waiting room

Uh oh! Memo to Bush: better pull a "Martin" and change your beliefs mid-term to please the fickle electorate...a la "Same Sex Marriage". No - Bush stands for his beliefs, like them or not.

I wouldn't wipe my ass with the Maple Leaf. The people of Canada had no choice in choosing this was another case where politicians foisted thi=eir choices on us. Canada is the only former British colony that has not incorporated the Union Jack as part of the flag. That I find shameful since our brave Canadian military fought two World Wars and teh Korean conflict under that banner. We have mouthy politicians shooting off their mouths about the United States and their deficiencies when we have many flaws ourselves including the highest taxes in this Hemisphere. I find absolutely nothing about Canada to be be either proud about or patriotic, which is why I can't wait for Quebec to say goodbye and with them will go Canada's worst Prime Ministers. Canadians have an inferiority complex about the USA. Canadians cling to the false belief that their health care is better than the USA's. Canadian bureaucrats bicker while Americans get over to the Tsunami and start helping... and on and on...

Uh, somebody already won the race guys -- the U.S.A. or perhaps the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just another tin foil hat conspiracy theory. The question is the first MUSLIM nuclear nation.

I work in sales and I am a woman... sales is unstable, not rules-based, not activity focussed, non-conformist, non-bureaucratic culture. Perfect for most women. It was only a few years ago that a woman could be a nurse, a teacher or a mom. (say 1970). Even in the 1980's when I was a young woman, we were encouraged to take "foods" and "sewing". No young girls took shop or metalwork. Today there is much less pigeonholing of roles. And that is a good thing. Most girls excel at reading -- my son reads and spells just like a girl - he's great at math too, but not as good as he is in english (literacy). Most boys play sports, my son could care less about sports. The point is all people are unique and different, even between the genders. BTW, we (hubby and I) are our own stock brokers. (Dying breed that is) We simply do our trading over the internet. lol. brokers aren't a dying breed. we cater to high net worth. but you're right, anyone can do it if they choose to do the research. It's kind of like finishing your basement or washing your car. Some people choose to do it themselves and do a pretty good job. but when you have a jag or a few million in your portfolio, it's worth the extra cost to makes sure its done right. anyway - i digress. I agree with you, Drea. Woman CAN do anything they want and I'm sure you're great at sales. Many are much better than their male counterparts. But you can't argue with the numbers. Career oriented, focussed, driven corporate leading women are still far less common than men. Sure, It's a generalization with many exceptions, but its also a fact.

I voted "no". Nothing wrong with our roots. Its cute - and traditional. And in terms of the Governor General, the cost is a drop in the bucket of our national finances. It's strange that we as Canadians outwardly celebrate the heritage and traditions of other cultures but choose to extinguish our own.

I thought for sure this would stimulate some debate...

I don't think most man perceive that when they get married to a "stay-at-home" wife what they are agreeing to is to support her for life, regardless of the state of the marriage. I believe that they are committing to support her for the term of the marriage. How is it his commitment should outlive the marriage and her's shouldn't (I assume at least part of her commitment is to look after his household). Nothing like a prenup to clear up this kind of ambiguity, eh? Even if she is mid-career, her career may be detrimentally impacted by the joint decision to have kids. I think this is a case-by-case issue. Some careers are impacted, others aren't. I can see that a woman who has had a career impact would have a legitimate claim on alimony. Women are both blessed and cursed with their ability to give birth. I suppose we should cut them some slack and throw a few bucks their way when they have a baby.

Have you considered a career as a bureaucrat? You'd be great at allthose feel good government funded sessions about BS politically correct anti-stereotyping. Brokerage firms are meritocracies. Women aren't as successful in them as men. Get over it. All the brokers I know are women. Our mortgage broker is a woman. The person that deals with our RRSP's is a woman. The manager of the bank we deal with is a woman... Just look in the latest copy of a real estate newspaper (mortgage brokers advertise there) and see how many are women. I can't believe in 2006, people still believe women and men should be pigeon-holed into careers based on what's between their legs. It's 2006, men and women are equal. Get over it. BTW, I know lots of women with "balls". and it has nothing to do with what's between their legs! A woman working at a BANK? no...really? my point exactly. stable,rules-based, activity focussed, conformist, bureaucratic culture. perfect for most women. I'm talking about stockbrokers.

We white male loners were right about the sniper from The Sunday Telegraph, October 27th 2002 After weeks of assurances that the sniper was an "angry white male", it turns out the only angry white males connected to this story are the ones in America's newsrooms. On Thursday, after being informed that the two suspects were a black Muslim called Muhammad and his illegal-immigrant Jamaican sidekick, The New York Times nevertheless reported in its early editions that the pair were being sought for "possible ties to 'skinhead militia' groups". The Feds had already released a photo of Muhammad looking like one of the less goofy members of the Jackson Five and, though one should never rush to stereotype, it seems unlikely that a black Muslim with big hair would have many "ties" to skinhead militias. But in the early hours of Thursday morning, the Times wasn't ready to give in: C'mon, there's gotta be some angry white male National Rifle Association Right-wing redneck Second Amendment gun-nut neo-Nazi militia types in here somewhere, preferably living in a compound Janet Reno can come out of retirement to surround and torch. Sadly not. Instead, we have a Muslim convert. A Muslim convert who last year discarded the name "Williams" and adopted a new identity as "Muhammad". A Muslim convert called Muhammad who publicly expressed his approval of al Qa'eda's September 11 attacks. A pro-al Qa'eda Muslim convert called Muhammad who marked the first anniversary of 9/11, to the exact minute, by visiting the Department of Motor Vehicles in Camden, New Jersey. Two minutes after he left the building, the cops arrived to deal with a mysterious bomb scare. What are we expert profilers to make of such bewilderingly contradictory signs? Well, obviously, those of us in the media should not to be too hasty in connecting the dots. Instead, we should rush to disconnect them. So CNN's Aaron Brown found it easier to call Mr Muhammad "Mr Williams", a formulation likely to be encouraged by the guy's lawyers, once they're in place. And my local radio news described him as "an ex-soldier" and "an African-American male". Anyone spot the missing category? You can discern the preferred narrative: an African-American male from a deprived background driven psycho by military culture. But he left the army years ago and his transformation into a killer seems to be more or less coincidental with his transformation into Mr Muhammad. The media behaved much the same way the last time a 40-year old radical Muslim called Mohamed opened fire on US soil. July the Fourth, Los Angeles Airport, the El Al counter, two dead. CNN and the Associated Press all but stampeded to report a "witness" who described the shooter as a fat white guy in a ponytail who kept yelling, "Artie took my job." But, alas, this promising account proved to be a prank. Instead, it was a Muslim called Hesham Mohamed Hadayet. Mohamed! What are the odds of that? As with last Thursday's arrests, no one could make head or tail of this strange turn of events. As The New York Times put it, "Officials Puzzled About Motive Of Airport Gunman". Hmm. Egyptian Muslim kills Jews on American national holiday. Best not to jump to conclusions. Denial really is a river in Egypt. Broadly speaking, in these interesting times, when something unusual and unprecedented happens, there are those who think on balance it's more likely to be a fellow called Mohammed than, say, Bud, and there are those who climb into the metaphorical burqa, close up the grille and insist, despite all the evidence, that we should be looking for some angry white male. I'm in the former camp and, apropos the sniper, said as much in the Telegraph's American sister papers. I had a bet with both my wife and my assistant that the perp would be an Islamic terrorist. The gals, unfortunately, had made the mistake of reading The New York Times, whose experts concluded it would be a "macho hunter" or an "icy loner". Speaking as a macho hunter and an icy loner myself, I'm beginning to think the media would be better off turning their psychological profilers loose on America's newsrooms. Take, for example, the Times's star columnist Frank Rich. Within a few weeks of September 11, he was berating John Ashcroft, the Attorney-General, for not rounding up America's "home-grown Talibans" - the religious Right, members of "the Second Amendment cult" and "the anti-abortion terrorist movement". In a column entitled "How to Lose a War" last October he mocked the administration for not consulting with abortion clinics, who had a lot of experience dealing with "terrorists". You get the picture: sure, Muslim fundamentalists can be pretty extreme, but what about all our Christian fundamentalists? Unfortunately, for the old moral equivalence to hold up, the Christians really need to get off their fundamentalist butts and start killing more people. At the moment, the brilliantly versatile Muslim fundamentalists are gunning down Maryland schoolkids and bus drivers, hijacking Moscow theatres, self-detonating in Israeli pizza parlours, blowing up French oil tankers in Yemen, and slaughtering nightclubbers in Bali, while Christian fundamentalists are, er, sounding extremely strident in their calls for the return of prayer in school. Oh, well. It's not just the media who bend over backwards to look the other way. Mr Muhammad was twice reported to the FBI for suspected terrorist links. Though living in a homeless shelter, he had the wherewithal to travel extensively round the country by plane, as the shelter's director discovered when a ticket agent called up to confirm Mr Muhammad's booking. "At the mission, not many airline agents call and ask for residents," says the Rev Al Archer. I'll bet. But, even after September 11, a guy in a homeless shelter stacking up the frequent-flier miles wasn't enough to attract the bureau's attention. Given the performance of the FBI, the Immigration Service and other federal agencies, it may be time for at least one white male to get a little angry: the President.

Why Rae would win: The bulk of Ontarians just might be dumb enough to vote for another centrist directionless leftwinger in an attempt to cling to a shrivelling nanny state way of life.

As a wise man once said "the smart muslims have realized - why blow up buildings when we'll have the keys to them in a few years?"

That study is the most meaningless piece of crap I've ever seen and does nothing to gauge "attitudes towards americ" at all. Nice try though.

Have you considered a career as a bureaucrat? You'd be great at allthose feel good government funded sessions about BS politically correct anti-stereotyping. Brokerage firms are meritocracies. Women aren't as successful in them as men. Get over it.

Yes, for those who can afford it. I am all for private health care. The issue they have in the states is not the level of care, but access to it. In the USA if your private insurance provider (if you have one) says you're covered then you are ok. But what if the private insurance provider deems your health issue one that is not covered? What then? I am in no way saying our care is better -- it's not. Our care (such as it is, such as it needs improvement) does cover every citizen, not just those who pay a private insurance company. Bring in private health care to Canada -- but keep private insurers (HMOs -- Human Monster Organizations) from taking over the public insurance system. Not necessarily, from what I've learned and Americans I speak to say its not as bad as Canadians think it is. There is medicare and medicaid, there are public hospitals who will treat you if you don't have coverage. Thousands don't have health insurance, many by choice, they would rather have the second car etc. Those who can't afford it qualify for aid. Obviously its not socialisted medicine as in 'Canada, and *I believe there should be better care for the poor, but most Americans don't get as upset about it as foreigners do. Agree about the HMOs there's good and bad, and private care in Canada won't enable people to jump the line, it would get them right out of it enabling others to move up. My friend is very thankful he moved to the States, heaven knows how he would be faring in Canada. There is a smokescreen blocking the exchange of real information on BOTH sides. American insurance companies have US citizens believing that national medicare is a soviet style, long wait can'tchoose-your-own-doctor type system (it SORT OF is), and Canadian lefty fearmongers have Canadians believing they're shoving people who can't pay on their gurney out into the back lane. Neither are true representations. There are pros and cons to both and if Canada has abrain we'd incorporate the best qualities of each system into our own - like the rest of the G7 is doing.

Good post. There is a great book, written by a Canadian after travelling the world. It's a humor book, called "Why I Hate Canadians" - and pokes fun at us and our generally passive agressive national personality. And I agree - the health care thing is a big smokescreen - health care is way better in the USA.

Have you considered a career as a bureaucrat? You'd be great at allthose feel good government funded sessions about BS politically correct anti-stereotyping.

Think about it.....

Over George's & Vladimir's dead bodies!! You're looking in the wrong direction boys...the first Muslim nuclear power will be France.

Maybe you're right dog. Women don't have babies and leave the workforce. Must be my imagination. Stereotypes don't just come from thin air smartypants.

My theory: it was professor plum in the library with the candlestick. They couldn't keep eight chicago ballplayers quiet about fixing the world series, but they've kept hundreds of people quiet on this one. Right.