Thursday, March 31, 2005
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
My take on Terri
Everyone has spent the past two weeks talking about the Terri Schiavo case. After reading and hearing about the situation, I cannot help but feel a profound sense of abject sadness and am convinced that a grave injustice is being perpetrated upon Terri.
Let's start with what this case is NOT about -- the Terri Schiavo situation is NOT about the answer to the question, "Yes [or no], if I were in Terri's situation I would [or would not] want my feeding tube removed." The media seems to have taken several polls asking a variant of this question, with a majority of people answering that they'd want the feeding tube removed if they were in Terri's situation. The mainstream media has then taken these results and, to varying degrees, implied that Republicans and others who have tried everything in their powers to have Terri's feeding tube re-inserted are out of step with most Americans on the issue, choosing to placate those wacko Christians over the majority of reasonable Americans.
NO NO NO NO NO. The object of the proceedings in the Florida state court was to determine whether Terri would have wanted to live on a feeding tube in the condition she is in. It is IRRELEVANT what you or I or anyone else in her situation would have decided.
And just what did she decide? The lower court, after hearing evidence from Michael Schiavo and others, came to the conclusion that it had been established by "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri, indeed, would not have wanted to live in the state she currently is in. Therefore, as a factual matter, it was established by the lower Florida court that Terri wished to have her feeding tube pulled. As a legal matter, it is basically impossible to have a finding of fact overturned after it has been established by the fact-finder (be it a jury or, in this case, a judge), and her fate was basically sealed after the initial proceeding in 2000 found her to have wished to die.
Of course, we now know that Michael Schiavo, Terri's legal guardian the only person who claimed to "know" that Terri would not have wanted to live under her current circumstances, lives with his girlfriend, with whom he has two children; at first, after Terri had her heart attack in 1990, pledged to do everything he could to keep her alive; only later claimed that Terri would really have wanted to die, after he received a medical malpractice award; and in whose interest it would be if Terri passed on, as he could then marry his girlfriend.
This is not to even say that it is wrong for Michael Schiavo to want to get on with his life (although, he did take a vow to love his wife and be faithful to her until death did them part, i.e. not have a live-in girlfriend, but we won't get into that). However, it seems to me to be quite perverse that there is no provision of Florida law that does not allow some family member of Terri's to get Michael disqualified as her guardian in light of his blatant conflict of interest.
It is also very perverse to me that Michael is still insisting that Terri be starved to death, even when she has a loving family that is willing to care for her and bear all medical expenses, which will thereby allow Michael to get on with his life. What is to be gained by allowing Terri to starve to death? WHAT IS THE BENEFIT? Why is he mandating such a cruel, heart-wrenching ending, when she has a family who will bear any burden for her?
Alas, you may return to the obvious answer - IT IS WHAT TERRI WANTED! Isn't it? And what is our evidence for that conclusion? The word of Michael Schiavo who, as mentioned, has an obvious conflict of interest in the situation.
Now, there seems to be a large liberal segment of the population who seem to believe that Terri should be allowed to die. I've thought about this, and perhaps, if you think likewise, this argument will at least make you rethink your position:
The death penalty, to various degrees, is legal in this country. A criminal defendant who is later sentenced to death must have been convicted of his crimes "beyond a reasonable doubt," the highest level of proof anywhere in the legal system. One of the arguments death penalty opponents routinely cite is the possibility that an innocent person, i.e. a person who may have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court, but who in reality is not guilty of the crime alleged, may be put to death if the death penalty remains legal. Therefore, according to these critics, because of the possibility of such an unjust outcome, the death penalty should not be legal.
By the same token, why should the same logic not apply to Terri Schiavo's case? Here, a factual finding was made, by "clear and convincing evidence," that Terri would have wanted to die under her current circumstances. To find a fact by "clear and convincing evidence" is a LESSER standard of proof than proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," i.e. there is a greater chance that a fact found by clear and convincing evidence is, in fact, not true than a fact found beyond a reasonable doubt. If all the evidence that was submitted to convince the judge was hearsay evidence, without any documentary support, by her husband, who, it turns out, has a conflict of interest, doesn't it lead one to believe that there is a measurable chance that the facts are NOT as the court found them, and that, in fact, Terri would NOT have wanted to die under the current circumstances? Given the inherent uncertainty involved, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IT IS A JUST RESULT TO ALLOW TERRI SCHIAVO TO STARVE TO DEATH, WHEN THERE IS A CHANCE (PERHAPS A GOOD ONE) THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DIE?
To me, this seems like a self-evident conclusion, one that many Democrats and liberals, who always speak of their desire to help the weak in our society, should agree with. But, unfortunately, this has not proven to be the case. Yes, there are some liberals and Democrats who support keeping Terri alive - half of the Democrats who voted in Congress a week and a half ago voted with the Republicans to give Terri's parents access to the federal courts to adjudicate Terri's constitutional claims. Tom Harkin, liberal Democrat senator of Iowa, delivered an impassioned speech supporting Terri. Even Jesse Jackson has come to Terri's defense and is trying to have her feeding tube re-inserted.
However, there are many other liberal politicans and journalists who have behaved in an absolutely appalling manner. I have read columnists refer to Terri as a "vegetable" and a "drooling idiot," someone who is unworthy of life. I also saw Gary Ackerman, liberal congressman from New York, and Jim Moran, liberal congressman from Virginia, attack Republicans for daring to attempt to save Terri and then mouth platitudes about "states' rights" and the government not meddling in peoples' private business. (Note to political novices - if you see liberals invoking "states' rights," you know they are being intentionally disingenuous. Liberals absolutely abhor the concept of states' rights and press for federal intervention in basically every aspect of our lives - except, apparently, for the 2000 presidential election in Florida and saving an innocent woman from being starved to death.) Conversations with liberal acquaintances have also left me flabbergasted as to how human beings, who supposedly are on the "compassionate" and "caring" part of the political spectrum, can be so callous and uncaring as to actually favor allowing a potentially innocent woman to be starved to death.
What explains the liberals' predominant position? It cannot be the merits of the case on their own, as I truly don't believe liberals are really that heartless (or are they?). Rather, I have my own theory - in large part, I think it's as simple as because President Bush, Republicans, and conservative Christians want one thing, i.e. Terri Schiavo to live, a large segment of the liberal population wants the opposite, i.e. Terri Schiavo to die. President Bush says up? They say down. Congressional Republicans say the sky is blue? They say it's magenta. Conservative Christians want an innocent person not to be killed by her husband? Starve her, say too many liberals.
You think I'm being harsh? David Klinghoffer, a Jewish writer, agrees with me, and had the following offering about what the pro-pull-the-feeding-tube sentiment he perceives to be dominant among Jewish liberals:
"Jewish liberals are misshapen by centuries of being humiliated by Christians. Today, though we live in the most Jewish-friendly country in history, it's as if we're still back in medieval France or Germany. Whatever Christians favor — the death penalty, saving Terri Schiavo, curbing abortion, whatever — we must reject out of self-respect."
While that is only Klinghoffer's take on his fellow Jews, I would expand this theory to all liberals. Seeing Republicans and conservatives rally so quickly to Terri Schiavo's defense, I believe, immediately turned off a large segment of the liberal population and led them to reflexively jump to the opposite position. This is especially so given the continuous electoral victories that Republicans have enjoyed since 2000. You can see how this plays out on the cable talk shows - Republicans and conservatives talk about Terri and doing whatever they possibly can to save her, and Democrats and liberals (for the most part) respond by griping about states' rights, meddling in private affairs, and questioning the other side's motives.
This is personally abhorrent to me, not just on a political level, but on a personal level. In short, it seems that most liberals would rather score political points and take their political victories where they can find them, than give a crap about an innocent woman's life. "Yeah, let the vegetable die - anything that brings the polls into our favor and allows us to gain seats in Congress in 2006." You think I'm being overly cynical? I hope that's all that it is, but I fear not.
So, on the eve of what seems to be Terri Schiavo's death, I hope and pray that something, anything can be done to salvage this poor woman's life. This is not a liberal or conservative issue - this is about preventing an irreversible injustice from taking place. As I write, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has again rejected Terri's parents' appeal, and they have again appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay of the Florida court's order and reinsertion of her feeding tube. All I can do is hope and pray, that's all any of us can do. If Terri is allowed to die, there is going to be some serious societal fallout. I don't know what will happen and I don't know how it will play out politically, but there are going to be millions of people in this country who are going to be inconsolable and are going to demand answers. I know I will.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
preening prima donna Joe Biden's mouth, the Democrats have a LONG, LONG, LONG way to go to convince any sizable number of Americans that Democrats will do more to defend America from terrorism and military strikes than Republicans.
When your base is cheering Supreme Court decisions hampering the war on terror and saying that enemies trying to kill us on battlefields deserve the same due process rights as American citizens, and when liberals and Democrats denounce the Patriot Act at every opportunity, you have a big national security problem that superficial tinkering by John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or anyone else will not fix. Rather, liberals have a fundamental problem towards the military and national security that is illustrated quite nicely by the story at the end of the article involving the rich liberals and their unwillingness to support military action, even if it meant the sure capture of Osama bin Laden.
Sorry I've been AWOL
but I was getting absolutely killed at work last week and have spent what little spare time I have (a) following the New York Giants' free agency trials and travails (yes to Kareem McKenzie, no to Plaxico Burress and Fred Smoot, perhaps David Terrell?), (b) trying to figure out who I will draft onto my fantasy baseball team next week, and (c) trying to figure out my NCAA tournament bracket (haven't followed college b-ball this year as closely as in years past - I need HELP!)
Anyway, I've got a few things to post, and I promise I'll try to put at least something up every day......
Friday, March 04, 2005
how about YOU?!?!
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Great pickup - young guy, huge upside, steadying influence in the center of the defense. Every article I've read raves about his intelligence. A good start to the free agent signing period, IMHO.
responds to the Scheiber article.
Hopefully, since AARP and many Democrats are on record as supporting add-on Social Security accounts, Republicans can force them into some kind of deal - step 1 of the 2-step.
about the political feasibility of add-on Social Security accounts, which I spoke of a couple of days ago. It seems that Democrats are petrified that the privatization two-step may work.
(follow the links to the original sources in both posts)
Sick. Just sick. Democrats really do hate George Bush more than they like democracy.
Senate Democrats are filibustering. The party of "no," indeed.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
the less opposed I am to a Social Security compromise that includes optional personal accounts as an add-on to Social Security as a way to reach a compromise with Democrats.
Social Security change of the sort President Bush is pursuing is a huge change of the status quo, has been a huge boon to demagoguing Democrats and AARP (who both stop at nothing, with a distressing level of success, to misinform the public on the issue), and, given the enormity of the task, may be more amenable to incremental change rather than the wholesale change that basically every congressional Democrat has dug in their heels against.
Therefore, rather than taking a 100% victory this year, I may be happy with something less, i.e. a compromise that allows add-on accounts of something like 2 or 4% of income to be placed on top of Social Security. That way, you have the private-account vehicle established in place for people to get used to.
Over time, as the accounts start to make money and the Democrats' shameful, misleading statements on privatization are exposed for the lies that they are, Republicans can slowly press for the amounts that must be paid into traditional Social Security to be lowered, and the amounts that can be paid into the new, private accounts to be raised. This method can especially be pressed in future years when the deficit is lowered (or if and when the government returns to surplus), or when fiscal conditions are otherwise more favorable than they are today.
Personally, I (and, I'm sure, most other conservatives) would love to have the freedom to invest the entire 12.9% of Social Security taxes in private accounts, and Bush's initial plan comes much closer to achieving that goal than a system of add-on accounts.
But, as the old saw goes, you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If the Democrats persist in their obstructionist ways, but enough of them can be peeled away to support add-on Social Security accounts, I say President Bush should pull the trigger. Getting the accounts established would only be step one - expanding them can come later.
Monday, February 28, 2005
what ever happened to that al Qaqaa munitions dump? You know, that place in Iraq from where, purportedly due to President Bush's bungling of the Iraq war, all those tons munitions were stolen? You remember, right, that story that you broke a week before the presidential election and covered like white on rice throughout that final week of October and then right through election day......and then, after George Bush won re-election, you went silent on the story. And you remain silent to this day.
I guess, then, that the problem just solved itself, correct?
No, the mainstream press in this country is not liberal. Nope, not at all. Especially since they virtually take all their cues from the front page of the New York Times, that icon of political moderation which scrupulously plays its stories right down the middle.
(I'm sorry for being so sarcastic - I am just sick of liberals telling me that an outlet like Fox News cannot be trusted because of its right-leaning tendencies, and then in the same breath citing the New York Times as infallible gospel; the same ones who will not even read National Review or the Weekly Standard for fear of allowing their eyeballs to rest for one second on any sort of conservative argument, and then profess how wonderful Maureen Dowd is on the op-ed page. When, when, WHEN will the New York Times just drop its pretense of objectivity and proclaim itself for all the world to hear as the unabashed bible of left-wing thought in this country?)
Friday, February 25, 2005
Canada does not want to be part of the U.S. missile shield. Yet it wishes to be consulted if a missile is fired at Canada, and expects protection from the United States. We are told that Canada is afraid that signing onto the U.S.'s missile shield would start an arms race.
Hold on a second. Since when is Canada so freaking important in the balance of world affairs that its decision, and its decision alone, will determine whether or not an arms race will result as a result of the full implementation of the U.S. missile shield? As if to say, countries that otherwise would allegedly try to hoard arms in response to a U.S. missile shield would not do so if only the U.S. and not Canada was involved? Are you kidding me?
This episode regrettably mirrors the U.S.'s parent-child relationship with Europe. To wit: the countries whose security we ensure thank us by turning around and feeling free to lambaste, put down and attempt to impede the United States at every opportunity, like spoiled, ingrate children who forget how well they have it because of their rich parents.
stole my thunder regarding the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert brou-ha-ha. Liberals and Democrats, who purportedly support gays and "gay rights," apparently are not hesitating to out this fellow as apparently having run some sort of gay escort service, because he had the temerity to get daily press passes to White House briefings and ask questions friendly to the President and critical of Democrats.
Next time someone tells you that liberals are truly friends of the gay community, bring up this story. When they saw an opportunity to bash the President, they didn't hesitate to gay-bait for one second, which is presumably OK since the gay person in question is a Republican.
has now been caught plagiarizing artwork and passing it off as his own. (Keep following the links from Malkin's site for the original sources.)
His days as a tenured professor are now officially numbered. But I will bet anyone a nickel that if he is indeed fired from the University of Colorado, he will become an instant leftist celebrity who, it will be argued, was unfairly railroaded, notwithstanding (a) his hiring pursuant to an affirmative action program for American Indians when, in fact, he has admitted that he is not an American Indian, and (b) his fraud and copyright infringement as detailed above.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
USC law professor, Democratic strategist and omnipresent Fox News talking head, has been in a verbal scuffle with Michael Kinsley, editor of the Los Angeles Times. Apparently, according to Estrich, the ultra-liberal Kinsley (of all people) has discriminated against females insofar as he has not printed enough op-ed columns written by women for Estrich's taste.
From what little I have been able to glean about this debate, it seems to be nothing more than an outrageous hissy fit by a deranged woman who still can't accept that Bush beat Gore in 2000, let alone beat Kerry in November.
However, the smackdown of Estrich by Heather MacDonald of City Journal (who I like more and more every time I read her - perhaps she can take over the spot vacated by William Safire on the New York Times' op-ed page?) is priceless. Take a few minutes and read it - it'll make you laugh out loud.
when he was a "Crossfire" co-host on CNN. But ever since the Iraq war and his regrettable opposition thereto, I just shake my head at his rants. If you don't know who wrote the above story, wouldn't you think that it came from a run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat? Pat, are you not aware that the world changed on 9/11? Why do you continue to stick your head in the sand? If the liberal left is in such lockstep agreement with you, shouldn't that be a signal that you've gone a bit off-track in your thinking?
My favorite passage in the piece:
In his inaugural address, Mr. Bush calls 9/11 the day “when freedom came under attack.” This is sophomoric. Osama did not send fanatics to ram planes into the World Trade Center because he hates the Bill of Rights. He sent the terrorists here because he hates our presence and policies in the Middle East. He did it for the same reason FLN rebels blew up cafes in Paris and Hamas suicide bombers blow up pizza parlors in Jerusalem...
The 9/11 killers were over here because we are over there. We were not attacked because of who we are but because of what we do. It is not our principles they hate. It is our policies. U.S. intervention in the Middle East was the cause of the 9/11 terror. Bush believes it is the cure. Has he learned nothing from Iraq?
Very nice, Michael Moore.....I mean Pat. We had it coming to us, right?
Wrong. Al Qaeda and Islamist terrorists very much despise liberal democracy as practiced in the United States. Case in point: in a story today regarding the American citizen involved in a plot to kill President Bush (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148627,00.html), the following passage:
The U.S. government is also revealing for the first time that items confiscated from Abu Ali's home in Falls Church, Va., in the summer of 2003 include: an undated document praising Taliban leader Mullah Omar and the Sept. 11 attacks; a book written by senior Al Qaeda official Ayman al-Zawahiri (search) in which democracy is characterized as a "new religion that must be destroyed by war"; and audio tapes in Arabic promoting jihad.
That's right, Pat, they don't mind democracy, they just hate that we don't support blowing Israel to smithereens. Let's just do whatever they say, Spain-3/11/04 style, and hope that they'll leave us alone.
It's a good thing this guy never advanced far in seeking the Republican presidential nomination, because on foreign policy he peddles nonsense on stilts.
for not posting over the last week - I was in California visiting family for several days and have been busy at work. Don't worry, I have plenty on my mind, and it will all be spilling out very soon..........
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
..."The more the Republicans attack Dean, the more I figure they're afraid of him."
Do you recall the cover of National Review, approximately last January or so, where teh editors placed Dean's face on the cover with the caption, "Please nominate this man"?
To the contrary, I am quite literally delighted and overjoyed that the Democrats have chosen Dr. Dean. And if this is the view of Republicans and conseratives like me (and I assure you that my view is widely held on the right), you should rethink your enthusiasm for Dean.
Hillary in '08? Maybe we're a little afraid of her, as Clintons usually get what they want.
But Dean? With this guy as the face of the party, Republican control of Congress is assured for the foreseeable future.
For those of you excited about Dean and his "stand tough" approach against Bush and Republicans, keep one statistic in mind: according to most surveys, approximately 20% of Americans call themselves "liberal," while 40% call themselves "conservative."
That means that Bush can take core conservative stands on issues, and he only has to win over 10% of moderates to be successful in elections and in pursuing public policy.
Democrats like Dean, on the other hand, who espouse core left-wing principles, have to convince 30% of moderates to see things their way.
Translation: having the party led by a hard-core liberal is a recipe for Democratic disaster.
Far from being worried about Dean, carrobin, I'm quite enjoying the show. I can't wait to see him further ravage the Democrats' national standing.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Five letters in response to the article I posted a few days ago about Americans moving to Canada in response to President Bush's reelection, all critical of the "blue" emigrants. I especially like the sentiments of Aseem Gupta of Ithaca, NY:
Good riddance to the thousands of Americans who have given up on our country and are moving to Canada.
My parents came to this country more than 30 years ago not only to pursue their dreams, but also to join the never-ending process of building the most free, just, prosperous and benevolent country the world has ever seen. There are millions more like them ready to take the place of those now deserting our country.
on the slightly inconsistent liberal reactions to Larry Summers and Ward Churchill. Apparently, you can't suggest that men and women may have different mental makeups, but you're free to say that 9/11 victims are Nazis.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Howard Dean as DNC chair
I just cannot tell you how overjoyed I am that the Democrats are about to elect Howard Dean as chairman of the DNC. It shows that they have learned absolutely, positively nothing from the November election.
Let's enter the mind of the average Democrat: you just lost an excruciating presidential election that for sure you thought, with the help of Michael Moore, CBS News and the rest of the mainstream media, John Kerry was going to win. The electoral map of that election, when broken down by county, shows basically a red country, with a few blue blotches here and there. So basically, your party cannot compete in, literally, about three-fourths of the nation's counties. In short, your party is not viewed as a national party, but as a bi-coastal/university town elitist party with no real connection to the average American.
What the average Democrat should be thinking is how the party can effectively appeal to the average American that has increasingly abandoned the party over the last two decades.
But what are the Democrats about to do? Elect as their chairman one of the most unhinged liberals in Democratic politics to be the public face of their party. Maybe this is payback - maybe Democrats feel bad that they made the calculation in the primaries that they wanted Dean in their hearts, but went with Kerry because they thought he could win, and now they're giving Dean the consolation prize.
Well, the Democrats can do whatever they want, but I think Dean will be an unmitigated disaster. Remember when National Review had that cover with a picture of Howard Dean and the caption "Please Nominate This Man"? That's exactly what Republicans and conservatives are thinking now. Earth to Democrats: if Republicans are as happy as they are with your DNC choice, then, for no other reason, you should be hesitant to cast your lot with him. Tim Roemer, Donnie Fowler, anyone but this guy. He will accelerate defections from the Democratic Party, as even fewer average Americans will be able to relate to him and his insane liberal rants, and will make the Republican Party even a stronger national majority. Wake up: the American people are NOT LIBERAL. Twice as many people in this country describe themselves as politically conservative as those who are politically liberal, and a rational Democratic party would not be moving even further left.
But apparently winning 19% of the nation's counties in a presidential election is too many for the Democrats, and losing four Senate seats is not enough. They're itching for a 49-state presidential loss, a la McGovern and Mondale, and filibuster-proof Republican majorities in the Senate. I say let them eat themselves alive and destroy themselves, and I'll have fun watching the implosion.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
My gut feeling is that the University of Colorado should somehow, some way, find a way around tenure rules and can this patently hateful, lying (including about his Native American ancestry) bastard. The linked column from Paul Campos of the Rocky Mountain News enlightened me even more - apparently, the guy doesn't even have a PhD, which I thought was a prerequisite for even having a tenure-track professorship in the first place. Clearly, this guy hates America as much as any Islamist terrorist, and doesn't deserve to be a janitor at the University of Colorado, let alone a fully tenured professor. It's one thing to voice unpopular opinions, but it's another thing to be completely ignorant and hateful, and I think academia has no use for this guy at all.
But then, I think about it more, and I come to the conclusion that CU should leave this guy right where he is. As hateful as Churchill is, I can very easily see liberals using Churchill's example as an excuse for calling for the firing of any right-of-center college professor (to the extent that such strange, mythological creatures actually exist) that strays from leftist orthodoxy by arguing, for example, that affirmative action is wrong or that tax cuts are good for the economy, etc. and who can thereby be branded "hateful", "racist," etc. and thereby deserving of being fired. I just think it's a Pandora's Box that is better left closed, and could come back and bite conservatives in the you-know-what. Moreover, as CU is a state school, if he is indeed fired he at least has some sort of colorable argument that the government has punished him solely for his voicing of unpopular views and thereby violated his First Amendment right of free speech.
So in the final analysis, I don't think CU should fire Ward Churchill. But I do think he should be boycotted, picketed, and insulted to his face for his disgusting and hateful opinions. Then, hopefully he will leave of his own volition and slither away to some far corner of this great country that he hates, never to be heard from again.
Apparently, Churchill kinda, sorta, not really, a little, retracted his 9/11 essay, but he clearly is not a changed man. What scares me most from that link is that he got "thunderous applause" at his speech tonight. A roomful of people giving this guy thunderous applause is a room I don't to be in the same area code as.
So President Bush, for four years, spent and spent and spent, and he was criticized for not controlling expenditures and allowing the deficit to balloon. (Somewhat correctly, in my opinion.)
So now President Bush is finally acting like a Republican by trying to rein in spending and close the deficit, and he can't do that either - the aggrieved recipients of federal largess and the Representatives and Senators who use federal money to buy support and quell opposition (including too many Republicans) are up in arms.
I think this iteration of "too much money in politics," rather than the campaign finance system, should have been John McCain's focus - this sort of horsetrading and influence-buying is what makes me cynical about the political process. Kudos to President Bush for (finally) trying to put the brakes on runaway federal spending and attempting to reduce the deficit. I say try, because I don't think his budget proposal will get very far in Congress. But we can always hope for the best, right?
Monday, February 07, 2005
......"addition by subtraction?"
Disaffected liberals leaving their country of birth for Canada is just fine with me. I encourage it, actually. Just don't get sick, or you'll have to wait six months for a doctor's visit.