Maher musings . . .

No choice . . .

SLATE HAS A DISTURBING REPORT by Dahlia Lithwick, "The Death of Roe v. Wade", that sums up the state of access to abortion in the US, and it's not good. Check out the power-plays in Dahlia's scribe. Why should you care? It's a look at how the fundamentalist weasels operate. If Stevie gets a majority . . . it'll happen here.

Supporters and opponents of abortion seem to agree: It's no longer the law of the land.

The end result is that Roe remains on the books, while for all practical purposes women can't get an abortion in Ohio, North Dakota, or Florida.

There's one other (often forgotten) player in this elaborate game of chicken over reproductive rights, and that's the Supreme Court. Given that public opinion has changed virtually not at all since Roe v. Wade, my guess is still that the Roberts court is as uninterested in overturning the law as its challengers are in forcing the issue. It does not want to be the court that makes abortion illegal, or all-but-illegal, in America. The backlash would be staggering. The conservatives on the court are much happier with the status quo, allowing abortion as a matter of federal law while the states effectively outlaw it as a matter of fact. If the states continue to hollow out Roe from the core, there will be no reason for the court to hear an abortion case ever again.

Coming to Canada Soon ? ? ? ?

Welcome to Crazytown . . . .



H/T: drf

Canadian Company contributing to US anti-progressive campaign

Take a look at this from ThinkProgress.(Emphasis mine)

The United States Chamber of Commerce is running an unprecedented $75 million campaign to unseat progressives from Congress, in defense of a big-oil agenda. As a ThinkProgress investigation has learned Chamber’s donors — who send their checks to the same account from which the political campaign is run — include multinational oil corporations, and even oil companies owned by the Kingdom of Bahrain. The oil-fueled Chamber has hammered candidates who voted to limit our dependence on oil, falsely claiming they supported a “job-killing energy tax”

Which puts a Canadian company amongst those actively funding a US political campaign intentionally attempting to unseat Democrats.
Interesting. SNC Lavalin is contributing to a U.S. election on a scale they are prevented from doing in Canada.

And, if you think the above isn't linked to this, well then go read Dowd and keep your eyes open for this part:

The 5-to-4 Citizens United decision last January gave corporations, foreign contributors, unions, Big Energy, Big Oil and superrich conservatives a green light to surreptitiously funnel in as much money as they want, whenever they want to elect or unelect candidates. As if that weren’t enough to breed corruption, Thomas was the only justice — in a rare case of detaching his hip from Antonin Scalia’s — to write a separate opinion calling for an end to donor disclosures.

Which should lead you to look up at the ceiling and ask, "What other Canadian corporations are contributing to US political campaigns?"
Yeah. I'd be looking for a massive scar on the earth's surface. And I wouldn't look further than northern Alberta.

And so it goes . . . .

It's crap like this that validates my decision to leave the Excited States.






"They" just don't get it.









Kind of makes one crazy, eh ? ? ? ?



And so it goes, ya'll . . . .

Quite an Indictment . . . .

A friend vacationing in Paris - France, that is - sent me this link he found while surfing the "InterTubes."

The Huffington Post contributor, Drew Westen, is a professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at a university just down the road from where I lived for many years. It appears he has hit the proverbial nail on the head describing my - and a lot of others, no doubt - feelings toward President Obama and his administration. It's long, probably 4,000 words, but the content is worth the read and analysis. One caveat, though: The author made the same mistake Howard Dean and Joe Scarborough made in referencing the insurance industry's "52-year high" on Friday. Obviously, the reference should have been to a "52-week high." That said, here are a few excerpts:

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator

Drew Westen | Psychologist and neuroscientist; Emory University Professor
Posted: December 20, 2009 09:34 PM

_______________

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry).

_______________


What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

_______________


Consider the president's leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there's a conflict, because if there's a conflict, he doesn't want to be anywhere near it.

_______________


Like most Americans I talk to, when I see the president on television, I now change the channel the same way I did with Bush. With Bush, I couldn't stand his speeches because I knew he meant what he said. I knew he was going to follow through with one ignorant, dangerous, or misguided policy after another. With Obama, I can't stand them because I realize he doesn't mean what he says -- or if he does, he just doesn't have the fire in his belly to follow through. He can't seem to muster the passion to fight for any of what he believes in, whatever that is. He'd make a great queen -- his ceremonial addresses are magnificent -- but he prefers to fly Air Force One at 60,000 feet and "stay above the fray."

_______________


Gays? Virtually all Americans are for repealing don't ask/don't tell (except for conservatives who haven't yet come to terms with their own homosexuality -- but don't tell them that, or at least don't ask). This one's a no-brainer. Tell Congress you want a bill on your desk by January 1, and announce that you have serious questions about the constitutionality of the current policy and won't enforce it until your Justice Department has had time to study it. Don't keep firing gay Arabic interpreters. But that would require not just giving the pretty speech on how we're all equal in the eyes of God and we should all be equal in the eyes of the law (a phrase he might want to try sometime). It would require actually doing something that might anger a small percentage of the population on the right, and that's just too hard for this president to do. It's one thing to acknowledge and respect the positions of people who hold different points of view. It's another to capitulate to them.

_______________


Am I being too hard on the president? He's certainly done many good things. But it would be hard to name a single thing President Obama has done domestically that any other Democrat wouldn't have done if he or she were president following George W. Bush (e.g., signing the children's health insurance bill that Congress is about to gut to pay for worse care for kids under the health insurance exchange, if it ever happens), and there's a lot he hasn't done that every other Democrat who ran for president would have done.

Obama, like so many Democrats in Congress, has fallen prey to the conventional Democratic strategic wisdom: that the way to win the center is to tack to the center.

There's lots more here, and Professor Westen makes a good case.

My biggest disappointment is it appears the huge numbers of youthful voters Obama was successful in bringing into the political process will probably be turned off for years, if not decades.

That does not bode well for any "hope" or "change" . . . .


H/T BTO

UPDATE: Naomi Klein weighs in . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Well, How 'Bout That ? ? ? ?

New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat, yesterday introduced a bill in Congress.

From the Representative's web-site:

September 15, 2009

Nadler, Baldwin and Polis Introduce the Respect for Marriage Act to Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Civil Rights advocates and LGBT Americans herald new legislation to overturn one of the nation's most discriminatory laws


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), with a total of 91 original co-sponsors to date, introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples.

The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families.

The Respect for Marriage Act, the consensus of months of planning and organizing among the nation’s leading LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators, would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples.

The Respect of Marriage Act would accomplish this by repealing DOMA in its entirety and by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which embraces the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized. While this rule governs recognition of marriage for purposes of federal law, marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided by each state.

The Respect for Marriage Act would not tell any state who can marry or how married couples must be treated for purposes of state law, and would not obligate any person, church, city or state to celebrate or license a marriage of two people of the same sex. It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple’s marriage for purposes of state law.

_______________


“The full repeal of DOMA is long overdue,” said Rep. Nadler. “When DOMA was passed in 1996, its full harm may not have been apparent to all Members of Congress because same-sex couples were not yet able to marry. It was a so-called ‘defense’ against a hypothetical harm. This made it easy for our opponents to demonize gay and lesbian families. Now, in 2009, we have tens of thousands of married same-sex couples in this country, living openly, raising families and paying taxes in states that have granted them the right to marry, and it has become abundantly clear that, while the sky has not fallen on the institution of marriage, as DOMA supporters had claimed, DOMA is causing these couples concrete and lasting harm. Discrimination against committed couples and stable families is terrible federal policy. But, with a President who is committed to repealing DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law.”

“In support of families throughout the nation, our legislation will extend to same-sex, legally married couples the same federal rights and recognition now offered to heterosexual married couples, nothing more, nothing less,” said Rep. Baldwin, Co-Chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus. “As we continually strive to form a more perfect Union, repealing DOMA is a necessary step toward full equality for LGBT Americans.”

I wish these fine people all the best in their endeavour to expand equality in the US. It would be a great step forward if the legislation was enacted into law.

However, with the way elected "representatives" are demagoguing a Public Option in health care, I have serious doubts the same "representatives" will grant equality to persons of the homosexual community.

"We've come a long way, baby," but that doesn't mean the bigots have joined us on the journey . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Matt Strikes Again . . . .

My apologies for missing the release of this a couple of days ago, but "better late than never," right?

Matt Taibbi's "Sick and Wrong" Rolling Stone article is finally available online. Check it out for his take on the USofexpensivehealthcare's fiasco in the attempt to "reform" the health care system. As usual, his writing style is perfect, and his insights/sources are a wealth of information. Too bad the rest of the MSM doesn't have the same level of journalistic quality.

Some highlights:

Without a public option, any effort at health care reform will be as meaningful as a manicure for a gunshot victim.
_____________

Leading advocates of single-payer, including doctors from the Physicians for a National Health Program, implored Baucus to allow them to testify. When he refused, a group of eight single-payer activists, including three doctors, stood up during the hearings and asked to be included in the discussion. One of the all-time classic moments in the health care reform movement came when the second protester to stand up, Katie Robbins of Health Care Now, declared, "We need single-payer health care!"

To which Baucus, who looked genuinely frightened, replied, "We need more police!"

The eight protesters were led away in handcuffs and spent about seven hours in jail.
_______________

But one of the immutable laws of politics in the U.S. Congress is that progressives will always be screwed by their own leaders, as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
_______________

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted that "private insurance will not be able to compete with a government option." This is a little like complaining that Keanu Reeves was robbed of an Oscar just because he can't act.
_______________

Even more revolting, when Pelosi was asked on July 31st if she worried that progressives in the House would yank their support of the bill because of the sellout to conservatives, she literally laughed out loud. "Are the progressives going to take down universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans?" she said, chuckling heartily to reporters. "I don't think so."

The laugh said everything about what the mainstream Democratic Party is all about. It finds the notion that it has to pay anything more than lip service to its professed values funny.
______________

And finally:

Then again, some of the blame has to go to all of us. It's more than a little conspicuous that the same electorate that poured its heart out last year for the Hallmark-card story line of the Obama campaign has not been seen much in this health care debate. The handful of legislators — the Weiners, Kuciniches, Wydens and Sanderses — who are fighting for something real should be doing so with armies at their back. Instead, all the noise is being made on the other side. Not so stupid after all — they, at least, understand that politics is a fight that does not end with the wearing of a T-shirt in November.

Read the whole article and judge for yourself.

Send it to your friends south of the 49th. Perhaps they'll put the T-shirts away and start demanding their basic human rights . . . .

H/T BTO

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

UPDATE: Robert Reich weighs in on what Obama must demand from Congress.

Money for Vote$ . . . .

The answer to the question asked at the end:

"Whoever contribute$ the mo$t $$ to my re-election campaign!"

Silly voter. What was he thinking ? ? ? ?

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

M & M's, Anyone ? ? ? ? (Moyers and Maher)

This post by Glenn Greenwald summarizing Bill Moyers' appearance on the Bill Maher show last night says it all regarding the current state of affairs in the USAofexpensivehealthcare.

Go.

Read.

Get angry.

Think Progressive Party not tied to the dems or repugs . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Kucinich on Canadian Health Care . . . .

You GO Dennis, my man!



Take that, "Blue Dog" dems.

Dennis is the man, once again . . . .


(Isn't that John Conyers over gratzer's shoulder?!?)

H/T Crooks and Liars for the heads up.

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

'Bout Time . . . .

From Congressional Quarterly today:

House Panel Approves Expansion of Hate Crimes Law

The House Judiciary Committee approved legislation Thursday to extend federal hate crimes law to cover offenses based on sexual orientation.

The measure was approved 15-12 after a two-day debate and the defeat of more than a dozen Republican amendments.

Current federal hate crime law covers the use or threat of force based on race, color, religion or national origin. The new bill also covers crimes committed based on gender identity.

The panel considered more than a dozen GOP amendments Wednesday over the course of five hours, and rejected another five before approving the bill.

_______________


Committee Republicans objected to the bill on First Amendment grounds and because they believe it amounts to favoritism toward certain groups.

“Every human being in the world deserves to be equally protected, no matter who they are or who they go to bed with,” shouted Republican Louie Gohmert of Texas, the ranking member on the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee, in an impassioned speech opposing the measure.

It's a start for our friends South of the 49th, but will it be passed by Congress and enforced as the "law of the land"?

We'll see . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

US Progressives Delusional ? ? ? ?

Living here in Vancouver, BC, Canada for even a short period of time it is getting easier to see the faults in our local, provincial and national politicians.

It takes a great local journalist to bring one back to reality once in a while.

Today, it was Bill Tieleman of Vancouver 24 Hours turn to do the honours:

Too conservative for Canada?
By BILL TIELEMAN - January 13, 2009


Imagine where a Canadian politician who held the following positions would fit in our political system:

This politician opposes legalizing same-sex marriages.

He has no problem with citizens owning handguns - but proposed limiting their purchase - to one per month.

This politician wants to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan - and to keep them there for years instead of withdrawing them in 2011.

He thinks Robert Gates, U.S. President George W. Bush's Secretary of Defence, has done an excellent job in the Iraq war.

The politician is willing to restrict late-term abortions for women and admits he's not sure at what point a human being gets human rights.

So who did he choose to deliver a prayer before a major political event?

A controversial fundamentalist Christian pastor who has called abortion "a holocaust" and who campaigned in California for the successful Proposition 8, which bans gay marriages.

This politician has described government-run public health care as "an extreme" that leads to high taxes and is "wrong" while supporting private health insurance as the best option.

And despite saying that he has done more than anybody to "take on lobbyists and won" - this politician just appointed one to a top position.

So, where would you place this politician on the Canadian political scene?

An elected representative with these policies that are so obviously way out of line with Canadian mainstream values and popular opinion would likely lead a fringe party far to the right of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, with little hope of political success.

But in the United States - his name is President-Elect Barack Obama.

_______________


Just make sure that you don't get caught up in next week's Obama-mania and miss the fact that the new American president is in many ways far more conservative than any of Canada's political leaders.

Granted, Canadian politicians - stephen harper in particular - leave a lot to be desired at times.

When one compares them to those south of the 49th, however, we're fortunate.

It's up to all of us to make the political picture here even better . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Texas Two Step . . . .

To keep you up to speed, here's what's been going on:

I left Vancouver on Tuesday - yes, the day of the US election - for some time in our Florida residence. (Would anyone like to take it off our hands?!?!) The weather here has been glorious, as I expected it to be. Autumn in this part of the world is typically spectacular - barring any tropical storms.

So, I got to see the election results while actually being in the country involved. No big surprise, but at least the outcome was a positive one in light of the alternative. Now, let's hope Mr. Obama can deliver on his promise of "change." The proof will be in the results.

The following two video compilations have crossed my radar screen since arriving here, and I wanted to share them with you. They are indicative of some of the reasons "drf," The Four Footed Child, and myself felt compelled to leave this place for a better place. Coincidentally - or perhaps not - both take place in Texas, home of an infamous current - and soon to be former (we hope) - President.






And then this.

So. As I stated in a "queerie" posed by our friend MSEH in her upcoming ex-pat analysis:

As for actually moving back because of Obama's election, the answer is an emphatic "No." Granted, given the alternative, his election is an improvement and a BIG improvement over the past eight years. However, the US corporate power structure has taken decades to become entrenched, and a 4-year or 8-year Obama administration will not and can not substantially change that situation. That said, what would be the benefit to returning to the States? Nothing will be fundamentally different than it has been during my lifetime. There will still be a focus on military might, a lack of caring for it's citizen's welfare, gross inequities in income levels and a tendency to inject religion into politics and government.

We didn't make the decision to apply for Permanent Resident status and eventual Canadian citizenship on a whim. The two-plus year process gave us plenty of time to reconsider should we have had doubts.

Canada is by no means perfect, but in comparison to the US it's no contest for me.

I'm staying right here, thank you very much.

Is it any wonder we left?

I think not . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

If the world could vote ? ? ? ?

A friend sent me this today, and now I'll share it with you.

It tracks how people around the world would vote - if they could - in the US election next week. It is interesting to view the results for the individual nations.

Based on those that actually vote, it appears to be quite accurate as should you try to vote multiple times (Yes, I did!), a cookie disallows it.

If the world could vote?

Looks like McGeezer and Tundra Trash have problems not only in the US, but worldwide . . . .

H/T Lloyd

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Taibbi on Palin's America - "Ouch . . . . "

Matt Taibbi's piece in tomorrow's Rolling Stone is one fine example of writing.

If you thought Kathleen Parker and Heather Mallick's articles were tough, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

A few choice excerpts:

Mad Dog Palin

The scariest thing about John McCain's running mate isn't how unqualified she is - it's what her candidacy says about America

MATT TAIBBI - Posted Oct 02, 2008

_______________


Sarah Palin is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the modern United States. As a representative of our political system, she's a new low in reptilian villainy, the ultimate cynical masterwork of puppeteers like Karl Rove. But more than that, she is a horrifying symbol of how little we ask for in return for the total surrender of our political power. Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she's the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV — and this country is going to eat her up, cheering her every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.

______________


But watching Palin's speech, I had no doubt that I was witnessing a historic, iconic performance. The candidate sauntered to the lectern with the assurance of a sleepwalker — and immediately launched into a symphony of snorting and sneering remarks, taking time out in between the superior invective to present herself as just a humble gal with a beefcake husband and a brood of healthy, combat-ready spawn who just happened to be the innocent targets of a communist and probably also homosexual media conspiracy. She appeared to be completely without shame and utterly full of shit, awing a room full of hardened reporters with her sickly-sweet line about the high-school-flame-turned-hubby who, "five children later," is "still my guy." It was like watching Gidget address the Reichstag.

_______________


Here's what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins "Country First" buttons on his man titties and chants "U-S-A! U-S-A!" at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

The truly disgusting thing about Sarah Palin isn't that she's totally unqualified, or a religious zealot, or married to a secessionist, or unable to educate her own daughter about sex, or a fake conservative who raised taxes and horked up earmark millions every chance she got. No, the most disgusting thing about her is what she says about us: that you can ram us in the ass for eight solid years, and we'll not only thank you for your trouble, we'll sign you up for eight more years, if only you promise to stroke us in the right spot for a few hours around election time.


Taibbi's analysis of the US electorate is brutally frank.

It's also frighteningly accurate . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Ahhh, if Dennis Were President . . . .

Things would no doubt be quite different.

Here he is on Rachel Maddow last night:





It's for principled stands like this that we supported him while he was an active candidate.

Too bad other "informed" voters didn't agree . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Tonight, on a very special episode of ...

Well, you can leave your sitcom name suggestions in the comments (The Frostbacks? Flyboy and Sureshot? The Pitbull and the POW?) but this latest rumour is proof that the GOP brain trust is being run by people who have watched way too much television --and I don't mean 60 Minutes and Nova.

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

It worked on Rhoda, it worked a couple of times on Friends, it worked on Cheers, it worked on Coronation Street, on the Office, on Beverly Hill 90120 ---almost every television series that lasted more than a single season has a wedding episode. Whenever TV writers are running out of ideas, need a big season-closing climax or just need to get their audience back you can bet that somebody is going to be getting hitched and wacky hijinks will ensue.

And if the wedding plan doesn't work out, maybe McCain can offer Ted McGinley a cabinet post or go waterskiing or take the whole family to Hawaii or London or adopt an adorable orphan-- I know, why not a speech where McCain and Palin sing a duet of "Summer Loving" from Grease!

Bridge Done. Send in the Clowns . . . .

Sorry.

Couldn't resist . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

A Billion Here, A Billion There and Pretty Soon You're Talkin' Real Money . . . .

Big announcement today courtesy of Reuters:

Rice announces $1 billion in aid for Georgia
Wed Sept. 3, 2008 - by Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Wednesday announced at least $1 billion in aid to help U.S. ally Georgia rebuild after its conflict with Russia over the separatist enclave of South Ossetia last month.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice unveiled the package to help reconstruct Georgia's economy and infrastructure that was destroyed during a short war with Russia, which crushed Georgia's attempt to reassert control over South Ossetia.

"We are responding to what we consider to be urgent needs," said Rice.

Now hold on just a damn minute, condescending!

Why don't you and your ignorant boss "help reconstruct" the US' "economy and infrastructure that was destroyed" by eight years of The bush-league Administration ? ! ?

How 'bout some of the "urgent needs" you have at home, you twit?

Maybe you could promise a billion or two to a program for national health care, huh?

Possibly a billion toward skill retraining for all of the unemployed due to corporations sending US jobs overseas, huh?

Maybe a billion dollar commitment to improving veteran's health facilities - assuming they ever come home. How 'bout that?

Naahhhhh.

Those programs would actually help folks at home and not put any $$$ in your war-machine buddies' pockets.

You people are despicable . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)