Conservative or Tory - What's the Story?
I fully recognise that this Blog is not always accessible to the typical Canadian voter. I deal in high-concepts that are usually the preserve of Graduate Students and University Professors. I also have a hard time trying to popularise and colloquialise what I am trying to get across.
However, if you are a Canadian and you wish to understand what Stephen Harper stands for and what the CPC is trying to bring about in this country, then read this.
I very definitely could NOT have done better myself.
posted by Aeneas the Younger @ 9:45 am
45 Comments
45 Comments:
Wow, you really are arrogant. Neither you nor your blog are anywhere near as intellectually inaccessible (i.e. intelligent) as you seem to believe. Your arguments are simplistic, your opinions run of the mill, and your style weak. Get over yourself.
Pretty brave leaving Anonymous commentary ...
Did you check the link, you "Missing Link" ?
Self description, is usually an attempt to open one's self up to, and connect with others ... Something that deserves support, on principle alone. Such support implicitly includes and deserves honest reflection, I 'feel'.
Sooo … It might be the case that your 'experience' of exclusion originates more from an attitude creating it, rather than from any inhabiting of elevated preserves … This is a concept expressing a form of Personal Responsibility for outcomes, NOT always 'accessible' to the masses, for whom Projection is much more preferred.
Secondly, and this from an extensively published professor, 'If I can not state a concept simply in a couple of sentences, then I know I have not expressed it well, and possibly do not understand it sufficiently. So I work on it until I can.'
Your Brother in Self Disclosure
Snerd
p.s. I hope this helps provide the 'missing link' in your attempt to bridge to the less elevated ...
Fair Enough, Brother Snerd !
Actually, my refusal to accept the neo-liberal consensus is the exclusionary part. I am not a man all too comfortable with politics in the mass age.
Setting aside the psychological for the moment and moving towards the political, what is this 'neo-liberal consensus', in your mind, which so causes your isolation?
Snerd
Brother Snerd:
Have you read Grant's "Lament for a Nation"? I am talking of the neo-liberal consensus in which all of us, as actors in civil cosiety withdraw into a private, commodious sphere. We are nothing but consumers. We, and the economic system in which we have been drawn, have destroyed any concept of community. We no longer value it, because we gain nothing material from it. As a result of this prevaling liberalism, we value nothing save that which satisfies our needs or wants. We are no more than individuals, with no sense of the common. In this milieu, politics is about satisfying our individual needs (less taxes, more growth, SSM) wants, and agenda - rather than governing in the interests of the common good. What I mean to say, it that rational, consuming men see no need to maintain a community and civic values as they do provide them immediate utility. In the face of this reality, there is no need to maintain a separate nation in North America. We are part of the USA in all but name.
CPC'ers are classic economic and political liberals. LPC'ers are nothing more than the same with a reformist inclination. Both support FTA and similar means to promoting lilberal hegemony. I (and my House) was never really part of that tradition. I play the part economically because I have to ...
AY: We are no more than individuals, with no sense of the common.
SG: Don't you find it a little curious that this is also how you descrbe yourself, in 'connection' with the 'common'?
Stated differently and in a more general context, what is the relationship between fact and projection?
Snerd
Brother Snerd:
In the British and Canadian usage, common is synonomous with "community."
THE QUESTION RETOOLED
SG: Don't you find it a little curious that this is also how you descrbe yourself, in 'connection' with the 'community' of the 'common', or the 'community'of the 'colloquialists' ?
Stated differently and in a more general context, what is the relationship between fact and projection?
Snerd
I have always thought that self-description was better left to others....
That said, an interesting topic - at least, the one I feel like addressing - about community vs. self interest.
This trend to spending more and more time at home, blogging, watching TV, playing - uggh! - video games - leads to a more self-centred and selfish society, as we become more and more concerned only with our own convenience and well-being.
Good manners have disappeared, in favour of ME getting what I want. I overheard a man on the bus today, having a conversation with someone who evidently worked for him. The gist of the conversation was his telling her HOW to speak politely to someone she was doing business with on the bus passenger's behalf. Most of it should not, in my opinion, have needed to be said to a properly-raised, employable adult.
We don't know how to get along with other people anymore.
Witness, too, as ATY has, the critic here who posted anonymously, afraid, one supposes, to stand behind her comments and identify herself, even with a moniker.
I was offended, personally, by some of the Liberal criticisms of Dr. Iggy when he did the right thing and moved to make the convention vote unanimous.
Speaking of getting along in the community of nations... Weren't the Liberals in the 19-teens the party of reciprocity - now called free trade?
And how have the Americans dealt with Canada whenever we have managed to negotiate a free trade type agreement? Check this...
"In March 1866, President Andrew Johnson annulled the first free trade agreement in North America. After that the Canadian government attempted several times to renew the treaty but the U.S. did not show any interest.
"U.S. farmers opposed the treaty as they were receiving lower prices for their produce. For these and other reasons, the renewal of the treaty became almost impossible.
"The sudden loss of a big export market, however, helped galvanize Canadians into creating a Confederation that would extend from the Atlantic to Pacific oceans, making it the second largest country in size, just smaller than Russia."
Shows you how things change, eh? Why don't we get the message and develop other markets?
i'm with penny. no perception is so skewed as self-perception.
HOlden CAulfield
"Today's Conservative Party is as 'Tory', as U.S. President George W. Bush is a strident liberal."
"...bush is a genuine conservative" would have been accurate, too. moreso, even.
KEvron
KEVron:
In Canada the term "conservative" has historically meant something quite different than current Republican ideology, which in philospohical reality is "neo-liberalism."
You folks in the USA have got everything backwards.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"In Canada the term "conservative" has historically meant something quite different than current Republican ideology"
this holds true in the states, too.
"You folks in the USA have got everything backwards."
i'll break it to the others....
KEvron
KEvron:
Please do ...
aeneas:
done.
KEvron
KEvron:
Much obliged ...
AtY
aty:
the least i could do.
KEvron
Aeneas,
Call me mischievous but can one still purchase a Red Ensign commercially these days or did Dief the Chief hoard all of the remaining flags?
Historically speaking, much appreciated.
Therapist:
They're easy to get. I got one, quite cheaply, on Ebay, from a Canadian distributor.
If worse comes to worse, you can always use an Ontario provincial flag (even easier to come by), which is almost indistinguishable from the old Ensign.
PST:
Try "The Flag Shop" (13 locations in Canada).
http://www.flagshop.com/
It's where I bought mine years ago.
Yawn. You Red Tories are nothing more than an unwitting auxillary of the Liberal Party of Canada.
And you all really take yourselves too seriously. The reserve of professors and grad student? Because you mentioned the term "civic nationalism" in the last post? Please.
Aaron:
It's the other way around, mate. What with your free-market fundamentalism and materialist, libertarian nihilism, you "conservatives" are far more liberal than the Liberal Party would ever dare to be.
I visited your site. So you're a "social conservative". Well that's precious.
If you've forgotten what rung the marketplace occupies in the moral hierarchy of Western Christendom, you might want to re-read what Christ did to the money-changers.
A "conservatism" whose outlook is premised entirely on wanting fatter wallets and sucking ethical sustenance out of the odd "family-value" wedge issue is pretty much a joke.
Try getting a coherent world-view, and you may then have something interesting to say. It might make you a better speller in the bargain.
"It's the other way around, mate. What with your free-market fundamentalism and materialist, libertarian nihilism, you "conservatives" are far more liberal than the Liberal Party would ever dare to be."
Good grief. What sort of self-congratulatory secret club have a stumbled upon?
"I visited your site. So you're a "social conservative". Well that's precious."
It is precious. Are you a social conservative? Or does your Toryism entail embracing all the newest expressions of social and moral nihilism? I can just see John A. marching in a gay pride parade.
Hint: Just because Ron Dart has no moral spine doesn't mean that anyone who ascribes to a Tory view of the world should be similarly spineless.
"If you've forgotten what rung the marketplace occupies in the moral hierarchy of Western Christendom, you might want to re-read what Christ did to the money-changers."
What does social conservatism have to do with the marketplace? Oh, right. You're not attacking me, you're attacking a strawman that you think kind of resembles me. Not intellectually honest, but have fun with it anyway.
"A "conservatism" whose outlook is premised entirely on wanting fatter wallets and sucking ethical sustenance out of the odd "family-value" wedge issue is pretty much a joke. "
The family values wedge issue? Spoken like a true soldier of the Liberal Party of Canada. I do, however, find it funny that a lover of "civic nationalism" (however goofy that term is) apparently cares little for the family as a resilient and useful societal unit. Speaking of incoherance...
"It might make you a better speller in the bargain."
Don't be a loser. However bad your reply was, this conclusion just makes it worse.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Typical far-Westerner. So-copted by American values that he cannot conceive that he is out-of-step with the Canadian tradition ...
Ron Dart is more conservative than you will ever be. He is a Christian and a Canadian in ways you never knew, and abandoned unknowingly via your intellectual and cultural ignorance.
This is no secret society. WE are the reason the CPC cannot, and will not, get a majority. We are the (real) Canadian conservatives who do not buy the Alberta agenda - which is just another manner of expressing "the American way."
Aeneas: I fully recognise that this Blog is not always accessible to the typical Canadian
SG: In that regard ... If one could attempt to appreciate the posts above in a content vs. structure framework, I would have to come down on the side of 'form'.
Your new look blog means I don't have to look through binoculars, backwards, to read it
Thus the 'form' improves 'content' ... and therefore 'accessibility' ... conclusion!
Snerd
We'll see Brother Snerd ...
Aeneas, we share some of the same concerns re: social conservatism but when I read the linked article, my thought was this must have been written by the LPC, hoping to drive a wedge to divide the right again. The LPC's success under Chretien was more a reflection of the division of the right than the success of the LPC's socialist policies.
Mac:
I agree with you that Chretien won nothing. Preston Manning is the evil one however. I truly believe that.
This article articulates the differences between traditional Canadian Conservatism and Harper's Republicanism very well.
I have problems with PARTS of the so-con agenda. My real criticism of Harper is based on his pro-Americanism, hyper-capitalism, and provicialism.
I am a REAL Tory. I believe in Queen and Country, an Independent (from the USA) Canada, a reasonably mixed and sectorally-protected economy, an industrial strategy, the welfare state, and strong military.
I believe in a strong central government and locally-responsible provincial governments. I reject provincial-rights politics.
I am a Sir John A. Macdonald conservative.
Stephen Harper is NOT a Sir John A Macdonald conservative. In fact, he is an Alexander Mackenzie liberal.
Read your Canadian history will you !!
This comment has been removed by the author.
How do you reconcile your stated desires with current political parties? You must find yourself, like me, without like-minded representation.
LPC favour dictatorially strong central government but their economic policies are non-existent. They're blindly committed to failed Trudeau-topian programs. They've deliberately underfunded the military and the RCMP for decades which makes Canada dependent on the US for defense... all the time while spitting in the eye of Uncle Sam with their unreasoning hatred of all things American. Then there's that whole corrupt/arrogant/self righteous thing...
NPD's economic policy is just slightly left of communism and their social policies are intolerance incarnate. They're anti-Monarchist and their foreign policy appears to be "Act like idiots and lower expectations!"
Greens? Who knows?? Too many enviro-activists; too few economists; too little chance to form government.
Despite your bluster against Harper, CPC have more of your desires than the others but you don't like them because they don't hate Americans enough and they're too libertarian for your taste.
I'm guessing your 'best case scenario' for government is perpetual minorities, which has a certain appeal from the perspective of moderating the excesses of both ends of the political spectrum but provides few opportunities for meaningful change like dumping the ridiculous gun registry.
We're not so far apart... but I know (having been there and done that) the welfare state is a self-perpetuating nightmare which crushes individual initiative and ambition. It is not compassionate to crush hope and Canadians deserve better.
Your characterisartions of the parties is a little hyperbolic. I reviled Trudeau more than most, as I saw his as an Americaniser (via the Charter ....) of Canada.
The LPC are hardly dictatorial centralists. That is overstatement to the extreme. The NDP are Socialists and out of the mainstream.
I don't hate Americans, but I don't love much about them either - save Baseball and Jazz Music. They are Canada's historical enemy and anything the do internationally is warped by their cultural assumptions and doomed to failure. The only time they intervene successfully in the innternational arena is when they have Britain, Canada, and the Commonwealth to moderate their ignorance - as in WWII and Afghanistan. Every other time, the US makes things worse - as in Guatemala, Vietnam, and Iraq.
Canada is best when it keeps arms-length from Washington and diffuses her influnece with the Commonwealth and Europe. That is the Canadian way ...
I am not for a total welfare state, but I am for one that takes care of the lower orders, as a culture is best judged by how it treats its poorest sections.
Free Trade has resulted in the American takeover of over 10,000 Canadian Companies. The Oil Sector is the almost exlcusive domain of US TNCs. In a crisis, they will act in the American interest first, as they always do.
You are intelligent enough to see the reason why I prefer ongoing minority government. This is the best course for Canada, now that the Parties have been co-opted by special interests and sell-outs.
You are from the West. Then tell me, how exactly does Ottawa hurt you? I have asked countless Albertans and BC'er to provide me detailed examples of how a Centralist Federation hurts them. All they can come up with is the NEP, which did not even exist one decade.
This whole western alienation thing is all bullshit and bluster
Damn... I wrote up a pithy & witty response but I wasn't signed in and when I went to sign in, Blogger bounced me around so I lost everything. Damn.
Yes, I painted the parties in monochromatic colours but it's more fun than shades of mush. Would you like me to dig up Pearson's quote about how the power of PM in Canada is dictatorial? Trudeau was much worse than Pearson and Chretien was as bad as Trudeau!
I'm surprised other westerners aren't clever enough to come up with something other than NEP. I can do so easily!
1- Transportation infrastructure- our gas taxes go to Ottawa and we get a tiny percentage back. In a land of rivers, mountains and fiords along an earthquake fault, the costs of maintaining and upgrading are high. The provincial gov't is reluctantly paying for improvements because of Olympics but two accidents in the wrong places bring Vancouver to a screeching halt.
2- Coastal defense- we have hundreds of kilometres of coastline and one naval base (Esquimalt) plus a couple of small Coast Guard bases. Smugglers routinely sail outside of US coastal waters and turn in as soon as they reach Canada.
3- Ground defense- the nearest Canadian Forces base that is staff is in Alberta which is the wrong side of the mountains to deal with a disaster, whether natural or man made. No soldiers in our cities... no guns... no emergency aid...
4- Federal stupidity- while official stupidity isn't necessarily linked to location, why do government workers in BC need to be bilingual? As long as services "on the ground" are available in both official languages, who cares whether the administrators are bilingual or not? The Canada Health Act? Hellooo! Health care in Canada is already two tier (three tier if you count those who go to the states rather than wait) and no amount of posturing by NDP and LPC will change that so threatening fines and withholding transfer payments is simply extortion. Don't get me started on the other failed/idiotic Trudeau-topia legacy programs...
See... that wasn't hard at all!
After rereading, I remember one of the points I covered in the post which was eaten by the ghosts in the machine...
Canadian companies weren't bought up because of Free Trade. What advantage would there be for an American company to buy up a company in Canada if their intention was to sell here their product here? None whatsoever!
Canadian companies got bought up because short-sighted Canadians sold out to the first person (American, Asian or Persian) who waved money under their noses because of the environment of fear and uncertainty fostered by the LPC who swore free trade would destroy our economy. Chretien won his first election swearing he would kill the GST and overturn the Free Trade Agreement at the first opportunity, remember?
Read your Canadian history will you !!
Mac:
You are dangerously misinformed. Try reading rather than speculating. I did my Master's Thesis on the FTA btw ...
"During 1990, as a result of the investment liberalization called for in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA), Canada will no longer review most direct acquisitions by U.S. investors of Canadian assets valued at less than C$50 million. In addition, most indirect acquisitions (involving subsidiaries in Canada of acquired foreign parents) will no longer be screened as long as the acquired Canadian assets are less than C$250 million. These investment liberalizations build on the substantial benefits to the investment community that were enacted last year when the FTA was first implemented."
"The Agreement builds on the substantial liberalization that had already occurred in Canada's treatment of foreign investment. In 1985, the Canadian Government replaced the more restrictive Foreign Investment Review Agency (FIRA) with Investment Canada. Investment Canada ceased reviewing (and potentially blocking) new "greenfield" foreign investments (except cultural industries), and ended reviews of most smaller acquisitions below C$5 million. It was also given a mandate to promote foreign investment in Canada."
"Investment Canada has approved virtually all foreign investment proposals since its establishment in 1985. However, the review process subjects foreign investors to pressures to agree to certain performance requirements, and to potential rejection of the investment. Once the investment agreement is completely phased-in by 1992, Canada may continue to review direct acquisitions by U.S. investors of only the 500-600 largest companies in Canada. Prior to implementation of the FTA, Investment Canada could potentially review acquisitions by U.S. investors of some 7,500 Canadian firms."
websource:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1052/is_n3_v111/ai_8536603
Moi is a true "Red" Tory. I believe in the BNA Act and its separation of federal and provincial powers (not that federal and provincial should be divorced and/or mutually unsupportive) and I believe that prospective programmes should be costed out in advance - and the way of paying for them spelled out as well.
I believe in the free-est markets possible and as little government involvement in the affairs of the people that is consistent with peace, order and good government.
I believe - and I do agree with Trudeau on this one issue - that government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. "Family values" are the purvue of each family. The ones I was raised with, and still agree with, are my own business and are not to be dictated by those who hold other opinions on what makes a sound family.
Social conservatism has nothing to do with politics, and those who subscribe to the S.C. group mentality, should stick to their own business.
Homosexuality and gay marriage have nothing to do with the breakdown of the family. Adultery, divorce and abuse are much better targets for the social conservative to address - and you all can start with your own church communities!
My dear Aeneas, how does that in any way invalidate my assertion? Did the Canadian business owners have guns held to their heads? Somehow, I doubt it. The liberalization of restrictions on foreign ownership allowed the sales to progress without restriction but the business owners still CHOSE to sell.
I notice you haven't responded to any of the other points I raised. What should I conclude from this? Incidentally, I recalled another point which I'd written in my original pithy comments and I've done a bit of digging to flesh it out. All stats are from the 2006 census.
The Liberal-dominated federal government has avoided, delayed and otherwise inhibited direct democracy in the form of representation by population.
At present, Alberta and BC are #1 and #2 as in the highest population per MP (in that order). The two provinces together have 7,723,952 citizen and 64 MPs which means 120,686 citizens per MP. Quebec has a population of 7,651,531 and 75 MPs... 102020 citizens per MP.
I realize intellectuals need to have things explained carefully but I'm hoping you can make the comparison for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
In case you're curious... SA, MB, NB, NS, PEI & NL have a combined population of 3964952 and 60 MPs... 66082 citizens per MP. An MP in your province of Manitoba, having equal vote to every MP, only represents 46271 citizens. Nice.
You asked the question... how has Ottawa hurt the West? I've answered and provided several points which fuel the Western alienation you've declared to be bullshit and bluster. Perhaps you should reassess your own bullshit and stop blustering about Western alienation?
Mac:
I have been enjoying the holidays with Family, so I am not on the comments ever day.
To wit ...
1- Transportation infrastructure- our gas taxes go to Ottawa and we get a tiny percentage back.
* No, you get back what it determined to be necessary under the Tranfser Payment Scheme. In the last 20 years, both Conservative and Liberal gov'ts have been using such revenues as a way of managing the Trudeau-era debt.
2- Coastal defense- we have hundreds of kilometres of coastline and one naval base (Esquimalt) plus a couple of small Coast Guard bases.
* No, you are just as under-defended as the rest of the country. Same problems in the East my friend.
3- Ground defense-
Much the same problem as the rest of the provinces.
4- Federal stupidity - Bilingualism. This is a common complaint in the ROC as well, so this is nto unique to the West. We bitched about his in Toronto too,
5 - CHA. I sincerely doubt a return to Private Healthcare is what most Westerners want, so this is hardly valid, and hardly a Western issue. Wait times were more acute in the more populous provinces during the Chretien years.
"Witholding Transfer payments is simply extortion."
* No, it is a valid means of recourse given the the Equalization is enshrined in the Constitution.
"Don't get me started on the other failed/idiotic Trudeau-topia legacy programs..."
Strawman, Strawman. Many of these programmes were failures. I have no trouble admitting that. But they were failures EVERYWHERE and not just in the West. Ontario hated Trudeau too.
You still have NOT answered the question: How does Ottawa screw-over the West ? You cannot answer it, because there is no empirical answer to this question. You feel like victims because you are all suffereing from feelings of inferiority or superiority. Either way, it is not productive.
As to your feeble response to the implications of removing FIRA from Trade Policy. YES, the owners have voluntarily sold their businesses. However, if someone offers you excessive amounts of money to sell you business (perhaps over the market value), you would likely do so. That does not mean it is in the interests of the Country to do so. That is the differnce between traditional conservatism and the "new" conservatism. Traditional Canadian Conservatism puts the country and the community first. The Neos put the god-damn "individual" first. It is a recipe for disaster as "individuals" rarely look beyond the short-term.
Mac:
Why do you insist on using US English spelling ? Just a question ....
It points to a tendency though.
I hope you enjoyed your holidays.
This becomes much more complicated than a simple question about western alienation. What a wonderful ploy... if someone answers your challenge, change the context of your question after the fact thereby invalidating any response. Nice.
No wonder others could only produce the NEP as an example which, of course, you dismiss out of hand as ancient history. Perhaps, in the future, you might try being more honest in the questions you pose but that would spoil the trap, wouldn't it? That being said, you may want to add “democratic deficit” to your short list of examples, at least until you find a way to dismiss it.
Would you like me to fisk your responses as you've fisked mine? I believe I will bypass that and go more directly to the point. Your question is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty as no matter what response is given, you're determined to dismiss it. Your mind is made up; no attempt to confuse you with facts will suffice to change it.
You asked how Ottawa screws the western provinces, then stated western alienation was bullshit and bluster. You've now admitted each concern I raised was valid but they're concerns for all Canadians. You claim this invalidates feelings of alienation of those who are outraged but unable to effect change due to lack of fair representation per population. I disagree as I believe the fact that Ottawa screws most provinces doesn't invalidate individual objections.
As for the inferiority/superiority nonsense, you should be ashamed to present this. It's beneath you.
Onto the next subject... you admit the Free Trade Agreement is not at fault for business owners selling to foreign interests but your real objection is more basic than any trade agreement.
The business owners are strong individualists (that's why they're able to be employers instead of employees) so you feel it's better to have governments protect employees from employers by regulating away control of businesses.
Isn't socialism wonderful?
Incidentally, I do not ascribe to the notion that socialists have exclusive ownership of compassion for those in society who are less fortunate.
Let me ask you a couple of honest questions. There are two communities with equal populations and resources but different ideology:
A- a cooperative community where individuals are self-reliant and self-motivated
OR
B- a cooperative community of individuals who depend on a centralized authority to direct, protect them and motivate them?
Which community is more suited to long-term survival? Which is more likely to be usurped by self-interest and the baser aspects of human nature?
As for my spelling, my spellchecker uses an English (US) dictionary. I downloaded an English (CAN) dictionary for Spellbound but it won't work for some reason. Frustrating...
Why do you choose to paraphrase your comments like adjectives like feeble? Just a question... It points to a tendency though.
Mac:
The answer is of course, between the two extreme examples you present - which is what Canada used to be.
Perhaps you don't care if Foreigners control your economy directly - I do. So did Sir John A. Macdonald.
Western alienation is BS. I lived in Ontario 32 years, Manitoba the last 11 years, and I have travelled the West on business for a greater part of a decade. I am monving to Calgary in Q2/2007. I have seen very little proof that Ottawa does a disservice to the West.
Having said that, I agree that we could reform the rep. by pop. provisions within our democracy. I opposed giving Quebec 75 seats for time immemorial, when Chretien did this. I have never voted Liberal in my life, and will likely never undertake to do so.
So, the real issue is distribution of seats on a per capita basis? Fine then, thank-you for being the only Westerner to declare this as your sole beef. The rest of them couch their language within the script of the WABS (Western Alienation Bull Shit).
For some reason, I'm not very good at following someone else's script. For instance, I don't agree it's the sole beef but rep-per-pop is a fundamental problem; one that needs to be addressed. Chretien's pledge to Quebec (like most of his ideas) was idiotic.
Macdonald's National Policy was appropriate for the time but the world has evolved, in case you hadn't noticed.
Regarding my simple scenario, I agree the answer lies in the middle but your earlier stated desires would push Canada well to the left of that middle. Mine would push it to the right. I have room in my vision of Canada for you; why don't you have room for me in yours?
I wonder what would the world look like if people only applied their beliefs to themselves and stopped trying to force others to comply with their ways? I know... dreamer & idealist...
I'm a strange sort of westerner, Aeneas.
I've lived in 5 out of 10 provinces; the first 17 years on the East coast and the last 17 years on the West coast with another 9 scattered between Toronto, Hamilton, Kitchener, Montreal and Regina. I've visited in Calgary but I've never lived there. I hope you like it!
Speaking of moves, I have one coming up to... after Q2, I'll be in Ottawa.
A North Encounter outlet is often a component on the [URL=http://www.tnfdiscounted.net]north face outlet store[/URL] which is well- identified all through the environment. The business created its humble beginnings at San Francisco's North Seaside community again in . Today's most acknowledged brand in from doorways dress in and [URL=http://www.tnfdiscounted.net]discount north face jackets[/URL] commenced as an out of doors shop set up by two hiking fanatics and was named right after among the the coldest and most demanding mountain aspect during the entire world.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home