Capitalism isn't Evil, it's Stupid.

$

An open letter to America:

I recently read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The unknown ideal." In my defense, it was my first Rand. I didn't know she was an educated Ann Coulter. I also don't know how she dares call herself a Philosopher. Admittedly, I am a little naive when it comes to Rand, Economics or the morals of economics, however, I am well versed in the logical determination of morality and I still fail to see how Rand could be considered objective. (Is that ironic or is she misrepresenting herself?) Furthermore, this collection of essays was begun in 1946 and published throughout the early 60's in Rands' "Objectivist Newsletter," so I feel it fair to assess them as dated, Cold-War era, quasi-propaganda. So, why is it then, that we find similar objections to altruism expressed today? Why is it that so many are beating drums to the tune of "Selfishness is good?" (Harold Bloom) and others are calling Capitalism evil, (Michael Moore.) Let's take a look at Capitalism with the type of eyes it seems Rand wishes she had and without being a boorish idiot.

For the individual, capitalism is politically liberating. If someone in a capitalistic system wishes to start a business selling square wheels, this person is free and able to do so. This might seem like a silly analogy but I see it as being no different than clothes for dogs, electronic goldfish or decorative spatulas, at least in terms of necessity, but probably also, in utility. This freedom is a grand and great gift for the enterprising individual but it, in no way, signifies any value other than that which has a dollar sign in front of it. In such a system there are going to be boons and bombs, but the deciding factor isn't going to be measured in necessity or utility, but rather in desire. For example, "Mr. Square Wheels" isn't going to do very well, yet if a famous young pop singer decides it would be cool to appear in a video with one of his pant legs missing and for some reason it catches on, you aren't going to have to wait very long before one legged pants are available at your local clothing shops. Is this a good thing? Bad thing? Is it stupid? Does it matter?

Capitalism doesn't care what is true, right, good or ideal. Capitalism doesn't ask, "What does the world need?" It asks, "What can I capitalize on?" Although providing opportunity for individuals in a free market, this does, or at least can do, nothing for the people as a whole. This is what Rand refers to as "the concrete bound considerations of the immediate moment." It is what keeps us selfish and this is what keeps the gears of business greasy. Who really cares to make a "green car" when there's so much easy money to be made selling dirty cars? Who wants to cure a disease when there is so much easy money to be made selling treatments for it? Who wants to develop clean, natural energy sources when there can be no ongoing supply issues? Once you sell a solar panel, your transaction is done and you have lost the monthly fees you used to collect? How are we going to keep the coal industry alive this way? These institutions are in place, steadfastly.

This illustrates the problem with Capitalism, it belongs to the whims of Capitalists and Humans are stupid, greedy creatures with little foresight. (Unless you consider selfish foresight, which asks, "How am I going to cash in for the long run?") However, even with accepting this philosophy as reality, it is not the reason that we find ourselves, (in the western world,) in our current predicament. It is no mistake that Rand named her book "Capitalism: the unknown ideal." It is, in fact, unknown because it is missing controls to ensure that the initial goals it had for itself, could be met. Capitalism was supposed to be the promise of the middle class, a vehicle by which we might "make it." As it is an American experiment, one only needs to look at the history of the government to see the history of business. Somehow, these roles have reversed. Thus, Capitalism, as it should be, doesn't really exist. The following, as usual, is going to be considered crass by some, even flippant. I think, however, that if Ann Rand can be considered a Philosopher and Ann Coulter has people willing to pay to listen to her speak, you can afford to keep reading. It might piss you off, but that doesn't make it any less true and at least I won't charge you...

Once upon a time there was a teenage country called America. It had a nice constitution, reasonable laws and seemingly endless possibilities. After World War Two it also had a lock on GDP. (There was no reasonable competition left, it had been destroyed because, at the time, Germany and Japan had made enemies of themselves.) This worked very much in the favor of Americans. People had jobs, the products they made were selling. Large profits were being made. Taxes were paid by those who could afford them and the poorer folks got the breaks they needed. There were Unions to protect workers. Workers could afford cars, homes, vacations, education for their kids. It was a beautiful, innocent, squeaky clean time, but Americans were about to cross over, into the dark side.

Datsun (which became Nissan,) Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, are four American swear words. (Not that these companies are an inception of something, but rather, examples of it.) The 50s had ended. The innocence was over. Competition had returned. China could produce all the useless trinkets Americans were producing for far less. This was because, at the simplest level, they paid their workers less. The result was, Capitalism had to either increase profit margins, (price) or reduce costs, (quality.) Young Americans were looking around wondering, "Where is mine?" There began to be a new philosophy in Washington that proposed "Invention and ingenuity are on the way out, productiveness and profit are on the way in. Competition is what matters. Competition drives an economy." (Here, I will skip over Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, although these too were business decisions.) Until finally, Americans found themselves in line ups for gas, underemployed and facing bankruptcy. The cheques t! The country had written since WW2 had been cashed. Larger cities like Detroit and New York became havens for crime and corruptibility on the street level, because the "have nots" were unwilling to lie down and die. Something needed to give, but not anything as brazen as the changes Kennedy was suggesting. After all, let's not forget that it was not the ordinary American who stood to lose anything from the promotive changes suggested to contrast the norm. It is not the ordinary American who knowingly pulls the trigger on their own hopes and dreams. So while people like Johnson and Nixon kept the military industrial complex chasing the "new Camelot created by war" paradigm, dissent was building. The business of murder was beginning to lose its grandeur. Hippies were born and the dream was over. Warnings were either denied or brushed aside. Politicians who dared to suggest something needed to be done about the influence of business on policy are branded conspiracy nuts and are! either ignored or removed for reasons that have nothing to do! with performance. (Beliefs, drugs, business deals, sex, etc. Yet somehow the largest crime ever committed goes unexamined?) The 1970s created a desire to re-examine Capitalism, it no longer seemed to be working.

So business moved into Politics. Ronald Reagan became the first bought and paid for puppet president of the United States and they since haven't had one that wasn't. (Including Obama.) It is interesting to note that many of the same "behind the scenes" players that were found under Nixon were still found under George Bush Jr. and everyone in between. (If you would like to examine the forces behind the White House, or the Senate for that matter, look at the staff of the offices, look at the lobbyists, look at the corporations that sponsor the running of the politician, look at the men standing to the right of the President, leaning in to whisper instructions into wrinkled, dumb ears, look at that Presidents' appointments to key financial positions.) It isn't hard to see how Reagan is the beginning of the end of the middle class. Hippies become Yuppies who cry, "Me, me, me!" (Which is absurd in and of itself.)

Tax breaks for the rich are dumped onto the workers, stagnant wages stall under crushing cost of living increases, Unions begin being dismantled, a near insistence that workers use credit to stay afloat becomes the norm, these are the hallmarks of American Capitalism since the '80s. We have gone from, "How can I make a buck?" to "How can I take your buck?" Competition determines everything and price determines competition. It doesn't matter if Americans make XYZ trinket better or worse than Chinese factories do if they can't afford to work at the wages they're given. America's GDP, as I write these words, is less than the personal debt of its inhabitants. What are you going to do if your lenders want to collect? Lose your businesses, homes, opportunities, lives? Yes, you are.

What has changed in the last thirty years? We bail out industries that have no basis in reality, no need for existence, only to find out that they have had record profits since then. (I might add, with no rules governing what they are to do with this bailout, nor expectations of recompense.) What is a Bank if it is not able to loan? What is insurance if it doesn't respond to crisis? These institutions, like all capitalist endeavors, are designed for one purpose, to make as much money as possible. They don't care about anything else, including their customers. In reality, they are unable to do what they were designed to. Why are we helping them?

These actions wouldn't be possible if it weren't for two undeniable facts: 1.) Business is in charge. 2.) People are stupid. Take the re-mortgage craze as the perfect example. "Wouldn't it be nice if you could pay off your debt? Help your kids buy there first home? Maybe even take that dream vacation?" Yes, actually, that would be nice. Middle class boomers with nest eggs had this opportunity. Many of them took advantage of it only to end up losing everything because of climbing interest, hidden clauses and cut throat bureaucracies. Even people who had no business going into a mortgage were being allowed to. People, who couldn't afford the loans they were being given, were still being given them. Again, these institutions only have Capitalistic concerns. America has refinanced itself into foreclosure in the best interests of the corporations doing the financing. America has been redesigned to make the rich richer on the backs of the poor, there is only a dwi! ndling middle class left. Some people may blame the financiers for doing the tricking, or the legislators for allowing a conducive atmosphere, but I put at least fifty percent of the blame on those being tricked. America has an unhealthy trust in authority and an expectation for personal success, but when you boil it all down, greed is greed is greed. For the have-nots, I can only ask, "What we're you thinking?" For the haves, I ask, after your income passes your expenses what are you accomplishing with your excess? I'm turning 38 this year and although I may be a little paranoid and jaded, I expect nothing from anyone. I pay into a pension that I may never see, I live paycheck to paycheck, I don't own my home. I haven't had a vacation and I have no savings. (And I live in Canada, a country, according to Republicans, that is nearly Communist, but in actuality, quietly strives to be as crooked as its neighbor.) Again, I have no expectations beyond getting screwed, therefore I have n! ever been disappointed. Do I want to be a millionaire? Probabl! y. Do I wish I was doing more than scraping by? Definitely. I, like a lot of people, make less than I need, thirty two thousand a year to support myself, my wife, my son. I figure I could do it comfortably for only eighteen more. My boss makes $50,000, his boss makes $80,000, his boss makes $340,000 etc. Why? What job is worth $340,000 a year?

There are people in America who know what is really happening. They come from the rich, the poor and everywhere that is left in between. You might even have seen them in the Senate, hopping up and down, red-faced, weeping, pointing fingers at empty chambers, warning us. Ask yourself, "Why is there no one showing up to work here? (And what do their income tax returns look like?) Why are the people who make sense, such a minority?" The answer, of course, is that those of us who have it, want to keep it. It is the "Golden Rule." There is no change necessary for those of us whom have it good, or have it all. Change is uncomfortable, it's hard work, just ask anyone who doesn't believe in it. The people who seek change in this instance are in the right and the change they desire is inevitable. One way or another, America will end dismally if things continue along this track, it is only a question of time. All the juice has been squeezed out of this lemon.

Capitalism isn't evil, it's stupid. It can only be what you make it. Therefore, what is evil is how you have either used it, (if you are a have,) or allowed it to be used, (if you are a have-not.) I feel sorry for those of you stuck in the middle because to make the necessary changes is going to be difficult. However, one can only help those who are willing to help themselves. If you won't exercise the power you have to create the change you need, then you deserve what you're going to get, more of the same.

What are you waiting for?


(For this essay in it's entirety please click the link below.)
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=31033850

Humans Domesticating Themselves: Part I: The Constituents of Paradigm.

Humans Domesticating Themselves: Part I: The Constituents of Paradigm.


The first part of this is also featured below, but the remaining three parts are exclusive to scientificblogging.com

The Philosophy Generator.

Imagine, in your brain, there is a complicated network of associations. Every single thought you have comes from some combination of these associations. It is these associations that are the concern of the Philosophy Generator, (the chart,) and this is what we must now address.

 

P is for paradigm. A paradigm is a grouping of associations you have on any subject. Associations are any thought, memory, feeling, or idea and a grouping of them creates a mental model or conceptualization. No matter how many associations from which you construct a subjects' paradigm there is only one paradigm per subject. With P at the top of the Philosophy Generator it is the culmination of our concern and everything underneath it must be a constituent of that paradigm. For illustrative purposes, we will consider your “Fire Paradigm.” I have chosen “fire” because it is a universal paradigm that everyone can relate to, have experiences with and comprehend. Any and all associations you might have about “fire” are included, whether you're aware of them or not. (“Fire” is a concrete example, but all ideas, even abstract ideas like “love” or “the colour red” are arranged in paradigm.) I'm sure you can think of a long list of “fire” associations. Typical examples might include: fire is hot, fire burns, fire hurts, fire is useful (for heat, light, warmth, cooking,) fire can kill, fire can cleanse my spirit, fire is portable, fire is symbolic, fire can destroy, fire can cauterize, fire can power my steam engine, fire can propel us into space, fire will appease the Gods...

X is for experiential norm. An experiential norm is an association you have constructed through your own experience. Obviously, every association one makes is a personal experience and my associations, on even the same subjects, will be different from yours. Such sentences must be considered in their entirety as not just statements, but complete and total ideas, as per the rules of Philosophy. So when it is said that, “An experiential norm is an association you have constructed through your own experience,” it is meant that it is only this and cannot be anything else. In other words, an experiential norm is an association that you have made without the influences of other peoples' associations. It is what you have come up with, when left to your own devices. 
 

Looking at our list of associations for our “Fire Paradigm” we can now pick out the ones that are experiential norms: fire is hot, fire burns, fire hurts, fire can destroy, etc... It should be noted that any of these associations could have been taught to you, such as your mother may have taught you that the “oven” is “hot” and “mustn't be touched.” (Thus, three associations join to create the Paradigm, “Hot ovens mustn't be touched.”) If this was the case, then in fairness to our definitions, these examples would not qualify as experiential, until you had actually experienced the pain caused by touching a hot oven. Thus, these examples are common, and fair use, as sooner or later in this life, despite being taught, everyone burns themselves and sees something destroyed by fire.

In philosophical terms, experiential norms are knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge by acquaintance is empirical, (verifiable by observation or experience, not reliant on theory or pure logic.) You know something to be factual because you've had personal experience with it. You are acquainted with a paradigm when it is determined by sense data, (information received by the five senses.) Such is it that a human may easily, through X, learn that fire burns.

S is for Social Norm. “Social norm” is a term borrowed from Sociology and in our context, it changes very little. A social norm is an association that you have constructed entirely from influence(s) or are the paradigm of an individual or group, other than you. These are the associations you have not made for yourself, they are not “your own devices.” In philosophical terms a social norm is knowledge by description. This means that you have learned of this association from sources outside your own experiences via their “description.” (Which could be a lesson, demonstration, story, the point is you are not directly sensing the associative data yourself, it is “second hand.”) It is possible for a social norm to become an experiential norm via “acquaintance” or having been personally experienced. This is why the Philosophy Generator has a line under P connecting S to X. It is a completely reasonable thing to say both that that an experience can be taught and a lesson can be experienced. (Such as your Mother taught you the oven is hot, but odds are, you're going to burn yourself at some point.) Later we will examine what it means when a social norm cannot be experienced. These types of associations, the kind that can't be directly experienced, we will refer to as “strict.” Looking at our list of “fire associations,” we can now pick out those that strictly fall into the category of social norms: “Fire will appease the Gods.” “Fire can cleanse my spirit.”

There is no rule that states that any particular Paradigm has to be either X or S. It must be at least one, but it can be built from associations that come from both experiential and social norms. Such is the case with certain aspects of our “fire” paradigm. Let's examine the practice of cauterization with a hot iron. At some point in history an ancestor of ours, already having carried fire into the iron age, learning from elders who have passed down “the knowledge” of fire's utility, somehow discovered that holding a red hot iron to flesh would “melt it together,” closing a wound. For that person, this realization was an experiential norm developed from previous social norms and one experience. (Some individual would have to have “done it first,” possibly thousands of years previous, with a burning ember, held in moss. This matters not for we are discussing the paradigm of cauterization with a hot iron.) Thus, the paradigm has associations of lesson: Fire, heat, iron work, and finally, perhaps by accident, the experience of cauterization was discovered. For everyone that he taught this to and then for everyone they taught this to, cauterization would be a social norm. For you, it would stay “S” until you “X'd” it. (Again, you don't have to be the one being cauterized to have this experience, you could just as readily see it happen.) If the associations of a particular paradigm come from both sides of the Philosophy Generator they are said to have a “mixed constituency.”

So far, we have examined what constitutes a particular paradigm, “fire,” and where those constituents originated, either X and/or S. Now we must look at how we first experienced these associations. Did we learn them? Were they the product of instinct and common sense or expectation due to existence?

L is for Learned. These are the associations that had to have been created anew. There are three types of learned associations and each of this has a place in the Philosophy Generator.

 
What? There aren't three L positions in the PG!

 

In the philosophy generator, and in life, there are strict social norms that must be learned, shared, passed between people. Remember, because it is strict it cannot be X, cannot be experienced. Call them SL. This may mean that you were instructed by another, for instance, in the task of burning an effigy. It could even be that you have no particular feelings toward the target of your symbolic sacrifice. You have simply been told who to hate and believed it. It has not been your experience that the effigy deserves to be a target, nor do you feel appropriately hostile. You are a product of only influence. So is the strictness defined.

The second L position belongs to X, attached to S. Call it SXL. These are learned social norms that can be experienced. It could mean that you were taught something like cauterization or just observed people walk on hot coals without hurting their feet. In this instance you are not being taught, but you are still learning from another, therefore either of these learned association is a social norm.

Anything you have learned, independent of others' paradigm, completely on your own is a strict learned experiential norm. This third and final L in the philosophy generator defines the lessons we learn on our own. Often these are the lessons we remember the best, having lived the experience.

N is for a Naturally occurring experiential norms. These are the associations we find necessary, unavoidable and inevitable. We are born with these paradigm, or they become exemplary, (required) . These are the types of things that we don't even think about, they just are. We don't have to be instructed to hold our breath underwater, we come equipped to understand that fire will hurt us if we let it, we experience love for our children, all without needing to be instructed how.

Perhaps, by now, you have calculated why it is that there is no N under S. If an association is a social norm it is because it has come from influence. A naturally occurring experiential norm, by definition, must be universally experienced. Strict social norms, (those that can't be experienced,) can never be considered Natural. It is possible for a social norm to become N if it can be X'd, Then, as a product of experiential norms, the association can no longer be S. This can get confusing and we will go into greater detail later. For now, consider the easiest example, “love.” Love is a powerful emotion that is a experience you must feel personally. However, you must have someone or something to love, so it seems like it should be a social norm. This is because you are confusing what it is the Philosophy Generator measures. We are not determining what is required for you to feel love, (you, someone else and a connection, presumably.) We are seeking what you think about love, how you think about love and from where did these ideas originate. Don't let the universality of the Generator muddy the waters, we are only concerned with the constituents of paradigm.

The final term in the chart above is U. U stands for Eudaemonia. (I've chosen U over E, because E is used elsewhere and the word is pronounced, “You-de-mon-ee-ah.”) Eudaemonia is an ancient Greek word that was developed into a philosophy of “happiness” by Aristotle. This, like all of the concepts being introduced here, will be examined to their ends, soon enough. All you need to understand at this point is that there are associations you will determine to be usefull or appropriate, in addition to the ones you feel are counterproductive. Eudaemonics will be what we use to determine this qualification. The definition of eudaemonia has wandered over the last 2400 years but in the shortest terms and the lowest common denominators, it is some combination of altruism and selfishness. Aristotle's happiness was not only a product of his desires, but also the promotion of what he determined to be good, so it is that he could feel content in his person, social network, city, nation, species and world, knowing he has done well by his turn at existence.

Anti-Social Engineering seeks the philosophical self both in definition from Social Psychologists and in reality from the Engineers who have, for the most part clandestinely, controlled it. Not to be confused with the seldom used business connotation, Anti-Social Engineering doesn't refer to the coaxing out of information you otherwise might not divulge, but rather as a personal resistance to any social engineering to which you may have succumbed. It is not (anti-social) (engineering) it is (anti) (social engineering.) Social engineers come in various forms and do their work in many disciplines. From the beer commercial that entices you to believe you will be deemed sexy by drinking a particular name brand, to the politician who wins your vote with promises he won't keep, social engineering is as old as language itself. We will concern ourselves primarily with the clandestine engineering that modernity finds itself bombarded with. We seek to expose the agendas of powerful manipulators that have pulled great wools over amassed eyes.

Where the Philosophy Generator is the means, Assignee's Prerogative is the ends. This is the discerning of your “Authentic Self.” Assignee's prerogative states that you give the paradigms you have their weight, worth, value, power and strength. It is the Atheists' prerogative to assign little power to his “God paradigm.” It is the Preachers' prerogative to do the opposite. Those of us who waltz through life unaware of the amazing intricacies of the human psyche will have no use for understanding Assignee's Prerogative. These people will still be assigning worth to their paradigms but without contemplating them will have no means to achieve any sort of awareness. Conversely, once we have been made aware of Assignee's Prerogative we must accept responsibility and be accountable to our consciousness. Thus, enlightenment is not a frivolous pursuit. 
 

To learn more about the philosophy generator and what can be done with it, read Brian's book: Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self

Canadian Politics out-of-order (for helium.com)

http://www.helium.com/items/1728382-canadian-politics-out-of-order

A comment on Canadian Nationalism for helium.com

Canadian nationalism has changed in two distinct ways. One of these changes is a long term product of my generation coming of age. The other has developed in the last five years, the same amount of time as Stephen Harper’s conservatives have held a minority government.

But what is Canadian Nationalism?

When I was a little boy, in the late 70's, I became aware of the cultural differences between the United States and Canada. I understood how it took longer for movies to make it to our cinemas, records to our music shop, and magazines to our stands. I saw the differences between American and Canadian television illustrated by “The Bionic Man” vs. “The Beachcombers.” I began watching news programs by ten, (I was a serious boy) and I noticed how our news was “the American news plus Canadian,” while their news was only American. I heard the jokes about how Americans’ thought we all lived in igloos and ate seal meat. (None of this particularly affected me as it was explained to me early that people are not their nations and ideas are not necessarily reality.) I guess I’m particularly well suited to discuss any differences between these groups as I have a Canadian Father and American Mother, both intellectuals.

I can recall my parents discussing “the easiest way to tell the difference between an American and a Canadian is to suggest to each that there is no difference, whichever one complains is an American.” I can’t recall who said it and I’ve been, so far, unable to prove that it is even a quote at all. In my teens, when one has to begin deciding one’s stance on certain internal questions, I realised my definition of what it was to be Canadian. I believe this definition would be considered fair by any Canadian, except perhaps for those who believe there is no distinction in the philosophies of the two nations, (which is a growing minority.)

It used to be that a Canadian was meek compared to our boisterous neighbours. Known for our politeness, the humble Canadian that my Generation was raised to be seems to be revolting. For we, as individuals, want attention and the only way we’re going to get it is to make noise. Unfortunately, what we are failing to realise is that “the way it was” before things changed is “the way it should be.” The things that used to make us distinctly Canadian were what everybody loved about us. We were respected, even honoured by our reputation. When an American college student went backpacking in Europe, in 1986, he or she would be well served by sewing a Canadian flag on their pack. Our position was deserved. We were meek, we were polite and our pride was that we were proud quietly. We we’re gentlemen and ladies.

I certainly don’t wish to convey the message that Canadians are weak, we are not measuring the courage or even the psychology of the Canadian mindset, one only need to look at Canadian sacrifice in world war two to find these things. By addressing nationalism we only address the pride in our identity as a collective. Indeed, just living in Canada requires an individual physical and mental toughness deserving of respect. Perhaps it was my Generations realisation of this fact that contributed to our philosophy that “to be Canadian is to be not American.” At any rate, the humble, apologetic Canadian is becoming extinct. We have been replaced by the shouting, aggressive, flag waving pride of a Molson beer commercial. Such as it is, individuals are encouraged to build their nationalism upon principles of competition rather than cooperation. This is the argument responsible for everything that is going wrong on the planet, under your own roof, in the movements of government, on poppy fields in Afghanistan.

At least part of the reason for this shift is the changing appearance of our identity on the world stage. Siding with Americans in the interest of business during the Bush years is a marriage of convenience between neo-conservatives. The difference being that, with Bush gone and Harper not, our shame continues. We, like America, will not sign environmental treaties and have become the laughing stock of forward thinking nations, such as in northern Europe. We, like America, will ravage our own lands and waters to squeeze out every last drop of oil using even the most ineffectual and damaging methods, such as evidenced by the Alberta tar sands project.

If you doubt the validity of my argument that Conservatism is, at least, partially to blame for the Americanization of Canadian nationalism, consider how we are perceived now as compared to during our previous Prime Minister’s term. Just prior to Stephen Harper’s minority government, Liberal Canada was the darling of the planet: Green, forward thinking, economically sound and socially responsible. Mr. Martin had even the ear of hip, cool and conscious pop icons such as Bono. This hipness has been replaced with cutthroat capitalistic concerns and our coolness has become cold indifference.

What can we do to turn this around? How can we restore proper, deserved Canadian nationalism? How can we be the country we can be proud of again? Simply put, we must remember who it is we used to be. For we thirty somethings, coming into power, we must take it upon ourselves to remind fore and aft generations of what it was that made us great. We must expose the things that hinder this achievement and then remove them. We must strive to not put our nationalism before the pride of any other nation. Certainly one can imagine a respectable future as easily as one can remember the pride we used to feel for treating everyone properly.

It’s actually a remarkably simple idea.

Go Canada Go!

link to original article: here