Talking to Robots

Apparently we live in an age that is highly service oriented. The majority of us now work in service-based industries, and they are often touted as the keystone to our future prosperity. But if service is so important to our economy why do we continue to invent more and more ways to do a lousy job of it?

A prime example of modern service gone awry is the automation of telephones. Trying to find a human being at the end of a phone-line in today’s world is a lot like peeling an onion. Cutting through many pungent layers of prompts, crying more with each successive sub-menu option, one finally gets the opportunity to leave a voice-mail for a living soul who promises to call back at his or her nearest convenience.

At one time this obstructionist process we know today as “voice-mail hell” was practiced almost exclusively by government agencies. Whereas businesses realized that angry customers were more likely to spend or invest their money elsewhere the government had no such constraints. For instance, people who needed to obtain information from Human Resources Development Canada (now paradoxically renamed Service Canada) were instantly bounced to an automated line and subjected to unbearable renditions of contemporary music before a representative was made available. The main intention of this seems to have been to frustrate petitioners and wear down their will to ask for assistance.

And wear them down it did. People became so used to such treatment that businesses, accurately reading the public’s growing feeling of resignation, began to depersonalize their operations too. This movement started with the banks and utilities, whose record of customer service had always been suspect, but quickly spread to the rest of the retail sector. The newly installed robot receptionists caused some amount of tension, but eventually a soothing generic phrase was developed to counter frayed nerves. The meditative mantra: “Please stay on the line. Your call is important to us and will be answered in rotation…” was randomly dubbed into the bland continuum of nauseating Muzac, thus adding another layer of annoyance to an already exasperating experience.

Of course the only thing more aggravating than being forced to listen to soft rock is the constant interruption of a computerized voice urging patience, which is why a labyrinth of menu options was imposed on the already agonized caller. These lengthy, robotically read lists were an attempt to streamline waiting times by having people move to a model of self-service. Successful navigation required callers to pay very strict attention a torturous set of ambiguous prompts and respond to them using the keypad. Unfortunately the keypad on most modern phones resides on the handset, and the handset was almost always glued firmly to the ear so as to not miss an option and have to repeat the whole menu from scratch. In addition, for security purposes an account number or PIN was frequently required, and if you didn’t happen to have this number memorized… well too bad.

In the early years of this not-so-merry-go-round system one could simply punch in zero at any point to be directed to the queue for a customer service representative. This still necessitated listening to Richard Clayderman reinterpret the hits of Coldplay, but at least the need to “listen closely to the following options” was avoided.

Lately though information technology wizards have taken to burying this easy exit in a sub-menu. If you want to skip through the prompts and marketing messages they insist on inserting, you’ll have to be savvy enough to guess which combination of keys will lead you to a voice mail or, if your very lucky, a service agent with a clue.

I’m not against self-service, in part because I know that I’m likely going to enjoy my next root canal more than a call to any organization that employs a computerized telecommunications strategy. What annoys me to no end is that our service industry seems to be building a wall of technology to protect itself from our urgent and/or easily answered inquiries and offering us more and more bureaucracy when what we really crave is just a little bit of simplicity.

Google Alternatives

A while back I bitched about the lameness of Google's search page. It's a multi-billion dollar company with a horribly antiquated and useless main page. Unforgivable. My main complaint was that it did not offer enough options with respect to the dating of web sites—a fairly important consideration I think. Anyway I have discovered a few sites who base their searches on Google's engine but do what I derided Google for not doing, namely giving the option to date searches (among some other nifty features.) So if you share my disdain for Google's lame search page check out these alternatives:

http://d8search.com/
This is a basic search page with the option to search by certain date parameters.

http://www.faganfinder.com/google2.html
This page provides a whole wealth of Google search parameters in an easy to use (if not very pretty) format.

http://www.spific.com/
This page aims at being a bit more of a smart search engine that can find sites based on themes or subject areas (still using Google as an engine). I don't know if it's all that but it might be worth a try.

What am I rich? How not to cancel your credit card

I just called my credit card company to cancel my card. I have two credit cards and I really only need one because I've decided to start paying cash for stuff again. Although credit card companies offer (pathetic) incentives to users they rip-off merchants big-time (not to mention consumers who carry a balance). I'm not really cool with that since most of the places I shop are local and I don't want them to have to pay commission on the sales they make to me.

Anyway, the card I was going to cancel was my points accumulating card (I'm not mentioning any brand names for security reasons) because the points take forever to accumulate and they are a bit of a hassle to use. My other card offers cash back which, despite being equally pathetic in terms of reward, is far simpler to understand. But when I called the company to bail they offered me a $50 dollar credit to stay. At first I said "no, cancel it anyway," but then after I'd hung up I realized that I had just said no to $50! What am I stupid. So I called right back and got reinstated. As long as I call to cancel again before April (when the annual fee is due) I'll be $50 richer for wanting to cancel my card. If only I could do that with my Hydro bill.

Most Recent Letter

Here's a letter of mine that was published in today's Winnipeg Free Press:

It is discrimination

Re: Shocked by editorial, Feb. 2.

I take exception to the letter written by David Waldie wherein he comments that there is nothing wrong with holding views against homosexuals. Whether you are hiding behind your religion or some other standard, the fact is that discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is just plain wrong.

While I dispute Waldie's assertion that a large proportion of Canadians are anti-homosexual, I am not sure that it matters so much, even if it is true. At one time a majority of Canadians held views against people of different races, but as we know today, those people were wrong. Similarly, those who cling to some ancient notion about Adam and Eve are misguided and doing their religion and our world a disservice. Dr. Kamelia Elias may be entitled to hold her beliefs but the newspaper's editors are entirely in the right to condemn those opinions.

Why I Hate Using Google

Back when the Internet was a baby there were dozens of search engines vying for your business. They weren't all very good, some of them were quite useful for specific things but absolutely useless for everything else. Then came Google. Google is like Coca-Cola in a world with no Pepsi. You've got your RC Cola (Yahoo!) and your PC Cola (MSN) but no-one is really putting up too much competition, which is too bad because Google often sucks!

What I hate most is that does not make it easy to specify that you would like to search for something based on the date it was published on the Internet. Of course you can do this by going to "Advanced Settings" yada, yada, but still this is cumbersome and not very precise. A lot of things I want to search have to do with fairly recent technology an/or news. For example if I want to quickly figure out how to do something with the latest version of iTunes and I type in my query expecting the search engine to understand that information from 2004 is useless I am SOL.

What I would like is for there to be an easy expression I could type in (for ex. "After July 2008") or a graphical interface that is not buried deep within the settings. Of course Google does not want to give me the power to rank my own searches because this will effect their advertising business, which is another thing that annoys me. I don't search for stuff on the Internet as a consumer, I search as a person looking for information. Google began as a project that was dedicated to providing relevance over commercialism but quickly devolved when $$$ was mentioned. I want a search engine that is not looking to make a fast buck on links I never click. Actually I don't care if they appear at the top in a box, goodie for them, I'd even be willing to be submitted to a five second text ad if I could get the results the way I wanted them.

What if, and I know this is crazy, but what if you could get search results in columns like you do when you search for something on your computer. Then you could click on the grouping that was the most useful to you such as: Last Posted, Relevance (to keywords), number of hits, source (i.e. what is the root URL where this page is found). The person who develops a search engine and/or browser with this kind of capability will be the person who kills Google's half-assed search engine once and for all. If I knew anything about programing I'd do it myself, but I'm just a shlub who has to use these dam machines.

Where's my software update you twits?

Some feedback I sent to Apple regarding their decision to not allow iPod Classic owners to get the new software they developed for this year's model.

Dear Apple,
I cannot understand why you would come out with a new version of the iPod Classic this year and not allow people who bought one last year to benefit from the software enhancements you've made. It seems like a bit of a slap in the face really. I am a loyal Apple customer, have owned two iPods and three computers over the years, but I see you growing to be more and more like an arrogant giant who builds obsolescence into your products. Was there a major hardware overhaul that I am not aware of, or did you just change a few specs and offer new features in the hopes that I would abandon my perfectly serviceable one year old iPod for a new one? I for one would really like a "genius" feature on my Classic to make new playlists. My iPod holds all my music and can go for days or weeks without being plugged into my MacBook (which has a dinky harddrive, forcing me to store my music externally) especially if I could quickly generate new lists.

Here's my suggestion: allow me the choice to purchase a software update for my iPod. Charge me 10 or 20 bucks, whatever you think is fair, but don't come out with a product that is virtually the same as mine and offer new features that are unavailable to me for marketing reasons. That just burns my ass and creates ill will. Apple is not the only brand out there and I'm not fanatical about anything—give me, and other consumers, enough reason to jump to another MP3 player, operating system, or whatever and we probably will.

I don't take kindly to threats

To: Colleen
Patient Accounts, St. Bonifice Hospital

Hello Colleen,

Here is the documentation you requested. I would like for you to understand that I am doing my best to get you this information and that any delays are not due to malice or unwillingness to resolve this issue. The fact is that I have very little experience in handling the financial affairs of others and have been, until last February, completely estranged from my father for almost a decade (and therefore entirely ignorant of his circumstances). Please consider these points next time you feel it necessary to threaten me with collection agents. Intimidation, however veiled, is not required and if anything will erode my cooperative mood. I am handling these affairs out of the goodness of my heart, and I hope to accomplish them with honour. I am not holding out on you or lying to you in any way. I understand that a person in your position feels it necessary to suspend trust and to play hardball with tough cases from time to time, but in our dealings acting in this way is unnecessary and counterproductive. As frustrated as you may be in closing this account consider how frustrating it is for me to have to take on this burden with very little in the way of guidance or support and absolutely no gratitude or compensation. In our future dealings I would request that you view me as someone who is equally interested in completing this business to everyone’s satisfaction, not as some delinquent debtor in need of a shove.

Thank you and Happy Holidays,

Ryan Kinrade

Chris Buors is a windbag

This is a letter written to the Winnipeg Free Press in response to local libertarian windbag Chris Buors' letter published on December 10, 2008 (his is copied first, followed by mine).

Stop demonizing cocaine
Re: Cocaine dealer not entitled to sympathy, Dec. 7.
Robert Marshall tells us Kevin Hiebert is not entitled to sympathy because "Cocaine means fast money that destroys families (Hiebert's has disintegrated since his capture) and neighbourhoods. It is a major contributing factor to global social disorder characterized by kidnappings, beatings, amputations and murders." Marshall mistakes the consequences of cocaine with the consequences of drug prohibition. None of those evils go on in Peru where the coca plant is part of the cultural fabric rather than a demon to be destroyed at all costs. The proof is in the pudding in that cocaine used to be in a lot of consumer products such as Coca-Cola without any evidence of the mayhem Marshall writes about.
The fact of the matter is that drug prohibition, not drug use, has destroyed millions of lives all over planet Earth in a misguided attempt to control the natural right of man to self-medicate. The consequences of cocaine use are akin to the consequences of caffeine use absent the prohibition law as evidenced in Bolivia and Peru and everywhere else the plant is native. There are no kidnappings, beatings, amputation and murders attributed to coffee distribution since coffee is no longer outlawed as it once was. No one is tempted to smuggle coffee anymore, either.
Evo Morales, president of Bolivia and former union representative of the Coca Growers Association, has been trying to bring respectability back to the coca plant and showed up at the United Nations with one coca leaf to make his point. The biased reporting of prohibitionists unable to separate the effect of drugs and the effects of the law are proving to be the greatest challenge to ending worldwide drug prohibition as supported by Christian-based countries.
The government has no more right to control the substance people choose to use than the government has right to control ideas.

Chris Buors

Chris Buors’ extreme fervor for the decriminalization of drugs is well documented, and it seems that he is never one to let facts get in the way of a good argument. His recent letter (Stop Demonizing Cocaine, Dec. 10) attempts to demonstrate that cocaine prohibition is a greater problem than use of the drug by pointing out that the countries where coca is legal do not experience the problems of the Western nations where it is banned.

A fundamental problem with this letter is that it obscures the fact that those who use coca in its native regions do not ingest it in the highly refined form we in the West do. Munching on coca or making it into tea produces a distinctly different effect than snorting lines of coke. Whereas cocaine is a highly addictive psychotic that can have devastating repercussions to one’s mental and physical wellbeing, coca in its natural form is a mild stimulant that does not come close to being the demon many of us know cocaine to be.

Buors also makes an unforgivable mischaracterization of the coca policies of Evo Morales. A quick internet search reveals that Mr. Morales’ policy is based on the use of coca in traditional forms and it’s very name "Coca Si, Cocaina No." (Coca Yes, Cocaine No) aught to give a very clear indication that Buors has misrepresented its intent.

Although I am frequently entertained by Mr. Buors’ rants I believe that the Free Press should be a bit more cautious in publishing them. As his brazen dishonesty in this instance reveals he cannot be trusted to present facts fairly in pursuit of his point.

prorogueys & sour cream

The Prime Minister's speech was not what I had hoped for. I felt he should have taken the occasion to be a bit more conciliatory, but instead he carried on with the trademark arrogance that led to this crisis of confidence in the first place. It was a very short speech that attacked the other parties and attempted to paint them as anti-democratic for pursuing an option that is well within the legal framework of our parliamentary system. His rhetoric about the Liberals uniting with separatists was just hollow fear-mongering and his statement that he hoped to work with the opposition parties was pure baloney. I'm guessing that there a lot of conservatives out there who are starting to see Harper's killer instincts and inflexibility as a liability, and if anything he is less appealing to Canadians of all stripes tonight than he was a week ago.

That said, I hope that the Governor General will allow him to prorogue parliament and give the Conservatives the opportunity to produce a real budget that is free from the incendiary proposals that poisoned the "economic update" the government delivered last week. Despite the Free Press's stated thirst for another election this would be the worst possible result. Both major parties need time to consider the future of their leaders since one has been totally rejected at the polls, while the other has proven through his actions as Prime Minister to be a total reject. Let the Conservatives get to work on something constructive with the knowledge that anything as radical and mean-spirited as what they have presented so far will result in the formation of a coalition that will rule in their stead.

Waiting for Appointments

Recently as I sat waiting for a medical appointment that began more than 45 minutes after it was scheduled I was reminded of an editorial I had read in the Free Press a couple of months back. The piece was written by a person in automotive sales who complained that the practise of medicine was in desperate need of some of the customer service skills so essential to his business. His concern was primarily service in public hospitals, but having been so poorly attended to by my doctor on this day I am sad to report that this intolerable level of service extends into the realm of family medicine.

As someone with an inflexible work schedule that is based on hourly pay I do my best to schedule appointments so as to miss as little time as possible. However my doctor does not seem to appreciate that her way of doing business causes inconvenience for working people. This is demonstrated in the way that her office made me book two appointments in the same week in order to arrange a thirty minute physical exam. When I was ushered into my first appointment, after more than half an hour of waiting, I was told that this was strictly a “meet and greet” session where the doctor wanted to get to know about me and my health concerns. At no point did she think to apologize for keeping me waiting for thirty minutes or give any indication that she recognized my time as being as valuable.

After an interview that lasted less than half an hour I was told to return to her assistant’s desk to arrange a physical. I started to wonder just what the doctor was charging me for this inane song and dance, realizing that I have no power to control the services she decides to offer or what she can charge for them. My bill goes directly to the government, and any objections I might raise to her display of arrogance would be counter-productive. My only other choice was to roll the dice on another family doctor and risk more of my valuable time for someone who may or may not be more respectful. Reluctantly I booked another “appointment.”

On the occasion of my second visit my wait time was extended to 45 minutes. When I finally was ushered into her examining room she offered no apology and seemed a bit taken aback when I confronted her with the issue. She excused her tardiness by explaining a fire had blocked traffic on her route to work. I did see her arriving to the office at around 9 a.m. and did hear news reports of the fire she spoke of on my way to the appointment. However it was my view that her first priority on arriving late should be to get me into her examining room as quickly and apologetically as possible rather than having me sit for another fifteen minutes without any sort of communication. Instead she left me seething in the crowded waiting room forced to listen to a loud soft-rock radio station that cut out intermittently while her busy minions did their best to avoid eye contact.

Sadly, the lack of choice when it comes to medical services gives little incentive for medical practitioners to go that extra mile for their patients. I would gladly pay an additional appointment fee to reward a doctor who showed respect for my time as well as my health. But our system does not allow for this, nor do I have much chance of finding such a doctor except through trial and error. I do not believe my doctor is consciously tardy, but that’s just the point. She does not seem to understand or care that I have a life outside her waiting room, and I do not have any power to prevent her from continuing to waste my precious time.

Political Rant

Stephen Harper continues to play the politics of provocation, even though he has just been re-elected to a minority government. This week’s economic update quite pointlessly included a poison pill whose sole aim was to goad the opposition. It intentionally stirred up ill-will by introducing a minimal cut to government spending that happens to be the lifeblood of the other parties.

With this admittedly brilliant tactical stunt Mr. Harper managed to embarrass the other parties, but he did not do much to flatter himself in the process. It serves to highlight his weakness for bullying, a trait that many Canadians find unappealing. It seems to be in Mr. Harper’s nature to be callous and to constantly in search of an advantage. As virtuous as cunning may be to certain ways of life, including politics, it doesn’t inspire much admiration, and in being so forthright about his evil ways Mr. Harper continues to evade the popularity he needs in order to form a majority government.

A letter submitted

The Free Press argues that motorists’ support for the photo radar system will be eroded if it is seen to be a cash-grab rather than a tool used in pursuit of public safety, but I am one driver who disagrees strongly with that conclusion. In my mind disrespect for the rules of traffic has nothing to do with how fines are collected and spent, and everything to do with how disconnected a person becomes to the world around them when behind the wheel.

Traffic cameras have proven to be pretty ineffective in addressing the lack of consideration bad drivers show for their fellow man. Nonetheless I am happy to have speeders, red-light runners and other offenders pay heavily and often for their disregard of the law, no matter what the government’s motives. In fact I wouldn’t mind if the worst motorists were tagged with such horrendous fines that they could never afford to drive again.

Digital Painting

I got out my digital paint box this weekend and did this little abstract using a photo I'd taken as the inspiration/underlying image.

Another Leftist Screed

This is an article I wrote and sent to the Free Press for consideration. I don't consider it to be a perfect argument by any stretch so your comments and criticisms are most certainly appreciated.

Prime Minister Harper’s promise to crackdown on young offenders, which includes a provision to allow judges the option to sentence fourteen year-olds to life in prison, is a prime indication that he has little interest in respecting the rights of Canada’s underrepresented and underprivileged. Just last week I received a pamphlet from my local Conservative candidate lauding the government for raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 in the last session of Parliament. The Conservatives acknowledge that a 14 year-old is child when it comes to deciding whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse yet in the case of violent crime, according to Mr. Harper, that same child should be considered an adult under the law.

Although Mr. Harper admits that deep troubles in the home and community may contribute to criminal behaviour among young people he does not allow that this should be a consideration in prosecution of serious crimes. Defending his proposal in Ottawa he said: "in the end, while I can feel terrible sympathy for those kinds of situations, once a person goes down the route of murder, rape, beatings, killings – none of that becomes an excuse for that behaviour." In fact Mr. Harper’s prescription for youth crime is a very clear sign that he has no sympathy for children who react to the poverty, violence and abuse they suffer by paying it back. His solution is to blame the child who misbehaves for the neglect and disenfranchisement he or she was born into and to penalize accordingly.

Mr. Harper believes that the possibility of Draconian punishment will steer potential young offenders straight. In his words: "You cannot rehabilitate someone who does not get a message from the system about the serious consequences of what they are doing.” But many studies have shown that this belief is quite different from the reality of what motivates the most serious youth crime, and what, if anything, will cure it.

Mr. Harper’s proposal presumes that leniency is at the root of high youth crime rates, ignoring the reality that hopelessness, ignorance, apathy and mental disorders are often greater motivators for many young offenders than the ability to evade hard time. He displays an inability to empathize, preferring to believe that every child grows up with the same capacity to respect the strict morals that he and his ilk were raised on. But the truth for so many of our disadvantaged adolescents is as distant from Mr. Harper's views as Winnipeg’s North End is from Sussex Drive.

Directionless youth do not need jail time to straighten out, they don’t need to be told they are worthless by their government because many of them already feel worthless. Punishing them only reinforces their belief that the world is out to get them, and strengthening the sentences does nothing to correct their world view. Turning a child of fourteen, who cannot vote, who cannot claim to be in possession of his own destiny into an adult criminal is the mark of a callous and unjust society.

I am not saying that I fully support the YCJA in its current form, however imposing harsh prison terms on youth is a palliative cure that will not significantly impact the rates of youth crime. Mr. Harper’s proposal is a disciplinarian’s salve for a serious social problem that proves he is out of his depth when it comes to addressing the needs of Canada’s most vulnerable citizens.

Election '08 Photo of the Day

Obama gives McCain a longing look while he holds his knob.

Letter of the Day

A misguided crusade

Coun. Harvey Smith's crusade to have bottled water banned from City of Winnipeg facilities is misguided.

The message he hopes to send with his proposal is that tap water is just as good as the bottled version, but in reality his ban promotes the consumption of unhealthier beverages like pop and sugar-based fruit drinks by excluding bottled water from the available options.

Smith claims that the other intent of the ban is to promote a cleaner environment. But if we remove bottled water while allowing vending machines to offer other beverages sold in plastic, we are still doing the environment a grave disservice. A more meaningful proposal would be to insist that all drinks be sold in cans -- which are easier to transport and recycle.

What Else? Another "Letter to the Editor"

This is the "Letter of the Day" in today's Winnipeg Free Press.

The media's proper role

Luba Gallinger questions why Winnipeg police deserve more scrutiny than other public employees (It's no fun being recorded, Aug. 26).

The answer is quite simple. Unlike any other civil servants, police have been given the power to arrest and/or apply physical force against citizens who in their estimation pose a threat. For this reason the judgment and actions of police must always be held in question and -- when it is warranted -- in the unnerving eye of media attention.

In light of some startling recent abuses, the media and public are naturally more inclined to suspend belief in our peace officers, and therefore examine their conduct more closely. The media's job is not to act as a cheerleader for a disgraced police force -- that would amount to a dereliction of duty. It is the responsibility of the police to re-establish their credibility and public trust when members of their fraternity choose to dodge responsibility for their actions, cover up the crimes of their brethren and use intimidation tactics in situations where they are seemingly uncalled for.

Another "Letter of the Day"

Seems like all I ever post here on the Disclaimer anymore is letters to the editor, but that seems to be the only kind of writing I am doing. I do have an interesting story that I hope will develop into a full article, but the final chapter hasn't been written yet, so for now you're stuck with another "letter of the day," as published in today's Winnipeg Free Press.

iPhones a status symbol

Re: Petition blasts iPhone plans, July 2.

I'm a bit perplexed by the whining that has accompanied Rogers Communications' rate-plans for the soon-to-be-introduced iPhone. First of all, as far as I can tell, the entire point of owning an iPhone is to prove that you are hipper and more affluent than the next guy -- kind of like driving a Porsche when a Hyundai would suffice. Therefore, Rogers is actually doing potential iPhone users a favour by limiting the numbers who will be able to afford the service.

Second, the article fails to note the obvious counter-point to the story -- namely that all this anger is directed at something that is essentially insignificant. No one needs an iPhone. There are plenty of other causes in the world that could use the public outrage and media coverage being showered on this powerful, but ultimately meaningless, little gadget.

RYAN KINRADE

Winnipeg

Response to an Idiotic Letter to the Editor

Here is an absolutely indefensible opinion offered by some local yahoo in today's Winnipeg Free Press, and my response.

Apology unnecessary

Re: It was wrong, June 12.

Canada is the only country in the world that compensates its former students who have been given an education at the expense of the state and then apologizes for having done so.

I don't believe that most Canadian taxpayers realize the cost of this. The average "compensation" payout per former student is approximately $25,000 to as much as $275,000. For 80,000 former students who attended 130 schools, it adds up to $2 billion.

In fiscal year 2008, INAC will pay out $10.2 billion to aboriginal programs, not including land-claim settlements. This continues to increase every year.

It's time that these state-funded citizens put that free education to good use and start to contribute to the society that has fostered them for all these years.

The government has no mandate for this gesture. I, for one, do not apologize.

DANNY COLE

Winnipeg

I was thoroughly offended by Danny Cole’s callous and ignorant opinion regarding the apology offered by our government to residential school victims (Apology unnecessary, June 13). Is Mr. Cole aware that the state sponsored “education” he endorses was responsible for forcibly removing aboriginal children from their homes in order to compel them—often using such tactics as shame, neglect, and physical violence—to reject their heritage and beliefs? Would he be so cavalier if his own children were taken from his home, forbidden to see their family for ten months of the year and cleansed of their native language and traditions because an arrogant and racist administration thought it best?

Mr. Cole the state-funded assimilationist policies you defend were unquestionably wrong, if not downright evil. The human beings who suffered them deserve our respect, our humblest apology and, in many cases, copious amounts of cash as a means of redressing the pain they have suffered. When people are treated with the gross injustice that so many residential school children endured, publicly admitting our mistake to the entire world and making an attempt to compensate those whose lives were forever tarnished by our cruelty is the very least we can do.

Confucius says

Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.