BondShirley

April 14th, 2005 LePortSchools is seeking full- and part-time teachers for a variety of subjects in our upper elementary and junior high division (Grades 4–8) to join our staff in September, 2006. A thriving private school with 200 students, LePortSchools operates three campuses in beautiful Southern California. Our website is www.LePortSchools.com. LePortSchools is a warm learning environment that attracts bright, well-mannered students and informed parents. The right candidate can anticipate training and on-going mentoring; a well-prepared, stimulating curriculum; and small class sizes. LePortSchools offers health and dental coverage, generous vacation time, and competitive salaries. Ideal candidates will possess: · An interest in mastering a rigorous academic curriculum · A desire to convey knowledge to young minds · Strong communication and interpersonal skills · An enthusiastic and productive work ethic Teaching certification is not required, but preference will be given to candidates who have experience working with children. Familiarity with Objectivism is also preferred, but not required. While all applicants are thanked for their interest, only those chosen for interviews will be contacted. No phone calls, please. Resumes and cover letters should be emailed to: Lindsay Joseph Executive Director, LePortSchools' Upper Elementary and Junior High E-mail: [email protected]

I agree with your suggestion -- "Just so you know, Objectivism is spelled with a capital 'o.' " would probably be better than asking a rhetorical question (especially in light of the response to Burgess's first post, which suggests honest unawareness of the small "o"/big "O" issue). But are you certain Burgess's response betrayed a smart-alec attitude? Are you sure it was meant to be the type of answer you read it as being (especially in light of the Amazon comment, which is not the type of postscript one adds to a smart-alec response)? I found your tone a little too biting for what may be an unintentional error or perhaps even just a difference of style. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, I just wanted to point out that your post seems to be making the same mistake you were criticizing Burgess for -- automatically assuming bad motivation in a post that could just as easily be sincere.

I'm a current OAC student.

Although I remembered the correct number, I did make the point seem stronger than it is. Here is the statement on the website of Environics, the company conducting the poll: "Two-thirds support private sector delivery of health care, as long as it is publicly financed. One-half think they should have the right to buy private health care out of their own pocket to obtain timely access." The National Post adds that support for private sector delivery (but still public funding) is "highest in Quebec, at 68%, and Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the birthplace of medicare, at 57%". That sounds strange to me -- I would have thought that Alberta would have had the strongest results and Quebec the weakest. Here is the wording of the two questions: Question #1: "Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose having health care services provided by the private sector, if patients did not have to pay out of their own pockets for these services and the services were covered by tax dollars exactly the same way they are now?" 31% of Canadians said they strongly supported it, and 35% said they somewhat supported it. Question #2: "Do you agree or disagree that individual Canadians should be given the right to buy private health care within Canada if they do not receive timely access to services in the public system, even if this might weaken the principle of universal access to health care for all Canadians by making it possible for some people to have quicker access to services?" 50% of Canadians said they agreed. Details from the survey: "The above results are based on an omnibus survey conducted by Environics by telephone between June 16 and 21, 2004 among a probability sample of 1,500 adult Canadians (aged 18 or older). The sample is estimated to be accurate within plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."

The basic, unnamed question at the heart of Canadian culture is: is Canada fundamentally European nation or an American one? I think this perspective illuminates Canada’s history and its attitude towards the States. From what I can tell, Canadians are in general much more like Americans than Europeans in their implicit philosophy. Conflicting with that, however, is Canada's historical identity. At the core of Canadian history is Canada’s *choice* in the 18th century to remain a dutiful, obedient subject of England rather than assert its own independence. Throughout the 19th century, Canada never demanded sovereignty – it was given it essentially as a gift by Britain. So on the one hand Canadians are implicitly pro-reason, pro-freedom, and pro-pursuit of personal happiness like the U.S (to the extent that the U.S is still implicitly this way), and on the other they are historically and culturally committed to identifying with European collectivism and servitude. Anti-Americanism logically follows from identifying with Canada and Canadian values -- if Canada was right in its historical actions, then by virtue of that the States was wrong. Anyone who knows Canadian history and politics, thinks it enshrines Canadian values, and then embraces Canada *on that basis*, will necessarily resent America. I don't think this is why the “average” Canadian loves Canada. I think that to him Canadiana basically means American values + hockey, Canadian music, Canadian beer, and various Canadian achievements like the Anne of Green Gables books or the story of the battle of Vimy Ridge. That said, remember Ayn Rand’s point that the identity of a culture is defined by its intellectuals. Canadian intellectuals love Canada because its basic historical and political theme is the lack of personal assertiveness, and they resent America because its theme is the opposite. [in this post I've treated Canada as if it's regionally homogeous, but there is also the issue of whether it's better to analyze Canada as having two regionally defined identities: Ontario (despite being covered in Liberal red) and Alberta are more American in their character and feel, and Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, and B.C more European. I don’t know where Manitoba and Saskatchewan would fit into this]. AMERICONORMAN: I agree 100% that “there’s much beauty here to see in Toronto”. There is *such* a variety of gorgeous districts, neighborhoods, and parks, each with their own distinct feel, that anyone who enjoys walking or rollerblading will find it impossible not to fall in love with the city (especially if he also owns a car ). And thanks to Donald Trump the skyline’s coming along too.

Alright, you told me so . The worst part of it is how badly the conservatives sold out. Harper wanted to be PM more than he wanted to be a conservative. Consider: - Over 2/3rds of the country is pro-private services in health care, yet Harper became a zealot for the public system. This is despite the fact that he's argued (and apparently quite well) to introduce privatization in the past. - Harper's entire campaign was about "accountability" -- i.e. was a polemic agains the liberals. Rather then stressing tax cuts as the essence of the difference between his party and the liberals, he rarely mentioned them. - He embraced the anti-Americanism of the other parties ("oh no, we are not looking for an American-style system") rather than challenging them on their anti-Americanism. This is despite the fact that his strong criticisms of liberal anti-Americanism was part of his rise to popularity. The sad thing is that if that had stuck to his guns, they would have probably won as many seats *and* had the moral momentum for the next election. (BTW, why is everyone saying there will be another election within 18 months? It it mandatory when there's a minority government?). Of course, Harper is a religious conservative. Pragmatists that they are, when will these guys learn that if they just explicitly give up their anti-abortionism they'd win every time? I wonder if Belinda would have done better...

I remember learning about this in a class along time ago. From what I recall, it's because in the late early 19th century state schools were funding by cities/regions, and so in order to attend a child's family had to live in that region. Then in the mid-19th century, private companies started opening schools that anyone from anywhere could attend, as long as they paid tuition. Because anyone could attend, they were called public schools. I might be wrong, so if anyone knows for sure please clarify.

I can't clearly isolate the essential difference between music (pop songs, violin peices, lullabys, etc.) and nonmusic (speech, noises when walking in a park, an airplane whizzing by, etc.). Still, it's clear to me when I hear a series of sounds if it goes into the "music group" or the "nonmusic group". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Objectivist point is that the essential distinction between music and nonmusic (whatever it is ) is an instance of the essential distinction between art and non-art. In other words, if I see that the "music group" is in some basic way similar to novels and poetry and painting, as against other man-made things, then I grasp that music is art. And if that's the case, in identifying something as music I'm identifying it as art.

Hi again, Megan: Yes, of course you can join -- if there's a club to join by the time you arrive. Either way. you can go to the Toronto Objectivist Association events, and I can put you in touch with several students of Objectivism at U of T. (Unfortunately, I'm moving from Toronto right after the conference). Toronto actually has quite a number of Objectivists; there was a thriving club in the mid-80's at Waterloo, and another club in the early 90's at York, and then my club for the past few years at U of T -- now many of the people involved are working in the GTA and come out to the occasional TOA lecture or social. It's a little hard to get "in the know" because everyone's so busy, but there are a lot of people worth knowing so come out to a few events. Also, Dr. Ridpath lives in the city. He's usually pretty accessible, if you'd like to meet him and hear some first-hand anecdotes about Ayn Rand. (I'm actually driving with him to the conference -- 10 hours !). On another note, one of my roommates just graduated from Ryerson with a fashion marketing degree, so if you ever have any questions about that she might be willing to give some advice. Nimble: There was a series of beer commercials in Canada built on that saying. There were funny at first, but did get irritating pretty fast Ash: Yes, try to come! I'm sure we can find you somewhere to crash. The lodging arrangements are apartment-style so maybe they'll include couches. Eran: It's too bad you can't make it this year. I'm sure our paths will cross some day. How goes the campaign to get to America? Is there anything definite?

Hi Daniel, The club's in a limbo status right now. The weekly meetings stopped last January, but I still forward notices, e.g. of Toronto Objectivist Association events, to the mailing list. Put it this way: for next year there's a first mate, a solid crew, and a ship full of resources, but no captain. I'm hoping that out of the three local universities (UofT, York, and Ryerson) there will be someone new to take the helm. We'll see what happens. Ray.

Hi everyone, My name’s Ray Girn. I’ve been following along quite closely for a while now. I can't resist the itch to join any longer. I’m really in awe of this site. You 20 year olds have it so easy! Back in my day, we never had forums like this. If we wanted to talk Objectivism, we had to get in the car and… just kidding! I’m only 25. But seriously, this site is a really great way to learn to apply Objectivism. I’m looking forward to participating. I'll be at OCON, so it'll be nice to make/renew acquaintences in a few weeks. Ray.