- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Love in an Elevator...

Posted by: Krasny ( Internationale, All Countries... ) on January 27, 19100 at 10:17:34:

In Reply to: Short circuit between the ears. posted by Frenchy on January 26, 19100 at 10:40:16:

: : [Snip to Frenchy:]

: :
: : : Well, I sort of agree here. I'd love to see the present Dept. of Education become disbanded and education returned to the immediate community. Like when I was a kid. It worked then, why not now?

: :
: : *Evidence?* --K

: Evidence? You don't stay current, do you?

**Well, so far we've got you waxing emotional over the image of "F-15's" shooting down Migs from your armchair... challenging another poster to read "Robert Conquest's Black Book Of Communism" and your reference to Sheehan's article on a 'Black-on-White Race War' in America carried on White Supremacy websites... I'd say there's plenty of evidence to dispute your claim of education working in your day... this was your opportunity to present evidence to the contrary.** --K

: :
: : Same w/ health care. I remember, believe it or not, our family doctor making house calls carrying his black bag and examining my brother in bed when he was sick. Dad paid for the services and the doctor used a sliding scale.

: :
: : *So... you want doctors to make housecalls and charge people according to their ability to pay??? Sounds like 'socialised medicine' to me. What ever happened to the capitalist *right*, nay *duty*, of doctors to gouge their patients for as much money as they can?* --K

: Typical. Socialised is what a government does by forcefully stealing my money to give it to some unknown boob. The doctor I knew did it because he saw with his own eyes our circumstances. It worked then, why not now?

**That may be 'socialised medicine' to you. However your own formulation seems to ask 'from each according to their ability to pay; from each according to the needs of the patient.' Sounds socialistic to me. You seem to want everything to work for you, personally... but the very idea that something should work for all is alien to your selfish nature.** --K

: :
: : And don't say that forty kids are too many in a class room, most of my classes in public school in the fifties and sixties had seven or eight rows of seats that were seven or eight deep, you do the math. When I worked at U.C. Berkeley (I was an elevator mech., Sather Tower was one of my elevators), I would often see classrooms of Freshmen that were PACKED. Probably close to eighty students. Approx. the same age as high school seniors. Class size and dollars per student are NEA scams to hire more teachers and raise the wages of teachers.

: :
: : *Well, I always knew your elevator didn't go all the way to the top floor Frenchy, but this is ridiculous. In case it escaped your razor keen intellect, class size reduction in California schools is only in place for grades K-3. Now brilliant philosopher that you are, could you please explain why you think 70 kindergarten aged kids to a teacher is a great idea. Thanks sunshine!* --K

: You must've OD'd on your daily dose of stupid pills. Reread my post.

**"Stupid pills"? My nickel's worth of free advice is to leave sarcasm to us experts...

In point of fact, I tried to make some sense of your ramblings here...

  • You're against reduced class size.
  • You're for classes containing students equivalent to "seven or eight rows of seats that were seven or eight deep, you do the math" (a confusing way to describe 'rows' as 'deep'; my math says that's anywhere from 49-64 students. You then rambled on to assert: "I would often see classrooms of Freshmen that were PACKED. Probably close to eighty students." My figure of "70" represented a reasonable compromise under the circumstances.
  • Classroom reductions are only in place for K-3 grades.
  • ergo, could you please explain why you feel 70 kindergarten aged kids per teacher is a good idea?


Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup