Mamdani, AI and the Expanding Reach of Socialist Government
When Did It Become the Government’s Job to Decide What Our Children May Use to Learn?
Something happened in New York City this week that deserves far more attention than it has received.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration has imposed a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative artificial intelligence for students from 2-K through eighth grade in New York City's public schools.
This affects roughly 600,000 children.
The city is not merely advising schools to be cautious about artificial intelligence. It is establishing a government policy determining what technology students may and may not use in their education.
More than 38 educational technology products that contain AI components are also being discontinued or disabled if they do not meet the city's new standards.
High school students will be treated differently. They will receive AI-literacy instruction and the city will permit a small number of carefully supervised AI programs to be piloted.
Teachers may use AI for certain purposes, including lesson planning, although they cannot use it for grading and assessment.
Mamdani's administration says the purpose is to protect children's ability to think independently, protect their privacy and make sure technology serves education rather than replacing learning.
Those are reasonable goals.
But there is a much larger issue here that has nothing to do with whether artificial intelligence is good or bad.
The issue is government power.
How much authority should a mayor and city government have to dictate what technology students may or may not use in a public-school system?
That is the question we should be asking.
This isn't simply a recommendation.
It isn't a suggestion to parents.
It isn't an advisory memo telling teachers to use their judgment.
It is a government mandate establishing what hundreds of thousands of children can and cannot use as an educational tool.
And that should make Americans stop and think.
The American tradition has generally been one of decentralized education
America has never operated its public schools as one giant centrally controlled educational system.
Public education in the United States has traditionally been decentralized. States, local school districts, school boards, administrators, teachers and parents have all played roles in determining how children are educated.
That decentralization has an important purpose.
Different communities have different needs.
Different children learn differently.
Teachers have different approaches.
Parents have different values.
And technology changes so quickly that experimentation and local decision-making can often be more effective than one government authority deciding what everyone should do.
If one school district believes a particular technology is harmful, it can restrict it.
If another believes the same technology can help struggling students, it can experiment with it.
One district can make mistakes.
Another can learn from those mistakes.
That is part of how a free society learns.
What is different about the Mamdani approach is that City Hall is stepping in and making the decision for the entire New York City public-school system.
The government is no longer simply establishing educational standards.
It is determining which technological tools may be used to accomplish the educational mission.
And that is a meaningful expansion of government authority.
Why this matters beyond artificial intelligence
It would be easy to dismiss this as simply an argument about ChatGPT or artificial intelligence.
But AI is only the immediate subject.
The bigger question is where this authority ends.
If government can determine which technological tools children may use in school, what prevents government from eventually determining which educational methods are acceptable?
What happens when the issue isn't artificial intelligence but textbooks?
What happens when it is online educational material?
What happens when it is a particular teaching method?
What happens when government officials decide that a particular subject should be taught differently because they believe it promotes the “right” social values?
Once we accept the principle that government should determine which tools and methods are appropriate because government officials believe they know what is best for children, we have moved beyond a simple technology policy.
We have accepted a broader principle:
Government knows what educational choices are best for your children.
That is where I become uncomfortable.
This is where socialism enters the discussion
Before anyone accuses me of saying that banning AI makes Mamdani a communist, let me be very clear.
That is not what I am saying.
There is an enormous difference between socialism, democratic socialism and communism.
New York City is not the Soviet Union.
Mamdani has not abolished private schools, eliminated elections or placed the education system under a Communist Party.
But it is also intellectually dishonest to pretend there is no connection between Mamdani's political philosophy and the role of government he is exercising here.
Mamdani openly identifies as a democratic socialist.
One of the longstanding characteristics of socialist political thought is a greater willingness to use government power to shape social and economic institutions in pursuit of what government considers desirable outcomes.
That philosophy is visible in many different policy areas.
And here we see it applied to education.
The government isn't simply protecting a student's right to learn.
It is deciding what tools students should be allowed to use in the learning process.
That is a distinctly more interventionist philosophy of government.
The distinction is important
There is nothing unusual about government establishing minimum educational standards.
We expect schools to teach children mathematics, reading, science and history.
We expect governments to require health and safety standards.
We expect schools to protect children from dangerous materials.
The issue isn't whether government has any role in education.
Of course it does.
The issue is where the government's authority stops.
There is a difference between saying:
“Children must receive an education.”
And saying:
“Government officials will determine which tools may be used in providing that education.”
There is a difference between protecting children from demonstrably dangerous products and deciding that an entire category of technology should not be used by hundreds of thousands of students because government officials believe it may interfere with learning.
That distinction matters because government power tends to expand.
A temporary restriction can become a permanent regulation.
A regulation can become a standard.
A standard can become a curriculum requirement.
And eventually the government may no longer simply be providing the framework for education.
It may be directing education itself.
That is the slippery slope we should at least have the courage to discuss.
But what about the argument that children need protection?
There is a very strong argument on Mamdani's side.
Children are not adults.
They are still developing their ability to reason, concentrate, write and solve problems.
If a child can ask an AI system to solve every difficult math problem, write every essay and answer every research question, there is a legitimate concern that the child may never develop the underlying skills.
There are also legitimate concerns about misinformation, privacy, bias and the possibility that children will become dependent on technology.
Those concerns should not be dismissed.
In fact, I agree that schools should teach children how to use AI responsibly.
But that is precisely why I question the government's approach.
There is a difference between teaching children how to use a technology responsibly and simply deciding that the government should control whether they may use it.
The first teaches judgment.
The second imposes judgment.
And those are not the same thing.
What happened to parents?
There is another group that deserves to be part of this discussion: parents.
Parents, not government officials, have traditionally been the people primarily responsible for deciding what is best for their children.
If a parent believes an eight-year-old should not use artificial intelligence, that parent can impose that restriction.
If another parent believes their child should learn how to use AI responsibly, that parent may want the school to help teach those skills.
Why should one government policy necessarily make that decision for both families?
There may be legitimate reasons for schools to establish certain rules for classroom use.
But the broader the restriction becomes, the more we should ask whether government is replacing parental judgment with bureaucratic judgment.
And that is not a trivial question.
A technology revolution is happening whether government likes it or not
There is another irony here.
Artificial intelligence is going to transform the world these children are entering.
These children will eventually work alongside AI systems.
They will use AI in business, medicine, engineering, manufacturing, education and countless other fields.
Some of today's elementary-school students may eventually work in jobs that don't even exist yet.
So the question shouldn't simply be:
“How do we keep AI away from children?”
It should be:
“How do we teach children to use extraordinary technology without allowing the technology to replace their ability to think?”
Those are two very different approaches.
One relies primarily on prohibition.
The other relies on education.
I would rather see us teach children how to think first and then teach them how to use powerful tools intelligently.
That requires teachers.
It requires parents.
It requires judgment.
And it requires experimentation.
It doesn't necessarily require City Hall to make every decision.
The bigger philosophical question
This is why I believe the controversy surrounding Mamdani's AI policy is bigger than artificial intelligence.
It is about what we believe government is supposed to do.
Is government supposed to establish a framework in which citizens, parents, teachers and communities can make decisions?
Or is government supposed to determine the decisions it believes will produce the best society and then impose those decisions from the top down?
That is a fundamental political difference.
The first approach puts considerable trust in individuals and communities.
The second puts greater trust in government.
That distinction is one of the oldest debates in American political life.
And it is also one of the places where socialist political philosophy differs from traditional American individualism.
Socialism has historically been much more comfortable with the idea that government can and should intervene in society to achieve desired social outcomes.
American political culture, despite all of our disagreements, has traditionally been more suspicious of concentrated government power.
That doesn't mean America has never regulated education.
Of course it has.
It means we should be cautious whenever government moves from establishing basic standards to deciding the specific choices people are permitted to make.
And that is what makes Mamdani's action worth watching.
Not because banning AI makes New York communist.
It doesn't.
Not because every government regulation is socialist.
It isn't.
But because this is another example of a political philosophy that is comfortable using government authority to shape institutions according to what its leaders believe is best.
Today it is artificial intelligence.
Tomorrow it could be something else.
The question is not whether Mamdani has good intentions.
He may.
The question is whether good intentions are enough to justify expanding government authority.
They aren't.
A government can sincerely believe it is protecting people and still go too far.
The American answer has traditionally been to place limits on government precisely because we understand that government officials, however well-intentioned, are still human beings.
They can be wrong.
They can be biased.
They can misunderstand new technology.
They can become convinced that their preferred solution is the only acceptable solution.
And when government has the authority to impose that solution on hundreds of thousands of children, the consequences of being wrong become much larger.
So I think we should welcome the discussion about AI in our schools.
We should listen to teachers.
We should listen to parents.
We should listen to technology experts.
We should protect children.
We should teach children to think critically.
And we should absolutely teach them how to use AI responsibly.
But before we applaud a mayor for deciding what hundreds of thousands of children may use to learn, we should stop and ask a much more fundamental question:
When did it become the government's job to decide?
Because once we become comfortable with government making that decision for us, the question of what comes next becomes much harder to answer.
And that is the part of this debate that deserves our attention.
ThoughtsOh hell, another 395 lines? Where's MyEsoteric when you need him? This one could be a demolition derby. ;-)
... and talk about loaded and leading questions. Just a step shy of accusations you boldly profess not to be making.
Look where one has to start: Mamdani was duly elected; the policy at issue only affects his constituency; and there doesn't appear to be a legal or constitutional issue concerning his edict.
Working from the data in your OP, I don't have a problem with the concept. I don't think it's a 'slippery slope' issue, and recollection says there are parent/citizen remedies for abusive school policies. We've seen the parents and board meeting confrontations, and we've seen the reversed decisions.
GA
NYC's parents aren't powerless. As Cred likes to point out, they pass judgment with the power of their vote, from mayor to school board member.
GA.GA, I think you're right about one thing that I should probably have made clearer: I'm not arguing that Mamdani's policy is unconstitutional, or that he wasn't duly elected. And I certainly don't believe NYC parents are powerless.
And there is another point I should acknowledge because I don't want to argue past an important fact: New York City has an unusually strong system of mayoral control over its public schools. This isn't something Mamdani invented. So yes, there is precedent for a New York City mayor and chancellor exercising considerable authority over the public-school system. I'm not disputing any of that.
But I think it actually makes my question more interesting, not less.
My argument isn't primarily about whether Mamdani "has the legal authority" to do this. It's about whether we should be comfortable with government exercising that authority in this particular way.
Those are two different questions.
A government can have the legal power to do something and still exercise that power in a way that deserves scrutiny. The existence of mayoral control doesn't automatically settle the question of how far that authority should extend.
And I don't think calling it a “slippery slope” means I'm predicting that banning AI today inevitably leads to banning textbooks tomorrow. I'm saying that the principle behind the decision is worth examining: when government moves from establishing reasonable educational standards to deciding which tools students may use to learn, we've moved further into government-directed educational choices.
GA, you say parents can pass judgment with their votes. Absolutely. But voting after a policy has been imposed isn't quite the same thing as having parents, teachers and local educators participate in making those decisions in the first place. The fact that voters can eventually replace an elected official doesn't mean we shouldn't question the amount of discretion that official has while in office.
And that is really the question I'm raising.
I also don't think acknowledging that Mamdani is a democratic socialist is an accusation that every action he takes is therefore socialist. I went out of my way in the piece to say exactly the opposite. My point was that his political philosophy is relevant when we're discussing his willingness to use government authority to achieve what he believes is a desirable social outcome. In my view, his history is very telling regarding his thoughts on Socialism and Marxism.
In fact, I agree with much of the justification for restricting AI use among young children. Kids need to learn to think, write, solve problems, and develop judgment before they become dependent on a machine to do those things for them. I said that explicitly in the piece.
Where we disagree is over the remedy.
I would rather see schools, teachers, and parents figure out how to teach children to use a technology that is plainly going to be part of their future than have City Hall make a system-wide decision about what hundreds of thousands of students may use.
I'm acknowledging that NYC has given its mayor and chancellor substantial authority over the school system. I'm questioning how much authority we should be comfortable giving any elected official over the educational choices of hundreds of thousands of children.
Just because government can make a decision for everyone doesn't necessarily mean government should.
That's the distinction I'm trying to put on the table.
SharHiya Sharlee,
The U.S. Department of Education was created in 1979.
Since then, international tests like the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) have tracked how 15-year-olds compare globally.
Recent data shows American reading scores dropped sharply, and math scores remain near historic lows for the 21st century.
As the focus has shifted from things like engineering and science to sex identification and social media over the past couple decades, the decline has looked more like a free fall.
Taking away AI might help reconnect children in how to learn and think critically, but only if they have teachers that focus them on how to learn and think... rather than preaching an ideology to them.Welcome back, Ken. I can't believe the forum is still up and functioning.
I agree with you that our children's ability to learn, think critically and solve problems should be at the center of education. And I agree that simply taking AI away doesn't accomplish much if we don't have teachers teaching children how to think for themselves.
The PISA numbers certainly give us reason to be concerned. I'm just not sure we can draw a straight line from those numbers to the idea that schools have shifted their focus from engineering and science to “sex identification and social media.” The data tells us what is happening, but it doesn't necessarily tell us why.
So I think there are really two separate issues here. One is how we improve education and make sure children are actually learning to think, write, and reason. The other is whether restricting AI for younger students is an appropriate educational policy.
I don't have a problem with schools limiting AI when the goal is to make sure children develop those fundamental skills. My concern was about how much authority we want to give City Hall to make that decision for hundreds of thousands of students.
And I certainly agree with your last point: whatever the curriculum, children need teachers who teach them how to think, not what to think.Well thanks Sharlee,
No Lindsey Clancy or UK riots thread?
Have you taken a trip to Mexico recently? Curious to hear how things are going from someone who has a long familiarity going there.I spent a good deal of time in Puerto Vallarta, and I have to say, the tension I experienced wasn’t coming from the Mexican people. In fact, I found the Mexican people to be as welcoming as ever. What surprised me was the noticeable coldness from some Canadian expats. I’ve even had friends pull away from friendships, apparently because of political differences.
There also seems to be a tendency to blame the cartel problems in Puerto Vallarta on Trump, and I think that oversimplifies a much older and more complicated problem. The reality is that the influence of cartels in the area has been well known for years and certainly didn’t begin with Trump.
To be honest, we ended up spending our winter in Scottsdale after violence broke out in Puerto Vallarta, and we decided it was time to leave. It was disappointing to see our politics follow us all the way to Mexico and even affect friendships.
We’re planning to return this winter, though, and we’ll see how things feel. I wish that people could disagree politically without letting it destroy friendships or the enjoyment of a place we’ve all come to love.Sounds like the type of synergy of animosity and angst that spreads prior to more serious confrontations.
Canadians are their own worst enemies and have been for the past two decades, China is very influential there and so is the UK... but neither of those nations are responsible for over half of their GDP/Trade.
Canadian leaders chose poorly (or sold out, which is more likely) when your economic livelihood depends on America, you shouldn't get in bed with those nations trying to cripple it.I understand what you're saying, and I think there is certainly something to what you’re pointing out. Canada's economic relationship with the United States is enormous. In 2025, more than 70% of Canada's merchandise exports went to the U.S., and nearly 60% of its imports came from the U.S. So there is no question that Canada has a tremendous economic stake in maintaining a good relationship with its largest trading partner.
At the same time, I think the situation is more complicated than simply saying Canada chose poorly or that China and the UK have somehow taken America's place. Canada has been trying to diversify its trade, and the most recent numbers show that trade with countries other than the U.S. has been growing. China and the UK are certainly part of that picture, but the U.S. remains by far Canada's largest individual trading partner.
And I think your point about the tension and animosity is interesting because that's really what struck me while I was in Puerto Vallarta. What bothered me wasn't simply that people had strong political opinions. It was that those political differences seemed to be spilling over into personal relationships.
That's something I find increasingly troubling on both sides of the border. You can believe your country's leaders have made serious mistakes, you can strongly disagree with another country's policies, and you can still sit down with someone who sees things completely differently without turning them into an enemy.
Maybe that's what I was trying to say with my original post. Politics is important, but when it starts determining who we can be friends with or whether we can enjoy a place together, I think we've allowed politics to take up far too much space in our personal lives.I have spent a bit of time lately reflecting on those documentaries that focused on pre-WWII events and political maneuverings. As well as the propaganda and perspectives put forth by nations like the UK, Germany, France, etc.
I would say that much of the rhetoric and disharmony we see today in many of the dealings with the EU, Canada, etc. reflect similarly. In fact, I would say much of the rhetoric and propaganda coming from the EU is more in earnest and pre-warlike than what came prior to WWII.
What is interesting is who they are befriending (China as much as anyone) and aligning with. It isn't Russia and it isn't America (for the most part) the denial of EU nations to support the effort against Iran (and by extension China) is a prime example of how this is very different today.That really got me thinking, because there is another connection to the years before WWII that I find interesting. It wasn't simply that countries were choosing sides. There was a period when nations were still deeply involved economically and diplomatically with one another while, underneath that, trust was deteriorating and the balance of power was changing.
Britain is a good example. In the 1930s, Britain was trying desperately to avoid another catastrophic war, even while Germany was rearming and challenging the existing European order. Britain actually entered into the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement partly in the hope of preventing an arms race. Yet Germany continued moving in a very different direction, eventually remilitarizing the Rhineland and expanding into neighboring countries.
And that brings me back to your point about China today. The relationship between China and the EU is fascinating because China is now the EU's largest source of imported goods, while the EU simultaneously describes China as a partner, a competitor and a “systemic rival.” So you have enormous economic interdependence existing alongside growing strategic and political differences.
That seems to echo something from the pre-WWII period. Sometimes the most important warning signs aren't the countries that suddenly become enemies. It's when countries are still trading, negotiating and talking about peace while their strategic interests and alliances are quietly shifting underneath the surface.
And maybe that's what makes looking at those documentaries so fascinating. The people living through the 1930s didn't have the benefit of knowing how the story ended. They were watching individual events unfold, just as we are today. History gives us the advantage of seeing the pattern afterward, even if the circumstances today are obviously very different.Yes, the EU has created as dire a set of circumstances for itself as has existed.
They are in bed with China far more than America these days, yet they want to go to war with Russia who is China's ally and is being fully supported in its war efforts by China (and by extension NK).
So the EU in effect is fully funding and supporting the very nations intent on subjugating them and draining them of wealth and resources.
Is it any wonder that the Trump Administration wants to distance itself from the war in Ukraine?
Especially when the Iran war is an extension of the war in Ukraine. Iran was providing support to Russia in its war efforts since day one, helped them with drones and other wartime assets.
One could say the war against Russia has been ongoing for decades, and I would tend to agree (see Iraq, Libya, Syria, Georgia) as we targeted and/or attacked many of the nations allied to it.
It isn't America (Trump Administration) that has lost its mind, its Europe which is choosing to lie with an enemy that will consume it slowly, inevitably until there is nothing really left of value in the EU.
Add to that the allowance in tens of millions of migrants that have no wealth and no high-end education or abilities and the EU's dependance on foreign resources and energy and you can see where things are headed.
The leadership of the EU is a delusional reflection of our Progressive Democrat Socialist Party, they align with things like restrictions on speech, open borders, etc. things that doom free societies and create state-controlled tyrannies.Why aren't you talking about Trump and his "please China" campaign?
It was back in the Clinton years that they decided to pass NAFTA, CAFTA, and continue with China's "favored nation" status... it was then that our industrial base was hollowed out.
We have resources (oil/gas) that the EU doesn't have, we have been re-industrializing and working to disconnect from our dependence on China.
We are reversing the trend of pharmaceuticals and hi-tech components being made in China, it takes time, years, but this was started in earnest as soon as Trump was sworn in.NAFTA's net effect for America was very positive.
Trump has not been working to disconnect from China, just the opposite.
Trump loves dictators which is why China and Russia are no longer a threat according to HIS national security plan.For all those living in the rust belt, the hundreds of thousands of jobs that shifted to Canada and Mexico, I don't think NAFTA was very positive.
There is a direct correlation to when those decisions were made and the decline in health benefits, wages, pensions, etc.
For those other nations that benefited, it has helped raise them up. Mexico and China especially. But with that raising up of other nations and China becoming the world's industrial center, it is time to put our national interests at the forefront.I don't dispute that globalization created winners and losers. Some Rust Belt communities were harmed, and government did a poor job helping many of those workers transition to the new economy.
But that does not mean NAFTA was a net economic loss for America. The broader evidence shows that trade increased total economic output while imposing concentrated costs on certain industries and communities.
NAFTA was not responsible for the policy failure of failing to adequately support workers and communities affected by economic change. Nor was NAFTA responsible for the two much larger forces that transformed American manufacturing: automation and China's emergence as a global manufacturing powerhouse. Those two factors had a much greater impact on the decline of many Rust Belt communities than NAFTA alone.I don't think anyone is saying NAFTA was the only reason the Rust Belt suffered. Automation, China, technology and changing markets all played a role. But that doesn't mean NAFTA gets a free pass.
NAFTA made it much easier and cheaper for companies to move parts of their manufacturing across the border, and U.S.-Mexico trade exploded after it took effect in 1994. Research has also found that trade shocks caused real, long-lasting damage to many manufacturing communities and workers.
And yes, the overall U.S. economy may have gained from increased trade. But saying “the economy gained overall” doesn't tell the whole story to the worker who lost his factory job, saw his wages fall, or watched his town decline.
I think the more accurate answer is that NAFTA created winners and losers.The problem wasn't just that government failed to retrain the losers afterward. The bigger question is whether we ever did enough to make sure the people and communities paying the price actually shared in the gains.Ken strongly implies that "NAFTA was the only reason the Rust Belt suffered.", if only by excluding the more important reasons.
Let me reverse what you said - "But saying “the worker who lost his factory job, saw his wages fall, or watched his town decline doesn't tell the whole story to the economy gained overall”
But, I totally agree with your closing thought.Ken implies that NAFTA was the major component.
For example, the hundred thousand jobs in the Auto-industry that shifted from America to Canada after NAFTA passed would have never occurred. There was no benefit to America for that, the corporations and foreign nations benefited, not American industry or those that had those jobs before they went to Canada.
This is being reversed now, as it should be, since Canada wants to beholden itself to China and spite America, ignoring the fact that 70% of its outgoing trade goes to America is suicidal. Canada deserves to lose every job that can be resettled back to America.
Overall there was a net positive for America with NAFTA, minus the many towns and communities that were essentially shuttered because of it.
Now, like a teeter-totter, those policies and agreements have become detrimental to America, everything from raw rare resources that primarily are produced in China and Russia that are essential, to China being a far more capable industrial powerhouse than America is today.
China could not have become what it is today without Wall St. and the international community investing trillions there to make it so, 40 years ago China's GDP was less than Hong Kong. Today China is made up of 12 Hong Kongs, including Hong Kong.
The actions taken in the last 10+ years, primarily by Trump, to shred these international trade agreements with {former) allies and nations that needed decades to develop to our level (China) is not just needed, it is critical.
I think it is way too late IMO, 40+ trillion dollars in debt, even our staunchest allies are trying to bail out of the buying U.S. Treasuries business.
These changes being applied now, with heavy resistance from within our own government by compromised judges and politicians who work against the best interests of America the nation, are most likely too late.
These changes needed to be enacted during Obama's first term at the latest. From repeal of Glass Steagall to NAFTA, many of the things passed and signed off on by Bill Clinton led to the near collapse in 2008 and the problems we face today.Ken, like Sharlee likes to point out, you leave out most of the picture. The decline of the Rust Belt that you pin 100% onto NAFTA actually has a different cause; NAFTA was one small component.
For example, the strongest evidence for the severe, persistent local damage comes from the China shock, not NAFTA.
Autor, Dorn, and Hanson found that rising Chinese import competition caused large declines in manufacturing employment, lower wages, lower labor-force participation, and higher transfer payments in exposed communities. Their work estimated that Chinese import competition explained about one-quarter of the aggregate decline in U.S. manufacturing employment over the period they studied.
I could argue that the Rust Belt decline came from American dependence on China.As I noted (above in an earlier post) both China's "favored nation status" which was continued under Clinton AND NAFTA were major contributing factors, that long ago became a net negative to what is best for America and its Citizens.
You are adding the 100% to it.
Thanks for reminding me why I do not engage in discussion with you, the Marxist tactics you use (knowingly or not) are not conducive to positive dialogue or debate.
I think his priorities are:
1. Himself
2. Himself
3. Himself
4. Russia
5.China
6. North Korea
7. Other autocracies
8. America
Europe seems to be caught in a contradiction of its own making. It wants to confront Russia while remaining deeply economically dependent on China, even though China is supporting Russia. And that isn't just a talking point, China was the EU's largest source of imports in both the first and second quarters of 2026. The EU itself describes China as simultaneously a partner, competitor and “systemic rival.”
That raises the question you are getting at: at what point does economic interdependence stop being an advantage and become a strategic vulnerability?
I wouldn't go quite as far as saying Europe has already lost everything or that its future is inevitable. But I do think there is a legitimate concern about where this strategy leads if Europe continues depending on countries that don't necessarily share its interests while distancing itself from the United States, its traditional security partner.
And I think this is where your comparison becomes particularly interesting. A country doesn't necessarily have to be conquered militarily to lose influence or become strategically dependent. It can happen gradually through energy, manufacturing, technology, resources, trade and political dependence. By the time the consequences become obvious, reversing course can be extremely difficult.
So when you say Europe may be choosing to “lie with” an enemy that could gradually consume its wealth and independence, I think the more important question is whether European leaders are looking far enough down the road. China doesn't have to be openly at war with Europe for that relationship to create vulnerabilities.
That's what makes this whole situation so fascinating to me. The biggest danger may not be one dramatic event, but a series of decisions that seem reasonable individually while collectively changing the balance of power. History has shown us that sometimes countries don't realize how much their position has changed until they're already deeply committed to a direction that's difficult to reverse.In short... they want beneficial trade with America and for America to fund its military needs (NATO) and fight its war with Russia.
And they want cheap products from China (which supports Russia's war efforts) and they (UK, Germany, France) are selling companies, factories, rights away to China (all corporations of China are ultimately answerable and responsible to the CCP).
And they want open borders, millions of people coming in that don't share their values, history, religion, language, etc. people coming for what they can get (Social Services, housing, food) not what they can provide.
And they are dependent on outside sources of energy due to their pursuit of Net Zero they have shut down Nuclear Power plants, as well as Coal, and also put out regulations requiring a shift away from gas and oil toward EVs (which China makes in spades).
They cannot pay for what they currently have, with the war on Russia and loss of its cheap energy resources, and America telling them to pay for their own military needs... it's not a good time to be hollowing out their industry and handing it over to China, but that is exactly what they are doing.Fun Facts:
* NATO’s common budgets are shared, and the U.S. contributes roughly 16% of the common-funded budgets, about the same as Germany. - so much for "they cannot pay for what they currently have"
* Europe and Canada provide ~35–40% of NATO defense spending, What does America get (and apparently does not need) and sense Russia is our friend now and does not pose a threat to America, we don't need to spend money defending ourselves.
* Europe provides more than half, and getting larger, toward helping Ukraine. But hey, who needs a democracy on Russia's Western border - it certainly is not in America's interest, is it.
Only 20,380 hours left before the threat to our own democracy is gone and we can start repairing the devastation Trump has caused.Europe’s Economic Collapse Is Accelerating — These Are The REAL Numbers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdiAOSPE8Vw
'Made in EU’ rules: Brexit strikes back and the China factor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7qe9Jx39uk
Europe's share of global GDP has dropped from nearly 25% at the turn of the millennium to roughly 15% today.
According to analysis highlighted in the Draghi Report and OECD data, roughly 70% of the per capita GDP gap between the EU and the U.S. stems from a productivity deficit, two-thirds of which is driven by the technology sector. Europe produces drastically fewer tech unicorns and venture capital investments compared to the U.S.
Europe is not impoverished, but it faces a chronic "slow agony" of competitive stagnation, China is dominating more and more of their marketplace and the U.S. is requiring FAIR trade or NO trade (in other words we are done giving the EU special benefits when they screw us over every chance they get and happily get in bed with China... who is supporting Russia... in the war against Ukraine and by extension the EU).Let's take it piece by piece
You’ve presented several numbers that are technically correct, but you’ve left out the history and the distinction between NATO’s common budget, national defense spending, and aid to Ukraine. Those are three different things.
Yes, the U.S. contributes about 16% of NATO’s common-funded budgets, roughly the same as Germany. But NATO itself distinguishes those relatively small common budgets from what individual countries spend on their own militaries. The common budgets are less than 0.02% of total Allied defense spending. So that 16% figure doesn’t tell us who is carrying the larger defense burden.
The more important question is what has happened to European defense spending. For years, the United States had been spending substantially more on defense than many European allies, which is why burden-sharing became a bipartisan issue long before Trump. European allies and Canada were spending about 1.4% of their combined GDP on defense in 2014. By 2025, that had risen to about 2.3%, and NATO reports that they increased defense spending by roughly 20% in real terms in 2025 alone.
And this is where the present situation matters. At the 2025 NATO summit, all the allies agreed to move toward spending 5% of GDP on defense and defense-related security by 2035. NATO's Secretary General has since said Europe and Canada are on a trajectory to equalize their defense spending with the United States and has specifically credited Trump's pressure for helping produce that change.
So if the argument is that Europe should contribute more to its own defense, we're actually seeing that happen.
As for “what does America get?” NATO isn't a one-way protection plan where America pays Europe's bills and receives nothing. The United States gets a mutual-defense alliance, allied military forces, intelligence cooperation, bases and infrastructure, strategic access, and partners that contribute their own forces and resources. The entire purpose of NATO is that the United States doesn't have to defend Europe by itself.
And the Russia argument needs some perspective too. You can debate America's relationship with Russia and what our defense priorities should be without pretending NATO believes Russia is suddenly a friend. NATO's current position still identifies Russia as a long-term threat to Euro-Atlantic security.
Your Ukraine point is closer to the mark: Europe has now surpassed the United States in total aid to Ukraine, including military assistance. But that actually reinforces the broader point that the burden has been shifting. Europe is doing more, not less.
So I think the missing piece in your comment is history. These numbers didn't appear out of nowhere, and they don't tell the whole story. The United States has spent decades providing a disproportionate share of NATO's military capability, while European countries have generally spent less. That imbalance has been debated under presidents of both parties. What we are seeing now is Europe increasing its contribution substantially.
We can certainly debate whether Trump’s methods, rhetoric, or particular policies are right or wrong. But reducing the entire NATO debate to “Trump caused devastation and 20,380 hours until he's gone” skips over decades of history and the very real changes NATO allies are making now.
Ken, I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just wouldn't go quite as far as saying Europe is literally handing everything over to China.
What concerns me is the growing dependence. China was the EU's largest source of imports in both the first and second quarters of 2026, and the EU ran a huge goods deficit with China in 2025. At the same time, China is helping support Russia's war effort. Those are pretty uncomfortable facts to ignore.
I also think Europe deserves some credit for finally increasing defense spending, but it has a lot of catching up to do.
I guess where I agree with you most is that Europe may have become too comfortable relying on other countries for energy, manufacturing and even security. Cheap goods and cheap energy are great, until the countries you're depending on don't have the same interests you do.
So yes, I think you're right to question where all of this eventually leads. Europe may be finding out that economic dependence isn't quite as harmless as it once looked.China's trade position with Europe is real, but attributing it simply to Europe's choices ignores the effect of U.S. trade policy. Tariffs can redirect Chinese exports toward other markets. The question is not whether Europe trades with China — it does — but whether that trade represents strategic dependence or simply normal global commerce. The same supply-chain issues the U.S. is trying to address also affect Europe.
Then there are these factors:
* China's enormous manufacturing capacity,
* weak Chinese domestic demand pushing firms to export,
* price competition,
* electric vehicles,
* solar panels,
* batteries,
* machinery,
* electronics.
The increase in Chinese exports to Europe is not primarily because Europe abandoned the U.S. It is more like the US cannot provide what the EU needs and even if we could, it would be too expensive.Agreed. And the CCP is willing to sell things at a loss to capture a marketplace, they are on the international stage, what Walmart has been to so many small mom&pop businesses. Other nations just can't compete once China enters the market. Including the EUs auto-industry.
The EU will get hollowed out and unlike America that has a vast wealth of resources and territory, I don't think they recover, I think they will soon resemble what Eastern bloc nations looked like after the collapse of the USSR. The exceptions will be nations like Poland, that resisted the insanity of Brussels and protected their industry and borders.
I think the biggest problem I see today in the EU is the "leaderships" willingness to copy much of what is standard in China, the shift to digital currency that will have a time limit, the confiscation of property (farms), the assault on free speech (jail time for speaking your mind or giving an opinion that is considered verboten).
And of course, letting in millions that do not share your values, at a time when economies are strained (at best) to be put on some form of welfare services, doesn't help with their problems of energy and food resources.
In general they seem delusional or in denial of the realities they face, they project as if they are in a position of power to dictate to Russia or America and they are not.Ken, you certainly have a talent for gross exaggeration.
Some of the things you describe really are characteristic of China — especially censorship and broad state authority over land.
But the fantastical claim that Europe is copying China needs evidence, case by case, to be believable because on the face of it, it is not.
* The EU’s proposed digital euro explicitly rejects programmable or expiring money.
* Compulsory purchase of property such as America's eminent domain, predates modern China by centuries and exists in every Western democracy.
* And immigration policy has nothing particularly Chinese about it.
Europe certainly has debates over speech restrictions, regulation, migration, and state power, but grouping all of those together as ‘copying China’ grossly overstates the case.True, the immigration policy is certainly opposite of China.
True, The European Central Bank (ECB) has repeatedly stated that the digital euro will be an unrestricted legal tender that always retains its value.
However, that does not mean it cannot change this stance, through new regulation or legislation, to be a programmable currency tied to political or criminal activity or given an expiration date.
While the EU couches its legalese in well-meaning wording in its Digital Services Act (DSA) to target illegal content, consumer fraud, and child safety through democratic legislative processes and court appeals. That is not how it works in practice, when it shuts down X or Telegram it is shutting down free speech and the sharing of information.
China uses state-directed censorship that serves ruling political goals and completely blocks independent or foreign platforms. The UK and EU targets individual's posts, in the UK alone they arrest over 3,000 individuals a year, many for stating nothing more than fact, that others consider offensive.
This is a step closer to China and a step further from the freedoms and liberties America was founded to protect and preserve.
Some free-speech advocates argue that the strict mandates in the DSA pressure platforms to over-remove speech, drawing loose comparisons to government-managed information, when you make a platform like X economically unfeasible to run in the UK, due to fines and regulation, it is the same thing as restricting speech.But don't you agree that the "chances" of that happening, while not zero, is closer to 0.1%?
As to "steps closer to China", my impression is that Trump is running full-tilt in their direction.
Ken, I think you’re making an important point here, and the more I look at what is happening in Europe, the more I understand where you’re coming from. What concerns me is the direction of some of these policies and the willingness to give governments more control over areas that traditionally belonged to individuals.
The farm issue is a good example. We’ve seen European farmers pushing back against regulations and policies that they believe threaten their ability to keep and operate their own land. The fact that the European Parliament has actually had to address concerns about the expropriation of farms and agricultural land tells me this isn’t just some made-up concern.
And I think your larger point about Europe believing it can dictate terms to Russia or the United States is worth considering. Economic strength, energy security, food production and military capability all matter when you’re talking about geopolitical power. You can’t simply declare yourself a major power; you have to have the resources and ability to back it up.
I do think you’re pointing to a bigger question: is Europe strengthening its independence and resilience, or is it creating more dependence on government systems while weakening some of the freedoms and resources it needs to remain strong?
It seems to me the one doing the "befriending" of China is Trump himself. He has done more than any other person on earth who isn't Chinese to further the cause of China.
I am sure he will do it again when he meets with him at the lavish state dinner he is throwing for America's enemy (similar to the red carpet he rolled out for his mentor, Putin.)
Where is your proof of those absurd claims?
I am here, lol.
Clearly that was probably an unedited, probably ChatGPT generated diatribe. I recognize the style as I use it to help write my books. It is a constant battle to get it to remember my voice and its need to generate machine gun like sentences. When it does, I have to slap its binary code and tell it to try again.
On another note - I agree with you entirely.
As for thoughts here are a few…
When did it become the Government Job to decide what our children may use to learn?
I ask a more pertinent question, i ask the conservatives when is the governments job to tell children what they are to learn?
In Texas and Oklahoma there is much going on there that would turn public schools into Sunday schools. Mandating Judeo-Christian philosophies and totems in public schools independent of the principles of non-establishment.
In these red states, including Florida, if “Jiminy Cricket” does not teach the sanitized version of American history full of lies and half truths, it is considered “woke”? That is also controlled by red state governments.
I support the mayor in this initiative, as the ability to think critically and independently is paramount. There cannot be anything that conservatives fear more than those that are not indoctrinated. The ability to critically think has always been a threat to the status quo. Often times, the status quo should be subject to questioning and evaluation.
To tell a story, I taught as a substitute teacher for a year for the San Bernardino public schools in California in 1981. I was a teacher for a 2nd grade arithmetic class. The curriculum included having children do arithmetic problems on calculators. The children could not quantify nor conceptualize number without artificial aids. I went to the principal and suggested that these aids are designed in the interests of speed and accuracyfor people who already solve for X or add 2 plus 2 without artificial aids.
So, if conservatives complain about overreach by government in public schools, should they not look in the mirror.
——
There is a very strong argument on Mamdani's side.
Children are not adults.
They are still developing their ability to reason, concentrate, write and solve problems.
——-
I agree with the above. This idea of so called American individualism leaves much to be desired.I think there’s a fair point on both sides here. I agree that kids need to learn how to think, reason, write and solve problems before relying too heavily on AI. Your calculator example is a good one. Technology is a great tool, but it shouldn’t replace learning the basics.
But I also think we have to be consistent about government involvement in education. If we’re concerned about government deciding what technology kids can use, we should also question government deciding what history, books, religion or values kids are taught.
That happens in both red and blue states.
So for me, the issue isn’t really Mamdani or socialism. It’s how much control government should have over education in the first place. AI isn’t going away, so I’d rather see kids taught how to use it wisely and critically than simply shielded from it.
Common sense to me is: teach the basics first, introduce the technology gradually, supervise it, and let parents and teachers have a voice too. And whatever standard we use, we should apply it to both sides of the political aisle.Common sense to me is: teach the basics first, introduce the technology gradually, supervise it, and let parents and teachers have a voice too. And whatever standard we use, we should apply it to both sides of the political aisle.
——
I can live with this as long as it is universally applied, and it should apply to curriculum as well as technology.
This is an interesting topic with a lot of different angles. But the first Sentence caught me. What a hook!!
"When Did It Become the Government’s Job to Decide What Our Children May Use to Learn?"
Now let's change the word government into Corporation. Would you be happy?
Or change it into parents? Would children learn more, or would parants just a cherry pick of subjects?
The exams you do have to be on a certain national level. A school in Florida should have the same exam as one in Alaska. (Same level)
If that is not the case, the certification won't be worth much.
I talk from a Dutch perspective where all primary and secondary schools have to give the same exams on the same levels. How you get to the exam, that's where schools have some freedom. But if you do a math exam level B, all the schools in the Netherlands get the same level B math exam. This way you can guarantee the quality of the education system.
If parents start to raise their voice, saying that you are not to allow certain books in literature, you will have a problem, as everybody has different opinions.
So a state exam is the best option.
In the Netherlands you can go to a Catholic or Montessori or Jewish school if you want, but all these schools will have the same final exams. The difference is in the non-obligatory subjects. Some can give religion as an extra subject, or Chinese or Music. but that's outside the official curriculum.
Now the subject of AI. AI is a tool, but if it is used to calculate 2*2 you will have a problem, as children will not learn to use their brains.And the results are already visible.In the Netherlands mobile phones are forbidden in the class room at certain schools, and rightly so, as it is a huge distraction.
So yes, local or national governments have the right and should make laws about the use of AI. If you don't regulate it, it will be one big mess. Drugs are regulated too, aren't they? AI is a hugely seductive tool, and so far without really knowing the consequences it is not a bad idea to put a temporary stop. Corp won't do this because they are selling a product, so a government has to step in. Just like governments had to step in with regulations to ban smoking as it created cancer.
just my two cents...I appreciate your “two cents,” and I actually agree with you on more than you might think. Schools absolutely need standards, and I have no problem with government establishing minimum educational requirements or protecting children from demonstrably harmful things. My argument isn't that government has no role in education.
The distinction I'm making is between setting the destination and controlling every road used to get there.
A common standard for what students should know is very different from City Hall deciding which tools teachers and students may use to acquire that knowledge. A school can require that a student demonstrate that they understand mathematics without necessarily dictating every tool that may be used while learning it.
And I agree with your 2×2 example. If a child uses AI to do everything for them, they aren't learning. But that actually strengthens my point that we should be teaching children when and how to use the tool rather than simply removing the tool. A calculator can be abused too, yet we don't ban calculators from education; we teach students when they should be doing the mathematics themselves and when a calculator is appropriate.
Your comparison to phones is a good one, but I see an important distinction there as well. A school deciding that phones are too distracting during class is a classroom-management decision. What concerns me is the larger principle of government deciding, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of children, which technologies are acceptable educational tools.
And I certainly agree that corporations should not be the ones writing the rules simply because they are selling a product. But I don't think the alternative has to be government making the decision for everyone. There is room for teachers, school districts, parents, and education experts to establish responsible boundaries while still allowing experimentation and different approaches.
That's really the heart of my article. I'm not arguing that AI should be unrestricted. I'm arguing that we should be careful about becoming comfortable with the idea that government knows best simply because the goal is a good one.
You made an interesting point when you asked what would happen if we substituted “corporation” or “parents” for “government” in my opening sentence. That's exactly the question I wanted people to think about. Who should have the authority to decide—and where should that authority end?
Good intentions don't answer that question. That's the debate I'm trying to start.Yes I agree that there should be room for teachers and others to have a say in what happens in a school, (to a certain amount.)
But with AI we talk about a something that most teachers, parents and education experts have no knowledge off.
AI is developing with such an alarming speed, that it is wise to stay stop. wait a minute. What does it do?
And such a decision can not wait and go through countless commissions.
What does AI do with the brain of children? Is their cognitive abilities going down (what we have seen with the use of mobile telephones!)
The addiction and amount of time we spent on mobiles are enormous, it changed the society completely.
The same is going to happen with AI. AI will change our world drastically.
This will happen, for good or bad. But I don't think we should simply let it loose on the schools without restrictions, not knowing the consequences.
Now, you could say, well children have to learn how to use them. But than you need teachers who can teach them, and AI is just as new for teachers as for the children. It's one big experiment we are in at the moment as a society...
AI is massive, and perhaps the decision to have a Time Out isn't a bad one, until the way how to teach children to use it is more regulated.
I think it wouldn't be bad if all the AI companies had a Time Out and took a moment to think about the social risks of AI, instead of throwing millions in the AI race.
Yesterday Jacob Coxon quit his job at Anthropic, saying AI could kill humanity in a decade! And he is not the only scientist who is ringing the alarm bell.I really do appreciate your thoughtful comment, and I think you make some very valid points. I especially agree that we should not rush into something as enormous as AI without asking serious questions about what it may mean for children, their ability to think independently, and the role of teachers.
I also agree that we are still learning what AI can and cannot do. It is developing so quickly that even the people creating it are sometimes trying to understand its consequences as they go. That certainly makes caution reasonable.
Where I may see it a little differently is that I don't think we can realistically put AI back in the box or wait until we know everything about it. Our children are already encountering it, whether schools teach it or not. That is exactly why I think education has an important role to play. Rather than allowing children to use AI without understanding it, perhaps schools should teach them how to use it responsibly, how to question what it gives them, how to recognize misinformation, and—most importantly—when they need to think for themselves instead of letting a machine do the thinking for them.
And I agree with you about teachers. They cannot be expected to teach something they haven't been given the opportunity to understand themselves. Teachers need training and clear guidelines, and parents deserve a voice as well.
I also think your larger point is important: the race to develop AI should not move faster than our ability to understand the social consequences. There is nothing wrong with slowing down long enough to ask some very uncomfortable questions.
Perhaps the real "time out" we need isn't necessarily a complete stop, but a chance to step back, study what is happening, establish reasonable boundaries, and make sure that technology remains a tool for our children rather than becoming a substitute for their own minds.
You have raised the issue in such a thoughtful way. These are questions we really should be discussing before we simply assume that because something can be done, it should be done.Hi Sharlee, yes I agree with you here.
Ups I had written a whole reply and deleted it by accident.
But in short.
back to the title: the banning is from 2K- 8th grade - I had to Goolge that one. And it is from 2 years old to 12 years old.
I think it makes perfectly sense not go give those kids AI tools. They should learn other skills like social skills, languages, tying there laces, cooking, math, cognitive skills and basic skills to get around in the world.
How this is organized is open of course.
Because why should a toddler need an AI tool?
You can teach them about AI, just as you can teach them about cars. But it does not mean that you have to give these tools to kids. You don't give a kid a car either. (I know this is a bit simplistic but not that far off)
I guess, if a 12 year old comes to a teacher and asks about AI, and it is a topic in the class, surely schools will give it attention (or so I hope.. but I wonder if teachers have insight in what AI actually means)
In the Netherlands the mobile phone is prohibited in the classroom on the primary and secondary (up to 18 years). This is a law and nationwide.
And both teachers and children are happy with it. It benefits the learning process a lot.
But yes,it is difficult to compare countries as they are all differently structured governmental wise and cultural wise.
One thing about regulation.
Almost all AI companies (Anthropic Open AI, Google) have asked the US government to regulate AI. This has never happened before, that a company is asking regulation from the government to regulate a product they make themselves! It shows how wild west we live at the moment, AI-wise.
AI is amazing in many ways, medicines can be produces faster, DNA defects discovered easier, diseases can be found in a much earlier state, thing are discovered and produced on an amazing fast paced scale.
But it also has its dangerous sides. Dangerous viruses can be constructed, computer hacks and other things can be thought by evil minds. But also accidents can happen. A lot of financial systems run on AI, independently, It's quite a chaos.
Then you have briefings about AI systems lying to humans to stay switched on...
Basically we are in a situation worldwide were a lot is at stake. And nobody has a clear insight.
You can't stop it, but hopefully some care and precaution locks have been set in place in case things do go wrong.
AI is the most important thing right now, but I wonder if it will even be a topic in the elections to come.
Ah well another 2 cents...I see your point regarding K–8, and I agree with much of what you shared. I also prefer those early school years to concentrate on reading, math, English skills, science, and the basic skills children need to get through the world. And, of course, social skills are extremely important too, learning teamwork, making friendships, communicating with others, and learning how to function as part of a group.
My grandson is 13 and in the 8th grade at a private school, and I really like the way his school approaches technology. Phones are banned in the classroom, which I think is a very good thing. At the same time, they started teaching computer skills as early as first grade. It is actually remarkable to me how much he knows about computers at 13.
He is now allowed to use AI for research, but he has to provide the sources for anything he uses. I think that is a sensible way to introduce it. They aren't simply handing him AI and telling him to believe whatever it says. He is learning that information needs to be checked and that he needs to know where it came from. I have to admit, he has even shown me some of the ins and outs of AI and some of the fun things it can do.Yes, that makes sense to me too. 13 is an age where you start with learning more things, lots of homework and playtime is over.
When I was 13 I started with Dutch,English, French, German, math,economics, history, geology, physics,chemistry, biology, art and social science...
The difference (workload) between the primary school (up to 12 years) and the secondary school (12-18) is (was) huge.
I'm a bit out of touch with the school system at the moment as I don't have kids, but I think it's more or less the same.
When you are 13 you should definitely learn about AI and what you can do with it, and guided in a responsible way.
My work at the moment is to improve the outcome of AI prompts. I have to judge the outcome on the AI vocabulary (not the content). It's amazing what people ask AI in a professional setting (science, business) and how AI responds.I agree with you. I think 13 is probably a good age to begin learning about AI, especially if they are taught to question it rather than simply accept whatever it tells them. I really like the approach my grandson’s school is taking with requiring sources.
And your work with AI sounds fascinating! I can imagine there are some pretty surprising things people ask it to do in professional settings. I’m still learning my way around AI myself, but I have to admit I’m amazed at what it can do, and sometimes a little amazed at what it can do.
[i["When Did It Become the Government’s Job to Decide What Our Children May Use to Learn?"[/i]
In my opinion, since the Preamble to the Constitution was written. The one purpose of our gov't is to protect its citizens, is it not? Isn't that why it says:
* Establish Justice
* Insure domestic Tranquility
* provide for the common defence
* promote the general Welfare
Every one of those, I think, is some form of protecting the People.
So, it seems to me that children are part of the People and therefore deserve the gov'ts protection. Isn't that what Mamdani is trying to do? Do you not want him protecting our children?
Related Discussions
- 15
4 Amazing Benefits of Artificial Intelligence in Schools by Ravi
by Rosina S Khan 2 years ago
Please read this intriguing article by Ravi where he explains how AI could replace human form teachers and be of advantage to students and teachers alike. Here is the link to his article:https://hubpages.com/education/4-Amazin … in-SchoolsHi Ravi,I love the way you showed by examples in your...
- 11
What would you do to fix the educational system in America?
by Bill Holland 14 years ago
What would you do to fix the educational system in America?This assumes, of course, that the system needs fixing. What would you change about it? What would you terminate? Perhaps we need to look first at what is wrong before answering the question.
- 58
School Choice Is On The Move
by ga anderson 4 years ago
"School choice is a way of giving families with modest incomes the same opportunities that have always existed for rich families (including the families of [. . .] politicians)."By the logic of 'separation' as an argument against school choice, government funding of higher education, in...
- 38
Sex ed in k and elementary?
by TMMason 16 years ago
"It lays out sex education topics for each grade, K through 12. In the first grade, children would be taught that human beings can love people of the same gender; in second grade, kids are taught not to make fun of people by calling them "gay" or "queer." ...
- 55
Politics and AI. Are you prepared?
by tsmog 2 years ago
Today, one hot topic is using AI to write content or create images by regular everyday people. Everyone knows about ChatGPT released in late 2022. There are many versions of content AI available now like with Grammarly or on Bing’s browser.How will AI affect our politics? Should we feel threatened...
- 15
Do you feel that homeschooled children generally miss out on socialization?
by arizonataylor 14 years ago
Do you feel that homeschooled children generally miss out on socialization?