“There is one and only one reason to ever require students to spend time at home mastering what is introduced in class,” libertarian columnist Paul Jacob writes at Common Sense, in criticism of a California bill which might result in reduced homework loads for public school students. “Only to prepare them for earning a living and living life by helping them obtain knowledge and skills and realize their potential.”

I disagree.  Unless things have changed since the early 2000s — when my wife and I pulled our own kids out of government schools and switched to homeschooling — the “homework situation” in America is beyond crazy.

As an elementary school student in the 1970s, I could reasonably expect 30-60 minutes of homework per night. That seemed like a lot, but I was a preteen. The workload increased in junior high and high school, but probably still averaged not much more than an hour per day.

By the early 2000s, it wasn’t unusual for my kids’ teachers to send home three hours’ worth of homework per weeknight, or more, and several hours’ worth for weekends.

No, I’m not exaggerating. We were involved parents who helped our kids get through that insane workload.

A workload, I should remind you, that came ON TOP of six to eight hours per day, five days per week, nine months per year, either in school or commuting between school and home.

Almost any adult worker who spent eight hours a day on a factory floor or at an office desk, then was told to work another three hours from home each weeknight and six to eight hours on the weekend, “off the clock,” would seek a salary re-negotiation or quit.

The kids don’t get paid, and they’re not allowed to quit.

Also, they’re kids, not adult workers.

Kids need more, not less, sleep than adults. Kids need more, not less, time to play and socialize than adults. And at least some studies show that more than an hour of homework per day correlates with decreased, not enhanced, academic performance.

I’m not normally a “there oughtta be a law” type. In fact, I oppose the government’s “public” education system in its entirety and  prefer to see kids homeschooled or privately schooled.

But IF there’s going to be a “public” education system, I favor legally capping that system’s “homework”  loads at (for the student of average intelligence) an hour per day in elementary/middle/junior high school, and two hours per day in high school, perhaps with exceptions for “honors” courses, etc.

There’s a term for more homework than that: “Child abuse.”

Yes, education is important. So is kids’ quality of life outside school hours. Leave them some time for their kid stuff.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Two red lines remain,” the Associated Press reported on July 5, regarding the topic of Ukraine at this week’s North Atlantic Treaty organization summit: “No NATO membership until the war is over, and no NATO boots on the ground there.”

But, Politico reports as the summit opens, citing two anonymous sources, one a Ukrainian official, “NATO members are likely to declare that Ukraine’s path to membership in the alliance is ‘irreversible.'”

The reality:

Ukraine was, and is, never going to formally become a NATO member state.

Why is that never going to happen?

Because formal NATO membership requires unanimous consent from all of the current member states, because several NATO member states enjoy friendly relations with the Russian Federation, and because there’s no way at least one such member state wouldn’t exercise its veto for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing those friendly relations.

That being the case, why does NATO keep dangling the prospect of membership in front of Ukraine? And why do defenders of Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine continue to pretend that the prospect is real — just as Putin himself has from the beginning of the conflict?

As a bargaining chip, of course.

If peace talks ever begin in earnest, NATO negotiators get to offer a meaningless concession (withdrawing the non-existent prospect), and the Russian Federation’s negotiators get to pretend they got a meaningful concession (withdrawal of the non-existent prospect).

A key element of international negotiations is that all sides have to “get something.” Unconditional surrenders occur only when one side is militarily defeated and/or economically exhausted.

NATO’s likely “irreversible” statement is just NATO’s way of saying it’s not ready to negotiate yet. And if NATO isn’t ready to negotiate, neither is Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has essentially become a US/UK/EU/NATO puppet “president.”

Zelenskyy wants the “irreversible” statement because he fears the appearance of any daylight at all between him and his regime’s western backers. Any slight crack in the wall of western support for his regime would encourage Russian forces to stay their military course, and likely end with him in exile at best, and more probably dead.

As a non-interventionist, I’ve opposed US meddling in Ukraine for a decade — ever since the US-sponsored coup that culminated in the secessions of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk, and eventually in the 2022 Russian invasion.

The US and its allies worked hard to bring the current situation about, and — with the full cooperation of Vladimir Putin — succeeded.

If it was up to me, US aid to Zelenskyy’s regime would end today. Not because I support the Russian invasion, but because it’s simply not (and never was) any of “my” government’s business.

Of course, that aid WON’T end today, and after more than two years of stalemate, the war is far more likely to end in a negotiated settlement that leaves neither side completely happy than in either side collapsing.

The sooner Ukraine and its backers come to the table and start their horse-trading, the better for everyone involved.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Who runs the country?”

I’ve been hearing variants of that question a lot over the last  few weeks, mainly in forms like “given Joe Biden’s age and apparent mental decline, can we trust him to run the country for another four years?”

For the last eight or nine years, I’ve also heard it a lot, in slightly different forms, about Donald Trump.

I visited Google Trends to find out if I’m just imagining increased frequency of that annoying question. Turns out my perception is correct: After a brief spike in 2004, the phrase “who runs the country” took a long vacation, only beginning to rise to prominence again a decade or so ago, and recently peaking at its highest point since 2015.

It’s a really dumb question … and a pet peeve of mine.

Donald Trump did not “run the country” from 2017 to 2021.

Nor has Joe Biden “run the country” since then.

Whoever wins this November’s presidential election will not “run the country” starting next January 20.

What are you doing today?

Whatever that might be, did you ask Joe Biden for permission to do it? Next January, will you start running your daily calendar by Joe Biden or Donald Trump for approval?

Almost certainly not.

The president is just one of more than 330 million Americans. He (or, someday, she) may be more powerful than most of us, But not so much more powerful that he “runs the country” in any meaningful sense.

At MOST, the president “runs” one of three branches of the federal government … and the federal government is not “the country.”

Economics isn’t everything, but it’s a useful thing. US Gross Domestic Product (the value of all goods and services produced) in 2023 topped $27 trillion, of which the federal government spent $6.13 trillion. That’s a lot. It’s WAY too much. But it’s hardly “running the country.”

That $6.13 trillion was appropriated by Congress, not the president.

His only power over that is to sign or veto the appropriations bills (in the latter case, Congress can override him), then spend the money as Congress directs.

Increasingly “imperial” presidents since World War 2 have tried to get around such strictures with “executive orders.” Sometimes that works. Other times Congress or the courts say “nope.”

Outside the purely economic arena, the president gets to negotiate treaties (but the Senate must approve them) and act as commander in chief of the armed forces when they are “called into the service of the United States,” which should only happen when Congress has declared war (it hasn’t done so in 80 years).

The president doesn’t “run the country.” He only “runs the government” to a limited extent, if Congress and the courts allow it (they allow it far too much).

The country is “run” by those of us who produce that $27 trillion in goods and services every year … or don’t .. and who go about our business with or without a president’s permission.

We should stop fantasizing so much power into the hands of politicians. They’re just wasteful parasites. We’re the productive hosts.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.