Monday’s Mtg: 20 Years of Fox News – What Is Its Legacy?

It all began with Fox News, 20 years ago this month.

At least that’s my view. Yes, even before FNN launched in 1996, Rush Limbaugh had been on the air for several years and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had reinvented a much harder-edged Republican Party. Still, I think that Fox made everything we are seeing today possible, from movement conservatism’s takeover of the Republican Party in the 1990s, to the conspiracy theory-driven mutation of the Obama years, straight through to the madness f 2016.

Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps there is not such a straight line to be drawn from that first Fox News broadcast on October 7, 1996, to today’s Trumpian GOP. Many other forces are at work.  Either way though, I still think the launch of the mother ship that is Fox News was a watershed event in American history.

Or, maybe Fox News will change its ways. The network is in great turmoil now, as you no doubt have heard. Roger Ailes, Fox’s founder and ideological commissar, is gone after being fired for sexual harassment. Owner Rupert Murdoch named two of his sons as replacements, and they may be more moderate politically than the ex-Nixon aid Ailes. Fox feuded with Donald Trump initially, but lately has backed him to the hilt. So, FNN will be in the crosshairs when The Great Reckoning begins in earnest starting November 9. Maybe chastised and under new management Fox can evolve into something more responsible.

At our first post-election meeting, on November 14, will be “Who is to Blame for Donald Trump?” Obviously, a single TV network watched by only 3 million people in prime time does not bear all of the blame for what we’re seeing. Nonetheless, to me Fox News is so central to the success of movement conservatism that it deserves its own meeting.

I know it is difficult to talk about anything other than Donald Trump personally these days. But, the conditions that allowed someone like him to capture control of the Republican Party were a long time building, and they will remain after the dust settles. I think we need to understand the crucial incubating and magnifying role played by FNN if we want to grasp why and how this happened. Good people who are conservative Americans – not to mention the rest of us – deserve better.

I will give some kind of brief opening remarks on Monday night to frame our discussion, then throw it open for discussion.


Fox News’s Impact –

Donald Trump and Fox News –

The Future of Fox News –

Next Week (10/31):  Franken-future: Will/should we genetically enhance our species?

Good article opposing Prop. 53.

Prop. 53 is like so many California propositions.  A pet project of a single wealthy person. It would require statewide voter approval of all bond issuances over $2 billion.  What’s not to like about more voter control over govt spending and borrowing?

Read this to find out.

Prop. 64: Some arguments opposing it – Two good articles.

I don’t have time this week to do separate posts on any of this year’s gazillion ballot propositions.  So, I’ll just link to a few good articles I come across that give info/perspectives you might not get otherwise.

First up, two that oppose Proposition 64, the legalize marijuana initiative.  I strongly urge you to read the first one if you are considering voting for 64.

  1. One of the country’s foremost experts on marijuana policy decries 64 as “promoting cannabis use disorder in CA.”
  2. A group makes what it says are “14 progressive arguments against 64”  It’s long and a few of the arguments seem weak.  But note arguments 3, 4, 6, and 13.

Monday’s Mtg: Understanding All Those Nov. 2016 CA Ballot Propositions

This election’s 17 (pause for laughter) state propositions cover a huge range of issues. We did the 2 death penalty ones (62, 66) last week, leaving 15. I grouped them into four subject areas. I propose we cover them in the following order, aided by Linda, Carl, and John M., who are researching and will present on some of them. If I have any time over the weekend I may do separate posts on some of the prominent props.

A.   Criminal Justice:

  • 57: Criminal sentencing. (Linda)
  • 64: Marijuana legalization. (David)
  • 63: Gun (actually ammunition) control.
  • [Skip 62 + 66 death penalty we did last week.]

B.   Health Care and Environment:

  • 52: Medi-Cal hospital fee. (Carl)
  • 61: State prescription drug purchase costs. (Carl)
  • 65: + 67: Plastic grocery bag ban. (David)
  • 60: Condom use in porn. (David)
  • 56: Cigarette tax hike. (Linda)

C.    Taxes, borrowing, good government.

  • 55: Extends a previous high-income tax increase. (John M.)
  • 53: Requires voter approval for big state revenue bonds. (David)
  • 54: Publishing of CA legislature’s draft bills and proceedings.
  • 59: Citizens United – Non-binding declaration to reverse it.

D.   Education:

  • 58: English language proficiency, local control of it.
  • 51: School bonds ($9b) for K-12 and JC’s.

The ones with names assigned I think are the more important ones. The others we can cover briefly.  I’ll just quickly describe them and the issue they address, unless people want otherwise. But, remember: 15 props in 2 hours = 8 minutes each unless we keep some really short.


  1. Who is behind it and its opposition?
  2. Why did they put it on the ballot? Did they try and fail previously, or fail in the legislature? Who/what big powers are they trying to bypass?
  3. What would the proposition do? Is that in dispute? How is it intended to fix/repeal/change current law/policy?
  4. Major substantive pros and cons.
  5. Major stupid/deceptive pros and cons being used to sell/defeat it.


Next Week (Oct 24):  Fox News, age 20: Impact and Future.

Mtg on Propositions on Monday

I propose we discuss the 15 propositions (17 minus the 2 death penalty ones we did last week) by subject areas.  Here’s the order I think might work, starting each area with the most important/controversial ones.  (Red) shows people that have volunteered to research and present specific props.  If you want to do one, just let me know.   I’ll do the usual linkfest post in a few days.

A.   Criminal Justice:

  • 57: Criminal sentencing. (Linda)
  • 64: Marijuana legalization. (David)
  • 63: Gun (actually ammo) control. (David)

B.    Health Care and Environment:

  • 52: Medi-Cal hospital fee. (Carl)
  • 61: State prescription drug purchase costs. (Carl)
  • 65: + 67: Plastic grocery bag ban. (David)
  • 60: Condom use in porn. (David)
  • 56: Cigarette tax hike. (Linda)

C.   Taxes, borrowing, good government.

  • 55: Extends a previous high-income tax increase. (John M.)
  • 53: Requires voter approval for big state revenue bonds.
  • 54: Publishing of CA legislature’s draft bills and proceedings.
  • 59: Citizens United – Non-binding declaration to reverse it.

D.    Education:

  • 58: English language proficiency.
  • 51: School bonds ($9b) for K-12 and JC’s.


Monday’s Mtg: Will America’s Death Penalty Fade Away? (inc. Props. 62 and 66)

On November 8, Californians may abolish the state’s death penalty. Proposition 62 would ban capital punishment outright, including retroactively by converting all 746 prisoners on death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole. If Prop. 62 passes, we would become the 21th state to ban capital punishment outright. Four other states have governor-issued moratoria on executions.

But, it’s not a done deal in CA. I have not checked how 62 is polling yet.  But, a similar proposition failed in 2012, although by just a 52-48 margin. Also, death penalty proponents thought of a clever tactic this time around. They qualified a rival proposition, Prop. 66, to address the worst procedural problems in our state’s death penalty process. By increasing the number of defense lawyers eligible to represent death row inmates and reducing the number of permissible appeals to help speed up the decades-long (and thus arguably cruel and unusual) process, Prop. 66’s backers hope to split the queasy-about-it-all vote and stop repeal.

How big a deal would death penalty abolition be in California? Yeah, it’s the Left Coast. But, some serious people are starting to argue that the USA is near a tipping point on the death penalty. The number of U.S. executions has been declining for years (only 28 in 2015). Botched ones keep making big news. The 2016 national Democratic Party platform called for outright abolition for the first time. Nebraska just became the first red state in modern times to end the death penalty. One major recent poll showed nationwide public support for the death penalty has fallen below 50% for the first time.

On the other hand, 51% does not magically change policy (okay, except on the ballot in CA). I’ve read that the Supreme Court has never had more than two justices willing to declare that capital punishment inherently violates the 8th Amendment’s cruel and unusual standard. Absent such a ruling, abolition will remain a state-by-state issue, guaranteeing the death penalty’s survival for a long, long time, at least in deep red states.

So, what will happen? Here are some questions we might want to get into on Monday evening, plus some background readings that focus on the chances of abolition. (We did a meeting on whether capital punishment should be abolished in 2014.)


  1. Props: Discuss merits of Propositions 62 and 66.
  2. Arguments: Why do people support death penalty (e.g., vengeance, deterrence, religious belief, inertia)?   Why oppose it (morality/religious, cruel/unusual, racial disparity, cost…)?  Is there a difference between the reasons people cite and their real reasons? What would it take to change people’s minds? Your mind?
  3. Public & politicians: Why has public opinion changed? Will it keep moving against the death penalty? What might it take to reverse or accelerate that trend? What incentives do lawmakers have to take risks versus avoid this issue?
  4. Courts: Will SCOTUS ever ban the death penalty outright? On what basis? Or, will it keep slowly restricting its use (minors, intellectually-disabled, murders only, etc.)?
  5. Alternatives: Can the “machinery of death” (Justice Blackman’s phrase) ever be reformed enough to eliminate its inequities? Regardless, would either side ever be satisfied?


Next Week (Oct 24): The other 15 ballot propositions, or maybe we’ll just read War and Peace instead.

Monday’s Mtg: What should U.S. school children be taught about history?

I think you will all be amazed at what a fascinating – and controversial – topic the teaching of history in American schools has become.

History curricula have changed a lot since most of us were in school. First, as I will explain in my opening remarks Monday, just based on (900-page California) teaching guidelines, history requirements are more demanding and thorough than what I was taught. I’m not sure kids learn a greater quantity of facts. But, in parallel with other efforts to teach young people critical thinking skills, history and social science these days has a heavy focus on analytical concepts, comparative analysis, and independent thinking.

Second, and of much noisier political concern is the assault on, or perhaps the long overdue replacement of, the standard narrative of U.S. history we absorbed. The one that saw U.S. history as a slow but steady triumphant march of democracy and progress that emphasized the actions and POV of the dominant White majority. Over the last 10-20 years, academic historians, political and social activists, school boards, and state legislatures have rewritten large parts of our kids’ history textbooks/instruction to be more inclusive, less triumphant, and more critical (honest?) about our past.

Now, the United States famously has no national educational standards, not even for math and reading much less the more politically-sensitive social sciences. Most states don’t even have state-wide educational standards for history, leaving it all up to individual school districts. There are no Common Core history standards.

But, there are some forces converging us towards common history instruction nationwide. All U.S. students must take an identical standardized history test in grades (I think) 5, 8 and 11, thanks to No Child Left Behind. But, the brand new Every Student Succeeds Act has made how states use those tests voluntary, reversing the intent of NCLB. The College Board, the giant non-profit testing organization, has its own recommended Advanced Placement history standards which many (some?) states/districts use. California is one of 17 states with statewide history requirements and it just did a huge revision of them.  Confused on who requires what? Me, too. I’ll sort it out better by Monday, but my point is there is some consensus on what American kids should be taught about history and very specific requirements in our state.

Also, everybody’s a critic of what standards do exist. Conservatives hate CA’s newly-revised, “leftist” history curriculum. Progressives hate the ways the College Board revised AP history in response to conservative complaints. There are Right versus Left textbook wars in many states, especially since 2010 when Texas introduced some um, bold changes to how textbooks cover the Civil War and Segregation.

So, I thought this would be a great topic for us, though I don’t think our entire discussion should be reduced to politics or squeezed into right-versus-left framing. There are a lot of thought-provoking but less partisan social, cultural, and even pedagogical issues we can get into. And there’s world history and the historical part of civics education, too.

I’m especially excited to do this topic now because in September I got the chance to lecture several local (Helix, Mount Carmel) high school social studies and speech classes on various topics. These modern high school students were an impressive lot. A great deal is expected of them academically and they work very hard. Let’s honor them by having a great discussion of this – I told you so – really interesting topic.

Below are some optional readings on what current history educational standards are and why they are controversial. My opening remarks will be limited to trying to summarize what kids are supposed to be taught about U.S. history in California under the just-revised curriculum. Also, we have a new topic list to be handed out, thanks to Linda and Aaron.


Next Week (Oct 10): Will America’s death penalty fade away?

We have new topics, Oct – Jan

Thanks to Linda and Aaron (Bruce’s son Aaron), we have new topics.  See sidebar or “Upcoming mtg Schedule” tab.  The first few mtgs are:

Oct 3:  What should U.S. school kids be taught about history   [last of old schedule]
Oct 10, 2016: Is the death penalty in American on the way out?
Oct 17: November ballot propositions.
Oct 24: Fox News at 20:  How has it changed America?
Oct 31: Our Franken-future? Will Transhumanism improve our species genetically?

Hard copies will be available next mtg.

Next Mtg Postponed: No CivCon On Sept. 26

Since Sept. 26 is the night of the Clinton/Trump debate, we are postponing our great topic, “How do progressives view the Constitution,’ until next schedule.  See you on Oct. 3 for, “What should U.S. school kids be taught about history?”

Monday’s Mtg: Should We Raise the Minimum Wage?

I had this idea for us to do a series of meetings in the run-up to November that highlighted the starkest policy differences between the two presidential candidates. Oops. Donald Trump’s candidacy and Media’s obsession with horserace trivia make that pretty hard to do. Trump’s policy platform involves him basically riffing a stream of consciousness on whatever topic an interviewer brings up, hoping to run out the clock before anyone notices he has no policy ideas at all nor a rudimentary grasp of the issue.  No one seems to know exactly what Trump’s position on the minimum wage is, much less what it might be tomorrow or in a face-to-face debate with Clinton.

But, I’m not sure it really matters. As I keep hammering away at week after week, we are electing a political party to govern us more than an individual. And, the Dems and GOP at all levels hold irreconcilably-opposite views on the minimum wage. The Republican Party is wholly opposed to raising the minimum wage at all. Period. Many conservatives would prefer it be abolished or reduced, although I doubt they would take the political risk of trying it at the federal level. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz oppose any federal minimum wage.

In stark contrast, Democrats really, really want to raise the minimum wage, either nationally or in as many states as possible. Hillary Clinton campaigned on raising it by 60%, from $7.25 to $12 per hour, to be phased in over several years. This would be the largest such increase in history. Under pressure from Bernie Sanders, Clinton stated she would sign a $15 minimum wage bill if a Democratic Congress sent one to her. This would double it.  This November 8, minimum wage increases are on the ballot in five states.  Democrats want to make this a wedge issue – one that motivates base voters to turn out – like Republicans did with same sex marriage bans in 2004.

Luckily for us, the debate over what would happen if the minimum wage were raised significantly is not all theoretical. The current federal minimum wage is just $7.25 per hour, one-third lower in inflation-adjusted terms than it was in the late 1960s. However, 29 states have a higher minimum wage, 12 of which are over $9.00 per hour. California’s is $10 – the nation’s second-highest –and Brown just signed a law to raise it to $15 in 2022. This means that lots of studies have been done comparing places that have raised the minimum wage to those that have not raised it. The results are generally encouraging to the liberal economic case for raising the wage. Yet, as I will explain, it’s not quite that simple.

On Monday I will open with a brief tutorial on the minimum wage and the types of questions we should be asking about what might happen if we raised it to various levels. I don’t think lowering the minimum wage is really on the table right now as a viable policy option, although if Trump wins, all bets are off.


  1. Current policy:
    1. How high are U.S. minimum wages now and how high are they due to rise in some states?
    2. What else does govt do to support working poor? How important a policy tool is the minimum wage in comparison?
  2. Arguments: What arguments are used to support and oppose raising/lowering/ending the minimum wage
  3. Evidence: Based on history what affects would raising min. wage have on:
    1. Helping people: Raising incomes of the working poor, reducing poverty and reliance on govt transfer programs.
    2. Hurting business: Killing jobs, raising prices, other business decisions (like replacing workers with machines).
    3. Would more spending on other govt programs (EITC, etc.) do more to help the working poor than raising the min. wage?
    4. Can we predict what would happen if we abolished the min. wage?
  4. Fairness:
    1. Will raising min. wage really put a dent in inequality?
    2. Will it make low-wage pay more “fair?” What’s fair?
    3. Does the minimum wage subsidize big corporations more than it helps the poor (they can keep paying low wages)?
  5. Politics: Is this a winning issue for Democrats or Republicans? How big a winning issue?


Next Week (Sept 26):  Progressives’ Constitutional Philosophy.