This week (April 25-29) I watched (simply because there is no Houston Newspaper I will spend money on) the morning show Fox and Friends on cable. The trio of “friends” sat and chatted on the so-called curvy couch in their (or is it he, she, it, they? I lose track) often giggle talk-overs while interviewing Pierce Morgan. Historian (subpar excellence) Brian Kilmeade was in attendance with his grammar-clutters duo companions, Ainsley Earheart and Steve Doocy joining in (“the amount of people,” “the president, he…” etc).
The discussion of politics naturally was broached and Morgan stated that it was very possible, and it is, that Donald Trump would run in 2024 and as much, as possible that he would win, and it is. Then as from his British studies, I presume, Morgan stated that this would be the first time such a thing had ever happened—a president serving two terms, nonconsecutively.
The “three amigos” said nothing although Kilmeade remarked that such “nonconsecutive terms” would be unique. The conversation continued. The historical error remained with the audience. Hopefully, most of the audience recognized the error, although the diseased product of public education may have spread too far and now it may be too late for most
The greater problem is that such outlets as Fox promote silly writings of more than one of its regulars and contributors, apparently with minimum scrutiny.
Don’t forget that this gang of “Foxers” was out in front ignoring Trump and his troops when they were presenting their case for the quite legal process for federal electors as its function was being rifled with corruption.
Knowledge of history supports knowledge of the law –and vice versa.
This may seem trivial but these people (Fox et al, NeoCon et al) are the same people telling us about a “red wave” washover in November. They pretend, through their regular commentators and contributors to equate a red wave with a conservative wave. Rubbish, I’ve said before and say again.
The sort of silliness about two nonconsecutive terms is a Kilmeade et al history that is the same sort of throwaway as in his book about The Battle of New Orleans, as just one example.
If he mentions it at all the most significant fact of the Battle of New Orleans is buried deeply. The War was over before the battle. And it had been over for a couple of weeks. The Treaty of Ghent was signed on December 24, 1814. The Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815.
Again, if Kilmeade made note of this, it was buried. Certainly not in the opening pages nor on the book jacket. The most important fact of the battle is hardly noted.
Now, I don’t care about Kilmeade or his historical inaccuracies and resulting histrionics that would have made good B movie children’s fare in the 1950s. He is only one of many who cheat or are simply ignorant, at a historical presentation by omitting basic facts or not knowing them in the first place. And though Kilmeade is primarily a sports contributor and humorist he is hardly schooled in history. But so many students of history (I think Fox breeds them) are right out of the cable-news industry. The many are as useful to academia as Hollywood and its bastion of vulgar and vicious know-nothing actors are. Actually, as useless as academia is to academia.
But what is the alternative? MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS—and, of course, a drum roll for the greatest belly laugh for the greatest circus of mindless drivel uttered since Nero’s poetry via arson–C.N.N.
Fox has little in the way of historical information though they are restless for war histories since they seem to love wars, the other bunch offers nothing more than random consonant sounds with vowels obligatorily glued within those sounds; hence forming babbling word groups, not necessarily sentences— complete thoughts.
If one is seeking intelligent thought from this “other” bunch he would do better off at the professional wrestling matches.
Perhaps there is a deeper thought for the “richest man in the world” in trying to wrestle away an informational product run by technocratic morons and used by the media’s mediocrity. Maybe, as some say, he is the “smartest man in the world.” Maybe he’s not only an advocate of free speech but a friend of education – and not the public kind.
Famously, Grover Cleveland was a president (1885-1889 and 1893-1897). Most people, at least of my vintage, learned this early in life, and have maintained its “uniqueness” historically.
Free speech will be great if it hits the media in full force. It will be even greater if the media ever is infused with at least some scholarship at least at the high school level. They can begin with history. Then maybe step up to English syntax and grammar—you know “the amount of people,” “the president, he…”
Maybe the smartest and richest man in the world is what it will take.
God knows He is seldom considered with all His veiled Proverbs and such.
By Paul Yarbrough
Paul Yarbrough is a regular contributor to The Blue State Conservative. He writes novels, short stories, poetry, and essays. His first novel. Mississippi Cotton is a Kindle bestseller. His author site can be found on Amazon. He writes political commentary for CommDigiNews.
Enjoy HUGE savings at My Pillow with promo code BSC
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Blue State Conservative. The BSC is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented.
Notice: This article may contain commentary that reflects the author’s opinion.