The following is taken from my new WND column, “In Defense Of Obama’s Apologizing”:

“… Contrary to conventional conservative wisdom, there is nothing wrong with expressing regret for wrongs done by your country’s government, as opposed to its people. This is a well-meaning, if perhaps inconsequential, gesture.

Face it, what Republicans are really fuming over is BHO’s public expiation for the Bush I foreign policy, for which they themselves cheered. …

I hope the next president apologizes for the many innocent Afghanis BHO is busy killing in that country.
As do I hope the next incumbent apologizes for this president’s shabby treatment of the Israeli prime minister, or of Mr. Akio Toyoda, president of Toyota.

It’s a bit late, but an apology on behalf of Harry S. Truman is in order for deliberately dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Little Boy and the Fat Man—as the atomic duo was dubbed affectionately—and vaporizing 210,000 innocent Japanese civilians…

Is ‘America,’ then, bad because of deeds its bureaucratic or political corps commits? Not at all. …”

The complete column is “In Defense Of Obama’s Apologizing.”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Gov. Jan Brewer promises to be an interesting politician to watch (unlike Sister Sarah). She is known, of course, for Arizona’s immigration-enforcement law, SB 1070. And now, Gov. Brewer has signed “a bill aimed at ending ethnic studies in Tucson schools.” The New York Times is fuming:

“Under the law signed on Tuesday, any school district that offers classes designed primarily for students of particular ethnic groups, advocate ethnic solidarity or promote resentment of a race or a class of people would risk losing 10 percent of its state financing.

‘Governor Brewer signed the bill because she believes, and the legislation states, that public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people,’ Paul Senseman, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement on Thursday. … ‘The evidence is overwhelming that ethnic studies in the Tucson Unified School District teaches a kind of destructive ethnic chauvinism that the citizens of Tucson should no longer tolerate.’”

[SNIP]

Individualism instead of collectivism? A liberal (in the classical sense) education instead of one premised on cultural Marxism? Sounds promising.

This stuff has no place in public schools. If La Raza want to “teach students about the marginalization of different groups in the United States through history,” let them take the “curriculum” to a private school.

Under Sherrie Gossett’s capable editorial and stylistic tutelage (as well as well as the brilliant David Kelley, Roger Donway, and others), The New Individualist, The Objectivist Magazine, is both sleek and substantive, rather than tinny and rigidly ideological. The Winter 2010 issue of TNI features a new, minimalist, elegant design, and two pieces by me: “Life In The Oink Sector,” and “Man With the Reverse Midas Touch.”

Please purchase this issue—and if possible, a subscription to TNI—to show your support for this writer and the publisher. Here is your chance to support worthy writers and publishers. Featuring thinkers such as David Kelley and Roger Donway, you’ll be well-rewarded.

Update (March 14): BAB frequenter Hugo Schmidt writes an interesting review in TNI of Robert Spencer’s Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn’t. As I say, there is a lot that’s worth reading in the new issue. Get it! Subscribe or order an issue.

Another of the many stories covered and analyzed on BAB for its significance ahead of the rest was that of Petty Officers Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Heurtas. The three Navy SEALs stand accused by Ahmed Hashim Abed—thought to be behind the premeditated murder and mutilation of four U.S. contractors in Falluja in 2004—of punching him. The real scandal is that our bloated behemoth of a military, the Navy in this instance, is acting like the state bureaucracy that it is and proceeding at full throttle against the these patriots.

Read “Make Me Thankful: Don’t Enlist!.”

The common refrain you’ll hear from your garden variety neoconservative is that Obama is to blame.

Please! Bush was every bit as hateful when it came to unleashing his bloodhound, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, on Border-Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, to give but one example of Bush’s many betrayals.

“The state’s ‘rules of engagement’ rule-out any meaningful defense of American lives and property; they are rigged against America’s defenders and favor her infiltrators.”

Don’t expect the megaphones for the Republican-cum-neocon cabal to be capable of articulating this reality. At core, they are tribalists and collectivists who cleave to their own no matter what.

The salient thing about “conservative” chicks is how unconservative they are. Sexism, racism, homophobia—these concepts are engraved in their inherently liberal minds. The concepts are, of course, poisonous arrows in the quiver of left-liberal identity politics.

So it was that The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck was a prime mover behind the persecution of Imus, for politically unpalatable speech, alongside race hustlers Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, neocon sister Amy Holmes, and other sundry sorts of the left (Whoopi Goldberg, Maya Angelou, Naomi Wolf).

Palin is always shouting sexism, and has intensified her hissing ever since Newsweek published an appealing cover of her in running gear. Hasselbeck has been complaining about the sexism to which Palin is allegedly subjected. She did so recently on The View. Clearly, a liberal worldview is not the only malady to inflict conservative women. They are never original (other than Coulter, who is sui generis, and I have a soft spot for the Michelles Bachmann and Malkin).

Update I (Nov. 18): Another of these harpies’ trade marks is to conflate a love of war—any war waged by the US—with the conservative position. Does this pertain equally to neoconservative and so-called conservative men? You tell me.

Wait a sec, I already “told me”:

“… never once have the war harpies and their hombres in the ideological trenches indicated they comprehend how and who is paying for all this. I know they believe we’re not being taxed in lieu of the debt, a faith they base on Bush’s promise not to raise taxes. [A "promise kept by Barack, Bush's loyal successor.]

Pro-war pundits, women especially, think that government can spend what it doesn’t have without any economic repercussions. They’re a lot like babies prior to acquiring object permanence: what isn’t visible doesn’t exist. However, government spending more than it collects in revenues is the cause of the deficit.

And ultimately of inflation.

However, there is no question in the small minds we’re discussing that a blind support for the experiment in “Eyeraq” is as American as apple pie. Ditto Democratizing our toothless, poppy-smoking Pashtun with smart bombs. The women of the neoconnerie have been instrumental in keeping their fans “tuned-out, turned-on, and hot for war.”

Don’t expect an understanding of economics with your “conservative” harpie/hottie of choice. Palin was given a pass by the equally compromised Bawbawa Walter when she said that the bailout bill she supported in her capacity as a VP candidate didn’t work out well. Who would have known!!

Bachmann and Malkin have firm positions for fiscal conservatism; the rest go with the financial flow.

Update II (Nov. 20): Some comments posters have alluded to my mention of first principles in the new WND column, “Weapons For The GOP Punditocracy.” I note that first principles and GOPiness do not mix.

Even less so do first principles and foxettes go together. Individual rights are subsumed in FP. You would be hard pressed to find a woman who thinks less of the paramountcy of the individual over the collective than a foxette.

She got uncontrollably (and repulsively) hot for “Murder with majority approval”—i.e., the war in Iraq—and oversaw the decimation of the population there (including an ancient Christian community).

She promoted through the argument from cleavage the specious, wicked, individual-averse idea of collateral damage. That collectivist calculus was a feature of the war cheerleading done by the freedom-loving Fox New foxes.

All the networks were complicit, but no where was the morally repugnant zeal more pronounced than on Fox New where words like “Breaking Baghdad,” “Decapitation,” and “Shock and Awe” were the order of the day.

So far war.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Martha MacCallum, one of the more rightist ladies, mull over the need for national healthcare and a national data base where bureaucrats can access private healthcare information. I’m sure readers who understand liberty (which is inseparable from philosophical first principles) will provide more examples (accompanied by hyperlinks) for Foxette fascism.

With few exceptions, Fox News generally favors the rights of the police—backed by the power of the state—in altercation with helpless individuals. When “Andrew Meyer, a journalism student, was pounced upon by campus police, tasered, detained overnight, and charged with violently resisting arrest (a felony), and disturbing the peace (a misdemeanor),” Fox beaus and bimbos had a good laugh at his expense. O’Reilly was in stitches.

The Drug War: It is the very crucible of the fight for individual liberties. Show me a Foxy Lady who sympathetically covered any prominent case (such as the one of the granny gunned down in her home by DEA agents because of alleged “drugs”). And don’t start me on the medical marijuana fear mongering at Fox.

No, “Dumb Down, You Uppity (Intelligent) Bitch!” is not the title of my new WND column, now on Taki’s, but a reaction to it. In the Age of the Idiot people take pride in their ignorance, and seek to shame and humiliate those who do not reflect their own impoverished state-of-being. On encountering someone they might learn from, they recoil, and out come the Id and the Ego all in one ball of fury.

Personally, on encountering my betters, I seek to learn from them. In fact, I actively seek out my intellectual betters. But not the average member of the Idiocracy. If the Little Woman makes him feel bad, he lashes out in an attempt to take her down a notch or two, and salvage his own ugly, aggressive emptiness.

I urge you: Rather than lash out at someone for using her gifts, at the very least examine yourself first: Ask yourself why you are behaving in such a transparent, disgraceful manner. Get onto yourself. And then work hard to submerge your demands for replicas of yourself.

The letter that prompted these thoughts arrived in response to the not-quite-new, originally titled “Paleos Must Defend the West…And That Means Israel Too.” A version of the essay was first published on VDARE.COM. Barely A Blog readers had discussed the topic extensively, so I did not post it again.

OVER TO IVAN The Terrible (and proud of it):

From: Ivan Poulter
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:40 AM
To: imercer@wnd.com
Subject: Re: Paleo….:Dumb Down

Ilana,

Compared to you, I’m a total ignoramus. I’d admit to lacking your intellectual quotient. Not meaning to be insulting, you also appear as some kind of dumb-ass in your exaggerated intelligence.

You’re far too clever for you own good. Or better still, you far, far exceed the ability of most you write to. I am constantly accused of being too intellectual, and in my ‘intellectualism’ speaking or writing way above people’s heads. However, Ilana, you take that award away from me, hands down. If you want to reach a few more people, for heaven’s sake, dumb yourself down a little. Then, even as I write that to you, I’ll attempt to remember my own advice. Except, I’m very dangerously down there, too close to the ranks of stupidity, sometimes. You certainly could afford to dumb down just a little, as least in your attempts to communicate to all of us. Unless, of course, you have a very limited target market. Then do as you please!

Ivan Poulter

[Ivan: cheer up, there is no chance of you being too intellectual. Absolutely none. I'm glad you did not live back in the days of our Founders. The Federalist Papers would have driven you to distraction. Or worse.]

Update II (Oct. 3): Young Brett is right about the dumb-down shtick being an insult to our readers. First, I write as I think. I can’t change that. I don’t know how to. Second, the reason I won’t make a concerted effort to parrot O’Reilly’s erroneous, ugly prose is that I have respect for my readers. It’s patronizing to talk down to people. Yes, it is inevitable that I will enjoy fewer readers than the other crowd pleasers becasue, for the most, people wish their views confirmed. However, those who want to be challenged and have minds that seek interest and humor; something extra—they will find their way here. I hope.

To follow the medical profession’s recommendations, Mercer columns can help ward off Alzhemier’s later in life. Staying within your comfort zone mentally will do nothing to force those dendrites and synaptic connections in the brain to branch out well into old age. The brain is very plastic; but if you don’t use it, you’ll lose it. I know of what I speak; I once awoke in a sweat mumbling: “Oh, my G-d, I think I made a circular argument in my last column.” Yeah, I often argue my case in my dreams. You want to stay alert well into old age, so stick around, boys and girls. Let the other lazy minds atrophy and fill-up with plaque, the hallmark of senility.

Anyhoo, read “Athens & Jerusalem,” and the rest of the intellectual gymnastics on Taki’s.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos exposes BO’s thesaurus of excuses for what most media are euphemizing as “a mandate to buy health insurance,” also a tax.

Writes Stephanopoulos:

“…in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.

Here it is:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax? …

[Observe the president's slithering and sliming for yourself.]

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

[SNIP]

BO’s ignorance and evasion would pose no major obstacle given the dogged devotion among the dogs of the media to minimizing and covering up Da Man’s many mistakes.

However, even this master of manipulation might find it hard to slither away from his latest faux paux: The Baucus bill reads:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800. [P. 29]

Of course, the Baucus-Obama coercion is simply a natural extension of the collectivization of choices. If the state is to become the custodian of every individual in this country, and assume the onus of their care—then said serfs cannot act as they please. Big Daddy puts it as follows:

[F]or us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

Being a freeman and receiving freebies from the State are mutually exclusive. A pact with the devil has consequences. These will be bearable for the parasites who demand some form of taxpayer-subsidized care. Not so for those of us who yearn to live free.

Update: Here are a few pertinent points (which, naturally, do not address rights) made by Philip Klein of the American Spectator:

“While it is true that some people end up showing up in emergency rooms without paying and that imposes costs on others, there’s two things that Obama isn’t taking into account. First, just because you mandate coverage it doesn’t mean you elimate [sic] the uncompensated care. Second, if you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidies enabling people to purchase insurance, then that costs far more than whatever would be saved by reducing uncompensated care. … Many of those who are currently uninsured simply have very low health care costs, which they are willing to pay out of pocket when they get sick. The reason why Obama supports a mandate is that he wants to be able to force insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions, and the only way to do that is to bring uninsured healthy people into the system. So really, this isn’t about eliminating freeloaders, it’s about forcing healthy people to pay for more health care than they need to so that they can make premiums more affordable for the sick.” [My italics]

As soon as I complete the manuscript of my new book (plus/minus two months, for those who’ve kindly inquired), I hope to write regularly for The New Individualist. Under Sherrie Gossett’s capable editorial and stylistic tutelage, TNI is both sleek yet substantive, rather than tinny and ideological. The Summer 2009 issue of TNI features a piece by me: “The Lightweight: Meghan McCain stretches the bounds of the G.O.P.’s ‘big tent.’”

Do purchase this stylishly austere issue to show your support for this writer and the publisher. Featuring writers-cum-thinkers such as David Kelley and Roger Donway, you’ll be well-rewarded.

I’LL USE THIS SPACE to let you know that on Friday the 28th, I’ll be chatting to my old friend Chuck Wilder, nationally syndicated by CRN, Digital Talk Radio. Chuck’s show is “Talkback.” Topic: “B. Hussein In History Wonderland.” Time: 1:05 to 1:30 PM Pacific Time.

Update (August 27): Regarding Ron Paul and Objectivists: TNI has a new editor. Somehow I think the strident, almost neoconservative slant it had acquired is on the wane. Witness the publication of a piece by yours truly. I was pretty much persona non grata, for the most, in TNI’s previous permutation.

What happens when a “community” is no longer a community, but “a conglomeration of competing ethnic groups and social classes” like New York City, New Haven or the United States? The peerless Thomas Fleming breaks it down for us in “New Haven’s Poor Little Lambs.” We disagree only slightly in that although the backdrop to the case of the New Haven firefighters warrants cynicism, it doesn’t change the fact that men such as Ricci have been wronged, and that women like me think—as any right-thinking individual would—that Ricci et al should not “go gentle into that good night,” but put up one hell of a fight.

Over to Dr. Fleming:

“[If] blacks and Mexicans owned and operated New Haven, we should expect them to act on their own behalf. But, in fact, they transparently do not own and operate New Haven, which is actually controlled by a white elite, some of whose power is based on the ability to manipulate minorities and thus to suppress the upwardly mobile European ethnics. Some of the elite is a residue of the old Yankee WASP elite; some are Jews, and some are converts from the European ethnics, children of parents stupid enough to send them to Ivy League schools that destroyed their minds and characters. Like other members of the American Elite, the people who run Connecticut are anti-Christian leftists who despise all our country’s traditions. Instinctively, they aim at power through the shortest route possible—today, that is minority politicking and Marxism—but most of them appear genuine in their leftism. They really do think that black firemen fail intelligence tests because of the history of racism and discrimination.”

Read on.

The excerpt is from my new, WND.COM column, “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists,” now on Taki’s Magazine:

“…The laws of supply and demand don’t answer to Barry the Bolshevik. Private practitioners and providers, in extant and nascent markets for medicine, must know that if The Man and his Machine bring in a ‘public option,’ offering coverage to whomever wants it, the marketplace will change. …

If you think the misallocation of bailout billions has been criminal, wait until Obama’s politburo of proctologists attempts to figure out how many Magnetic Resonance Imaging scanners to purchase for The Plan. Courtesy of bureaucratic calculus, the waiting time for an MRI scan in British Columbia, Canada, runs into weeks and even months; not ideal if you have a malignancy.

Yes, the hubris. Where the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics failed, the ‘United Socialist States of America’ will prevail. ….”

The complete column, “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists,” is now on WND.COM.

Miss the weekly column on WND.COM? Catch it on Taki’s Magazine every Saturday.

Updated (June 26): American healthcare is not “privatized”; it’s highly regulated. Still, it’s better than Canada care, which I’ve experienced (and nearly lost my daughter to), the UK’s, Cuba’s and North Korea’s, upon which the former two “systems” are modeled. American medicine vs. Canada care: never the twain shall meet. I’m not sure why readers are intent on looking at health care as a “system” needing the state’s ministrations, rather than as a service delivered to individuals by other highly skilled individuals. Perhaps the “food system” is bad in the US, as the population is so unhealthy. Perhaps, by logical extension, we should let the state supervise the food “system.” C’mon.