Category Archives: Media

Updated: In The New Individualist

Ilana Mercer, Ilana On Radio & TV, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Media, Objectivism, Ron Paul

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.

Hanging At The White House

Barack Obama, Healthcare, Media, Propaganda

Michael Smerconish, “a Philadelphia-based radio talk show host,” voted for Barack Obama, which is why, presumably, he is considered a conservative. Today was Smerconish’s big day—he made his way to the Diplomatic Reception Room at the White House to interview the president. “The White House said that the president’s participation in the radio show was meant to counter some misinformation that is circulating widely concerning the administration’s health care agenda.”

I haven’t heard the interview, but I imagine that Smerconish provided the president with a conducive forum for his purposes. The New York Times, in its report, would have mentioned it if a typical townhaller mouth breather bothered Obama in any way.

The Times chose to air this provocative question: “One caller to the radio program asked Mr. Obama which elements needed to be included in a health care plan. He listed four points: reducing the cost of health care, protecting consumers from insurance abuses, providing affordable coverage to uninsured Americans and not adding to the deficit.”

Meanwhile, Smerconish has been doing the rounds on cable and crowing about his coup (but not his audience’s). His stock has soared. A day in the life of a successful media hustler.

Guinness World Record For Fuel Economy Set By Non-Hybrid

Energy, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Media, Technology

You don’t need a commie car to conserve (your private) resources. “A 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI powered with Shell ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel” will do just fine. (My Turbocharged GTI is pretty thrifty and never gutless, as the Jetta tends to be.) Tire Business has the goods:

“Australian drivers Helen and John Taylor recently broke the ’48 Contiguous U.S. States Fuel Economy’ Guinness World Record, driving a car fitted with Goodyear’s Assurance Fuel Max tires.

The couple previously set the record in 2008 at 58.82 miles per gallon, driving 9,419 miles in a 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI powered with Shell ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Their new record, which was set using the same car, fuel and driving route, stands at an average of 67.9 mpg.

According to Goodyear, the pair began their trip July 28 in Sterling, Va., and traveled in a counter-clockwise route that included 14 official check-in and refueling stops across the country. They crossed the finish line at a Virginia Tire & Auto retail outlet in Ashburn, Va.”

Mrs. Taylor attempted to explain to Contessa Brewer—MSNBC’s large-faced, childish, lip-smacking anchor—that driving in high gear (and not necessarily slowly) conserves fuel. In other words, driving well. But Tess had only ever driven an automatic really really slowly, and so lost interest. Her focus further waned when she discovered (by stepping right into the trap and asking) that the fuel-efficient vehicle was not a commie car. A research assistant or producer will be in hot water.

Still, and as a I’ve written, “Perhaps the biggest obfuscation in the gimmick-car racket—which President Bush had fallen for too—has to do with the source of the energy. Whether a vehicle is propelled by hydrogen-powered fuel cells or electricity, both electricity and hydrogen don’t magically materialize in the vehicle. They must first be generated. Be it coal, natural gas, nuclear or a hydroelectric dam, these cars are only as clean as the original source of energy that generated the vim that powers them.

Other than to increase the consumption of gas, because people drive more in them, mandating so-called fuel-efficient cars is a grand exercise in compulsory misallocation and waste of capital. It proves that the development of technologies is best left to the market, not to environmental bureaucracies.”

Entangled In Afghanistan

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Media, Propaganda, Terrorism, War

B.O.’s latest on America’s exploits in Afghanistan: “This is not a war of choice, this is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

I concur with Michael Scheuer, who disavows Obama’s deceit:

“How many Marines and soldiers will die in Afghanistan before the mainstream media dares to speak the truth and ask questions based thereon? Yes, it is the mainstream media that is keeping us locked in Afghanistan, and they are doing so for two reasons:

1. They will do almost anything to avoid asking President Obama a hard question that would delineate the depth of his deceit.
2. They now support the Afghan war because it is not the children of the elite who are dying and because it is now being fought for social policy reasons – women’s rights, educating children, etc. – and not for any reason that pertains to America’s defense or future security.

Let’s start with a basic contention: America has lost the war in Afghanistan, and any further U.S. casualties are useless. How to test this contention? The following questions put to the president or his chief advisers on terrorism and Afghanistan – John Brennan and Bruce Riedel – would help to clarify the situation for all Americans. If any of these three men answer honestly, we will be out of Afghanistan in 90 days. …”

Read the complete column, “Questions on the Eve of the Afghan Election.”