New-cle-ar

So it's official. We are all going to hell. That's what I decided today when I read in The Brain's post that Merriam-Webster has added "nyu-cu-lar" to its accepted pronunciation of the word that is, in fact, not pronounced that way. (I'm sorry; I just don't accept it.)
Is it just me, or do they sound positively sheepish in their usage note:

Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.

I love the "look there are stupid Brits and Canadians too!" addendum. Compare that to the entry for "irregardless":

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

I know the Bush family has long tentacles, but I had no idea just how long. This is some serious influence, ladies and gentlemen. I am preparing myself for new rules about subject-verb agreements.