Right Wing Nut House

The case of Scott Thomas and TNR v. The Truth is not going to be resolved by anything bloggers can unearth. Nor are questions about the credibility of The New Republic and the stories of Scott Thomas going to be laid to rest by anything the magazine can do by itself.

The only way to discover the truth of the matter is for the magazine to form a committee of people independent of both conservative blogs and The New Republic in order to investigate the stories.

I urge this course of action on The New Republic as someone who has been a reader of the magazine for going on 40 years. My father had a lifetime subscription to The New Republic and as long as I lived at home as well as during my many visits to our house during my mother’s extended illness, I made a point of reading it. I was never a subscriber but have sought out the publication at news stands and other places all my professional life. I consider The New Republic one of the indispensable publications in America today. Over the years, it has consistently challenged my assumptions, rounded out my knowledge of current events, and informed me as have few other publications.

But the questions swirling around the veracity of Scott Thomas, the pseudonymous soldier who wrote an article for the magazine detailing bad behavior by the American military, will not go away because of any internal investigation carried out by the magazine. And the reason is very simple; no one would believe them. The magazine’s problems with former writer Stephen Glass perhaps unfairly places a larger burden of proof upon them than would normally be the case. Beyond that, their well known anti-war editorial stance presupposes a bias to believe the Scott Thomas stories - a fact made abundantly clear by Editor Franklin Foer’s “Note to our Readers:”

Several conservative blogs have raised questions about the Diarist “Shock Troops,” written by a soldier in Iraq using the pseudonym Scott Thomas. Whenever anybody levels serious accusations against a piece published in our magazine, we take those charges seriously. Indeed, we’re in the process of investigating them. I’ve spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine–and much to corroborate–the author’s descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation.

The fact that Foer waited until questions started to arise over the veracity of the article before he spoke with the author of the piece and “communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events” described by Thomas can only mean one thing; this kind of rigorous vetting of the story and its sources was not done prior to publication.

Simply put, The New Republic cannot be trusted to carry out an internal investigation of their own to either confirm the accuracy of the incidents in question or the integrity of the writer.

(For an excellent look at all the questions raised by bloggers about these stories, see this post by Michael Goldfarb and then go back to “Main” and start scrolling. He has 8-10 entries on the matter.)

An inquiry made up of respected journalists would be able to resolve the matter fairly quickly and to everyone’s satisfaction. For that reason, I call upon Franklin Foer to set up such a committee and have them begin work immediately. The reputation of the United States military as well as the integrity of The New Republic are at stake.

UPDATE

Bryan at Hot Air:

Given Foer’s smear as quoted by Kurtz, he should not be be trusted when he comes out in a few days or weeks and says “It’s all true. I can’t show you any evidence or introduce you to a single corroborating witness, so you’ll just have to take my word for it.” No sale. Foer has done nothing to earn anyone’s trust, and his magazine has a peculiar history that mandates a very careful and thorough investigation and a very honest and complete rendering of a verdict. It doesn’t look like we’ll get that from Foer.

What Foer and TNR will get if they hunker down and keep lashing out at legitimate criticism is some nutroots cred for publishing smears of US troops in combat. Sad to say, that may be the end goal here.

I was inclined to believe Foer was serious about checking the facts until I read his comments to Kurtz about the controversy. Now the need for an independent inquiry is made manifest by Foer’s arrogance.

And Michelle Malkin has a piece highlighting the military service of the “9/11 Generation.” All the more reason to urge The New Republic to get it right and not smear the reputations of these fine young men and women.

I am pleased to announce that I have joined the staff at The American Thinker as Associate Editor. My duties will be varied but I’ll mainly be working on The American Thinker Blog.

I’m honored that my friend Tom Lifson, Editor in Chief, chose me to assist him in running one of the finest on-line publications on the net. It should be a challenging and rewarding position.

Thanks to everyone for the links and kind words about my blogging experiment in trying to recreate the history of the vote for independence and the debate over the Declaration of Independence. I hope we all learned a little something about history - and ourselves.

It was not quite as fun as liveblogging Gettysburg. But the subject matter certainly lent itself to a deeper examination of core beliefs held by the American people at that time. Hence, I tried to fold myself into the blogger character a little more thoroughly in order to discover just what he believed about a variety of issues facing the colonies at that time; slavery, Tories, the Congress, independence, and perhaps a fresh look at the personalities of the revolution from the perspective of someone who was there.

I received some criticism from this gentleman who took me to task for ending up on the wrong side of the slavery debate:

He took a requisite swipe at the French (his French acquaintance viewed the Americans as ‘arrogant’) even though, without the services of Lafayette and the French government he influenced, the revolution would have failed.

And anyone who thinks that both the leadership and ordinary people were not extremely suspicious of the French - Lafayette or no - doesn’t know anything about colonial history. Besides, Tocqueville said pretty much the same thing, although he admired this trait in Americans - our self confidence in the face of challenges.

But the gentleman loses it when he, in essence, criticizes me for not using fantasy to alter history:

Not only does Moran seem to believe that all Americans of the time viewed slaves as savage animal worshipers, but that all considered slaves to be legitimate property. And while many did, why should Moran side with the majority in his little fantasy liveblog scenario? Because unity against the British demands it?

Because that’s the way the convention and history played out, Moran chose to be on the side of those who achieved victory, believing that every choice they made was crucial to that outcome. In fact, one could theorize better outcomes with wiser choices - especially in a fantasy.

If I was going to do an alt/history piece, I would have done an alt/history piece. I chose instead to liveblog a period in history - that’s history, not the gentleman’s fantasy. In fact, I would urge the gentleman to try his hand at this kind of parlor game. I’m sure he could do a much better job.

Those attitudes I chose to adopt toward slavery were realistic and widely held at the time. I make no apologies for the ignorance of our ancestors although the ignorance of those in contemporary times who try and change history to suit some politically correct sense of the past, I condemn for being dishonest.

But this fellow was the exception. Most of you took the exercise for what it was - a fun way to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who lived more than 200 years ago and actually live those historic days in Philadelphia. I appreciate all the support and look forward to contiuing these experiments in blogging in the future.

Regards,

Rick Moran
Proprietor

Okay, so I’m an ass.

Today, I feel vindicated in my beliefs and analysis about the war in Iraq and I don’t mind letting people know that their bitter recriminations and name calling directed against me are proving to be the shallow, ignorant postulates of the blindly partisan I always said they were. In the end, I am being proved correct and they are being proved wrong. And rather than disagreeing with me as grown up adults, so many of them chose to indulge themselves in a childish orgy of vicious name calling in comments, emails, and on their own blogs to the point that it became a travail to even write about Iraq. And whenever I did, I only ended up driving more of my conservative readers away.

I knew this at the time but felt that it was necessary for conservatives to wake up and smell the coffee about Iraq rather than swallowing the Administration’s line (and their legions of defenders) who were saying that a military “victory” was still possible when all the signs pointed to a disaster in the making. I could very well have continued finding silver linings in dark clouds in order to make the case for “staying the course” but in the end, that approach wasn’t tenable given the reality of what has been happening on the ground in that bloody country.

It’s just that when everything that I’ve put into building this site up has basically gone for naught because so many of my friends on the right have abandoned reading this blog - mostly because my position on the Iraq War has diverged from GOP and conservative orthodoxy - that I now feel compelled to do a little fist pumping because more and more Republicans are saying exactly the same things I’ve been saying for months; that it’s time to start redeploying our troops so that we can salvage something short of an unmitigated disaster from this military adventure:

Republican support for President Bush’s Iraq war policy suffered a significant crack Monday evening when Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana urged the president to change course in Iraq “very soon.”

The well-respected GOP voice on foreign affairs took to the Senate floor to urge Bush to avoid further damage to America’s military readiness and long-term national security.

“Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world,” he said.

Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also sounded a pessimistic note on the prospects for internal political progress in Iraq.

He said he sees “no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy.”

The senator said continuing military operations in Iraq were putting a damaging level of stress on U.S. forces, “taking a toll on recruitment and readiness.”

“The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength, or our ability to respond to other national security priorities, is closing,” he said. “The United States military remains the strongest fighting force in the world, but we have to be mindful that it is not indestructible.”

Lugar also said he believes the chances for success of Bush’s strategy of boosting troop levels in Iraq to try to get the security situation there under control is “very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate.”

Every single conclusion reached by Lugar in the above excerpt was reached by me late last year. The lack of progress by the Iraqi government in dealing with their problems making the surge an exercise in futility; the toll on our military; and the ticking clock of public support for the war were all pointed out by me - for which I received the most vile criticism imaginable from some of my erstwhile friends.

Lugar isn’t the only Republican who is saying this, of course. Last month, a group of GOP House members confronted the President over Iraq in the White House and told him basically the same things. But when the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee - a man whose judgement on foreign and military affairs has been respected in Washington, D.C. for more than 20 years - tells the President of the United States on the floor of the US Senate that he’s got to change course, Bush better listen. Otherwise, Republicans will be forced to work within the timetable framework offered by the Democrats. And that could only mean a catastrophic end to our involvement in Iraq as the artificial deadlines pulled more and more troops out of Iraq allowing the terrorists and militias to take over.

What Lugar wants is a sensible redeployment that will allow our troops to maintain a presence so that the country won’t fall apart completely:

Despite his call for a course change, Lugar said he did not support calls by some Democrats for a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, which he said “also fails to meet our security interests.”

Rather, he said a “downsizing and redeployment of United States military forces to more sustainable positions” — in rural locations of Iraq, Kurdish areas or possibly Kuwait — might better serve American security interests.

And to make my vindication complete - and even sweeter - is Lugar’s call for a bi-partisan consensus on Iraq:

“The president and some of his advisers may be tempted to pursue the ’surge’ strategy to the end of his administration, but such a course contains extreme risks for United States national security,” Lugar said. “The president and his team must come to grips with the shortened political timeline in this country for political operations in Iraq.”

“A course change should happen now, while there is still some possibility of constructing a sustainable bipartisan strategy in Iraq. If the president waits until the presidential election campaign is in full swing, the intensity of confrontation on Iraq is likely to limit [options],” he said.

While a handful of other Republican senators have broken with the Bush administration over Iraq, Lugar’s call for a course change — which his spokesman, Andy Fisher, said was “months in the making, weeks in writing” — is likely to have particular resonance, given his stature as one of the party’s elder statesmen on foreign policy.

I know I shouldn’t feel this way. It’s petty, juvenile, and will serve only to make people madder at me. And I also know that the minute I hit that “publish” button, I’m going to regret putting this post up.

So be it. If I can’t be a sonuvabitch on my own blog, and tell people who have accused me of being a “traitor” and worse to go screw themselves, then to hell with it. I might as well take up tiddly winks or some other non-contact sport. Because what this site has been about since its inception has been a full frontal assault on the stupidity of the left. May as well throw some righties under the bus while I’m at it.

UPDATE: FROM THE “SEE WHAT I MEAN” FILE

Glenn Reynolds:

535 COMMANDERS-IN-CHIEF: Now it’s Richard Lugar calling for a new strategy. Maybe we could do something to stop Iranian troops entering Iraq? I don’t think he has anything so useful in mind, though.

UPDATE: Fresh back from Iraq, J.D. Johannes posts a wrapup. And he emails that he’s got a rant about Senators on the way: “you know, we could have this thing all but won and still declare defeat. That is sickening.” Our political class isn’t known for bravery or discipline.

First, Confederate Yankee has debunked the “Iranian troops entering Iraq” story pretty thoroughly. Secondly, I will ask a question of Mr. Johannes: Just what is it you think we have “all but won” in Iraq?

The insurgents defeated? Al Qaeda destroyed utterly? Foreign fighters vanquished and prevented from entering the country? Iraq at peace and a stable society? The Iraqi government building a multi-sectarian democracy?

That’s a start as far as barometers for “victory.” And we’re nowhere near achieving any of them!

Not one.

So I will ask again. Just what is it you think we are on the brink of winning in Iraq if only we allow the American military to continue our current strategy?

If you haven’t already, stop by Michelle Malkin’s new look blog. And while you’re there, register to comment.

Yours truly will be handling comment moderating duties. I would also encourage some of the saner lefties who comment here (and you know who you are) to register at Michelle’s. She would especially welcome thoughtful liberals in her comments section.

The moment I enjoy most in Frank Capra’s It’s A Wonderful Life is the madhouse scene at the end of the movie where everyone and their brother are coming out of the woodwork to help George Bailey get the money so that the bank shortage can be made good and he won’t be arrested.

His wife Mary shows up with a wicker washer basket full of dollars and coin and is at the head of a line of folks eager to help. There’s Mr. Gower the druggist, who was saved from jail by George when he was just a boy, coming in and boasting he had collected on the drug store’s charge accounts. The Bailey family’s life long maid Annie throws some money in the pot declaring “I was going to save this for a divorce if I ever got married!” Mr. Martini the bar owner, a man George helped finance a home, arrives declaring that he “busted the juke box” in order to help George.

Then, the telegram from George’s lifelong friend Sam Wainwright whose local office was instructed ” to advance you up to twenty-five thousand dollars, stop. Hee Haw and Merry Christmas!”

If you’re not weeping by then, you are made of sterner stuff than I, gentle readers.

Finally, George’s brother Harry arrives. Harry, who lived the life George was forced to sacrifice to keep the Building and Loan business together. Harry, the Congressional Medal of Honor winner who wouldn’t be alive at all except his brother George saved him from drowning when they were little boys.

It is left to Harry to deliver the best line of the movie: “A toast to my big brother George: The richest man in town.”

And that, my friends, is what it’s all about. The outpouring of support my just concluded blog fundraiser elicited was more than just a testament to your generosity. It was, at bottom, an act of faith and, dare I say, of love. To say that it is better to give than receive is something we’ve all heard since we were kids. Our parents drummed it into us. Our preachers, priests, rabbis, nuns, friars, monks, and imams beat it into us - figuratively and, in some cases, literally.

But for you to open your hearts in such a tangible, earthly way and share with someone the fruits of your labor has been the most humbling experience of my 53 years on this earth. After all, Sue and I weren’t in danger of starving to death or getting thrown out into the street. Your gift was the lifeblood to feed the dreams of a middle aged man who wants a chance to do something in life he finds enjoyable, rewarding, fulfilling, even exhilarating. And if my writing can give back some of the joy and happiness your gift has given to us, I hope you will consider it a fair exchange.

I don’t exactly feel like the inmate who has gotten a last minute reprieve. More like a drowning man who has been thrown a life line. The gift of that life line has enabled Sue and I to catch up on all our bills with a little left over for something I’ve been promising for a couple of years.

In the next month or so, the wonderful web designers at EWebscapes will come up with a new design and a new site for me. A new design - and a new name. Not quite sure what exactly it will be yet. But Right Wing Nuthouse will be retired - with honors. The name has served its purpose well of drawing attention to me. From here on out, my writing will have to serve that purpose.

The gift you have given me - this new lease on life- will not be wasted I assure you. Look for a greatly expanded presence of my writing on the web in the very near future at a couple of different sites. You never know just where I might turn up.

Again, Sue joins me in thanking you all from our hearts.

Rick Moran
Proprietor

Glad to see my brother Jim, the Troubadour of the family, back in the blogging saddle. His excellent site Vivid Air is once again alive and kicking.

A teacher for his entire professional life, in the last few years Jim has begun to make a name for himself in the folk music world with his group of 50 something musician friends who have formed sort of a 60’s folk tribute group. The band’s name, Chilly Winds, is from the haunting ballad of the same name by John Stewart of the Kingston Trio and John Phillips who later gained fame as a member of the West Coast band Mamas and the Papas:

I’m goin’ where them chilly winds don’t blow. Gonna find a true love. That is where I want to go.
Out where them chilly winds don’t blow.

I’m leavin’ in the springtime, won’t be back till fall. If I can forget you, I might not come back at all.
Out where them chilly winds don’t blow.

Jim’s most recent entry at Vivid Air details the origins and history of the song many of us have sung around campfires for years. We know it as “Wimoweh” or “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” or perhaps even “Mbube” which is the Zulu word American folk artist Pete Seeger evidently mangled in pronunciation to come up with the Weavers version of the song which they called “Wimoweh.”

More recently, Paul Simon made a version by Ladysmith Black Mambazo and her South African singers famous on his excellent album Graceland. It’s amazing how many artists and arrangements there have been of this little tune. Go read Jim’s article for some fascinating details on the history of the song among Zulus.

And make sure to bookmark Jim’s site and add his RSS feed to your reader.

This post will remain on top until Friday. Scroll down for newer entries.

FINAL UPDATE: 6/8

There’s still time to contribute! If you haven’t done so, please consider it. Thank you.

Somehow, I missed my friend Bob Sikes over at the sports/politics/culture blog Getting Paid to Watch, who generously linked to this piece. Sorry ’bout that Bob. Barry Bonds made me do it.

*****************************************************

This is the third June in a row that I have forthrightly and without any qualms asked the readers of Right Wing Nuthouse to donate funds to this site. And it is the last time I will make such a request.

This is because by next June, I either won’t need the money or will have given up trying to write for a living.

Of course, you are not exactly donating to “this site.” You would be giving money to me, Rick Moran - someone who no doubt has made you laugh, angered you, made you think, or perhaps moved you with his writing. I make no pretense to having a corner on truth, being a superior writer, or even having any special insight. The one quality that I hope you agree I have is honesty. So here it is.

When Sue and I sat down in September of 2004 to decide whether or not I would try to make a living as a writer, we agreed that if I wasn’t contributing substantially to the household income by the end of 2007, I would give up the dream and return to the world of regular paychecks, health insurance, paid vacations, and in my case, 60 hour workweeks. To accomplish this, we recognized that we would have to live a spartan lifestyle, economize considerably, sacrifice many of the little pleasures in life we had come to take for granted, and pray that we both remained relatively healthy.

This we have done. I have made no attempt to exaggerate our financial situation in the past to elicit sympathy nor will I do so now. The money you, my gentle readers, have given us has helped enormously. It has kept our heads above water which, if nothing else, has allowed us to live with a certain peace of mind. There are many of you I’m sure who know what I’m talking about. Living paycheck to paycheck can take a toll on one’s well being as you are constantly worrying about what might happen.

The problem at this point is simple; events and circumstances have occurred over the last few months that have made it imperative that this particular request for donations succeed well beyond what we have been fortunate enough to receive in the past. Several unforeseen and unwelcome expenses have cropped up over the last few months that has us drowning in red ink.

Now we are in no danger of being evicted or filing for bankruptcy. Nor is the repo guy going to show up anytime soon. Creditors are always willing to work with you if you talk with them and let them know that you fully intend to pay what you owe. But the fact is, I made another promise to my Zsu Zsu when she so selflessly agreed to be the primary breadwinner in the house; that if we ever started to live the way we are living now, I would give it up and go back to what I had been doing previously.

So that’s where we are at the moment - totally and completely dependent on you, my friends, enemies, readers, lurkers, fellow bloggers and all the rest to help keep my hopes alive. I do love writing so. And I would hate to give it up without being able to tell myself I did everything I could - including asking for donations from strangers - to keep doing what I have discovered to be a boundless passion so late in life. Especially since in the last month, I have finally begun to sell some of my writing. It’s not much yet. But the promise of more is there.

If you have donated in the past, please consider doing so again.

If you haven’t, please give serious consideration to donating this time.

If you are a blogger, please consider linking to this post and sending some of your readers this way. I’ll be glad to give you a hat tip in an update with a link back.

For your convenience, I have included both an Amazon donation button and a Paypal button below.

No matter how this turns out, I want to thank you for your emails and comments. They have sometimes stopped and made me think. And for that, I am grateful.

UPDATE: 6/4

Sunday’s take exceeded my most optimistic expectations. We’ll see what happens today.

And a great big hat tip to a long, long time supporter of this site Tom over at Hamstermotor. If you’re hungry, he has the recipe for The One True Sandwich.

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS! Many thanks, Glenn.

AHOY CAPTAINS QUARTERS READERS! Thanks for the kind words, Ed.

HELLO TO ALL MY GOOD FRIENDS AT AMERICAN THINKER! Tom Lifson’s support is, as always, most appreciated.

GREETINGS WIZBANG READERS! I’m a huge fan of Kim Priestap’s writing over there. You should be too. Thanks, Kim.

My old friend Wonder Woman at her new blog The Lassoo of Truth has some kind words. Hooray for the Justice League! (Gentlemen, your attention please.)

Some of my Blog Talk Radio buds link here from American Pundit. Thanks guys!

The whimsically named blog This Ain’t Hell But You Can See It From Here links here. Didn’t know I was a blog faddah. Thanks a million, John.

Mike at Lamplighter throws us a link. He says he has a “little blog.” I can guarantee you Mike, with stories like this - about a scam affecting the wives of our soldiers overseas - you won’t remain little for long.

Hoody at Nothing blog - long time reader - shoots and scores us a link. Agree with your “archetype” theory about teams designed to beat the Pistons.

Gentle Anchoress links to this post. She’s the only one on the internet whose site I comb my hair and button my shirt before visiting.

I regularly submit something from Varifrank to the Watchers Council weekly competition because Frank is a great writer, clear thinker, and I usually agree with him. Case in point.

The Oxford Medievalist - who goes by the nom de blog Angevin - seems like the perfect blogger; “Conservative American Anglophile medieval historian and intelligence scholar.” Thanks for the link, your highness.

New to me blog J’s Cafe Nette does me the honor of linking here.

Wide Awakes bud and one of my dearest friends on the net Raven of And Rightly So gives us a boost! Thanks gorgeous!

UPDATE: 6/5

Yesterday’s response was simply overwhelming. On behalf of my live-in lover (not, as some of you think, my wife) Zsu Zsu, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. So many thoughtful people with nice things to say about me. And then there are the few…

Mr. Nosepicker is just jealous, of course. Friendless people usually are.

Meanwhile, today is another day and I hope to match the 48 donations from yesterday if not exceed it! And here are some bloggers who are going to help me do it:

Frequent linker Doug Ross - always with the first link of the day to this site - includes me in his Google Street Views.

Adam of Adam’s Blog misses the Carnival of the Clueless. So do I. Thanks for the kind words, Adam.

Coffee Spy attributes superhero qualities to this site. This post is what blogging is all about. Many thanks…and I’ll take mine strong and black, please.

Another good friend Karen of Pondering Penguin gives us a shout out.

UPDATE: 6/6

Donations fell off yesterday - but that was to be expected. Nevertheless, we are closing in on my goal. (Perhaps if I reach it, I will tell you what that goal is.) A good day today and we might be able to put the tin cup away early. So if you’ve thought about giving but haven’t, I would very much be in your debt if you could see your way clear to donating today.

Meanwhile, another new to me blogger has joined the Hallelujah Chorus. Skal of Skalduggery waxes poetic about truth. I’m honored, sir.

And that eclectic yet very neighborly bunch at Maggie’s Farm link to this post. Eclectic, perhaps. But loads of yankee common sense too. “First they came for my cigarettes…”

UPDATE: 6/7

Just two days to go and we’re closing in on our goal. One big push today will put me over the top. Please consider donating today.

Meanwhile, Slublog thinks he’s late to the party. Yes, but fashionably late. And you look mahvalus!

Physics Geek almost went unnoticed as a linker here until I checked my Technorati links. Many thanks sir.

What’s this? Is the Commissar going soft? What, no withering blast at my purely capitalist method of raising money? No threats to be sent to the Lubyanka for trying to poison the minds of the proletariat? Ah well, I guess that proves that even Commies have a heart. Many thanks, my friend.

What makes a great movie villain?

Obviously, he must be evil. And relentless in persecuting the hero. And it doesn’t hurt if they are without conscience or any redeeming qualities at all, although that last is not necessary as we shall see.

I think the last thing that makes a great movie villain is that the part must be either well written or played by a great actor. There are plenty of villains who had the potential for greatness but never quite made the grade due to an inferior script or bad performance. Henry Fonda in Once Upon A Time In The West comes to mind. Hard to get over the image of Fonda as Mr. Everyman which made his portrayal of the child killer Frank difficult to accept.

The following are not necessarily the greatest movie villains of all time - just my favorites. I’ve left out villains like the Wicked Witch of the West and the evil queen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs not because they’re not evil but because they’re not really believable, are they? At any rate, let me know what you think of my choices.

10. Roger “Verbal” Kint - The Usual Suspects

For sheer surprise, I had to include “Kaiser Soza” in my top ten list. The incongruity of Kevin Spacey’s mild mannered Kint placed against the terrorist Soza (and the way the film revealed the surprise) was extremely well done.

9. Mr. Zorg - The Fifth Element

Has there been a campier villain than Zorg? Gary Oldham’s over the top performance was outstanding. And as a foil for Bruce Willis, he was perfect.

8. The Shark - Jaws

I’m still afraid to go in the water. I first saw the film at the old Chicago Theater - wide screen and the place was packed at midday. Every time John William’s “shark” music started, a noticeable murmur would run through the crowd. People were terrified of that mechanical beast. And I still can’t watch it without getting chills sometimes.

7. Frank Booth - Blue Velvet

Dennis Hopper could easily be on this list three or four times. But his portrayal of the maniac Booth whose sexual proclivities and homicidal nature combine to make him by far the weirdest villain in movie history, was a tour de force performance. (His turn as Howard Payne in Speed was also memorable).

6. Khan - Star Trek II

Only because I’m a sucker for any villain that quotes Melville and Shakespeare.

5. Booth - In The Line Of Fire

John Malkovich as the disturbed presidential assassin in one of Eastwood’s best roles and directing efforts. So much in control. So sure of himself. And in the end, so dead.

4. Casper Gutman - The Maltese Falcon

Probably not on too many people’s top ten lists but this is my blog and I’ll do what I like. Actually, Sydney Greenstreet had some redeeming qualities. He was charming and jolly. He was also someone you could trust only as far as you could throw his 300 pound body. I love the plot of Falcon plus the novel by Dashiell Hammett was faithfully brought to the screen by John Huston.

3. Masala - Ben Hur

Stephen Boyd is not the best actor in the world. But the way the role was written contrasted perfectly with Heston’s Judah. Unforgettable.

2. Hannibal Lector - The Silence of the Lambs

I didn’t care for Anthony Hopkins in any of the sequels, (although the remake of Manhunter with Edward Norton was pretty good). But his absolutely stone cold portrayal of the impossibly dangerous serial killer in Lambs was bone chilling.

1. Darth Vader - Star Wars

Could there be anyone else at #1? Darth is number one in so many ways - literary, mythological, cinematic, biblical - he rivals Satan in our culture as an icon of evil. He has no equal.

Note: Some honorable mentions:

1. Norman Bates - Psycho
2. The Alien - Alien films (except the execrable Alien vs. Predator).
3. Gollum - Lord of the Rings
4. Mr. Smith - The Matrix films
5. Freddie Krueger - Nightmare on Elm Street films

That ought to keep you guys busy for a while.

I had the great pleasure of appearing on Ed Morrissey’s Blog Talk Radio show “CQ Radio” yesterday to discuss this new venture as well as the launching of a new conservative blog featuring BTR hosts.

You can access the podcast of the show here. One piece of earth shattering news that emerged from that show yesterday was that Ed will be featured as a character in a new novel set for publication this summer by a friend of Mr. Morrissey. This in and of itself would not be news. What makes it interesting is that the character will be a “bad guy.” And if the author honors Ed’s request, he will be portrayed as a evil villain.

I put it to you, friends. Ed Morrissey, Christian gentleman, as a latter day Moriarty? The world may stop spinning for such a development.

Ed also talked about a brand new blog associated with BTR called Heading Right. The concept is to feature as many conservative talk show hosts who wish to participate posting items of interest and carrying on conversations about the issues of the day a la The Corner. It’s a great idea and I plan on having a lot of fun with it. (Will I be the first person banned from participating? Stay tuned.)

Okay…just kidding.

Make sure you bookmark Heading Right and check back a couple of times a day. We should have some lively discussions with both readers and other bloggers.

And don’t forget to check out my podcast from last Tuesday’s show with Clarice Feldman of The American Thinker where she stoutly defends Alberto Gonzalez from both Republicans and Democrats.

Next Tuesday’s show will start at 3:00 PM central. Don’t miss it.