Earlier this week, I officially began research on a third book. I have a rule about books: I will only write a book that I would want to read. I have a second rule about books: I will only write a book that other people would want to read too. With this in mind, I hope to do with this third project what I believe I've done successfully with Why the Left Hates America and Intellectual Morons: write a topical book that appeals to a mass audience while still having lasting value. Since I'm still at the early stages, I hope you understand my preference for keeping the topic of the book top-secret. Who knows, after all, if my current conception of the next book will match the reality of the finished product? A lot will happen between now and some distant publication date. So until that date arrives, I encourage you to continue to get your fix on Flynn Files. And if you haven't read Why the Left Hates America or Intellectual Morons, what are you waiting for?

So...you're saying that you have nothing to report? I understand the need to keep it top secret, but we wanna know! (I guess I have inside ways of finding out) Good luck on the book.

Seriously, though, I hope it's an X-files novel where Mulder and Scully are investigating amazon rainforest indians being terrorized by the ghost of bigfoot. Now everyone would want to read that. Just to mix it up a little, because, no offense: Your books could use more ghosts.

The next book should be an expose on the Maurry/ Barinelli relaxation machine fight of 91.

Finally writing that book about the shoemakers of 17th century Switzerland, eh?

TIPS FOR POLITICAL AUTHORS THAT WANT TO SELL:

-Include something about American Empire
-Mention how the economies of the EU and China are overtaking that of the US
-Say something about the US' "Middle East Problem" and how doomed we are
-End by predicting the coming fall of American power

What about Mr. Hanley's annexation. Think about all the political back stabbing? Great topic, u could call it "The Big Wheel Incident."

Good luck with the book, Dan. Try to work a ninja in there. You can never go wrong with ninja.

The Flux Capacitor Of Politics - why conservatives are always on the Right side of history.

How about working in a bio about Juan Trippe, Howard Hughes’ archenemy in the competition for affordable commercial air travel? Trippe is pretty close to being as interesting as Hughes. Minus the movie starlets and the charm, that is.

Wild, whacky, schtuff.

Oh, boy!

I can't wait, Dan!

You might write a book about why every single recent development in the Middle East is rapidly proving the Bushite neocons correct and the Buchananites horribly wrong, on how the Middle East would react to US actions.

=P sorry couldn't resist the zinger.

On a more serious note, something pertaining to the developing history of the Middle East would be very interesting. You have done enough of the stuff simply debunking liberals.

Print is dead. Try making a film. Go around campus's and workshops and seminars and conventions (nea) etc for a period of time and just film it and add (hilarious) commentary. It would give you a chance to travel, be a pain in the a@# and make more dough if it picked up. Books been there done that.

The written word dies only among the uneducated.

Actualy it is from Ghostbusters.

Hmmm...

I like the Flynn flim idea. How making a documentary about pie-eating contests, before Moore can?

Just be careful about writing about neocons. They are completely Machiavellian with no honor and compunction. They will do everything in their power to destroy those on the right who disagree with them. You are a promising young conservative writer and commentator, I would hate to see you destroyed by jackals.

How about a documentary on the making of The Love Shack, and Buck Wild Woods. How to make the perfect cocktail, of cheap vodka and Purple Saurus Rex Kool-aid. The trials and tribulations of a young school boy who was covered from head to toe with poison-ivy and trying to explain how it was possible to have his girlfriend also covered in the same places. John Hanleys conscience after finding his quarterback naked in the shower taunting a seldom used tackling dummy who was in the fetal-position in the corner, and mysteriously someone who has posted on this topic.
Just some food for thought!

"Just be careful about writing about neocons. They are completely Machiavellian with no honor and compunction. They will do everything in their power to destroy those on the right who disagree with them..."

-Brian

Awwww Brian, I am so touched! I had no idea you cared!

Brian - what the heck? Are you chanelling Emma Perez?

Lol Nightfly,

Sometimes Counterpunch has decent articles but it isn't really my kind of site, FlynnFiles is alls I need.

Actually, if I was channeling anyone it was the late M.E. Bradford who was ruthlessly disparaged and libeled by the neocons in order to sabotage his nomination to be director of the NEH and then the National Archives under Reagan. It is a sad story to read up on.

Or more recently one could look at how Dinesh D'Souza was instrumental in getting the late Sam Francis fired from the Washington Times, or the continuous efforts and really the success of the neocons in getting Pat Buchanan banished from the so-called conservative movement over the last 12 or more years.

Just take a look at National Review, the magazine is intellectually moribund now. Interesting, and even simply intelligent, conservative thought disappears whenever the neocons gain control of an outlet.

As for Perez's particular subject, Ward Churchill is a buffoon who is frankly not worthy of nearly as much attention as he has received. Whether or not the people of Colorado want him to teach their kids about Indian Studies is up to them, through the trustees of the university. It is really not a national issue or an issue for me.

I think National Review's writers have had sound criticism of Bush's policies regarding immigration, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare expansion, and a host of domestic policies. They also had sharp disagreement in the Corner about the Grim Specter's nomination as Judiciary Chairman. It's not wholly lockstep. =) Hell, they even fired Ann Coulter when she went bananas three days after 9/11; nobody can accuse her of being paleo. (...he said, wearing his NR T-shirt!)

Of course, I come here precisely because I'm going to learn something from people who are certain to either know more or have access to more resources. Either my own positions will hold up, or require revision. Either way they won't be so fragile as to shatter at the slightest jostle from an opposing view.

I'm too young to have heard of Mr. Bradford before this, and wasn't aware that Mr. Francis had been drummed out by any neocon cabal. Ironically, Buchanan seems to have isolated himself instead of the US. In arguing an competing view, are the neocons really being vindictive (seeking pelts to stick on the wall), or are they just engaging in debate? It just seems so far off from the tone of self-proclaimed guardians of All Things Bright and Beautiful.

NR fired Ann Coulter because she suggested that Christians should rise up and convert the Muslim heathens. They were wrong to do so in my opinion and did it out of political correctness. The essay she wrote (and they didn't publish, correct?) is actually a pretty good one by her standards, it was clearly full of bombast, her usual acid tone, and was an emotional release, but then lower Manhattan was still smoldering.

Yes, I think the neocons are being vindictive since their tactic is to smear people as racists and anti-semites rather than to argue with them. That is an uncivil approach to political disagreements, particularly between people ostensibly on the same side of the aisle.

I claim no special insights here or anything these are just my observations or takes on the contemporary history of American conservatism. I particularly wouldn't want to suggest that there was ever a monolithic conservative base which has been undermined, there is just as much diversity of thought and odd combinations of political principles and impulses on the right as on the left.

Oh yeah,

You mention that it is ironic that Buchanan has isolated himself instead of the country but I find it ironic that the globalist and interventionist neocons have for all practical purposes isolated the U.S. in international affairs in a much more destructive manner than Buchanan ever would have.

They have repeatedly scoffed at our traditional allies, they made Blair into a liar as well as destroying credibility at the UN by having Powell lie to them. They have seemingly decided that the U.S. and Israel will go it alone against the world regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As for straining our relations w/ NATO and isolating us from the U.N., I have no serious complaints. NATO is an anachronism and the UN is a fairytale for adults. The neocons seem to share the conservative view that the U.S. does not need permission from world opinion or bodies to do anything necessary to defend itself (or execute its criminals). So why they insist on characterizing Buchananites as isolationist I do not know.

However, it is the hegemony-seeking by the neocons and their unjust war on Iraq which has done more to "isolate" America than Buchanan's versions of "America first," and economic nationalism could ever do.