Crescent Park is a very, very choice neighborhood in PA with many grand homes.  I know that Mr. Z. of Facebook moved in a year or so ago; I wonder if he is the billionaire in question?

I enjoy the British style puzzles as well, but they too require a particular knowledge set: how to tease out the puzzle in each clue.  I have to remember that "mixed up," "confused" or "broken" are a hint that I need to make an anagram our of one of the words in the clue.

However, as you point out, the NYT puzzle (and the WSJ puzzle as well) expect a very broad range of knowledge.  It is not unusual for one to need to know the name of a Roman emperor as well as that of Lisa Simpson's favorite jazz artist.  I'll just have to add "Left-wing historical perspective" to the list of required knowledge.

I bought a copy of Millionaire Republican several years ago when he was on the GOP speaking circuit. It started out as a defense of free market capitalism and then quickly went in the direction of "Republican secrets to becoming a millionaire." Sort of Tony Roberts meets F.A. Hayek. At that point I bailed.

I doubt he has much influence at all, as this is less of a transplanted root than a return of the prodigal.  Keep in mind that Root wrote Millionaire Republican in 2005  before he wrote Conscience of a Libertarian in 2010.  I'm happy to have him back in the libertarian wing of the GOP, but I suspect the Libertarians see him as a flip-flop-flipper.

Skill is important, but so is mental attitude. Several of these men were great athletes as well as being trained and experienced in combat -- some of it, in close quarters with bayonets, if not knives.

But only one of the whole lot ever demonstrated the will to kill another man in a duel. Only Old Hickory had the nerve and determination to coolly face another man and end his life.  When the dust settles, it would be Andy Jackson left standing.

The Godfather is such a font of quotes that it is the subject of a great quote from another film:

"The Godfather is the I-ching. The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom. The Godfather is the answer to any question."

                                        -- Tom Hanks from You've Got Mail

However, for The In-Laws , a week does not go by when I have not called out to the missus, "Serpentine!"

This reminds me of how annoying I find the legal marginalization of smokers. I have never been a smoker, but I have to acknowledge that smoking too is a high-functioning addiction.  No one blew their paycheck on a pack of smokes; no one ever beat up their spouse because of tobacco; no one lost their job because the nicotene got in the way of work; and no one crashed the car on a cigarette high.

Yet the professional college-educated class in which I work and live treats smokers as pariahs.   I once worked at a company where the smokers would go to the back of the building, away from windows, so no one could see them.   And in the municipalities where this class holds electoral sway, the number places in which one can legally smoke get fewer with time. 

Shame is a powerful tool. Wish we employed it for soemthing useful.

It was fantastic to be in San Francisco surrounded by Richocet members  when Wisconsin was called for Walker.   Definitely worth the price of membership!  I've listened for returns on many election nights and this one ranks with '94 and '80.

Thank you for organizing this Diane, and if Charles Schwab reads the member feed, then "Thank you for having us over to your 'house';" it was just terrific.

Maybe we Californians are too diverse (oh, that word) for this test. It tagged me as Inland North, and I am a second generation native and life-long resident of Northern California.  Philadelphia came as a strong second with The West coming near the bottom.

Admittedly, when it came to the Indian Nations, The Founder of the Modern Democrat Party was never on the side of the Angels.  However (and this may be where the "apocryphal" part comes in) I had thought the quote was a reaction to Worcester vs. Georgia, not Georgia (US) vs. Cherokee Nation.

At least this woman waited for the Q&A. This past May I attended a forum in the SF Bay Area at which Prof. Yoo's presentation was interrupted every 10 minutes by a member of the audience trying to shout him down.  After the first protester was escorted out of the hall, it was only a short time before a second one popped up.  There were about ten of these folks, and had they marshaled their resources, they could have prevented us from hearing anything meaningful.  However, giddy with success, when it came time for the third interruption, all the remaining protesters self-activated. They were escorted out, and then there were no more to disturb the evening. Just no self-discipline on the left, I guess.

Back "early Republic," President Jackson (possibly apocryphally) said of the SCOTUS, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"  It didn't mean much then, and, much as I admire the argument, I doubt it would mean much now.

I'm sure you would have found them very helpful on this topic. My late father-in-law and mother-in-law attended school in Austria in the late 30s.  Their school records carried a big J for Juden. All "to better serve" their needs, of course.

So, if we hit the debt ceiling and the administration services said debt, the paymasters at Treasury will have a choice on how to spend the rest of its limited funds.  They can pay the military and make good on our promises to seniors, or it can stiff those two groups and pay government employees.  Gosh, I wonder which they will choose? 

The former two groups lean heavily to the right and did not support BHO in 2008.  However, scaring seniors has proved a good way to nudge them to pull the D lever. The latter group (BTW a category which includes the paymasters themselves) are historically strong supporters of the progressive agenda as well as BHO.

So with one choice they would disappoint loyal supporters of the administration, and with the other, they would deliver spoils to supporters and possibly fear-convert opponents to the progressive cause.

Sadly, it is not tough to figure out which choice will be made. They will be citing Mencken that their opponents should get what they asked for good and hard. As Sheppard suggests, absent an MSM that states these choices clearly, the administration has a great opportunity to cause mischief.

Prof Rahe,  I share your doubts about Romney, but would you reconsider the RINO tag? Romney of 2008 was endorsed by NR in 2007.  Go back and read that endorsement: Romney For President. Does NR have a track record of endorsing RINOs? And heath care was supposed to be a Romney plus: "He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue." If Lowry et. al, felt that way in 2007, how can we blame Mitt for saying the same thing in 2011?  We don't have to agree, but he is not crazy (or dishonest) to be saying it.

I disagreed with that endorsement back in 2007 and said so to members of the board, and I'm an anyone-but-Romney Republican in this cycle.  But shouldn't there be a distinction between Republicans we won't support for POTUS and RINOs?

With all respect to Mr. Oliver, stopping ObamaCare is too important to use as a bargaining chip for DOMA. How about no funds for ObamaCare - period?  No conditions -- that's just the way it is. Too extreme?