Ricochet is a great place to get a sense of what smart conservatives are thinking.  I also like to use it to highlight some of my pieces (often with Troy's prodding), and to get thoughtful reactions, which stand in stark contrast to the comments on most sites.  My favorite part of Ricochet, though, is the podcasts, especially the Ricochet main podcast, as well as the hilarious GLOP culture.   Goldberg, Long, and Podhoretz really know their pop culture, and they are tremendously funny.

Diane -- thanks for clarifying the title's provenance and meaning.

Paul -- I don't expect Peter to be giving up on his precious and infuriating NYT anytime soon.

Thanks to Tim for the great plug for my think tank article.  Michael Allen also cited my piece in his influential Politico Playbook this morning.  As for Garrett Peterson's musing that a think tank job would be a dream job, I can only say that I agree, as long as you pick the right think tank.

Thanks to Kelly B for answering the question on In the Garden of the Beasts.  As for the number of books I read, which seems to have generated a fair bit of discussion, I decided a few years ago to be more disciplined about reading.  The number one time management change I made was that I renounced channel surfing entirely.  If my wife and I want to watch a specific show or movie, we do so.  But I no longer surf with the remote to see if there is anything compelling on.  This one change has helped me read many more books than I had been able to previously.

King Prawn: Thanks for listening, and spend wisely.  Very impressive that your kindle has no unread books in it.

 I like Crow's Nest's coinage of "Fake reader syndrome."  With respect to Misthiocracy and J. Voss, I am not sure you need to have read every "begat" to be able to claim to have read the Bible.  I will say, however, that Numbers is far more readable than Leviticus, especially from a plot perspective.  As for what Romney reads, I wrote this piece for the Washington Post about what the GOP candidates are reading: Romney is partial to science fiction.

 My guess is a bunch more, and I certainly want Hezbollah to think that.

Thanks to all for some thoughtful comments.  I felt bad for Denise, who had to endure a propaganda speech from her choir pew, and Heshmom, who had her Seder ruined by her sister in law's severely flawed analogy.  I am with tabula rasa, and wish that I could say that the Jewish community shared the no politics from the pulpit rule with the Mormons.  This does not mean that rabbis can't be political, but the pulpit should be neutral and not partisan ground.

Thanks to Diane and Josh for some good general questions, and to Josh for the idea that inspired my post.  Franco is right about the standard approach journalist questioners take, which is one of the points that I make in my Politico piece.  No one should be surprised that Paul Rahe has come up with some excellent questions, but my point is that I would like to see how candidates answer philosophical questions when they are all asked the same question.

Paules and Pilli have a point, but in the realm of realistic possibilities, the Pizzella-Carter approach is not only do-able, it has been done, at least at one department.

Ross Conatser's thoughtful post reminds us that government will need to take some important lessons from the private sector about belt-tightening, but that those lessons have yet to take hold.

Crow's Nest notes, appropriately, that the quality of reading material has gone down and our choices have gone up.  Tabula rasa is right that the book choices are underwhelming, but President Obama's summer reading selections are not that impressive, either.  And Quinn the Eskimo makes a good point that all of these reading selections are a snapshot in time.  It would be great to know the books that shaped the candidates as youths, but it's usually not possible.

 Thanks for the shout out, Pseudodionysius.  Happy to have saved you the time.

You raise some excellent points, and I love Tom Thompson's line in Metropolitan: "I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism."  I was writing about a unique to DC phenomenon, in which conventional wisdom or, worse, policy is set by books that people have not read. 

Born Yesterday is a great example.  I wish I had thought of it when writing the piece.

 I did read the Woodward book, and I agree that it was not complimentary towards the White House decision-making process.  The fact that people use it to praise the White House is further proof of my thesis.

Thanks to all for the good suggestions for the not read list.  I particularly liked Aaron Miller's line about the Rush Limbaugh show.  Dogsbody's comment, which proved he hadn't read the article, was classic.  Points for the self-correction, though.  Waynester is assuming a lot if he thinks that Sanders wrote all of the speeches on which his book was based.