A note on allowable inference: when a certain theory predicts (to take the example of the theory commonly referred to as "global warming") that there will be an increase in the violence of temperature and weather changes during seasonal change, then yes, a sudden snap of oddly cold weather following a surge of unseasonably warm weather in an area in the northern hemisphere in March is indeed evidence supporting the theory.

When a theory says that throwing more Americans into the Islamic Pressure Cooker will increase the uncertainty (and insecurity) of Baghdad, and then this happens, yes, it's evidence that the theory was correct.

Conversely, these theories are in no way contradicted by a temporary lull in the trend, since they say nothing about the short-term behavior of the systems in question.

I'm not saying the behavior of either system in any 6-day period proves either theory, mind you, but in fact the behavior is more consistent with the predictions of one theory than the other.

Lisa, jojo,

Well, almost everybody thinks they're mathematicians, or at least that the top people in their field are mathematically expert.

In my experience, which includes having piled the math higher and deeper at a prestigious university -- which I shall not name for fear of sullying its honorable reputation -- the terms "mathematician" and "higher math" (maths for you brits) are relative terms, describing, respectively, the practice and the skill of thinking in a manner of extreme linearity about abstract concepts. Those who truly master this skill and practice it over years almost always end up inhabiting a mental state in which their thought processes are incomprehensible to everybody else, even other mathematicians concerned with slightly different abstractions.

I, personally, love that altered state of mind, but it's not clear to me that we, as a nation, need a lot more people wandering around in it.

Of course, when most people say we need more people skilled in math and science what they really seem to mean is more people who will be willing to work in technical slots for salaries low enough to provide competition to Indian and Chinese technical people and thereby prevent wage increases that would cut into corporate profits.

What would be a lot more valuable is people who can apply useful mathematics to real-world problems, such as game theory. For example, consider the following proposition: Suppose a blogger (just to take an example) wished to get the most effect for their effort. A game-theoretic analysis might suggest that the most effective effort multiplier would be to get other bloggers or journalists to discuss your thesis. In particular, using your blog to encourage journalists to practice journalism would be great.

The great Broder, I fear, is beyond recovery -- I stopped reading him years ago -- but it may be possible to jump start some of the pundits. Think what it would mean. The press, working again as a watchdog on government. I wouldn't hold my breath, but if it did happen...

This is going to be way off-topic, but, as I enjoy reading your comments, I'll reply.

With respect to linearity: a proof, the central concept in "higher mathematics", is simply a linear chain of logical steps manipulating abstractions. It's like a chess game. The irony is that, while a proof is linear, the construction of a proof is an inherently nonlinear mental process. This is the kind of thing that makes mathematicians' thought processes odd.

Game theory is the mathematics of strategy. Increasingly important, in my opinion, in dealing with rational, or at least predictable, opposition.

As far as "useful" mathematics, I think most people would agree that, as wonderfully illuminating as, for example, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is, its applications in industry or science are a little difficult to locate. I was referring instead to the skill of using mathematics to solve real-world and everyday problems, which, although this may surprise you, I find to be rare even among accomplished mathematicians.

Others, like jojo, may have other opinions. I can't claim to be speaking ex cathedra here, as I've misplaced my mitre.

- Is that there is no argument contained in it.

I'm completely stumped as to why anyone would write such an empty piece. Congress, embroiled in the immigration issue, and freshly reminded by the US Attorney mess how dangerous it would be to allow this administration to participate in writing legislation, isn't likely to be receptive.

So the reason doesn't seem to be to honestly pursue reform. As Glenn points out, it was recently reformed anyway.

For non-sociopathic people -- that is, those with functioning senses of empathy -- I think that the Golden Rule is all that is really required to prevent torture or other crimes against humanity. Sociopaths just do not comprehend this, but they do understand punishment.

In shorter terms, "do unto others as ye would have them do unto you" becomes "don't do bad things unto others lest they do even worse things unto you." In keeping with the naming convention expressed earlier, we might call the second rule the "Iron rule."

This is why they think it's somehow relevant that the other side does it -- if the other side does it already, then clearly there is no reason (other than principles incomprehensible to them) not to do it.