Knowledge of the capital of Spain isn't really diagnostic. One can cherry pick a large number of geographical or political facts that it may seem incomprehensible someone might not know. That is, a *very large* number - capitals, populations, location on maps, climates, representative flora and fauna, languages, world leaders, and on and on.

The simple size of the list means that as a result, a large fraction of any population are likely to be simply (and honestly) ignorant of any specific fact. No big deal. Call this the "smarter than a fifth grader" effect.

Rather, the question is one of breadth and depth of knowledge. I share the fear that many Americans would score poorly on a more carefully designed test of general knowledge. (And candidates for office might perform even worse :-(

The key issue with maps (a completely different set of skills) is not whether a specific country can be located - after all, there are hundreds of countries. The key issues focus on the depiction of interrelationships between countries and continents, mountain ranges and rivers. Iraq abuts Iran abuts Afghanistan abuts Pakistan. Can someone reason cogently enough and with enough patience to figure out which line could possibly represent which river? Can they match the Mississippi to North America and the Nile to Africa? Do they know that the former flows north to south and the latter south to north?

Trying to pose any of these as a direct question is likely to flummox many - sitting down with a map and a practical problem to solve may reflect a very different situation.

The issue also arises of experimental design. Is this really a question of foreign knowledge? Capital of Maine? Of Kentucky? Of Pennsylvania? Is this information particularly important to anybody who doesn't live in those states? That two of those three states are actually commonwealths? Even less. California was the world's eighth largest economy in 2006 - larger than Spain, for instance. What fraction of the Spanish population know the capital of California?

Are Americans really more ignorant of global geography than are citizens of other nations? Or is this counterbalanced (at least partially) by the greater demands of keeping track of 50 rather diverse states? I can drive the 500 miles from my house to Disneyland without looking at a map. Not just Disneyland, dozens of other distant locations in dozens of distant states, some thousands of miles away. My modest skill at this is certainly unremarkable. The interstate highway system helps, but some of these routes are the equivalent of Gandalf leading the way through Moria.

Whether traveling or sitting still, curiosity is key. That young flight attendant could have experienced culture shock in any town in America :-)

Sounds like a terrible database, but the high proportion of disconnected lines, etc., is normal. As the writer says, this reflects on issues other than the election, such as the trend away from land lines. The experimental method as carried out by Valdez seems reasonable. Not tailoring the script is a requirement for any journalistic exercise that doesn't involve Hunter S. Thompson. The sample is too small, however. Should be more like a thousand.

It is remarkable, however, that the campaigns continue to rely on cold calls to anybody other than supporters. The idea that either campaigns or companies can ring a bell in the middle of your house and attempt to sell us something is beyond absurd. As just one example, think of the last time you were in a hotel room. Were there any commercial or political cold calls? Somehow the telecom rules are clear enough to avoid directing such calls to busy travelers who would react decidedly badly if disturbed. Why would anybody expect a better reception from folks relaxing at home?

The basic result of the writer's pilot study is expressed as something like: "the undecided ain't". This is A) gratifying, and B) largely a misinterpretation of categories. How would Karl Rove know that somebody is undecided? He doesn't (yet) have access to the character of men's souls. Rather, Uncle Karl has parameters such as location and socioeconomic predictors. But most of what Karl and the press have is a list of independent voters.

Being "independent" is not the same as being "undecided". For one thing, it says more about someone's opinion of the political parties than the political candidates. An independent voter may be a more reliable member of the base of a party than the voters who registered into the party. Anybody to the right of McCain (and god forbid, to the right of Palin), will vote for McCain - if they vote. They may not be able to stomach joining the Republican party.

Those to the left of either of the Republican parties - after all, the Democratic party have been Eisenhower Republicans since 1992 - will vote Obama, except for a tiny percentage who didn't learn better than to gamble with a third party candidate during the 2000 election.

Independent is. Undecided - decidedly not.

Q: "Who foresaw the Web 50 years ago?"

A: Vannevar Bush

It's hard to deny a transcendent element to nature and nature's laws. Why precisely can't this transcendence emerge direct from evolution, rather than positing some mystical "self-organization" X factor as an equivalent to Godhead?

Schaller was trying to say that what was undeserved was for Bush to receive any sympathy given his record. Thus, that the simple fact that this incident might generate such sympathy even among opponents to the Bush regime is unfortunate.

Whatever one thinks of such behavior, the clip is likely to enter the historical record as an iconic indication of Bush's "legacy". Any attempt to cast this as an example of freedoms now enjoyed by the Iraqis can only succeed if the shoe-thrower is immediately released unharmed. This unfortunately seems unlikely.