From Korea: Apathetic response Total War!

North Korea badly miscalculated when they arbitrarily shelled a South Korean island in disputed territory. The artillery barrage killed two soldiers and wounded 18 others while setting at least 70 structures ablaze. The deliberate and blatant act of war instantly triggered an appropriate response.

South Korea scrambled their fighter jets and immediately returned fire with their own artillery batteries. Vicious air strikes sought out the source of the offending artillery and destroyed them with extreme prejudice. Additionally over a dozen strategic targets were subsequently targeted and destroyed by South Korea. The military of the southern nation has begun preliminary mobilization to ensure that, should North Korea not capitulate immediately, they are prepared for the ensuing war.

This is perhaps overshadowed by the masterful stroke performed by the US. In a display of military might and domination over North Korea, the US launched a small, precise barrage of cruise missiles at various sites throughout the Communist nation. These targeted structures of cultural significance, such as prominent monuments to the North Korean dictator, as well as completely destroying the residence that the dictator had slept at the night before. The message sent was clear. "We can strike you anywhere, at anytime, and you cannot stop us."

Oh, wait. Sorry. I accidentally picked up the news ticker for the wrong universe. That one was from the Bizarro world where artillery strikes on sovereign soil are kind of a big deal. I apologize for the inconvenience. Here's the real story.

South Korea responded by shooting a few dozen artillery shells back at the North Koreans, with undisclosed effect. The US, China, and Russia all collectively shook their fingers at Kim Jong Il, saying with one unified voice: "Bad! Bad Kim!"

The UN Security Council will be meeting immediately this week, where they will propose stiff penalties on Korea, have those penalties immediately vetoed by China, and in the end issue a very sternly worded memo telling North Korea they must stop these actions immediately or face even more sternly worded memos. Below is a picture of Kim after he reads the memo.

Hyperbole and a half

I was going to post today. Unfortunately I've been sucked into a black hole of awesomeness. That black hole is known as "Hyperbole and a half". It is possibly the most hilarious website ever in the history of mankind. You might think that would be an unnecessary qualifier, "in the history of mankind", particularly since websites are pretty new. You would be wrong in thinking this. Why, you ask? Because I want you to think about the most awesome website you've ever been to that did not include naked women. Multiply that by 2. Then divide the result by .000000000000001. That's how awesome this website would be if it was half as awesome as it actually is.

Go there. My favorites, so far:

Dogs don't understand basic concepts like moving

Four levels of social entrapment

The awkward situation survival guide

The alot

Medal of Honor Recipient Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta

Two days ago in the Whitehouse something happened that has not happened for over forty years, since the end of the Vietnam war. A soldier was awarded the Medal of Honor, in person, for actions in combat. That soldier is Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta of the 173rd Airborne BCT.

Please take some time out of your day to watch the video below. It's breathtaking. I challenge you to make it to the end with dry eyes.



President Obama's presentation speech gives a vivid narrative of the events of the day. For those who can't view the video, here it is:

"Sal and his platoon were several days into a mission in the Korengal Valley -- the most dangerous valley in northeast Afghanistan. The moon was full. The light it cast was enough to travel by without using their night-vision goggles. With heavy gear on their backs, and air support overhead, they made their way single file down a rocky ridge crest, along terrain so steep that sliding was sometimes easier than walking.

They hadn’t traveled a quarter mile before the silence was shattered. It was an ambush, so close that the cracks of the guns and the whizz of the bullets were simultaneous. Tracer fire hammered the ridge at hundreds of rounds per minute -- “more,” Sal said later, “than the stars in the sky.”

The Apache gunships above saw it all, but couldn’t engage with the enemy so close to our soldiers. The next platoon heard the shooting, but were too far away to join the fight in time.

And the two lead men were hit by enemy fire and knocked down instantly. When the third was struck in the helmet and fell to the ground, Sal charged headlong into the wall of bullets to pull him to safety behind what little cover there was. As he did, Sal was hit twice -- one round slamming into his body armor, the other shattering a weapon slung across his back.

They were pinned down, and two wounded Americans still lay up ahead. So Sal and his comrades regrouped and counterattacked. They threw grenades, using the explosions as cover to run forward, shooting at the muzzle flashes still erupting from the trees. Then they did it again. And again. Throwing grenades, charging ahead. Finally, they reached one of their men. He’d been shot twice in the leg, but he had kept returning fire until his gun jammed.

As another soldier tended to his wounds, Sal sprinted ahead, at every step meeting relentless enemy fire with his own. He crested a hill alone, with no cover but the dust kicked up by the storm of bullets still biting into the ground. There, he saw a chilling sight: the silhouettes of two insurgents carrying the other wounded American away -- who happened to be one of Sal’s best friends. Sal never broke stride. He leapt forward. He took aim. He killed one of the insurgents and wounded the other, who ran off.

Sal found his friend alive, but badly wounded. Sal had saved him from the enemy -- now he had to try to save his life. Even as bullets impacted all around him, Sal grabbed his friend by the vest and dragged him to cover. For nearly half an hour, Sal worked to stop the bleeding and help his friend breathe until the MEDEVAC arrived to lift the wounded from the ridge. American gunships worked to clear the enemy from the hills. And with the battle over, First Platoon picked up their gear and resumed their march through the valley. They continued their mission.

It had been as intense and violent a firefight as any soldier will experience. By the time it was finished, every member of First Platoon had shrapnel or a bullet hole in their gear. Five were wounded. And two gave their lives: Sal’s friend, Sergeant Joshua C. Brennan, and the platoon medic, Specialist Hugo V. Mendoza.

Now, the parents of Joshua and Hugo are here today. And I know that there are no words that, even three years later, can ease the ache in your hearts or repay the debt that America owes to you. But on behalf of a grateful nation, let me express profound thanks to your sons’ service and their sacrifice. And could the parents of Joshua and Hugo please stand briefly? (Applause.)

Now, I already mentioned I like this guy, Sal. And as I found out myself when I first spoke with him on the phone and when we met in the Oval Office today, he is a low-key guy, a humble guy, and he doesn’t seek the limelight. And he’ll tell you that he didn’t do anything special; that he was just doing his job; that any of his brothers in the unit would do the same thing. In fact, he just lived up to what his team leader instructed him to do years before: “You do everything you can.”

Staff Sergeant Giunta, repeatedly and without hesitation, you charged forward through extreme enemy fire, embodying the warrior ethos that says, “I will never leave a fallen comrade.” Your actions disrupted a devastating ambush before it could claim more lives. Your courage prevented the capture of an American soldier and brought that soldier back to his family. You may believe that you don’t deserve this honor, but it was your fellow soldiers who recommended you for it. In fact, your commander specifically said in his recommendation that you lived up to the standards of the most decorated American soldier of World War II, Audie Murphy, who famously repelled an overwhelming enemy attack by himself for one simple reason: “They were killing my friends.”

That’s why Salvatore Giunta risked his life for his fellow soldiers -- because they would risk their lives for him. That’s what fueled his bravery -- not just the urgent impulse to have their backs, but the absolute confidence that they had his. One of them, Sal has said -- of these young men that he was with, he said, “They are just as much of me as I am.” They are just as much of me as I am."

The ceremony was attended by the living recipients of the Medal of Honor. I am astonished that the building did not explode due to the insane levels of awesome contained within. As the highest rated comment on the youtube video said:

"This guy is the equivalent of a walking God- Complete and total badass. When he walks into a room, hippies burn up instantaneously and women's panties immediately drop. Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta will never have to ever buy another drink or even argue with someone again because he is a FRIGGING MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT!!"

Indeed.

HHH: Rangel Convicted, Spider goats, election coin tosses, and environmental wackos.

It's that time again, time to clear out my favorites list of all the stories I wanted to share with all (both) my readers but hadn't gotten around to posting.

#1: Rep. Rangel convicted for violation of ethics...faces a really, really sternly worded memo. That's right. In a classic example of Representation with Taxation, Mr. Rangel (among many other things) "fail[ed] to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure report and failing to pay taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic." Of course, he's too broke to afford a lawyer. He will likely face a formal reprimand. That means they will write a memo telling him what a mean, bad person he is. Bad Rangel! Bad! If they decide to go really medieval on his ass, they may even censure him. That means that said memo will be read aloud in front of the House while he stands up front. Harsh.

#2: Modified spider goats climb walls and fight crime...ok, no they don't. But they do use their milk to make spider silk! Using genes lifted from spiders and implanted in goats and silk worms it may soon be possible to mass produce this amazingly strong substance could soon be used in everything from body armor to really, really snazzy jeans. Crime fighting farm animals I'm sure are not far behind.

#3: Wanna become an Alaskan Congressman? Call it in the air...Tails. Bryce Edgmon has it. I swear I am not making this up. Apparently in September of '06 the Dem primary between incumbent Carl Moses and challenger Bryce Edgmon was actually tied. This invoked State statute is AS 15.20.530, which reads: "If after a recount and appeal two or more candidates tie in having the highest number of votes for the same office...the director shall...determine the successful candidate by lot." That's universal suffrage at work, boys.

#4: If you don't believe in man-made global warming, Paki-India will nuke you...or we'll blow you up using our portable "easy button". At least, that's what a professor at LSU and a environmental group (AKA: Granola crunching hippies) called 10-10 believe. First, to LSU. Watch the video. I especially love the part where he hands out an assignment where you need to estimate the probability of your children dying in horrible ways. Of course, he may have something with his India/Pakistan will nuke us in 50 years. In fact, I think he's right. The solution then is obvious. We need to launch a preemptive strike tomorrow.



Then the group 10-10. Their stated goal is to have everyone cut carbon emissions by 10% per year. Invoking my amazing powers of math, I think that means they want all carbon emissions gone in 10 years. I suppose we'll have to stop breathing by the year 2019. No biggie. Of course they are only interested in civil discourse and an earnest, sincere debate of the issues and evidence.



See? Nothing like a little Orwellian group think indoctrination by teachers to get you going for mother Earth!

#4: Belgium doesn't exist. Seriously. It doesn't. I mean, have you ever been there? No? I rest my case. But in case that doesn't convince you, peruse this website. All the evidence is there, my friends!

Ed Schultz: You know what we need? Laws to stop offensive speech.

The Pentagon has developed a top secret weapon, deep in the bowels of Area 52. This pudgy device was tested over the public airwaves on Friday. It’s effects: To cause all those exposed to lose control of their jaw muscles while simultaneously causing blood to shoot out of their eyes. In case you missed it, feel free to don your protective equipment and watch the video below.



Before anyone can cry “context!”, here’s the transcript, which includes all the pieces of his show not shown in the video above.

There’s so much material here, I’m not even sure where to begin. I suppose I’ll start by defending Rush, not that he really needs it. Ed begins by saying that America’s favorite talk radio host is a “flat-out racist”. The segment he uses to prove it? This one, sliced out of context more precisely than any surgeon known to man:

LIMBAUGH: Clyburn‘s worried about not having the car. Clyburn‘s worried about not having the perk of a big office, a driver, so forth.

The way this can all be worked out, Clyburn‘s new position, driving Ms. Nancy. He gets to keep the car, he gets to go everywhere she goes, parties and everything else. He‘s not in the back of the bus. He‘s in the driver‘s seat, and she‘s in the back of the car being chauffeured. Solved problem.

This is a fine example of a form of expression known only to scholars, which explains why Ed isn’t familiar with it. They refer to it as “sarcasm”. They would tell Ed that the second paragraph was meant, not to say that he believed that truly was a good solution to the problem of racism, but instead used hyperbole to deride the Democrat party’s racist tendencies as perceived by Mr. Limbaugh.

Ed continues on by railing against the racist hate speech of Glenn and Sean. I firmly believe that Mr. Schultz inadvertently played the wrong clips to evidence his claims. Being the serious, disinterested journalist that Mr. Schultz is I have no doubt that actual clips with real racism will be forthcoming. Unfortunately, since not one of the clips he played displayed anything of the sort, (Criticizing Obama and other liberal leaders and saying that they may be racist is not, in fact, racist, regardless of the race of the person being criticized.) I can't reproduce them here.

But here is where it gets really interesting. Ed, when interviewing that racist hate-mongering protester illustrious man-of-the-cloth Rev. Al Sharpton, whines that there “are never any ramifications” when people say things like this. This isn’t “acting in the public interest” when you “allow somebody to go on the air, time and time again, and make racist comments and no ramification for it, whatsoever.” [Cue jaw drop] Al, unable to hold back, says that while “people can say whatever they want, but not on the air, not on federally-regulated airwaves”.

Absolutely. I mean, that freedom of speech thing is all well and good, but clearly when it’s happening on the radio it ought to be crushed with extreme prejudice.

Then his next guest comes on, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Sidenote: Possibly the most awesome name ever, combining both Stonewall and Robert E!). She must’ve just gotten done reading 1984, because she opens with this (not shown in the video): “I am a strong supporter of the right for anyone to express their beliefs, and to do it in a way that may be controversial, or may be a belief that I don‘t agree with.”

Ed and Lee sensed there might possibly be some kind of ambiguity about their belief that people should be allowed to say whatever they want, as long as they A) Aren’t doing it on the radio, and B) They agree with it. So, they followed up with what you saw on the video.

My personal favorites exchange:

Ed: “I mean, I don‘t want to say, should there be a law against this, but where‘s the decency?”

Lee: “It might be worthy of a debate again, because without the Fairness Doctrine, of course, there is a wide latitude of the use of language that is provoking, provocative and insulting.”

Ed: “How about a decency law that says you can‘t make racist comments on the air?... But we‘re never going to move the envelope forward in this country… if we‘re going to allow people to go on the air and say inciteful [sic] things like this… “

All emphasis mine.

So, to sum up: You should be able to say anything you want, even if they don’t agree with it…As long as it’s not on the radio, racist, insulting, or provocative. In that case there should be a law against it.

Here’s the deal, Mr. Schultz. The 1st amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Note there is nothing in there about the speech needing to be nice, or fair, or palatable. Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech. That means speech you don’t agree with. Speech that is racist. Speech that is insulting, kind, rude, genteel, offensive, and everything in between. It’s everything from a pro-Nazi rally to a blog about home cooking.

The only restrictions allowable are restrictions that have to do with the public safety (for example, calling fire in a crowded theater) or that are actually harmful to another in a quantifiable way (slander/libel), because these forms of speech trample on the Constitutional rights of others.

Your rights do not include not being offended, Mr. Schultz. If you, or anyone else for that matter, don’t like what Rush, Glenn, Sean, or anybody else has to say then switch the station. Deride them as idiots. Howl that morons such as they hold such opinions. Scream to any and all who will listen to turn away from their thoughts. But do not, under any circumstance, legislate their ability to speak.

I will return to you the same courtesy. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, summing up the beliefs of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Obama's Post Election Press Conference

Better late than never, I always say! I went ahead and strolled on over to the Whitehouse.gov website (Fun homework, kids: Up until approximately 2004, typing "whitehouse.com by mistake led you to a much more interesting website!) and listen to the President's post unmitigated disaster mid-term election press conference. That's right, folks. In my spare time I listen to Presidential press conferences...I also enjoy long walks on the beach, dinners by candlelight, and cuddling.

You can read the transcript of the speech here. You can also surf youtube to pull up the videos if you like.

The conference started with his monologue. It was much as you might expect. "We need to work together to solve our pressing issues, both sides need to reach across the aisle, blah, blah, blah." He's spoken with both party leaders and wants them to work together to solve our pressing issues. He believes that "No party has a monopoly on wisdom."

He finished by saying that the GOP had driven the economy into the ditch, and that they were welcome to come along for the ride but they had to "sit in the back".

Oops, sorry. That last one was from a week beforehand.

Anyhow, on to the questions. The following is a paraphrased exchange.

Q: Do you, Mr. President, believe that the election was a fundamental rejection of your policies?

O: People are worried about the economy. I think I need to do a lot of reflecting and a better job.

Q: Yes. So, do you think it was a rejection of your policies?

O: We need to find common ground.

Q: Yup, got that part. So, back to the rejection of policies thing?

O: Don't mess with Texas. Next question.

Obama eventually said that the "tough decisions" he'd made were the right ones because it was an emergency situation...Which implies that he wouldn't have done those things if stuff wasn't as bad...So, if the economy recovers, I'm sure he'll remove all supports for failing companies, repeal Obamacare, and lower taxes on the rich. Ya know, cause that would be consistent.

He also said, finally, that (this bears a full quote):

"I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices. The fact is, is that for most folks, proof of whether they work or not is has the economy gotten back to where it needs to be. And it hasn't."

In other words, the only reason people are rejecting his policies is not because of the policies themselves, but because the policies don't work, and if the policies worked better, people would like them more.

Gee, you're right, Mr. President! How silly of me to judge your policies by their effects! Man, I am an ignorant moron after all! Here, why don't I just hand the reins right back over then.

He also said that because these decisions came "fast and furious" it "felt" like government was getting more intrusive...Which implies that government was actually not becoming more intrusive. It's just that stuff was happening too fast for our pretty little heads to really understand it. Phew. That's a relief.

"And I, in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them, which was contrary to what I had talked about. And I think folks look at that and they said, gosh, this feels like the same partisan squabbling, this seems like the same ways of doing business as happened before."

You're right. Gosh, it does feel like this is exactly the same way of business that got us in to this mess. I wonder if it feels exactly the same because it was exactly the same? Probably not.

When told that according to some exit polls, 1 out of 2 voters thought that Obamacare ought to be overturned and repealed, here was his response: "...that means one out of two voters think it was the right thing to do...but let's talk specifics. Does this particular provision -- when it comes to preexisting conditions, is this something you're for or you're against? Helping seniors get their prescription drugs -- does that make sense or not?"

Let's talk specifics, then. How about the specifics of massive government intrusion into private industry? Or the specific that turns healthcare from a service into a right? Or how about the specific that mandates to insurance companies, which are in essence structured gamblers, that they have to wager on a bet they know is lost (AKA pre-existing conditions)? What about the specific that the bill was 2,000+ pages and that there was not physically enough time given for anyone to read or comprehend the full effects of said bill, even armed with hordes of staff members? Oh, what's that? We don't want to talk specifics anymore? Cool. Next question.

I missed a portion of the conference, here, but read the transcript later. Not a whole lot stuck out, and I did get to see the ending which was more of the same. So, I'll end with this question:

"Q: President Bush when he went through a similar thing came out and he said this was a "thumpin'." You talked about how it was humbling, or you alluded to it perhaps being humbling. And I'm wondering, when you call your friends, like Congressman Perriello or Governor Strickland, and you see 19 state legislatures go to the other side, governorships in swing states, the Democratic Party set back, what does it feel like?

THE PRESIDENT: It feels bad. (Laughter.) You know, the toughest thing over the last couple of days is seeing really terrific public servants not have the opportunity to serve anymore, at least in the short term."

I dunno, Mr. President...Maybe they're not being allowed to serve anymore because they were lousy public servants. Just a stab in the dark.

Government Transparency (Plus mystery missiles)

Obama has left the country, jetsetting about Asia, presumably consuming massive quantities of whiskey in order to forget that last Tuesday ever happened. He has left our Great Nation in the capable hands of Vice President Biden. Ol' Joe has wasted no time in getting to work on something that everyone can agree is very important: Government Transparency. Specifically, he's meeting with Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. They're going to find out where all those millions of dollars we spent on jobs went. They are going to help the government reveal its secrets to the People!

The meeting is of course closed to the public.



That's right. In an explosion of irony of the epic proportions only the federal government is capable of, the meeting on transparency with the Chairman of the Transparency and Accountability Board is completely and 100% non-transparent. Normally I'd use my razor wit to make this news story more entertaining, but I don't think I can possibly do better than Joe did all by himself.

In other news, a missile was launched off the coast of California yesterday evening. Wait, wait, there's no cause for alarm. The Pentagon has it all under control. And by all under control, I mean they have absolutely no clue who launched it.

Oops.

Restoring Sanity Rally, from top to bottom

Recently Jon Stewart and friends held a rally in DC. The Restoring Sanity rally was called many things by many people. The idea of the rally was one I think most of us could agree on: Shouting, arguing, and drawing Hitler moustaches is ridiculous and counter productive.

I know many of those who agree with me politically have lambasted Jon Stewart and his little get together as a "bury your head in the sand" kind of deal, a rally aimed at showing the Tea Partiers how silly they are. It is very possible, perhaps even likely, that many attendees at the rally thought exactly that.

I do not think that Jon Stewart himself thought these things. In fact, I'm certain he didn't. Please take a few minutes to listen to the final speech he gave at the end.



I mean, that's downright reasonable. I especially like the part where he says that calling a Tea Partier a racist is "insulting to real racists who have worked so hard to hate". For too long people have thrown titles at their enemies like hand grenades, without thought, hoping something sticks and proves them wrong. Hitler, Socialist, Communist, Racist, Fascist, etc., etc., etc. It is a sign of intellectual laziness.

I would counter to Mr. Stewart, however, that we need be equally vigilant to call actual socialists, communists, racists, fascists, exactly what they are, not as an insult, but as an honest definition of positions. If I say that Obama's policies are socialist, it's because I actually think they are socialist and wish to argue against them, not simply because I think that socialist is a cool thing to say.

I've always liked Jon Stewart, and his fellow comedian Colbert, because they are A) Funny as hell, and B) Equal opportunity comics. I disagree with nearly everything they believe politically, but I can respect that they will throw hard questions or lampoon the Left on their silliness just as quickly as they'll spear the Right. The sad thing is that they are at times, as fake journalists, twice the journalists that actual news people will ever be.

Now I'd like to share another video of the Restoring Sanity Rally. This of a presumably conservative man walking around with the sign "Obama: Keynesian?". Hilarity ensues as the dubiously informed masses proceed to argue quite angrily with him.



Remember, this is a small snapshot of the crowd. I don't believe that these folks are representative of the entire audience (though the blank stare I've received on numerous occasions when I relay the funny story to others is making me question this stance), and this video shouldn't be used to invalidate the entire purpose of the rally. It should be used for a laugh.

The Day after Yesterday: Results

In what most of the left is naming a wave, tsunami, earthquake, or some other descriptor somehow implying a natural disaster that was completely unavoidable and nobody's fault, the GOP has taken back control of the House. The Republicans have netted at least 59 seats thus far. There are still 7 or 8 seats that are yet to be decided, most with Democrat incumbents. It's only going up from there.

In the Senate the GOP cut the Dem lead significantly. While the Democrats still hold on to their majority, it is no longer near the supermajority they once had. The "Supermajority" refers to the three fifths, or 60 seats, that are required in the Senate to bring a vote out of cloture [to end a filibuster]. If the minority party has greater than 40 seats they can filibuster, or endlessly debate, a bill to prevent it coming to a vote and effectively kill it. If the majority party has 60 votes or more, and presuming all those votes stay in step, they can literally override anything the minority may have to say. A couple of races are still too close to call, but the Republicans safely hold 47 seats.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid manages to keep his job, if not by much. Boxer also holds on handily.

If you care to follow it minute by minute, like I do, head on over to the Communist News Network's map and get all the exciting action, frame by frame.

Voter Apathy, Election Day Edition

November 2 is a very important day 50% of the time. Every other year all three quarters half almost half of Americans will turn out to cast their vote in time honored tradition. A tradition that thousands of our forefathers fought for, spilling their final lifeblood on foreign battlefields, so that their children may wake up on November 2 and say “Screw it, I’m too busy.”

But hey, don’t worry. At least that means that the rest of them are looking for the R or D and checking the box making an informed, reasoned decision based on values and logical data. /sarc

I recently found a few sets of statistics by the Washington Post, US Census Bureau and GMU that I found utterly fascinating and read in detail. Since most other people are not uber geeks like me, I’ve distilled the more interesting tidbits and decided to throw it into a blog below.

First, the entertaining bit. An article by the WaPo reveals what we thinkers already knew: Most voters are sheep. They highlight a few interesting numbers from various polls, including a Zogby poll from August, 06, which found that “only two in five Americans know that we have three branches of government and can name them”. Dear God in heaven. There’s only three of them! Executive, Legislative, Secret Underground Cyber-Ninjas, and the Judicial branch. But wait, there’s more:

• Fewer than half knew who Karl Marx was.
• Only 49% knew America was the only country to have ever used a nuke in a war (Why? Because we’re awesome!)
• A whopping 20% of young voters read the newspaper. Never fear, however. That is completely made up for by the 11% of young voters who use the Internet for news. Sweet.
• At least they follow the important things. Like the 20% who knew about Kabul being captured from the Taliban. Or the 32% who followed the anthrax attacks or the recession. Or how about the 60% who followed the attacks of 9/11. (Let that sink in. It means that, as the article points out, 40% of the “young people” demographic, of which I am sometimes counted a member, didn’t give a f&*k about the most deadly attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.)

Now on to the juicy statistics.

The Census Bureau posted this 20 page report in pdf for all the world to see. I also found GMU's Elections Project, which displays statistics for the past few elections in a very easy to read, concise list without any BS to couple with it.

The following statistics are all about the 2008 election, which keep in mind had a ridiculously high turnout rate. Here's what I found interesting. Of the VEP, or vote eligible population, about 71% of the population is registered to vote. While the overall voting rate was 63.6% for all the VEP, the rate among those who had previously registered was 89.6%. This shows that the vast majority of those who take the five minutes it takes to register will actually vote in crunch time.

Here again the Young People are pulling their weight in an epic way. In 2008, at what is likely to be the most historic election these people are likely to see in their lifetime (arguably, depending on how highly you rate a female president vs. a black one), 49% showed up. That's up from 47% in 2006. Yes friends. The difference a historically unique and pivotal election makes compared to a relatively obscure midterm election is exactly 2%.

In general, voters in the Midwest were most likely to show up (66% vs. 63% elsewhere). Older voters are the most likely to show up at 70.3%, though the percentage only drops to 60% before you get to 25 years of age.

Minnesota takes the title for highest turnout, 77.7%, followed by Wisconsin (72.1%) and New Hampshire (71.1%). The lowest? Hawaii (50.5%), who narrowly defeats West Virginia (50.7%) and Arkansas (52.6%).

Scroll down to page 13 of the report and we get the reasons people didn't vote or register at all. The overwhelming majority responded with the very good reason, "Not interested in the election/not involved with politics." Yup. I mean, it's only the driving force of our entire governance system. Not a big deal.

How about this one: If we switch our statistics to the midterm, 2006 election, the overall participation goes to 40.4%. This time Minnesota can only muster 60.1%, while the loser, Mississippi, manages an impressive 29.4% of the VEP.

Don't feel like slitting your wrists yet? Consider this.

• Voter turnout, even in a highly publicized election, was 61.6%.
• If we're feeling amazingly generous we can say that perhaps three quarters of these people are actually informed, leaving us with 30.8%.
• Since most of these people are voting for one or other of the parties, and since that vote is usually roughly down the middle with just a few percentage swings either way, that means the party in power represents the wishes of half of the informed voters, or about 15.4% of the population.

"Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote"
- William E. Simon, Fmr. Secretary of the Treasury

If you can't be bothered to vote, then don't complain. If you can't be bothered to do 20 minutes of research out of an entire two year election cycle, then stay at home and don't vote.