Post by DotPost by bill hornePost by DotNot number. Percent of Congressional members (who are not just men)
versus percent of general population with service-age children.
Before you can get the percents, you gotta get the numbers.
You know the exact number in Congress. The general population varies so
that only a generalization of family members in service can be made. It's
actually another of your round robin, "dumbass" questions where asking "
what is the percent of..." would have made more sense.
Actually, my questions were pretty straightforward.
Post by Dot--------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Guard and Reserve Mobilized as of June 30, 2004
This week the Army announced a decrease in the number of
reservists on active duty in support of the partial mobilization. The
Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps each announced an increase. The net
collective result is 431 more reservists on active duty than last week.
At any given time, services may mobilize some units and individuals while
demobilizing others, making it possible for these figures to either
increase or decrease. Total number currently on active duty in support of
the partial mobilization for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve is
130,912; Naval Reserve 2,694; Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve,
11,701; Marine Corps Reserve, 9,387; and the Coast Guard Reserve, 1,542.
This brings the total National Guard and Reserve on active duty to 156,236
including both units and individual augmentees. >>
--
Dot
That's only the reserve and guard that are on active duty.
The questions were simple and clear:
- The number of the 535 Congressmen that have service-age children.
- The number of the general population that have service-age children.
- The size of the military.
- Do the Guard and Reserves count?
I can see that they might be difficult to answer - and I'm finding it to
be so - but they're certainly not difficult to understand.
And I don't know if it's correct, but in 2003, the Minneapolis-St Paul
Star Tribune, said:
-----------------------------------------------------
Of the 535 members of Congress, at least seven [not 3] have a great
personal interest:
They have children in the military who already are participating in the
war or could be called to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------
The point is that it's possible that the percentage of Congressmen with
service-age children who are in the military is similar to the
percentage of the general population with service-age children who are
in the military. If the percentages are similar, then Moore is being
dishonest. If they're not, he's not.
As of May, 2004, there were 1,428,000 active duty military.
There are about 191,000,000 who are 18-64 years old.
The general population is contributing about 0.7 to the AD military.
If Congress is contributing 3, that's about 0.6%
If Congress is contributing 7, that's about 1%.
If you think 64 is too old - even though there is a not insignificant
number of people 45-64 who are the miltary - then we'll try 44.
There are about 112,000,000 who are 18-44.
In which case the genpop is contributing about 1%.
Congress stays the same, because I don't know how old their children
are.
Now if I have all those numbers reasonably accurate (feel free to do
your own research and check my math), is this really the BIG, UNFAIR
deal that Moore makes it out to be?
But one could say, "If you say that only the 18-44 group counts, and
Congress is only contributing 3, then the Congress is only contributing
half as much."
To that I'm compelled to ask, "So if the Congress contributes just 3
more, it will change the face of Congress, make it all FAIR, and
significantly reduce their desire to go to war?" I don't think so.
But as I said, feel free to do some research and report back, because
I'm far from confident that I've considered everything that should be
considered. I've not factored in, for example, the Guard and Reserve who
have not yet been called up - who, as far as I'm concerned, are serving
their country.
Meanwhile, it looks to me like just another disingenuous attempt by
Moore to stir up non-thinkers by drawing major conclusions from
statistically insignificant facts.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.