Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (
More info?)
In article <MPG.1ce32c7a1cd52d0998a2cd@news-east.giganews.com>,
Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <opOdneGnzOQjxeTfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
> ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
>
> > But here in America, you
> > certainly don't see a lot of congress people, nor their offspring, fighting
> > in wars.
>
> You sure about that?
>
> When the Iraq invasion began, there were seven members of Congress with
> sons in the military.[1] Given that there are 535 representatives and
> senators, this works out to a 1.3% representation in the military for
> offsprings of congress.
>
> Comparing this to the roughly 300 million Americans, and a total armed
> service and reserves strength of 2.5 million[2], this means that .8% of
> Americans as a whole could potentially serve in Iraq.
>
> If anything, Congress seems a bit overrepresented in the military.
>
> Oh, and six out of seven with sons in the military were Republicans.
>
> <g>
>
> [1]
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/04/naples/d930340a.htm
>
> [2]
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-ff04se.html
Great post, I had no idea about these numbers.
But your calculations are a little misleading. Congress doesn't have a
1.3% representation rate. This would only be true if the politicians
themselves were serving, and they were the only ones you were
considering in your calculations. However, it's their FAMILY members
who are serving. This would be a much larger group. Let's assume 2
children per household (a conservative estimate, yes?) and one
additional biological parent, and now we're saying that Congressional
households have a "serving rate" of 7 in 2140, or .327%.
This number would statistically be a significantly lower proportion in
the Congressional households than in the general population, based on
your proposed .8% (z = 2.45).
Of course, these are just very rough estimates of the total number of
Americans, total number of military service personnnel, and the number
of people in the Congressional "family pool."
Probably the more relevant numbers would be a comparison of
Congressional family members serving in comparison to other wealthy
American families. Then I have a sneaking suspicion (but no hard
numbers) that you are probably right, the Congress is (currently)
"over-respresented." [Just a guess, based on these numbers]
I'd have to say, though, that I would have to agree with the original
poster that rich, white families disproportionately put their children
into military service. That is to say, it rarely happens.
Just look at the people who are in government now and their records of
service in the Vietnam War.
Bush served in the Air Guard.
Cheney had multiple deferments.
Karl Rove was born in 1950 but didn't go to 'Nam.
Bolton was born in 1948 but didn't go to 'Nam.
Tom DeLay was born 1947 but didn't go to 'Nam.
Dennis Hastert was born in 1942 and didn't serve in the Army because of
"bad knees." He was on his college wrestling team though.
Trent Lott was born in 1941 and didn't serve. He was healthy enough to
be a cheerleader though in college.
Wolfowitz was born in 1943, got his BA in 1965, but didn't serve.
One final example. Roscoe Bartlett is a Congressman from Maryland. He
was born on June 3, 1926. He turned 18 by June 4, 1944, but he didn't
serve in WWII.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram