Hmm...that's a good question
At a rally for President Bush yesterday in New Jersey, a local woman wearing an opposition-viewpoint T-shirt heckled First Lady Laura Bush, screaming questions at her before being removed by police. The woman, Sue Niederer, wore a shirt that read "President Bush You Killed My Son."

Supporters of the President attempted to drown her out with repetitive, and unoriginal, chants of "Four more years!"

That's not really the point of this post...but this is:

Outside, Ms. Niederer asked the question, "The senators, the legislators, the congressmen, why aren't their children serving?" which she had originally intended to put to Mrs. Bush.

Ms. Niederer, though her methods were coarse, raises an good point. There are 1.4 million people serving in active-duty roles in the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, and Air Force. There are another 1.1 million folks who wear fatigues in the Reserves or National Guard.

That makes 2.5 million total, or a little less than 1% of the total US Population. The US has a total of about 180 million people of potential military age (between 18, when you can join, and 65, when you really ought to consider leaving the service). So, 2.5 million out of 180 million is 1.38 percent.

So let's look at the US House of Reperesentatives and US Senate. There are 535 members of Congress. If each member of Congress has the average number of children (about 2.5), then that means the total potential population of service-age persons who are children of Congressmen is a little more than 1330. (Members times avg. number of kids in a household. This is assuming that the number of children per household has been the same over the last 50-some years, when the current members of the US Congress began to have children. In fact, it's been shrinking steadily since the 1960s, so the actual potential population of service-age offspring of Congressmen is undoubtedly higher, and likely closer to 1500).

So, 1330 potential soldiers. If we assume that 1.38 of every 100 US Citizens of service age actually DO serve, then we should see that there should be 18 little Congressional spawn running around shooting at terrorists and insurgents.

And yet...we don't. In fact, there is only one US Senator or Representative who has a child in the military; Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) has a son in Iraq.

That's right: not one single Republican member of Congress has a child in the military.

Neither does any member of the Cabinet.

Generally, the Republican Party is a party that espouses military service as a good thing, and I generally won't argue. It's nice to have a group of brave men and women who are willing to throw themselves into the fire to protect the United States from enemies at home and abroad when they're told to do so. But, if that's so, shouldn't they encourage military service by their own children as well? Shouldn't they say things like, "Boy (or girl), I served with pride in the Mekong Delta/National Guard/Gulf of Mexico protecting this country from Communists/floodwaters/drug cartels. If you want to do the same, I'd be very proud of you," or something like that? It seems logical.

I don't like to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, especially if they're an elected official and theoretically doing what they think is best for this country. And yet, there it is. If you're going to call those who don't serve "cowards," as many current US Congressmen have done (especially Republicans and Democrats like Zell Miller), maybe you should actively encourage military service in your family.

I don't know if it's hypocrisy, favoritism, or what, but as Gil Grissom so eloquently puts it, "the evidence never lies."