Republican Congressional Members Practice What They Preach: Find Out How Many Children They Actually Have

Greetings From Almost 200 Romneys

Hello to all and thanks for checking in.

I am psyched about today's post. Did you know that amongst the 8 (major, did not count Buddy Roemer or Gary Johnson) GOP nominees, they have 35 children combined? I kid you not. The breakdown is as follows: Bachmann 5, Cain 2, Gingrich 2 (1st wife), the other 2 wives didn't have to have any baby Newts, Huntsmann 7, Paul 5, Perry 2, Romney 5, and Santorum 7. On top of all that, the Bachmanns have upped the ante and have taken care of 23 foster children over the years.

Blog Favorite: Marcus Bachmann

What the hell is going on here? I had 5 immediate thoughts:

Thought 1: There's no way Marcus Bachmann has had sex at least 5 times with Michele (there are no twins or triplets in their litter) See GOP Debate Preview, Part I, for more thoughts on the Bachmanns.

Thought 2: Somewhere along the lines, in the Republican party, patriotism got merged with fertility in some weird way. They do sell themselves as the "family values" party. With all these kids, you have a permanent and constant photo-op and it possibly helps to push that "family first" meme. It's either that or they're all having a world of trouble counting the days with the Rhythm Method.

Thought 3: They are creating an army of Republican offspring, to dumb down another generation in this country. And, if that's the case, just know that I'm onto your plan.

Thought 4: They are attempting to nearly single-handedly slow the course of future US demographics. By the year 2050, the United States will be a majority-minority country. Check out the (somewhat creepy) picture of the Romney extended family and you can see what I'm getting at. There are enough Romneys for a full soccer match.

Thought 5: They are REALLY not into contraception!

With all this being said, I wondered how the number of children of (current) GOP Congressional members compared to the rest of the general population. I want to preface what I'm going to say next, by saying that I'm a well-adjusted, social, happily married man, and not a hermit. To find my answer, I literally counted the number of children from each member of the 112th Congress. I couldn't find my answer anywhere on the net, so I figured I'd do it myself. To top it off, a friend suggested that I do it for the Democrats as well, to draw a further contrast. I then compared all that data to 2000 & 2010 Census data, to compare the average from our ruling elites, to the rest of us. Again, I'm not a hermit. I swear. And, by the way, at the end of the post I will be giving out what I'm calling the "Family Picture Award." It will be awarded to the Congressional members (one each for the GOP and Dems) with the most combined kids, grandkids, and great-grandchildren.

A couple of quick notes: I started to research this near the end of December and had to take a bit of creative license with the data. So, I only counted only the current members of Congress, not those sworn in at the beginning of the 112th Congress. For instance, Anthony Weiner's and John Ensign's info is not taken into account, since they stepped down prior to my research. However, their replacements are counted. And, I counted Bernie Sanders as a Democrat and Joe Lieberman as a Republican (since they caucus with those respective parties). And, I also counted Ben Nelson as a Republican. Just kidding on that one. I can not stand Conserva-Dems. And, I'm still upset about the "Cornhusker Kickback." Now, if you get that reference, you might be too into politics (like me) and there's a prize waiting for you at the end of the post.

I obtained all the information from either the member's bio page on their personal websites or a wonderful site call CongressMerge. They do a great job of aggregating info on our Congressional members and made this research much faster than it will seem. Give them a look, if you're doing any research on our Congress. Ok, let's get to it.

There are 290 Republican House and Senate members combined. 242 in the House and 48 in the Senate (again counting Lieberman). Those 290 members have a whopping 802 children combined, giving you an average of 2.76 kids per member. But, when you mine the data a bit further, I learned that only 28 members don't have any children. When you take those members out of the calculation (which is also done in our Census), the average goes up to 3.18 kids per member with a child. Consider that. Just under 90% of Republican members of Congress have at least one child. The national average is just under 50%. We have over 71 million families in this country and 34.5 million families have at least one child (as of the 2000 Census). The equivalent data was tough to find for the 2010 Census. However, I was able to find that the average family size did drop in the 2010 Census. So, that 50 % ratio should have held in 2010 or maybe even lowered. We have finally found an issue where conservatives actually practice what they preach.

The Democrats are beating the national averages as well, but are behind the Republicans. There are 244 Democratic members in the 112th Congress (192 in the House, 52 in the Senate). Those 244 members have only (?) 518 children, for an average of 2.12. However, there are 41 members without children. When you take them out of the equation, the average jumps up to 2.55. The number of Dems with at least one child is right at 84%. Again, behind the Republicans, but way ahead of the national average.

Ladies Man: Roscoe Bartlett

Onto the awards! The winner of the 1st Family Picture Award on the Republican side is Roscoe Bartlett of the 6th District in Maryland. He has 10 children of his own and 17 grandchildren (no mention of great-grandchildren on CongressMerge). I'm sure Mr. Bartlett is busy around the holidays. Honorable Mention goes to Sue Myrick of the 9th District of North Carolina. She has 5 children, 12 grandchildren, and 7 great-grandchildren.

On the Democratic side, it was not as close. The Family Picture Award goes to Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii. He has 5 children, 15 grandchildren, and 13 great-grandchildren. I would need nametags to keep track of that many kids. Anyway, Honorable Mention goes to Senator (and Majority Leader) Harry Reid of Nevada. He has 5 children and 16 grandchildren.

Separated At Birth

By how much are our elected officials beating the national average? In the 2000 Census, data showed that there was 0.90 children per family and 1.86 children per family with a child. Republicans are beating that "family with a child" number by a full 1.3 children. Dems are beating the national average by nearly 0.70. And, I also learned that power is a greater aphrodisiac than anyone could imagine. Human-tortoise hybrid, Mitch McConnell even has 3 children.

I'll leave it there for today, thanks again for checking in.

See you next time,

James

Message to NBA Fans: Parity is Overrated

Hey everybody,

Today is a big day. I'm going to pretend like I know exactly what is going on in the NBA these days. Because I don't really pay attention anymore, I only get whiffs what is actually going on. I know there was a lockout and games start-up on or around Christmas. I see trending topics on Twitter, Yahoo headlines, and the like. So, I know what's going on without KNOWING what's going on. That being said, not knowing all the facts never stopped me from having a strong opinion. Wow, I just felt like a Republican voter just then. Bam! You might have thought you were free of political talk today, but Republican bashing takes no break!

On Thursday, a trade involving Chris Paul going to the Lakers was agreed upon. It nearly caused the explosion of the Twitter-verse. The trade was negated by the league commissioner the next day. But from what I saw of the initial reaction, there was a bunch of hand-wringing over "super teams" and people worried about the competitive balance in the league. Well, this is something I do know about. I can tell you, with certainty (in soccer, but we'll get to the other sports), that competitive balance does not matter to fans, in any measurable way. This research is not from me, I'm passing on information gathered in a book called "Soccernomics." To sum it up, the book is as if someone put together a version of "Moneyball" for soccer. And, yes I realize there are people who won't know either of those references. It's why I supply the links.

The authors found that soccer's top-heavy, exclusive, glass-ceiling type structure does not harm them in any tangible way. For those that do not know, European soccer leagues do not employ any salary caps, luxury taxes, or any punitive revenue sharing. Our domestic league, Major League Soccer does. And, some think the parity holds the league back. Thanks to the setup overseas, European soccer matches can have a 1% vs. 99% feel (yeah, got my occupy reference in for the day! I'm trying to fill a personal quota).

Success breeds more success in European soccer. Top league finishers get into lucrative continental tournaments, clubs get TV money for being in these tournaments, and you invariably sell more merchandise thanks to the exposure. You can purchase and pay better players thanks to added revenue, thus getting you back into said lucrative tournaments. Then you rinse, lather, and repeat. It becomes a cycle that is nearly impossible to break. The end result is a glass ceiling for teams not at the top. Soccernomics even found that there is a 90% correlation with money spent on salary and where you finish in the league. In short, if you spend the most money on salaries, you have a 90% chance of winning the league. If you spend the 2nd most amount of money on salary, there's a 90% chance you'll be in 2nd place, and so on.

I know what you're thinking, "All of that sounds very boring for the fans." You would think so and I thought the same. The data they found is that, as the money has grown in soccer (namely the last 10-15 years), and the places in those lucrative tournaments have gone to mostly the same teams, attendance and TV ratings have not suffered. Conversely, most European soccer teams and leagues have seen growth in these areas. The book argued that the "David vs Goliath" aspect of some of the matches keeps fans interested week to week. Club branding, familiar faces and matches involving 2 "super clubs" keep people invested long-term.

This line of thought can be applied to US sports as well. Think for a moment, in Major League Baseball ratings are always better when the Yankees are involved, regardless of who they were playing. It was the same with Notre Dame's college football team during the glory years, Michael Jordan's Bulls, the Dallas Cowboys, Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics, the NCAA men's basketball tournament, and the list goes on. But, if you look at our sports, and their most popular times, it coincides with a really dominant team. Hell, the NBA took off in popularity thanks to Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. Their teams played each other 3 out of 4 years for the NBA title. We think we want to see parity because it sounds good and it feels fair. But, in truth, you want to see the most famous teams, at a high level. For empirical proof, here are the ratings from the last few Finals (courtesy of Wikipedia's page for NBA television ratings, with a quick synopsis of the match-up)

Their teams played each other 3 out of 4 years for the NBA title. We think we want to see parity because it sounds good and it feels fair. But, in truth, you want to see the most famous teams, at a high level. For empirical proof, here are the ratings from the last few Finals (courtesy of Wikipedia's page for NBA television ratings, with a quick synopsis of the match-up)

2008 NBA Finals 

The 2008 NBA Finals featured the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics renewing their historic rivalry with their first meeting since 1987. With this, the ratings had great improvement from the previous year's Finals. The six-game series garnered a 9.3 rating and an average of 14.9 million viewers, a 50% increase from 2007 and the highest Finals numbers since 2004. The series-clinching Game 6 finished with a 10.7 rating and drew 16.9 million viewers.

 2010 NBA Finals

The 2010 NBA Finals featured a rematch of 2008 with a renewal of the classic rivalry between the Lakers and Celtics and proved to be a smash hit in the ratings. With the historic rivalry between the two most successful teams in the league being the marquee matchup once again and the Finals going seven games for the first time since 2005, the series achieved a 10.6 rating and an average of 18.1 million viewers, the highest numbers since 2004. This was a 26% increase from 2009 and a 14% increase from 2008, the last time the Lakers and the Celtics met.The deciding Game 7 garnered an 15.6 rating and a tally of 28.2 million viewers, making it the most-watched NBA game since Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals, which had a 22.3 rating and drew 72 million viewers.In addition, the seventh game bested the previous Game 7 in 2005 by 31%. Game 7 is as of now the most-watched NBA game in ABC's current eight-season run with the league.

(Me again) You would think the 2010 ratings would be lower since it was a rematch of teams the public just saw. But, the numbers simply don't align itself with what parity would bring.

2011 NBA Finals

The 2011 NBA Finals, a rematch of 2006, featured, arguably, pro sports' most scrutinized team -- the 2011 Miami Heat -- against the Dallas Mavericks. The six-game series, which had better ratings for games 1, 3, and 5 (as compared to 2010), would drop slightly from that Final, with a 10.2 rating. The highest-ranked game, Game 6, registered a 13.3 rating and is now the third-most watched game in modern NBA on ABC history. The series is the second consecutive Finals to reach double-digits, and the third in the ABC era to do so.

(Me again) To tie this argument into a neat little bow, the lowest ratings in recent Finals history was 2003 (San Antonio vs. New Jersey) and 2005 (Detroit vs. San Antonio). Yay! Parity!

Bringing this back to Chris Paul, he would have brought me back to the NBA for Laker games. I, as a casual fan, would have liked to see him play with Kobe Bryant. Every Laker game would have been appointment TV. We have a recent example of this with the Miami Heat just last year. Fans tuned in, in great numbers, to hate the Heat last year. I watched each game of the Finals last year, just to cheer for Dallas to beat them. But, if the preceding series went differently, the NBA Finals would have been the Chicago Bulls vs. Oklahoma City. We know that match-up would have drawn less viewers.
In truth, you simply need a team to wear the "black hat" when you're watching sports. You need a villain and you need antipathy for one of the teams. With parity, there are less villains, less great teams, less big rivalries, and eventually less interest from the casual fan. The talent is spread around more evenly, but there are fewer teams you HAVE to see.

So, put in me the camp with people who are sad Chris Paul didn't go to Lakers. The way it looked on Twitter, it's a small camp. From what I saw, he may still get to go to an already good team (perhaps the Celtics). I hope he does. If he doesn't, I guess I'll just cheer against the Heat again this year and probably for not much else.

(Footnote from today, 1/27)

- The Chris Paul saga turned out pretty well for neutrals like me. He ended up going to the Clippers and gave a shot in the arm to the Clippers-Lakers rivalry. Just two nights ago, there was a fiery match-up (for a regular season NBA game) involving the 2 teams. (Game details are listed here, pic from the game shown above)

Why We Can't Wait For The Rematch

- To further prove my point, I think the whole world knows the Giants and Patriots have a Super Bowl rematch next weekend. How much more excited are you about it, compared to a 49ers-Ravens matchup? People are so excited, they are willingly going to Indianapolis in February (just kidding Hoosiers). But, I think that is more proof that parity is overrated.

See you soon,

James

Week In Review, Topics Incl: NDAA, Occupy Homes, Rick Perry's Brokeback Mountain Fashion, Fox News Confuses Countries

Hello and thanks for checking in.

We have another huge week to review. Simply put, there is too much going on in the world and I'm paying attention to too much of it. Between all that's going on and my constant wrestling with what's going on in my head, it's tough to get everything into the blog. That being said, I will push on. The topics are again diverse. Most are very important items and we finish up with two of the blog's regular pinatas, Fox News and the GOP. Let's start with the bad news and we'll get progressively lighter throughout the post.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): Oh boy, where to start with this one? Usually the NDAA specifies budgets and expenditures for the coming fiscal year. This year however, the NDAA includes a provision that would allow for "indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens." Without getting too wonky on this bill, the Obama administration has claimed to want to veto it, if certain language isn't changed. But, from all I've seen, the Administration is looking for stronger language. This (as was the last link) is from OpenCongress.Org.

"They’ll (the Obama Administration) take it (the bill) and recommend that Congress passes clarifying legislation in the future, which, of course, will never happen. What they oppose is the provision that would mandate that power be used for all terrorism suspects besides U.S. citizens. From the same statement:

"The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects."

Within that legalese is simply this, the Obama Administration DOES NOT want a special exclusion for U.S. citizens. They would like all terrorism suspects treated the same. So, basically any of us could be Gitmo'ed. The possibility of being plucked off the streets and held without seeing a lawyer is certainly possible if this passes. Consider this in a post-Occupy world. Could any of these protesters fall under one of these vague statutes. This bill deserves it's own posting. I just wanted to let some of you know it's out there and give you the broad strokes. The link from OpenCongress.Org is really helpful, if you wanted to know more. And, there are loads of other sites on top of this one.

You're probably thinking, "Hey, I'm not a terrorist." The problem is that the language is so broad, anyone can be considered one. Here is Rand Paul (video, below) talking about the bill and some things that may make you look like a terrorist. It's worth a look. One of the characteristics of someone being labeled a possible terrorist, is missing fingers. If this bill passes, clumsy butchers may end up under surveillance.

And, adding to what Paul says, many people involved in the animal liberation and ecological activism movements have been branded as terrorists already. Theoretically, they could be detained as well. Last thing before moving on. I know I make fun of the GOP all the time. In this case, the NDAA is a bi-partisan screw job. It passed the Senate 93-7 and 406-17 in the House of Representatives. Who says Democrats and Republicans can't work together! Yay! Meh.

 This next item is not that much easier to take. In a past post, "The Endless Reach of Inequality," I talked about the findings in a book called "The Spirit Level." If you missed that post, definitely give it a look. In short, "Spirit Level" argues that large income inequality is the root cause for nearly all of society's ills. They did extensive work, some of their findings are quoted in that post. The problems they studied range from higher suicide rates, depression, gun deaths, mental illness, obesity, higher incarceration rates, etc. The list is extensive.

With all that in mind, I give you a story that is sadly redolent of the findings in the "Spirit Level." On Tuesday in Texas, after a 7hr stand-off, a mother of two shot her two children and killed herself, after being denied food stamps. One child was a 10 year old boy, the other a 12 year old girl. Both children later died from their injuries. At its core, this is the book's argument. This story ticks most of the boxes: income inequality, poverty, stories have suggested she was mentally ill, and she of course had access to a gun. She left an eerie message on her Facebook page before going to the social services office. It said quite concisely, "May die today." This is a haunting story and illustrates the need for a strong social safety net, more help for the mentally ill and better gun control.

Staying in the area of inequality, the 99% of the U.S. population, take home a smaller percentage of the country's income (compared to other industrialized countries). The full study can be seen here. From this chart, you can see that we are even behind that model of equality, ex-apartheid state, South Africa. (and yes that was sarcasm) And, how badly do you all want to move to Scandinavia now? Look at Denmark and Sweden! They have better income equality, blond chicks, fjords, Northern lights, ice hotels, and probably really good fish (just guessing on that last one)...It all sounds great though.

Alright, we made it! Now for the good/ uplifting news:

Washington DC is seeing major protests this week, another is happening as I type this actually. But, they have used really creative ways to disrupt the way things run in DC. Here are pictures from Tuesday, day 2 of this protest. They waited outside members of Congressional offices, for their representative. Over 60 were arrested for blocking K Street (the main home of large lobbying firms). Loads of videos are out there, just You Tube search "Occupy K Street", if you wanted to see the scene. And, as I write this post (Thursday night), some have crashed the Chamber of Commerce holiday party and made a human red carpet. Quick aside: I love all this. I'm ready to burn 2012 vacation days to get to some of this stuff. I just think it's amazing.

This has been the best part of the Occupy movement for me. They have shown a great ability to shift and change tactics. The authorities have no idea where they will pop up. The irony is, it was simpler before these idiot mayors kicked them out of the parks. You at least knew where they were. And, that leads me into the next story.

December 6 saw different tactics, compared to the happenings in DC. They morphed into a group called "Occupy Homes." Occupy Homes literally broke into an East New York foreclosed home, that had been vacant for three years, and made it livable for a homeless family. They checked with neighbors and local lawmakers to get their support. There was a large march prior to arriving at the house. And, it all commenced with a large block party to welcome the family. This type of direct action will force the banks to take some kind of action with these homes, either taking a big loss on principal to make it attractive to resell or rent to these families. This house in particular, is valued at 378K, but Bank of America want 600K for it. As of posting, some occupiers are staying with the family in case of police raid and others, including new neighbors are on call to push back against any police response. Pretty badass. And, just search "Occupy Homes" on YouTube, if you wanted to see other vids. Tuesday was a nationwide day of action. I just happened to follow this one closely. Meet the family!

A couple more quick things and I'll let you go. I mentioned at the start, that Fox is one of the blog's pinatas. If I'm honest, they are any liberal's punching bag. This week they got caught using video from riots in Greece and tried to pass them off as Russian unrest. The video they used is complete with palm trees and at one point you see Greek lettering on a building. The building was the National Bank of Greece. You can't make this stuff up. You'd think someone would recognize it. I guess "Fox News" is officially an oxymoron now. I feel bad for any Fox viewer that now travels to Moscow looking for a beach.

- Rick Perry did an amazingly desperate campaign ad where he has come out against gays in the military. I guess he's forgotten that the country doesn't care anymore. Someone on the 'net, noticed he's wearing the same jacket as the "Brokeback Mountain" guy and produced this photo mash-up. I LOVE THE GOP. You can't script this kind of idiocy.

See you next time,

James