Frustrated and unconvinced about the number of protesters that is being reported by nearly every media source for Saturday January 27th March in Washington DC, I decided to work out the math involved. I was having trouble grasping some frame of reference as to how many people tens of thousands looks like compared to half a million. Obviously the difference is enormous but I kept asking myself what frame of reference I have that could some how make sense of these estimates as they have been presented.
There are two simple components to figuring out an estimate of protesters that day: area and density. If you take the overall area which was occupied by protesters divided by the average density of people you come up with an estimate that is relatively close to how many individuals were actually there. With this formula in mind I see several ways to do this with some degree of accuracy and we’ll go through the numbers taking various approaches for comparison purposes.
First we need to compute the area. To do this I am going to use the GMap Pedometer (http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/) a handy little tool powered by Google Maps that will help us measure the lengths and widths of the spaces in which events took place on Saturday.
Measuring the Rally
One way to calculate the area is using the rally on the National Mall. We can figure out an estimated width and length of the rally based on the actual dimensions. Of course, I can’t be certain of these dimensions without satellite images but somehow I doubt the Defense Department will send me these images considering the individuals in charge (as US Rep. John Conyers http://johnconyers.com/ pointed out at the rally on Saturday, “George Bush has a habbit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing”). The rally extended the length of two to three blocks of the National Mall at a minimum (3 blocks would be .47 miles or 2,500 feet and 2 blocks would be .367 miles or 2000 feet). I am estimating that the rally on the Mall was about .12 miles or 633 feet wide. The low estimate shows that the total area of the rally was around 1,266,000 sq feet with a high estimate around = 1,582,500 sq feet.
Next we need to estimate a crowd density. This is the harder of the two to variables to estimate but I will consider my experience there and once again compare high and low estimates. During the rally there was an extremely high density of people gathering around the two stages becoming increasingly sparse further away from these areas. The most conservative estimate I can imagine would be 1 person per 10 sq feet (this is really an unreasonably low density but serves to prove the point that there is no way Saturday’s event was in the tens of thousands) and I would argue that a more likely number is 1 person per 5 sq feet. So on the unreasonably low end, taking the low area estimate with the low density estimate we see a minimum of 1,266,00 / 10 = 126,600 people. Then taking what I would say is still a relatively conservative view 1,582,500 / 5 = 316,500 people.
Measuring The March
Then there is the march route, consisting of a loop around the Capitol building roughly two miles long. To give a nice round number let’s call the two mile route 10,600 feet. Let’s say each lane of the road was 15 feet across (this is probably less than the average lane but again gives us a nice round number and it is harder to argue with). For about half the march they blocked off two of the four lanes in the road, but there were plenty sections that had all lanes open. We’ll say that the march covered three lanes on average for a total of 45 feet. This gives the march a total area of 477,000 sq feet.
We know from first hand accounts, that as the frontline of the march completed the route, they could see the tail of the march still making their way out of the National Mall. This means that we can consider the total area of the march as being occupied (this is actually an exciting thought since it means that peace supporters had the nation’s capitol completely surrounded for a period of time that afternoon). Starting out, we were almost unable to move, advancing only a few feet a minute. After the first hour or so we were actually marching along at a reasonable pace. Averaging this out, I would estimate around 3 sq feet per person. So here we see that at a minimum 477,000 / 3 = 159,000 people who participating in the march.
But then I am left questioning whether the front of the march actually saw the tail or whether they were finishing just as some in the middle of the march just starting. This question makes more sense when considering the timing involved. From where I was in the march, it seems likely that I was somewhere in the anonymous middle. I couldn’t see the begin and I couldn’t see the end. It was an endless stretch of people either way I looked. After the first hour of marching, my section rounded the first corner onto
Conclusions
Prior to the march, UFPJ estimated that around 100,000 protesters would participate in this event. Considering the calculated estimates I am putting forward here, I am very confident that the original estimate was very low. UFPJ’s estimate during the event was 500,000 which is significantly higher and puts this event up with the most widely attended rallies on the National Mall in history. While half a million is less realistic than I would like to admit, not even breaking 100,000 is even less likely in my opinion.
I have to commend The Washington Post for their avoidance in repeating the tens of thousands claim and I admit that having done these estimates, UFPJ has some explanation in justifying their numbers. But given my calculations (and my participation in the event) I feel safe quoting 200,000-300,000 as a realistic number. Given the January weather and the seemingly last minute mobilizing efforts, my final estimate is that the next rally will easily reach the 500,000 mark. Congress will have to act to end this war soon or they will face an increasingly determined number of citizens acting against this war. If they fail to reverse the complacency and misguided action of the past they will fail to uphold the overwhelming referendum for peace that brought the Democrats to the majority power last November.
Posted at Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Email nelsestu
0 comments
What's In A Number? - The March in Washington DC Jan. 27, 2007
What's In A Number?
In today’s peace movement, we try -- and we REALLY try -- but according to the corporate media we just don’t get it right. Upon my return home from Saturday’s national peace rally in D.C., I was surprised to learn from the Associated Press (via the Lansing State Journal) that the rally was attended by less than 100,000 people, according to “unofficial police estimates.”
What rally did those people attend? Not the one I did. I had spent the whole day in the national capital on January 27, 2007, with approximately 499,999 other people supporting peace and opposing the President’s proposed troop surge in Iraq. The crowd was electric, energetic, loud and …MASSIVE. No wonder the national press reporters missed the lies leading to the Iraq invasion in the first place: they seem to simply report anything “authorities” tell them, especially authorities who obviously can’t count. Is this news reporting or stenography?
The editors of the Lansing State Journal placed the national peace rally story on page 3A, right next to the articles about how “7 troops killed in Iraq” and “Contractor fraud costs war effort millions.” None of this tragic war news merits front page coverage? Where is the newspaper’s respect for our troops? At least the peace community holds our troops first and foremost in our hearts and actions. The troops are not third-page news as we struggle to bring them home and bring them home now!
A Surge from the Peace Movement
Notably, half of the 54 people who rode the bus to Washington from Lansing were people not affiliated with GLNAWI; they were local citizens compelled to take a personal message to Washington. One such person, Elizabeth, a military mom, signed up for the bus to support her son who has already spent one year in Iraq and will soon be heading over again.
“I could say that it is just because I’m a military mom that I’m going (to D.C.) and that I’m against all of this – but that is not true,” Elizabeth explained to the Lansing contingent and their supporters at the send off Friday night. “I’ve been against this war since they dropped the first bomb and I was horrified by it. Then when my son actually joined the Army after that, I was even more horrified by it.”
Elizabeth explained that her son re-enlisted after getting promises from the military that he would be sent to a “non-deployable” unit. This promise was violated with the President’s recent order to send more troops to Baghdad. Her son will soon be bound for another tour in Iraq. Her son has lost two of his friends in the conflict, with one friend currently clinging to life. She explained, “He was shot by a sniper in Iraq at the beginning of the month.”
“It’s too much,” Elizabeth continued, “It’s not just the people I know but all of them: all those mothers, those fathers, all those families. It’s like re-living 9-11 all over again for somebody every time we lose a solider.”
She concluded, “I’m going (to D.C.) because hopefully one more person there will help.”
Elizabeth made it to Washington and back – just like approximately 499,999 other dedicated, patriotic Americans who support our troops and, like a vast majority the citizenry, who are demanding that they be brought home…NOW.
(this entry posted on behalf of tjrico)
Posted at Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Email nelsestu
0 comments
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
2007 State of the Union
I was surprised in some ways with the State of the Union Address. This was the least outraged I've been about any of Bush's State of the Union Addresses. With that being said, there were still plenty of things that were shouted at the TV and several subtle things that have deep and freighting implications.
First, it is important to keep a couple things in mind when analyzing the address. Bush is treading on thin ice now that Democrats are the majority. His power is now in check and the public hates him (27% approval rating) and in order to get things done he has to play nice, which was very obvious in his presentation last night. His approval ratings are on par with Nixon right before he resigned due to unpopularity (and Watergate of course). Another component to keep in mind is that Bush is starting to think about his legacy as a president. In this regard things are looking really bad for him and many, even mainstream predictions, are admitting that he could be viewed among the worst, if not THE worst. He is looking for ways to leave something positive behind. I think he sees immigration and the earmark reform proposal as two things he can walk away from with positive results. He also mentioned strengthening Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. These are all things that he was trying to kill a couple years back.
There were several firsts for me in last night's address, one being that for a moment I found myself agreeing with President Bush. First there was the earmark reform proposal that he mentioned which is a badly needed reform. But then I was more amazed that he mentioned Darfur (www.SaveDarfur.org). It was just once, and just at the end of a thought but he mentioned. Darfur requires action however, and it isn’t the kind of action the Bush Administration is good at or has much experience with: Diplomacy. In the end, what truly matters is what he does, and not what he says in a live televised address.
Other than those few surprises there were the normal distortions, inaccuracies and infuriating positions that characterize Mr. Bush’s Presidency. Painting No Child Left Behind as the most successful education policy ever, discussing his initiatives in alternative fuels, touting a clean environment and a nearly balanced budget are all quiet laughable (and typical for that matter) in my mind.
Then there were two subtle points (again subtle because he has to play nice) that stick out as particularly dangerous in my mind. First, his mention of the Civilian Reserve Corps.
“Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them”
This is precisely the purpose of the National Guard. The problem this should remind us of, is that President Bush continues to use the National Guard as if they were full-time enlisted military. Sometimes referred to as a Stop-loss policy, it is by all means a “backdoor draft.” In fact there are lawsuits pending that are challenging the legality of the President’s continued inappropriate use of this force. So if the US creates a new Civilian Reserve Corps which is designed to do the National Guard’s job, this indicates to me that Bush intends to solidify the National Guard “backdoor draft” policy as a permanent functionality in US conflicts overseas.
The second frightening subtlety in Bush’s speech was the certainty with which he insisted “that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.” He said it as if this is an uncontested fact. I see this as an attempt to solidify Bush’s doctrine of preemptive strike. This is the doctrine that brought us the Iraq War. A war based on lies and fabrications of imagined and exaggerated threats. This is the doctrine that has needlessly killed over 3000 US soldiers and untold Iraqi civilians. This is the doctrine that is not and should not be a certainty in US foreign policy. Preemptive strike is fuel for the war on terror, not an extinguisher.
I won’t say much more than I have already said in previous posts about the escalation of the Iraq war. I agree with the over 70% of the public, the majority of Congress, and the majority of military leaders who say it is a horrible idea and that we need to be focusing on drawing down US forces there or whole scale withdrawal.
That’s all for now. Hope to see you this weekend in Washington DC
Posted at Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Email nelsestu
0 comments
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Rep. Rogers Questions Escalation Plans
I found this piece by the Associated Press and thought it could be a sign that Michigan's 8th District Representative Mike Rogers' unquestioning support for Bush Administration policies could be coming to an end. After years of unwavering support for Bush Administration policies in constituent responses, perhaps this is a sign that Representative Rogers will be backing off the unhinged and unrealistic picture that the US has done a wonderful thing by bringing “freedom” and “democracy” to Iraq, by gun point. This is the primary image painted in nearly all his constituent response letters on the subject. In the past he has is always been clear that despite this wonderful gift we have brought to Iraq, horrible consequences, including terrorists armed with WMDs await any failure in Iraq.
In light of his recent uncertainty for support of the Bush Administration escalation plans, I wonder what winning a failed war means to Rep. Rogers now? From the AP article:
"Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, said he had "strong reservations" about the plan. He said many questions still remain - military mission and what are the rules of engagement of the troops. "I think we need to win in Iraq - it's very important. I'm just not sure that this will have the desired outcome," Rogers said."
full article here...
I found the article following links starting at ThinkProgress.org which has some great resources about stopping the escalation...
Posted at Thursday, January 18, 2007
Email nelsestu
0 comments
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
MoveOn Criticizes McCain
As much as I dislike political ads, I found MoveOn.org's latest campaign interesting. It criticizes McCain's support for escalating the Iraq War. Some make the argument that the reason McCain has made such a PR push for escalating the war is because he was betting that Bush would cave to the Iraq Study Group report. If Bush had caved to that report and started withdrawing troops McCain could have said... if Bush only would have listened to me and added troops.
Now that McCain's bet has backfired, he is busy advocating that the escalation isn't the troop increases he was suggesting (30-50 thousand, not 21 which Bush championed last week). It just became that much more difficult for McCain to gain any distance from the failed policies of the Bush Administration.
As the violence increases and stability decreases with this escalation policy both McCain and Bush may be wishing they had followed the majority advice of military and political leaders, not to mention the American people.
http://moveon.org/pac/iraqad/index.html
Posted at Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Email nelsestu
0 comments
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Iraq War Escalation
President Bush’s planned escalation of the war as outlined in Wednesday (
When one looks closely, President Bush’s escalation looks strikingly similar to former President Nixon’s exponential blunder in
The question that lies before us is: Now that American and Iraqi citizens share a majority opinion that the
If there is any hope for a long term peace, the Democratic congressional leadership needs to step up and refuse support for Bush’s plan. The President must be stopped before more American lives are lost and the situation in
For an interesting article covering the implications of President Bush’s address and increase in confrontational actions that have already taken place, check out Juan Cole’s article on Salon.com
Posted at Sunday, January 14, 2007
Email nelsestu
0 comments
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
3000 U.S. Death Commemoration and Candlelight Vigil for Peace
Monday, January 1, 20075:00 to 6:00pm
the corner of Grand River and Abbott in East Lansing
We have reached the 3000th U.S. military death in Iraq in addition to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. As this tragedy continues and our President calls for more troops, we urge you to join us and people in cities all over the country in mourning these deaths and calling for and end to this war.
Posted at Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Email nelsestu
0 comments
Challenging the Military Commissions Act – A Theatrical Script
As performed by the Greater The following is a short dramatization of the plight of detainees now legalized with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
An ominous prison cell sits in the foreground. A sign that reads “Stop Torture” and “End Secret Prisons” is displayed prominently on the cell. American citizens, concerned both with the loss of basic civil liberties and with the far reaching definition of “unlawful combatants,” have gathered in recognition of a sad day for the once protected and beloved US Constitution. A non-uniformed bailiff leads hooded detainees into the jail cell and says with contempt:
“I’ll now read you your Lost Rights.”
“You have been labeled ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ by the President of the
“You have lost the right to an Attorney”
“You have lost access to any judicial proceeding or review.”
“Should we decide to present your case in a court of law: You have lost the right to hear the evidence that has been presented against you.”
“Anything you say during loosely defined coercive interrogations will be used against you.”
“Although no charges have been brought forward at this time, you may be held here without these rights indefinitely. It is our right, should we see fit, to render your detention to secret facilities outside the
“Should there be any violation of the Geneva Conventions, no one will be held accountable. No policymakers will be held responsible for past, present or future violations of the Geneva Conventions.”
“The loss of these rights is in violation to the United States Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and a 2006 US Supreme Court Ruling. Despite these violations, the US Congress passed and President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, on,
Posted at Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Email nelsestu
1 comments
Links
Previous Posts
- Iris Gomez speaks in East Lansing: The Immigrant E...
- A State News article on the East Lansing vigil mar...
- October 2009 Vigil - No Escalation: More Troops Wi...
- Peace groups protest Afghan war anniversary
- Uwe Reinhardt on health care reform
- Panel opposes torture during discussion at MSU
- End Torture Forever - Press Conference at Michigan...
- Dozens join protest against ongoing war
- Ask Amnesty - Questions and Answers on Gaza
- Michigan Peace Team Call to Action for Gaza
Archives
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- December 2005
- April 2006
- July 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- October 2008
- January 2009
- March 2009
- June 2009
- August 2009
- October 2009
- February 2010
- June 2010