Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
Ryun dissects election defeat:
Ryun, of Lawrence, said his campaign volunteers were lulled into a false sense of confidence because he easily defeated Boyda in 2004.I guess he would have won if his supporters hadn't held him back."It was difficult to get them engaged because they said, 'Well, you won by 15 points last time.' " Ryun said. "I want to say this, I knew from the beginning it was going to be a tough race."
One day, he may realize that his volunteers didn't get engaged because no one really liked him that much.
Comments
Poor Jim Ryun has always been a pawn.
He had some Forrest Gump-ism early on; could run and keep running through pain to the limits of his physical capabilities, but he was used. He was used by his high school coaches and Bob Timmons at KU and the people who contributed under-the-table no-show jobs and income throughout his running career.
But Ryun was never the brightest pencil in the deck.
He came to think that people will support him and give him money just like they *must* do for everyone else. Ryun has always been alienated from reality.
Fact is, it wasn't that his volunteers didn't get excited, it's that he couldn't motivate his volunteers.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 19, 2006 8:37 PM
Josh, did you see where Wrangel is going to introduce a Draft Bill when the Democrats take over.
Dare you comment on this?
Posted by: Soon to be drafted | November 20, 2006 8:49 AM
Some troll wrote:
"Josh, did you see where Wrangel (sic) is going to introduce a Draft Bill when the Democrats take over. Dare you comment on this?"
What is the relevance of this anecdote to this thread? Was Ryun drafted? I don't think he was. He got out of the service because of a "serious hearing loss". Sort of the same problem that got him unelected earlier this month. Bummer.
I think the only draft that Mr. Soon-to-be-drafted will experience is the draft that is currently whistling around in the empty space between his ears...
Posted by: Albatrossity | November 20, 2006 11:37 AM
Actually, I raised that issue because there was no place else to mention it.
But I find it quite ironic that the democrats who are all for CHOICE not want a DRAFT.
Yes, it appears...in the words of Dean Wormer of Animal House fame...that we all soon be eligible for military service!
Posted by: Soon to be drafted. | November 20, 2006 11:51 AM
Um, not quite all, STBD. You're probably safe - the military tries to screen out the incompetent and the mentally unbalanced.
Posted by: nunyer | November 20, 2006 1:24 PM
Nunyer, while I agree, let's try to keep this out of the gutter.
STBD: What possible link can you find between abortion and the draft?
I think that Rangel has a valid point about the disparity between the people who serve in combat and the people who decide to send them into combat. I wonder if Jim Ryun would have voted differently on the Iraq war if he thought his sons might be drafted and sent to fight?
I do think that some sort of compulsory national service, including Teach for America, Peace Corps, Americorps, and other non-military options, would bring a lot of benefits to society and to participants in that service. The loss of individual liberty is a big downside, and finding a way to have national service without unacceptable intrusion on individual freedom is an unsolved problem.
For what it's worth, Jim Ryun would have been entirely eligible for my conception of national service, even with his hearing problems.
Posted by: Josh | November 20, 2006 3:55 PM
Actually, I think that Rangel (D-NY) is introducing a bill that has no chance of passing in order to get the conversation going about what it is really costing this country to maintain Dubya and Dick's Excellent Experiment in Exporting Democracy to Mesopotamia.
His point, and I think it is valid, is that a pre-emptive war, based on dubious logic (Iraqis were responsible for the 9/11 events), and supported by sketchy (at best) intelligence, would be far less likely if the folks at risk were family members of the folks voting for a war. It wouldn't help Dubya's world view, since his experience tells him that being rich and well-connected is a good way to avoid getting your limbs blown off in a stupid war. But lots of other folks, both in Congress and in the election booths, would have second thoughts.
And that would be a good thing.
So this is not a simple-minded abandonment of FREEDOM or CHOICE. It is about confronting reality, and assessing the true costs of imperialism in the 21st century.
Posted by: Albatrossity | November 20, 2006 5:12 PM
'Kay, Josh, no more gutterballs. It was low-hangin' fruit neway.
Posted by: nunyer | November 20, 2006 7:38 PM
No, its about totalitarian control.
Essentially, Wrangel is saying you are a slave and the government can take our sons and daughters whenever they chose.
Posted by: Diana | November 20, 2006 7:39 PM
Diana opined
Wrong. Let's go through this again, slowly.
1) Wrangel (with two l's) is an island off the coast of Alaska
2) Charles Rangel is a congressman from New York
3) most islands are different from most congresspersons, John Donne notwithstanding.
4) this proposed bill has no chance of passing this congress
5) the introduction of this bill is NOT aimed at taking your sons and daughters, but rather at awakening consciousness in an American public that has so far shown little appetite for that necessary task.
There, that wasn't so difficult, was it?
Posted by: Albatrossity | November 20, 2006 8:34 PM
Dn s qt rght lbtrsst...th drft S bt tkng r sns nd dghtrs.
f th gvrnmnt cn tk nd tll t kll t thr drctn thn r n lngr fr.
Rngl s stg, bt th Dmcrts hv lws bn bt drftng ppl.
ftr ll, Nxn NDD th drft.
[Ed.: Disemvowelled troll.]
Posted by: Troll A | November 20, 2006 8:58 PM
The war is about taking our sons and daughters. The draft is about making sure one group's children aren't sent to die while others are safe at home.
The argument that "[I]f th[e] g[o]v[e]rnm[e]nt c[a]n t[a]k[e] [you] [a]nd t[e]ll [you] t[o] k[i]ll [a]t th[ei]r d[i]r[e]ct[io]n th[e]n [you] [a]r[e] n[o] l[o]ng[e]r fr[ee]" is absurd. The government does that already. Soldiers who refuse to go to Iraq get sent to jail. The issue is not whether the government sends citizens to kill and die, the issue is which citizens it sends.
Pentagon studies show that people who volunteer to serve are generally children of people with less economic success and less education, and are typically themselves poorer and less well educated than average. That means that the war affects certain communities disproportionately, and the communities affected tend to be the least influential ones.
Of 535 members of Congress, only a handful have children serving in Iraq.
Posted by: Josh | November 20, 2006 10:44 PM
Josh, while your idea of national service has merit, there are a couple of parts I don't understand.
What process would be used to decide who's in the military, and who'll serve in some other form of national service?
How would this system be any different from the Vietnam draft, where deferments were granted for the Peace Corps or the Texas Air National Guard? I don't understand how a draft would ensure that more of the rich/privileged/well-connected kids would be sent overseas to die for oil.
Posted by: CSA | November 21, 2006 5:28 AM
Then can we assume that you will be ready to serve when the time comes Josh?
However, I am glad to know where liberals of your stripe stand on the draft.
I appreciate the warning, but you will not be kidding by kids. Their grandpa has advised them that there are plenty of "medical problems" that suddenly can show up at an army physical.
Posted by: Greg | November 21, 2006 6:37 AM
Greg, et al.
You should be happy to learn that the lead editorial in today's New York Times, the official organ of the "liberal media", is directed against Rangel's draft bill. Apparently liberals come in different stripes. Read it for yourself; you can always erase those liberal cookies afterward, or boil your computer, whichever suits you.
Or perhaps, as before, you have missed something called "nuance". I personally am against the draft. My lottery number during the Vietnam debacle was dangerously close to sending me over there, and that memory lingers as a powerful motivator. But I am absolutely FOR opening the debate in Congress to include this possibility for the sole purpose of opening the eyes of congresscritters and voters to the issues that Josh brings up in his last post on this topic. As a freedom-loving American, I hope that you are in favor of the concept of open debate on important issues.
Posted by: Albatrossity | November 21, 2006 7:29 AM
CSA, I don't know that it would be better than the old draft, except that nonmilitary service would not get you a deferment or be treated as an alternative service, with military service as the default. Service should be the default, with military service one option out of many.
I agree with the Times editorial:
One way I can envision producing a national service requirement without a compulsory draft would be to offer a lifetime of health insurance as compensation for some number of years in national service. Employers would then have good reason to favor people who had done their service, since they wouldn't have to spend as much on health insurance. And we'd have universal health care.
I have no idea what this would cost, nor how much benefit society would accrue, so I can't really say how practical this is. But at least in principle it is a liberty-respecting way of creating national service. And national service is much broader than the draft that Rangel is proposing.
Posted by: Josh | November 21, 2006 11:08 AM
No problemo for liberals, josh.
Just raise taxes. Take everything, out incomes, our organs, blood, eggs, sperm and take our kids.
However, you will NOT be getting my kids.
"medical problems" might crop up.
Posted by: Master Blaster | November 21, 2006 12:06 PM
Taking a page from Master Blaster's book (but with the important distinction that these are all laws already enacted by the Republican Congress, rather than a hypothetical bill yet to be introduced and certain not to pass)
No problemo for fascists, Mr. Blaster
Just balloon the deficit and cut taxes for the rich. Take everything, our global reputation, our right to make medical decisions for ourselves and our loved ones, our rights to habeus corpus and privacy, our world-leading scientific reseach enterprise, and take someone else's sons and daughters for an ill-advised imperialist adventure in Mesopotamia. And finally, just take our self-respect, since torture is now acceptable for us to use, we can't really complain when it is used on other folk's sons and daughters whom we have put in harms way for the sake of God, Oil, and Big Bidness.
Amen
Posted by: Albatrossity | November 21, 2006 1:28 PM
Actually, here is an even better idea (courtesy of Paul Abrams). Make Administration political appointees, their children and their grandchildren of draft age go through basic training and then ship them out to the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Here (for those of you who don't want to read the whole article) is the basic premise, predicated on the fact that some in this country and in Congress didn't really support this war in the first place.
Posted by: Albatrossity | November 21, 2006 1:45 PM
My two nephews have just informed me that they are certain they will not be drafted.
They just recently started having homosexual feelings, and feel that if the draft is enacted the shock might cause them to cross on over and come out.
Well, that was close!
Posted by: Master Blaster | November 21, 2006 5:05 PM
As far as Abrams idea is concerned, the darn old Constitution stand in the way. You know descrimiation, chilling effect on political speech, all that liberal crap.
Sorry Paul.
But I do have a good idea. Why don't YOU volunteer?
Posted by: Master Blaster | November 21, 2006 5:11 PM
M. Blaster wandered into the unknown:
No, I guess I don't know. Please clarify. What is "descrimiation"? Does it have something to do with your homosexual nephews? It certainly sounds icky...
And what part of the Constitution eliminates a draft? Did we pass an amendment since Vietnam? I must have missed that one.
Please advise.
thanks
Posted by: Albatrossity | November 21, 2006 5:22 PM
Although it's a legistlative non-starter, Congressman Rangel's proposal should be a discussion-starter.
First off, what we have in America isn't a "volunteer" army any more than the clerks at Wal-Mart are a "volunteer" workforce.
What we have is a *professional* Army. And it's worked well for 30 years or so. Or it did, until George WMD Bush started trumping up aggressive wars against nations that posed no threat to American interests.
Perhaps we should learn a lesson from, of all people, Donald Rumsfeld. "You go to war with the army you have," he said.
Rangle's proposal would raise the stakes of unilater, offensive wars at the whim of the likes of Shrub, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.
If the United States is comitted to War, *real* War, a war that's going to be compared to WWII, everyone in America must show up for military induction. No pre-deferrments.
A lot of modern warfare is conducted at the keyboard of a computer. There's no reason someone in a wheelchair can't serve the American war effort, even if they can't make it through a Basic Training obstacle course. There are 50-year-old women who are fitter than some 18-year-old boys; and there are military tasks appropriate to both.
The enemy we've discovered, thanks to George WMD Bush is we've empowered the Executive Branch to fight corporate war by proxy. American voters haven't been put on the line in Shrub's military adventures.
Any deployment of American troops overseas should begins (at least) on a pay-as-you-go, *tax*-as-you-go basis.
If the Republican-dominated Congress had to send all of their constituents to report for miliaty service and pay the freight of $200 Million a day in higher taxes, it might have been a bit more circumspect in granting Shrub the power to wage war in Iraq.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 21, 2006 6:26 PM
r hmphb lbtrct?
lk Mstr Blstrs d, t hv hd hmsxl fngs. Ths drft tlk hs csd thm t srfc.
Np. Th wn't b gttng m r m brthr, thr!
Th drft s nthng bt rntrdcd slvr.
Posted by: Manny | November 22, 2006 7:17 AM
Manny
Nice try. Unfortunately ad hominem arguments won't disguise the fact that M. Blaster said a number of stupid things that I asked him to clarify. So far he hasn't done that. I'll keep waiting.
But just in case you are really wondering, I'm not homophobic. Just dumbophobic.
And you, like others on this comment thread, continually miss the point about a hypothetical draft bill with no chance of passing. I suggest you read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" sometime.
Posted by: Albatrossity | November 22, 2006 8:03 AM
The draft, for you Old Testament fundies out there is, as I am sure you will be shocked to find, unbibical.
Deuteronmy 20:5-8
Of course, those who wished to serve could, but those who did not want to didn't have to.
Posted by: Vic | November 22, 2006 5:24 PM