About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

On This Day

As I wrapped up my work shortly before midnight on November 23, 2005, a radio report came in that an attack had occurred in the city of Hit, Iraq and that there were casualties. Naturally, I hung around in the event that I was needed.

Minutes later the ground began to rumble—the casualties had arrived. One of my colleagues, Josh Glardon, who ran intelligence up to me from the company level, and I ran outside to see if we could help carry any of the litters.

We ran the hundred feet between the TOC (headquarters) and medical aid station where we helped move a few bloody litters out of the way. Moments later, four medics emerged from the aid station carrying a litter bearing a badly injured Javier “Doc” Villenueve. In spite of his injuries, he looked responsive and another fellow soldier who gave Villenueve aid said he thought Doc would pull through.

Ironically, Doc had his nickname because he was his platoon’s medic, and he needed help.

When I awoke the following morning, I noticed that the Camp Hit flag was flying at half-staff. Doc had passed sometime that morning—Thanksgiving Day 2005.

The following day, a platoon of Marines had arrived to meet with our battalion commander as part of the transfer of authority, as my Army outfit was due to leave within a week. A young Greg Tull was summoned from his sleep to serve as the colonel’s gunner. He quickly prepared and a mixed Army-Marine Corps convoy began driving around Hit.

I was back in the S2 (intelligence) office working on some analysis when my soldier told me to come to the TOC immediately. We worked together and eventually learned that the colonel had been involved in an IED attack in town. There were also murmurs that one soldier was killed. Ten minutes later the convoy rumbled into the camp and on to the aid station.

We watched as our colonel limped out of the humvee and Marines and soldiers helped move the wounded to the medics. Then we saw Greg Tull, motionless. He had been killed instantly.

Mere days from leaving Iraq, Doc Villenueve and Greg Tull paid the ultimate price. Both had been looking forward to getting back to their families. On this day—Memorial Day—we remember men and women like Doc and Greg who paid our way to the lives we currently live. And it is on this day that we must stop and remember them, thank them, and pray for their families. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Re: Gas Prices

The following piece was prepared for and posted on the Montgomery County Ohio GOP Blog at http://montgomerycountygop.wordpress.com/.

The operative questions are: Why are gas prices so high and what should be done about it?

Gas prices are so high, naturally, because gas companies are greedy and want excessive profits. What else? I am only kidding, of course, as there are several reasons aside from greed that have driven our gas bills up to $40 or so each time we stop.

First is the cost of production. It costs the gas companies money to buy the barrel of oil, have it shipped, refined, and then delivered to your corner filling station. That is where the largest portion of your gas bill originates.

Second, and probably most important, is supply and demand. Even as prices rise, we as Americans, by and large, do not change our driving habits. We whine about gas prices but we don’t stop driving. Then, the two largest nations in the world—China and India—have billion-plus populations that are driving at exponentially increasing rates. Thus, they are demanding a larger share of the world oil supply. When people want more of something, the price usually climbs.

Third is government. Governments of all stripes tax gasoline at alarming rates. They also place requirements on gasoline blends and restrictions on drilling and refining domestically, the latter causing us to import more of our oil and gasoline than we would otherwise.

When all is said and done, there are two profiteers: the gas companies and government. Gas companies receive a rather small portion of each dollar as profit, perhaps a nickel, when we subtract what they have to pay in production costs (materials, labor, and transportation). Meanwhile, government, which produces no gasoline and pays no production costs, earns the largest portion of profit in the form of taxes.

Now let us answer the second question: What should be done about it? Here the assumption seems to be—but may not be—that government must and should do something about it. I challenge the wisdom of assuming a governmental role with one exception. Based on the premise that Uncle Sam and the State of Ohio must act, here is what they should and must do: cut taxes on gasoline, especially if we are concerned with immediacy. Doing so would take a larger chunk out of our bills than any other idea, even the bad ones like taxing “windfall profits.”

After that, governments should deregulate and allow for domestic drilling and refining, which wouldn’t cause an immediate change but would help in the long-term. Last but not least, government should create incentives for exploring new forms of energy. And one more note: Congress should not—I repeat, not—sue OPEC, especially when it, as a body, could ease the burden now via tax cuts.

Until then, however, prices will remain higher than we would like. I suggest that angry Americans take up the issue with their taxing authorities immediately. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Re: Thoughts on the Immigration Deal

The following piece was prepared for and posted on the Montgomery County Ohio GOP Blog at <http://montgomerycountygop.wordpress.come/>.

In all likelihood, I will say nothing new about the immigration bill; however, it merits comment. The bill also raises more questions than it answers.

Yes, it is true that a sizeable majority of illegal immigrants have come to the land of opportunity for a better life. It is also true that one’s compassion might—might—dictate an outright amnesty. And it is also true that we have a labor shortage in certain sectors of the economy.

But none of these factors warrants the response that is the new immigration bill.

One might ask, Why? For starters, we are a nation of laws, and absent the rule of law, liberty becomes somewhat suspect—i.e. if the rules are known in advance, then no group or person can alter the terms of the game in favor of certain people. Furthermore, changing a law ex post facto because we have not enforced it does not solve the problem—it only encourages more of the illegal behavior.

Secondly, one must ask how will the bill be enforced? Why will illegal immigrants come forward, pay fines, and go to the back of the line in order to be legal when they already have a good thing going? My guess is that they will not (this without delving into the provisional amnesty).

Lastly, we have already tried similar measures in the past. Then—1986—there were far fewer illegal immigrants, perhaps three million. The deal went like so: amnesty for those present in exchange for enforcement of the law and a sealed border. Twenty years later the number of illegal immigrants has increased…exponentially.

So here we are again, with the same problem, only more so, and the same solution—which is no solution at all. I don’t pretend to know the magic bullet answer (because no such bullet exists), but I do know that history is repeating itself; and if it does so again, we may be engaged in this very same debate twenty years from now with three times as many illegal immigrants, even if the dynamics of the situation differ. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Mockery I: Presidential Election

Today, I hereby announce my candidacy for President of the United States; however, I must qualify my announcement. I am not running in 2008. Instead, I intend to run in 2012.

Since we are starting earlier and earlier these days, I have decided to (actually) announce my intention to run for president in 2012 now. Naturally, this is only the first in a series of announcements, for I will need maximum exposure at 1:15 p.m. on each cable news network.

Likewise, I want to be the first to announce, because, after all, no fewer than ten other candidates will assuredly follow my lead. Thus, I am a leader for, well, leading the way for 2012.

Furthermore, my exploratory committee will be sending out mailers soon asking for dollars for the 2012 race. We ask that you commit to my candidacy five years in advance, well before hearing what my opponents will have to say.

Furthermore (again), I will run as a Democrat so I can get more press coverage.

Even furthermore, my staff will begin immediate preparations for the first debate, which MSNBC will host. I need copious preparation for the debate as I will only have a grand total of seventy-five seconds during the two-hour debate to answer all four questions posed.

In the meantime, send some money and then forget, however briefly, that I have announced, for I will announce again in a few months.

Finally, please note that I will probably announce for 2016 later this year.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Odds and Sods, IV

Odd

Socialist candidate for the French Presidency, Segolene Royal, had predicted violence across France should Nicolas Sarkozy win at the ballot box. Ms. Royal’s prediction came true; however, her own supporters perpetrated the violence.

Sod

I encountered somewhere in the neighborhood of ten anti-war, er, anti-Bush protestors on the corner of 1st and Patterson Streets in downtown Dayton on Sunday as I headed into the ballpark for a Dragons game. After expressing polite curiosity, several of them became belligerent, claiming that polls prove how 72% of Americans hate Bush, etc. That’s right—all ten of them, cardboard and magic marker signs and the like.

Odd

Three of the top ten headlines on the Dayton Daily News web page this Monday concern sex.

Sod

The Economist features an online article about the merits of school choice—i.e. school vouchers. The piece focused on a study showing that school choice tends to raise expectations, standards, and performance in both private and public schools. Good thing the Governor of Ohio wants to rid the state—except for Cleveland—of the pesky option. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Choice

Perhaps the most profound division between left and right in America—and in left and right I refer to the ideological bases—is the rift over abortion.

The right, seeking to protect the sanctity of life, stridently opposes the procedure(s); however, the left, seeking to protect a choice, is far more rambunctious when acting on behalf of its position.

A second major division between left and right involves global warming, or climate change.

The left has not convinced those of us on the right that 1) the globe is warming, 2) that we are responsible for it, or 3) that warming is even an issue of major concern. Still, I challenge (not literally) anyone to find two issues that elicit more energy out of our friends on the left side of the political spectrum.

And the left’s determination to tout and defend their views can only be strengthened by the recent report that China has curbed its greenhouse gas emissions courtesy of its one-child policy.

That policy stipulates that Chinese families may only bear one child per, resulting in oodles of abortions for those families who conceive child #2.

In other words, abortion must be defended tenfold because it helps curb global warming. In fact, abortion must be promoted.

Thus, if this idea gains popularity, expect the campaign for abortion rights to get a second wind of veracity. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Observations of the French Presidential Race

I know. Few people care about the French Presidential Election between Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal. Still, one must observe the race, for it is most interesting. In fact, it resembles, in many wyas, our own 2004 Election cycle.

For instance, the UK Times reported that the left-wing Ms. Royal is painting the right-wing Mr. Sarkozy as a threat to French peace. His campaign, we are told, is one of “great violence” and “brutality.” Likewise, his election would pose a “real danger” to France.

There is even a “Tout Sauf Sarkozy” camp—the equal to the ABB, or anybody but Bush, camp.

Even the Socialists admit their demonization of the French right’s banner-bearer, who would be, by the way, somewhere in the center-right in our own political spectrum. Campaign official Eric Besson proclaimed, “Since we have a weak candidate, it was the best path to take”—demonizing Sarkozy, that is.

Furthermore, Sarkozy is supposedly a French Berlusconi, a Napoleon, or a French George W. Bush.

The comparison of Bush to Silvio Berlusconi and Napoleon Bonaparte does not speak too highly of French Socialist intellect, by the way.

Ultimately, the French have themselves a classic left-right fight. For sure the leftist seems likeable, even if her policies are disastrous, while the rightist is stern and somewhat cold—though his policies are at a minimum a step in the right direction. However, the ideological behavior has been quite consistent with what we have observed on our side of the globe. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »