GRATEFULLY
Re: Peter Phelps’ letter (Vive la Différence!”) in
Reader Mail’s What Makes
Us Different:
I’ve just read Dr. Peter Phelps’ response to Monsieur Ziener’s
mail and I am close to tears. I’ve never heard or read any
contemporary outside of this country who has ever grasped the
foundation of my conviction so definitively. In a nutshell: Dr.
Phelps got it right….and more. Although I’ve never met you,
Doctor, I am grateful that you could put this into words. Thank you
and God bless you, sir.
— Kenneth E. Lizotte
Bristol, Vermont
United States
PECKERS
Re: Ralph R. Reiland’s Shoot,
Shovel & Shut Up:
We were deeply moved by your Pecker story. In Arizona we have
them pecking on all sides of the house and of course the chimney at
5 a.m. I once called the Fish and Game to see if I could save the
several hundred year old Saguaro in my yard, it has a ten story
condo for peckers in it and they drill a new hole each year, it
will fall soon and probably kill one of us. I asked Fish and Game
if the peckers are endangered and he told me no, once on the list
always on the list. I asked if their was a way to control them as
the first one arrived in 1998 and now we have dozens as does
everyone in the area, the response, “It is not legal for me to tell
you how to control the woodpeckers,” got the point. The government
tells us to protect and at the same time tells us how to rid
ourselves of the pest.
Our woodpeckers in Arizona are so over protected they are our
rat.
Don’t get me started on the burning down of Arizona or how we
couldn’t harvest the burnt timber!
I am sure we are only days away before the Africanized Bee is
protected.
Thanks for the ear.
— Laurin
The last time I was in North Carolina, there was a very big
December ice storm and power was out for several days for most of
the people in a 70 mile radius of Raleigh. I don’t remember anyone
asking if it would be OK to remove woodpecker habitat from the
power lines so we could get the lights on. Could it be that Eco
Freaks have devolved so that their brain freezes well before their
behinds freeze? Maybe sacrifice for the environment is like taxing
the rich.
The tree huggers who had insisted on minimal cutting of the
trees were treated to a more than hypothetical example of how sweet
and wonderful Mother Nature will try to kill you every once in a
while . But, since their brains was frozen during the most
enlightening fraction of the lesson, the rare teaching moment
probably felt to them like missing time in an alien abduction.
— Danny L. Newton
Cookeville, Tennessee
ENGINE EARS
Re: Eric Peters’ Kerry and
the 2006 Chevette:
The article by Eric Peters leaves out several important aspects
of higher fuel economy vehicles — those powered by hybrid
powertrains and clean Diesel engines.
Currently only Honda and Toyota market vehicles with hybrid
powertrains, but Ford is due to begin production of a hybrid Escape
later this year, and more will be coming. In fact, Toyota has plans
to offer hybrid powertrain options across the board in the future.
These vehicles will have an excellent chance at attaining 36+ mpg.
Large pickup trucks most likely will not be candidates for these
powertrains, however.
Clean Diesel engines is the other technology to watch within the
coming decade. With better combustion systems, low-sulfur fuel, and
efficient exhaust aftertreatment, these engines will begin to make
inroads in the market in the next 4 to 8 years. Diesel engines are
already a favorite in the large pickup market.
— Rich Belaire
Ann Arbor, Michigan
A great article, makes well a point that I have tried to make to
some of my friends in the past, that CAFE costs lives. (How ironic
that the anti-war voices decry the Iraq war as “blood for
oil.”)
Can you tell me where I can find source data that pinpoints the
cost in lives of the weight and size reductions made to comply with
CAFE?
— Rich Renken
Ballwin, Mo.
Actually what you should have mentioned was that internal
combustion engines are pretty much at their zenith technologically.
My wife drives a 2000 Metro, a subcompact car. It delivers 32 mpg.
I drive a 2001 Forrester, a midsized SUV. It delivers 28 mpg and it
is about 700 lbs. heavier and almost double the volume. The mileage
differences are so similar I should have bought a second
Subaru.
I would give up the car for the daily commute if there were
convenient cross town mass transit. But alas there is not in my
area. I personally would benefit as I would use the time to catch
up on reading and reports, let alone getting out of the aggravating
driving. I would also consider an electric or hybrid vehicle as
much of our driving is local and less than 40 miles a day. But the
models I have seen so far on a cost per mile basis are 50% more in
operating costs than IC based vehicle. Mass transit does not mean I
would give up the car, just that I would drive it one heck of a lot
less which would help the imports issue.
One last observation. Congress is wrestling with a rather large
highway construction bill are they not? At the same time many in
Congress wring their hands over the oil imports. This sounds too
much like the tobacco schism of old. Subsidy on one side, contrary
social policy on the other. If the dolts in Congress are at odds
with themselves why should the motoring public take note?
— John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas
YANKEE IMPERIALIST
Re: William Tucker’s He Saw It
Coming:
According to William Tucker, “… we hadn’t been attacked on our
own soil since the War of 1812.”
The Japanese navy attacked Hawaii in 1941. If the Territory of
Hawaii was not “our own soil,” whose soil was it? The Japanese navy
and army in 1941 attacked and occupied Wake Island and Guam. Whose
soils were these? The Japanese navy and army in 1942 attacked and
occupied islands in the Aleutian Chain of the Territory of Alaska.
Whose soil was this? A Japanese submarine in 1942 shelled oil
facilities near Goleta, California. Was this just a slip of memory
or a mind set that only the East Coast is “our own soil”?
— Earl Fullingim
Anchorage, Alaska (the 49th state)
I don’t know if you remember, but in Jan. of ‘99 Dan Quayle
appeared on Meet the Press, as he was considering a run
for the presidency at the time, and was asked by Tim Russert what
he thought was the most pressing threat to the U.S. I believe I
remember him responding by saying that a major terrorist strike on
U.S. soil was a strong possibility in the next couple of years and
that Mr. Russert almost chuckled him off the set. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
— Rob McMillan
Oh come on Mr. Tucker, everyone knows Steve Emerson must be a kook
for thinking Muslim fanatics had anything to do with the Oklahoma
City bombing.
Bill Clinton told us Rush Limbaugh did it! And we all know
Clinton NEVER lied about anything!
— Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee
SLGGING IT OUT
Re: “slg“‘s and Nora Peralta’s letters (“Crossing the Line”) in
Reader Mail’s What Makes
Us Different:
“slg” writes: “I totally resent any self-appointed arbiter of
public taste (or whatever) trying to tell my daughters what they
can or cannot do with their bodies.”
When will these “pro-choice” people get it right? We don’t much
care what they (or their daughters) do with their bodies; our
concern is with what they choose to do with the bodies (and lives)
of others: unborn children. And it has nothing to do with “public
taste” — only with the desire to see humans treated humanely.
— Richard Donley
That the preening “slg” would let his daughters think that
murdering their innocent babies (for selfish convenience) was
simply controlling their bodies says all that needs be said of him.
The usual pro-abortion position is to be personally against the act
but recognize that it needs to be done for other people’s children.
This of course is a disgusting position but seems a great deal
better than slg’s desire to have his grandchildren whacked in the
name of civil rights. For the secular I guess he is proving some
Darwinian point.
— Clif Briner
Regarding the “Reader’s Mail” appearing under the title “Crossing
the Line” submitted by two respondents to my earlier
mail relating to George Neumayr’s column entitled John Sager
Kerry: first for Nora Peralta, bless you dear, I agree entirely
with your admonition that some women (those you characterize as
“helpless creatures”) are often psychologically cohered to abort
their children by scurrilous abortion counselors and evil, bullying
men who impregnate them.
As for “slg,” you, sir, appear to be exactly the kind of
“self-absorbed American” I mentioned as accepting of abortionist
platitudes such as “no one should be able ‘to tell my daughters
what they can or cannot do with their bodies.’” This strange logic,
of course, begs the questions: Why should anyone be told they can’t
use their own bodies for prostitution, or for injecting various
illegal substances, or for any number of other illegal volitional
acts? And, the answer is: society can and does prohibit people from
using their bodies to perform certain acts hurtful to themselves,
others and, as in the matter under discussion, humanity.
Secondly, your comment that I committed “unspeakable brutality
against simple logic” would be humorous if it weren’t so very
illogical. I didn’t criticize your lovely wife who gave birth to 3
children while holding pro-abortion opinions — unless, of course,
she is an abortion doctor or counselor. Apparently, she committed
none of the evils about which I spoke in my original letter.
And, lastly, if my letter as printed in TAS offended
you, I would say you’re lucky the editors chose not to print its
last few paragraphs. Had those paragraphs been used, you may have
had a stroke.
— A. A. Reynolds
