www.roanoke.com

Americans must change energy- guzzling habits

Americans have been the most decadent consumers of petroleum in the world for decades. We have insisted on living in suburbs that require us to commute increasingly long distances to our workplaces and everywhere else.

As the rest of the industrialized world encourages alternatives to automotive transport, we Yanks largely eschewed bicycles and public transit, and remain addicted to our cars.

As Asian automakers continue to work on engineering their cars to maximize fuel economy, the American car companies lag ridiculously behind, and thus their revenues are sinking like the Titanic.

With all these developments, you'd like to think that we Americans are finally starting to get the message that we need to change our wasteful ways. Yet here comes an opinion piece by Jessee Ring ("Domestic production is the answer," June 8 Horizon commentary), who baldly states that "The solution is not for us all to drive less ... or to ride bicycles, or to pay a big fine if our car gets less than 30 miles per gallon." Ring would rather have us stay as wasteful as ever, and thinks it's perfectly OK to rape the environment so we can continue this.

Ring is a full-time investor. I wonder if Ring invests heavily in the oil industry? If so, it would explain a lot.

Energy conservation can make a difference

Re: the June 8 Horizon section on gas and energy prices: Each article is insightful and informative and collectively expresses the concerns of most Americans.

Dan Radmacher admits that Congress, in the past, would have "never endured the heat for high energy prices" and that "presidential candidates for both parties have pitched irresponsible ideas" to cure the fuel crisis.

The conclusion is that our elected leaders fail to take the steps needed to create an energy policy America can survive with.

Supply and demand worldwide is driving this crisis and the lack of exploration and drilling is a major part of the problem.

My only contribution to these gentlemen's comments would be to practice conservation in personal and business use of fuel.

In the trucking industry, we are attempting to reduce consumption by curtailing empty or circuitous routes, wasteful idling of engines and reducing the speed of vehicles.

You can too by multi-tasking during shopping and entertainment trips. Our schools have parking lots equal to shopping centers while many school buses operate with less than full capacity. This luxury could be minimized by riding the bus, creating car pools, etc.

Everyone must implement conservation practices. Contact your representatives and tell them you expect them to fix the broken energy industry now by taking care of America first.

Corporate Secretary Fleetmaster Express, Inc.

June 8 Horizon was a pleasure to read

I picked up the June 8 Horizon section, and was absolutely astounded. On the whole, it was intelligent and balanced.

The primary subject, on the price of gasoline, was a trifurcated commentary by three real people who had real jobs and real-world experience, and who cited facts rather than rants to bolster their points of view.

Dan Radmacher's column was, of course, his typical socialist nattering ("Cost of energy is higher than you think"). Has he ever had a private-sector job?

Far as I can find, he went straight from J-school to opinion-mongering on subjects in which he has no expertise. The editorials predictably were their normal left-of-center selves, but otherwise Horizon was informative and a pleasure to read.

For a change the brilliant but lonely George Will, that master of erudite prose, was not the only voice of reason.

I and many of your other current (and former) subscribers, can only hope that whatever accident allowed intelligently reasoned, balanced commentary to slip into Horizon will recur. Please, Lord, let the miracle happen. It would let many of us head off to church on Sundays in a much better frame of mind.

Help explain this quaint grammar

The writer of "In Webster's English" (June 3 commentary) ignores an important fact. Word definitions alone cannot explain a sentence's meaning.

For example: The dog bit the child. The child bit the dog. The child bit the dog? Five simple words, arranged and punctuated differently, produce three quite different meanings. Grammar matters!

Examine a longer sentence written in a complicated 18th century language pattern: Clear weather, being necessary to the activities of the Star Gazers Club, the right of the members to postpone or cancel events shall not be challenged.

According to modern grammarians, the comma after the word weather should be omitted, and the sentence segment that begins with "Clear" and ends with "Club" is grammatically unconnected with the rest of the sentence. Yet it seems clear to me that this phrase explains why club members have the right to cancel or postpone events.

Does the first phrase of the Second Amendment serve a similar function? If not, what does the grammar of our Founding Fathers suggest about their understanding of the relationship between a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms?

Will a linguist please take quill in hand to explain this quaint grammar.

Times did have D-Day coverage

The letter to the editor from Robert S. Terry is not fair for The Roanoke Times ("D-Day anniversary deserves remembrance," June 11).

Terry didn't read his copy on June 6 very well. The Roanoke Times was the only news media to cover the luncheon hosted by the ESU and myself at the Shenandoah Club on June 5 ("Event brings forth memory of D-Day friends, heroes," June 6 Virginia section).

Courtney Cutright wrote a very good article, which was on the front page of the Virginia section and ended inside with several very good pictures of my veteran guests .

The TV stations didn't bother to send a crew and on their news program they mentioned D-Day for a few seconds.

They talked about it because the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford is in our backyard. I asked some friends around the country if D-Day was mentioned. Not one word.

I will agree with Terry: Many people have forgotten about this great generation and what they did 64 years ago.

We need to remind our children that if they enjoy the world of today it is due to these brave men. We should not take for granted our freedom.

Since I became an U.S. citizen, I have talked about my experience of D-Day to high schools and university students all over the country, and I will continue to do so as long as I live. I hope that they remember the greatest generation who fought a war, which had a good cause.

Obama victory proves it's a man's world

The front page story "It's Obama -- finally," (June 4 news story) gives five reasons why he won and five reasons Clinton lost.

I can give you one reason for both. He's a good actor and she's a woman. Guess it doesn't matter. The world has already gone to pot.

Remember the late James Brown song: "This is a man's world." Enough said.