This is with reference to "Coulter uses humor, sarcasm in speech," from Friday. One thing to be commended, whether or not we agree with Ann Coulter's views, is her forthrightness in articulating them. There are many points in her speech people may not agree with; however, they do raise important questions.

I would like to focus on one comment: "Why not go to war for oil? ... We need oil. Of course we consume most of the world's oil." With due respect, it seems that Coulter doesn't fully comprehend the human cost of war, which will be "paid" both by the soldiers killed or wounded and by a large number of civilians. Unless we understand the true cost, it is hard to consider such convictions to be well founded. We must confront questions at the policy and individual level, starting with our own lifestyles. As a mundane example, note that under the 2003 Jobs and Growth Act, business owners buying a Hummer (which averages 9 miles per gallon) are eligible for a tax break of up to $100,000, while it is only $3,400 for the Toyota Prius hybrid (which averages more than 50 miles per gallon).

Looking at the bigger picture, as economies around the world are driven toward being more consumption-oriented, there will be an increased dependence on energy. This will inevitably involve finding ways of "stealing" others' resources, including "pragmatic" alliances with repressive regimes, a long-term consequence of increased resentment, or perhaps terrorism or maybe even war. The choice essentially is between decreasing reliance on energy (a combination of reducing energy consumption and perhaps more renewable energy) and conflict.

This is a question which people around the world, but especially people in the United States, should confront.