UCAN

Hey - Maybe it is time to lower the "talking-while driving" age!

Using a cell phone without hands-free equipment while driving is now unlawful. Yet according to the LA Times talking to a fellow passenger while driving is as bad or worse than driving drunk.

What is it that makes a phone so dangerous? Why isn't listening to the radio or talking to a passenger equally deadly?

Is it possible that driving and phoning skills are a function of age?

If you are over the age of 35, you probably learned to relate to the phone differently than younger generations. Young people are far more familiar with multi-tasking, but for the middle-aged, we grew up relating to a phone that had a cord attached to the wall.

When middle-aged people talk on the phone, we tend to mentally revert to the "phone attached to the wall" mode. We get engaged in the conversation and start driving like old people ... really old people.

Just imagine for a moment, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Chelsea Clinton in a NASCAR style road race where each of them had to drive and answer tricky policy questions on a cell phone. Who do you think would win? I'm betting that Obama and McCain would come in dead last, with an emphasis on dead.

This is one area where young adults (not teenagers) have superior skills, because they have grown up learning how to multi-task. Perhaps younger people who have learned this skill should be exempted from laws that limit driving while talking. We don't allow people over the age of 40 to enlist in the military because of their advanced age, so why should they be allowed to use a phone while driving?

Just a thought.

With age comes wisdom, but youth could well come with the ability to talk on the phone while driving safely.

Memo to Congress:

Our troubled economy and skyrocketing energy prices are hurting some of our nation’s most vulnerable – our senior citizens.            

Seniors on fixed incomes have seen their savings and the value of their homes diminished. Many depend on programs that provide home-delivered hot meals or meals at senior centers as well as transportation to medical appointments and social activities.

 One example: The San Francisco Chronicle reported that drivers with the Alameda County Meals on Wheels program cover 1,600 miles a day delivering 2,200 meals to homebound seniors -- two-thirds of them 75 and older.  

Executive Director Cindy Houts said: “Our programs are just reeling from the double whammy of increased fuel and food costs. It’s happening throughout the county and throughout the country.”

Locally, Meals on Wheels told KPBS that it has lost 30% of its drivers since the first of the year.  This means fewer drivers must deliver to more homes (about 1,500 a week in San Diego).  

These costs will be magnified further in the face of a population that is growing older and will need even more of these services.

Senior citizens on fixed incomes may increasingly become victims in this economy as they skimp on medication and medical care, scale down their daily nutrition due to rising grocery prices, and find themselves isolated at home because of rising gas prices and transit programs that are curtailed.

These factors can trigger depression and other medical problems that will cost our economy even more in terms of increased costs for medical treatment and early institutionalization of seniors who rely on these programs to maintain their independence. For America’s seniors in this economy, the “golden” years are in jeopardy and many will suffer in silence.  

Cc:  John McCain

       Barack Obama

The U.S. Energy Department has released its Annual Energy Outlook 2008 report with projections to 2030 this week. The following excerpt is under the title, Oil Production:

There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the future of unconventional crude oil production in the United States. Environmental regulations could either preclude unconventional production or raise its cost significantly. If future U.S. laws limited and/or taxed greenhouse gas emissions, they could lead to substantial increases in the costs of unconventional production, which emits significant volumes of CO2. Restrictions on access to water also could prove costly, especially in the arid West. In addition, environmental restrictions on land use could preclude unconventional oil production in some areas of the United States.
Click here to find all of the reports.

Today, Jim Jelter of Marketwatch covers the reports in his column. He says:

The Energy Department reasons that much of the supply tightness currently gripping the market, whether real or imagined, is likely to ease as major new oil fields come on line in Brazil, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia and even here in North America. That would signal a fundamental shift in the supply-demand picture, even though output would need to increase by about 12 million barrels a day -- over half the 20 million barrels of oil the U.S. currently burns in a day -- to keep pace with global demand.

Investors have a choice in the weeks and months ahead. They can either pay attention to underlying fundamentals in the marketplace or, like Macbeth, they can continue to listen to witches playing on their innermost fears and succumb to madness. Click here to read more from Marketwatch.

Iraq's no bid oil contracts are being scrutinized by Senators Charles E. Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill. Filing a letter today with the State Department is a step in a right direction to shed light on what potentially can be very lucrative contracts. Read more from The New York Times.
More importantly, the no-bid deals could inflame sectarian tensions in Iraq. Read more from The Washington Post.

The New York Times reported Thursday that BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell, and Total were in the final stages of negotiations on the no-bid contracts.