I read this article in the New York Times last week on stiffer British penalties for texting while driving. I like Britain's approach although I think the driver in the case discussed in the article got off too lightly! She got a much bigger penalty than she would have gotten in the U.S., though.

Wanting to see how stiff Oregon's new cell phone penalties would be when they go into effect in January, I found a site, Driving Laws, that had links to Oregon's House Bill 2377 which says:

The offense described in this section, operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile communication device, is a Class D traffic violation.

A Class D traffic violation? Is this a joke?! That carries a penalty of $97. To put it in perspective, here are some other Class D traffic violations:

• Driving 1 to 10 miles over the speed limit
• Protruding into a pedestrian crosswalk at a stop light
• Blocking traffic by temporarily stopping or driving too slowly

This is way too lenient in my opinion! I would think Class A or B would be more appropriate. Because talking on the cell phone puts other people's safety at risk, it should be compared to something like "reckless endangerment of a highway worker" (Class A) or "careless driving" (Class B).

For those readers in denial who say, "I can talk on my cell (or text) perfectly safely while driving", please refer to the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute report that found that texting increased collision risk by 23 times. That same article cites a study that found a 4 times increase in collision risk caused by talking on the cell phone (regardless of whether hands-free mode is used).

One thing is for sure: the federal government isn't looking out for us. I'm still trying to figure out why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration buried data showing the mobile phone use dangerously distracts drivers.

I'm going to write my Oregon state legislative representative (Ginny Burdick) and see about getting the penalties increased. Not that I'm optimistic that anything will change. But at least it's a start...

That, and a personal plea to the intelligent readers of my blog to never text while driving and to limit talking on the cell phone to absolute emergencies!

Want to understand the current economic crisis threatening to blow up the civilized world as we know it? Two very well produced This American Life episodes can help.

By now, everybody knows that the catalyst was the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. To understand that, listen to The Giant Pool of Money.

Once you've gotten your head around sub-prime, continue on to Another Frightening Show About the Economy. (This is the better of the two shows in my opinion.)

In return for a two-hour time investment, you should get a pretty good understanding of how we got here.

Great entry on electoral-vote.com today on the Comparative Election Turnouts Among Countries: "While Americans like to think of the U.S. as the world's best example of a democracy, if one uses voter turnout as the metric, the data show a different picture."

This saddens me greatly. When I was on jury duty earlier this year, the judge who welcomed us at juror check-in gave an impassioned speech on how serving on a jury is the only requirement our country places on women and one of only two requirements (in addition to possibly being drafted) that are placed on men.

I would add voting to the list of things "required" of a good citizens. This quote from Elie Wiesel says it all: "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

Unfortunately, as the table shows, far too many people (like my friend J.S.) sit on the sidelines and skirt their responsibilities, both in elections and jury service!

I'm not sure my little rant here will change anything, but it felt good to get that off my chest :)

As one of the "suckers" described in the article, I found this Motley Fool article on Bailout: The Sucker Punch to be spot on.

I got a chuckle out of Matt Damon's comments on Sarah Palin: "Does she really think that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago? Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes..." (time offset 1:20)

Electoral-vote.com: I loved this site in 2004. Now it's back to track the 2008 elections!

Good video from my friend Pete on the housing market collapse... Stop the Bailouts.

This is great: Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad -- "I'll see you at the debates, bitches!"

Last month, I had a debate with my friend J.S. about China's increasing role in polluting the world. For the purposes of this discussion, we focused solely on electric power consumption. Since most electric power is generated by coal plants, the consumption of electricity is directly proportional to greenhouse gas emissions. And regardless of your position on whether humans are responsible for the current greenhouse gas levels, hopefully we can all agree that we should try to reduce our emissions as much as possible so that we don't aggravate the problem.

My position is that the future of global pollution control lies solely in China and India. In order to fuel their economic ascendency, these countries are trashing the environment. A New York Times article entitled Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow is over a year old but still provides a good summary of the situation.

J.S.'s position is that it's hypocritical to judge China and India when we in the United States are flagrant abusers of electricity. Further, we are tacitly implicated since our addiction to low-cost imports from China provides the demand that fuels their consumption.

Recent numbers on global electricity generation from the Energy Information Administration do support J.S.'s claim. In 2004, the United States produced 3.979 trillion kWh of energy for 303 million people, or 13,405 kWh annually per capita. Europe's population of 492 million people consumed 3.443 trillion kWh, or 7,089 kWh annually per capita. Which means that Europeans use about half the power of Americans per capita. And at 1,795 kWh annually per capita (2.080 trillion kWh for 1.320 billion people), China uses about one-seventh the power that the U.S. does per capita.

But none of this math really matters. In the US and Europe, both the population and manufacturing base are well established, stable, and slow-growing. This means that power consumption won't grow much either. And while it may be hypocritical to tell others that they need to curtail their power consumption while not following that same advice, it doesn't change the calculus. If China and India don't change their plans, then what the US and Europe do is irrelevant.

So what do we do about it? The NY Times article makes some suggestions. Subsidizing coal scrubbers and more efficient power plants in China and India is a good place to start. Nuclear power is an oft-overlooked but balanced solution that unfortunately will probably fall victim to politics. A tariff on imports from countries with poor energy generation practices would certainly be controversial. Certainly reducing our own per capita energy consumption in the US as a symbolic gesture wouldn't hurt.

But we do need to start the conversation... soon!

I have never cared for Fox News, but after watching this, I am seriously considering boycotting anything related to Fox and/or Robert Murdoch (movies, entertainment shows, etc.). I sincerely hope that nobody I know actually watches Fox News -- if you do, please contact me as I would be interested in discussing it with you! Also, let me know if you want to borrow the "Outfoxed" documentary.