The April issue of US News & World Report brings to light once again the poor safety record of teen drivers and presents several possible remedies. It is not, though, the problem that needs our immediate attention. It is, rather, the question. We keep asking, “How can we make teens better drivers?” In fact, this question has no easy answer because it is not age which is the primary cause of their danger. It is a lack of experience. Even if we delayed licensing drivers until they were 18 years of age, they would still have zero experience behind the wheel and this makes all the difference in the world.
Human decision making is composed of two crucial elements: rational thinking and our emotions. As it turns out, our emotions play a critical role in effective decision making. Two of my favorite phrases are, “Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment;” and “We learn more from our failures than our successes.” Catchy as these might be, they are also based in neurological fact. Both the anterior cingulate cortex and the nucleus accumbens, in conjunction with a brain chemical called dopamine help regulate our emotions and are highly effective in teaching us from our failures. Often, when we have a “funny feeling” that something is wrong it is because our brain’s predictor neurons have sensed something amiss in patterns we are used to seeing. Though our rational mind is unable to identify or explain this funny feeling, our emotions—our fear in this case—in response to dopamine activity in the nucleus accumbens and the anterior cingulate cortex, are able to quantify the anomaly and create physiological responses in our body through the function of the hypothalamus. Human decision making at its very core is a function of the rational (aged related judgment) and the emotional responses we have based on experience.
The net effect of this very brief biology lesson is that only experience can begin to create normal patterns for our brain to use when evaluating new situations. Good judgment, it turns out, really does come from experience. Unfortunately, the accumulation of experience often involves the exercise of bad judgment.
So how can we reframe the question of teen driving if the only way to facilitate improvement in teen driving skills is to let them gain experience by driving? The question can no longer be, “How can we make teens better drivers,” it must become, “How can we keep teens safer when they are driving?” Two different questions each with their own set of solutions. The new question allows us to shift responsibility for their safety from their driving skills to the skills of other (more experienced) drivers.
For example, as I come to a halt at a four way stop I might see a car approaching from my right. It is normal to assume that the other driver will see the four-way stop and decelerate accordingly. I might then proceed even as that car yet approaches the intersection. However, if I knew that the driver was a teenager—inexperienced—I might delay my takeoff a few moments longer to ensure the youth intends to decelerate and stop. All I need, as the more experienced driver in this mobile confrontation, is to know that the other driver is new behind the wheel. I will gladly stay out of his way if I know he’s there but I can’t be helpful if I don’t have the information I need to make such a decision.
What if it were the law that for two years after getting a driver’s license all drivers had to have a green strobe light on their roof—similar to the small white strobes now found on the tops of school buses? Armed with this knowledge, we can shift the onus from the inexperienced driver—from whom we should only expect mistakes and failure as they put in hours behind the wheel—to the experienced driver who has the capacity to use this information to give the youth a little extra room on the road.
All the policies and initiatives in the world won’t mitigate the simple need of new drivers to acquire experience. But one simple initiative can help more experienced drivers stay out of their way and save countless lives.
As I thought about that later though, I don't feel that way at all. Honestly, I don't know how Disney delivers as much as they do for so little money. $60 for park admission seems high, yes. But look at the infrastructure, the options, the employees, the transportation. I can't believe they do it for as little as they do. Personally, I think it's a tremendous value and worth every penny I spent. 
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. 
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
