Take a careful look at these two maps. The first shows the percentage of obese people in each state. The second is a political map of red and blue states.
We’re all pretty fat. But some folks are fatter than others. Here’s a list of the top ten fattest states. And here’s a column about promoting bicycling and walking as fat fighters.
I prefer the the civil rights argument, but I live in a (fat) red state.
[Note: I do not think promoting bicycling and walking ought to be a partisan issue. I understand, however, that if more Americans started walking and riding within a mile or two of home, that might put economic pressure on the oil and automobile industries. It might also make families healthier. It might better connect families to their communities. But I can live with the consequences of my "far left zealotry."]
Comments 9
I suppose it could happen that a very conservative, zealously Christian, global warming denier, anti-environmentalist guy could also choose to be car-free, but I doubt such an example would ever be found.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 11:18 am ¶Yes, democrats would just love to see automobile companies fail.
Why just a few months ago the Obama administration let GM go out of business. In fact, I suspect that if the republicans were still in power that the government would now own GM.
We may have luckily avoided the whole “cash for clunkers” scheme. The one where people are encouraged to take on car debt while our government subsidizes thousands of dollars of the purchase price of an auto.
End Sarcasm
No offense but automobiles and oil is the single most important thing to both parties.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶I’m conservative and a global warming denier (at lest skeptic) and I do not own a car.
I would hardly call myself “anti-environmentalist” but it can be hard to pre judge people.
There are millions of reasons to conserve our natural resources or want cleaner air. Hell, even building serious wealth for purely greedy reasons is reason enough to try to avoid car ownership.
Columbia being a college town there are literally hundreds of automobiles zooming around right now with dozens of environmental and left wing bumper stickers on them. So I’m not sure I see the connection between politics and the environment.
The changes that we are seeing in Columbia right now are almost completely because of Senator Bond.
Were his motivations to change the world or just to bring home the bacon? Thats up for each person to decide.
Senator McCaskill has been a very outspoken critic of funding non-motorized transportation.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 12:46 pm ¶Robert et. al. Nothing I’ve written here is meant to suggest that I think the Democrats are going to usher in a better transportation world. As Robert quite correctly points out, both parties are beholding to oil and automobile interests. It is the case right now, however, that the Republican Party is generally not inclined the promote bicycling and walking. The Democrats are more inclined but just a little. My frustration is that bicycling and walking should not be partisan. And, in fact, the values these promote fit nicely with the values of old-line “cloth coat” conservatism. Those days are, unfortunately, gone — one reason I no longer identify as a Republican or a conservative.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 1:30 pm ¶Like a lot of things, I’m not convinced that good things happen when government gets involved with cycling. I was born and raised in Seattle, and I can’t say it’s a better place to cycle than it was when Republicans were more than a fringe element.
I guess I reach opposite conclusions – for the exact same reasons as Andy. In my book, there are MANY worse things than benign neglect. I see some of them every day on the ride to work.
That may no longer be a “Republican” observation, but it is definitely a “small government” one…
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 6:15 pm ¶Andy,
I agree with you 100%.
A few months ago a headline flashed across every bicycling blog in the country, “Republicans want to cut non-motorized transportation and SRTS!!!!”
I was outraged like everyone else until I actually read the paper that they released. They made a point to note that projects like Columbia’s non-motorized grant should be left up to states.
In theory I agree with that statement but it is a complete joke considering our state DOT finds that non-automobile transport does not fit well in their “practical design.”
Posted 22 Jul 2009 at 8:50 am ¶Robert… We in Springfield refer to them as MOCAR
Posted 22 Jul 2009 at 3:07 pm ¶The sad thing about these red-state/blue-state debates as well as conservative vs. liberal is they serve as tools to distract us from substantive issues. People get involved in hate matches over whether it’s global warming or climate change, completely missing the point that pollution doesn’t have to risk the existence of all humans everywhere to be a really bad thing
The fat map is cute, but the civil rights / ideology implications here I feel are in moderately poor taste. Living in a “fat” state, many many people are height/weight proportionate, and poverty plays a large role… does this mean that places like RI take better care of their poor maybe?
Not in my experience, they simply have priced living in that state out of reach of the poor, thus eliminating large poverty pockets seen in places like LA, TX, MS… so we can blame them for being cheap places where poor populations make a life (albeit not always a health-conscious)
Just a rant… please ignore..
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 7:49 pm ¶Alex… I’m always interested in your insights.
Posted 23 Jul 2009 at 9:58 pm ¶