Obama Gets Starry Eyed for Space Solar Power

Many of you have probably seen the Obama transition team’s white paper on Space Solar Power. While I agree that SSP could be an important source of energy over the long term, our R&D investments would be much more useful addressing the problems of the next few decades as opposed to the next few centuries. By the team’s own admission, the barriers to entry are:

1) Achieve cheap & reliable access to space
2) Apply high-volume mass-production assembly-line techniques to spacecraft construction
3) Reduce the technical risk with basic research and technology demonstrations
4) Adopt proven government approaches to incentivize private industry investment, development and operation

Not what I would call trivial hurdles. Additionally, it is unclear how a large export market for electricity would function if the U.S were to become “the world’s largest exporter of energy for the 21st and 22nd Centuries, and beyond.”

So, in short, SSP could, and will likely be, an important energy in the (far) future, but we have more immediate concerns.

Why the United States Technically Owns Taiwan

A Primer on Taiwan – In Who’s Hands does it Belong?

(Try our free China Political IQ Test)

Part II of IV

In Part I, I began outlining the political history of Taiwan and also ruminated on the somewhat outlandish position in favor of Japanese empowerment over Taiwan. In complete frankness, neither I nor any well-respected pundit would tell you that Japan will ever again conceivably colonize Taiwan. In spite of this, I included Japan for the sake of constructive debate, because though Japan’s colonization of Taiwan is insufficient to mandate a new occupation, Japan did irreversibly impact Taiwan’s culture in a meaningful and pro-Japanese way. One could even argue that the concept of ‘Taiwanese culture’ hardly existed until Japanese customs were forced into the mix, leaving a hodgepodge of Chinese and Japanese values from which emerged the basis of the present-day Taiwanese identity.

It is no secret that in order to determine the most legitimate ruling party for Taiwan, the cultural inclination of its people is paramount.

Next we consider the position of the United States…

The United States

Basis of Position: Military Supporter, WWII Liberator

Relative Strength of Position: Spurious

Pro: Let me begin to demonstrate this position with some history. Starting with the present diplomatic position of the U.S., straight from our main website:

“In 1980, the Cold War alliance treaty between the U.S. and Taiwan was terminated and replaced with the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which authorizes the U.S. to provide Taiwan with “arms of a defensive character,” but does not formally commit U.S. forces in the event of a cross-Straight conflict. Mainland China insists that as a prerequisite for economic and diplomatic ties, foreign nations must not recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan, thereby constraining U.S. involvement. Nonetheless, the U.S. is firmly committed to its position in the matter – though the U.S. remains officially impartial in the conflict, it stipulates that the matter must be brought about peacefully with neither side pursuing unilateral action.”

This diplomatic arrangement, underscored by the recent U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, has resulted in a precarious relationship in which Taiwan depends on U.S. arms as well as their military backing to thwart a potential Chinese invasion. Meanwhile the U.S., China, and Taiwan each must balance their growing financial interdependencies with one another despite being at ends over the future.

So, you might ask, why is the United States so adamant about Taiwan’s separation from the mainland even though it undoubtedly irks China and hurts our relations with them? Well actually, in 1949, the U.S. was prepared to accept the loss of Taiwan to the communist PRC, that is until the Korean War broke out. Only then did the United States take an aggressive national security stance to contain communism throughout Asia, which included protecting Taiwan.

Since that beginning, the basis for favorable U.S.-Taiwanese relations has changed immensely although its character has remained relatively consistent. In the United States, communism is still looked at unfavorably, but from a national security standpoint it is now nowhere near the top of potential threats. Instead, the protection of Taiwan plays a new role in U.S. national security, not to mention that it also secures our economic interests and political values interests.

Everything began to change after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that time, it was speculated that a revisionist China might challenge the status quo of the world order, heightening Taiwan’s value as an American-friendly strategic asset and also because the U.S. wished to prevent Chinese control over its resources. In addition to the security interest, Taiwan would soon undergo a massive political transformation, aligning itself with the U.S. intentionally in the following capacities:

• Economic Ties – The U.S. had been Taiwan’s largest trading partner until 2003.
• Bilateral Relations – Taiwan has loyally supported U.S. international policy initiatives, faithfully reciprocating U.S. support.
• Political Values – Taiwan has transformed itself from rule via martial law to a stunning example of democracy. The U.S. has a clear vested interest in promoting as well as protecting such a democracy.

All of these rationalizations of U.S. interest in protecting Taiwan are swell and all, demonstrating the familial relationship between the two parties, but they do little to suggest that Taiwan should actually belong to the United States. I suppose, hypothetically, one could surmise that the notion of Taiwanese independence is illegitimate, but even does Taiwan’s political and social alignment closer resemble that of the United States than of China? One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate this…

However, the United States does have one way through the door, so to speak, and it is a very interesting story indeed. You see, on August 15^th, 1945, after having already officially surrendered to the United States earlier that day, all Japanese and Taiwanese forces were ordered by General MacArther to surrender directly to the ROC government by way of an unofficial armistice, but never a formal treaty. Thus, at the time, the United States had technically only delegated control of Taiwan to China, but the U.S. itself remained the sole possessor.

In San Francisco, 1951, Japan did eventually sign a formal treaty, but while they formally renounced all claims to the region of Taiwan, they failed to specify a receiving nation, only specifying that it was ceded to the fighting force, which was almost entirely the United States. We can only conclude that at the time of the treaty signing there was a de facto assumption that Taiwan had been ceded back to China, but from a completely legal standpoint the United States was then and remains today the legitimate possessor of Taiwan. The international community might not be so easily swayed however.

Con: The United States is financially entangled with China in the growing global economy. This relationship works both ways, but even so if the U.S. were to impose any claims over Taiwan – at all, it would be risking a great deal its economic and foreign relations interests. In fact, China might even spin the situation and say, “Hey great, now that this technicality is resolved, you should have no problem giving our land back to us, thanks.” Furthermore, it would be a large leap to go from the fact that Taiwanese citizens are pro-American to assuming that they would embrace absorption into the U.S. I don’t have that information, but given that the ruling democratic party in Taiwan is actually pro-reunification one would think that the identity of the Taiwanese (98% Han-Chinese descent) is much more Chinese than it is American. Be that as it may, America has protected Taiwan like a son, which is a little less peculiar when we consider that America is in fact Taiwan’s legal guardian.

In part III, we will explore China’s claim to Taiwan, to be continued…

A Primer on Taiwan – To Whom Does it Belong?

(Take our China Political IQ Test)

Part I of IV

What follows is a playful, historical examination of the unsettled political conflict over the region of Taiwan. Do not let the nature of this article mislead you, Taiwan’s political climate is vastly complex and I present but a fraction of that detail here. Still, for those on the outside of this conflict looking in, read on and discover that Taiwan, much like Israel, perseveres despite a rare political climate of continuous political tension, which, in Taiwan’s case, involves multiple political powers and an on-going territorial dispute over the region.

Across the Pacific, Taiwan has been re-imagined countless times. For centuries, the concept of Taiwan was straightforward enough, it was simply the proper name of the Chinese island that sits approximately 75 miles east off mainland China’s coastline. However, flash forward to the present and Taiwan’s designation has become not only much more complex, but also much less certain.

Though the Island of Taiwan continues to abide peacefully, as it has since it was re-captured by the Chinese post-WWII, the concept of Taiwan has adopted two additional interpretations. For one, Taiwan now commonly refers to a territory of islands circumscribed by Taiwan Island and several neighboring islands. And secondly, Taiwan can refer only to the governing body of the described region. This may sound a little redundant at first, since couldn’t one make the same such claim about the United States, that it is both a land and a government of that land? Well, to a certain extent, yes that is true, but there are critical differences between these two cases. Regarding Taiwan, neither the land nor the ruling government are unanimously perceived as being autonomous, whereas the territory and government of the U.S. are perceived as an independent and unchallenged entity. I will explain this separation of land and government more shortly, but it is for this reason that I differentiate Taiwan as only the physical territory of islands, while I refer to the Taiwanese government as the Republic of China (ROC) – its international diplomatic designation.

The technical ambiguity over Taiwan the place and Taiwan the government is but a minor consequence of much deeper ambiguities concerning Taiwan’s political and cultural identity, which, to this day, pervade into all aspects of its international relations. Indeed, it seems as though every international actor has its own vision for Taiwan. In fact, the only global consensus regarding the region has to do with what it is not. Almost every party of influence can agree (or publicly claims to agree, at least) that Taiwan is not a country. Neither the United States, nor China, nor all but a mere 23 nations worldwide currently acknowledge Taiwan as a sovereign state, and consider also that the ruling political party of Taiwan itself – the Chinese National Party (Kuomintang) – does not even publicly endorse its own sovereignty.

So, you might ask, what exactly is Taiwan then? For one thing, it is certainly an enigma, residing in a state of limbo as something between a province, a colony, a territory, and a nation-state. All that is clear is that the situation is unstable…something has to give. However, lacking precognitive abilities, my theories are just as uncertain as the rest, no one can say for sure. Nevertheless, rather than simply waiting around for decades to see what happens, we can scrutinize this matter, and perhaps even influence it one day, by simply resolving the question of ‘who should control Taiwan?.’ Before we do this, however,we’ll need to look at a splash of Taiwan’s history:

The first major occurrence that began Taiwan’s de-synchronization from mainland China was the 1895 Japanese invasion and subsequent colonization of what had formerly been a Chinese Taiwan. After 50 years of occupation, Taiwan would eventually be reclaimed by the Chinese, thereby re-uniting the lands of China, but ironically, from a social and political perspective, the reclamation had actually created a culturally fragmented, un-unified China, or even two distinct China’s. Having been occupied by the attentive Japanese for so long, the Chinese military victory thrust Taiwan into an awkward identity crisis. Ultimately, identity issues would have subsided, but before they could Taiwan once again found itself territorially separated from the mainland. Indeed, in 1949, the Chinese Democratic party was forced to retreat to the islands of Taiwan after losing the mainland to the Communist Party. The Communists would have pursued and been easily able to capture the islands, but shortly following the Democratic retreat the U.S. intervened by placing a large naval presence between the two factions. The resulting political triangle between Taiwan, China, and the U.S. remains largely intact today…

Returning to the present, we are brought back to the question of who possesses the rightful claim to Taiwan. There are only four parties with any reasonable claim in this matter, and if you hadn’t already guessed they are the only four that I have referenced thus far – Japan, the United States, China, and Taiwan itself. I will consider the legitimacy of these arguments in that order, based loosely on the chronological basis of each position.

Japan

Basis of Position: Culturally Influential, Prior Colonizer, Infrastructure Investor

Strength of Position: Flimsy

Pro: As mentioned, Japan occupied Taiwan from 1895 until 1945 as a cornerstone of their southward colonization during that period. As Japan’s first colony, the Japanese sought to make Taiwan into a model example of successful colonization, making many large improvements to Taiwan’s commercial and industrial sectors as well as improving its overall infrastructure. By mixing the British doctrine of tailoring a colonial government to best control each colony with their own assimilative ideals of governance the Japanese slowly eroded the Chinese cultural heritage of their Taiwanese subjects, implementing many pro-Japanese cultural practices in their stead. Initially, there was much resistance to Japanese rule, which resulted in many deaths on both sides, but the Japanese were assiduous, first allowing two years for any objecting citizen to leave Taiwan, and then harshly quelling any uprisings thereafter. Then in 1937, the second Sino-Japanese war broke out and the Japanese knew that Taiwan’s resources would be essential to their cause, and so at this time Taiwanese assimilation efforts escalated to new extremes. For instance, locals were encouraged to speak Japanese, wear Japanese-style clothing, live in Japanese-style homes, adopt Japanese names, and even convert to Shintoism. By 1942, the Japanese were encouraging many Taiwanese citizens to volunteer for the Japanese military – many youths joined, and many died fighting for Japan against the U.S. and China.

When Taiwan was returned to China after Japan’s defeat in 1945, Taiwan barely resembled the place it had been in 1895 under Chinese rule. During their occupation, the Japanese had made drastic improvements, innovations and cultural changes to the region, which could not be easily forgotten. All in all, it was an identity crisis, and reportedly many were nostalgic for the Japanese way of life in Taiwan. Although Taiwanese people are not descended from Japanese, Japan invested a group deal of resources and energy into the region and greatly influenced Taiwan’s cultural identity, so much so that even today Taiwan might more resemble Japan than it does any other nation.

Con: In this case, why not is pretty obvious. For one, Japan had no justification for its occupation of Taiwan; it was nothing more than a colonial theft from China. Even if, hypothetically, the locals eventually preferred Japanese governance, they had been subjected to cultural identity warfare and at least 98% of these inhabitants were of Han Chinese descent (98% at present), and furthermore, prior to their colonization virtually none of Taiwan’s citizens had been Japanese. Even if one were to posit that China had no rightful claim over Taiwan to begin with, Taiwanese independence would be widely endorsed over a return to Japanese colonialism, plain and simple. While cultural influence can never be discounted, Japan has never had and does not currently claim to have legitimate rights to Taiwan; colonialism is never received positively in such circumstances.

In part II, we will explore a potential U.S. claim to Taiwan, to be continued…

Top 5 Deadliest Conflicts Happening In The World Today – Could You Name Them?

Before we get to the list, why not take a stab at naming a few? Surely one or two of the deadliest conflicts will come to mind, but can you list them all? How about in order?

If this sounds challenging to you, don’t despair at your utter lack of concern for human suffering. We at PunditPolitics.com absolve you of your complacent and self-centered ignorance of the facts for two reasons. The first is because you are reading this – surely the uninformed reader must be forgiven if he or she is actively becoming informed. The second and most significant reason is that no one on the PunditPolitics.com’s staff could name more than three out of five of the deadliest ongoing conflicts before writing this article.

As per our custom, the entire staff engaged in a shame-ritual, and we found that through a combination of vigorous soul searching and self-flagellation we were able to get over our guilt. If you are only able to name one or two of the deadliest conflicts occurring in the world today, might we suggest reading on – or maybe even forwarding this article to a friend – as a way of compensating for any guilt that may exist.

For those of you who can name four or five, you can rest assured that you’re an awesome human being. Not only that, but we at PunditPolitics.com bet you’re also quite politically savvy and informed. Later, see how informed you really are by taking one of our Political IQ Tests – on subjects ranging from the War in Iraq, to the 2008 presidential candidates, to energy and environmental policy.

And, without further delay, the top five deadliest conflicts ongoing in the world today, according to the information and figures available at Globalsecurity.org and at B’s Independent Pro-Peace Initiative.

5. War in Afghanistan

Start of Conflict: 7 October 2001

Estimated Total Casualties: >20,000

The War in Afghanistan began on 7 October 2001 when the United States and the United Kingdom launched the infamously-named Operation Enduring Freedom. At the beginning of the conflict, the coalition’s goal was to remove the Taliban from power, and to capture or kill Bin Laden, thereby crippling al-Qaeda. In January of 2002, at least 4200 civilians had been killed as a result of the war, according to a Study conducted by Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives.

The number of overall civilian deaths has possibly climbed to greater than 27,000 since then according to an Aggregation Table at Wikipedia.org. Furthermore, over 1,000 coalition casualties have occurred since the beginning of the war, in addition to 4,000 casualties among the Afghan Security Forces. Currently, the situation remains highly unstable in Afghanistan, with the resurgence of the Taliban and coalition deaths at the highest levels since the beginning of the war – already at 152 as of 1 December 2008, as reported at Icasualties.org.

4. War in Somalia

Start of Conflict: 20 July 2006

Estimated Total Casualties: 20,000

On 20 July 2006, Ethiopian and Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) forces, with U.S. support, invaded Somalia in an attempt to bolster the TFG in the Somali city of Baidoa. Since the capture of Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital, at the end of December 2006, an estimated 10,000 militants and soldiers have been killed. This is in addition to nearly 10,000 civilian deaths during that time as well, according to the Elman Peace and Human Rights Organization (citation here).

Today, the fighting in Somalia continues. In the first eleven months of this year, there were a combined 508 deaths reported among Somali and Ethiopian forces, as well as at least 177 insurgent deaths, who were mainly comprised of Islamic-led militants. There were also at least 2,100 civilian deaths by June of 2008 according to Abdi Sheikh of Reuters – and that figure is certain to have risen since then.

3. Sri Lankan Civil War

Start of Conflict: On and off since 23 July 1983

Estimated Total Casualties: >70,000

The Sri Lankan Civil War has been an ongoing conflict between the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) – commonly known as the ‘Tamil Tigers’ – since 23 July 1983, when LTTE militants killed 13 Sri Lankan soldiers in an attack. The LTTE often employ guerrilla and terrorist tactics to attack the forces of the Sri Lankan government in the hopes of establishing an independent state named Tamil Eelam on the island.

Since the beginning of the war, the tiny island-nation off the coast of India has seen repeated waves of violence. Although a cease fire was declared in December of 2001, the violence began anew in late 2005, and since then, at least 5,000 LTTE militants have been killed, in addition to thousands of civilians. Furthermore, while the official death toll is around 70,000, a study conducted by the University of Washington and Harvard University found that at least 215,000 people have died as a result of the war since it started, as reported here by Ranjith Jayasundera.

2. War in Darfur

Start of Conflict: 26 February 2003

Estimated Total Casualties: ~400,000

The War in Darfur is an extremely complicated conflict. On one side, the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed – a militia group recruited mostly from the nomadic tribes of the northern Rizeigat in Sudan – battle against a variety of rebel groups including the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement.

The conflict, which is largely between groups of different ethnic and tribal backgrounds, has been called a genocide by activists and leaders around the world. While the appropriateness of the term ‘genocide’ is open for debate, what is clear is that approximately 400,000 people have died as a result of fighting, disease and famine in Darfur and Sudan, and over 2 million people have been internally displaced. Unilateral military action has recently been considered by the United States to help stop the violence, and a number of proposals have been made in the UN to send peacekeeping forces, but the international community remains hesitant to commit itself.

1. Iraq War

Start of Conflict: 20 March 2003

Estimated Total Casualties: >600,000

Beginning upon the launch of Operation Freedom on 20 March 2003, the War in Iraq continues today. Casualty numbers for the Iraq War vary widely because of differences in the types of mortality studies conducted, but it is clear that the war represents the deadliest ongoing conflict in the world. On the high end, a recent Study conducted in January of 2008 by Opinion Research Business suggested that over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives as a result of the war.

Tomorrow’s Energy Economy – Not If, But When

A comprehensive analysis of America’s Energy Future
(Take our Environment & Energy Quiz)

Part I

2009 – The Perfect Storm for All Things Energy Reform

Depending on who you ask, the energy crisis is many things. For the suburban commuter, the energy crisis is the rising cost of gas. For the policy wonk, it’s over-reliance on foreign oil. For the environmentalist, it’s the specter of climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. For still others, it’s the so-called “Nuclear Renaissance”. Ultimately, all of these complex issues are interconnected and no solution to any of them can exist in a vacuum. These problems require a fundamental restructuring of our energy infrastructure…

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will ascend to the White House amidst an unprecedented popular desire for change in America. Unfortunately for the Obama Administration, this demand for the all-encompassing notion of “change” is not without a commensurately staggering number of unique interpretations and expected manifestations for what precisely is to be changed in America. For some, Obama has already succeeded in bringing the change they desired, that being the symbolic changing of the guard, but the majority of Americans remain apprehensively optimistic that he can bring about fundamental improvements in worrisome areas such as the U.S. economy, foreign policy, energy independence and the environment.

Indeed, even the most liberal pundits are fearful that Obama will be too financially constrained to make good on many of his promises made throughout his presidential campaign, but what if I told you that it were possible that in one grand, sweeping plan for change Obama could set in motion a plan to drastically improve America’s future outlook in all four of the aforementioned critical arenas – the economy, foreign policy, energy independence, and the environment. Well, upon first reaction to such a claim you would probably say something to the affect of, “Listen here you zealot you, if there were any practical solutions to fix the economy, and improve foreign relations, and solve our energy dependence all at the same time, even the Bush Administration would already be on top of it.” Even the short answer to such skepticism (the long answer to come in later installments) is somewhat complex.

On one side, the Bush Administration, having committed the U.S. to the reconstruction of Iraq, is far too invested in oil and its politics to change directions at this time. After all, why invest so much in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East if not under the full impression that oil is and will be the cheapest and best solution for transportation and the American economy now and in the foreseeable future? Even if Dick Cheney himself invented a working fusion engine, it would still be difficult for the Administration to let go of the ever growing sunk cost that is our oil-motivated foreign policy agenda.

Another barrier to consider is that until recently the economics associated with oil-based fuel have been far superior to the possible alternatives, and with, as of yet, no tangible price tag placed on environment impact oil continues to be among the most affordable fuels available. This is reflected by the fact that 96% of all U.S. transportation sector energy is derived from petroleum products, which, by the way, also accounts for 70% of all U.S. petroleum consumption.

This is so, quite simply, because for many decades oil remained the most efficient and effective fuel available in massive bulk. As such, it is predictable that a large cross-section of the American GDP has come to be dependent on the substance. Thus, even as our continued investment in oil becomes less and less profitable, we find ourselves so entrenched in the medium of oil that to now shift away would require a down-payment so immense that it could only be justified by incontrovertible proof of long-term benefit for American financial and political interests.

While I do not portend to supply such incontrovertible proof, what follows now and in the weekly installments to come is nothing if not a persuasive argument for change, and I’m not the first person, or organization, to think so.

There is no Time like the Present

While U.S. policymakers deliberate on potential solutions to solve the energy crisis, the American economy continues to stagnate; losing its dynamism and comparative advantage. Many of our largest corporations post record-breaking losses and consumers survive with wallets full of credit cards. The longer we proceed with business as usual, the harder it will be to change.

In order to understand what to expect out of the Obama Administration, it is wise to look not only at the problems they face, but to also consider any precedents the Administration has presented that can illuminate how they, rather than we, might go about addressing these concerns. Before we can consider the ins and outs of the U.S. energy platform, both present and future, one must start by acknowledging the fundamental relationship existing between our economy, foreign policy, and energy consumption that has pervaded American politics since the the WWII era – the time when the U.S. found it could no longer nationally supply its growing oil demands.

This relationship can be best described as an investment feedback loop: First, the U.S. invests in its military to ensure ongoing access to oil abroad, that oil security then guarantees ongoing access to cheap fuel for the transportation industry, which increases the speed and growth-rate of American businesses, thus propping up the economy and allowing for more investment all-around…Wash, rinse, and repeat, and its not difficult to see how the United States has maintained its stranglehold over the Middle East and the global economy for decades.

While America’s oil-based economy fueled tremendous growth in the post-war period, the benefits have largely vanished. The U.S. has become increasingly reliant on foreign sources of oil; funneling money out of the domestic economy and tying U.S. national security interests to unstable regimes. Furthermore, The Big Three automobile manufacturers were built on an antiquated energy paradigm, mainly stable supplies of cheap oil. As a result, they have failed to compete effectively in the global auto market (SUVs anyone?). All of this hinges on the increasingly volatile supplies of oil, prone to supply disruptions and wild price fluctuations.

Obama has said that his first priority upon taking office in January, 2009 will be to jump-start the U.S economy. Although mortgage devaluation and credit contraction are not directly related to energy, these markets might only be the tip of the iceberg if immediate action is not extended to the energy sector as well. Needless to say, the long-term health of the economy requires new energy policies. Obama himself has acknowledged this, and has laid out a new energy plan that he claims will create five million new jobs. If we take Obama on his word, change is coming. However, aside from campaign promises, there is reason to believe that action will be taken.

Reducing the price of energy strengthens the middle class; a key element of Obamanomics. Furthermore, because the domestic auto industry is such a key player in the economy as a whole, making them competitive again will provide the rare opportunity to significantly catalyze American energy policy. What shape should these energy reforms take? And how can they be implemented?

What will follow in the weeks to come is a holistic discussion of the entire U.S. energy economy. Later we will explore various energy policy proposals, from both the private and public sectors, and examine their feasibility. Stay tuned as next week we will begin by exploring (and scrutinizing) the production, distribution, and consumption of energy in the United States.

Nation’s Most Overweight, Obese States Voted for McCain

When it comes to weight and politics, the latest presidential election offers us some food for thought. One particularly interesting fact is that, across the nation, the states that voted for Sen. John McCain in the general election tended to be home to the highest percentage of overweight and obese people when compared to the states that voted for Barack Obama – and not just by a small margin.

In examining the statistics at StateMaster.com, one finds that, of the ten most overweight and obese states, only one – Michigan – voted for Obama. What’s more, the figures on the other end are just as skewed. When it comes to the nation’s ten least overweight and obese states, Utah is the only one that went for McCain. But before one can begin to digest the implications of this statistical morsel, an important point ought to be made.

First, it should be noted that it would absurd to think that being overweight or obese causes people to vote for McCain (or to dislike Obama). Indeed, just because there is a correlation between the weight of a state’s citizens and that state’s presidential preference, it doesn’t mean that either variable influenced the other. However, there is a statistically significant relationship between them – even if, yes, the percentages are close. Consider this, the average rate of overweight and obese citizens in each of the states McCain won was 57.67%, while the average rate in the state’s Obama won was 54.9%. Although this difference of 2.77% might sound minuscule, when you look at how the red and blue states ranked compared to each other, the correlation becomes much more obvious.

For example, if you assign each state an ‘obesity number’ based on it’s ranking in the list below, with West Virginia, the nation’s most overweight and obese state, given a 50… Alabama a 49… down to Massachusetts, the nation’s trimmest state, given a 1 – and then compared the average obesity number given to states that voted for McCain to the average number given to those that voted for Obama, one sees a telling correlation: the average red state scored a 33.6 while the average blue state scored a 19.1. This is substantial considering that if there were no correlation between a state’s rate of overweight and obese citizens and their voting preference, you would expect the average obesity number of both red and blue states to be around 25.

For all you amateur statisticians out there, and for those who are quick to point out the crudeness of the ‘obesity number’ illustration, you may be comforted to know that in terms of the percentages listed below, the differences between the sample means of both the red and blue states, in comparison to the national mean, were both statistically significant (p < .01). This of course means that it is less than 1% likely that the distribution of the red and blue states in the list below is due to chance, assuming that the rate of overweight and obese citizens has nothing to do with voting preferences.

Upon contemplating these facts, however, one might very naturally and rapidly come to wonder, “So what?” At least I did. For me, the obvious question is why did the heavier states tend to vote for McCain, and the trimmer ones for Obama, if not by chance? While the answer to this question clearly requires quite a bit more than correlation statistics, StateMaster can help point us in the right direction. StateMaster does this by allowing us to see what other metrics are correlated with states’ choices for president in 2008.

Although failing to truly “explain” the correlation between weight and states’ presidential voting preferences, these similar correlations for other important metrics help ‘fill out the picture,’ so to speak. For example, look at how the charts for education (percentage of citizens attaining a bachelors degree) and economic prosperity (perhaps best illustrated by home values) compare to the list below. StateMaster’s statistics show that high rates of overweight and obese citizens are also strongly correlated with low levels of educational achievement and below average levels of economic success, as measured by home values. As for exactly why states with these challenges tended to vote for McCain in the 2008 presidential election is still something that can definitely be explored and discussed much further.

Despite only being able to scratch the surface of this issue, we at PunditPolitics.com hope to have at least demonstrated how awesome sites like StateMaster.com offer a window into examining important political, social and economic issues simply by compiling and ranking states based on vital statistical metrics.

Change the World… with Your Computer

Millions of personal computers sit idly on desks and in homes worldwide. As they wait, every hour hundreds of people contract and die from infectious diseases. While computer owners run their screen savers, millions die from hunger, or environmental disasters devastate whole communities. What if each of the worlds estimated 1 billion computers could be linked to focus on humanity’s most pressing issues?

To help make this vision a reality, PunditPolitics.com has become a partner of World Community Grid, joining the IBM Corporation and a group of nearly 400 companies, associations, foundations, nonprofits, government agencies and academic institutions. PunditPolitics.com is encouraging members of the community to contribute their idle PC time to assist humanitarian research by joining World Community Grid at http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ and becoming a member of the PunditPolitics.com team.

World Community Grid uses grid technology to establish a permanent, flexible infrastructure that provides researchers with a readily available pool of computational power that can be used to solve problems plaguing humanity. Grid technology joins together many individual computers, creating a large system with massive computational power that far exceeds the power of a few supercomputers. Importantly, World Community Grid is easy and safe to use.

To join, individuals should go to http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ and simply download and install a free, small software program on their computers. When idle, your computers request data from World Community Grid’s server. Computers then perform computations using this data, send the results back to the server and prompt it for a new piece of work.

Today, hundreds of thousand of volunteers around the globe are donating some of the time when their computers are on but not in use, and World Community Grid is harnessing this power to help advance promising humanitarian research projects. Results on critical health issues have already been achieved, demonstrating World Community Grid’s potential to make significant inroads on a great range of future projects that can benefit the world.

You can start making a difference today. Please go to http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ and become a member, and then join the PunditPolitics.com team!