Andy's Angle

I'm sitting in class at The Ohio State University, chatting about social media in the overall scope of an integrated marketing plan. On the school front, I've officially challenged my first grade in Biology 102 (the class I wrote about in last week's column) that I suspect may have been a little lower than earned due to my... vocal critique of the Professor's views on antibiotic resistance. I'll keep you posted.

On the news front:

The Beef Board/NCBA Rift Continues... As my colleague Chuck Zimmerman shares, CBB went on the offensive at the Cattle Industry Summer Conference in Denver last week, challenging "myths" discussed by NCBA leaders and members relative to the context of CBB's audit of NCBA's work with the checkoff. While the leadership of CBB continues its aggressive stance toward NCBA, the Federation of State Beef Councils took a very strong stance of their own, voting overwhelmingly to maintain its relationship with NCBA despite CBB's objections.

Speaking of Beef... I'm cooking this afternoon at the Ohio State Fair! For the third year, I'll represent the Ohio Beef Council in the Heartland Cuisine series of cooking demonstrations. Visit the Taste of Ohio Cafe presented by ABN Radio this afternoon at 5pm and I'll prepare this tasty recipe for you...

More on the Sherrod Case... For the mainstream press, the Shirley Sherrod flap is over and done. Move along folks, nothing to see here. As NewsBusters reports, however, there is (as always) more to the story. Likewise, Tom Blumer has plenty to offer on d'affaire Sherrod...

Not every rural state is a "red state," and vice-versa. Even so, there is a strong correlation between red state sensibilities and America's Heartland; in other words, those rural states know as "fly-over country." As Real Clear Politics reports, lefties are trying to alter the Electoral College to disenfranchise these very states.

To understand what I mean, you first must understand the purpose of the Electoral College, which unless you study electoral politics, you most likely do not. The purpose of the Electoral College is to strike a balance between the relative power any given area of the country has in electing our President.

Contrary to common belief, the President is not directly elected by the people, but rather by the electors selected by the voters on election day. Each state is allotted a number of electors based on its Representation in Congress. That Representation, of course, is based on population. More populous states, naturally, have more electors, but smaller states are still represented. For the same reason the Congress has two chambers (to give the states equal footing in the Senate, but to maintain a measure of the broader population in general via the House), the Electoral College exists to balance the needs of the several states against the concentration of citizens in a few large states like New York and California.

Following President George W. Bush's election in 2000, liberal academics starting seriously pushing concepts on how to be rid of the College and instead elect the President based purely on the popular vote (Bush won the Electoral College, but Gore narrowly won the popular vote). Gore's advantage in the popular vote was earned in a few highly populated states, while President Bush won a majority of votes in more states across the country.

As RCP notes, shortly after the 2000 election "a college professor proposed an intriguing end-run around the Electoral College: each state would simply pledge its electors to the winner of the popular vote. The law would take effect only after states with 270 electoral votes passed the law."

Now a half-dozen states have passed such laws, with a few more like New York likely to follow suit. RCP points out the clear fact that "all these states have something in common: They are deep blue states that likely feel as if they were disenfranchised by the 2000 outcome." These states are also fairly well populated, as blue states tend to be. By voting to more or less bypass the Electoral College, these states are potentially disenfranchising their own voters, but as importantly are lending credence to a national effort to torch the College.

These efforts are not in the best interests of the Republic, and are certainly bad for rural America, red state or not.

As we reported yesterday, Shirley Sherrod, the now former USDA State Director for Rural Development in Georgia, has created quite an odd news event involving the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the United States Department of Agriculture. Sherrod, an African-American, told a story of her own experience discriminating against a white farmer while employed with a non-profit organization 24 years ago.

The video of her relating this story to the NAACP Freedom Fund banquet last March was released by conservative documentarian Andrew Breitbart to demonstrate what he claimed to be rampant racism among NAACP members and leaders. While implicating Sherrod directly, the video depicted the crowd as quite enthusiastic about Sherrod's admission of discriminating against a white farmer.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reacted swiftly, demanding Sherrod's resignation. He denounced Sherrod's admission, referencing USDA's own history of racial issues (i.e. the Pigford settlement). This morning, however, both Vilsack and the NAACP are singing a slightly different tune. Vilsack "will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner," he said in a written statement. Likewise, the NAACP backpedaled from its original condemnation.

Sherrod, for her part, blamed FoxNews and the Tea Party for the swift reaction of the Administration, claiming that the administration is "scared" by the Conservative movement and its alleged megaphone at Fox.

Following her interview with CNN pointing out that her story was used to illustrate her own growth and acceptance that racism is wrong and that she was mistaken in discriminating against the white farmer, pressure mounted for the Administration to reconsider its sacking of the embattled Sherrod.

The challenge I observed in this situation is that Sherrod's admitted incident of discrimination occurred 24 years ago. Is it reasonable to fire someone for an indiscretion that occurred a quarter-century ago? Furthermore, why didn't either the NAACP or USDA review the entire situation before throwing Sherrod under the bus?

Perhaps the bigger, and mostly unreported issue, however, was raised yesterday by Tom Blumer at the Washington Examiner: Shirley Sherrod is a major beneficiary of the aforementioned Pigford settlement. Blumer poses the question that Sherrod's selection as Rural Development Chief and her role in Pigford case may be more than coincidental.

And, as Glenn Reynolds points out, the bigger issue with the Breitbart video is the reaction of the NAACP members and leaders in the crowd to Sherrod's discussion of actively discriminating against a white farmer. Expect that issue to be quickly forgotten by almost everyone, by the way. Glenn has a roundup of other useful and interesting links on this issue.

I'll share more on this in my column this week, but I wanted to share some relevant links on President Obama's new "Food Czar" Sam Kass. I met Sam in Washington on a tour of the White House Garden while he was coordinating Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" initiative. While I wish the White House had allowed Sam to be interviewed, I was appreciative of the off the record conversation nonetheless. Published reports indicate that while Kass' responsibilities have not changed, he's been titularly upgraded to "Senior Policy Adviser for Health Food Initiatives.

From Fox, the details. From Glenn, some context. From TownHall, some analysis.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have a great piece over at TownHall on the downfall of British Parliamentary Democracy. Morris is one of my favorite pundits, and he and McGann's take on this is spot on. Great Britain is fascinating to me; besides being our country's ancestral progenitor, I've been watching the series Monarchy: The Royal Family At Work on WOSU-TV, and I find the British government particularly intriguing.

Read the Morris article; if you've not studied British politics, you may want to brush up on some background. At any rate, there are lessons to be learned in how politicians operate...