Andy's Angle

One of my guilty pleasures in life is watching the hit television show Dancing with the Stars. Now in its 11th season, the American version of British sensation Strictly Come Dancing pairs a handful of television, music, and miscellaneous "celebrities" of varying levels of fame and fortune with professional dancers in a quasi-reality show style competition. The show is fairly well produced, and while Tom Bergeron has yet to find a co-host who can match his talent (he's particularly well-suited to this show, in my opinion), it's a good production that I don't mind giving a few hours every few months.

This week ABC announced the cast list for the upcoming season. Along with Knight Rider and Baywatch Star David Hasselhoff, Brady Bunch matriarch Florence Henderson, and Superbowl-winning quarterback Kurt Warner, Bristol Palin will make her dancing debut on the show. While I found the cast list to be, by and large, a pretty good offering this year, I am amazed and more or less disgusted at the responses I read on one Conservative blog this morning:

"I appreciate Bristol's work combating teen pregnancy. But this doesn't do anything for the cause of teen pregnancy, and it certainly doesn't do anything for conservatives," TownHall blogger Jillian Bandes declared. Who said her appearance would do either? Let's face the facts:

1. Bristol is famous because her mother is famous.
2. Bristol is famous because she, like tens of thousands of teenagers, made some poor choices relative to sexual activity.
3. Bristol never claimed to be a Conservative leader or activist.
4. Bristol's life and lifestyle are, by and large, none of our damn business.

With that in mind, who exactly is Jillian Bandes to declare that Bristol's appearance has anything to do with either the "cause" of teen pregnancy (I'll skip over what I'm assuming was an inadvertent double-entendre re: the "cause" of teen pregnancy) in the first place? Nothing steams my grits any more than when some self-appointed arbiter of who's "conservative enough" steps up to denigrate someone for not meeting their phantom standards.

In the case of young Bristol, I think it's perfectly fine that she's taken on the challenge of entering a televised dance competition. At the end of the day, ABC thinks she (and the other cast members) will make for compelling television, and that's what matters, I suppose. Some talking head's opinion of Bristol's participation is largely irrelevant.

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.

Okay, so it's a sad day in Ohio. King James is packing up and heading to South Beach. Is he now the most hated sports figure in Ohio? Gary Jackson tells me that statistically speaking, Art Modell is still the most despised figure in Ohio sports history. He had some polling data to back him up.

I have a startling admission to make: I'm not all that disappointed. Here's why: while I feel for the true fans, and for the people in Cleveland in general, LeBron James leaving town may be the guy check the Cavaliers need to step up and seal the deal in the playoffs. If they couldn't do it last season (and one could argue that LeBron's performance left something to be desired), they need something intangible to put them over the top. That certain something might just be a little dose of reality: LeBron James is not, nor will he ever be, God brought to the basketball court.

Here's the second thing that most folks probably won't say today: sports fans need a nice tall glass of "wake up and get real." Sports figures, while exciting, energizing, potentially motivating, are just people. They are humans, and as Charles Barkley put it so infamously, not role models to be idolized. More to the point, LeBron should also be considered as "LeBron, Inc.," and one should assume that he will make rational decisions in his own self interest - NOT in the interests of any specific team, city, or state.

In this case, that means that LeBron's most rational move was moving to Miami. He's going to have a much nicer tax base in which to rake his multi-million dollar endorsement deals, and while reports indicate he's actually taking a pay cut on the court, his salary with the team is one of the smallest contracts he'll sign this year.

Likewise, it's in his best interest to actually win a championship, something he's been unable to do in seven seasons with the Cavs. For a player of his magnitude, there isn't much else to accomplish that doesn't involve winning a title somewhere. While I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he'd have preferred to win it in his home town, great players have almost always had to make big moves to win big. Michael Jordan didn't grow up in the Windy City.

My friend Scott McKain has a great business perspective on this situation, most importantly how the reality of the James debacle relates to your business and loyalty.

A final, somewhat related thought: I'm tired of hearing all the moaning about the "big money" in sports, both at the collegiate and professional levels. At the end of the day, players play to earn a living. While their salaries in a single game may eclipse the yearly income of many of their fans, that is irrelevant. The market will bear a fair price for a given set of talents and abilities, and in the case of professional athletes, that figure is often tens of millions of dollars.

With that in mind, how many of those fans have ever left a job, career, or employeer they really enjoyed or respected to take more money somewhere else? A WHOLE LOT of them!! If it's okay for you and me to consider improving our circumstances by accepting a "better" position somewhere else, why hold elite athletes to a less reasonable standard?

This is similar to my position on college athletes turning pro early. Take the example of Greg Oden: Oden could have potentially won a National Title for Ohio State with another year or two under his belt. OR, he could have blown his knees out and never played the first minute of professional ball. As stands now, he signed a good deal while he was healthy, got some endorsement deals of his own, and can now afford to support himself regardless of his future in the NBA.

People act in their own rational self-interest. Athletes are people, too.