Case in point: Biology. As part of the undergraduate course of study, students take a number of natural science courses to fulfill what are known as "GEC's," or General Education Curriculum requirements. These classes include Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc. In scheduling my summer, I enrolled in both Bio 101 and Bio 102 to fulfill a portion of these GEC's. Bio 101, which I finished last week, was a very enjoyable course (I earned an A, thank you very much), with which I have little complaint.

The single issue raising a red flag for me this quarter in Bio 101 was the film "An Inconvenient Truth" featuring climate change profiteer Al Gore. Students were forced to watch an hour of the film in the final lab session of the class, and to answer a series of fourteen questions based on the "facts" presented by Mr. Gore in his infamous "documentary." The film, of course, presents a number of statements, statistical references, and other allegations to "prove" that the United States must revert to some 1950s Third World version of our society in order to "save the planet." While several of my colleagues are bright and well read enough to capably discern the real truths from the "inconvenient" versions promulgated by Mr. Gore, it was nonetheless disheartening to discover that even a department as objective and unbiased as biological science would sneak political propaganda into the course under the guise of scientific education.

While students' exposure to "An Inconvenient Truth" was mildly disconcerting, I wasn't nearly as shocked then as I was just a week later when I got the syllabus for Bio 102. In the first two class meetings alone, three hours were earmarked for viewing films on the health care debate. You heard me correctly: a class ostensibly on human biology spent the first two lectures of the term subjecting students to political propaganda on health care policy.

The first lecture featured a PBS special with correspondent T.R. Reid of the Washington Post sharing why the health care systems of England, Japan, Taiwan, Germany and Switzerland are ALL better than the United States, and why our nation has the worst health care system known to man. Now, before you begin debating the merits of that argument, stop to ask the most pressing question: what in the name of St. Francis of Assisi does health care policy in the United States have to do with a college biology course?

Still trying to answer that last question? Well, then you'll really flip your lid when I tell you that lecture number two was spent watching the Michael Moore mockumentary "Sicko" ... in its entirety. While I was able to keep from hanging myself by my shoelaces during the presentation, I was left with a feeling that this class may not actually teach me anything about human biology. I'm even more convinced as I look to the week on "human nutrition" and see that we'll be watching BOTH "Food, Inc.," AND "Supersize Me," two instant classics on the anti-farm, anti-American food best sellers list.

After watching "Sicko," however, I was encouraged by two things: first, that a student was willing to challenge the professor on her choice to show the film, and second, that at least some students in the class understood that "free health care" is only possible through extremely confiscatory tax policies. The first realization came as the prof called on one lovely young lady in the back row for looking "shifty eyed" after the announcement of the Moore film. The young lady responded that she assumed the professor was simply trying to push her own liberal views on the students in the class. The professor deftly dodged the question, obeying the first commandment of political debate: Never accept the premise of the question.

The second realization came in class discussion following the film, as one student shared that France, a nation highly praised by Moore in the film for its universal healthcare system, has a nearly 90 percent tax rate. The lecturer shared that she highly doubted the stat to be true, so I provided the actual statistic: according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), France's tax burden is 73 percent of Gross Domestic Product, in and 2007, the French paid over 47 percent in taxes, not including their "social contributions," AKA Social Security. A number or students agreed the tradeoff was un-American.

Four weeks of liberal indoctrination await me. I'm trying to mind my P's and Q's because I'm going to make the Dean's List this quarter come hell or high water ... It's going to be tough, especially when "Food, Inc." rolls around later this quarter.

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.

ABN's coverage of the State Fair is one of our greatest undertakings as a broadcast team. Literally every member of our staff will play a role in covering the Fair, and we'll be on the grounds from this morning's opening ceremonies clear through to the Sale of Champions on the last day. One or more of us will be on the grounds each and every day of the fair, and I'm guessing I'll be there myself every day of the fair.

I'm in class each weekday except Friday, so I'll be running back and forth between campus and the fairgrounds, but stop by and see me when you make your visit to the "Fairtastic" Ohio State Fair!

Counterproductive public policies like high state taxes are often shielded from public scrutiny because a single individual's decision to move to Florida is rarely news. In the case of a high profile individual like LeBron, however, the media attention is inescapable. Conservative pundits predicted James' move to Florida long before it occurred, citing specifically the boost to James' bottom line in so doing. This happens with businesses, too, by the way. Recall a few short years ago when Honda elected to build a new facility in Greensburg, Indiana rather than proposed sites in Ohio; Indiana has a much more favorable business climate.

Jim Prevor in The Weekly Standard draws a parallel between the poor public policies that led James to move South with the concept of "food desserts," or areas of the country where people live more than a mile from a supermarket. First Lady Michelle Obama adopted the issue of food desserts as a key priority in her efforts, noting that 23.5 million people are affected by this food access issue. Prevor wisely notes that Mrs. Obama's plan includes subsidizing businesses for opening groceries in the inner cities and other affected areas, rather than "facing up to the public policy problem," causing the food desserts in the first place, namely higher cost of doing business. "She is looking to spend money directly to de facto compensate individual retailers for these high costs of doing business – and doing nothing to resolve the root problem."

Read Prevor's article; it's one of the best economic policy articles I've read in a long time.

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.

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

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...

Steinbrenner Is Dead: The legendary Yankees owner George Steinbrenner passed yesterday at age 80. One of my favorite figures in sports, Steinbrenner shaped the American League, and by extension the entire Major League, perhaps more than any other figure of the last thirty years. Decried by his detractors as "overbearing and tempestuous," the Ohio native was nonetheless one of the most successful sports moguls of the modern era.

ESPN's Big Ten blogger notes Steinbrenner's numerous connections to the Conference, and especially to Ohio State: The Boss earned his Master's degree at Ohio State from 1954-55 and served as a grad assistant under Buckeyes legendary football coach Woody Hayes. Steinbrenner went on to serve as an assistant at both Northwestern (1955-56) and Purdue (1956-57) before entering the shipping business.

Because of his affinity for Ohio State, and because of his love to the marching band in particular, he became a significant benefactor of The Ohio State University Marching Band. The University named the Joan Zieg Steinbrenner Band Center at Ohio Stadium in his wife's honor following "The Boss'" contributions to its construction.

NCBA Blogs: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association launched its "Beltway Beef" blog this week. From its first post: NCBA is stepping up its efforts to not only keep you informed, but also engaged. "Beltway Beef" affords you the opportunity to learn and express your views. You can rest assured we'll be listening. This blog is intended to serve as a sounding board for the U.S. cattle industry. We will be covering mainly policy issues that impact U.S. cattle producers and rural communities. Mosey on over and check it out. Good luck to the blogging team!

Fisher Tals About "The Compromise:" We've covered extensively "The Ohio Compromise" between HSUS and Ohio agriculture. Ohio Farmer editor Tim White chats with one of the agreement's key architects Jack Fisher about his feelings about the deal after the fact. Fisher shares his thoughts on the public reaction to the compromise, and what it means for the future of Ohio agriculture.

Is College Overrated? An important read from my friend Ed Winkle. As a current and "non-traditional" student at Ohio State, I have my own very unique perspective on this question. I think two things of relevance to Ed's comments: First, college is as important today as ever before. And second, that there is a perception in this country that if you don't earn a traditional four-year degree, there's something wrong with you.

Speaking from experience, and from discussing this notion with other successful professionals who either didn't pursue or didn't complete an undergraduate education, there is a stigma. Why? My theory is that we've done such a good job of promoting the virtues of education that folks subconsciously assume that baccalaureate study is the only acceptable path to success in business and industry.

That being said, some very influential thinkers like TV personality Mike Rowe are working to reassert the importance of hard work and manual labor.

Okay, class is starting, so it's back to work for me!