The important question to ask, which this article and so many others ignore, isn't whether HRC is hated, nor whether the hatred is justified, but whether that hatred is any different from that which male politicians--not just Obama--overall receive. Look at the hatred expressed toward Bill Clinton. Al Gore. Joe Leiberman. And, for god's sake, GW Bush. Some of that hatred is rational and some of it isn't, some is policy-based and some is personal, but the point is that it's abundant, it's not much different from the hatred directed toward Hillary, and it's just as replete with demonization and stereotypes. Some people really want to see Hillary's treatment as special and unprecedented, but in the big picture it isn't.

Are you trying to claim that "asshole" and "jerk" are used equally for both men and women? Come on.

Men are sometimes called "bitches," so does that mean that bitch isn't female-specific?

Be serious.

If my reaction is "he's an asshole or a jerk", I'm stating an opinion based on my sense of moral outrage.

Wait a minute, are you unaware that those are insults reserved only for men? Nobody calls Hillary an asshole or a jerk. You seem to believe that you can use male-specific insults without even the slightest suggestion of sexism, yet when a woman is called a female-specific insult like "bitch" or "cunt" it's necessarily sexist. Care to explain your double-standard?

Or, better yet, how about recognizing that the use of gender-specific insults is not, by itself, evidence of sexism?

.

... as though paying them would make them more likely to be undereducated and poor. Whether they get fairly paid and whether they get an education are two different issues; that's the point I'm trying to make. You keep conflating the two.

And should grad students get paid for research that generates revenue beyond the value of their tuition? Answer: Yes.

When 99.9% of these athlete-students have to enter the workforce because they don't go pro in their respective sports, they'll surely value those degrees then.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Many of them don't. Potential value is no substitute for actual value, especially when the players don't want it and don't get to choose between the two.

The argument for paying big-time college players isn't an effort to turn everything into bottom-line economics, it's an effort to stop economic exploitation. It's always the unfairly wealthy (the NCAA, in this case) who respond to accusations of unfairness by lamenting "Now why do you have to make everything about money?"

And there are two things wrong with your payment scenario. First, big-time college basketball and football players generate a hell of a lot more revenue than minor-league baseball players do, and so should be paid accordingly. Second, why, after paying the players only 30K a year, would you deny them those other benefits you mentioned, thereby forcing them to pay for the tuition, fees, books, etc. for the education that they don't even want and aren't there to get?

A school like the University of Michigan is actually relatively picky about their student athletes, and it's common to hear of a possible recruit there being told that they couldn't pass muster with the admissions office and best of luck to them elsewhere.

No disrespect intended, but are you sure about this, and how do you know? Because it seems awfully unlikely, at least for football and basketball programs as successful as Michigan's, and for any but the most marginal recruits.

Also, to others: King has made some excellent arguments in the past against the idea that big-time college players get "paid" with the opportunity for a free education, noting that if the degree or the education isn't considered valuable by the players themselves (despite what others think), and since it has no value as currency, then it's essentially worthless. Paying someone with something they don't want, have no intention of using, and can't trade or sell is paying them nothing at all.

I believe in capitalism. They should profit off of their talents if they want. How is that a left-wing ideal?

That is an inviolable, bedrock ideal of liberalism. It's just not the only one.

Regarding the NCAA, I agree with you.

King, I don't care how many times you have to repeat yourself, keep hammering on this issue whenever you get the chance, because it's a disgrace, and because it's one of the rare issues in sports that actually has a significant impact on the world outside of sports (our colleges and universities, in this case), so it really matters.

Echoing Mike Molloy: Please put at least one complete post on the first page--just the most recent one would be fine--with the intros to other posts below it. Don't make us click through an extra page unnecessarily.

Echoing Red Leg: Please don't let your posts get lazy as they get more frequent. The blog format tends to encourage half-baked, stream-of-consciousness, tossed-off ideas, but what I like most about your columns is that they combine a casual, in-the-moment style with fully formed--and often well researched--ideas. Don't lose that.