Granted, my acceptance of Democratic Party positions and of individuals who speak in that behalf are more forgiving or looser than some here. (Including yours) I would point out, tho, that your post here describes the inextricable knot faced when the perfect or near-perfect becomes the touchstone. It is important to set boundaries, of course; and, it is extremely important to have courageous people do so. Yet, the process of solving issues often calls for more than that line-in-the-sand. While the line differs from individual to individual, to dispense with those who would and have been supportive because they don't agree with one on everything or near everything....well, we've all seen what that kind of insistence gets one in any walk of life.  Very soon that type of view leaves a very small group in a very small tent...good in theory, but lacking in progress.

Yes, he's gotten back to being more critical, but I guess I'm over his "gee, I guess I should have said more" posts.

Sorry. I don't expect perfection from anyone, but I think I'm still entitled to have opinions about what people say, and more important, what they do.  I don't need you - or christine, for that matter - to lecture me about what I should and should not feel, think or believe - or where my standards should be set.  I am, frankly, tired of the slow but steady lowering of standards - that's one reason we have the current crop of mediocre-to-craptastic congresspeople, because we keep being told that we can't expect more.

The debt is only too high in the sense that there is no need for the federal government to issue debt instruments in the first place. The federal government has no need to borrow money since it is sovereign in its own currency. It borrows only because Congress mandates that it must issue debt instruments equivalent to the annual deficit. But it does not need to do so as the federal government can create money at will. All it is doing is borrowing back money it already created, which is a pointless exercise harkening back to the gold standard days when the government did have to borrow.

Likewise, the interest on the debt is not really a burden for the same reason, i.e. the federal government can simply create the money it needs to pay the interest on the debt. Or it could in an instant create all teh money it needs to pay off the entire debt in one fell swoop.

The idea of salaries for student-athletes is anethema to the concept of higher education. Far better that we instead remember the primary mission of our colleges and universities, and adjust our school's interscholastic sports policies accordingly. The tail should not be wagging the dog.

You have a point.

Problem is that coaches are being paid millions, the major football/basketball schools rake in millions, some of which is used to pay for other sports, and the players cannot just walk away and start playing for some other school the next year without needing "hardship" permission from the NCAA.

Also allow student-athletes to fully profit from the use of their likeness in all publicity by the NCAA or related use of their name or image by 3d party entities (as with sports computer games and related).  Currently it's my understanding that student-athletes are given a standard contract to sign with the school or NCAA which prevents them from asserting such legal rights -- in perpetuity.  That's just wrong.

Then the scholarship situation:  currently, players must qualify year-to-year.  That means on the field/court performance counts, and not what their classroom performance is.  So, give the incoming players a full 4-yr scholarship, even if during that period they are dropped from the team (exceptions can be made for bad conduct/criminal related infractions).  

That would greatly increase the incentive for players to actually be student-first student-athletes -- actively pursuing and interested in the academic aspect of their college experience -- rather than the athlete-students they are now, at best.