Kids, kids, play nice or I will send you to your rooms.

In the quote, I said, "I think". Of course we cannot say what would have happened if he had, equally publicly, taken the other side. But I think it would be a nonissue with anybody. JMHO.

I wish it was a nonissue now. But as far as qualifications or disqualifications go, it is a minor one. I presume he was approached to make those ads. Retired superstar Lance agreed. I highly doubt that Rice Baseball Coach Lance would agree. I don't think he is an idiot.

(06-08-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kids, kids, play nice or I will send you to your rooms.

In the quote, I said, "I think". Of course we cannot say what would have happened if he had, equally publicly, taken the other side. But I think it would be a nonissue with anybody. JMHO.

I wish it was a nonissue now. But as far as qualifications or disqualifications go, it is a minor one. I presume he was approached to make those ads. Retired superstar Lance agreed. I highly doubt that Rice Baseball Coach Lance would agree. I don't think he is an idiot.

Agreed - which is why I hope that his stance isn't what ends up torpedoing his candidacy. I disagree with his position, but it's not so far on the extreme that it should keep him from being employed at Rice and representing the University. And I wish that those who felt so strongly did not have as much influence as they do.

(06-08-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kids, kids, play nice or I will send you to your rooms.

In the quote, I said, "I think". Of course we cannot say what would have happened if he had, equally publicly, taken the other side. But I think it would be a nonissue with anybody. JMHO.

I wish it was a nonissue now. But as far as qualifications or disqualifications go, it is a minor one. I presume he was approached to make those ads. Retired superstar Lance agreed. I highly doubt that Rice Baseball Coach Lance would agree. I don't think he is an idiot.

Agreed - which is why I hope that his stance isn't what ends up torpedoing his candidacy. I disagree with his position, but it's not so far on the extreme that it should keep him from being employed at Rice and representing the University. And I wish that those who felt so strongly did not have as much influence as they do.

+1 for all your sentences.

(06-08-2018 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kids, kids, play nice or I will send you to your rooms.

In the quote, I said, "I think". Of course we cannot say what would have happened if he had, equally publicly, taken the other side. But I think it would be a nonissue with anybody. JMHO.

I wish it was a nonissue now. But as far as qualifications or disqualifications go, it is a minor one. I presume he was approached to make those ads. Retired superstar Lance agreed. I highly doubt that Rice Baseball Coach Lance would agree. I don't think he is an idiot.

Agreed - which is why I hope that his stance isn't what ends up torpedoing his candidacy. I disagree with his position, but it's not so far on the extreme that it should keep him from being employed at Rice and representing the University. And I wish that those who felt so strongly did not have as much influence as they do.

+1 for all your sentences.

You guys make it sound as if there are no other issues with Lance's candidacy (e.g., lack of D-1 coaching experience, questionable behavior during his brief stint as volunteer assistant coach). And there are just as many people, if not more, who have been pushing Lance's candidacy, that have considerable influence.

(06-08-2018 10:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kids, kids, play nice or I will send you to your rooms.

In the quote, I said, "I think". Of course we cannot say what would have happened if he had, equally publicly, taken the other side. But I think it would be a nonissue with anybody. JMHO.

I wish it was a nonissue now. But as far as qualifications or disqualifications go, it is a minor one. I presume he was approached to make those ads. Retired superstar Lance agreed. I highly doubt that Rice Baseball Coach Lance would agree. I don't think he is an idiot.

Agreed - which is why I hope that his stance isn't what ends up torpedoing his candidacy. I disagree with his position, but it's not so far on the extreme that it should keep him from being employed at Rice and representing the University. And I wish that those who felt so strongly did not have as much influence as they do.

+1 for all your sentences.

You guys make it sound as if there are no other issues with Lance's candidacy (e.g., lack of D-1 coaching experience). And there are just as many people, if not more, who have been pushing Lance's candidacy, that have considerable influence.

While I really want Lance in there I can at least see the argument against him with experience and what not. This applies to baseball so it makes sense. I think what people are saying is that the bathroom bill shouldn't be taken into account.

(06-08-2018 10:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kids, kids, play nice or I will send you to your rooms.

In the quote, I said, "I think". Of course we cannot say what would have happened if he had, equally publicly, taken the other side. But I think it would be a nonissue with anybody. JMHO.

I wish it was a nonissue now. But as far as qualifications or disqualifications go, it is a minor one. I presume he was approached to make those ads. Retired superstar Lance agreed. I highly doubt that Rice Baseball Coach Lance would agree. I don't think he is an idiot.

Agreed - which is why I hope that his stance isn't what ends up torpedoing his candidacy. I disagree with his position, but it's not so far on the extreme that it should keep him from being employed at Rice and representing the University. And I wish that those who felt so strongly did not have as much influence as they do.

+1 for all your sentences.

You guys make it sound as if there are no other issues with Lance's candidacy (e.g., lack of D-1 coaching experience). And there are just as many people, if not more, who have been pushing Lance's candidacy, that have considerable influence.

I'm not trying to diminish other potential shortfalls. I'm just saying that I hope, in the end, his unfortunate (IMO) public advocacy for the bill does not torpedo his candidacy.

I'd be much happier to find out that JK was not comfortable with his lack of D-1 coaching experience or any other issues. I just wish we weren't in the situation where it was an issue - that Lance had kept mum, or that those opposing his candidacy based solely on his public stance weren't so staunch in their own advocacy.

(06-08-2018 10:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kids, kids, play nice or I will send you to your rooms.

In the quote, I said, "I think". Of course we cannot say what would have happened if he had, equally publicly, taken the other side. But I think it would be a nonissue with anybody. JMHO.

I wish it was a nonissue now. But as far as qualifications or disqualifications go, it is a minor one. I presume he was approached to make those ads. Retired superstar Lance agreed. I highly doubt that Rice Baseball Coach Lance would agree. I don't think he is an idiot.

Agreed - which is why I hope that his stance isn't what ends up torpedoing his candidacy. I disagree with his position, but it's not so far on the extreme that it should keep him from being employed at Rice and representing the University. And I wish that those who felt so strongly did not have as much influence as they do.

+1 for all your sentences.

You guys make it sound as if there are no other issues with Lance's candidacy (e.g., lack of D-1 coaching experience). And there are just as many people, if not more, who have been pushing Lance's candidacy, that have considerable influence.

Not me, Walt. I recognize that Lance has other issues, as you said. I just think this one is kind of silly.

I don't have a candidate to push, nor one to push against. I have no voice and no influence, so why spend my energy trying to advocate for or against anybody. Eventually, somebody will be named, and when he is, I will support him in his endeavors to the best of my ability. If it is lance, or not lance, all the same to me.

(06-08-2018 10:23 AM)esposito Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kids, kids, play nice or I will send you to your rooms.

In the quote, I said, "I think". Of course we cannot say what would have happened if he had, equally publicly, taken the other side. But I think it would be a nonissue with anybody. JMHO.

I wish it was a nonissue now. But as far as qualifications or disqualifications go, it is a minor one. I presume he was approached to make those ads. Retired superstar Lance agreed. I highly doubt that Rice Baseball Coach Lance would agree. I don't think he is an idiot.

Agreed - which is why I hope that his stance isn't what ends up torpedoing his candidacy. I disagree with his position, but it's not so far on the extreme that it should keep him from being employed at Rice and representing the University. And I wish that those who felt so strongly did not have as much influence as they do.

+1 for all your sentences.

You guys make it sound as if there are no other issues with Lance's candidacy (e.g., lack of D-1 coaching experience). And there are just as many people, if not more, who have been pushing Lance's candidacy, that have considerable influence.

While I really want Lance in there I can at least see the argument against him with experience and what not. This applies to baseball so it makes sense. I think what people are saying is that the bathroom bill shouldn't be taken into account.

I'd agree with that with one caveat-- during the interview process he acknowledges that if hired, as an employee and public face of the University, he will keep such personal beliefs and convictions private...and agrees that he will not make public statements that run counter to the values of the University. While I personally don't hold it against Lance to hold those views, and don't believe his past public actions should be a disqualifier for his employment at Rice, I do think the discussion has to take place during the interview process. It's part of due diligence. Ditto, I think he needs to explain some of his questionable actions during his brief stint as volunteer coach several years ago, and acknowledge that such behavior would be unacceptable if hired in any capacity.

(06-08-2018 10:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kids, kids, play nice or I will send you to your rooms.

In the quote, I said, "I think". Of course we cannot say what would have happened if he had, equally publicly, taken the other side. But I think it would be a nonissue with anybody. JMHO.

I wish it was a nonissue now. But as far as qualifications or disqualifications go, it is a minor one. I presume he was approached to make those ads. Retired superstar Lance agreed. I highly doubt that Rice Baseball Coach Lance would agree. I don't think he is an idiot.

Agreed - which is why I hope that his stance isn't what ends up torpedoing his candidacy. I disagree with his position, but it's not so far on the extreme that it should keep him from being employed at Rice and representing the University. And I wish that those who felt so strongly did not have as much influence as they do.

+1 for all your sentences.

You guys make it sound as if there are no other issues with Lance's candidacy (e.g., lack of D-1 coaching experience, questionable behavior during his brief stint as volunteer assistant coach). And there are just as many people, if not more, who have been pushing Lance's candidacy, that have considerable influence.

Walt, there are a lot of issues I have with Lance v other potentials. But, the title of this thread seems to make us focus on that one particular issue like a laser.

I agree that the focus of the bathroom issue was properly isolated to this thread; but conversely the debate of the other cogent issues I think are more properly discussed in the one from which this yanked.

(06-08-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Agreed - which is why I hope that his stance isn't what ends up torpedoing his candidacy. I disagree with his position, but it's not so far on the extreme that it should keep him from being employed at Rice and representing the University. And I wish that those who felt so strongly did not have as much influence as they do.

I think the point is that had he been equally vocal about expressing the opposite stance, that would not be an issue. I don't remember who, I think it was you, cited Popovich, but Pop clearly expressed an option that would probably be 180 degrees out from Lance, and Pop has experienced no repercussions of which I am aware. That is the way it should be regardless of the opinion expressed, unless the opinion is one that is truly reprehensible--such as expressing support for the KKK or Nazis, or IMO for Antifa or MS-13 or communists. But neither Lance nor Pop got anywhere close to any of those, to my knowledge.

I do find it somewhat concerning that a statement that fully comported with the law of the land a decade ago, and for centuries before, is now somehow so "extreme" as to warrant ostracism. I suppose there is some analogy with slavery, but we fought a war over slavery (and yes it was over states' rights, but the particular "right" that triggered it was slavery).

Lance's comments are in an area where the conventional wisdom is shifting rapidly, and there are many people, whom I believe to be both reasonable and well-intentioned, who have not come onboard with all the changes. My own position on the bathroom bill is that I am 110% in favor of all equal rights provisions, but I would oppose any provisions that would have allowed genetically males access to female bathrooms. I fail to understand why a law could not be written to provide for the former without the latter. I would have supported such a bill 100%. I think it is pretty clear that the bill was written the way it was to provoke precisely the kinds of irrational reactions that occurred.

(06-08-2018 10:32 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  the values of the University.

What would those be, if somebody were to enumerate them?

http://www.rice.edu/values/

Quote:Let us continue to do what we can as individuals and as a community to strengthen Rice's commitment to these values in the following ways:

.....

Take care not to discriminate against any individual because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national or ethnic origin, ancestry, age, disability or veteran status.

(06-08-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 10:32 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  the values of the University.

What would those be, if somebody were to enumerate them?

I'd already linked to those once and At Ease provided the same information.

I understand the relationship of the employment and other equal rights provisions to those Rice values.

What I am not understanding is how and why the bathroom provisions relate to those values. As long as someone has an appointed place to poop and pee, I'm not sure what rights are violated.

It's amazing how far things have come. I remember Ronald Reagan years ago citing an example of a husband and wife business operating a walk-up/drive-up take-away stand, where they were the only employees, being cited for having only one bathroom for both male and female employees. Today that might be mandated. I guess we are fulfilling Reagan's prophecy that "everything that isn't prohibited will be mandatory."

(06-08-2018 10:57 AM)At Ease Wrote:  http://www.rice.edu/values/

Quote:Let us continue to do what we can as individuals and as a community to strengthen Rice's commitment to these values in the following ways:

.....

Take care not to discriminate against any individual because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national or ethnic origin, ancestry, age, disability or veteran status.

It is amazing how that enumerated list (generally speaking, of course) has expanded geometrically in the last twenty years.

I am looking forward to having both 'bloviating blowhards' and 'disagreeable a-holes' added to the list, just to make sure it is a complete list.....

(06-08-2018 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I understand the relationship of the employment and other equal rights provisions to those Rice values.

What I am not understanding is how and why the bathroom provisions relate to those values. As long as someone has an appointed place to poop and pee, I'm not sure what rights are violated.

It's amazing how far things have come. I remember Ronald Reagan years ago citing an example of a husband and wife business operating a walk-up/drive-up take-away stand, where they were the only employees, being cited for having only one bathroom for both male and female employees. Today that might be mandated. I guess we are fulfilling Reagan's prophecy that "everything that isn't prohibited will be mandatory."

I was going to make a point about the list on whom not to discriminate might grow so large that it might soon be best to list those whom it is okay to discriminate against (or what characteristics is proper to discriminate..)

Kind of a parallel to your comment bolded above.

And, as for an 'appointed place to poop or pee', well let's just say the restroom at the now torn-down Kay's was a not so uncommon place for me to talk to Ralph on the big white telephone once in a while many moons ago.....

(06-08-2018 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I understand the relationship of the employment and other equal rights provisions to those Rice values.

What I am not understanding is how and why the bathroom provisions relate to those values. As long as someone has an appointed place to poop and pee, I'm not sure what rights are violated.

It's amazing how far things have come. I remember Ronald Reagan years ago citing an example of a husband and wife business operating a walk-up/drive-up take-away stand, where they were the only employees, being cited for having only one bathroom for both male and female employees. Today that might be mandated. I guess we are fulfilling Reagan's prophecy that "everything that isn't prohibited will be mandatory."

Because the bill, among other things, allowed "transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression, regardless of their biological sex."

The bill was meant for people to do what you said, always have a place to do their business where they felt comfortable, without someone trying to bar them from doing so. Under HERO, someone who identifies as a woman, who looks like a woman, who acts like a woman, but may have been born a man, couldn't be discriminated against from using the woman's restroom because someone knew their birth sex.

So some people viewed the opposition to the bathroom provisions as being discriminatory against those who were in that situation - whose biological sex didn't quite match with the restroom door, but everything else, for all intents and purposes did.

From a discriminatory standpoint, it didn't help that some people who were against HERO suggested that passing HERO would allow sexual predators to molest people in bathrooms. That rationale reeked of the awful things said about homosexual teachers molesting children, as the reason to not allow gays in the classroom back in the day.

First let me say I don't remember Berkman's issue so I'm not speaking of what he said either support or condemn....

(06-08-2018 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Because the bill, among other things, allowed "transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression, regardless of their biological sex."

But iirc, it didn't specify how you define someone as transgendered, other than their belief/claim... which is fine for those in that actual situation, but also obviously opens the door for deviants (who aren't the same as transgendered) to simply claim it as well. This is I believe where the argument goes awry... because some 'noninclusive' people latch on to that comment and call TGs deviants, and others claim that the statement labels them so, when the reality is that without a clear definition of whom is protected by this law, it creates a bad/worse outcome.

To me the solution is simple and consistent with what happened before to another identified group (the disabled) and has regularly been happening anyway.

A third 'family' option for all new construction or major retrofits. Older buildings are grandfathered, but are encouraged to adapt where possible (i.e. they essentially have single stalls anyway)

There certainly would still be places where the genuinely transgendered don't know which bathroom to use, but that is what they already face, so it is still 'better'... and it's not as if people can check equipment at the door. Prosecute those who 'hang out' in bathrooms (which should be happening anyway) and also make someone claiming that someone is doing so somehow document how they have been wronged, and not merely... I saw this man in drag enter the bathroom and 'he's' been in there 10 minutes and I'm afraid... That's not a police matter.

I think we're giving this issue vastly more power than it needs, to the detriment of both sides. This isn't an issue that affects lots of people or places... and without these arguments, I bet lots of people wouldn't even notice or care.

It's a solution in search of a problem

Tanq, a long time ago, AG Mark White of Texas stopped a home run hitting contest at Midwestern State because he could "find no law permitting it". FYI.

Thanks for the listing of Rice values - could have done without the snottiness. I missed those posts.

It appears the Rice values boil down to upholding national law with regard to discrimination. I thought those were universal values. I expected something additional from Rice, like maybe the promotion of free and creative thought and the support of inquiries into the nature of the Universe. But OK, we are the same as IBEW - no discrimination.

I am not clear on how supporting or opposing unisex bathrooms, either one, violates those values. I do know that the last time I was at Reckling, there were separate bathrooms. Same for HRS and the RMC. If unisex is the way to go, let's do that.

I promise you, next time I am at Reckling, if both restrooms are labeled "whoever", I will use one of them.

BUT, it doesn't matter. I just think this reason for opposing Berkman/supporting somebody else is so useless. I want a coach who can win. I don't care if he pees in the outfield.

This crap is why I like the scheme that many hotels/restaurants opt for in California.

One large wash/rinse area with craploads of individual private stalls. The drawback to this setup is that it mimimizes the raunchy pictures on men's rooms walls and almost destroys completely the ubiquitous condom dispensing machine. Tough on those who dont previously plan for a date working out......

Doesnt address the issue with school locker rooms, though.

I do know plenty of otherwise liberal-leaning fathers who dont want every Tom and Harry ambling into a restroom used by their daughters......