|
Post by chris92065 on Jun 4, 2018 6:07:14 GMT -8
Don’t know if we have any games with Oklahoma.
|
|
|
Post by McQuervo on Jun 4, 2018 6:15:22 GMT -8
Good Grief...
|
|
|
Post by mactec on Jun 4, 2018 7:56:35 GMT -8
Not sure that it really matters. Kansas is banned too, and we just played a tournament game there. All that it requires is some creative accounting by the Athletic Department.
You can debate the issues that come with a travel ban, but it won't have a meaningful impact to SDSU athletics. This might be better suited to the politics board.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 4, 2018 8:20:30 GMT -8
Not sure that it really matters. Kansas is banned too, and we just played a tournament game there. All that it requires is some creative accounting by the Athletic Department. You can debate the issues that come with a travel ban, but it won't have a meaningful impact to SDSU athletics. This might be better suited to the politics board. Either creative accounting, or the game was scheduled prior to the ban being implemented.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jun 4, 2018 8:58:47 GMT -8
Not sure that it really matters. Kansas is banned too, and we just played a tournament game there. All that it requires is some creative accounting by the Athletic Department. You can debate the issues that come with a travel ban, but it won't have a meaningful impact to SDSU athletics. This might be better suited to the politics board. Either creative accounting, or the game was scheduled prior to the ban being implemented. www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/sd-sp-sdsu-basketball-travel-ban-kansas-20180312-story.htmlThis is completely absurd. What is the reason for these travel bans again?
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Jun 4, 2018 9:47:27 GMT -8
The reason is that these states descriminate against their own residents in ways California does not agree with. The hope being that the economic pressure could hopefully make these states see the light. Much the same way the US uses economic sanctions to try and get Iran and North Korea to change their ways.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jun 4, 2018 10:00:06 GMT -8
The reason is that these states descriminate against their own residents in ways California does not agree with. The hope being that the economic pressure could hopefully make these states see the light. Much the same way the US uses economic sanctions to try and get Iran and North Korea to change their ways. This travel ban is nothing but another poorly thought out political action. It will change nothing and have unintended consequences like the effects on college athletics. While unlikely, could you imagine the stab in the heart it would be to miss a chance to join the Big 12 just because of nonsense like this? FWIW, crap like this is why people in other states hate California. The constant drip of "you must be like us" really pisses people off in other states.
|
|
|
Post by drshotblock on Jun 4, 2018 10:21:06 GMT -8
As an employee of SDSU, I can tell you that it is not a 'ban.' It means that employees can't get reimbursed from certain pots of money if they travel to these states for work. Calling it a 'ban' is misleading.
I know this is not meant to be a political board, but the argument that California's democratic process is somehow unfair or inappropriate seems odd. The elected legislature passed this bill. If you believe in representative democracy, you have to conclude that the majority of voters in California approve of such lawmaking. The analogy to sanctions on repressive regimes is pretty good. But just think about the analogy of how we treat our allies these days. We just initiated a trade war with Canada.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jun 4, 2018 12:49:57 GMT -8
As an employee of SDSU, I can tell you that it is not a 'ban.' It means that employees can't get reimbursed from certain pots of money if they travel to these states for work. Calling it a 'ban' is misleading. I know this is not meant to be a political board, but the argument that California's democratic process is somehow unfair or inappropriate seems odd. The elected legislature passed this bill. If you believe in representative democracy, you have to conclude that the majority of voters in California approve of such lawmaking. The analogy to sanctions on repressive regimes is pretty good. But just think about the analogy of how we treat our allies these days. We just initiated a trade war with Canada. Dr. Shotblock, Are we to be persuaded that your position is correct, when your paycheck comes from the very source to which many find unreasonable? Then you further insult those who would disagree, with comparison's to "regressive regimes". Such as who? North Korea, South Africa, China, the Taliban, Syria, Hamas? Really?
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jun 4, 2018 13:04:29 GMT -8
As an employee of SDSU, I can tell you that it is not a 'ban.' It means that employees can't get reimbursed from certain pots of money if they travel to these states for work. Calling it a 'ban' is misleading. I know this is not meant to be a political board, but the argument that California's democratic process is somehow unfair or inappropriate seems odd. The elected legislature passed this bill. If you believe in representative democracy, you have to conclude that the majority of voters in California approve of such lawmaking. The analogy to sanctions on repressive regimes is pretty good. But just think about the analogy of how we treat our allies these days. We just initiated a trade war with Canada. Equating fellow Americans to oppressive regimes that torture, starve, and kill their citizens is a bit cavalier. I for one grow weary of hearing the cries for tolerance from those that are intolerant of other's views. That being said, I would hope that we could all agree that our state legislature has more important items to address in our own state than striving to impose our views on other Americans. I would be much happier if Sacramento was working instead to address homelessness and mental health issues for one. Hell, their energy would be better spent allowing SDSU to break free of the shackles of the CSU charter. Passing law that does nothing but encumber Californians with more bureaucratic red tape is a waste of time IMO.
|
|
|
Post by drshotblock on Jun 4, 2018 13:24:18 GMT -8
It was a previous poster who brought up Iran and North Korea, for the record.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 4, 2018 13:33:37 GMT -8
Move To Politics Section...
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 4, 2018 13:51:01 GMT -8
As an employee of SDSU, I can tell you that it is not a 'ban.' It means that employees can't get reimbursed from certain pots of money if they travel to these states for work. Calling it a 'ban' is misleading. I know this is not meant to be a political board, but the argument that California's democratic process is somehow unfair or inappropriate seems odd. The elected legislature passed this bill. If you believe in representative democracy, you have to conclude that the majority of voters in California approve of such lawmaking. The analogy to sanctions on repressive regimes is pretty good. But just think about the analogy of how we treat our allies these days. We just initiated a trade war with Canada. I don't recall anyone saying it was un-democratic, but I get the use of the straw man here is try and corner critics of the law as un-democratic. However, just because it is a democratic process does not mean the result is not unfair or inappropriate. As unfair and inappropriate are judgmental and not objective criteria. California as a sovereign state is well within it's right to pass such a law. I actually believe the law is neither inappropriate or unfair, just ill thought out. I firmly believe that State's should compete for the residency of US Citizens. State's should not be cookie cutter State's, but actually be diverse with their approach. As for the law, it is a show law, which enable the legislature to pound their chest and to whip up their constituents. It actually has little impact on the State's they targeted but on the residents of CA that have to comply with the Law and risk running afoul of the law if they don't pay for x with the left pocket and instead of the right pocket. In terms of competing for residency, the law is ineffective. It comes off as preachy and sanctimonious, which turns off at least 40% of the current State's residents and a much larger percentage of people outside of CA. Not a great look. If CA truly believes that it's culture and laws in regards to GLBT issues is a differentiator, then its efforts would be better served if they utilized the very effective methods that other States have employed. Advertising and TownHalls, advocating for CA in these States would be more effective in convincing like minded companies and talent to take up residency in CA. Texas, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona have been cleaning up in their pitch for CA companies to move to their States based on their tax, access to educated workforce, and cost of living arguments. For me, I would prefer for CA to compete on the merits in the marketplace of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 4, 2018 15:29:17 GMT -8
As an employee of SDSU, I can tell you that it is not a 'ban.' It means that employees can't get reimbursed from certain pots of money if they travel to these states for work. Calling it a 'ban' is misleading. I know this is not meant to be a political board, but the argument that California's democratic process is somehow unfair or inappropriate seems odd. The elected legislature passed this bill. If you believe in representative democracy, you have to conclude that the majority of voters in California approve of such lawmaking. The analogy to sanctions on repressive regimes is pretty good. But just think about the analogy of how we treat our allies these days. We just initiated a trade war with Canada. Equating fellow Americans to oppressive regimes that torture, starve, and kill their citizens is a bit cavalier. I for one grow weary of hearing the cries for tolerance from those that are intolerant of other's views. That being said, I would hope that we could all agree that our state legislature has more important items to address in our own state than striving to impose our views on other Americans. I would be much happier if Sacramento was working instead to address homelessness and mental health issues for one. Hell, their energy would be better spent allowing SDSU to break free of the shackles of the CSU charter. Passing law that does nothing but encumber Californians with more bureaucratic red tape is a waste of time IMO. Housing is the most pressing issue for CA. www.sacbee.com/news/business/article212449489.htmlCA - needs to find a way to balance development and new housing starts. Or just state the policy is to allow migration out of the State and that having the population reach an apex and recede is preferable to more growth. I hope that is not the new policy (it is the de facto policy right now), as I believe that it would open up CA to lose it's technology base much like it effectively lost the aerospace engineering base.\ But in reality, these policy issues should be not either or propositions.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 4, 2018 16:15:27 GMT -8
Who cares if there is an Okie ban? As Shotblock said, and as we've seen, there are workarounds. The funds to travel to Kansas/Okie come from donors, via Aztec Club, instead of directly from the school. As stated, it's just creative accounting.
The real question is unless U Okie or Okie St are willing to come here for a home & away in football or basketball do we really CARE if we don't travel to Oklahoma?
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 4, 2018 16:35:28 GMT -8
Basically just California trying to dictate to the rest of the nation what laws they may pass in their states.
|
|
|
Post by brokencurse on Jun 4, 2018 17:07:17 GMT -8
Equating fellow Americans to oppressive regimes that torture, starve, and kill their citizens is a bit cavalier. I for one grow weary of hearing the cries for tolerance from those that are intolerant of other's views. That being said, I would hope that we could all agree that our state legislature has more important items to address in our own state than striving to impose our views on other Americans. I would be much happier if Sacramento was working instead to address homelessness and mental health issues for one. Hell, their energy would be better spent allowing SDSU to break free of the shackles of the CSU charter. Passing law that does nothing but encumber Californians with more bureaucratic red tape is a waste of time IMO. Housing is the most pressing issue for CA. www.sacbee.com/news/business/article212449489.htmlCA - needs to find a way to balance development and new housing starts. Or just state the policy is to allow migration out of the State and that having the population reach an apex and recede is preferable to more growth. I hope that is not the new policy (it is the de facto policy right now), as I believe that it would open up CA to lose it's technology base much like it effectively lost the aerospace engineering base.\ But in reality, these policy issues should be not either or propositions. Yes, it seems California's solution to the housing issue is to be so ridiculous that a good chunk of the state's population will want to move to another state.
|
|
|
Post by aztecking on Jun 4, 2018 17:22:41 GMT -8
As an employee of SDSU, I can tell you that it is not a 'ban.' It means that employees can't get reimbursed from certain pots of money if they travel to these states for work. Calling it a 'ban' is misleading. I know this is not meant to be a political board, but the argument that California's democratic process is somehow unfair or inappropriate seems odd. The elected legislature passed this bill. If you believe in representative democracy, you have to conclude that the majority of voters in California approve of such lawmaking. The analogy to sanctions on repressive regimes is pretty good. But just think about the analogy of how we treat our allies these days. We just initiated a trade war with Canada. Equating fellow Americans to oppressive regimes that torture, starve, and kill their citizens is a bit cavalier. I for one grow weary of hearing the cries for tolerance from those that are intolerant of other's views. That being said, I would hope that we could all agree that our state legislature has more important items to address in our own state than striving to impose our views on other Americans. I would be much happier if Sacramento was working instead to address homelessness and mental health issues for one. Hell, their energy would be better spent allowing SDSU to break free of the shackles of the CSU charter. Passing law that does nothing but encumber Californians with more bureaucratic red tape is a waste of time IMO. I suppose if you were the person who was losing rights or opportunities as a result of your state’s policies you may find that state to be oppressive.
|
|
|
Post by goaztecs on Jun 4, 2018 18:25:07 GMT -8
So no home and home agreements with any schools in these states. Not good.
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Jun 4, 2018 19:18:33 GMT -8
Basically just California trying to dictate to the rest of the nation what laws they may pass in their states. CA isn't trying to dictate anything...it's exercising it's free speech...by saying if that's how OK feels about the subject...then CA doesn't want to financially back its stance...it would be tantamount to endorsement if it did...let me put it in conservative terms...it's sort of like kneeling for the anthem...if Colin Kaepernick does not want to do it...then the NFL doesn't have to financially endorse his stance...by offering him a job...get it?
|
|