All That and a Bag of Mail

Yesterday, I killed a punter. 

It wasn’t premeditated, I wasn’t planning on it. I tried to be nice. But when former Vikings punter — and outspoken PC bro — Chris Kluwe finally stepped to me, I had to end him. Acclaim for my punter murder has been nearly universal. What’s more, you guys acquitted yourselves nobly on social media. Kluwe blocked hundreds of Outkick readers of all races, both sexes, and all creeds. Y’all were the tip of the Outkick spear, Seal Team Clay was fantastic. 

How badly did I destroy Kluwe yesterday? He was left with no recourse but to accuse me of being racist, you guys of being racist for liking Outkick, and sulking online with all the other PC bros of his ilk. 

Put simply, it was glorious. 

If you haven’t seen it, you can watch the destruction occur here:

Outkick the Show with Peyton Manning hater Chris Kluwe.

Posted by Clay Travis on Thursday, February 18, 2016

And if you aren’t able to watch the video, you can play the audio here while you pretend to work. 

Our beaver pelt trader of the week is easy — it’s all of you. You’ve already made Outkick the Show a tremendous success. As I type this we’re one of the top five most popular sports podcasts in the countrysubscribe here if you haven’t already and please give us some reviews as we lag there a bit — and we’re averaging over 60k live video viewers a show on Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, and FoxSportsGo. Put simply, I love all of you. In the way that only a gay Muslim liberal racist conservative black homophobe can. 

On to the mailbag:

Jeff writes:

“Each day me and four of my closest friends catch up through a text chain. Like you, I consider myself a radical moderate. My friends, however are ultra conservative.

Yesterday, our talks somehow delved into girls making out with each other. I mentioned that I felt there was nothing hotter than seeing two hot chicks make out and have sex in lesbian porn. My friends (who oppose anything and everything gay) all quickly texted back, “we’ll agree to disagree.” One of my friends then texted, “If your wife made out with another woman, would you consider this ‘hot’ or would this be cheating?”. I quickly answered that I would be completely cool with my wife making out with another woman and they all professed profusely that it would be cheating.

Since you’re a lawyer, legal authority and (according to your pundits) knower of all things gay, I wanted to pose this question to you to settle the debate: If your wife makes out with another woman, is this cheating?”

I’ve told my wife that I am perfectly fine if she ever wants to hook up with another hot chick. I would totally welcome and encourage it.

Frankly, I think any man who would be opposed to watching his wife or girlfriend hook up with another hot woman is either insane or lying, potentially both. And it’s not cheating if you’re okay with it. Cheating requires secrecy and your partner would have to disapprove. For instance, if my wife sat me down and confessed to a torrid affair with another hot chick, I would only be mad that I never got to watch or participate. That would just be cruel.  

By the way, question for y’all: Are there any women on earth who like the idea of watching two men making out? I’m not sure there are any. Is this the single biggest difference in sexual preference between men and women, something that men love and women abhor. I really believe that 99% of straight men are totally fine with two women making out. But it’s gotta be at least 99% of women that are opposed to two men making out. This has to be number one on the list of sexual desire difference between couples, right? I can’t think of anything else that would even be close.  

Michael writes:

“I am a student at Auburn University. Every year the fraternity I’m in throws a Christmas party in which we fill our mess hall up with thrift store couches, then all the brothers proceed to sit around with their dates listening to a cover band and getting hammered. This year, my little brother in the fraternity, Logan, and I decided to share a couch because our dates are friends. On the way to the thrift store, he asked me a question that would nearly end our friendship: if we had another Civil War, but it was East vs West, who would win?

We decided to set some ground rules, so that we could have an adult discussion (which instantly turned into a lot of yelling and cussing).

1. We don’t think that a US city would want to completely decimate another major US city, so we decided to use modern technology and warfare methods minus any kind of air-based bombing, including nukes.
2. The divider of East and West is the Mississippi River, with the occasional Missourian unable to decide which side to fight on.
3. No foreign aid. We made this rule mostly because we couldn’t decide whose side Canada would support, but we agreed that the Mexican Cartels would probably align with the Southwest. This also means that each side would have to completely support themselves economically and militarily.
4. Alaska and Hawaii are wild cards. They get to pick for whom they want to fight.

I am from Texas, so I instantly just assume that the West would win; being from Huntsville, Alabama, Logan disagreed. I think that the West has the upper hand economically, especially since they would control the oil fields in Texas and all the technology companies in California. I would guess that the West would have more crazy rednecks willing to die for the cause since they include North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Minnesota, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. This might just be me, but I don’t think anyone is going to charge into battle yelling, “For Rhode Island!” The size of the West and the distance between major cities have to be advantages, not to mention every natural resource and climate preside in the West. Logan thinks it all depends on who attacks first. If the East is attacked first and falls behind by losing a few major cities, the battle could already be decided seeing as how the cities are so close together; however, them being so close to one another could also come out as an advantage because troops, supplies, etc. could be transported much more quickly than they could in the West. Another advantage would be that most of the firearm developers, such as Smith and Wesson, are located in the East, so that means that the individuals in the West that didn’t have guns already would struggle with trying to get them somehow from the manufacturers in the East seeing as how no overseas alliances are applicable.

Being the degenerates that we are, we put a very sizable wager on this, then decided that the only way to settle it would be to ask the gay muslim himself.”

This is such a spectacular question. And it immediately made me think about which conference would win a war if all five major conferences fought? I’m going to do an entire column on that at some point. But first on to your question. 

Both sides would have easy access to trade partners, the west with the Pacific Rim and the east with Europe. So I don’t think things like oil fields would really be that dispositive of a factor. That is, the east could get plenty of oil and the west could get plenty of steel, or whatever other matrials they needed.

Here’s the biggest thing that I think you have to consider that neither of you discussed — population. East of the Mississippi dominates population in a war of this magnitude. Since you’ve eliminated heavy bombings what you’re really talking about is a ground war, which would require substantial boots on the ground, tanks, covering long geographic distances, entrenchments, the like.  

Ten of the 12 biggest states, and 17 of the biggest 21 are on the eastern side of the Mississippi. Sure, the two biggest states — California and Texas — are on the west’s side, but just look at the raw numbers: There are 320 million people in America right now, roughly 200 million of those people are east of the Mississippi. That leaves just 120 million west of the Mississippi. That’s a tremendous east coast population advantage.

What’s more, think about where these population centers are located, the eastern part of the United States has massive state populations in geographically diverse places like New York, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia. All of these states have at least 10 million or more people. So in order to conquer the eastern half of the United States you’d have to fight on several fronts. Plus, think about how easy it would be for the east coast troops to shift locations and reinforce one another once the west committed to a particular route of attack. 

Finally, the east coast’s major population hubs are almost impossible to isolate and attack and are the most geographically remote from the west coast — DC, Philly, New York and Boston are all too close together to adequately attack individually. They’d all be able to resupply one another via the ocean at a minimum.  

The west coast has only two states, California and Texas, with a population of over 10 million and they are on geographically opposite sides of your country. The clear strategic move for the east coast would be to attack Texas. Sure, Texas has a lot of ornery bastards, but we’re talking about bringing the entire weight of the east coast to bear on Texas. California, with a population of nearly 40 million, would represent nearly one in four of the overall population of the west and it would have to send troops thousands of miles to fight in Texas. 

Moreover, I think every western state would have to rapidly fold and roll into the California defenses. (Think of all the flat land states with no people and no real way to defend themselves).

Eventually the east coast would pin the entire west coast in California and bring all of its resources to bear against the golden state. With the war focused on California the east coast would be able to set up an embargo on the west coast ports, limiting their ability to bring in outside materials and supplies. Plus, California barely has enough water now. Could it supply a huge army and keep its population alive? 

Barring a total failure in leadership, I just don’t see any way the east coast doesn’t win this war. 

Adam writes:

“Clay,

Since you are the most trusted gay Muslim voice in politics today. I am interested in what strategy you would take if you were either the Republican Congress, or Democratic President picking for a successor to Justice Scalia. If you’re a Republican do you risk what is likely to be an unpopular 11 month filibuster on all candidates, and try to get a very moderate pick? Justice Ginsburg is 82 and has got to retire sooner or later. If a Republican wins, you have a moderate, then you can select a conservative to replace a liberal judge, which seems like a win-win.

If you are Barack Obama, do you keep tossing out liberals to make the Republicans look bad for rejecting minorities? Then hope they lose the election because of it, and you get a liberal replacement for Scalia and Ginsburg next term?”

The Republicans have to nominate an Obama pick eventually or they’ll get killed by reasonable people like me. We can’t set a precedent of waiting a year for a justice to be approved. That’s absurd. I think the Republicans realize this. Plus, think about it, what if the Republicans lose the Senate over this issue and the Democrats win the election? They definitely hammer through a liberal justice then, right? 

If I were Obama, I’m not sure there is any point in putting forward an extreme liberal justice and watching him or her get shot down and then going with a new liberal and watching that take down too. The play if he did that would be to just demonstrate how out of touch with reality the Republican Senate is, but it’s a gamble. Does each defeat embolden the Republicans and make Obama look weak or vice versa? I don’t know.   

I would avoid all of this mess and go moderate at the jump and nominate Sri Srinivasan, who was confirmed for a seat on the D.C. court of appeals two years ago without a single no vote — which included support from Republican presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Sure, he’s not a crazy liberal, but you’re replacing a very conservative justice with someone who clerked for Sandra Day O’Connor — a Republican appointee — represented Al Gore in Bush vs. Gore, and assisted Ted Olsen in the recent gay marriage case. He’s a perfect radical moderate choice and it gives Obama a statesman like allure as his term as president is coming to a close.    

By the way, here’s an idea that I think makes some strategic sense but isn’t discussed very much — why aren’t Supreme Court justice terms capped at 16 years? (You can make up your own term length, I just picked 16 years because it’s long enough to remove any concern about judicial independence being at play and it gives a Supreme Court justice potential tenure of twice as long as any sitting President.) I don’t know that it makes sense for someone like John Roberts to be on the court for thirty years. Right now we’ve got a 77 a 79 and and 82 year old so their potentially precarious health holds a tremendous sway on the nation’s judicial future. Does that make sense? If you had set term limits you’d know, barring death, exactly how long someone had to serve.  

I want an independent judiciary, but I’m not sure that terms for life make sense.  

Jacob writes:

“I enjoyed your Outkick Show with Chris Kluwe and your awesome rebuttals to his points, but my question is: Do you think how far people have taken their PC agends have helped lead the way to Donald Trump’s rise? Meaning have they taken it so far extreme that they help create Trump.”

There’s zero doubt this is true. 

Donald Trump’s rise is, in my opinion, not about the right wing, it’s about the left wing. Trump represents what many people — who honestly may not even be Republicans, look at his independent support in New Hampshire — are feeling. That is, he’s not so much of a principled candidate as he is an emotional uprising.

I’ve been arguing this since the summer — Trump isn’t remotely conservative. It’s why, honestly, I don’t necessarily think he’d be a bad President. He’s a megalomaniac, but he’s not a rabid social conservative. Do you really think he cares about restricting abortion, gay marriage, or teaching evolution in schools? The guy referenced second Corinthians as two Corinthians. That’s something that no one who has ever spent any time in a church would do.

There are many people, myself included, who feel like robust public discourse is being stultified by left wingers who only feel it’s appropriate to have a certain range of proscribed opinions. Otherwise it’s offensive to share your opinion. I’m an old school liberal in this sense — I believe in the marketplace of ideas. All ideas should be freely expressed, whether I find them abhorrent or not, and the best ideas win. In other words, I don’t fight against what someone else can say, I fight for what I believe. And, increasingly, I don’t even fight for what I personally believe anymore, I just fight for everyone to be able to speak freely.

I’ve never voted for a Republican candidate in my life for any office. Hell, I worked in Democratic politics my entire life, from Bill Clinton in 1996 to Al Gore in 2000 to working for Democratic congressmen in Nashville to helping a black man try to get elected to the Senate from Tennessee. I was a Barack Obama donor and voted for him twice. But the Democrats have gone off the reservation and there’s no one that I feel like represents me so far in the 2016 elections. I used to hate the far right much more than I hate the far left, but now I hate them both equally.   

Anonymous writes:

“Quick question before my request for advice: which is more rare, a gay Muslim such as yourself or an Ohio State/ Clay Travis fan? My money is on the latter, yet here I am. Just so I don’t lose my Buckeye fan card I am forced to say: your an idiot, Urban Meyer is the GOAT, and whatever else our “fans” yell at you via twitter. 

On to my advice. I am in my mid 20’s, have a good job at a fortune 100 company and am happily single. If you got all the women from my past together and put them in one room, it would look similar to Sunday morning brunch at your local Country Club. This is no surprise considering I like my women how I like my milk; rich, white and 2% fat. Recently I have found myself involved in some good old fashioned office flirting with an incredibly attractive single girl around my age who seems totally interested in me… but here’s the curve ball: she’s middle eastern and Muslim (maybe you two are related, although she’s never mentioned any gay Muslim relatives). Do I dabble in the forbidden fruit and add a little diversity to my escapades or am I biting off more than I can chew here?”

When it comes to women I don’t see race I see hot.

White, black, Asian, Hispanic, mixes of all of the above, I have never understood guys of any race who are only attracted to people that are also their own race. This makes zero sense to me.

According to some of my PC bro critics, I’m racist, but let me assure you, my penis is most certainly not racist.

So if she’s good looking, go for it.  

Ben writes:

“So with the whole Shaun King is or isn’t black thing and Caitlin Jenner being male/female is there anything more hypocritical than the people that are ok with Bruce Jenner being a girl but pissed off at a white person that chooses to be black? I feel like it is the same thing. If someone is okay in allowing a guy to become a girl then they have to be ok with someone who isn’t black claiming they are black. They have to allow it you can’t have it both ways. 

There is no difference between race and gender in this situation. Am I wrong? I just think it would be the most hypocritical and racist thing in the world for people to allow someone to change sex but remaining hell bent on them not being able to choose their race. I look forward to hearing your gay and muslim view on this.” 

I’m with you, if you believe that someone can choose to change his or her sex — which, by the way, I’m fine with, I just don’t think it’s remotely heroic — I don’t think you can be against someone being able to choose his or her race. It’s the same thing to me — for whatever reason you decide that you would be happier living as someone else.

Indeed, it would seem to me that gender differences are infinitely more pronounced than racial differences. That is, does the average white, black, Asian and Hispanic man or woman of the same sex have more in common with one other than a man or woman of the same ethnicity but opposite sex? I think the answer is yes, I believe gender is more of a connecting fabric than race. So if you accept that gender can be changed then the same has to be true of race.

The simple fact is this — Shaun King is a white dude pretending to be black.

If he just acknowledged this, I’d be fine with it. I’d still think he was a tremendous, unintelligent loser, but his race has nothing to do with my opinion.  

He’s just a proven liar. 

Thanks for watching and listening to the shows, hope y’all have great weekends.  

Written by Clay Travis

OutKick founder, host and author. He's presently banned from appearing on both CNN and ESPN because he’s too honest for both.