All That and a Bag of Mail

It’s Friday, time for the mailbag. 

Before we get going any further, I’m linking yesterday’s discussion of the Tennessee legal mess from Outkick the Show. The media, not surprisingly, has done an awful job reporting on this Title IX lawsuit and what it means for Tennessee. So we spent yesterday making sense of the story on the show. I’d encourage you guys to share this with other people who may not be watching or listening to our daily Outkick Show. Y’all are the tip of the spear on the Outkick show.  

So check out the audio here.

I’ve also embedded last night’s Republican debate special show.  

Republican Debate reaction show.

Posted by Clay Travis on Thursday, February 25, 2016

Our beaver pelt trader of the week is Marco Rubio, who finally went toe-to-toe with Donald Trump last night in a debate for the ages. Can you imagine the debate ratings for Trump vs. Hillary if that ends up being the ticket?

Good Lord. 

Here we go. 

Eric writes:

“What’s up Clay – My girlfriend and I have been dating for over 4 years and she plans to take my last name when we eventually get married. But we were talking the other day about this whole feminist movement and all that and she asked me what I thought about women who keep their own last name when they get married. I said that I think it’s weird, but understand in certain situations that it might make since. But, I said that if a girl is willing to break with the tradition of the last name, then I also think they need to break tradition of the engagement ring – as in the woman should have to pay for at least half, if not all, of it. She disagreed with that. Isn’t it a little hypocritical to make the guy pay thousands of dollars for a ring that he doesn’t even wear and then not take his last name?”

I love when hard core feminists want to fight the current “patriarchy,” while simultaneously keeping the things from the patriarchy that benefit them. This is a great example, “I’m not going to take your last name, but you should still spend $10k on an engagement ring for me to wear.” They would generally follow that up by insisting that the wedding costs be split 50/50 too.

That’s not feminism, that’s extortion. 

A guy is left sitting around then thinking, “Wait, I still have to do everything that happens historically that directly benefits you, but you get to choose things that screw me.”

And she’ll say, “Yep.” 

Totally unfair.

I’m with you here, if no traditional rules apply, then everything is negotiable. And then everything should be evenly split. That means she always pays for her meal and drinks every time you go out. 

Everything is equal, right?

Jacob writes:

“Regarding the guy with the small to average size penis whose girlfriend always refers to his huge package: A woman’s description of the length and girth of a man’s dick is directly correlated to how she feels about him at that moment. Early in a relationship and when she’s in love his dick is just massive. Post-relationship and if he’s proven to be a dirt-bag then his penis is significantly below average. I have observed this dozens of times in the last ten years. So the mailbagger’s girlfriend just likes him. That is all it means. She’ll tell all the other 24 year old hot chicks that he is old and has a limp micro-penis the minute things go south. Guaranteed.” 

So much truth to this. 

It even happens in history, did you guys see the new study that alleges Adolf Hitler had a micro-penis?

Which, by the way, is just so unfair to dudes with tiny penises. As if that wasn’t humiliating enough in the locker room, now some people are suggesting Hitler may have started World War II, exterminated all those Jews, and fixated on the superiority of the Aryan race all because he was secretly tormented by his tiny penis. As if dry humping the urinal at a sporting event so no one can see you wasn’t already bad enough, now you little dicked dudes are basically Hitler’s SS squad.  

And while we’re talking about penises, is every single story coming out of the combine about hand size not really about penis size? I can’t believe so many dudes are really reading about hand size in a serious fashion. Every time I read a hand size story or see a hand size Tweet, I giggle.

And it also got me wondering. Since every other body part gets measured at the combine — seriously, every other one — isn’t it time to start cock measuring? This could be a huge data point.  

What if it turned out that cock size was the secret measurement that actually determined whether an NFL quarterback would succeed? All this time people have been pulling out their hair unable to devise a magic formula to predict QB success from college to the NFL and what if it turns out cock size was the secret ingredient that made everything predictable? Like what if every Super Bowl winning quarterback had an identical cock size and every first round bust had the same cock size too?

Are you telling me you wouldn’t watch the NFL Network if they had a white sheet put up at a waist high level and every player had to go behind the sheet, drop trouser and then they called out his limp penis size? And then they put up a penis leaderboard at the end of every day? To hell with forty time, did you see that guy’s cock?

I’d also love to see Adam Schefter doing a stand-up and starting off his report by saying, “Really disappointing day for (insert poor bastard). Everyone expected his cock size to be in the Super Bowl winning range, but it turns out he was the exact same penis size as Ryan Leaf. He’s destined to become a drug addict. No chance he’s drafted now.”

And then you’d eventually have ESPN doing the sad cock stories. Tom Rinaldi out here narrating, “AJ McCarron believed he was destined to become an NFL MVP. Then the combine happened.” Sad piano keys, slowly intoned speech. “And. His. Penis.” (Pause) “Didn’t. Measure. Up.” (Cut to momma McCarron crying on the sofa). Momma McCarron: “Martin Luther King said to judge a man by the content of his character not the size of his penis.”   

I’d love the lead up to the quarterback cock measurements too where you’d have anonymous scouts ripping players. “I talked to sources in the locker room and they told me his limp penis was disappointingly average. The team even had issues with him leading them out of the tunnel because his penis was so sub-par.” 

There’s no doubt that offshores are setting penis over and unders. I’d sit and bet on that all day. 

Also, any doubt that Nick Saban factored penis size into the process a long time ago? Saban’s got dick size dossiers dating back to 1982.

(A part of me thinks I should just stop the mailbag right now. This answer was a mic drop. If all of you aren’t dying laughing at this exact moment I have no idea why you even read the mailbag. Anyway, I’m going to keep going, but I just pitched a perfect game). 

Will writes:

“Clay,

I was scrolling through my Twitter feed and clicked on the story where UGA announced that a nonprofit was going to build Devon Gales (Southern U player paralyzed in their game against the Dawgs this fall) and his family a new house that was completely handicap accessible. I thought to myself how cool that was, but my mood quickly changed when I saw the below response to the article..

I immediately began to think how stupid, ignorant, dumb of someone to post something like that. Granted, it is a Kentucky fan, and I guess I shouldn’t expect anything less, but still, I was appalled.

I showed it to my friend and he brought up the comment that Twitter was ruining our world. With all the media frenzy surrounding Mizzou, Manning, election, etc., these online people are killing society. 10 years ago, people like this UK guy, Mizzou protesters & their demands, and other idiotic people would not have gotten the attention they would’ve received without the help of Twitter.

I used to think Twitter was a cool place to follow famous people and get a piece of their daily lives; it slowly began turning into a news outlet, which I also didn’t mind because it was instantaneous and easy to read a highlight in 140 characters, but now it seems to have evolved into a place where people whine, complain, and make dumb comments/assertions about everything.

So my questions to you: Is Twitter ruining our world? And is there any hope for our millennial generation in the next 5-15 years?”

Here’s the argument I’ve been making for a long time — just ignore Twitter comments. People who anonymously complain about things on social media, like this guy, are bitches. The people who sat by themselves in the lunch room in high school.   

I mean no one pays attention to YouTube comments, right? No one is changing what newspapers write because of commenters, why are Twitter comments somehow taken as more legitimate than these other two places? All three of them are anonymous comments mostly written by losers. You can hate Facebook comment, but at least Facebook commenters are putting their actual names behind their comments.   

You guys see my Twitter mentions on a daily basis — if you don’t you should search them, they’re incredible. I get called every name possible pretty much every day. Yet it’s all online fake bullshit. Do you know how many times someone has ever said a negative word to my face in 12 years of online writing?

Zero. 

Not one time. 

That’s because Twitter isn’t remotely reflective of actual public opinion and because most of the people Tweeting crap would actually ask for a picture with me if I saw them in person. 

The problem isn’t Twitter comments, the problem is people giving credence to Twitter comments. 

Chris writes:

“As a lawyer yourself, I would love to hear your two cents on what frankly is the Roe v Wade debate of the millennial generation and will likely remain a polarizing issue in America and/or the world from now on since we have hit a certain inflection point in both technological innovation and our dependency on said technological innovation. I’m obviously referring to the iPhone vs FBI story that has progressively heated up since breaking. In discussing the situation with friends, I commented that oddly enough, the dilemma could be broken down pretty much in line with the basic plot points of nearly every superhero/sci-fi movie that’s been cranked out over the years… seriously, check it out:

1. Through the advancement of society comes a great power/resource (that is of course borne of good intentions)

2. But bad people get a hold of it (and use it to destroy society)

3. (In most conventional storytelling) bad guys are thwarted

4. Then society questions the existence of the great power/resource in the first place and “learns its lesson” (until a sequel is written)

The “great power/resource” would obviously be this “backdoor key” to crack iPhone encryption everyone is talking about (seriously, have you ever heard this many people on TV talking about “backdooring” like this before? It’s great). What’s interesting is the fundamental difference of the two sides of the debate is that they are looking at the same story… just in different directions. The pro-gov’t side starts at #1 and trusts we will never get to #2, or at least they believe the benefits of #1 are so great that it offsets the probability-weighted downside of the story “progressing.” And they may possibly even think that #3 is very easily achievable should the story get to #2 (which would be very nearsighted). #4 is not on their radar because that would be depriving society the fruits of its very advancement. Meanwhile, pro-Apple people start at #4 first because they are convinced that if they start at #1, #2 will be an unfortunate inevitability, and they certainly don’t want to risk finding out how #3 would/could play out. Hence, their opinion is formed by starting at #4 – questioning the entire process altogether – and working their way back.

I thought it was a pretty interesting explanation of each side in the Apple vs FBI story that happens to be strangely analogous to the stories we’ve coincidentally been consuming in droves for a long time.

For the record, I admit is a very tricky case, but I ultimately find myself siding with Apple on this issue. Care to weigh in?”

First, let me acknowledge I’m not a tech wizard and that there are many people who are tech wizards who could analyze the tech side of this much better than me. But I have thought about this enough to have a working hypothesis — if I were a judge I would treat the phone as the functional equivalent of a house. That is, searching a phone is basically the equivalent to me of searching a home. The home has particular protections in our jurisprudence — and the case law is well developed because there have been cases about warrants and homes for hundreds of years, whereas phones are still relatively new — because it’s traditionally where all secrets are stored. If you get a warrant to search someone’s house, you have to meet a high standard to receive that warrant. A police officer can’t just barge into the house and start tossing things around absent well defined factors. 

I think the same should be true of a cell phone, locked or otherwise. 

Here we know that these people were terrorists who attacked innocents at San Bernandino. There’s no uncertainty about their behavior. They’re also, and I think this is important, dead terrorists. There are no trials to come, there’s no presumption of innocence at play. So I would say that Apple should comply with the government’s request and unlock the phone in this particular situation because the public good outweighs the public risk of the government conducting illegal and warrantless searches of our phones. 

Let me give you my ultimate worst case scenario here, what if we caught two terrorists in the midst of a terror attack, those terrorists killed themselves, and their locked phones held the details of a major terrorist attack that was coming the next day? But we couldn’t break into those phones because Apple refused to help. And then two days after a major terrorist attack we finally got into the phone and saw the information that could have prevented that attack from happening? Wouldn’t you have wanted the government to have access to that information?

If the government can find a judge who gives them a warrant for it, then I think the phones are fair game. Particularly where, as here, we already have two dead terrorists. 

Brad writes:

“I have seen lots of people ask why Peyton Manning doesn’t sue Jamie Naughright for breaking the nondisclosure agreement. I’m assuming since he has a ton of money, and she does not that it doesn’t make much sense monetarily. Other than some sort of injunction or mandatory gag order where contempt of court could get her in jail, what can he do to prevent her from breaking a NDA? The financial penalty doesn’t seem to be there like in bigger cases.”

Well, she would be obligated to return any payment he made to her back in 2003 by breaking the NDA. Assuming she doesn’t have the ability to repay him, that would bankrupt her and give Manning’s lawyers the right to garnish any future wages she ever received until she paid him back or died destitute.

But Manning doesn’t need any money. So here’s what I’d do if I were his lawyers.

I would provide her notice that we’ve proven she violated the NDA — via those tape recordings you guys heard on Outkick the Show and her Facebook posts — and I would tell her that we were going to sue her for violating the NDA and demand she repay the settlement. Once we scared her, I’d give a compromise.

Or she could keep her money and release the following statement:

“Peyton Manning never made contact with me with his butt or scrotal region in the Tennessee training room in February of 1996. My suggestion in a 2003 court statement that this had occurred was a mischaracterization of the incident and I regret the accusation and the resulting publicity it has received. I will make no further comments about this incident and refer all questions to my prior affidavit that I filed in 1996, which is the most accurate version of what happened on that day.”  

Bang, the story is dead. 

That would be my play here. 

Ron writes:

“You and I have something in common and that is that we are both very pro sports gambling. However, where we differ is you are pro legalization of sports gambling where I am staunchly apposed and here’s why. I believe that if sports betting were ever legalized, regulated and taxed by the government, it would be a huge pain in the ass compared to what it is now. In season I bet a lot (weekly) on college and pro football as well as pro soccer. Believe me you can make a lot of money fading shitty MLS teams.

I love the fact that today, I can sit on my ass at home and bet on Champions league soccer (do you even know what that is? It’s one of the only things worth watching on your network). I can put $170 to win $100 on Barcelona ML (juicy but free). If they do I can text my bookie to cash me out and he transfers the money over on a phone app at the end of the week. And if it doesn’t, well, I could take a month to scrape some money together to pay him. I can honestly take more time if I wanted, the bookie can’t really do a whole lot. I honestly don’t even know what my bookie looks like, he’s just a friend of a friend of a friend I got set up with, we’ve only ever conversed over text. If sports betting was legal I’d have to put money up upfront and pay taxes on that money which sounds downright shitty. Gambling on credit is awesome which is something I feel will go away if betting is legalized. So Clay, Mr. Legalize gambling, tell me how what you want in the future will be better than what I have now.”

First, everything that you’re doing is technically illegal. So some random police force could theoretically storm your house if your bookie’s contact list got out and you could be arrested for gambling on sports. 

I think that would be insane. 

But technically it could happen. 

So eliminating that risk would be good for you and millions of other guys across the country. 

Second, sure, you might have to pay taxes on your winnings, but if you did that you could also deduct losses, just like with the stock market now. Given that most gamblers aren’t winning millions of dollars a year, this wouldn’t make that much of an impact. The truth of the matter is, most of the money would remain untaxed because only big wins would get reported to the IRS. Do you think the average person is reporting his or her few hundred dollar wins in scratch off lottery tickets now? 

Third, I think we’re moving towards peer-to-peer gambling. Bookies will become like travel agents, they won’t be necessary in the modern era. You’ll just pull out your phone, load up the gambling market and find someone to take the opposite side of your action on a game. Then you don’t have any vig at all, it’s just straight peer-to-peer. If you win the program releases you your money, if you lose it goes to your opponent. Given that these companies would be located outside the country, I have no idea how you ever shut them down. 

Finally, gambling getting legalized would be great for me personally. Outkick could open our own sports book or set up an affiliate relationship with a major sports book. With our audience on here and through Outkick the Show and social media, I’d make private jet money in a year. So selfishly legalizing sports gambling in this country makes sense for me, but it’s just the right move. 

I’d personally legalize sports gambling, many drugs, and prostitution too.

I think it’s incredibly stupid for our tax dollars to go towards prosecuting and capturing consenting adults for their lifestyle choices.  

Pat writes:

“Two Bachelor questions for you: Is Lauren’s sister up there on the list of “family members who are hotter than the contestant”?  Again, this is the first year I’ve watched, so I’m curious as to how often that phenomenon occurs. Second, did Ben pull off the best guy move ever when he’s talking with Lauren’s sister, and she’s pushing him on why Lauren is different from the other contestants. He first says something very vague, like “I can’t put into words.”  She then pushes him on it, and knowing he doesn’t have a good answer, he just starts crying. His vulnerability melts our hearts, and Lauren’s family loves him. So again, is this the greatest move ever when a guy doesn’t have a good answer for a hot chick? Just cry?”

My issue with the crying was this — were you really not prepared for a question about how much you liked the sister? There are only so many questions you could possibly get asked on a home visit. You can rehearse answers in advance. I think Ben was crying because he realized he wasn’t dating the hottest sister and knew if he got engaged to Lauren that he’d always be thinking about banging the other sister at Thanksgiving. 

Here’s the one change I’d make for “The Bachelor” — we need IQ tests before the season begins. 

Then I want all the contestants to have their IQ placed beside their name, city, and occupation every time they are shown on screen. 

I think this would be revolutionary.

..

Hope y’all have great weekends. Thanks for supporting Outkick.  

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.

13 Comments

13 Pings & Trackbacks

  1. Pingback:

  2. Pingback:

  3. Pingback:

  4. Pingback:

  5. Pingback:

  6. Pingback:

  7. Pingback:

  8. Pingback:

  9. Pingback:

  10. Pingback:

  11. Pingback:

  12. Pingback:

  13. Pingback: