All That and a Bag of Mail

STAFFORD, TX – MARCH 1: Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), with wife Heidi and Texas Attorney General Dan Patrick by his side, celebrates at a Super Tuesday watch party at the Redneck Country Club March 1, 2016 in Stafford, Texas. Cruz won the Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska primaries. (Photo by Erich Schlegel/Getty Images) Erich Schlegel Getty Images North America

It’s Friday and I’m finally recovered from the Ebola/Zika combo that I picked up last week in Las Vegas. I’m knocking out the mailbag right now while my 8, 5, and 1 year olds chase each other around our New York City hotel room. Today’s Outkick Show will be at 1 eastern from Facebook’s New York offices. So if you’re curious what that set-up looks like, or you want to hear me talk about Ted Cruz’s alleged sex scandal — really, this can’t be true, right? — you definitely need to tune in. 

My gambling picks for Friday. (We went 3-1 last night leaving us at 29-23 betting on every NCAA tourney game so far this season). I’ve got UNC -5.5, the under on Wisconsin-Notre Dame at 131.5, UVa -5, and Gonzaga -4 against Syracuse. 

On to the mailbag: 

Chris writes:

“I was just reading your tweets about the Cruz story and it had me thinking back to a talk I had with my friend yesterday about Alabama’s governor’s little sex scandal. If Ted Cruz had sex with multiple women while they knew he was married, then this just goes to prove that in our society, looks have very little to do with picking up women. Power and money is where it is at. Look at Governor Bentley? He’s like Mr. Burns without the glasses. How could he have a scandal with a younger woman, who might not be a 10, but was at least a former beauty queen pageant? $420k a year and the chance to be the “de facto” governor of Alabama…Dollar bills, y’all…”

As Henry Kissinger said — “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”

All this does is confirm my belief that the more of a moral absolutist you are the creepier your actual sexual desires.

All these Emory students are freaked out by the Donald Trump chalk on campus, but if they actually paid attention to political platforms, Cruz should be much scarier to them. Trump doesn’t actually believe in very many conservative ideals, he’s much more of a middle of the road guy. All Trump has done is pick a couple of red meat issues — the border and terrorism — and exploit them to his base. But Trump doesn’t care about abortion or prayer in school or planned parenthood. He’s not an actual conservative. Cruz is the true believer in the Republican race. True believers are infinitely scarier to me because they’re convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong.  

Even if these sex scandal stories end up being true I’m convinced that Ted Cruz doesn’t actually touch these women, everyone knows he masturbates in front of a full length mirror in a Ronald Reagan mask while the women read the Bill of Rights to him. 

Brian T. writes:

“How long until one of the political parties figures out they could benefit greatly from scrapping the current antiquated nomination process and adopt an American Idol style televised popular vote nomination? As I understand it, the parties can set the rules to select their nominee however they want to. I can easily see a party setting up a debate style show that happens a couple of nights a week in prime time, after which viewers can phone in their votes.

It would be conducted in an elimination style process over several weeks with one candidate being eliminated every week or two, stretching the process out towards the end for the final two or three candidates.

I see several benefits: 1) It eliminates the exaggerated importance of otherwise less relevant states like Iowa and New Hampshire. 2) It is more likely to generate a candidate that people would be excited about and get behind in the general election because the party can eliminate poor contenders on their own schedule and force voters to consolidate behind the remaining few likely nominees, not to mention the overall excitement and popular attention this process would generate 3) the party could firm up and complete the nomination process on their own schedule, likely much accelerated from what occurs now so they could focus their attention and money on opposing the other party. 4) They could likely generate a ton of revenue for their election efforts by selling the multi-week show to the highest TV bidder. Seems like a no-brainer. I realize the process would naturally have to be an open one, which the parties might argue could lead to sabotage from the base of the opposing party, but I think that concern is overblown. Your thoughts?”

I love this idea, absolutely love it. 

If you sold the exclusive rights to your “American Idol” style debate show that ended with a nominee being selected, couldn’t the party net hundreds of millions of dollars to use for the eventual nominee? That would free up the eventual nominee from having to spend so much time barnstorming the country raising money. Plus, can you imagine the amout of small donor money that would roll in to candidates through this style of TV nomination?

Sure, there would be critics who decry the process, but is it any less legitimate than requiring candidates to show up at the Iowa State Fair and look at the cows? 

It gets even better if in order to vote for the show you have to provide contact information — ensuring only one vote per person — giving the party the ability to reach out to its voters when the actual election arrives. 

The only issue I can see is the party would have to establish ground rules for who is allowed to actually make the stage. So maybe you limit the field to ten contenders and use the early polls to select them like was done with the debates earlier in the process. Or you create a wild card field and allow a couple of normal, average Americans to also run, and if they advance to the stage with the big nominees to debate against them you’ve got the underdog factor at play as well.  

The more I think about this idea, the more I love it. Instead of having a protracted process where candidates might refuse to leave the election even though they have no path to the nomination — I’m looking at you John Kasich — everyone would agree to the ground rules and as you’re eliminated you leave. I even think the candidates could prefer this because it’s less humiliating than having to make the decision to end your campaign on your own. It’s like the NCAA tournament, you survive and advance or you lose.

It needs to happen.  

James writes:

“As a proud Indiana University grad, nothing made me happier than to see my Hoosiers bounce the Evil Empire (Kentucky) from the tournament over the weekend. Perhaps I am biased against John Calipari, but this means that of the seven seasons he’s coached at UK, he has won only one title. Now, normally any fan base would be ecstatic with winning a national title that often. But in nearly every year he’s been there, however, he’s had college basketball’s #1 recruiting class and a roster of NBA lottery picks and been one of the top two or three most likely teams to win a title.

If I’m a Kentucky fan, doesn’t Coach Cal’s one and done strategy up the stakes for me as fan? If I only have one year to get to know each player and team, I think the pressure is raised on any one of those teams to do well every year. Part of the fun of being a fan of any college team is to get to know players over the years and watch them mature; I’d give up that joy as a concession if my team was always winning national championships, but if my team isn’t consistently winning titles, what’s the point of it all? Viewed through that prism, can we consider Coach Cal a disappointment at UK? At what point do UK fans just get tired of this whiplash each year?”

I agree with you. I think it’s impossible to argue anything other than John Calipari has substantially underachieved given the insane talent advantage he’s had at Kentucky. I mean, hell, Cal has been a head coach for 24 years and has one national title to his name. His teams have been much more likely to choke in big games than they have been to outperform expectations.  

Interesting comparison that you don’t see many places, is John Calipari really drastically outperforming Tubby Smith? Here are their numbers through seven seasons at Kentucky:

Tubby Smith: one national title, 77% winning percentage, four conference titles, seven NCAA tournaments

John Calipari: one national title, 82% winning percentage, four conference titles, six NCAA tournaments, one NIT

Are they really that different? Sure, Cal has had better players than Tubby and somewhat better success in the NCAA tournament, but are his results drastically superior? Especially if you factor in that Cal has had three Final Fours vacated and Tubby has never had significant issues with NCAA sanctions. So Kentucky is still living on the razor’s edge when it comes to potential NCAA issues. (I’m sure Kentucky has never paid anyone. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge). 

Here’s what I think is indisputably dumb — people who argue that Cal at Kentucky and Nick Saban at Alabama are in any way similar. It’s an insult to Saban. Nick Saban may be the greatest college football coach of all time. He has four national titles in the past seven years to Cal’s one. Plus, it’s infinitely harder to dominate college football than it is to dominate college basketball. Moreover, unlike Cal, who is coaching in a relatively weak basketball conference, Saban is dominating the SEC, the nation’s premier football conference, at a time when the league has never been stronger. 

It’s a joke to compare the two coaches. One is a legend, the other is pretty good. 

Jimmy writes:

“I am a current junior at American University in Washington D.C. Over the past several years I’ve seen a growth in PC culture at my campus and a rise in the student body’s desire for programs like mandatory ‘diversity and inclusion training’ and ‘Trigger Warnings’. Given the fact that the movement around overly PC culture is somewhat baseless, where does it end and what is the end goal for PC bros? The Civil Right’s movement of the 60’s and 70’s had actual merits and tangible goals, but because my generation’s PC battle on college campuses is largely unfounded, is there a plausible end goal?”

You’ve hit on my biggest issue with PC bro culture — what’s the goal other than shaming anyone who has a different opinion than you do? I don’t see one. There is nothing they can achieve. 

Worse, I actually believe that the PC bros are actively working against what they claim to care about. That is, moderate, reasonable people like me are less likely to support their perspectives because of the methods which they’re utilizing to advocate for their positions.

Of course this is my biggest issue with PC bros in general. I don’t think they actually want anything to change. I think they enjoy believing they are holier than thou and calling other people racist, sexist, privileged, (insert whatever pejorative you can here). It’s not about the world getting better, it’s about them believing that they are better than the world.   

Keith writes:

“I’ve been watching the O.J. series on FX and I know you have written about it recently as well so I figured I’d ask you a theoretical question on the subject.

Imagine if someone had a video (maybe a neighbor across the street from a security camera) that 100% showed O.J.’s Bronco outside and him committing the murders and getting in the car and driving away with a time stamp and everything. Since he has already been acquitted of the murder and was found liable for Nicole Simpson and Ronald Golman’s wrongful deaths in civil court, he clearly can’t be tried again due to double jeopardy. With that said, how much would a company pay for the exclusive rights to buy that video and broadcast it if it was being shopped around to the highest bidder? $1M? $2M? $5M? $10M?!”

It would be a huge story, but it would just confirm what anyone with a working brain already knows — O.J. killed both people. 

As for what that tape would be worth? Well over $10 million. I mean, hell, the average Monday Night Football game costs ESPN $120 million. I’m not sure how much of the tape you could show, but just building a special around that tape you could sell the ad rights for tens of millions. 

Who isn’t watching?

Spencer writes:

“Now I know this may be way out there but just hear me out. I have a theory about this PC sickness origin story. Do you think this is possibly an alien invasion of some sort. I feel like this PC sickness is being spread by alien slugs like in the movie slither. The slugs jump down your throat and slide into your brain manipulating you into a PC zombie. At the very core of the PC invasion is a fat,slimy,sluggish liberal commie alien giving birth to these slugs to create the invasion. How do we defeat these helpless PC zombies, and how do we defeat it’s grotesque, glutinous, and muculent leader?”

My favorite line that any of you had in response to my Emory column was that every one of the protesters would be dead on “The Walking Dead,” within five minutes. 

That was so perfect. 

Jason writes:

“I was reading the mailbag entry about the guys in the office who only use the toilet and not the urinal. What a bunch of pansies. It got me thinking, why do homes in America not have urinals? Like yourself, I am a father of all boys. Four to be exact. My wife will be the first to tell you that our bathroom eternally smells like piss. No one, including yours truly, can seem to hit the inside of the bowl with complete accuracy. I feel like a urinal would be an excellent addition to at least one bathroom in our house. Would you and your liberal, gay, racist, Muslim family feel the same?

P.S. I blame my bad aim on not being able to control my large penis.”

Urinals in homes should be a standard option.

I love this idea.

Same with drinking fountains. One of my best friends in high school had a drinking fountain in his house and it was outstanding. Now that I’ve got multiple kids running in and out of our house all day long, what do they always want? Something to drink.

What solves that problem? Drinking fountain. It’s a no brainer.  

T. writes:

“I’m writing about the peeing in the toilet opposed to the urinal dilemma in today’s mailbag. I’ve been in the Army for 7 1/2 years. While in Afghanistan 5 years ago or so our facilities left a bit to be desired. Imagine a PVC pipe, 5 inches in diameter and 4 feet long, shoved into the ground until it’s about dick level at a 60 degree angle. This creates what is affectionately known as a “piss tube.” We also had to use plastic toilets and shit into plastic bags full of high-speed kitty litter (known as “Wag Bags” and also rationed because you never know when you’re going to get norovirus or some crazy shit) which eliminated the “just don’t use the piss tube” solution. Now, imagine three of those in a row with roughly an arms length in-between. There is no professional sports arena trough that prepares you for standing between a couple of dudes when it’s 25 degrees outside with a 15-20 mph wind, trying to piss into a PVC pipe. All the while, the guys around you want to have conversations about work or about how shitty it is that we’re in this situation to begin with. Anyway, this whole scenario is pretty common and it leads to there being absolutely ZERO observance of normal bathroom etiquette in the workplace back in the states.”

Am I an idiot for not understanding why you can’t just pee outside? I love peeing outside, it’s so liberating.

At my old house sometimes I would actually walk outside on a nice night and just pee right outside looking up at the stars. I’m not the only person who does this, right? My dad did it. His dad did it. My kids do it. Is this totally abnormal behavior?

If not, is there some reason why you have to pee into the tube instead of just walking outside and peeing? Or why can’t the army just have a huge piss field where everybody walks outside and pees? I mean, I understand why women can’t do this, but why can’t dudes just pee in the piss field?

Seems like that would solve a ton of issues.

Hope y’all have great weekends, we’ll be live from Facebook at 1 eastern on Outkick the Show today.  

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.