At the beginning of the anonymous mailbag this week, I want to hit you with a request — my new book, “Republicans Buy Sneakers Too” comes out today. It is in every bookstore in America as you’re reading this. It’s also $17 on Amazon. I don’t ask for much from you guys — in fact, all of my content has always been free on this site, on radio, and on Periscope and Facebook — but I would really appreciate it if you would go buy a copy of my book — I also personally recorded the entire nine hour unabridged audio if you’d rather listen to me read it.
I’d like to write several more books over the next few years and the number of copies we sell of this book will determine whether that’s financially worth my time or not. It will also send a message about how much support there is for what I argue. I know that support is there because I see the data, but having this book hit the New York Times list, for instance, would be eye opening to many across the country.
If you want an autographed copy of the book — I won’t be able to do as many public book signings as I would like because my radio and TV obligations make travel difficult now — you get a free autographed copy of the book as part of a yearly subscription to the VIP. Week four college football picks are up on the VIP message board and we’re at 58% winners so far this year.
Okay, the anonymous mailbag is presented by my guy Ryan Kelley at The Home Loan Expert. Own a home but also have too much credit card debt? Go to their website today and by this time next week your credit card debt can be wiped out and you can have a brand new low rate mortgage. Put your financial house in order just in time for football season by wiping out your credit card debt and visiting him today Also, if you use The Home Loan Expert and tell them Outkick and Clay Travis sent you, you get a free year’s VIP subscription.
Here we go with the anonymous mailbag.
As always you can email your anonymous mailbag questions to firstname.lastname@example.org, anonymity guaranteed.
“Recently I have gotten engaged (I know, the kiss of death), but she is a great girl. We live together now, and it is going great. When we first met, she told me she was a Georgia Bulldog fan but she didn’t seem like a die hard fan at all.
Sadly I have been a massive Tennessee Vols fan my whole life. In the 24 years I’ve been alive, I only have a handful of positive Vol memories.
Ever since the start of football season — and Georgia becoming good — she has made the turn into the biggest UGA fan on the face of the earth. All I hear about is Kirby fucking Smart, Jake Fromm, and the Swift kid. With this weekend’s game approaching how do I handle watching the game with her? She already knows I’ve been in a pissy mood since I drove 3 hours to watch my Vols get destroyed by Florida… in Neyland… at night…. With that said, should I make an excuse to not watch the game with her? Also how do I handle it if Georgia makes it in the playoff? Should I support Georgia since Tennessee sucks so bad this year (It would be great leverage for morning sex)? I need advice from the expert.”
I think it’s much harder to be in a split marriage when the outcome of a game is unclear every year. Think, Auburn vs. Georgia.
Here barring some totally unforeseen outcome — like Jeremy Pruitt becoming Bill Belichick — Tennessee is going to get their ass kicked for the next several years by Georgia.
So there’s no real suspense here. Tennessee is the mouse and Georgia is the cobra. Its’ not a matter of whether you are dying, it’s just a question of when.
So you might as well enjoy the sex in the meantime.
“Never done this before, but I pre-ordered your book, and had it downloaded & waiting on my Kindle when I woke up this morning. Great first chapter so far!
You are probably getting a million of these, but would love to hear your take on the Kavanaugh confirmation process/circus. As a white male professional who was in a fraternity in college, I am probably eliminated from ever seeking any public office in the future if this is where the new bar is being set. And with 3 sons, I shudder at the backlash that they might face in their professional futures. Hell, my 10 year old has probably already done things that might keep him from getting elected.
Given your legal background and rational perspective on the world today, I am really only interested in hearing your take on this hysteria,above the background noise of the mainstream media talking heads!
Thanks & keep up the good work!”
If the Kavanaugh standard of misbehavior is the new standard for acceptable 21st century behavior — two people make accusations of non-criminal behavior with zero supporting evidence that behavior occurred despite there being multiple public witnesses it did not happen and it costs you your job — I don’t think there’s a single frat guy in America today who is eligible to be a Supreme Court justice.
That’s why I see the Kavanaugh attack, honestly, as an attack on masculinity itself.
My buddy Jason Whitlock has been arguing that most people attacking football are doing so because it’s hyper masculine and they don’t like hyper masculine culture. I’m starting to believe he’s correct. This isn’t about Kavanaugh it’s about attacking anyone who doesn’t have the same political opinions as you do.
I disagree with Kavanaugh on abortion, the death penalty, and potentially, gay marriage, but I would vote for his confirmation if I were a senator whether I were a Democrat or a Republican.
I think there are many reasonable men and women out there who see what’s going on in our country and think this is crazy. Kavanaugh, if anything, seems pretty stodgy and boring. The guy admitted he didn’t have sex in high school or for years in college either and he kept calendars of everything he did in high school. We’re not far removed from the guy having a secret diary with a secret key.
If anything, I kind of expect for Donald Trump to drop him for not having enough sex and sounding like a loser.
But in all seriousness, this is not a dude who was out running through women like Wilt Chamberlain, Joe Namath or Derek Jeter.
Even the things he’s accused of are more awkward than criminal. He’s denied everything — and there’s zero evidence they happened — but trying to make out with a girl and then getting tackled by your buddy and wrestling with him instead? Getting wasted and pulling out your dick in a dorm party with more dudes than girls there? There’s a difference between uncouth behavior and criminal behavior.
How long until the Senate Judiciary is investigating guys from my generation and a question is asked like, “Did you, your honor, ever teabag a passed out fraternity brother or witness another fraternity member doing the same, during your four years of college?”
Is there any frat guy in the country that could testify no if he was in college in the 1990’s or 2000’s?
I have my doubts.
Now I don’t think anybody wants the dumbest fraternity member in his pledge class sitting on the Supreme Court, but I do think we have to set a standard that high school and college hijinks — which may be inappropriate but did not result in criminal charges at the time — are off limits regardless of party.
That seems sane to me.
But we live in an insane world where a guy’s high school yearbook page is front page in the New York Times so who knows.
“One of my friends at a small college in California has a housing dilemma. As a senior, he and his seven friends were given first pick of their housing options. Naturally, they chose to all live in an on-campus suite together with 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. They had suffered through subpar housing for much of their college career and were excited to finally all be able to live together in one spot.
A few days before school started, he found out that one his friends was no longer going to live with them. It turns out the school had a housing shortage and ended up subsidizing this guy’s off campus housing. A week before school started, my friend was notified that the extra spot in their suite was going to be filled with another student they did not know. Here’s where the issue is.
Their new roommate who they would be sharing both a bedroom and a bathroom with is a transgender freshman (transitioning from female to male). My buddy was pretty upset that a freshman they did not know would be living with them. Additionally, this environment probably would not be the best place for a freshman to live and would certainly feel like an outsider (living with 7 seniors, 3 of which are on the football team). My friend and I align pretty closely with your political views and take a Libertarian view on most social issues. If someone wants to be a guy, then that’s fine with us. However, biologically this person is still a female and this situation on the most basic level would have been a freshman girl living with senior football players.
Eventually, my friend’s dad was able to convince the housing department that this situation was absurd, and they found a different housing option for this person.
Additionally, to show you what the culture is like on this campus, my friend told one of his best female friends about the situation, and she now refuses to speak to him because she thinks he is a bigoted person who is not accepting of trans people.
If you were in this situation, what would you do? Should my friend have lived with this freshman?”
This is a tough situation on so many different levels. First, I don’t think a freshman should be living with seven seniors. That doesn’t seem like a very conducive housing situation to begin with. Second, I don’t think it’s very fair to put one stranger into a housing situation with seven other people who all know each other and have chosen to live together already.
So I think the easy solution here would have been for the college to let you pick another person to move in and fulfill the eighth spot in the house.
All of these resolutions don’t even need to consider the particular circumstances at play here.
Having said all of that, I don’t know what the college should do when a freshman is transitioning from being female to male.
As a general rule I don’t think minors or young adults should change genders. That is, I certainly don’t think juveniles should do it and I’d advise anyone who is contemplating making this decision to wait until they are at least 24 or 25 because we often make poorly thought out decisions at young ages when our emotions are often deeply involved.
Having said all of this, if you believe changing your gender is going to make you happy, I’m fine with you making that decision. What I believe often happens, however, is young people of all ages often fixate on a grand gesture or major life decision as the cure to their unhappiness. As you age I think you realize that’s often not the case. When you’re young you often think, “Oh, if I just had more (money, sex, muscles, a better job, boyfriend or girlfriend or car or apartment) I’d be happy!”
That’s almost never true.
Happiness, at least in my experience, is mostly innate and focused on how you feel internally more than by what you have to show others externally. If you define yourself by what you are chasing as opposed to what you have you’ll almost always be unhappy because there’s always something more to chase. That’s not to say ambition or high goals are wrong, they most certainly aren’t, I’m very ambitious and have high goals, but I think you have to be happy on your journey as opposed to believing that happiness will find you once you achieve a certain goal.
I think you have to age to find this wisdom. If you wake up doing something you hate every day because you think eventually you’ll attain something that you love, I think that’s unlikely to be the case.
So my skepticism on gender changes is that it, like most grand goals and gestures of youth, is often a symptom of unhappiness as opposed to a cure for it.
Now that I’ve given you the Tao of Clay how do you respond in this situation?
Biologically, at least in the early stages of the transition, this person is still female, right? My position would be that the general rule should be to assign students to a room based on the gender on their birth certificates. This would work for the vast majority of the students and avoid a situation where a girl would be placed in a room with seven guys, which I think most of you would agree would not be ideal for college housing.
I would also, however, create an option for student housing for students who are transitioning to men or women.
In fact, why not put two students who are both transitioning from male to female together in the same room? Or vice versa? Or at least have them on the same floor. I would think this would potentially be helpful to them. Freshman year of college is often a tremendous social, cultural and interpersonal struggle. I know that moving to Washington, D.C. and moving into a dorm with two strangers was an incredible challenge for me.
I can’t even imagine what that struggle would have been like if I’d simultaneously decided to become a woman too.
I think the university did a disservice to everyone by putting seven seniors who know each other into a single housing unit with one freshman transitioning from female to male.
I suspect upon being made aware of this issue, someone at the college agreed and hopefully found a better solution for all involved.
As for whether you should be shunned on campus, of course not. But I also don’t understand why you should be sharing the story widely with others either. If the correct result was reached, why make a big deal out of it with others and give them an opportunity to shun you?
“I’m curious to hear your take on this. If the plot of Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” took place in 2018, I genuinely believe Tom Robinson would be found guilty (regardless of evidence to the contrary or a lack of evidence corroborating his accuser’s story) not because of the color of his skin, but rather because his accuser said so.
I also think that Atticus Finch would be considered an enabler rather than a moral compass. Instead of being a beacon of light that people strive to be similar to, Atticus Finch would be considered a stain to the society & a symbol of “female oppression.”
There’s a chance I’m being a bit dramatic, but I genuinely think society’s ability to process facts has reached such a dense level that this is 100% plausible. Thoughts?”
Not sure if you watch Outkick the Show, but this is the exact argument I’ve been making.
The problem with believing someone based on their gender is it’s the exact opposite of what we believe in America, that both sides of any argument should be zealously pursued regardless of race or gender. That’s the entire purpose of our adversarial judicial system.
I’ve defended murderers and people accused of serious crimes. That didn’t mean I believed they’d behaved correct, it meant I understood my obligations as a lawyer — to provide the best defense I was capable of providing.
The eloquent message of “To Kill a Mockingbird” was that identity politics were wrong. It was wrong of Southerners to believe a white woman over a black man simply because she was white and he was black. Atticus Finch’s argument was simple in the cross examination — facts matter.
What we saw in the book and the movie was that facts often didn’t matter in a Jim Crow era South — that the truth was camouflaged by our own racial prejudices and identity politics. That we overlooked the truth to believe our worldviews.
What happened to Tom Robinson in that fictional tale was identity politics gone wrong.
And identity politics have gone wrong in our modern era too.
It’s wrong to believe a woman in 2018 simply because she’s a woman.
All that should matter in these cases are three things: the facts, the facts, the facts.
What we’ve seen happen of late often isn’t justice, it’s an overreaction to past injustice. The Duke Lacrosse case is a perfect example of this — there are many people out there focused on identity politics who want privileged white men like the Duke Lacrosse players to be guilty just because they are privileged white men.
I understand the desire to right past wrongs, but you don’t right past wrongs by continuing to make the same mistakes of the past, only this time to make them in favor of past discriminated against groups.
That’s not justice, that’s still sexism or racism.
I’ve written before that this explains the OJ Simpson verdict — OJ was found not guilty even though he murdered two white people — because some black defendants had been found guilty despite being innocent. OJ got off despite being guilty because Emmett Till, and many others like him in American history, were found guilty despite being innocent.
The problem is it has now been nearly 25 years since OJ Simpson. Our society should be evolving beyond baseline assumptions of guilt or innocence based on race and gender. Unfortunately, with Bret Kavanaugh, I think we’re seeing that’s not true. There are many people who believe Bret Kavanaugh’s accuser not based on the evidence at all — there is none — but based on her identity and their worldview.
They also believe something even more radical — that aggressively questioning this women is disrespectful of her allegation.
I fundamentally disagree.
I think all people making accusations of criminal conduct should be aggressively questioned about those accusations regardless of their race, sex, gender or sexual orientation. To do otherwise is a miscarriage of justice.
“Just purchased an autographed copy of your book for a buddy of mine whose couch I pissed last weekend (wasted). He originally coerced me into listening to Outkick with your Lena Dunham dramatic reading from election night. Question, is that sufficient enough as an apology?”
As much as I appreciate the additional autographed book sell, I don’t think a single copy of a hardback book is adequate compensation for pissing on his couch.
You owe him more.
Thanks for all your support of Outkick.