VIRTUE SIGNALING: It's time for the NFL to dump the politics

Tom Pennington/Getty Images

Has anybody else noticed how politicized sports have gotten? The NFL is practically three berets away from a socialist revolution. They seem more concerned with dismantling social norms and protesting than with playing football. The Minnesota Vikings announced yesterday they will host a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.

According to LifeSiteNews, the LGBTQ inclusion summit will "include speeches, interviews, and panel discussions with a variety of athletes, coaches, and activists who are homosexual or transgender" and "will be hosted at the team's recently-completed TCO Performance Center."

The summit marks the latest in the NFL's continued advocacy for LGBTQ rights and initiatives. Last year, the league launched NFL Pride, in a bid to "heighten sensitivity to the LGBTQ community" and reinforce "commitment to an inclusive environment in which all employees are welcome."

RELATED: New NFL policy will punish players who protest the national anthem

Fair enough. No one should be harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, but is that really what this is about? Because it kind of seems like there's more going on here. Kind of seems like there's a political, ideological slant to it. At the very least, it's virtue signaling.

The summit is "part of a settlement agreement the Vikings made after [former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe], who is straight, filed a lawsuit against the team in 2014 for allegedly creating a hostile work environment for homosexual and transgender people."

So, yeah, virtue signaling.

Ultimately, the NFL is a private business and, as we saw with the National Anthem kneelers, they can conduct their business however they like, and in turn the consumers can decide whether or not to keep giving them their money.

Mostly, the situation is just strange. Can you imagine how well this partnership would have gone over in the 1970s? Moreover, at what point does being LGBTQ come up during sports? How have we landed in this strange place, where politics and gender and race must be represented within every single interaction?

It's also worth mentioning that most people don't care if an athlete is gay — with the possible exception of transgender athletes, but that's another topic entirely. This tolerance has actually been confirmed by studies and surveys throughout all kinds of sports, in various countries throughout the world. Even countries with, shall we say, a far less tolerant view of the LGBTQ community than we have here in the USA — even people in those countries believe that it doesn't matter. People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

Overwhelmingly, regardless of the sport, people do not care about the athletes' sexuality — in fact, most of us would rather not know. We don't watch golf to muse the social significance of gender norms and sexuality. We don't go to a baseball game to meditate on the evils of the patriarchy and the terrors of cultural appropriation. If an athlete is good, who cares what their orientation is? It's certainly not a new idea that LGBTQ can perform in sports. Typically, what sports fans care about is talent. Is the athlete good?

I guarantee that if Liberace rose from the dead tomorrow morning and was suddenly able to play basketball as well as 90s-era Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls fans would not complain if he joined the team. I think it's fair to say that most people like sports better when they aren't swamped with politics. Keep the politics elsewhere, especially these days, when it's nearly impossible to escape the increasingly intolerant politics of the Left.

Perhaps they could learn a lesson from our friends, the Ancient Greeks. It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks indulged in, well, LGBTQ activities. They were quite fond of the various activities. But they also built a civilization of tremendous importance to humanity as a whole. Philosophy, art and, yes, sports. When they were charged off to war, they didn't slap a Rainbow flag bumper sticker on the back of their chariot. Their sexuality did not define their identity. They were multifaceted human beings, able to go to war or to the theater or to the town hall as a citizen, because citizenry was what mattered, personhood and selfhood. More importantly, they lived in a time when people cared about self and tribe over sexuality and gender. Identity was selfhood, not sexuality.

At the end of the day, who cares if the Minnesota Vikings want to host an LGBTQ event? But they should expect to see an increase in shoulder-padded men traipsing across the stage on Broadway.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Most people like sports better when politics aren't involved

Breaking down the announcement that the Minnesota Vikings will be hosting a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.


Let's all stop and listen to the advice of the former stripper turned rapper

Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for iHeartMedia

Twitter stopped convulsing long enough yesterday to adjust their Trump Outrage from hamburgers to former-strippers. Yes, with the help of a news media desperate to outwit President Trump, the outrage machine tossed their fury about Trump serving McDonald's at the White House. Within minutes, that space was filled by the incoherent ramblings of a woman whose claim to fame is that she raps shallow, outlandish things and rarely wears actual clothing. If you just woke up from a coma, none of that will make any sense to you, but I'm afraid this is the world you've returned to. I'll explain more here in a minute.

If you turned on the news yesterday, you probably saw the same three or four stories on repeat. The government shutdown, of course. Something about the Mueller probe, of course. But you were also treated to scathing political opinions of a cultural bigwig. Was it Noam Chomsky? The Pope?

RELATED: Kanye is right

Nope. Think lower down the pyramid of insightfulness and merit.

Beto O'Rourke?

Lower.

A convict?

Still lower, actually.

Hillary Clinton?

You're moving in the right direction, but, if you can believe it, still lower.

Cardi B, the former-stripper-turned-mostly-unintelligible rapper who has taken the throne as the Queen of Rap, a position which actually has really high turnover rate. Her music brings joy to many people. That's wonderful. Why should we stop everything to hear what she has to say about politics?

Why was Cardi B front and center on CNN and MSNBC? How did her 4th-grade-reading-level rant send Twitter into a tailspin? Why do we need to know her opinion on the government shutdown?

If you want to see a rapper with courage, look to the astonishingly unpredictable Kanye West.

For some reason, our televisions swarmed with the rude, sassy, finger-snapping routine of a highly-privileged rapper. Instantly, it became clear that she clearly spent more time jamming bright-green eye shadow into her face than she did actually thinking about the validity of her words. The political equivalent of a broken toilet plunger expressed a widely-held Liberal opinion of President Trump (She was so passionate though!), and even took it a step further—as the Left seems fond of doing lately—and called half of the country racist or ignorant or something. And everything I just said is way more articulate and coherent than anything that Cardi B has or will ever say.

Most of all, her rant was nothing close to the courageous battle that MSM and Twitter have portrayed. If you want to see a rapper with courage, look to the astonishingly unpredictable Kanye West. Say what you want about the guy, it takes a lot of guts for him to put on the Trump hat. That's courage. That's conviction. Although, I have to say, I'd rather get my political opinions from people who actually know what they're saying.

Silicon Valley has turned into a real-life gameshow of wealth and absurdity. Yet poverty ravages parts of the San Francisco Bay Area so badly that there are piles of literal human poop on the sidewalks. People starving, people dying. Then, a few miles away, two cats live the life in their own personal apartment. You might wonder if this is news or not, and I'll tell you it is. It's a perfect fable for our times. Charles Dickens couldn't have written a more jarring story of excess. I'll tell you the rest in a minute…

Imagine it. A 72-inch 4K Ultra HD Television connected to gadget you've always wanted. The Bose soundbar has a subwoofer. Every time something happens on the screen the walls shake. The channel changes erratically. On the couch, a cat swipes at the remote for the AppleTV. Surely the owner is annoyed by the way the screen jumps from action scene to baseball game to commercial to QVC? Not at all.

RELATED: What the 💩 is going on in San Francisco?

As reported in the Mercury News:

The rent is taken care of by 43-year-old Troy Good, who saw the studio as a solution to a pressing problem: what to do with his daughter's beloved cats, which he couldn't abandon but also couldn't house in his new apartment.

Here's what the landlord had to say about it:


These 2 cats rent an apartment in San Jose youtu.be


The story would be cute if it weren't so ridiculous.

Somehow it's cute and dystopian. In San Francisco, $117,000 is considered "low income." It has been consistently ranked the most expensive city to live in America. Walk around San Francisco and you'll see ridiculously wealthy people trying to angle their Lamborghinis up the steepest hills you've ever seen, revving into corners like they're driving disposable bicycles.

Somehow it's cute and dystopian.

At the same time, San Francisco, like much of California, is in the throes of a full-scale crisis, rampant homelessness. Piles of human feces and heavily-used syringes cover sidewalks and benches. Parts of the city are unnavigable because of the tents and the mentally-ill people crowding the streets or underpasses or bus stations. Poverty like you wouldn't imagine.

Yet a few miles away, two cats are living in a $1,500-a-month apartment because their 18-year-old got some kittens, named them after characters from Bob's Burgers, made them an Instagram account, then went off to college. What choice did she have?

The great beyond. What does it hide from us? Do unknown lifeforms linger in the dark? In other words, was David Bowie right? Is there life on Mars? The head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department contends that, yes, there is. Well, not that there's life on Mars. I'll explain in just a minute.

In an academic article for the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Dr. Avi Loeb, the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department, claimed that an alien probe entered our solar system. He claimed that it is masked as the space rock Oumuamua (Ow-moo-ah-moo-ah), "the first interstellar object to enter our solar system." It turns out that "space rock" is way more than a musical genre.

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

In his own words:

Considering an artificial origin, one possibility is that 'Oumuamua is a lightsail, floating in interstellar space as a debris from an advanced technological equipment.

His evidence? pointed to the space rock's abnormal acceleration, activity which he gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope.

He added that "the lightsail technology might be abundantly used for transportation of cargo between planets."

Sounds a bit like Star Wars, no? Or are you more of a Star Trek fan? Either way, it's an odd thing to hear from the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department. Typically, we hear these sorts of things from the darker corners of the History Channel.

Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

"I don't care what people say," Loeb said. "It doesn't matter to me. I say what I think, and if the broad public takes an interest in what I say, that's a welcome result as far as I'm concerned, but an indirect result. Science isn't like politics: It is not based on popularity polls."

Honestly, I believe the guy. Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Heck, I welcome alien lifeforms. Maybe they can give us some advice on how to get our world together.

The third annual Women's March is approaching, and the movement has shown signs of strife. It's imploding, really. An article in Tablet Magazine revealed deep-seated antisemitism among the co-chairs of the movement, which is funny for a movement that brands itself as a haven of "intersectionality." The examples pile up, and just yesterday there was another. I'll tell you about it in a minute.

The Women's March has been imploding, and it started at the very top. Four women have come to represent the diverse face of the movement, the co-chairs: Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Bob Bland.

RELATED: LEFTIST INSANITY: Woman attacked at women's rights rally for exercising her rights

Increasingly, we've learned that anti-Semitism is common among these women.

Teresa Shook, who founded the Women's March has repeatedly asked them to step down: The co-chairs "have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship," Shook wrote. "But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs."

Tamika Mallory gave us the latest example, by continuing to stand by Louis Farrakhan. Check out Tamika's arrogant, nonsensical response. But the real problem came at the end of Mallory's rambling non-answer.



Women's March Leader Tamika Mallory Doubles Down On Love For Louis Farrakhan youtu.be


Later this week I'll go over the entire controversy on Glenn TV. It's harrowing, really. For now, I'll leave you with this. Critics of 4th wave feminism have argued that the radical identity politics of the left will lead to the exact kind of mistreatment that feminists claim to be against. That argument has been written off as using the slippery slope fallacy. But, as we see with the Women's March, it is in fact a brutal reality.