- So let's get this out of the way.
I just shot a whole episode
without realizing my hoodie was stained.
So regardless of the reality of the situation,
I will be moving forward with the argument
that this is actually an artistic statement
about the state of our world.
Don't see it.
Oh, I guess maybe you're not smart.
Like I, big brain DeFranco.
Starting the week on a high note.
Sup, you beautiful bastards, hope you the fantastic Monday,
welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show.
Buckle up, hit that like button,
otherwise it will punch you in the throat
and let's just jump into it.
And first up today let's talk about a batch of quickie news.
So first up, we looked at Texas
where the governor has now issued
a disaster declaration for Brazoria County.
That after the presence of a dangerous amoeba was detected
in a city's water supply.
That amoeba is called Naegleria Fowleri
and according to the CDC, the organism is typically found
in warm freshwater lakes and rivers.
People are exposed when it enters the body from the nose.
From there it travels to the brain
where it destroys brain tissue.
And officials are now aware of this issue
because tragically it was linked to the death
of a six year old boy who passed away
in the city of Lake Jackson earlier this month.
He's believed he was exposed from the amoeba
either from a water hose at his home
or from a city splash pad.
That then prompted testing
and according to the governor's declaration,
presence of Naegleria Fowleri was identified
in three of 11 tests of the water supply,
posing an imminent threat to public health and safety,
including loss of life.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
issued a do not use water alert Friday for eight cities.
We saw that warning lifted on Saturday
for all cities in Brazoria County, except for Lake Jackson,
with Lake Jackson remaining under a boil water advisory.
And as of now, local officials say
that they are working on a plan
to flush and disinfect the water system.
Then let's talk about everyone's favorite game
when it comes to influencers, find the fake.
With this round centering around a tweet
that went viral over the weekend,
exposing a secret behind some influencer travel photos.
That tweet reading, I just found out LA Instagram girlies
are using studio sets that look like private jets
for their Instagram pics.
It's crazy that anything you're looking at could be fake.
The setting, the clothes, the body.
I don't know, it just kind of shakes my reality a bit.
That post including photos of a private jet set up
that's actually a studio in California
which you can rent for $64 an hour.
Following this, we then saw influencers
who had posed on this set and being called out online.
Perhaps most focused on here where the Mian twins.
With them then eventually editing their Instagram captions
to admit that they were on a set.
And while a ton people were upset about this,
they thought it was hilarious and sad,
you had others pointing out
that it's not exactly a new idea.
You have things in the past like Bow Wow
who famously was called out
for posting a private plane photo on social media
before being spotted on a commercial flight.
People noting other ridiculous things,
like when people buy empty shopping bags
to pretend that they've gone on a shopping spree.
But the two main things I want to hit on here,
one stop being fake you fakers.
And two, let this be your friendly DeFranco reminder
that how people present themselves online
is often different than what they are in real life.
It's part of the reason
why you should never compare yourself and your situation
to what you see online.
That's an artist self portrait, not reality.
Then in entertainment news,
we should talk about Sohla El-Waylly.
And if you don't recall, she was a host on Bon Appetit's
massively popular YouTube channels.
And as Tubefilter noted,
she was one of the first staffers to call out
the publications discriminatory compensation practices
and lack of diversity on camera.
She and a number of hosts left the channel
and what we're seeing this week
is actually something very awesome.
And Waylly has teamed up
with the massive YouTube food sensation
that is Binging with Babish.
The Binging with Babish channel
which has been incredibly successful,
just under 8 million subscribers as of right now.
several series, Binging with Babish,
Basics with Babish, Being with Babish,
has now been renamed and rebranded
the Babish Culinary Universe.
Seemingly to allow shows to be launched
that do not involve him and the first that we saw
is a new series titled Stump Sola,
with Sola El-Waylly doing at least a run of 10 episodes.
And personally, I think this whole thing
is actually very exciting.
It appears like a win win across the board.
Sola was obviously a fan favorite over at Bon Appetit
so to see her then be able to move to a channel
that's even larger, that's huge,
and then you see binging with Babish, right, Andrew Rea,
seeing him go from what was a small one man operation
to now this much bigger thing, that's exciting to see,
that's actual organic talent
making big waves in the community.
Then in the entertainment news that goes political
we have the Rock.
You've likely seen it by now,
but you had Dwayne the Rock Johnson
officially endorsing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
And as far as if this actually moves any undecided voters,
who can ever tell?
But as far as my reaction to this announcement,
I was actually genuinely surprised.
And what I mean by that is I wasn't surprised
that the Rock would be voting for Joe Biden.
Right, he put out that video back in June where he said,
where is our leader while our country is on its knees?
But there was still enough of a gray area in that video
that you'd be like, ah, this isn't gonna hurt him.
But for the Rock who is generally seen as successful
because he's appealing to almost every person.
Like, him inserting himself
in one of the most divisive elections that we've ever seen,
that's bold and notable.
You know, with this story
there are two questions in my mind.
One, why is your shirt so tight, sir?
It's aggressive, right?
And two, I wonder what this endorsement does.
Once again, like, does it move more people to go,
okay, even the Rock thinks this.
Or, you know, does this hurt his career
or does it help his career in some way?
And when you look following his endorsement,
there are a lot of big reactions,
a lot of love, a lot of hate.
And his YouTube videos for this,
the likes and dislikes are split.
On Instagram you see his post has a ton of likes
but a lot of the top comments
are actually people speaking out against it.
I think it's likely we won't see for six to 12 months
of, you know, did this hurt or help the Rock?
Is it enough to make or break fans?
Or even saying that it brings up another question of,
how we move past a time of being apolitical?
Right, do people expect their celebrities
and their companies to stand for something?
Like, for example, in the corporate business world,
one of the most notable examples
is Nike and Colin Kaepernick.
When that was announced it appeared to be
a very divisive moment but you know,
you look now and the company has just continued to grow,
continue to succeed.
Also in this story that's turning into
just a number of questions,
what your thoughts around the argument
that celebrity you should just shut up
when it comes to politics?
What has your opinion on that been in the past?
Has that changed
since we literally have a celebrity president?
Although celebrities in politics is not a new thing.
I mean, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Does it depend on the person?
Yeah, really, any and all thoughts you have on that,
I'd love to hear from you when those comments down below
and also the reasoning behind those opinions.
But from that I want to share some stuff I love today
in Today in Awesome, brought to you by Keeps.
You know, two out of three guys
will experience some form of male pattern baldness
by the time that they're 35.
Everyone's got that brother, uncle or that friend,
and if you don't want to go down that road
you don't have to just sit idly by.
Keeps it helps you stop hair loss before it's too late
with their scientific and affordable approach to treatments
that are up to 90% effective
at reducing and stopping further hair loss.
And Keeps offers generic versions of the only two
FDA approved hair loss products that are out there.
So some of you may have in fact already tried them before,
but probably never at this price.
You know, you used to have to go
to the doctor's office for your prescription but with Keeps
you can get these products delivered directly to your home.
And fantastically for a limited time
you beautiful bastards can get 50% off your order.
So if you're ready to take action
and prevent hair loss, go to Keeps.com/DeFranco
or just click that link in the description down below
to receive 50% off your first order.
The first bit of awesome today is actually a giveaway.
I'll be selecting two lucky people from my text line,
813-213-4423, and two people from my private mailing list
that you can join at shoptofranklin.com
to get a free one of these.
I'm very bad at this, one of these.
Or one of the short sleeves if you don't want to wear a,
you know, hoodies every day, all day.
I will continue to do so regardless of your choice.
We had will Smith doing a house tour
of the Fresh Prince mansion.
You had Mr. Beast's,
would you rather have a giant diamond or $100,000?
Which, I mean this in a positive way,
these videos now feel like a genuine TV show.
You had Netflix putting out Father of the Bride Part 3 ish.
With Netflix also putting out the full episode
on their YouTube channel of Explained: Whose Vote Counts.
John Cusack breaking down his most iconic characters.
And if you wanna see the full versions
of everything I just shared, the secret link of the day,
really anything at all,
links as always there in the description down below.
And the last thing that we're going to talk about today
of course, is the major news around the Supreme Court.
Right, over the weekend Donald Trump announced
that he was nominating Amy Coney Barrett
to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat.
To give you a little background here,
Barrett is a federal judge in the US Court of Appeals
for the 7th circuit.
A role that she has held
since she was appointed by Trump back in 2017
after working as a law professor at Notre Dame.
If she is appointed, which it seems incredibly likely,
she will become the youngest member of the court
at 48 years old.
Trumps two other appointees, Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch
are both in their 50s, meaning
the three Trump appointed justices
could potentially serve for decades.
Ultimately you'd have a conservative Supreme Court
with a six person majority.
Also with Barrett's nomination
we've seen religion brought up.
I was unaware of this, but her confirmation would mean
that six of the nine justices are Catholic.
You know, regarding her religion,
you have some concern that her religious beliefs
might impact her rulings.
But you have others saying, it's disgusting
to criticize someone over their faith.
Also, something regarding religion I wanted to note,
in recent days you have others raising questions
about her and her husband's reported involvement
in a Christian group called the People of Praise.
According to reports, that group,
which is largely described as a Christian sect,
grew out of the Catholic charismatic renewal movement
that began in the late 1960s
and adopted Pentecostal practices like speaking in tongues,
belief in prophecy, and divine healing.
And her alleged involvement with that group
is why you saw the Handmaid's Tale trending on Twitter.
This because some claim that the group
was the inspiration for the original Handmaid's book,
though that has been debunked.
But regardless, religion has been a big question
for this justice specifically.
And seemingly in response to those concerns
we saw Barrett for her part of the official announcement
of her nomination, say.
- I also want to acknowledge you, my fellow Americans.
The president has nominated me
to serve on the United States Supreme Court
and that institution belongs to all of us.
If confirmed, I would not assume that role
for the sake of those in my own circle
and certainly not for my own sake.
I would assume role to serve you.
- And then something that Barrett also hit on
when describing her personal judicial philosophy,
which he said was the same
as former Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia.
Who she actually clerked for
and described as her mentor, saying.
- His judicial philosophy is mine too.
A judge must apply the law as written.
Judges are not policymakers
and they must be resolute in setting aside
any policy views they might hold.
- And this idea that Barrett will follow closely
in Scalia's footsteps is really important
to the ongoing debate that we've been seeing.
On one side, you have many people in media outlets
saying yes, she will shift the court,
but she is ideologically in line
with other conservative judges.
But on the other side, you have a lot of others,
and specifically you see this on social media,
saying that her past decisions,
public statements, and publications
show that she is an extremist
and a religious fundamentalists.
And regarding those two sides,
we've seen a lot of confusion over Barrett's record,
where she stands on key issues,
and how that could affect future Supreme Court decisions.
And as far as those key issues,
first up a topic that possibly gets
this video demonetized and suppressed,
Roe V. Wade and abortion rights.
Here Barrett has been quite public
about our personal opposition to abortion
in both academic and judicial writings.
She has explicitly said that abortion is always immoral
and her nomination has been widely supported
by antiabortion groups.
Also, in addition to her personal views
and her role as a federal judge,
she is overseeing three cases regarding laws
restricting abortions in our home state of Indiana.
And all three of those cases she expressed concerns
over earlier rulings that had ended those restrictions.
Twice joining dissenting opinions
that would have struck down lower court rulings
and upheld abortion restrictions.
But, you have some arguing that both her personal beliefs
and past rulings do not necessarily mean
that you would strike down. Roe V. Wade.
While Trump vowed to appoint justices
ready to overrule the 1973 decision
that established the constitution recognizes
a right to abortion,
Barret has not yet said publicly
how she would rule on abortion
if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
And this is where things get a little messy.
Barrett has in the past called Roe and erroneous decision
and claimed that it ignited a national controversy
by deciding the issue via the Supreme Court,
rather than leaving it up to the states.
But at the same time, she has also repeatedly said
she doesn't think SCOTUS would overturn the ruling.
Speaking at an appearance in 2016 she stated,
"I don't think the core case, Roe's core holding
"that women have a right to an abortion,
"I don't think that would change.
"but I think the question
"of whether people can get very late term abortions,
"you know, how many restrictions can be put on clinics,
"I think that will change."
right, and that last point is really important
because while many experts believe
that it is unlikely that SCOTUS
will wholesale overturn Roe anytime soon,
what is very likely is that this court will make decisions
on cases that will slowly chip away at the ruling instead.
Though, understand, this is a point of debate
because the conservative justices do have enough votes
to go directly after abortion.
And that's for a number of reasons,
including the Barret has been clear that she would be open
to reversing a Supreme Court precedent
if she believed it went against the Constitution.
Right, so Roe V. Wade, one of the big things here,
and in addition to that, you have the Affordable Care Act.
And the timing with this one is incredibly significant
because just a week after election day
the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments
on the latest challenge to the ACA.
And notably here, Barrett has publicly criticized
the Supreme Court decision
that upheld Obamacare as Constitutional.
in a 2017 article that she wrote
she quoted her mentor Scalia's dissension with the law
by saying that it should be called SCOTUScare.
With her argument being
that an originalist reading of the constitution
would not allow for Obamacare.
Also criticizing Chief Justice Roberts stance on Obamacare,
saying that he considered too many factors
outside of the Constitution
when considering Obamacare's constitutionality.
Also regarding the ACA making employers offer birth control
regardless of their religious preferences.
In 2012 she allegedly signed a petition
against this provision
and is quoted by Newsweek saying at the time,
"This is a grave violation of religious freedom
"and cannot stand."
And this concern that a newly appointed Barrett
along with the other conservative justices
would be killing the ACA
is something that we saw Biden speak on this weekend.
- This is about your health care.
This is about whether or not the ACA will exist.
This is about whether or not
preexisting conditions will be continued to be covered.
This is about whether or not a woman can be charged more
for the same procedure as a man.
This is about people's health care
in the middle of a pandemic.
- Also, with everything I just covered I do wanna note,
those are just two key points.
It is very likely through the confirmation process
other things will be raised,
questions about her opinions and past choices
regarding LGBTQ plus rights, immigration,
maybe even stories related to this election.
There's been a lot of time for people like Ted Cruz,
President Trump, about getting this person on the court
in case anything comes up with the vote.
Which actually, regarding the timing what happens next,
Barrett will be meeting with senators
for the next two weeks.
Notably, that is much shorter than usual.
Normally lawmakers are given around six weeks
to meet with and vet a SCOTUS nominee.
But there Republicans have argued
that the quick turnaround is okay
because Barrett has already been vetted by the Senate.
And this is because back in 2018
she was actually being considered for the SCOTUS seat
that is now held by Brett Kavanaugh.
After that two weeks
Republicans have scheduled four consecutive days
of confirmation hearings starting October 12th
with the full committee vote set for October 22nd.
With of course their idea being
to have a full floor vote before the election.
Though, officially McConnell has not yet committed
to a pre election vote.
And the question of will they, or won't they
regarding a pre-election vote,
it's less about can they.
They can, as of right now, it is more a matter of strategy.
And ultimately the question of how will this impact voting.
Pushing through the now before election day,
does that supercharge liberals or conservatives?
And that's incredibly important
because right now Republicans control the Senate
but there are a number of Republicans
who are vulnerable right now.
But at the same time, there is the very real situation
that even if Republicans lose the Senate
they could still approve Barrett
in the time after the election
and before the new session in January.
But for now we have to wait and see not what will happen
but kind of the process that gets us to that end point.
Because the power is where the power is right now
and that can only change if people go out and vote.
And that is where I'm going to end today's show.
As always thank you for being a part
of these daily dives into the news,
supporting the show with like, shares whatever.
Also if you're new here definitely hit that subscribe button
and hey, maybe text me at 813-213-4423.
I'll make sure you get a notification for the show,
sometimes behind the scenes stuff, cool opportunities.
But with that said, of course as always,
my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in,
I love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow.