- You know, the more that I look around,
the more I see these kind of misleading headlines
about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
It feels like it's getting a really bad rap
because yes, its effectiveness rate is, like,
74% compared to the 94 and 95% of the Moderna
and Pfizer vaccines.
But it's only one shot instead of the two for others.
And its rate of preventing serious illness
is like the others, which is almost 100%.
So hey, if an addition to vaccine hesitancy,
there is brand hesitancy
and people do not want that J & J vaccine,
I mean, it was in a different context
but to quote your mother, "stick it in me now.
"Oh my God, I need it in me, please.
"I don't even care if I can't walk tomorrow.
"That is how bad I need it."
(Phil laughs)
Welcome back to the show.
The first thing that we're gonna talk
about today is technically a celebrity story,
but it's really just because they are celebrities
and the real issue, it's so weird.
So you have Sofia Vergara, of course famed actress,
fantastic roller of R's.
And the news that we're seeing today is
that a Los Angeles court has ruled in her favor
and against her ex-fiance, Nick Loeb.
And as far as what this lawsuit was about,
her ex-fiance was trying to use their embryos
without her consent.
So the way the story goes is that these two were together
until 2014 and had undergone in vitro fertilization
within the year before their breakup.
And Loeb has been fighting for permission
to use those embryos on his own via a surrogate
with TMZ reporting that to do so,
he tried to take custody of them through a trust
and even named the embryos in a lawsuit.
Also arguing in the Louisiana Court
that the embryo should be recognized as people with rights,
which that court did reject.
Though reports at that time said he might try to appeal.
And now, according to court documents obtained
by People Magazine,
an LA court has granted Vergara's request
for a permanent injunction preventing him
from using the embryos
without her explicit written permission.
Citing the fact that both of them, right,
this former couple, previously signed an agreement
that both parties would have to consent to use the embryos.
Though, there Loeb unsuccessfully tried to argue
that he was under duress when he signed that contract.
With this news, Loeb reportedly issued a statement
where, oh, wow, he said the judge,
"Was clearly influenced by Hollywood
"which is a pattern I expose in my upcoming film."
And I'm not going to say the name
because did you just try to plug your movie
during a statement about a lawsuit
where you're trying to use Sophia Vergara's,
what?
Also saying essentially that what Sophia is doing here is
intentionally killing babies.
And then let's talk about NFTs.
I'm gonna start with a story.
Then I'm gonna kind of tell you what I think about them.
So tomorrow Kings of Leon will become one of the first bands
in history to release an album as an NFT, AKA,
a non-fungible token.
Well, NFTs have actually existed for a little while now.
They've been popping up more and more in the news.
Maybe you've seen some of the headlines
like Grimes selling $6 million worth of NFTs as digital art.
You also have creators like Logan Paul
who first sold $5 million worth of NFTs last month
before then raking in another $880,000 from NFT sales.
With this news, understandably,
you have many people confused.
And when you're confused, you have people asking,
are these creators including Logan Paul scamming their fans?
What is an NFT?
What are these things?
I mean, for example,
if you look at a sales page for Logan Paul,
some of his NFTs are public clips of Pokemon card pulls,
but some of them selling for up to $20,000
with their descriptions reading,
"Total mint of three NFTs for this moment.
"This product represents digital ownership of the NFT video
"of this moment only.
"This does not represent ownership in a card,
"a physical asset, or of the YouTube video."
So ownership of the moment,
but not actually like the copyright of the video.
And so if you're still like, okay,
but what the hell is an NFT?
But before going into what I think they can be,
you have places like The Verge trying to explain it
by saying, "Non-fungible more or less means
"that something's unique
"and can't be replaced with something else.
"For example, a bitcoin is fungible,
"trade one for another bitcoin,
"and you'll have exactly the same thing."
However a minted moment within a clip, for example,
is non-fungible because you can't trade it
for the exact same moment.
And going on to say,
"NFTs can really be anything digital, such as drawings,
"music, your brain downloaded and turned into an AI.
"But a lot of the current excitement is
"around using the tech to sell digital art."
So in that sense, a lot of people see NFTs
as sort of a collector's item.
But where things get a lot more controversial
and where a lot of the skepticism comes from is the fact
that with digital files pretty much anyone can find a way
to access or view them.
For example, the Logan Paul NFTs,
whether it be the little Pokemon card,
people can see that image,
or the video, you can actually find that video on YouTube.
The way that we're seeing NFT believers kind of trying
to frame the situation is in terms
of let's say a physical art collection.
They have the argument of "anyone can buy a Monet print
"but only one person can own the original."
So looping back around to Kings of Leon releasing
their new album as an NFT,
it's being seen as a collector's item.
It will be available for two weeks,
but no more NFTs of the album will ever be made.
However, at the same time,
this album will also be released tomorrow
on places like Spotify and Apple Music.
Because once again, the final product,
the actual music itself, is not exclusive but the NFT is.
Which I know that sentence makes sense to some
and just seems completely ridiculous to others.
Which is why I will say I'm somewhat conflicted.
As far as NFTs in the art space.
It is 100% having a moment
and to see artists actually making money directly,
I will always be happy.
I don't know if there is a genuine future in it,
but it makes me happy to see artists getting paid.
Though I will say every day we see another story,
like for example, the famous auction house Christie's.
They're selling an NFT digital piece of artwork
that was exclusively minted for them.
Believe the current bid is at $3.5 million
with about a week left.
Every day we see another story like that.
It adds to the legitimacy, the potential future
for this to be a continued avenue for artists.
But, and I'll preface this as I'm not a financial advisor.
Blah blah blah blah, stipulations.
Use your own mind.
Where I do see NFTs being very interesting is
if they can have a utility.
Let's say, for example you go to a live event,
you had to pay for a ticket,
or you're a part of a membership service that I launch
in the next few months, and you hit your year milestone.
By going to that place or being a part of that membership
for a certain amount of time, you get an NFT.
They're limited, they're exclusive,
maybe having that or a certain number of NFTs
for a certain creator or a certain brand allow you access,
certain deals, things like that.
And because you have an NFT,
instead of just having the experience of going to a place
or having, you know, that ticket and that memory
or really having enjoyed that year,
the consumer, and in these cases,
the people that have the NFTs have something
that they can then resell
because yeah, maybe someone's trying
to collect all the Philip DeFranco
or all the Logan Paul NFTs.
Maybe it gets them access to things.
Maybe it allows them to kind of cut the line
because they got into this thing late.
They can buy the year membership NFT
from someone that is no longer interested.
And obviously that's just one example,
but that's where I personally get excited
about the opportunity here down the road.
Yeah, hopefully that helped a little bit
if you had the question of "what the hell is NF, what?"
In these past few weeks, I don't know.
Hopefully I did that.
But from that, let's take a second to pay some bills
and thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show,
Bespoke Post.
Bespoke Post, if you don't know,
is a monthly membership club delivering awesome boxes
of top shelf goods from under the radar brands ranging
from outdoor gear, barware, home and kitchen goods and more.
Best of all, it is free to join
and you can skip a month at any time.
Some of my favorites include the aged box.
I mean, you just pour a cocktail or un-aged liquor
into the agent kit and tastes a transformation
in as little as 10 days.
You've also got the popular made to last weekender bag
built from thick capable canvas
with a heavy duty reinforced frame, great for on the go.
And things like the Terra box for you outdoor types,
when you're yanking out weeds from the garden,
cutting fishing line, or hammering steaks at a campsite.
This award-winning field knife is the ultimate tool.
Every box has at least $70 in retail value
but costs only $45.
And if you don't like the box assigned to you,
you can always swap it for one of their other amazing boxes.
So just click that link down below
and take the quiz to help them pick the right box for you
and get 20% off your first box
when you enter in code DEFRANCO20 at checkout.
Then let's talk about Arizona
because hot off the heels of deciding the future of America
in this last general election,
it appears that Arizona may be bringing
to an end the only situation more important
than the last general election,
and that is Fortnite versus Google versus Apple.
And this because the Arizona House of Representatives
has passed a bill that could
ultimately end up restoring Fortnite on Apple
and Google's app stores.
And if you don't remember,
back in August of last year both companies booted Fortnite
from their app stores after the games developer, Epic Games,
snuck in an update that allowed users
to directly pay Epic for in-app purchases,
which notably was a massive change
from the officially sanctioned system
that requires app developers to use Apple
and Google's payment processing services.
A system that keeping here charges developers up to 30%
in commission, something that Epic
and others have criticized as monopolistic.
But now what we're seeing in Arizona is
that if they pass this legislation,
it would prevent app store operators from forcing developers
to use a preferred payment system.
However, that's only if the developers are based
in the state and are able to maintain
more than one million downloads a year
which does not currently include Epic Games
because they're not based in Arizona.
Though that said the bill also covers users in Arizona
from having to pay for apps
through exclusive payment systems.
So it's not immediately clear if that means developers
outside Arizona can avoid paying commission fees
when they sell something to a state resident.
But even if this bill can't restore Fortnite
on the app stores by itself,
it could pave the way for legislation in more
and more states.
And actually for example,
similar bills have also been proposed in Georgia,
Hawaii, and Minnesota.
Or I guess technically,
Epic Games could move their offices to Arizona,
which I mean would kind of be the ultimate fuck you.
Like, I'm gonna move my entire business.
Though if you're able to get back in the app stores
and not have to give 30%, I mean, that's a lot of Vbucks.
The move probably instantly pays for itself.
But also Arizona isn't the only state right now
with very interesting and important legislation.
In a completely different tier,
we have South Carolina poised to approve a bill
that will restart executions in the state
and add the firing squad as an option for the death penalty.
I know we kind of just went from zero to 100.
Vbucks to death.
So for some context here,
South Carolina has not actually executed death row inmates
for nearly a decade, but not because they don't want to.
The state which is one of the 28
where the death penalty is legal has had a shortage
of drugs used for lethal injection since 2011.
So essentially what happens is
that under the current law,
death row inmates can choose
between lethal injections and the electric chair.
But if they choose lethal injection,
the state cannot force them to die by electrocution
which has resulted in inmates picking that method,
so it cannot be done.
But now with this bill,
it would force inmates to choose between lethal injection,
electrocution, or the firing squad.
And if the drugs are not available,
the state could mandate one of the other two options.
Now, for those of you watching going,
"But why the firing squad, Phil?"
Well, initially the bill
which was introduced by Republicans would have
just forced the inmates to be electrocuted,
but then one democratic Senator proposed an amendment
to add the firing squad
which some believe is more humane
because it causes nearly instant death while injections
and electrocutions have been botched in the past.
And on Tuesday, the South Carolina Senate voted 32 to 11
to approve this amendment with the full bill expected
to pass the chamber later this week.
While, yes, we saw some Democrats joining the Republicans
who introduced the bill in Tuesday's vote,
others have argued against it citing racial disparities.
And this because according
to the South Carolina Department of Corrections,
208 of the 282 people who have been executed in the state
since 1912 were black.
That is nearly three out of every four.
Of the 37 inmates currently on death row in the state
nearly half are black.
But Republicans have pushed back against this arguing
that this legislation isn't about whether
or not the state should have the death penalty,
but rather that it's an effort
to make an existing law they've been unable
to enforce functional.
As far as what happens next, it's likely to pass the Senate.
It's likely to pass the House.
You also have the governor saying
that he would proudly sign it.
So unless we see something drastically change,
we should expect to see execution's resume
in South Carolina soon.
Which I mean, hey,
I don't think I've asked this question in years.
What are your thoughts on capital punishment?
Do you think that we
as a country should have the death penalty?
That the government has the right to take a life?
Yes, no.
Why, why not?
I'd love to hear from you in those comments down below.
Then let's definitely talk about
how now the House has passed a sweeping elections bill
that aims to significantly expand federal voting rights
all over the country.
And so this bill, called the For The People Act,
was proposed by Democrats and passed 220 to 210
almost entirely along party lines.
And according to reports, if signed into law,
it would be the most comprehensive enhancement
of federal protection since the 1960s.
And this bill would do a lot of things,
but the most significant provisions fall
into two broader categories,
creating uniform standards for voting
and increasing financial transparency.
Regarding the voting rights standards among other things,
the bill would weaken restrictive state voter ID laws,
mandate the state governments use existing records
to automatically register voters,
guarantee no excuse mail voting
and at least 15 days of early voting
for all federal election,
make it harder to purge voter rolls,
restore voting rights to former felons,
and end partisan gerrymandering
by requiring states to appoint independent commissions
to draw congressional districts.
And then as for what the bill aims
to do regarding expanding transparency,
would impose new disclosure requirements
for dark money donations used to finance campaigns,
create a public financing option
for congressional campaigns,
require presidential candidates
to disclose their tax returns which was kind of a standard
but never a law,
and require tech platforms
to disclose political advertising information.
And with all of this,
Democrats have argued that the legislation is essential
to protecting and ensuring
that all Americans have the right to vote.
Something they argue is especially important right now
because as we talked about earlier this week,
you have places like Georgia that are trying
to pass restrictive election bills.
And in general,
we're seeing Republican controlled state legislatures
proposing tons of bills that would roll back voting access.
This largely seen as a reaction to Trump's loss
and efforts to undermine the election results
by spreading misinformation about voter fraud,
something the Democrats for their part have described
as a very transparent attempt
by Republicans to consolidate their power
because they know that they benefit
from lower voter turnout.
Thus their strategy to win more races in the future is
to simply make voting harder.
Which is why we've seen things
like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying,
"Everything is at stake.
"We must win this race, this fight."
But as far as if this bill actually has a chance,
probably not because even with this going to the Senate,
I mean, the Senate back in 2019 struck down an
almost nearly identical version of this bill.
Even though the Democrats do have a razor thin majority,
50/50 split, Kamala Harris can split the tie,
they still need 10 Republicans to join all 50 Democrats
to break the 60 vote legislative filibuster.
And that is where I'm going to end today's show.
Of course, I'd love to know your thoughts on this
or any story that stood out to you today.
Let me know what you're thinking
in those comments down below.
Also as always,
thanks for being a part of my daily dives in the news.
Subscribe and hit the like button, all the good stuff.
If you're looking for more to watch,
I got more news coverage right here
that you can check out.
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 next time.