- 'Sup you Beautiful Bastards?
Hope you havin' a fantastic Tuesday.
Welcome back to The Philip DeFranco Show
and let's just jump into.
And the first thing that we're gonna talk about today is a
story that actually broke in the middle of me filming this show
and it is an update on Mark Salling.
It was reported today that the former "Glee" star
is dead at the age of 35.
Initial reports saying that it looks like an apparent suicide.
We've talked about Salling in the past.
He was charged with possession of child pornography.
A search warrant for his home revealed over 50,000 child porn
images on his computer and a thumb drive.
Prosecutors also saying he had
600 videos of underage child being abused.
He ended up pleading guilty to possession of child pornography.
He was set to be sentenced March 7th.
It looked like he was facing
between four and seven years in prison.
He would have to be a registered sex offender and
now we're getting this news.
And I had a lot of people on Twitter asking,
"What do you feel about this?"
And my response to that is
I'm almost never happy when someone dies.
There are exceptions like when
we found out Bin Laden had been killed.
I was very happy around that announcement.
I think I was high five-ing and hugging people.
And here when I look at this situation,
I don't have that same feeling.
I'm not happy but I'm also not sad.
For some reason there's this feeling that when someone dies,
you know, you forgive some of their sins.
They're still a human being
but no we're talking about a convicted pedophile here.
And this is the part in a story like this where there's a very
vocal minority that says, "Hey, there's a difference
"between pedophiles and child molesters," and yes.
But I understand if a pedophile is going out and getting and
consuming child pornography, they are part of the problem.
The children in those videos and images,
they are being exploited, they are being abused and
the people consuming that content are part of the reason.
And so when I look at this story,
while I may not be having an emotional reaction,
I look at it and go the net result here
is one less pedophile on this planet and
if it kept trending that way, great.
I do thank him for saving the American taxpayer money
and really the only people I feel bad for
in this instance is his family.
Suicide is a very real issue but when someone commits suicide it
does not absolve them of what they have done on this planet.
I saw Salling's attorney release this statement,
"Mark was a gentle and loving person,
"a person of great creativity, who was doing his best to atone
"for serious mistakes and errors of judgment."
And I have a problem with that for two reasons.
The first being that he was creative.
I've seen people saying that they were conflicted on how to
feel because yes, he was a pedophile but
also they really liked him on "Glee".
To me, that's personally, a ridiculous mindset.
You're a big fan of someone's character so I don't know how to
feel about them being a convicted pedophile.
Nah, it sounds like it should be pretty easy.
The second reason it bugs me is it doesn't feel like the words
"mistake" and "errors of judgment" should be applied to
downloaded, possessing 50,000 images,
600 videos of underage children being abused.
But that said, I want to pass the question off to you.
What is your opinion here?
Do you agree with how I'm feeling about this?
Do you disagree with how I'm feeling about this?
I'd love to know your thoughts.
And then we had Hawaii back in the news.
Remember how people in Hawaii were terrified for around
38 minutes because they got an alert saying
"Ballistic missile incoming... Not a drill."
And Hawaiian authorities explained this as this was just
someone hitting the wrong button.
Their explanation that test drill and real drill just
buttons on top of one another.
According to a new report, that's not what happened.
According to the initial findings of an investigation by
federal officials, the night shift supervisor for
this organization decided that they were going to
have an unannounced drill.
You know, "We have to test the crew.
"Make sure that they are on their A game at all times."
Well apparently when the audio alert played for the crew,
it did include the audio "exercise, exercise, exercise"
but apparently the audio for that "exercise" that says
"exercise, exercise, exercise" also included the audio
"This is not a drill."
And so now that we've learned thanks to the officer who
actually sent out the alert to everyone's phones is that
he didn't hear the "exercise" part but
did hear the "This is not a drill" part.
So this alert went out because this person actually thought a
missile was coming towards Hawaii.
Which looking back at the situation makes a lot more sense
because, reportedly, after selecting this a real alert or
this is a drill, there's also reportedly a confirmation screen
where you have to say, yes, this is actually happening or
no, whoops, sorry I hit the wrong button.
And actually a last second update to this story,
that emergency worker has now been fired.
According to a report released today,
"The employee 'has been a source of concern
"'for the same staff for over 10 years.'"
So still incredibly ridiculous, seemingly easy to avoid
situation but now it appears that we have more answers.
Then in what are some people outraged about today news,
let's talk about Kim Kardashian.
Kim for whatever reason yesterday,
probably that she got tired that a lot of her tweets were getting
less than a thousand retweets,
decided to go on a picture posting spree.
She post picture after picture showcasing her various assets.
While she got some push back from some people saying,
"Really? You're posting these? You're a mother."
To which I'll say, just because you have children doesn't mean
you are not your own person any more.
That you can't be sexual or sexualized if you want to be.
That's stupid in my opinion but the reason she came under fire
wasn't actually because of that.
It was because of her braids and
something she said a video on Sunday.
- So guys I did Bo Derek braids
and I'm really into it.
- Bo Derek, if you don't know, is a white actress.
She was styled with braids in the 1979 movie "10".
Also in one of the pictures she posted
she included the caption "Bo West".
And many people were quick to call her out for this.
One user writing, "They are called Fulani braids
"or may even say corn rows.
"You could of called them either one but you called them
"'Bo Derek' giving credit to a white woman for a black style
"knowing you already catch heat for culture vulturing."
Another writing, "Dear Kim Kardashian Your 'new hairstyle'
"is not NEW nor are they Bo Derek braids because she
"didn't create the shit... Call them what they are and
"quit appropriating OUR HAIRSTYLES AS NEW!"
Others not only angry just about the attribution
but that she did it in general.
Some tweeting, "Kim you look great but this is not an
"appropriate hairstyle for u to wear,
"please take it out & read up on cultural appropriation."
Another, "First of all this look is NOT for her and second,
"when is the Kardashian family
"going to stop appropriating black culture."
Some users also defending her saying Bo Derek did have this
style in 1979 so she's technically correct.
She just shows this reference, what's the big deal?
And my whole response to this situation is really internet?
You're gonna make me defend Kim Kardashian?
As far as people closing the door on her saying,
"That style's not for you. You're not allowed,"
no, I disagree completely.
As far as the attribution angle,
I can understand some people's frustrations.
I'm not personally frustrated. I'm not offended.
I don't think Kim Kardashian needs to apologize.
Granted, if you really look into the history of braiding,
it goes back thousands and thousands
and thousands of years.
It's also a part of many cultures so when I say
I understand if you feel like you were you own
that in some way, I understand.
But feelings aren't facts and so in general the whole thing feels
like it's just being perpetrated by people
who are professionally offended.
But, of course, that said this is The Philip DeFranco Show.
I give you the story, I give you my opinion
and then I want to hear from you.
You, as a group, have so many different backgrounds,
so many different opinions and
I'd love to know your thoughts here.
From that I want to share some stuff I love today in today
in Today in Awesome.
And the first bit of awesome is
we got a trailer for "Ant-Man and the Wasp".
Then we got a trailer for Duncan Jones' new movie "Mute".
It's going to be coming out Netflix.
Dunca Jones, of course, the man that directed "Moon",
"Source Code", or we don't talk really about "Warcraft".
It looks like a fantastic, trippy mess.
That said, we also got a trailer for something that looks far
trippier and that is the trailer for the horror movie
"Hereditary".
I'm excited for this one not only because the trailer looks
good but because people that
watched it at Sundance say it's amazing.
Then keeping with the theme of something horror,
we have a horror short. It's called "Your Date is Here".
It's just six minutes, I highly recommend it if
you have six minutes to spare.
If you want to see the full versions of everything
I just shared, the secret link of the day,
anything at all, links is always in the description down below.
And then let's talk about
President Trump and the Russian sanctions.
Today you may have seen one of the headlines like this one
saying "Trump refuses to impose new Russia sanctions despite law
"passed by US Congress over election hacking".
And this has sparked questions and outrage in the Trump
administration's perceived lack of commitment to take
a strong stance on Russia.
Let's explain why this is a big deal and also how
the White House is justifying it.
And to do that, let's first jump back to July of 2017.
Congress almost unanimously passes the
Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
We're talking a vote of 517 to 5.
That's an insane vote for Congress.
They can go outside say, "Oh, the sky is blue," and
they'd have like a 10 hour heated debate on the floor.
The vote would end up being much tighter I feel.
So it goes through the House and the Senate,
the President doesn't like it but he still signed it into law.
With how much support this bill had,
even if Trump had vetoed it, it would been able to pass.
So what did the law do? Well it put up sanctions against
Iran and North Korea for their continued pursuit of ICBMs
and, critical to the current situation and headlines,
also imposed rules for sanctions against Russia.
And this was meant to punish Russia for a few things.
Their annexation of Crimea, their arming of rebel
separatists in eastern Ukraine.
The Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
And this bill was supposed to punish Russian energy,
defensive and intelligence sectors.
Also the bill removed the President's power
to change sanctions as freely.
This by imposing a waiting period.
And this meant the President cannot unilaterally change
sanctions which was something
Congress feared from this President.
And despite signing the bill, Trump said,
"In its haste to pass this legislation,
"the Congress included a number
"of clearly unconstitutional provisions."
Later adding, "This bill remains seriously flawed -
"particularly because it encroaches on the
"executive branch's authority to negotiate.
"Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill
"after seven years of talking.
"By limiting the executive's flexibility,
"this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good
"deals for the American people and will drive China,
"Russia and North Korea much closer together."
Now today is not actually the first time Trump has missed a
deadline on this law.
The first one was on October 1st.
The Trump administration was supposed to issue a blacklist.
Issuing "regulations or other guidance to specify the persons
"that are a part of, or operate for or on behalf of,
"the defense and intelligence sectors of the
"government of the Russian Federation."
And it took roughly three weeks and pressure from Congress for
the administration to finally issue the blacklist.
So then comes the big deadline, 11:59 PM January 29th.
The administration is supposed to have done quite
a few things by this point.
They were supposed to issue a "Putin list".
These are individuals with deep political ties to Putin or
who've made large sums of money
because of their connections to Putin.
Here the administration barely
put out the list right before the deadline.
They listed 114 political figures,
96 billionaires and oligarchs in Russia.
Also note here, they issue classified list of people
but we don't know who else is on that list.
Next up were the sanctions most people
viewed as the big sanctions.
CAATSA required that the US impose sanctions on countries
and entities that are doing "significant business with those
"on the October 1st blacklist."
And these sanctions were meant to deter countries from buying
Russian arms and thus significantly hurt
the Russian arms industry.
However, the Trump administration declined to do so
and this is where things get really heated.
Many are upset by this move.
Representative Eliot Engel of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee saying, "I'm fed up waiting for this administration
"to protect our country and our elections.
"They've now shown us they won't act,
"so it's time for Congress to do more.
"The Trump administration had a decision to make whether they
"would follow the law and crack down on those responsible for
"attacking American democracy in 2016.
"They chose instead to let Russia off the hook again."
Claire McCaskill tweeting, "Congress voted 517-5
"to impose sanctions on Russia.
"The President decides to ignore that law.
"Folks that is a constitutional crisis.
"There should be outrage in every corner of this country."
And a note there, this appears to be a reference
to Article 2, Section 3 and Clause 5 of the Constitution
which is a thing I totally know and not something that I found
out thanks to the internet that states,
the President "shall take care that the laws
"be faithfully executed".
But on that note, let's talk about why the
Trump administration say they have their reasons for why
the sanctions haven't been imposed.
They're still being widely criticized but it's important to
know what their rationale is.
We had State Department official Heather Nauert trying to explain
saying, "Sanctions on specific entities or individuals will not
"need to be imposed because the legislation is,
"in fact, serving as a deterrent.
"Since the enactment of the CAATSA legislation,
"we estimate that foreign governments have abandoned
"planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in
"Russian defense acquisitions."
And so essentially the argument is we don't need to put
sanctions in place because the threat of sanctions
has caused deals to be thrown out.
However a point of contention is that Nauert didn't also cite
evidence to back up the claim.
And then another argument from
the White House comes down to definitions.
CAATSA only says that entities and countries doing
"significant transaction" with Russian defense industries.
However, they say the document fails to define what
"significant transactions" are.
The law also allows the administration to delay
sanctions if they see an entity is "significantly scaling back
"their deals with Russia".
They just need to notify Congress every 180 days.
However, "significantly" is not defined in the document.
So based on that technicality, you could have so-and-so is
still doing business with Russia.
You could say, "Well, is it for a bajillion dollars?"
And then go like, "Well, it's like half a bajillion dollars."
And then you could go, "That doesn't sound significant to me.
"Bajillion's kind of the entry point
"for significant in my book."
Also, because I know sometimes some not so smart people watch
these videos because it pops up in trending,
yes, I know bajillion's not a real number.
That's kind of the point, okay.
Also another important note here is last month there was list
published of potential sanction targets those who worked with
those on the blacklist.
The problem for the United States is there are
major US and NATO allies on that list.
Turkey, for example, is a major ally in NATO.
They also have a major deal with
Russia for anti-aircraft missile systems.
Saudi Arabia as well has major deals with Russia
and is a huge US partner in the region.
India is also a huge partner for the United States
and a massive buyer of Russian arms.
And so the argument there is sanctioning all of
those countries, all of those allies, would put the
Trump administration in an awkward place.
It'd put the United States in an awkward place.
And while the administration still holds the right to
impose sanctions, they're saying that their ability to do
so is a deterrent enough.
But that said, all of this is happening the same day
CIA Director Mike Pompeo stated that he has "every expectation"
that Russia will try to meddle in the 2018 midterms.
And so many people are seeing this as the Trump administration
taking the teeth out of America's bite.
You have Russia, who according to the CIA Director is saying,
"Yes, they're going to try and mess with our democracy."
You had sanctions that were nearly universally approved that
were meant to punish Russia not only for election meddling but
for many other things and you still have a Russia that is
still reportedly selling billions of dollars of arms to
allies but because "specifically"
isn't defined in the bill and thus
you're not dealing with exacts, they're essentially saying,
"Ah, it's not a lot. It's not a big deal."
That still seems pretty damn crazy and playing the ally angle
is very weird for the White House when the whole
mindset I think is supposed to be "Make America Great Again".
It's nationalism versus globalism.
But all of that said, I do want to pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts here?
Do you think this exposes something?
It shows us something?
Or you think no, you understand the mindset.
You understand the argument of not enforcing these sanctions.
I'd love to know what you're thinking and why.
And that's where I'm going to end today's show.
And remember, if you liked this video,
you like what I'm trying got do on this channel,
hit that like button.
If you're new here, hit that subscribe button.
Make sure you don't miss these daily videos.
Which actually if you did miss
yesterday's Philip DeFranco Show,
you want to catch up,
click or tap right there to watch that.
Or if you need something lighter,
click right here to watch the newest behind the scenes vlog.
But 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.