- Sup you beautiful bastards?
Hope you're having a fantastic Tuesday.
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show
and let's just jump into it.
And the first thing we're gonna talk about today
is oddly enough there were two national
news stories today about bedbugs.
The first that we're not gonna really
dive too deep into involved the president.
Over the past day, President Trump has suggested that his
Florida resort be the next location for the next G7 summit.
Which one, resulted in some conservatives
like Rick Santorum saying things like this.
- The fact is that the president should not be doing this.
He shouldn't, it would be a violation
of the law as far as I understand it.
I hope that this is the last time he mentions it.
- But also led to reports that that resort
actually had a bed bug problem,
with some specifically pointing to a 2017 settlement
where reportedly Eric Lender, an insurance executive,
charged he was bitten repeatedly by bedbugs while staying
in the resort's posh Jack Nicklaus Villa in 2016.
And while reportedly the Trump Organization denied
Linder's claim that his room had a severe
bedbug infestation, there were allegations made
and then a settlement that followed,
so you had people assuming that it must've been real.
And that's also why this morning we saw
President Trump tweet "no bedbugs at Doral.
The radical left democrats, upon hearing
that the perfectly located for the next G7
Doral National Miami was under consideration
for the next G7, spread that false and nasty rumor.
Not nice."
So there was that, but the other bit
I personally found more amusing.
So if you didn't see, news broke on Monday that there
was a bed bug infestation at the New York Times newsroom.
And following that, David Karpf,
who's an associate professor of media and public affairs
at George Washington University,
posted a tweet saying "the bedbugs are a metaphor.
The bedbugs are Bret Stephens."
Right, so making a joke about one of the paper's columnists.
And Stephens, a Times conservative writer,
who was not tagged directly in this tweet,
which initially only picked up nine likes
and no retweets, he took notice.
And a few hours after posting the tweet on Monday,
Karpf was surprised when he received an email from Stephens.
An email that notably was also sent to Karpf's provost
at the university, who's kind of
a senior administration official.
And in this email, Stephens wrote "I'm often amazed
about the things supposedly decent people
are prepared to say about other people,
people they've never met, on Twitter.
I think you've set a new standard.
I would welcome the opportunity for you to come to my home,
meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes,
and then call me a bedbug to my face.
That would take some genuine courage
and intellectual integrity on your part.
I promise to be courteous no matter what you have to say.
Maybe it will make you feel better about yourself."
And that eventually led to Karpf tweeting out that email,
which of course also led to waves
of backlash against Stephens, and of course
more attention to the initial bedbug tweet.
And after reading the email, you had a lot of people
that were angry at Stephens for CCing Karpf's superior,
saying that he was likely hoping to get the professor fired.
You also had others who were criticizing him
for reacting so poorly to the comments, since he's someone
who's been so vocal about protecting free speech.
And of course, because the internet is the internet,
it led to more jokes and more memes.
You know, because when you let the internet know
you're sensitive to something, they're like,
yes, you will have a second helping, sir.
And this was so big that not only Bret Stephens'
name trending, but also hashtag BretBug
was a trending topic on Twitter.
But ultimately in this situation,
we saw Stephens deactivate his entire Twitter account.
But before doing so, tweeting "Twitter is a sewer.
It brings out the worst in humanity.
I sincerely apologize for any part I've played
in making it worse, and to anyone I've ever hurt."
And as far as reactions of the two men in this situation,
in an interview with the Washington Post,
Karpf complained about Stephens' decision
to email his superior, saying "he not only thinks
I should be ashamed of what I wrote,
he thinks that I should also get in trouble for it.
That's an abuse of his power."
And also telling the Post that he would've been willing
to take Stephens up on his offer to chat in person
had he not included his boss on the email.
And also adding "you need to work
very hard to find a tweet that obscure,
and then work harder to find the writer's email
and their provost's email to CC them, too."
And as far as why he's not a fan of Stephens' work,
he said Stevens "tends to write pretty lightweight, poorly
researched columns about things that I know something about.
So I've always seen him as this person that everyone
complains about but we just can't get rid of.
He's a bedbug."
Meanwhile you had Stephens telling the Post
that his email quote speaks for itself.
But then he also later went on to speak for himself
on MSNBC saying that he had no intention
to get the professor in professional trouble,
but he said that institutions should be aware of how their
staff members interact with the rest of the world.
And he also had this to say about the bedbug insult.
- Analogizing people to insects is always wrong.
We can do better, we should be the people
on social media that we are in real life.
- And something that also followed his appearance on MSNBC
were people kind of splicing those clips up
with him speaking out against safe spaces back in 2017.
And as far as my reaction to this story,
I'm not gonna be out here calling Bret Stephens a bedbug,
although he does appear to be a small minded
thin skinned individual, instead what I would say
and focus on is look at this situation
as the wrong way to handle a situation.
If someone says what you take to be mean stuff about you,
just mute 'em and go about your day.
Right, you trying to get someone in trouble
for saying something you did not like,
that was seen by almost nobody,
you made sure that everybody would see it.
It's just another version of the Streisand effect.
But hey, with all of that said, of course with this story,
I pass the question off to you,
what are your thoughts on this?
But from all of that, I wanna share some stuff I loved today
in Today in Awesome, brought to you by privacy.com/phil.
And if you've never heard of privacy.com,
they're all about security, right,
and specifically keeping those unwanted fraudulent charges
away from you by creating secure virtual cards.
And what's great is that virtual
cards are locked to a merchant.
Right so if a place that you use that virtual card
gets hacked, you'll get the decline email
or a push notification if a hacker
tries to use the card elsewhere.
And with these you can freeze and freeze cards,
set spending limits per charge, per month, or per year.
And the best part is privacy.com is 100% free to use.
Also fantastically you can save time
with Privacy's Chrome extension.
You just fill out all your card information,
and then in just one click, all details
are instantly entered, so you don't have
to flip back and forth, making shopping online,
and protecting yourself while you do it, as easy as ever.
Right I mean every day we see people and companies
getting hit, and so it's all about protecting yourself.
And with privacy.com, they have saved customers
over $100 million in unwanted and unauthorized
charges due to compromised cards,
hidden fees, and forgotten subscriptions.
So if you wanna check it out, you wanna
start protecting your information today,
just click that link in the description down below,
or go to privacy.com/phil and even more awesomely,
even though it is completely free,
they will give you five dollars for your first purchase,
which, hey, you could use anywhere,
maybe even shopdefranco.com.
Five dollars off some awesome socks,
bottoms, tees, or hey, whatever else pleases you.
And the first bit of awesome today is it is Tuesday
which means we got a brand new Rogue Rocket deep dive.
And today we took a look at a thing
that likely you've never heard of before,
we explained the Triple Talaq ban
and controversy, definitely recommend it.
Then we got the honest trailer
for Godzilla: King of the Monsters.
We also got the actual trailer for Noelle
as well as a teaser for Timothée Chalamet in the King.
We got Gerard Butler breaking down
his most iconic characters.
We got the how it should've ended
for Spiderman: Far from Home.
And then finally our phil.chrono.gg partner game
of the day today is Graveyard Keeper which
is a fantastically well reviewed medieval cemetery sim.
You've got dark humor, ethical dilemmas.
And if you get it using our link before 9 a.m. tomorrow
and or while supplies last, you can
get it for 25% off at $14.99 today.
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
are in the description down below.
Then as as you may or may not've known,
MTV's Video Music Awards happened last night.
And while you've likely seen headlines around stories
like certain red carpet arrivals, including YouTube's own
Tana Mongeau showing up with a snake, can you believe?
And or Nikita Dragun showing up
with collared and leashed men,
with some loving it and others saying
that it's tacky, tasteless, and offensive.
Personally I'm just happy that we get to use
these ladies for a thumbnail so we can
get to the really important issues.
As well as other headlines about winners
and performances around Lil Nas X, Missy Elliott,
Taylor Swift, who actually in her acceptance speech
called out the White House regarding the Equality Act.
But the headline that I wanna talk to you about today
actually involves the place that the VMAs took place,
which if you didn't know is in Newark, New Jersey,
and it's actually in the midst of a water crisis.
Now for some background, starting around three years ago,
tests showed that the water in Newark's schools
contained high levels of lead, and then later homes
and residences throughout the city
also tested positive for lead.
Which prompted the city to distribute filters
to around 38,000 at risk homes a little under a year ago.
But then a report from earlier this month showed
that those filters may not have been properly working,
and so we saw the EPA write a letter to Newark's mayor
advising him to make sure that bottled water
was handed out to the affected communities.
And now after all of this time, in the past couple of days,
strides have been made to further fix the problem.
Just yesterday a plan to replace contaminated pipes
was announced, that plan allowing the city
to receive a $120 million loan
from the Essex County Improvement Authority to replace
and repair 18,000 lead surface lines causing the problem.
And with this loan, it's believed that that work
should take just between two to three years.
And while two to three years to fix a water problem,
which people use every day, may sound like a long time,
there had been a previous plan that would've cost the city
$75 million and taken close to a decade.
But the big thing to note here is that
while the plan has been announced,
several votes still need to happen for it to be approved.
And so in the meantime, I believe understandably,
Newark residents have been frustrated both by the water
crisis as well as the way officials have handled it.
Which, it wraps all around, is why they staged a protest
just across the street from the Prudential Center
where the VMAs were being held.
The protest was organized by the Newark Water Coalition
who tweeted during the event "water is a human right.
We need clean water.
Our children need clean water now."
And while reports on the numbers vary
somewhere between 100 to 200 people turned out.
Also according to the Newark Department of Public Safety,
five arrests were made because people
tried to cross over police barricades.
But other than that, the protests
were peaceful and without incident.
And reportedly the crowds chanted things
like we don't want no MTV, we want our water clean.
And during the protest, it appeared that some of the
protesters were angry that this event was being held
while there was also this crisis.
Also on the note of celebrities, the Newark Water Coalition
did try to get celebrities involved,
tweeting the likes of Cardi B, Lil Nas X, Taylor Swift,
and Lizzo to use their voices,
but we really didn't see this story get that attention.
Which I found one to be disappointing,
but also two is part of the reason why I'm using
the odd spectacle that is the VMAs in 2019
as a way to shine a light on the very real
long standing problem this area has faced.
And Newark residents have gotten to a point
where they're having a harder time trusting city officials,
especially when it comes to this crisis,
because they've been promised fixes
in the past and they've been let down.
But hopefully today's votes will actually kick start
a real solution, and also as a showcasing
that in future situations, if people
are vocal enough, they show up, they speak out,
that it is not guaranteed to fall on deaf ears
and that the word can get out for change.
But for now, we're gonna have to wait to see.
And then let's talk about the huge news
of Johnson & Johnson losing a massive
legal battle over the opioid crisis.
This is part of a lawsuit in Oklahoma that began
back in May, it was actually filed against Johnson & Johnson
and two others by the state, but we're focusing
on Johnson & Johnson today because those other two
reached settlement agreements before the trial began.
As far as with this trial, you had the state's
Attorney General Mike Hunter claiming
that Johnson & Johnson fueled the opioid crisis,
with the state saying more than 6,000 people in Oklahoma
have died since 2000 because of opioid related illnesses.
The state also claiming that by 2017,
pharmacies were filling an average
of 479 opioid prescriptions an hour.
What was really interesting here is that the trial
was actually argued on the basis of public nuisance laws,
which is something that's never been done
against a pharmaceutical company.
Right, to get a sense of how odd this is,
public nuisance laws are usually over property disputes.
But it is a broad law and can be applied to health issues
with the argument essentially being that Johnson & Johnson
created a public nuisance by spreading false information
to everyone from the public to doctors prescribing medicine.
Part of that misinformation included deceptive advertising
and downplaying the addictive qualities of opioids.
The state also pointing out that Johnson & Johnson
refined a highly addictive opioid poppy and then sold
the raw products to other opioid manufacturers.
And actually because of that, the state said
that Johnson & Johnson actually ended up supplying
most of the country's opioid ingredients.
But on the other side, you also had the lawyers
for Johnson & Johnson denying any misleading advertising.
Also testifying that the company shouldn't be held liable,
arguing that the opioids were supplied legally
and were tightly regulated by the FDA.
Those lawyers also argue that the company
only directly sold a relatively small amount of opioids,
saying that it amounted to about one percent
of all opioids sold in the country.
However, the judge here ultimately ended up siding
with the state, saying that the company
engaged in deceptive marketing and promotion of opioids
and also saying that those practices
lead to higher rates of addiction and overdoses.
- Those actions compromised the health and safety
of thousands of Oklahomans, specifically,
the defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced
by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths,
and neonatal absence syndrome in Oklahoma.
- And then ordering Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million,
which yes, is a lot of money, but also the state
had been asking for $17.5 billion,
with the state saying that they planned to use that money
to cover a wide range of services over the next 30 years.
This including treatment for victims, emergency care,
law enforcement, social services,
and other addiction-related needs,
but regarding that much larger figure,
the judge said that the state hadn't provided
sufficient evidence of costs past the first year.
And immediately after the decision, you had lawyers
for both sides talking at a press conference.
You had AG Hunter calling the decision
a great triumph for the state and then adding.
- What we showed during our seven week trial,
and what Judge Balkman confirmed today,
is what we know now for certain, Johnson & Johnson
was the kingpin behind the nation's ongoing opioid crisis.
- And as far as Johnson & Johnson goes,
this will not surprise you, it is already being
reported that they are going to appeal this decision.
After Hunter spoke, you had the company's lawyer
Sabrina Strong blasting the ruling.
- No Oklahoma court has ever done
what this court has done today in applying
public nuisance law to any commercial activity,
let alone the highly regulated
area of prescription medicines.
The decision violates well established
constitutional principles including due process of law.
- And one of the things to note here
is if this case is appealed, which likely it will,
it will end up at the doors of the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
But of course that escalation is usually part of the plan.
And one of the reasons this was and continues to be
so incredibly important is because this is the first
major legal loss by a pharmaceutical company
where a judge has held them accountable
for contributing to the opioid crisis.
Right and so that is why this case
is being hailed as a landmark decision.
As mentioned before, part of that is because
they successfully argued this under public nuisance laws.
Additionally, this could prove
to set a precedent in the coming months.
For example, in October you have a federal judge
in Ohio said to oversee another major lawsuit which involves
nearly 2,000 individual cases rolled into one.
And so we might see this change a lot.
And as far as my personal reaction to this,
I am happy about the decision in general,
but I also believe when you're talking
about Johnson & Johnson, and when you're talking about
the opioid crisis, $572 million, it should be much higher.
Right, and I'm not gonna go full bleeding heart on you,
I'm not gonna talk about what is the true value of a life.
Right, and if we just talk about actual dollars,
I mean we could look really quick to 2015 where reportedly
the White House Council of Economic Advisers
published a report in 2017 pegging the cost of the crisis
at just over $500 billion in 2015.
That report adding that it "includes lost productivity
as well as costs borne by taxpayers, such as ambulance runs,
jail treatment costs, and the costs of caring for children
whose parents have died from opioid overdoses."
And if it's been established that this company
is liable because they misled, they lied,
then you have to take into account the true cost
of their actions, and hopefully fund the things
meant to thwart the situation that they helped create.
Otherwise, $572 million, which yes is a large number,
can just be the cost of doing business for a massive,
massive company like Johnson & Johnson.
I mean their annual revenue last year
was reportedly $81 plus billion.
But hey, that's where this story ends today,
it obviously continues, and we're gonna keep our eyes on it.
And that's where we're going to end today's show.
And hey if you liked this video,
be sure to hit us with a like,
also if you're new here, definitely hit that subscribe
button, click that bell to turn on notifications.
That way you don't miss these shows.
Which actually, if you're not 100% filled in,
you want more viewing, if you wanna also watch today's
brand new deep dive and or maybe you missed
yesterday's Philip DeFranco Show, you can click
or tap right there to watch those right now.
But with that said, of course, as always,
my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been Phil'd in,
I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.