- 'Sup ya beautiful bastards,
welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show,
hit that like button to support the video,
hit that subscribe button for your chance to win $5,000
at the end of the month
and let's just jump into it.
And of course, the first thing
that we're gonna talk about today
is something that just two years ago seemed laughable,
impossible, just the prospect was ridiculous
but last night Floyd Mayweather fought Logan Paul.
And as far as the final result of that fight,
well yes, it was an exhibition
and there was no official winner announced,
both men won for different reasons.
As far as money, both of these guys made bank,
though one much more than the other.
The New York Times reporting that estimations varied
with one website saying that
Mayweather was guaranteed $10 million
and 50% of the pay-per-view buys.
Logan, $250,000 and 10% of the pay-per-view buys.
You have Mayweather saying he could make 100 million,
Logan saying around 20 million
but, at the time was also noting that
that should be kinda taken with a grain of salt.
But, main thing here, as far as money Mayweather wins
though, both men for 24 minutes of work made more money
than most people will ever see in their entire lives.
And then on the other side, as far as the story, the legacy,
I would argue that Logan Paul won more there,
and the reason for that
is he lasted eight rounds against Mayweather.
Yes, Mayweather weighted what?
30 plus pounds less.
Yes, he was the smaller fighter.
Yes, he's 44 and past his prime
but it's still Floyd Mayweather.
The bar for Logan Paul to succeed here was very low
as long as he didn't get knocked on his ass
and turned into a meme for that reason, he won.
Now that said, if you are one of these schmucks
that are like, "Yes, Logan Paul won on points."
You're dumb, Mayweather allowed Logan Paul
to gas himself out in those first two rounds
and then he pushed and controlled the rest of the fight.
And while I saw Mayweather noting as such
and a lot of people online,
including the likes of Ethan Klein
who decided to dance along with the tweet,
saying, "Logan Paul got more hugs in one night
from Floyd Mayweather than he got
from his dad during his entire childhood."
By the way, nice moves Ethan, keep it up.
But honestly, that was the only way Logan Paul
was gonna survive, punch at Mayweather and then hug him
so you don't get popped in the face.
You have so much weight on him, just rest on him.
And as someone that has personally gassed out
after doing about three, four minutes of planks
over the weekend, I can't talk to anyone
about not having cardio.
But hey, even Floyd Mayweather said it,
Logan Paul was actually better than
he thought he was gonna be.
And actually, as far as the story for Mayweather,
yes, I do think this hurt his legacy a little bit.
But also at the same time, Mayweather is a businessman
and I think from a strategic or a business standpoint
he knew that he's gonna be trading
just a certain level of his legacy for a ton of money.
And this is something that he touched on
in the press conference several times after the fight.
- And they say, well, it's not all about the money.
Well, your kids can't eat legacy.
Patches on my trunk, that's 30 million alone.
So, who's really the smartest one in the sport of boxing.
Damn, I'm writing this story about Floyd,
but look at the house I go to,
and look at the house he go to.
He said, "Oh, Floyd don't look good like he used to look."
My bank account looking better and better
each and every day.
- But hey, that's the story, part of my opinion
and now I pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts on last night?
From a pure fighting perspective, who do you think won?
Even though there weren't judges there officially,
you had ESPN doing their own scoring,
they gave it to Mayweather as 78 to 74.
I would personally agree with that.
I think Logan was throwing like a mad man,
he was very inaccurate, which you would expect
and the fact that Mayweather is such a small guy
but he was going towards Logan Paul,
he was pushing the pace, he was pushing the fight.
It just felt like it was Mayweather's fight
but, like I said, I wanna know your opinion
whether you agree or disagree with me
and I'd love to know why.
And also when it comes to the story versus the money
and all of that, do you see this as a situation
where both guys won equally?
One more than the other?
Why, why not?
'Cause yeah, it's just a weird, interesting moment in time.
And then let's talk about a story
involving this middle schooler,
except the first thing you should know
about this middle schooler is she is actually,
a 30 year old woman.
And more specifically, that is 30 year old Casey Garcia
who walked straight into Garcia-Enriquez Middle School
near El Paso, Texas, last Tuesday.
While posing as her 7th grade daughter.
And as you can see, she recorded herself doing this,
she posted it on YouTube, showing herself,
making it to class after class, even at one point,
greeting the school's principal.
- Hello. - [Principal] Good morning.
- Good morning. - [Principal] How are you?
- Fine, and yourself?
- [Principal] Great.
- And so we ended up seeing is the video on YouTube
doing pretty decent,
but a clip from this video went absolutely viral on TikTok
and what ended up happening is on Friday,
she was arrested, both for the stunt itself,
as well as an unrelated traffic warrant.
With her ultimately being charged for criminal trespassing
and tampering with government records.
She has since been released on a bond of nearly $8,000
and in another video posted before her arrest,
she explained why she had done all of this.
Saying she was trying to prove a point
by showing security flaws that put students
and staff at risk.
Also explaining how she was ultimately caught
when her last teacher of the day asked her
to stay after class.
- And she looked at me and she's like, "You're not Julie."
I was like, "No, I'm not."
I took off my mask, I took off my glasses and I said,
"No, I'm not Julie, I'm Julie's mom."
And she said, "Why?"
I think she was really mind boggled,
like she had no idea what the hell just happened.
And I said, "For social experiment, I wanted to see
if I could make it the entire day without anybody noticing."
And I'd say up until seventh period
I think that's a very long day for a 30 year old.
- And also with this, if you're in the same camp as me,
you're kinda just weirded out that someone would do this.
She said that she understands why people might think that
what she did was weird, but added.
- Are you more concerned that I, a parent,
was sitting next to your child or do we really wanna wait
for the next person taking their second amendment
right to the extreme?
I'm proving a point that this is, with all school systems,
private school, public school,
it doesn't matter, we have a problem.
There have been one too many mass shootings in schools,
elementary schools, colleges, high schools.
That is disgusting to think of
that this could have been prevented
just by putting metal detectors and more security.
- And so far the reactions to her stunt
have been fairly mixed with some slamming her behavior,
others applauding her for highlighting a problem
and as far as the school, it appears that
maybe Casey actually got what she wanted
because while the school has not commented much
about this incident, the district superintendent
did tell local reporters that it would review
and evaluate its security measures.
So the question that I'll leave you with is,
was this kinda just weird and creepy
or no, you think it was innovative?
It was creative and it's maybe gonna get
the result that she wants?
I'd love to know your thoughts.
And then we should definitely talk about
these two interesting sets of stats from the pandemic.
One, it feels like is expected,
the other maybe not so expected.
So as far as expected, according to exclusive polling data
from Axios-Ipsos, which was started in March of 2020,
23% of people who said they never wore a mask
outside of the home,
tested positive at some point for Coronavirus.
Which you then compare to 18% for people
who said they occasionally wore a mask
but not often, 13% sometimes, but not all the time
and the people who wore a mask at all times
only 11% ended up testing positive.
Right so a meaningful difference of 12%
between never and wearing mask all the time
especially when you would take into account
a population of 300 plus million.
But also, as Axios even notes,
the real true number for people who did not wear masks
is probably even bigger, right?
And that's because people who wore masks all the time
are also people who were going to be tested
more regularly than those who did not.
Right, so there's a very good chance
that if someone wasn't wearing a mask all the time,
they were not getting tested as regularly
and people are getting missed.
And also, unsurprisingly
with Axios noting with this polling,
that there was a pattern similar with social distancing.
Noting just 10% of people
who said they kept a six foot distance
from other people at all times tested positive for COVID,
compared to 26% of people who said they never did.
So you have that, but then in very unexpected news,
U.S traffic deaths actually rose by 7% last year,
with an estimated 36,680 reported cases
which is the biggest increase we've seen in 13 years.
Very notably we saw this spike in deadly accidents
despite there being far fewer people driving last year
due to the pandemic.
And in fact, the number of miles traveled
by vehicles last year fell 13% from 2019
and it appears that the possible reason for this is that
when there are fewer people on the road,
people are more inclined
to participate in dangerous behavior.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
blaming the increase in deaths on drivers
taking more risks on less congested roads by speeding,
failing to wear seat belts
or driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol.
And interestingly, we saw pedestrian deaths
remaining the same but motorcyclist deaths rose 9%,
bicyclist up 5%, passenger vehicles 5%.
Really one of the only places we saw a decrease
is traffic fatalities among people 65 and older fell 9%
because they were hiding inside.
So I guess the two things I'll leave you with is one,
be careful out there
and two, are all those idiots you hate around you
while you're driving,
it turns out they might actually keep you safe.
But from that I wanna take a second to pay some bills
and thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Keeps.
Two out of three guys will experience
some form of male pattern baldness
by the time that they're 35,
and everyone's got that someone in their life, right?
That brother, uncle, or friend dealing with hair loss
and if you don't wanna go down that road,
you don't have to just wait for it to happen to you too,
Keeps 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 actually offers generic versions
of the only two FDA approved hair loss products
that are out there.
So, some of you may have already tried them before
but probably never at this price,
and actually, fantastically for a limited time
you beautiful bastards can get 50% off your order.
All without having to go in person
to your doctor's office for the prescription
because with Keeps,
you get these products delivered directly to your door.
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.
Then, in potentially massive and meaningful news.
This morning the FDA approved the first drug that aims
to actually slow the deterioration of brain function
in people with Alzheimer's
and not just address the symptom.
And this drug which will go by the brand name Aduhelm,
also represents the first federally
approved Alzheimer's treatment in roughly 18 years.
And the reaction has been interesting,
you have many patients and advocacy groups
that lobbied for the drug to be approved,
celebrating this decision.
But, you also have numerous experts condemning this move
noting that there's just not enough evidence
to show that it actually slows cognitive decline
and arguing that the limited evidence that we do have,
suggests that the benefits would be so minimal
that they would not outweigh the risk of swelling
or bleeding in the brain.
In fact, the FDA appeared to acknowledge the controversy
by issuing an accelerated approval
that will require the drugs manufacturer Biogen,
to conduct a post-approval study.
But, and this is a big thing here,
during the several years that it will take
to conduct that trial,
Biogen will still be able to sell the drug
and oddly, if the post-approval study shows
that it is not effective, the FDA still doesn't have
to rescind the approval.
And as some reports have noted
this may actually get a little more complicated.
Noting that as we've seen with other drugs
that have been granted accelerated approval,
fail drugs don't get removed easily.
And noting that enrolling patients in confirmatory trials
is also difficult
because patients may want to try the treatment now,
instead of participating in a study.
Though, a thing here is that supporters of the approval
say that even if the drug is found to be ineffective
the FDA decision will still create new interest
and investment in Alzheimer's therapies
which are incredibly limited.
Which is concerning with something
that affects nearly 6 million people
in the United States alone and roughly 30 million globally,
and that number is expected to double by 2050.
And then, we should definitely talk about Mexico
where the last few weeks and months have been focused
on the midterm election season
and, like the U.S midterms, they're largely being seen
as a referendum on how the president there is doing.
We ended up seeing with yesterday's elections
there is the ruling coalition
of president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador
better known as AMLO, losing their grip on power, somewhat.
I say somewhat because after everything is counted,
the coalition is still expected
to maintain a simple majority in Congress
with current tallies indicating that the hold between
an upwards of 292 seats out of 500
but, that is also a laws of up to 60 lawmakers.
And that means without the help of opposition parties
AMLO won't be able to pass major legislative
and constitutional reforms.
And one of the biggest changes that AMLO wants to enact
is returning Mexico's energy sector to state control
but, without an absolute majority
that is unlikely to happen.
But a possible silver lining for them
is that AMLO's Morena party is expected
to win major local elections all across Mexico,
further cementing their role in politics.
Mexico's election is very newsworthy,
not just because of the results but also,
because it's been among the bloodiest in recent history.
And just so you can get a feel for it,
yesterday during voting a severed head was thrown
at a voting station in Tijuana.
With plastic bags that had other body parts
also found nearby, presumably from same victim.
But also, I mean that's just kinda the tip of the iceberg
for violence in the country at the moment.
In the state of Mexico,
not to be confused with the entire country,
someone threw an inert grenade into a voting center
to scare voters.
And the violence has been going on for months.
In fact, according to the security firm Etellekt,
79 politicians have been killed
and 443 attack in this election season alone.
In total, including public workers
and those associated with politicians,
they claim that 198 have died during this election season
but the cause of the violence being multifaceted
and often the politicians that are being targeted
are small town ones', with that often being
because they lack large protection details
and because controlling local politics
often works out better for the cartels in the long run.
And in fact, it doesn't appear
that the cartels have a preference for party
as 49% of those killed
were from parties opposing the current ruling coalition.
Though, we've also seen it argued
that the political violence may be rebuke
of AMLO's policy of not fighting the cartels
and hope that the violence would die down.
Also, we've seen some argue that these political deaths
are not the complete story, right?
Because, despite the rise in those murders
the overall homicide rate went down in 2020.
And actually, for the first time in five years,
according to the Institute for Economics and Peace,
more Mexican states improved
rather than deteriorated in peacefulness.
So for everyday people,
things might actually be trending upward, right?
Might be improving, but we also need to see
if this is kind of an outlier 12 to 18 months, right?
See if this trend continues.
Then, in big news regarding the United States
we should definitely talk about the Supreme Court today,
because one, this morning, the Supreme Court declined
to hear a case challenging the federal law
that requires just men to register for the military draft.
With this lawsuit being brought by the ACLU
on behalf of two men who were required to register
in a group called the National Coalition For Men.
In their petition, the organization argued
that the requirement for men but not women
to register for the draft at the age of 18, quote,
"Imposes selective burdens on men, reinforces the notion
that women are not full and equal citizens
and perpetuate stereotypes about men's
and women's capabilities."
But, the Supreme Court not taking on this case,
it's not really that deep,
and that's because they're not reviewing this case
because it appears that Congress
is actively considering this policy.
And in fact, regarding that last year
a congressional commission on the topic concluded
that expanding the registration requirement
to women was a necessary and overdue step
but, as far as what Congress is gonna do,
we don't really know.
The Trump administration for its part
defended the all-male policy
while Biden hasn't really taken a firm stance either way.
But, as far as cases at the Supreme Court to have gone
rulings that they give out.
We did see one, and that was with a unanimous vote,
the Supreme Court ruled that immigrants
who acquired a temporary state
in the United States for humanitarian reasons
they are ineligible to become permanent residents
if they entered the country illegally.
So as far as what this means for the around 400,000 people
that this involves, that doesn't mean that
they're getting kicked out of the country, right?
They still have temporary protected status,
but because they entered the country illegally,
they do not qualify for a green card.
But, really what this feels like is it's another kick
to Congress and there while yes,
there is a bill that's actually passed
in the House of Representatives that would make it possible
for TPS recipients to be granted permanent residency,
it would just die in the Senate.
So for now, that is where we are
and we're gonna have to wait to see what happens next.
And actually that kinda perfectly brings us
to the final story of the day
and that is the situation in the Senate
and Senator Joe Manchin, because the big headline,
the main focus is that Senator Joe Manchin yesterday
said that he will oppose the sweeping voting rights bill
that we've seen championed by other Democrats
as absolutely necessary to preserve democracy
and protect against GOP efforts to restrict voting rights,
so he's effectively ensure that the legislation will fail.
And as far as why Manchin is doing this,
he said in an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail
that the bill known as the For the People Act,
was too partisan.
Writing that, "The right to vote is fundamental
to our American democracy and protecting that right
should not be about party or politics.
Least of all protecting this right,
which is a value I share, should never be done
in a partisan manner."
And later adding,
"I believe that partisan voting legislation
will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy
and for that reason, I will vote against
the For the People Act."
With them then going on to say
that he will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster
while also extensively defending the 60 vote requirement
for most legislation to be passed, right?
And while this largely echo stances that Manchin
has previously made clear on both
the voting rights bill and the legislative filibuster,
the timing of this op-ed is key for two reasons.
First of all, it sends a clear message
that Manchin will not bend to pressure
from his Democratic colleagues
who have been urging him to drop some of his demands
for bipartisan deals when it seems like agreement
with both parties is impossible.
And notably here, that pressure is not just coming
from the more progressive members.
While speaking in Tulsa last week,
President Biden said that June should be a month of action
for Congress saying that he would fight
to get the For the People Act passed.
Although there the president
did not explicitly name Manchin,
he effectively blamed two Democratic senators
for holding up his agenda in a clear reference
to the West Virginia Democrat,
as well as Senator Kyrsten Sinema.
And that, actually brings us to the second reason
the timing here is notable
because Manchin's stance not only kills the voting bill
but also places much of Biden's agenda up in the air.
If Manchin published this op-ed
just one day before Congress was set
to reconvene after a week-long recess
and take a series of key votes on Biden's agenda,
including the infrastructure bill.
But now Manchin's remarks and specifically
his extensive defense of the filibuster
dampens the hope of progress on other legislation
and essentially guarantees that any democratic legislation
opposed by even the smallest number of Republicans
in the Senate will fail.
Now, that said it should be noted that parts of
the For the People Act
could actually be passed in other ways
if Democrats decided to break it up.
But the party has been rather hesitant to do so
and so with all of this, well, yes
you had more kind of Republican supporting Manchin here.
You had many condemning Manchin, noting that
he didn't oppose the voting rights bill on substance
but rather just because
it doesn't have bipartisan support.
With many arguing that Democrats should not try to work
with Republicans if they are hell-bent
on undermining Democratic institutions, right?
How do you work with a group of people or find compromise
when that group consists of a lot of people
that promoted election lies and doubt and democracy.
Who acted like what happened on January 6th
where a bunch of people that went through the gift shop
the wrong way, "Oh, woopsy."
The group that largely wants to restrict voting more
because when more people vote, they lose.
Yeah, we'll have to wait and see
and as far as my opinion here when it comes to Manchin,
one, I think he's making a stupid move here,
I think he's being incredibly short-sighted
and there are a lot of people
that do not care about Democratic norms
that he's trying to appease.
But also, two, it is important to note without Manchin
the Republicans would have the majority
in Congress right now,
it would be Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell.
When you look at the demographics
and how people historically vote in his State,
like the fact that Manchin is even a senator is amazing.
His seat should be held by a Republican.
So maybe what he's doing here
part of it's maybe self-preservation,
maybe part of it is he feels like
he's properly representing his constituents.
Granted, I think that he's hurting democracy here
and it makes me worry to see
what's gonna happen in the midterms
and then the two years after that
but, ultimately time will tell.
But ultimately with this story,
or honestly anything else that stood out to you today
I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below,
because one, this is all supposed to be a conversation
and two, this is the end of today's show
which is why I wanna say as always,
thanks for being a part of the family,
watch and like in the video,
subscribe and all the good stuff.
If you're looking for more to watch,
you're covered right here or in the top links down below
but, with that said, of course, as always,
my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in,
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.