Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Wednesday, welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show and before we jump into it
just a quick little note. While morning shows are not standard, we are still testing them in this morning
I post a brand new morning show. WE covered the very important and heartbreaking story of Jamel Miles
so after today's show, if you didn't see that this morning, I'll link to it down below.
Definitely check it out. Also for those sending me messages that you're not getting this show or that show in your sub boxes
I don't know what to tell you
YouTube is YouTube, just make sure you come back to the channel every day - regular time
But with that said for today's show, let's just jump into it
And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is we had Elon Musk back in the news for an update around a story that I
felt a gun away and it's a story that's connected to the aftermath of the Thai cave rescue situation.
You might remember there was that British diver in Thailand by the name of Vernon Unsworth?
It was reported that he had a leading role in rescuing those kids in the cave.
He also had some words about Elon Musk and his submarine that he was trying to develop that Elon Musk did not like. Ultimately the
situation led to Elon Musk calling the diver a "pedo" - even offering to take a bet on it
But I thought the situation was over and done with because on July 17th, he publicly apologized. "As this well-written article suggests
My words were spoken in anger after Mr
Unsworth said several untruths and suggested I engage in a sexual act with a mini-sub"
Although a note here is the the framing here is somewhat manipulative. Right,
what Unsworth did is say you can stick your submarine where it hurts. It's a turn of phrase
well, like when you tell someone to go fuck themselves, you're not actually suggesting a sexual act. But to finish his tweets, "A mini-sub
which had been built as an act of kindness and according to specifications from the dive team leader.
Nonetheless, his actions against me. Do not justify my actions against him, and for that I apologized to Mr.
Unsworth and to the companies I represent as leader. The fault is mine and mine alone."
But then yesterday there was this whole
situation with the New York Times putting out an article and Elon Musk tweeting that he didn't actually cry.
Eventually that leads to him getting into a back-and-forth but through all and off who was a former TechCrunch writer who wrote, "one other thing
Elon, your dedication to facts and truth would have been wonderful if applied to that time when you called someone a 'pedo'", to which Elon Musk
replied, "You don't think it's strange he hasn't sued me?
He was offered free legal services. And you call yourself Yoda"
To which Drew responded, "what I think is especially
strange is that you're wondering why he hasn't sued you while the rest of us are wondering why you did something so egregious that he
could sue you for in the first place?? To which Elon Musk responded,
"Did you investigate at all? I'm guessing the answer is no. Why?" And so then - I mean we're talking about it today
you've probably predicted it - the news coming out today is that Unsworth IS suing Elon Musk. And specifically, according to CNBC
"Unsworth....is preparing a civil complaint for libel against Musk", and this was "according to a letter to Musk from Unsworth's attorney..."
Reportedly the letter was dated August 6
which is incredibly notable here because it would be kind of a suspect if this letter just
happened to be sent out after Musk said this stuff online. And in addition to sending it to news outlets,
Unsworth's attorney went to Twitter and tweeted the picture of the document to must with the caption
"Elon Musk should check his mail before tweeting." Yeah...that is where we are today. As of recording
this video, Elon Musk is not tweeted for 14 hours. And just looking at this situation
it's just it's one of those things
my personal mindset is I see Elon Musk as an aspirational figure when I look to how he
views a lot of the worlds and what he is trying to do with his company. But man! He is his own worst enemy!
I mean his
response...it just feels like he is the reason that this whole situation has reignited. And then let's quickly talk about some quickie online
news - some that are connected to records. The first being the kpop supergroup BTS has once again set another YouTube record. Last Friday
they premiered their music video for 'Idol' and, in one day, it got 45 million views
which meant that they passed the now former queen of the single day numbers, Taylor Swift, who had 43.2 million
that for her music video for 'Look what you made me do'. And obviously, all great numbers, all winners
but I mean, it's just a completely different league that we're talking about here
The now third place debut is Psy's 'Gentleman' with 36 million so, I mean, there's the disparity - the jump - is crazy!
Also, you had comedian, podcaster,
former MMA fighter, Brendan Schaub making headline - this because he made a point some people saying he kind of took a shot at the
UFC in connection with the Logan Paul - KSI fight, "'Did you not see the Logan Paul fight?' like, 'yeah, sure did'
He looked terrible! He did not, what numbers did they do?
[inaudible] card
we've had this year - counting the illegal streams - and somehow these gentlemen who are YouTube savvy figured out illegal streams as well
which we can't do, they figured out all that
should we sign them? I..I would guarantee there's a - and this gonna hurt so many people's feelings -
I guarantee there's a spark interest of signing Logan Paul to the UFC."
Also hitting on the note that it's not a ridiculous idea because, quote, "people want to hate
on these, tell me how this is any different than the UFC signing CM Punk?
I will wait." Which, I mean, if you saw those CM Punk fights
he does have a point. And additionally, on the number of buys, once again, Schuab is right
although it's..it's not a complete one-to-one comparison
UFC payper-views much more expensive, but reportedly even UFC 226 which had Cormier
it was a champion versus champion super fight
apparently, that didn't even break 400,000 buys. And I will say, I Schuab has somewhat of a point here
I think the price differential though in the pay-per-view is..is...is a massive factor. That should be considered.
I mean UFC is like 65 - the other was 10.
But ultimately at the end of the day, what ends up selling, is the celebrity and the spectacle.
I mean, that's...that's something that Mayweather and
McGregor figured out WAY before. Obviously, when referring to those two men we're talking about people at a VASTLY different skill level, but
it's...it's all this weird interesting
merging bubble.
And it'll be interesting to see in the world of entertainment what happens over the next two years because it is very odd time.
And finally, the last bit of industry and community news, is that, very soon on YouTube,
We may have a new 'number one subscribed'. For years and years
the number one title has and still does belong to Felix - aka PewDiePie.
He's sitting at 65 million subscribers
but right now it appears that he will be surpassed very soon by a channel called T Series. T series is reportedly an Indian music
label and movie studios
so technically Felix, even after he does - or if he does - get passed, will still be the largest YouTube channel run by an individual but
times are a-changin. And as far as Felix's reaction to the news, he took it very well He...whipped out a samurai sword. Is it a samurai sword?
I don't know...but he, he was joking about it. He was memen
Although if you do go to some of the videos on the T Series channel
it does appear that some of his fans - whether they're they're serious about it, or they're just memen - they're disliking videos.
But, I will say in general
I don't think it's the most massive deal. Felix will still be the largest SINGLE creator and also the rise of different channels
organizations - specifically those with different demographics or different interests or different content -
I think it ends up being a potential mutual win for everyone involved: More people on YouTube, More potential new viewers and
members to come back every single day. But from that,
I wanna share some stuff I loovvveee today, and 'Today In Awesome', brought to you by Phil.Ting.com. If you're not familiar Ting
Is the fantastic, no BS mobile phone service. You got no contracts, no overage fees,
no other carrier tricks were all of a sudden you thought you were getting a good price and you're not. It's incredibly simple - you just
pay a fair price for the talk, text and data you actually use each month. With Ting, if you use less, you pay less. It
And Ting just gives you complete control of the situation, you get their fantastic service, use the fantastic
you want and the average Ting customer just pays $23 per month for one device.
And so if you want to check it out - like so many from the nation already have - go to Phil.Ting.com. You can check your
phone's compatibility right now, and also, you get $25 off your bill or
$25 off a new phone in the Ting shop
If you sign up now. The first bit of Awesome today is, in addition to today's morning video here on this channel,
we put out another video where myself and part of the crew from the PDS team rogue rocket in general.
We went out and we worked with Thirst Projects. It's kind of a behind the scenes
challenge video, charity video all-in-one. After today show, I'll link to it down below. Definitely check it out! And we had Thrillist giving
give us that food good, good, awesome with a cheeseburger pizza!
We had Jason Bateman breaking down his career. And we have Kevin Hart and Johnny Manziel on 'Cold As Balls'
We got a trailer for 'The First', as well as a trailer for 'First Man' with Ryan Gosling
Then we got the news of Matt Smith - David Tennant will still be my favorite doctor - is joining the cast of Star Wars Episode nine
in a key role. And then, something that's just kind of pretty cool, British GQ named our pretentious
backpacks one of the 10 coolest things last week. And so, in honor of that, if you want to snag one of our black
Pretentious backpacks or, one of our brand-new pretentious blankets -
Oh, look at that sleeping Philip DeFranco definitely sleeping and not posing and trying not to laugh -
you want to snag one of those in - honor of all of this - I'm going to extend code "DADDY" for another 24 hours
so not just on the "Please don't call me Daddy' shirt , but on these items as well, you can get a discount.
so if you want to snag one, I'll link down below directly to those products since
we have to tweak the navigation a little bit. If you want to see the full versions of everything
I just shared, the secret link of the day - anything at all - links, as always, are in the description down bellow.
Now let's talk about this massive news coming out of
California. And, specifically, I'm talking about the fact that California will become the first state in the nation to eliminate cash bail for suspects awaiting
trial under a sweeping reform bill called the 'California Money Bail Reform Act". The bill passed in the state Senate with a vote of
26 to 12 - in the General Assembly with a vote of 42 to 31. Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill and it will go
into effect October 1st, 2019
And if you're not familiar with the bail
situation, in California right now, under the current law, bail is often set according to a fixed bail schedule. And that bail schedule is
basically a chart of bail amounts that correspond with the charge and the defendant's criminal history.
Right the way that it is now, if you're charged with a crime, a bail might be set. You can then either: one, pay the
bail in full; two, borrow the money from a bail bond agent; or three,
you cannot pay your bail. And so you have to stay in jail
and this is of course before there has been a verdict or any sort of sentencing. But, under the new California law,
those arrested and charged with a crime won't be putting up money or borrowing from a bail bond agent for their release. Instead,
individuals will get a pre- trial risk assessment conducted by pre-trial assessment services to decide whether to keep that person in custody or to release them
while they await trial. So, what this means here
is that a court employee or a local public agency that has been contracted will determine if the defendant has high,
medium or low risk. And this is based on a number of things like, how likely they are to show up for their court date, the
seriousness of their crime and the likelihood of them re-offending.
Though - and this is incredibly important -
most of the details on how individuals will be assessed have been left for California's judicial council to create. The general idea though is
in most non violent misdemeanor cases,
the defendants would be released within 12 hours without a risk assessment. People who are deemed low and medium risk will mostly be released on their
own recognizance or under supervision conditions like GPS
monitoring or regular check-ins with an office. And finally
high-risk people remain detained until a hearing before a judge will decide whether to continue detaining the person based on several factors like the offenders
criminal history and whether that person has repeatedly failed to appear in the past.
And so the question pops up: "Why?"
Well the money bail system has long been criticized for clogging local jails with people who have yet to be convicted of a crime
but also more importantly for many critics argue that it perpetuates
an inequality by favoring the wealthy and punishing the poor. You can have people that commit the same crimes
but because someone has money, they can quickly get out of jail just by posting bail
whereas someone that doesn't have it has to sit there. Or, even if they were able to secure their freedom because they work with a
Bail bond agent, that could also leave them in debt. And that note of fairness and equality is something that Governor Brown hit on after
signing the bill saying, "Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly." California Lieutenant
Governor Gavin Newsom saying, "a person's checking account balance should never determine how they are treated under the law.
Cash bail criminalizes poverty and with Governor Brown's signature today, California has opened the door to pursue and perfect a just pretrial system."
But, of course, there is already massive criticism of this bill and what makes it very interesting is WHO is
criticizing the bill. First up, you had the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which interestingly enough was an original co-sponsor of the bill.
But, they ended up pulling their support earlier this month
arguing that the new system that will be created by the court still runs the risk of perpetuating
discrimination, saying in a statement,
"We oppose the bill because it seeks to replace the current deeply flawed system with an overly broad
presumption of preventive detention", and a claim that last-minute changes to the bill gave court employees WAY too much discretion in determining under what
circumstances people will be released or kept in custody.
For example,
they have a concern that if the assessments were released consider things like people's employment, their family responsibilities,
that that process will continue to disproportionately impact low-income people and minorities who may be unfairly
classified as high-risk and detained. And in a joint statement, three executive directors of the California ACLU chapters wrote,
"It cannot guarantee a substantial reduction in the number of Californians detained while awaiting trial, nor does it sufficiently address racial bias and pre-trial
decision-making", adding, "indeed, key provisions of the new law creates significant new risks and problems". And along with the
ACLU, the groups that oppose the bill included Civil Rights Core, Human Rights Watch, and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.
And as far as the reaction from the bail bond industry, ahh...
unsurprisingly, not really happy. You had Topo Padilla, President of the Golden State Bail Agents Associations saying,
"We're gone. We're done. As of today, the bail industry will start shuttering their doors."
He went on to explain the roles of bondsman as insurance agents and arguing why they are important, saying, "We issue an insurance policy to
the court guaranteeing a person's appearance in court.
if a person fails to appear in court,
the bail industry goes out and returns people to the court. If we fail to return the person to court in time,
we pay the full amount of the bond.
And so, it's on that know you had David Quintana, a lobbyist for the California Bail Agents
Association saying that this new law would lead to those accused of crime skipping out on their court dates, while eliminating
7,000 jobs in the cash bail industry.
But, that said as of right now, this is not an over and done situation.
And that's because we had Jeff Clayton, President of the American Bail Coalition, telling media that it is likely the bail industry is going to
sue, which would put the law on hold. And Clayton adding that this new law, "...straps the taxpayers with funding 100 percent of all pre-trial
release programs and will lead to increase in detentions of people who otherwise would post bail."
You also have David Quintana hitting on that point, saying, "You don't eliminate an industry and expect those people to go down quietly. Every single
weapon in our arsenal will be fired."
What I'll say is ultimately where I land on this as I am all for removing a cash bail system.
I personally of the belief that what we have in our bank accounts
should not be the difference between if we stay in jail or not.
It should be based off of things like, risk of flight if it was a violent crime, are you gonna have someone that might re-offend?
And while - as I mentioned - California would be the first state,
it wouldn't be the first place in the United States to get rid of a cash bail system.
And we see that it can actually be very profitable.
Washington DC actually already has a cashless bail system, and according to cleveland.com,
it saves the district $398 million dollars a year
which really makes sense when you look into Maryland's 2014 jail inmate population. In 2014, a state commission found that two-thirds of the jail inmate
population in the state were pretrial detainees. And of those,
68% were there solely because they could not afford to pay the bail that was set.
And once again, all of this is without mentioning a ton of other points, including
the quality of that person's life if they're actually able to benefit society
more because they're not in jail because they weren't able to pay their bail - you know, being there for family, if they have kids, if they have a job - there's a benefit.
But, main point. it's signed. There's going to be a fight. It's going to be interesting to see what actually happens here.
Very likely what we see here in this fight in California
we're going to see elsewhere in a few other states because there are other states that have been
considering this. But, with all of that being said, that's the story, my personal take on it,
and I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this?
Do you think it makes sense to get rid of the cash bond system, or no
we're just replacing one bad system with another? Receive benefits, downfalls anything and everything,
I'd love to see in those comments down below. And that's where I'm going to end today's show. And of course, remember,
that's not where it has to end for you. I want this to also be a conversation
so whether it be the last story, the first one - anything in between -
let me know what you're thinking in those comments down below. Also, while you're at it, if you like these daily news videos from me
hit that like button. If you're new here, hit that subscribe button. If you're on mobile, make sure you ring that bell for notifications.
They even sometimes work! But, that said of course, as always my name's Philip DeFranco,
you've just been Phill'd in, I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.