- Sup you beautiful bastards,
hope you've had a fantastic Tuesday.
Welcome back to The Phillip Defranco Show.
And let's just jump into it.
The first thing we're going to talk about taday
is another college scandal.
So according to ProPublica and the Wall Street Journal,
there are wealthy families in the state of Illinois
that are transferring the guardianship of their child
at some point during their junior or senior year
of high school to a family friend or a family member,
so that when the student applies for financial aid
and scholarships for college they can identify themselves
as financially independent from their families
and thus, get more financial aid.
And here's kind of an example that was provided
to show how it works.
In one case, a family in the Chicago area transferred
the guardianship of their 17-year-old daughter
to one of their mother's coworkers.
That initial family had a household income of higher
than $250,000 and lived in a house valued
at more than $1 million.
But after their daughter's guardianship was transferred
the only income she had to claim
was a little over $4,000 from a summer job.
And she ended up going to a private school
with a tuition of $65,000
and got $27,000 in merit scholarships
and $20,000 in need-based aid.
Now as far as the process of transferring the guardianship,
the family told the Journal that it was actually pretty easy
and mainly just paperwork.
The coworker had to attend one court hearing,
the daughter didn't even have to go
and neither did her parents.
And at this point you may have the question of,
well is this legal?
And well, the answer is actually, yes.
Now that said, according to reports,
several schools in Illinois are starting
to take a closer look at the situation.
With Andrew Boris, the Director of Undergraduate Enrollment
at the Uiversity of Illinois saying,
"Our financial aid resources are limited and the practice
"of wealthy parents transferring the guardianship
"of their children to qualify for need-based financial aid
"or so called, opportunity hoarding,
"takes away resources from middle and low income students.
"This is legal but we question the ethics."
No as far as how widespread this is,
that's not known right now.
But the Journal did look at court documents
and found 38 cases where juniors or seniors
in high school had their guardianship transferred
with many of those families living in homes
valued over half a million dollars.
Also as far as the specifics of the process
in Illinois, even if a parent can provide care to a child,
a court can still transfer guardianship,
so long as the parents relinquish care,
the child and the new guardian consent
and a court finds that it is in the child's best interest.
And regarding that last note.
In most of the 38 cases,
the language used to justify why it was in the child's
best interest usually resembled,
"The guardian can provide educational and financial support
"and opportunities to the minor that her parents
"could not otherwise provide."
Also regarding the moral question right,
is this okay?
Is it not?
ProPublica spoke to someone who actually became a child's
legal guardian for this reason
and he said that he wrestled with the ethics of the matter
because his wife works a college,
so he saw the situation from both sides.
Adding they were afraid that by doing this
they could take aid away from another family
even though he was told that this would not be the case.
Saying, "It's one of these gray areas,
"and my heart wanted me to do it for the family.
"But I also have a conscience.
"I wanted to make sure we were doing the right thing."
And as far as how all these families managed to do this,
both the Journal and ProPublica say that many families
followed a path created by a consulting firm
called Destination College.
The group is based in college and says it works
to make college more affordable for families
and their children with their website saying,
"Our team of tax, financial and academic planning experts
"specializes in creating a customized guide,
"making sure the students are matched to the major
"and school of their interest
"and the parents can comfortably afford it."
Also claiming to save students an average of $30,000
a year and granted no where on the site
does it directly suggest that families transfer
the guardianship of their child.
But they also do have services listed that could
be hinting at the practice.
They offer three different packages,
basic, preferred and premiere.
And one of the features in the premiere packages,
"College Financial Plan, using income and asset shifting
"strategies to increase your financial and merit aid
"and lower out-of-pocket tuition expenses."
Now as far as the other side of this,
Lora Georgieva, the founder of Destination College
has declined commenting on these recent reports thus far.
As of right now that is ultimately where we are
with this story like I said,
it is technically legal,
the education department is looking into it.
Some have also recommended changing the language
in the federal student aid handbook
to something that would prevent this.
Something like adding a note that says,
"If a student enters into a legal guardianship
"but continues to receive medical and financial support
"from their parents, they do not meet the definition
"of a legal guardianship and are still considered
"a dependent student."
And as far as my opinion on this situation,
I 95% hate it.
If you come from a wealthy family that is going
to pay for your college,
the fact that they would jump through these ridiculous hoops
to make sure that you get need-based money
rather than someone that actually genuinely needs it.
That is despicable.
But also there is that little voice in my head
that says, "Well what about the person
"that's having to put themselves through college.
"Or maybe the mom or dad or whoever in the relationship
"that brings home money, they bring home a decent
"amount of money but they aren't contributing
"to their child's tuition."
So that student that's trying to go it alone
is being penalized because their parents,
who aren't contributing, made money.
That said, that situation is not applicable
to the $65,000 a year tuition example
that was provided.
Right, in that example not only did you have someone
from a well off family going to an out-of-state college
where they got a merit-based scholarship,
tons of need-based aid.
The rest of the money that wasn't covered
was paid for by the grandparent.
So it's not like they don't have money.
But you know that's why I'm mainly of one mind on this
but there are, I feel like people that are going to slip
through the cracks.
That said, I find this story fascinating,
I'm also incredibly interested to know
your thoughts on this.
You feel like changing the language
in the federal student aid handbook to what we talked
about earlier, that would do it.
Also do you think that should be illegal,
that it is a type of fraud.
Any and all thoughts I'd love to see in those comments
down below.
But from that I want to share some stuff I love today
in Today in Awesome brought you by Squarespace,
whether you need a domain, as website, an online store,
a whatever make it with Squarespace.
Squarespace empowers people with creative ideas
to succeed.
Right entrepreneurs and small business owners,
photographers, bloggers, musicians,
actors, fashion designers and more learn how
to maximize their audience with Squarespace's
marketing tools.
And creating a beautiful website with Squarespace's
all-in-one platform has never been so simple.
There is nothing to install, patch or upgrade ever.
It's just intuitive and easy to use
and if you ever get lost they have around the clock support
and so if you want to make the smart move
like many from the nation already have,
you can go and start your free trial today
at Squarespace.comm/Phil.
And of course remember to enter in offer code, Phil
to get 10% off your first purchase.
And a further bit of awesome today
is if you are craving more news,
we put out an extra bonus news video on Rouge Rocket.
It is a deep dive into something you may or may not
be familiar with Shen Yun.
I highly recommend you check it out.
Also a big shout out and thank you to the over 162,000
of you who have now subscribed to that channel.
Then in Guinness World Records gave us
the longest pogo jump.
You got a drama show runners round table.
We had Sadie Sink from "Stranger Things"
giving breakup advice.
Then our phil.crono.gg partner game of the day today
is "Town of Salem."
It is a very, very well reviewed game
that's inspired by the party games Werewolf and Mafia.
It's about murder, mystery, deception.
Personally my favorite review of the game was,
"About friendship destroying as Monopoly."
And if you snag it using our link before 9 AM tomorrow
and/or while supplies last, you can get it for 50% off
just $2.49.
And if you want to 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
and then let's talk about the senator
who wants to change how you consume media.
And specifically I'm talking about Republican Senator
from Missouri, Josh Hawley.
He has announced legislation called, the SMART Act,
which stands for,
the Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act.
It it would reportedly look to ban things like
Snapstreak, YouTube autoplay and list scrolling.
Right along with anything that's meant
to incentivize continued use of a product.
That said reportedly there would be some exceptions
for things like music playlist or things
that are primarily used to stream music.
We say Hawley say in a statement,
"Big tech has embraced a business model of addiction.
"Too much of the 'innovation' in this space
is designed not to create better products
but to capture more attention by using psychological tricks
that make it difficult to look away.
This legislation will put an end to that
and encourage true innovation by tech companies.
Also I was intrigued by this act,
so I actually dove into the legislation.
Not it actually appears to be even more heavy-handed
than what was being reported.
According to this in addition to allowing a user
to set time limits as far as their use of applications,
this legislation would require that the social media company
automatically limits the amount of time
that a user may spend on those platforms
across all devices to 30 minutes a day.
And so that would be the default unless
the user then elects to adjust or remove the time limit.
And if the user elects to increase or remove the time limit
it resets the time limit to 30 minutes a day
on the first day of every month.
And so as far as my reaction to the SMART Act
is it seems like anything but.
Is the stance here that Americans are not responsible enough
to be able to dictate how they use their time.
We already have social media companies
kind of giving us the tools.
Apple introduced screen time, YouTube's introduced features
that remind you to stop watching videos.
Now I say that as someone if you've watched me
over the past four months, I have a very rocky relationship
when it comes to social media.
But even there I have personally,
because I'm a grown ass person changed my habits.
For example, I try not to use Twitter on my phone
and mainly use it on the desktop because the phone app
feels way more addictive.
There's just something about the pull down on the phone,
where all a sudden, boom, you get all this new information.
And in general the SMART Act to me seems,
it's weird because it appears
to be two completely opposite things
but at the same time.
The government injecting itself into my life
and setting restrictions for some reason
but also at the same time doing so in a way
that is easily sidestepped,
probably has very little actual impact
and mainly just gets to be a thing,
where it's like, hey look we tried.
We did a thing.
It's called The SMART Act, that's what I am.
That's the story.
A little bit of my personal takeaway on it
and I'd love to know your thoughts on this
in those comments down below.
And then let's talk about this just horrifying situation
out of Brazil.
So yesterday a prison riot broke out in the state of Para,
killing at least 57 people.
The riots reportedly started when members of one gang
invaded the prison block another rival gang occupied.
Gang members then started a fire which spread rapidly
and prevented police from entering the building
for several hours.
And once the riots stopped and the damage was assessed,
accordingly to reports, a majority of those who died,
died from smoke inhalation.
But authorities also reported that 16 people died
from decapitation.
Also reportedly two prison guards had been held hostage
during the riots
but it's been reported that
they were later released unharmed.
In terms of why the riots started,
the State Prison's Chief said in a statement,
"It was a targeted attack.
"The aim was to show that it was a settling of accounts
"between the two groups, not a protest or rebellion
"against the prison system."
And that statement isn't wrong but it's also a little
more complicated than that.
At the service level it is true that the riots were caused
by rival gangs.
Over the last few years, Brazil's largest gangs
have expanded and spread across the country
as they develop lucrative drug routes
and form alliances with the smaller gangs.
That has also led to more violence between gangs
and those clashes do not stop when gang members
or even the drug kingpins are put in jail.
In fact, according to reports, many of the gangs
actually consider prisons to be a sort of command center
or home base.
Now Brazil's government has long moved gang leaders
to prisons that are far away from their homes
with the hope that it will weaken their criminal networks
but that seems to have actually completely backfired
because it basically just allows the gang to create
a broader national reach.
Once in jail, gang leaders are smuggled cell phones
to continue to run their criminal organization,
sometimes across multiple states.
And these gang members end up being so incredibly powerful
in Brazilian prisons that they end up
kind of being recruitment centers.
Other inmates are often forced to join gangs to survive.
So yes it is true that it is the rivalries between
the gangs that prompted yesterday's riot.
But, this kind of mass violence
isn't necessarily inevitable.
In fact, it's exacerbated by more structural issues
like overcrowding and lack of funding.
Brazil's prison population has grown in recent years
but the funding and investment hasn't matched that growth.
And in fact, according to reports Brazil's prison population
in just the last 10 years alone,
going from about 500,000 to 800,000
making it the third largest inmate population
in the world after the United States and China.
So obviously overcrowding is an issue.
In fact, the National Justice Council said in a report
that the prison where Monday's riot took place,
it was built for 163 detainees but holds 343.
That report also described
the conditions inside the prison as terrible.
But on the other side of this the Prison Chief
said it is not overcrowded.
Saying in a press conference, "We consider overcrowding
"when it exceeds 210%."
Right okay but some of these facilities
are reportedly so overcrowded that inmates are forced
to sleep standing up and their hands are tied to bars
so that they stay upright.
And also because of the lack of funding that means
that the prisons are short staffed.
And so you have these experts saying that the combination
of overcrowding and a lack of funding
has a direct connection to increased gang violence
in the prison.
Experts also believe that this kind of violence
will not only continue but it's going to get worse.
And you know this is something
that we're already seeing happen.
This isn't the only riot that's caused mass fatalities
in just the last few months.
Back in May we saw 55 people killed in riots
that broke out in four separate prisons all
in the same state of Amazonas.
Again, those riots stem from power struggles between gangs
also in early 2017, more than 120 inmates died
when rival gangs fought over drug trafficking routes.
And with that one specifically violence
lasted several weeks and spanned multiple states.
And so as far as well what are the politicians
and the government doing.
Well, you know we have President Jair Bolsonaro there
who has elected last year on the promise
that we would crack down on crime.
In the past he's said things like,
he planned to stuff prison cells with criminals.
Right so just on the surface level it seems like
that's just going to make
your overcrowding situation worse.
Which actually regarding overcrowding it's also complicated
by the fact that many of Brazil's prisons
are run at the state level.
And while Bolsonaro's administration has called
for states to build more prisons.
The lack of funding makes that unlikely.
And even the prisons that have been built recently
aren't enough.
According to report space for over 8.650 inmates
has been built since 2018,
but the amount of new inmates has risen by more than 17,800
during that same time.
Others have also proposed sending gang kingpins
to federal prisons
but experts have argued that the violence is a product
of an inherently flawed system.
And in general it also appears that there's not really
any political will to fix the broken system.
In fact, one congressman in Brazil whose recently
elected on the promise to curb violent crime,
responded to yesterday's violence by saying,
"In these fights between criminal factions,
"I root for the machete.
"The truth is no one is going to miss them.
"They won't commit crimes again."
You know ultimately that's where we are
and whenever you have a situation like this,
right it can go one of two ways.
One, a light exposed a horrible situation
and reforms are made
or you just see it more and more and you become
apathetic to it.
Which, I mean when you're talking about people
and prisons, specifically people being referred
to as gang members.
In general I think a lot of people are going
to be less sympathetic even though
they are also human beings.
But also on that note according to Human Rights Watch,
nationwide, 40% of the people in detention
are awaiting trial.
According to one expert who spoke with the New York Times,
"Unfortunately, most Brazilians will shrug off this latest
outbreak of violence, numb as they are to the ritual
of bloodletting in the country's prisons."
But of course will that said, like with everything
on this show, I would love to know your thoughts
on this one in those comments below.
And that's where we're going to end today's show.
And of course, I'd love to hear from you
on any and all of the topics in those comments down below.
But also there's a new way you can interact
by using the poll click in
that little eye button right there.
We've been putting four poll questions in each show.
It's been very interesting to see people actually using it.
Also, hey, while you're clicking around
if you like today's video,
I'd love for you to take a second and hit that like button.
Also, if you're new here be sure to hit
that subscribe button.
Click that bell to turn on notifications.
That way you don't miss these daily weekday dives
into the news.
Which on that note, if you missed yesterday's
Phillip Defranco Show or want to check out our
extra bonus news video today.
We did a deep dive on Shen Yun.
Click or tap right here to watch either of those.
But with that said of course,
as always my name's Phillip Defranco,
you've just been filled in.
I love yo' faces.
And I'll see you tomorrow.