The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 02.06 The Truth About Drake’s Nude Leak, Advanced Recycling, Shane Gillis, Jenna Ortega & Today’s News

Episode Date: February 6, 2024

Transform your style statement at  http://www.vessi.com/defranco  for their best deals of the year! Free shipping to CA, US, AU, JP, TW, KR, SGP. Go to http://hellofresh.com/defrancofree and use code defrancofree to get one free breakfast item per box while subscription is active. The New https://BeautifulBastard.com Drop is almost sold out so get your sizes ASAP! –✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Drake Leak Highlights Double Standard 2:22 - Man Wins $25M Defamation Case Against The Oklahoman 4:15 - Law Enforcement Seizures of Magic Mushrooms Jumps 6:58 - Fearing Online Backlash, Super Bowl Ads Will Play It Safe in 2024 8:56 - Sponsored by Vessi 9:57 - Advanced Recycling Is the Plastic Industry’s Latest PR Scam  15:14 - Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump Doesn’t Have Presidential Immunity 17:39 - Sponsored by HelloFresh 18:43 - Regional NLRB Dir. Rules Dartmouth Basketballers Are Employees, Can Unionize  22:25 - Your Thoughts on Yesterday’s Show  ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Star Pralle, Chris Tolve  Associate Producer on Advanced Recycling: Chris Tolve ———————————— #DeFranco #Drake #ShaneGillis ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup, you beautiful bastards, you're watching the Philip DeFranco Show, and we got a lot of news to talk about today. We've got the Drake nude video, Lee, where many are scared about the Super Bowl, Trump-making history, defamation, mushrooms, the ridiculousness around advanced recycling. And then there's even more on today's extra-large Philip DeFranco Show, so buckle up, hit that like button to let YouTube know that you like these daily dives into the news, and let's just jump into it. Starting with... Drake's dick has taken over the internet today, or least his alleged dick with the video spreading faster than it could be taken down many people waking up this morning saying oh drake is trending did he drop a new song click oh no and from that a lot of is unfolding the first being that the massive reactions have just been people making memes or gawking or thirsting and others debating is it actually him

or not and others debating did someone else or did he leak this? And then finally, people bothered by the reactions they're seeing online and saying, this proves that there's a double standard out there. Some pointing to the differences between this going viral and when the Taylor Swift AI photos went viral. I would say that's not a complete one-to-one comparison. You'd have to compare that to a woman

who knowingly took pictures or video and then those got leaked. Of course, at no point did Taylor Swift consent to like the AI photos being released everywhere. Like she didn't even consent to them being made. But still, regarding there being a double standard, yes. There does appear to be a drastic difference between when a woman's photos or videos go out there and they get leaked compared to what we're seeing with Drake. People saying that with Drake, it seems like everyone's treating it like a party.

Though there, I would also say, I think how people see Drake as a victim or not here, it is because of the alleged dick itself. Like if the person in that video did not have as much going on is the way I'll phrase. I'm not saying that it's right, but I think they would have a drastically different response to this. Like I've seen a number of reactions like, wait, Drake has all this going on and he's packing. And so I also think that's why more people are like, did he leak it himself? You could also argue that the speculation kind of just further proves the double standard. Because even if a woman's leaked explicit images were very flattering, people don't usually jump

to the conclusion that the woman herself leaked it. Though again, right now we have no idea how this came out. Also, as far as Drake's response, so far he has not addressed this directly. He did have streamer Aiden Ross claiming that he did react to it, with Aiden saying that he sent Drake a message about the alleged trending leak and saying that Drake responded.

Oh, he just texted me. He put like eight laughing emojis. Obviously, that's not a full response or a confirmation or a denial, but I will say, and this is without us knowing all the facts about what is happening here, there is a core thing that should be understood, and that is that men deserve

to have their bodily autonomy defended when the whole internet violates it just the same way as if it happened to a woman. And then let's talk about racism because it's in the news today because of this situation that happened back in 2021. And to set the scene for you, it was at the Norman Midwest City Girls High School basketball game in Oklahoma. This is about less than a year after the George Floyd protests. And so the players there did what a lot of athletes were doing at the time.

They collectively took a knee during the national anthem, which on its own was not very controversial. But then the broadcasters announcing the game said on the live stream they'd return after a break except they ended up forgetting to turn off the mic so one of them was caught saying this which if you couldn't uh guess uh he called them effing n words so understandably people were pissed though not entirely surprised. Because ironically, pieces of shit that say stuff like this are precisely why players kneeled to begin with. But then, what happened after is that the state's largest newspaper, the Oklahoman, they quickly identified one of the two announcers, Scott Sepulpa, as the culprit. But then, the other announcer, Matt Rowan, admitted he was actually the one who made the racist remarks. With him apologizing and while not excusing what he said, claiming that he is not

racist and he blamed it on his high blood sugar, adding that his diabetes caused his blood sugar to spike. Because you know, when a diabetic eats too much candy, they automatically start spewing the N-word. But the key thing here was that they identified the wrong person. And so while the Oklahoman corrected its report within a few hours, it was already too late. It had already spread to other outlets, and Scott said that he received a barrage of threats, hate calls, and messages. And so in turn, he sued the Oklahoman for defamation and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. And we're talking about it today because a jury just awarded him $25 million. $5 million in actual damages and the other 20 in punitive damages. Right, and that's big because the jury concluded

that the newspaper acted with actual malice. So their owner denies the allegation and says that it plans to appeal the verdict. With a spokesperson saying there was no evidence presented to the jury that the Oklahoman acted with any awareness that what was reported was false or with any intention to harm the plaintiff in this case. We're gonna have to wait to see what happens with the appeal and whether Scott is gonna get any of that money. And then let's talk about mushrooms. So not the kind you might put on a salad or a pizza, but rather the one that would let you, uh, touch fingers with God. Because this new study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that in 2022, U.S. law enforcement agencies confiscated a whopping 1,860 pounds of magic mushrooms,

which was actually a little less than the record high the year before, but still a 273% jump from 2017. And apparently, y'all in the South and the West are tripping some serious balls. Because 84% of the weight seized during the period studied came from those two regions. Though, arguably, it could also be because people in the North and the East just know how to hide it better. Though, notably here, the researchers say, you know, this dramatic trend, it's actually probably not due to the authorities

going after psychedelics more aggressively. If anything, they're moving in the opposite direction. Several cities having designated mushrooms a low priority for law enforcement. And hell, back in 2020, Oregon voters approved a measure legalizing therapeutic use of mushrooms. That then followed two years later by a similar measure in Colorado. Of course, big thing, the drugstore remains illegal on the federal level. And so you have the study's authors concluding, hey, it's just the mushrooming demand that's responsible for this trend, which is also

backed up by other data showing increased consumption, especially among younger people. With one recent survey finding that 8% of adults aged 19 to 30 used hallucinogens in the prior year, which was a meaningful jump from just 3% in 2012. And you have experts guessing that's a result of a few different factors. Things like there's decreasing stigma around psychedelics, right? More general chatter about them in the culture. And then of course, the string of clinical studies showing promising results in treating disorders like depression, PTSD, and addiction to other drugs. All of which is incredibly exciting, but also it has some experts worried that people are rushing to self-medicate. And that can be

potentially very dangerous, right? In the best worst the best worst case, maybe you just have a bad trip. The worst worst case, you trigger full-blown psychosis. I will say transparently, I am a big believer and supporter of them. That's even though I haven't done them in, I think, over a year. Also, in the past, I did supervise ketamine treatments with a medical professional, both of which helped me through a really hard time in my life. They allowed me to process things differently, view things from a different angle, and I was always really hesitant to try anything else. I told my therapist at the time, like, I feel like if I do those things, it's going to be like me using a crutch. And he told me something that's very helpful and it's probably not that insightful. He's like, you know, crutches help

people get better. So it was definitely the case before I ever tried them. After I did, it solidified my support of, at the very least, decriminalizing these drugs and at the max, legalizing, especially in a medical setting. And personally, I'm of the belief of like, we should educate people about the risks and adopt harm reduction strategies. I'm also of that mindset because I remember growing up, like all the fear mongering there was around marijuana. And then I first tried it and I was like, what else are they lying about? But hey, that's the situation, some of my opinion on it. And I'll pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts here? Like, let's keep it locked on maybe magic mushrooms for this story. Do you think they should remain illegal? They should be decriminalized?

They should be recreationally legal? Legal only if like it's in a medical therapeutic session? Let me know what you're thinking and why. And then, so it turns out that Super Bowl advertisers, they're afraid of one big thing this year, and it is you. Specifically, they don't want to piss you off. They don't want to deal with the backlash. And with that, you have Variety putting out a piece saying that because of that, Super Bowl commercials this year are going to play it safe. Tim Kalkins, a professor of marketing at Northwestern University, telling them, advertisers are very aware that things can go wrong at the Super Bowl,

and they realize that any ad can manage to annoy people or cause backlash, and nobody wants to put their careers on the line with a certain piece of Super Bowl footage. There's a huge incentive to be cautious, especially because this year to get the privilege to show 30 seconds of an ad on the Super Bowl, that costs $7 million, especially with how big and fast culture war fires rage. And with this, people pointing back to things like the right-wing Bud Light boycott that happened after the team up with Dylan Mulvaney. But that, of course, not for the Super Bowl, but just this small social media campaign. Which I will say, it's been very interesting to watch Bud Light since.

Like, they've been trying to get their audience back that they lost. Or they did a big deal with the UFC. And it also seems like there's a fight about anyone they end up working with. I mean, just this last week, you had people arguing and celebrating Shane Gillis' sponsorship with them. People claiming he's this thing or that thing. He's on this side. No, he's on that side. And so, you know, with all this heightened attention as we go into Super Bowl weekend, it wasn't really a surprise to see Bud Light drop a commercial this morning.

They just stick to easy humor, celebrity cameos. According to NYU marketing professor Paul Hardart, that's going to be the theme of the night. Saying, given the current global uncertainties, including geopolitical conflicts and polarized political climate, it appears that advertisers are leaning toward feel-good advertisements that are more focused on fun, humor, and entertainment. Also, apparently, there's going to be a shift away from tech and AI and crypto. And as far as celebrities, we've seen a whole range of teases involving people that you're seeing right now, which also that by itself is a very interesting evolution. With experts telling the New York Times

that now advertisers wanna pay for a narrative for several weeks worth of buzz instead of just one moment Sunday night. I mean, hell, you have celebrities advertising their ads like they're movies. I mean, you've got stars like Jenna Ortega doing multiple interviews about her Doritos spot. We're also seeing a lot more beauty

and female focused ads this year. with experts pointing to the explosion of female viewership this year, largely led by Taylor Swift. But with all that said, you know, who knows? Maybe someone serves us a curveball, or is there a negative reaction because people think that it's maybe too boring and generic? And then, you know, it is safe to say that this year is off to a wet start, pretty much throughout the country, rain, snow, and just cold. What sucks is how the weather can tend to dictate our lives. And while it's always nice to be able to not go out into bad weather if we don't have to, most of us have to. But hey, if you have a pair of Vessies, you don't have to let the weather dictate your life. So thank you, Vessie, for being a fantastic partner of the PDS and for making

great looking shoes I can wear in any weather. Because you know, Vessie isn't just about shoes, it's about embracing life's spontaneity. For example, I grabbed my Vessies for a hike the other day. It was a wet, muddy hike. That was before this historic craziness that just happened. And thanks to my storm bursts, I got my workout in, my feet stayed dry, and they cleaned up with ease. And they look great and come in light and dark colorways. And I love how easily they transition from day to night. And again, it's one less thing on my plate to worry about. That is always a plus. And hey, when browsing Vessi's site, check out their waterproof gloves, overcast jackets, sling bag, and socks. It, it's a new year, so go get yourself a new pair of sneakers. Just go to Vessi.com slash DeFranco to get 15% off your first order. That's Vessi.com slash DeFranco.

And then for our next story, we have a guest presenter, and that is Phil from three weeks ago. We need to talk about how with the narrative of plastic pollution, advanced recycling has all of a sudden become positioned as a savior. But is it true? Is it more complicated? Is it just PR? Let's talk about it and break it down. And a big reason I'm talking about this with you today is that last month, the world's nations came together to do something that they've actually never done before. They began negotiations on the first ever international treaty to contain plastic pollution. Because not news, we've talked about this before. The earth is virtually flooded right now with plastic waste that's awful for the environment. I mean, we are producing 400 million metric tons more of this stuff every year.

At this UN meeting in Kenya, delegates were split over how exactly to address this growing problem. You had some pushing to reduce plastic production altogether, others wanting to merely dispose of plastic better. And a big thing here is that since the 1990s, the plastics industry has backed that second proposal. Just recycle it. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer.

So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus, enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. The bottle may look empty, yet it's anything but trash. It's full of potential. And at DuPont, we're making sure that the potential isn't thrown away. But a hugely important data point, less than 10% of all the world's plastics are actually recycled, with most just getting incinerated, thrown into landfills, or dumped

into the environment. And then even that fraction that is recycled, eventually that's got to be thrown out too because the quality of the plastic degrades with each use. So in the face of all these disappointing results, in these past few years, the plastics industry has turned to a different method called chemical recycling, where unlike with the classic process, where mechanical recycling, they simply chop plastic up, They instead melt it down and reuse it. Right, they dissolve the plastic into molecular elements. At which point, it can then be turned back into fresh, high-quality plastic. And the process can even break down the most difficult products.

Right, things that at least by mechanical means are written off as non-recyclable. So boom, we got the silver bullet. Let's do a little dance. Except, not so fast. Turns out what works great, in theory, doesn't work so well in practice. With reports saying that most chemical recycling plants kind of just stop halfway through the process. So they break down the plastic into the original stuff that it was made from, fossil fuels.

But then instead of turning it back into plastic, they just burn it. And that reportedly either done on site or after being shipped to cement kilns and waste processors across the United States. So the thing that everybody is assuming is helping clean up the environment, it's actually pumping more oil and gas fumes into it.

I mean, it's not only emitting greenhouse gases that heat up our planet, but also it's putting out a whole array of toxic chemicals that endanger our health. With an investigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council finding that a single chemical recycling facility in Oregon, it produces nearly half a million pounds of benzene, lead, cadmium, and other hazardous waste per year. And you have another report by Beyond Plastics and the International Pollutants Elimination Network citing more scientific literature, finding emissions of persistent cancer-causing compounds from the chemical recycling facilities or their fuel

products include dioxins, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals. So unsurprisingly, chemical recyclings hardly put a dent into the giant fucking mountain of plastic polluting the earth. With a report also finding that for the 11 chemical recycling plants currently operating in the U.S., collectively, they have stated the ability to process less than 1.3% of the country's annual plastic waste. And that's their stated ability. Trust that as much as you trust a guy to tell you his actual height. Because it's unclear whether they're actually operating at maximum capacity.

For example, the Brightmark Energy Facility in Ashley, Indiana. According to The Intercept, they're still operating in a test phase at 1 50th of its publicized capacity four years after breaking ground. And while you had that plant barely making it off the ground, Brightmark tried to build what would have been the nation's largest chemical recycling plant in Georgia in 2021. Because he had Macon Bibb County saying, Hey, we'll give you $500 billion in tax-exempt bonds to finance the construction. All you got to do is give us evidence that your plant in Indiana is actually making and selling product. But then, surprise, surprise, no evidence like that popped up.

And the project was officially killed the following year. You can boil it all down to one simple reason. It does not make economic sense. It was true in the 1970s. It is unfortunately still true today. Simply producing new plastic is cheaper, easier, and makes better products than sorting and recycling old plastic. And unless there is a big jump, some revolutionary change in the economics and technical feasibility of how this happens, it's probably going to remain true for the future. And so then one of the big questions here is why does the plastics industry invest so much into this? And the answer, if you've watched the show for a while, is not going to surprise you. There's two things that ultimately matter when it comes to power, control, running a business.

Money and what we have here, PR. And primarily because good PR allows you to make more money. With a report from Beyond Plastic and IPEN concluding, just like mechanical recycling, chemical recycling is an industry marketing tactic to distract from the real solution to the plastic problem, reducing how much plastic is produced in the first place. And understand, I don't want you to get confused. This is not a conspiracy theory. In fact, NPR and PBS combed through internal industry documents and they interviewed former officials way back in 2020,

and they concluded, we found that the industry sold the public on an idea it knew wouldn't work, that the majority of plastic could be and would be recycled, all while making billions of dollars selling the world new plastic. And as they molded public opinion with TV ads like the ones that we saw before, company experts were literally telling them, we have serious doubts about whether this is feasible technically or economically. And even though we are talking about what we're talking about today, you can bet that we are going to see even more of those ad campaigns in the coming decades. Because as the shift toward renewable energy shrinks demand for fossil fuels, you have oil and gas companies telling their shareholders the future is plastic. So to undercut concerns about plastic waste, you have lobbying groups

like the American Chemistry Council, which includes firms like ExxonMobil, Dow, and DuPont, helping to pass laws in at least 24 states reclassifying chemical recycling as manufacturing rather than waste disposal. And that's a really important thing because it subjects their facilities to less stringent environmental regulations. And the industry has also secured public subsidies in the form of federal grants, state tax abatements, low interest green bonds, or government loan guarantees for five of the 11 plants, which also means that taxpayers are essentially doing petrochemical giants PR for them. But with that said, that is where this, I guess, this edition of Waze Corporate America is literally killing us all will end today. But also we're going to be kind

of diving into a different aspect of this in the relatively near future. So make sure you're subscribed to the channel. And then Donald Trump does not have sweeping presidential immunity from criminal prosecutions. That is what the three judge panel of a federal appeals court just unanimously ruled this morning. And this is actually a very historically significant ruling and a major loss for Trump because he's been arguing that he's immune from being federally prosecuted for trying to stay in power by overturning the 2020 election. Well, you know, it has been long established that presidents cannot be prosecuted while serving in office. Trump argued the, let's call it, very unique claim.

The former presidents also can't be charged for actions they took in office unless they were impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Notably, while he was impeached, the Senate acquitted him. So he argued that by trying to prosecute him in federal court for the same crime amounts to double jeopardy.

And his legal team even stood before the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and argued this. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution? If he were impeached and convicted first. And so your answer is no. My answer is qualified yes.

There's a political process that would have to occur under the structure of our constitution, which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate. Now, if that sounds just, I don't know, fucking bogus to you, you are not alone. Legal scholars, including conservatives who served in Republican administrations, widely discredited this claim, called bullshit.

Now, so is a federal appeals court with the three judges there writing. For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become Citizen Trump. Any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. And then specifically, going on to reject Trump's claim that a president has immunity

from trying to undermine the will of the people. Writing, we cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power, the recognition and implementation of election results. Saying that's basically arguing that the president has a blank check to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count. And this marks the first time ever that an appeals court has considered whether presidential immunity can be applied to former presidents. Though also, that is to be expected because no other former president has been fucking indicted before. Now,

that said, while this is very big, it's not over. Trump's already signaled that he's going to ask the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to consider the immunity question. All of that, of course, playing out as we get closer and closer to the election. And the timing here is key because the legitimacy of his arguments, like none of that really matters if the goal is to just push this away and away until after the election. And a lot of how this is gonna play out

is very dependent on if the Supreme Court agrees to take up the case and how fast they do so. Which given its current makeup and the fact that Trump put one third of them in their place will probably play out how you might expect it to. But for now, we'll have to wait to see. And of course, I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. And then you ever just stand there hungry, staring blankly into your fridge, like thinking about what to do for dinner. Well, thanks to today's

sponsor. HelloFresh. You can count on a well stocked fridge with easy to make recipes pre portioned and farm fresh delivered to your door. Ditch the meal planning in the grocery store with over 45 dinner options to choose from weekly. HelloFresh has you covered. And if your life is anything like ours, time can be an issue. On nights when your schedule's packed, turn to HelloFresh's lineup of quick and easy meals. They're designed to help minimize mealtime stress, or as I call it, Wednesday and Thursday. And these recipes help get wholesome meals on the table in less time than it takes to get delivery. Maybe you're looking to revamp your eating habits. Well, look no further. They have health-forward options like over 30 calorie-smart and protein-smart recipes.

HelloFresh has also been a great way that we get our boys involved with the cooking process. Gets us quality time, helps build their independence. And HelloFresh can help take the hassle out of every mealtime with easy breakfast, quick lunches, and snacks, all delivered with your weekly box. So just go to HelloFresh.com slash DeFrancoFree and use code DeFrancoFree for free breakfast for life. One breakfast item per box while subscription's active. That's right, free breakfast for life at HelloFresh.com slash DeFrancoFree with code DeFrancoFree and try America's number one meal kit today.

And then college sports as we know them may never be the same again. Because the news that we're seeing right now would be the biggest change to college sports since NIL. And at the center of this situation is the question, what makes an employee? And that's because this last September, all 15 members of the Dartmouth men's basketball team's varsity roster filed a petition to the National Labor Relations Board. And in this petition, they requested approval to join other college employees in the Service Employees International Union. Of course, with this, Dartmouth College was not a fan of the idea, arguing that players can't be classified as employees and don't have the right to collectively

bargain. With their argument resting on the fact that these players aren't receiving athletics scholarships, and the institution isn't making any money on the program. With a spokesperson adding, it's important to understand that unlike other institutions where athletics generates millions of dollars in net revenue, the costs of Dartmouth's athletics programs far exceed any revenue from the program, costs that Dartmouth bears as part of our participation in the Ivy League. We also do not compensate our athletes, nor do we provide athletics scholarships. All scholarships are based on financial need."

But then yesterday, Laura Sachs, a regional director of the NLRB, disagreed with Dartmouth, ruling that members of the basketball team are in fact employees, writing, "'Because Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the Dartmouth men's basketball team and the players perform that work in exchange for compensation,

I find that the petition for basketball players are employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. And then regarding the school's argument about compensation and profitability, Sachs was quick with a response, saying that while the students may not receive scholarships, they do get compensation in the form of free apparel, equipment, and tickets. And adding that while there is doubt around the school's claim that the program's not profitable, regardless, it's not an employee's problem if a business isn't making money. Right, that doesn't make them not employees. And so that ruling means that Dartmouth's

basketball team can now hold an election on whether to unionize, meaning they'd be able to collectively bargain over compensation, benefits, and working conditions, including the number of practice hours. And in a statement, the player representatives called the ruling a significant step forward for college athletes and then went on to announce plans to form the Ivy League Players Association. Now with all this, the school isn't taking this lying down with a Dartmouth spokesperson announcing their plans to appeal and doubling down on their argument that the players aren't employees. Though notably, in the meantime, they're free to become the first unionized college sports program in the country.

Though there, it is important to note that this is not the first try at this. Right back in 2014, the football team at Northwestern actually got a similar ruling from a regional director and even held an election. There, those sealed ballots were destroyed after the NLRB ruled that the players didn't have the right to collectively bargain. Though notably, the state of college sports drastically different than it was 10 years ago. But the most notable change being what I mentioned in the beginning, name, image, likeness,

compensation, NIL. And the executive director of the National College Players Association saying, when the full board decided not to assert jurisdiction in the Northwestern case, they claimed this is a system that typically needs common rules. They talked about keeping a level playing field. NIL makes it very clear that you don't need common rules. There are different NIL payments and mechanisms from campus to campus, from state to state across the nation. And college sports have not collapsed. I think that's been made clear. And another key difference between these two cases is the leagues that they're a part of.

In the Northwestern case, the board decided that if the Northwestern team, the only private school in the Big Ten, if they were allowed to unionize, it would skew the labor market in the entire conference. But then in this case, all the schools in the Ivy League are private and they don't grant athletic scholarships. And depending on how all this goes, it might change even more. Like you have the question of what specifically determines if a student is considered a university employee. Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane,

asking if Dartmouth's men's basketball players are employees, does this make the music students employees? And personally, I am very interested to see what happens here, how far does it go? And also if Dartmouth is telling the truth that like this is actually a negative for them, they lose money on this. If the appeal and whatever follows goes against the school, would they maybe not just end their program? Or is this the players and others calling bullshit? The fact that the school does have the program in this form of entertainment for students and others like that is a draw to the school.

So it's actually a net positive. I don't know, but it's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out because it goes beyond just like caring about sports. It gets into this battle of workers' rights over private institutions and the business models there. Yeah, we'll see. And then finally today, let's talk about yesterday today.

We dive into those comments and see what y'all had to say. Right off the bat, I gotta say, I was happy with a lot of the comments. But the only thing, you like the long form format, you want even longer. Ford saying they die of happiness if I got to listen to a 45 minute episode. To which I say, if I tried to make a 45 minute episode right now, I would probably die too. Just for different reasons. I just want to make it worth people's time. We also had people chiming in on the debt forgiveness story. Alice and Sharon, I had $10,000 in medical debt wiped out by a non-profit. And saying I had no

idea these type of organizations even existed. i randomly received a letter in the mail explaining they bought the debt from a collection company and it was completely forgiven with no strings attached couldn't believe it i contacted the collection company and they confirmed my file was now closed took a huge weight off me bumped my credit score and left me in a much better financial position to help my family these type of organizations are a godsend and that governor needs huge props for this initiative though i also agree with draven saying it's a shame that these organizations have to exist, but I'm so happy for you that this happened. Someone also sharing, as someone who had to declare bankruptcy because of medical debt, I can only say it's about damn time. Also regarding the

storm that's been hitting California, Riri shared, I'm a student teacher for LAUSD, and it baffles me that they chose to remain open when the flash flood warning overlapped with the time parents were supposed to drop off their kids. When we talk about teachers being taken for granted, this is the insane end of the spectrum. But God forbid any parent get into an accident or life-threatening situation just while dropping off their kids, or kids who have to walk or take public transport. The real sad part is that some of these students won't eat without the help of LAUSD, so the storm creates a lose-lose situation. Which I will say, I was really happy with my kid's school. They let all the parents know, hey, we've been preparing for this. We're gonna have the school open.

It's gonna be business as usual. But if you keep your kids for the day, it's not gonna be counted against you. Which, you know, I think should be the case when the city is getting a year's worth of rain in a day. Especially because like for all of you who do not live in Southern California, so many of these roads are not built

for any sort of weather outside of sunny and nice. You know, these extremes that the state's been seeing just become more and more normal. I don't know. I don't know what that looks like. I mean, it sure as hell isn't good, but that is where today's show is going to end. But hey, don't worry, because my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.