Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Broadcasting from the Civic Cypher Studios. Welcome to the QR Code,
where we share perspective, seek understanding, and shape outcomes. The
man you're about to hear from is a man that
I have missed dearly in the past few days, and
I am excited to have these conversations.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
With him today. He's the Q in the QR code
and he goes by the name of q Ward.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
The voice you just heard misses me dearly because he's
just traveled the whole earth without me, So yeah, I
would miss me too, kind of because the play was
on all over the globe. He is the R in
the QR code and he goes by Ramsy's Jah.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
We need you to stick around because we are going
to be having some fun today, which is kind of
rare around here. I mean fun for us, as much
fun as we could have. But a little later in
the show for entertainment, we are going to be giving
you some insight into one of the great battles that
is taking place in our country. Wes Moore versus Donald
(00:56):
Trump and their battle of wits. And you can imagine
which one has more wits than the other. But hilarity ensues.
I can assure you, so stay tuned for that. We're
also going to have a more introspective segment coming up.
We're calling it I Wish I Were Maga, and it'll
be for obvious reasons. Once we get there, that'll be
for dialogue. We're also going to be talking about how
(01:20):
Donald Trump is peddling Chinese made American First America phones
two people powered by a Chinese network, and how hilarious
that is. Unfortunately, We're talking about how Donald Trump's Justice
Department is seeking to end Hispanic college grants, and we're
(01:41):
going to be starting to show off with something that
we feel is important to share. There is a forthcoming
black haircare boycott that has come about organically online. And
I have a lot more hair than Q, but we
both believe in black women and that's really what is
at the center of that boycott.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
So we're going to talk about.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
That and a lot more, but before we get there,
as always, it is time or a feel good feature,
and today's feel good feature comes from The New York Times,
and I will share. A federal judge on Thursday ordered
that no more immigrant detainees be sent to a center
in the Florida Everglades and that much of the facility
(02:24):
be dismantled. The ruling rebuke the state and federal governments
for failing to consider potential environmental harms before building the facility,
known as Alligator Alcatraz. The judge gave both branches of
the government sixty days to move out existing detainees and
begin to remove fencing, lighting, power generator sorry and other materials.
The order also prohibits any new construction at the site.
(02:45):
The decision is a major legal setback for the detention center,
the nation's first state run facility for federal immigration detainees,
which has face several lawsuits and numerous complaints about poor
conditions and other problems. The state immediately filed a notice
saying that it intended to appeal. Judge Kathleen and Williams
of the Federal District Court in Miami found that the
state and federal governments had violated a federal law that
(03:06):
requires an environmental review before any major federal construction project.
Judge Williams partly granted a preliminary injunction sought by environmentalists
and the Mikosuk tribe, whose members live in the area.
The detention center is surrounded by protected lands that form
part of the sensitive Everglades ecological system. The detention center
(03:28):
presents risks to wetlands and to communities that depend on
the Everglades for their water supply, including the Mekosuki. Judge
Williams found a ruling is preliminary as the case will
continue to be litigated. The state is expected to ask
that the ruling be stayed or kept from taking effect
as it pursues its appeal. So didn't want to overpromise,
(03:50):
but that's not nothing. And for those that recognize that
alligator Alcatraz is indeed a monument to hate, something to be,
something to make you smile, all right.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
So this Black Haircare.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Boycott as often as we can, uh, And and we
take turns saying this.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
We affirm that.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
Black women are as close to God as we can
be on this planet. Indeed, we can make a scientific, uh,
we can make a theological we can we can make
just about any kind of argument to that end. And
we believe that in supporting black women, we are living
(04:45):
in our in the in the truest uh form of
indeed our humanity, especially given you know the societal framework
in which black women are positioned, we wanted to kind
of take a moment in this episode, take a segment
(05:08):
in this episode and discuss something that normally we wouldn't cover,
because when it is possible for us to support support
black women, we we do that. And this is our
program and therefore it is our prerogative to do this.
So please, if you feel a moticum of empathy, if
(05:32):
you feel like you're a sort of person that loves
to support people who deserve additional support, or you know,
whatever it is, your motivations are, allow us this moment.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
To uplift this beautiful group of people.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
I'm going to share I came across a video online
and there's a creator who basically is saying, here's what
would happen if black women abandon the haircare industry. I'll
share his name in just a second, but let's get
to what he says first and then we'll go from there.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Imagine if black women all across the world stop buying
hair products for one month, just one, Here's what would
happen day by day. Will never guess what happens by
day thirty day one. Major retailers Panic Beauty Supplies stores, Amazon,
even Tesco, and Target see a dip. They start calling
emergency meetings and wondering if it's a boycott. Day two
(06:29):
to four, Korean and South Asian owned distributors start calling
store owners and wondering what's going on with these orders. Meanwhile,
social media is flooded with DIY haircare tips, products, swaps,
and natural styles.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
Day five to seven.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Stocks start sitting still and weekly targets are getting missed,
so online stores try and do flash cells, but black
women aren't budget.
Speaker 5 (06:53):
Days eight to twelve, media picks it up.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Think pieces drop and new segments with headlines saying beauty
dollar disappearing, and those influencers, the ones who was silent,
they start picking sides.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
Days thirteen to seventeen.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
Some beauty start owners start posting public apologies, others double
down we've always shipboarded eight and a few offer black
brands better shelf placements out of fear.
Speaker 5 (07:19):
Days eighteen to twenty one.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Smaller black owned haircare brands start to see a surge.
Those ones who are still handmade and sell directly to consumer.
Instagram and TikTok lives are flooded with founders, recipe sharing
and real talks about ingredients. They's twenty two to twenty five,
big brands start panicking. Emails start going out to their
multicultural consultants.
Speaker 5 (07:41):
Marketing teams rash out apology, rebrands, we hear you, we
see you, basically just by us again.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Days twenty six to twenty nine, store revenue between the
US and the UK beauty sector drop millions.
Speaker 5 (07:54):
You guys are making me want to start a revolution.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
Investors start to notice, product managers and retail biers get fired.
Quite cool, start to go out, can we partner? We're
black founders now? Day thirty a full month later, and
it's clear for black beauty because she isn't just a niche,
she is the market and for once she knows it.
We talk about power, but if we decided to actually
(08:19):
use it, like, actually use it?
Speaker 5 (08:22):
Are you deep in that game over? Follow?
Speaker 4 (08:26):
If you're done with im? Possibly we decode them myth
and we don't clap them for crumbs.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Okay, So that has gone viral. A lot of people
are sharing it, like the idea and the enthusiasm behind them,
and sure, a couple of notes and then we'll get
cued away in here. A black haircare boycott is planned
is a planned month long protest starting on September one,
twenty twenty five, and for folks that are wanting to participate,
it goes through September thirty thirty.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
First, I believe.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
The end of September in any case in which Black
women are encouraged to stop buying products from non black
owned hair care and beauty supply companies. The movement, which
has gained traction on social media, aims to draw attention
to the imbalance between black women's significant spending power in
the industry and their lack of market ownership. The goals
of the boycott are to redirect spending tower spending power. Sorry,
(09:21):
black women account for an estimated ninety percent of the
ethnic hair industry's purchasing power, you have black owners control
only about two and a half percent of the market.
The boycott is a collective effort to demonstrate this economic leverage.
Another goal to highlight economic imbalance, the protest seeks to
expose how a consumer base can be the primary driver
of an industry's sales without reaping the financial benefits of ownership.
(09:43):
Another goal to support black owned businesses. Participants are urged
to exclusively purchase products from black owned hair care brands
during the month of September with the goal of recirculating
money within the black community. Finally, a goal is to
promote long term change beyond the month long spending pause
the boycott. The boycott's organizer hope to encourage a more
sustained shift and buying habits that prioritizes black owned businesses.
(10:04):
All right, backgrounds motivations. The boycott was spurred on by
a viral video, the One We Just Shared, that illustrated
the potential economic impact of black women collectively withdrew their
financial support from the wider hair industry. The movement reflects
long standing frustrations within the Black community regarding black of ownership.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
The low rate of black ownership.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Is in sorry in the beauty supply market despite decades
of high spinning by black consumers. Number two market control,
the desire for greater control over products created for and
marketed too black consumers. And number three product development concerns
that some non black companies lack a deep understanding of
black hair and in the past have offered products that
were less effective or even harmful. And then finally, conversations
(10:44):
about the boycott. While the boycott has generated significant support,
it is also prompted discussion and differing in perspectives George
Urn versus long term impact. Some question whether one month
boycott can produce lasting change, with others arguing that consistent,
intentional spending is a more sustainable approach. Number two Difficulties
for small brands. Critics have pointed out that black owned
brands can face significant challenges with distribution and major retailers,
(11:08):
making a complete boycott of these larger stores difficult for some.
And number three online debate. Online conversation show mixed reactions,
with some comments pointing to a wider conversation about the
economic realities and power dynamics within the beauty industry.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
Okay, Q.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Your reflections.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
I think what we've shown is that if we make
a decision and stick to it, the impact is not
just real, but could change the c suite of one
of the most successful retailers in the history of the world.
(11:50):
The solidarity and the consistency is the only question the
concerns and the conversations about the boycott. We're if we're
strategic and shows some solidarity inconsistency, we can get rid
of those problems ourselves, right. The difficulty for small brands
if there's something direct to consumer, the impact on the
retailer wouldn't matter anymore. So it's just about us continuing
(12:13):
to show up after you know, a black square day
or a week off, or you know, whatever the case.
Without the sustained approach, none of these things really have impact.
If we had a boycott a target for a month,
but on that day thirty one went back, then no
one would have cared. It's that we stopped going all together.
Haven't been since. I'll go again, I haven't been since before.
(12:36):
It was a thing like as soon as the DEI news,
And that's true for every company that I've publicly seen
denounced DEI, I have not supported in any way since then,
you know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (12:49):
So it's.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Sustaining the decision and deciding that we're going to circulate
that money with each other would absolutely have a lasting,
super impactful effect on that industry because we keep a
lot of these non black companies not just afloat but
in surplus. And again, the trillions of dollars that we
(13:14):
spend annually as a collective, if we decided to stop
spending those trillions collectively with any industry, it would be
felt and like I said, we just saw the perfect
example of a c suite being rearranged because we stuck
to our guns. And I don't even think we had
full solidarity on that. We had enough not show up,
(13:38):
but full solidarity on any decision would have long lasting impact.
The question that I don't see here is would that
impact bring about any change in the decision making. They
fired their CEO, but what are they going to do
now with regard to trying to reappeal to the black consumer.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
We'll see.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Yeah, moving on, We got some opinions on this one. Sure,
Trump's Justice Department seeks to end Hispanic college grants. Okay,
before Q and I get into this segment, I want
to and I'll speak on your behalf, Q, and you
can jump in and or correct me if you feel
(14:22):
it's important, but I will say on our behalf that
we now and forever more affirm that Hispanic people Latino
people are our brothers and our sisters. And you know,
we share content and we stand in solidarity. So regardless
(14:47):
of how this article is written, our intention is to
share this content with you so that you understand what's
going on in the world. But we wanted you, I
guess to know how we feel personally, regardless of how
this comes across. It just don't want anybody to get
any lines across here. Okay, it's from CBS News. The
(15:10):
Trump administration said Friday it will not defend a decade's
old grant program for colleges with large numbers of Hispanic
students that is being challenged in court, declaring the government
believes the funding is unconstitutional, and a memo sent to Congress,
the Justice Department said it agrees with the lawsuit attempting
to strike down grants that are reserved for colleges and
universities where at least a quarter of undergraduates are Hispanic.
(15:32):
Congress created the program in nineteen ninety eight after finding
Latino students we're attending college and graduating at far lower
rates than white students. Justice Department officials argued the program
provides an unconstitutional advantage based on race or ethnicity. The
state of Tennessee and an anti affirmative action organization sued
the US Education Department in June, asking the judge to
(15:54):
halt the Hispanic Serving Institution program. Tennessee argued all of
its public universities serve Hispanic students, but none meet the
arbitrary ethnic threshold to be eligible for the grants. Those
schools miss out on tens of millions of dollars because
of discriminatory requirements, the lawsuit said. On Friday, the Justice
Department released a letter in which Solicitor General d John
(16:16):
Sower notified Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson that the Department
quote has decided not to defend, unquote, the program, saying
certain aspects of it are unconstitutional. The letter, dated July
twenty fifth, sided the twenty twenty three Supreme Court decision
outlawing affirmative action, which said outright racial balancing is patently unconstitutional.
More than five hundred colleges and universities AGNED are designated
(16:39):
as Hispanic Serving institutions, making them eligible for grant programs.
Congress appropriated about three hundred and fifty million dollars for
the program in twenty twenty four. Colleges compete for the grants,
which can go toward a range of uses, from building
improvements to science programs. Former President Joe Biden made Hispanic
serving universities a priority, signing an executive action last year
(17:00):
year that promised a new Presidential Advisory Board and increased funding.
President Donald Trump revoked the order on his first day
in office. Unlike historically black or Native American tribal colleges
and universities, which received their designations based on their missions,
any college can receive the HSI label and grants if
(17:20):
it's Latino enrollment makes up at least twenty five percent
of the undergraduate student body. The list of HSIs include
flagship campuses like the University of Texas at Austin and
the University of Arizona, along with many community colleges and
smaller institutions. The reason why I said what I said
(17:47):
in the beginning is because I don't want this to
ever feel like and I told you so. For people
that are Hispanic, the vote for Donald Trump, it's okay
to make mistakes and it's okay to come back home,
(18:08):
you know what I mean. My people are a little
bit more used to like getting hated on. We don't
deserve that, but we're used to it. And I don't
know how Latino feel. Latino people feel when this type
of stuff happens, but for some reason, it's like if
(18:31):
somebody does something to me and I know how to
handle it, I'll be all right, I won't like it,
but I'll be all right. But if somebody does something
to somebody that I care about and I love, and
I don't know if they can handle it the same way,
it's like my heartbreaks a little.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Bit more.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
So. I didn't want this to feel like I told you,
so it's more like my heartbreaks cause.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
I don't know what goes on in the minds of
the people that voted for Donald Trump that' from that
are from the Latino community.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
Maybe it's the proximity to whiteness.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Maybe it's the wanting to be American so bad that
they try to follow the most American looking sounding thing.
Maybe it's anti blackness. Who knows what it is, but
whatever it is, for Ramses in my life, I'm always
do my best to try to see my brothers and
(19:28):
my sisters, and I ain't saw don't run up on me.
I'm not that one. I promise you that, But I
can always try to see family and my fellow human beings.
And another critical element I need to share is that
I know that most Hispanic people didn't vote for this,
(19:49):
and just to hear this language and to see how
this has been manipulated and weaponized to take stuff away
from us. Maybe you knew about him, was like, dang,
that's crazy. Maybe you didn't know about it because it
didn't make its way to your news cycle. But to
see how it's now being used to take stuff away
from y'all the same exact mechanism or framework. Well, our
(20:10):
colleges in Tennessee don't have enough Hispanic enrollment, so we're
not eligible for the funds that are designated for Hispanic
students so that we can get their graduation rates up.
That Joe Biden affirmed and said he was going to
put more money into. So now Donald Trump takes it
all away. And if those graduation rates drop as a
(20:32):
resulted that, because if Donald Trump's not improving any aspect
of society, specifically for Latinos, I don't think he even
cares about anybody who's not and what his idea of
American is. When those graduation rates drop as a result
of this, or if you can at least see how
(20:54):
they're using the anti racist language to be racist now
against Latino p people, that surprise might feel crazy to you.
And so again it's just it's one of the things
where we have to share it. You know, next up
is probably more more from us, you know, but this
(21:16):
y'all moment, So it just felt like letting people know, like, hey,
we're here, uh Q. I know you have some thoughts
here too.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
When I was in first grade, I was sitting at
my desk one morning and this kid that was kind
of like a bully, but kind of just like a jerk,
punched me, like for no reason out of nowhere, ran
up to me, punched me, and then ran to the
(21:52):
teacher and told on me. I know that sounds confusing
because I didn't do anything. I was sitting there, not
bothering anybody. This kid from the other side of the
classroom got up from his chair, walked over to me,
punched me, and then ran to the teacher and told
(22:14):
on me. And that's what all these reverse affirmative action
undo DEI get rid of anything that helps anyone underprivileged
actions feel like, so this legislation or this fund or
(22:36):
this grant program or these rules were putting into place
to help these groups of people who are underserved, who
are always overlooked, and who do not have access to resources, education,
or capital. And then the people who have been the
beneficiary is of the system that's been in place the
(22:56):
whole time, the team that always wins, the people who
always benefit, the people who commit the oppression, who hoard
and keep all the resources and all the capitol, are
saying weight because you guys are making special provisions for
those people who don't have it.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
It's unfair to us.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
And we, those who already have everything, are being left
out of the portions that you put aside for those
people who don't have anything, and that's not fair. And
the language that you use to establish those programs says,
we won't discriminate against anybody based on their skin color,
or their gender, or their ethnicity or whatever. So you
(23:44):
guys can't discriminate against us. That's not fair. And then
the teacher, my teacher, or the principle or the person
in charge of saying, you know what, you're right, we
shouldn't make a way for those who don't have anything.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
And why oh man, you know, I'm gonna just go
over a bit. But Q and I we used to
feed homeless people for a long time. For ten years.
We had an outreach. I imagine it being something like, hey.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
We have a.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
Program where we're going to feed homeless folks, and then
people that are not homeless, that have jobs, that have
everything come and they say, hey, you're feeding these homeless
folks exclusively. We want access to that food too, and
it just feels crazy. All right, Let's move on, better,
(24:46):
do better. Donald Trump's Chinese phones. All right, This is
from the Atlanta Black Star. President Donald Trump's latest business
venture took an unexpected turn when the eagle eyed social
media users discovered something fishy about a smartphone company's promotional material.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
This is so funny, what a grif? All right?
Speaker 1 (25:01):
What was supposed to be a triumphant reveal of the
T one phone on Tuesday, August nineteenth instead became an
Internet sensation for all the wrong reasons, proving once again
that the digital age leaves little room for creative shortcuts
and cheaters, even if it's connected to the president. The
drama unfolded when Trump Mobile shared what appeared to be
a sleek promotional image of its flagship device on social
media platforms. The now deleted post, noted by Wired, encouraged
(25:25):
potential customers to pre order the phone, boasting about its
gold finish and big power capabilities. However, Android enthusiasts quickly
realized they were looking at something remarkably familiar. The supposed
T one phone was actually a digitally altered Samsung Galaxy
S twenty five Ultra, complete with what appeared to be
a third party phone case from accessory manufacturers. Spigin community
(25:47):
notes on X quickly fact check the post, confirming that
the image showed a modified Samsung device rather than the
promised T one phone. According to Mashable, users noticed that
despite attempts to photoshop the image with Trump branding and
an American flag, the original Spegin logo remained partially visible
beneath the digital editions. When the manufacturer was alerted, it
took to X to share the company's plans to deal
(26:09):
with the president's brand tweeting lawsuit incoming. Trump Mobile initially
launched with considerable fanfare back in June, when Donald Trump
Junior and Eric Trump unveiled both the cellular service and
the promised smartphone. The original announcement position the T one
as a device designed to build sorry designed and built
in the United States for customers seeking premium quality. The
(26:31):
phone was marketed as a four hundred and ninety nine
dollars Android device featuring a six point twenty five inch
amo led display, two hundred and fifty six gigs of storage,
and a five thousand amp battery of megaamp battery. I
think that's what that is, with promises of American manufacturing
that would align with the President's long standing advocacy for
domestic production. However, the Maid in American language quietly disappeared
(26:55):
from the company's website shortly after the initial announcement, raising
questions about the feasibility of such claims given the current
state of smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States. Industry
experts had noted that the promised specifications bore striking similarities
to budget smartphones produced overseas, particularly in China. Okay, Q,
(27:16):
you want this one?
Speaker 5 (27:18):
No?
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Do I want the obvious Trump is stealing from you segment? No, No,
he's a thief and a grifter and a con man.
He's doing thiev pilfery, grimy man grifter stuff.
Speaker 5 (27:35):
Again.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
This slot water makes things wet, whatever other obvious thing
we want to say.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Out loud man watch this. Okay, dig this.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
So I read something somewhere that and I don't know
how true this is. So this is not me stating
a fact I'm not saying a falsehood either. I don't know,
but I've read it and have not confirmed it yet.
But I read something, and I typically read reputable verses.
It says that Donald Trump has made like three point
something billion dollars since being sworn in like eight months ago,
(28:09):
and a lot of that was the result of what
is effectively insider trading. You know, he's the president, so
he makes the laws and he can invest in the
things that the laws support or whatever.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
You know. And I don't want you to leave out bribes. Bribes, yes,
and sounds like some clever strategy. No, he's being bought
off by people like that.
Speaker 5 (28:32):
Don't leave that out.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
Thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Yeah, absolutely, But you know that was just we're there's
so much to talk about that we didn't get into
the weeds there yet.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
I'm sure we will eventually.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
But let's go back, Okay, so we don't even have
to talk about Donald Trump's stakes and Trump University and
Trump Airlines and all of that stuff, those failed businesses,
Trump's NFL league. Let's talk about the stuff since you've
been to president with Trump watches and what did he
have the Trump n F T s. I read something
the other day that the NFT market is like in
(29:07):
the gutter. What else Trump Bibles?
Speaker 2 (29:11):
What else do you have?
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Trump sneakers, all kinds of stuff, And it's just the
most it's the most griftiest, grimiest, wildest thing. And the
people are such fans of his and those are the
only people that will buy it. He has not made
something that is quality that the general population would you
(29:32):
know what I mean? Like if Trump made the best
TVs or something like that, I'm sure there are people
moderates whatever that might be, like, hey, look I.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Need a good TV.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Donald Trump makes a good TV objectively true, But he
only makes stuff that appeals to the people that are
fans of his exclusively, and he just continues to take
advantage of him with the Chinese smartphone rebranded as made
in America. Is super Grimy Man.