Sup you beautiful bastards.
Hope you've had a fantastic Tuesday.
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show.
And a quick thing before we get started
friendly reminder that you only have six days left
if you wanna get the brand new
one day we'll all be skeletons hoodie or shirt.
The let's just say this is coffee mug.
And of course our atoms
don't be stupid, stupid masks.
All available on SHOPDEFRANCO.COM for a limited time.
But with that said, welcome to the Phillip Defranco show.
Buckle up, hit that like button and let's just jump into it.
And the first thing that we're gonna talk about today
is a story and news that I'm kind of just gonna use
as a way to poll you.
Today we saw CNBC tweet out an article writing,
"Biden defines $400,000 a year as quote "wealthy".
In big cities, It only makes you upper middle class."
With one of their key points being,
"According to a financial planning analysis
family making $400,000 a year aren't exactly living large
especially in major cities."
To which I would personally say bullshit.
As someone who grew up not having money
and now finding myself in the privileged position
of being kind of top one top 2% in America,
yes $400,000 a year makes you wealthy.
As even noted in the article,
"By national measures, though is making $400,000
belong to a rarified group."
Keyword being rarified, right top of the pyramid.
"They represent the top 1.8% of taxpayers,
earning about 25% of the nation's income."
So I guess I just find it absolutely ludicrous
that you could be in the top 2% of earners
and be like, I'm not wealthy though.
What because you decided to live somewhere
incredibly expensive?
Because you and adult person who's responsible
for their own actions made the choice
of I'm gonna live here rather
than maybe live somewhere cheaper.
And yes it will do this to my transportation time
but I don't know man, if you can't figure it out on $400,000
a year friend you are living in Disneyland.
I hope the real world never catches up with you.
So you understand why this article is even being done.
Biden wants to tax wealthy people more
with a marginal tax increase
meaning that the only taxpayers
that would see tax increases are people making an income
of over $400,000.
But also even the people making
between 400,000 to 700,000, I think it's like a 1% increase.
So the bulk of the revenue brought in
from this marginal tax increase expected from people
making more than a million dollars a year.
Yeah, that's why this article is even being done.
But I guess the question I have
well one, do you agree with me?
It is fine if you disagree, just let me know why
but also if you agree that $400,000 is wealthy, right?
$400,000 a year, what yearly amount of money brought
in do you believe that means that person hits wealthy?
Let me know what you think there and why.
I'm really fascinated here.
And then let's talk about Rihanna being in the news
because she was getting hit
with an absolute ton of backlash.
This over her second Savage Fenty show,
which hit Amazon Prime on Friday.
Which I think for a lot of people
you hear Rihanna getting backlash for her show why?
I mean normally she's just being praised for her line
and her shows for featuring models
of different races and sizes.
But the reason Rihanna here was hit
with this wave of criticism
was because she used an Islamic hadith
in her lingerie show.
And for those unfamiliar hadith is a collection
of traditional Muslim phrases from the prophet Muhammed
used as guidance for those of the Islamic faith.
And so essentially what happened here
is during the show, a song titled "Doom"
was played which was created by London-based producer
Coucou Chloe.
That song samples hadith narration
about the end of times and judgment day
mixed into a house beat.
And so when viewers recognized this,
it prompted reactions like.
Rihanna is messed up for using a song with a Hadith
in it to play at her lingerie show.
What is up with artists using Islam as an aesthetic?
Have some respect.
And as a muslim, no words can describe
how disappointed I am with Rihanna
for letting her models, dance to hadith.
Hadith are the sacred words of our prophet,
you can't just use it for your lingerie show.
Disgusting and extremely disrespectful.
Also apparently after some digging
many pointed out that this song was actually used
in the past during Rihanna's 2017 Fenty Puma show.
Right and so you had people pointing to that moment
also noting that people in the past had an issue with this.
So maybe that shows that Rihanna does not care.
Also here we eventually saw the song producer
write an apology online saying,
"I want to deeply apologize for the offense caused
by the vocal sample used in my song "DOOM".
The song was created using samples from Baile Funk tracks
I found online.
At the time, I was not aware that these samples
use texts from an Islamic Hadith.
I take full responsibility for the fact
I did not research these words properly
and want to thank those of you who have taken the time
to explain this to me.
And also noting we have been in the process
of having the song urgently removed
from all streaming platforms."
And as far as Rihanna, we actually saw her come forward
this morning with an apology of her own saying,
"I'd like to thank the Muslim community
for pointing out a huge oversight
that was unintentionally offensive in our Savage Fenty show.
I would more importantly like to apologize to you
for this honest yet careless mistake.
We understand that we have hurt many of our Muslim
brothers and sisters, and I'm incredibly disheartened
by this.
I do not play with any kind of disrespect toward God
or any religion and therefore use of this song
in our project was completely irresponsible!"
Yeah that's essentially the story as it is now.
And ultimately it ends up being one of those stories
of now it's just in the court of public opinion
Well, the people that were angry about this
or even the people that were kind of just looking in
they see that as yeah, it was an innocent mistake.
She's owning up to it.
It's acceptable or no do you still have an issue with this?
Is it still using a religion, a culture as an aesthetic?
Yeah, if you have any thoughts on this one,
I'd love to hear from you in those comments down below.
But from that I wanna share some stuff
I love today.
And today in awesome brought to you by MVMT.
As many of you beautiful bastards know
I've been rocking my movement gear for years now.
With tons of super stylish watches, sunglasses, rings
and bracelets for men and women, what's not to love?
And if you're looking for great everyday watches
for both business and casual looks,
you should definitely check out their new ultra sleek
legacy slim watch collection.
These watches are 42 millimeter
with a polish brushed case finish
and a choice of stainless steel or leather bands.
And if you're looking for a dressier feel
they have a compact 40 millimeter size
that goes great with both suits and T's.
And you know, MVMT products have a clean
and a minimal design because they're all about simple style
and functionality, all at an affordable price.
And with the holidays right around the corner,
you can not go wrong with gifting a loved one with MVMT.
And best of all right now MVMT
is offering you beautiful bastards 15% off
plus free shipping.
All you got to do is head over to MVMT.com/Defranco
or just click my link down below.
Just touch it see what happens I'm giving you permission.
And the first bit of awesome today
is we are seeing records being broken
in the entertainment space.
First step you have Black Pink who on Sunday
became the first K-pop group to surpass 50 million
subscribers on YouTube.
Also making them the second most subscribed music artist
on YouTube just behind Justin Bieber.
That news also coming just coming a day
after the band's latest album.
It made it to the number one spot on iTunes
as top album charts in at least 57 different
international regions.
On top of that, their music video for their song
"Love Sick Girls" just set a new YouTube record
by becoming the fastest music video
by a South Korean girl group to reach 10 million views.
Getting that in just 53 minutes.
Because apparently that was not already enough,
we also in the past 24 hours got a trailer
for their new documentary, "Light Up the Sky".
We got the honest trailer for the "Kissing Booth".
We had Hailee Steinfeld on stir crazy.
We got "When Time Became History - The Human Era".
Binging with Babish gave us some garlic bread goodness.
And if you wanna see the full versions
of everything I just shared, the secret link of the day,
really anything at all links is always there
in the description down below.
And then let's talk about the Supreme Court in the news.
You know with the passing away of RBG,
the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett,
there has been a lot of talk about the Supreme Court
and what might happen to, you know the ACA, your healthcare.
What's gonna happen with Roe V Wade reproductive rights.
I mean in addition to that, there is so much more at play.
I mean, yesterday was the first day of the court's new term.
And already there are two really big stories
that are coming out of it.
First step actually deals with this election.
What votes will or won't be counted.
And it's specifically aimed at South Carolina.
So we saw was a Supreme court siding with Republicans
thus reinstating a mandate that requires voters
to get a witness signature on their absentee ballots.
And that was opposed by Democrats who thought
that during a pandemic requiring someone
to get a witness signature would be difficult
and limiting for voters.
And in fact prior to the Supreme Court decision,
lower courts agreed with Democrats
and they actually suspended the rule because of COVID-19
saying that it would interfere
with a person's right to vote.
But like we said, ultimately the Supreme Court
decided that that rule should be reinstated
with there being no noted dissents.
And with this decision, you had justice
Brett Kavanaugh writing, "This court has repeatedly
emphasized that federal courts ordinarily
should not alter state election rules
in the period close to an election."
Also adding the state election rules regarding the pandemic
"...should not be subject to second guessing
by an unelected federal judiciary,
which lacks the background, competence
and expertise to assess public health
and is not accountable to the people.
Now, notably as yes it pertains to the story
but also if you are a South Carolina voter
the Supreme court did make an exception
saying that ballots that have already been cast
or that are received within the next two days,
do not need a witness.
Though, it is worth noting here
that justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito
and the old Gorsuch would have ordered that any ballot
regardless of when it had been sent should not be counted
if it did not have a witness signature.
This is an incredibly important story to know
because as I hope you are well aware,
we are actively in an election already.
We say election day but voting
is already actively happening.
In fact according to the associated press,
in South Carolina more than 200,000 absentee ballots
have been mailed out already
and 18,000 have already been returned in.
So if you are a South Carolina voter
who has not already mailed back,
know that you now need to do this
or your vote will not count.
And as far as the responses to this news
GOP chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel saying,
The Supreme Court just handed Republicans
and the voters of South Carolina a huge victory
for election integrity!"
You also had chairman of the South Carolina Republican
Party, Drew McKissick releasing a statement saying,
"Despite the Democrats' efforts to hijack a pandemic
and use it to metal with our election laws, they've lost.
We're pleased the Supreme Court reinstated
the witness signature requirement
and recognized its importance
in helping to prevent election fraud."
But on the other hand you had some seeing this decision
as voter suppression with a different name.
Saying that not everyone may know
that the rule is being reinstated
and some may continue to vote without it.
With some saying things like, "The Supreme Court
just handed the South Carolina election
to Trump and Lindsey Graham.
Or at least made it a hell of a lot harder
for Biden and Jamie Harrison
to have all their votes counted.
People will continue to mail in ballots not knowing this.
We also had the African American policy forum saying,
"Republicans are waging a war on voting rights.
In every state, they're fighting to make it harder
to vote an easier to throw out ballots.
John Roberts and the other conservatives
on the Supreme Court will work overtime
to help them succeed in their goal of suppressing votes.
Today's SCOTUS order concerning South Carolina's
absentee ballot witness requirement is one such example.
Sadly, there will be many more such decisions
between now and November."
Also with the situation you have people
like Rick Hasen, an election law expert
at the University of California Irvine writing,
"This sends a strong signal that the Supreme Court
is going to be wary of federal court order changes
close to the election, even those done to deal
with burdens on voters created by the pandemic.
This is a signal that this continues to be a Court
not willing to strongly protect voting rights."
And stories like this are why I will continue
to echo the point of if you are someone that wants
the Lindsey Graham's and Trump's of the world out of office
do not get complacent and cocky when you see the state
and the national poll.
None of that matters if you're not staying informed,
staying focused, getting the word out
when news like this is happening.
And you're voting like this may be the last time
you ever get the chance to vote.
You better be bringing that kind of energy
because who knows how many ballots
they're gonna try to get rejected.
But yeah, lets all leave that story for now.
But then the next big Supreme Court story
is one that actually starts with Kim Davis.
That is probably a name that you're familiar with though
if not thought of in a long time.
She was that Kentucky clerk who years ago
made headlines for refusing to issue marriage licenses
to same sex couples saying she wouldn't do this
because it conflicted with her religious beliefs.
Yesterday what we saw was the court saying
they would not hear an appeal in her case.
But even though the Supreme Court is not taking up that case
questions about a potential threat to Obergefell V Hodges
the decision that allows for same sex marriage
still came up.
Because justice Thomas joined by Justice Alito
wrote an opinion about that decision and Kim Davis.
With that opinion saying that the decision
could quote "...threaten the religious liberty
of the many Americans who believe
that marriage is a sacred institution
between one man and one woman..."
And that "...Obergefell V Hodges enables courts
and governments to brand religious adherents
who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman
as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns
that much easier to dismiss..."
Well Thomas said that he does agree with the decision
to not take up Davis's appeal
because it did not cleanly present the issues
with the decision.
He still spoke in defense of her situation writing,
"Davis may have been one of the first victims
of the Court's cavalier treatment of religion
in it's Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last.
Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held
religious beliefs concerning marriage
will find it increasingly difficult to participate
in society without running afoul of Obergefell
and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws."
And from all of that, we saw a lot of outrage.
To people like Chasten Buttigieg saying,
"Just a reminder that overturning Obergefell gay marriage
is in the Republican Party's official platform.
Alito and Thomas just signaled their wishes to overturn it
and we already know where Barrett stands on the issue.
Please vote.
Though, regarding Amy Coney Barrett,
it is worth noting that she has expressed
her personal disagreement with gay marriage
but has written very little about it in the legal sense
and is not specifically said she would overturn it.
Senator Ed Markey also saying,
"Five years ago the Supreme Court
legalized same sex marriage in all 50 states.
It is the settled law of the land.
The Senate must reject any nominee who would side
with Justices Thomas and Alito to overturn Obergefell.
But ultimately that is where we are with the story.
As far as would this actually get overturned,
I mean, we'd have to wait and see.
But even the prospect, I understand that this change
only happened about five years ago.
I mean it's genuinely alarming out of all the things
that I was like, "Oh that's something
that they might take away or change."
I didn't think that but it also doesn't appear
that it is something that the American people want.
According to a Gallup poll this year
two out of every three Americans supports gay marriage.
Well the support for that is obviously much higher
with Democrats and independents.
I mean, Republicans are almost at 50%
which I mean is a big change.
It's almost double than like 10 years ago.
But yeah, that is where the Supreme Court stories
and actually the show today will end.
And of course, could be the story,
some of my personal takeaway
and then of course I pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts on either of these?
Yeah, I'd really love to know your thoughts on this.
And that is where I'm going to end today's show.
As always thanks for being a part of these daily dives
into the news.
If you're new here join the family,
hit that subscribe button
maybe even text me at (813) 213-4423.
You get notifications for the big stuffs
and behind the scenes, other cool stuff.
Also remember you only have six days left
if you wanna grab something at SHOPDEFRANCO.COM.
But with that said of course as always
my name's Phillip Defranco.
You've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.