Bill Maher has to — tries to — explain freedom of speech to Mark Cuban and Joe Scarborough.

Bill Maher warns Democrats like Mark Cuban and Joe Scarborough that their unfair treatment of Elon Musk is proving Republicans' point that Democrats do not care about free speech:
Bill Maher: "He launches his rockets from Vandenberg Space Force Base, used to call the Air Force… pic.twitter.com/ATx5At09XG

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) October 19, 2024

Musk: "Yeah, I saw an interview with Mark Cuban and, what's her name again, Rachel Maddow, but I couldn't tell which was which."

JUST IN: Elon Musk says he saw an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Mark Cuban but he "couldn't tell which one was which."

Brutal.

Musk: "Yeah, I saw an interview with Mark Cuban and, what's her name again, Rachel Maddow, but I couldn't tell which was which."

Crowd:… pic.twitter.com/0rSHazWqWV

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 19, 2024

Is this the sort of humor you'd advise Musk to use?

Yes, when it's this funny and accurate

Yes, these awful people deserve it

No, Musk is abasing himself to go there

No, he's pushing away some people who might support him

Musk should feel free, go with his instinct, and take risks

This is so inconsequential I can barely make the effort to click this box

 

pollcode.com free polls

Getting testy.

“Testy” is this week’s “sharp as a tack” https://t.co/DoQgTOxKRN

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 17, 2024

 

Why "testy"? Of course, I don't believe these writers independently arrived at the same word. I presume they got the same message. But still, the message-writer chose that word, so the word is important, albeit not as important as it would have been if these characters had all determined on their own that "testy" was the mot juste.

"Testy" might make you think of testicle, but the etymology is a word for head — "teste." Think "headstrong." An obsolete meaning — I'm reading the OED — is "Of headstrong courage; impetuous; precipitate, rash." But the current meaning is: "Prone to be irritated by small checks and annoyances; impatient of being thwarted; resentful of contradiction or opposition; irascible, short-tempered, peevish, tetchy, 'crusty.'"

That's not very presidential! 

Not everyone decided she was testy.

"Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has agreed to contribute $10 million to women's organizations but will not face any other punishment..."

"... stemming from what NBA commissioner Adam Silver called 'disturbing and heartbreaking' allegations of harassment and violence toward female employees within the organization, the league announced Wednesday. The NBA launched an investigation seven months ago following a Sports Illustrated report in February which described 'a corporate culture rife with misogyny and predatory sexual behavior' that spanned decades in the Mavericks' organization... 'First, just an apology to the women involved,' Cuban told ESPN. '... This is not something that just is an incident and then it's over. It stays with people. It stays with families. And I'm just sorry I didn't see it. I'm just sorry I didn't recognize it.' While Cuban himself was not cited in any of the incidents of harassment or misconduct, the NBA said that he didn't pay enough attention to the business culture within the Mavericks' organization...."

ESPN reports.

We were just looking at the 2020 election odds, and Cuban was on the list, with 50-1, trailing Beto O'Rourke.

And here's a post from February 2017, "Trump is trying to figure out who's going to run against him in 2020":

It's really hard to figure out:

Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, asked consultants to scour the backgrounds of four outspoken Democrats — Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, two sources close to the administration said....

The White House believes both Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren are “too old” to mount a serious campaign three years from now, sources said....

Have we ever had such a vulnerable President and so few credible contenders?

Is this enough to wreck the political career of Mark Cuban?

"In 2011, Portland Police Investigated a Sexual Assault Complaint Against Billionaire Mark Cuban. He Wasn’t Charged. Here’s What Happened/WW has obtained the transcript of a Portland Police detective's interview with Cuban. 'Oh my Lord,' Cuban said. “'Oh my f***ing Lord.'"

Willamette Week reports.

The woman told police she encountered Cuban in late April at the Barrel Room, at 105 NW 3rd Ave., and asked him to pose with her for a photograph. While they smiled for the camera, she claimed, he thrust his hand down the back of her jeans and penetrated her vagina with his finger.... "I filed the report because what he did was wrong," [says the unnamed woman]. "I stand behind that report 1,000 percent."...

Cuban responded to [questions from Portland Police Detective Brendan McGuire] with a firm denial that mixed shock, disbelief and self-pity....

A week after the interview, two urologists on the faculty of the George Washington University Medical School in Washington, D.C., provided [Cuban's attorney, Stephen Houze] a written opinion that Cuban could not physically have committed the crime of which he was accused.

"[Cuban] is a large male with large hands, making penetration without lubrication of the woman in the standing position virtually impossible," the doctors wrote.

Much more at the link including extended transcripts of Cuban talking to the McGuire.

"The investor Mark Cuban called for a real-name policy on services like Twitter, arguing that 'there needs to be a single human behind every individual account.'"

"That’s a terrible idea... it would endanger marginalized people without improving trust. But Cuban’s reform does square with the Times’ take on virtue and wickedness at Twitter. Just shine light upon the shadows of the black market to put an end to the corruption. Then ordinary folk can be freed from the lust for fame that would rob them of their true selves. But this is a fairy-tale story about the internet. Fraud is not the ultimate problem with fake social-media activity. The hustle itself is the blight. It produces the racket that sucks so many into its orbit.... There is a pride in having built a platform for attention, and there is also a shame in feeling pride for it. To boast that one’s followers are all 'real,' or to call for a near future in which that state of affairs is insured, is just to affirm the virtue of the system. This is the back that must be broken for anyone to feel free on social media."

From "All Followers Are Fake Followers/A New York Times exposé of a 'black market' for online fame diagnoses the symptom of social-media despair, but misses its cause" by Ian Bogost (in The Atlantic).

"The 43 people who might run against Trump in 2020."

A piece at The Hill. I haven't read it yet, but there's just one name I do not want to see. There's a certain someone who needs to step back and let other candidacies develop.

Okay, now I'm looking.

With no clear leader, the 2020 field should be a change from 2016, when Democrats had a small field of candidates, including front-runner Hillary Clinton.

I nearly lost my mind before focusing and reading that correctly. No, Hillary is not one of the 43, and she is certainly not the "front-runner."

My pet theory these days is that the people want excitement and will vote for the more entertaining character and what it takes to excite us properly keeps amping up. First, Obama, then, Trump, so what's next in this series? I'll extract the possibilities from the 43 on the list. I was going to exclude all the elected officials, but I let one on. In the order that they appear in the linked article:

Trump is trying to figure out who's going to run against him in 2020.

It's really hard to figure out.*

Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, asked consultants to scour the backgrounds of four outspoken Democrats — Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, two sources close to the administration said....

The White House believes both Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren are “too old” to mount a serious campaign three years from now, sources said....

“Elizabeth Warren is 100 years old....” the second source said....

She's 67.

Trump’s political team is also counting out [NY Governor Andrew] Cuomo and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, because they’ve been tainted by corruption probes....

[Kirsten] Gillibrand, 50, has been raising her profile thanks to a series of “no” votes on Trump’s Cabinet picks, but White House officials view her as “too young” and believe she lacks the network in the party to run a nationwide campaign, the sources said.

So 67 is too old and 50 is too young. Noted.
______________________

* I'm steeling myself for all the born-lame jokes about how hard it is to see in 2020. The headline at the link is "Trump’s White House eyes potential foes in 2020 election." Did they write "eyes" because it will be 2020? No 20/20 jokes. I'm pre-banning them. It's bad enough to have to plunge back into another campaign season.