Oh Boy It Never Ends: An old hag tries to trash Daniel Radcliffe

If you missed it, faded hag Martina Navratilova is slamming Daniel Radcliffe because he's not a transphobe. You know what, Marti? Looks like you need to shave your chin but tell me how many years do I need to give you? I mean, I'm old enough to remember when you 'came out' and how you didn't come out as a lesbian. That took several years. You spent forever insisting you were 'bisexual' before finally admitting the truth that you were a lesbian.

So who knows what you were thinking then or what you're thinking now. You're a tired, ugly person. If you don't like freedom, go back to your home country. You're an embarrassment. You're 66, life is all behind you now so shut up.

"The Times They Are A' Changin'" again, old transphobe so, as Bob Dylan sang:

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'

Get it? We don't need you, in fact, let's put it like Diana Ross sings it in "Love Hangover" -- don't need it, don't want it.

Go away, Martina. You'll never play professional tennis again and no one cares what you think about young people. Slam your screen door while you go back inside muttering about those damn kids on your yard.

You know I'm a Lucy fan. My cousin Marcia's "Stefan Kanfer's Ball of Fire: The Tumultuous Life and Comic Art of Lucille Ball" went up Saturday and you should check it out. She also discusses the book in "Books (Marcia, Ava and C.I.)" at THIRD.

Let me also note Ava and C.I.'s "Media: The week of WTF?:"

Last week, across the country, the phrase "WTF" had to be on everyone's lips because it was just one WTF moment after another.

For example, films. Bruce Haring (DEADLINE) reported:

The power of Taylor Swift compels you. And it’s also worked its ways on producer Jason Blum, who cast out his The Exorcist: Believer to an earlier October release date to avoid a clash with Swift's concert film.

Blum explained his reasoning in an interview with EW.

"The one thing that scares me to death is Taylor Swift!" Blum said.

"We had this amazing Friday the 13th in October, which is the single best day to release a scary movie," said Blum. no doubt shaking his head. He originally paid homage by writing the tag #Exorswift” on Twitter when the Eras announcement came out.

Later that same day, things changed. "Look what you made me do," Blum wrote, quoting a Swift song. "The Exorcist: Believer moves to 10/6/23 #TaylorWins."

"Obviously, we moved off that [date] and we bowed our head to Taylor Swift," Blum said. "It was too risky to see if 'Exorswift' was going to take or not. People will still have the Exorswift opportunity, so maybe we got to have our cake and eat it, too."

Say it with us, "WTF"?

The film industry supposedly wants to recover. Yet you'd never know it from the timid and reduced schedules. Each week, they offer one 'sure thing' that sometimes hits and sometimes crashes and burns. They repeatedly blink when they should press on.

If a Friday the 13th belongs to any film, it's a horror film. And if a direct sequel to the all time horror champ THE EXORCIST -- with Ellen Burstyn back in her Academy Award nominated role of Chris MacNeil -- can't stand up to a concert film, is this new EXORCIST just not that good?

That's the message sent.

Taylor Swift is a very popular singer and songwriter. She does well with live concerts (she's not selling out venues, however, which is why this tour has seen so many upgrades on the night of the concert -- people who bought cheaper seats being moved closer to the stage to fill the empty, higher priced seats that did not sell). A few years back, NETFLIX had a popular concert special from Taylor. Popular. Not break records for streaming, merely popular.

And that's what concert films are in North America, merely popular -- if they're lucky.

Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber had two 'hit' concert films -- 2011 and 2009. They both grossed, in North America, approximately $31.1 million.

That's a 'hit' concert film.

And that's what caused UNIVERSAL PICTURES to blink?

Two of the biggest films of the summer, BARBIE and OPPENHEIMER, premiered the same weekend.

But THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER can't stand up to Taylor Smith?

It's very sad and a demonstration that, yet again, the problem isn't with the ticket buyers, it's with the studios themselves.

The horror film has a built-in audience with a Friday the 13th debut. UNIVERSAL should have to answer to stock holders if this latest film under-performs. Part of the answering should include responding to this question: Do you know how to a run a damn business.

Timid is not going to let the film industry bounce back.

Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, October 3, 2023. It's Banned Books Week so grab ahold of your freedom and don't let anyone censor your reading, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to float 'big news' and notice how when elderly White men call out Junior, they ignore his anti-woman rhetoric and his anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.

At COMMON DREAMS, Brett Wilkins writes:

A coalition of publishers, teacher and librarian groups, and other advocates on Sunday kicked off this year's Banned Books Week by rallying behind the freedom to read amid an alarming surge in right-wing book bans across the United States.

For over 40 years, the annual Banned Books Week—whose theme this year is Let Freedom Read—has united writers, publishers, booksellers, educators, librarians, and readers "in shared support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas, even those some consider unorthodox or unpopular," as the American Library Association (ALA) put it.

"When we ban books, we're closing off readers to people, places, and perspectives. But when we stand up for stories, we unleash the power that lies inside every book," the ALA said. "We liberate the array of voices that need to be heard and the scenes that need to be seen. Let freedom read!"

As of August 31, the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom has documented 695 attempts this year to remove a total of 1,915 titles from public and school libraries. Last year, the group counted 1,269 attempts to censor library books and other resources—the highest number of ban efforts since the ALA started tracking them over 20 years ago and nearly double the previous year's tally.

ALA said that of the record 2,571 unique titles targeted for censorship, most were by or about LGBTQ+ people and Black, Indigenous, and people of color.

"This is a dangerous time for readers and the public servants who provide access to reading materials," ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom director Deborah Caldwell-Stone said in a statement. "Readers, particularly students, are losing access to critical information, and librarians and teachers are under attack for doing their jobs."

At READER'S DIGEST, Heather Hill notes:

Book banning and censorship are nothing new, but you may have noticed more discussion on the topic lately in the news and on social media. Maybe you’ve even joined a debate over why some of the best books are now off limits. It’s important to note that while schools and libraries—or even a store—may ban books, it does not make banned books illegal to acquire or read. Of course, sometimes a ban on a book makes it just that much more, well, intriguing. Some teens, whose literary access is significantly challenged by many of the bans, have even created their own banned books clubs.

Book banning and censorship often lead to a suppression of minority voices and an erasure of reality. In fact, among the top 11 banned books on our list, 10 of the authors and illustrators are women or nonbinary individuals, while four of the books were written by authors of color and four by LGBTQ individuals. Many recently banned books touch on violence and abuse, health and well-being, grief and death—topics that are crucial for kids and teens to explore.

As parents and school boards lead the effort to erase uncomfortable interpretations of reality (such as the Holocaust book Maus), discussions of gender identity (as with George M. Johnson’s All Boys Aren’t Blue) and provocative stories that could lead to political questioning (The Handmaid’s Tale, anyone?), they are not only limiting access but also perpetuating inequalities and dictating what stories have the right to be heard. Ready to see which of these books you have already read—and which you need to get your hands on ASAP? Read on for our countdown of the 50 most banned books in America.

How we came up with our banned books list

We created a list of America’s 50 most banned books from the first half of the 2022–2023 school year using data from PEN America, a nonprofit organization that keeps a comprehensive index of school book bans. (Data from the entire school year has yet to be released.) We mined the data so you don’t have to—and boy was there a lot of data. In the first half of the school term alone, PEN America found 874 different banned books and more than 1,477 instances of individual books banned (because some titles are restricted in multiple places).

So what counts as a banned book? PEN America’s definition here includes books that were challenged and temporarily removed, as well as those fully removed from school libraries and classrooms. These represent a range of genres, and as the organization notes, such censorship impacts a diverse set of identities, topics, concepts and stories.

Here, we’re listing them from the 50th most banned book in America to the No. 1 banned title (in alphabetical order where there were ties). How many have you read?

Use the link to find out how many of the 50 books you've read. It's your right to read those books or not to read those books. Your right. You don't need a gestapo over your shoulder telling you what you can and cannot do. That's not freedom, that's not democracy.

Want to order a banned book online? Barnes & Noble has a webpage for you. Are you in Nashville? Got an even better place to steer you. Angele Latham (THE TENNESSEAN) reports:

One Nashville bookstore is stepping in support of First Amendment access to information by hosting the Banned Book Wagon on Tuesday: a partnership with PEN America, the Freedom to Read Foundation, the Little Free Library and Penguin Random House Publishing.

The wagon will make a stop on its maiden voyage at The Bookstore in East Nashville and give out 500 free copies of 12 commonly-banned books. Titles like "The Kite Runner," "The Handmaid’s Tale" and "The Bluest Eye," along information about censorship, will be given out to customers while supplies last.

The book wagon will be open from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. at The Bookshop, located at 1043 W. Eastland Ave, with the shop closing at its normal 7 p.m.

When the wagon runs out of books, it will pack up and head off to its next destination -- New Orleans -- dropping banned books in Little Free Libraries along the way.

This is your world, make it better. The American Library Association compiles a list of books banned over the years -- books now considered classics:

The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Challenged at the Baptist College in Charleston, SC (1987) because of "language and sexual references in the book.

I re-read THE GREAT GATSBY every October. Love to tell you that it was because of banned books. But this year, that will be one of the reasons I re-read it.

Let's go back to the list of banned classics:

The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck

Burned by the East St. Louis, IL Public Library (1939) and barred from the Buffalo, NY Public Library (1939) on the grounds that "vulgar words" were used. Banned in Kansas City, MO (1939).
Banned in Kern County CA, the scene of Steinbeck's novel (1939).
Banned in Ireland (1953).
On Feb. 21, 1973, eleven Turkish book publishers went on trial before an Istanbul martial law tribunal on charges of publishing, possessing and selling books in violation of an order of the Istanbul martial law command. They faced possible sentences of between one month's and six months' imprisonment "for spreading propaganda unfavorable to the state" and the confiscation of their books. Eight booksellers were also on trial with the publishers on the same charge involving The Grapes of Wrath.
Banned in Kanawha, IA High School classes (1980).
Challenged in Vernon Verona Sherill, NY School District (1980).
Challenged as required reading for Richford, VT (1981) High School English students due to the book's language and portrayal of a former minister who recounts how he took advantage of a young woman.
Banned in Morris, Manitoba, Canada (1982).
Removed from two Anniston, Ala. high school libraries (1982), but later reinstated on a restrictive basis.
Challenged at the Cummings High School in Burlington, NC (1986) as an optional reading assignment because the "book is full of filth. My son is being raised in a Christian home and this book takes the Lord's name in vain and has all kinds of profanity in it." Although the parent spoke to the press, a formal complaint with the school demanding the book's removal was not filed.
Challenged at the Moore County school system in Carthage, NC (1986) because the book contains the phase "God damn."
Challenged in the Greenville, SC schools (1991) because the book uses the name of God and Jesus in a "vain and profane manner along with inappropriate sexual references."
Challenged in the Union City, TN High School classes (1993).

[. . .]

The Color Purple, by Alice Walker

Challenged as appropriate reading for Oakland, CA High School honors class (1984) due to the work's "sexual and social explicitness" and its "troubling ideas about race relations, man's relationship to God, African history, and human sexuality." After nine months of haggling and delays, a divided Oakland Board of Education gave formal approval for the book's use.
Rejected for purchase by the Hayward, CA school's trustee (1985) because of "rough language" and "explicit sex scenes."
Removed from the open shelves of the Newport News, VA school library (1986) because of its "profanity and sexual references" and placed in a special section accessible only to students over the age of 18 or who have written permission from a parent. Challenged at the public libraries of Saginaw, MI (1989) because it was “too sexually graphic for a 12-year-old.”
Challenged as a summer youth program reading assignment in Chattanooga, TN (1989) because of its language and "explicitness."
Challenged as an optional reading assigned in Ten Sleep, WY schools (1990).
Challenged as a reading assignment at the New Burn, NC High School (1992) because the main character is raped by her stepfather.
Banned in the Souderton, PA Area School District (1992) as appropriate reading for 10th graders because it is "smut." Challenged on the curricular reading list at Pomperaug High School in Southbury, CT (1995) because sexually explicit passages aren’t appropriate high school reading.
Retained as an English course reading assignment in the Junction City, OR high school (1995) after a challenge to Walker's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel caused months of controversy. Although an alternative assignment was available, the book was challenged due to "inappropriate language, graphic sexual scenes, and book's negative image of black men."
Challenged at the St. Johns County Schools in St. Augustine, FL (1995). Retained on the Round Rock, TX Independent High School reading list (1996) after a challenge that the book was too violent.
Challenged, but retained, as part of the reading list for Advanced Placement English classes at Northwest High Schools in High Point, NC (1996). The book was challenged because it is "sexually graphic and violent."
Removed from the Jackson County, WV school libraries (1997) along with sixteen other titles. Challenged, but retained as part of a supplemental reading list at the Shawnee School in Lima, OH (1999). Several parents described its content as vulgar and "X-rated."
Removed from the Ferguson High School library in Newport News, VA (1999). Students may request and borrow the book with parental approval.
Challenged, along with seventeen other titles in the Fairfax County, VA elementary and secondary libraries (2002), by a group called Parents Against Bad Books in Schools. The group contends the books "contain profanity and descriptions of drug abuse, sexually explicit conduct, and torture.”
Challenged in Burke County (2008) schools in Morganton, NC by parents concerned about the homosexuality, rape, and incest portrayed in the book.

Ulysses, by James Joyce

Burned in the U.S. (1918), Ireland (1922), Canada (1922), England (1923) and banned in England (1929).

Beloved, by Toni Morrison

Challenged at the St. Johns County Schools in St. Augustine, FL (1995). Retained on the Round Rock, TX Independent High School reading list (1996) after a challenge that the book was too violent.
Challenged by a member of the Madawaska, ME School Committee (1997) because of the book's language. The 1987 Pulitzer Prize winning novel has been required reading for the advanced placement English class for six years.
Challenged in the Sarasota County, FL schools (1998) because of sexual material. Retained on the Northwest Suburban High School District 214 reading listing in Arlington Heights, IL (2006), along with eight other challenged titles. A board member, elected amid promises to bring her Christian beliefs into all board decision-making, raised the controversy based on excerpts from the books she’d found on the Internet.
Challenged in the Coeur d’Alene School District, ID (2007). Some parents say the book, along with five others, should require parental permission for students to read them.
Pulled from the senior Advanced Placement (AP) English class at Eastern High School in Louisville, KY (2007) because two parents complained that the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about antebellum slavery depicted the inappropriate topics of bestiality, racism, and sex. The principal ordered teachers to start over with The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne in preparation for upcoming AP exams.

The Lord of the Flies, by William Golding

Challenged at the Dallas, TX Independent School District high school libraries (1974).
Challenged at the Sully Buttes, SD High School (1981). Challenged at the Owen, NC High School (1981) because the book is "demoralizing inasmuch as it implies that man is little more than an animal."
Challenged at the Marana, AZ High School (1983) as an inappropriate reading assignment.
Challenged at the Olney, TX Independent School District (1984) because of "excessive violence and bad language." A committee of the Toronto, Canada Board of Education ruled on June 23, 1988, that the novel is "racist and recommended that it be removed from all schools." Parents and members of the black community complained about a reference to "niggers" in the book and said it denigrates blacks.
Challenged in the Waterloo, IA schools (1992) because of profanity, lurid passages about sex, and statements defamatory to minorities, God, women and the disabled.
Challenged, but retained on the ninth-grade accelerated English reading list in Bloomfield, NY (2000).

1984, by George Orwell

Challenged in the Jackson County, FL (1981) because Orwell's novel is "pro-communist and contained explicit sexual matter."

Banned Books Week concludes on October 7th with Let Freedom Read.

Remember not only does reading enrich your life and add to your knowledge and comprehension, it's also said that every time you read a book one of those closeted Moms For Bigotry have to endure sex with their husbands who they loathe.

Speaking of Moms For Bigotry, they came out early and strong for crazy Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Junior couldn't make his target goal in donations for the quarter -- those e-mails on the last day got increasingly pathetic -- especially the 'three hours until the deadline' begging for even ten dollars. But supposedly Junior's geared up to make (what passes for him to be) a big announcement. As Ava and I concluded last night in "Media: The week of WTF?:"

And you can't talk WTF moments and leave out RFK Junior. Robert Junior is a big whiner. He wants the Democratic Party's presidential nomination but Democratic voters don't want him. Nor should they as he pursues one right-winger after another and distances himself from the center -- let alone the left. His anti-vax for COVID stance doesn't really appeal to anyone outside MAGA. His statements, since becoming a candidate, that big business can regulate climate change destroy whatever legal achievements he had earlier in his life. His fawning over Donald Trump is just disgusting. His own family is ashamed of him and repeatedly distances itself from him. That's his siblings, that's the grandchild of JFK, that's the whole family.

Recently, Junior thought he had stumbled on a winning campaign tactic: Tax taxpayers even further.

If you missed it, the millionaire had a gun nut (he attracts them by his refusal to advocate for gun control) at one of his rallies. The gun nut supports Junior and was not there to threaten Junior. But Junior tried to parlay it into proof that he needed protection. The natural response to that request from a millionaire is for taxpayers to say, "Sure, hire whomever you wish to pay." But it wasn't about security. It was about trying to look presidential. Barack Obama did that in 2007 -- but he had actual threats against him. Junior didn't and Junior wanted the US taxpayers to spend money providing him with Secret Service agents for a run for office that people weren't calling for.

Things got worse last week. Junior is expected, anytime this week, to announce that he will be running for president as an independent.

You read that right. The man who declared at the start of his campaign that he would not run for the presidency unless it was on the Democratic Party ticket is now supposed to announce an independent run for the presidency (some say a third party run).

Junior's nothing but a disgrace and a disappointment. We feel for his wife Cheryl but he's made the bed she's going to have to sleep in.

Most of all, we feel for the country as so many people who are clearly not qualified for the presidency step forward to make vanity runs. It's as though, in 2016, Donald Trump proved that anyone -- anyone -- truly could end up president and a thousand lunatics were encouraged.

From the right-wing, Zachary Faria (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) observes:

Kennedy was initially propped up by some right-wing pundits as a challenger to President Joe Biden, as Kennedy had thrown himself into the thus-far nonexistent Democratic primary. It was indeed newsworthy, as Kennedy was pulling a significant minority of Democrats in polls. Yet many on the Right began promoting Kennedy for his views on the COVID vaccine (which stem from his embrace of conspiracy theories against vaccines of all types) and his more centrist stance on immigration.

That led many on the Right to claim, for example, that Kennedy is “principled and understands the Constitution and its guarantee to protect the rights of Americans.” GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy floated Kennedy as a running mate, and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) entertained the idea of putting him in charge of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Now Kennedy has apparently decided that he will drop out of the Democratic primary and instead run an independent campaign. That campaign would not harm Biden, as many on the Right hoped his Democratic primary campaign would. In fact, if it takes votes from anyone, it would be from Republicans, who have a far more favorable view of Kennedy (plus 28 points, according to an average of July polls) than Democrats (negative 5 points).

From the left (Jeffrey Cohen) and the faux left (Norman Solomon), we get:

Kennedy’s positions on domestic policies – from the climate crisis to economics to his extreme anti-vaccination views – are often at odds with progressivism. In a thorough critique, Naomi Klein exposes his faux populism and support from high-tech billionaires. Besides debunking many of his claims about vaccines, Klein points out that Kennedy asserts the climate crisis is being overhyped by “totalitarian elements in our society” and has said that he’d leave energy policy to market forces.

Klein makes clear that RFK Jr. is no economic populist: “On Fox, he would not even come out in favor of a wealth tax; he has brushed off universal public health care as not ‘politically realistic’; and I have heard nothing about raising the minimum wage.”

Kennedy does not have a systemic, class analysis of what’s wrong in U.S. society. Instead, he has a conspiratorial view. And through his use of social media and other outreach, he’s attracted considerable support from the conspiracy-minded right wing. In April, Steve Bannon – seen as the brains behind Donald Trump – commented that “Bobby Kennedy would be an excellent choice for Trump to consider” as a VP running-mate. Both Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Trump acolyte Roger Stone said in late July that it might be good to put Kennedy in the next Republican cabinet.

That coming from an article whose authors want to influence your vote requires that I note every word of it may be a lie. We're noting it for Jeffrey. Otherwise, we wouldn't note it because, when it comes to elections, Norman Solomon is a known liar.

In 2008, he went on every radio program and TV show he could (not just PACIFICA RADIO) as an 'independent analyst' just calling strikes and balls with no skin in the game when it came to the people running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Of course, in reality, he was already a pledged delegate for Barack Obama -- the person his analysis repeatedly just happened to praise. He didn't disclose on air that he was a pledged delegate for Barack. If he had, listeners could have factored that in when hearing his opinions. He's supposed to disclose it, it's basic journalism.

And he knew that. He had a rag tag column that he used to write which some of the lower and lesser newspapers around the country sometimes carried. In those columns? He disclosed he was a pledged delegate for Barack. He knew he'd lose his syndicated column without that disclosure. But he didn't care enough about listeners and viewers to make that disclosure on air when he was posing as someone with no dog in the fight.

That's not the only thing I need to point out about the above. Three men weighed in. Did you notice what they didn't talk about?

That's right, abortion.

Apparently, it's not important. Junior's said it should be the woman's decision -- one moment -- he's said there should be a federal ban at 15 weeks -- in another moment. He's been all over the map. Is that not supposed to be a concern?

He's real vocal about how people should have control over their own bodies -- when "people" just means men.

And why is it that three men don't give a damn about the impact Junior would have on women's lives?

The conservative from THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER is most likely anti-choice so no surprise on his silence. But old men, Cohen and Solomon, check your sexism and your stupidity.

2022 defied all previous election models. And Nancy Pelosi called it correctly ahead of the elections: Abortion would be a key issue. DOBBS would result in Democratic voters turning out.

That's the only reason the Dem losses weren't great.

Yet you two men of the left can't even touch the issue when clearly Junior's no friend t- reproductive rights. Forget that he 'reversed' his comments, you don't call for a federal ban on abortion to begin with -- as he did -- unless you're not in favor of a woman's right to determine her health care choices.

And how did you avoid his homophobia? Is it because you're both over 70? Are you afraid some of your life choices might look suspect if you defended LGBTQ+ people, is that it? Because you're not helping anyone with your tired ass comments.

This is from Victoria A. Brownworth's report for PHILADELPHIA GAY NEWS:

Vaccine disinformation isn’t Kennedy’s only conspiracy he promotes. On June 19, YouTube removed a video in which Kennedy made the claim that water tainted with endocrine disruptors are making children transgender.

In an interview with controversial right-wing anti-LGBTQ+ podcaster Jordan Peterson, Kennedy repeated another conspiracy theory, this one popularized by notorious right-wing commentator Alex Jones, best known for claiming the Sandy Hook shooting was a false flag operation by the federal government. Jones also asserted that chemicals in the water were “turning the frogs gay.”

“If you in a lab put atrazine and a tank full of frogs, it will chemically castrate and force forcibly feminize every frog in there, and 10 percent of the frogs, the male frogs will turn into fully viable females able to produce viable eggs,” Kennedy said as he embraced Jones’ theory.

Kennedy then shifted focus to transgenderism, saying, “I think a lot of the problems we see in kids — and particularly boys — it’s probably under-appreciated how much of that is coming from chemical exposures, including a lot of the sexual dysphoria that we’re seeing.”

Kennedy asserted that trans children were “being overwhelmed by a tsunami; they’re swimming through a soup of toxic chemicals today and many of those are endocrine disruptors.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) describes endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) as “natural or human-made chemicals that may mimic, block, or interfere with the body’s hormones, which are part of the endocrine system. These chemicals are associated with a wide array of health issues.”

Transgenderism is of course not mentioned in any of the NIH data.

Peterson argued that by removing the interview with Kennedy, which the site asserted violated their Terms of Service on misinformation, YouTube had “taken upon itself to actively interfere with a presidential election campaign.”

On Twitter, Kennedy queried, “Should social media platforms censor presidential candidates?” and then posted a link to the interview which he said Musk had made possible to air on the platform, adding, “thank you @elonmusk.”

Kennedy has nearly two million followers and Peterson has more than four million, but Musk has the most on Twitter — 144 million. Tagging him in increased viewership for Kennedy’s anti-LGBTQ views by millions.

New content at THIRD: