Trade Wars: Trump Throws Tantrum, Decides to Cut Off Negotiations with Canada

Surely, everyone reading this has heard the advice to "be the adult in the room." Well, Donald Trump hasn't, and he provided yet another reminder of that yesterday.

There's been a bit of reporting this week that the White House is getting cold feet about the batsh** crazy tariffs, and is looking for opportunities to reverse course. We would link to that reporting, but it was mostly in The Wall Street Journal, and their paywall puts the Great Wall of China to shame. In a development that is surely related, the administration has been quietly working on a new trade deal with Canada. Based on information gathered from insiders, The Globe and Mail reported that a deal was all-but done, and an announcement was imminent (that story, we can link to, because the Canadians are wild-eyed tree-hugging maple-syrup-eating commie pinkos, and not god-fearing patriotic capitalists, like Rupert Murdoch is). After that story was published, PM Mark Carney warned everyone not to get ahead of themselves. Looks like he was right about that.

You see, there aren't too many Canadian politicians who oppose Trump's trade war more vocally than Premier of Ontario Doug Ford. Yes, he's a conservative, but Canadian conservative, so maybe his hostility is genuine. Or, maybe he's noticed that Toronto is the financial capital of Canada, and that his voters stand to lose the most from a trade war. Or, maybe he's angling for bigger and better things, like succeeding Carney when the opportunity presents itself (yes, we understand he has to be elected to Parliament first).

Whatever Ford's motivation is, the government of Ontario has been running a commercial this week—in Ontario—that features Ronald Reagan talking about the evils of tariffs and trade wars. Here it is if you care to watch it:

If you don't want to watch, here's a transcript:

When someone says, "Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports," it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes, for a short while, it works, but only for a short time. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens. Markets shrink and collapse. Businesses and industries shut down and millions of people lose their jobs. Throughout the world, there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. America's jobs and growth are at stake.

This is not an AI creation; it's a real Reagan speech from 1987. And while the Gipper's remarks were edited down for purposes of the commercial, the remaining portion certainly conveys the essence of what he said. It was a staunchly anti-protectionist speech, which makes sense, because Reagan, and the GOP of the 1980s, were staunchly anti-protectionist.

Somehow, Trump became aware of the commercial, and he pitched a fit on his loony-loving-but-loonie-hating social media platform:

The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs. The ad was for $75,000. They only did this to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts. TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A. Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT

It is true that the Reagan Foundation announced that the Canadians were not granted permission to use that audio. It is similarly true that the Foundation claimed the ad misrepresented St. Ronnie's words. We don't know what the Foundation's motivation is, or why it makes that claim. If readers wish to read the original speech for themselves, it's here. Again, there can be no question it's anti-protectionist. And, by the way, the Foundation did not claim that the audio was fake, as it most certainly is not.

Since Carney HAS heard the thing about being the adult in the room, and since he places the well-being of his fellow citizens over his own ego, we presume he will do what Volodymyr Zelenskyy did, ignore the hissy fit, and find a way to smooth this over. But we bet he wishes he was dealing with a normal national leader, like he does when he talks with France, or the U.K., or Mexico, or China. (Z)

The White House: Ballroom Donor List Will Make Your Toes Curl

Yesterday, demonstrating a level of semi-transparency that is not usually characteristic of this administration, the White House released a list of donors that have given money toward the new White House ballroom.

In addition to releasing the list, the administration tried to offer a plausible explanation for these donors' generosity, explaining that their names might be etched into some portion of the ballroom, like a pillar or a balustrade. Even if that is the "reward" and it's the ONLY reward, it's tacky for one of the most important possessions of the United States federal government to be "brought to you by"... well, anyone other than the United States federal government. That Wall of Honor stuff works OK for the local concert hall or even for a university, but not for the People's House. More importantly, we do not believe for one second that being memorialized in that way is the only thing motivating these donors to cough up to the tune of six, or seven or eight figures. Here's the list, along with a possible motivation for each:

Donor	Industry/Issue	Motivation?
Adelson Family Foundation	Pro-Israel	Influence Middle East policy
Altria Group	Tobacco	Limit oversight of e-cigarettes
Amazon	E-Commerce	Keep federal AWS contracts flowing
Apple	Technology	Tariff exemptions
Betty Wold Johnson Foundation	Varied	Another ambassadorship for Woody Johnson
Booz Allen Hamilton	Defense/Security consulting	End federal probes into fraud
Stefan E. Brodie	Biotech	Pardon for violating sanctions on Cuba
Charles and Marissa Cascarilla	Cryptocurrency	Keep crypto unregulated
Caterpillar	Heavy equipment	Keep federal defense contracts flowing
Coinbase	Cryptocurrency	Keep crypto unregulated
Comcast	Media	Avoid troubles with the FCC
J. Pepe and Emilia Fanjul	Sugar	Tariffs on imported sugar
Edward and Shari Glazer	Sports, Real estate, Cryptocurrency	Keep crypto unregulated
Google	Tech	Keep federal AI contracts flowing
Harold G. Hamm	Oil	More oil, less green energy
Hard Rock International	Hospitality/Gaming	Keep online gaming unregulated
HP Inc.	Tech	Keep federal defense contracts flowing
Laura & Isaac Perlmutter Foundation	Media	Influence research funding decisions
Benjamin Leon Jr.	Healthcare	Secure ambassadorship to Spain
Lockheed Martin	Defense	Keep federal defense contracts flowing
Kelly Loeffler and Jeff Sprecher	Finance	Cabinet post for Kelly
Lutnick Family	Finance, Cryptocurrency	Keep crypto unregulated
Meta	Tech	Keep federal AI contracts flowing
Micron Technology	Tech	Encourage federal funding for domestic microchips
Microsoft	Tech	Keep federal AI, software contracts flowing
NextEra Energy	Renewable energy	Try to get renewables tax credits restored
Palantir	Tech	Keep federal software contracts flowing
Reynolds American	Tobacco	Reduce regulation of flavored tobacco
Ripple	Cryptocurrency	Keep crypto unregulated
Stephen A. Schwarzman	Finance	Support protectionist tariffs
Konstantin Sokolov	Finance	Federal investment in his telecomm projects
T-Mobile	Telecomm	Keep federal phone contracts flowing
Tether	Cryptocurrency	Keep crypto unregulated
Paolo Tiramani	Construction	Federal support for modular home business
Union Pacific Railroad	Transportation	Approval for merger with Norfolk Southern
Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss	Cryptocurrency	Keep crypto unregulated

We're obviously not right on all of these guesses. We may not even be right on most of them. But we are probably right on some of them. And, more broadly, we categorically refuse to accept that there are zero strings attached here. And whether these donors are paying for something specific, like a merger or a pardon or a patronage job, or they are just generally buying "influence," there are conflicts of interest all over the place here. This is why this particular funding scheme is a no-fly zone for federal projects—it is nearly impossible for someone to have that kind of coin to donate and NOT to have conflicts of interest.

Further, readers will notice that we described this "reveal" as semi-transparent. That is because the White House released names, but not numbers. And without numbers, it's not possible to know: (1) Which of these donors is investing their money particularly aggressively?; (2) Are these ALL the donors?; and (3) Is there a difference in the amount of money being brought in, and the amount of money being spent, such that Trump might be skimming?

Incidentally, we have asked ourselves several times if this whole thing might be basically legitimate, with the "scandal" part only existing because it happens to be Trump doing it. In other words, if this was happening under Joe Biden or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton (or one of the Georges Bush or Ronald Reagan), would it be generating this kind of blowback? After all, it's true that the White House does have big functions sometimes, and that it sometimes isn't large enough to accommodate those functions. Maybe a 19th century house really does need some updates to keep it useful in the 21st century.

However, having thought about it a lot, we think the outrage is entirely legitimate. First, there's the semi-transparency (and, by extension, the semi-non-transparency) about the funding, and the problem that strings might be attached. If this was 100% legitimate, then Congress would and should appropriate the money. Second, there's the approval process that is supposed to be followed. Other presidents would have honored that, Trump did not. Third, there are the lies. Trump said that the new structure would be freestanding, and then later said the East Wing would be only slightly modified. In fact, the entire East Wing has now been leveled. And if he lied about that, what else is he lying about?

Perhaps most concerning of all is the haste with which this has been executed. In his entire first term, Donald Trump held two state dinners. He doesn't NEED a place for big parties that urgently. Similarly, if his main goal is to leave behind a monument to his presidency, that purpose is served just as well with a completion date in 2028 or 2029 as one in 2026. We can only come up with two theories as to why speed would be of the essence.

The first of those theories is the relatively benign one—Trump is a walking id who cannot delay gratification, and when he wants something, he must have it now, now, NOW. That could be what is going on here. However, the second possibility is that he needs the room for grifting purposes. He's already held dinners that were, for example, meant to reward "investors" in his crypto venture. If he starts holding an 800-person event, say, once a month, do you know how much he could collect in "donations" for his PAC, or his library, or his... whatever?

We've seen a few pieces, like this one from Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark, that argue that the next Democratic president has no choice but to tear down the structure at the earliest possible moment. The basic idea is that it's too much an embodiment of the various cans of worms that Trump has opened, and its continued existence serves to legitimize the idea that it's OK to do things like pay for your pet projects with "donations" from people with business before the government. We see Last's point. We've written before that it will be politically tricky to actually do this, as it will look petulant to some voters. However, we've thought about it, and we have a workaround. The next Democratic president could announce that while a ballroom might be useful, this one's been inspected, and it turns out it's not properly constructed, and that it's not safe, so it's going to have to be torn down. That would give some cover, effectively using Trump's reputation for shoddy construction work and corner-cutting against him.

A couple other bits of news we'll pass along. First, the administration has updated the White House website to include renderings of, and other information about, the ballroom. Conveniently, it placed that material on the same page as the White House "Major Events Timeline," which contains 19 "major events" in the history of the White House. Ten of those cover the history of the building, like the addition of the Oval Office in 1909. Five of those describe, in breathless detail, the things the Trumps have done to make the building more bigly. And the remaining four are slurs against Democrats: Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (true), Barack Obama meeting with the Muslim brotherhood (false), Joe Biden encouraging trans people to strip down during Trans Visibility Day (false) and Hunter Biden's cocaine being found in the White House (false). This certainly contributes to our impression that this whole ballroom project isn't about the greater good, and is instead about self-aggrandizement, self-enrichment and scoring political points.

And finally, a Virginia couple has filed a lawsuit in which they will try to get a judge to stop the work being done on the White House until the proper review process has been followed. It may be the People's House, but we doubt the judge will agree they have standing to sue. Also, it would seem that the lawsuit's a little too late, and that the relevant ship has already sailed. Still, we'll be interested to read the judge's ruling, whatever it might say. (Z)

NYC Mayor's Race: Birds of a Feather Flock Together?

Things are getting desperate in New York City's mayoral race. And, as a consequence, things are getting ugly. While Curtis Sliwa (R) and Andrew Cuomo ("I") do not agree on the question of whether Sliwa should drop out of the race, they do agree that Zohran Mamdani (D) is bad for New York City. So, the two non-Democrats spent most of Wednesday night's second and final mayoral debate hurling slings and arrows in the direction of the frontrunner. Mamdani fired back, of course, and had his own bit of "going low" planned, as he announced (truthfully) that he had invited one of the women who accused Cuomo of sexual harassment to be in the audience for the debate, and she accepted.

Meanwhile, yesterday (i.e., the morning after the debate), Mayor Eric Adams made it official and endorsed Cuomo. We are not sure that "Curtis Sliwa agrees with Cuomo about Mamdani" or "Eric Adams has endorsed Cuomo" helps the former governor all that much. After all, all three men are kind of sleazy, and all three are much more committed to their own success than to any particular political philosophy. Surely, most voters who are OK with that package are already on Team Cuomo. And actually, given that Adams is about as popular as athlete's foot these days, we wonder if his endorsement might cost Cuomo more support than it gains him.

In addition to accepting Adams' endorsement, Cuomo continued his desperation tour yesterday, and showed that it's not just the Republican Party that is home to out-and-out bigots (though note that Cuomo is technically an independent right now, and not a Democrat). The wannabe mayor appeared on a right-wing radio show, hosted by a real prize named Sid Rosenberg. The radio talker observed that it would be disastrous if another 9/11 attack happened while Mamdani was mayor, and added that "[Mamdani]'d be cheering." Cuomo laughed at the observation, and added "That's another problem," signaling his agreement.

That's pretty vile. And yet, it's not even the most vile thing Cuomo and his campaign uncorked yesterday. They also posted an unbelievable AI-generated campaign ad to eX-Twitter. Anyone who wishes to watch it can see it here:

For those who do not care to watch, it's basically a modern version of the infamous Willie Horton ad from 1988. It starts with a bizarre scene of Mamdani gorging himself on rice, and then shows a series of six New Yorkers of different backgrounds talking about how much they like Mamdani. Then, the commercial cycles through them again, and you see that one of them is an Italian wife-beater, one's a thief, one's a drunk driver, one's a Black shoplifter, one's a Latino gang member and one's a Black pimp, and the reason they are happy is that they will be able to get away with their crimes if Mamdani is elected. At least Willie Horton was a real person (even if he wasn't actually known as "Willie"); this ad is just out-and-out bigotry. Oh, and it's also a ripoff of a fake commercial from Saturday Night Live, so much so that NBC should sue for copyright infringement. Here is the SNL bit that's being plagiarized; it's actually much more worthy of a minute and a half of your time, because at least it's clever:

The Cuomo campaign eventually deleted the tweet with the racist video, but once something is on the Internet, it lives forever.

Clearly, Cuomo and his people have decided there are no more Democrats to be won over, and that their only hope lies in going all-in on trying to steal away Sliwa's voters. The thing is, not only did this approach produce some truly reprehensible pandering to racists, but it also doesn't actually add up. Even if every Sliwa voter were to say "I want me some of that bigotry," it's still not enough to put Cuomo into the lead. And with stunts like the ones the ex-governor pulled yesterday, he's not going to get the additional independents/Democrats he would need to actually win. We think his goose is cooked, and we must admit we look forward to what will hopefully be his final exit from the political stage. (Z)

There's Something Happening Here: The No Kings Protests, Part VI

And we continue with another group of No Kings reports. We're getting a lot of positive feedback, so we think we will keep this going one more week. Here's another half-dozen:

R.S. in New York, NY, writes: Apparently, it is true. If you are a big-headed celebrity "born" in Queens, NY, you can grab an anatomical part, and it will be okay.

(It was a nice day, a nice crowd, a 2-mile walk ending in a rally, speeches and singing around the steps of Borough Hall.)

---

E.S. in Cincinnati, OH, writes: Views from downtown Cincinnati!

---

E.B. in Somewhere, US, writes: I didn't spend Saturday with my fellow Americans at a No Kings protest. Instead, I spent the time with Camila (not her real name). Camila is a 60-something Peruvian immigrant who dutifully comes to ELL (English Language Learning) tutoring each Saturday morning (and Tuesdays and Thursdays, too) at our local literacy center. She has lived in the states for over 15 years but only recently has had the time to devote to digging into the English language. Camila worked first as a mother and then as a housekeeper at a local hotel chain. She pays taxes. She's working on gaining citizenship. And now, she's honing her English skills. I helped her work on her contribution to the yearly student-authored collection where she's submitting a written piece on her recent visit to a large nearby city. We had a chuckle together when she had written that she enjoyed taking photos with her family and the "boots at the river" and I asked why they'd be taking photos with boots ("Oh! Boats!" she exclaimed). This week we had more tutors available than students. It's been this way since the ICE raids have started in our city and surrounding areas. It's the drone surveillance that is really unnerving, but we lock the doors, sit down to work, and the outside world disappears for a few hours. On Saturday, this was my protest.

(I am withholding my location because of proximity to a hotbed of ICE activity.)

---

M.B. in Appleton, WI, writes: The No Kings rally in Appleton (estimated 2025 population: 74,061) was the first political rally I'd ever attended. The weather was perfect for mid-October Wisconsin—upper 60s and only a few stray cumulus clouds in the pale blue sky, which made it feel even warmer.

The rally started at 11:00 a.m. (I stayed for about an hour) and is reported to have had over 3,500 participants. It was centered at Houdini Plaza, but the crowd extended for nearly 1/3 mile on both sides of College Avenue (image from Google Maps attached for help in imagining the scope of the event). The crowd on the sidewalk for a block in each direction of the Plaza was jam-packed and hard to navigate, but the crowd did thin out as one went along. Eastbound traffic on College Avenue was backed up a bit due to the number of pedestrians crossing at the crosswalks (which didn't leave many gaps for turns to side streets). Vehicles in the area honked and many that I saw drive through were decorated with signs.

At one point I got choked up about the whole event; it was an epiphany moment that really overwhelmed me. Gazing out at the crowd on this perfect autumn morning I was hit by a thought: My grandfather and his brothers (and brothers-in-arms) had fought against the Nazis in World War II. What would he think of me if I, knowing there were actual Nazis in the federal government, did nothing about it? It seemed that standing in a crowd and waving a U.S. flag was just scratching the surface.

---

S.A. in Valencia, CA, writes: More than a thousand protesters attended the rally in relatively conservative Valencia for No Kings this past weekend. Here's a message inspired by an inscription on a wall at the Korean Memorial in Washington, D.C.:

So true!

---

R.S. in Milwaukee, WI writes: A couple of my favorites from the No Kings event at Cathedral Park in Milwaukee. Overall the event was crowded, peaceful and fun.

More on Monday! (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: FDR's Brush with Death

Many (perhaps most) readers will know that Franklin D. Roosevelt was the target of an assassination attempt on February 15, 1933, by which time he was already president-elect, and was less than a month from being inaugurated. The folks who do psychohistory propose that this caused him to think very deeply about how our time is short, and you have to make the most of each moment. In turn, that ostensibly caused him to put the pedal to the metal with the New Deal, particularly the famous "first 100 days." It's an interesting theory—not really possible to prove or disprove. However, we do wonder if there might be a similar dynamic going on with Donald Trump. He may be thinking his time is short, trifecta-wise. Or, he may be thinking his time is short... in other ways. And maybe that is part of what is motivating him to push forward with his various initiatives, including his various grifts, at breakneck speed.

Anyhow, that's just a sidebar. Now, the main event. For last week's headline theme, we started out with this hint: "this theme is sometimes a little shi**y, although not as shi**y as last week's theme was, apparently." We later added: "if you are still working on this week's headline theme, you would do well to heed the Beastie Boys' advice and check your head. Especially if you are in the Navy."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader C.S. in Haddonfield, NJ:

That was a good theme last week. I'm disappointed it didn't occur to me.

However, I have a handle on this week's; I didn't even have to jiggle it.

The theme is slang for restrooms/toilets:

• Enemies of the State, Part I: John Bolton Indicted
• Enemies of the State, Part II: The Oval Office vs. Venezuela
• The Voting Rights Act: Are You Sure It's Not Necessary, John Roberts (and Company)?
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The W.C. Fields Memorial Electric String Band
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Four Universities Have Now Told Trump He Can Take His Proposal and Shove It
• This Week in Freudenfreude: No Kings Protesters Refuse to Bow Before the Throne

Definitely a little shi**y, sometimes. "Head," of course, is the term used for bathrooms on ships, especially military ships. And an FDR, from this headline, was a type of outhouse built by the millions by workers from the WPA.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

R.S. in Landing, NJ M.W. in Altea, Spain K.G.W in Lafayette, IN T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT R.J.L. in Columbus IN M.V. in Oak Park, IL R.R. in Westborough, MA R.D. in Cheshire, CT J.F. in Fayetteville, NC S.K. in Ardmore, PA M.B. in Denver, CO M.S. in Canton, NY T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts J.M. in New York City, NY J.N. in Zionsville, IN E.V. in Manchester, MO M.Z. in Sharon, MA C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL M.T. in Simpsonville, SC C.C. in Stratham, NH M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada D.S. in Layton, UT D.L. in Springfield, IL P.L. in Skövde, Sweden C.S. in Haddonfield

A.J. in Huddersfield, England, UK E.S and C.S. in Maine, NY M.K. in Long Branch, NJ J.C. in Rialto, CA D.C. in Teaneck, NJ J.S. in Columbia, MO M.L. in Simpsonville, SC M.L. in West Hartford, CT D.M. in Amagansett, NY G.B. in Utrecht, The Netherlands M.R. in Washington, DC R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK G.H. in Acton, ME D.E. in Lancaster, PA K.R. in Austin, TX K.L. in Sterling, VA A.O'N. in Wiesbaden, Germany B.F. in Nashville, TN D.B. in Glendale, CA E.S. in Providence, RI P.V. in San Francisco, CA P.R. in Havertown, PA S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ G.K. in Blue Island, IL M.C. in Newton, MA

The 50th correct response was received at 7:49 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Fashion. For a hint, we'll say that the idea came while (Z) was preparing for this week's World War II lecture, during which he shows the propaganda cartoon "Herr Meets Hare."

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line October 24 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Censorship, Ohio Style

The folks who run the state of Ohio are all-in on the MAGA goal of rolling the clock back to the 1950s. Or maybe it's the 1850s; we can never quite remember. What they do not seem to know is that even if they are successful in their time-machine acrobatics, there will still be plenty of pornography in the world. There were all sorts of underground magazines and films of that sort 75 years ago. And if you go all the way back to the antebellum era? Well, back then, it was certainly easier to procure a prostitute than it would be today, even if you are in New Orleans or Las Vegas or Times Square. And it was (probably) easier to get some smutty pictures, too (it's a very close call, they weren't/aren't hard to find in either time/place).

We mention this because a few "activists" in the Ohio legislature seem to have missed the fact that if people want pornography, they will find a way to get it. And so, these activists have been trying to pass a law that would compel adult sites to do age verification before allowing users to access them. Keeping people under 18 from viewing such material is a goal that many Americans, including many readers, might well agree with. But, as a practical matter, it is nearly impossible. There are lots of jurisdictional issues when it comes to enforcement, particularly if a website's HQ is in Peoria, IL; its registrar is in Buffalo, NY; and its servers are in the Bahamas. There are also lots of tools that tech-savvy people, including tech-savvy teenagers, can use to defeat various verification schemes. It is also the case that, in the modern version of the dilemma faced by Justice Potter Stewart, it's not too easy to draw the line between "site that is pornographic" and "site that has nudity or other such content but is not pornographic." Consequently, past efforts to pass an anti-porn bill in Ohio have languished in committee, as even most Republicans in the Buckeye State didn't want to take on this particular challenge.

Proving that they've been paying attention, the anti-porn legislators took another tack, borrowing a trick from the bag used by the members of Congress. When Ohio passed its most recent budget bill, the anti-porn legislation was stuck in there as an amendment. That was enough to make the anti-porn faction's fantasies into reality, and to finally make certain that underage Ohioans could no longer visit adult sites.

Or... not so much, as it turns out. See, the committee process (aka "markups") actually has a purpose. Several purposes, in fact, and one of those is to allow people who know what they are talking about to go through legislation with a fine-toothed comb, and to potentially identify and fix problems. Because there was no markup process, there was no serious vetting of the legislation. And so, it contains a passage exempting "interactive computer service(s)" from its provisions. It is hard to know exactly why that ended up in there. Maybe there was copying and pasting going on with other bills. Maybe the lawmakers were trying to make sure the law didn't apply to Facebook and Instagram and TikTok, for fear of political blowback (or for fear of those entities yanking their political contributions).

In any case, "interactive computer service(s)" doesn't actually mean "social media." There's a fair body of federal communications law on this point, and it actually means "any site where you can create an account." Since nearly every porn site either offers the opportunity to create an account (e.g., PornHub) or basically requires an account (e.g., OnlyFans), then nearly all porn sites are "interactive computer service(s)," as that term is defined by law. And so, they are exempt from the Ohioans' attempt at censorship. And so, the would-be censors in Ohio most certainly did not achieve their goals. In fact, they almost certainly did the opposite. The adult sites now have every motivation to REALLY push account creation, so as to make abundantly clear they are "interactive." It's possible that some 16-year-old Ohioan would have been "User2278927" but will now decide to establish accounts at their preferred sites, and become—we don't know—8008L0V3_67, or YAYPEN15, something like that.

Obviously, we do not approve of government censorship when that censorship has to do with some faction's notion of morality, as opposed to being in service of some greater public good. If parents don't want their kids to see such material, then it's on the parents to solve that problem. And we definitely don't approve of a self-appointed minority of moral arbiters doing an end-run around their colleagues, so as to achieve their goals. So, those folks deserve to be the butt of the joke, and that's exactly what they are right now. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Iowa Students Tell Book Banners to Buzz Off

There is a clear theme running through today's concluding items: Censorship may sound easy in theory, but it's difficult to impose in practice.

It is very, very hard to wrap one's mind around the logic of book banning. OK, maybe if the book contains information that could be used to do harm to people—bomb-making instructions, or how to synthesize meth, or something like that. But with 99.9% of books that are banned, it is because of the ideas they contain (or, at least, the ideas that the censors THINK they contain). And in nearly all of those 99.9% of cases, the book in question would sit on the shelf, and would be read fairly rarely, if ever. But once that book is banned, it becomes dangerous and rebellious and cutting-edge and so forth. And in the literary version of the Streisand effect, the ban serves to drive interest in acquiring and reading the book(s).

Such is the case with a trio of high school students—Alice Gooblar-Perovic, Aahana Gupta and Lydia Cruce—in Iowa. That state's legislature is pretty red and pretty MAGA, and so passed a law last year that led thousands of books to be removed from the shelves of the state's schools due to "sexual content." Among the books that became verboten were such erotic works as To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984, A Farewell to Arms, Fahrenheit 451 and Captain Underpants and the Sensational Saga of Sir Stinks-A-Lot.

Enter Gooblar-Perovic, Gupta and Cruce. They did not particularly like being told what they could or could not read, and what ideas were or were not WrongThink. So, they founded the Banned Books Club at their school, and would meet regularly after classes to discuss various banned works. The books might not be available at their school library, but they are still available at bookstores and public libraries, not to mention a little thing called amazon.com.

In a delightful irony, the school initially refused to recognize the club. That means that the three young women now had an "against the rules" club dedicated to "against the rules" books. If you think that double-helping of transgressiveness helped spark interest among a bunch of teenagers, then you are absolutely right. Information about the club spread through word of mouth, and the ranks of the club (and the number of students reading banned books) swelled. Eventually, in part due to a court decision, the school backed down and allowed the club to become "official" (so, they could put up fliers and make announcements over the school intercom, etc.). Meanwhile, local libraries have invited the trio to curate exhibits of "Books Behind Bars."

We don't know which effort at censorship failed more spectacularly; the one in Ohio (see above) or this one. In any case, we congratulate these three young women for standing up to The Man, and for realizing, at an early age, that you should be the change you want to see in the world.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger