“Verizon Wireless was just caught in the act of what looks like a blatant violation net neutrality,” writes Kurt Walters of Demand Progress in a fundraising message to the Internet activist group’s email list. “Last week, without warning or permission from its customers, Verizon throttled bandwidth speeds down to 10Mbs. Users trying to stream video or use certain apps were caught in an internet slow lane and couldn’t do anything about it.”

I’ve written a number of columns on Net Neutrality. Quick recap: Underneath all the talk about preserving a “free and open Internet,” Net Neutrality is just a corporate welfare scam under which Big Content bandwidth hogs like Amazon, Google, and Netflix hope to redistribute the costs of building infrastructure to carry their content, from their customers to Internet users in general. It’s a dangerous corporate welfare scheme (it enables Internet censorship by putting the FCC in charge of defining “legal” versus “illegal” content). It’s a complicated corporate welfare scheme (a friend in the telecom industry is trying to educate me on things like “peerage agreements” and such). But it’s just a corporate welfare scheme.

As the FCC considers repealing the 2015 Net Neutrality rule, its supporters are desperate to associate bad things with its absence. So desperate that Demand Progress is advertising EXAMPLES of Net Neutrality as VIOLATIONS of Net Neutrality.

At least one Verizon customer tells me he thinks the whole throttling story is — I hate to use the term — “fake news.” He didn’t notice any slowdown. But if there was one, well, let’s see what the FCC says about that. From the commission’s consumer guide to the “Open Internet,” aka Net Neutrality:

“Broadband providers may not deliberately target some lawful internet traffic to be delivered to users more slowly than other traffic.”

Demand Progress’s  accusation is not that Verizon slowed down some traffic in order to speed up other traffic. The accusation, rather, is that Verizon slowed down ALL traffic on its network, for whatever reasons. In other words, Verizon treated all traffic equally — thereby acting in strict accordance with the Net Neutrality rule.

Yes, the alleged slowdown would have had a greater effect on apps and content that use more bandwidth. Getting an email slowly isn’t especially noticeable; getting high definition video slowly is VERY noticeable. That’s a predictable effect of Net Neutrality’s demand that all content be treated equally.

To put it a different way: Demand Progress’s complaint isn’t that Verizon violated Net Neutrality. Demand Progress’s complaint is that Net Neutrality inherently brings with it exactly the opposite of the result its advocates claim for it.

Moral of the story: Be careful what you wish for — and when you get it, don’t complain about it.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “They Keep Using That Phrase, ‘Net Neutrality.’ I do Not Think it Means What They Think it Means.” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 08/12/17
• “‘Net Neutrality’ does not mean what they think it means,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Columbia, South Carolina Panorama, 08/17/17
• “‘Net Neutrality’ is a smokescreen for corporate welfare,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pawtucket, Rhode Island Times [web and print editions], 08/17/17
• “‘Net Neutrality’ is a smokescreen for corporate welfare,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Woonsocket, Rhode Island Call [web and print editions], 08/17/17

US president Donald Trump put much of the world atwitter and ajitter Tuesday with his comment to the press: “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”  Trump’s certainly proving himself  Kim Jong Un’s equal at foreign affairs smack talk.

Is he serious? I believe so. I expect some sort of major military confrontation — possibly even outright war — between the US and North Korea before August ends. Naturally I hope I’m wrong, but matters do seem to be coming to a head.

With that  in mind, it’s worth examining some of the US government’s claims about North Korea and how they stack up against reality.

First, let’s look at what Trump means when he refers to the current set of “threats” from North Korea: On August 7, the Washington Post reports, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho “told diplomats that his country will never negotiate away what he called a rational ‘strategic option’ against the threat of attack from the United States. … Ri said Pyongyang will use nuclear weapons only against the United States or any other country that might join it in military action against North Korea.”

In other words, North Korea is “threatening” to defend itself if attacked, and reserving the right to use nuclear weapons in its defense. Doesn’t sound like much of a “threat,” does it?

Next, the current round of mutual saber-rattling coincides with a convenient and likely Trump-approved leak. The Post cites unnamed officials and an alleged Defense Intelligence Agency assessment to the effect that North Korea “has successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles” (the claim last month was that the North now has missiles which can reach the US mainland).

This set of claims doesn’t pass the smell test.

First of all, so far the North has only proven (with detonations) that it can make large, heavy, old-style fission atomic weapons, not bona fide nuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs). Miniaturization? That sounds a lot like “Saddam is stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction” (he wasn’t) or “Iran is six months from having nukes” (the latter claim having been renewed every six months from 1996 to 2015).

Secondly, while the North recently tested a rocket that it claims is an intercontinental ballistic missile, there’s reason to be skeptical of that claim and secondarily of the notion that they could reliably produce such rockets in quantity and expect them to work.

Finally, there’s the matter of mating those unlikely nukes to those unlikely rockets and getting them to detonate at the impact end of a fall from space. That’s rocket science of an order the North hasn’t previously displayed a flair for.

Claire Boothe Luce called Franklin Delano Roosevelt “the only American president who ever lied us into a war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it.” If so, Trump seems bent on following in his illustrious predecessor’s footsteps.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Don’t trust Trump’s North Korea bluff and bluster,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Delaware State News [web and print editions], 08/11/17
• “Don’t trust Trump’s North Korea bluff, bluster and brinksmanship,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Winchester, Tennessee Herald Chronicle, 08/11/17
• “Don’t Trust Trump’s North Korea Bluff, Bluster, and Brinksmanship,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 08/11/17
• “Don’t Trust Trump’s North Korea Bluff, Bluster, and Brinksmanship,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Key West: The Newspaper, 08/11/17
• “Don’t Trust Trump’s North Korea Bluff, Bluster, and Brinksmanship,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 08/12/17
• “No fiarse de Trump,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Sin Permiso [Latin America], 08/13/17
• “Don’t trust Trump’s North Korea bluff,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Jacksonville, North Carolina Daily News, 08/14/17
• “No confíe en el truco de Trump sobre Corea del Norte,” by Thomas L. Knapp, La Tribuna Hispana USA, 08/15/17
• “Don’t trust Trump’s North Korea bluff and bluster,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pahrump Valley, Nevada Times, 08/16/17
• “Don’t trust Trump’s North Korea bluff, bluster, and brinksmanship,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Newberry, South Carolina Observer, 08/18/17

Former Google engineer James Damore is suddenly between jobs. He’s been fired, Bloomberg reports, for writing “an internal memo blasting the web company’s diversity policies.” Google has long cultivated a reputation for hiring smart people, turning them loose, and listening to them. This firing puts a giant dent in that reputation.

Media reports describe Damore’s memo as a rant, a tirade, a screed, sexist, anti-diversity, and a whole bunch of other bad things. I was almost afraid to read the 10-page document. Might it traumatize or trigger me in some way, perhaps turn me into a raving ax murderer? Perhaps, but for you, my dear readers, I took the risk. My reaction …

Really? People are upset about THIS? The next 10-page document I can’t find something in to disagree with will be the first such 10-page document, but I’m frankly flabbergasted at the vitriol greeting this particular memo. Damore’s approach is both liberal in the classical sense and fully in line with any reasonable notion of diversity and inclusion. A representative sample:

“I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).”

Damore relates (Google doesn’t comment on firings) that he was dismissed for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” Well, maybe. Part of the memo is couched in the language of science and biology and aimed at offering an explanation other than bias per se for unequal representation in certain tech industry career niches. But supposing, for the sake of argument, that Damore is incorrect in his theory, how are his errors to be corrected, and the problems of gender stereotypes transcended, if discussion of those topics is forbidden?

In a memo responding to the controversy, Google Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance Danielle Brown writes:

“Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.”

In other words, feel safe sharing your opinions — as long as they’re the approved opinions and deviate not a whit therefrom. Otherwise, clean out your desk and wait for security to escort you from the premises.

I fully support Google’s right to hire and fire anyone, for any reason its management deems right and necessary. But Damore’s dismissal over this innocuous memo exposes a cancerous hypocrisy in the company’s culture. “Damoregate” may someday be remembered as the beginning of the end for a once forward-thinking and innovative enterprise.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Google to Employees: Feel Safe Sharing Your Opinions, as Long as They’re Our Opinions,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 08/08/17
• “Google: feel safe sharing your opinions, as long as they’re our opinions,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Cyprus Mail, 08/09/17
• “Google to Employees: Feel Safe Sharing Your Opinions, as Long as They’re Our Opinions,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 08/11/17
• “Google to Employees: Feel Safe Sharing Your Opinions, as Long as They’re Our Opinions,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Key West: The Newspaper [Florida], 08/11/17
• “Google to employees: Feel safe sharing your opinions, as long as they’re our opinions,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana Inquisitor [web and print editions — paywall], 08/11/17
• “Google’s case of free speech hypocrisy,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Libby, Montana Montanian, 08/15/17
• “Google to employees: Share your opinions, as long as they’re our opinions,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pickens, South Carolina Sentinel, 09/03/17