You’d think an organization with a name like “National Organization for Women” would be concerned with, you know, women’s issues.  But in another move that lends credence to the idea that feminism isn’t about women, it’s about the whole liberal agenda, NOW put out an action alert asking its cronies to demand Net Neutrality.  I especially love the rhetoric of the alert:

Non-profits like NOW are able to reach out to a vast audience through the web and, in turn, individuals can access a range of information and services previously unthinkable. But all this could come to an end if “network neutrality” is not preserved.

Cue suspenseful music.  But wait, there’s more! [Emphasis mine]:

Media giants — like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner – want to control the flow of information on the Internet, cell phones, and wherever they can serve as gatekeepers and toll collectors.

On the web, they want to tax content providers in exchange for a guarantee of fast delivery of their information. So those who pay more will have their information appear more quickly – and for nonprofits and small businesses who can’t afford the going rate, well, too bad.

Interesting use of the word “tax,” is it not?  When I think tax, I think of something I am forced to pay to the government.  There is an element of coercion involved: if I don’t pay, I could get thrown in jail.  It’s especially funny considering that the nation faced a very real threat of actual internet taxes being imposed.  As in, the throw you in jail kind, not the greedy corporation kind.  What NOW is describing sounds more like an extra charge for a better service.  Let’s imagine a different scenario:

 At UPS, they want to tax people mailing stuff in exchange for a guarantee of fast delivery of their packages.  So those who pay more will have their packages delivered more quickly – and for nonprofits and small businesses who can’t afford the going rate, well, too bad.

As far as I can make out, no one is seriously talking about a downgrading of service; they’re just concerned that big customers will be able to pay extra to get faster delivery of information.  And this is worth setting a precedent of government interference in the internet for?  I’m just not buying it.  Neither does Phil Kerpen, apparently.  And I trust him a lot more than I trust NOW.