The Hypocrisy Weblog

The funny actor Michael Richards, you know; “Kramer” from the late hit sit-com “Seinfeld”, goes off on a racist slur on stage. I don’t think that it was intended to be racist from the start, as you can sense that he is trying to go off at the hecklers in the audience, but it is still not “ok”. I mean, you shouldn’t be held accountable for such statements in a court of law (due to freedom of speech) in my personal opinion, but it’s still not “ok” in my book.

A commenter on YouTube had a point when he wrote:
” but its ok for them to call him cracker ass…

go to his show and watch, don’t heckle. rediculous. if you dont like it leave. uncalled for my ass.

chris rock would call that guy a n*gger too. watch chris rock’s stuff. He makes fun of people just like that who can’t stop talking.

If only he hadn’t been so stupid ass to call him that, and used something a little more tasteful to get back at him. what a shame.”

Touché!

Richards should have made a George Carlin-like comeback and bury the hecklers in their chairs, now Mr Richards just ended up looking like a fool. Yeah, you should be able to say whatever you want up on stage, and yes – hecklers should thrown out with a pitchfork and yes I think it’s ridicolous that certain words are paria, but I should say that this particular stand-up is one of the many reasons to why certain words after all are paria in the view of the general public. (Apart from the PC-panic showing up once and again.)

We could go into a detailed discussion/conflict regarding the hypocrisy about hizzing at some words, but saying the same things with another “dress-code” and we can also discuss that these words are not a disease, but a mere symptom of something being very very wrong. If there wasn’t something wrong, you’d be able to say any possible racist slur possible and no-one would raise an eyebrow.

With this said, google “racist slur” and you’ll be taken to “the database of racist slurs” and also a full wikipedia entry with various racist slurs. Not for the faint hearted, but why do we really react?!

Aren’t we citizen of the global village yet?!

Boing Boing picked up on the story of Canadian Internet Service Provider Shaw blocking iTunes store and / or their podcasts due to the content coming from multiple sources.

Over the past month Rogers (ISP) in Canada has put some software on their networks that prevents activity for BitTorrents, P2P, IRC, and also along with that is a rule that if you are trying to download a large media file from more then 1 server it will be dropped. When you download a Podcast from iTunes it downloads that file from multiple servers in the background (I confirmed this by watching my cable modem logs). As soon as it tries to use more than 2 different servers for the download, it just stops. That’s the reason why Podcast downloads stop at random places – it’s the point where a 2nd server is involved in the download. The same issue causes timeouts and cut-offs in the iTunes music store.Here is the problem – when anyone calls Rogers about the problem they say it is either a router, firewall or Apple problem and they shrug you off.

Hundreds or thousands of people in Canada can no longer get Podcasts or purchase music from the iTunes Music store. This is BAD. Please, Apple, contact Rogers and sort it out. So many people have called Rogers with no luck.

The question I ask myself is why an Internet Service Provider should be capping bandwidth or limiting net-services in any way?! For security issues I do not mind certain restrictions, such as blocking port 25 for outgoing email to reduce spam coming from the network, and/ or blocking the ports135 to 139 in order to reduce common worm-threats – but there should always be some kind of user agreement where the advanced user should be able to sign a paper and taking all responsibility for unlocking these ports.

What your Internet Service Provider should do is to deliver you an unfiltered Internet-connection, if you choose to have this. With no traffic limitations or other restrictions. What you do with your Internet connection should be your business and responsibility, no-one else should be able to dictate what sites you surf to, what content you choose to download and so on. What should be applicable is the laws of the country you reside in, not the arbitrariness of your Internet Service Provider.

So, if you are a customer of Shaw or any other Internet Service Provider that is limiting your Internet-access, vote with your feet and with your wallet: switch to a provider that will provide you with un-filtered access. Sooner or later, your old provider will be forced to change their policy.