Responses...

Several explosions occurred in the American city of Boston yesterday. Reports indicate three people have died and more than a hundred injured.

After searching more than a dozen news sites from around the world that is all I can say with confidence about the event that is being called the 'Boston Bombing'.

Some sources report two explosions, others speculate a third in a library nearby. Most report three deaths from the explosions, though one reports a dozen killed. All agree there are many people injured but some describe amputated limbs and 'pools of blood'. With so much confusion regarding the basic facts of this terrible event it is unlikely the full truth will be known for many days.

Yet many people are quick, even eager to apportion blame.

The New York Post appears to be leading this trend, identifying a suspect who may not even exist. The ephemeral suspect was identified only by racial and religious traits, do I even need to repeat them? The origins of this report seem to stem from reports that the Boston police are questioning a man being treated for injuries at a local hospital. I would be willing to speculate that Boston police are questioning many people who were at the scene of the explosions.

It is important for law enforcement officials to make inquiries, develop theories and investigate these theories to ultimately apprehend the perpetrator of a crime. This is their job and there are systems in place to ensure it is done fairly and hopefully in an unbiased way. The rest of us engage in speculation and (conspiracy) theorizing out of some sort of macabre need to connect with the tragedy that is unfolding. Often this connection involves pushing a racist, nationalist or sexist agenda not warranted by the facts.

Twitter comes alive during an event of this magnitude. Amidst the stream of citizen reportage their is always an undercurrent of those pushing their own prejudiced agenda.

Policymic writer Elizabeth Plank, tweeting as @feministabulous compiled as list of the top ten most racist tweets to come out of the Boston events: the tweets listed include pejorative statements about muslims, arab peoples, gay people and even Barack Obama. Were it not for the seriousness of the events in Boston these tenuous links would almost be amusing.

Meanwhile filmmaker Michael Moore spruiked his own agenda. Tweets he released after the event imply conservative, right wing involvement including that of the American Tea Party movement.

Seemingly fanning the flames of anti-muslim sentiment the head of an extremist Jordanian Muslim Salafi group is reported by the Washington Post as saying he was happy and drawing the comparison that American blood is no more precious than Muslim blood spilled in conflicts.

To what end these personal attacks that often barely reach beyond local networks?

Certainly they do nothing to enhance the reportage of the actual event. To the contrary they spawn their own cottage industry that I'm going to dub 'crazy shit you're glad someone else said'. Nor do they assist those investigating the events. This may be a little less clear to these arm chair commentators. Perhaps they hope that by digitally screaming 'kill all {insert stereotype here}' from the cyber rooftops they are somehow making the streets safer. All I see is an inflaming of fear and hatred.

I doubt anyone knows the correct response to a tragic event such as that unfolding in Boston. Our American-voyeurism seems to demand some sort of response but why?

@adilray tweeted after the events - "Thoughts with families of 2 dead in bomb blasts in Boston, 8 in Afghanistan, 1 in Pakistan and 31 in Iraq today. Global terror. Sad times."

This is the truth of the matter: explosions kill people throughout the world daily. Today we're paying attention only because it's America. Watch if you want to, mourn, offer condolences but don't speculate. Or if you must, shut up about it...

Chomsky vs. Twitter

Last time I wrote I threw in a quote by Noam Chomsky regarding the de-facto mental slavery we are subject to when powerful interests are allowed to dictate the narratives, the advertising, the media we consume. If you haven't come across Chomsky before I'm going to let you Google him, but suffice to say that I've heard him described as the most influential intellectual of the last fifty years (more than once). Chomsky writes passionately about the individual in the face of larger corporate, political and media influences. He is an advocate of individual action and thought free from coercion. 

I'm a fan of Noam, but in my reading for the last post I also came across some comments he made about social media and Twitter. It seemed he was not a fan of the brevity or relative flippancy of tweets and their limited character. He has also described in interviews a view that communication via devices tends towards the "superficial, shallow, evanescent" while Twitter perhaps "draw(s) people away from real serious communication". 

Let's face it, he has a point and in Noam's defense these comments were made around the same time Charlie Sheen was lighting up Twitter with a very dim bulb. At it's worst social media is people you've never met telling you they're hungry and then posting a picture of what they're eating (before anyone says anything I do realise that the worst is more like racism, sexism, trolls and attitudes best left in the middle ages). Beyond the shallow though Twitter et al. is also a democratizing force as it allows the audience to decide which voices are heard through comments, critiques and simply by ignoring the undesirable.

If we accept the premise that Twitter is often heavy with trivia and ephemera, this does not exclude the possibility for meaning within 140 characters. Brevity seems to be a particular bugbear for Chomsky as he feels it negates or sidelines controversial, non-mainstream discussion. But 140 characters is merely a window to another world that people may choose to explore at the cost of a mere click. Personally I am drawn back to tweeters who lead to me to more interesting information through links.

As a gateway social media has as many doors to Narnia as it does to last seasons Kardashian closet. The mere presence of crap does not negate it's power to distribute voices however. Just as the printing press gave us newspapers it also helped fill them with comics and personals. We have the opportunity to control the content as it evolves and part of that evolution is engaging, discussing and aggregating voices towards social causes. Daily people create their own content and distribute it via the interweb and social media is a resource they utilise to get word out.

Is there anything to say though?

Embedded in the technology is the mechanism that (hopefully) will see us guide this evolution towards a positive channeling of public voices; Twitter and other microblogging sites are equipped with functions to retweet, comment or simply stop following. While publishing may be free and easy, editing happens at the hands of the public at large. This means that the network of users vote with their 140 characters on whether an opinion expressed is viable. I wrote recently of my first experience with a truly abhorrent Twitter post and how at the hands of the 'Twitterverse' the poster was duly chastened. 

In one of the interviews mentioned above Chomsky describes a 'good public citizen' as one "who participates in the management of public affairs". Amongst the idle thoughts and tummy rumblings social media offers a platform for participation that is open and uncensored as yet. Entry criteria for participation is the possession of an online device, and this can be a steep price in some markets, as I've discussed in a previous post. This is changing though and with access comes a proliferation of new voices. For those that can afford it, this is cheap compared to running for office in a developed western democracy.

These technologies offer both shallow, narcissistic interactions and the potential to engage in the public sphere like never before. It requires a little creativity to straddle the line and becomes a daily commitment if you really intend to engage, but I've found it worth the effort. In a future where this technology will become second nature I wonder if our questioning it's validity at length (longer than the aforementioned 140) will seem quaint. Till then I choose to embrace the voice it affords me.

Representation?!

A tale of indifference from your elected representatives...

I've now written twice on the story of Ranjini and her brand new son Paari; locked up in Australian immigration detention during her pregnancy, then returned only days after Paari's birth. My plan is to continue writing in the hope that rallying support around this issue might see sense prevail and result in an outcome that sees a weeks old baby released from jail.

This outcome seems less and less likely when our elected representatives refuse to engage on the issue in a meaningful way, preferring to stonewall opposition to the official policy. I am not the only person writing on this issue, far from it. I first read about Ranjini's story through GetUp! and 'Letters for Ranjini'. Both of these organisations have been actively campaigning to see Ranjini and Paari allowed to reunite with their family. As a result of this campaigning a lot of letters have been written to a lot of local members requesting action.

Unfortunately the responses received by 'Letter's for Ranjini' were less than inspirational on the part of the government. While you might hope for a resounding success or fear an outright rejection, the replies from Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson reflect the worst of bureaucratic obfuscation designed to do nothing more than placate the reader. Both letters read as virtual carbon copies of each other. They are clearly form letters designed to deflect community concern over the issue of what they like to call 'irregular maritime arrivals' (asylum seekers in the regular parlance). These replies refer to Ranjini's case only in the final paragraph and speak nothing of addressing the urgent concern of having a newborn child locked up.

On their website 'Letter's for Ranjini' call these replies a complete disregard for democracy, but I would go a step further. These politicians attempt to use stock standard letters to placate their constituents because they have no regard for the intelligence and sincerity of collective community action. They feel they are safe within the 'democracy' because they sit in safe seats of regard Ranjini's story a fringe political issue.  

This is not an acceptable response from Australia's political representatives, no matter their political persuasion. Politicians govern at the will of the people and they must be reminded of the voices behind their power, that they may use it to some good end. Consider this and write to your local member; you can get most of them on Twitter if you don't have time for an email. Go to 'Letters For Ranjini's' - Facebook page and give them a 'like' so that they can continue this struggle. Most importantly though is to take back your voice and refuse to accept a stock reply from a politician; ask why, ask for more information and make them justify their position. Remember you gave them their job...  

________

More on Ranjini's story:

Here are some sites you might like to check out for more information about Ranjini's story and the issue of the detention of children in immigration detention facilities in Australia...

Rightzblock - Life Imprisonment? 

My first post detailing Ranjini's plight before Paari's birth.

Rightzblock - Followup to Ranjini's Story 

Detailing the shameful act of imprisoning Paari days after his birth.

Letters for Ranjini 

Campaigning for justice on behalf of Ranjini; write a letter of support!

Chilout 

Fantastic organisation campaigning on behalf of children in immigration detention.

Chris Bowen - Minister for Immigration 

Drop the minister a line; email, twitter or call to express your concerns 

over the issue of children being locked up! 

Tweeting the Zeitgeist

I've been a little slow on my social media uptake so it was with great surprise last night when I found myself engaging in a tweetfest that actually affected something in the real world.

It was about three in the morning and I was loving another bout of insomnia. Luckily being in Avignon in the south of France I was perfectly in time for Sydney news and media and just general wakefulness. As I scrolled down my news feed I scanned the headlines (I think of tweets as headlines and prefer the ones that open into a world larger than 140 characters) looking for something interesting...

@GetUp - 'We should expect more from our political candidates & community leaders 

than homophobia, hate speech. #TessCorbett @BernardGaynor'

No idea what this was about but respecting @GetUp's take on issues I decided to dig around. Turns out @BernardGaynor is a senate candidate for a new political entity in Australia known as Katter's Australia Party (Katter's Aus Party). Gaynor had taken to Twitter to back up another party nominee, Tess Corbett and her comments made comparing homosexuality to bestiality...

@BernardGaynor -  'I wouldn't let a gay person teach my children 

and I'm not afraid to say it #auspol'

Uhmmm... ok! I was suitably aghast, I mean I'd heard that people tweet all sorts of crazy bullshit but had never actually had the opportunity to read it. This was completely different to retweeting inspirational articles about issues I believe in; here was someone making pejorative comments about people that included friends, coworkers, cool strangers that I haven't meant yet. I was kinda pissed but also felt strangely powerless to do anything against this hate speech.

I read through the post again and some of the follow up this goon had made attempting to justify his position. Some people had made some equally crazy comments wishing violence and death on the guy. I wanted to write something but didn't want to join the club of people venting their spleen. Basically I wanted to be clever, witty and concise (the last not being a huge problem on Twitter)...

@rightzblock - '@GetUp now you know people just don't vote for

 @BernardGaynor and take his voice away!'

I felt proud, I felt engaged, I reread it and realized my punctuation made the message a little ambiguous but I had said something against this guy. The way Twitter works though @BernardGaynor might never know that I thoroughly abhorred his narrow minded perspective...

@rightzblock - '@BernardGaynor Australia is a secular state, 

don't bring your misguided religious beliefs to the political debate!'

Now I felt better. I had spoken my beliefs in 140 characters or less and let some bigot know he had no place spreading his views. I could sleep easy, and despite the insomnia, several hours later I did.

In the morning I woke up and after covering coffee and the obligatory ablutions I got a little curious about what I'd been reading last night. I found this: The Australian - Twitter Gay Slur Story

I was stoked, energised and generally pretty damn happy... Of course this story has ignored thousands of others who also got online and expressed their unhappiness at this guys bigotry and insensitivity. Collectively they made the difference and were there representing the Australian public over the wicked minority. For me though it felt good that I had spoken when I felt moved to speak and stood up for my convictions.

When I sit down to write this blog I always hope that someone will read it and take away something of my message. It's hard to know when you write alone and receive little feedback; mostly your own opinions. The blog's pretty new though and I accept that few people even know it exists. But I do believe strongly in the power of our voices when we speak out on the things we believe (Rightzblock - The right to free speech?), it was great to see how it can come to fruition...