I'm all pooped-out today. It's a good feeling (relatively) to face exhaustion. I think I picked up my sister's cough though, so it's not entirely from exertion. I still have a lot of catching up to do. Tomorrow is another day.

I don't have the wonkish fever to follow things like the recent political drama over the "Nuclear Option" in great detail, but the situation has come to a close. The outcome: three pretty extreme conservatives will make it to the appelate court and the Senate will not change its rules to strip the minority party of its right to filibuster. Here's a detailed analysis of the actual text of the compromise, if you want.

My Take
Ont he face of it, it doesn't look like much of a victory for Democrats. Basically three people who are right-wing ideologues get lifetime jobs on the bench. Boo. However, the reality is that the amount of political capital this has cost the GOP makes it largely a loosing proposition from their end. Also, the 9th Circut (one of the few courts that can still be relied on for the kinds of opinions I like to see) will not be touched.

Net-net, it's a bad thing in the short term for the country, but it's not a calamity that these people get to be judges. More importantly, in the long political game it's going to weaken the Radical Conservative movement, and as such is a victory for anyone who's alarmed with the direction the government has been taking over the past 25 years or so.

In particular it's going to dampen the political enthusiasm of some of the Dominionist christians, a largely inexperienced population who comprised a lot of the first-time voters who came out for Bush back in November. As a compromise, it should also irk the hard-right radio crowd and the warbloggers. Finally, this deal will seriously impair Sen. Majority leader Bill Frist's chances of making a run for the White House in 2008. He didn't bet his political life on this fight, but he wagered an arm and a leg, and it's not often that double-amputees make it to the Oval Office.

In truth, with one party (the GOP) in control of the process, this is a decent outcome for anyone who opposes the animating ideas of that party. It's also nice that compomise is still possible, as in better times this is the nature of democratic governance. Bottom line: if Dems had been able to lock up the necessary defectors to win a vote on changing the Senate rules, that would have been a triumph, but this is still a strategic victory.

Bush and the Washington Republicans are taking a bath on matters of public opinion and they've been unable to make any headway on their major initiatives. At this rate, it seems unlikely that they retain enough political capital to propose any new policy (e.g. a national sales tax) and barring a major change in the geopolitical situation they will be forced to begin bringing our involvement in Iraq to a close within the next year or so to avoid crushing political consequences.

Assuming the Democrats can put together the message, money and organization to capitalize on this, better political times are coming. The question then is whether or not Democrats will successfully reframe the national debate and forge a real governing consensus, or whether we'll get another round of trench warfare. I'm hoping for the former because there are large problems facing humanity, and Public action will be needed to effectively deal with them.

While I'm here I will probably be completing my last paid work for Jolly old MFA. But I want to point out that I'm fucking proud of what that organization is doing and standing for, even if I made a decision not to keep working there. Here's an example.

Back in SF now... I got bumped on my Delta flight which separated me and my baggage and kept me in Atlanta for several extra hours. The upside is that if I want to fly Delta again in the next year, I have 200 "Delta Dollars." The downside is that I have to go to Oakland to get my bag. For the additional layover and trip to get my bag I earn 40 Delta Dollars an hour and have the satisfaction of knowing someone who was on a tighter schedule than I did got where they needed to be on time. For a minuete it looked like my man Rupert at gate B-28 was going to be able to bump me to first class, but it fell through. I did get seated next to an italian (?) couple who were in their late 30s/early 40s and madly in love. Acting like teenagers really. Kind of neat.

So I'm back in the Mission, listening to The Streets. Gonna hit the cafe and then ride the Bart. All my batteries are dead (chargers in the bag) so I can't make any calls for a while.

Things are moving. Movement is good.

It's a sunday morning haze -- lots of talking around in circles with semi-cryptic lefty jargon -- but still common threads emerge from the morass.

There's a need for "a blueprint" to tie together the various constituencies, interests and strategies. There's a need for this blueprint to legitimately engage people in their own communities and cultures, but still roll up to a larger (state, national, global) narrative which can drive and sustain meaningful change.

One tactic which came up in a number of places, and thus might be worth looking at, was the notion of building locally-based organizations which hit national representatives when they're "at home" in their district or state. This seems like something that could really work and be widely applicable to many different issues.

Another common thread is the need to take initiative, to be willing to take leadership and take risks. Do it, and worry later.

There's also a lot of talking around in circles. It's frustrating; maybe I expect too much from my cohort. I believe people need to move past the "complexity" which surrounds any issue -- which exists, and which is complex -- and get down to where the rubber meets the road. Complexity exists, but calling out its existence is of little value unless the next steps are taken to map and negotiate it so that steps can be taken to improve people's situations. When we don't dive into the issues, the conversation quickly becomes a series of complaints which produce little or no resolution... reminds me of bar-talk on a bad night in Brooklyn at times; ritual conversations. I take conversation seriously, about as seriously as I take my politics, and when both are meandering around like two people who are too afraid to hook up it gets me agitated. Selah.

Good things are emerging. It's just that (as always) I want it faster.

It's a sunday morning haze -- lots of talking around in circles with semi-cryptic lefty jargon -- but still common threads emerge from the morass.

There's a need for "a blueprint" to tie together the various constituencies, interests and strategies. There's a need for this blueprint to legitimately engage people in their own communities and cultures, but still roll up to a larger (state, national, global) narrative which can drive and sustain meaningful change.

One tactic which came up in a number of places, and thus might be worth looking at, was the notion of building locally-based organizations which hit national representatives when they're "at home" in their district or state. This seems like something that could really work and be widely applicable to many different issues.

Another common thread is the need to take initiative, to be willing to take leadership and take risks. Do it, and worry later.

There's also a lot of talking around in circles. It's frustrating; maybe I expect too much from my cohort. I believe people need to move past the "complexity" which surrounds any issue -- which exists, and which is complex -- and get down to where the rubber meets the road. Complexity exists, but calling out its existence is of little value unless the next steps are taken to map and negotiate it so that steps can be taken to improve people's situations. When we don't dive into the issues, the conversation quickly becomes a series of complaints which produce little or no resolution... reminds me of bar-talk on a bad night in Brooklyn at times; ritual conversations. I take conversation seriously, about as seriously as I take my politics, and when both are meandering around like two people who are too afraid to hook up it gets me agitated. Selah.

Good things are emerging. It's just that (as always) I want it faster.

Notes from breakout groups:

Movement Building: This conversation revolved around the idea that to create free culture, some guiding principles or common ground must be identified. This allows us to locate our organizations within the movement, find new ways of working together and find or direct others to places for finding new resources or assistance. Our areas of interest are in technology, intellectual property and media justice/expression. Some suggested principles: - Democratic access to technology for non-commercial purposes; - Preserve peoples' ability to participate in culture and culture building; - Where public resources are being utilized, responsibility extends beyond profit; - We encourage participation.

Wireless Access: A campaign for wireless is a winning issue. It's sexy. More later.

Outside Strategies: Is media reform the end or the means? Will media democracy bring the kind of society we're looking for? Low-power FM. Disseminating information.

Fundraising/Financing: Diversifying funding. Getting past sugar daddies. DIY/Social Enterprise. How to deal with "sleeping with the enemy." How to become an ally with your funder. Are people willing to pay for independent/alternative culture? Yes if it's good and part of a campaign.

Youth/Generation: (my group) We're holding off until tomorrow to reveal what committments we're making.

Notes from breakout groups:

Movement Building: This conversation revolved around the idea that to create free culture, some guiding principles or common ground must be identified. This allows us to locate our organizations within the movement, find new ways of working together and find or direct others to places for finding new resources or assistance. Our areas of interest are in technology, intellectual property and media justice/expression. Some suggested principles: - Democratic access to technology for non-commercial purposes; - Preserve peoples' ability to participate in culture and culture building; - Where public resources are being utilized, responsibility extends beyond profit; - We encourage participation.

Wireless Access: A campaign for wireless is a winning issue. It's sexy. More later.

Outside Strategies: Is media reform the end or the means? Will media democracy bring the kind of society we're looking for? Low-power FM. Disseminating information.

Fundraising/Financing: Diversifying funding. Getting past sugar daddies. DIY/Social Enterprise. How to deal with "sleeping with the enemy." How to become an ally with your funder. Are people willing to pay for independent/alternative culture? Yes if it's good and part of a campaign.

Youth/Generation: (my group) We're holding off until tomorrow to reveal what committments we're making.

Overheard at the conference.

Hip-Hop is the new Cotton

Think about it...

Amalia Anderson, representing the league of rural voters, is leading off by highlighting the distinction between indigenous cultures and Western culture. Much of what we've been talking about, she observes, is rooted in various notions of "ownership," which are representative of the Western/European traditions and in many ways foreign to indigenous traditions. Individual ownership vs. collective ownership. "We don't tend to place an economic value on our knowledge, " she says.

At the same time she says that the Public Domain is not a trustworthy space either, as the larger Public (I'm paraphrasing) tends to pull things away from indigenous peoples; genetic mapping, the recording of traditional stories, etc.

I find some of this problematic, mostly in the sense that I don't particularly see a solid philosophical footing for indigenous-ness. This is pretty unsurprising; I can't lay any claim to that kind of title, and I'm not sure how anyone else does either? Everyone came from somewhere, it seems, and being "indigenous" really seems to mean "we got here first." That aside, I can see a great deal of value in considering the implications with regards to self-determination/agency of attempting to supplant existing governing structures and modes of communications. It seems to me that, for better or for worse, all the world's land is more or less owned, and that these issues crop up not only with "first nation" peoples, but also with independent artists getting co-opted by corporations. Similar patterns in any case. (Others echo this point out loud as I blog it).

Now Sarah Greengrass is talking about the state of intellectual property law with regard to patents in the pharmecutical industry, how international treaties deisgned to give developing nations access to the IP needed to make drugs in a time of crisis were being bogged down in protracted legal battles. However, many drug patents managed by large pharmaceutical conglomorates are actually owned by Universities, who have a mandate to serve the public interest.

Here's the opening. Beginning with an AIDS drug owned by Yale, they organized students, faculty and eventually the administration to open it up. Now they've built a coalition of universities to require drugs they patent to be covered under a license that guarantees the ability of developing nations to utilize their patents in times of need. The oganization is built through student activism and organizing research faculty, and by promoting alternative job performance metrics that take into account the social good in adition to licencing revenues.

Talking about methods: putting pressure on people through publicity; finding the legalistic weak link; simply making connections, picking up the phone or sending an email. There's a need to connect the local to national and the national to the international; again the need to create a message and disseminate it persuasively.

Another problem is how to reach people who don't necessarily have access to the latest tech. For a lot of people, CD-Rs are cutting edge. For a lot of people, broadband doesn't exist. It's important to realize that all this internet shit isn't internet only. It's internet enabled. This is a realization that's still percolating in the world. News coverage of the last election still misses this point, so it's not terrifically surprising, but still. You don't need to be online to have the internet improve your life chances as long as there's a human being or organization to make the connection.