Last night I helped organize one of 74 screenings of the first two episodes of Eyes On The Prize, the seminal documentary on the American Civil Rights Movement. It was great. I got my friends at Station 40 to host the screening with their giant living room and projector, and through our combined efforts, and a little help from the chron, we got about 30 people to show up.

I haven't organized an event in a while, and it was a welcome thing. Nothing like talking in front of people and getting a few claps to tickle the actor in me. The past part of all was that the crowd included a couple bona-fide Civil Rights veterans. It was really something to be thanked by someone who'd demonstrated with Dr. King (and lost his professorship over it). Gave me the good feelings all over, though I didn't much know what to say response.

Anyway, it was a big success. I also thought I should post my take on why this is important.

Here's the story:
Eyes on the Prize was made in the 1980s, and rightly hailed as a masterpiece at that time. It was regularly broadcast on PBS and the video series became an important part of civil rights and documentary film education nationwide. In spite of this critical acclaim and widespread appreciation, and in spite of the importance of the events documented, the film had not been broadcast, sold, or publicly screened in more than 10 years.

Why?

The filmmaker, Henry Hampton, died unexpectedly at the age of 58, without securing extended rights to the archival footage and other materials used Eyes. Even though the footage, audio and photos used in the documentary are 40 to 50 years old, contemporary copyright regulations require licenses and permissions to make even the smallest use in any subsequent production. This is a big moneymaker for entites which have consolodated legal control over a lot of cultural work. For instance AOL/Time-Warner now owns the rights to "Happy Birthday," which rakes in nearly $2 Million annually in spite of the fact that the song was published 80 years ago, and has its roots in the 1880s.

While there's wide regard for the utility and usefulness for the protection of intellectual property, the present legal environment places virtually all modern records of human events and creation in amounts in real terms to the complete commodification of culture and history. This is unacceptable in a free society.

That's right: unacceptable in a free society. Late 20th-Century America's market-based approach to things works well in many cases, but placing the values of a society -- primarily represented through History, Culture and Law -- at the mercy of the highest bidder runs counter to the principles of Democracy. We're not supposed to sell the law to the highest bidder, but with more than 50 lobbiests for every member of congress, in effect we often do. It should come as little surprise then that although copyright started out modestly to support authors but also serve the public good, since publishing and media have become Big Business, the terms of the deal have changed.

Over the latter half of the 20th Century, Copyright has expanded enormously. Whereas in times past, works needed to be registered to be copyrighted, copyright is now legally assumed unless explicity forsaken. Whereas there used to be a healthy body of contemporary work in the Public Domain -- work that was free for anyone to use as part of their own creation -- and a comprehensive registry of copyrights which allowed creators to track down copyright holdes in search of permission to excerpt/re-use work, today there is very little published in the last 75 years in the public domain, and no registry or record of who has the rights to what.

Furthermore, the term of copyright has been extended several times in the past 50 years. Sharp observers note that these extensions seem to issue forth from Congress whenever Mickey Mouse's age (now pushing 80) puts him close to the line of the public domain.

While copyright reform and Free Culture advocates are consistantly mischaracterized as pirates, anarchists, communists and worse, the reality is that we are standing up for the essential right of a society to retain the rights to its own culture. The commodification of history, culture and knowledge is not only detremental from an educational perspective, it is dangerously undemocratic.

To learn more, and to get involved:
http://www.downhilbattle.com
http://www.freeculture.org
http://www.lessig.com

Last night I helped organize one of 74 screenings of the first two episodes of Eyes On The Prize, the seminal documentary on the American Civil Rights Movement. It was great. I got my friends at Station 40 to host the screening with their giant living room and projector, and through our combined efforts, and a little help from the chron, we got about 30 people to show up.

I haven't organized an event in a while, and it was a welcome thing. Nothing like talking in front of people and getting a few claps to tickle the actor in me. The past part of all was that the crowd included a couple bona-fide Civil Rights veterans. It was really something to be thanked by someone who'd demonstrated with Dr. King (and lost his professorship over it). Gave me the good feelings all over, though I didn't much know what to say response.

Anyway, it was a big success. I also thought I should post my take on why this is important.

Here's the story:
Eyes on the Prize was made in the 1980s, and rightly hailed as a masterpiece at that time. It was regularly broadcast on PBS and the video series became an important part of civil rights and documentary film education nationwide. In spite of this critical acclaim and widespread appreciation, and in spite of the importance of the events documented, the film had not been broadcast, sold, or publicly screened in more than 10 years.

Why?

The filmmaker, Henry Hampton, died unexpectedly at the age of 58, without securing extended rights to the archival footage and other materials used Eyes. Even though the footage, audio and photos used in the documentary are 40 to 50 years old, contemporary copyright regulations require licenses and permissions to make even the smallest use in any subsequent production. This is a big moneymaker for entites which have consolodated legal control over a lot of cultural work. For instance AOL/Time-Warner now owns the rights to "Happy Birthday," which rakes in nearly $2 Million annually in spite of the fact that the song was published 80 years ago, and has its roots in the 1880s.

While there's wide regard for the utility and usefulness for the protection of intellectual property, the present legal environment places virtually all modern records of human events and creation in amounts in real terms to the complete commodification of culture and history. This is unacceptable in a free society.

That's right: unacceptable in a free society. Late 20th-Century America's market-based approach to things works well in many cases, but placing the values of a society -- primarily represented through History, Culture and Law -- at the mercy of the highest bidder runs counter to the principles of Democracy. We're not supposed to sell the law to the highest bidder, but with more than 50 lobbiests for every member of congress, in effect we often do. It should come as little surprise then that although copyright started out modestly to support authors but also serve the public good, since publishing and media have become Big Business, the terms of the deal have changed.

Over the latter half of the 20th Century, Copyright has expanded enormously. Whereas in times past, works needed to be registered to be copyrighted, copyright is now legally assumed unless explicity forsaken. Whereas there used to be a healthy body of contemporary work in the Public Domain -- work that was free for anyone to use as part of their own creation -- and a comprehensive registry of copyrights which allowed creators to track down copyright holdes in search of permission to excerpt/re-use work, today there is very little published in the last 75 years in the public domain, and no registry or record of who has the rights to what.

Furthermore, the term of copyright has been extended several times in the past 50 years. Sharp observers note that these extensions seem to issue forth from Congress whenever Mickey Mouse's age (now pushing 80) puts him close to the line of the public domain.

While copyright reform and Free Culture advocates are consistantly mischaracterized as pirates, anarchists, communists and worse, the reality is that we are standing up for the essential right of a society to retain the rights to its own culture. The commodification of history, culture and knowledge is not only detremental from an educational perspective, it is dangerously undemocratic.

To learn more, and to get involved:
http://www.downhilbattle.com
http://www.freeculture.org
http://www.lessig.com

Got my first experience humping everything I need to live across town on my back. Books are carried at a premium. My concept is to have two bags: my new giant messenger bag packed with the usual NYC livelyhood stuff (laptop, connectors, journal, power cords, paperwork) plus toiletries, a pair of pants, a couple fresh shirts, socks, underoos. Then I'll have my big-ass duffel sitting somewhere with the rest of my clothing in reserve. In practice this is pretty much how I live, with "the floor" substituted for "messenger bag" and my tiny chest of drawers instead of a duffel.

I'll make some tweaks in the next few days for sure. At the moment my messenger bag is a little overloaded -- more stuff than I need -- and I need to buy a few odds and ends to have a good kit. It will still be a challenge to live this way for six months, but it's something I've got to do.

Also, website redesign and other stuff is coming right along. Expect groovy results soon. The days of the turtle are upon us.

David Kay, who was a conservative darling until his final report on Iraqi WMD was basically "we fucked up big time" has an editorial in the WaPo: Let's Not Make the Same Mistakes in Iran.

The discussion of intelligence reform has focused on reordering and adding structure on top of an eroded intelligence foundation. And now we hear the drumrolls again, this time announcing an accelerating nuclear weapons program in Iran... There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war.

Kay seems to see the same process in work as what began w/Iraq in 2002. The idea of another war -- let alone one sold like old-west snake-oil -- is frightening, but I'm far from convinced that the Bush administration will be able to push anything resembling a full-scale invasion if Iran. We simply can't afford it.

What they're advocating is the next step in the Neo-Con manuel: using our existing military footprint. There's been a lot of talk about stepping up a major covert action (and maybe a little bombing) campaign, using Iraq as a base. That's why we're building so many perminient bases and a $1.5B embassay, in case you were wondering. It's not a good path to go down because it ends with us having to defend Iraq (probably using Iraqis as cannon fodder) against ground invasion. That'll cost us.

Also on a side note, does anyone else find it odd that there are three (3) banner ads on NewsMax that advertise hand-to-hand fighting techniques? If I had more time and energy I might make something of that. Another time, perhaps.

Batman Begins -- imdb

Most promising thing to hit during the Super Bowl. With American Psycho in mind, Bale is an ideal casting choice for Bruce Wayne. Christopher Nolan clearly has directorial and storytelling chops, plus Scarecrow is a great villan. Throw in Michael Cane, Liam Nesan, Morgan Friedman, Gary Oldman and Kaie Holms (often underrated as an actress because of Dawson's Creek) and you have the makings for something that could outshine Tim Burton's original.

Batman Returns was good, but marred by Tim Burton going too far, and the last three were abbysmal examples of hollywood shitting all over what could have been good character and actor combinations. Cloony and Kilmer deserved better, and the absolute butchery of potential with Tommy Lee Jones cast as Two-Face (see the animated series and imaging what might have been) and the horror of blowing a great role like Mr. Freeze on Shwartzegnegger are unconscionable. Hopefully enough people will give this new edition a chance and Nolan has the skills to pull it together. He had a hand in the script, and Bruckheimer is no where on the bill, so that bodes well. We shall see, but I'm hopeful for a good piece of cinema.

I'm out of house and home; it's easy on a weekend. We'll see how this week goes.

Bastard spammers keep hitting my trackbacks even though they're disabled. It makes me sad. Site revamp is eminent.

Lots of good things happening. I'l chronicle and record in good time. Lucas is in AZ with truck in hand and visiting with Talyn, we'll head up to Westhaven Friday. The wheel is in spin.

In spite of overall long-term confidence, the feeling right now reminds me of getting out of college, a kind of four-year de ja vu. I'm still hurting for space to think and fumbling around for the lack of structure. Lost in the wheels of confusion, spinning fast on caffeine and poverty.

I have blind faith that something will break soon, but at the moment I don't know what it is, and I worry about letting people down. Hopefully my universe will be forgiving. I need some time for myself.

The Crisis Of Meaning is a time-worn idea, something I've discussed with my friends since adolesence. According to good old Erik Erikson, we're supposed to have moved out of the struggle of Identity vs Role Confusion and into the realm of Intimacy vs Isolation. I ponder...

Intimacy is defined as the ability to be close to others. This means as a lover, a friend, and as a contributing member of society. There's the rub. Though I feel strong on the issue of "who I am," I have quite a lot of angst about "what I do" and "who I do it with." What's your role here? Just what would ya say ya do?

The last time I remember feeling like I had a good answer to this was in early 2003. Sasha took me out to a party in TriBeCa with a bunch of other people who seemed older and more established, I was leaning in a doorframe (like Brando's Stanley) and sweating from biking over from Brooklyn and we were doing the introduction thing. The women were teachers or grad students; the men were in finance. "I'm an artist." I threw on a little bit of Oregon accent with it. Felt right. Sasha took to it, which was the point, but I didn't really live up to the billing in the long run, got sidetracked -- really -- into politics as an occupation, and now I'm here.

And I'm struggling. The most important thing is to stop struggling. Need motion, velocity my old sweet mistress.

Just finished episode 13 of 13 so far produced. Good stuff all the way through. It's not all that often that you'll see television programming taking risks, going at all outside the box, but when it does it can be quite good. I highly recommend this bit of sci fi.

I lik be because it does very well with the form, managing to explore all the great classic metaphysical topics -- what does it mean to be human? a staple of the genre -- as well as political theory and mythology to boot, and all this with highly engaging characters and admirable style. I'm watching online (not like I'd help their neilsons anyway) so the lack of commercials is a boon, but the bottom line is it's good viewing. If they get the pick up for a second season, (which is looking likely as the show is a relative hit here and across the pond), Edward James Olmos has a meal ticket that could take him to mainstream notoriety ala Patrick Stewart. Providing he wants it of course.

Speaking of Stewart, I think this series can do a lot more for the players involved than Star Trek: The Next Generation. On the whole the characters are vastle less "gimmicky." This is good. It means the show is less otaku-centric (more broadly appealing and free to roam), and it also means the actors can avoid typecasting. There's a lot less pseudo-science -- though a lot more pseudo mythology/politics -- and a lot more simple drama. The style is much more gritty/lowbrow, and the action revolves more around the course of human events than what strange planet crop ups next.

I think it's a good setup. In all it probably makes for a shorter shelf life (it's hard to see this thing going 7 seasons without some serious cheese) but there are at least 20 or 30 good episodes in it if they keep everyone on board and enthusiastic. My guess is that this is the first big break for a number of the cast and crew, and the producers aren't old hands either. It's a start-up show. The whole thing has the touch of the auteur, of vision, of people who have been looking for their chance to make a mark.

I'll say again, it's a step up for science fiction, let alone on TV. If you're savvy you can watch it on your computron like it did. If you've got cable, you can catch it on sci fi. If you're looking to be entertained, I suggest you give it a whirl either way.

Daily Kos :: An Outsiders' Reaction to His First DFA Meetup

I honestly can say now that I understand why people are the way they are for Dean and what he wants to do. His organization, and the people involved in it, are making a difference in their own communities, and by doing that they are making it better for all of us. I saw three future state Congressmen, at the least, and a couple that could possibly make it to national level. Two of them would not have even tried, if not for DFA.

That's nice to read. I'm burnt lately, calling myself "a technician" or "a plumber" in the world of poltrix online. Truth is, I need to get away from it in order to replentish whatever it is that keeps my inner fires burning. That's why I'm planning on living on east coast couches for three months. That's why I'm planning to be On The Road for the summer.

The good news is that stories like these are going to keep happening, and with Howard Dean likely to take the chair of the party -- this is looking more likely than Iowa ever did, largely because it's such a non-public proceeding -- I have reasonable hope that his common-sense facts-first reality-based and other-hyphenated approach will build these nodes of activity into a thriving network. There are 100s of bright young things burning to work for him. They'll do good.

For my part, all this gives me moral cover to duck out for a bit, to think about my own trajectory knowing that if I got hit by a bus the world would be in as good hands as could be reasonably expected. I'm needing a long dip in the deep metaphysical, been thinking about stuff on the other end of the divine membrane; impractical but stirring lines of inquiry.

I'll keep writing and reading and dropping opinions from time to time of course. If you ever want my take on something, feel free to drop a line. Gouts of fiery rhetoric will come, and I'll never cease to poke and pry at the puzzles of language, ethics and political theory. But I realize that politicking -- horseracing, hackery, jockeying for position -- isn't really my game, though I'm glad I know some damn good players. Campaigning is something I'll take up again down the line, and maybe in a decade I'll end up governing a household or something larger, but for now I'm happy to tie my soul to other things, and let the job be a job again.

I'm contemplating bringing my stereo back into my room to play loud music.

It's February 2nd and in San Francisco's Mission District that means 60 degrees and blue skies. I remember this from my first visit here; jetting down alone at the age of 17 to try out for acting schools. What a trip that was. I sat in Union Square for a couple hours between auditions and just soaked it up.

Today I impose order on my posessions, deal with the IRS, and decide how to prepare myself for the first leg (New York) of my ramblin' time. The widows are all wide open: out with the old, in with the new. Kick out the Jams indeed.