some things i think i think about act up after watching hubbards doc

a) the quote: "irrevance cannot come from consensus" anna blum seems to be central to the tension between the thing doing the acting and the acting that is being done. 
b) i wonder about one of the narratives here--where the radical direct action was intended to pressure drug companies and governments into indirect action--to get a meeting--that the mechanics of the state were used against the state itself (the lawsuits against the cdc) and the death and exhaustion of the later actions was giving up on the desire to get meetings. (esp the ones featuring bodies and cremains) 
c) but that the meetings happened, and the screening was sponsored by drug companies, and the movie was funded by state agencies, and the archives are at establishment harvard. 
d) who got the meetings then, though the second half of the documentary was about women and working class people--and women's health collective's provided the ordering structures act up built on--i wonder if message creep and quesitons of who to include become parts of a still to answer spectrum. David W's poverty and drug use should be noted to complicate the white gay man/women of colour dialectic that perhaps emerges here (are there similar questions of status and access that invade paris is burning?)
e)these questions of access and who gets to talk, suggest one of the things that is unspoken about act up, and one that is. the unspoken is that perhaps the problem of process oriented collective thot requires too much energy, and takes too much effort, it prevents access to those who do not have the energy or the commitment--can act up style direct action scale up or down, was it strangled in a different kind of red tape--not in the red tape of beurocracy, but the red tape of activism. is this what happened to occupy?
f) the one that is spoken is about the movement at st pats--i have many things to say about this. cardinal o'connor was an asshole; the church needs to be morally accountable for the deaths it caused; that we owe those who seek our destruction no fealty; that we would not convince those praying anything; that if i saw the current cardinal of new york it would take all my effort not to spit in his face. the church is not o'connor; that at st vincents or at hospices or among nurses and nuns and convenant house, it was morally accountable; that to be silent and stacked like cord wood in fornt of the altar, an altar that reminds us of the death and rising of the body of christ (and that we are part of the body of christ) has a noetic power; that respecting process is respecting the voice of those who dissent...
g) that i am able to write and say this, that i am able to negoiate a space for myself, because of the work that not only act up, but the radical work of the 70s, that emerged from the 60s, that listened to the movement of the 30s etc, that there is a genology of action here--watching all of those videos of arrests reminded me of nothing more than peter seeger singing go limp. 
h) i cried. there is this line from derrida: "is circumcision itself an exterior mark, is it an archive" our archives are written on bodies. our bodies are exterior marks--not just pussy and prick, but lesions and wasting, the temporary marks of plastic ties, and the permanent marks of tattoos, the exterior mark, the interior archive, and the haunting of voices that make these marks function post mortem--that allow for these negotited spaces on them--the rectum is not only a grave, it is a masulalem; the freudian bed is where the limpness leads to a kind of rot, but that rot allows for the growth of more undergrowth. 
i) never under-estimate the power of fierce fashion, of elegant graphic design, of good font choices, of dressing to fuck, of using politics in order to fuck, to fuck thru the rectum's masuleum.