>Answer: From hundreds and up of attempts at this and attempts at
>that, most of which are really silly, but you never can tell.
yeah, carrol,.and i've said that in different ways many times. start where people are, work with them there, where they are revealing that they're pissed enough about something to get involved, where they perceive a problem. e.g., the [you'll excuse the term] fear of crime in my neighborhood on the part of people of color struggling to "make it". freaked out by the possibility that crime will follow them and that the low income folks who live her, b/c of HUD, will encourage crime they want a neighborhood watch program and let the cops patrol the place and don't mind the priv. security that was hired to patrol at night after an attempted shooting.
as for justin, well gee whiz honey chile but i wasn't even trying to lift your skirt to get a peek at your control briefs. i'm not attacking the law/courts--that's carl remick's job. ange asked a question, i answered, michael poked his head in and you turned it all into an attack on the courts. i tried to clarify with an outline of what was in the book i was referring to. i simply recounted what i'd read elsewhere and pointed to limitations in a social movment strategy that, while it had been very successful for a confluence of reasons, has left us with some conundrums that are being felt. that simple. i'm sorry you don't understand how working through the legal system problematic when done at the expense of corresponding "ground up" movements for social change, as sleeper pointed to [as have many others in their anlyses]. as for legitimation, authority, participatory democracy--just a bunch of political theory that you're familiar with and i won't elaborate on as i don't have time. in general though, it really isn't a bad thing to criticize. it doesn't mean i'm trashing you, the law, the constitution, the courts.
kelley