filters are rilly rilly kewl things except for the "blowback" problem. heh.
>If we're gonna talk citizenship, I'm gonna have to talk (gratifyingly
>basic) Habermas.
>
>I do think the word, and an explicit debate concerning its definition, are
>of great political significance. That critical idea of defining something
>(and the conditions necessary for that definition to be honoured in
>practice) in precisely the terms implicit in the legitimating norms du jour
>(eg. liberalism) is a beaut. It's all very well talking formal rights and
>obligations - but the point has to be made that citizenship is a
>*practice*, much of it necessarily communicative (not just an occasionally
>ignored vote, but actually exercising the right to information and voice -
>not one or the other, but a logically necessary coexistence of both). From
>there you can go an awful lot of useful places. Not least a damning
>critique of media, media ownership, education, universal access to IT (from
>telephones to the Net), special programmes for immigrants, and, generally,
>useful public speculation on the conditions necessary for something
>approximating a public sphere.
>
>Liberalism is as contradicted as anything else, and we live in times when
>the extensions and expansions of its apparent corollary, capitalism, are
>putting those contradictions in bold relief. Articulating nagging doubts,
>reservations and grievances is good politics in general, and talking
>citizenship/democracy is a particularly good idea in particular, I submit.
>Especially in lands where people reckon bravery and freedom are essential
>to who they are ...
well, i was thinking of the fact that in Arizona last year, about this time, the following happened (someone else's words)
"today a rancher was out on his ranch with his hunting rifle, and he came across an illegal alien trespassing on his property in an attempt to illegally enter the united states. the rancher detained the immigrant (who the news only refers to as an "undocumented immigrant") and called the border patrol on his cell phone. the rancher states that he at no time threatened the immigrant, nor pointed his weapon at the immigrant. he only detained the illegal on *his* _private_ property for trespassing and illegally entering the country. no it gets wacky, the local aclu has gotten involved and says that the rancher *VIOLATED* the immigrants rights by detaining him, and the illegal immigrant is now *suing* the rancher for violating his civil rights. no shit.
i'm just absolutely fucking stunned."
if the ACLU can insist that the guy has civil rights, i see no reason why we should change "citizens against war" to "persons against war".
kelley
>Cheers,
>Rob.