recant and radical depolarization

Suddenly I realize that in two entries that I have conversely stated that freedom of speech should be taken to the limit, then complained about the abuses of same by writers such as Ann Coulter. Have I contradicted myself? Of course I have! Therefore, I believe some level of contrition is in order then clarification.

The issue here is not that of a double standard in free sppech, as I have all but defined in my previous two notes in this thread, but a key issue relates to the plethora of prolems that polarization brings. In the case in which Dubya all but stated that you are either part of the solution or part of the problem, he invokes popular Texan mythology of drawing the line at the ALamo. One point is that this event is largely mythology, another is that polarization of discourse is a brilliant methodology of control. It sets up a binary in which there is no 'in-between'; no room for discussion.

Herein lies a key breakdown of public discourse, or shoudl I say, _civil_ discourse. This is the dark underbelly of the First Amendment. With the freedom of speech, there is also the freedom to polarize the discussion tot he point where there can be no mention of a or b, black or white, etc.

Perhaps one form of civil disobedience is a polite refusal of the poles; to constantly be picking out the issues and problems, playing a form of rhetorical 'Breakout' game with the current power structure. Perhaps this is merely a reiteration of 'third ways' suggested in differnt forms from Krishnamurti to Deleuze to Clinton, but the current form of rhetoric oin the US is such that critical thinking is actively discouraged.

In this way, perhaps this is what I am suggesting rather than a freedom of speech, but rather a freedom of thought that chooses to hold circumspect the dominat order tand consoder alternative ways to frame our society as it stands.

I hope that this is clearer.