Discussions about flexible straws, huh? Trivial? Absolutely. But what if there were, say, some larger point? What if I were pleased that my audience could accept that I’m both forandagainst them? What if we could use an example that pointless to see that maybe there isn’t that much distinction between two apparently opposite schools of thought, or to understand that you don’t have to be against something just to be for something.

I don’t usually like to overexplain, but it would seem that sometimes it’s a necessary evil. Those who would demonize me for my stance might be surprised to learn that I also hold the opposite one. Nuance? Subtlety? Complexity? Why, it’s downright unamerican.

And the fact that allegory doesn’t succeed in the weblog medium… it disappoints me. If this were part of the original series of Star Trek, I don’t doubt that fans would have sussed out the meaning of these rather transparent posts. It’s a weblog, yes, but first it’s writing, regardless of form or technology.

Are we weblog readers so used to obvious, literal posts that we’re unable to attempt less blatant pieces that reach their points obliquely? If so, that confirms my increasing suspicion that the weblog’s future is in the literal (and boring) world of business, not in the realm of pointless personal sites.