Several of the newcomers to this blogsite use words like “conservative” to describe themselves, and apparently feel besieged by the “liberals” who share the site with them. I’m pretty sure Our Leader had something more nonpartisan in mind when he set up this joint, and that he was especially interested in avoiding “culture wars” rhetoric, in contrast to That Other Blog Over There. Being, at the moment, three personas, the Wired Sisters can legitimately be of several minds about this. Mostly we use those personas to denote our religious/scholarly side, our political/satirical side, and the meeting place of the two. But there is a hint of bipartisanship in this structure, too. RedEmma is the flaming liberal; Jane Grey is the cautious not-quite-conservative; CynThesis is somewhere in between. We are toying with the idea of inviting another sibling to join us: Ben Trovato, the purveyor of conspiracy theories and urban legends (“Si non é vero, é ben trovato.” Which is Italian for “When accurate information is unavailable, rumor, speculation, and outright seditious libel will rush in to fill the gap.”) Conspiracies and urban legends, of course, are endemic to all sides of the culture wars. We could re-introduce ourselves as the Geschwester Wired (which is German for “brethren and cistern.”)
Do we want this site to be multi-partisan, or non-partisan? Multi would ordinarily appeal to the three (four?) of us. It sounds like more fun. But in practice, it seems to degenerate quickly into precisely what has become of That Other Blog Over There. So let’s consider the possibility of something like non-partisanship. Accentuate the positive. Let’s talk about our respective visions of The Good, which is what all politics start out with. I know it’s hard, and we sisters are no better than anybody else at restraining our sharp elbows. But the alternative is either That Other Blog Over There, or two different sites in which partisans of each side, respectively, talk amongst themselves. The Blogosphere already has enough of both, and therefore doesn’t need another of either of those outcomes.
If we are to compare visions of The Good, we need to accept the fact that my fondest dream is probably H-A’s worst nightmare, and vice versa. Maybe we can try to talk about matters more related to material fact and therefore less subject to partisan dispute.
Like, say, the made-for-TV movie on SyFy last night, called Meteor Armageddon. The opening credits included a production credit to “FaithFilm,” which made me a little uneasy at first. Was this going to be a redo of Left Behind? Well, no, it wasn’t nearly that coherent or well done. The plot made no sense at all. To the extent that there was a plot, it was what Roger Ebert used to call an idiot film, in which the plot depended entirely on the main characters choosing the dumbest alternative whenever they got to a fork in the road. In addition, most of the scientific “fact” behind the plot was never comprehensibly explained. What, pray tell, does a heavy-duty meteor shower have to do with water contamination producing convulsions and death in those who drink the water? And why does the “plot” presume that bottled water would be immune to such problems? A couple of utterly irrelevant references to church and the bible were all that FaithFilm seems to have contributed. None of the references, BTW, had anything to do with the last book of the New Testament. So, regardless of your political, cultural, or religious affiliation, find something else to do with your time if Meteor Armageddon crosses your TV listings. Like root canal work, which won’t be any more enjoyable, but will at least leave you with better teeth.
There! See? It can be done! Let’s give this a try.