Virtual Flaneurism

If you like dubstep, this shit's for you:

Sorry, blog-o-readers! I have been in NYC all weekend for the parade and, serendipitously, the PASSING OF A MARRIAGE EQUALITY BILL! Thoughts to follow on that (mainly about my disappointment at the general lack of excitement I witnessed while there).

Also, someday I will go back to class (someday being late August), and have my computer and a trusty internet connection all day, and blogging will be reborn and run rampant through your interwebs. Until that day, a thousand apologies for the past, present and future dearth of posting. It's not you, it's me.

This makes me want to play this game (but not on a DS):

From Spencer:

I liked this until the very end:

The following video is certainly nothing new; while Aaron Sorkin is a master of compelling dialogue (or here, monologue), the speech he gives Martin Sheen is merely a rehash of the general warn-out arguments against relying on the Bible to justify homophobia. And despite the fact that it very precisely picks apart why this reliance is hypocritical and illogical, the video itself is the antithesis of cathartic. There is no pleasure in watching Sheen expertly slam this uber-conservative because we know that his points aren't landing. While Sorkin may have written his Ann Coulter amalgam as embarrassed and considering repentance, the viewer knows better: using logic to try and sway the opinions of those who celebrate their unreasonableness is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight.

As someone who thinks of himself as very logical, it is mind-boggling to me that some people actually choose ignorance. What goes through the minds of a person like the woman in this video when they face arguments not that they are necessarily wrong, but irrationally inconsistent? I assume they can understand the absurdity of condemning one practice prohibited in a book while completely ignoring another mere pages away. The only conclusion I can reach is that they don't think about it, don't care to reflect on the things they believe or their consistancy. And someone who doesn't think about what he or she believes is not someone who will ever be swayed by logic, written with punch by Aaron Sorkin or otherwise.

It is because of this underlying sense of futility that this video is strangely unsatisfying. Even more, it is troublesome: how do you co-exist with people who do not respond to logic? How can you open a dialogue and try to, at the very least, seek a compromise? The worrisome part, I think, is that you can't. And that is why people like Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are terrifying prospects for president: not because we disagree, but because the stances they take are arbitrary and their stubborness unflinching. They are the embodiment of a different kind of Big Brother, one that does not necessarily silence you through censorship, but through their self-imposed blindness to the dialogue going on all around them.

Anyway, watch the video, relish the points, and shout out loud if you disagree with any of the rambling above.