A Real Decision 2012

For a growing number of jilted Americans, 2012 might go down as the year they make the most important decision of their lives. As you may suspect, it involves this year's presidential election, but, as you may not suspect, this is a question of where rather than whom. As in, if Mitt Romney wins, where else in the world am I going to choose to live?

Many, myself included, have talked about it. When the U.S. has become too far removed from our personal sensibilities, as evidenced to us by, say, the election of such an obviously spiritless, poorly programmed automaton as Romney, it's time to relocate to a democracy with priorities more in line with our own. Nothing, for instance, is more important to me than my sense of personal liberty, and the continued scaling-back of liberties (by Dems and Repubs both) is at the forefront of my personal desire to at least explore my foreign options.

Personally, even if Romney is elected, I'm not at the point where I'll say I'm definitely going to leave, though I would certainly view it as an incredibly bad sign for the future of anyone in America who'd like to see reason eventually prevail. Many people are already at that point though, and, for them, I've decided to catalogue my top five choices* (at the moment, anyway, and not necessarily in order) for relocation destinations once I can no longer reconcile the expectation of a better America in my lifetime.

______________________________

Norway

In many ways the choice between Norway specifically and any of the other Scandinavian countries can be quite arbitrary. As of the 2011 rankings by the private Economist Intelligence Unit, Norway is the world's top democracy**, followed by Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden. People in Norway pay roughly half of their income in taxes, but in return never worry about healthcare, education, or retirement (all of which are top factors in the overall financial insecurity of most non-wealthy Americans). I happen to have half my lineage come specifically from Norway and, though I'm not necessarily one for carrying around dead people's baggage, it might be interesting to see and live in, at least for a while, the land that was home to that side of my ancestry.

Canada

Our friendly neighbors to the north have long been ahead of us in terms of both healthcare and drug policy, both of which are extremely important to me. Ranked #8 in the 2011 democracy index, Canada also makes an enticing choice due to our shared language and cultural similarities, which would obviously help speed the assimilation process. Additionally, cities like Toronto and Vancouver offer the promise of interesting nightlife and thriving artist communities, which as a writer currently living in Los Angeles appeals to me quite highly.

New Zealand

Breathtaking landscapes, a beautiful climate, and a laid back demeanor among its citizenry had New Zealand on my list of places to check out before I'd ever seriously considered expatriating this country. Since, I discovered in addition to these factors that NZ is actually ranked well ahead of the U.S. as a democracy (at least by the EIU: 5th to 19th), which helped facilitate the shift in my brain from "place I need to visit" to "place I might seriously consider living." Having known multiple folks that lived in New Zealand for varying lengths of time in college, their high praise for the country also goes a long way toward nudging me in that direction.

Australia

After the Scandinavian countries, Australia ranks behind only New Zealand in terms of the EIU's Democracy Index, coming in at #6 overall in the world. Like NZ, the warm weather is a major reason I might consider heading down under rather than to Europe, as the last year-and-change in LA has been a welcome respite from the 25 horrendous winters I had to endure living in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Germany

Though their economy is sputtering currently and unemployment is quite high, Germany still manages to maintain its allure in my mind as a potential relocation destination. Berlin's unofficial motto "Poor, but sexy," coupled with its status as one of Europe's true cultural capitals makes it seem, on paper at least, a great fit for a man of my sensibilities. What I know of prevailing German attitudes towards sex and drugs, as recounted to me by the multiple college exchange students and military servicemen I know who've lived there, also weighs heavily into my decision-making when including Germany on this list.

______________________________

I want to make it as clear as possible that, despite the fact that I use Romney's election as an example of a factor that could--and certainly will, if it happens--incite some to leave the country, this is, for me anyway, not about the fact that he's a Republican. I don't even necessarily think things will be particularly different regardless which politician gets elected this time around, and I'm certain nothing will change on a fundamental level either way this election cycle (history has my back on this one). Instead, my desire to flee would be based on what I perceive as the two hugely negative symbolic connotations of Mitt Romney's being elected in 2012.

1. Money always wins.

This isn't about the fact that Mitt Romney is a rich guy. No legitimate candidate for president is exactly struggling. This is about the fact that in order for Romney to win, his campaign will presumably have to massively outspend Obama's and we live in a place where that's possible. For instance, the oil billionaire Koch brothers are contributing some $400 million of their own and their rich friends' money to Romney's election bid. Now, that amount would be disgusting, I think, even if they were best friends with the guy and really believed he had a plan to make this a better country, but the widely-publicized reality is that these assholes planned to donate that much to anyone who wasn't Barrack Obama. Let's think about it... why would an oil billionaire want to see any conservative elected so badly as to shell out nearly a half-bil to get it done? Surely it has much to do with their desire to see this country improved for everyone, and not the tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals, or the less-stringent environmental policies that would allow them to make more money at the expense of future generations. Two words: Fuck. That.

2. More than half of voters are morons.

No matter how much money gets spent in an election, an electorate cannot be forgiven for its ignorance. Regardless of the number of commercials that get thrown in our face, as voters and, I think, as human beings we have an obligation to assess the veracity of the statements we hear, particularly before casting a vote affecting other people. Rarely have I seen a politician telegraph his real intentions as clumsily as Romney, and no amount of money or advertising should shield him from that.

It's clear from Mitt's demeanor and lack of preparation that he views the presidency not as his opportunity to serve this country's people and better America as a whole, but rather as yet another thing owed to him via his birth-into-privilege here. His priorities, for that reason, remain aligned always with those who can best help him achieve that endgame. By this, of course, I mean the wealthy individual and corporate donors it takes to finance an election bid these days, all of whom I imagine expect some kind of return on their "investment."

Here's where it gets gross: people who aren't rich have to vote for him too, it turns out, if he's to get elected. But why, you may ask (as I do constantly in my head), would someone in this country who isn't well-off enough to see any financial gain from it want to elect a man as seemingly unqualified and out-of-touch as Mitt Romney? (I mean, Obama may be just as bad about campaign contributions but at the very least he favors some policies that benefit normal Americans.) The answer is religious-based social conservatism, which has been functioning as a blindfold for the less intelligent masses as long as politicians have been trying to find ways to get people to vote against their own self-interest, and this is the population that would identify itself as a majority with the election of Mitt Romney. These are the people I truly cannot stand, and those whose out-of-whack views are both furthest from my own and most threatening to my idea of progress.

I could be content to let their (probably fat) asses fill up the flyover states while remaining relatively cloistered in the liberal haven that is California, but to know these people make up a great enough proportion of the electorate as to help Romney assume the White House is to concede, in my mind, the idea that this country at large has my best interest at heart, or even possibly in mind at all. While that alone might not be enough for me to turn my back on America, it could potentially set us up for the kinds of sweeping steps backward many of those people would like to see, such as outlawing abortion or ramping up the war on drugs, among other things, which would eventually force my hand.

_____________________________

It may be the case that the continued propagation of the two-party system in the U.S. has already led us down a road that will result in my eventually having to leave the country, but I genuinely hope that's not the case. If I do leave, I want it to be for the experience rather than because America has gotten too far away from representing my values. One way or another, this specific election won't change the fundamental flaws apparent in having only two viable, occasionally-indistinguishable-but-otherwise-completely-polarized parties warring over votes with boatloads of rich dudes' cash, but for the sake of what it would mean about the state of our nation and about us as an electorate I sincerely hope Obama crushes that bitch.


Jeff Neuman


*-I have to make clear that I've never lived in any of these countries, and the only one I've been to is Canada. I created this list based on discussions I've had with others, expert analysis of the states of their democracies, and relatively extensive reading on the cultures of these countries, all coupled with my own individual sense of what makes a place liveable.

**-As determined by their 9.8/10 Democracy Index score, measured by EIU by analyzing the answers to 60 questions about the country and it's governmental operation.

8 things guys may want but Cosmo's never going to tell you

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The .15%

(We may not all be legally-impoverished South Dakota cowboy-turned-jackpot-millionaires, but that doesn't mean we're not lucky.)

It was in an attempt very much like my own here today--and I'm afraid I can't remember offhand precisely where. Dawkins perhaps?--that I first heard the allusion to the some 70 trillion possible people, based on the available number of viable genetic combinations for humans, that could potentially exist (Not allowing for the environmental variances that act on those combinations, which in theory makes this number significantly larger). By having existed at all as human beings--the approximately 108 billion of us who've managed to be born throughout human existence--we find ourselves among the select approximate 0.15% of those potential people to have been realized on Earth.

I think in terms of considering the true beauty in the opportunity life affords us it is essential, at least at times, to keep in mind these things of a grander scale. By recognizing, if not fully comprehending, the incredible unlikelihood of the extreme confluence of circumstances that has allowed humans to rise as a species and--many orders of magnitude less likely--the chance that you would exist in present day as you do, it is not hard to see how some have fallen prey to the insidiously easy idea that there must exist some "higher" design behind our existence. While it is seemingly natural for the human brain to seek out and assign significance and patterns even where there are none, the unfortunate result has been the incredibly convoluted and often violent rise of modern religion which has done more to skew and harm our collective ability to appreciate the realities of human life than any other force.

Thankfully, modern science makes it easier than ever to fend off such unfounded, limiting, and ultimately incorrect viewpoints, shedding great deals of light on the more beautiful and interesting realities of who we are and how we came to be. To even ascertain the very simple 0.15% from above took the combined efforts of biologists/geneticists to determine our genetic makeup through decades of research--not to mention relying on breakthroughs in technology--as well as decades more research on the anthropology side, tracking the rise and growth of humankind using ever-evolving methods on ever-growing sets of compiled physical evidence among other data. And of course they all built on previous human knowledge. Nowadays, an asshole like me can, on a whim, decide to whip together this piece and have at his fingertips this information, reliably sourced, as fast as I can type what I'm looking for (and if it takes longer than that to load I become immediately impatient). That's what I call a "miracle."* In this way, the .15% represents not just a numeric representation of our good fortune as individuals, but also a symbolic testament to our constantly expanding wealth of knowledge as a species.

Though we all defied the odds to be here, our luck clearly doesn't stop there. You're reading this, as I alluded to above, in an utterly fantastic age in 2012. Of course, by the definitions of the vast majority of those other .15-percenters, 1912 would have also seemed a fantastic age. As would 1812. And 1712. In fact, approximately 86 billion of the 108 billion humans--about 80%-- to have lived were born before 1650. See the chart here. We cannot imagine the struggles of many of these people, which becomes increasingly true the further back you trace our ancestry as a species, all the way to the days of life as a nonstop fight for survival. I use this knowledge to hone my perspective and give myself a tool for appreciating the life I have as a truly rare one-time experience to be appreciated as deeply as possible.

In America in particular, but throughout the industrialized modern world, a culture of materialism and a fixation with excess provide additional trappings when it comes to fully fathoming the brilliance of the opportunities we've been given. We're so thoroughly removed from the idea of struggling just to survive on a fundamental level that it seems natural to take things for granted. Progress almost seems to mean the ability to take more for granted. But this disconnect is bad for us, at least without some occasional grounding. I believe a wider-view approach, including a sense of our ultimate scale in the universe--and by that I mean just how unimaginably tiny our part is--can and should be a facet of the mental framework of a rationally-minded person.

By taking at least a little time--and specifically when it enhances the beauty of nature or helps free the mind of the entanglements of our here-and-now world--to reflect on the awesomeness of life and the universe itself, as well as our tiny, unique, inherently lucky part in all of that, I genuinely think we can relieve at least some of the stress we encounter day to day. This campaign season when, if you're like me, you'll be about to want to kill yourself with all the political nonsense and agenda spewing that's going around, take a moment to forget about the 1% vs 99% bullshit and instead reflect on being yourself among the very luckiest of the .15%.


Jeff N.

*The wide availability of this thoroughly backed information is what makes a place like the "Creation Museum" in Kentucky, where schoolchildren are brought to see supposedly accurate depictions of humans interacting with dinosaurs, such an offensive place to me.

Fuck the Bible Belt (and wear a condom when you do); Why can't we learn from their mistakes?

As you can see from this Wikipedia-borrowed map, if Florida is America's dick, the Bible Belt is like our very own version of the clap.

In what began as a passing effort to back up my long-held belief that America's Bible Belt represents a haven for ignorance, intolerance, and backward thinking*, a few weeks back I casually searched the internet for the rates of STIs in the U.S. by state.

This seemed like the perfect starting place to see how strongly the numbers showed the logically-obvious correlation between the Christian fundamentalist stance against contraception and comprehensive sex education and potentially higher rates of sexually transmitted infections. Here's what I found:

As of 2009, the top 5 states by rate of infection by STD (Source)

Syphilis:

1. Louisiana

2. Georgia

3. Arkansas

4. Alabama

5. Mississippi

Chlamydia:

1. Mississippi

2. Alaska

3. Louisiana

4. South Carolina

5. Alabama

Gonorrhea:

1. Mississippi

2. Louisiana

3. South Carolina

4. Alabama

5. Arkansas

As you can plainly see, I was not off the mark. In fact, if you combine these 3 lists into a composite of the top 5 most-infected states, you come up with this:

Most STI-ridden States

1. Louisiana

2. Mississippi

3. Alabama

4. Arkansas

5. South Carolina

Using polling data from Gallup from 2008 (as close in date as I could conveniently find to the 2009 U.S. STI data), I now present you with a list of the top 5 most religious states in the U.S. from the same time period:

"Most Religious" States

1. Mississippi

2. Alabama

3. South Carolina

4. Tennessee

5. Louisiana & Arkansas (tie)

Look familiar? Tennessee is the only of these five "most religious" states that does not also appear in the top 5 list for rates of sexually transmitted infection (though they did crack the top 10 in both syphilis and chlamydia).

None of this was at all shocking to me, of course, but it's always nice to see the data back you up. So why, then, do I feel worse than when I first thought about this? Why, instead, am I just pissed off?

I'm pissed because, rather than heeding the warnings stats like these provide, or listening to the experts who analyze them for a living, in 2012 some states are STILL pushing for abstinence-only in their schools. My home state of Wisconsin, for one, took a massive, Bible-Beltian step backward, spurning its progress-minded citizens and passing legislation instituting abstinence-only sex education in its schools.

I first read about an abstinence-only bill that was moving forward in Utah, posting the article on Facebook and commenting that I was disgusted to see such a thing even being discussed in 2012. This is not to say I don't expect this kind of bogus shit from Utah. Mormons are as anti-progress (at least in the social realm) and shortsighted as their born-again and Baptist brethren in the Southeast, but their governor vetoed the bill.

A day or two later I learned this was also going on in Wisconsin, and Gov. Scott Walker is likely to sign the bill (already passed by the state Assembly) into law soon. I had no idea this kind of thing was on the radar there, and it made me nauseous. Despite knowing things had gotten pretty fucked up since Walker and the Republicans in the state senate took over, I clung to some naive notion that somehow, in Wisconsin, even religious Republicans weren't that fucking stupid.

I found out the goings-on in Wisco from my brother's facebook status, some of which I pasted below.

ABSTINENCE ONLY? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT'S GOING TO FLY? NOT EVERYONE SUBSCRIBES TO YOUR RETARDED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! GOD ISN'T REAL! HE IS A JOKE, AND THEREFORE HIS IDEAS SHOULD NOT INFLUENCE THE GOVERNMENT OF ANYONE. IF YOU COULD PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR SELF-RIGHTEOUS HYPOCRITICAL ASSES FOR ONE SECOND YOU'D SEE HOW STUPID THAT IS, AND AGAINST THE VERY NATURE OF HUMANS. YOUR KIDS ARE GOING TO HAVE A SEX DRIVE, AND IT IS MENTAL ABUSE TO MAKE THEM THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING SHAMEFUL ABOUT IT. ABSTINENCE ONLY IS GOING TO LEAVE OUT CRITICAL PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT YOUR KIDS NEED, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THE DESIRE FOR SEX WHETHER YOU MAKE THEM THINK IT'S SINFUL OR NOT. YOU ARE STUPID PEOPLE

Granted, this is a rant, but you won't find me criticizing any of it. He's spot on in his points, if over-the-top in tone, and he cuts to the heart of solving this as a social issue. Stop pandering to religion.

We need to come together to see that science, logic, reason, and facts are made the basis of our public policy, rather than the dusty, inapt pages of the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other antiquated, mystical text. And no, there is not room for both. In the public realm, in order to continue improving rather than stagnating and falling backwards, we can't waste time by coddling religion, especially ones that would have us unhealthily ignore and repress our sexuality**.

J. Scott

*- By no means do I wish to suggest these qualities are absent elsewhere in the U.S. or abroad, but I find this region particularly representative of the greater worldwide problem of religious zealotry.

**- To say nothing of the many other ways religion holds us back.

Late Twentieth & Early Twenty-First Century Nomad: Thoughts on the word Home by a Guy who's had too many to remember

The above image, which just happens to be among my very favorite, was captured when I was in the fifth grade or so--some 15 years ago as I write--and it pictures me (far right) with two of my favorite people. Jake (left) is my younger brother and Brandon (center in the Green Bay Packers shirt, Go Pack) is my best friend dating back to our days at North Hudson Elementary. When looking at this photo, though, I'd say the strongest feeling I get is a sense of home. It was taken at my grandparents duplex apartment in North Hudson, WI, a very small town in west-central Wisconsin. This is just one of the many, many buildings I've called home, but it's the only of those places that I now think of when I consider the term "home."

That apartment was not where my grandparents lived when I was born (not that I'd have remembered) and they lived in several other places before passing away as residents of nursing homes, but it was the place they lived the longest while I knew them. In addition, I stayed there with them, periodically at first and then more and more consistently as I grew older, splitting time living with them and my parents who, for all their moving, only twice for very brief periods left the greater area of Hudson, WI, where I managed to attend all but a single semester of my K-12 education. Because my parents rarely lived in the same rented house, apartment, or trailer home for more than a year growing up, this apartment on Eighth Street serves as a primary centering point for my childhood memories.

Growing up, our family was perpetually on shaky financial grounds. My parents each bounced between low-paying jobs, and the combination of shitty wages, bad spending (exacerbated by my mother's gambling), and two kids strained my parents well beyond their means at all times. For this reason, we were forced to relocate constantly on a seemingly endless cycle of not being able to afford our rent, finding something cheaper (or staying with the grandparents until we could afford something cheaper), making some very minimal progress to "get ahead" and relocating to a nicer place, only to once again fall behind, failing to pay the rent and having to go back to something cheaper yet again.

It happened for slightly different reasons each time. Sometimes my dad would lose a job, other times my mom would quit hers, and sometimes it was just shitty luck (wrong bill, wrong time, etc.), but it was always something. In all, working on a few occasions with my mom and brother to try and remember all the places I've lived in western Wisconsin, I've come up with around 25 apartments, duplexes, triplexes, condos, trailer homes, and houses, and I am currently working on mapping each one. Sometimes we lived in the same apartment complex but a different unit, other times in the same trailer park but in a different trailer, etc. and I counted these separately, but that's still considerably more than average. (The average American moves 11.7 times in their lifetime). By the time I was 15, I felt like I'd hauled more shit in my life than most professional movers.

Since living with my parents in Wisconsin as a child, of course, I've also lived in a few other places. While attending the University of Minnesota and after, for a total of five years, I lived in Minneapolis. For each of those years I lived in a different place. Freshman year I lived in a dorm, Sophomore year I lived in a nice, too-expensive apartment near campus, Junior year I lived in a cheaper apartment not far from there, and the year I eventually left school without graduating despite wasting a shit-ton of money I lived in a house a short distance from campus. The year after that, at first unemployed and eventually accepting a banking job at Wells Fargo*, I lived in an apartment not far from the previous year's house.

Accepting that working at Wells Fargo was never going to work for me, I resigned myself to returning to an industry I'd worked in the previous two summers--roofing sales. I called in sick to WF knowing it would result in termination because of a growing pile of call-ins, latenesses, and customer and coworker complaints of smelling like alcohol from the late nights of drinking to forget I'd become a banker. I walked in knowing I was getting fired and got a chance to tell the branch manager, "This is the easiest firing you'll ever have in your whole life. I could not be more excited at the prospect of not working here any more." We proceeded to bullshit about my future plans, as well as sports and chicks, for over twenty minutes.

I didn't care because I'd hopped on board as a salesman for a roofing company called CMR Construction. Not even the franchise owner knew what the CMR stood for, by the way. "Make something up if a customer asks," he said. That should tell you what you need to know about that industry. This job was in Midland, TX and it took me all of 22 days to realize how much that place sucked. My roommates--roof salesman as well--and I bailed on west Texas for the monumentally better Denver, CO because we'd heard a massive hailstorm had created a lot of work in the area for ICs like ourselves. Without a specific promise of a job, but knowing the industry was such that anyone with experience could get hired by any company, once we'd made up our minds we couldn't even wait until morning to bail on the tumbleweeds and pump jacks for mountain views and architecture.

While living in Denver I flew home for my birthday and wound up having surgery to remove my gall bladder, which had become infected and threatened to burst. I missed my return flight because of the surgery and ensuing recovery, and shortly after I left the hospital I was fortunate enough to become infected with H1N1 flu, which, as everyone remembers, is a particularly shitty kind of flu to get. Anyway, this happened in October and I didn't make it back to the Denver area until late February. Then, on April 1st, a hailstorm hit Chicago. I lived there, working the storm for yet another roofing company, from April 3rd through August of 2010 before leaving that company and the roofing industry behind yet again.

At that point I lived with my parents in Wisconsin again for a few months before securing my present job here in California through my brother and moving out here in February of last year. Thus far I love it in SoCal, but I'm not yet at the point of seeing myself in any one place forever. For all of the stress it caused me growing up, and the embarrassment of the many, "Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you we moved... again," conversations with friends, I've come to appreciate my unusual circumstance for its novelty and as a source of additional perspective. I somewhat like being able to say, at 26, that I've lived in approximately 40 dwellings in more than ten cities and six states. Beyond that, I like knowing that I'll certainly be adding to those numbers in my lifetime.

I feel incredibly lucky to have had that duplex apartment on Eighth Street in North Hudson, Wisconsin as a consistent place to bring my friends and to get together with family. I hope I never forget playing in the now-developed forest that once stood behind that apartment or the once-open adjacent lot that is now a road and row of houses. I use these images and memories to ground me and to know that, no matter where I am, where I live or where I'm going next, I already have a home.

~Jeff N.

*The job that caused me to start smoking weed everyday because they always yelled at me for smelling like booze from my previous night's drinking. How else was I going to get myself through working for such a soulless fucking entity? Certainly not without being fucked up on something.

San Francisco Acid Trip

"Man, Republicans fuckin' hate this place. I mean HATE it."

David was speaking to me and I responded but I was consumed by the melty splendor of the scene. High on acid, San Francisco's Delores Park is in all directions a sight to behold. Every manner of self-identifying hippie, freak, or other social "fringe" element--who in Frisco, it seemed, had conglomerated to form some strong unspoken majority--could be seen filling the park. We descended the path down the hill and into the fray, this after I'd had some trouble in deciding whether to short-cut across train tracks which it seemed to me may have been electrified (they were very clearly not, as soon evidenced to me by a pair of girls sitting on the track, smoking bowls and laughing).

While Tyson and David scanned the area for the people we'd come to meet, I couldn't register the urgency in finding any one group among so many, and so many interesting ones (to look at, anyway) at that. Shortly after David made an off-hand comment about the word "slacker," and how he couldn't help but think it in this place, I observed some men and women slack-lining between palms, the coincidence striking me as extremely hilarious.

"Have NO FEAR, the weed man is here," a voice boomed out from behind. I turned to see a large, Rasta-looking man toting a cooler filled with marijuana, both edible and smokable I imagine. A sticker on the outside of his makeshift weed-cart read "Happiness is a Warm Brownie," and taunted me further with a smiley face. Having no need to alter my consciousness further, though, I let the man pass.

Continuing the search of the seemingly huge public space for the group, I followed my friends until we eventually came upon them.

"How did twenty minutes turn into two hours?"

One of the men we'd come to meet asked this question of Tyson, who was hosting David and I for our weekend in San Francisco. Before I bothered to listen to the response, my attention had turned to a pair of majestic-as-hell kites being flown by some manner of hippies (I use the term hippy with overwhelmingly positive connotation) below. Never, even in my childhood, did the sight of a colorful kite sailing on brisk, cool gusts entrance me this way. Suddenly I seemed to understand the appeal. Behind the kites, I began to notice the clouds moving extremely quickly, fractalizing into shapes and patterns very clearly unlike what the standard, non-LSD fueled cloud is capable of. (It should be noted, I suppose, that this was only my second time tripping on acid and my first time having the opportunity to experience it outdoors, the other having occurred in Minnesota in winter.) This was mesmerizing.

I felt a sudden, pressing need to be off my feet. Once seated, it was as if the immense pressure of managing my own carriage had been lifted. But this wasn't enough, and I soon found myself lying on my back directly upon the ground as if I'd been drawn there, and checking out those sweet-ass clouds again. I verbalized my relief to Tyson and made note of the fact that I was now in the most natural feeling position, and that if I remained there long enough I'd naturally become a part of that place by decomposing into the soil. This was extremely if oddly calming.

A frisbee flew into my field of vision quite near my face and, though not alarming, it did prompt me to sit up and survey once again my surroundings. Swaying, melty trees, floating frisbees, every manner of ball, energetic dogs, unicycles, and more than anything a lot of people made up a very stimulating scene for me to take in that afternoon.

The word eclectic falls laughably short of describing the human landscape I was beholding. While there were identifiable segments scattered among the larger masses, on the whole this was as varied (in terms of age, sexual orientation, and race, at least, if not necessarily political/social leaning) a group of human beings as one is likely to come across.

In noting this fact, something else made itself very clear to me: A lot of these people were exceedingly normal. Yes, there were your homeless folks and your "burnouts," your traditional hippies aged and young, and the kids who were very clearly fitting certain scenes, but a lot of the people looked like me, and probably like you and the people you hang out with. And we were linked by at least one thing, or so I felt I observed at the time. None of us seemed to give a shit what anyone else, at least outside our immediate friends, was doing. I mean this in a very good way.

There seemed an overarching understanding that everyone could do whatever they wanted as long as it wasn't fucking up anyone else's day. For this reason, people smoked bowls and joints and bongs freely, people walked around announcing their for-sale supplies of weed, mushrooms, and other substances, and nobody seemed to hassle the kid walking around in his blue bunny-like costume, still dressed-up and X-ed up from last night's rave. Two female SFPD officers walked through the scene calmly and I had an epiphanous realization that they were there to keep people safe without hassling them. I can't imagine a safer feeling public place to trip balls.

As strongly and as importantly as anything, I also came to see how this place represented something that fundamentally shattered the ill-bred notion that drugs somehow seem to spark or necessitate violence, or that they could be an inherently negative force. It took a shit on the idea that a normal man or woman can't go out and melt their face off with some LSD or mushrooms (or whatever else they might like, really) on Saturday and come back and be a productive member of their work team--or society in general--on Monday, if that's what they choose. The reality was vastly different than what many of us were, and what many are still, taught to believe as children. To me, it solidified my longstanding belief that this type of open-mindedness can prevail on a larger scale.

I don't put San Francisco on any sort of pedestal. I know that, like all major cities and indeed most places in general, some things about it suck. (Parking being one: Eat shit SF if you think you're getting that $55 for the ticket). But I absolutely do admire it for being probably the most progressive part of the U.S., at least in terms of large-scale acceptance of sexual and drug freedoms. I can only hope this type of higher thinking will eventually pervade the entirety of the national landscape, but until then I'm happy to know personally of at least one park where a guy can relax among a crowd of like-minded folks and watch some serious shit happen in the clouds.

I will be divorced some day

What do these men have in common? Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Ernest Hemingway, Russ Feingold, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Asimov, Bill Murray, Bertrand Russell, Robin Williams, Hunter S. Thompson, and Louis C.K. The answer, aside from the fact that I deeply admire and respect each of them for their contributions to mankind as well as for what I have gained from their work individually, and apart from their salient intelligence and sapience, is that every one of them was married and subsequently divorced at least once. (This list could be significantly longer, obviously.)

Having visited many of their Wikipedia pages within the last week, the fact that they each had a history of divorce did not go unrecognized. Rather, it brought me back to a thought that I have had and articulated for years: If I ever get married, it's going to end in divorce.

It's not just that seemingly all of my favorite influences have been divorced (many of them multiple times), there is further evidence as well. For instance, I'm impulsive as shit. I've rarely been one to delay gratification for any reason, at any time, and long-term consequences scarcely factor into my decision making. On the other side of that, I've always been one to jump ship quickly when I see a losing proposition, choosing instead to pursue the next "great" option.

I've had, at different times, addictions to gambling, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and sex*. While I don't consider it an addiction in a true sense, I have a mental addiction to smoking weed as well, and there are probably several other borderline ones I have or have had in the past. It's in my very nature to pursue things to extreme ends, but I've tended over time to burn out on some behaviors/issues/people. Love has been, and I imagine in the future will continue to be, one of those things.

"But you don't want to get married, why do you think you'll give in and decide to do it?"

This goes back to my impulsive side. I really have tricked myself, not all that long ago even, into believing that I loved a girl and she loved me and that we could even have a long-term future. The reality, of course, was significantly less serious but I had deluded myself, presumably out of some need to be desired and to have an object of desire. Now, I pride myself on being as rational and clear-thinking a person as I can, but I just haven't always been so cerebral when it comes to chicks, and over a rest-of-my-life kind of timeline, it's probable I'll get myself suckered into it at some point, even though it's not something I want as of now.

"Given your many faults, how can you be so sure anyone will ever want to marry you?"

Despite my truly ridiculous lack of urgency in finding a mate, and my many quirks of personality, I am still somehow quite sure it will happen. Most people eventually find someone (whether they stay together or not) and I've dated before, providing past evidence. While I'm not necessarily becoming a better potential mate, I do believe that the pool of available single women my age is becoming increasingly desperate, and I have some qualities that at least a few of the ones pretty enough for me to consider would settle for. I also have a tendency to be able to present myself in a much better light than is necessarily the reality with only minimal lying, and this is a skill that will definitely come in handy in both finding and losing women in the future.

_________________________________

Not to compare myself to the luminaries I mentioned above, but, like them, and like it or not, I am smarter than the majority of people I come across. Something about being intelligent, I think, makes it harder to settle. It makes it harder to settle for a shitty explanation, or when it comes to the standard one holds oneself to, or for a less-than-ideal relationship. Also like many of the men listed above, I'm a "creative" type. While I believe this can be handy in meeting members of the opposite sex, and particularly ones with similar interests, the reality is that it can be very hard to deal with stereotypical "creatives" sometimes, and I am no exception.

Given the host of evidence, like the over-half general divorce rate, my heroes' relationship failures, and my own deeply flawed personality, I'm afraid the only way I can avoid divorce is by avoiding marriage. When I fold on my "marriage is stupid" stance, though, and pull the trigger on a nuptial, hopefully my "no kids" policy stays intact so I don't have to put them through the (probably messy) divorce.

*- I say this not because I've ever felt I had a problem with wanting it too often, but I did strain multiple relationships with girls who felt it was all I ever wanted to do with them. To me the problem is theirs.

Kevin Garnett vs Tim Duncan: Why KG will always be The Man

In what was another dismal year overall for Minnesota Timberwolves fans, Kevin Love emerged last season as a bright spot, averaging just over 20 points and a staggering 15.2 rebounds per game. This year he's upped his scoring to 25 ppg and he's still banging boards like they're bitches at 13.7 rebounds.* As a stat freak, I was curious how these numbers compared to Kevin Garnett's numbers from back in the day. As we all know, Garnett fled Minnesota with our hearts to capture a title in Boston, but he will nonetheless be the standard by which Wolves fans judge players--big men in particular--for at least a generation or two to come.

In comparing the numbers between Love and Garnett a few fun facts popped out right away. For all his prowess on the boards, KG never averaged 15 a game. His closest was 13.9 in 03-04. Also, it remains to be seen if Love will be able to continue or improve his current pace, but Garnett never averaged 25 ppg in a season. His best scoring season was also 03-04--his MVP year--where he averaged 24.2 per contest.

These were just a couple cursory observations on my part, but after taking in the data what really stuck with me was KG's consistency. As a sucker for a well-rounded stat-line (see Albert Pujols stats), I couldn't help but notice the nine consecutive seasons between 98-99 and 06-07 with Minnesota that Garnett averaged 20 & 10. I also couldn't help but notice that, despite reduced scoring and rebounding in Boston, he's still averaging the career double-double at 19.4 and 10.6.

This level of consistency in scoring and on the boards has been matched in this era only by San Antonio's Tim Duncan. Now, as a biased fan, I've long thought that KG's greatness has been under-appreciated specifically because of Tim Duncan. Despite what I think is an expert consensus (if only by a slight margin) that Duncan is technically the better player, I've always felt very strongly that I'd rather have Kevin Garnett leading my team. After looking at the stats, I now know I'm right.

Born just 24 days apart back in 1976, the similarities only begin there. Both listed at 6'11'' and about 255, these guys were both, at their prime, among the most intimidating defensive/rebounding forces in the game. Garnett, the fifth overall pick in '95 and a 9-time All-NBA selection, has been selected to 11 All-Defensive teams. Tim Duncan, 1997's top pick after two years at Wake Forest, was selected to 13 All-Defensive teams in his first 13 All-NBA seasons, a feat never before accomplished.

Now firmly in their mid-30s, both of these guys have seen some drop-off in their productivity over the last couple seasons, but there can be no arguing that they are each among the greatest power forwards of all-time. Based on the hardware, the edge is clearly Duncan's (2 MVPs & 4 Championships) over KG (one of each). This, though, is not as objective as looking at the raw numbers, as the Spurs were a much, much better team than the Wolves, where KG spent the majority of his career.

Stat Lines (PLAYER: PPG/Reb/Blk/Ast/FG%/FT%):

Garnett: 19.4/10.6/1.5/4.1/.498/.788

Duncan: 20.4/11.3/2.2/3.1/.507/.688

So, what do we see here? I can tell you what I see, and it's pretty damn close to even. Having played two more full NBA seasons than Duncan (which are much more grueling on the body than an NCAA season), I think KG's marginal deficits in PPG and rebounding are pretty excusable, particularly when you also consider the learning curve he faced jumping directly from high school to the NBA. By contrast, a two-years-older Duncan averaged 21.1 points out of the gates for the Spurs in his first season in 97-98. While Kevin Garnett has averaged 0.7 fewer blocks per game, his full assist more per game I feel at least evens this out. Also, the slight disadvantage KG has in FG%, which is so small as to be essentially irrelevant, is much more than made up by his being a full 10% more accurate from the line.

So if the stats are this close, how can they make me more sure than ever that I'd rather have Kevin Garnett starting for my team? It's simple really--the X factor. In any statistical dead heat, I'm going to side with the person or idea that has that ethereal something. In this case, the something is personality. Kevin Garnett is a motherfucking competitive force on the hardwood. He'll yell, he'll scream, he'll get in somebody's face. He's vocal. You can see it in his face when he's pissed the fuck off and, other times, you'll feel the levity in his jumping to goal-tend an opponent's post-buzzer shot. He's not just a leader by example, he's a vocal and emotional leader on the court.

Tim Duncan, on the other hand, is boring. Not just boring, actually, but boring as fuck. Assuming no detriments to team chemistry (which is, obviously, very important), I don't think there is any reason to believe that substituting KG for Duncan would have resulted in a single fewer championship for the Spurs. Given that fact, and given Duncan's uncanny boringness, I think it's clear from this examination that my original (if previously biased) theory on KG's superiority is correct.

If you could have essentially the same individual results but with greater entertainment value as well as a greater likelihood of inspiring those around you, isn't that who you'd want to be? Well, it's who I'd like to be and it's why KG will always be the man.

~Jeff N.

*-Good time to mention all stats are as of February 7th, 2011

Fear, Loathing, and the Last 40 Years

In Hunter S. Thompson's political classic Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, he details the Democratic Party's attempt to produce a candidate capable of beating Richard Nixon in his re-election bid. As one of the least-apologetic Nixon-haters of his time, Hunter took a deep and personal interest in this campaign from the beginning, endorsing George McGovern early and roundly criticizing the other front-runners, Edmund Muskie (whose campaign HST said had a "stench of death") and 1968 Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey (whom Thompson famously called a "hopeless old hack") while covering the race for Rolling Stone. (To hear Hunter discuss Muskie and Humphrey in greater detail, click this link to his 2000 interview with The Paris Review.)

Though McGovern would go on to secure the nomination, Democrats failed to jell around him, dooming his efforts. Running as a progressive, anti-war candidate he went on to lose by 18 million popular votes, the worst margin ever in a U.S. presidential election. The whole campaign left Nixon in the White House and Hunter Thompson burned-out on the American political process.

(Thompson with McGovern, photo by Annie Leibovitz 1972)

Forty years and ten general elections after Thompson's take on it, I was curious what had changed in the U.S. and the world of American politics. After all, in that time have we not progressed through the civil rights movement, learned from Vietnam and the Cold War, and been taught by Nixon's abuses the importance of transparency both in campaigning and in office? Haven't we become more enlightened on social issues and more aware of the importance of education? Haven't things gotten better?

A surface level answer to these questions may very well be yes. No sensible person wants to trivialize the gains of the civil rights movement, and the hysteria of the Cold War era is most commonly dismissed these days as a joke. It was Nixon's egregious abuses of power and sloppy trail of shady donations in 1972 that led to some of the first campaign finance reforms. The number of women in congress has increased from 15 to 93 in that span. Inflation-adjusted, per-student government education spending more than doubled between 1971 and 2008. Roe v. Wade, first argued in 1971 and finally decided in 1973, was one of the greatest forward-thinking successes of the early '70s, allowing for expanded women's rights and improved social conditions.

(Art by Ralph Steadman, friend & associate of Hunter)

But you only have to look a little bit deeper, it seems, to question whether those gains are as substantial as they seem on the surface. Yes, the civil rights movement that continued through the 1970s opened many doors for women, minorities, and others, and we are all better off for this, but is the federal government's current refusal to recognize same-sex marriages not an issue of civil rights? Is the calculated use of legislation (particularly regarding drug, immigration, and other nonviolent crimes) by politicians* to keep minorities profiled, incarcerated, branded felons and stripped of their rights--all so they can appeal to white voters and/or pump money into a privatized prison system--not a step backwards?

The increase in the number of women in congress, from 15 to 93 over the last 40 years, provides some evidence for what most of us feel like we know, which is that things have gotten better. And while I think it's true conditions have improved, 93 out of 535 representatives (senate and congress) is still only about 17% women. As troubling, the number of African Americans in the current senate is zero (yes, ZERO: compared to 96 white, 2 Hispanic, and 2 Asian. Breakdown: this website). Overall, gains for women and minorities in private industry have significantly outpaced their gains in elected government since Hunter followed McGovern's ill-fated campaign. This, I think, speaks to a truth about the slowness of government to change, and reinforces the idea that the people, rather than the government, are the driving force behind social change.

The seventies, eighties, and beyond held other lessons for us as well. Over-the-top Cold War parody has been beaten to death in this day and age and we're all at least somewhat aware of the rampant stupidity that seems to have reigned over American life during that strange time. Joseph McCarthy was a first-class fuck and I can honestly say he is the most embarrassing person for me to have to co-identify with as having hailed from Wisconsin (and I say that fully aware of the multiple prominent cannibalistic serial killers also from our great state). Despite the cavalier attitude with which we dismiss the people of that era as reactionary sheep, we mustn't forget the "War on Terror**" fervor that not so long ago swept our elected establishment (save for Feingold, who represents the very opposite end of the spectrum as McCarthy when it comes to WI co-identification) into voting away rights via The Patriot Act.

The Cold War and Vietnam will forever be linked not simply by overlapping time periods but also through Richard Nixon and his involvement in the politics of both. His re-election in 1972 came despite some major unrest regarding Vietnam, particularly by those on the left and by those who favored non-interventionist military policy. This bears strong resemblance, obviously, to what we went through not all that long ago with George W. Bush, who also went on to win re-election despite similar public concerns regarding the war in Iraq. The circumstances surrounding these world events, of course, are entirely unique, but the patterns in both the public and political responses to them are worth keeping in mind.

(Watergate Hotel)

When it comes to learning from another of Nixon's mistakes, well, I hope nobody sincerely thought we were much better off today in regards to campaign finance reform. Two years after the passing of legislation that allowed Super PACs to function as they currently do, we're now starting to see how much of a thinly-veiled joke this whole thing is. Just a few weeks ago casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson (worth about $23 billion) wrote a $5 million check to the Super PAC representing his friend Newt Gingrich. Most of that money--at least $3.5 million-- was immediately dumped into advertising time in South Carolina, and no doubt helped spur Gingrich to his comfortable victory over Mitt Romney. Another $5 million just came in from Adelson with Newt still running well in the polls, all of which could be used for adverts in Florida, the site of the next primary. Now, call me a pessimist, but I think it's pretty fucked up that a billionaire can still single-handedly alter elections this way. (If you think about it, $20+ million is a potential steal to a billionaire to have the President of the United States in his back pocket.)

Regarding our enlightenment when it comes to social issues, certainly credit has to be given to the many men and women whose combined efforts have gotten us where we are today. We do have many freedoms relative to some parts of the world, and, though it sometimes feels rare, occasionally common sense does still prevail here in the United States. One shining example, which just happens to be from the era in which Hunter followed the the '72 campaign, was the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision.***

Roe v. Wade was a breakthrough in that it signified a break with long-standing, church related ideology on the matter. By giving women the alternative to pregnancy and childbirth, we allow women who'd rather choose to continue to climb the corporate ladder, for example, to do so legally and safely. In cases of very young and/or low-income mothers, an abortion can be an essential break in maintaining independence while trying to raise themselves into a higher standard of living. In addition, access to abortion almost certainly has other positive social impacts, such as potentially lowering crime.

For all of the strides legalizing abortion has allowed us to make over the last 40 years, I think it is important to keep in mind how tenuous this (or any) legislation can be. Food for thought: At 78 and with health issues, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is likely the next justice who will leave the bench. As a liberal she represents an extremely important vote in the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court. For this reason, it's no stretch to say that Roe v. Wade is something we could see overturned in our lives if the socially out-of-touch right (i.e. Tea Partiers) were to come to power and have their way. I point this out not to be an alarmist or to say it will happen, even if the court does get more conservative, but simply to make the point that even some of our biggest strides over the last four decades are not necessarily set, and to make sure we remember that unless we stay vigilant, we're never that far from slipping backwards.

No social concern, I don't think, is as important overall today in the U.S. as education. As a nation, we have undoubtedly made education progress since the '70s, at the very least in terms of expanding awareness of its importance. Education as a political issue is rarely far removed from the minds of voting Americans, and for that reason it has remained a consistent hot-button topic in elections. No candidate can dare ignore it. For this reason, many education policies have been enacted since 1972 and spending overall is up, but I--and many others--question the efficacy of continued spending without direction.

In a survey conducted every three years by the OECD (read all about this here), last done in 2010, the United States placed, out of 34 OECD countries in the world, 14th in reading, 17th for science, and 25th in mathematics. As someone who studied engineering in college with help from a math scholarship**** and as someone with a great deal of passion for seeing science taught more extensively to our youth, I'm intensely disappointed with our results in every category, but the lagging science and math performance is particularly saddening as well as frightening in an increasingly competitive technological world.

In addition, skyrocketing college costs in the U.S. represent a severe education problem today. While more federal funds are available to students seeking a college degree here than ever before, these increases have succeeded only in further driving up tuition costs nationwide. (For a detailed explanation from the Cato Institute's Neal McCluskey on the subject, click here.) While at the University of Minnesota, I had the benefit of meeting many international students, and I made note of the fact that, regardless of their country of origin, they seemed to remark without fail on the exorbitant cost of a U.S. college education when the opportunity arose. As we continue to stress the importance of higher education, and as that education becomes increasingly important to compete in the global economy, this is one of America's most glaring current shortcomings.

After examining a few of the important issues to have faced the nation since Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 was penned, we arrive now at the question, "Have things gotten better?" In order to address this properly, I want to re-frame it as two questions. The first is, "Have things gotten better, in general?" Second, "Has the government/have politics gotten better?" The answer to the first question is yes. The U.S. is a better place today even if you base that answer solely on tolerance, equality of opportunity, and civil rights advancement (to say nothing of many additional improvements), though we are still behind where I believe we could and ought to be.

The second question, in my mind, is answered as easily as the first: No. Very little has changed at all since '72 when it comes to government and the political process here in the United States. The composition of our elected leadership has changed slightly, yes, to at long last come closer to representing its people. Even this, though, has lagged severely in government compared to other sectors of society. Most other changes (at least those appreciable to those of us observing from outside), however, seem negative. Specifically I am referring to what some, myself included, see as the excessive--and growing--polarization between our two parties. The gap between Democrats and Republicans (even more so than any gaps between the people they represent) feels as large as ever, fueled by individual politicians' inability to break from party lines or strive for compromise for fear of being characterized by opponents and colleagues (and, hence, viewed by the electorate) as weak.

This gap is a natural result of a system limited by having only two functionally legitimate parties on the national scale. Democrats and Republicans have combined for generations to monopolize the votes of anyone who wants theirs to matter and they, in turn, are the only people who benefit.

Going back as far as Kennedy in 1960 (who, as a Democrat, replaced Republican Eisenhower) these are the politicians who've held our highest office:

1960-Kennedy (D)

1964- LBJ (D)

1968 & 72- Nixon/Ford(R)

1976- Carter (D)

1980 & 84- Reagan (R)

1988- Bush 1 (R)

1992 & 96- Clinton (D)

2000 & 04- Bush 2 (R)

2008- Obama (D)

It can also be represented like this: 8 years Dem, 8 years Rep, 4 years Dem, 12 years Rep, 8 years Dem, 8 years Rep, 4 years (so far) Dem. Total years: 52. Dems in power: 24. Repubs in power: 28. If Obama is re-elected, we're looking at a dead heat over a 56 year span.

I think from this it's pretty clear how, after forty years, we can be left with the sense that our government and the political process is significantly unchanged. As power is volleyed back and forth on waves of reactionary support, we are left with little discernible progress as each party-swap sees the new administration (as they've usually promised in their campaigns) strive to undo any gains made by the previous one. True progress, when it happens, is usually driven by a principle and/or knowledge that supersedes the pettiness of career politics and happens in spite of, rather than through, politicians.

So... what can we do?

My intention in this examination has not been to suggest that I know exactly how things should be done or even that there exists any singular correct way to do things. My intention, rather, has been to find and point out some of the ways our government has failed to be the great engine of progress that it's politicians would have you believe. I am of the opinion that third (and fourth, fifth, etc) parties, and viable ones, are going to be essential if we are ever to see serious systemic change in our lifetimes.***** Alternately, removing party labels entirely and allowing each candidate to campaign based on personal, rather than party, views could have the desired effect of offering more choice to voters and allowing for greater long-term government effectiveness. One thing is definite, though, and it's this: If we do nothing but continue the current trend, those of us in our twenties will look back in our sixties on yet another 40 years of cycling between the same old parties while falling well short of our national potential.

Ultimately, as always, getting what we want and need will be up to us as the electorate. We have to be aware of the patterns going on around us and, when we sense stagnating progress, be willing and able to reverse those trends even if it means going outside our personal or political comfort zones. If we want to push America to the heights of its potential as a fair, free, and responsible world power, and we want to reap the benefits in our own lifetimes, we had better get started, because shit around here doesn't exactly change quickly or easily.

~Jeff Neuman

*-Good eye opener: http://www.npr.org/2012/01/16/145175694/legal-scholar-jim-crow-still-exists-in-america?sc=fb&cc=fp

**-Neither the Cold War nor War on Terror are/were actual wars of course, but rather are just examples of politicians/historians using the word war to incite strong feelings.

***-Nixon stayed silent on the matter, OF COURSE, privately commenting that he supported abortion for rape victims and in cases of mixed-race babies. Fucking Nixon. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/jun/09062311

****- For two years, at least.

*****-This is why I am a general fan of Ron Paul. He has many views with which I agree, and probably about as many with which I ardently disagree. The bottom line though is that we can't afford to marginalize Ron Paul or other third party candidates simply because he chooses not to align strictly along party lines. It will be those who blend ideologies and accept that there are more than two ways to look at issues who will make the greatest impacts going forward if we support them.