Wednesday, February 29, 2012

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.

Friday, February 17, 2012

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.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

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