Author: Jeffrey McMahon

  • The Shock Jock Who Forgot to Pivot

    The Shock Jock Who Forgot to Pivot

    I still tune in to Howard Stern now and then, but most of what I hear these days sounds like a half-hearted reprise of his old shtick—sophomoric gags, body-function chatter, and adolescent innuendo that once jolted the airwaves but now just sag. In his prime, Stern was combustible: he blended pranks, irreverence, and enough genuine insight to keep his circus from collapsing. He earned his Radio Hall of Fame status by kicking down doors no one else dared touch.

    Now, as rumors of his retirement bubble and I endure his weary, autopilot banter with Robin, three thoughts claw at me. First: they don’t sound like they’re having fun anymore. This is a zombie act, plodding through the motions. Second: filling three hours of airtime every single day is a Sisyphean curse—nobody has that much worth saying without stuffing the sausage with sawdust. Third: we all have a shelf life. Relevance expires, and dignity demands a graceful exit.

    Stern’s curse is worse than most. His career persona—edgy, raunchy, forever pandering to prurience—has gone stale, but he’s trapped in it. The irony is brutal: a man smart enough to evolve chose to calcify. A decade ago, he could have pivoted, shed the shock-jock skin, and re-emerged as the wise veteran with conversations that mattered. Instead, while podcasts multiplied like caffeinated rabbits, he let himself be left behind.

    But maybe it isn’t too late. Imagine Howard 2.0: no longer the carnival barker of Sirius, but the philosopher-in-residence of his own café, sipping coffee and musing about culture, mortality, and meaning. Not fifteen hours of filler a week, but four hours of distilled insight—an hour twice a week, sharp and substantive. Podcasting is radio’s heir, and radio is in his DNA. Reinvention is the only antidote to irrelevance, and if he can summon the nerve, Stern could still surprise us.

  • The Man Who Always Waved

    The Man Who Always Waved

    When my twins were born in 2010, I spent years pacing the sidewalks of my Torrance neighborhood with them—first in a stroller, then a wagon, and eventually on their own unsteady feet. Along those same sidewalks shuffled old couples with dogs, walkers, and time to spare. Sometimes one half of a pair would vanish, leaving the other to walk alone, and soon enough that figure too disappeared from the neighborhood stage. I never knew most of their names, yet I felt tethered to them; they would smile at my daughters, wave with fragile hands, and in that exchange I saw the cycle of life laid bare: the beginning in my stroller, the ending in their absence.

    One man I did know by name—Frank. I don’t recall how we met, but I remember the details: his beige Volvo station wagon, the clever mirror nailed to the tree behind his house so he could back out with precision. Frank looked to be in his late sixties in 2010. He walked the neighborhood with brisk efficiency, always in uniform—olive shorts, white T-shirt, glasses perched on his nose, a beige bucket hat shading his face, and a small wristwatch on a leather band, which he consulted like a man keeping an appointment with life itself.

    He reminded me of a restrained Ned Ryerson from Groundhog Day: perhaps square at first glance, but steady, decent, reliable. No matter how intent he was on his route, he never failed to lift a hand in greeting. The wave was never exuberant, never perfunctory—it was graceful, automatic, the gesture of a man who seemed stitched together with quiet goodness. His wife matched him in cheer, and though I never learned her name, she radiated authenticity. They were a pair who seemed to exist outside of fashion, untouched by fads or pretensions.

    Over time, I realized they had become more than neighbors to me. They were a balm against my cynicism, proof that stability, kindness, and simple decency still existed in a world that seemed allergic to all three. Which is why, six months ago, while lifting weights in my garage, I felt a chill: What happened to Frank? I hadn’t seen him in ages. He would be in his eighties now. Surely he hadn’t slipped away unnoticed?

    Then, this morning, as I turned into my neighborhood after dropping my daughters at high school, I saw him. Frank, unchanged, same outfit, same bucket hat, same little watch. I raised my hand. He raised his. And before I knew it, a tear streaked my cheek.

  • The Tabloid Mind Vs. The Thoughtful Mind

    The Tabloid Mind Vs. The Thoughtful Mind

    The verdict is in: after fifteen years of running their experiment on us, social media has mangled the human psyche. It has sandblasted away nuance, turned civility into snarling, and left us performing as shrill tribal mascots. The trouble begins with its essence: an Attention Machine. Every scroll is a sugar hit for the brain—quick spike, hard crash. We learn the trick ourselves, spitting out content like human Pez dispensers, packaging our thoughts as candy for the feed.

    Belonging is rationed out in likes and retweets, and the cost is subtlety. To win attention, you don’t weigh both sides—you crank the volume, you caricature, you inflame. What begins as a hook metastasizes into belief. We develop the Tabloid Mind: the reflex to turn every notion into a screaming headline. And once we inhabit the Tabloid Mind, we degrade, becoming not better humans but better performers for the algorithm.

    The Thoughtful Mind never stood a chance. A Tabloid platform attracts tens of millions; the Thoughtful Mind, if lucky, limps along with scraps. Yet the difference is stark. The Thoughtful Mind asks, listens, considers contradictions, and cools the room so clarity can thrive. The Tabloid Mind, by contrast, thrives on panic and rage, reducing discourse to a lizard-brain cage match where opponents are demons and the fire must never go out.

    A culture enthroned by the Tabloid Mind breeds paranoia, extremism, conspiracy, and violence. And violence doesn’t need to be shouted—it can be winked into existence by the constant drip of toxic adrenaline.

    I know the alternative exists because I live it daily in the classroom. When my students wrestle with bro culture, influencer fakery, or the cultural fallout of GLP-1 drugs, they do so with humor, nuance, and critical thought. The Thoughtful Mind lives there, in the room, face to face. No one is frothing at the dopamine mouth. No one is shitposting for clout. We disagree, we wrestle, we laugh—but we think.

    The Tabloid Mind is not sustainable. It’s a toxin, and unchecked, it will kill us. Our survival depends on choosing the Thoughtful Mind instead. The fight between them—clickbait versus clarity, heat versus light—is not just cultural noise. It’s the defining battle of our age.

  • Margaritaville for the Damned

    Margaritaville for the Damned

    Last night I dreamed I was marooned in Prescott, Arizona, summering not in a cabin or hotel but in a public park. The grass was cartoonishly green, a kind of chlorophyll utopia, and families sprawled across it like they’d been carefully arranged for a Chamber of Commerce brochure. My suitcase sat at my side like a misplaced airport refugee, and I couldn’t help but wonder: why Prescott? Why not Denver, or somewhere less suffocatingly wholesome, less postcard-perfect?

    Then I looked up. Looming above the park was a billboard—a monstrosity of sun-bleached cheer—featuring a leathery couple in their seventies. They were bronzed like overcooked turkeys, grinning wide, basking in the eternal glow of some Florida condo where “Margaritaville” played on an endless loop. This was not their first rodeo: it was their fifth marriage each, the residue of decades spent riding the carousel of lust, liquor, and litigation. Their message was plastered across the sky: hedonism may lead to divorce court, bankruptcy, and sun-damaged skin, but look—if you just keep grinning, it’s practically a lifestyle brand.

    I felt an almost religious revulsion at the billboard. It was hollow cheer dressed up as wisdom, a glossy ad for despair masquerading as joie de vivre. Pulling my luggage closer, I glanced at my watch and felt relief that my wife and daughters would be joining me soon. The counterfeit joy overhead only made me hunger more for the real life that I have.

  • I’m in a YouTube Video Slump and I Don’t Know Why

    I’m in a YouTube Video Slump and I Don’t Know Why

    My WordPress dashboard tells me I’ve posted on Cinemorphosis for 152 days in a row, as if it’s awarding me the Blogging Olympics medal for “Most Neurotic Streak.” I don’t post daily out of discipline so much as survival. Writing is my mental hygiene—my daily scrub against chaos. Free therapy without the billable hours.

    YouTube, however, is another story. I haven’t made a video essay in over two weeks, and the gap feels like a cyst growing on my confidence. The longer I wait, the heavier the silence becomes, like trying to deadlift after skipping the gym for a month. I want to post, but not just to feed the beast. I don’t want to churn out recycled monologues about my watch obsession or let YouTube’s algorithm turn me into a carnival barker with clickbait headlines and fake urgency.

    It’s not as if I lack material. College just started, and I’m teaching the entire athletic department. A room full of goal-driven athletes who actually follow instructions? For a writing professor, that’s better than tenure. And as a relic from the muscle era of the 70s—Olympic lifts, protein shakes, and the occasional posing oil—I feel a strange kinship with them. We’ve already launched into our first essay assignment: the crisis of masculinity and how Bro influencers like the Liver King peddle snake oil dressed in bison liver. These guys exploit the anxieties of young men the way payday lenders exploit the broke. Can’t buy a house? Don’t worry, kid, buy abs. Tongue-tied around women? No problem, creatine is your Cyrano de Bergerac. The students are eating it up, and for once, their feedback has been better than protein pancakes.

    So why can’t I translate this into a video essay? Maybe because my brain recently short-circuited over something ridiculous: watch straps. I fell down the rabbit hole of FKM rubber straps after reading a study claiming they leach chemicals into your skin. My beloved Divecore straps—once the apex of wrist comfort—suddenly looked like toxic bracelets. I agonized for days, debating whether to bin them, keep them, or wrap my wrists in cheesecloth. The obsession drained me like a bad relationship. In protest, my mind and body staged a walkout, shutting down further watch chatter. For now, I’m taking a mental break. I’m grateful for the watches I have, but I don’t want to rejoin the strap wars or churn out videos about my latest dive into consumer madness.

    So here I am, taking a mental breather, trying to avoid the treadmill of compulsive content. It’s humbling to admit that the blogging streak hides a creative stall. But I know the video essays will return. They always do. Once I shake off the chemical paranoia and algorithm anxiety and process my thoughts, I’ll be back in the groove—hopefully with something worth watching.

  • When the Radio Becomes God: Eavesdropping on Despair

    When the Radio Becomes God: Eavesdropping on Despair

    The word “satisfactory” can be a bit of an oxymoron. There’s not much that is satisfying about being satisfactory when the word is a proxy for mediocrity and ennui. To be in life’s sweet spot of income, career, and social status may feel like a prison. To keep your “satisfactory” status, you may be playing house, as they say. You go through the motions of what is considered respectable but feel empty inside. You may find yourself to be the unflattering subject of the famous Talking Heads song “Once in a Lifetime.” The song’s theme is the shock of waking up inside your own life and not recognizing how you got there. David Byrne delivers his lines like a dazed preacher, cataloging the trappings of middle-class success—“a beautiful house,” “a beautiful wife”—yet always undercutting them with the anxious refrain, “Well, how did I get here?” The song captures the disorientation of modern existence, where routines and consumer comforts can feel alien, as if someone else scripted your life while you were sleepwalking through it. Beneath its hypnotic bassline and tribal rhythm, the song is less celebration than existential panic: a reminder that time moves in one direction, that choices pile up invisibly, and that one day you might look around and realize the current has carried you somewhere you never meant to go. The song came out as a video in 1981 and remains one of the most famous videos ever made.

    Cut to 2014 and you’ll find a companion song–Father Misty’s “Bored in the USA.” The song skewers the hollowness of the American Dream by presenting a narrator who has all the trappings of comfort yet feels utterly vacant inside. Over a piano ballad that mimics Springsteen’s Born in the U.S.A. anthem but inverts its spirit, he lists his modern dissatisfactions—student debt, prescription meds, existential malaise—with a deadpan delivery that borders on satire. The song’s title itself is a punchline: in a land of abundance, the greatest affliction is ennui. Misty sharpens the critique by layering laugh-track chuckles over his lament, exposing the absurdity of personal despair as entertainment. The theme is clear: American prosperity doesn’t guarantee purpose, and in a culture that commodifies everything, even boredom becomes a spectacle.

    Perhaps the precursor to the above songs is Malvina Reynolds’ “Little Boxes” (1962).  All three songs wrestle with the discontent lurking beneath middle-class comfort. Reynolds’ folk satire ridicules postwar conformity: rows of identical houses, “ticky-tacky” lives, and the way education, careers, and family structures stamp people into cookie-cutter molds. Byrne picks up this theme two decades later, asking in “Once in a Lifetime” how one can inhabit that prefab life without ever choosing it, caught in the current of routine until bewilderment sets in. Misty, in turn, gives the 21st-century update: not only are the houses still there, but so is the crushing boredom, debt, and medicated detachment that follow from chasing that same ideal. Together, the songs form a lineage of American self-critique—“Little Boxes” mocking the architecture of conformity, “Once in a Lifetime” exposing the existential vertigo inside it, and “Bored in the USA” diagnosing its emptiness in an age of irony and overmedication.

    All three songs—“Little Boxes,” “Once in a Lifetime,” and “Bored in the USA”—resonate with Paula Fox’s masterpiece novella Desperate Characters in their shared critique of middle-class paralysis. Fox’s novel follows Sophie and Otto Bentwood, a couple trapped in a Brooklyn brownstone, surrounded by the comforts of professional success yet gnawed by alienation, decay, and a sense that life has slipped beyond their control. Reynolds’ “Little Boxes” mocks the social machinery that produces people like the Bentwoods—educated, well-off, but indistinguishable. Byrne’s “Once in a Lifetime” channels Sophie’s disorientation, the feeling of waking up one day to a “beautiful house” and a “beautiful wife” yet asking, “How did I get here?” Misty’s “Bored in the USA” pushes the critique further, mirroring the Bentwoods’ emptiness with a 21st-century inventory of malaise: debt, pharmaceuticals, and soul-crushing ennui. Taken together, the songs and Fox’s novella expose the fragility beneath affluence, suggesting that comfort without meaning curdles into desperation.

    John Cheever’s “The Enormous Radio” joins the chorus. Jim and Irene Westcott are respectable enough to be alumni-brochure fodder, yet their lives hum with nothingness. Then comes the radio, their supposed luxury upgrade—a hulking gumwood cabinet that looks less like a household appliance and more like a coffin standing on end. At first it malfunctions with grotesque noises, coughing and wheezing like a consumptive beast. But when it “works,” its real gift is supernatural: it picks up not Brahms or Mozart but the raw, unedited conversations of the neighbors. Suddenly Irene is granted an unwanted superpower, the ability to eavesdrop on lives stripped of pretense. Through the radio’s crackle, she overhears quarrels, confessions, betrayals, the bitter sediment of other people’s marriages. Respectable couples she once envied are exposed as small, petty, furious, and miserable. Irene becomes both priest and voyeur, holding court over the private sins of her building. The radio doesn’t merely broadcast sound; it rips open walls, tears down curtains, and forces Irene into an intimacy she never asked for but quickly can’t live without. Jim recoils in disgust, but Irene is entranced, feeding on the poison like it’s oxygen. The radio becomes their third eye, their unwelcome oracle, a device that transforms a bourgeois apartment into a haunted theater of human despair.

    The question Cheever poses—and which Reynolds, Byrne, and Misty circle—is whether too much knowledge of others, or of ourselves, is corrosive. The radio doesn’t merely reveal secrets; it corrupts. Irene begins with curiosity, but soon she’s chained to the cabinet, hypnotized by its stream of confessions and recriminations. What she hears doesn’t just stain her view of others; it infects her own marriage, her finances, even her sense of self. She grows convinced that her life is flimsy, precarious, and wasted, as though the radio is no longer a machine but a judgmental deity, casting its pitiless light on everything she’s tried to keep tidy and respectable. For Irene, the radio becomes both oracle and executioner, transforming her from passive listener into a woman undone by revelation. And that’s the horror Cheever leaves us with: the possibility that self-examination, when magnified by an unblinking device, doesn’t lead to wisdom at all, but to paralysis and despair. Respectability is not protection. The walls are paper-thin. The “satisfactory” life is a coffin with good upholstery.

  • Naked, Unshy, Beautiful: What Happens When the Killjoy Leaves

    Naked, Unshy, Beautiful: What Happens When the Killjoy Leaves

    I screened The Game Changers for my student-athletes, pausing every few minutes like a referee blowing the whistle on another bogus call. The film is a carnival of half-baked studies and overcooked claims about the superiority of a plant-based diet, and I wasn’t about to let it slide. Still, I tried to be generous: a well-planned plant-based diet can be a heart’s best friend. But then we hit my favorite scene, the one I couldn’t resist rewinding. Derrick Morgan, the former Tennessee Titans linebacker, is feasting with teammates on a vegan spread prepared by his wife, Charity. The science was questionable, but the spectacle of love, respect, and camaraderie at that table was undeniable. I told my students, “This—right here—is what eating is about. Not macros, not calculators, not the cold math of nutrition. It’s love.” A volleyball player nodded so hard in agreement, I swear I almost heard her whisper “Amen.”

    Because what is food without community? Nothing but calorie slop shoveled into our mouths like feral beasts at the trough. Food made with love is alchemy: it transforms ingredients into joy, health, and communion. Yet here we are, obsessed with mimicking the hollow thinness of the GLP-1 crowd, mistaking the absence of appetite for virtue. We’ve lost the plot. Food isn’t just fuel; it’s the oldest social technology we have, a medium for bonding, story-telling, and remembering why we bother to sit at a table together in the first place. Strip away the love, and you might as well be gnawing protein paste in solitary confinement.

    Someone with a strong sense of love and bonding is the unnamed Pommeroy brother who narrates the John Cheever short story “Goodbye, My Brother.” He explains that their father was drowned in a sailing accident, which accounts for the family being “very close in spirit.” Their widowed mother taught them that “familial relationships have a kind of permanence” that must be treasured. And so, when the clan gathers at a stately beach house in Laud’s Head, they long for a reunion soaked in sea air and camaraderie. Instead, they get Lawrence—the Puritan gargoyle in their garden party.

    Lawrence is the sort of malcontent who makes wallpaper peel just by standing in a room. He sneers, scolds, and sours the air with his joyless rectitude. A family feast must be stripped of flavor for fear of offending his ascetic palate; a laugh must be stifled, lest he glare with Calvinist disgust. He walks through the beach house like an undertaker taking notes. Even his children, described as thin and timid, seem malnourished by his anti-life, as if he has siphoned out their childhood and replaced it with dour lectures. He is not merely unpleasant—he is a contagion, a slow cancer metastasizing through the family’s shared spirit.

    Cheever’s brilliance is to render Lawrence as the Apollonian impulse run rancid: all order, no play; all restraint, no abandon. The rest of the Pommeroys, by contrast, embody the Dionysian: eager for pleasure, indulgence, the salty joy of swimming naked in the Atlantic. Lawrence cannot let go, cannot laugh, cannot live—and so the family cannot breathe in his presence. Only when the narrator, finally fed up, smacks his brother with a seawater-heavy root, drawing blood, does relief arrive. Lawrence slinks away with his joyless brood, leaving the others to rediscover pleasure, freedom, and even grace. The final image is unforgettable: the narrator’s wife and sister, unencumbered and unclothed, walking out of the ocean like radiant sea-goddesses. It’s as if Lawrence’s exile returned them to the very pulse of life.

    Cheever reminds us that one malcontent can poison the banquet, but also that expelling the killjoy—by violence if necessary—can restore the fragile ecstasy of family. The message is clear: the Dionysian will not be denied, not even by a Puritan scold with a permanent scowl.

  • Food as Storytelling, Not Spreadsheet

    Food as Storytelling, Not Spreadsheet

    I screened The Game Changers for my student-athletes, pausing every few minutes like a referee blowing the whistle on another bogus call. The film is a carnival of half-baked studies and overcooked claims about the superiority of a plant-based diet, and I wasn’t about to let it slide. Still, I tried to be generous: a well-planned plant-based diet can be a heart’s best friend. But then we hit my favorite scene, the one I couldn’t resist rewinding. Derrick Morgan, the former Tennessee Titans linebacker, is feasting with teammates on a vegan spread prepared by his wife, Charity. The science was questionable, but the spectacle of love, respect, and camaraderie at that table was undeniable. I told my students, “This—right here—is what eating is about. Not macros, not calculators, not the cold math of nutrition. It’s love.” A volleyball player nodded so hard in agreement, I swear I almost heard her whisper “Amen.”

    Because what is food without community? Nothing but calorie slop shoveled into our mouths like feral beasts at the trough. Food made with love is alchemy: it transforms ingredients into joy, health, and communion. Yet here we are, obsessed with mimicking the hollow thinness of the GLP-1 crowd, mistaking the absence of appetite for virtue. We’ve lost the plot. Food isn’t just fuel; it’s the oldest social technology we have, a medium for bonding, story-telling, and remembering why we bother to sit at a table together in the first place. Strip away the love, and you might as well be gnawing protein paste in solitary confinement.

  • Triple Lounge Wear: My Magnum Opus of Sloth Couture

    Triple Lounge Wear: My Magnum Opus of Sloth Couture

    When I think of Sigmund Freud, I don’t picture the sober father of psychoanalysis so much as a man presiding over an endless therapy session in which a poor soul reclines on a tufted couch, excavating their psyche with the zeal of a Siberian prisoner digging for coal. I tend to side with podcaster Katie Herzog here: all that navel spelunking doesn’t yield much juice for the squeeze. My mental health cure is more prosaic—get out of my head, do the dishes, help someone else, and remind myself that brooding isn’t a spiritual distinction but simply the human condition, dressed up in self-importance.

    That said, Freud remains a cultural heavyweight, a sort of St. Paul of the psyche. Both men dove into deep, uncharted waters: both charting neurosis and the divided self from different angles. Their remedies were at odds—St. Paul promised redemption; Freud essentially said, “There is no God. Buck up, buttercup.” But there’s always a third way. Perhaps we can podcast our way out of despair. That thought struck me as I read Rebecca Mead’s New Yorker profile of Bella Freud’s “Fashion Neurosis.” Sigmund’s great-granddaughter, Bella isn’t exactly a scholar of the old man’s work, but she leans into his therapy tropes with sly cosplay. Guests flop onto the proverbial couch, confess their quirks, addictions, and philosophies, and tie it all back to their fashion obsessions. Clothes become the psyche’s fabric, quite literally.

    As for me, Bella probably won’t be calling. My claim to fame is enjoying oatmeal for dinner. Still, if she ever asked, I’d come armed with a story. In kindergarten, I had my prized “Monkees pants,” green checkered flares with a radioactive sheen, worn proudly for Show and Tell as I belted out the Monkees’ theme song. Girls swooned, begged for autographs, and I was five going on Micky Dolenz. Then came my Hulk phase: mutilating brand-new jeans so it looked like my swelling muscles had shredded them. My parents adored this use of their clothing budget. Later, the bodybuilding years brought muscle shirts and tight jeans, followed by my “uniform” phase: gray golf shirts, boot-cut jeans, tennis shoes, repeated ad nauseam for three decades.

    My magnum opus, however, is what I call Triple Lounge Wear. A gray tank top and Champion shorts serve as daywear, pajamas, and gym attire—a holy trinity of frictionless fashion. Why cycle through outfits when you can be a one-man capsule collection of sloth and efficiency? 

    Naturally, no discussion of fashion would be complete without confessing my incurable diver watch obsession. My imagination is still shackled to childhood visions of Sean Connery suavely flashing a Submariner on a NATO strap, or Jacques Cousteau backstroking with porpoises while his orange-dial Doxa Sub 300 glowed like a miniature sun. Compared to that, what hope does any outfit of mine have? A diver watch isn’t an accessory—it’s the anchor, the crown jewel, the only thing saving me from looking like a man in oatmeal-stained gym shorts pretending he has style.

    Bella Freud would beam at my ingenuity, then lower her voice and ask, “So Jeff, tell me about your childhood.” And I’d answer, “Well, it started with the Monkees pants…”

  • Radical Boring: The Oatmeal-Based Lifestyle Brand No One Asked For

    Radical Boring: The Oatmeal-Based Lifestyle Brand No One Asked For

    Next month I’ll be 64, which apparently means my taste buds have joined AARP. My diet is now narrower than my tolerance for small talk: buckwheat groats, oatmeal (rolled or steel-cut, because why not keep things spicy), Greek yogurt with berries and honey, and peanut butter-and-honey sandwiches on dark bread. While normal humans dream of steak and champagne on a Paris-bound jet, I fantasize about oatmeal for dinner. Forget first class—I’m on the Oatmeal Express, and my only beverage service is dark roast coffee, soy milk, and sparkling water, which is just soda pretending it went to finishing school.

    I know what’s happening. I’m regressing. I crave mush, porridge, pablum—the kind of food that comes in jars with smiling cartoon fruit. My kettlebell workouts, five days a week, are my only defense. I sweat buckets, swing heavy weights, and imagine I look like a Viking—but in truth, it’s just a grown man clinging to his giant metal pacifier. Exercise has become my lullaby. When I collapse afterward, I feel less like a warrior and more like a sedated infant.

    Of course, at a family birthday party, one cousin reminded me that growth only happens when we leave our comfort zones. I nodded while thinking, No thanks, I’ve had enough character development for one lifetime. At this stage, I don’t want adventure. I want oatmeal. I don’t want novelty. I want predictability. I’m not only becoming a baby—I’m pioneering a whole new lifestyle brand called Radical Boring.

    My big act of rebellion? When my twins turn sixteen in six months, they will take my wife’s 2014 Accord, she’ll inherit my 2018 Accord, and I’ll step into the future—so long as the future, a 2026 Accord that comes in “canyon river blue.” My wife begged me not to get silver or gray again, so this is me living dangerously. Of course, I’ll rarely drive it. I’ll open the garage, admire the shiny paint, then close the door and scuttle back inside for a soothing bowl of oatmeal.

    My family laughs at me. They think I’m absurd, predictable, hopelessly domestic. But at least I’m consistent. And if authenticity means being true to yourself, then yes—I am authentically a 64-year-old content with my porridge, my pacifier workouts, and my canyon river blue Honda. Call it returning to the womb if you want. I call it destiny.

    And now, having confessed this ridiculous self-revelation, I find myself thinking of my literary kindred Ariel Levy and her An Abbreviated Life—a memoir I clearly need to revisit, if only to confirm that my brand of absurdity has precedents.