Cinemorphosis

Category: culture

  • The Day I Logged Off the AI Panic Machine and Walked at the Beach

    The Day I Logged Off the AI Panic Machine and Walked at the Beach

    I teach college writing, which means I’ve spent the last four years staring at the AI question the way a man stares at a fire he suspects might jump the fence. When ChatGPT arrived, it didn’t knock politely. It crashed into the room like a UFO and rearranged the furniture. Since then, I’ve read what feels like a small library’s worth of essays—predictions, warnings, elegies for the essay itself—and contributed a few of my own, because that’s what we do: we metabolize disruption by writing about it.

    But there comes a point when the analysis stops clarifying and starts echoing.

    I’ve reached that point. My brain has filed a quiet injunction: no more. Not just a break from AI, but a break from reading about how exhausted everyone else is by AI. The discourse has become a hall of mirrors—each reflection slightly more fatigued than the last.

    I’ve been here before. In 2010, I had newborn twins, which is another way of saying I was living inside a low-grade emergency. The market offered guidance—books, podcasts, earnest experts—but I wanted none of it. I was already doing the job. Additional commentary felt like a second shift. Experience was loud enough; analysis was just noise layered on top.

    Both episodes point to the same condition: Applied Reality Rejection—the refusal to consume secondary discourse when you’re already neck-deep in the primary experience. When you’re in it, more talk about it doesn’t help. It dilutes.

    And here’s the part the essays rarely admit: reading about AI doesn’t soothe AI anxiety. It compounds it. Each think piece arrives like a fresh weather report announcing the same storm in slightly different prose.

    So I’m choosing friction of a better kind. I play the piano until my attention steadies. I pick up kettlebells and let gravity argue with me for a while. I walk the beach and let the horizon do what no article can—put scale back into the day. The analog world doesn’t theorize; it recalibrates.

    That was the remedy with the twins, too. Not another podcast on sleep training, but a walk, a dumb TV binge, a sweaty hour in the garage. Relief came from stepping out of the commentary loop, not diving deeper into it.

    Which is why, when I see another AI essay queued up from The Atlantic or The New Yorker, I feel a familiar tightening—and then I close the tab. Not out of contempt, but out of preservation.

    I’ve heard enough echoes. It’s time to drive two miles to Catalina Avenue and take a walk at the beach.

  • The Tradwife, Tooter Turtle, and the Collapse of Reality

    The Tradwife, Tooter Turtle, and the Collapse of Reality

    When I was a teenager in the 1970s, I fell under the spell of Arnold Schwarzenegger, as did millions of young men who believed that iron could redeem them. Arnold didn’t just build muscle; he built permission. You didn’t have to slink into the gym like a social outcast. You could walk in like a man with a project—your body—and treat the work as something worthy, even noble.

    But here’s the part we forget when we romanticize that era: the fantasy always had a counterweight. You could admire the glossy magazine spreads, sure, but the minute you stepped into the gym, reality took over. The barbell didn’t care about your aspirations. It demanded blood, sweat, repetition, and a tolerance for humiliation. The dream had friction. It had consequences. It had gravity.

    Today, the dream has been fitted with wheels.

    We spend hours online absorbing lifestyles that arrive pre-edited, pre-filtered, and pre-approved by algorithms that understand our weaknesses better than we do. The counterweight—reality—hasn’t disappeared, but it’s been shoved to the margins, like an inconvenient footnote to a seductive headline. What replaces it is a fever dream: a curated existence that feels authoritative simply because it’s repeated often enough.

    Call this Frictionless Fantasy Drift—the condition in which ambition detaches from effort and begins to float, unmoored, in a frictionless digital sky. The struggle is edited out. The consequences are invisible. What remains is a mirage that invites you to step in and live there.

    I was reminded of this while reading Hanna Rosin’s essay “The Tragedy of the Tradwife.” Rosin contrasts the influencers of today with her own pre-internet lodestar, Martha Stewart—a figure she aptly describes as “a tycoon masquerading as a domestic goddess.” Stewart was many things—ruthless, exacting, extraordinarily competent—but she was real. Her brand, however polished, was anchored in actual skill and labor.

    Today, that grounded figure has been replaced by something far more synthetic: the algorithmic mountebank, the tradwife influencer who sells a pastoral fantasy with the confidence of a late-night infomercial host. She bakes bread from scratch, produces hearty meals with theatrical serenity, and presides over a small army of children as if domestic chaos were a lifestyle accessory. Her kitchen gleams. Her apron is spotless. Her smile suggests a fulfillment so complete it borders on evangelism.

    And then there’s the final flourish: submission. She assures her audience that handing over the steering wheel to her husband has unlocked a level of contentment previously unknown to modern women. Obedience, rebranded as liberation.

    In an era defined by Frictionless Fantasy Drift—where loneliness and dislocation leave people hungry for meaning—this performance finds an audience. Millions of them. The algorithm delivers it, refines it, amplifies it, until it begins to feel less like content and more like truth.

    Enter Caro Claire Burke, who looked at this spectacle and did what any rational observer might do: she pushed back. First on TikTok, then in her novel Yesteryear, which imagines a tradwife influencer waking up in 1855. The premise is simple. The result is devastating.

    Because when the fantasy is forced to pay rent—when it has to operate under the conditions it claims to celebrate—it collapses. The cozy illusion of domestic bliss is replaced by a brutal, unforgiving reality. Labor is constant. Comfort is scarce. And the husband, far from being a benevolent co-pilot, often resembles something closer to an owner. The cosplay dissolves, and what remains is history—raw, unvarnished, and deeply unpleasant.

    Reading about Burke’s setup, I couldn’t help but think of an old cartoon from my childhood: Tooter Turtle. Tooter is a lonely, perpetually dissatisfied turtle who dreams of becoming anything but himself—lumberjack, astronaut, baseball star, you name it. His friend, Mr. Wizard the Lizard, obliges by transporting him into these fantasies.

    And every time, without fail, the dream turns on him.

    The lumberjack nearly gets crushed. The astronaut faces disaster. The hero becomes the victim. Tooter, overwhelmed and panicked, begs to be rescued and returned to his ordinary life. The moral lands with blunt clarity: the fantasy is seductive, but it is also ignorant. It doesn’t account for reality because it doesn’t know it.

    Tooter is a child—permanently so—because he confuses the image of a life with the experience of living it.

    That’s the unsettling part. The gap between Tooter and a large segment of today’s online population is not as wide as we’d like to believe. We sit in front of our screens, absorbing curated lives, and imagine ourselves stepping into them as if they were costumes waiting to be worn. With enough imitation, enough belief, we assume the transformation will stick.

    It won’t.

    That’s why Burke’s novel has struck a nerve. It doesn’t just critique the fantasy; it subjects it to reality. It forces the dream to answer for itself. And when it does, the result is not liberation, but a sharp, corrective blow—a reminder that a life without friction may be easy to admire, but it is impossible to live.

    As for me, I’m looking forward to reading it.

  • A College Degree in Applause

    A College Degree in Applause

    When Oprah Winfrey signed off for the last time, she offered a distilled insight after decades of televised confessionals and couch-bound catharsis: beneath our surface differences, we all want the same thing—to be heard and, more importantly, to be affirmed. Not merely listened to, but validated, as if our words must pass through some invisible tribunal and emerge stamped: This life matters. This mind is not wasted inventory.

    She was right, though even that admission feels like an understatement. The appetite for validation is not a polite preference; it’s a metabolic demand. We don’t just want to speak—we want to land. We want our sentences to strike the listener with enough force that they nod, recalibrate, maybe even quote us later as if we were a minor authority in the ongoing project of making sense. We want to believe that our thoughts improve the room, that our presence upgrades the conversation from background noise to something resembling signal.

    Of course, the engine driving this hunger isn’t entirely noble. Scratch the surface and you’ll find insecurity jittering beneath the skin, narcissism preening in the mirror, tribal instincts scanning for applause from the right audience. We want to be right, but more than that, we want to be seen being right. Yet it would be too easy—and too smug—to reduce this to vanity alone. There’s another current running underneath. Human beings, for all their posturing, are wired for cooperation. We build moral systems, knowledge systems, entire civilizations on the premise that sharing ideas might actually improve the collective condition. So the same impulse that craves applause also aspires—sometimes sincerely—to contribute something of value. We may be peddling clichés, hallucinations, or the occasional insight, but the urge to be heard persists like a drumbeat.

    After nearly forty years of teaching writing, I’ve had a front-row seat to this performance. I’ve enjoyed the privilege—let’s call it what it is—of having a voice that people were required to listen to. Now, as that authority begins to fade at the edges, I’m left examining the machinery that made it feel necessary in the first place. My students will tell you they’re here for practical reasons: a degree, a job, a paycheck that doesn’t insult them. Fair enough. But beneath that utilitarian script, I suspect another motive is quietly at work. They want to matter intellectually. They want their ideas to carry weight, to be received not as filler but as substance.

    I can see it because I can reverse-engineer myself at eighteen. Put me back in that position—blank slate, open catalog—and I’d choose political science without hesitation. Not because it guarantees employment—it doesn’t—but because it offers a stage. A chance to sound sharp, to read densely, to write with the kind of authority that might make a professor pause and think, there’s something here. The fantasy isn’t wealth; it’s recognition. Money pays the bills, but it doesn’t applaud. It doesn’t lean forward when you speak.

    And without that recognition—without the sense that your mind registers on someone else’s radar—life begins to feel like static. Content generated, scattered, and forgotten. A digital smear. Noise mistaken for presence.

    Which is why so many of us operate under a quiet affliction I’d call Intellectual Visibility Panic: the nagging fear that no matter how carefully we assemble our thoughts, they will evaporate on contact—unheard, unvalued, and unremembered. It’s not dramatic enough to ruin your day, but it’s persistent enough to shape your choices. It nudges you toward certain majors, certain careers, certain performances of self. It whispers that time is running out, that if you don’t establish your voice soon, it will dissolve into the background hum.

    And so we speak. We write. We posture. We refine. Not just to communicate—but to leave a trace strong enough that someone, somewhere, might stop and say: that was worth hearing.

  • Normal Until It Isn’t: The Slow Collapse of a Social Life

    Normal Until It Isn’t: The Slow Collapse of a Social Life

    We acclimate to our routines the way a room acclimates to its own stale air—gradually, without protest—until the familiar starts to smell like something we’d refuse if it were new. Habit acquires the authority of identity. It tells us, “This is who you are,” and we nod, relieved not to argue. Then, occasionally, a crack opens. Something in the routine reveals itself as not just unusual, but quietly unhealthy. Six months ago, I noticed the crack: I have no active friendships. I can inventory names—P and T nearby, four sightings a year if the calendar is feeling generous; A an hour away, a phone call that arrives annually like a polite comet—but these are museum pieces, not relationships you live inside. By the only definition that matters—people you see and speak with regularly—I am operating at zero. I’ve built a life that functions without friends and then congratulated myself for the efficiency.

    I can dress the solitude up as a lifestyle. I can cite Laurie Metcalf and her apparent ease living alone, as if borrowing her poise could underwrite my own. But the analogy collapses on contact. Solitude is not the same as isolation, and thriving alone doesn’t imply the absence of active ties. The rationalization is elegant; it’s also evasive.

    What unsettles me is not the label—“friendless” is a blunt instrument—but the salience of it, the way the fact refuses to stay abstract. It lands on my family. A husband and father who lives in the Friendless Zone quietly shifts the social burden onto his wife and children. Every conversation, every need for connection, every idle hour leans on them. That’s not intimacy; it’s overreliance dressed as closeness. No one signs up to be an entire ecosystem.

    This wasn’t always the rhythm. Before marriage, my life had edges and movement. Meals with colleagues that stretched into second coffees, movies that required coordination, parties that produced stories, landline conversations that ran until your ear ached and you didn’t notice. Then 2010 arrived with twins and a schedule that ate the clock. Bottles, dishes, carpools, appointments—the logistics of care are relentless and, to be clear, necessary. Friendship became the expendable line item. I trimmed it “for now,” and “for now” matured into a policy.

    I’m not assigning blame. If anything, the demands of family life offered my inner recluse a beautifully plausible alibi. He’d been waiting for a reason to stay home; parenthood handed him a portfolio of them. The cave felt efficient, even virtuous. And then it felt normal. Now it feels narrow. Part of me still enjoys the quiet—the control, the absence of social friction. Another part sees the cost: fewer perspectives, fewer checks on your own thinking, fewer chances to be surprised into being more than you currently are.

    If I map the trajectory, my life  breaks into three eras: having friends and taking them for granted; losing friends and not noticing the loss; being without friends and finally noticing. Awareness is not a solution. It’s a diagnosis that arrives without a prescription. There’s no switch I can flip to become the convivial man who collects invitations like business cards. There is only the discomfort of seeing clearly—and the obligation to decide whether clarity is something you act on or merely admire.

  • From Coffeehouse to Clickbait

    From Coffeehouse to Clickbait

    Invoking the word democracy in an essay feels like trying to sell a ghost–intangible, shapeless, and increasingly irrelevant to an audience fixated on the price of eggs and the cost of gasoline. We live in a state of Democratic Abstraction Fatigue, where civic ideals have been repeated so often and defined so poorly that they’ve lost all emotional voltage. Democracy has become a word people nod at politely while checking their grocery receipts.

    Salience is the problem. Democracy competes poorly in a culture that values immediacy over abstraction, sensation over structure. A fluctuating gas price commands attention because it hurts now. Democracy, by contrast, whispers about norms, institutions, and procedures–important, yes, but bloodless in the moment. When everything urgent is concrete and everything essential is abstract, the essential loses.

    We can attempt a definition to anchor the word: a democracy is a system of fair elections, peaceful transfers of power, and a citizenry capable of resisting manipulation by charlatans, influencers, and political opportunists whose incompetence would, in a sane society, disqualify them on sight. But even this definition now feels aspirational, almost quaint.

    Because the truth is harder: those guardrails are eroding. Adam Kirsch, in “The Era of Rational Discourse Is Over,” reminds us that American wars have often been sold under false pretenses–the Spaniards sank the USS Maine, Iraq hoarded weapons of mass destruction. But what distinguishes the present is not deception; it is indifference. The machinery no longer bothers to persuade. There is no narrative to construct, no public to convince, no Congress to consult. The decision is the justification. We have entered a phase of Executive Drift, where power operates with minimal friction and even less explanation.

    How did we arrive here? Kirsch turns to Jürgen Habermas, who witnessed the collapse of Nazism and the fragile rebirth of democratic life in Germany. For Habermas, democracy depended on what he called “communicative action”–a culture of dialogue where ideas are tested, challenged, refined, and, occasionally, improved. Democracy was not just a system of voting; it was a system of thinking.

    That system now shows signs of collapse. We inhabit an era of Communicative Decay, where discourse has splintered into tribal fragments, each sealed off from contradiction, each sustained by outrage. Argument has been replaced by performance. Listening has been replaced by waiting for your turn to strike.

    In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Habermas imagined democracy as an expanded coffeehouse—a literate, engaged public exchanging ideas with rigor and civility. It was a world in which communication flowed in two directions: we spoke, and we listened. Today, we scroll. We absorb. We react. But we do not engage.

    The modern condition might be better described as a dopamine democracy, where public opinion is shaped not by deliberation but by stimulation. Algorithms reward the loudest, the angriest, the most unhinged voices. Complexity is punished. Nuance is buried. What rises instead is spectacle–content engineered to trigger, not to inform.

    The consequences are predictable. Citizens become passive, then inert. Critical thinking atrophies. Conspiracy theories flourish in the vacuum. Truth becomes negotiable, then irrelevant. We do not fall from democracy in a single dramatic collapse; we degrade into a version of ourselves that no longer demands it.

    Mass media and weaponized misinformation accelerate the decline. Lies are no longer liabilities; they are tools. Identity replaces evidence. Tribe replaces truth. You are not expected to think–you are expected to align.

    And so we arrive at the most unsettling feature of our moment: the people who ascend in this environment are not the most disciplined, the most thoughtful, or the most competent, but the most performative, the most shameless, the most willing to exploit the system’s weaknesses. Infantilism becomes a strategy. Narcissism becomes an asset.

    A culture that rewards such traits should provoke alarm. It should trigger a course correction. But instead, we drift–distracted, entertained, anesthetized.

    Democracy has not been overthrown.

    It has been neglected.

    And like anything neglected long enough, it begins to disappear–quietly, gradually, while most of us are still asleep.

  • In Defense of Gilded Consolation

    In Defense of Gilded Consolation

    Men in their fifties and sixties, catching the faint chill of irrelevance, often reach for a new toy the way a man reaches for a jacket he hopes still fits. The purchase is meant to keep them “in the conversation,” as if relevance were a room you could reenter with the right accessory. Call it Luxury Youth Prosthetics—cars, watches, cameras, gleaming devices strapped on like extensions of a younger self, engineered to suggest vitality even when the signal is weak. The Lexus SUV hums with quiet authority, the Nikon Z8 promises cinematic family memories, and the titanium G-Shock gleams like a tiny declaration that time, at least, is still under control. Yes, the performance can tip into self-parody. We’ve all seen the man trying too hard, his purchases shouting what his presence no longer whispers.

    But it would be cheap to dismiss the entire enterprise as vanity. Not every indulgence is a cry for help; sometimes it’s just a man making his days more agreeable. If the mortgage is paid, the kids are fed, and no one is pawning their future for a dashboard upgrade, then a little luxury can function as a civilizing influence. The Lexus SUV turns a Costco run into a pleasant experience. The Nikon Z8 captures the faces you’re suddenly aware you don’t have forever. The titanium G-Shock tells the time clearly, which is no small mercy when time feels increasingly abstract.

    Strip away the theater, and what remains is something quieter and more defensible. Call it Gilded Consolation: not a performance for others, but a private pact with comfort. The goal is not to look young, but to live well—within reason, within means, and without apology.

  • The Futility of Resisting Chronological Drift Syndrome

    The Futility of Resisting Chronological Drift Syndrome

    Eight years ago, at a funeral—an appropriate venue for truth disguised as humor—my cousin, a retired ophthalmologist and former hospital administrator, told me his greatest challenge in retirement was finding enough time to spend his money. It landed as a joke with a faint echo of confession. Back then, he was still visible—still a man whose time, opinions, and presence registered on the social radar.

    Now, in his mid-seventies, the joke has curdled. He tells me the most striking feature of aging is not pain, not decline, but disappearance. People look past him as if he were a smudge on the lens he once spent a career perfecting. He has entered Graylight Erasure: still present in the room, but no longer illuminated by attention, interest, or acknowledgment. The body remains; the spotlight moves on.

    I’ve tried to account for this vanishing act, and the first culprit is economic. Consumer culture is a young man’s game—desire, impulse, upgrade, repeat. When you fall out of that loop, you don’t just lose purchasing power; you lose narrative value. You become a spectator in a drama that no longer requires your participation. This is Market Exit Obsolescence: the quiet demotion that occurs when you age out of the demographic worth seducing. The ads stop speaking to you, and soon enough, so do people.

    The second cause is more primitive: denial. Aging is bad for morale. It interrupts the fantasy that time is generous and endings are negotiable. Youth is a fever dream in which mortality is a rumor; old age is the nutrition label you avoided reading—the one that ruins the snack. An older person carries inconvenient data: limits, deadlines, the unadvertised fine print of being alive. And no one likes a walking disclosure statement.

    So the culture develops a reflex. Call it the Mortality Contagion Effect—the quiet recoil from those who remind us, without trying, that the clock is not decorative. As if proximity might transmit the condition. As if attention were a kind of exposure.

    My cousin didn’t lose his competence, his intelligence, or his history. He lost his audience. And in a culture that equates attention with existence, that loss feels less like aging and more like erasure.

    Watching my cousin—healthy, financially well-off, and increasingly ignored—I see what aging really delivers: Chronological Drift Syndrome. It’s the moment you realize the culture has shifted into a higher gear while you’re still driving the same well-maintained car. The rhythms change, the references mutate, the priorities rebrand overnight, and suddenly you’re not wrong—you’re just out of sync. You haven’t stopped moving; the world has simply sped past you and called it progress.

    As you age, you may attempt to resist this growing misalignment with youth culture. You may try to make yourself youthful with potions, makeovers, and pharmaceuticals, but these measures will soon backfire. You will find that fighting Chronological Drift Syndrome is a bit like sprinting on a moving walkway that’s headed the other way—you burn calories, attract attention, and end up exactly where you started, only louder and slightly winded. The harder you try to keep up—deploying borrowed slang, auditioning for trends, nodding along to references you Googled ten minutes earlier—the more you resemble a man trying to crash a party he once hosted. 

    Desperation has a smell, and it pairs poorly with youth culture, which detects inauthenticity the way a smoke alarm detects toast. The irony is brutal: the effort to remain relevant is what renders you ridiculous. The more elegant move is to step off the conveyor, plant your feet, and accept the drift with a straight back and a sense of humor. Dignity, unlike trends, ages well.

  • The Appetite Recursion Loop

    The Appetite Recursion Loop

    Looking back, I can trace a clean, ugly line connecting my love of watches and my love of food: appetite, indulgence, anger, shame. It’s not a lifestyle. It’s a loop. I want more than I should, I give in, I punish myself for giving in, and then I reset the machine and start again. Call it the Appetite Recursion Loop—a closed system where desire feeds indulgence, indulgence feeds shame, and shame reloads desire with fresh ammunition. It feels inevitable because, most days, it is.

    Appetite and chaos are my factory settings. In the early ’90s, when I lived in a bachelor pad that smelled like basil and ambition, my Navy SEAL friend Mike would call and say, “McMahon, I can hear you chewing through the phone. Every time I call, you’re eating. What is it now, Fat Face?”

    “Angel hair pasta with pesto.”

    “Sounds dangerous. I’m coming over.”

    And he would—arriving just in time to annihilate whatever I’d cooked. His metabolism ran on military drills and Pacific swells; mine ran on fantasy and carbohydrates. He burned calories like a wildfire. I cultivated them.

    He once called with an offer: Santa Barbara, surfing, and a setup with a friend of his girlfriend’s. “Now can you surf?” he asked.

    That’s how I found myself on excursions that had nothing to do with waves and everything to do with spectacle.

    Mike lived with his father, Bob—a former Marine with a foghorn voice and a temper that could peel paint. Their daily routine was a ritualized war: shouting about lawns, garages, groceries—two men chesting up like rival roosters while spit flew. Five minutes later, ceasefire. We’d pile into Mike’s Toyota for Mongolian beef with Social Distortion rattling the doors. Back home, John Wayne on the TV, Bob opening his gun safe “in case the Duke needs backup.” To me, this wasn’t dysfunction. It was familiar. It was home.

    I was raised in a house where anger was the native language. Fathers barked, belts translated. When rage is your baseline, it’s like living with your brain tuned permanently to a Death Metal station. Eventually, you stop hearing it. You call it normal. It isn’t.

    I know that now because I married a woman fourteen years younger than me, and we have twin teenage daughters who have no interest in Death Metal Dad. They want something closer to Smooth Jazz—Bach, Earth, Wind & Fire—anything that doesn’t rattle the drywall. They’re right. Rage isn’t masculinity. It’s intoxication. A sloppy, corrosive one.

    My version of sobriety isn’t about alcohol. It’s about anger. That means tracking triggers like a customs agent. One of the biggest? New watches. Shiny objects flip a switch. The Death Metal station hums back to life. Desire spikes, anxiety follows, and then comes the familiar hangover: self-reproach with a side of irritability. I become a joyless man—Grandma Sour Pants in sneakers. My family doesn’t want to be around me. Frankly, neither do I.

    Money isn’t the problem. I can afford the watches. What I can’t afford is the noise. I own eight pieces worth about fifteen grand, and even that feels like mental bookkeeping—rotations, rationalizations, inventory control for a hobby that was supposed to be fun. If I owned twelve, I’d need a project manager and a therapist. My watch friends say, “Life is short. Buy what you want.” That’s not wisdom. That’s indulgence wearing a tie. A man-child with a credit card is still a man-child—and no man-child is happy. He buys to outrun loneliness, and the purchases lose every race.

    Ninety-five percent of my buys were impulsive. Which means ninety-five percent were evidence—exhibits entered into the case against my maturity. I sold most of them at a loss, not because I needed the cash, but because I needed to feel like I wasn’t owned by my own impulses.

    I’m a product of the Me-Generation—California, ’70s, self as deity. Stories I Only Tell My Friends captures it perfectly: the Counterculture as the Worship of the Self—whatever the Self wants, the Self gets. No brakes, no compass. Malibu as a sunlit laboratory for beautiful people making terrible decisions. When desire becomes sacred, reality becomes optional—and the bill comes due.

    When I see a watch I love, my brain lights up like I’ve just taken a hit of something illegal. Desire surges. Then anger—because the loss of control is the real offense. I don’t want rehab for watches. I want a hobby that fits inside reality instead of dragging me out of it. Pleasure without compulsion. Enjoyment without obsession. A life without permanent FOMO.

    And here’s the final punchline: even writing this makes me nostalgic for being sixteen in Santa Monica and Malibu in 1976. I start looking backward like Lot’s wife, feel the salt forming, the Death Metal station warming up again. That’s my cue. Change the channel.

    Which is why I wonder if the shift to the G-Shock Frogman was an attempt at self-surgery—a clean cauterization of the need for more. A reset. My G-Shock friends laugh. The Frogman isn’t the cure, they say. It’s Act One of a new addiction.

    If they’re right, then “I Am the Frogman” isn’t transformation.

    It’s mythology.

    And I’m the one who wrote it.

  • When Theft Becomes a Fashion Statement

    When Theft Becomes a Fashion Statement

    In his Atlantic essay “Theft Is Now Progressive Chic,” Thomas Chatterton Williams takes a scalpel to a peculiar strain of moral vanity—the kind that treats petty theft as a political accessory. His targets include Jia Tolentino and Hasan Piker, figures who flirt with the idea that swiping lemons from Whole Foods, sharing passwords, or hopping paywalls is not merely harmless but faintly heroic. Williams calls it what it is: a breezy contempt for the social contract dressed up as rebellion. When small theft is rebranded as civic virtue, even Vicky Osterweil, the author of In Defense of Looting, begins to look like the sober one in the room.

    I confess the whole thing landed on me with the sting of belated education. I had not realized there were circles where breaking the law could be laundered into moral performance. Apparently, this is not an isolated glitch but a trend. The next day, another Atlantic writer, Graeme Wood, weighed in with “Something Is Happening to America’s Moral Code,” invoking James C. Scott’s notion of “anarchist calisthenics”—those small acts of rule-breaking meant to keep the spirit of rebellion limber. Wood’s diagnosis is less romantic: a set of half-formed ethics, offered with confidence and examined with indifference.

    What came to mind was Rob Henderson’s idea of “luxury beliefs”—ideas that burnish the speaker’s status while exporting the costs to people who can’t afford them. Consider the casual encouragement of shoplifting. In theory, it’s a minor jab at corporate excess. In practice, it lands on the backs of people like my students—working-class college kids who clock retail hours to pay for what they own.

    They tell me what it looks like on the floor. Managers instruct them not to intervene—too risky, too litigious. So they stand there, professionally inert, as merchandise walks out the door. The result isn’t liberation; it’s demoralization. They watch others take what they themselves budget and sweat to buy. And the losses don’t evaporate into the ether—they reappear as higher prices, a quiet tax that falls hardest on those already counting dollars.

    This is the part that doesn’t make it into the manifesto. It’s easy to romanticize petty theft when you’re insulated from its consequences. It’s harder to maintain the pose when you’re the one absorbing the cost.

    There’s a particular kind of intellectual decay that sets in when smart people talk only to one another, applauding the cleverness of their own provocations. The room gets warmer, the ideas get softer, and reality is politely asked to wait outside. I’ve admired Tolentino’s work for its sharpness and nuance. But there’s a difference between insight and indulgence, and when the latter starts masquerading as the former, credibility takes a hit.

    At some point, the performance of rebellion stops looking brave and starts looking careless. And the people paying for it are the ones least invited to the conversation.

  • “I Am the Frogman”: The Last Shout Before the Door Seals

    “I Am the Frogman”: The Last Shout Before the Door Seals

    I’ve spent more than a decade documenting my watch obsession on YouTube—a pursuit that begins as hobby and ends, if you’re not careful, as behavioral conditioning. You think you’re making videos. You’re actually being trained. The algorithm dispenses rewards and punishments with clinical indifference: views, comments, silence. You adapt. Of course you adapt. That’s the job now.

    The trouble is that the algorithm has no interest in truth, balance, or restraint. It prefers spectacle. It rewards the emotional range of a teenager who’s just discovered caffeine: hyperbole, dread, euphoria, FOMO, regret—delivered with the urgency of a man announcing the end of civilization via bezel insert. You wake up one morning and discover you’ve succumbed to Algorithmic Persona Drift—a slow mutation in which your public self becomes a louder, shinier, more hysterical version engineered for attention rather than accuracy.

    Feed it, and it feeds you back. The cycle tightens. Every video must be more decisive, more apocalyptic, more “this changes everything.” You produce manifestos. You narrate epiphanies. You analyze your own obsession with the intensity of a man dissecting his own heartbeat. The result is predictable: you become a caricature of yourself—recognizable, marketable, and faintly absurd.

    If you can tolerate that, the system will reward you. The numbers rise. The revenue trickles, then flows. You build a small empire out of controlled exaggeration. But there comes a moment—quiet, unwelcome—when you no longer recognize the man delivering the lines. The performance has outgrown the person. At that point, the decision presents itself with unpleasant clarity: keep feeding the machine and let it finish the job, or step away and salvage what remains of your voice.

    That’s one exit.

    The other is less dignified. You don’t leave; you are expelled. The causes are familiar—burnout, self-disgust, ennui, health—but the most decisive is also the least negotiable: age. You wake up one day and realize the tempo has changed. The rhythms that once animated you now sound distant, like music leaking from another room. The new release, the hyped drop, the celebrity of the week—none of it lands with the old voltage. Mortality has entered the conversation and lowered the volume.

    You try to resist. You tell yourself enthusiasm is a choice. But the gap widens anyway. You find yourself oddly relieved that you no longer care about bracelet articulation or dial gradients or the fever dream that the “perfect collection” is one purchase away. The brotherhood reveals itself for what it always was: half fellowship, half support group. You no longer feel the urge to compare scars from impulse buys, to laugh at the madness, to whisper—half-serious, half-hopeful—that this watch will finally cure you.

    For me, the separation was unmistakable. Twenty years dissolved into a blur of rotating bezels and contingency divers. Then, at sixty-three, something tapped my shoulder. Not a crisis. A correction. The obsession didn’t die; it simply lost its authority. Desire dimmed, replaced by a quiet recognition that watches are exquisitely engineered ways of losing to time.

    The feeling calls to mind a scene from Battlestar Galactica: a traitor sealed behind glass, the airlock hissing, the crew watching with solemn finality. Not melodrama—procedure. That’s aging. Not tragic, not cruel—inevitable. At some point, those still inside the illusion of endless tomorrows begin to edge away from those who have seen the horizon contract.

    A pane descends. It isn’t hostile. It’s accurate.

    You tap the glass, wave, try to rejoin the cockpit of youthful urgency. You even lift your wrist—your hulking G-Shock Frogman—and make your case. “Look,” you want to say, “I’m still in it.” But the seal has set. Reentry is not part of the design.

    What remains is less dramatic and more demanding: dignity. Accept the season you’re in. Build meaning instead of inventory. Offer something useful to those still racing ahead, even if they don’t yet see why it matters. They will. Everyone does, eventually.

    The algorithm fades. The noise recedes.

    And you are left, at last, with a quieter, harder question: not what you want next—but who you intend to be without the applause.