Category: technology

Paul Bunyan Meets the Chainsaw in Freshman Comp

During the Fall Semester of 2024, the English Department had one of those “brown bag” sessions—an optional gathering where instructors actually show up because the topic is like a flashing red light on the education highway. This particular crisis-in-the-making? AI. Would writing tools that millions were embracing at exponential speed render our job obsolete? The room was packed with nervous, coffee-chugging professors, myself included, all bracing for a Pandora’s box of AI-fueled dilemmas. They tossed scenario after scenario at us, and the existential angst was palpable.

First up: What do you do when a foreign language student submits an essay written in their native tongue, then let’s play translator? Is it cheating? Does the term “English Department” even make sense anymore when our Los Angeles campus sounds like a United Nations general assembly? Are we teaching “English,” or are we, more accurately, teaching “the writing process” to people of many languages with AI now tagging along as a co-author?

Next came the AI Tsunami, a term we all seemed to embrace with a mix of dread and resignation. What do we do when we’ve reached the point that 90% of the essays we receive are peppered with AI speak so robotic it sounds like Siri decided to write a term paper? We were all skeptical about AI detectors—about as reliable as a fortune teller reading tea leaves. I shared my go-to strategy: Instead of accusing a student of cheating (because who has time for that drama?), I simply leave a comment, dripping with professional distaste: “Your essay reeks of AI-generated pablum. I’m giving it a D because I cannot, in good conscience, grade this higher. If you’d like to rewrite it with actual human effort, be my guest.” The room nodded in approval.

But here’s the thing: The real existential crisis hit when we realized that the hardworking, honest students are busting their butts for B’s, while the tech-savvy slackers are gaming the system, walking away with A’s by running their bland prose through the AI carwash. The room buzzed with a strange mixture of outrage and surrender—because let’s be honest, at least the grammar and spelling errors are nearly extinct.

Our dean, ever the Zen master in a room full of jittery academics, calmly suggested that maybe—just maybe—we should incorporate personal reflection into our assignments. His idea? By having students spill a bit of their authentic thoughts onto the page, we could then compare those raw musings to their more polished, suspect, possibly ChatGPT-assisted essays. A clever idea. It’s harder to fake authenticity than to parrot a thesis on The Great Gatsby.

I nodded thoughtfully, though with a rising sense of dread. How exactly was I supposed to integrate “personal reflections” into a syllabus built around the holy trinity of argumentation, counterarguments, and research? I teach composition and critical thinking, not a creative writing seminar for tortured souls. My job isn’t to sift through essays about existential crises or romantic disasters disguised as epiphanies. It’s to teach students how to build a coherent argument and take down a counterpoint without resorting to tired platitudes. Reflection has its place—but preferably somewhere far from my grading pile.

Still, I had to admit the dean was on to something. If I didn’t get ahead of this, I’d end up buried under an avalanche of soul-searching essays that somehow all lead to a revelation about “balance in life.” I needed time to mull this over, to figure out how personal writing could serve my course objectives without turning it into group therapy on paper.

But before I could even start strategizing, the Brown Bag session was over. I gathered my notes, bracing myself for the inevitable flood of “personal growth narratives” waiting for me next semester.

As I walked out of that meeting, I had a new writing prompt simmering in my head for my students: “Write an argumentative essay exploring how AI platforms like ChatGPT will reshape education. Project how these technologies might be used in the future and consider the ethical lines that AI use blurs. Should we embrace AI as a tool, or do we need hard rules to curb its misuse? Address academic integrity, critical thinking, and whether AI widens or narrows the education gap.”

When I got home later that day, in a fit of efficiency, I stuffed my car with a mountain of e-waste—ancient laptops, decrepit tablets, and cell phones that could double as paperweights—and headed to the City of Torrance E-Waste Drive. The line of cars stretched for what seemed like miles, all of us dutifully purging our electronic skeletons to make room for the latest AI-compatible toys. As I waited, I tuned into a podcast with Mark Cuban chatting with Bill Maher, and Cuban was adamant: AI will never be regulated because it’s America’s golden goose for global dominance. And there I was, sitting in a snaking line of vehicles, all of us unwitting soldiers in the tech wars, dumping our outdated gadgets like a 21st-century arms race.

As I edged closer to the dumpster, I imagined ripping open my shirt to reveal a Captain America emblem beneath, fully embracing the ridiculousness of it all. This wasn’t just teaching anymore—it was a revolution. And if I was going to lead it, I’d need to be like Moses descending from Mt. Sinai, armed with the Tablets of AI Laws. Without these laws, I’d be as helpless as a fish flopping on a dry riverbank. To face the coming storm unprepared wasn’t just unwise; it was professional malpractice. My survival depended on it.

I thought I had outsmarted AI, like some literary Rambo armed with signal phrases, textual analysis, and in-text citations as my guerrilla tactics. ChatGPT couldn’t handle that level of academic sophistication, right? Wrong. One month later, the machine rolled up offering full signal phrase service like some overachieving valet at the Essay Ritz. That defense crumbled faster than a house of cards in a wind tunnel.

Okay, I thought, I’ll outmaneuver it with source currency. ChatGPT didn’t do recent articles—perfect! I’d make my students cite cutting-edge research. Surely, that would stump the AI. Nope. Faster than you can say “breaking news,” ChatGPT was pulling up the latest articles like a know-it-all librarian with Wi-Fi in their brain.

Every time I tried to pin it down, the AI just flexed and swelled, like some mutant Hulk fed on electricity and hubris. I was the noble natural bodybuilder, forged by sweat, discipline, and oceans of egg whites. ChatGPT? It was the juiced-up monster, marinated in digital steroids and algorithmic growth hormones. I’d strain to add ten pounds to my academic bench press; ChatGPT would casually slap on 500 and knock out reps while checking its reflection. I was a relic frozen on the dais, oil-slicked and flexing, while the AI steamrolled past me in the race for writing dominance.

That’s when the obvious landed like a kettlebell on my chest: I wasn’t going to beat ChatGPT. It wasn’t a bug to patch or a fad to outlast—it was an evolutionary leap, a quantum steroid shot to the act of writing itself. So I stopped swinging at it. Instead, I strapped a saddle on the beast and started steering, learning to use its brute force as my tool instead of my rival.

It reminded me of a childhood cartoon about Paul Bunyan, the original muscle god with an axe the size of a telephone pole. Then came the chainsaw. There was a contest: man versus machine. Paul roared and hacked, but the chainsaw shredded the forest into submission. The crowd went home knowing the age of the axe was dead. Likewise, the sprawling forest of language has a new lumberjack—and I look pathetic trying to keep up, like a guy standing on Hawthorne Boulevard with a toothbrush, vowing to scrub clean every city block from Lawndale to Palos Verdes.

October 1, 2025
David Letterman Killed Disco, But Can He Save My Class?

In one fell swoop, David Letterman killed disco. Not just the music, but the entire polyester empire of rhinestone smarm and sweat-drenched earnestness. Letterman wasn’t seduced by mirror balls. He walked on stage with his arctic deadpan, and with irony as his weapon, executed disco in front of a live studio audience.

I was just starting college then—a lifelong bodybuilder and Olympic weightlifter who could hoist a barbell but couldn’t hoist a personality. Muscles, yes. Presence, no.

I didn’t just want to be David Letterman. I wanted to graft his sardonic detachment onto the icy brilliance of Vladimir Nabokov—a cocktail of late-night sarcasm and literary menace. I didn’t know what I wanted to be, exactly, only that it had to involve confidence, storytelling, performance—something that allowed me to “give a presentation.”

By accident, I stumbled into teaching. In 1987, the chancellor of Humanities at Merritt College launched a pilot program to deliver classes at Skyline High School in Oakland, and none of the full-time faculty wanted the job. My neighbor, Felix Elizalde, whose kids went to school with me, threw me a lifeline. One gig snowballed into another, and soon I was a full-time college writing instructor.

That was thirty-eight years ago. For most of them, I would have told you the hardest part of the job was grading essays—an endless swamp of half-baked theses and misplaced commas. But now, in 2025, grading essays is only the second hardest task. The first? Something educators and administrators alike love to call “student engagement.”

I don’t know if it’s the black hole of smartphones or the simple math of age—I’m nearly forty-five years older than my students. Probably both. Either way, I can no longer stand in front of a classroom, channel my inner Letterman, and spin stories until the room vibrates with attention. Instead, I stand beside a giant screen plastered with Google Slides. My students are “visual learners,” raised on swipes and emojis.

I could go back to the Letterman Method, earn some laughs, maybe even spike engagement for a few minutes. But at what cost? The Google Slides aren’t as funny as my comedy routine, but they do hit the sacred “core concepts” and “Student Learning Outcomes.”

I’ve become a ghost haunting the pedagogy manuals. Occasionally I slip, crack a joke, earn some chuckles, channel my younger self—but then I reel myself back in, because the templates for counterarguments and rebuttals won’t teach themselves.

The students aren’t fooled. A few of the candid ones smirk: “Don’t worry, McMahon, ChatGPT will do it for us.”

And so, as I enter my mid-sixties, I keep trying to stay aligned with the modern world. Yet every step forward feels like five steps backward, as if I’m not teaching writing anymore but rehearsing my own obsolescence.

October 1, 2025
Boomer Samsung in a Gen Z OLED World

Two months shy of sixty-four in August of 2025, I found myself on the 405 heading north, fantasizing about writing a book on life’s last trimester. My wife (still spry at fifty), one twin daughter, and I were crawling toward Studio City for cousin Pete’s seventy-fifth birthday. Around Westwood, the freeway collapsed into one lane of misery thanks to a construction project that looked like it was engineered by Dante himself. A trip that should have been forty-five minutes mutated into a two-hour festival of fumes and despair. Traffic isn’t just exhausting—it’s the nihilist’s victory parade, proof that “progress” and “civilization” are marketing scams.

By the time we arrived, Pete’s lush estate felt less like Studio City and more like Sherwood Forest with valet parking. He asked how I was doing. I told him I needed a “405 Traffic Therapist” to exorcise the demons of my commute. Was there a triage tent with a cot so I could convalesce for a couple of hours and then join the party refreshed?

The party teemed with cousins and their friends, ninety percent of them over seventy, including the Beatles-and-Stones cover band. I admired them: financially secure but not pompous, health-conscious without being kale cultists, capable of joy in ways I’ve never mastered. When twilight came—salmon sky, ninety degrees—they stripped down and leapt into the pool like aging dolphins, while I swatted mosquitoes and sulked in long pants.

Later, in the spacious backyard beneath the canopies, I sat with a plate of hummus, feta, figs, and baba ghanoush and talked with Jim, my cousin Diane’s husband—a seventy-eight-year-old retired ophthalmologist.

He complimented my kettlebell regimen, and I confessed the truth: early bedtimes, bladder-draining night patrols, and terror of driving after dark. He leaned in, lowered his voice, and delivered the line that should be etched on my tombstone: “The hardest part of aging is becoming invisible. You still take up space, but people’s eyes skip over you, as if you’re furniture.”

I countered that invisibility was merciful compared to the greater horror: we are annoying relics in a world sprinting at 5G speed. Father Time has us hardwired for lag. You can swallow kale and swing iron all you want, but in the end, you’re a Samsung with a dying processor.

I bit into a fig, dribbled juice onto my shirt, and told Jim about my actual Samsung QLED. Four years old, picture fine, processor a fossil—menus freeze, apps load slower than a Pentium II. Samsung skimped on the chip. My fix? Upgrade to an LG OLED with a 4K AI processor that doesn’t choke when I click Netflix. The irony was obvious: I scorn Samsung for its lag while lumbering through life as a laggy processor myself. My thirty-something colleagues update effortlessly; I freeze, buffer, and curse the interface. I’m a Boomer Samsung in a Gen Z OLED world.

Jim tried to comfort me—“You’re still funny, the students must love you”—but I waved him off. Nature documentaries have already written my script: Scar the lion rules until the young challenger rips him down, and then Scar limps off, invisible, licking his wounds. You don’t fight the arc; you nod, maybe crack a joke, then spend five grand on an OLED so you can pretend you still belong in the modern ecosystem. I looked down at the feta crumbs on my lap and muttered, “Did they forget napkins?” Meanwhile, dozens of voices rose from the pool in a raucous “Hey Jude” singalong under a moonlit salmon sky. It was a magical moment, and all I could think about was how I’d forgotten to spray myself with DEET.

September 30, 2025
Out of Alignment

The following is an expansion from yesterday’s short post about old age into a full-blown chapter:

No one warned me, but I should have seen it coming: creeping toward your mid-sixties is less a rite of passage than a crisis of competence. Or, to be precise, it’s a progressive misalignment with the modern world. You drop references to Danish Go-Rounds, Screaming Yellow Zonkers, Tooter Turtle, Super Chicken, and All in the Family and watch blank faces stare back at you. You still assume that appliances are built with the sturdiness of yesteryear, only to find that today’s models disintegrate if you breathe on them sideways. This misalignment breeds a special kind of incompetence—egregious, preventable, humiliating.

You can swallow vats of triglyceride omega-3 fish oil, but the short-term memory still slips away without mercy. You forget where you parked your socks (on the couch), that you meant to watch the final episode of that crime docuseries on Netflix, that a Costco-sized case of 12-gallon trash bags lurks in the garage, or that you already ground tomorrow’s coffee beans. The indignities pile up like unopened mail.

These lapses, coupled with your fossilized references to extinct foods and beloved TV shows, render you a creature out of phase with the universe—an alien with wrinkles, blinking in confusion, flashing your unearned senior discount at the box office like it’s a badge of relevance.

You can flex all you want against this verdict. Wolf down 200 grams of protein daily, clang kettlebells in the garage, and polish yourself into the semblance of a beaming bodybuilder who could pass for forty-four instead of sixty-four. But that delusion ends the second you get behind the wheel at night. Your depth perception is a cruel joke. The glare of headlights and streetlamps slices into your worn irises like laser beams, reminding you that biology—not discipline—is running the show.

Like it or not, you’re aging in real time, a public spectacle of decline, the unwelcome prophet of mortality who shatters the younger generation’s illusion that time is indefinite. To them, you are as pleasant a presence as a neighbor’s dog barking at a squirrel at six a.m.—loud, unnecessary, and impossible to ignore.

Congratulations–you’ve become the world’s unwanted alarm clock.

My sense of misalignment with the world—along with the creeping incompetence that tags along with it—hit me square in the jaw in late September 2025, one month shy of my sixty-fourth birthday.

It happened on a Saturday evening. My wife, a spring chicken at fifty, had night-driving duty, which now includes chauffeuring our teen daughters to and from Knott’s Berry Farm at closing time. She can handle glare and depth perception; my irises, however, are shot, so I stay home.

Before leaving, she reminded me she’d be back in ninety minutes with not only our daughters but two of their friends, who would pile into the living room for a horror movie called Weapons. My task was humble: BLTs for the horde. She had assembled the sourdough, bibb lettuce, mayonnaise, and beefsteak tomatoes. All I had to do was bake two packages of turkey bacon. I asked when to start. She told me: cook it at five, eat my dinner alone, and she’d prep sandwiches for herself and the kids when they returned. And, since the girls had dibs on the living room, she and I would retreat to the bedroom to watch TV.

So I dutifully cooked the bacon (in one tray, but we’ll get to that), made myself a sandwich, and felt ridiculously proud. I had suggested adding BLTs to our dinner rotation and here was proof that my idea, embraced by my family, tethered me—however briefly—into alignment with them.

I capped off the meal with apple slices and mission figs, then decided to test the three-year-old Samsung QLED in our bedroom, which hadn’t been turned on since I’d moved it from the living room. That spot had been usurped by our new LG OLED. The LG was fine, except its remote summoned a ghastly leaf cursor on-screen, forcing you to point and shoot instead of just pressing buttons. A tremor in the hand and you’d select the wrong thing. Still, we had it tuned to Cinema Mode to dodge the dreaded “soap opera effect,” and the LG performed well enough.

Around six p.m., I plopped on the bed and powered up the Samsung. To my horror, half the screen was draped in black vertical lines, like a digital funeral shroud. The likely culprit? My solo clean-and-jerk onto the dresser—an Olympic lift without chalk, belt, or applause. The impact probably fractured internal circuits invisible to the eye. Or perhaps a ribbon cable had shaken loose from the T-Con board, the kind of thing you might fix if you were comfortable performing micro-surgery with tweezers. I am not. That Samsung was marched to my office and exiled to the growing eWaste Waiting Area, a mausoleum for electronics that had lost their duel with me.

But I was not done failing. I headed to my daughter’s room for Samsung Number Two—a two-year-old set I’d given her after last week’s reshuffling. The plan: reclaim the Samsung, and saddle her with the eleven-year-old 43-inch LG, which weighs twice as much as the supposedly bigger Samsungs.

Hubris, however, is a loyal companion. Samsung Number Two sat high on her dresser. I approached like a gorilla in a hurry, arms eagle-spread. My right thumb betrayed me: it pressed into the panel with a sickening crackle, leaving a dent in the digital flesh. In a fit of magical thinking, I told myself, “It probably bounced back.” Reality arrived the moment I powered it on: fresh black lines glared from the wound, precisely where my Hulk thumb had struck.

Two lessons seared themselves into my brain in those five minutes. First: modern TVs are absurdly fragile, delicate to the point of parody compared to their beefy ancestors. Second: I am unspeakably stupid.

When my wife came home, the girls claimed the living room. She inspected the bacon and recoiled. “You didn’t spread it out,” she scolded. “You piled it on one tray. You should have used two.”

“But two trays don’t fit in the toaster oven,” I countered.

“Use the big oven.”

“The bacon was fine,” I insisted, noting how transcendent my sandwich had been. She remained unmoved, cooked another batch herself, and then I broke the news about the TVs. She immediately texted her friends, who replied with the rolling-eye emoji. She rarely shares the emojis her friends lob back at my antics, but even she couldn’t suppress this one.

The next morning, I texted my engineering friend Pedro, who invited me to lug the broken Samsungs to his place. He loaded them into his car and promised to take them to his jobsite’s eWaste disposal. That act of disappearance soothed my wife. For closure, I bought a $300 Roku TV for the bedroom. This time, no clean-and-jerks—just white velvet gloves.

And no grunting.

But the adjustments keep coming. I’ve learned not to talk too loudly in the morning while the twins sleep. I remember to rest my thumb on the bathroom lock so the door doesn’t fire off a pistol-crack at 2 a.m. during a bladder run.

Still, no matter how many tweaks I make, I feel perpetually out of alignment. I am an old car with bald tires: once-grippy treads worn down to slick rubber, skidding across every patch of life. Just as a car with crooked alignment wobbles down the road, tugging against the driver’s will, so too does an old soul with fading memory and fossilized references lurch out of sync with the modern world. Both make unsettling noises, both grind themselves into uneven wear, and both provoke the same grim thought in bystanders: maybe it’s time for a realignment—or at least a new set of wheels.

September 29, 2025
Death by Clean-and-Jerk: a TV Tragedy

In the span of five minutes yesterday, I managed to destroy not one but two Samsung QLED smart TVs, each a 55-inch, three-year-old, $700 reminder of my own idiocy.

Samsung Number One had been sulking in the bedroom, untouched for a week. I had banished it there after splurging on a $1,500 LG OLED for the living room. Last night I flicked it on and found half the screen swallowed in black vertical lines, like a funeral shroud. The culprit? Most likely my own heroic attempt to hoist it solo onto a dresser—an Olympic clean-and-jerk without the chalk or the applause. The impact probably jarred the LCD panel, cracking delicate circuits invisible to the eye but fatal to the image. Maybe a ribbon cable came loose from the T-Con board, which can sometimes be reseated if you’re the kind of person who enjoys performing surgery with tweezers and a magnifying glass. I am not. That Samsung was escorted to my office, where it joined the growing eWaste Waiting Area, a sort of graveyard for gadgets that lost their duel with me.

Undeterred, I marched into my daughter’s room for Samsung Number Two—the TV I’d lent her after moving things around the previous week. She was at Knott’s Berry Farm with her friends, which seemed like a merciful stroke of timing. My plan: reclaim the Samsung, and let her inherit the old 43-inch LG, a relic from 11 years ago that weighs twice as much as the newer, bigger Samsungs.

But hubris is a loyal companion. Samsung Number Two sat high on her dresser, and I went at it like a gorilla in a hurry. I spread my arms wide to span its edges, but my right thumb betrayed me—it dug into the panel with a sickening crackle, leaving a dent in the digital flesh. In a feat of magical thinking, I told myself, “The panel probably bounced back.” Reality arrived the moment I powered it on: fresh black lines stood exactly where my Hulk thumb had pressed, like a signed confession of my clumsiness.

Two lessons were carved into my soul in those catastrophic five minutes. First, modern TVs are absurdly fragile, delicate to the point of parody compared to their beefy ancestors. Second, I am unspeakably stupid.

Now I must cram two cadaverous Samsungs into my car for their last ride to the eWaste center and figure out how to replace my bedroom screen. My daughter, surprisingly pliant, agreed to keep the old LG. As for my bedroom, I’m buying cheap: a $259 Roku 50-incher with deliberately low expectations. And from now on, I will follow the Prime Directive of Television Handling: any set larger than 40 inches must be carried upright by two people, no exceptions. This is not a powerlifting meet. There is no medal stand. A modern TV is a wafer-thin, brittle-screened diva.

So: velvet gloves. And no grunting.

September 28, 2025
My Lifelong Marriage to Convenience

There is much to admire about centering our lives on convenience. We save time and resources, avoid wasted effort, and maximize efficiency in the name of what is too often called “optimization.” A life built around convenience often becomes a quest for “life hacks.” But if our behavior is less inventive, we don’t call it a hack at all—just a preference.

For example, I refuse to go to the gym. It’s inconvenient, time-consuming, costly, and exposes me to airborne illnesses. I prefer to work out in the garage. That’s not a life hack—it’s just easier. The same goes for meals: having a bowl of oatmeal with protein powder and soy milk instead of lunch or dinner isn’t clever or innovative. It’s simply what I do when my family is out and I’m eating alone. Spending more than five minutes on a meal under those circumstances feels unnecessary. Calling a bowl of steel-cut oats or buckwheat groats a “life hack” would be grandiose.

During the pandemic, three-fourths of my classes moved online through Canvas, a Learning Management System (LMS). Hard copies disappeared. Graded documents were uploaded to the platform, which was remarkably efficient. I didn’t have to drive to campus. The college saved on electricity. That was five years ago, and my classes remain online. I now drive less than 3,000 miles a year. Online classes have made me very efficient. Once you taste efficiency, it’s nearly impossible to go back to inefficiency.

I admit I’m a less than admirable parent. I don’t like driving my teen daughters to their social functions—birthday parties, football games, dance practices, amusement parks. I find it all inconvenient. That’s my choice. If I were truly devoted to convenience, I wouldn’t have become a parent at all. And certainly not a cat owner. Kitty litter, flea control, vet visits, and travel arrangements are an affront to any serious commitment to convenience.

As desirable as convenience is, some personalities—mine included—turn it into a pathology. We center our lives around it, and any violation of our convenience policies breeds resentment. Many of these resentments are unreasonable. I resent old age and death, primarily because they are inconvenient. Doctor appointments and funerals interfere with my routine.

Convenience culture also makes us adore routine. I suspect routine is the groom to the bride of convenience.

Even my worldview is infected by this impulse. I am an agnostic, which I despise, because it is inconvenient. Agnosticism demands reading and constant reflection. I’ve consumed books by agnostics, atheists, universalists, infernalists, and the post-mortem-salvation curious. While Elizabeth Anderson’s critique of scripture has many compelling points, her notion of morality as nothing more than evolution feels inadequate. Paul’s vision of humanity as fallen and divided is more persuasive and mirrors my own psychology. I wish I could settle happily into Anderson’s worldview. It would be so convenient.

Speaking of religion, Jesus preached a gospel of inconvenience. His willingness to sacrifice his life in such a manner stands as the very opposite of convenience. For devotees of the gospel of ease, following Jesus is nearly unthinkable—a path that demands nothing less than a Damascus-level upheaval like Paul’s.

When I think of convenience, I’m reminded of Chris Grossman, a wine salesman I worked with in the 1980s. He was brilliant and affable but had no close relationships. He admitted he didn’t care much for life. He had tried having a girlfriend once and said it was awful—not because of her, but because it was too inconvenient. By his late thirties, he was a bachelor. He ate the same foods every day for simplicity’s sake and once a year drove his Triumph to a car show in Carmel. I loved him for it, because I knew we were both soulmates in convenience culture.

Some of us are more diseased by this devotion to convenience than others, and it often lowers our standards. I am appalled by factory farming and would like to be vegan. Perhaps if I lived alone, I could do it. But in a family of omnivores, that move would not go over well. I could prepare plant-based meals for myself, but I don’t—partly because of the inconvenience. Vegans I’ve spoken to say the hardest part isn’t the food but the social ostracism.

I’m already the black sheep in my family—the anti-social shut-in whose quirks are laughed at on good days and resented on bad ones. If I imposed a vegan diet, I fear it would alienate me further, and I’d have to grovel my way back into some semblance of connection.

As a lifelong neurotic who already alienates people more than I’d like, I know that repairing frayed relationships is an excruciating, arduous task. And it’s so inconvenient.

September 27, 2025
The Aesthetic Pharmaceutical Complex (a College Essay Prompt)
Write a 1,700-word argumentative essay that evaluates this claim: GLP-1 weight-loss drugs (e.g., Ozempic/Wegovy) offer a Faustian bargain–they blunt appetite and deliver rapid results, but at significant cultural, moral, and social costs. Examine whether these drugs simply cure an individual problem or whether they reshape appetite, pleasure, gender and marital dynamics, class inequality, body aesthetics, and personal agency in ways that should alarm us.

Use Rebecca Johns (“A Diet Writer’s Regrets”), Johann Hari (“A Year on Ozempic…”), Harriet Brown (“The Weight of the Evidence”), Sandra Aamodt (“Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”), and at least two additional reputable sources of your choice. Address both sides: acknowledge the medical benefits (for diabetes, metabolic disease, disability reduction) while testing the claim that GLP-1s amount to a societal deal with the devil — trading desire, culinary culture, and autonomy for narrow aesthetic and market outcomes.

Be sure to define terms (e.g., “Faustian bargain,” “GLP-1 drugs,” “body aesthetics”), offer evidence, and include a clear counterargument and rebuttal.

Five Sample Thesis Statements (with mapping components)
1. Thesis 1
  GLP-1 drugs are a Faustian bargain: they deliver rapid weight loss and metabolic benefit, but they also erode culinary pleasure, exacerbate social inequality, and replace disciplined habits with pharmaceutical dependence.
- Mapping: (1) immediate medical and psychological benefits, (2) cultural costs to food and pleasure, (3) social/economic consequences and dependence.
1. Thesis 2
  While GLP-1 medications can rescue lives in a clinical sense, their mainstreaming industrializes thinness—privileging aesthetics over health, amplifying economic divides, and outsourcing self-control to corporations and prescribers.
- Mapping: (1) clinical life-saving benefits, (2) commercialization of body aesthetics, (3) economic and ethical fallout.
1. Thesis 3
  GLP-1 drugs pose an ethical dilemma: they promise to erase cravings and curb addiction, but in doing so they risk flattening human desire, unsettling intimate relationships, and converting a public-health problem into a luxury aesthetic market.
- Mapping: (1) pharmacological suppression of appetite, (2) impact on relationships and social life, (3) marketization and inequality.
1. Thesis 4
  The rise of GLP-1s reframes weight management from moral failing to medicalized consumerism—undeniable benefits for some masked by troubling costs: cultural loss, shifting marital dynamics, and a dangerous dependence on biotech fixes.
- Mapping: (1) medical reframing of obesity, (2) cultural and interpersonal costs, (3) risks of technological dependence.
1. Thesis 5
  GLP-1 drugs give individuals the power to silence hunger, but that power comes tethered to troubling social outcomes: it amplifies privilege, intensifies pressure for aesthetic conformity, and weakens the role of habit and self-discipline in healthy living.
- Mapping: (1) appetite suppression and individual gains, (2) exacerbation of aesthetic and class pressure, (3) erosion of habit-based agency.
Counterargument (fair, strong):
Proponents of GLP-1 drugs argue that calling them a “Faustian bargain” ignores the very real medical and social benefits these medications deliver. For many patients—especially those with type 2 diabetes, obesity-related hypertension, or mobility-limiting weight—GLP-1s reduce blood sugar, lower cardiovascular risk, and unlock functional gains that years of dieting could not. Early reports also show improvements in mood, self-efficacy, and social participation: when chronic hunger is quieted, people can exercise more, sleep better, and engage with life instead of being consumed by food preoccupation. From this perspective, the drugs restore agency rather than remove it; they are tools that expand options for people trapped by biology, food environments, and limited access to behavioral medicine. To label them morally corrosive risks stigmatizing patients who finally find relief.

Rebuttal:
That claim deserves respect—but it doesn’t dissolve the deeper social harms that mainstreaming GLP-1s threatens to produce. Medicine can relieve individual suffering while simultaneously reshaping culture in ways that reward aesthetic conformity and widen inequality: when a pharmaceutical becomes the fastest route to thinness, weight status shifts further from a health metric to a marketable badge of status, attainable first by those with money, time, and prescriber access. The drugs also substitute biochemical fixes for social solutions—affordable nutritious food, safer neighborhoods for exercise, workplace protections—that address root causes of metabolic disease; this medicalization risks absolving policymakers and corporations of responsibility. Finally, the long-term psychosocial costs are real: appetite suppression can blunt pleasure and disrupt food’s role as social glue, and couples who diverge in access to these drugs face novel tensions over desirability, divided resources, and identity. In short, GLP-1s can be miracles for patients; they can also be catalysts for cultural and economic shifts that deserve critical scrutiny before we call the bargain a fair trade.
September 21, 2025
The Death Car Dilemma: How One Man Escaped the Camry-Accord Abyss

At nearly 64, with four decades of college writing instruction corroding his patience, Aiken Riddle found himself drowning in self-disgust. His life, once measured in lectures and essays, had shrunk to a tormenting question: Camry or Accord? He obsessed over the choice as though he were deciding between Catholicism and Presbyterianism, his eternal soul dangling in the balance. The absurdity wasn’t lost on him. He had genuine problems—blood markers creeping north, a torn rotator cuff ruining kettlebell workouts, rooms that needed paint, twin daughters who needed driver training, retirement forms stacked like gravestones, and joint bank accounts to secure before death turned his finances into a probate nightmare for his younger wife. Yet he couldn’t stop watching the YouTube videos and Reddit pages comparing the new Camry and Accord.

He vacillated like a madman.

One day while driving to his twins’ high school to pick them up, he would see an Accord and would say to himself with a sigh, “Ah, the Accord EX-L in Canyon River Blue. A very peaceful color. Not a bad car to die in.” Then another voice would say, “It’s a car, not a coffin, dummy!” Then he’d retort: “But this will be the last car I ever buy. Surely, it is my Death Car.” Upon which he’d rebuke himself, “God, you’re morbid! How can I live with you? Get away from me!”

Then the next day while picking up his girls from their school, he’d see a Camry SE in Heavy Metal and would say, “Ah, the Camry seems to be made for that color. Everything fits perfectly. Plus for under thirty-three K, I’m getting a taste of Lexus.” Upon which his other self would say, “At least you’re not talking about death. That’s an improvement.” Then he would say, “But the Accord is a quieter ride. I need quiet. Plus, the Accord dealership is walking distance away. I can drop off the Accord and walk home. That tips the advantage to Accord. But, wait, people are saying that the new Accord body style looks like an old Ford Taurus. Can I live with such ridicule?”

Over the ensuing days, he would go back and forth. It reached the point that his wife could tell by his body language that he was about to talk about his Camry-Accord dilemma and she would interrupt him even before he opened his mouth: “Stop right there, buster! I don’t want to hear it. Just make your damn decision!”

So he was alone in his torment.

One day he woke up and said he didn’t need a car. He calculated that for the last decade he had only driven three thousand miles a year. That hardly merited getting himself a new car. The decision was final: His daughters would take the old Accord and he’d give the newer one to his wife. He would simply borrow their cars when he needed them.

The decision was genius. He would not be less obliged to drive when he felt his driving skills had compromised over the last decade. He was by nature a recluse. His decision to not buy a car helped his cause. Why spend forty thousand dollars so I can behold a rarely-driven car in my garage before returning to the living room to play the piano or watch Netflix?

He learned that sometimes a decision is not either/or. There is sometimes another option, and not getting anything can be the best one of all.

September 20, 2025
The Carton of Milk Expiration Date on Your $3,000 Smart TV

Today to make room for a brand new LG OLED TV, we played a round of Musical TVs, the sad cousin of Musical Chairs, where everyone gets a screen but no one gets a perfect fit. The ten-year-old, 43-inch LG—now equipped with a trusty Roku brain—was dragged into the limbo-like office while my daughter debates whether it’s worth sacrificing square footage in her already modest quarters. The 50-inch Samsung, a QLED that once lorded over the living room, now teeters on another daughter’s dresser, swallowing what little space she had left for, say, books. I myself dragged the other Samsung—a year-old 50-incher—into the primary bedroom, wedging it precariously above the dresser like a luminous monolith threatening to tip over in the night.

Here’s the irony: both Samsungs, with their decent QLED panels, are sluggish as elderly donkeys thanks to endless software updates. The new champ in the living room, a sleek 55-inch LG OLED with all the bells, whistles, and marketing superlatives, purrs along just fine and the interface moves at lightning speed.

The oldest and smallest of the TVs, the 43-inch LG, weighs more than both Samsungs combined. It radiates old-school build quality, but if I mounted it on the wall, the drywall would come crashing down in an avalanche that would obliterate my family mid–Netflix binge.

What important lesson have I learned? These so-called “smart TVs” are dumb as dirt. You spend $700 to $3,000, and in a few years the software updates strangle the hardware until it wheezes. The fix is cheap and almost comically obvious: don’t throw the TV out—give it a new brain. A Roku or Apple TV box, a mere $100 to $150, resurrects the panel for another decade. A carton of milk lasts longer than a smart TV OS, but a $99 box of plastic keeps the pixels glowing.

September 19, 2025
On Watches, Aging, and Invisibility

Today I strapped on my Seiko Tuna diver, a hulking slab of steel that announces itself the moment you walk into a room. I don’t exactly want the attention, but let’s be honest: the watch is a radar blip that keeps me from fading into the wallpaper, just another suburban relic limping through the final trimester of existence.

This fear of invisibility gnawed at me after my cousin Pete’s 75th birthday party in Studio City. His brother-in-law Jim, a retired ophthalmologist at 77, leaned in and muttered, “The worst part of aging is people stop seeing you.” Those words have been rattling around in my skull ever since. Old age, it seems, is less about wisdom and more about turning into a frayed recliner everyone resents but no one wants to haul to the curb.

I’ll be 64 soon, and I know the rules: Father Time has a master plan, and it doesn’t include my vanity. Sure, you can still play piano with arthritic fingers, hike with a knee brace and a back girdle, and keep a smartwatch ready to call in helicopter rescue if you tumble into a viper-filled canyon. But invisibility is baked into the contract. You can fight it with kale salads and kettlebells, but in the end, your processor slows, your refresh rate lags, and the world swipes past you at 5G speed.

Take the Samsung QLED my wife bought at Sam’s Club in 2021. Four years later, the picture is fine, but the processor is a fossil. Menus freeze, apps take two minutes to load, and the whole thing wheezes like a Pentium II running Windows 11. Samsung cheaped out on the chip, and now I’m stuck with a dinosaur. My solution? Upgrade to an LG OLED, not because I need perfect pixels, but because I want a TV with an AI 4K processor that doesn’t choke when I click Netflix. The irony isn’t lost on me: I’m furious at Samsung for selling me a laggy processor, yet here I am, trudging through life as a laggy processor. My younger colleagues adapt to new tech in a snap; I freeze and buffer. I’m a Boomer Samsung in a Gen Z OLED world.

Nature is no kinder than tech. Watch the documentaries: Scar the lion rules the pride until Skip, the younger challenger, finally takes him down. Scar hobbles into the brush, invisible, forgotten, licking his wounds. That’s the arc. You don’t argue with it; you acknowledge it, maybe laugh about it, then go buy a $50 German Chocolate Cake at Torrance Bakery and eat the whole delicious thing. Because if invisibility is inevitable, you might as well go out with frosting on your face.

September 18, 2025