Cinemorphosis

Blog

  • The Death of Dinner: How AI Could Replace Pleasure Eating with Beige, Compliant Goo

    The Death of Dinner: How AI Could Replace Pleasure Eating with Beige, Compliant Goo

    Savor that croissant while you still can—flaky, buttery, criminally indulgent. In a few decades, it’ll be contraband nostalgia, recounted in hushed tones by grandparents who once lived in a time when bread still had a soul and cheese wasn’t “shelf-stable.” Because AI is coming for your taste buds, and it’s not bringing hot sauce.

    We are entering the era of algorithm-approved alimentation—a techno-utopia where food isn’t eaten, it’s administered. Where meals are no longer social rituals or sensory joys but compliance events optimized for satiety curves and glucose response. Your plate is now a spreadsheet, and your fork is a biometric reporting device.

    Already, AI nutrition platforms like Noom, Lumen, and MyFitnessPal’s AI-diet overlords are serving up daily menus based on your gut flora’s mood and whether your insulin levels are feeling emotionally regulated. These platforms don’t ask what you’re craving—they tell you what your metrics will tolerate. Dinner is no longer about joy; it’s about hitting your macros and earning a dopamine pellet for obedience.

    Tech elites have already evacuated the dinner table. For them, food is just software for the stomach. Soylent, Huel, Ka’chava—these aren’t meals, they’re edible flowcharts. Designed not for delight but for efficiency, these drinkable spreadsheets are powdered proof that the future of food is just enough taste to make you swallow.

    And let’s not forget Ozempic and its GLP-1 cousins—the hormonal muzzle for hunger. Pair that with AI wearables whispering sweet nothings like “Time for your lentil paste” and you’ve got a whole generation learning that wanting flavor is a failure of character. Forget foie gras. It’s psy-ops via quinoa gel.

    Even your grocery cart is under surveillance. AI shopping assistants—already lurking in apps like Instacart—will gently steer you away from handmade pasta and toward fermented fiber bars and shelf-stable cheese-like products. Got a hankering for camembert? Sorry, your AI gut-coach has flagged it as non-compliant dairy-based frivolity. Enjoy your pea-protein puck, peasant.

    Soon, your lunch break won’t be lunch or a break. It’ll be a Pomodoro-synced ingestion window in which you sip an AI-formulated mushroom slurry while doom-scrolling synthetic influencers on GLP-1. Your food won’t comfort you—it will stabilize you, and that’s the most terrifying part. Three times a day, you’ll sip the same beige sludge of cricket protein, nootropic fibers, and psychoactive stabilizers, each meal a contract with the status quo: You will feel nothing, and you will comply.

    And if you’re lucky enough to live in an AI-UBI future, don’t expect dinner to be celebratory. Expect it to be regulated, subsidized, and flavor-neutral. Your government food credits won’t cover artisan cheddar or small-batch bread. Instead, your AI grocery budget assistant will chirp:

    “This selection exceeds your optimal cost-to-nutrient ratio. May I suggest oat crisps and processed cheese spread at 50% less and 300% more compliance?”

    Even without work, you won’t have the freedom to indulge. Your wearable will monitor your blood sugar, cholesterol, and moral fiber. Have a rogue bite of truffle mac & cheese? That spike in glucose just docked you two points from your UBI wellness score:

    “Indulgent eating may affect eligibility for enhanced wellness bonuses. Consider lentil loaf next time, citizen.”

    Eventually, pleasure eating becomes a class marker, like opera tickets or handwritten letters. Rich eccentrics will dine on duck confit in secrecy while the rest of us drink our AI-approved nutrient slurry in 600-calorie increments at 13:05 sharp. Flavor becomes a crime of privilege.

    The final insult? Your children won’t even miss it. They’ll grow up thinking “food joy” is a myth—like cursive writing or butter. They’ll hear stories of crusty baguettes and sizzling fat the way Boomers talk about jazz clubs and cigarettes. Romantic, but reckless.

    In this optimized hellscape, eating is no longer an art. It’s a biometric negotiation between your body and a neural net that no longer trusts you to feed yourself responsibly.

    The future of food is functional. Beige. Pre-chewed by code. And flavor? That’s just a bug in the system.

  • How Headphones Made Me Emotionally Unavailable in High-Resolution Audio

    How Headphones Made Me Emotionally Unavailable in High-Resolution Audio

    After flying to Miami recently, I finally understood the full appeal of noise-canceling headphones—not just for travel, but for the everyday, ambient escape act they offer my college students. Several claim, straight-faced, that they “hear the lecture better” while playing ASMR in their headphones because it soothes their anxiety and makes them better listeners. Is this neurological wizardry? Or performance art? I’m not sure. But apocryphal or not, the explanation has stuck with me.

    It made me see the modern, high-grade headphone as something far more than a listening device. It’s a sanctuary, or to use the modern euphemism, an aural safe space in a chaotic world. You may not have millions to seal yourself in a hyperbaric oxygen pod inside a luxury doomsday bunker carved into the Montana granite during World War Z, but if you’ve got $500 and a credit score above sea level, you can disappear in style—into a pair of Sony MX6s or Audio-Technica ATH-R70s.

    The headphone, in this context, is not just gear—it’s armor. Whether cocobolo wood or carbon fiber, it communicates something quietly radical: “I have opted out.”

    You’re not rejecting the world with malice—you’re simply letting it know that you’ve found something better. Something more reliable. Something calibrated to your nervous system. In fact, you’ve severed communication so politely that all they hear is the faint thump of curated escapism pulsing through your earpads.

    For my students, these headphones are not fashion statements—they’re boundary-drawing devices. The outside world is a cacophony of canvas announcements, attention fatigue, and algorithmically optimized despair. Inside the headphones? Rain sounds. Lo-fi beats from a YouTube loop titled “study with me until the world ends.” Maybe even a softly muttering AI voice telling them they are enough.

    It doesn’t matter whether it’s true. It matters that it works.

    And here’s the deeper point: the headphone isn’t just a sanctuary. It’s a non-accountability device. You can’t be blamed for ghosting a group chat or zoning out during a team huddle when you’re visibly plugged into something more profound. You’re no longer rude—you’re occupied. Your silence is now technically sound.

    In a hyper-networked world that expects your every moment to be a node of productivity or empathy, the headphone is the last affordable luxury that buys you solitude without apology. You don’t need a manifesto. You just need active noise-canceling and a decent DAC.

    You’re not ignoring anyone. You’ve just entered your own monastery of midrange clarity, bass-forward detachment, and spatially engineered peace.

    And if someone wants your attention?

    Tell them to knock louder. You’re in sanctuary.

  • College Essay Prompt: Beyond Authentic: How Evolving Cuisines Tell Stories of Survival, Adaptation, and Identity

    College Essay Prompt: Beyond Authentic: How Evolving Cuisines Tell Stories of Survival, Adaptation, and Identity

    Overview:

    Write a 1,700-word argumentative essay examining whether dishes like birria ramen, orange chicken, Korean tacos, or Tex-Mex fajitas should be dismissed as inauthentic or embraced as culturally rich, adaptive expressions of immigrant creativity. Using the evolution of Mexican and Chinese food in the U.S. as your focus, evaluate how culinary “impurity” may reflect resilience more than betrayal.

    This assignment challenges the simplistic binary of cultural appropriation vs. cultural preservation by exploring how food evolves through migration, racism, class, capitalism, and the human need to survive—and thrive.

    Central Claim to Defend, Refute, or Complicate:

    Criticizing American Chinese and modern Mexican cuisine as “inauthentic” oversimplifies the historical, cultural, and economic forces that drive culinary evolution.

    Required Sources (Use at least 4, MLA format):

    • Gustavo Arellano – “Let White People Appropriate Mexican Food”
    • The Search for General Tso (dir. Ian Cheney, 2014)
    • Charles W. Hayford – “Who’s Afraid of Chop Suey?”
    • Cathy Erway – “More Than ‘Just Takeout’”
    • Kelley Kwok – “‘Not Real Chinese’: Why American Chinese Food Deserves Our Respect”
    • Jiayang Fan – “Searching for America with General Tso”

    Focus Questions to Consider:

    • What is gained or lost when immigrant cuisines adapt to mainstream tastes?
    • How have Mexican and Chinese-American dishes reflected creative survival strategies in the face of xenophobia or marginalization?
    • Is culinary “authenticity” a meaningful cultural value or an exclusionary myth?
    • How do evolving cuisines challenge stereotypes and redefine American identity?
    • Should food be judged by origin or by impact?

    Essay Requirements:

    • Length: 1,700 words
    • Format: MLA (12 pt font, double-spaced, Times New Roman)
    • Sources: At least 4 from the required list
    • Tone: Academic and analytical, but open to personal insight or cultural experience
    • Structure: Use the suggested outline below or build your own coherent structure

    Suggested Structure:

    Intro (200–300 words):

    • Open with the “authenticity” debate in food culture
    • Present the evolution of Mexican and Chinese cuisine as a case study
    • Clearly state your thesis: whether you defend, challenge, or complicate the rejection of “inauthentic” foods

    Section 1: Culinary Evolution as Cultural Power (400–500 words)

    • Use Arellano’s “adaptability” argument and The Search for General Tso
    • Explore how adaptation expands—not erases—culinary traditions

    Section 2: Food as a Tool of Survival (400–500 words)

    • Use Jiayang Fan and Cathy Erway to show how these cuisines offered paths to economic mobility and belonging
    • Address how racism shaped what was “acceptable” for the mainstream palate

    Section 3: Rethinking Authenticity (400–500 words)

    • Use Kelley Kwok and Hayford to interrogate what we even mean by “authentic”
    • Acknowledge that tradition matters—but argue that hybridity is the tradition of diaspora

    Section 4: Counterargument & Rebuttal (300–400 words)

    • Address critics who claim fusion or Americanized food dilutes culture
    • Rebut: show how adaptation often preserves a culture’s essence in new form

    Conclusion (200–300 words)

    • Reaffirm your thesis: evolving cuisine reflects the ingenuity, creativity, and endurance of immigrant communities
    • Reflect on how accepting culinary adaptation challenges us to redefine American identity itself

    Final Notes to Students:

    This essay isn’t just about food—it’s about the stories food tells. Let your argument reflect that complexity. Engage deeply with your sources, and don’t be afraid to explore tensions: pride vs. commodification, tradition vs. survival, innovation vs. erasure.

  • College Writing Prompt: The Willpower Illusion: Ozempic, Obesity, and the Myth of Self-Control in a the Aesthetic Industrial Complex

    College Writing Prompt: The Willpower Illusion: Ozempic, Obesity, and the Myth of Self-Control in a the Aesthetic Industrial Complex

    Overview:

    Write a 1,700-word argumentative essay exploring whether the dominant narrative about weight loss—discipline, clean eating, and personal responsibility—still holds up in the age of pharmaceutical intervention, economic inequality, and digital diet culture.

    Drawing from Rebecca Johns (“A Diet Writer’s Regrets”), Johann Hari (“A Year on Ozempic…”), Harriet Brown (“The Weight of the Evidence”), and Sandra Aamodt (“Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”), analyze how obesity is shaped by factors far beyond individual willpower. Consider the influence of wealth disparity, pharmaceutical marketing, addictive food engineering, and digital culture on how we define health, blame failure, and reward certain bodies over others.

    Key Questions to Consider:

    • Is the belief in personal discipline as the primary tool for weight loss a dangerous oversimplification?
    • How do Ozempic and similar drugs challenge or reinforce our cultural obsession with self-control?
    • What role does economic privilege play in deciding who gets access to medical weight-loss interventions?
    • Are we witnessing a new form of techno-body capitalism where apps, injections, and dopamine loops manage our appetites better than we ever could?
    • How might social media, AI influencers, and fitness-tracking technologies contribute to a culture of body surveillance and shame?

    Required Sources (Use at least 4, MLA Format):

    • Rebecca Johns – “A Diet Writer’s Regrets”
    • Johann Hari – “A Year on Ozempic Taught Me We’re Thinking About Obesity All Wrong”
    • Harriet Brown – “The Weight of the Evidence”
    • Sandra Aamodt – “Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”

    Recommended Focus Areas:

    1. The Discipline Dilemma
     How Johns and Hari dismantle the myth that all it takes is willpower. What emotional, social, and physiological realities do they reveal?

    2. Set Points and Self-Sabotage
     How Aamodt and Brown explain the body’s resistance to permanent weight loss. What does the science say about the limits of effort?

    3. Ozempic and the Access Divide
     Ozempic works—but only for those who can afford it. How does this reflect a larger healthcare injustice?

    4. Capitalism’s Role in Body Control
     How the Industrial Food Complex profits from addiction, and Big Pharma profits from the “cure.” Is this a closed system of exploitation?

    5. Digital Diet Culture
     Optional but encouraged: bring in TikTok, fitness influencers, AI diet advice, or surveillance devices (like smartwatches and calorie-counting apps). How do these amplify shame or create new ideologies of control?

    Conclusion:

    Make a claim about how society should reframe the conversation around obesity and weight loss. Should we abandon the willpower narrative? Should access to medical treatments be universal? Should we question the legitimacy of “health” as a moral standard at all?

    Final Essay Requirements:

    • 1,700 words minimum
    • MLA format, 12pt Times New Roman, double-spaced
    • Include a clear thesis, transitions, and a conclusion
    • Use and cite at least 4 sources

    Submit with a Works Cited page

  • College Essay Assignment: Kayfabe Nation—How Showbiz Spectacle Hijacked Reality

    College Essay Assignment: Kayfabe Nation—How Showbiz Spectacle Hijacked Reality

    Prompt:

    In professional wrestling, “kayfabe” refers to the willing suspension of disbelief—the blurred line between what is real and what is scripted. Vince McMahon, long-time CEO of WWE, not only mastered kayfabe in the ring but arguably exported it to the broader American culture. From politics to social media, from reality TV to influencer culture, the logic of kayfabe—the performance of truth—has arguably infiltrated how we consume media, understand power, and participate in public life.

    In an 8-paragraph essay, make an argument about how kayfabe, as popularized by McMahon and WWE, has become a defining feature of American culture. Use examples from Mr. McMahon (Netflix docuseries), the book Ringmaster: Vince McMahon and the Unmaking of America by Abraham Riesman (optional), and draw on insights from at least two additional cultural texts (suggestions below) to support your claim.

    Essay Structure (8 Paragraphs)

    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Define “kayfabe” and introduce Vince McMahon as a key architect of it.
    • Introduce your thesis: Kayfabe has escaped the wrestling ring and now defines American public life through… [insert core claims: performance, manipulation, spectacle, etc.]

    Paragraph 2 – McMahon’s Mastery of Kayfabe

    • Show how Vince McMahon blurred the line between reality and performance in wrestling.
    • Use specific examples from Mr. McMahon or WWE history: character reinvention, real-life scandals worked into storylines, etc.

    Paragraph 3 – Kayfabe in Politics

    • Explore how politicians use wrestling-style performance—outrage, heel turns, loyalty tests—to manipulate perception.
    • Draw connections to Trump, MTG, RFK Jr., or any public figure who uses theatricality as political currency.

    Paragraph 4 – Kayfabe in Influencer Culture and Social Media

    • Show how influencers perform personas for clicks, sponsorships, and attention.
    • Highlight “authenticity as a performance” (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube).
    • Connect to Sherry Turkle’s idea of “performing ourselves into being.”

    Paragraph 5 – Kayfabe and the Media

    • Explain how media outlets also engage in narrative performance, packaging news as conflict and drama.
    • Consider the structure of cable news or partisan commentary.
    • Tie in insights from The Social Dilemma if desired.

    Paragraph 6 – Why This Works: Spectacle, Identity, and Tribalism

    • Analyze why kayfabe culture thrives—people want characters, not nuance; certainty, not ambiguity.
    • Explore how kayfabe fuels tribal identity and short-circuits critical thinking.

    Paragraph 7 – Counterargument & Rebuttal

    • Some may argue kayfabe is just entertainment and audiences are in on the joke.
    • Rebuttal: Even when “in on the joke,” people act based on performance rather than truth—leading to real-world consequences (e.g., Jan. 6, vaccine conspiracies, celebrity cults).

    Paragraph 8 – Conclusion

    • Restate your thesis: Kayfabe is no longer a gimmick—it’s a governing principle.
    • Reflect on the dangers of living in a world where perception outweighs reality.
    • Optional: Suggest how we might reclaim discernment in a post-kayfabe culture.

    Suggested Sources

    • Netflix documentary: Mr. McMahon
    • Abraham Riesman’s Ringmaster: Vince McMahon and the Unmaking of America (excerpts or reviews)
    • Sherry Turkle’s TED Talk “Connected, but Alone?”
    • Clips from WWE (e.g., McMahon’s character arc, Trump’s WrestleMania appearance)
    • The Social Dilemma (Netflix)
    • Articles on political spectacle and “media wrestling” (e.g., Matt Taibbi’s Hate, Inc. or Jonathan Haidt on tribalism)

  • College Essay Prompt: Performance, Collapse, and the Hunger for Validation

    College Essay Prompt: Performance, Collapse, and the Hunger for Validation

    In the Black Mirror episode “Nosedive,” Lacie Pound carefully curates her public persona to climb the social ranking system, only to experience a spectacular breakdown when her performative identity collapses. Similarly, in the Netflix documentary Untold: The Liver King, Brian Johnson (aka the Liver King) constructs a hyper-masculine brand built on ancestral living and self-discipline, but his digital persona unravels after his steroid use is exposed—calling into question the authenticity of his entire identity.

    Drawing on insights from The Social Dilemma and Sherry Turkle’s TED Talk “Connected, but alone?”, write an 8-paragraph essay analyzing how both Lacie Pound and the Liver King experience breakdowns caused by the pressure to perform a marketable self online. Consider how their stories reveal broader truths about the emotional and psychological toll of living in a world where self-worth is measured through digital validation.

    Instructions:

    Your essay should have a clear thesis and be structured as follows:

    Paragraph 1 – Introduction

    • Briefly introduce Lacie Pound and the Liver King as case studies in digital performance.
    • State your thesis: What common psychological or social dynamic do their stories reveal about life in the attention economy?

    Paragraph 2 – The Rise of the Performed Self

    • Explain how Lacie and the Liver King construct public identities tailored for approval.
    • Use The Social Dilemma and/or Turkle to support your claim about the pressures of online self-curation.

    Paragraph 3 – The Collapse of Lacie Pound

    • Analyze the arc of Lacie’s breakdown.
    • Show how social scoring leads to isolation and emotional implosion.

    Paragraph 4 – The Unmasking of the Liver King

    • Describe how his confession undermines his brand.
    • Discuss the role of digital audiences in both elevating and dismantling him.

    Paragraph 5 – The Role of Tech Platforms

    • How do algorithms and platforms reward performance and punish authenticity?
    • Draw from The Social Dilemma for evidence.

    Paragraph 6 – The Illusion of Connection

    • Use Turkle’s TED Talk to explore how both characters are “connected, but alone.”
    • Consider their emotional lives behind the digital façade.

    Paragraph 7 – A Counterargument

    • Could it be argued that both Lacie and the Liver King benefited from their online identities, at least temporarily?
    • Briefly address and rebut this view.

    Paragraph 8 – Conclusion

    • Reaffirm your thesis.
    • Reflect on what their stories warn us about the future of identity, performance, and mental health in the digital age.

    Requirements:

    • MLA format
    • 4 sources minimum (episode, documentary, TED Talk, and one external article or scholarly source of your choice)
    • Include a Works Cited page

    Here are 7 ways Lacie Pound (Black Mirror: Nosedive) and the Liver King (Untold: The Liver King) were manipulated by social media into self-sabotage, drawn through the lens of The Social Dilemma and Sherry Turkle’s TED Talk “Connected, but alone?”:

    1. They Mistook Validation for Connection

    Turkle argues we’ve “sacrificed conversation for connection,” replacing real intimacy with digital approval.

    • Lacie chases ratings instead of relationships, slowly alienating herself from authentic human bonds.
    • The Liver King builds a global audience but admits to loneliness and insecurity beneath the performative bravado.

    2. They Became Addicted to the Performance of Perfection

    The Social Dilemma explains how platforms reward idealized personas, not authenticity.

    • Lacie’s entire life becomes a curated highlight reel of fake smiles and forced gratitude.
    • The Liver King obsessively maintains his primal-man image, even risking credibility and health to keep the illusion intact.

    3. They Were Trapped in an Algorithmic Feedback Loop

    Algorithms feed users what keeps them engaged—usually content that reinforces their current identity.

    • Lacie’s feed reflects her desire to be liked, pushing her deeper into a phony aesthetic.
    • The Liver King is incentivized to keep escalating his primal stunts—eating raw organs, screaming workouts—not because it’s healthy, but because it gets clicks.

    4. They Confused Metrics with Meaning

    The Social Dilemma reveals how “likes,” views, and follower counts hijack the brain’s reward system.

    • Lacie sees her social score as a measure of human worth.
    • The Liver King sees followers as a proxy for legacy and success—until the steroid scandal exposes the hollowness behind the numbers.

    5. They Substituted Self-Reflection with Self-Branding

    Turkle notes that in digital spaces, we “edit, delete, retouch” our lives. But that comes at the cost of honest self-understanding.

    • Lacie never pauses to ask who she is outside the algorithm’s gaze.
    • The Liver King becomes his own brand, losing sight of the person beneath the loincloth and beard.

    6. They Were Driven by Fear of Being Forgotten

    Both characters fear digital invisibility more than real-world failure.

    • Lacie’s panic when her rating drops is existential; she’s no one without her score.
    • The Liver King’s confession comes only after public exposure threatens his empire—because relevance, not truth, is the ultimate currency.

    7. They Reached a Breaking Point in Private but Fell Apart in Public

    The Social Dilemma highlights how tech is designed to capture our attention, not care for our well-being.

    • Lacie breaks down in front of an audience, her worst moment recorded and shared.
    • The Liver King’s undoing is broadcast to the same crowd that once idolized him—turning shame into spectacle.

    Three Sample Thesis Statements

    1. Basic (Clear & Focused):

    Both Lacie Pound and the Liver King suffer emotional breakdowns because they become trapped by the very social media systems they believe will bring them success, as shown through their obsession with validation, performance, and visibility.

    2. Intermediate (More Insightful):

    Lacie Pound and the Liver King, though separated by fiction and reality, both represent victims of an attention economy that rewards curated identities over authentic living—ultimately leading them to sacrifice mental health, integrity, and human connection for the illusion of approval.

    3. Advanced (Nuanced & Sophisticated):

    As Lacie Pound and the Liver King spiral into public self-destruction, their stories expose the way digital platforms—backed by algorithmic manipulation and cultural hunger for spectacle—transform the self into a brand, connection into currency, and identity into a high-risk performance that inevitably collapses under its own artifice.

  • Late Night Linguine: What The Big Night Taught Us About Conan and Leno

    Late Night Linguine: What The Big Night Taught Us About Conan and Leno

    In Stanley Tucci’s criminally under-watched gem The Big Night (1996), two Italian brothers run a brilliant but nearly empty restaurant on the Jersey shore. Primo, the chef, is an artist of uncompromising culinary vision; he serves risotto that would make a grown man weep. But across the street, the tables are packed—at a red-sauce theme park run by Pascal, a bombastic hack whose food is as bland as it is crowd-pleasing. Pascal serves chicken parmesan to the masses. Primo serves culture, discipline, and slow-cooked soul. One sells out nightly. The other nearly starves. Sound familiar?

    This, friends, is the Conan O’Brien vs. Jay Leno saga, plated beautifully in pasta.

    Jay Leno is Pascal: Safe, Satisfying, and Instantly Forgettable

    Pascal’s restaurant thrives not because the food is good, but because it’s predictable. You know what you’re getting. He panders to his audience, flatters their expectations, and sends them home full but not transformed. He is, in short, Jay Leno with a meat tenderizer.

    Leno’s version of The Tonight Show was the late-night equivalent of chicken alfredo with a side of inoffensive jokes about airport security. He killed in the ratings. He never offended. He never challenged. He played it down the middle, night after night, in denim.

    Conan is Primo: Brilliant, Awkward, and Often Underappreciated

    Primo is the brother who won’t compromise. He won’t dumb down his food, won’t swap risotto for spaghetti and meatballs just to please a palate that doesn’t know what it’s missing. He’s the chef who would rather close the restaurant than sully the integrity of a dish. Conan O’Brien, likewise, built his comedy around absurdity, self-sabotage, and exquisite oddness. He gave us Masturbating Bears, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, and the fever dream that was Walker, Texas Ranger lever pulls. Ratings? Meh. Relevance? Immeasurable.

    Conan didn’t want to “serve” the audience. He wanted to surprise them, confuse them, maybe even challenge them. He made comedy with the same attitude Primo brought to the kitchen: They may not get it now. But it matters.

    NBC as the Landlord: Just Pay the Rent, Please

    In The Big Night, the brothers face foreclosure. Their landlord doesn’t care about risotto. He cares about checks clearing. NBC was no different. When The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien struggled in the ratings, the network didn’t see a delicate soufflé in progress. They saw empty tables and a full plate of Jay Leno standing by. So they evicted Primo and reinstalled Pascal, with all the subtlety of a bulldozer.

    The Feast We Deserved, the Chicken We Got

    The emotional climax of The Big Night is a final, silent meal—a simple omelet, cooked and shared after the titular “big night” fails to save the restaurant. There are no words, no triumph, no redemption—just brothers, food, and fatigue. It’s one of the great, quiet scenes in cinema, the kind that stays with you.

    And so it is with Conan. He didn’t get the kingdom. He didn’t win the war. But he got the last word. And his work—the strange, defiant, beautiful risotto of late-night—endures. Meanwhile, Leno’s legacy, like Pascal’s veal scaloppine, is likely to congeal into a nostalgic footnote: “He made people happy. I think?”

    Final Bill

    Pascal may have owned the block. But Primo owned the soul.
    Leno owned the ratings. But Conan owns the legacy.

    Late night, like food, is about more than filling time.
    It’s about what stays with you.

    And forty years from now, nobody’s quoting Jay Leno.

    But someone, somewhere, will be pulling the Walker, Texas Ranger lever. And laughing like hell.

  • Why I Don’t Read Happiness Essays (and Neither Should You)

    Why I Don’t Read Happiness Essays (and Neither Should You)

    Arthur Brooks is a best-selling author, a man of clear intellect, solid decency, and enough charm to disarm even a hardened cynic. I read one of his books, From Strength to Strength, which tackles the subject of happiness with insight, elegance, and more than a few glimmers of genuine wisdom. For a week or so, I even took his ideas seriously—pondering the slow fade of professional relevance, the shift from fluid to crystallized intelligence, and the noble art of growing old with grace.

    And then I moved on with my life.

    What I didn’t move on from, unfortunately, was the onslaught of Brooks’ happiness essays in The Atlantic. They appear like clockwork, regular as a multivitamin—each one another serving of cod liver oil ladled out with the same hopeful insistence: “Here, take this. It’s good for you.” The problem isn’t Arthur Brooks. It’s happiness itself. Or rather, happiness writing—that genre of glossy, over-smoothed, well-meaning counsel that now repels me like a therapy dog that won’t stop licking your face during a panic attack.

    Let me try to explain why.

    1. The Word “Happiness” Is Emotionally Bankrupt

    The term happiness is dead on arrival. It lands with the emotional resonance of a helium balloon tied to a mailbox. It evokes cotton candy, county fairs, and the faded joy of children playing cowboys and Indians—an aesthetic trapped in amber. It feels unserious, childish even. I can’t engage with it as a concept because it doesn’t belong in the adult vocabulary of meaning-making. It’s not that I reject the state of being happy—I’m just allergic to calling it that.

    2. It Feels Like Cod Liver Oil for the Soul

    Brooks’ essays show up with the regularity and charm of a concerned mother armed with a spoonful of something you didn’t ask for. I click through The Atlantic and there it is again: another gentle lecture on how to optimize my inner light. It’s no longer nourishment. It’s over-parenting via prose.

    3. Optimizing Happiness Is a Ridiculous Fantasy

    Some of Brooks’ formulas for increasing happiness start to feel like they were dreamed up by a retired actuary trying to convert existential dread into a spreadsheet. As if flourishing could be reduced to inputs and outputs. As if there’s a number on the dial you can crank up if you just follow the steps. It’s wellness-by-algorithm, joy-by-numbers. I’m not a stock portfolio. I’m a human being. And happiness doesn’t wear a Fitbit.

    4. Satire Has Already Broken the Spell

    Anthony Lane, in his New Yorker essay “Can Happiness Be Taught?,”
    dismantled this whole genre with surgical wit. Once you’ve read a masterful takedown of this kind of earnest life-coaching prose, it’s impossible to take it seriously again. Like seeing the zipper on a mascot costume, the magic disappears. You’re just watching a grown-up in a plush suit tell you to breathe and smile more.

    5. I Like Things That Exist in the World

    I’m interested in things with friction and form—things you can grip, build, question, deconstruct. Music. Technology. Communication tools. Exercise. Love. Psychological self-sabotage. You know, the good stuff. Happiness, as a subject, has all the density of vapor. It’s more slogan than substance, and when I see it trotted out as a destination, I start scanning for exits.

    6. It’s a Hot Tub Full of Bromides

    I have no interest in an adult ed class on happiness led by a relentlessly upbeat instructor talking about “mindfulness” and “centeredness” with the fixed grin of someone who has replaced coffee with optimism. I can already hear the buzzwords echoing off the whiteboard. These classes are group therapy in a coloring book—pastel platitudes spoon-fed to the emotionally dehydrated.

    7. It’s Not Self-Help. It’s Self-Surveillance

    Let’s be honest: a lot of happiness literature feels like a soft form of control. Smile more. Meditate. Adjust your attitude. If you’re not happy, it must be something you’re doing wrong. It’s capitalism’s way of gaslighting your suffering. Don’t look outward—don’t question the system, the politics, the institutions. Just recalibrate your “mindset.” In this sense, the language of happiness is more pacifier than pathfinder.

    So yes, Arthur Brooks writes well. He thinks clearly. He’s probably a better person than I am. But his essays on happiness make me recoil—not because they’re wrong, but because they speak a language I no longer trust. I don’t want to be managed, monitored, or optimized. I want to be awake. I want to be challenged. And if I’m lucky, I’ll get to experience the real stuff of life—anger, beauty, confusion, connection—not just a frictionless simulation of contentment.

    Happiness can keep smiling from the other side of the screen. I’ve got kettlebells to swing.

  • From Shawarma to Swing Sets: A Kettlebell Fitness Cultist Takes a Break

    From Shawarma to Swing Sets: A Kettlebell Fitness Cultist Takes a Break

    I took a rare sabbatical from my kettlebell gospel this Memorial Sunday to bask in the company of my cousin Pete and Aunt Sherry in Studio City—because even iron addicts need a cheat day, preferably one involving shawarma and nostalgia. We spent eight hours doing what old relatives do best: eating like we’re about to hibernate, name-dropping concerts that smelled like patchouli and regret, and arguing over which decade had the best moral compass (spoiler: none of them).

    Pete and I go way back—Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco clambakes, enough Passover seders to qualify for spiritual overtime. Our shared memories stretch across seven decades like a shag carpet in a time-warped rec room.

    The weather, because of course it was, clocked in at 75 degrees—sunny, breezy, and just obnoxiously pleasant. So much so, we weren’t content with one perfect meal. We closed the day with Korean barbecue that tasted like it had been grilled by angels on a smoke break. Then came the real miracle: we took the 405 back to Torrance and hit no traffic. That’s not just a good omen—it’s borderline apocalyptic.

    When we got home, I turned to my wife and said, “The day was too perfect. Should I call a priest or a statistician?”

    Once the existential dread of joy wore off, I returned to my senses and thought I’ll be 64 soon. I need to map out my plan to slam heavy iron for the rest of my natural life. A sacred vow, if you will:

    • Follow Mark Wildman’s mantra: “Train injury-free today so you can train tomorrow”—not “break yourself now to impress your ego.”
    • Heed Pavel’s wisdom: Push to 80–90% failure, not 100%, because no one gets a trophy for tearing their rotator cuff.
    • Devour 200 grams of protein a day like it’s my job—and in a way, it is.
    • Keep calories under 2,400 so I don’t end up looking like I survived Passover but lost to diabetes.
    • Be grateful for my garage gym—no excuses, no sweaty strangers, no corporate playlists.
    • Appreciate that my workout intensity still rivals that of my teenage self in the 1970s, minus the acne and naïve dreams of Olympic glory.
    • And above all, give thanks that my family doesn’t stage an intervention every time I start rhapsodizing about kettlebell geometry.

    In conclusion, it was a dangerously perfect day—full of grilled meats, shared myths, and suspiciously easy freeway exits. I’m not saying I’m suspicious of happiness, but I’m definitely side-eyeing it.

  • Siri at 30,000 Feet: Watch Reviews from the Android Abyss

    Siri at 30,000 Feet: Watch Reviews from the Android Abyss

    I’ve recently fallen into a strange corner of YouTube, where watch reviews by non-English speakers are automatically dubbed into English by an AI translator. The result? A surreal auditory hallucination that sounds like Siri moonlighting as a flight attendant. Every video becomes a low-budget dream sequence: a monotone voice calmly explaining bezel alignment while I mentally brace for instructions on how to locate the nearest flotation device.

    These AI-dubbed reviews don’t just kill the vibe—they exterminate it. What might have been a charming deep dive into dial texture or lug curvature turns into a bureaucratic fever dream. I’m not learning about watches. I’m trapped in a dystopian airline safety video, narrated by an android who sounds like he’s instructing me on what to do in the event the cabin has a drop in oxygen.

    The silver lining? These videos are the perfect antidote to impulsive spending. No matter how alluring the lume or limited the edition, the second I hear that synthetic drone describing a in robot voice a strange new word– “sapphireklysteelcasebackwithantimagneticresistance”–my urge to buy evaporates. The watch becomes a prop in an uncanny AI daymare—and I, mercifully, return to reality with my wallet intact.