Blog

  • Obscurity Without Shame: The Enduring Beauty of the Trash Can Sinatras’ “Obscurity Knocks”

    Obscurity Without Shame: The Enduring Beauty of the Trash Can Sinatras’ “Obscurity Knocks”

    It was 1990, and there I was — strutting down Hollywood Boulevard with my girlfriend, a walking cliché in a secondhand leather jacket, pretending to be too jaded for the tourists but secretly hoping to be discovered by a roving talent scout. We ducked into some grim little shrine to adolescent misery, shopping for Smiths T-shirts and anything else that might broadcast our manufactured melancholy.

    That’s when the store’s sound system offered up “Obscurity Knocks” by the Trash Can Sinatras — a song I was too full of myself to recognize as a direct warning shot.
    At the time, I was a preening, would-be screenwriter and novelist, drunk on my own imaginary press clippings, convinced that obscurity was a fate reserved for lesser mortals. I didn’t realize that the bright, bittersweet melody washing over those racks of ironic despair was, in fact, my personal horoscope: You, sir, will toil unseen. You will remain a hidden draft in life’s file cabinet. And — shocking plot twist — it will not kill you.

    Decades later, “Obscurity Knocks” still sits at the top of my all-time favorites list, not because it flatters ambition, but because it gently demolishes it.
    It’s a hymn to living for the work itself, to making peace with invisibility, to resisting the cheap, sugary high of external validation.

    It is one of those rare songs that manages to be both wistful and liberating at once — a graceful acceptance letter to a life lived outside the gravitational pull of fame. Far from being a bitter anthem of failure, it’s a clear-eyed celebration of choosing the harder, more honest road: living for one’s art rather than living off it.

    At first listen, the jangly guitars and breezy melody almost betray the lyrical gravity beneath. The music is light, but the words carry the weight of a reckoning. The narrator stands at the border between youthful ambition and mature resignation, surveying the life he has actually lived versus the life he once imagined. And yet, there is no rage, no tantrum, no grasping for lost relevance. Instead, there is something far healthier and more beautiful: an elegy without self-pity, a conscious decision to stay faithful to the things that matter.

    The song’s real bravery lies in its refusal to dress obscurity up as defeat. It suggests that real integrity means loving what you do even when the spotlight points elsewhere — when the record deals dry up, when the critics stop caring, when the audience forgets. In an era addicted to metrics — clicks, likes, views — “Obscurity Knocks” remains a defiant refusal to reduce one’s life to a scoreboard.

    Mortality hums quietly underneath the entire track. It’s not explicit, but it’s there, felt in the weariness behind certain lines, the subtle wear and tear of a life measured not by trophies but by quieter, richer achievements: loyalty to craft, private joy, the bittersweet pleasure of simply carrying on. It accepts the inevitable fading without collapsing into nihilism.

    There is longing, yes — the song aches with it — but it’s a clean, unsentimental kind of longing. It isn’t the longing for public adoration or manufactured relevance; it’s the deeper human longing to matter, to create something true before the clock runs out. In this way, “Obscurity Knocks” isn’t just about a music career. It’s about the universal experience of learning to live meaningfully in a world that will not give you a standing ovation for it.

    The Trash Can Sinatras don’t rage against the dying of the light; they tip their hats to it, shrug, and keep playing. And in that shrug, that beautifully unvarnished acceptance, they find a kind of glory that fame could never offer.

    Do the Trash Can Sinatras have a song more beautiful than “Obscurity Knocks”? Technically, yes — but only one, and finding it is like trying to locate the Holy Grail in a used CD bin. It’s a B-side called “My Mistake,” a painfully perfect little anthem about a young fool so drunk on love he trips over his own heart like it’s a barstool in a dark room.

    It’s a song that captures, with ridiculous precision, the exquisite humiliation of thinking you’re the protagonist in a grand romance when you’re actually just a blip on someone else’s radar — a mistake you won’t stop making until life has finished sanding the delusions off your bones.

    Postscript:

    After writing this post, I felt compelled to listen to “Obscurity Knocks” on YouTube and someone asked in the comment section: “Any other songs like this?” I answered: “Yes, ‘My Finest Hour’ by The Sundays.”

  • Performance and Collapse: How Platforms Devour the Liver King and Jordan Peterson: A College Essay Prompt

    Performance and Collapse: How Platforms Devour the Liver King and Jordan Peterson: A College Essay Prompt

    In today’s algorithm-driven media landscape, individuals who achieve fame on platforms like YouTube and social media often face a hidden, corrosive pressure: the demand to become ever more extreme, performative, and detached from their authentic selves.

    Watch the public mental unraveling of two figures — the Liver King (as documented in a series of YouTube videos) and Jordan Peterson (as depicted in The Rise of Jordan Peterson documentary). Compare the trajectories of their psychological and behavioral decline, analyzing how the platforms they used amplified their worst tendencies.

    Incorporate insights from:

    • The Rise of Jordan Peterson (documentary)
    • YouTube videos chronicling the Liver King’s exposure and decline
    • Black Mirror episode “Joan Is Awful” (how algorithms push people toward performative self-destruction)
    • Jaron Lanier’s arguments about social media’s corrosive effects on personality (from his interviews and talks)

    Your essay should argue that social media algorithms don’t just reward extremism — they demand it, often pushing creators toward psychological collapse as the price of staying visible.


    8-Paragraph Essay Outline:


    Paragraph 1: Introduction – Define the Problem

    • Introduce the idea that social media algorithms act as accelerants for personality decay.
    • Briefly introduce the Liver King and Jordan Peterson as case studies of public decline.
    • Reference Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful” as a fictional mirror to this real-world dynamic.

    Paragraph 2: Thesis Statement

    • Example thesis:
      The mental decline of the Liver King and Jordan Peterson reveals how algorithm-driven platforms reward extremity and self-caricature, pushing once-complex individuals into performative collapse — a phenomenon accurately foreshadowed in Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful” and analyzed by Jaron Lanier.

    Paragraph 3: The Algorithmic Trap (Black Mirror and Lanier)

    • Analyze “Joan Is Awful”: how ordinary people are manipulated into grotesque caricatures for audience pleasure.
    • Bring in Jaron Lanier’s view: social media turns users into exaggerated, degraded versions of themselves through engagement-driven systems.
    • Apply these ideas to real-life figures.

    Paragraph 4: The Rise and Decline of the Liver King

    • Outline the Liver King’s initial rise to fame: primal masculinity, simple rules, raw liver eating.
    • Show how algorithmic rewards (clicks, virality, outrage) pushed him into increasingly absurd and dishonest performances.
    • Discuss the steroid scandal and public unmasking as an inevitable consequence of the “always escalate” platform culture.

    Paragraph 5: The Rise and Decline of Jordan Peterson

    • Outline Peterson’s early rise: thoughtful critiques of political correctness, psychology, and meaning.
    • Show how algorithmic fame pushed him toward more extreme, polarizing, and messianic posturing.
    • Discuss his health collapse (addiction, hospitalization) and how his public persona hardened into something nearly unrecognizable.

    Paragraph 6: Comparative Analysis – Common Patterns

    • Compare how both men became trapped by audience expectations and platform demands.
    • Emphasize the “performance feedback loop”: initial authenticity gives way to exaggerated, brittle public personas.
    • Show how neither could retreat without losing relevance.

    Paragraph 7: The Psychological and Societal Cost

    • Discuss the personal toll on the Liver King and Peterson: mental health decline, public backlash, loss of nuance.
    • Discuss the broader societal cost: platforms training audiences to demand caricatures instead of complex human beings.

    Paragraph 8: Conclusion – Dramatic Reflection

    • Dramatically restate that the algorithm does not merely reflect public taste — it actively degrades the performers and the audience alike.
    • Suggest that escaping the “Joan Is Awful” trap requires recognizing the hidden machinery of amplification before it devours more public (and private) selves.

    Required Research List

    1. The Rise of Jordan Peterson (2019) — Directed by Patricia Marcoccia

    • Why:
      Documents Peterson’s public transformation and growing extremism as he grapples with sudden fame and cultural polarization.

    2. Black Mirror: “Joan Is Awful” (2023) — Episode from Season 6, created by Charlie Brooker

    • Why:
      Fictional but eerily accurate portrayal of how algorithmic platforms co-opt and exaggerate individual identity for mass entertainment and engagement.

    3. YouTube Videos Chronicling the Liver King’s Rise and Decline

    • Specific Examples to Use:
      • Liver King’s public apology video admitting steroid use (December 2022)
      • Exposé videos by major YouTubers (such as Derek from More Plates More Dates) analyzing the performance pressure and false branding.
    • Why:
      Real-time documentation of how the Liver King’s public persona escalated and collapsed under algorithmic pressures.

    4. Jaron Lanier’s Commentaries on Social Media’s Psychological Effects

    • Specific Sources to Pull From:
      • Jaron Lanier’s YouTube interviews, such as:
        • “Jaron Lanier on How Social Media Ruins Your Life” (WIRED, 2018)
        • “Delete Your Social Media Accounts Right Now” (TEDx, various recordings)
    • Why:
      Lanier provides critical, first-hand insight into how algorithmic platforms manipulate users’ personalities, rewarding outrage, distortion, and performance.

    Optional/Recommended Supplemental Sources (Choose Two):

    5. Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now (2018) — by Jaron Lanier (Book)

    • Why:
      Lanier’s full-length argument about how social media platforms degrade both individual users and society at large.

    6. Critical Media Analysis on Platform Extremism

    • Example sources:
      • “YouTube, the Great Radicalizer” (The New York Times, 2018)
      • Zeynep Tufekci’s articles on algorithmic amplification (The Atlantic, Wired)

    Citation Format:

    • MLA Style required (author, title, publisher/site, date, and URL if applicable).

    Summary:
    At minimum, students would need to engage with:

    • The Rise of Jordan Peterson documentary
    • Black Mirror’s “Joan Is Awful” episode
    • Liver King’s YouTube apology and exposé videos
    • At least one Jaron Lanier video
    • Two additional credible sources on platform psychology or digital manipulation

    Works Cited

    Brooker, Charlie, creator. Black Mirror: “Joan Is Awful.” Season 6, episode 1, Netflix, 2023.

    Lanier, Jaron. “Jaron Lanier on How Social Media Ruins Your Life.” WIRED, 2 Oct. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc_Jq42Og7Q.

    Lanier, Jaron. Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now. Henry Holt and Company, 2018.

    Marcoccia, Patricia, director. The Rise of Jordan Peterson. Holding Space Films, 2019.

    More Plates More Dates. “The Liver King Lie — The Full Story.” YouTube, uploaded by More Plates More Dates, 1 Dec. 2022, www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW8j9Mz3LJY.

    The Liver King. “Liver King Confession… I Lied.” YouTube, uploaded by Liver King, 1 Dec. 2022, www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nfiRbw2yW0.

    Tufekci, Zeynep. “YouTube, the Great Radicalizer.” The New York Times, 10 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html.


    Notes for Students:

    • Double-space the Works Cited page (WordPress formatting may squish it, but official MLA = double-spacing).
    • Alphabetize entries by the first letter (usually author’s last name or the creator’s name).
    • If there’s no individual author, alphabetize by the organization or channel name (like More Plates More Dates).
    • Use hanging indent formatting: first line flush left, following lines indented 0.5 inches.

  • Overcoming the Sunken Place: Heroism in Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X: A College Essay Prompt

    Overcoming the Sunken Place: Heroism in Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X: A College Essay Prompt

    In Jordan Peele’s Get Out and Childish Gambino’s “This Is America,” the “Sunken Place” emerges as a powerful metaphor for the psychological, cultural, and systemic oppression of Black Americans. Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X, two towering figures in American history, dedicated their lives to helping their people escape this condition — a state of helplessness, disconnection, and dehumanization.

    Write a comparative essay in which you:

    • In Paragraph 1, define the “Sunken Place” using evidence from Get Out and This Is America.
    • In Paragraph 2, present a thesis statement that clearly asserts how both Douglass and Malcolm X served as heroic figures who fought to liberate their people from the Sunken Place.
    • In Paragraphs 3-7, develop four key points of comparison illustrating how Douglass and Malcolm X displayed different forms of heroism to counter oppression and reclaim dignity and autonomy for Black Americans.
    • In Paragraph 8, write a dramatic conclusion — either restating your thesis with renewed force or reflecting on the broader significance of their battles against systemic dehumanization.

    Required sources:

    • Get Out (dir. Jordan Peele)
    • “This Is America” (dir. Hiro Murai, performed by Childish Gambino)
    • Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave
    • Malcolm X (dir. Spike Lee)
    • Two additional sources of your choosing (academic articles, essays, interviews, or documentaries relevant to Douglass, Malcolm X, or the Sunken Place metaphor).

    Use MLA formatting for citations and Works Cited.

  • New Yorker’s Remorse Syndrome

    New Yorker’s Remorse Syndrome

    It’s a charming form of cosplay, really — striding around as a “well-informed citizen” while sinking ungodly hours into consumer research. Watches, radios, headphones, laptops, Chromebooks, mechanical keyboards, high-end sweatshirts, orthopedic luxury sneakers, protein powders, protein bars, athletic-grade water bottles — an entire temple of optimized living, curated with clerical devotion.

    Meanwhile, out in the real world, society is fraying like an ancient flag in a hurricane. Yeats’ prophecy is no longer a chilling warning — it’s a project status update.
    The center isn’t holding. The center left the chat months ago.
    But instead of reckoning with the slow dissolve of civil society, it’s so much easier, so much kinder to the blood pressure, to compare toaster ovens with touchless air fryer settings.

    Yes, yes, I know — one must be informed. George Carlin gave us front-row tickets to the Freak Show. We owe it to the species, or at least to our own dim dignity, to bear witness.
    But honestly? Some days, it feels like sanity demands partial withdrawal. A news podcast here. A curated briefing there. Enough to feign civic engagement at parties without having to call a therapist immediately afterward.

    This brings me to the shrine of guilt at the center of my living room: the great, unread New Yorker stack.
    I have subscribed since 1985, back when Reagan was doing his best kingly impression and nobody had heard of an iPhone.
    The stack now functions less as reading material and more as a kind of grim altar — a silent accusation in glossy print.
    Friends glance at it and nod approvingly, as if my very possession of these magazines implies moral seriousness.
    I let them believe.
    Inside, I know better.
    I know that I am a fallen monk, a heretic of intellectual duty, choosing the velvet lure of consumer escapism over the weighty gospels of sociopolitical collapse.

    I have a diagnosis: New Yorker’s Remorse Syndrome — a condition in which one publicly performs allegiance to Enlightenment values while privately seeking refuge among comparison charts and Amazon star ratings.
    The mind knows what it ought to do.
    The heart, however, prefers shopping for the perfect water bottle while Rome burns quietly in the background.

  • Writing a Blog in the Performative Hangover Era

    Writing a Blog in the Performative Hangover Era

    For over a decade, I ran a YouTube channel — a modest operation born in my late forties. Calling it a channel might be too grand: there were no edits, no soundtracks, no backgrounds, no clever image inserts. Just me, my watches, and a stubborn refusal to pretend I knew anything about video production. It was, in essence, a podcast that forgot it was supposed to be seen.

    I built a small but loyal audience — over 10,000 subscribers, steady commenters, familiar names. Within the narrow but fervent watch community, I was a known entity: a man chronicling the eternal scuffle with watch addiction.

    But now, staring down my sixty-fourth birthday this October, I’m stepping away — and not with a heavy heart, but with something closer to relief.

    First, I have no desire to become an influencer. The idea of monetizing my channel, hawking brands I barely tolerate, feels as alien as joining a boy band at my age. Second, I have zero interest in learning the sacred arts of Final Cut Pro wizardry. The polished, professional YouTuber life was never my ambition. Third — and most importantly — the fire that once drove me is gone. And good riddance. Fire, in my case, has always been another word for addiction — the old need for validation, the parasocial buzz of comment sections and endless watch chatter. I don’t want the fire back. I want peace.

    Does this retreat from YouTube mean a pivot to podcasting?
    No.
    I’m not looking for a new mirror in which to admire or define myself. I don’t need the hustle of relevance, or the 3 a.m. panic about subscriber counts. A podcast requires not just a theme but conviction — a genuine need to say something the world hasn’t already heard. Right now, my life is full of smaller, quieter things: amateur piano practice, kettlebell workouts in my garage, a general interest in health and fitness. None of these scream “launch a weekly show.”

    Sure, I could bang out a fitness video for people over fifty — it would take thirty seconds: Stay active, love people, eat real food, prioritize protein, lay off the booze. There, fitness empire built.
    But combing through the absurdly granular debates of the diet-industrial complex? No thanks.

    Truthfully, most social media feels unbearable to me now — bloated with performative sincerity, vibrating with empty gestures. I’m done performing. Like many, I have full-blown social media fatigue.

    And then there’s the nagging ghost of my old literary ambitions — the dream of publishing memoir, fiction, or some slippery hybrid of the two, the sort of “autofiction” the novelist Emmanuel Carrère perfected. That ghost finds me now, not on YouTube, not on a podcast, but on my blog.

    The blog is where I now quietly reign.
    Not as a digital emperor counting clicks, but as a stubborn craftsman hacking away at the weeds of complacency. I don’t know if my writing will “take off” or “storm the world.” I only know it helps me process the madness, fight entropy, and stay alert to the real battle — the one against mindless consumerism and numbing repetition.

    So here I am, in what I suppose I could call the next chapter.
    The Performative Hangover Years.
    The Post-COVID Malaise.
    The Be Brave in Your Sixties Project.

    I’ll get back to you with the final title once I’ve lived it a little longer.

  • How I Outsmarted the Algorithm and Found a Human Being at Lowe’s

    How I Outsmarted the Algorithm and Found a Human Being at Lowe’s

    Today, I embarked on a noble and deeply aggravating quest: buying a refrigerator.
    I knew exactly which model I wanted — the research was done, the decision made — and I almost bought it online. But Lowe’s website, in its infinite wisdom, offered no civilized scheduling options. Buy today, and you’re rewarded with delivery tomorrow, whether you like it or not. I needed four more days — a minor concession to the gods of logistics, apparently beyond the website’s feeble imagination.

    So I drove to the Lowe’s on Skypark in Torrance, muttering curses at the indignities of modern retail. I marched straight to the Refunds desk, where two clerks stood idle, marooned in a sea of boredom. I said, with the slight guilt of a man about to break protocol, “I know I’m supposed to go to Appliances and hunt down a salesperson, but can you help me?”

    And then — like a choir of angels tuning up in aisle five — one of them smiled and said, “Well, since Appliances is busy, I’ll help you.”
    Her words were a warm poultice slapped onto my stress-riddled soul, the perfect antidote to the week’s ordeal: a refrigerator emergency caused by my seven-year-old Kenmore, which froze over, sneered at my hair dryer attack on its blocked freezer drain, and essentially told me to go pound sand.

    Within ten minutes, the deal was done. I floated out of Lowe’s light as a helium balloon, buoyed by the rarest of modern mercies: competent, unsolicited human kindness.
    Yes, by the time my contractor widens the kitchen doorway to accommodate this new metallic beast, and I pay for the fridge, warranty, and the luxury of hauling my dead Kenmore to appliance hell, I’ll be out two thousand dollars.
    But for a fleeting, golden moment, I remembered that the world, battered as it is, can still be shockingly decent.


  • Riding the Misery Machine: How Not Looking Became My Superpower

    Riding the Misery Machine: How Not Looking Became My Superpower

    Sixteen days ago, bloated at a mortifying 247 pounds, I decided enough was enough.
    On April 10th, I gave my calorie binges the boot, hacking my intake down to around 2,400 calories a day while shoving 160 grams of protein down my gullet like a man training for a hostage rescue mission.
    I also added a sixth workout to my weekly five kettlebell sessions: a brutal appointment with what I now lovingly call the Misery Machine.

    What’s the Misery Machine, you ask?
    It’s the Schwinn Airdyne—a sadistic stationary bike crossed with a medieval torture rack.
    It has pedals for your legs and levers for your arms, ensuring that no muscle group escapes unscathed. Your pecs, shoulders, triceps, forearms, glutes, quads—all dragged into the inferno.
    And because Schwinn engineers apparently hate human joy, the faster you go, the more resistance it throws at you.
    It’s not a workout; it’s a trial by fire.

    My first two rides were pathetic: 59 minutes of flailing, barely burning 600 calories.
    Today, though, I hit 706 calories in the same time—an improvement, and not just physically.

    Part of the success came from a psychological gambit: don’t look at the odometer.
    Staring at the screen, counting every miserable calorie and every sadistic second, makes the workout feel endless, like some gym-rat version of waterboarding.
    So today, I swore: I will not look.
    My secret weapon would be ignorance. Eyes forward. Mind blank. Focus on breathing, moving, surviving.

    Did it work?
    Mostly.
    I cheated about six times, sneaking guilty glances at the odometer—still, better than the constant obsessive checking that turns my bike rides into psychological horror shows reminiscent of my endless, soul-crushing drives up the I-5 from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

    But the real goal—the Holy Grail—is zero looks.
    Like Lot’s wife, ordered not to turn back lest she turn into a pillar of salt, I know: if I glance back at the numbers, I’ll be punished with despair.

    Today, post-shower, the scale gave me a small nod: 239 pounds.
    Only 39 pounds to go until I reclaim something resembling dignity.

    Lucky me.
    Nothing but time, pain, and the Misery Machine standing between me and the man I intend to be.

  • Velvet Fists: Sentimentality, Violence, and the Lie of the Crappy Love Song

    Velvet Fists: Sentimentality, Violence, and the Lie of the Crappy Love Song

    In the early ’90s, screenwriter Dennis Potter—whose haunting 1980 film Blade on a Feather once grabbed my imagination by the throat—sat across from Charlie Rose, passionately defending one of humanity’s most derided cultural artifacts: the “crappy love song.”

    Potter’s argument was simple and oddly noble:
    In a world where we grovel like pigs at the trough of materialism, even the cheesiest love ballad points, however clumsily, toward something higher—a yearning for transformative love, the kind that rattles the soul and redeems our miserable existence.
    And that, Potter insisted, should be celebrated, not sneered at.

    I see his point.
    But I can’t quite choke it down.

    What happens when the music is even crasser than life itself?
    Forgive the offense, but Kenny G springs to mind—a man whose saxophone emits what can only be described as the ambient soundtrack of lobotomized love.
    Millions swoon to his treacly squeals, convinced they’re tasting transcendence.
    But what they’re really swallowing is sentimentality in its most lethal form: syrupy, infantilizing, and vaguely unhinged.

    While I love Potter for wanting to defend the human need for transcendent emotion, I can’t ignore the underlying rot.
    These “crappy love songs,” much like Kenny G’s ambient anesthesia, often peddle not real love, but an emotionally stunted counterfeit—sentimentality, a soft mask stretched tight over something far uglier.

    Sentimentality terrifies me because it is not benign.
    It is childish emotion weaponized.
    It is the refusal to mature, to engage with the complicated ambiguities of real love, real pain, real life.
    And because these stunted feelings are defended with the ferocity of a cornered child, sentimentality often harbors its dark twin: violence.

    Saul Bellow, with his characteristic unsparing clarity in Herzog, nailed it:
    It’s the most sentimental people who are the most violent.

    Why?
    Because sentimentality is a velvet carpet stretched precariously over a tiger’s claw.
    It’s the illusion of sweetness clinging desperately to a subterranean rage—the rage of people who cannot tolerate having their fragile, maudlin dreams challenged.
    To question sentimentality is to trigger a defensive violence, a panicked fury at the idea that real adulthood demands something sterner, braver, and infinitely less sweet.

    So no, Dennis Potter, I can’t fully join you in your defense of the crappy love song.
    Because too often, beneath that soaring key change and saccharine lyric, I hear not the longing for transcendent love—
    but the faint, snarling growl of a soul that refuses to grow up.

  • The Postcard Life: Why Perfection Always Rings Hollow

    The Postcard Life: Why Perfection Always Rings Hollow

    I can’t shake an interview I heard thirty years ago—an offhand confession that stuck to me like burrs on a wool coat.
    Terry Gilliam, the Monty Python animator turned fever-dream film director, was talking with Charlie Rose. Gilliam described a moment straight from a high school dream: he was walking the Santa Monica Pier on a twilight evening, a beautiful woman on his arm, the beach shimmering under a dying sun. It was the kind of moment that screams You’ve Made It! if you’ve ever been a teenage boy with a tragic imagination.

    And yet, Gilliam said, he felt nothing. Not euphoria. Not awe. Just… flatness. Like he wasn’t even in his own life but rather trapped inside one of his own cartoons—a two-dimensional fantasy drawn by someone who had seen too many movies and lived too little.
    That was his grim epiphany: we don’t chase life—we chase the idea of it.

    Gilliam’s teenage dream had come true, but it rang hollow because it wasn’t connection he had caught. It was a postcard of connection, a lifeless image polished smooth by years of expectation.

    I’ve thought about that moment a lot, especially in the slow burns of my own life, in all the arenas where the blueprint of perfection crashed hard against the walls of reality.
    Take teaching: I’ve taught college writing for forty years. More times than I care to admit, I walked into class with what I believed was a masterstroke of a lesson plan—polished, structured, airtight. And then I delivered it like a robot with tenure. The students, bless them, tried not to visibly expire.
    Only when I threw away the script and talked to them like a breathing, flawed human being did I finally see heads lift and eyes focus.

    It’s the same poison at work: that blueprint, that false idol of how it’s supposed to be.
    Therapist Phil Stutz calls it the Magical Moment Frozen in Time—a mental snapshot of ideal beauty, love, success, whatever, that we spend our lives trying to recreate. And like the cruelest mirage, it recedes the closer we get.
    Because it’s not life.
    It’s a knockoff. A counterfeit so slick, it fools even the person living it.

    It’s sobering, humiliating even, to realize how often my life has been a performance for an audience that doesn’t exist—measuring real experiences against some fantasy standard cooked up in the caves of my mind.
    Maybe Plato had it right all along: we’re prisoners staring at shadows, mistaking flickers on the wall for the blazing, complicated, imperfect mess that is actual life.
    And every time we chase the shadow instead of the fire, we walk the Santa Monica Pier at sunset, hand in hand with a beautiful illusion, and feel… nothing.

  • The Protein Bar Delusion: My Love Affair with Lies and Graham Crackers

    The Protein Bar Delusion: My Love Affair with Lies and Graham Crackers

    I don’t eat protein bars anymore. Not because I’m virtuous—far from it—but because I finally admitted the obvious: they’re not meal replacements. They’re meal add-ons, sneaky little calorie grenades dressed up in the halo of anabolic health, whispering sweet promises of lean muscle and zero guilt.

    I’ve been chasing that lie since the 1970s.
    Back then, the gold standard of protein bars was the Bob Hoffman Club Sandwich—a peanut butter and graham cracker Frankenstein’s monster that must have clocked in at 500 calories, easy. It wasn’t a snack. It wasn’t a supplement. It was a religious experience.
    If I wanted to recreate it today, I’d just mash a couple of Reese’s between two graham crackers and pray for forgiveness.

    Over the decades, I kept eating protein bars—dense peanut butter bricks, chewy “engineered food” monstrosities—but never to any good effect. These bars didn’t sculpt my physique. They bulked me up like a slow, steady inflation of regret. Eventually, I abandoned them, like a gambler walking away from the slot machine after realizing the house always wins.

    Still, they haunt me.
    Protein bars remind me of Willy Wonka’s cursed 7-course meal gum that turned Violet Beauregarde into a giant blueberry: a miracle product promising the world but delivering only bloat and existential crisis.

    To be fair, the bars have gotten better over the years. There’s even one called David (because apparently even protein bars have minimalist branding now) made with real food, boasting 28 grams of protein at a miraculous 150 calories. It tempts me.
    Wouldn’t it be smarter, simpler, even a bit sexier to chomp down a David bar at breakfast instead of mixing up my daily slurry of yogurt, protein powder, soy milk, and berries? (A concoction that hits 500 calories with depressing reliability.)

    Maybe. But I know myself: I’d be starving by 9:30 a.m., staring into the abyss of a second breakfast. Protein bars have never given me satiety. They’re a snack in drag—a dessert cosplaying as health food.

    And yet… with all the shredded influencers on YouTube slicing open protein bars like they’re sommelier-testing vintage wine, I feel the pull. A little FOMO. A little “Maybe this time it’ll be different.”

    I have to remind myself, again and again:
    I’m not in love with the protein bar.
    I’m in love with the idea of the protein bar—the fantasy that some sweet, tidy, macro-balanced rectangle will solve my problems, sculpt my body, and carry me into some higher, cleaner version of myself.

    Reality tastes different.
    It tastes like mealy, sweet resignation. It tastes like being duped—with a thin layer of whey isolate on top.