Cinemorphosis

Tag: mental-health

  • How Losing 20 Pounds Made Me Rethink My Entire Watch Collection (and My Life)

    How Losing 20 Pounds Made Me Rethink My Entire Watch Collection (and My Life)

    Yesterday I filmed a 26-minute YouTube video on my main channel—ostensibly about watches. That was the bait. But somewhere between adjusting my camera and admiring my newly lean frame (twenty pounds down since April, thank you very much), I realized I wasn’t really talking about watches at all. I was talking about aging, restraint, identity, and how not to let your inner teenager run the damn show.

    The video was titled something like “My Four Watch Goals at Sixty-Four,” which sounds practical until you realize that my goals weren’t horological—they were existential. The first one? Stop being so maudlin. I actually said the word, spelled it out like a substitute teacher on a caffeine bender, and gave a definition. Maudlin: emotional excess masquerading as depth, the adolescent urge to turn life into performance art just so you can feel something.

    To illustrate, I offered up a formative trauma: being sixteen, watching Bill Bixby in The Incredible Hulk, and weeping—actually weeping—when he transformed into Lou Ferrigno’s green rage monster. It wasn’t just TV. It was catharsis. I was an Olympic weightlifter-slash-bodybuilder-slash-piano prodigy who didn’t know what to do with all the emotion I’d stuffed under my pecs and sonatas. Watching Bixby morph into a snarling demigod gave me permission to feel. In my forties, I channeled that same melodrama into wearing oversized diver watches—big, bold, and absurdly heroic, as if my wrist were auditioning for a Marvel reboot. That, too, was maudlin cosplay. Now I’m trying something radical: maturity.

    Goal two? Quit being an enabler. I admitted that, like it or not, I’m an influencer. I don’t collect in a vacuum. Every time I flex a new piece, it’s like handing out free permission slips to fellow addicts. So I’ve decided to use my powers for good—or at least for moderation.

    Goal three: Stay fit, get bloodwork, be a warrior in plain clothes. The watch isn’t the main course. It’s the garnish. If I’m going to wear something worth noticing, I should have the body and the biomarkers to back it up. Otherwise, I’m just a gilded potato.

    And finally, goal four: Minimalist watch heroes. The quiet monks of the community who own one to three watches and seem perfectly content. They’re my North Stars. They aren’t buying watches out of panic, nostalgia, or identity crises—they’re grounded, self-possessed, wise. I envy them. I aspire to be one of them. I’m not there yet, but I’m squinting in their direction.

    Honestly, I assumed the video would tank. My viewers tend to want horological eye-candy, not existential reflection wrapped in fitness updates. But to my surprise, the response was overwhelming—close to a thousand views on day one, dozens of comments. People thanked me. Some said they were booking doctor appointments. Others said they were starting diets. I’m fourteen years into making YouTube videos, and this might be the one I’m proudest of.

    Because the truth is, most watch YouTubers are just dressing up emotional poverty in brushed stainless steel. They get maudlin about bezels and bracelets, desperate to out-hype each other in a gaudy attention economy. It’s exhausting. What people really want—what they’re starving for—is someone speaking like a human being. No curation. No affectation.

    I ended my video with a confession: I’m still that sixteen-year-old kid. And if you cue up The Lonely Man theme from The Incredible Hulk, the one where David Banner walks down the rainy sidewalk in soft focus, I will—without shame—start crying. Again. Because some emotions don’t age. They just find quieter places to hide.

  • Nostalgia, Nihilism, and the Need for a North Star

    Nostalgia, Nihilism, and the Need for a North Star

    We live in a state of perpetual performance. Not just for others, but for ourselves. It’s cosplay with consequences—playful on the surface, deadly serious underneath. We obsess over how our performance lands. We evaluate our worth by the reactions we elicit. At stake is not just our reputation, but our very sense of moral character.

    This obsession isn’t new. The philosopher Blaise Pascal put it bluntly: we’d rather appear virtuous than actually be virtuous. It’s easier to sculpt the image than to develop the core. In this way, we’ve become artisans of curation, not content—architects of persona, not people.

    We live, as Shakespeare warned, on a stage. But our thirst for applause is bottomless. The more we receive, the more we crave. We become validation addicts, forever chasing the next fix of approval. And when applause falters or vanishes, anxiety rushes in. To soothe this anxiety, we self-medicate. Not just with likes and follows—but with food, consumption, workouts, and delusion.

    Some of us drown that dread in comfort food. Others sprint in the opposite direction—discipline, clean eating, high-performance regimens. But often, that stoicism is just cosplay too: hunger in a different mask. When that fails, we drift into nostalgia. We reimagine the past—not as it was, but as it flatters us to believe it was. We cast ourselves as the hero, the lover, the misunderstood genius. The story becomes so good, we forget it isn’t true. We live in the fiction and lose our grip on reality.

    This disconnect—between who we pretend to be and who we are—makes us brittle. Maladapted. And so the cycle deepens: more consumption, more self-distraction, more illusion. Consumerism becomes therapy. Hedonism becomes self-care. Nihilism becomes a badge of honor. All of it is cosplay. And all of it is corrosive.

    Philosophy, religion, and therapy exist to confront this masquerade. They offer a language for our delusions, a history of our dysfunction, and a spiritual direction out of the maze. They remind us that cosplay is not identity, and performance is not presence.

    I don’t pretend to have it figured out. But I’ve found insight in thinkers like Phil Stutz, who warns against the seductive ease of instant gratification, and Steven Pressfield, who speaks of resisting the lure of comfort in favor of a purposeful life. I’ve also been challenged—and strangely comforted—by Paul’s doctrine of kenosis: the radical idea that we’re not here to inflate ourselves but to empty ourselves in service of others. In a world obsessed with power and “respect,” that message lands like a thunderclap.

    What unsettles me most is not our ignorance—it’s our awareness. Many of us know the truth. We even live it for a while. But we drift. We relapse. We trade the hard-earned clarity for the cheap thrill of our old scripts. That’s what demoralizes me: not just the fall, but the speed and ease with which it happens.

    Yet I still believe in the power of a North Star. Call it purpose, vision, a calling—whatever name it takes, it’s the gravitational pull that keeps us from floating off into the void of our appetites. I think of Ann Kim, the Korean immigrant told to stay in her lane. She didn’t. She found her voice, expressed it through food, and became a James Beard Award-winning chef.

    The path to a good life, I suspect, doesn’t begin with fear of failure. It begins with a compelling vision of who we are meant to be. And the discipline to never look away from it.

  • Blubberation: The Scourge of Humankind

    Blubberation: The Scourge of Humankind

    Few words in the English language wear such a deceptive mask as maudlin. To the untrained ear, it sounds quaint—maybe even charming—like something involving an embroidered hanky and a soft violin cue. Most people, if they’ve heard it at all, treat maudlin like a minor indulgence in sentiment. But this tepid reaction completely misses the word’s fangs. In truth, maudlin is not merely saccharine—it’s a spiritual sickness. It is the emotional equivalent of soggy pie crust: overbaked, overhandled, and incapable of supporting the weight of anything real.

    Jeffrey Rosen, in The Pursuit of Happiness, opens with a quote from Paracelsus that nails the metaphysical rot at the core of maudlin: “Even as man imagines himself to be, such he is, and he is also that which he imagines.” Most of us don’t realize we’ve built our entire personalities around a grandiose hallucination—an operatic self-image drenched in tragic overtones, straining for gravitas. This isn’t just self-delusion. It’s Blubberation—a term I propose as an upgrade to the soft-focus failure of maudlin. Blubberation is not some quaint emotional hiccup. It’s our default operating system. We cling to our sad little myths and bathe in our own narrative syrup, while Rosen, echoing the Stoics, begs us to snap out of it. Real freedom, the kind Cicero and Jefferson admired, comes not from indulging the lower self with its gaudy tantrums, but from mastering our inner world—our thoughts, emotions, actions, and absurd yearnings for applause.

    Consider Cicero’s ideal: the man who is not tormented by longing, not broken by fear, not drunk on ambition or self-congratulating euphoria. This man, Cicero says, is the happy man. And here’s the kicker: this man is the sworn enemy of Blubberation. The Stoic’s strength lies in composure; Blubberation recoils from it like a vampire from sunlight. Rosen knows this. His book is a case against the lachrymose self—the one addicted to its own melodrama, whose emotional overreach demands constant rewards: a cookie, a compliment, a new Omega Speedmaster.

    Let me be clear. I am not above this. I am its most devout practitioner. In fact, my watch addiction is Blubberation in horological form. I’ve shed actual tears during a wrist rotation cull. I have felt the full agony of “falling out of love” with a diver watch I once swore was “The One.” I’ve experienced the euphoric lift of trimming my collection, only to relapse a week later with trembling hands at a DHL box. We call this collecting. We dress it up as passion. But let’s be honest: it’s the theater of the self. It’s manufactured meaning in a velvet-lined case.

    Maudlin doesn’t cut it anymore. It’s too polite, too antique-shop sad. Blubberation, on the other hand, is a full-body emotional spill. It’s sadness with jazz hands. It’s weeping into your soy latte because someone forgot to like your Reels. It’s mistaking catharsis for wisdom. It’s trying to turn your trauma into TikTok content with the right music filter. And it’s not limited to watches. It infects how we narrate our lives, our diets, our so-called “journeys.” It’s the self crying out, not for help—but for attention.

    Blubberation, in the end, is a trap. It offers the illusion of depth but delivers only the shallows. It promises identity but trades in caricature. The Stoics warned us: without restraint and clarity, we become slaves to our worst performances. We become sentimental hustlers, selling tragedy like perfume. And as long as we keep mistaking our emotional indulgence for authenticity, we’ll never touch happiness—only sniff it through the fog of our own overwrought monologues.

  • Stage-Crafted Selves: The Art of Self-Building in Mike Tyson and Chris Rock (College Essay Prompt)

    Stage-Crafted Selves: The Art of Self-Building in Mike Tyson and Chris Rock (College Essay Prompt)

    Background: From Wreckage to Branding: The Art of Curating Your Chaos

    In the Amazon Prime documentary Group Therapy, Neil Patrick Harris plays a surprisingly restrained version of himself as moderator while six comedians—Tig Notaro, Nicole Byer, Mike Birbiglia, London Hughes, Atsuko Okatsuka, and Gary Gulman—dissect the raw material of their lives. The big reveal? That material doesn’t go from trauma to stage in one dramatic leap. No, it must be fermented, filtered, and fashioned into something more useful than pain: a persona.

    Mike Birbiglia delivers the central thesis of the show, and I’ll paraphrase with a bit more bite: You can’t stagger onto stage mid-breakdown and expect catharsis to double as comedy. That’s not a gift—it’s a demand. You’re taking from the audience, not offering them anything. The real craft lies in the slow, deliberate process of transforming suffering into something elegant, pointed, and—yes—entertaining. That means the comic must achieve emotional distance from the wreckage, construct a precise point of view, and build a persona strong enough to carry the weight without buckling. In other words, the chaos must be curated. Unlike therapy, where you’re still bleeding onto the couch, stand-up demands a version of you that knows how to make the bloodstains rhyme.

    This process is a perfect metaphor for what college students must do, whether they realize it or not. They’re not just acquiring credentials—they’re building selves. And that takes more than GPAs and LinkedIn bios. It requires language, history, personal narrative, and a working origin myth that turns their emotional baggage into emotional architecture. And yes, it sounds crass, but the result is a kind of “self-brand”—an identity with coherence, voice, and purpose, forged from pain but presented with polish.

    We see this high-wire act pulled off masterfully in Mike Tyson: Undisputed Truth and Chris Rock: Tamborine. Both men dive headfirst into their demons—not to wallow, but to narrate. They show us the bruises and the blueprint. Their stories aren’t cries for help; they’re lessons in how to survive the spectacle, reclaim the mic, and turn personal damage into public insight. And that’s the point I want to bring to my freshman composition class: that the most powerful voice you’ll ever write in is the one you’ve built—not from scratch, but from salvage.

    Essay Prompt:

    In both Mike Tyson: Undisputed Truth and Chris Rock: Tamborine, we witness two public figures transforming their emotional damage, private failures, and traumatic histories into something far more than therapy—they become performances of self-mastery. Drawing from the concept explored in the Group Therapy documentary—that comedians (and by extension, performers) must process their pain into curated, audience-ready wisdom—this essay invites you to compare how Tyson and Rock construct their public selves through performance.

    Using the metaphor of self-building, analyze how each man converts raw experience into crafted identity. How do they achieve emotional distance from their past? What techniques—tone, structure, persona—do they use to signal that their pain has been worked over and transformed? How do their performances imply growth, responsibility, or redemption without becoming preachy or self-pitying? And how might their journeys of self-construction offer insight into how college students, too, must build coherent identities from the chaotic raw material of their lives?

    Your essay should analyze both performances as acts of narrative curation—exploring not only what Tyson and Rock reveal, but how and why they do so. Finally, reflect on what their examples suggest about the larger cultural demand to “become a brand,” to craft a self others can recognize, consume, and respect.

    Three Sample Thesis Statements with Mapping Components:

    1.
     Thesis:
     Mike Tyson and Chris Rock both engage in self-building by transforming personal failure into performance, but while Tyson leans into theatrical confession to reclaim a shattered image, Rock uses surgical wit and emotional restraint to reshape his own flaws into lessons about maturity and ego.
    Mapping:
     This essay will examine how each performer processes trauma through their unique style, how narrative control becomes a form of public redemption, and how both offer models for emotional coherence in the face of cultural expectations.

    2.
     Thesis:
     Tyson’s Undisputed Truth and Rock’s Tamborine reveal that successful self-building is not about perfection but about narrative ownership; each man carefully packages vulnerability into a performance that signals strength, reflection, and a refusal to be defined by past mistakes.
    Mapping:
     This essay will analyze the construction of persona, the implied emotional work behind each performance, and the public’s willingness to embrace complexity when it’s shaped into coherence.

    3.
     Thesis:
     Though Tyson and Rock work in different genres, both use the stage to convert unprocessed pain into curated identity, offering their audiences not a plea for sympathy but a model of self-knowledge forged through honesty, humor, and performance.
    Mapping:
     This essay will explore how distance, control, and structure allow for public healing, how each man avoids the pitfalls of therapy-as-performance, and how their stories model self-construction for others navigating chaos.

    Classroom Writing Activity:

    Title: “Self-Building: From Chaos to Clarity”

    Instructions:
     Have students write a 250-word response to the following:

    Think about a challenge, contradiction, or painful experience that has shaped you. Now consider how you’ve talked about it—to friends, in writing, or in public. Have you processed it, or is it still raw? What would it take to turn that experience into a story you could tell not to vent, but to help others—like Tyson or Rock? What persona would you need to craft to tell it well?

    Encourage students to reflect on the difference between therapy and performance, and how both require different levels of readiness and emotional clarity.

    Here are seven parallels between Mike Tyson and Chris Rock in terms of self-building, using the passage you provided as a guiding framework. Both men, in Undisputed Truth and Tamborine respectively, present emotionally processed versions of themselves—not raw therapy, but crafted, honed, and performative identities that transform trauma into narrative power.

    1. Emotional Distance as Craft

    Both Tyson and Rock take deeply painful, private material—Tyson’s history of violence, poverty, and public shame; Rock’s divorce, infidelity, and insecurity—and present it only after significant emotional distance has been achieved. Like Birbiglia suggests, neither man is asking the audience to “hold their pain” in real time; instead, they shape it into something digestible, stylized, and structured.

    2. Persona as Public Shield

    Tyson becomes a theatrical confessor—brutally honest, yet clearly in control. Rock, in Tamborine, is self-deprecating but razor-sharp, balancing remorse with authority. Both performances rely on constructed personas that allow them to explore dark material without unraveling on stage. Their “selves” are curated: still vulnerable, but framed by irony, structure, and control.

    3. From Confusion to Clarity

    Therapy is about murky beginnings—questions with no resolution. Tyson and Rock give us the aftermath of that journey. In their performances, they’ve metabolized confusion into clarity. Tyson articulates how his rage was a mask for fear. Rock admits how his ego and emotional detachment destroyed his marriage. Both offer processed truths, not raw data.

    4. Curation of Trauma

    These are not “live breakdowns.” Tyson doesn’t re-live trauma; he narrates it with biting humor and tragicomic flair. Rock doesn’t ask for sympathy—he delivers punchlines about personal failure. Both are examples of curated trauma, shaped into art for audience consumption, transformed into narrative coherence rather than chaotic catharsis.

    5. Mastery of Narrative Control

    Both men reclaim their public images by telling their own stories. Tyson had been labeled a monster by the media; Undisputed Truth rehumanizes him. Rock had been seen as invincible, slick, and untouchable; Tamborine exposes the cracks beneath that facade. Their self-presentations are acts of reclaiming narrative control, refusing to be defined by scandal or gossip.

    6. Implied Growth, Not Moral Perfection

    Neither Tyson nor Rock claims sainthood. Tyson admits to being monstrous, but shows he understands why. Rock owns his flaws without sugarcoating them. In both cases, the growth is implied, not lectured—there’s wisdom without self-righteousness, revelation without begging for applause.

    7. Performance as Redemption

    For both, the stage becomes a sacred space of self-redemption—not through tears, but through art. Tyson’s monologue is a strange mix of theater, stand-up, and testimony. Rock’s set is part confessional, part sermon, part satire. The performance itself becomes a redemptive act—a way to give back rather than take, to turn personal pain into a public offering.

  • From Wreckage to Branding: The Art of Curating Your Chaos

    From Wreckage to Branding: The Art of Curating Your Chaos

    In the Amazon Prime documentary Group Therapy, Neil Patrick Harris plays a surprisingly restrained version of himself as moderator while six comedians—Tig Notaro, Nicole Byer, Mike Birbiglia, London Hughes, Atsuko Okatsuka, and Gary Gulman—dissect the raw material of their lives. The big reveal? That material doesn’t go from trauma to stage in one dramatic leap. No, it must be fermented, filtered, and fashioned into something more useful than pain: a persona.

    Mike Birbiglia delivers the central thesis of the show, and I’ll paraphrase with a bit more bite: You can’t stagger onto stage mid-breakdown and expect catharsis to double as comedy. That’s not a gift—it’s a demand. You’re taking from the audience, not offering them anything. The real craft lies in the slow, deliberate process of transforming suffering into something elegant, pointed, and—yes—entertaining. That means the comic must achieve emotional distance from the wreckage, construct a precise point of view, and build a persona strong enough to carry the weight without buckling. In other words, the chaos must be curated. Unlike therapy, where you’re still bleeding onto the couch, stand-up demands a version of you that knows how to make the bloodstains rhyme.

    This process is a perfect metaphor for what college students must do, whether they realize it or not. They’re not just acquiring credentials—they’re building selves. And that takes more than GPAs and LinkedIn bios. It requires language, history, personal narrative, and a working origin myth that turns their emotional baggage into emotional architecture. And yes, it sounds crass, but the result is a kind of “self-brand”—an identity with coherence, voice, and purpose, forged from pain but presented with polish.

    We see this high-wire act pulled off masterfully in Mike Tyson: Undisputed Truth and Chris Rock: Tamborine. Both men dive headfirst into their demons—not to wallow, but to narrate. They show us the bruises and the blueprint. Their stories aren’t cries for help; they’re lessons in how to survive the spectacle, reclaim the mic, and turn personal damage into public insight. And that’s the point I want to bring to my freshman composition class: that the most powerful voice you’ll ever write in is the one you’ve built—not from scratch, but from salvage.

  • 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.

  • Echo-Chamber Fatigue: When Trusted Media Starts to Sound Like Static

    Echo-Chamber Fatigue: When Trusted Media Starts to Sound Like Static

    For years, I counted The Bulwark and The Atlantic among the few media outlets that seemed to keep their heads above water. Thoughtful, principled, and often sharp in their critique, they offered a sense of clarity during a time when the political center felt like it was collapsing under the weight of tribalism. I read The Atlantic with the same reverence people once reserved for the Sunday paper. I tuned into The Bulwark’s podcasts with eagerness, particularly the sparring matches and tag-team lamentations of Sarah Longwell and JVL.

    But lately, something’s shifted.

    I’ve been struggling to name the feeling exactly—disenchantment, disconnection, even a touch of annoyance. It’s not that they’ve suddenly started publishing bad takes (though no one’s immune to that). It’s more that I’ve come to feel like I’m listening to the same looped monologue. Their arguments are often cogent, yes, but increasingly predictable—a chorus of like-minded voices rehearsing the same concerns, circling the same drain.

    Call it echo-chamber fatigue.

    The Bulwark, once a clarion voice of principled conservatism and a fierce watchdog against authoritarianism, now often feels like a room full of smart people endlessly rehashing the same grim diagnosis: American democracy is circling the drain. The problem isn’t that they’re wrong—it’s that I already see the collapse unfolding in real time. Listening to it dissected again and again isn’t cathartic anymore. It’s just salt in the wound.

    The Atlantic, long celebrated for its intellectual breadth, increasingly feels like it’s scanning for moral alignment before publishing an idea. There’s little friction. Little surprise. Just a gentle stroking of reader confirmation bias.

    Meanwhile, I find myself gravitating to media that feels more alive—podcasts like The Gist with Mike Pesca, Blocked and Reported with Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal, The Fifth Column, Ink-Stained Wretches, and even The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg. These shows don’t always align with my politics—and that’s exactly the point. They’re not trying to usher me into ideological safety. They’re wrestling with absurdities across the spectrum. They’re skeptical. Curious. Sometimes contrarian. Always human.

    And that, I think, is the deeper issue: emotional resonance. The Bulwark and The Atlantic haven’t necessarily changed. I have. Or perhaps the times have. I need more than agreement—I need tension, exploration, contradiction. The intellectual monoculture, no matter how principled, starts to feel like a sedative after a while.

    I’ve even considered canceling my subscriptions. But there’s friction there, too: The Atlantic remains a useful classroom resource, and every now and then, The Bulwark sparks a genuinely engaging dialogue that reminds me why I once admired it so much.

    So I stay, for now. But I’ve moved my ears—and increasingly, my attention—toward media that still surprises me. That still thinks out loud, rather than reading from a polished script.

    I’m not rejecting thoughtful media. I’m just bored of watching it slowly turn into liturgy.

  • The future, we’re told, is full of freedom—unless you’re the one still cleaning the mess.

    The future, we’re told, is full of freedom—unless you’re the one still cleaning the mess.

    Last semester, in my college critical thinking class—a room full of bright minds and burnt-out spirits—we were dissecting what feels like a nationwide breakdown in mental health. Students tossed around possible suspects like a crime scene lineup: the psychological hangover of the pandemic, TikTok influencers glamorizing nervous breakdowns with pastel filters and soft piano music, the psychic toll of watching America split like a wishbone down party lines. All plausible. All depressing.

    Then a re-entry student—a nurse with twenty years in the trenches—raised her hand and calmly dropped a depth charge into the conversation. She said she sees more patients than ever staggering into hospitals not just sick, but shattered. Demoralized. Enraged. When I asked her what she thought was behind the surge in mental illness, she didn’t hesitate. “Money,” she said. “No one has any. They’re working themselves into the ground and still can’t cover rent, groceries, and medical bills. They’re burning out and breaking down.”

    And just like that, all our theories—algorithms, influencers, red-vs-blue blood feuds—melted under the furnace heat of economic despair. She was right. She sees the raw pain daily, the kind of pain tech billionaires will never upload into a TED Talk. While they spin futuristic fables about AI liberating humanity for leisure and creativity, my nurse watches the working class crawl into urgent care with nothing left but rage and debt. The promise of Universal Basic Income sounds charming if you’re already lounging in a beanbag chair at Singularity HQ, but out here in the world of late rent and grocery inflation, it’s a pipe dream sold by people who wouldn’t recognize a shift worker if one collapsed on their marble floors. The future, we’re told, is full of freedom—unless you’re the one still cleaning the mess.

  • The Futility of Being Ready

    The Futility of Being Ready

    In December of 2019, my wife and I, both lifelong members of the National Society of Worrywarts, stumbled upon reports of a deadly virus brewing in China. Most people shrugged. We did not. I jumped on eBay and ordered a bulk box of masks the size of a hotel mini-fridge. It felt ridiculous at the time—a paranoid lark, like filling a doomsday bunker because you heard thunder on a Tuesday. But three months later, on March 13, 2020, the world shut down, and that cardboard box of N95s felt less like overreaction and more like prophecy.

    These days, I teach college in what I call the ChatGPT Era—a time when my students and I sit around analyzing how artificial intelligence is rewiring our habits, our thinking, and possibly the scaffolding of our humanity. I don’t dread AI the way I dreaded COVID. It doesn’t make me stock canned beans or disinfect door handles. But it does give me that same uneasy tremor in the gut—the sense that something vast is shifting beneath us, and that whatever emerges will make the present feel quaint and maybe a little foolish.

    It’s like standing on a beach after the earthquake and watching the water disappear from the shore. You can back up your files, rewrite your syllabus, and pretend to adapt, but you know deep down you’re stuck in Prepacolypse Mode—that desperate, irrational phase where you try to outmaneuver the future with your label maker. You prepare for the unpreparable, perform rituals of control that offer all the protection of a paper shield.

    And through it all comes that strange, electric sensation—Dreadrenaline. It’s not just fear. It’s a kind of alertness, a humming, high-voltage awareness that your life is about to be edited at the molecular level. You’re not just anticipating change—you’re bracing for a version of yourself that will be unrecognizable on the other side. You’re watching history draft your name onto the roster and realizing, too late, that you’re not a spectator anymore. You’re in the game.

  • Psychedelic Mushrooms and the Art of Saying “Meh”

    Psychedelic Mushrooms and the Art of Saying “Meh”

    People I admire—deep thinkers, seekers, trauma survivors, even that old roommate who once confused a lava lamp for God—swear by magic mushrooms. They describe transcendence, tearful reunions with their inner child, and conversations with the universe where the universe speaks perfect Jungian. Apparently, psilocybin is the shortcut to enlightenment, the divine inbox where angels drop PDFs of your truest self.

    And yet, I remain a bastion of Mushroom Apathy Syndrome (MAS)—a spiritual condition marked by an impenetrable indifference to the fungal fanfare. While others are melting into cosmic unity on some mossy hillside, I’m thinking about whether it’s time to reorganize my spice rack. I don’t want to chew sacred mold to glimpse the divine. If I need an ego death, I’ll just read my old poetry.

    Sure, I’d love to encounter the Divine—maybe Spinoza’s glowing web of pantheistic awe, maybe a seraph with decent taste in jazz. But I just can’t take mystical advice from a guy in a woven beanie yelling about chakras while wearing Crocs. If I want a head trip, I’ll queue up Yes, The Strawbs, or Crosby, Stills & Nash and lie on the floor until my chakras align from sheer harmonic exhaustion. Or better yet, I’ll abstain from sugar for ten months and then unleash nirvana with a single bite of decadent, spice-laced carrot cake.

    My condition is also rooted in a kind of Fungal Nihilism—the belief that no mushroom, no matter how ancient, artisanal, or Amazonian, can fix the howling absurdity of existence. You can’t outrun entropy with a spore. If I want to stare into the abyss and laugh, I’ll binge-watch George Carlin eviscerate modern life with nothing more than a mic, a ponytail, and a pair of skeptical eyebrows.

    Ultimately, I practice Spore Snobbery—a reflexive contempt for the breathless mythologizing of psychedelic fungus. These aren’t sacred portals. They’re glorified mushrooms with a publicist. For some, they offer spiritual clarity. For me, they sound like a gastrointestinal trust fall with no one there to catch you but an ayahuasca-shaman-turned-life-coach named Brad.