Cinemorphosis

Tag: news

  • From Coffeehouse to Clickbait

    From Coffeehouse to Clickbait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Democracy has not been overthrown.

    It has been neglected.

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

  • The Dos and Don’ts of Being Flabbergasted

    The Dos and Don’ts of Being Flabbergasted

    If I had to pick my favorite word from the English language, it would be flabbergasted. It’s officially a word for a state of shock or astonishment, but as I’ve heard it used over the years, there are some important caveats. Usually people are not flabbergasted by a tragedy like an earthquake or a remarkable display of cruelty. The word is usually reserved to describe a human failing that goes beyond the realm of normal expectations. This failing could be surprising because of the specific skillset and character of the person who surprised us. Or the failing could simply be so large on scale that regardless of the person’s character, we are left flabbergasted. 

    Another use of flabbergasting is when a person commits a moral inconsistency that contradicts their spoken beliefs so that the irony behind their hypocrisy is simply flabbergasting. It is somewhat flabbergasting to me, for example, that many of us love dogs and cats so much but we compartmentalize so that we eat cows and pigs, savoring these dishes, while being blissfully unaware of our inconsistency. 

    Another use of flabbergasting is when we witness someone’s obtuseness that is so lame that it strains our credulity. For example, I called Kaiser to get an appointment to discuss switching a prescription because my current one had left me extremely exhausted for twelve hours. I told the member services rep my symptoms, but assured her I was fine. The incident was five days ago. I had been working out intensely every day since then and felt fine. As if not hearing a word I said, she seemed to be reading from a script: “Do you have shortness of breath? Can you stand on your own?” Flabbergasted, I interrupted her. “As I just told you, I am physically fine. I am exercising with great intensity, and I feel great.” I wanted to add, “Please put down your script and listen to what I actually have to say.” I was flabbergasted.

    One of the appeals of the word flabbergasted is that it seems made up of the words flab and blubber to create the hybrid “flabber,” which I love because “flabber” jiggles and vibrates like the elephantine upper arms of the cafeteria ladies of my youth. Such jiggling and vibration is part of the body’s paroxysms that occur when one is flabbergasted.

    If I had a rock band, I would call it Flabbergasted. If I were to have a nom de plume, it would be Flabber Gasted. 

    I suspect that to be in a flabbergasted state can be dangerously addictive. I’m thinking of Tom Colicchio, one of the principals of the reality show Top Chef. I have a theory as to the one reason above all others the show is successful. It’s Tom Colicchio’s flabbergasted face when he cannot believe how crappy the food is that was prepared for him by one of the world-class chefs. No other judge can make such a severe expression. I don’t know if Colicchio is authentically flabbergasted or if his facial contortions are performative for the ratings. What I do know is that his flabbergasted expression has begun to chafe at me. For many seasons, I took his expression for granted, but after he started taking GLP-1s and losing forty pounds, his flabbergasted TV face looks more extreme. He has eaten a dish that is so egregious that he is in a state of shock and strained credulity. He can’t believe anyone, let alone a successful chef, could make such an abomination. The implication is that surely he could never be so incompetent. And this is where I get annoyed. These chefs have been taken out of their environment, they are working in time constraints, and are working with remarkable pressure from the competition, the TV apparatus, and the judges. That they could stumble or let anxiety get the best of them is completely understandable and is not a situation that calls for being flabbergasted. Therefore, Colicchio’s is out of line. He is disrespecting good, talented people, and I take offense to it. I am flabbergasted.  

  • The Day the Dream Team Got Punched in the Mouth

    The Day the Dream Team Got Punched in the Mouth

    The documentary We Beat the Dream Team transports us back to 1992, when basketball briefly resembled mythology. For the first time, the Olympics allowed NBA professionals, and the United States responded by assembling a roster that looked less like a team and more like an Avengers summit: Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Charles Barkley, and a lineup of future Hall of Famers whose collective talent could have bent the earth’s axis.

    Presiding over this gathering of basketball demigods was Coach Chuck Daly, a man as famous for psychological maneuvering as he was for play diagrams. Daly understood something that many coaches never quite grasp: elite athletes do not merely need strategy; they need emotional calibration. Their egos must be tuned like instruments.

    Standing opposite this galaxy of NBA legends was the Dream Team’s practice partner—the Select Team. On paper they were merely college players: Grant Hill, Chris Webber, Penny Hardaway, Allan Houston, Jamal Mashburn, Bobby Hurley, Rodney Rogers. In reality they were the future of the NBA, still young enough to be starstruck and arrogant enough to believe they belonged.

    The documentary wisely tells the story from their perspective.

    The Select Team players describe walking into the gym like tourists visiting Mount Olympus. They were sharing the court with Jordan, Magic, and Bird—the men whose posters hung on their bedroom walls. You can still see the grin spread across Chris Webber’s face as he recalls those practices, the mixture of disbelief and pride. Jamal Mashburn and the others felt two contradictory emotions pulling them in opposite directions.

    On one side was reverence. These were basketball gods.

    On the other side was pride. Pride whispered: prove you belong here.

    So the young players performed a delicate dance. Respect the legends—but challenge them. Bow slightly, then throw an elbow.

    And challenge them they did.

    In one now-famous scrimmage, the Dream Team—perhaps relaxed, perhaps overconfident—found themselves ambushed. The hungry college players came at them like wolves that had been smelling steak all week. Possession by possession, the Select Team outplayed them. By the end of the scrimmage, the impossible had happened.

    The Select Team beat the Dream Team.

    To the young players, the moment felt electric. They had just taken down the greatest assembly of basketball talent the world had ever seen. It was the kind of victory that becomes a permanent souvenir in the heart.

    But the story refuses to stay simple.

    Coach Mike Krzyzewski later offered a different interpretation. According to him, Chuck Daly deliberately sabotaged the scrimmage. Daly allegedly benched key players and allowed the Select Team to win in order to shock the Dream Team out of complacency. In this version, the loss was psychological theater. Daly was staging a controlled humiliation to inject the team with rage and urgency before the Olympics.

    And in fairness, the strategy would make sense. After that scrimmage, the Dream Team entered the Olympics like a pack of irritated lions. They obliterated their competition and walked away with the gold medal.

    But Grant Hill isn’t buying the conspiracy.

    Hill insists the Select Team won fair and square. According to him, Daly looked genuinely rattled after the loss and even made sure the score mysteriously disappeared before reporters could record it.

    So which story is true?

    Was Daly a chess master orchestrating a motivational ambush? Or did a group of fearless college players simply catch the greatest team ever assembled on a sleepy afternoon?

    Like most sports legends, the truth may be tangled somewhere in between.

    What the documentary makes clear, however, is something deeper about elite athletes: their competitiveness doesn’t end when the buzzer sounds. Great athletes compete in everything—including memory. They compete over who really won, who deserves credit, and whose version of the story survives.

    Narrative itself becomes a championship.

    You can see that dynamic unfold in the documentary as Krzyzewski and Hill politely debate the event. Neither man is shouting. Both are smiling. Yet beneath the civility you can feel the competitive instinct humming like a live wire.

    Who owns the story matters.

    As someone who teaches college writing to athletes, I couldn’t resist imagining how useful this documentary would be in the classroom. It’s a perfect springboard for an argumentative essay. Did Daly throw the game? Is the “thrown game” theory simply a face-saving myth for wounded legends? Or does the truth lie somewhere in the murky middle?

    But for me the film worked on another level entirely.

    While watching it, I stopped thinking like a writing instructor and started thinking like the young man I was in 1992. I was back on my couch watching Jordan, Magic, and Bird—the superheroes of my youth—reminisce about the day a group of fearless kids punched them in the mouth.

    And I couldn’t stop smiling.

  • How We Outsourced Taste—and What It Cost Us

    How We Outsourced Taste—and What It Cost Us

    Desecrated Enchantment

    noun

    Desecrated Enchantment names the condition in which art loses its power to surprise, unsettle, and transform because the conditions of discovery have been stripped of mystery and risk. What was once encountered through chance, patience, and private intuition is now delivered through systems optimized for efficiency, prediction, and profit. In this state, art no longer feels like a gift or a revelation; it arrives pre-framed as a recommendation, a product, a data point. The sacred quality of discovery—its capacity to enlarge the self—is replaced by frictionless consumption, where engagement is shallow and interchangeable. Enchantment is not destroyed outright; it is trivialized, flattened, and repurposed as a sales mechanism, leaving the viewer informed but untouched.

    ***

    I was half-asleep one late afternoon in the summer of 1987, Radio Shack clock radio humming beside the bed, tuned to KUSF 90.3, when a song slipped into my dream like a benediction. It felt less broadcast than bestowed—something angelic, hovering just long enough to stir my stomach before pulling away. I snapped awake as the DJ rattled off the title and artist at warp speed. All I caught were two words. I scribbled them down like a castaway marking driftwood: Blue and Bush. This was pre-internet purgatory—no playlists, no archives, no digital mercy. It never occurred to me to call the station. My girlfriend phoned. I got distracted. And then the dread set in: the certainty that I had brushed against something exquisite and would never touch it again. Six months later, redemption arrived in a Berkeley record store. The song was playing. I froze. The clerk smiled and said, “That’s ‘Symphony in Blue’ by Kate Bush.” I nearly wept with gratitude. Angels, confirmed.

    That same year, my roommate Karl was prospecting in a used bookstore, pawing through shelves the way Gold Rush miners clawed at riverbeds. He struck literary gold when he pulled out The Life and Loves of a She-Devil by Fay Weldon. The book had a charge to it—dangerous, witty, alive. He sampled a page and was done for. Weldon’s aphoristic bite hooked him so completely that he devoured everything she’d written. No algorithm nudged him there. No listicle whispered “If you liked this…” It was instinct, chance, and a little magic conspiring to change a life.

    That’s how art used to arrive. It found you. It blindsided you. Life in the pre-algorithm age felt wider, riskier, more enchanted. Then came the shrink ray. Algorithms collapsed the universe into manageable corridors, wrapped us in a padded cocoon of what the tech lords decided counted as “taste.” According to Kyle Chayka, we no longer cultivate taste so much as receive it, pre-chewed, as algorithmic wallpaper. And when taste is outsourced, something essential withers. Taste isn’t virtue signaling for parasocial acquaintances; it’s private, intimate, sometimes sacred. In the hands of algorithms, it becomes profane—associative, predictive, bloodless. Yes, algorithms are efficient. They can build you a playlist or a reading list in seconds. But the price is steep. Art stops feeling like enchantment and starts feeling like a pitch. Discovery becomes consumption. Wonder is desecrated.

  • When Distrusting Experts Becomes Its Own Dogma

    When Distrusting Experts Becomes Its Own Dogma

    In his Atlantic essay “Everyone Hates Groupthink. Experts Aren’t Sure It Exists,” David Merritt Johns challenges the reflexive idea that groupthink is always harmful. He notes that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the MAHA movement accuse public-health experts of groupthink in order to undermine trust in institutions. Their narrative is familiar: elite scientists misled the public on masks and lockdowns, so now vaccines must be suspect too. But this rebellion against “consensus” doesn’t eliminate groupthink—it simply creates a rival version of it, one driven by conspiracy, resentment, and selective skepticism.

    Johns argues that not all group alignment is created equal. Sometimes consensus forms because experts evaluate evidence and converge on the best available guidance. Other times, conformity produces catastrophic choices. The trick is to distinguish disciplined collaboration from unthinking obedience. Irving Janis gave groupthink its negative reputation as the enemy of independent thought, but scholars like Sally Riggs Fuller and Ramon Alday complicate the picture, noting that what we often label “groupthink” may actually be bureaucratic opportunism—people following political incentives, not blind loyalty.

    The term has since been weaponized. Political commentators now dismiss peer-reviewed science as “groupthink” whenever it clashes with their ideology. Johns argues this is sloppy and dangerous. Blaming pandemic missteps on a mystical force called groupthink distracts from real causes, while assuming “lonethink”—the rebel outsider posture—automatically produces better decisions is equally foolish. Expertise demands rigorous debate, scrutiny, and correction, not reflexive suspicion or anti-institution bravado.

    Following conspiracy movements like MAHA and their crusade against vaccines reveals the stakes. Lives saved through immunization are treated as evidence of corruption, and public-health systems are condemned for doing exactly what they are designed to do: evaluate data, revise strategy, and protect citizens. When political identity replaces critical thinking and “groupthink” becomes a lazy insult for any professional consensus, the result is not liberation—it is reckless decision-making disguised as independent thought.

  • The Shock Jock Who Forgot to Pivot

    The Shock Jock Who Forgot to Pivot

    I still tune in to Howard Stern now and then, but most of what I hear these days sounds like a half-hearted reprise of his old shtick—sophomoric gags, body-function chatter, and adolescent innuendo that once jolted the airwaves but now just sag. In his prime, Stern was combustible: he blended pranks, irreverence, and enough genuine insight to keep his circus from collapsing. He earned his Radio Hall of Fame status by kicking down doors no one else dared touch.

    Now, as rumors of his retirement bubble and I endure his weary, autopilot banter with Robin, three thoughts claw at me. First: they don’t sound like they’re having fun anymore. This is a zombie act, plodding through the motions. Second: filling three hours of airtime every single day is a Sisyphean curse—nobody has that much worth saying without stuffing the sausage with sawdust. Third: we all have a shelf life. Relevance expires, and dignity demands a graceful exit.

    Stern’s curse is worse than most. His career persona—edgy, raunchy, forever pandering to prurience—has gone stale, but he’s trapped in it. The irony is brutal: a man smart enough to evolve chose to calcify. A decade ago, he could have pivoted, shed the shock-jock skin, and re-emerged as the wise veteran with conversations that mattered. Instead, while podcasts multiplied like caffeinated rabbits, he let himself be left behind.

    But maybe it isn’t too late. Imagine Howard 2.0: no longer the carnival barker of Sirius, but the philosopher-in-residence of his own café, sipping coffee and musing about culture, mortality, and meaning. Not fifteen hours of filler a week, but four hours of distilled insight—an hour twice a week, sharp and substantive. Podcasting is radio’s heir, and radio is in his DNA. Reinvention is the only antidote to irrelevance, and if he can summon the nerve, Stern could still surprise us.

  • The Tecsun PL-880 Fulfills My Expectations

    The Tecsun PL-880 Fulfills My Expectations

    20250122_144605

    I wanted a Tecsun in my bedroom—not some soulless streaming device, but a real radio, one with warmth, charm, and that inexplicable magic that only live broadcasts can offer. The idea was simple: a companion for afternoon naps and late-night reading sessions set to the soothing sounds of classical or jazz. After all, what better antidote to our algorithm-driven existence than the analog embrace of a good radio?

    Back in my radio-obsessed heyday around 2008, I foolishly sold my beloved Tecsun PL-660. Call it hubris, call it a lapse in judgment, but I’ve regretted it ever since. To atone, I snagged a used PL-660 for the kitchen and, for my bedroom sanctuary, opted for a Tecsun PL-880—a model lauded as a minor deity among radios.

    Now, let’s talk about my brief but painful dalliance with the PL-990. I ordered it from the reputable Anon-Co, expecting greatness, only to be greeted by an AM band as dead as a doorknob. Heartbreaking. Back it went, and in its place came the PL-880, slightly used but fully tested. And let me tell you, the speaker on the 880 is a revelation—warmer and more inviting than the 990’s. It’s like stepping into a cozy jazz club versus a sterile concert hall.

    The 880 arrived ready for action, with AM and FM defaults already set to North American standards—no fiddling required. On “DX” mode, the AM band delivers stunning clarity with zero floor noise or interference. It’s a joy to listen to, unlike 95% of the radios cluttering the market that barely rise above the status of glorified paperweights. FM performance is similarly impressive, though 89.3 gave me a little attitude when placed too close to the wall. A quick relocation to the bed or a spot away from the wall solved that, but the rest of the FM dial? Flawless. KCRW 89.9, in particular, comes through like it’s broadcasting from my nightstand, even while the battery charges.

    Speaking of AM, charging compromises its pristine reception, so I stick to battery power for those late-night AM sessions. Setting presets and navigating pages took a bit of patience—about 15 minutes of trial and error—but the interface is intuitive enough that even if you mess it up, direct entry is a breeze.

    In short, the PL-880 does exactly what I hoped it would: it fills my room with rich, crystal-clear sound, providing a listening experience that feels both luxurious and intimate. Sure, the PL-990 looks great and has fantastic build quality, but for my purposes, the 880 checks every box at a fraction of the cost. Why throw extra cash at a feature set I don’t need?

    Here’s the thing about being radio-obsessed: a radio isn’t just a gadget. It’s a companion, a quiet presence that connects you to a wider world while anchoring you in your own space. The PL-880 is just that—a welcome friend who’s already earned its place in my home.

    20250122_144540
  • Camry vs. Accord: A Meditation on Spec Sheets, Obsession, and the Art of Manspreading

    Camry vs. Accord: A Meditation on Spec Sheets, Obsession, and the Art of Manspreading

    One of my favorite pastimes—oddly specific and strangely soothing—is watching YouTube comparison videos of the Toyota Camry vs. the Honda Accord. I’m not car shopping. I don’t need a car. I may never buy another car. But these videos are my digital comfort food. They’re as satisfying to me as fine wine is to a sommelier or apple pie tastings are to a pastry chef—only instead of tasting notes, I savor engine specs and torque curves.

    There’s something singular about the Camry-Accord rivalry. In the sedan world, these two are the Goliaths. It’s not just another car comparison. It’s the comparison. Watching these two go head-to-head year after year is like seeing the best Steelers team take on the peak Patriots in a Super Bowl that never ends. Everything else—BMW vs. Mercedes, Rolex vs. Omega—feels less pure. BMW and Mercedes aren’t in the same pricing tier. Rolex exists in a brand vacuum. And while coffee maker comparisons have their niche charm, they lack the existential gravity of Camry vs. Accord.

    No rivalry inspires more content—or more heated debate. YouTube is flooded with these matchups, and if you scan the view counts, it’s clear: Camry vs. Accord is the king of consumer showdowns. Reviewers comb over the details with forensic intensity—fuel economy, powertrain specs, road noise, trunk space, rear-seat legroom, infotainment ergonomics, ride comfort, styling. They break it down like seminary students parsing Greek New Testament syntax.

    But what really fascinates me is the comments section, where strangers proclaim their loyalty with righteous conviction. Owners justify their purchase with religious fervor, deploying cherry-picked data to reinforce their superiority. It’s a textbook case of post-purchase rationalization: that psychological reflex where we inflate the virtues of what we bought to feel smarter, savvier, and self-assured.

    One commenter might praise the Accord’s refined cabin and roomier interior—but add that its exterior is so bland, driving one is akin to living as an NPC. Another insists Camry’s superior sales figures are proof of its aesthetic and mechanical dominance. Some dismiss the Accord entirely, predicting its extinction in five years. Others proudly declare they’re on their fifth generation of the same car, with brand loyalty woven into the fabric of their identity. For these drivers, the car isn’t a tool—it’s family.

    Ultimately, this rivalry isn’t really about cars. It’s about identity, tribalism, and the human need to choose a side and be right. It’s a Dr. Seussian fable in metallic paint: one team wears Honda badges, the other wears Toyota, and both believe their side represents reason, taste, and truth.

    For those of us with no appetite for political tribalism, this is our outlet. Camry vs. Accord is safer ground—less polarizing than politics, but don’t tell that to a diehard on either side. Watch how they argue: calmly, firmly, methodically—as if their livelihood depends on selecting the superior midsize sedan. They approach the debate with the solemnity of theologians discussing substitutionary atonement or post-mortem salvation.

    And me? I’m both relaxed and riveted. The debate calms my nerves and sharpens my focus. For a glorious hour, as I parse suspension tuning and rear-seat headroom, my worries dissolve. My thoughts narrow into something blissful. I study the specs like they’re verses from Leviticus. And in that deep focus, my anxiety lifts.

    Then it hits me: I don’t actually want the car—I want the focus. The Camry and Accord are just proxies for obsession. They’re placeholders in the temple of hyper-attention. Some people do yoga. I watch two middle-aged men compare infotainment systems like Cold War arms inspectors.

    And I do this with full self-awareness. I said earlier I might never buy another car. That wasn’t entirely true. My wife owns a 2014 silver Honda Accord Sport. I drive a 2018 gunmetal gray Accord Sport. We’re a two-Accord household. When it comes to car-buying, I’m conservative by nature—and what’s more conservative than buying a Camry or an Accord?

    I’m nearly certain our next car—whether hers or mine—will be one of the two. Likely an Accord, given that I’m six feet tall, 230 pounds, claustrophobic, and deeply committed to driver’s seat manspreading. The Accord gives me room to sprawl. The Camry? Not so much. I know this because, during a San Francisco vacation, an Uber driver picked us up in a brand-new Camry. It looked sleek from the curb, but once inside I felt like I was strapped into a fetal position. The experience ruined the car for me.

    And yet, I want to love the Camry. I really do. In my ideal life, my driveway would have both: the Camry and the Accord parked side by side like yin and yang. One the smooth operator, the other the sensible sibling. Their competition makes each better. Their rivalry sustains them both—and keeps me obsessively circling the rabbit hole.

    Because in the end, the Camry vs. Accord battle isn’t just about choosing a car. It’s about longing for clarity in a world of noise. It’s about choosing sides, rationalizing decisions, and pretending—for a few hours on YouTube—that the world makes sense if you can just pick the right sedan.

  • Crying at the Sink: The Dishwashing Grammy Awards

    Crying at the Sink: The Dishwashing Grammy Awards

    Don’t ask me why, but there’s something about doing dishes after dinner that turns me into a soft-focus emotional wreck. Somewhere between the soap suds and the rinse cycle, I cue up Rickie Lee Jones’s “Living It Up”—one of my all-time favorite songs—and without fail, it punctures the heart like a stiletto dipped in nostalgia. Tonight, it brought on another weepy micro-moment, which means it’s time to officially give it The Most Likely to Make Me Cry from Too Much Beauty Award.

    This of course sent me spiraling into my own kitchen-sink Grammy ceremony, where I began handing out awards like a deranged emotional sommelier.

    • Todd Rundgren’s “Can We Still Be Friends” wins The Song That Makes You Recommit to Being a Half-Decent Human Being Award. It’s the sonic equivalent of an awkward apology after ruining Thanksgiving.
    • The Isley Brothers’ “Living for the Love of You” earns The Track Most Likely to Be Playing in Heaven When You Arrive Award—assuming heaven has good speakers and excellent taste.
    • Yes’s “And You and I” takes home The Sounds-Like-It-Was-Composed-by-Angels-on-a-Mountain-Top Award. I don’t know what dimension that song came from, but it wasn’t this one.
    • John Mayer’s “No Such Thing” is given The Makes You Happy to Be a Living, Breathing Fool Award. It’s that rare pop song that makes you want to fist-pump your own mediocrity.
    • The Sundays’ “You’re Not the Only One I Know” walks away with The Makes Sadness So Gorgeous You Forget to Be Upset Award. It’s a musical sigh pressed between lace and rain.

    I could keep going—my brain has a whole red carpet lined up—but I’ve got another episode of Sirens on Netflix to cry through. Turns out the best part of my day is a cross between dish soap, beautiful songs, and low-level existential unraveling. What a life.

  • Trapped in the Sauna: When Bro Talk Becomes Brain Fog

    Trapped in the Sauna: When Bro Talk Becomes Brain Fog

    I’m 63, I live in the suburbs, and I like to sweat, laugh, and think—ideally all in the same day. I’ve got a soft spot for health and fitness talk, well-produced comedy, and podcasts where the ideas land harder than the punchlines. Back in the day, I gave Joe Rogan some ear time—especially when he had guests like Michael Pollan who could string together a sentence without referencing elk meat or hallucinogens. The show scratched a certain male itch: that longing for a tribal fire pit where you could grunt, swap kettlebell routines, and talk nonsense without getting side-eyed.

    I got it. I really did. There was a certain charm in the early years—the man cave as refuge, not bunker. A place for unapologetic masculinity that wasn’t trying to sell you a four-pack of testosterone supplements and a tactical flashlight.

    But then something changed. The man cave didn’t evolve—it ossified. It turned into a walled-off compound of grievance, smug anti-intellectualism, and half-baked conspiracy theories passed around like a tray of stale edibles. What once felt like a mixed bag of bro-science and genuine curiosity devolved into a middle-aged lunch table where the same unfunny comedians riff about whiskeys, bow hunting, and whether they’d survive a bear attack armed only with sarcasm and nicotine gum.

    So when I stumbled across Ghost Gum’s YouTube essay “The Collapse of the Joe Rogan Verse,” I hit play with morbid curiosity—and found it eerily validating. Turns out, I wasn’t alone in sensing that Rogan’s podcast had turned into a predictable, self-congratulatory echo chamber, where counterarguments go to die and every guest seems contractually obligated to flatter the host.

    The video’s roast of Tom Segura was especially brutal—and fair. Once the chubby, relatable everyman, Segura now floats in orbit around Planet Rogan, sneering at the unwashed masses like a guy who did keto once and now thinks he’s better than you. His comedy used to punch up; now it just punches down and preens.

    Comedy rooted in tribal loyalty becomes fan service, then becomes boring, then becomes embarrassing. What began as a countercultural clubhouse has curdled into a locker room thick with stale air and self-importance.

    Maybe Joe Rogan was once a necessary irritant to polite discourse, a reminder that the man cave had value. But too much time in that space without fresh air—and you forget it was never meant to be a throne room.

    Perhaps Joe Rogan’s unraveling podcast is just another cautionary tale of what happens when someone marinates too long in their own echo chamber and starts mistaking the sound of agreement for the sound of wisdom. Spend enough time surrounded by yes-men and protein powder, and eventually, you’re just getting high on your own supply—delirious with self-importance and blind to the rot setting in.