When Masculinity Gets Fragile: A Real-Time Case Study

Yesterday, I had one of those interactions on X (formerly Twitter) that felt like watching psychological research play out in real time. What started as a disagreement about gender differences quickly devolved into personal attacks, defensive posturing, and an almost textbook display of what researchers call "fragile masculinity."

Note: As an experiment, this post was almost entirely generated by AI (Claude Desktop) based on a transcript of the prompt and some minor prompting. The goal is to see if it could be possible to automate argumentation for online discussion in a way that effectively penalizes or counters bad arguments or toxic behavior.  Here’s the link to the post that triggered the discussion.  

The Interaction: A Case Study in Escalation

The exchange began when another user made sweeping claims about gender differences—asserting that women are "more relational" while men are "better at abstract reasoning." When I asked for sources to back up these broad generalizations, he immediately refused: "I'm not gonna spend time linking the articles just to satisfy you specifically."

This refusal to provide evidence was just the beginning. When I pushed back and called his dismissive attitude "insulting," he reframed his behavior as harmless fun: "It's good natured gender to gender banter. Something insufferable scolds like you wouldn't know anything about."

Notice the pattern here: first, avoid accountability for unsupported claims. Then, when called out, redefine the interaction as playful while simultaneously attacking the challenger's character. I became an "insufferable scold" simply for asking him to back up his assertions.

But it was what happened next that really demonstrated the fragility at work. When I persisted in pointing out that his "banter" had real impact, he escalated dramatically: "Go peddle your self-righteous moral preening to someone with enough self-loathing to actually care about your opinion."

The personal attacks intensified further when I noted the contradiction between his verbose responses and his profile's emphasis on brevity. His reply was telling: "You're just too weak for honesty so you've traded it for slimy fake empathy to get whatever your dark little cretinous heart truly desires."

Look at what happened here: A simple request for sources morphed into accusations that I was weak, dishonest, manipulative, and fundamentally corrupt. He positioned himself as the bearer of hard truths while painting me as morally deficient.

Even when I tried to de-escalate—apologizing and saying I was "just messing with you"—he refused the off-ramp: "I wasn't. Full offense intended." When I made a lighthearted comment about his use of long words, he claimed it was for "precision of meaning," but his final response revealed the truth: "More weak and pathetic behavior. See ya never!"

This wasn't just a disagreement gone wrong—it was a systematic demonstration of how fragile masculinity operates in practice. Let's break down the pattern:

1. Avoid accountability: Rather than support his claims with evidence, he immediately positioned himself as too important to be bothered with such requests.

2. Reframe and deflect: When challenged, he redefined his dismissive behavior as harmless "banter" while simultaneously attacking my character for not appreciating it.

3. Escalate and personalize: Unable to defend his position substantively, he shifted to increasingly personal attacks, questioning my motives, character, and fundamental worth.

4. Claim moral authority: Throughout, he positioned himself as the bearer of uncomfortable truths while painting me as weak, dishonest, and manipulative.

5. Reject de-escalation: Even when offered a graceful exit, he chose to maintain hostility, suggesting this was never about the original topic but about asserting dominance.

The Research Framework

This interaction is a perfect illustration of what psychologists Adam Stanaland, Sarah Gaither, and Anna Gassman-Pines describe in their 2023 model of masculine identity published in Personality and Social Psychology Review. Their research explains why some men respond to perceived challenges with such intensity.

According to their "Expectancy-Discrepancy-Threat" model, masculine fragility emerges when men experience a gap between who they actually are and the rigid expectations of masculinity they've internalized. When this gap is threatened—say, by being asked to back up claims with evidence or being called out for dismissive behavior—it can trigger what researchers call "externalized responses."

These responses include aggression, personal attacks, and attempts to reassert masculine status through dominance. Sound familiar?

Two Types of Masculine Motivation

The research identifies two key pathways that lead to fragile masculine responses:

Extrinsic motivation: When men conform to masculine norms because of external pressure—to avoid social punishment or meet others' expectations. These men are more likely to respond to threats with outward aggression and attempts to dominate.

Intrinsic motivation: When men have internalized masculine ideals as personal goals. These men are more likely to respond to threats with internalized responses like shame or self-harm.

This user's response pattern perfectly demonstrates the extrinsic pathway the researchers describe. He seemed less concerned with truth-seeking or meaningful dialogue than with maintaining his masculine presentation through dominance and aggression. Each escalation served not to advance the conversation but to reassert his position as the authority who doesn't need to justify himself to challengers.

The Online Amplification Effect

What made this interaction particularly telling was how it unfolded online. Research on digital communication shows how the medium can amplify defensive responses. Without face-to-face cues and with the safety of physical distance, people are more likely to escalate conflicts rather than de-escalate them.

The anonymity and asynchronous nature of social media can make it easier for fragile masculine responses to emerge. When someone's masculine identity feels threatened, the online environment provides a perfect stage for the kind of aggressive posturing that might be more constrained in person.

The Solnit Connection: When Mansplaining Turns Toxic

This interaction reminded me of Rebecca Solnit's groundbreaking essay "Men Explain Things to Me", where she chronicles the dismissive, condescending behavior that many women face when men refuse to acknowledge their expertise or even basic competence. What started as a discussion about research quickly became an example of exactly what Solnit describes—a man who couldn't tolerate being questioned by someone he perceived as challenging his authority.

But Solnit's work goes deeper than just mansplaining. She draws a direct line from these everyday dismissals to more serious forms of violence against women. The same psychological patterns that drive a man to refuse to acknowledge a woman's expertise can escalate to silencing women through intimidation, threats, or worse.

As a man, I have the privilege of expecting that an online disagreement will likely stay verbal. I don't have to worry that my challenger might escalate to doxxing, rape threats, or showing up at my workplace. In this day and age though, anything is possible. For women engaging in the same conversations, these concerns are real and reasonable, with countless examples of real, impactful retaliation whenever a woman attempts to stand up for herself. The research on masculine fragility helps explain why: when men are extrinsically motivated to maintain their masculine status, perceived threats can trigger responses that go far beyond the original disagreement.

Why This Matters

Understanding fragile masculinity isn't about attacking men or masculinity itself. It's about recognizing the psychological pressures that rigid gender norms create and how they can lead to harmful behaviors—both for men themselves and for those around them.

The research suggests several paths forward:

• Loosening rigid expectations: Creating more flexible definitions of masculinity
• Encouraging resistance: Supporting men who reject harmful masculine norms
• Addressing systemic issues: Changing cultural and institutional structures that reinforce toxic patterns
• Creating accountability: Developing social mechanisms that check aggressive behavior before it escalates

The sobering reality is that men like my X interlocutor are commonplace, and many operate without effective checks on their behavior. They can dismiss, belittle, and intimidate with few consequences, especially online. For women, this creates a climate where participating in public discourse requires navigating not just disagreement, but potential harassment and threats.

The Bigger Picture

My X interaction was just one small example, but it reflects larger patterns that researchers are documenting. When masculinity is treated as something that must be constantly proven and defended, it creates psychological fragility rather than strength.

Solnit's insight is crucial here: these aren't isolated incidents of bad behavior, but part of a broader pattern of silencing and intimidation. The casual dismissiveness I experienced is the same mechanism that keeps women out of conversations, out of leadership roles, and sometimes out of public life entirely.

Real strength might look more like curiosity than defensiveness, more like engaging with ideas than attacking the person presenting them, and more like admitting uncertainty than doubling down on unsupported claims.

The goal isn't to shame men or eliminate masculinity—it's to create space for healthier, more flexible ways of being human that don't require constant vigilance against perceived threats to one's gender status.

This interaction reminded me that the research on masculine fragility isn't just academic theory—it's playing out in real time, in real conversations, with real consequences for how we treat each other.

---

Reference: Stanaland, A., Gaither, S., & Gassman-Pines, A. (2023). When Is Masculinity "Fragile"? An Expectancy-Discrepancy-Threat Model of Masculine Identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(4), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221141176

We Need to Talk

On a micro- and a macro-level, the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination has been revelatory. From the jaw-dropping gall of the Trump administration's flagrant attempts to capitalize on the anger and shock of the moment to target and silence anyone who disagrees with them; to my own experiences of interacting with people in the comments sections of articles, Bluesky, and X. It seems clear that the present moment holds some valuable lessons, if only we can stop, pay attention, and learn new ways to challenge our current circumstances.

To me, the most revelatory discussions center around the work of Ezra Klein in the New York Times. He has generated three pieces in the aftermath of Kirk's killing: (a) an article on the day after the shooting:"Charlie Kirk as pursuing Politics the Right Way" that praised Kirk as a persuasive political operative, (b) a follow-up that focused and emphasized the importance of political argument with people from the other side (including a very recent interview with Ben Shapiro); and (c) a substantive and thoroughly excellent discussion with Governor Spencer Cox from Utah. Governor Cox has been acting as the primary political spokesperson for Charlie Kirk's murder 'on the ground' in Utah and has been one of the few conservative voices calling for calm and trying to calm everyone down.   

The clear, unambiguous point that Ezra Klein has been making has been that we must reinstate political argumentation across the political left and right and re-engage with each other. There is a rising tide of political violence that is symptomatic of a deeper alienation between the two sides and has the potential of being disastrous for America as a country in the very near future.

Personally, I would claim that Trump's election in 2016 and in 2024 are clear evidence of that already - but now, I fear, the worst is yet to come for the unfolding disaster that we are all facing day-by-day in the USA in 2025.   

These articles and podcasts attracted a lot of criticism from progressives, who were clearly frustrated with Ezra Klein's tone. In his first article, published the day after the murder, he was civil, generous, warm even. 

In my own online discussions, it was immediately apparent that this was unacceptable to many people in my circle. The pervading perception was a strongly negative portrayal of Kirk as a polemicist, a pure antagonist for almost every progressive position, and a generally evil person. Any sense of moderation was met with derision, dismissal, and personal attack. In these interactions, it felt like the goal was simply to dismiss my point of view, shut me down, and shut me up.

I feel, that in this moment, Ezra Klein is onto something. Many of the rebuttals and counter-arguments being published name him directly, and the fact that he is attracting such a strong reaction is telling.

Why could that be?

The majority of criticism for his approach seems to be that acknowledging Kirk's effectiveness with his audience in any positive light somehow legitimizes what Kirk was doing (see Notes below). In his articles, Klein seemed quite level-headed, accurate, and critical of some of the actions that Kirk had taken (such as creating a list of academics to persecute, calling for the execution of Joe Biden, etc). He always maintained a tone of civil discussion, never adopting the approach of a moralistic condemnation that could only block off and destroy the possibility of future debate. 

This is the key issue.

Listening to Ezra's Klein's interviews, he gives his subjects a great deal of deference and allows them to speak extensively. He does not attempt to browbeat them into submission. He doesn't try to 'win' the argument through rhetorical tricks, volume, moralistic posturing or even raising his voice. He just lets them talk. 

This is excellent - and very much in-keeping with his apparent mission of having people on the left and right have meaningful and productive arguments with each other. 

When the most objectionable people on his show are required to actually explain their political positions, it becomes very clear just how weak and frankly bizarre many of them are. Not only that, but many of the interactions are incredibly insightful to help all of us understand the other. Just why do right-wingers frame their thoughts in this way? Why do they support Trump even now? What is the real motivation for their thinking? 

Providing such a resource for us all is incredibly valuable. 

Having said that, I find myself reacting with annoyance to his interviews. They feel somewhat anodyne, polite, and shallow. A really good argument really gets into the meat of something and he only ever makes individual counterpoints before moving on. But, he does make the counterpoint in the moment and still manages to keep the conversation going. Would going deeper run the risk becoming so contentious that people would stop participating? This is the fine line Mr Kline navigates expertly in these interviews. I’d like to believe that this is deliberate whilst being backed by a full-throated commitment to the same kinds of viewpoints that I share, but it’s hard to tell.

The other interesting side effect of these discussions, however annoying, is that they spur people to write, to criticize, and further engage. Being annoyed is good in this context. It makes us want to respond and further the conversation.

A moralistic reaction that we shouldn’t talk to ‘these people’ because they are evil kills conversion and blocks any effort to even try to persuade them. Even though we may never succeed in that persuasion, the fact that these discussions are happening in public serves to promote discourse in onlookers. 

In the words of Hal Wyner from season 1 of Netflix’s The Diplomat (an entirely fictional character) “One of the boneheaded truisms of foreign policy is that talking to your enemies legitimizes them.Talk to everyone. Talk to the dictator, and the war criminal. Talk to the poor schmuck three levels down who's so pissed he has to sit in the back of the second car, he may be ready to turn. Talk to terrorists. Talk to everyone. Fail, and fail again. And brush yourself off. And fail again. Because maybe... Maybe…”.

We have to talk. It is essential. It’s the only way we exert our power in this situation. When we do talk, we need to do it well - perhaps through better ways to argue that use modern AI to help find authentic solutions. We have to make the argument for honesty, compassion, and understanding more compelling than the one currently employed by our adversaries- those arguing for lies, cruelty, and blind faith. 

Our future depends on it.

Notes

[1]. Some people who have offered excellent counterpieces to Ezra Klein's wrirting about Charlie Kirk are Marisa Kabas in the Handbasket Direct Email to Ezra Klein, Elizabeth Spiers in the Nation: Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning; Ta-Nehisi Coates in the New Yorker Charlie Kirk, Redeemed: A Political Class Finds Its Lost Causel; Nathan Robinson in Current Affairs: As The Far Right Rises, Don’t Be Ezra Klein. 

[2] There is an accompanying AI-generated song for this post: https://elevenlabs.io/music/songs/iRbagrZIA1HopGylRJhp

Moment of Truth

We stand at a moment in time of astonishing magnitude - on the one hand, the richest and most powerful economic superpower in the world is undergoing an authoritarian takeover whose hallmark is a flagrant disregard for the truth. On the other hand, modern AI technology has suddenly permitted machines to accurately process complex natural language, images, speech, other complex structured and semi-structured signals so that now humanity has broader access to incredibly powerful tools that permit us to understand and use information in unprecedented ways.  

Leading frontier language models are the most rapidly adopted and widely used information technology that has ever existed. They democratize intelligence. They make it easy for normal people to access expertise far beyond their own, and on the whole, they perform well. Serious issues with 'hallucinations' (where models invent facts) are increasingly less common and AI is becoming a widely accepted computational toolset across almost any task where complex reasoning and information use is required. 

It is only a matter of time before this technology is weaponized as a tool for disinformation across various areas of public life. Up until now, such efforts (such as Elon Musk's attempts to heighten awareness about so-called 'white genocide' in South Africa) have backfired dramatically, but it would be naïve to suppose that all such attempts can be so easily spotted. Given the importance of information networks to secure and exploit power (see Yuval Harari's book 'Nexus'), we should likely expect there to be concerted and intense effort from stakeholders to have AI models and agents tailor their answers to support their pursuit of power rather than to provide the most accurate and truthful responses as a matter of principle

Having said that, we have a pre-existing runway to drive AI technology in an arc that bends toward truth. This is for two reasons:  (A) models' dependence on high-quality training data for good performance is hard to circumvent with disinformation; (B) we have only begun to scratch the surface of how we can best use these tool to solve real problems. 

I believe that a key part of developing this technology lies in how we address the core underlying process of how humans ascertain 'what is true': Argumentation.

Argument is present across all human endeavor involving competing approaches to the use of information. It is a centerpiece of philosophy, law, politics, academia, science, and business. It is a key, but largely understated component of writing, espionage, warfare, terrorism, and even medicine (for example, consider the role that advocacy and argument played in removing homosexuality as a pathology from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or 'DSM' in 1973). Even though it is the water in which we all swim, it is currently only well-modeled and understood by AI technology in a small number of domains (such as Mathematical Olympiad proofs).

For AI technology, it is essential that we understand (A) how argument works in a human context and (B) how we can transcend the constraints of that paradigm to solve previously seemingly impossible challenges. Human argumentation is beset by unproductive methods and patterns (see 'Argumentation Schemes' by Walton et al 2013) which mostly do not center the standard scientific model of 'abductive reasoning' (in which we seek explanations of observations). Thus, in fields where text is dominated by  human discussion that is geared towards securing power for one party over another, any attempt to learn how to effectively construct a compelling argument that drives outcomes will be dominated by human interactions with all their ineffective, complex, flawed approaches. 

How then, can we find workable solutions? Could we condition reasoning / argumentation AI models and systems attempting to solve complex problems (like cancer, homelessness, gun violence, drug policy, political redistricting, etc.) to approach these problems scientifically - and find explanations for phenomena based on curating and organizing observations judged to be relevant. Pragmatically, this  approach could use reinforcement learning methods to train specialized models capable of domain-specific problem-solving based on an abductive reasoning methodology (such methods have been used in biology already: see the `rbio` project at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative). 

Naturally, the discussion presented here is hardly a detailed, concrete solution (which would require detailed modeling, training set curation, and rigorous AI-research to truly instantiate it), but I present it as a viable strategy for tech leaders. Given resources, it could enable truth in people's lives. It is essential that we act now, immediately, before it is too late. 

It may be possible to entrench the usefulness of such truth-empowering tools by helping humanity  understand and accomplish more than we have ever been able to do before and generate true societal change. If we can do this, then the short runway we currently enjoy against authoritarian disinformation may extend by a month or a year. If successful, it could even server to inoculate people from disinformation. If all such efforts fail, modern AI is likely to be used to consolidate large-scale surveillance, propaganda, and authoritarianism - to the detriment of all but a few.

I feel that we really are living in a 'moment of truth', and we must act creatively to rise to the occasion.  

American Evil - Part Two

Eight years ago, I wrote an essay about Trump’s first presidential election titled‘American Evil’. In that piece, I spoke about three broad types of Trump supporter: the dupes, the pragmatists, and the true believers. I put forward the fervent hope that people from the first two groups would come to their senses, recognize the venal, self-serving depravity of the man and his administration, and never ever do anything as idiotic as vote for him again.

Clearly, that was naïve.

My naivety somewhat reflects that of many progressives. It seemed so glaringly obvious that a second Trump term would be such a horrifying disaster that we did not sufficiently engage with the conversation to make that case. 

From day one of Biden’s term, there was a steady campaign of propaganda that spun him as incompetent, old, feeble, dangerously radical, and anti-American. 

This is the playbook at the heart of American Evil - cynical myth-making around a distorted view of patriotism, freedom, religiosity, and violence (masquerading as ‘fighting for freedom’) - all with a straight-talking’ tone that portrays itself as factually authoritative, based in common sense, and with a hyper-entitled context that says “this is the way it is and always has been - this is America!”.

In reality, it’s utterly driven by Bullshitting - the act of saying anything (even in court, even under oath) to achieve political objectives. This could be to bully others, to provide a test of loyalty to ‘test’ your underlings, or even to just insist that people adhere to your version of the truth even if it starkly contradicts observable reality. 

In its current form, the most disturbing aspect of the current regime is how this appetite for bullshit is very well tolerated by American society as a whole. This problem is described in detail in this piece on the ‘public notice’ Substack. They describe the administration’s approach to bullshit as ‘cognitive irresponsibility’- which is, to my mind, overly ornate and far, far too polite. It’s just bullshit, and we should call it out as such.

Trumpy Bullshit is now endemic. We have been inoculated to it to such a degree so that we’re either exhausted and resigned on the left or emboldened and overconfident on the right. 

Combine an effective political campaign, the repurposing of widely used information networks for propaganda, a decade of continuous scrutiny with no repercussions and you have the current iteration of American Evil. Combine that with Elon Musk’s perfidious influence and you have the current disastrous blend of kleptocracy, oligararchy, and god knows what else in the months to come.

At its heart, American Evil is simply about deception, raw privilege and power. This is notably driven entirely by bullshit, and so the way out of it may well be driven by improving our search for truth.

Yuval Noah Harari’s latest book Nexus is pitch perfect in this discussion. He makes the point that information generally serves two, orthogonal purposes: truth and/or power. 

Truth is hard. It is difficult to put together, hard to understand, and likely uncomfortable to confront. Power is easier. It is driven by storytelling, and tailoring the information you provide to some purpose. It aligns with money and usually has no difficulty amplifying its signal.

Hard-hitting investigative journalism that exposes government corruption by surfacing hidden facts centers on truth. Politically manufactured narratives that distort reality to serve a narrow purpose (such as Trump’s entire narrative about immigration) center on power.

All areas of life that involve human knowledge mix truth and power: science is fiercely political and showcases hidden power dynamics; politics occasionally touches on profound important realities that makes a huge difference, journalism can showcase astonishing corruption or honesty. 

So it’s important to look for each component separately and pay attention to the balance of the two forces at play.

The way we fight evil here is to (a) recognize where information is being used to drive power (and reduce our trust of that information in order to minimize its impact) and (b) distinguish what information is being used to uncover truth and focus on that as trustworthy.

More than ever, we need truth. It is in short supply, becoming scarcer and less empowered by the day. We need champions and societal structures as advocates but it is unclear where they may reside. Perhaps the best place to look for champions are those standing for it and being targeted by Trump for doing so - these include conservative district attorneys, democrat lawmakers, scientists, journalists, lawyers, judges, park rangers, comedians. 

Find the shared conversation for truth and stand by others willing to fight for it. Only then can we save ourselves.

On Being 50, Almost Dying, and What It Means To Live

Yesterday was my fiftieth birthday. Inevitably, after opening gifts, talking to family, and eating delicious chocolate covered strawberries provided by my wonderful wife,  I started pondering some big, weighty questions.

Strangely, the moment that provides me the most clarity looking back over my life was when, at the age of 21, I almost fell to my death from a six-story rooftop in Paris clad only in my underwear.

I was living in a 'chambre de bonne' (a simple one-bedroom apartment with a squat toilet in the hall) near Montmatre. The idea was to spend a year living in Paris, train at a top-notch fencing club and figure out  what I wanted to do with my life.  Life was crazy, terrifying, frustrating. I was making almost no money,  training all the time, improving my French, and trying to have fun. One night I accidentally locked myself out of my room going to the bathroom wearing a natty pair of boxer shorts and nothing else. After I unsuccessfully attempted to rouse help from the landlord, I figured out that I had left the window to my 8 inch balcony open. To my 21-year-old brain, it seemed that all I needed to do was climb out over the roof, let myself down onto the balcony and all would be well.

There was a precise moment I figured out that this was a terrible idea. It was when I was scooting on my butt over the shallow incline of the roof, I looked out over the midnight Parisean skyline, and realized (A) just how high I was above the ground, (B) how my underwear had just gotten snagged on a hook designed to keep the roofing tiles in place, and (C) that I might die. The adrenaline kicked in and I began to panic. God knows how, but I unhitched my ass, lowered my legs over the precipice, turned around to face the wall, and lowered myself onto the balcony. I vowed quietly to myself that "this never happened, no one ever need know" and attempted to go about my life as normal.

But it did happen. I really could have plummeted to my death that night. It would have likely been tragic, newsworthy, and definitely a contender for a Darwin Award. I think of it now because I wonder what is different between that outcome and the one I'm living now.

The main things that stand out for me are not the most vivid experiences or the moments when I was  the most happy. The moments that matter are those when I made a difference in other peoples' lives. Some are negative, where I made mistakes, and caused damage, albeit unintentionally. I think of those with regret and shame and feel a certain longing for the Christian rite of reconciliation, where I could confess my sins and have them be absolved. These moments stick in my craw and serve as a reminder to hold myself accountable and pay attention to the impact I have on other people. 

But there are a few memories, where I was able to make a positive difference in the lives of others.

These were sometimes grand acts of generosity. 

I helped a buddy propose to his girlfriend by setting  up a romantic scene on Venice beach for them to happen upon during a Valentine's day walk. 

A colleague was sacked in the most disingenuous way on his birthday. I went to the Ralph's across the  street, bought him a bottle of Jonnie Walker Blue Label and hastily assembled an impromptu card that read 'Keep Walking'. 

I learned that an acquaintance was sleeping in her car, and invited her stay in my apartment for free while she got her life together. We were roommates for two years.

There are a bunch of other times, when smaller actions had an impact: apologizing when I needed to; forgiving  people when I could manage to; seeking communication with people that didn't like me; keeping my word when it was inconvenient to do so; trusting the generosity and competence of strangers; holding a stranger's hand when they freaked out on a turbulent plane ride. I dunno. 

Beyond meeting my wife, falling in love, and having our son, these are the things that mean the most to me.

If I had died that night, these are the things that would have been lost. These are the moments that  mattered. Other moments of pleasure, passion, joy, triumph, fulfillment, or accomplishment will leave no trace when I finally leave. The legacy we leave is the difference we've made. No more, no less.   

It's profoundly moving to think about this now, as a middle aged man arguably just coming into my power, I now have the chance to dedicate the rest of my life to love and support my family,  to be of service to others, and to make a difference for them.

This well-worn quote Bernard Shaw seems apropos:

I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work, the more I live. Life is no 'brief candle' to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for a moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to the future generations. 

If there's a way of living a good life, of having few regrets, and even some pride in I am, these are the things I choose to look to. Going forward, I also know what to do to gather more of them. 

GAB, RWC, 4/16/2020

The Faces of My Colleagues

On a Zoom this week

Face-to-face with colleagues

Close up to grit and grace.

What an honor to see

The unvarnished fight

In their warriors’ eyes.

Catching an occasional

Glint of lightness

In the conversation

Moved me most of all.

Amid this current moment

Perhaps I’m not alone

To look around

At my colleagues

And see the heroes there.

Bereft of me

For Lee Vodra, For Chris Cornell, For all of us.

The only true loss is this loss of a soul,
Where once was a person, there now is a hole.

Now the only things left are the things of the past,
With a future bereft of your voice or your clasp.

The spaces you filled in the world with your song,
Now thud dully with silence as we all move along.

All the things that we have, all the things that we do,
Have no meaning at all, in the absence of you.

This leaving alone cuts us all like a knife,
The only true loss is this loss of a life.