Scary Choices End Up Being the Most Worthwhile

"All of us face tough choices.

Sometimes we duck them. Sometimes we address them. Even when we address them, however, we don't always decide to resolve them. Sometimes we simply brood endlessly over possible outcomes or agonize about paths to pursue.

And even if we do try to resolve them we don't always do so by energetic self-reflection. Sometimes we simply bull our way through to a conclusion by sheer impatience and assertive self-will--as though getting it resolved were more important than getting it right."

This quote is from the book, How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living, by Rushworth M. Kidder.


As I absorb the current events of our time, I am amazed at what decisions I must make, really without having all of the information I need to make a good decision. Who will I support in the 2016 Presidential campaign? Do I support U.S. involvement in Syria? How do I feel about Syrian refugees-- do they pose a danger? Do I change my Facebook profile every time Facebook suggests it? Should I be concerned with how Starbucks embellishes its cups? What do I believe about Planned Parenthood?

Many of us are heavily influenced by media. We watch the news and talk shows. We read the paper or our newsfeed on Facebook.  We feel pressured to have and to share an opinion. We want to feel we have the Right Choice. We want to feel good about our choice and be able to defend it. We may never have formally learned how to evaluate difficult choices. This process is called "ethics" or "ethical living."

What follows is a quick crash course in Ethics.... a survival guide, of sorts.

In his book, Kidder warns that, overwhelmed by choices, and the seriousness of those choices, we will find "the moral landscape... will be shaped by three conditions our ancestors could not have imagined."




1. Entirely New Ethical Issues: The concentration of power and the technological advances of our time mean that lapses of judgement have farther reaching consequences than ever before. Hundreds or thousands of people can be affected.  Think nuclear bombs, environmental disasters like the Exxon Valdez. Think computer viruses, the spread of AIDS, arson or even accidental fires in densely populated areas. Lapses of judgement can destroy more lives than we can imagine; contaminate the environment for longer than we can comprehend. With the focus on power and discovery, we are subject to the ethical lapses of others, for whom "the moral issues pale to insignificance before the lure of discovery...the fact that something can be done is reason enough."

(Chernobyl, with its hundreds of thousands of people affected and

the environment ruined for many lifetimes, 

happened because of a botched informal experiment 

by two scientists who were vaporized in the meltdown.)

2. Moral Intensity: There have always been wars, famines, crime, epidemics, and genocide. Now we are subjected to literal scenes of the carnage playing out in our living rooms every night. A few decades ago, we would not have to have an opinion on these events because we were ignorant of them. Now, we know, and feel obligated to form an opinion or take action. We are faced with so many serious problems, we may exhibit compassion fatigue.

Dr. Charles Figley described it this way: Compassion Fatigue is a state experienced by those helping people or animals in distress; it is an extreme state of tension and preoccupation with the suffering of those being helped to the degree that it can create a secondary traumatic stress for the helper." Individuals eventually protect themselves by becoming less caring. 

Peter Goldmark, of the Rockefeller Foundation, states that it is no longer enough to find worthwhile causes-- there are too many of them. We must choose to back those causes that are essential, and not worry about the rest.

3. A tempting reaction is to become "ethical tortoises" who retreat from the moral intensity and refuse to face humankind's overwhelming needs of the 21st century.  Kidder warns: "Yearning for a spearate peace, (emotional tortoises) mat be especially prime targets for cultish behavior... Only a truly moral community can counter separatism where it shows up-- whether as ethnic cleansing and hatred of refugees on the international front, or as special-interest pleading and whining me-firstism on the domestic scene.

I can't help thinking, as I read these statements, that we are witnessing these sentiments unfold first-hand, every day in the news. Syrian refugees and border walls. Occupy Wall Street, raising the minimum wage, and demanding free university education.




"In the end, our ethics define the way we participate in the community around us. Yet it is also a deeply personal construct, developing powerful standards and practices in each of us. It calls upon us to be impartial, Yet it demands that we be engaged-- that we have, in other words, a point-of-view." (Kidder)

"Values-neutral relativism (is) corrosive to ethical endeavors." (Kidder) He suggests that each of us should take time to examine our value system so we recognize right versus wrong and act instinctively to protect right when we need to. 

Then we should realize that the vast majority of decisions are right versus right. When faced with a decision that seems to have no obvious right answer, he encouraged the individual to gather facts, weigh the options, and make a decision. We must be willing to accept that most decisions will avoid some negative consequences while bringing some others. We should concentrate on the good that comes from our decisions, and fully accept the consequences.  

Kidder warns against trying to find a simple ethical formula and apply it everywhere.In a society of quick fixes, it is easy to cling to one value to the exclusion of all others and fail to grasp the complexity of most issues. We then are guilty of substituting "thoughtless moralizing for moral thinking."

He suggests the following four paradigms, however, to help us when we are face with a 'right versus right' decision.

1. Truth versus Loyalty


2. The Individual versus the Community
     

3. Short-term versus Long-term


4. Justice versus Mercy

 Though we sometimes may put on above the other, depending on circumstances, he encourages us to decide which we feel is most important, as a rule. Then , we will have a beginning dialogue when faced with a 'right versus right' decision.

If you are curious, Kidder shares which are most important to him and a brief reason why.

• Compelled to choose between truth and loyalty, I would (all things being equal) come down on the side of truth. One reason: The history of this century suggest that those who put loyalty above truth (loyalty to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and even Richard Nixon) are capable of doing terrible damage to the world. It's hard to imagine that kind of damage arising when truth is put above loyalty. Having to choose, I feel safer and more comfortable honoring what is true than following human allegiances.
•  Compelled to choose between the individual and the community, I would (all things being equal) lean toward the community. One reason: Individualism and its emphasis on rights has run to such extremes in this century that it has done serious damage to community and its emphasis on responsibilities. Were I a citizen of a post-Soviet county, I might feel otherwise: Seventy years of oppressive communism might have driven me to support the individual at any cost. But I'm not: My history, and that of my culture, has been different. Another reason: Community includes self, but self does not always embrace community. 
• Compelled to choose between short term and long term, I would (all things being equal) favor the long term. One reason: The long term always includes the short term, whereas short-term thinking (as the history of greed in the American 1980's demonstrates) does not always provide for the long term. 
• Compelled to choose between justice and mercy, I would (all things being equal) stick with mercy, which to me speaks of love and compassion. One reason: I can imagine a world so full of love that justice, as we now know it, would no longer be necessary. But I cannot imagine a world so full of justice that there would no longer be any need for love. Given only one choice, I would take love."

 He closes his book with this observation:

W will not "survive the morality of relativism: There is too much leverage these days behind even a single unpunished act of evil. We'll survive by a morality of mindfulness. We'll survive where reason moderates the clash of values and intuition schools our decision-making. Theres' no better way for good people to make tough choices."

We Cannot Change What We Refuse to Confront-- Does Gay Culture Harm Gays?

I was recently given a book: Making Gay Okay, by Robert R. Reilly. I was amazed by what I was reading, which seems to be full of well-cited research by one of the more respected men in Washington. I was forced to think about things I have never thought about before. I hurried to find out what conversation was going on about these ideas and was surprised to find…. nothing.  This book, which came out last year, has been ignored and buried.

I did find an article by Austin Ruse, dated June, 2014:

“As a very young man, (Robert Reilly) was a special adviser to President Reagan. He is a longtime music critic, specializing in teaching the emergence of amazing new orchestral music. He was a spokesman behind the green line during the Iraq war, reporting directly to Paul Bremer, head of the occupational authority. He led the Voice of America. 

Reilly’s new book cannot get a hearing; there is a media blackout, a stonewall even among the conservative press who, according to a high-ranking think tank scholar at the Hudson Institute, owe him at least a hearing on his controversial new book Making Gay Okay, out now several weeks from the Catholic publisher Ignatius Press. 

But so far, silence–or the sound of slamming doors. 

Nothing in National Review, not even National Review Online. Nothing in Weekly Standard, even though Reilly reached out personally to his old friend Bill Kristol. Nothing in the American Spectator, which has already rejected a piece on the book by one of their longstanding contributors. The Wall Street Journal didn’t even lead the publisher along. They said simply and firmly, 'no.'

What is everyone so worried about?” 

Right away I was intrigued. Nothing whets my appetite like information I am not supposed to know.

So I read this book with interest. I was shocked when I was forced to consider that the real enemy of homosexuals may be the one we would all least expect: the radical Gay Activists, who claim to be their advocates and defenders. And the Gay Culture that is supposed to set them free to “be who they are.” Perhaps I write this post prematurely, because I don’t understand all of the implications of the assertions yet, myself. But I would like, as an exercise, to consider for a few moments that many of our LGBT friends and family members are hurting, are troubled. And that the solution we have all been told they need is, literally and figuratively, killing them.

There is a good chance you will never get your hands on Reilly’s book. There is a good chance you won’t ever find the research that he cites. So, let me just throw out some of the information that most surprised me and let you judge it for yourself. It does not match what I have believed. I would be grateful if any participants in a large metropolitan Gay Culture would respond, civilly, to how this matches their experience.

First, to clarify terms: Many of the studies involve findings about homosexual men. When the term “homosexual” is used, it may apply only to men.  Also, simply feeling attracted to a member of the opposite sex is very different than participating in “Gay Culture.” Many who would classify themselves as “homosexual” do not find this lifestyle inviting.  

So what is a definition of “Gay Culture?”  In 2006, homosexual journalist Simon Fanshawe wrote in the Guardian:

 “Hooked on drugs and sex and looks, we call it gay culture.” 

By definition, “gay culture” as defined by homosexuals is a selfish, superficial, hyper-promiscuous, and drug-fueled sexual activity, with little thought of protecting or respecting self or others.

Of course, heterosexuals who participate in dangerous sexual practices suffer the same consequences. Unlike homosexuals though, they seem to have many alternatives to dangerous sexual practices. Gays may not.  It is interesting to note that once someone has identified themselves as “gay”, they are quickly thrust into “gay culture.” In several biographies I have read, homosexual young men travel to large cities, known to have a concentration of homosexuals. They get drunk or high and are raped by older men. They are told the rape was a favor and are verbally instructed in the hallmarks, and desirability, of “gay culture”.  (ie. Oliver Sacks in On the Move, Ian Moss in The Man Who Killed the Hamsters)

What Are Some Reported Dangers of Participating in 

Gay Culture?

 

Gay Culture Shortens Lives—up to 30 years

“An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada for AIDS related deaths… reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy… The damaging effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison—cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years of life expectancy…  Other potentially fatal ailments such as syphilis, anal cancer, and Hepatitis B and C also affect gay and bisexual men disproportionately. (John R. Diggs Jr, M.D. “The Health Risks of Gay Sex)

A presentation on the homosexual lifespan to the Eastern Psychological Association, April 1993 included this summary: “Gay male lifespan, even apart from AIDS and with a long-term partner, is significantly shorter than that of married men by more than three decades” Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 69)

Promiscuity, not Fidelity, is the Rule in a Homosexual Lifestyle

The Journal of Human Sexuality (volume 1, 2009): “The number of partners with whom our respondents admitted having engaged in sex was, by heterosexual standards, prodigious…. One respondent reported that he had engaged in sex with more than 10,000 men. Only 35 percent had engaged in sex with fewer than 100 men; 42 percent reported between 100 and 499 men; 23 percent admitted to having 500 or more partners.

The Sex in America survey found that 94 percent of married people and 75 percent of cohabitating people had only one partner in the last year. The Male Couple, researched and written by two homosexual authors: out of 156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the 100 that had been together for more than 5 years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.

“Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype, and it is not merely the majority experience—it is virtually the only experience. And even if we set aside infidelity and allow a generous definition of “long-term relationships” as those that last at least 4 years, under 8 percent of either male or female homosexual relationships fit the definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity. Tragically, lifelong faithfulness is almost nonexistent in the homosexual experience.” (Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Downers Grove IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1995)

 

Promiscuity is Associated with Sexually Transmitted Disease --Gay Promiscuity Even More So

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are over 44 times more likely than other men to contract HIV, 46 times more likely to contract syphilis than other men, and comprise 57 percent of people newly infected with HIV in the US, even though MSM make up only 2 percent of the adult population.

Anal Sex is Physically Harmful

Anal sex increases the risk of rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, chlamydia, cryptosporidiosis, gonorrhea, giardiasis, genital herpes, genital warts, isosporiasis, microsporidiosis, viral hepatitis B and C, and syphilis. (“Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer”, Washington Blade, June 2, 2000)

Anal sex causes cancer. Seminal fluid has “immuno-regulatory macro-molecules” that help its biological purpose to fertilize eggs, but which enable sperm to fuse with other cells they encounter. This fusing can cause cancerous malignancies R.J. Ablin and R. Stein-Werblowsky, “Sexual Behavior and Increased Anal Cancer”, Immunology and Cell Biology 75 (1977) 181-83.) The risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse (J.R. Daling et al., “Correlation of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer”, Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14 (April 9, 1982): 1988-90)

Promiscuity is Associated with Mental Distress

 Unfortunately, the hallmark of Gay Culture, promiscuity, is strongly associated with psychological distress. This distress is reported in men and women, homosexual or heterosexual. “It is premature to conclude that casual sexual encounters pose no harmful psychological risks for young adults.” The results “suggest that among heterosexual college students, casual sex was negatively associated with well-being and positively associated with psychological distress.” Specifically, anxiety and depression were mentioned. (Melina M. Bersamin, Byron L. Zamboanga, et al, 'Risky Business: Is There an Association between Casual Sex and Mental Health among Emerging Adults?', Journal of Sex Research, Published online: 07 Jun 2013

Many other studies report findings such as these. We should be worried about the suicide rate and self-reported psychological distress among those who identify as ‘gay’. We should open up the conversation that perhaps the distress is not caused by society refusing to embrace Gay Culture. Society accepting heterosexual promiscuity has certainly not solved psychological distress for heterosexuals. 

Homosexuals being treated as a class is scientifically “indefensible” because sexual orientation is not immutable. It can be changed and people report changing all the time—even if some would find it impossible to change. When we deny that, we cause harm… to homosexuals

The National Health and Social Life study of sexuality, completed in 1994 and reported in 2003: Roughly 10 out of every 100 men have had sex with another man at some time… Most of these will have identified themselves as gay before turning eighteen and will have acted upon it. But by age 18, a full half of them no longer identify themselves as gay and will never again have a male sexual partner. And this is not a population of people selected because they went in to therapy; it’s just the general population. Furthermore, by age twenty-five, the percentage of gay identifies men drops to 2.8 percent. Without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they are gay at 16 aren’t by 25. (Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, “Testimony before the Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage”)

The Radical Gay Agenda is Opposed by Many Homosexuals, who are Intimidated When They Speak Out

The Radical Gay Agenda does not ask homosexuals to vote on issues. Several small groups decide they know best what is important and act on it. If gay individuals dare to speak out, they are intimidated. We need to realize that Gay Activists may not speak for the Homosexual Majority—they may be a fanatical few, like the hate groups in any political or religious group.

Below are actual statements by gay activists, lobbying for a change in the definition of marriage:

 "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
-- Masha Gessen, journalist

“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality."
-- Paula Ettelbrick

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,
London, 1971, revised 1978

These are strong statements. Is this the way most homosexuals feel?

 Tom Geoghegan, with BBC News, Washington wrote an article in 2013 called “The Gay People Against Gay Marriage” He reports:

A community made up of millions of people is bound to hold a range of views on any subject, but it will surprise many that some of the people who on the face of it stand to gain the most from gay marriage should oppose it. And these contrary views are not often heard.

In the UK, Daily Mail columnist Andrew Pierce says that for speaking out against gay marriage in the past, he has been attacked as a homophobe and Uncle Tom, despite a long history of championing gay rights.
He strongly believes that civil partnerships - introduced in 2005 to give same-sex couples equal legal rights - are enough.

"We've got marriage, it's called a civil partnership and I rejoice in the fact that people like me who are different from straight people can do something they can't. I relish that." 

He thinks there are more gay people in agreement with him than people may think - at a dinner party he hosted for 11 gay friends, only one was in favour of marriage, one was undecided and the rest were against, he says.

We all have the right to research these issues and talk freely about them, without fear or hate by either side. We must exercise the right to research facts and find truth. If we, gay or straight, think only what we are told to think, we are all in great danger. We may not agree what Truth is about many issues, but I defend our right to think for ourselves and speak openly about what we find.

Conclusion

There were many other instances cited, in Making Gay Okay and in other studies, that showed Gay Culture to be dangerous and demoralizing for those who participate in it. High incidents of domestic abuse, pornography, and rape among homosexuals are all well-documented, though it is agreed they are not very well-reported. Those who feel attracted to members of the opposite sex are encouraged to “go public” as soon as possible, even though scientific studies show that sexual identity can change dramatically through the teen and young adult years. At the same time,  homosexuals have been pressured to avoid ‘going public’ about negative experiences within gay culture. Scientists who report findings against Gay Culture have been threatened by Gay Activists.  

After reading this book, I realized that homosexuality is not “other.” We may experience same-sex attraction and so may our friends and loved ones. Many of us want to enable those who identify as homosexual to achieve a good life: with love, acceptance, safety, and success. Many of us want to quickly resolve or dismiss the confusion and self-doubt that is commonly experienced by those who have same-sex attraction. We may want to deny or over-simplify what is going on in Gay Culture. We owe it to any teenager or young adult that we love to sit down with them and talk about the dangers and the statistics.  We rob them if we do not research with them the real risks involved. We may argue over whether one chooses one's sexual inclinations, but we can all agree that one can definitely choose one's actions. We can encourage them to make educated choices because they are the ones who will have to live with the consequences. We need to realize that the radical Gay Agenda does not have the best interest of our individual loved ones at heart.

Above all, we cannot lie to them or ourselves. In our rush to be politically correct or tolerant, let us not leave them confused about whether being raped is wrong, about whether their psychological distress is real. We need to voice our concerns and validate their concerns about the Gay Lifestyle. We need to help them find real solutions to their problems. And we should be patient with one another if we have different ideas of those solutions.

Open Letter to My Friends:

To my LGBT friends, I love you. I know you are dealing with more than most of us realize. But you are more like me than you know. I have risen above terrible things by finding my identity and self-worth. So can you. I have found I am more than my sexuality. So are you. I know should be treated with respect and tenderness. So should you. I have never found happiness in blaming others or feeling the victim; I have found peace in putting limits on myself, and taking responsibility for my actions and choices. So can you. In the past, I may have thought you would just find your own way, but I realize you may need compassion and assistance— especially with many truths hidden or manipulated for a political agenda that I thought was trying to help you. I apologize for my ignorance. I owe it to you to tell you that just because you are gay does not mean that everything you feel like doing is right, any more than anything I feel or do is right. I promise that Happiness and Truth still exist in this crazy world. I will try to live to find it, to speak out about it, while leaving you room to walk your own path.

---The statement was made about Reilly’s book: “If they disagree with the book, then they should disagree, but they should engage” (Breitbart News). Who is really hiding information, who is book-burning these days? If we are really interested in hearing and helping each other, we should be searching for truth and discussing it. We should not be hiding it.

You can disagree with these studies and conclusions, but I hope you had a chance to engage.

 

The Silken Tent

 The Silken Tent

 She is as in a field a silken tent
At midday when the sunny summer breeze
Has dried the dew and all its ropes relent,
So that in guys it gently sways at ease,
And its supporting central cedar pole,
That is its pinnacle to heavenward
And signifies the sureness of the soul,
Seems to owe naught to any single cord,
But strictly held by none, is loosely bound
By countless silken ties of love and thought
To every thing on earth the compass round,
And only by one's going slightly taut
In the capriciousness of summer air
Is of the slightest bondage made aware.

 I am grateful for my Supporting Central Cedar Pole. 

I am grateful for the countless silken ties--
my responsibilities and relationships. 

Sometimes they may bind but they are what keep me from blowing away or falling flat.

 I am grateful for the invigorating capriciousness of life
that extends me to my shimmering fullness.

I am just beginning to master that billowing balance of flexibility and freedom.

As I have sought shelter under some of you,
I hope I may offer similar protection.

Here's to the women I know-- you Silken Tents, you!

Black Dogs and God's Poems

 

One of The Race recently mentioned to me that for her to really relate to art, it couldn't be too direct... there needed to be something left to unwrap. She felt she needed just enough symbolism, just enough ambiguity to allow a perfect fit. For that reason, she felt that a love song-- about a missed chance for a reunion-- reflected her bereavement even better than songs written about bereavement.

When I think of my deepest experiences-- spirituality, intimacy, loss-- words fall short. Artistic symbols hold much more power. The spaces and gaps, those things not shown, are greater than what is seen.




Poetry is founded on symbolism--
images and ideas as raw materials, waiting for you to form them into something recognizable.




In the Greek, workmanship is “poiema.”

St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians stated, “we are His workmanship.”

Human beings are God’s poems.  If poems are careful constructions of beautiful illumination, what does that make us?

And just as with poetry, there is something powerful inside of us that must be unwrapped.

Like poems, what can't be seen-- in us-- is of more value than what can.

The poem, "Cologne Cathedral" (shared on the post "Beauty For Ashes") was written by Vassar Miller (1924-1998). Vassar was born with cerebral palsy, yet became a gifted poet.

"She was who she was largely due to her parents. Her bookish Dad lugged home his typewriter from work for Vassar to play with, and criticized her early, trite poetry. Her stepmom encouraged her to read and write; both parents took on her education at home until she entered junior high. After receiving B.S. and M.A. degrees, Miller accomplished more than most able-bodied people. She published nine volumes of poetry, edited a literary anthology (Despite This Flesh: the Disabled in Stories and Poems), was included in numerous periodicals, selected as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize (1961), named the poet laureate of Texas (1988; alternate in 1982), and inducted into the Texas Women’s Hall of Fame (1996).

Vassar Miller was a poet of great courage and skill, a crusader for the disabled, a self-taught theologian, and a teacher of creative writing at a university. She had a raucous, bold laugh, even if she fell from the motorized cart which whisked her to class and back home again. She would proclaim, “Don’t help me. I can do it myself.” Bach oratorios, chocolate ice cream, her dogs, friends, and Sundays were among her favorite things. If asked her life-mantra, she’d say, “To write. And to serve God.” Frances Sage described her as “a rather shy, friendly woman with intelligent eyes, warm, and interested in conversation.” ( Jenni Simmons, She Spoke to Silence, 2008)



Vassar writes frankly of her joys... and struggles. In one poem, she introduces the idea of a Black Dog. Though I have not felt the utter hopelessness of clinical depression, I can think back to sorrow and anxiety that seemed it was stalking me.

I believe most of us have our own Black Dogs.

Dark Cycle

No prayer or penitence, no positive thinking,

No science, reason, neither spells of magic,

No courtroom pleadings clever, deftly tragic

No devil-may-care tricks like boisterous drinking,

No methods professorial and pedagogic

Can stave it off a breath, elude by blinking

Away the black dog as Churchill used to call

His intimate darkness, Lincoln knew it too,

Did Shakespeare? Did Jesus? As ounce by ounce

The verse and praises throbbed? And maybe Paul

Besought God thrice against it—yet finally knew

God stopped the sun one time, but only once.

The idea of melancholy as a Black Dog was popularized by Winston Churchill. He wrote to his wife, who suggested a German Doctor to treat his depression:

"I think this man might be useful to me – if my black dog returns. He seems quite away from me now – it is such a relief. All the colours come back into the picture." 

Nassir Ghaemi said this, regarding Churchill:

"...Great men cannot be ill, certainly not mentally ill.
But what if they are not only ill; what if they are great, not in spite of manic-depression but because of it?
My recent research has suggested that in times of crisis, it is sometimes those who are seen as quirky, odd or with a mental disorder that show the greatest leadership. Mania enhances creativity and resilience to trauma, while depression increases realism and empathy."

Vassar Miller's poetry reflects her acceptance of a Black Dog in herself, and how it may make her what she is. She leaves us to wonder whether our greatest leaders and teachers have paid such a price for their gifts.



It is worth mentioning other "handicaps," other "black dogs:"
Temple Grandin, the great spokeswoman of Autism, said, "If you get rid of the autism genetics, you wouldn't have science or art."




So, Dear Reader, I ask you to consider in this time of Thanksgiving, what gratitude you might have for your Black Dogs. Could it be that your handicap is also your greatest gift?



You are God's Poem.

Don't curse your weaknesses. Use them, as Vassar Miller, Winston Churchill, and Temple Grandin did: as vehicles to Greatness.

If you keep trying to harness the genius of those "black dogs," who knows to what heights they may take you?