New Spin on Old News

Hate to break it to you, Gwyneth Paltrow Martin, but people have been "consciously uncoupling" for years. You did not invent it and it is not a new trend.

Before you and Chris publicly announced your split, you decided to put a pretentious spin on something most couples set out to do when it's time to put an end to their marriage: Wreak as little havoc into the lives of the children they created.

I can tell you, it's not easy--regardless of how enlightened you are, how spiritual you are, and how "guided" you are.

It's sad when most marriages end. It's even sadder when children are collaterally damaged in the process. Often it's the first inkling they have that life is not perfect, their parents are not perfect, and their own love lives may never be perfect either.

It is not my intent to be a "hater" and it's not really my business whether Gwyneth and Chris "pray, lay or stay" but when you try to make it sound as though you—and only you—have found the spiritually conscious way to walk away from a marriage, you insult everyone who has learned the hard way that there's no pretty way for something that is spiritually, emotionally, and often physically extremely painful. 

Ending a marriage or long-term relationship is a massive change to life as the couple has come to know it and while change can be cathartic and an intense learning experience, some have handled it much better than others. When it occurs, the couple can only hope to be mature and supportive as their "new lives" turn into the same old thing, with sensitive and loving attention to their children in the process.

I'm sure you'll cash in on all this and your followers will see you as brave and trend-setting but you can afford to be. Couples have had painfully less resources and achieved the same goal quite successfully. 

Only they called it what it is: "separation," "divorce," and (gasp, the horror!) "splitting up."

Ignorance is No Excuse

Okay. I'm on a tear. I admit it. Why I still watch Good Morning America, I don't know, because they have become so "pop/cute" versus "real news" and are determined to prove they're so "fabulous" that they have forced their anchors to do ridiculous things to prove their "fabulousness." (Recent staff additions are so overpoweringly aggressive that you don't know if you're watching an informative morning show or Smackdown.) So I've seen and heard some ridiculous and ignorant--if not PLAIN STUPID--things on GMA--especially in the last year or so.

Today they were promoting another People spread about people who have lost 100 lbs or more doing it the "hard way" versus "the easy way out." 

Regardless of the plethora of life-saving and life-changing stories of so many of us who NEEDED weight loss surgery, most in media still love to infer that weight loss surgery is a "trick" or an easy method to drop the pounds.

This is my response: 

"Dear GMA & Lara & Amy: 

Before you remain so woefully ignorant as to believe that weight loss surgery is "the easy way out," do yourself (and your viewers) a favor and become informed. 

Weight loss surgery is NOT easy and if you don't make every one of the fundamental changes as those who did not have weight loss surgery (diet, behavior modification, exercise, etc.), you will not lose as successfully--and certainly will not maintain that weight loss. 

Read my 3-part series on the subject by starting here."

Most of you know I've had weight loss surgery and have maintained  a 175 lb weight loss for nearly 8 years. Those in the weight loss surgery community know:

(a) We knew we were risking our lives by having WLS. Some of us die on the table or soon thereafter. I have SEVERAL friends who died as a result of surgery, if not on the table. For many people like me, having surgery is a last resort. Just this year I had a related complication from my weight loss surgery on 11/19/2004 that resulted in (another) life-threatening emergency surgery.

(b) They don't operate on our heads and for many, severe modifications in the way we think and react are as vital as how (much) we eat. In the WLS community, we simply say: "They didn't operate on our heads!"

(c) Everyone pretty much can lose weight on any diet. I'm living proof of it. It's all about the long-term and "maintenance." My weight loss history is highly documented. I gained and lost a half ton of weight before finally being able to keep it off with weight loss surgery.

(d) If you followed the way I eat everyday (drinking my low-carb protein shake and eating red grapefruit as I type this), you'd think I was still on a diet because for me, that's how important it is to maintain my weight loss and keep sane. Because the benefits of weight loss surgery (accelerated weight loss during the first year to 18 months, depending on the surgery) diminish with time. If you haven't figured out how to do the right thing in the meantime, it will be as if you never had surgery at all.

So please, please... Good Morning America, People Magazine, and ALL media: Either show the WHOLE STORY, be real journalists and inform yourself, or simply choose your words more carefully. Promoting the aspect of weight loss surgery as trickery or "easy" is complete and utter ignorance.

Satisfaction

Generally, I know about the book/movie Eat, Pray, Love but have not read, seen or explored it in-depth. Still, I do believe there's a reason why the concept has caught on so strongly with some people—especially women. 

Everywhere I turn, it seems as though people are looking for something but are rarely satisfied. Ever seeking contentment, women would be buried in—and bankrupt—if Louboutin had its way and men would be forever buried in humongous breast implants if Maxim had equal say.  As the Eurythmics asserted: "Everybody's looking for something."

But right there lies the crux of the problem: Looking outside yourself for satisfaction doesn't work. The answer to your happiness does not rely upon someone else, in possessions, or in "having it all." Especially if "all" means closets full of labels and jewels and "stuff." (Ever see hoarders? They have plenty of everything but don't seem all that happy to me.)

Over the years I've kept a mental checklist of a life and I've found that a day at a time (even though in some cases, the days spanned decades) it is essentially my current reality—or clearly within reach. There is little I seek outwardly for fulfillment. What a terrific existence! I know I am blessed and I am grateful, doing my best daily to let my loved ones know how much I value them.

How I got here is that I believed it could happen. My vision was clear. It was reasonable. Never cared much about the idea of living in a castle and having liquid gold running from its fountains. I needed and wanted a place to be. To exist peacefully. To feel and give love. To smile. A simple level of satisfaction that admittedly includes television, music, a computer, and three insanely lovable dogs. With my wilder days behind me, this is my utopia.

Stop the wants and must-haves. Reevaluate your vision of satisfaction. Embrace what is, finding beauty and joy in the simpler things.

If you don't like your existence, visualize a realistic picture of what you want it to be.

Then keep moving toward it, without the noise and input of others telling you what it should be.

If you remain open and reasonable, you'll be there before you know it.

Seriously.

What's *Your* Agenda?

Okay. I admit it. There’s an ulterior motive as to why I blog and tweet and Facebook. I have an agenda: Help others benefit from many of my life experiences without having to make all the mistakes I’ve made. Someday I might have a product to market. So I put myself out there and share. A lot.

Republicans claim Democrats/Obama have a Socialist agenda. Democrats claim Republicans have a partisan, conservative, big money agenda. Politics is pretty much “all about” agendas; look in the dictionary under “agenda” and there are likely to be pictures of a donkey and an elephant.

Then there’s television. ABC pushes Disney both overtly and subtly (e.g., "General Hospital" character Brook Lyn sang "When You Wish Upon A Star" during Karaoke night at the show's pub); NBC makes equally sure they endorse things “Universal-ly.” If you have network Video on Demand, you know they unabashedly push their programming and you usually can’t fast forward/rewind your way around it.

Inasfar as the programs themselves: There are some that receive my full attention and others are background noise while I’m online. An in-between were Bravo’s NY & NJ Housewives series. Then I realized: EVERY cast member had an agenda. It was one thing when it was about a family business and a little shameless self-promotion but then everyone “went Hollywood.” Now this housewife sells jewelry, that housewife sells clothing, another is selling sex tapes, the most classy is selling a disco song/video, and as a subtext, they’re *all* selling Botox. Their vicious attacks and backbiting left me empty and sad at how far (especially) women will go to embarrass and humiliate themselves (and each other) for airtime. I stopped watching the shows before their respective first seasons ended.

The “Bachelor[ette]?” More background noise. If the goings-on were anymore slimy, I’d have to staple myself to my seat. Every participant is out for something and it’s rarely love. Most sickening of the recent dregs is Frank Neuschaefer—one of the last three bachelors vying for Ali Fedotowsky. He had a "sudden epiphany" and realized he was still in love with his "ex-girlfriend Nicole."

In full view of the TV audience, Nicole played into a sickeningly phony love scene with Frank as they declared their revived love for one another. He then flew to Tahiti to let Ali know about his change of heart and left the (vulnerable?) Bachelorette momentarily heartbroken. (Who was only too ready to tell all on Jimmy Kimmel and George Lopez.)

I mean… Seriously? Who freakin’ does these things? Is there anything at all minutely real about TV at ALL these days? These people make my skin crawl at first sight. How could anyone find them remotely interesting/marketable? Sadly, someone, somewhere is likely to take the Frank & Nicole storyline and turn it into something. Or maybe that is how Frank will attempt to accelerate *his* agenda—making it as a screenwriter—which was reportedly his sole purpose for being on “The Bachelorette” in the first place and was never really estranged from Nicole. (Translation: Nicole knew Frank was going on the show to further his agenda, supported him in the effort to be something he is not so he could be something he wanted to be. Ewwww.)

I initially thought Jake (the last bachelor) was "the real deal" and was disgusted when he chose Vienna because she was so unlikeable. Then he went on "Dancing with the Stars." When that didn’t give them enough airtime, he and Vienna very publicly broke up and I realized they actually deserved each other because they both had equally high yuck factors. (Chris Harrison is applying for a Ph.D. in relationship counseling--or sainthood--as I write this.)

Then, of course, "Bachelor Pad" debuts August 9th on ABC. Or as I like to call it: "Invasion of the Bachelor/ette Bottom-Dwellers." The most despicable cast members (like country singer Wes from Bachelorette Jillian episodes) play Twister for money as they behave badly/provocatively. (Jillian, BTW, has now officially split with fiancé Ed.)

Yeah, I know… Stop watching if it annoys you. And yes, I know it says something about me that I watch at all. Stupid. I can’t even claim “ignorant” because I *do* know better. (But then what would I write about?)

It has never been clearer that virtually everyone in public view has a price and to further the value, an agenda is designed.

Writing about this subject was prompted by today's New York Daily News article about a poll that declares life is downhill for women after age 31. That, after age 31, women lose—or believe they start losing—their looks and sense of self.

Admittedly, my reaction is skewed because I’m way on the over side of 31 and I’ve had a stick up my butt for a while since the world seemed to stop listening to me altogether when I turned 50. But that’s personal. (Doesn’t keep me from having a voice and using it to scream from the highest mountains—or setting fingers to keyboard—to get my point across.)

Supposedly 2000 women were polled by QVC—a television/internet shopping network that sells beauty, vanity, and fashion for a premium. You know, the shopping channel whose agenda it is to make sure that we 31+ women (more likely their target consumers than our younger counterparts) realize we’re useless without them? Hence, we must become their uber-consumers and take advantage of their fabulous products so that we can ease the pain of merciless aging, lest our remaining 50-years-or-so be rendered totally and utterly insignificant.

In a world full of (eventual) karmic reconciliation, those of us with an agenda will answer for whatever actions we’ve taken to exploit our agendas. So far so good for me. QVC—which cannot possibly be doing as well in these lean financial times as in the past—will hopefully find they've viciously and self-servingly attacked women’s vulnerability to its core (while doing everything within their capacity to cultivate that vulnerability) and will have a serious karmic debt to pay.

BUT… in the meantime… They’ve lost me as a customer. There’s a lot I cannot control in this world. (Painful to admit and sometimes harder to accept.) This I can.

Care to join me?