Hasta La Gadget!

From the moment we are born, loss is part of this human existence. We lose the comfort and safety of the womb when we emerge, covered in amniotic fluid. We are sometimes delivered into a world of harsh sensations, and if we are lucky, into warm receptivity and welcome. Loving family and friends may applaud our arrival and create a container for healthy development to occur. Even in that ideal situation, we continue to experience the need to let go, moment by moment and in all areas.

When we start school, we lose the carefree existence of childhood. When we graduate high school or college, we lose the routine and need to create a new schedule. When we begin a relationship, we lose our total sovereignty over our choices, since a ‘me’ is now a ‘we,’ and the other person’s needs and wants come into play. When we shift a relationship; since I’m not sure they ever totally ‘end’, we lose the familiarity (even if it was a dysfunctional one) of the connection with that person and perhaps those who were part of the package.

Looking back on my relationships in the past 56 years on the planet, whether with romantic partners or the proverbial friends with benefits, I see that elements of loss are present. They take the form of disappointment of what I imagined they could have been, when the reality is that they were as they were and in every let-go, there are blessings and lessons to be had. One of my favorite Edie-isms is “Love is never wasted.” I know that we leave sparklings of that essence with whoever we touch. The other less desirable stuff, I am learning to slough off.

When I was in graduate school, I was introduced to The Holmes-Rahe Stress Inventory which highlights major life challenges and changes.

It incorporates 43 life events and the numerical value for each one. Some relating to loss include:

Death of a spouse: 100 points
Divorce: 73 points
Marital separation: 65 points
Detention in jail: 63 points
Death of a close family member: 63 points
Major personal injury or illness: 53 points
Being fired at work: 47 points
Death of a close friend: 37 points

When compiled, these figures indicate the risk of major health crises, ranging from 150 points or less, foretelling relatively low risk, up to 300 points or more, increasing the odds by 80 percent.

In 1992, I had an ectopic pregnancy, my husband was diagnosed with hepatitis C, we lost our home to Hurricane Andrew in Homestead, Florida, and moved back up north to the Philadelphia area where we were both raised. In 1998, my husband died, and I raised our then 11-year-old son solo. He is now 27, and dealing with the losses in his life in his own way — some that differ from mine. That, too, involves surrender, since his path is unique to him.

In the past few years, I have experienced the death of both parents and a few friends, job changes, financial fluctuations, as well as major health challenges that include shingles, heart attack, kidney stones and adrenal fatigue. Most who know me would consider me resilient and that I am. And in in the face of the here-and-now reality of ‘life getting lifey,’ I have needed to dance the line between denial and over-doing action to deal with the circumstances I have faced. The workaholic professional would often submerge the losses under a shiny veneer, in the service of functioning at an ever higher level of performance. It sometimes felt as if I was being chased by loss and I would hear in my head “Run, run as fast as you can. You can’t catch me. I’m the gingerbread man.”

Although I had been in the bereavement field for many years, I was introduced to the term ‘loss layers’ when reading a book entitled Glad No Matter What: Transforming Loss and Change into Gift and Opportunity author and artist SARK (Susan Ariel Rainbow Kennedy) penned what for me, has become a grief guide. She wrote it in the midst of the death of her mother, followed by the passing of her 17-year-old cat and the ending of a romantic relationship.

She explains that “loss happens in spirals and layers and not in steps like a ladder.” The image that comes to mind is that of the child’s game of putting one hand on top of the other and then moving the bottom had on top of the person’s above it until a tower of hands is built. We can only reach so high before stretching too far and need to step back.

These days, I have been far more mindful of the ways in which the losses I denied impact on my life. I tended to cast them aside, since I reasoned that other people lived with far more dire circumstance than I and with far less support with which I am blessed to have, keeping me sane and vertical.

Another recent insight is that as I have been single for so long; with a few relationships since being widowed, that I have gotten accustomed to making my own schedule: coming and going as I please, making decisions that primarily affect only me. In order to join in partnership with someone else, which I do want, I need to surrender some of that independence. Believe it or not, that would fall into the loss category.

For those who have lost loved ones to death, there is often a fear of that occurring again. The truth is, everyone we know and love will one day die or leave us, or we will die or leave them. Sobering thought, but one that enables me to appreciate those in my life all the more.

I know that there is a trade-off for the joy of a relationship. I’m thinking it would be with someone who has a similar need for shared and solo time and an ability to sometimes lead and sometimes follow in the dance.

Is there room for both loss and important others as companions in our lives? I would like to think so.

Hilary started counseling with me because she was depressed. She had been ill with chronic fatigue syndrome for a long time and believed her depression was due to this. In the course of our work together, she became aware that her depression was actually coming from her negative thinking – Hilary was a constant worrier. Many words out of her mouth centered on her concerns that something bad might happen. “What if I never get well?” “What if my husband gets sick?” “What if I run out of money?” (Hilary and her husband ran a very successful business and there was no indication that it would not go on being successful). “What if my son gets into drugs?” “What if my kids don’t get into good colleges?” “What if someone breaks into the house?”

Her worry was not only causing her depression, but was also contributing to her illness, if not actually causing it. Her worry caused so much stress in her body that her immune system could not do its job of keeping her well. Yet even the awareness that her worry was causing her depression and possibly even her illness did not stop Hilary from worrying. She was addicted to it. She was unconsciously addicted to the sense of control that worry gave her.

I understood this well because I come from a long line of worriers. My grandmother’s whole life was about worrying. She lived with us as I was growing up and I don’t remember ever seeing her without a look of worry on her face. Same with my mother – constant worry. Of course, I picked up on it and also became a worrier. However, unlike my mother and grandmother, who worried daily until the day they died, I decided I didn’t want to live that way. The turning point came for me the day my husband and I were going to the beach and I started to worry that the house would burn down and my children would die. I became so upset from the worry that we had to turn around and come home. I knew then that I had to do something about it.

As I started to examine the cause of worry, I realized that worriers believe that worry will stop bad things from happening. My mother worried her whole life and none of the bad things she worried about ever happened. She concluded that nothing bad happened because she worried! She really believed that she could control things with her worry. My father, however, never worried about anything, and nothing bad ever happened to him either. My mother believed that nothing bad happened to my father because of her worry! She really believed, until the day she died at 86 – from heart problems that may have been due to her constant worrying – that if she stopped worrying, everything would fall apart. My father lived to 93, even without her worrying about him!

It is not easy to stop worrying when you have been practicing worrying for most of your life. In order for me to stop worrying, I needed to recognize that the belief that worry has control over outcomes is a complete illusion. I needed to see that, not only is worry a waste of time, but that it can have grave negative consequences on health and well-being. Once I understood this, I was able to notice the stomach clenching that occurred whenever I worried and stop the thought that was causing the stress.

Hilary is in the process of learning this. She sees that her worry makes her feel very anxious and depressed. She sees that when she doesn’t worry, she is not nearly as fatigued as when she allows her addiction to worry to take over. She sees that when she stays in the moment rather than projecting into the future, she feels much better. The key for Hilary in stopping worrying is in accepting that worry does not give her control.

Giving up the illusion of control that worry gives us not easy for anyone who worries. Yet there is an interesting paradox regarding worry. I have found that when I am in the present moment, I have a much better chance of making choices that support my highest good than when I’m stuck thinking about the future. Rather than giving us control, worry prevents us from being present enough to make loving choices for ourselves and others. Worrying actually ends up giving us less control rather than more!

Join Dr. Margaret Paul for her 30-Day at-home Course: “Love Yourself: An Inner Bonding Experience to Heal Anxiety, Depression, Shame, Addictions and Relationships.”

Connect with Margaret on Facebook: Inner Bonding, and Facebook: SelfQuest.

The rules of wedding etiquette are constantly changing, making it difficult for modern brides, grooms and guests to find up-to-date and correct information. That’s why we launched #MannersMondays, a series in which we ask our followers on Twitter and Facebook to submit their most burning etiquette-related questions. Then, with the help of our team of etiquette experts, we get you the right answers to your biggest Big Day dilemmas. Check out this week’s question below!

@HuffPostWedding @HuffingtonPost So when they say no gifts, is it REALLY okay not to get them a gift? Would I be the only one who doesn’t?

— Gigi (@_DolceGabriella) July 28, 2014

Anna Post — great-great-granddaughter of etiquette guru Emily Post and author of Emily Post’s Wedding Etiquette — is here to help us answer this week’s question. Find out what she had to say below:

Yes, it’s really okay! It’s true that many people may give a gift anyway, but you should feel comfortable taking the couple at their word. And even if others do give a gift, you won’t look bad by comparison; after all, you’re only respecting their wishes. My husband and I have good friends who got married recently and insisted on not receiving gifts, so we didn’t send a wedding present to them. I’ll admit it felt a little funny, but their wishes really do trump tradition.

For couples who don’t wish to receive wedding gifts, spread the message by word of mouth and on your wedding website. As wedding invitations shouldn’t have any reference to gifts, there’s no need to mention it there — in fact, you shouldn’t. Even though it might be seen as a “relief” to guests, it still distracts from the main focus of a wedding invitation, which is to invite those you love to share in your wedding.

If you do receive gifts despite your request, don’t make a fuss or refuse to accept them. A gentle, “You shouldn’t have!” wouldn’t be remiss, but don’t express annoyance or anger at having your request ignored. Thank the giver as graciously as you would for any other gift with a handwritten thank-you note sent within three months of returning from your honeymoon.

You can submit your wedding etiquette questions via Facebook or tweet them to us @HuffPostWedding with the hashtag #MannersMondays.

Solution aversion. That’s what Duke University researchers call our society’s collective refusal to address climate change. Their recent study found that people don’t deny a warming earth on scientific grounds — they deny it because they just don’t like the solutions.

But what if the solution to climate change isn’t actually burdensome? What if instead of complicating and disrupting our lives it enriches them and makes us happier and healthier? What if it’s delicious?

We don’t have to relinquish our cars, move to the woods, and get off the grid to conquer climate change. The real solution is simple and easy: eat plants.

Though the figures vary, World Bank scientists have attributed up to 51 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions to the livestock industry. The cows, pigs, chickens and other animals raised for food across the globe — and the industry of which they’re a part — contribute more to rising temperatures and oceans than all the planes, cars, trucks, boats and trains in the world.

How could this possibly be the case? Much of the impact stems from the process of growing grains to feed the many billions of animals that eventually reach our plates. Fields of corn and soy are heavily doused with petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides and then plowed, irrigated, harvested and transported with fossil fuel-powered machines.

Once these grains reach the farms, which are almost always massive facilities heated, cooled and lit by fossil fuels, animals digest them, and in the process, belch and excrete methane. Many times more potent than CO2 in climate change-causing potential, methane exudes from the animals and their waste, which is often stored in enormous, open-air pits. Finally, the animals are transported in trucks to petro-powered slaughterhouses, packed, shipped and stored with even more emissions.

All told, this process makes meat, dairy and other animal products far more carbon-intensive than producing plants for humans to eat directly. It takes an average of 28 calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of meat protein for human consumption. Compare that to just 3.3 fossil fuel calories to produce a calorie of protein from grains.

That’s why the United Nations has stated plainly that “a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products” is necessary to avert the worst environmental impacts — including climate change.

This sounds daunting, but would such a global shift be so difficult? Is it something we should dread or embrace?

It turns out that eating vegan has never been easier or more enjoyable. The number of vegan and veg-friendly restaurants is skyrocketing across the world, as is the number, variety and quality of vegan products, like plant-based milks and meat alternatives appearing in grocery stores everywhere. Vegan food is quickly becoming a culinary phenomenon, enchanting even world-renowned chefs at the most famous restaurants.

But it doesn’t have to be fancy or expensive, and it’s certainly not a rarity. A bowl of rice, beans and veggies is one of the cheapest meals you could eat, and vegan fare is a feature of almost every global cuisine: Mexican, Thai, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Ethiopian and even Italian.

Going vegan brings other benefits, too. Eating plants spares animals from a lifetime of suffering on factory farms and from often painful deaths. Cows, pigs, chickens and the other animals whose bodies and by-products we eat are just as sensitive and intelligent as the dogs and cats we love. It’s also the healthiest diet: Those who cut out meat, dairy and eggs live longer and enjoy far lower rates of chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer.

In the race against climate change, there’s certainly a place for electric cars and scaling back consumption. But the best solution requires neither cutting-edge technology nor a reclusive, monk-like lifestyle. It’s something every individual can do — and it’s something we can all savor at breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Nathan Runkle is the founder and president of Mercy For Animals, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing cruelty to farmed animals and promoting compassionate food choices and policies.

The heartbreaking events of this past spring and summer seemed to amplify each other, almost is if the next were worse than the last. First there was the crisis in Ukraine, then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the killing of Michael Brown, ISIS and Ebola. For me personally and perhaps for others, now that some time has passed, it is a little easier to sort fact from fiction in these crises and also look for solutions.

The Michael Brown case was particularly tragic because of what it revealed about police-citizen interactions and problems in the criminal justice system and black communities. Now that the grand jury in St. Louis County has decided not to indict police officer Darren Wilson while releasing mounds of testimony and evidence, some of the facts are starting to become clearer. What this calls for more than anything is a thorough federal response from the Justice Department, which is conducting its own investigation, and for wide-scale antipoverty programs to assure that young people of color do not senselessly lose their lives.

There is little doubt that Michael Brown wasn’t using his best judgment that day in August, as the video footage of his confrontational robbery before the incident demonstrates. The question of Darren Wilson’s possible use of excessive force, however, is separate from the question of Michael Brown’s possible confrontational attitude. There is also a wide gulf of believability between physically confronting a store owner and physically confronting a uniformed police officer.

There are questions about the interpretation of facts as well, including whether or not Michael Brown was shot entirely from the front. While Darren Wilson claims Michael Brown charged at him, there are witnesses from out of town who were candidly filmed right after the killing saying that Michael Brown had his hands up in surrender.

There is reason to believe that the prosecutor in the case did not honestly do his job, especially based on his history as a prosecutor. It looks more like he hoped to quell public dissent by preventing the case from going to trial. Of course, this alleged tactic failed and dissent ratcheted up even more when the lack of indictment was announced Monday night, in the form of disappointing rioting. It is a sad statement about this tragic case and other instances of injustice in America that officials so distrust possible public reactions to the truth that they maneuver themselves around the truth in attempts to assuage the public. It should be telling to our politicians that these tactics do not work in the long run.

To me, the solutions to this horrible case are more myriad than the questions. First of all, the truth must be thoroughly investigated and discovered in this case. Police, who by and large do their jobs extraordinarily well, may need additional non-violence training for interacting with people in sensitive situations. For example, George Stephanopoulos asked Darren Wilson why he didn’t wait for backup to arrive, and the officer replied it was just his job to pursue Michael Brown.

Additionally, people of all political stripes have to begin to support broad antipoverty programs to address the lives of young people of color. Missouri’s Republican Senator Roy Blunt, wrote, “Together, I know we can move forward and heal as we work to find better job opportunities in and more investment for challenged communities.” Whether you sympathize with Michael Brown or not, if you’re interested in the facts, there is a strong correlation between lack of income and crime that indicates that a lack of funds can have behavior-shaping influences. While you can find some flawed studies questioning this connection, for instance, by studying Scandinavian countries known to have better social harmony, new techniques of meta-analysis show that there is such a link.

As I learned from my social service jobs and internships, so often life on the margins of society is an unforgiving existence. In one of my criminal justice internships, my agency seemed to harshly punish people, locking them up in Cook County Jail, for doing the same kinds of things I was doing. I could get away with it because I am white and privileged. I quit that internship in protest. It is time more people, especially the powerful politicians who can actually effect change for people like Michael Brown, to take it upon themselves to personally make a difference in poor communities.