Thursday, October 30, 2014

Feeling guilty surfing the web? Or is it okay to waste time?

You may not have noticed, but I haven't been posting much. Not that my brain has stopped, but there's a distance between coming up with a great idea and taking the time to write it. Especially when you feel that blogging is wasting time.

When I was a kid, my stay-at-home mom was very busy. Our house was always clean; she prepared a fresh dinner, complete with some kind of meat, vegetables, fruit and salad, every night, and we ate together as a family. My mom was painfully shy, so she didn't involve herself in many social organizations or spend time out with friends. My dad was her best (and almost only) friend, and we three kids her life, and so I  thought cruelly she "wasn't doing anything." In other words, wasting time.

When Los Angeles property taxes soared through the roof, our family was in danger of losing ours, since my dad's salary working in the state unemployment office just didn't cover it. This was before Prop 13, which rolled back taxes to 1975 levels and only allowed 2% increases if you stayed in the same home. Once enacted, property tax rates dropped 57%. Until 1978, though, my parents thought there were only two alternatives: sell the house we'd lived in since 1952, or my mom should get a job.

Working as a secretary for a wealthy businessman suddenly meant she was "doing something," bringing in money. I don't think she really liked dictation, filing and typing for the elderly gentleman, though she'd certainly worked as a secretary for many years before her children came along. But the real question arising from this story is: What activities constitute "doing something" with your time? Is vacuuming when next week it's just as dirty worthwhile?

If you don't "monetize" time to its potential, are you wasting time? Or is time enjoyed and savored a good enough outcome? Should pleasure be a byproduct rather than pursued?

All such conflicts boil down to an underlying tension in our culture between two opposing definitions of "right" and "good:" "Do your duty" versus "follow your heart."

Doing one's duty usually means first honoring principles, a set of rules you've accepted, or a contract you've made, all intangibles. You don't want to leave your cozy bed to go to class; so you choose somnolence or honor your matriculation. You don't want to face the project at work today, but it's your job, your commitment. You don't want to loan money to your destitute sister, but your moral code dictates that you help your family.

Conversely, "following your heart" means first honoring emotions or physical desires. You're comfy sleeping, so skip your early meeting. That co-worker is alluring, so you ignore that she's married. You think you'll be rejected, so pass up the job you could plausibly win if you'd just jump through the hoops. You hate paying the bills, so go eat a bag of Cheetos.

It's possible to simultaneously do your duty and follow your heart. When I observe my religious commandments hosting a Shabbat lunch, my heart thrills to gather interesting people enjoying my food. My two daughters are teachers, defined as chronically fatigued individuals with an indefatigable desire to improve the minds and lives of their charges.

 Most jobs and activities fit somewhere on the continuum between the opposing "doing your duty" and "following your heart." My husband loves hosting his radio show. But reading 5 newspapers every day hangs over him like an avalanche poised to bury him. He loves speaking to audiences who ponder arguments. But he hates traveling to get there.

The Jewish term for "following your heart" is to succumb to the "negative inclination, (yatzer ha ra)" the desire to eschew religious precepts for one's desires. It's the classic conflict between heaven and earth, spiritual and physical. "Do what you ought, not what you want." Why can't you "want" what you "ought"? The answer lies in setting priorities. When "ought" and "want" collide, the mature person forgoes pleasure for duty. When they can harmonize, both are lovely and shouldn't cause guilt.

Must get back to my project. Time's a wasting...(aarrgggghh!)

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

"Food Stampers are Fat and Ignorant, So They Need Another $31 Million Government Program."

Somebody said "Do something" about the 47,636,000 people receiving government food stamps. They're too fat because they buy sodas and junk food, and don't have the knowledge or access to fresh produce in order to change. Voila: another big government program.

The press release today from the US Department of Agriculture is basically a call for organizations to apply for their slice of a $31,500,000 pie--make that broccoli pie. The government wants to fund programs to lure these food stamp (now called SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients to veggies.

It seems the Feds keep trying to change poor peoples' SNAP decisions.

This comes after recent reports that Americans are already health-ifying their snacks--though Pop-Tarts remain their most beloved grab-n-go.
The implication is that SNAP-sters are fatter than other groups, and that they stay that way because they buy junk food instead of produce. It's not their faults--they're ignorant and can't find produce to buy in their "food desert" neighborhoods, now renamed "Promise Zones." All they need is "incentives" to buy lettuce and squash, and they'll slim down, get healthier and thereby save taxpayer money on healthcare in the end. This is speculation without research basis, of course.

Nevertheless, over the years, the government has spent millions and millions of dollars in hopes of saving...well, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack boldly asserts it's "billions." This round, the funds come via the 2014 Farm Bill: "The Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers."

After the platitudinous self-congratulations, Secretary Vilsack laments, "Too many struggling families do not have adequate access to nutritious food. Helping families purchase more fresh produce is clearly good for families' health, helps contribute to lower health costs for the country, and increases local food sales for family farmers." Good for taxpayers? Not so much. SNAP cost them--us--nearly $80 billion (with a B) in 2013 alone. That doesn't count this new $31 million, of course.

While pushing produce, the government's proposal evokes anothe
r food: alphabet soup. The money's a carrot-on-a-stick for groups to start ever more bureaucratically-overseen programs (each one with an external evaluator and internal evaluation), under the auspices of FINI, the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive program: "FINI is a joint effort between NIFA [National Institute of Food and Agriculture] and USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, which oversees SNAP... Funding for the FINI program is authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill.

Are you confused yet? If so, there's a webinar Oct. 2 to explain.

It's condescending to assume that SNAP-sters buy junk because they don't know better, and need an "incentive" to buy veggies. Good health, it seems, is not enough.

I doubt there's any American child or adult who attended school who escaped learning about nutrition. It's true that if consumers steep themselves in media, they may be bombarded by ads for sweets--as well as admonishing doctors and commercials for "healthy" and "nutritious" ingredients.

Even McDonald's touts fresh apple slices for kids. And this week, the chain cleverly provided lines of would-be purchasers of the new Apple iPhone 6 freebie fruit (or apple pies).

I think there's money to be made in a device grocers install near various types of products to "incentivize" purchases. When a shopper's hand reaches for soft drinks, cookies or sugary cereals, it's zapped with low-dose current. When his hand approaches zucchini, plums or avocados, he gets a puff of happy pheromones.

Hmm, maybe I ought to apply for a grant. After all, the USDA seeks programs that "Test innovative or promising strategies that would contribute to our understanding of how best to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables by SNAP participants..." 

I realize my idea, while meeting the criterion, is a tough sell. Unfortunately, those eeevil grocers are in cahoots with the nefarious processed foods industry, and want you to buy items with the most profit for them--so while they say they support SNAPping up celery, they prefer carts filled with Mallomars and ice cream.

Ummmm, no. Could it be that SNAP recipients' higher rates of obesity and related diabetes have a more complex cause? Could faulty assumptions about the causes of obesity and poverty underlie this $31 million program to make produce appealing to the poor? There's a lot of money resting on those assumptions; perhaps they should be proven sound first.

Friday, September 12, 2014

The Pop-ularity of Pop-Tarts

Strawberry Pop-Tarts!
Much has been made of the drop in sales of unhealthy foods. We're a health-conscious nation now, eager for our chia seeds, kale and gluten-free bread. No longer do we super-size our sodas;  McDonalds serves kids apple slices (and now Go-Gurt Strawberry yogurt) instead of fries, and The Department of Agriculture is instituting Michelle Obama's pet mandate to increase whole-grains, fruits and veggies, and fat-free milk in school lunches.

So, with all this healthy food propaganda, why have sales of Pop-Tarts--the quintessentially sugary, processed snack food--increased every year for the last 32? Why are Pop-Tarts, available currently in 32 flavors (I counted), the best selling Kelloggs product ever? Do you know that flavor is Pop-Tarts' "Spookilicious"? (It's chocolate fudge. Buried in the ingredients is cocoa.) Have you tried the "Limited Edition Red Velvet" flavor yet?

Then there's the study that just came out saying eating fat is good for you, and eating carbs is not. At the same time, sugar arch-enemy Robert Lustig warns that sweets are the gateway to obesity and a myriad of ills--pushed literally down our throats by a nefarious food industry.

In the midst of this media food-guilt bombardment, Pop-Tarts rule. They have everything wrong with them, and everything right. First, the wrong: processed to perfection, the Frosted Cherry Pop-Tarts (random example) contain high fructose corn syrup, soy bean and palm oil (saturated), and sugar. To be accurate, the first ingredient listed is flour (for gluten fans), then corn syrup, then high-fructose corn syrup, then dextrose, then the oils, sugar and--who knew?--cracker meal. Down the list are dried cherries and, in another surprise, dried apples.

Now the "everything right" with Pop-Tarts: Easy, quick, nostalgic and taste good. These trump experts' warnings when you're in a morning rush. And your kids are.

Speaking of apples, I came across an interesting product that most people wouldn't realize coats the cut-up fruits and vegetables sold in schools and restaurants. It's called NatureSeal. This product is an undisclosed "generally recognized as safe" proprietary blend of "vitamins and minerals" that food sellers use to coat food slices and pieces so they won't discolor. This compound comes as a powder, gets made into a dip or spray and then, once the food is encased, allows it to look great for "up to 21 days." Your 21-day-old avocado slices won't turn brown and the skin won't curl. You might think the avocado on your sandwich is fresh; that's debatable.

NatureSeal has a formula for dried fruit used for processing, "especially beneficial on dried apple rings and pieces." You know--the ingredient in Frosted Cherry Pop-Tarts. I don't recall ever seeing NatureSeal listed as an ingredient in anything, including McDonalds' kids' meals with apple slices.

Grocery Store Convenience
Mmmm! a healthy tray of NatureSeal, shown on its website.
When you buy that fruit platter or veggie-and-dip array for your party or meeting, you might be enjoying a hearty serving of NatureSeal, who cheerily tells grocers and food retailers, "Extending the shelf-life of your fresh-cut produce can significantly reduce your shrink.
Whether it's your salad bar or pre-made, grab & go items, NatureSeal has the solution." Indeed, a solution that saturates every bite of your oh-so-healthy, perfectly preserved ready-to-eat fruits and vegetables.

Back to Pop-Tarts. My parents never bought them, they look too cloyingly sweet to me, (and they contain beef gelatin--surprise!--so they're not kosher) but when you look at sales growth of food items, they're a never-dying phenomenon, racking up $187 million in sales last year.

The message? Americans will eat what they please, thank you. They may cave to know-it-all experts some of the time; they may buy some quinoa and kale, but by-golly, they're not Pop-Tart averse.

Second message: marketers will do what they have to in order to capitalize on food fads, like dousing easy-to-eat fresh fruits and veggies with a chemical mix. The "vitamins and minerals" that comprise NatureSeal are chemicals, too. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if organic produce when cut for sale also comes dunked in NatureSeal dip.

Is it a good thing that Americans eat veggies and fruits, no matter how they're sealed for presentation?  Is it a bad thing that Pop-Tarts are so pop-ular? Well, I always go back to the same basic truth: If people just tuned out all the noise and turned inward to listen only to their bodily requirements for what and how much to eat, maybe food could become the fuel for accomplishment rather than a distraction from important tasks and connections between people.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Evil Attacks our Sensitivities--and therefore America--one Internet Click at at Time

What's evil? Evil is tearing down instead of building, killing rather than nurturing, destroying rather than enhancing, and it's thrust in our faces online every day, in a clever strategy to destroy our nation's strength.

I'd never heard of Web Trolls before reading this article in the New York Times describing "agitators who pop up, often anonymously, sometimes in mobs, in comment threads and on social networks like Facebook and Twitter, apparently intent on wreaking havoc." The writer, Farhad Manjoo, notes "The term is vague precisely because trolls lurk in darkness; their aims are unclear, their intentions unknown, their affiliations mysterious."

They harass, insult, provide graphically horrific images and demean, in comments on all sorts of websites and social media. The article describes Zelda Williams, daughter of suicide-victim Robin Williams, quitting Twitter after trolls posted vile epithets and gruesomely-altered images of her father. Gawker subsidiary Jezebel played "whac-a-mole with a sociopathic Hydra" trying to clear their site of sickening graphics trolls emblazoned with the site logo.

People speculate about Internet Trolls. Some say these are lonely people, seeking the attention available to them under anonymous conditions, on a powerful platform. I don't think it's solely mean-spirited individuals, though certainly these people are out there. I scoff at conspiracies, but think it worthwhile to look at this phenomenon on a broader scale, considering trolls' cumulative damage. 

Everyone's heard of corporate espionage, undercover sabotage and political dirty tricks. But these personal assaults and visual affronts are deeper, and worse. Here's why:

Our nation's strength, the factor that sets us apart from all others, is America's founding based on religious ideals. God's Hand on America is consistently discernible, and in fact, my husband is completing a book that details the many awe-inspiring historical incidents that can only reveal God's intervention. Americans, the vast majority religiously connected, are civil, kind, idealistic, altruistic and eschew corruption. Our nation reveres our and others' freedoms to the point where detractors use the term "imperialistic" as an accusation. 

These biblically-mandated values are so central to American national identity that many credit our strength and power directly to our larger allegiance to God, and more specifically, our Judeo-Christian orientation.

Nations or movements that seek our harm or demise realize they can weaken us by undermining our values, morals and civility. Trolls make America vulnerable by disintegrating our standards.

Trolls place before our eyes images of gore, cruelty and torture to desensitize us, making us just like them. They take advantage of an open minded culture loathe to censor and restrict--so we end up absorbing and abetting these offensive and shocking images. In the name of free expression, insults, rudeness, crass terms and snarkiness mushroom on the web, and with each view tangibly damage America's spirit.

We are growing less shame-able and shock-able every day we confront trolls' postings, every time we allow these disgusting images and insults to appear unchallenged.

The goodness and decency that encourages God's continued protection and guidance are eroded by these real, though amorphous forces of evil. It's important to scrub them, talk about them, combat them vocally and stridently. If not, we just succumb to their clever scheme to bring down America, one click at a time.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Do We Need to End Inequality? For People? For Nations?

Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant wants to end inequality
The buzz word "inequality" has weirdly become a rallying cry for the far left in America.

Our nation embraces equality, as in "all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Both political parties love that phrase. The issue is whether all men and women should remain equal, and further, whether it's within government's scope to assure such.

Minimum wage debates express the notion that free markets don't adequately offer fair compensation; that the government must therefore make laws requiring a floor salary for every and any type of work. Each state has its own minimum wage.

Now, we've extended that to make the floor salary a federal minimum, rather than a state issue that can respond to local circumstances. Somehow, Pres. Obama believes that $10.10 per hour provides a comparable "living wage" in both New York City and Memphis, Tennessee.

This is a huge debate, one we in Seattle endured en route to the newly voter-approved $15 minimum wage, successfully championed by socialist City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant.

The trendy term "inequality" assumes socialistic underpinnings--but rather than delve into them, I'd like you to think about inequality in the shockingly novel way it's now being internationally applied.

If we should strive for all citizens within our country to have financial "equality" or at least a comparable level of comfort in life, what about nations? Do all countries deserve equality, too? Given that the U.S. has so much, should people in another nation suffer just because it has a corrupt government and a culture of bribery and cruelty?

Apparently the Presidents of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala don't think so. With 57,000 unaccompanied children since October sent to the U.S. with coyotes (smugglers) by their fearful and hopeful parents, leaders of their home countries say our plenty and opportunity are to blame.

Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez told the Center for Strategic and International Studies that conniving coyotes “peddle a mistake…a totally wrong interpretation [of opportunity to stay in the U.S.] to the parents of these children saying 'You can get your kids into the U.S., we can do it for you.'”  The lure is our safety and economic opportunity--which we unfairly enjoy while they suffer.

Honduras Pres. Hernandez blames U.S. for child immigrant influx
"We will not be able to solve this problem unless we go to the root, and this requires an integral task, one that is based on the principle of shared responsibility," Hernandez declared. "The U.S.A. is responsible, and we are responsible, and we facing up to our responsibility.” The implication being that we, the United States, are not.

If only there were equality among nations, Central American parents fearful of violent gangs wouldn't have to send their offspring far away, alone. If only they could go to school, choose college, and have a chance for good jobs or to start businesses, their people would keep their progeny at home. We have all these things in the U.S., and they don't. We must therefore "share responsibility" for the influx of people who risk all, including their lives, for freedom.

Our nation has been blessed by God, but also blessed in the self-selecting populations who came across oceans because they had the courage to face even greater uncertainty and danger for the chance of a better life, spiritually or economically. The personality traits of such people, I believe, shaped our country's success. Our nation's founding populations rooted their entrepreneurial efforts in biblical values and ethics, which underpinned both law and behavior.

Are the governments and populations of Central American countries behaving in their own lands similarly to the builders and continued leaders of the United States?  If you believe in "shared responsibility" and want to stop inequality internationally, it doesn't matter. One nation is "as good as" another, and the successful owe the chaotic some of what they've built to "even the playing field" and "spread the wealth."

Does this relative morality sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me? The problems for these countries are complex, but a deeply-rooted system of corruption, and citizens so adapted to it that they perpetrate it so as to at least reap some advantage from it, dominates the list. The proliferation of drug thugs and gangs' power apparently arose over the past two decades, but devastating civil wars with war lords intermittently assuming power, made survival the priority rather than adherence to standards of ethics. Whatever analysis you choose, not all countries are, or deserve to be equal.

Those individuals or nations who place honorable values above personal gain are the sources of freedom, order and opportunity that attract and deserve support. I would have liked to hear the Central American presidents address these underlying issues rather than insisting that the United States, object of desperate desire for so many immigrants, is at fault and owes them redress.

Gut-wrenching Headlines: Too Much Anguish

Life seems pretty OK til you read the newspaper.
NY Times photo of Gaza children escaping bombing. Note English on clothes, Adidas pants

Because my husband has to talk about current events and pop culture on the radio for three hours each weekday, we get four major newspapers every morning.

Trouble is, I read them.

Newspaper content has changed over the years, and now, sitting down with my mocha and the day's headlines has become a disheartening, depressing experience.

In more civilized days (say, 30 years ago), papers never showed dead bodies. They never invaded the most personal emotional moments of victims and loved ones and horrified passers-by. Journalists reported stories with "the five w's" in the lede, just the facts: what, when, who, where and why.

Now we see splayed bodies of children, twisted in the mud. We watch contorted faces of the truly horrified, mortally wounded, devastated and crumpled. Images that would be withheld from children a few decades ago are now strewn carelessly on the sofa.

Perhaps because I was one of those sheltered children, I now recoil in agony when I flip through the pages of the paper. "Planes Bearing Bodies Reach Netherlands," blares a Wall Street Journal headline stretching the width of the page--across six columns. Above that are photos: "Relatives of the victims of Flight 17 wait for hearses carrying remains..." reads the caption. Do I want to witness the soul-ripping pain these people feel? How do you get these images out of your brain, once they've penetrated?

Next page, same section: "Hospital Attack Catches Civilians in Crossfire," says the headline over a photo of a lifeless young man. The pictures show Gazans, including many children, either dead or terrified. Is this propaganda? If so, as a psychologist who understands that emotion trumps logic--and that visuals trigger emotions best--I am shocked at the message, as well as its frequency.

Is such astounding coverage required by "the public's need to know?" Words with less graphic images could as efficiently convey the facts. Are photos now mandatory because cameras are ubiquitous and intimate intrusions possible? Is it because an abundance of news outlets compete for our attention, and the most outrageous are most likely to win?

All these may be true, but it seems no one considers the impact of so much in-your-face anguish, mayhem and gore. It desensitizes all who see it, and especially everyone watching it repeatedly, every hour, on a variety of outlets, so that death becomes just inert forms, mourning is what far-away people do, and we perceive the world as a place of continual peril.

Those who would be violent are encouraged by the notion they're just another in the flow of anger and aggression visible everywhere. Or by the idea that a spectacular attack will gain them the fame they could never earn in normal life.

Yes, I could throw away the news sections of all my periodicals, but that's hardly shelter from awareness. As my husband and I wrote in our book Saving Childhood: asking someone to avoid media is like asking him to stop breathing.  Media messages are all around us, transported in the very air we consume.

The degeneration of standards of respect for suffering bothers me. Do these wailing widows want others observing their intensely nightmarish moments? Does being in a newsworthy setting automatically grant every journalist approval to distribute expressions of searing pain, penetrating loss and paralyzing fear around the world on instant video?

Too much information. Too much agony. I'm very sensitive; I refuse to go to movies with violence, suspense or slapstick, because I identify too much with what I see. I ache for the people portrayed in those news photos; I can't just put down the newspaper, take another swig of mocha and move on.

Yet I also can't repair the victims of genital mutilation in Iraq, or protect the Gaza "civilians used as shields" at Hamas weapons stashes. I can't fathom the horror of bodies and debris from Malaysian Flight 17, nor stop Boko Haram from taking Nigerian towns or schoolgirls. Each of these situations is appalling, and I am powerless. Am I somehow better off for knowing about them? My heart feels weighted by these realities. I can pray, but can't truly comprehend.
Nigerian mother holds photo of daughter, 17, kidnapped by Boko Haram (The Guardian)

My plea for greater sensitivity in journalism, I realize, is useless. The news business always relied on shock value, but having so many outlets requires ever-increasing extremes to produce reader/viewer response. So the prospect of uplifting the baseline of printed/broadcast decency is poor. Still, discussing standards reminds us that we can avert our eyes, and judge what ends up before them anyway.

So I savor the Science, Style, Cooking and Arts sections, and get most of my news from talk radio, where the host I prefer couches his descriptions in language my sensitive ears and tender heart can tolerate. My children see this, and learn it, and sometimes even protect me from encountering the gory and gruesome. That's probably the best any parent can do--prepare children to fend off and push back, so as to preserve personal compassion and gentleness in an increasingly frightening world.

Friday, July 11, 2014

God's Iron Dome Protecting Israel from Hamas' Barage of Missiles

My photo of bus stop shelters in Sderot, Israel
Just got off the phone with my teacher, Rabbi Teller, in Jerusalem. He's a frequent guest on my husband's radio show, internationally in demand for his lectures, books and videos--and he's the father of 18 children, (grandfather of dozens, though he's still got young kids at home). He was telling me what it's like to spend time in air raid shelters.

Sderot playground doubles as bomb shelters (photo by Diane Medved)
I speak to him every week when we "learn together," the term for his teaching me the deeper meanings of Jewish texts. Right now we're "learning" Yechezkel, which in English is called Ezekiel. We've been covering the section about the End of Days, eerily resonant when he describes the bomb-missiles intercepted today by the Israeli defense system called Iron Dome.

Rabbi Teller said that yesterday, Iron Dome caught several missiles headed for Jerusalem; one got through but detonated outside the city. He said sirens blare one minute before expected impact; at their piercing tone, everyone scurries to the nearest bomb shelter--each apartment building has one; they're found on every block. If there's no explosion and shattering noise within a few minutes, people emerge and carry on as before.

Iron Dome missiles protect Israeli cities in Operation Protective Edge
Can you imagine continuing daily life aware that enemies not far away are shooting missiles at you? How long would the United States tolerate rocket attacks on us?

Here's an app that lets you compare your home to the distance Hamas' deadly M-302 missiles travel.

As part of the Medved Israel Tour last year, we visited the city of Sderot, just a few miles from Gaza. After touring a site that had hosted Iron Dome, we went into the town--where every home has a reinforced bomb shelter in--or replacing--its back yard, and bus stops and even children's playground equipment double as metal-strengthened protection when sirens shriek.

Now Hamas rockets can reach 50 miles, and were launched at Israel's most populated cities: Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem. Iron Dome was employed against 27. It has a 90% accuracy rate. The attacks have affected every region of the tiny country, with sirens heard from the northernmost border with Lebanon down to the nation's southern tip, where the resort beach at Eilat was evacuated, apparently for a false alarm.

As the Sabbath approaches, Hamas missile attacks have stopped access to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and air traffic at Ben Gurion Airport; sirens have brought code red warnings in several Southern cities, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has declared that Operation Protective Edge--the name for Israel's present effort--will expand.

We have many friends and family-members living in Israel, and we can only speculate
Message on Jerusalem building urges faith in God
about the stress brought by nearly constant threat. During an earlier period of conflict, I asked my brother-in-law about it, and he thought my concern was ridiculous. Living "in a bad neighborhood" comes with risks and inconveniences, but Israelis I know believe their protection comes not only from the sophisticated military technology and expertise of their defense forces, but from the Iron Dome that God provides for His people and His Land.

The strength provided by prepared defense forces is bolstered by the spiritual underpinning of their stance. Jews around the world continue to pray for The Almighty's intervention to thwart deathly missiles, and reinforce God's biblical promise (Genesis 12:3) that He "will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you, I will curse."

(The building is lit with the main Jewish prayer: "Listen, Israel: (The One) God is our God. God is the one and only.")