Reb Arthur's Latest Thoughts

Lovely article! Very informative and I appreciate the calls to action as well as the openness to reader suggestions. I look forward to spending more time studying your organization in the near future. Wishing you all the very best, Dave

To The Shalom Center:

I have been receiving your poignant and incisive Shalom Center posts for several months. In conjunction with your global philosophy, prophetic calls to action and work through the arts to disseminate your ideas, I thought you might like to know about my book, Between Heaven & Earth: An Illuminated Torah Commentary (Pomegranate, 2009) as a possible new resource for you. It is a most unusual visual midrash, with illustrations and commentary for each of the fifty-four parashiyot. You may find a preview at: http://www.pomegranate.com/a166.html The book, distributed in the US, UK and Europe is available directly from the publisher at: 1-800-227-1428 and at Amazon worldwide.

I have also been posting excerpts from the book at my blog and invite you to post your comments and questions there: http://imaginarius13.wordpress.com/

With Best Wishes for Peace and continued Creativity,
Ilene Winn-Lederer
12 May, 2010

Article you’ve wrote is just amazing, but I’m wondering when people instead of just reading articles like this and go away will do smth about that? We need changes, our planet needs it..Isn’t that understandable?

Seeing it spelled “ma-oz chittin” makes me wonder. Since the first word of that phrase ends in a “tav,” Ashkenazic Jews pronounce it “ma-oz chittin” — other Jews pronounce it “ma-ot chittin” as far as I’ve heard. Do Jewish Renewal Jews pronounce “tav” as /z/ … which “ma-oz chittin” suggests they must be doing? If so, why?

I am quite surprised that you missed the crucial points about the meaning of Avatar, but I suppose that comes with the glaring blindness inherent in your political perspective. The most obvious thing about Avatar is that Jake Sully plays a role exactly parallel to Osama Bin Laden: the rebel leader of the “natives” rising up to “shake off” the yoke of the evil oppressors. In other words, in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, this means simply taking the side of the Palestinians and blaming the Israelis for their “injustice”, “oppression”, etc etc… which you obviously do, judging from your (I’m sorry to say) pathetic performance in the “debate” with Omar Barghouti on Democracy Now (20100304).

You should have begun that “debate” by pointing out to Amy Goodman that it was improper to call it a debate, since you and Barghouti both agree that the solution is to destroy Israel, but that you just differ in how to accomplish this. For his part, Barghouti was quite obvious in the presentation of his standard propaganda line (although I was impressed by the way he managed to position himself against the background of an official “UC Berkeley” podium — surely a subtle but effective way to lend legitimacy to his campaign to destroy Israel).

When asked why he was calling for a boycott of Israel, Barghouti said it was because of Israel’s “three-tiered system of oppression against the Palestinian people, its occupation …. its 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and that includes East Jerusalem, as well as its system of racial discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, the Palestinians as citizens of Israel, and first and foremost, its denial of the right of return for the Palestinians, the Palestinian refugees in accordance with United Nations resolution 194.”

Did you, Rabbi, offer any objection to these points? You offered none, but proceeded as if you hadn’t heard what he said, instead giving your own suggestions as to how to “bring down Israel”: get the Americans to do it.

In fact, you should have pointed out that not one of his 3-tiers of oppression has any validity, and if you don’t know that, and if you can’t point out why these 3 points are untrue (and presented only for propaganda value), then you have some research to do. But I would like to point out that not only did Barghouti list Israel’s refusal of the “right of return” as the 3rd tier of its oppression, but later in the discussion he specifically contradicted you when you suggested that the USA should impose a solution to the problem by creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza & East Jerusalem. Barghouti said in no uncertain terms that this would not be enough, because the “first and foremost” thing is the right of return, and the rights of the “Palestinians” who are already citizens of Israel. Since you did not respond to his comment at the time, I assume you just didn’t hear him, but this is what he said:

“This is not just about ending the occupation. There are three basic rights for the Palestinian people. The majority of the Palestinians happen to be not in the occupied territories. They happen to be refugees, ethnically cleansed during the creation of the state of Israel in and after 1948. These are completely ignored. Reducing Palestinian rights to simply ending the occupation will not do. This is simply unacceptable.”

Barghouti went on to talk about ending the “seige” in Gaza and blaming Israel for genocide, etc., and again you offered no debate, but passed over this propagandist line in silence, returning to your (misguided, in my opinion) “strategy” to get the Americans to fix everything.

Finally, there is one other crucial flaw in the movie Avatar that I believe you missed. Throughout the first half of the movie, the script did a great job of depicting “native” spirituality, and of capturing the sense of connection with “earth” and with natural forces which is so much a part of native beliefs. But when the hammer-headed rhinoceros came charging through the trees to avenge the death of the Tree, the movie moved from the sublime to the absurd. All of the beauty, subtlety, and grace with which the native “religion” had been depicted suddenly vanished as it was revealed that the Tree was now really pissed off and intent upon ruthless vengeance. Could you imagine a better depiction of a sanction for Jihad? No wonder the Palestinians have been painting themselves as blue Na’vi when protesting Israel’s security barrier.

I would suggest to you that the movie Avatar could have been a truly great vehicle for spreading understanding about the conflicts in our world which the movie “paralleled”. The key would be to explore the dynamic driving the Crusher institutions, especially the character presented as the corporate representative, who played such a small role in the movie, but actually held the real power in his hands. But instead of looking at the real issues involved, and considering real options, the movie opted for a Hollywood white-hat/black-hat solution, and really did us all a disservice. In the same way, I believe you are doing a disservice to Americans and israelis alike — and to the Palestinians— when you let blatant lies and substanceless propaganda pass without objection because you think you see some “strategy” for a solution that (apparently) doesn’t require us to recognize bullshit as bullshit. In other words, for all its 3-D technological brilliance, the message of Avatar was bullshit.

Post-finally, I regret having expressed myself so rudely here, because I know you are a thoughtful and well-intentioned person. Moreover, I have a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I’d like you to consider, but now that I might have insulted you, I guess that’s not likely to happen. Still, I feel that these are important issues, and need to be understood clearly, and that there can be no real progress if we replace brutal honesty in telling it like it is with a phony politeness.

P.S.
I’d like to end with a quote from Omar Barghouti in a debate (found on YouTube) which he had with a law professor at Georgetown University, when he was accused of simply desiring the destruction of Israel. He said: “If changing a state from one of oppression, racism and injustice to one of fairness and justice results in the destruction of that state, what does that say about the state?” I’ve been hard pressed to find a better example of pure propaganda: a statement that appears to be an intelligent comment, but when analyzed reveals nothing more than a propagandist assertion: Israel is an oppressive, racist and unjust state. And of course, the real response to a statement like this is to ask, “If your real concern with Israel is injustice and racism, then are you equally vocal in you objection to other states whose policies are unjust and racist? For example, Jews are prevented by law from living in Jordan, and when Jordan occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank, Jews were forbidden from even visiting. Have you been loudly protesting such racism? And how about the Islamic Republic of Islam: are you at the forefront of the battle to open that society to Jews and all peoples?” Of course Barghouti has never voiced opposition to any other Arab or Muslim state … he is simply practicing the art of propaganda.

What I wonder about the Na’vi:

Their green, organic technology includes many ways to bring death — from poisoned arrows to the ability to wield death wholesale through mind-links with the animals and trees — but the Na’vi are singularly devoid of something as important as a way to preserve life: namely, they do not appear to have any form of medicine. When one of the humans receives a deep wound, all the Na’vi can do is put her under a tree, sit around, and absorb themselves in some form of “yoga davening” till she dies.

And *these* people I should strive to admire and emulate?

I am wondering why the Jewish Right Of Return is never discussed? The Palestinians left voluntarily because Israel’s Arab neighbors promised them all of Israel if they left. At the same time Jews were forced to leave Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc… under the threat of severe persecution or murder. Their possessions were seized and stolen. Don’t the Jews have a more legitimate right of return than those that left voluntarily for the promise of financial gain?

Another issue is whether peace is possible with people lead by Hamas. With people willing to blow up school buses. With people that believe that murdering their own daughter because she was raped by an older male relative restores their honor. By people that worship a book that talks about killing every Jew behind every rock.

Is there really a partner for peace?

Agreeing with Rabbi Waskow’s basic focus, I’ll suggest one important strategy is to support
candidates for US Congress and US Senate who clearly articulate the vision of a just and peaceful
Israel and Palestine, and what it will take to help bring that into reality. Unfortunately, J Street’s PAC has adopted a policy to not endorse candidates in primaries, essentially emasculating J Street as an effective advocate for truly pro-peace candidates. We need to let all progressive Jews know when a courageous leader is running for high office, and do our best to support such efforts.

For example, Jonathan Tasini (www.jonathantasini.com) running for US Senate in New York, challenging the unelected Kirsten Gillibrand in next September’s Democratic primary. Here’s an article by Tasini printed by Huffington Post in 2006: Published on Friday, March 24, 2006 by the Huffington Post :

Why Jews Must Speak Out on Palestine
by Jonathan Tasini

Yesterday, I spoke at an event in New York City called Rachel’s Words. Two years ago, Rachel Corrie, a human rights activist, was crushed to death by an Israeli Army bulldozer as she tried to protect the home of a Palestinian pharmacist from demolition in Rafah, Gaza Strip. She was 23. A play based on her writing, “My Name is Rachel Corrie” was scheduled to open yesterday in New York City but it’s debut was postponed indefinitely, in all likelihood because of the controversy it would cause in a city with such a large Jewish audience.

As a Jew who lived in Israel for seven years and whose family still lives there and has deep roots going back more than 80 years, it breaks my heart that there is a refusal to grapple with an almost untouchable topic in our country: why does the United States have such a one-sided policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict? And it’s the reason I agreed to speak at the event which honored Rachel’s life and her beliefs.

The event took place at the historic Riverside Church. I stood in the pulpit in the very same place that Dr. Martin Luther King stood almost 40 years ago. And that’s where I began my remarks:
Almost 40 years ago, in 1967, Dr. King spoke in this very place about the need to speak up against a great purveyor of violence: his own government. He said, “If America ‘s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam…So it is that those of us who are yet determined that “America will be” are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.”

Dr. King also said that he was speaking on behalf “of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.”

“I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.”

How those words, sadly, have so much meaning for us today.

Those of us who stand opposed to the war in Iraq do so as patriotic people who love our country and our communities but, because it is our country, we demand that it live up to high moral standards of peace, justice, democracy and human rights.

We speak and stand up and oppose the war in Iraq for the same reason that we speak and stand up and say the occupation of the Palestinian people is wrong, morally and legally, and must end with a negotiated, just, and peaceful solution between the lawfully elected governments of the Palestinian people and Israel.
To be honest, I don’t think most Jews — and certainly this is true of most Americans — understand the brutality of the occupation, the violations of international law and our role in perpetuating that occupation. Most Jews have never been to the area and so they either have no idea what goes on or choose to ignore the awful reality. Their perceptions are framed by the MSM and pandering politicians.

If you raise a criticism of Israel or our country’s policy towards the conflict, you immediately are targeted, within the Jewish community, as being either disloyal (if you are Jewish) or anti-Semitic (if you are not Jewish). This is nonsense and has got to stop.

In fact, those politicians who pander to our worst instincts of fear and hatred, who praise policies that violate international law, they are the ones who are hurting Israel’s long-term security and the security of all the people in the area.

So, let me state clearly: I believe unequivocally in a secure, prosperous Israel. But I also believe with the same passion that the occupation is draining the moral and economic strength of Israel and that there will only be a just peace agreement when a Palestinian state — a strong, vibrant, prosperous, independent state, able to provide jobs and a good life for its people — thrives alongside Israel.
Taking away the liberty, the humanity and the dignity of the Palestinian people takes away from the security from Israel. Targeting civilians, killing innocent men, women and children is evil — no matter who is doing it. Killing civilians is a “grave breach” of international humanitarian law.

Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable. We have to end the violence on both sides and support the peacemakers in both Israel and among the Palestinian people.
Opposition to the occupation is showing enormous love for Israel and for the Palestinian people. For the sake of Israel and for the sake of all people in that region who are fed up with three decades of war and occupation, we have to have an honest, open discussion.

There is a physical embodiment of the occupation that we must speak up against now: the separation barrier that is being built in the occupied territories, sl icing through Palestinian communities, with the support of the U.S. government. Yes, Israel has a right to protect it citizens. But last night I asked:
How does peace come one day closer when we do not speak out against a wall that not only violates international law but, more important, embitters thousands of people for generations to come because it cuts off neighborhoods, separates families from each other, farmers from their land, the sick from hospitals, children from the schools and saps the economic vitality from an already impoverished people?
We have politicians who claim to be for the rule of law and stand before the Wall (as Hillary Clinton has done) and praise it — even though it violates international law.

For us in the United States, the question becomes what is our government’s role in perpetuating this conflict. As I said:
For too long, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, our government has had a counterproductive, one-sided policy that too often ignores democracy, human rights, and respect for international law.
Let’s get this debate going. Begin to raise it among your friends and do so with the same love and commitment that you do for our country that leads you to vigorously oppose the Iraq war.

As Dr. King said in 1967, “Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now.”

Jonathan Tasini is running for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in New York. For the past 25 years, Jonathan has been a union leader and organizer, a social activist, and a commentator and writer on work, labor and the economy.
© 2006 The Huffington Post

Please support Tasini’s campaign. He’s great on all issues. He’s got a chance, if he can raise enough money to be ‘taken seriously’ by the media.

www.jonathantasini.com— click on Donate.

Thanks!

Will Fudeman

Hello Rabbi Waskow,

I’d like to make a few comments on your strategy for peace in the Middle East, but first I’d like to apologize to you for a rash comment I previously made, asserting that your solution to the problem is tantamount to advocating the destruction of Israel. I was very glad to read here that you recognize that Omar Barghouti’s insistence on “the right of return” is in fact a strategy for dissolving Israel as a Jewish state:

“But that result would shatter any possibility of Israel’s having a special relationship with the Jewish people. To create such a state was why Israel came into existence. Dissolving it is so far from acceptable to Israelis that it means a No-Go on all negotiations. Mr. Barghouti said he has no objection to a “Jewish state,” but that’s meaningless under the conditions he proposed. His totalistic attack aimed at all aspects of israeli society is integrally connected with a totalistic demand for dismantling the only purpose for Israel’s existence.”

I’d also like to say that I agree whole-heartedly with you when you say:

“I see my task as seeking to bring about an independent, God-centered vision of a just peace. I understand God’s desire — command — to be ending the wars …”

However, I can’t agree with the final clause of that last sentence, in which you denied that God’s desire or command could be “winning victories for either side over the other”. Sometimes, in fact most of the time in human history, the only thing that stops conflict is victory or defeat. But I certainly do believe that we should apply all of our human intelligence to resolving conflict by means other than violence. For me, that means that we need to understand the issues deeply, and that we must be able to recognize the objectives, motives and strategies of all parties involved. It just doesn’t work to shut your eyes to what is really going on and cling to a simplistic desire for peace. You can’t have peace until you really understand the dynamic of what is preventing peace. If you see a boulder precariously perched above your home and you want to prevent the destruction of your house, you need to understand the laws of physics, and then you can design a way to avert the disaster. If you take an ethical approach and stand in the path of the boulder righteously hoping to stop it, all you will end up doing is proving the reality of laws of Universe — God’s Laws — at the cost of your life.

So, what is the best strategy for a just peace in the Middle East? Once again I must take issue with the strategies you have proposed, although I realize that you are making these proposals in good will and seriously desiring to bring about a just peace. I hope you will realize that I am criticizing your positions here — the ideas you have affirmed — and not you or your intentions.

First, I think it is a mistake to begin with a model of the situation depicting the two principal parties to the conflict as dysfunctional “hostile adults” who are the victims of psychological “childhood abuse”. Such a premise is based on myriad hypotheses of pseudo (or borderline) science in psychology, sociology, etc., many of which are merely veils concealing political agendas. In other words, it may be useful to deal with childhood traumas on a personal level, for self-understanding, just as it can be valuable to read literature to deepen one’s appreciation of the human condition, but this is certainly not the starting point for understanding and resolving political differences. The Israelis and the Palestinians are not children, and they are not dysfunctional adults acting out childhood traumas in some mechanistic “cycle”. Both need to be treated as responsible adults, and a brief look at the vibrant societies of both peoples is evidence of their integrity, as is the thoroughly organized and competent manner in which the conflict has been waged for 60 years.

This is really an important point. The fact that the conflict has been going on for so long is not proof that the combatants are caught in some process that is “out of control”, or that they are “unable to take the steps necessary for peace”. On the contrary, the incredible degree of planning, forethought, organization and perseverance that was necessary on both sides to maintain the conflict for so long proves without a doubt the competence of both sides. What is necessary is to address these supremely confident and competent parties with respect, acknowledging each as a responsible party to the conflict. What third party players can do is offer advice and new perspectives on how each might change their strategy in dealing with the other, leading to a compromise in which each can achieve enough of their objectives to make peace seem agreeable.

I would strongly urge you to consider, Rabbi, that any other peace, such as one imposed by a stronger 3rd party, without the total consent of both parties responsible for this conflict, is merely a recipe for disaster in the future. Thus, in my opinion, your suggestion that “focusing the power and influence of the United States to bring about a decent peace among the warring parties in the Middle East…” is supremely misguided. Of course, the United States does have a huge roll to play in helping to find a resolution to the conflict, especially by brokering negotiations, and by suggesting new options and strategies to both parties, and perhaps most crucially, by using its “power and influence” to prevent others from meddling in the conflict while pursing their own interests (which is and has been a major dynamic of the conflict, e.g., the influence of Islamic fundamentalist militants and the states supporting them).

Finally, I would like to offer a counter suggestion to your imagined scenario of the United States economically blackmailing Israel by withholding critical foreign-aid funds until Israel succumbs to the economic pressure and makes concessions such as relocating half a million Israelis out of the West Bank settlements (what planet are you living on, Rabbi Waskow?). I think my counter proposal will suffice to answer everything else you have suggested in this article, because from this point on, everything you say is based upon the idea that a “new coalition” is possible which will be able to force Israel into adopting a peace which it does not view as true peace. Again, from my perspective, it is far more fruitful to exert our energy trying to understand what are the issues and obstacles to peace IN THE MINDS OF BOTH PARTIES than trying to find ways to bully one party into acquiescence.

A New Proposal for a Just Peace in the Middle East:

First, my premises:

-1- Israel truly desires peace with the Palestinians, and with all Arabs and Muslims.
-2- Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza & East Jerusalem and the Sinai in a defensive war, fighting for its existence against a coalition of forces intent on destroying it (and on perpetrating genocide) in the 1967 war.
-3- Israel has always been willing to trade territory captured in 1967 for lasting peace. It was able to make such a deal with Egypt, but has not yet found a sincere “partner in peace” among the Palestinians willing to make the deal (although it tried mightily to make such a deal with Arafat and the Palestinian Authority).
-4- The enemies of Israel have been unrelenting for more than 60 years, forcing Israel to maintain a more or less permanent state of war with the combatants in the region.
-5- The problem Israel has had in waging this war of six decades is that its enemies, having repeatedly lost in conventional military combat, have adopted terrorist tactics, including the intentional targeting of civilians and the institutions of civil society, as opposed to military targets, and most troublesome, enemy combatants use civilians of their own society as shields for their operations, a tactic which has effectively prevented Israel from using its overwhelming military superiority to defeat its enemies.

Based upon these premises, I think a clear strategy can be devised to end the conflict permanently.

Imagine if Israel were to make an offer to all Palestinians, including those living in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, as well as those which the United Nations considers “refugees” living in the adjacent Arab states. (The offer could also apply to any Arab Israelis already citizens of Israel.) The offer would be as follows:

To any Palestinian willing to sign a Contract of Friendship with Israel, in which they agree to live in peace as neighbors and to reject all violence and “jihad” against the State of Israel and the Israeli people, the State of Israel will provide without charge the latest modern and technologically advanced housing and community infrastructure within Palestinian townships on the West Bank (and potentially Gaza), along with security services to protect these Palestinian settlements (including incorporation within the Israeli security border), as well as access to Israeli justice system, and unfettered economic exchange with Israel (meaning no border checkpoints or other barriers to free exchange).

The State of Israel would allow the Palestinians in the townships self-determination and agree not to interfere with the social institutions of the Palestinians, whether religious, political or economic, except to the extent required to insure law enforcement and security.

Also, the State of Israel would agree, ahead of time, that when the number of such Palestinian townships within the West Bank (& Gaza) reached a critical number, that Israel would grant sovereignty to them, and recognize them as the Free Palestinian State, a sovereign nation, and would then remove all Israeli security forces not retained by treaty, once Israel was certain that the new state posed no security risk to Israel.

So, Rabbi Waskow, this is my proposal, which is sort of hybrid of an interim bi-national state leading to a two-state solution. What do you think? Of course, I have left out the unpleasant part, which for the sake of completeness I should mention. Once a sufficient number of Palestinians accepted the deal, and a sufficient portion of the West Bank was included in the townships, Israel would then have given the Palestinians a clear opportunity to declare themselves as friend or foe. It would then be possible for the Israeli military to deal with those who prefer to challenge Israel as enemies, for they would no longer be able to hide behind “innocent” civilians.

Loren Castleton
oloren1@fastmail.fm

HI Arthur,

I agree with you completely that now is the time to really push Israel to dismantle settlements and make peace. You mention that there are finally strong American Jewish groups that can lobby the US government to help push the process forward, but you didn’t name those groups. Are you talking about J Street? I think they are doing fabulous work.

It is helpful to name the groups moving in the right direction as it adds to their strength.

Bruce Phillips

Thanks for illuminating the connections between Chanukah and this moral imperative, Rabbi! We don’t have to wait for Tu b’Shevat to rededicate ourselves to Mother Earth. As a teacher of supplementary Jewish education AND as the author of make it green: Unforgettable Tote Bags, 20 designs too cool to leave in the car, I know that healing the earth is a top priority for tikkun olam.

Is placing Industrial-sized Celltowers in the dome of our place of worship Eco-Kosher?

• And it’s happening in the Phila. area and throughout the nation — a covert government genocide hiding in plain sight

SECRET USE OF MICROWAVE/LASER RADIATION ‘DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS’ ON U.S. CITIZENS BY MULTI-AGENCY ‘EXECUTIVE ACTION’ PROGRAM — APPARENTLY RUN OUT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ‘FUSION CENTERS’ SUCH AS THE ONE IN NEWTOWN, PA

Thousands of unjustly targeted Americans are being damaged by the devastating physiological effects of being silently irradiated by microwave and laser radiation directed energy weapons by a secret executive branch multi-agency coordinated action program…

the weaponization of the electromagnetic spectrum, a silent “final solution” that may have the nation’s political leadership in its ideological cross-hairs.

This technology is capable of altering moods, emotions, inducing fatigue, weakness, exhaustion, confusion, life-altering injury, disease and a slow-kill death.

And key elements of the federal bureaucracy — chief among them the defense/security/intel establishment — are proliferating these technologies by various modalities, reported to include terrestrial and satellite electromagnetic microwave/laser emissions — in one iteration, disguised as cell towers.

American citizens and families targeted by this covert torture matrix also are subject to financial sabotage that decimates their livelihoods and financial resources…

and relentless “community stalking” — harassment, surreptitious home entries and vandalism by government-enabled vigilantes affiliated with federally-funded community policing and anti-terrorism organizations.

Warrantless, covert placement of GPS tracking devices and misuse of cell phone technology to hunt down the unjustly targeted enables this grassroots terrorism.

But the Obama administration continues to allow these warrantless intrusions into the lives of unjustly targeted American families.

By its naivete — its unquestioning rubber-stamp approval of the deployment of these destructive technologies and programs — the Obama administration risks presiding over the destruction of democracy, the rule of law, and personal liberty.

PRESIDENT OBAMA, CONGRESS:

BAN the use of microwave/laser directed energy weapons on U.S. citizens or any human being (including experimentation) as cruel and unusual punishment and a crime against humanity.

BAN the warrantless tracking of individuals with GPS devices, or via cell phones — the electronic backbone of an American Gestapo now operating on YOUR watch.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-ter… OR (if link is corrupted/disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: “GESTAPO USA”

Vic Livingston, former business reporter, WTXF-TV Fox 29, Philadelphia Bulletin

I was reading this after I looked up The Art of Gentle Refusal and was brought to the Shalom Center in my search. Your courage, love and understanding in the face of great pain reminds me the we are all connected and to have an open heart is to be open to both. Recently I’ve been listening to Pema Chodron a Buddhist teacher who talks about releasing tears so that others may not have to. It is part of selflessness and the paradox that you spoke of I think. In the wheel of life we are born and die may times and it truly a blessing to be conscious and loving witness to this process.I pray for a world that recognizes all gods as one. Your words and the spirit behind them really touched my heart as I have been moving through a deep place in myself. Shalom

the biggest thing i fail to see and understand is the fact that RN’S on every medical website, and even on nursing forums, describe catheter insertion as “uncomfortable” but not “painful”. it would seem that these nurses simply withhold from the patient the real PAIN actually involved. i have asked several nurses why this procedure is routinely done without an anesthetic other than local? i assume part of the reason for this, shall we say, little white lie, is because as mentioned in the above article this pain is brief. one of the nurses who responded to my question about sedation also spoke of the risks involved in sedating the patient and why it would be unethical to assume these risks to escape 30 seconds worth of pain? i feel that the level and amount of pain needs to be included in this decision. the patient about to be catheterized, after being informed of both the risks and pain involved, should be able to choose to be sedated. if nothing else the patient should be forewarned of the actual pain involved. the only reason i can see for this failure would be the fear the patient might refuse to be catheterized if fully informed. it would be very interesting if some nurses who actually catheterize patients would comment on the true reality of this procedure. thank you very much. joe