
	View in browser

Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement.

Love Yehuda Lave

Pennsylvania: Judge Rules Wolf's Shutdown Orders Unconstitutional

T. Belman. Bottom line is that the Government imposing the lockdown must satisfy the Court that it is justified.

COVID-19 Reinforces the Argument for "Regular" Judicial Review—Not Suspension of Civil Liberties—In Times of Crisis. Harvard Law Review.

Former Chief Justice Aaron Barak in Israel is known for resisting suspension of rights during an emergency. He argued that the rights are all the more important during such emergencies.

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A federal judge on Monday struck down Gov. Tom Wolf's pandemic restrictions that required people to stay at home, placed size limits on gatherings, and ordered "non-life-sustaining" businesses to shut down, calling them unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV sided with plaintiffs that included hair salons, drive-in movie theaters, a farmer's market vendor, a horse trainer, and several Republican officeholders who sued as individuals.

Stickman, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote in his ruling that the Wolf administration's pandemic policies have been overreaching, arbitrary, and violated citizens' constitutional rights.

The governor's efforts to slow the spread of the coronavirus "were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency," Stickman wrote. "But even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered."

Courts had consistently rejected challenges to Wolf's power to order businesses to close during the pandemic, and many other governors, Republican and Democrat, undertook similar measures as the virus spread across the country.

Wolf has lifted many of the restrictions since the lawsuit was filed in May, allowing businesses to reopen and canceling a statewide stay-at-home order. But his administration has maintained capacity restrictions and limitations on alcohol sales at bars and restaurants. The state has also imposed a gathering limit of more than 25 people for events held indoors and more than 250 people for those held outside.

A spokesperson for Wolf said the administration was reviewing the decision.

Pennsylvania has reported that more than 145,000 people statewide have contracted the virus since the beginning of the pandemic. More than 7,800 people have died.

Who would believe it? Minyan on White house lawn

Meet the 'Best Shofar Blower' of the Modern World

i24NEWS DESK | Robert Weinger is known as the best shofar blower of the modern world. Our Emily Frances has his story.

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto.

Blind eye to incitement

Why abuses of power are ignored or encouraged

By Melanie Phillips

Why do so many well-meaning people committed to ending abuses of power ignore the evidence of who is actually committing these abuses and blame their victims instead?

An official investigation funded by Britain and the European Union into textbooks used in Palestinian schools has descended into farce.

In April 2018, finally responding to concerns about anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian-Arab schools, the United Kingdom pushed the EU to commission a report on Palestinian textbooks from the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research in Germany.

In April last year, the Institute published as a preliminary what it called its "Inception Report." This, it said, developed a framework for "an academically rigorous review" of "how peace, tolerance and an understanding of the other are incorporated into Palestinian textbooks."

This report, however, was itself riddled with so many mistakes that the European Union ditched it. Bafflingly, however, the EU has continued to use the Georg Eckert Institute to finish the project.

Its final report is due out next month. But it has now produced an interim report, which the EU is choosing to keep secret.

Marcus Sheff, chief executive of the Jerusalem-based Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education, managed to obtain a presentation of this interim report. This has shown the project lurching from bad to worse.

Calling the review "a comedy of errors from start to finish," Sheff says the researchers have looked at the wrong textbooks. They have actually used as examples textbooks that are used in Israel's Arab schools in Jerusalem, praising them and presenting them falsely as part of the Palestinian Authority's curriculum.

On the basis of this egregious mistake, the researchers have claimed that the Palestinians' educational materials have been "transformed" for the better.

They make no mention of the vile language and images used in many of the Palestinian textbooks, such as describing the burning of Jewish bus passengers with Molotov cocktails as a "barbecue party," or teaching Arabic through a story promoting suicide bombings and illustrated by a Palestinian gunman shooting Israeli soldiers in a tank.

The incompetence seems hard to credit. Why do people in the west appear to find it so difficult to acknowledge Palestinian hatred and incitement against Israel and the Jews?

Clearly, they resist acknowledging anything that will undermine the narrative on which EU and UK foreign policy has been based for decades—that giving the Palestinian Arabs a state would end the "Middle East conflict."

But this gives rise to deeper questions. Why do they believe that the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own? Why do they claim that, aside from the extremists of Hamas, the Palestinian Authority's leaders are legitimate statesmen-in-waiting?

For these western supporters refuse to acknowledge the murderous incitement against both Israel and the Jewish people that routinely emanates from the supposedly moderate PA.

They don't just ignore its repeated calls for Israel's destruction and support for the murder of Israelis. They also ignore the grotesque antisemitism that pours out of PA-backed preachers, publications and TV.

As painstakingly documented by Palestinian Media Watch and the Middle East Media Research Institute, the PA presents the Jews as possessing inherently evil traits. It regularly describes them as treacherous, corrupt, allied with the devil and the descendants of apes and pigs.

It has claimed Jews are "thirsty for blood to please their god (against the gentiles), and crave pockets full of money;" that the Jews were forced out of Europe in the past because of the threat that their "evil nature" posed to Europeans; that these Jewish "traits" and "ways of behaviour" constitute a danger to all humanity. And so on, and so on.

The Palestinians' supporters, who are so quick to damn any western figure suspected of the slightest historic connection with far-right movements, also totally ignore the history of Palestinian Nazism.

Haj-Amin al-Husseini meeting Hitler, November 28 1941

In the 1930s, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj-Amin al-Husseini, made a pact with the Nazis and turned the Palestinian Arabs into Hitler's army in the Middle East.

More than that, as detailed by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz in their book Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, al-Husseini was no less committed than Hitler to the extermination of the Jews. He pledged to achieve that infernal aim throughout the Middle East and was highly influential in encouraging Hitler to adopt the specific extermination strategy of the Final Solution.

This still matters today. While the Palestinians in general shouldn't be tarred with the Nazi brush, al-Husseini is revered and extolled by the PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, a Holocaust denier who openly draws on the former Grand Mufti for inspiration.

So why are western progressives so attached to the Palestinian cause that they ignore such evidence of its noxious characteristics?

One answer is the antisemitism that courses through the west itself. Another is the realpolitik that has caused western leaders to cosy up to the Arab world.

There's a deeper reason. Acknowledging the toxic reality of Palestinian Jew-hatred would up-end the entire moral and political universe that the left have constructed around the narrative of the "oppressive" west and those it has "oppressed."

Left-wing idealists need to reflect this dogma in a cause with which they can identify. All of their previous causes have either ended or gone belly-up: Soviet communism, South African apartheid, Irish republicanism.

The Palestinians have been portrayed as oppressed victims by fiendishly effective propaganda that has rewritten a history of which the left remain almost wholly ignorant. So they've made the Palestinians into their poster cause of conscience.

Moreover, the overriding preoccupation of progressives is never the actual condition of the oppressed for whom their hearts bleed. It is instead how noble and virtuous such support makes them appear, both to themselves and to others.

If they had to acknowledge that the Palestinian cause is inextricably intertwined with murderous antisemitism — and that its current leader hero-worships a man who had sought to achieve victory for fascism and the extermination of the Jews — then their entire moral and political universe would implode.

This is also why the same kind of people refuse to acknowledge the anti-white, anti-Jew, revolutionary agenda of Black Lives Matter, telling themselves instead that it's a noble campaign against racism.

When incontrovertible facts about Palestinian antisemitism or BLM are pointed out, not only do progressives deny this noxious agenda but they smear as racist anyone who dares point out these inconvenient truths.

That's because progressives believe they stand for everything that's good in the world. So anyone challenging their position is assumed to be bad, anything they say is automatically dismissed as a lie, and they are assumed to have the worst possible motives.

This is why support for the Palestinians is both symptom and cause of the west's moral collapse; and both Jew and non-Jew are involved in its disintegration.

NTO THE FRAY

Israel's national imperative: "Keep your powder dry."

Normalization with the UAE has significant benefits for Israel, but it is premature to talk of amity rather than enmity in the region.Op-ed.

Tags: Hevron massacre Dr. Martin Sherman Abraham Accords

Dr. Martin Sherman ,

Put your trust in God, my boys, but mind to keep your powder dry – attributed to Oliver Cromwell, prior to the opening engagement of the English civil war at the Battle of Edgehill in 1642.

…The purpose of keeping powder dry is to be able to blaze away at the proper time. Thus, the phrase "keep your powder dry"… carries an implicit, most ominous threat: "…be prepared to blow the enemy's head off at the propitious moment"—William Safire, "Keeping Your Powder Dry", The New York Times, Feb. 23, 1997.

..it's impossible to understand the reality we face today, without knowing the history of Hebron-- Tzipi Schissel, curator of the Hebron History museum, on the brutal 1929 Hebron Massacre of Jews by their long time Arab neighbors.

The emerging normalization agreement with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has ignited hopes among many that it will be a harbinger of further amiable relationships between Israel and additional "moderate" Sunni states across the region.

A challenge to past perceptions?

While the normalization initiative certainly could entail significant benefits for the Jewish state, including a "knock-on" effect, inducing other Mid-East countries to follow suit, I recently cautioned that it is still somewhat premature to celebrate the onset of lasting amity—rather than enmity—in the region.

Numerous pundits (or is that "pundits"?) have set out their preferred preconditions for a lasting peace, only to have their prescriptions upended by recalcitrant realities.

In some ways, the Israel-UAE initiative has indeed challenged widely accepted "wisdom" regarding peace, and the absence thereof, in the Middle East. Thus, a little over three years ago, on the website of Commanders for Israel's Security, former Head of the Mossad, Tamir Pardo, declared: "Popular hostility in Moslem countries resulting from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has made normalization with Jordan and Egypt impossible, and has rendered anything other than secret agreements with other Arab countries impossible. The Palestinian issue serves as a categorical limitation on the establishment of formal relations between Arab states and Israel."

Clearly, the move toward normalization between Abu Dhabi and Jerusalem severely undercuts the rationale underlying Pardo's diagnosis. Indeed, although Emirati leaders have paid ostensible lip service to the "Palestinian cause", the apoplectic rejection and incandescent rage with which the initiative was greeted by the Palestinian Arabs clearly indicates that their "cause" has been relegated in Arab priorities and is no longer a focal rallying point for the Arab world.

The "people-to-people" peace paradigm

In the ongoing discourse on peace and its determinants, it has become common—and fashionable—to claim that to create a sustainable peace, it is not sufficient to conclude a "political peace"—i.e. a compact between governments/regimes. Peace, according to this school of thought, must be between the peoples of erstwhile adversarial collectives.

This is a perspective that is not confined to the Israel-Arab conflict and is propounded for the resolution of hostilities in other parts of the globe—such as Central and East Asia.

Thus, in a piece entitled People-to-people contacts seen central to peace, Pakistani journalist S. Mudassir Ali Shah reported on discussions in a 2018 conference in Islamabad, under the banner of "Festival for Peace and Regional Convergence", where participants concluded: "Increased people-to-people contacts among Central Asian states are necessary to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the region."

This was a view echoed by a senior Pakistani delegate, who stated: "People-to-people contacts are essential to bring the regional states closer."

Testifying to the wide-spread prevalence of the idea is the fact that a quick Google search for "Peace" + "people-to people-contacts" will yield over 50 million hits, referring to cases of unrest across the globe and how they may be mitigated by inter-personal contacts.

"People to people" peace: The deceptive allure

Of course, the allure of the "people-to-people" peace paradigm is understandable for peace-seeking publics. Indeed, beyond its obvious emotional appeal, it has a certain internal logic to it. After all, if members of rivalrous collectives –such Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs—get to know each other, form amicable interpersonal ties, even bonds of friendship, this should work to break down barriers of animosity, undermine mutual suspicion and dispel negative stereotypes.

This all sounds very reasonable—and indeed, Mossad Head Pardo embraced it in his previously cited address , asserting: "At the end of the day, a peace agreement derives its strength from an understanding between peoples, not an accord between governments."

This parallels the sentiments expressed in a 2019 Hoover Institute paper, Israel-Palestine Peace Is Possible, by Dan Kurtzer, former US ambassador to Israel (2001-2005): "One important, but undervalued element in all past peace efforts has been people-to-people engagement, that is, activities that bring ordinary people together to overcome mutual distrust and to build understanding at the grassroots level."

Indeed, the friendly attitude shown towards Israel and Israelis, together with the well-disposed manner in which the 3000 strong resident Jewish community is treated in the UAE has been cited as the basis for the belief that, for the first time, Israel and an Arab country are on the cusp of a warm peace—significantly different from the grudgingly cold peace that prevails with Jordan and Egypt, which resemble non-belligerency accords rather than a harmonious peace.

However, as sensible and sober as these views appear, experience has shown that the credence placed in the durability of amiable people-to-people ties, is at times, decidedly at odds with reality.

Iran becomes inimical

In recent decades, there have been at least two major instances, in which changes in governments have totally washed away any congenial impact of previously multi-faceted people-to-people contacts with Israelis. These are the cases of Iran and Turkey—which I have discussed in a recent column. But because of their centrality to the current discussion, I will present the facts once again—and hope readers will understand the rationale for my repetitiveness.

From the early 1950s to the late 1970s, until the fall of the Shah (1979), Israel and Iran conducted very close relations. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, a major portion of Israeli oil requirements were provided for by Iran. Moreover, Iranian oil was shipped to European destinations via the joint Israeli-Iranian Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline. There was brisk trade between the countries. Israeli construction firms and engineers worked extensively throughout the country. Israel's national air carrier, El Al, operated frequent direct flights between Tel Aviv and Tehran. Iranian-Israeli military links and projects were largely classified but were reportedly extensive—possibly including missile development.

The scale and scope of the Israeli-Iranian collaboration are dramatically illustrated by the

words of Yaakov Shapiro, the Defense Ministry official in charge of coordinating the negotiations with Iran from 1975 to 1978: "In Iran they treated us like kings. We did business with them on a stunning scale. Without the ties with Iran, we would not have had the money to develop weaponry that is today in the front line of the defense of the State of Israel."

Turkey turns truculent

Turco-Israeli relations followed a somewhat similar pattern to those of Iranian-Israeli ones. Up until just over a decade-and-a-half ago, and the ascendance of Recip Erdogan's Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP), Israel and Turkey saw each other as having much in common—two non-Arab countries in an otherwise almost exclusively Arab region, sharing a western looking perspective with regard to the future development of both countries—with Ankara a far less problematic member of NATO than it is today, and with a then-firm ambition to accede to the EU.

Indeed, so close and robust were the bilateral contacts between Ankara and Jerusalem, that the New York Times wrote in an August 1999 piece: "Over the last few years, Israel and Turkey have built a strategic partnership that has altered the face of Middle East politics. Trade and tourism are booming in both directions. Israeli pilots practice maneuvers in Turkish airspace, and Israeli technicians are modernizing Turkish combat jets. There are plans for Israel to share its high-tech skills with Turkey, and for Turkey to send some of its plentiful fresh water to [pre-desalination era] Israel."

Relations began to deteriorate with the rise of the AKP and its increasingly firm grip on power in Turkey, but particularly following the 2008-9 IDF's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza—and were further exacerbated by the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident.

Although Turkey's relations with Israel have not reached the same level of enmity as those of Iran, they are a far cry from those that prevailed in the 1990s—with Erdogan even comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and the events in Gaza to the Holocaust, in an address to the UN General Assembly.

Israel's preoccupation with peace & the Middle-East's "special lunacy"

In many ways, Israel is obsessed with the idea of peace. This preoccupation is not difficult to understand. After all, the Jewish state has been under constant threat ever since its inception just over seven decades ago—and the Jewish collective in the Holy Land, for considerably longer.

However, as understandable as this desire is, it cannot blind the country to the real mechanism of international relations and the potentially fickle—or at least, ephemeral—nature of the relationships between nations.

This was aptly expressed by Henry Kissinger in his well know book White House Years. In it he wrote: "Israel insisted on a 'binding peace'. Only a country that had never known peace could have attached so much importance to that phrase. For what is a binding peace among sovereign nations when one of the attributes of sovereignty is the right to change one's mind?"

He went on to elaborate: "For three centuries France and Germany had fought wars in almost every generation; each one was ended by a formal "binding" peace treaty that did nothing to prevent the next war. Nor did "open frontiers" in 1914 prevent the outbreak of a world war that shook Europe to its foundations."

Referring to the special lunacy that pervades the Middle East, he noted: "Most wars in history have been fought between countries that started out at peace; it was the special lunacy of the Middle East that its wars broke out between countries that were technically already at war."

The imperative of interest

The impermanence of international alliances were succinctly articulated by Lord Palmerston, then British Foreign Secretary, in a March 1848 address to The House of Commons "...it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are perpetual and eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow."

This notion of interest as the dominant determinant of nations' behavior was, arguably, first articulated by Athenian historian and general, Thucydides' (460 BCE – 400 BCE), in his treatise The History Of The Peloponnesian War (Ch V) in which he stipulated that, "identity of interests is the surest of bonds whether between states or individuals".

Centuries later, essentially the same idea was articulated by British statesman, Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), who stated that, "'the only bond of union that endures' among nations 'is the absence of all clashing interests.' "

It was the renowned scholar Hans Morgenthau, who in his Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, set out a modern formulation of the notion of interest as the defining determinant of nations' behavior.

Novelty no virtue

In it, he pointed out that basic patterns of international behavior have remained immutable over time—and the passage of time will not change them: "Human nature, in which the laws of politics have their roots, has not changed since the classical philosophies of China, India, and Greece endeavored to discover these laws. Hence, novelty is not necessarily a virtue in political theory, nor is old age a defect."

He added "…[T]he fact that a theory of politics was developed hundreds or even thousands of years ago…does not create a presumption that it must be outmoded and obsolete…To dismiss such a theory because it had its flowering in centuries past is to present not a rational argument but a modernistic prejudice…"

Warning of the consequences of allowing wishful thinking to cloud judgement, he cautions: "In order to improve society it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives. The operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences, men will challenge them only at the risk of failure."

Sobering precedent

For those who subscribe to the "People-to-people" doctrine, perhaps a sobering example is the chilling case of the 1929 Hebron massacre, in which the Jewish residents of the town were viciously attacked and brutally murdered by Arabs, who had long been their friendly neighbors but at the call of their leaders, mercilessly turned on them.

Accordingly, Israeli policy-makers would do well to heed the dour words of Tzipi Schissel, curator of the Hebron History museum: "…it's impossible to understand the reality we face today, without knowing the history of Hebron."

Which is precisely why—despite positive developments—Israel needs to "keep its powder dry."

Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

Health

Why It Feels Like You Can't Breathe Inside Your Face Mask — and What to Do About It

Masks don't compromise your oxygen levels, but they can still disrupt breathing patterns, leaving you feeling dizzy or winded.

By Sarah Watts September 14, 2020

As the COVID-19 pandemic enters its seventh consecutive month, experts agree that masking is as important as ever to contain the spread of the virus. World Health Organization officials confirmed in July that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can be spread through respiratory droplets (via a cough or sneeze) or from airborne transmission, when viral particulates spread long distances through the air. In both instances, face masks prevent the virus from entering into the nose and lungs, and can prevent transmission altogether or prevent severe infections if a person does get sick.

But despite being potentially life-saving, masks have been hard for some to accept. One national survey of nearly 60,000 respondents cites "discomfort" as the leading reason why some choose not to wear a mask in public. Many users report breathlessness, sweating, nausea and increased heart rate from masking — even though doctors have said repeatedly that masks do not inhibit the flow of oxygen.

So where are these side effects coming from, and what can people do to relieve their discomfort?

Discomfort Impacts How We Breathe

First things first: Wearing a standard surgical face mask or a cloth mask does not lower a person's oxygen levels. Nor does mask wearing trap a significant amount of carbon dioxide, says Christopher Ewing, a lung specialist based in Alberta, Canada. Ewing, who regularly sees pediatric patients with asthma and cystic fibrosis, says that before the pandemic, his patients would often wear surgical masks in public to avoid respiratory illnesses that could be life threatening given their condition. In all but the most extreme cases, they've been able to mask safely.

But wearing a mask can still affect your breathing, Ewing says — just not in the way you might think.

"Most of us aren't used to wearing face masks, and the sensation of having a mask on your face might make someone anxious or uncomfortable," says Ewing. "Although much of our breathing is unconscious and driven by our respiratory center, it can also be influenced by the mind. When we're feeling discomfort, even subconsciously, it can change the way we breathe." For instance, if we exhale and it causes our glasses to fog up, we might compensate for that discomfort by not exhaling fully on our next breath.

Inhale, Exhale

Changing our breathing patterns subconsciously can lead to an abnormal breathing pattern: Either we hyperventilate, meaning we're breathing too quickly, or we hypoventilate, meaning we breathe too slowly or too shallow. Either one of these dysfunctional breathing patterns can lead to the dizziness or breathlessness that people often mistake for a lack of oxygen or a buildup of carbon dioxide inside their mask. "When someone hyperventilates, they start to breathe too deeply and too frequently, likely because wearing a mask is making them anxious or nervous," Ewing says. Hyperventilation leads to a low level of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, since the body is expelling C02 faster than it's able to produce it. In turn, this causes dizziness, lightheadedness and can sometimes cause fainting. Hypoventilation, on the other hand, occurs when we're breathing too slowly or not exhaling as much as we need. In this case, the body's carbon dioxide level rises, decreasing the amount of oxygen in a person's bloodstream. Hypoventilation can cause sleepiness and a feeling of "air hunger," a sensation where you're unable to get enough air into your lungs. That feeling of gasping for air can also cause anxiety.

How to Breathe Better

The good news, Ewing says, is that if we find ourselves in a dysfunctional breathing pattern we can easily override it and get rid of any symptoms. "The best strategy to reset our natural breathing pattern is something that is common in yoga and also something that the U.S. Navy Seals use," says Ewing. The strategy, called "box breathing" or "corner breathing," has the person visualize a box and trace the outline of the four sides in their mind's eye as they inhale and exhale slowly. Following the outline of the box, users breathe in slowly for four seconds, pause, breathe out completely, and then pause again. (A good visual for box breathing is here.) "This method helps us regulate our breathing in a more conscious way, and it also reduces stress and anxiety by activating the parasympathetic nervous system," says Ewing.

Belly-breathing is another quick way to reset. "Sometimes with these dysregulated breathing patterns we're just using our chest and neck muscles to breathe, which is inefficient and uncomfortable," Ewing says. Instead, he recommends taking a few minutes to focus on using the diaphragm, a dome-shaped muscle that lives between the abdomen and chest. Diaphragmatic breathing, or belly-breathing, encourages optimal oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange, while also normalizing heart rate and lowering blood pressure. To practice belly-breathing, relax your hand and place it on the diaphragm, just below your rib cage. When you breathe in, your diaphragm should push your hand away from your body. On the exhale, your hand should return to you.

While breathing comes naturally to most of us, breathing with a mask is a skill that takes practice, Ewing says. When his pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis need to be taught to wear a mask for long periods, he recommends doing it for short periods during the course of the day and then building up tolerance. If mask-wearing is particularly uncomfortable, children — and adults — can normalize it by wearing a mask during a distracting activity, such as watching TV or playing video games. Soon enough, Ewing says, breathing with a mask will become second nature.

"It's very similar to when you learn how to wear eyeglasses or use contacts," he says. "The more you practice, the more you get used to it. Same goes with masks."