I’m not a fan of remote psychoanalyzing individuals or groups. Without sufficient personal time with the individual, it is guesswork about their motivations. Without sufficient such information about the members of the group, and taking account of differences in behavior within the group compared to individually, it can compound the errors. I think one can get enough information from an individual or group's behavior.

(NOTE: Steve just emailed me this, and I agree: " I, like you am not a fan of psychoanalyzing individuals I don't know, however applying some psychological perspective to a movement and ideology and its symbols is fair I think.")

Nonetheless, my friend Steve Rittenhouse M.D. is a noted psychoanalyst of many decades experience. In a piece at American Thinker he tries to make sense of the liberal attachment to defending Big Bird after the first presidential debate. Big Bird earns tens of millions of dollars and does not need taxpayer subsidy.  This attachment is simply pathetic. Personally, I think the Obama partisans are just desperately grasping at straws, or feathers, to have anything to chant while avoiding Obama’s myriad failures.

Here’s the gist of Steve Rittenhouse’s thoughts:

Fifty years of clinical observation have taught me the unwillingness of many to relinquish childhood dreams of perfect bliss….

Gov. Romney in one witty comment suggested that it is time to grow up, to relinquish the utopian fantasy of a blissful androgynous childhood free of conflict.  In one comment, he leveled a blast at the feminized metrosexual culture of contemporary liberalism.  He went on to link his opponent to childhood, by likening him to his own boys when they were young, a time when wishes often prevail over reality.

No wonder liberals reacted with rage.  No wonder the president mentioned his defense of Big Bird thirteen times in the week following the debate.  Liberals long for what Big Bird represents: that utopian childish dream world where differences of gender, talent, fortune, looks, race, color, intelligence, etc. do not exist….

In the coming election, America is choosing not just between different domestic and foreign policy alternatives.  It is choosing at a deeper level the shared idea of America.  There are two competing and conflicting versions.  There is the shared liberal fantasy of an America that is an egalitarian utopia….

This liberal vision of America is now in a contest with another, older shared idea of America.  This older idea asserts that our greatness lies in our uniqueness -- the uniqueness of our founding and of the generations that followed.  It asserts that we are unique in our history and composed of individuals, each with different abilities and limitations….

Let us not underestimate the skill with which the president is able to represent his postmodern, androgynous, egalitarian vision.  He goes on The View and schmoozes with Oprah, just like the gossipy woman next door.  He prides himself on identifying with angry women and children.  You would not be surprised to hear him share his deep feeling for what women go through physically when the patriarchy forces them to submit to men.  Maybe a government program can correct this unfairness.  His opponent, on the other hand, represents an older American ideal -- a proud, unapologetic ideal that doesn't blur the differences between the sexes, but celebrates them.  He is combating an elite media, educational, and journalistic culture that has been promoting the utopian views of aggrieved, entitled liberalism for years.  How far has America gone down that cultural road?  This coming election will tell us a great deal about where we are and what we have become.

Read the whole thing. Share it with a liberal friend. Tell them it's less costly than $100 or $200 an hour on the psychoanalyst's couch.

I'm not going to even try to delve into the actual history within which this film takes place nor the religious context. That's flavor, but the meat is simply one of the most powerful films I've seen about how men think, wrestle, reach decision, come together in the face of life and death and moreso in the face of their meaning on earth.

I'd missed this movie last year so I went to see a showing at the local community college. For two hours, the audience was entirely silent, barely a stirring, and left the theater quietly and deep in individual thoughts.

I doubt this movie could have been made in Hollywood. Hollywood's films exalt the rebel against the establishment, standing against the group, and with little respect for traditional values. This French film exhibits the importance of community, of spirit, and how very individual men bravely reach common agreement about their mission.

The film takes place in the Algerian mountains in the mid-1990s. It just as well takes place within all our communities. The choices we make may not be as immediately fearful but are just as dire for our standing before Gods and Men.

At least, that's my take. If you've seen this movie, I'd be interested in your Comments.

NOTE Update: A friend who is very knowledgeable Catholic priest tells me that this order portrayed in the film are not as pacifist as the script, so the screenwriter likely imposed some of his own characterization of how he thinks Catholic monks think and behave. The actors chosen to portray the characters, he feels, do an excellent job.

Who said this today, about women?

“I can’t stand whining,” XXXXXX told Marie Claire. “I can’t stand the kind of paralysis that some people fall into because they’re not happy with the choices they’ve made. You live in a time when there are endless choices … Money certainly helps, and having that kind of financial privilege goes a long way, but you don’t even have to have money for it. But you have to work on yourself … Do something!”

Find out below the fold........ 

The claimed respect held by an organization of Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) anti-Israel California professors  toward academic freedom and open exchange of views is contradicted by their actual activities and speech. On November 6, the electorate of California will vote on whether to increase their taxes, against the threat by Governor Brown that the state’s severe deficits will otherwise have to be made up by cuts to education funding. The letter from California Scholars For Academic Freedom and the facts behind it do not argue for taxpayers increasing their taxes in order to fund abusers and deniers of academic freedom.

Thirty-five of the 134 California Scholars For Academic Freedom (CSAF) wrote to each member of the California State Assembly denouncing their unanimous passing of House Resolution 35. As they say:

HR 35 does not create new law, but it calls upon university administrators to deny First Amendment rights to students and faculty. The Assembly resolution states,”[university] leadership from the top remains an important priority so that no administrator, faculty, or student group can be in any doubt that anti-Semitic activity will not be tolerated in the classroom or on campus, and that no public resources will be allowed to be used for anti-Semitic or any intolerant agitation.”