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.”

For those following the campaign, the Townhall is mostly repeat of talking points. For those who haven't, the collection of talking points may be informative. The questions come from the 82 uncommitted voters from the NY area chosen by Gallup. Their questions reflect a NY perspective, and did not come across as from an uncommitted voter. If it were a slugfest, it goes by slight points to Obama, but Obama fails to score big, still has no second term agenda, and Romney holds own well. Each's supporters got what they wanted. The undecideds?  See the reactions below. -- If it were a snooze, we needed more colorful NY-type characters. Probably the most injurious moment to Obama was when a black man who voted for him in 2008 says he has doubts now. Probaly the other most injurious moments to Obama was the number of NY accents and the slant of their questions, a turn off to most of the rest of the country. A draw or slight edge in points won't get Obama re-elected. -- IMHO,post-Townhall fact-checking will expose more Obama falsehoods, which will impact undecideds.

Instapoll/Focus Groups: Fox-Luntz focus group has many 2008 Obama voters switching to Romney. Obama aggressive. Romney hammers on Obama's failures. Very fact-based. ---- CBS instapoll: Obama 37%, Romney 30%, Tie 33%; 65% say Romney won on economy, 35% Obama ; CNN 48% not persuaded to either, 25% to each, Obama spent 49% of time attacking, much less by Romney, Romney favored 58% on economy, 49% on healthcare, 59% on deficits, 61% say Obama does not offer clear plan for solving country's problems, otherwise the poll details are largely down the middle, overall 46% Obama, 39% Romney but the details lean Romney. That will tell in the post-Townhall fact-checking.

Round One, Jobs: Both promise jobs in the future. Romney has experience creating jobs. Obama has had 4-years not doing so.

Round Two, Energy: Obama says oil imports lowest in 20-years. Doesn't mention depressed economy uses less. Romney points out that all increases in production on private land and despite federal interference and opposition. Obama interrupts Romney repeatedly, showing his inner-Biden. Finally, Romney tells Obama to let him finish speaking. Obama lies and lies.  

Round Three, Taxes: Romney will not raise taxes on middle class, and will broaden tax base. Obama channels his inner Occupy, and his Big Bird. Romney says Obama takes US on road to Greece. Candy Crowley keeps interrupting, expected.

Hillary Clinton says the buck stops with her. Not so fast. The buck stops with President Obama:

STATEMENT BY SENATORS McCAIN, GRAHAM AND AYOTTE ON SECRETARY CLINTON’S COMMENTS THIS EVENING ON BENGHAZI ATTACK

The VFW Magazine for October 2012 has an interesting article about the veterans vote.

Veterans alone make up some 13% of the population and historically they register their opinions at the ballot box. In 2008, they accounted for 15% of all voters, a bloc larger than single men (14%), blacks (13%) or Hispanics (9%).

Active duty troops, though, were less likely to vote. Only 29% of them cast ballots in the 2010 midterm elections, compared to 46% of eligible voters.

According to exit polls, in 2004, Bush led Kerry by 16% among veterans, in 2008 McCain led Obama by 10% among veterans. According to Gallup, in 2012, Romney leads Obama by 24% among veterans.

Wonder why there's been complaints about some localities not energetically following through on getting absentee ballots out to those on active duty? For examples, the Romney campaign today filed suit in Wisconsin to ensure that all absentee military ballots are counted, after at least 30 Wisconsin municipalities failed to send overseas ballots 45 days before the election, which is required under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (UOCAVA). In Michigan, there's a similar state suit against 24 townships and cities. Similar lowjinks in Vermont. More here. Democrat voting boards?

 1948 Cartoon was prescient

For years, the blogger mom who uses the pseudonym Bookwormroom (to protect her family from liberals in her very blue neighborhood) and I have exchanged emails. The topic is usually about our children, near the same ages. Our private conversations are reflected in her new e-book, "Easy Ways To Teach Kids Hard Things: The fun way to teach your children important life principles." It is only $1.99 on Amazon, so order yours here.

From Bookie's introduction to the e-book:

[I]t will share a life philosophy that I’ve applied to my parenting, one that has resulted in my having children who respect me and who frequently tell me that their friends think I’m the coolest parent around (and that’s not because I’m a pushover)....

After struggling for too many years to be the perfect parent, I gave up and settled for being a pretty darn good parent. My philosophy is that, whether I am sharing my values with my children, helping them with their school work, or generally giving them tips about navigating their way through the world, if I hew to a few basic principles, rather than following dozens, or even hundreds, of modern parenting rules, parenting is less work and more fun. Happily, once I stopped trying so hard to control every aspect of my children’s lives, and started focusing more attention on overarching principles, not only did parenting get easier, my children also became nicer people....

They will also be more self-sufficient and, with luck, have a strong moral compass and analytical abilities that enable them to deal with many of the difficult situations life places in their paths....

They’re not perfect – far from it – but I can honestly say that they are good people in the areas that count. On any issue, even if their judgment is immature, their moral instincts are spot on. My kids are also good students, which is a testament not only to their discipline and intelligence but (as they will freely concede) to the practical tips and insights I’ve given them over the years.

The foundation I’ve put in place is what informs my children’s decision-making, both practical and moral. I’ve actually put my theories into practice and seen them work.

Bookie sees the results with her kids, and I see them with mine. This works for moms and dads.

Yesterday morning at about 7AM, to the west was a perfect double rainbow. My photo cut off the bottom due to trees. Here's someone else's photo. Look above the lower rainbow and you can faintly see the second one. I only recall seeing a very few rainbows as good as this one.

Quick reaction around the networks and websites: Both Biden and Ryan scored some good points. Biden's sneers and constant interruptions were a turn-off, disrespectful in the extreme, to those who value courtesy in personal communications. The CNN tracking of men and women Independents throughout the debate found women favoring Ryan over Biden. That's a reversal from the past leaning of women toward Obama (now, Obama and Romney are about even in the polls with women). Biden's condescending attitude came through as consistent with Obama's. That's a negative for those tired of being talked down to by those whose promises and self-regard are hollow.

Biden may have encouraged his base by his boorishness, and Ryan may have not met his base's expectations of being tougher on Biden's assertions -- even when wrong as to facts. But, for many Independents the comparison comes down to Ryan's civility Vs Biden's rudeness. That's an important atmospheric. -- See the Twitter negative reactions to Biden's rudeness from reporters across the political spectrum. -- Allahpundit has a wrap-up headline quip: "Angry old man yells at Paul Ryan for 90 minutes". -- CNN instapoll gives the nod to Ryan.

Thanks for InstaPundit link. This Comment from an InstaPundit reader on target: “The Joker vs. Robin.”

Image stolen from PowerLine. Jackass split screen:

My prediction: Biden's rudeness and jokes about him will predominate conversations, and maybe even break through to legacy media reporting, over the coming days.

Other instapolls, and respected poll watcher Michael Barone's comment:

The instant polls: CNBC had it Ryan 56%-36%, CBS Biden 50%-31%, CNN Ryan 48%-44%, AP Ryan 51%-43%. Not nearly as one-sided as the instant responses to the first presidential debate in Denver. My sense: Biden pumped up partisan Democrats, but failed to win over the voters who are taking a serious look at Romney at a point when he is up in national polls.

 The following appeared at Contentions blog today. I'm reprinting it all for you to read. If you belong to one of these denominations, you might contact your local church's leadership and demand that this letter be protested. As this commentary says, "It should be specified that in most cases, these positions are largely the work of a small group of left-wing activists that dominate the public affairs policy work of their churches. Most rank-and-file members of Presbyterian, Lutheran and Methodist churches are, like most Americans, strong supporters of Israel and have little idea that this assault on Israel is being done in their name. But it is incumbent on them as well as other decent church leaders to denounce this letter and other BDS activities."

If you are not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Attack on Israel Must End Interfaith Sham

Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 10.11.2012 - 2:55 PM

For mainstream American Jewish groups, it has long been an article of faith that strong alliances with liberal Protestant denominations with whom they shared a common agenda on domestic issues is integral to the safeguarding of the security and the rights of the Jewish community. That has been tested in recent years, as some of their liberal Christian partners debated supporting efforts to boycott, divest and sanction the state of Israel. But the latest instance of liberal Christians attacking Israel ought to cut the cord completely.

Today's announcement of the inaugural journalistic losers who won the Walter Duranty Prize for Journalistic Mendacity merits recognition:

First Place: Anna Wintour, Editor-in-Chief of Vogue Magazine, and Joan Juliet Buck, Author
"For their stunning achievements in exemplifying the spirit of Walter Duranty, for their combined use of gumshoe reporting, headline packaging, impeccable timing and fearless dismissal of facts to produce Vogue's 2011 cover story, "Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert."

First Runner Up: Bob Simon, 60 Minutes/CBS
"For the gross distortions in his CBS' 60 Minutes episode, "Christians of the Holy Land."

Second Runner Up: Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic
"For his unsupported accusation, unfounded claims and multiple blog postings asserting that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's own son."

Last April, I wrote that the qualifications for the new Walter Duranty Prize for dishonest reporting that caused great harm should parallel Walter Duranty's infamous career. At least the first and second prize losers who won meet the criteria, but the third place loser who won dates back 4-years, doesn't involve foreign policy or foreign affairs, and -- simply -- is such a disregarded fool that he doesn't even merit being beneath contempt. Further, my suggestion of the fourth qualification, to also honor a journalist who really merits it for courage and insight, was not taken up. Below are the four qualifications that I proposed:

1. In parallel to the reportage by Walter Duranty, the prize for dishonest reporting should be reporting on a foreign country. Walter Duranty’s infamous whitewashing of the starvation and death of millions of Ukrainians in 1932-3 will be hard to exceed, but there are enough terrible instances of widespread state brutality today that journalists who espouse the state line or distort the facts should be the priority.

2. In parallel to the reportage by Walter Duranty, the prize for dishonest reporting should be to a bureau chief for a major news agency, newspaper, or other prominent media, as Walter Duranty was the longtime bureau chief in Moscow for the New York Times. This ties the responsibility directly to the owners of the venue.

3. In parallel to the reportage by Walter Duranty, the prize for dishonest reporting should be the recipient of an award for journalism, as Walter Duranty was of the Pulitzer Prize for his. This ties the responsibility to the journalism profession.

4. In parallel to the reportage by Walter Duranty, the prize for dishonest reporting should have a matching prize, called the Gareth Jones Prize, to show the contrast to honest reporting. Gareth Jones did report the starvation and deaths of Ukrainians. (For a comparison, “A Tale of Two Journalists:Walter Duranty, Gareth Jones, and the Pulitzer Prize.”)

For the presentation and more about the winning losers, read here. The recipients were not at the award ceremony, unless they were under the tables in their normal poses.

Two more of the Obama administration’s crony corruption cheats are crumbling. These are but two of the lower profile Obama crony enrichment schemes that will need to be eliminated should we get a Republican administration after next November, and indicative of schemes we must be sure to expose should any Republicans try their version of crony capitalism.

I’ve often written about the scheme to tax tourists to the US to subsidize the highly profitable US tourism industry, companies like Disney. My exposes led to a 7,000 word expose in the Washington Post that scuttled the legislation, that is until President Obama and his heavily Democrat Congress took power after the 2008 elections. Then, the legislation was passed and signed. The leaders of this tourism travesty were heavy contributors to the Obama campaign. I last wrote about this boondoggle here (with links to earlier reporting.)  The Washington Free Beacon has been keeping up with the story. Here’s its latest (with links to its earlier reporting).

The federal government’s latest taxpayer-funded effort to promote U.S. tourism is dogged by lavish spending, cronyism, and questionable accounting, according to a report released Thursday by two U.S. Senators.

Thermal windows can often add quiet or temperature moderation. But, exaggerated claims for the economic payback of energy efficiency are getting increased Federal Trade Commission attention. What a surprise! Several of the leading offenders are significant Obama contributors who received significant subsidies from the Obama administration’s so-called stimulus and at least one is now a failing business. McClatchy news service:

The FTC actions shine a spotlight on an industry that benefited from millions of dollars in “green” tax credits offered as part of the 2009 economic stimulus, and they reveal some of the pitfalls of zealous marketing, in business and in politics.

For all the caterwauling by Democrats about Bain, there’s no indication of corruption. That finger, actually, points at the Obama administration. But, it is a fair question to candidate Romney what he will do to end crony capitalism within his administration. And, then, let's hold his administration to transparency.

Heck, in my area, I just paid $4.239, and that's for regular.

How're prices in your neck of the woods?

Update: YIPES! I just refilled the gas tank for a camping trip tomorrow, a day after than the above post, and the regular gas price jumped to $4.689 !!!!!!! And, reports say that the California price is expected to jump again. Looks like prices are high everywhere, with California now even topping Hawaii. But, Hawaii is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, with high transport costs. What's California's excuse? Ordinary maintenance of local refineries removes some capacity, which can't be filled in with gas from neighboring states due to California having its own different higher cost fuel composition standards. So, on top of California and some other states not allowing new refineries to be built, on top of gas prices driven up by mandating corn in it, and world food markets driven up by our diversion of corn into the gas tank, and the dollar being devalued by debt so it costs more to buy oil, California wants to be Hawaii! I know, many of you say, set California adrift. Thanks to envirocrazies, California is adrift, in high costs, high debt, shortages, middle class bailing out, companies leaving. -- Steven Hayward, another California resident, at Hot Air, hopes without real expectation that California voters will wisen up.

This map, found by Ed Driscoll at Instapundit, neatly sums it up:

Romney slaps down Obama assertions throughout the debate. Romney: "Everything he described is inaccurate." Then adds the wham to the slam with specifics and statistics. At the end of part one, about jobs, Obama even says to the moderator:"Jim, you may want to move on to another topic," needing the bell to survive. The rest of the debate, took the same course, across the deficit (Romney: "you've been President four years" and employment is down and the economy, too); energy (Romney says that all the growth in oil and gas production is on private land while government land permits have been halved); entitlements (Romney won't rob Medicare to fund Obamacare); Obamacare (Romney says that private enterprise and individual choices, state by state, is better and more efficient than centralized dictates); regulation (Romney describes how Dodd-Frank created 5 too big to fail banks and failed to define "qualified" loans, so has stifled bank lending; Obama blames Wall Street for economic meltdown, avoiding the Democrat Congressional pressure to have loose lending standards.)

In the last round, Romney continues to pummel with specifics Obama's generalities, and tells Obama that Obama "is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts." Final Lehrer question for fast answer: how to break Congressional gridlock? Romney describes his successful experience working across the aisle and he will continue to do so, not to "compromise principle" but be "collaborative". "We need to have leadership in Washington to get the job done" among Democrats and Republicans. Obama says he has and will take ideas from anyone. (Gag alert!) But, "occasionally you have to say no." (That's all we've actually seen from Obama to Republican proposals.) 

Final spin by each: Obama says he has "faith and confidence" in the American people. He'll continue to do the same as he has done. Romney says "this is about the course of America" which leads in "very different directions", Obama's a continued "middle class squeeze", joblessness, lack of growth, health premiums increase by $2500 per family due to Obamacare, and "devastating" cuts to our military versus growth and security through unleashing free enterprise and individual freedoms.

PBS's Jim Leher did an outstanding job of covering the most pressing domestic issues, without any bias at all. Instant commentators on TV give the edge to Romney. Usual apologists for Obama says Obama looked "rusty" while Romney looked confident, comfortable, was politely aggressive, came across well, and won the debate. (Examples from Memeorandum here, here, here, and more here, and that's in just the first few minutes after the end of the debate.) If the liberals on TV are giving Romney the edge, you know that it was a Romney slap down!

CNN instapoll has it 67% win for Romney, 25% for Obama. 82% say Romney did better than expected. In effect, Romney went direct to the people, past the liberal press coverup for Obama. -- Email from a reader: Obama looked like he was "seeking his internal teleprompter." -- Excellent summary of details of the debate from Jennifer Rubin.

It is a signal event when even some from the political left who has long sided with pro-Palestinian assertions wakes up and recognizes the horror that is Hamas.

In 2005, Israel unilaterally removed its military and residents from Gaza, leaving behind the infrastructure and commercial ventures Israel and Israelis had built. Muslim Brotherhood's spawn, Hamas, then took control over Gaza away from the Palestinian Authorities Fatah. Since, Gazans and Hamas have destroyed that inheritance and live off the charity of others, mostly Western. The thousands of rockets fired into Israel are excused by Western apologists.

But, the human rights abuses by Hamas against Gazans is finally being recognized by some in the anti-Israel camp.

Let’s take a Lebanese blog, NOW:

In general, I thought of myself as someone who harbored few delusions about Hamas. Unlike an alarmingly large contingent of self-proclaimed leftists, I’ve never been willing or able to ignore the Islamic fascism that is the lifeblood of the group’s ideology, and that makes ridiculous any notion of it as a “resistance”. I confess, however, that I used to suspect there to be a degree of exaggeration and/or Zionist propaganda in the stories I would read about its moral policing.

Not so anymore. After meeting last weekend in Jordan with a group of Palestinian journalists that included three arrivals from Gaza, I was appalled to discover the reality is worse than I had dared imagine. Without me even mentioning the subject, they would almost tremble with rage as they described the party’s thuggery, palpably relieved at the opportunity to unload an intolerable weight off their chests.

…How “leftist”! How “revolutionary”!

The Middle East section of Human Rights Watch has long often carried the Palestinian meme as a major critic of Israel. Yet, Human Rights Watch’s latest report on Gaza is summed up in its release headline: “Gaza: Arbitrary Arrests, Torture, Unfair Trials.”

The 43-page report, “Abusive System: Criminal Justice in Gaza,” documents extensive violations by Hamas security services, including warrantless arrests, failure to inform families promptly of detainees’ whereabouts, and subjecting detainees to torture. It also documents violations of detainees’ rights by prosecutors and courts. Military courts frequently try civilians, in violation of international law. Prosecutors often deny detainees access to a lawyer, and courts have failed to uphold detainees’ due process rights in cases of warrantless arrest and abusive interrogations, Human Rights Watch found.

“After five years of Hamas rule in Gaza, its criminal justice system reeks of injustice, routinely violates detainees’ rights, and grants impunity to abusive security services,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Hamas should stop the kinds of abuses that Egyptians, Syrians, and others in the region have risked their lives to bring to an end.”

Human Rights Watch doesn’t let the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank get off lightly either:

Hamas’s rival in the West Bank, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, arrests and detains Palestinians arbitrarily, including Hamas members or sympathizers, and similarly subjects detainees to torture and abuse. The intra-Palestinian political rivalry remains a significant factor behind many Hamas abuses against detainees in Gaza, Human Rights Watch found.

Western funding, and Western apologists, keeps these two parasites on humanity existing, with little incentive to either decently treat those under their rule, stop siphoning away aid funds into leaders' foreign bank accounts, end hate propaganda among their residents, and cease attacks upon Israelis.

Killing some time before preparing my last meal........that is, the last meal before fasting for Yom Kippur until tomorrow night, I looked for videos about fasting at Youtube. I came across this parody video about the semi-fast imposed on our school children by Michelle Obama. Her "brainchild" is the national school lunch policy, limiting calories and pushing foods that children often don't care for.

Children protest that they are being starved. OK, a bit of exaggeration from the younguns, but not too far off the mark for growing kids and teens' needs. Here's their video:

The Obama administration's version of Aretha Franklin's R-E-S-P-E-C-T is its reverse, C-O-N-T-E-M-P-T. Contempt for the American people and for our institutions. How else can they baldface lie about most everything and anything, with the assistance of much of the liberal media covering-up for the lies. It is little wonder that either through patriotism, animus or self-serving that there are enough leaks to expose enough lies that any sentient being can see them for what they are. Events that are reported are making a hash out of administration deceptive contempt for truth and facts. For those less aware, the problem is penetrating the cover-up wall erected and defended by much of the liberal media. That will take a concerted effort. It doesn't have to be anything beyond factual ads swamping the airwaves in this final six weeks of the campaign, getting the truth over the media's wall. Romney better be going all in on getting those ads on the airwaves.

The Times Of Israel has published my piece, "A liberal rabbi's wake-up call for liberal Jews."  The central theme of the rabbi's wake-up call is that "with great power comes great responsibility", focusing upon Iran and upon the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel diatribes and harrasment that frequently occurs on US college campuses. Liberal Jews in the US cannot afford to avoid or look away from directly and vigorously confronting these existential threats. Jews must use the historically recently-won power to defend ourselves. Otherwise, the almost two-millenia of fear and hiding, of slaughter, can return.

The full piece is below the fold.