I’ve added a few more blogs to the blogroll, including the IRIS blog.
The editor of Jewish World Review asked me to link to this Chanukah music special (listen while you surf) with songs mostly in English.
Omri is finally back and catching up on events. I am very much looking forward to his evisceration of Munich, and will hold him to that promise. Plus, it’s long past time the two of us wrote nearly the exact same post on the exact same subject with the exact same take on it. Omri is probably going to be next up in the Mr. Meryl Yourish series.
Armed Jews Week is what Dave Kopel calls Hanukkah in a post from last year. (Hat tip: Bill R.)
Lair’s kitties are playing dreidel. Frisky has some holiday fun with his new toy. Y’know, Frisky is one handsome kitty. And Nardo has his own Lizardoid minions.
The crew over at Simply Jews are up to their usual tricks; the Iranian spy satellite appears to be malfunctioning, and, via Snoopy, we get this article on the newest, ah, fuel to power batteries of the future. (Hint: It’s pee. Yes. Really.) Snoopy also links to two very funny Hanukkah songs in this post; click on both links. The singing menorah is a hoot, and The Lonely Jew is even funnier.
Dave has a post on what some may consider divine justice, while others consider it a job barely begun–but it is deliciously full of schadenfreude.
No wonder I’ve been getting hits from her. Ilyka is back blogging again. And she reminded me that Judith’s Munich Massacre coverage is the perfect counterpoint to Spielberg’s Munich-Moral-Relativism movie.
And, oh yeah–scroll around in Ilyka’s site, because it’s classic Ilyka:
In the author’s defense, that could just be my pathological hatred of cell phones talking: You show tolerance for cell phones, I lose all tolerance for you. Truss says hearing people talk on their cell phones “humanizes them.” That only reminded me, yet again, that I don’t really like humanity.
I used to live across from some neighbors who had their washer and dryer repossessed. They began hanging all their laundry out to dry on clotheslines strung across their back patio.
It totally humanized them to me; I’m just not sure that was a good thing. Do I need to know that my neighbor prefers briefs to boxers? Do I need to be able to estimate his wife’s bra size? Look at the way the cups catch the wind! That’s got to be at least a 38C, don’t you think?
A little humanity goes a long way.
That should keep you busy while I don’t blog today. Hey, Dixie’s back on AMC, I’ve got some soap-watching to do.
Meryl, I am honored to have (finally!) made it onto your blogroll. Todah rabah!
Just remember when you hear that bullsh*t about “revenge” as it pertains to the Munich massacres – it would have been “revenge” if Israel had killed eleven Arab Olympic athletes who never committed a terrorist act. But Israel doesn’t do that.
Regarding Munich, two of the murdered Olympians’ widows seem to think that the movie’s OK.
Which begs the question: What do the family members of the other nine murdered athletes think?
It at least answers the question of whether every single person who was close to the athletes, Israel, etc thinks that the movie is unfair or anti-Israel. Some people think it is, and certainly anyone who’s actually seen the movie is entitled to their own opinion about it. But people who haven’t seen it might want to know that not everyone in a position to care personally about the subject is in agreement about this.
That wasn’t the question I asked.
The fact that you’ve heard from only two people connected with the eleven murdered athletes speaks volumes.
Perhaps you should head over to Judith’s site and read a few of the things she links to learn the truth of Munich, vs. the lies of the film.
The fact that only two people connected with the eleven murdered Israelis–not all of whom were at the Olympics as athletes–doesn’t necessarily speak as loudly as you think it does. It could very well be that some of the relatives don’t want to re-live the experience in any way, and thus don’t want to take part in any documentary, film, etc. Ankie Spitzer, one of the two widows who’s seen Munich (which is only possible in Israel via special preview, since it doesn’t open there for another month) and says it’s OK, was prominently featured in the documentary One Day In September. I think she was the only relative of any of the slain Israelis who was in that documentary; I’m not 100% sure of that, but I am at least sure that she was the most prominently featured relative in it.
Anyway, the point is that it’s not just “only two relatives” we’re talking about here. Ankie Spitzer and Ilana Romano have somewhat of a better idea of what actually happened than, say, Caroline Glick or Leon Wieseltier. All of whom are entitled to express whatever opinions they feel after seeing the movie, of course. But I would think that for someone who’s only linked to or expressed negative sentiments about the movie, and without having seen it, it might be at least a little surprising to see these two widows expressing contentment with how the film treats the memories of their husbands.
I think the relevance of the other relatives in this case is absolutely pertinent. You are using an argument from authority, putting the two widows’ opinions higher than anyone else’s because they were married to two of the athletes.
In that same vein, I would like to know what the relatives of the other nine murdered Israelis have to say.
Goose, gander, dontchaknow.
I’d like to know what the other relatives think as well. But the fact that these two think the movie’s OK does appear to have some significance to the debate. I’m not necessarily saying everyone will or should agree with them, but don’t their opinions count for something? At a minimum, these are not people who are inclined to be forgiving about any particular treatment of these events.
I’m still disappointed I never made the Mr. Meryl Yourish series! ;)