Ok, I know I’m going to get some flack for this, but I think I have a thing for Michelle Malkin. Yeah, I know, I know. She’s positively ghastly. There’s not a commentator out that that is more disgustingly neo-con,……

I saw United 93. I took the two oldest fearing the two little ones might have nightmares. There is no controversy. None. It’s not a movie. It’s an historical record. There is no editorial. None. It is a bare bones…

All United 93 entries here. There’s a roundup of blogger reviews at Hot Air, both of the movie and critiques of the MSM critics. It was interesting that many spoke of being numbed by the movie (as in temporarily……

Barrett,
As a fellow Catholic, I must point out to you that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church. Therefore to hate the CC, it seems that you are saying you hate Christ.

I don’t think you mean to say that…

The word “HATE” also seems to be be a little harsh when describing Christ’s church. I realize you may disagree with some issues with the Church…maybe individuals.
That’s Okay.

Please remember: “…forgive us OUR trespasses AS we forgive those who trespass against us”

That’s hard to do but, it’s what we’re called to do, as all Christians know.

Peace
tim

Islam is a vile religion, a death cult founded by a 7th century warlord, murderer, rapist. Islam is a totalitarian ideology that preaches nothing but hate for non-muslims. Islam is the cause of many wars and genocides through the centuries. Whereever islam has taken root, societies stagnate and die. There is no excuse whatsoever for being a muslim and muslims should be held accountable for their choice.

Needless to say, this is the most boring movie review I’ve ever read.

tim

You are doing a wonderful job here Michelle.

Warm regards,

On a related note: If your stomach can stand it, surf on over to Roger Ebert’s site at the Chicago Sun Times and read his review of “United 93″:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060427/REVIEWS/60419006

The word “hero” appears only once, towards the end of the review, and then only in the negative (”no individual heroes”). The words “honor”, “courage”, and “self-sacrifice” are nowhere to be found (though “brave” does make a token appearance). Instead, we get yet another apology for Islam (”That the majority of Muslims disapprove of terrorism goes without saying”); a kudo for the Islamic theocracy in Iran (”on 9/12, there was a candlelight vigil in Iran for the United States…”); a glaring moral equivalence (”Most nations at most times go into battle evoking the protection of their gods…”); a gratuitous and irrelevant reference to “Farenheit 9/11″ and its criticisms of the President (”…President George W. Bush sat immobile in a children’s classroom in Florida for seven minutes after being informed of the attack on the WTC…”); and, finally, this:

“…[the film] depicts all of its characters as people trapped in an exorable progress toward tragedy. The movie contains no politics. No theory…We never see the big picture…”

To read Ebert’s review, “United 93″ is a movie about…nothing at all. Or, even worse, it’s a “tragedy”, where American hubris is as much to blame as Islamofascistic hatred and bigotry. Incapable of finding any meaning in the historical event itself–and there was plenty of it, as free-born men and women sacrificed their lives to prevent an even greater loss of American life–it’s not surprising, I suppose, that the movie is lost on him as well.

And yeah, it’s a damn shame about that closing title card…

How is this not a “pro-truth and reality film”? Point out where the film goes wrong. Don’t just dismiss it because you don’t like to be reminded of what actually happened.

Yes, America will judge with their wallets, votes and hearts – whatever that means.

United 93 may not become a box office smash. Would that be a vote against Bush? No, that’s your BDS talking again! For many people the subject is still just too painful.

We will see what happens on election day. Don’t hold your breath. Bush’ numbers are down because many Republicans don’t like the way he’s handling immigration. Anyway, Bush is not up for election.

I have read your posting. I can understand your point of view, but I don’t think it applies to HOT AIR, or to Michelle, for that matter.

If I understand the term “fluffed” correctly, Michelle is not in the habit of inflating her stories. As I understand Michelle’s style of journalism, she does her interviews, examines what others say, double checks her sources and resources, and writes her stories accordingly and adds her view to it. This is no secret because we know where Michelle is coming from and she has never hidden that fact. Granted that Michelle does not have a Ph.D and perhaps her methods of research does not match those of a Ph.D, but when she writes her books, she does have references. And yes, she does have erratas.

You say that the content is thin. Well, this is a VLOG. I don’t think that it can be expected to compare it with an actually written column. The printed word is different than a narration. Furtheremore, the title is VENT where a person…VENTS! The style is different than an actual written column (but yes, many reporters do place their vents in their articles, the question is it the vent or the story that is being emphasized). Also, is there not perhaps a time factor involved when Michelle makes her VENT videos?

As we read the articles that are referred to in HOT AIR, there are always links that we can go to so that we may see the actual article or situation being referred to. This is significant because it is up to us to read the actual article OURSELVES so that we can decide for OURSELVES on the situation being reported. There is no cheerleading section here on this site. Yes, many of praise Michelle, we love her style, etc., but it is not blind obedience to her. For example, I posted that I do not think that Michelle believes that Kirsten fully agrees that there should be a single standard for reporters involved with leaks (her debate last night on O’Reilly). And I am not sure I totally agree with her on her book INTERNMENT (I have only skimmed through the book having just purchased it). Many of us have been her fans primarily because of her writings. Michelle appears on radio and TV only once in a while, not often. This VLOG gives us a daily dose of Michelle and her great team.

I do not believe that Michelle is giving us a haircut interpretation of the news, or whatever. Michelle is famous for not mincing words. Michelle’s journalist-mathematics states that 1+1=2. That’s it. Point blank and clear. No need for elongated sentences or formulae to get her point across. Once again, if a person feels that Michelle is not giving more information on a topic, then we can refer to the links accordingly.

And lastly, I do not see how Michelle comes across as being self-righteous or snide. She is a tough, no nonsense, jump in feet first lady who will not hide under a table in her writings or her debates. As far as her logic and facts are concerned, if she based her career on ignoring facts and logic, especially with her being conservative, her career would definately be over.

If you haven’t seen it yet, take a look at how this morning’s edition of the WaPo denigrates the very idea that this film should ever have been made.

Although her review of the movie itself is quite positive, Ann Hornaday felt the need to refer to it as “morbid voyeurism” and a “questionable enterprise” and possibly “exploitation” which will probably be seen only by “rubberneckers, pilgrims or patriots.” But of course we Bible thumping, knuckle dragging, racist sexist homophobic right-wing lunatic fringe extremists must NEVER, EVER be permitted to question her patriotism. (And this from a newspaper that felt that it was critical for all Americans to witness and be morally educated by a movie centered on the uplifting and inspirational message about two gay sheep herders!)

Meanwhile, Paul Farhi is far more concerned with the fact that certain scenes cannot be recreated with absolute word-for-word accuracy because no-one on the flight survived to record verbatim transcripts. He asks “How far can a dramatic movie go in imposing its own reality before it distorts the public’s understanding of the event?” He also agonizes over the fact that the movie “…suggests that the terrorists killed the pilot and co-pilot, for example, but what occurred is unclear.” I guess Mr. Farhi prefers that only 100% perfectly accurate historical films should ever be made lest the poor uneducated and impressionable public might get confused and believe that Americans are capable of honorable and heroic actions when their lives and their country are threatened by murderous thugs. I’m sure that he thought quite highly of Oliver Stone’s ‘J.F.K.’

All in all, both articles are insipid reminders that MSM “journalists” inhabit a completely different planet than most of the population of this great nation.

I reject that it is a pro-truth and reality film

America will judge both this summer and on election day, they will vote with their wallets and with their hearts.

In a world of freedom, with clear distinctions of good and evil unbiased by the moral relativists, this film would be shown to every freshman high school student in America, on the first day of classes.

Da Bear

Another good edition of Vent, though, Michelle.

This whole “Islam- Religion Of Peace” farce makes me want to projectile vomit in the direction of it’s utterance!

I’m not sure when or if I’ll get a chance to see it out here in the flyover country corn fields but there is no doubt in my mind that, yes, it’s time, past time actually, for a feature length…