Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Celsius 41.11: A Rebuttal to Michael Moore

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the and-he's-fat-too dept.

Media 255

deezl writes "Michael Moore released a controversial movie revealing 'facts' about the Bush Presidency. A new rebuttal has just been released called Celsius 41.11. I would think that time sensitive political commentaries would be available for download to ensure the widest possible distribution base. If documentary makers are so interested in getting their message out and arguments across, why not encourage free BitTorrent type distribution for their movies?"

cancel ×

255 comments

But... (4, Informative)

Issue9mm (97360) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394562)

Michael Moore DID encourage downloading of his movie via Bittorrent, and other means.

-9mm-

Re:But... (1)

ageoffri (723674) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394642)

In typical Michael Moore fashion he said one thing but did nothing. Sure he said to download the movie, but did he make a bittorrent or put it up for download from his site?

Re:But... (1)

uradu (10768) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394684)

I doubt that kind of "permission" would be up to him, anyway. Did he finance the movie himself?

Re:But... (2, Informative)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394734)

True, but this story submitted by deezl said "why not encourage free BitTorrent type distribution for their movies?".

And as I read this again from a different perspective, perhaps deezl was calling out the makers of Celsius 41.11 because if you go to their site, no where does it say where or how or even if you can download their movie. Just lists how to get the DVD.

Blame the Academy rules (2, Insightful)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394862)

Micheal Moore had to walk a thin line concerning net distribution of the movie. If he had openly endorsed it, it would have been disqualified from the Academy Awards. By merely tolerating it, he was able to keep the Oscar hopes alive.

Granted, the Oscar may not seem like much, but it is important to the producers and the financial backers.

Re:Blame the Academy rules (3, Insightful)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396304)

If he had openly endorsed it, it would have been disqualified from the Academy Awards.

He's already been disqualified by leasing it for TV broadcast this year. It will be on next month.

The real reason he couldn't put it online is that he doesn't have 100% copyright ownership. It's not his decision to make.

but it is important to the producers and the financial backers.

Not for this film. True, many movies get revitalized popularity after an Oscar win- but F911 has an onrushing expiration date. After the US election, nobody will care about it. All the profits need to come now. (And it's already earned far more than they hoped, which is why Moore is personally alright with free internet trading)

Re:Blame the Academy rules (2, Informative)

tordia (45075) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396628)

I believe his decision to broadcast the movie on tv disqualified it from winning the award for Best Documentary. The movie could still be in the running for Best Picture.

I won't get into whether it has a chance to win Best Picture or not...

Re:Blame the Academy rules (1)

Politburo (640618) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396909)

After the US election, nobody will care about it.

I think that depends on who wins...

Someone likes it: $208,877,529 (2, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396764)


Fact about Fahrenheit 9/11: It has been extraordinarily successful, grossing a fifth of a billion dollars [boxofficemojo.com] on a $6 million investment.

--
Bush: Borrowing money [brillig.com] to try to make his administration look good. Are you getting some of the $?

Re:But... (2, Funny)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394894)

And while we're at it, why didn't he deliver the DVD to my house for free?

Re:But... (3, Interesting)

eyeye (653962) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394948)

What makes you think he even knows what bitorrent is?

He was actually sending free copies of his DVD to any serviceperson abroad IIRC so he didnt "do nothing".

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396802)

Yeah, those evil Dems are at it again! Not only do we want permission to pirate his film, but we want him to do the work for us! LAZY FAT BASTARD! Not willing to steal our movies for us!

(sheesh)

Re:But... (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394666)

Yeah, I remember that too. It was even talked about here at slashdot as I recall.

deezl needs to do a little more research before he posts stuff like this. He's calling Moore out when in fact he already said download his movie!

Talk about embarassing for deezl!

Hang on... (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394776)

And as I read this again from a different perspective, perhaps deezl was calling out the makers of Celsius 41.11 because if you go to their site, no where does it say where or how or even if you can download their movie. Just lists how to get the DVD.

So maybe he's saying that Celsius 41.11 isn't true? Or is he saying that Michael Moore isn't true?

Just WTF is deezl saying? Or is he saying anything?

Or maybe to quote Mongo: "deezl just pawn in game of life".

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

shufler (262955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394672)

Indeed, and he pushed to get it aired on network TV, at the cost of giving up some awards.

This Celsius 41.11 seems to be solely trying to make money off the success of F9/11. If they want to "get the facts straight," they wouldn't force us to pay $20 for them.

And what the hell does C44.11 mean, anyways? The daily temperature in Iraq? . I mean, 41.11C is 105.998F, they could have at least had it convert properly. I bet Ray Bradbury is really rolling in his err... near grave)

Re:But... (3, Informative)

ageoffri (723674) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394746)

So is Michael Moore the only one allowed to make money off of his propaganda? I'd say that this organization is at least more honest with the money then Moore has ever been. They want you to donate to thier political organization to get the DVD. Moore just wants money for his next Big Mac.

If you had bothered to watch the trailers you would see that 41.11C is what they are claiming the brain begins to die at. I'm no medical person so I have no idea if that is accurate.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10394947)

41.11C is what they are claiming the brain begins to die at. I'm no medical person so I have no idea if that is accurate.

It is accurate, just thought you'd like to know. I recently worked in a hospital on a US Army base and we were given lots of paperwork on how to respond to symptoms in training soldiers. Temperature was a big one.

Re:But... (2, Informative)

E_elven (600520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396467)

An internal temperature of 41C will cause the risk of the brain starting to coagulate (like an egg), but one can briefly weather 41C out; anything over 42C is a hospital visit or serious risk of damage.

Re:But... (1)

Pentagram (40862) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395972)

I'd say that this organization is at least more honest with the money then Moore has ever been. [...] Moore just wants money for his next Big Mac.

How is asking for a payment (and not even requiring it) in exchange for watching his film dishonest?

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395241)

This Celsius 41.11 seems to be solely trying to make money off the success of F9/11. If they want to "get the facts straight," they wouldn't force us to pay $20 for them.

Whine if they charge, whine if they don't. Can't make everyone happy. You think they should give the DVD away, this post [slashdot.org] complains that they do show the documentary for free.

They must be bad, they are trying to make money off of it. No must be bad, they are giving it away.

-Brent

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395531)

He voluntarily removed it from the documentary category for the Oscars. This is cause it could not be aired on TV and be eligible. I am 50-50 leaning towards no we won't see it on TV. This translates into him looking really noble ("I just want want to get my message out") when in reality I read an interview with one of the guys who he works with, it was someone like his PR manager, basically that same relation. He flatly told the interviewer that is was cause Moore thought there was really good documentaries out there that should win the Oscar, and that removing themselves from the documentary category, the judges won't think they can give Fahrenheit 9/11 the documentary Oscar, instead they want Best Picture.

Re:But... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396930)

I think it's pretty obvious that nobody would be interested in paying much to put his movie on TV after the election is over, so I can't help but suspect that Moore might simply be maximizing the profit-making potential of his work, and doesn't actually give a shit about Bush's election, recognition for other documentaries, or anything else beyond what's good for Michel Moore.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but he could at least be up-front about it.

Re:But... (5, Informative)

thoughtterrorist (817272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395844)

The links explains it as "The temperature as which the brain begins to die". Modded insightful for being too lazy to visit the link, that's absurd..

Re:But... (0)

eht (8912) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396688)

411 is the phone code for information, like 911 is the code for help, that's my best guess.

Mod parent down (1)

eht (8912) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396833)

sorry, was asleep when i wrote it, mod this down too once parent is modded down

Warning: Adult Content (4, Informative)

JMandingo (325160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394566)

The video has some shocking content. The worst was a clip of a kid getting his fingers chopped off. That almost made me ralph with the hangover I have this morning.

Re:Warning: Adult Content (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396668)

Calm down ya nancy boy. It's ok to show someone getting their fingers cut off. It's not like it's anal sex or flag burning or anything. It's especially ok since a republican did it. Hell, when the republicans are done putting spin on it, you'll think you NEED to see fingers getting cut off in footage. Hell, it already sounds very patriotic. I know I'm sold. Heck, since I already decided how I'm going to think months ago when I was brainwashed, I'm not going to let ANY facts or liberal douchebags influence my opinion no matter what!

Facts... (2, Insightful)

cheeseSource (605209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394569)

There are no facts here or there or anywhere. There is only Zoul.

Seriously, neither film is unbiased so those with an interest in a particular one pretty much know which way they are voting.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10394571)

at least from comments Moore has made he doesn't care. Now the Weinsteins, they'll probably sue for custody of your children. Then eat them.

for someone whose "facts" are so wrong (0)

cheezus (95036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394582)

there sure are a lot of people clammering to "refute" them.

heck, that one guy from "michael moore hates america" even managed to get made fun of on the daily show. hooray for the heroic anti- michael moore forces.

Re:for someone whose "facts" are so wrong (-1, Troll)

thoughtterrorist (817272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395880)

What about all the people that refuted nazi racism, do you ask them the same question, or are you a typical leftwing hypocrit? I'll enjoy watching you backpedal immensely btw.

Re:for someone whose "facts" are so wrong (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396723)

Dude,

They laugh at you because you are a dumbass.

Re:for someone whose "facts" are so wrong (1)

thoughtterrorist (817272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396976)

Your post screams "I can't debate so I ad hom", dumbass.

Dang (4, Funny)

daeley (126313) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394634)

Nothing like loading /. in the browser and seeing what at first glance appears to be your own rather obscure domain name in the first story next to "Michael Moore".

Note to self: have more coffee before logging on /.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10394680)

8 minutes on the front page and only 6 comments. how popular is THIS gonna be? The movie, at this point, seems to be a "me too" type movie.

Ok... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10394695)

Having not particularly been impressed, well with any of Moore's movies, and having seen this. I'm filled with new found respect for Moore. They manage to make the tubby hack look, well pretty subtle and tactful. I'm not sure how they pulled that off....

I like how they equate even rudimentary social programs with out of control totalitarianism.

I mean I was a *little* tired of the latest excuse for liberating Iraq, "What you though Hussein was a nice person, well why do *you* live with him?" But seriously, they're making the obvious response, as grim and undignified as it is, look ever more appropriate.

Re:Ok... (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394970)

Well there are many peope who truly believe that Welfare simply exist to keep the minority in check and under the governments thumb. I think it does have this effect, but doupt it to be the purpose.

See it free!! (3, Informative)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394848)

Not only that, Citizens United is renting a theater [neonmovies.com] in my hometown to show it for free. I guess that's the only way to get anyone to come if it's free. I wonder if the theater will bill them extra for having the coke syrup and bits of popcorn cleaned off the screen when they're done.

Incidentally, the same theater charged for F9/11 with numerous soldout screenings.

'Cause, as we all know... (0, Troll)

thoughtterrorist (817272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395932)

Popularity is a reliable indicator of accuracy, so we don't need to examine the content of C41.11. And if you disagree with that statement, why did you rely on the popularity fallacy, just trolling on your lunch break?

Re:'Cause, as we all know... (1)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396530)

Reread my post. Now tell me, at what point did I suggest that either film was accurate or inaccurate? Oh, I didn't. I made nor implied no such assertions one way or the other. Rather, I was remarking on the apparent relative popularity of the two films, and speculating (somewhat hyperbolically) on audience reaction to the latter film, based on the political attitudes of the typical art house patron, with absolutely no commentary on either film's content whatsoever .

Re:'Cause, as we all know... (0, Troll)

thoughtterrorist (817272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396910)

I thought you were making an implicit point about its content, given the demographics of this website and the underhanded debating tactics of most of its members, apologies.

I woke up on Fark (3, Insightful)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394859)

Wow. Only eight comments so far. I'm actually kind of sad about that. Do you guys have any idea what this thread would look like already on Fark?

I wonder how many people (like me) are reluctant to post in Political threads because we will undoubtedly lose karma in the process. There are only so many (-1) flamebait posts I want to see next to my name, you know?

--
shut up barjockey, you cock

Re:I woke up on Fark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395620)

My karma has dropped significantly since I started posted in Politics, so I'm with you, brother. I've even seen screens informing me that my IP has been banned from posting, either anonymously or through my own account (which oddly enough forces me to post anonymously.)

(And previewing this comment shows me I have to post anonymously again. I'm Quinn, Slashdot Political Prisoner Identification Number #4474.)

Re:I woke up on Fark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396039)

Do you guys have any idea what this thread would look like already on Fark?

Unfortunately, yes.

  • 20 bad photoshops involving Admiral Ackbar.
  • 20 bad photoshops involving Squirrel with big nuts.
  • 20 bad photoshops involving Admiral Ackbar with big nuts.
  • 50 posts claiming they'd hit on Michael Moore with some unfunny JPG.
  • 50 posts claiming they'd hit Michael Moore with a baseball bat, with some unfunny JPG.
  • 75 posts about article being submitted with funnier ( read: less stupid ) headline.
  • 200 posts of random, unfounded anti-european retorics.
  • 250 posts about farkers bitching about the lack of tits in the thread.

Re:I woke up on Fark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396183)

You forgot:
  • 50 posts saying "Yeah, but Micheal Moore is fat! I bet he eats waffles! LOLOLOL!!!1!!eleven!1!"
  • 25 posts saying, "Rush Limbaugh is a fatty fatty mcfatty too, and he's a drug addict!"

You mean it's NOT true??? (2, Funny)

sfjoe (470510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394878)


Bush really didn't sit there on 9/11 like a useless moron for 7 minutes as the nation was under attack?
That bastard Michael Moore!!!!

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (0, Flamebait)

pyro101 (564166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395380)

Yeah how sad he should have run around raving mad screaming the sky is falling or he could have called in air strikes against asprin factories, or even better yet he could have sat there for over and hour like a useless moron (oh wait nevermind Kerry had that part covered).

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395732)

Yeah, he had a perfect chance to freak out the kids to whom he was reading a story. Or maybe he should have said, "Excuse me kids, COMMANDER BUSH has a job to do!!!" then ripped off his shirt revealing a stylized B on his unitard and jumped out the window to the rescue.

In between (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396387)

There's doing nothing. (What happened)
There's running around in a panic. (What is suggested here as THE alternative.)

Then again...

I got the official 9/11 report for my birthday. I haven't had time to read it, but I have cracked it a little. I've also read another minute-by-minute account of the morning of 9/11, backed up by source links.

The *real* crime of 9/11 had nothing to do with Bush, but rather with the link between the FAA and NORAD. FAA rules state that NORAD is to be notified immediately of all hijackings. There was a delay of nearly 1/2 hour between recognition of the first hijacking and NORAD acknowledgement. (This is from the other report, I need to verify this in the 9/11 report.)

Next, in that first hour or so after the hijacking there appeared to be mass confusion between ATC and NORAD. There was uncertainty about how many hijackings, who should be looking where for what, etc. (Still from the other report.)

Finally, within the space of a few minutes, the first jet hit the WTC, and the other 3 jets were hijacked. (From the 9/11 report) We were a half-hour into the confusion, with another half-hour to go, by which time the whole thing was pretty well over, except for the shouting.

I don't know if anything could have been done to stop the first jet, after the hijacking. Ignoring the intelligence leading up to 9/11 is a different issue. But about the time one jet has crashed into a building and 3 more are known hijacked, we should have been into Full Response, instead of confusion.

What would I want Bush to have done? Put someone in Charge. He was probably too far out of the loop, in Florida. But he should have put someone in Charge to tie together ATC, NORAD, and whoever else was appropriate.

But then again, the famed 7-minute pause was *after* the 2nd jet crashed into the WTC. So even had he calmly stood up, excused himself, and taken/delegated control, it was too late. There's some question about whether or not he heard about the first jet hitting the WTC prior to entering the school. There's some question about those in the White House delaying feeding him info for 10 minutes or so. The findings: "A Failure of Imagination." Whatever happened to Truman's, "The Buck Stops Here?"

The machine called "The US Government" had multiple failures that day. In fact, the only correct, effective response was by passengers. Grounding all air traffic was correct, and might have been effective had there been more jets-as-missiles planned, and did serve to restart air traffic with better security.

Back to Moore... It's so fun to tear down 1-800 vs 1-888, and Enlisted vs Officers, etc that we just lose track of the other points where the facts were less tilted and more clear. The less disputed facts raise perhaps the more important questions, yet recieve little focus.

But then that's been the way of this whole election cycle.

Re:In between (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396793)

>But then again, the famed 7-minute pause was *after* the 2nd jet crashed into the WTC. So even had he calmly stood up, excused himself, and taken/delegated control, it was too late.

As you'll no doubt recall, America was basically under attack at the time, no one knew when the attacks would end. It was entirely inappropriate for the president, as the commander in chief of the armed forces, to just sit there and wait it out.

My theory on the matter - The president would rather have Dick Cheney take care of the "important stuff" anyway, so the longer he could feign ignorance, the more time he'd have to avoid hard questions and let Dick handle things at the white house. Hell of a leader, that Bush.

Re:In between (1)

cryptochrome (303529) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396814)

But then again, the famed 7-minute pause was *after* the 2nd jet crashed into the WTC. So even had he calmly stood up, excused himself, and taken/delegated control, it was too late.

Except maybe for the one that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Pennsylvania.

There were four planes that were hijacked and went down, remember? And we weren't sure if there were more on the way.

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396539)

You bring up an interesting point. I suppose he *could* have say, DONE HIS FUCKING JOB or something. But he is kinda slow. Cut the guy a break. He probably missed nap time or something or was wore out from keeping the crayon in the lines.

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (0)

neurojab (15737) | more than 9 years ago | (#10397017)

>Yeah how sad he should have run around raving mad screaming the sky is falling or he could have called in air strikes against asprin factories

Or he could have left the room calmly, asked for the intelligence on the situation, assessed whether the situation was being handled appropriately, made the necessary adjustments, made preparations for future attacks, and began planning an investigation. I expect absolutely no less from our Commander in Chief.

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (0, Troll)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395918)

Contrary to your sig, Bush never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11.

Are all your facts generated from DNC talking points?

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (3, Funny)

Pinchy (253673) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396344)

Contrary to your sig, Bush never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11.

Yeah, he let's Cheney do that for him.

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (-1, Flamebait)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396560)

Nobody in the Bush administration has ever made that claim. It was a DNC talking point put together by Carville and company, and you fell for it.

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396583)

>Bush never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11.

Maybe not, but he wants America to think so. Dick Cheney keeps bringing it up.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067794/

After all, why would Americans support a war that had nothing to do with the attack they were so pissed off about? The american people wanted Osama Bin Laden's head on a platter, and Bush gave them Saddam instead. It's clearly in the best interest of Bush/Cheney to make the American people think Saddam plotted the whole thing. After all, Saddam is in custody, Osama Bin Laden isn't.

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (0, Troll)

Gigs (127327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396734)

From Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq. Bush took care of that and in the process showed the rest of the middle eastern countries what would happen if they thought to support Osama.

Re:You mean it's NOT true??? (4, Insightful)

cryptochrome (303529) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396777)

Contrary to your sig, Bush never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11.
He and his administration just insinuated it at every possible opportunity.

David Bossie (5, Informative)

kaos_ (96522) | more than 9 years ago | (#10394958)

Some notes [salon.com] on David Bossie.

...and Michael Moore (1)

GCP (122438) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396523)

So *Salon* is your resource for unbiased analysis? Listen to this lead they write:

Partisan hack David Bossie raised political sliming to an art form against Bill Clinton. Now he's out to smear John Kerry and Michael Moore. Why does anyone in the media still take him seriously?

Partisan hack? Raised political sliming to an art form? Now out to smear [a presidential candidate]?

Sounds like a description of Michael Moore. Funny that Salon didn't mention that part, being Journalists with such high professional standards and all.

Why does anyone in the media still take him seriously?

I wonder the same about Salon. Oh, wait, they ARE the media.

Re:David Bossie (3, Interesting)

Sevn (12012) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396915)

Not to be a dick, but us smarter Conservatives know that Bossie is a whackjob. He's right up there with Ann Coultier or however you spell her french name. Completely batshit nuts. He's one of our MANY Moores. He's like that strange uncle that nobody wants to admit is actual family.

WTF (1)

CmdrChillupa (166635) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395077)

What's up with the name.... Fahrenheit 911 was, at least, a very witty title on a lot of levels. This is just stupid. The temperature the brain starts to die???? Do they know this from personal experience with our current President? Or from all our soldiers standing in a foreign desert far away from their families. Michael Moore may well be a left-leaning spin-doctor but at least he's good at it. If Bush actually wants four more years he's going to have to do a little better than this.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395382)

you really believe that F9/11 is witty?

it is a cheap play on a very good piece of literature. that book was something new and interesting, innovative, unique, etc. when was the last time moore did anything along those lines.

the people that find moore a good spin doctor, are also the ones who think F/911 is accurate, and the title is actually good.

one a side note, why does everyone act like the soldiers, WHO SIGNED UP FOR MILITARY SERVICE somehow never comprehended the possibility they might have to go to war.

they put their families to the side when they joined the armed forces. Regardless of the reason they decided to, that was the choice they made.

Re:WTF (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395740)

All the American service men and women I know (air force, marine, and army) signed up to serve in order to defend the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

They did not sign up to invade other nations with no international support, tenuous intelligence, and no clear exit strategy.

Afghanistan, OEF - the right war.

Iraq, OIF - the wrong war.

Re:WTF (2, Informative)

KirkH (148427) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396409)

Check it: http://www.health.discovery.com/encyclopedias/946. html [discovery.com]

"A fever greater than 106 degrees Fahrenheit can result in brain damage and death in some cases."

Guess what the coversion from 106 F is to C?

It's pretty clever, I guess. And I don't think Bush had anything to do with this film, BTW.

Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (5, Informative)

yo (31271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395099)

Two new films offer a rebuttal to the slanted views of Michael Moore. Michael Moore Hates America [michaelmoo...merica.com] and FahrenHYPE 9/11 [fahrenhype911.com] . Both are due to be released to DVD on October 5th to coincide with the DVD release of Fahrenheit 9/11. I have yet to see either of these films, but the trailers look compelling.

For an detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11 read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 [davekopel.com] .

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (1)

Triumph The Insult C (586706) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395305)

what do you think the odds are that the people involved in the rebuttal movies actually saw fahrenheit 9/11?

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (4, Insightful)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395384)

Regardless of any liberties taken by Michael Moore the point of the documentary is valid. Bush started a war for profit not liberty.

In the end people who support the war should go fight the damn thing. I'm tired of all these stupid fucking republicans in my state backing bush and like him, saying the war is good but not participating themselves.

It's high time we let people vote for or against war. All those for the war go into the draft pool, all those against do not. I doubt people would be so pro-war if their ass were on the front line.

Note: 1/2 my family is in the military, both my grandparents have purple hearts from WWII and I have 3 uncles who fought in Vietnam. Of course my Father (a Republican) is pro-war, however he (like our schmuck in chief) avoided Vietnam for himself. Hypocrites amaze me.

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395688)

Maybe your leftist hatred can be traced back to your feelings for your father?

Maybe "Bush started a war for profit not liberty," but what was the end goal? Has Iraq been liberated? Are the Iraqi people better off now than with Saddam? We see them protesting instead of having their fingers chopped off for touching an American newspaper, so that appears to be some kind of advancement.

(That said, I don't think we should have gone to Iraq. I wouldn't sacrifice myself or my loved ones for their freedom.)

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (1, Flamebait)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395838)

Maybe "Bush started a war for profit not liberty," but what was the end goal? Has Iraq been liberated?

No.

Are the Iraqi people better off now than with Saddam?

Possibly yes, probably not.

We see them protesting instead of having their fingers chopped off for touching an American newspaper, so that appears to be some kind of advancement.

I see protesters being mown down by American helicopter gunships instead of Iraqi helicopter gunships, though I would hardly qualify as advancement.

(That said, I don't think we should have gone to Iraq. I wouldn't sacrifice myself or my loved ones for their freedom.)

Don't worry. I'm pretty sure the 1,000 or so dead Americans did not sacrifice their lives for Iraqi freedom.

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395986)

I see protesters being mown down by American helicopter gunships instead of Iraqi helicopter gunships, though I would hardly qualify as advancement.

Come on now! Have you see those rusting piles of crap they were flying?! It's *way* more advanced.

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395924)

So by extension, are you saying that... ...we should not have entered WWII in Europe against Germany? (Germany never attacked the U.S.) ...we should not have gone to war in Korea? (North Korea never attacked the U.S.) ...we should not have gone to war in Vietnam? (They never attacked the U.S.) ...we should have never gone into Bosnia? (They never attacked the U.S.) ...and the list goes on.

There are numerous examples of the United States "going to war" to "further Democracy", and the war in Iraq is really not much different. Are there other "underlying" motivations? Of course, but to say that Bush started a war for profit is a bit extreme.

Serious oppression occurs throughout the world. The problem that people whine about it, but when some country actually tries to do something about it, they are chastised for trying to help out. The UN spent over 12 years playing games with Iraq with their pathetic attempts at "inspections. The U.S., led by Bush finally actually DID something about it. The fact that we have not yet found any WMD's simply means that the Iraqi's took full advantage of that 12 year fiasco.

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396025)

Wow, how bad are you at History? Impressive. A public school education no doubt. If you're still in school, I'll give you ten bucks if you can prove you printed out what you just wrote and gave it to your history teacher.

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396014)

That said, I don't think we should have gone to Iraq. I wouldn't sacrifice myself or my loved ones for their freedom.
Ooo. Nice altruistic response. So you would rather that a dictatorship go unchecked, killing countless innocent people? You would rather see extremest philosophy spread? Like it or not, the United States HAS to act as the parent or the police to control the "kids" of the world because if we don't, certainly no one else will. The entire Middle East, including our "friends" the Saudis, is nothing more than a growing pool of radical Islamic extremism that directly threatens our freedoms. Until the dictatorships are dismantled, countless innocents will continue to be killed both here and there. And that could include you or your family.

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396854)

God. Some of you attack droids are so pathetic about reciting talking points verbatim that I wonder how you remember to keep breathing. It's going to be really sad for you when Bush loses, and all that pious jingoism has gone completely to waste. I could probably make a fortune by starting a national support group for mental break-down born again republicans. Plenty of NASCAR and WWF therapy would probably do the trick.

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2, Insightful)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395751)

The fact you got a +2:Insightful for this makes me cringe.

Bush started a war for profit not liberty.


And I will wholeheartedly agree with you, when you or people like you provide a shred of grounded evidence supporting your point.

It's high time we let people vote for or against war.

We do, like we vote for most everything else, through our elected officials. I believe it was unanimous.

--trb

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395933)

Please. As if the argument really reduces to whether or not Hussein was good neighbor prior to 1991.

How about instead of Liberals liking Saddam (who's hand was he shaking?), we reframe the debate. "Why does Bush hate Americans so much that he had 1,000 of them violently killed?"

And you believe wrong.

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396195)

It was not unanimous. Especially in Bush's case, he received ~50% of the vote. I wouldn't call that a blank check written by the American people for him to do whatever the hell he wanted to do.

Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" (1)

w3rzr0b0t5 (816100) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396643)

How did the parent get modded as flamebait?

meaning (0, Redundant)

alatesystems (51331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395145)

It might mean something, but I have no idea what it is.

According to the master of the universe [google.com] :
41.11 degrees Celsius = 105.99800 degrees Fahrenheit

106? Does that mean something?

Chris

Re:meaning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395356)

well as someone said before, "thats the temperature that the brain starts dying," and it is true that once you get a fever over 105 or so, hospitals will do just about anything to get your temperature back down, so that was an accurate statement.

Re:meaning (4, Interesting)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395760)

They must be forced to use exceptionally accurate thermometers in hospitals in the rest of the world. Who would have guessed that they must measure down to 1/100th of a degree! It just makes it clear to me that metric is the wrong way to go.

On an unrelated note, I have to ask why they had so many photos of planes flying into buildings, women in burkas, and the attack on the USS Cole. But all of the voiceover was eerily disconnected from the images. They kept talking about Iraq, while showing images from an unrelated war a half a world away in Afghanistan.

What's the deal with that? Why would anyone want to relate Afghanistan and Iraq?

Re:meaning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10396811)

You fucking dumbass. It's called roundoff error. They obviously started with 106F and converted to ~41.11C. Do you think they should have called it 41.111111111111111111111111111111111 Celsius instead?

Idiot.

Re:meaning (1)

virtros (513852) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396847)

Easy...to relate Afghanistan and Iraq is to tie Iraq to the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and thusly justify the Iraq war. We know that there were no ties between those two groups, but if you repeat false information often and from a tall pulpit, the sheep will believe you. I've heard many people that believe that Iraq was responsible or associated for the 9/11 attacks. Don't get me wrong, I believe Saddam got what he deserved and that it was a long time coming. But I also believe we were conned into this unnecessary war where we continue to waste resources that could be much better used elsewhere. my .02 and I'll vote accordingly, Noah

Re:meaning (1, Informative)

Gigs (127327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396996)

I wonder how many times this will need to be posted before it gets through to some people:

From Page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

"There is also evidence that around this time (1994) Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Tali-ban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq. Bush took care of that and in the process showed the rest of the middle eastern countries what would happen if they thought to support Osama.

Flash? WTF. (0, Offtopic)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395183)

I give the Citizen's United website a failing grade for requiring the latest version of Flash to view it at all. What is this, 1998?

I'd be curious to see what points they make, but I'm not going to set up Flash on (this particular) computer just to do it.

Somewhere, the creator of Lynx is rolling over in his grave.

Re:Flash? WTF. (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396001)

Sorry, you wanted the plain-text version did you?
Here you go:

Good stuff ehh?

Re:Flash? WTF. (0, Flamebait)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396710)

Yea really. "Wah wahh, I proclaim to be a computer nerd but I'm too weak and helpless to view a fucking flash page." Typical Linux head-in-the-clouds zealotry. Installing flash requires what -- hitting enter when the prompt comes up? Oooooooooh, fear that.

Because... (1)

bookemdano63 (261600) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395221)

More people saw the movie in the theatres than have ever seen anything from BitTorrent. And most studios won't pay to promote a movie if it is going to be given a way.
Studio release and publicity IS the best way to get the message out.

two welcomed movies (4, Insightful)

edalytical (671270) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395422)

Anyone that wants to refute Moore's film is really missing the point of the film. That being said the rebuttals are just a necessary as the original film.

Let me explain. Once you look past Mr. Moore's biased you'll see that the film is doing nothing more than asking the question that should have been asked by the media we already have in place. The media failed to do so, thus we have Moore's film filling in where they came up short. Does he get somethings wrong? Your goddamn right he does, but it doesn't mean we should ignore him completely.

Now the same can be said for the rebuttal. Moore's obviously put his own spin on things (as he should) after all, all he's doing is connecting dots to make a point. He most likely went overboard with some of his assumptions. Now I haven't seen the new movie yet, but lets hope it fills the holes in Moore's movie and is not just an outright attack on Moore (I hope this makes my own biased completely clear).

This shouldn't have to be said, but everyone should watch both movies and then make up their own minds.

No, it's far worse than that. (1, Informative)

devphil (51341) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395827)


I hate Bush and his whole administration, but I cannot hold up Moore's film as anything other than highly misleading propoganda. He did way more than "put his own spin on things".

For example, he shows a clip of some politician claiming "and we've set up an 800 number so you can call us and complain," and inserts a little subtitle claiming "this isn't true." The truth is that the phone number was (and still is) a 1-888 number, which is just as toll-free as 1-800 numbers are. But because (int)888 != (int)800, Moore tells us that the "800 number" statement is false, and implies that the entire statement is a lie.

Another example: Moore makes a big stink over only one member of Congress with a child enlisted in the military in Iraq. What Moore carefully leaves out is all the Congresscritters with children deployed elsewhere, or not yet deployed, or -- this is the nice one -- serving as officers in Iraq. The latter don't count, see, because they're not enlisted. Moore deliberately relies on audience members to hear "enlisted in the military" and include all ranks and services at once.

The most balanced objective take on the file I've seen so far is the point by point list of deceits [davekopel.com] .

Re:No, it's far worse than that. (4, Informative)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396221)

he shows a clip of some politician claiming "and we've set up an 800 number so you can call us and complain," and inserts a little subtitle claiming "this isn't true." The truth is that the phone number was (and still is) a 1-888 number

Wrong. At the time F911 came out, there was no number at all. Only in response to the movie was the number created. (And it's not 888, either)

The most balanced objective take on the file I've seen so far is the point by point list of deceits.

I can already find multiple obvious lies in that file... and an even greater number of deciets (using truth in a misleading way). The single funniest mistake is #21, although it's irrelevant to the overall theme. The Crusader was NOT a missile! There's even some weird things like #35 and #36, which affirms a fact and then immediately claims it's not true- even though that same document just said so! #42 is funny too, because by those standards, the Bush Administration were also Al Quaeda collaborators.

#58 is by far the gravest lie and reveals a true bias by the file's author:
  1. In Fahrenheit, Moore pretends to support our troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy
In reality, he said the enemy was going to win; that's a pessimistic prediction, not a statement of support. For example, I don't support G.W. Bush, but I do say he's going to win re-election.

Still, it would be nice to have a version of F911 containing only the facts, minus Moore's leading sarcasm. Bush would only come off worse if you actually sit there watching him for 7 minutes without a stream of jokes in the background. Maybe a special "no director commentary" feature on the DVD.

Re:No, it's far worse than that. (1)

Edax Rarem (187218) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396413)

Good idea...
>Still, it would be nice to have a version of F911 containing only the facts, minus Moore's leading sarcasm. Bush would only come off worse if you actually sit there watching him for 7 minutes without a stream of jokes in the background. Maybe a special "no director commentary" feature on the DVD.

What is even scarier if they showed all the footage of what W did that day. Sure he sat there for a long time, but even after that he dicked around and "chatted" with folks. All while Americans were dieing. *
How 50% of this country still thinks this bozo is a decisive leader is beyond me.
Especially now that we know the truth, that Iraq was innocent of the 2 reasons we went to war with them (him/Hussein) in the first place. And STILL... even though the violence has gotten worse this administration continues to lie to ALL of us about how things are going. AND then they (Rummy)have the nerve to say that 3/4 or 4/5 of an election is good enough. Are we all blind and deaf? Or just plain stupid.

* http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/e ssayaninterestingday.html

Re:No, it's far worse than that. (1)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 9 years ago | (#10397008)

Bush would only come off worse if you actually sit there watching him for 7 minutes without a stream of jokes in the background.

It would seem that way. I think most Americans need the sarcastic commentary so they can be told what to think. Bush would look bad enough by himself, for those of us who took the time to look at him. He is more than capable of incriminating himself and prooving him a chump, but most Americans aren't interested in that.

One thing I often thought of in F911 is that there is even worse dirt on Bush than what was in the film. Perhaps because some folks wouldn't believe that he wasn't *that* bad and then question Moore?

Another interesting take on 9/11 ... (2, Interesting)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395459)

911 in Plain Sight [911inplainsight.com] has an interesting DVD [69.50.168.139] (scroll down to [Movies - DVD-R] 911 In Plane Site ,excelent new docu...)

And here is a good commentary & rebuttal [freedom-force.org]

Peace

--
ALL civilizations eventually collapse.
Or are you that ignorant and arrogant to assume that yours won't?

Why?

"The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws" -- Tacitus, A.D. 55

More Spin from the Right, thats Great (0, Troll)

slapstik007 (453523) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395769)

You dumb bastards, everybody needs to wake up and go find the truth out for them self. I believe that these films should be used as a starting point for people to research the FACTS for themselves. We all know that BOTH sides spin the truth and they both just want to win.

Another key idea in looking subjectively at both of these "Films" is to check the sources, here is a video from the GOP, if you bother to check the sources and the original video you will find that a LOT of editing has been done.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/092004v2.wmv

I think that theses efforts are to little to late. F9/11 come out on DVD soon and its impact was far greater then a few highly edited Internet streams. Michael Moore was doing a favor to this country that is half asleep at the wheel. It is been found that the average American think about politics five minutes every month. No wonder all of this spin is so effective to the weak minds of Americans. If people would bother to go get a paper or read up on current events they might be informed with real facts; I am so sick of people relying on audio/video clips for their source of news. There is a clear bias on how they are presented on each "NEWS" cast. If we can even call any of this crap news in this country anymore. I recommend that people get their news from real sources outside this country where the broadcasters and news reporters don't care what side you are on.

Re:More Spin from the Right, thats Great (2, Insightful)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10395971)

---
We all know that BOTH sides spin the truth and they both just want to win.
---

Which, of course, is what the side telling the lies wants you to believe.

Glad to see its not simply a rebuttal (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10395940)

I knew a lot of people too closed minded to go out and see Fahrenheit 9/11. Hopefully, this movie's hype will allow them to take a look behind the curtain and see how ignorant they are of politics, war, and the economy. Whatever the motive, I think watching some kid get his fingers chopped off has to make you stop and think about the world around you.

Re:Glad to see its not simply a rebuttal (1)

wjwlsn (94460) | more than 9 years ago | (#10396532)

I did not go see "Fahrenheit 9/11", not because I am closed-minded, but because I did not feel like spending money to see it. I saw "Bowling for Columbine" on a free TV-movie channel, and was not impressed -- my first thought after it ended was "how did this piece of shit win an Oscar?" After that experience, anything with Michael Moore's name on it is very low on my movie-viewing (and spending) priority list.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...