Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media Government Politics

Celsius 41.11: A Rebuttal to Michael Moore 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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Celsius 41.11: A Rebuttal to Michael Moore

Comments Filter:
  • But... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Issue9mm ( 97360 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @10:52AM (#10394562)
    Michael Moore DID encourage downloading of his movie via Bittorrent, and other means.

    -9mm-
  • by JMandingo ( 325160 ) * on Thursday September 30, 2004 @10:52AM (#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:But... (Score:3, Informative)

    by sgant ( 178166 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:03AM (#10394734) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ageoffri ( 723674 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:03AM (#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.

  • See it free!! (Score:4, Informative)

    by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `cificap_4k'> on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:10AM (#10394848) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • David Bossie (Score:5, Informative)

    by kaos_ ( 96522 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:17AM (#10394958)
    Some notes [salon.com] on David Bossie.
  • by yo ( 31271 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @11:25AM (#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].

  • by devphil ( 51341 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:38PM (#10395827) Homepage


    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:But... (Score:5, Informative)

    by thoughtterrorist ( 817272 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @12:40PM (#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..
  • by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:06PM (#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:WTF (Score:3, Informative)

    by KirkH ( 148427 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:19PM (#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.
  • Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)

    by E_elven ( 600520 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:22PM (#10396467) Journal
    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.
  • by tordia ( 45075 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @01:36PM (#10396628) Homepage
    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:meaning (Score:2, Informative)

    by Gigs ( 127327 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @02:04PM (#10396996) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by brandido ( 612020 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @04:13PM (#10398338) Homepage Journal

    For a detailed rebuttal of David Kopel's detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11, please check out Deception; Desperate Right Wing Attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11 [opednews.com] or Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11' [dailykos.com]

  • by damiam ( 409504 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @05:27PM (#10399107)
    Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before.

    And what happened then? We decided not to take him out, because our president at the time had at least a shred of intelligence and could forsee the consequences:

    "Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

    - George H. W. Bush [snopes.com]

  • Re:meaning (Score:2, Informative)

    by Gigs ( 127327 ) on Thursday September 30, 2004 @08:32PM (#10400441) Homepage Journal
    1. Osama is still on the loose

    This is very true, but does he have anywhere near the support infastructure that he had on Sept 11th?

    If we had captured Osama on Sept 10th would that have stopped the attacks?

    If we had captured him on the 12th would that have destoryed Al-qaeda?

    2. No WMD found

    I suggest you read Iraq Survey Group Report on WMD in Iraq - congressional testimony [cia.gov] as there has been a considerable amount of evidence that shows that Iraq did have both biological and chemical weapons capabilities.

    Or perhaps you should check out The May 2004 Quarterly UNMOVIC Report [un.org] that details confirmed Iraq missle engines that have been exposed to radioactive material. I'd love to hear your reasoning that the second most oil rich nation on the face of the earth needs radioactive material for?

    3. No peace for Iraqi's

    Suggesting that Bush is the reason for the lack of peace, not the extremists that that you side apparently so admires?

    4. No direct link between Iraq and Al-qaeda for the american attacks.
    5. No Iraqi's involved in the attack


    Are we fighting Terrorism or Al-qaeda? Are you attempting to suggest that Iraq has no ties to terrorism?

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...