Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" will air.
WEEKLY DOCUMENTARY SERIES TO BE SHOWN AT THE LONE PINE FILM MUSEUM – Controversy Comes To The Owens Valley From January To April
Beginning in January, the Lone Pine Film Museum will be hosting a fifteen week-long series of documentary film screenings and discussions. The selected films will cover a multitude of topics including geopolitics, government corruption, the financial industy, environmental issues, social issues, healthcare, conspiracy theories, secret societies and alleged cover-ups. The event is open to the public for free.
The theme of the film series is controversy and challenging the status quo, designed to invoke discussion and debate on the materials covered in each film. The series includes films by Michael Moore, Al Gore, Peter Joseph, Dylan Avery and other provocative filmmakers.
Screenings will begin at 6pm every Tuesday night, and include a discussion forum after each film until 9pm. The event schedule is as follows:
Jan. 24 – Food Inc.
Jan. 31 – Sicko
Feb. 7 – Gasland
Feb. 14 – An Inconvenient Truth
Feb. 21 – Fahrenheit 9/11
Feb. 28 – Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup
Mar. 6 – Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers
Mar. 13 – Zeitgeist I
Mar. 20 – Zeitgeist II: Addendum
Mar. 27 – Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined
Apr. 3 – Camp FEMA: American Lockdown
Apr. 10 – The Day Before Disclosure
Apr. 17 – Thrive
Discover more from Sierra Wave: Eastern Sierra News - The Community's News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is for Bishop Dude and Whatsinaname: the only propaganda you’re falling for is the voices telling you these films are “left wing propaganda.” Why don’t you watch a few of them and see for yourself? What’s so scary about making up your own minds? You’re being told what to think and you accuse others of propagandizing? Amazing!
Actors and musicians may be overwhelmingly liberal, that comes with the territory of being an artist. Most of the big money guys in Hollywood are more on the right wing. Certainly most of the driving forces behind the MSM are on the GOP/corporate bandwagon.
Try thinking for yourselves, guys.
And I would love to see all of the right-wingers protest by giving up their “socialist” Medicare coverage that our government (the people) provide. It’s JUST NOT OK to provide coverage for a 22 year old that’s putting themselves through college so they can contribute to our society- that’s SOCIALISM! But 65 year olds- EH. OK.
Us right-wing (and left-wing) old people paid into Medicare all of our lives with the understanding that when we were retirement age, we would be able to use it. It is not for 22 year olds. When I was putting myself through college I purchased health insurance (at a very nominal premium) for myself and my son, through the University. I suggest you do the same.
A comment for all who call Medicare and Social Security “entitlement” programs. If I pay into something, and my employer pays a matching amount, where does the “entitlement” part come in? That the Feds did not protect and invest this money properly? Then I would be more than happy to get a refund of my contributions to invest as I see fit. But I don’t think that will happen any time soon.
As far as propaganda films and ManBearPig and such go, I guess there aren’t any conservatives with as much wild imagination or showbiz connections as liberals, because I personally can’t remember any crazy films about liberal conspiracies ie. “Michelle Obama wants to take away your Cheeseburger: The White House Files” maybe I should go into film making…
Young adults are now able to stay on their parents health insurance until age 26. This one of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare(s)).
You can get Social Security Disability Insurance at a younger age if and only if you are disabled.
And Socialism — there’s a popular label the Right Wing keeps handy on a refrigerator magnet at the ready to stick to anything that they want to attack. Even if they don’t really understand what it means. For example, Medicare — I pay over $300 a month for my “free, socialist medical insurance” that I contributed toward my entire working life. Maybe you can tell me how that’s Socialism???
I am unfortunately receiving disability payments. I worked over 25 years for these benefits. I am still considered 200% below poverty level and despite that my premiums for Medicare A-D cost over a third of my monthly payment. It is not a handout, but a means for survival. I make the most of my life and pay taxes on retail purchases, gas and the like.
No one is getting rich by receiving Medicare.
I’m trying to figure out what comparable body of work the right wing could present and all I can come up with are “Wall St.” and “Alice in Wonderland” — maybe “The Ten Commandments” with Charlton Heston.
Don’t forget “Reefer Madness”!
Let me educate you. No two films directly impacted American politics in the last ten years more than Hillary: the Movie (the subject of the notorious Citizens United case) or the films of James O’Keefe (which destroyed the iconic leftist organization known as ACORN). And no film for a generation has more roiled European politics than Geert Wilders’ Fitna, a critique of Islam.
None appear on the Lone Pine list, each apparently being a step too far for the brave transgressives who flatter themselves about speaking truth to power. Instead, Lone Pine is screening such obsolete left wing moldies as An Inconvenient Truth, concerning a topic that post-Climategate is politically dead around the globe. Even hard core climate fetishists were dismayed at the dud that was Durban this year. Nonetheless, the climatology version of Harvey the Big Bunny made the cut.
This is why critical thinkers may regard the nature of the Lone Pine exhibit as being primarily polemical. Clear now?
If you don’t believe that 7 going on 8 billion people burning fossil fuel can have an impact on our world climate when that impact can be seen from space, no logical argument will sway you to accept what most climate scientists (are you a climate scientist) have documented and studied in one way or another.
And yet you believe the ACORN hoax even after it’s been discredited:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/04/07/maddow-raw-tapes-show-okeefe-lied/
The edited video released by O’Keefe also appears to show an ACORN employee advising him on how to smuggle underage girls into the United States. O’Keefe is heard off-camera saying, “What things do you need from me in terms of the shipment information,” and the employee replies, “It’s better if it’s in Tijuana … because I have a lot of contacts in Tijuana.” O’Keefe then goes on to say, “There’s twelve of them. … Twelve girls, they’re like 13 to 15 years old.”
But as Maddow pointed out, in the previously unreleased portion of the video, the employee continues asking very detailed questions about O’Keefe’s phone number and the exact time and location of the girls’ arrival. “What’s this ACORN guy going to do with all that information?” Maddow wondered. “Oh, he calls the police and reports what they’ve told him is going to be a crime.”
According to Jerry Brown’s report (pdf), “Immediately after the couple left, Vera telephoned his cousin, Detective Alejandro Hernandez, at the National City Police Department… [and said] that a self-admitted prostitute had been to the office and was discussing human smuggling.”
Fine example of right wing selective logic other wise known as FoxNUTS…..
Thats a great reference Ken, Rachel Maddow, the feminist liberal on PMSNBC thats about as unquality reporting as anything on Current TV. LOL
So you have no problem with the accuracy of Gov. Jerry Brown’s Office report? You just have a problem with the person who referenced it? And because you don’t like the person who reported it, that means the report was invalid in your Universe?
O’Keef’s fraudulent reporting has been discredited rather thoroughly yet is still referred to by right wing nuts as fact. While those same right wing nuts — when presented with facts — deny them.
And typical of the right wing, any rebuttal of the obvious inconsistency of their logic is responded to with name calling and derision. Then in the next breath, they claim that those who confront their faulty logic are not willing to engage in meaningful dialog.
I guess meaningful dialog is bobble-head agreement….
At the risk of causing your head to explode by exposure to deviation from alarmist orthodoxy – for giggles let’s call it an inconvenient truth – herewith from this week’s news an article and a video discussing it, so you don’t even have to read if you don’t want to:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/0_0_WP_3001.html?currentPlayingLocation=11¤tlyPlayingCollection=Opinion¤tlyPlayingVideoId={B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419}
And do you all know who owns the Wall St. Journal? Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. You know, the same guy who owns FoxNEWS.
And speaking of FoxNEWS — here’s a really good example of the logical prism that the right wing views the Universe through.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/#ixzz1k2i8OMvM
“As I have written before for Fox News Opinion, I don’t think voters belong in a candidate’s bedroom. But the media can’t seem to help itself from trying to castrate candidates for the prurient pleasure of the public.
I will tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s personal history actually means for those of us who want to right the economy, see our neighbors and friends go back to work, promote freedom here and abroad and defeat the growing threat posed by Iran and other evil regimes.
First, one note on what Mr. Gingrich’s married life, including his history of infidelity does not mean: It does not mean that Mr. Gingrich would be unfaithful to the United States of America or the Constitution of the United States.
You can take any moral position you like about men and women who cheat while married, but there simply is no correlation, whatsoever—from a psychological perspective—between whether they can remain true to their wedding vows and whether they can remain true to the Oath of Office.”
Do you remember a guy named Bill Clinton? I think he was President once.
But you want me to read something from Murdoch’s New Corp and forget the thousands of man years of investigative science that shows irrefutable correlation between man’s activity on Earth and the affect that activity has on Earth’s climate?
And because one 82 year old Norwegian resigned from the American Physical Society because he disagrees with the wording of their statement on Global Warming that “…the evidence is incontrovertible…” —- that means that Rapid Global Climate Change caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn’t exist?
You should tell the good news to the thousands of Pacific Islanders that will soon be residents of the real life Waterworld….
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/world/asia/03iht-pacific.2.5548184.html?pagewanted=all
Dire climate change predictions may seem like science fiction in many parts of the world. But in the tiny, sea-swept Pacific nation of Tuvalu, the crisis has already arrived.
Tuvalu consists of nine low-lying atolls totaling just 26 square kilometers, or 10 square miles, and in the past few years the “king tides” that peak in February have been rising higher than ever. Waves have washed over the island’s main roads; coconut trees stand partly submerged; and small patches of cropland have been rendered unusable because of encroaching saltwater.
The government and many experts already assume the worst: Sometime in the next 50 years, if rising sea-level predictions prove accurate, the entire 11,800-strong population will have to be evacuated.
The ocean could swallow Tuvalu whole, making it the first country to be wiped off the map by global warming.
…and also, this statement, “…The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today….”
Is true. 500 million years ago, Co2 was very high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
during the Cambrian explosion when complex life forms began a rapid expansion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Then 90% of all life on Earth nearly died at the Permian–Triassic boundry 250 million years ago when Co2 levels were just about where they are today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event_graphical_timeline
And again during the KT Extinction event about 65 million years ago there was another mass extinction during which Co2 levels fell to about where they are today.
But Co2 levels today have not been this high in 15 million years.
http://www.physorg.com/news174234562.htmlhttp://www.physorg.com/news174234562.html
And 15 million years ago, sea levels were 75 to 125 feet higher than they are today.
So in my humble opinion the implication of the idea that Co2 concentrations 10 times higher than they are today would be somehow beneficial is just crazy talk.
If ignorance prevails and Co2 levels are allowed to just double from today’s levels, there will be another mass extinction event.
“During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today,” Tripati said. “Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount.”
But don’t you worry, Murdoch has save a place for you on his own orbiting space station where you will live the life you’ve always desired. You’ll have a ring side seat to watch the entire West and East Coasts submerge.
Bishop Dude- sounds like you can’t except the fact that your party lost ever single vote in this state for the last 3 plus years.
JJ,
You just showed your ignorance with that last comment. My comment has nothing to do with California but everything to do with the One Sided Propaganda that the Lone Pine Film Museum is spitting out.
Bishop Dude- do you forget the fact that you started your first comment out by calling all liberals Looney? Just because you don’t like the subject does not make it propaganda . I for one will do all I can to annoy a republican.
Just as I have annoyed a mindless liberal.
We are rated #33 in quality of medical care around the world and medical costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the USA. Hmmmmmm…… oh, yah! We’re #1! We’re #1! Just keep telling yourself that……..
I saw sicko…I thought, for the most part, it was a thought provoking movie. The Cuba part took it a bit too far, in my opinion….wouldn’t it be great if anyone with interest in health care in america saw this movie and then had a cordial discourse on the points raised? I know, actual rational argument in support of one’s opinion would be tough on some, but I can dream can’t I?
Looks like the Left Wing Loonies are all going to gathering in one spot for the next 13 weeks. I for one will not be supporting the Lone Pine Film Museum so supporting the Left Wing Propaganda.
How about we try respecting the other guy’s views. I’m going to start deleting name-calling posts. There is a way to articulate how we feel differently from others without putting them down.
Benett Kessler
Sorry I just can’t help it. This liberal propaganda they are going to be showing is designed for the weak minded.
Speaking of a weak mind…….Who is the front running GOP candidate this week?
Bishop Dude, weak-minded would be illustrated by someone saying “I just can’t help it.” Seriously, you should try to control yourself.
Whatever you say Gazoo…. When I read the defination of Gazoo your name really says a lot about you liberals. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gazoo
That would be dandy advice Benett if we were talking about filmmakers who, albeit on a particular side of the political spectrum, nonetheless respected “the other guy’s views”. But we aren’t. Michael Moore is perhaps the apotheosis of the rigidly dogmatic, uncritically disparaging ideologue.
More broadly, I note that there seems to be a distinct shortage of films in this list “from the other guy’s view”. These films fall into two camps, the left wing radical fever swamp, and the hysterical conspiracy theorists of indeterminant political persuasion but dubious sanity. Rather a case of civility and balance for thee, but not for me, isn’t it?
Let me end on a positive note. If you have only one day left to live, go to Lone Pine and watch these films. Having inflicted a few of them on myself, I can assure you it will be the longest day of your life.
Tourbillon,
You proved my point. One can respond to those with whom they sharply disagree with civility and wit!
Thanks,
Benett
Bennett please reconsider deleting name calling comments. I enjoy hearing peoples honest comment . Even if they are from a horses …!
This is America. You have the right to your opinion. But a reasonable person would take the time to view those films so he/she would not have to make decisions based on incomplete knowledge.
The reasonable person would listen to the points of view of both sides rather than just listening to one side and then making assumptions about the other sides position and assumptions about the data the other side used to reach those positions.
Examining the evidence presented by both sides will give one a more complete understanding of the World than if you just view the evidence presented by one side. That’s why I read right wing blogs and even watch FoxNEWS sometimes.
Maybe there’s stuff you don’t know.
But that’s just my opinion.
What’s reasonable about leftist propaganda? There is more of it than Rightist? More “Hollywood People” are leftists? Of course we should listen to actor’s and musician’s political opinions. They are where they are today because they are good at pretending (lying), are better looking than the rest of us(vain), and maybe can sing or play an instrument (good at entertaining). Consummate politicians.
Those movies shouldn’t even bear the title “documentary”.
Yeah, listening to actors political opinions — what a joke. You know, like Reagan and Shwartsinmumbles….