Heads up folks! There will be 2 screenings of 9500 Liberty this weekend. The first one will be down in Charlottesville on Friday. The local screening will be this Sunday, Nov. 8 at 3 pm at St. Francis of Assisi in Triangle. There will be a discussion after the film screening.
Many people asked for advanced notice so here it is so you can make plans early.
Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009
3:00 PM
St. Francis of Assisi (admission is free)
18825 Fuller Heights Road
Triangle, VA 22172
Friday, Nov. 6, 2009
5:00 PM
Vinegar Hill Theatre (Cost is $6.50)
220 W Market Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5027
Update: Please note that the Triangle screening is free. The Vinegar Hill Theatre venue cost is $6.50
Ug… how much longer is this site going to pimp this?
Not what I was expecting to see on election day, but thanks for letting us know. I saw it a few weeks back and it it goes a long way to be fair to the far right end of the spectrum. Don’t write it off until you see it, HSM’ers!
I’ll go if/when it’s free of charge. I have no desire to fund this effort.
My bad, I just noticed where it says it’s free.
I’ll wait for them to make it into a book ; )
Note that the Charlottesville screening is in a theater and not free. That was MY bad.
The screening at St Francis is free on Sunday. Emma, how do you know unless you have seen it?
Hello, we have a special relationship with Eric and Anabel and have had this relationship since the inception of the blog. Everyone knows this.
You are free to blog elsewhere if you don’t like our alliances.
SA, be careful what you wish for. I hear that is in the works.
“Emma, how do you know unless you have seen it?”
How do I know what?
What the effort is.
Congrats are due old McDonnell. For all of our sakes, I hope he really did leave the Taliban and his new moderate skin was not a sheep’s clothing.
But man, I am SO bummed Sarah Palin’s nutjob carpetbagger teabagger lost in New York!
Nutjob carpetbagger teabagger? hahahah that is quite a mouthful. I am trying to figure out why he is a carpet bagger.
He was not from NY-23, but he was running in NY-23: definition of carpetbagger. He was not aware of local issues for the district, not interested in them, and very offended when reporters asked about them.
Ah one of those carpet baggers who stayed north. 😉
Where is he from, by the way?
Hello,
Obviously, Anti has a special relationship with the film makers of 9500 Liberty. If that offends your, bores your, irritates you, I can only suggest you not visit Anti.
I for one wonder if some of the views people have here have been manipulated by the two people who made the film. Particularly, when the resolution came down, all of a sudden the arguement was made that the resolution’s final form was a victory for the pro-illegal immigration side of the arguement, in fact a glorious victory. And a resounding defeat for HSM. We were told that there was some magical damning footage that proved this point.
A 9-0 vote on something undertaken by very few localities sounds like a good thing to me.
What’s the agreed on term anyway for the “pro illegal immigration” side?
Anti-documentation? Pro-freedom? Pro-Amnesty? Anti-deportation?
And my side is what? Pro-enforcement? Pro-American? Anti-Amnesty?
“Liberal anarchist” and “racist xenophobe” are the terms in vogue I think …
The damning footage was bvbl’s not Eric’s as I recall. I even remember who it was supposedly of. It never materialized. I don’t think there ever was any damning footage on this end that you haven’t seen. Lucha Lucha Lucha was pretty damning in MY opinion but obviously that doesn’t count for much.
I can tell you flat out that as far as Elena, Alanna and I care concerned, our opinions were pretty much solidified before Eric and Annabel came on the scene. Probably the tie that binds is being censored on bvbl (for the 3 admins). Elena and Alanna knew each other from other district issues.
I don’t think any of the three of us are pro illegal immigration. I know I am not. I think this country must know who goes in and out. I continue to be opposed to tactics that were used during the ‘resolution’ days. I don’t think that disapproving of many of the things I have disapproved of makes me or anyone else PRO illegal immigration.
Why aren’t they screening it at their namesake? That would seem more appropriate.
So is “anti-resolution” and “pro-resolution” the dividing line?
Rick, I think it is a good deal more likely that Greg Letiecq has manipulated YOUR perception and that of many others who interpreted his opinions as fact during that time.
For instance, Mr. Letiecq would love to have you believe, and not just repeat, that there was a “pro illegal” contingent in the final decision to repeal the probable cause inanity. If you had any real access apart from Greg’s blog, you would know dividing lines involved racial profiling law suits (for and against), law enforcement best practices through community policing (for and against), fiscal responsibility (for and against), and lower taxes (for and against). From my perspective, the right argument won on all accounts: lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and best practices for law enforcement.
After the vote, there was a lot of spinning going on, particularly from Chairman Stewart. But you might be surprised to learn he was on the wrong side of all of these issues, and in a severe minority on the Board, perhaps even alone.
The film is incomplete, but it is the most digestible and most accurate record we have of what occurred behind the veil of the blogosphere.
“Why aren’t they screening it at their namesake?”
That would be embarassing, wouldn’t it. They could set up an outdoor screen between all of Fernandez’ more recent proclamations and attacks on police officers, or maybe he could just striong up a giant white sheet for them to project it onto.
I don’t know….maybe the City could make some money and go retro all at the same time. We could set up an old fashioned drive in theater of sorts right over there in the parking lot across the street. Set up a large sound system, or just use captions. Cover that sign with a big white sheet and shine that bad boy right on it!
Pro and anti resolution might be an over simplification of the issue. Start with the very first resolution passed on July 10, 2007. We would have the justice department all over us. Move forward to the present. I see it as a continuum.
Odd that both Anti and HSM claimed victory. My biggest criticism is that there was NO public hearing (no, not the circus. That wasn’t a public hearing), very little community imput and certain groups and individuals had access to supervisors that others did not have. I also don’t like it that our supervisors were manipulated by hundreds of letters pouring in from other states. The worst offense was demonizing our police chief.
Rick, do you not find this a little over the top, based on the current federal immigration law that everyone seems to love?
http://www.pwcgov.org/documents/bocs/briefs/2007/0710/res07-609.pdf
I can smell a law suit or DOJ sanctions a mile off.
Why don’t you just flip the sign over – then you have it – an instant drive-in movie screen! I do like the old fashioned drive-in movie theater idea – the city could set up an old fashioned concession stand and make money selling drinks and popcorn!
No one is for illegal immigration, that is just a silly statement, meant for soundbite. I am for humane resolution of this issue. As far the immigration resolution, taking out “probable cause” was a win for anyone who believe in the constitution.
Both of these filmmakers not only came onto the scene late, it was obvious from their first release ,they had a clear prejudice to go along with their political agenda. The memory of their typed words on RK blog, describing their documentary as an unbiased account of events, makes me laugh with disgust.
Imagine releasing video segment after video segment of this debate, without ever discussing the events which led up to the firestorm behind HSM – the skirting of the law by a property-owner, the house fire due to his numerous code violations, the rejected building permit and his political sign in defiance to the city’s building permit office and the city’s historic ordinance itself, while claiming his own victimization due to his ethnic background.
To blame the debate, to blame that property-owner, the economic slowdown, and the hardship of a few business in the county on the immigration issue, the racially inspired immigration issue, all while mixing in video comments from insensitive but emotional older whites, who were on the front-lines enduring the chaos brought on by a migrant community, which had only existed because of a weak government, poor county leadership, poor and selfish planning, and the lack of law enforcement…
Who can justify their alignment with these two “movie producers” as they insinuate the “scaring off” of the migrant workers and their families, was due actually to red-hot racist conservatism, is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps Elena, your suggestion is a good enough one for me to follow.