Expelled! Private Screening for Politicians. How nice.

This just in:

Perhaps he was inspired by the turnout for Young People Fucking, or maybe he misses all that media attention he got after taking credit for getting C-10 through the House with nary a peep over the controversial changes to the film tax rebate. Whatever the reason, Reverend Charles McVety is headed back to the capital to co-host a private screening of a very different kind of film: Expelled: The Movie, the controversial anti-Darwin documentary that purports to expose a sinister anti-creationism bias within the mainstream scientific community.

The details are HERE.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Expelled! Private Screening for Politicians. How nice.

  1. Tony P says:

    Why can’t some of you right thinking science types get an audience in congress? That’s something I’d like to see, someone with reason explaining why Expelled is wrong.

  2. James F says:

    On the bright side, this weekend Expelled is down to twelve theaters.

    • Leen says:

      that I had a boyfriend and deincled very politely but without any ambiguity, This man who was easily a foot taller than I and blocking my exit began petting my hair and started offering me money to be more than friends with him. Personally, I found this not only creepy but incredibly insulting and a bit frightening. I called the owner that night, explained what happened and that I wasn’t interested in working in the same office as that individual. He explained to me that he knew the man was a problem but he brought in so many customers that he had to keep the guy. I wasn’t banned from the business. The owner would have been happy for me to come back and work with this guy, but left to choose between the guy who brings in the money and the new freelancer, the owner was going to choose the money maker. As I said above and as other women have mentioned, if you are not an established and well known personality it is more fiscally sound for event organizers to invite back the big name harasser than it is to invite back the woman who won’t work with the big name harasser. The woman may not be banned, per se, but if she’s perceived to be someone who might cause trouble, it is pretty easy to justify not inviting her back.And as many other people have pointed out and as was the case in my instance, harassment generally doesn’t occur where people can see it. I’m not worried about someone being a dolt where there are hundreds of witnesses, including event staff, to assess and deal with the situation, it’s the people who will follow you to an isolated place, wait for you to be alone or follow you up to your room that are worrisome. Knowing that I’ll be accused of hysterical rape paranoia (quote from this thread) or of being a gender feminist with an agenda (also from this thread) or that I’ll be accused of over-reacting to an individual who is just too shy to approach me publicly or any of the other numerous assumptions people have jumped to about women who express discomfort with someone’s behavior, makes for a situation where reporting harassment seems less effective than just not going to events.But my guess is that you are going to go down the same route that everyman did and talk about how you don’t believe that any of this is a valid concern and that it’s not a problem if women aren’t reporting it. It won’t matter than mine is just one of countless examples of women reporting harassment and worse and someone sweeping the whole thing under the rug, leaving the women free to either continue working with the harasser or GTFO. That may not be an official ban per se, but it’s as good as one.How does this reflect on TAM and other skeptic events? This is the tone of life outside the community. Only when the event organizers make it clear that they will have none of it, will women build some confidence that their concerns will be taken seriously. During the course of this particular conversation, DJ made comments to the effect that maybe women were just regretting their hook ups and maybe women were making a big deal over nothing. In other words, status quo. We should not expect that our concerns will be taken any more seriously at TAM than they will be outside of TAM.fda

  3. Dawn says:

    From the article:”Unfortunately, someone apparently forgot to check the date, and scheduled the event for the same day as the Residential Schools Apology, which will take up most of the evening.”Mistake my ass. The dude know he was going to be laughed off Parliment Hill and intentionally scheduled it then so he could claim to have given a screening on the Hill and not be embarrassed by the inevitably low turnout.No federal politician would miss the apology. And few would embarrass themselves or put their image at risk by showing up for a screening of that film.

  4. themadlolscientist says:

    @ Tony P: For starters, two words…….. Expelled Exposed.Oh, and Greg, would you repost the link to your collection of “Expelled” links?Happy reading, Tony.

  5. Ray Ingles says:

    Wait a minute. According to the grosses at this link, Expelled made no money at all between May 18th and May 25th.Gotta be a typo, since it says right below that that it made ~$45K over the weekend of the 25th. But still, I have to admit a degree of schadenfreude there…