MovieChat Forums > Fields of Fuel (2009) Discussion > WAY too political and biased

WAY too political and biased

posted 14 years ago by Kenny-69
12 replies | jump to latest

I was recycling way before it was cool. I am all for it - and insulating, and conserving etcetera. This documentary is supposed to be about FUEL but instead kept harping on things like Jimmy Carter is good, Ronald Regan, George Bush, Dick Cheney, bad.

And as for some of it's sources:

Actors and musicians. Yeah them. I enjoy most of their work. They are very good at what they do. And what exactly are their credentials on fuel efficiency, economics, politics...?

Scott Ritter - Former UN Weapon's Inspector who was in the news a lot when he was insulting George Bush, but I never heard any mention of him on TV when this happened:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0114101ritter1.html
You think Ritter might be a little off his rocker?

Van Jones - Obama's former Green czar who was forced to resign after it became just too obvious that he was a unqualified bigot.

And whenever I hear a documentary about wind farms and a Kennedy is mentioned I wonder why there isn't a disclaimer on the bottom of the screen that reads "The Kennedy's are all for wind farms when they are in eye sight of other people's property and not their own."

And there was no mention of the Picken's Plan:
http://www.pickensplan.com/
He just might be a good person to interview for a documentary like this. Oh, I forgot his ideas don't count in a political documentary. He's an oil billionaire who is trying to get America off of foreign energy dependence.

There is more, but that is more than enough to show this documentary was WAY TOO POLITICAL and biased. It could have easily been half the length, and therefore more entertaining and it could have stayed on subject.

[–] bjt141 14 years ago

Sorry but I'm sick and tired of hearing this excuse everytime something like this comes out. Every time a movie, or news program, or book, or anything comes out that can be taken as against Conservative policy, all I ever hear is crying about it being so liberal and political blah blah blah.

Yeah I have heard about the stuff with the wind farms and the Kennedys. You know where I heard it....from the big bad liberal media.

Pickens plan, while having good intentions, does not solve anything. As each passing day goes by more and more is coming out about natural gas and how terrible it actually is to extract from the ground. I live in Pennsylvania, I hear all the time about how people are not trained well, the waste water leaks that occur, and it might sound lame but the Gasland movie opened my eyes to a lot of things. (This is another one of those movies that is labeled as liberal propaganda even though there are exploding faucets directly in your face...fact is fact).

I'll have to read the thing about Scott Ritter later because I don't have time right now.

Another fun thing for people to do is cry about actors and musicians. Sorry, but these are the people with the most free time and the most money to do charitable work with. Who created the machine that is currently being used to clean water in the Gulf...Kevin Costner....who are most of the people helping with Katrina and Haiti....actors. Just because they have an entertainment job doesn't instantly make them dumb. People who have free time can learn about things, it's the people who don't have free time that take everything at face value....which leads into my next point.

Van Jones- I'm glad you bought into all of the b.s. with this man just like most people in this country. This all started when Glenn Beck created this crusade against him. He claimed he was doing it because he is a Communist and a Racist, etc, etc, typical GB stuff. The true reason Glenn Beck went after Van Jones was due to pure pettiness. When Glenn Beck came out and called Obama racist, the group that was responsible for successfully driving away advertising from his show was Color of Change. This group was initially created by Van Jones. It was nothing but a petty squabble over money, Glenn Beck was angry that his organization was possibly going to hurt his career so he went after him in response. But like most typical Americans, nobody can look into anything, you just listen to what you hear on Fox or MSNBC or CNN and go mmm hmmmm, yep yep.

I am as independent as they get but truth is truth. Bush, Cheney, their friends....these are all Oil and Military people. They would actually be acting out of the norm for corporation CEO's if they were to act against their own interests. To pretend like these things didn't happen or that he was just trying to bash Bush or Conservatives is just simply untrue because these things happened, he didn't make them up. Truth hurts sometimes.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jzac79 14 years ago

"Actors and musicians. Yeah them. I enjoy most of their work. They are very good at what they do. And what exactly are their credentials on fuel efficiency, economics, politics...? "

Oh ok. So, what you're saying is that actors and musicians are NOT allowed to have an opinion on fuel efficiency, economics, and politics? That's it. Sorry, you are a musician that DISQUALIFIES your right to an opinion on what we should do on any political issues.

While we are on the subject, can I see your credentials on the subject?

Why shouldn't this film be political??? Ummm, last time I checked the the GOVERNMENT is in charge of things like the FDA, EPA, and so on. Politics and the environment are inextricably connected. If you're going to make a documentary about energy in America then OF COURSE by nature it is going to be political. I think that when you say, "this documentary was WAY TOO POLITICAL" is a euphemism for: this documentary is against MY POLITICS.

[–] emncaity 13 years ago

I mean, the only two actors ever elected to major executive office in this country were both Republicans (Bush and Schwarzenegger).

The illogic of the whole thing really is staggering. If you have a 10-to-1 ratio of actors, or college professors, or whoever, taking progressive positions over "conservative" (talk about a misnomer!) positions, it's proof of how persecuted they are, or something. Overwhelming majorities of smart and/or successful people can't possibly know what they're talking about. They're "elites," and like Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalinist Russia, or the Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we can't have intellectual "elites" mucking things up.

But then, on any issue where any subgroup, divided however you want to divide it, opposes--say--a Democratic politician 52 to 48, Republican politicians are all over the airwaves talking about "what the American people want." Hell, they do that even when it's 67 to 33 _against_ them.

So, when it's an overwhelming majority of the smartest or most accomplished people, don't listen to them, if they're pushing anything "liberal." But if it's even the smallest majority, or even a significant minority, pushing a right-wing agenda, then of course that proves their point.

Utter silliness. But then, they don't have to make sense; they just have to push the loyalty buttons, the ones that make people feel patriotic, the ones that are like comfort food.

[–] jedifred 14 years ago

Nailed it, Kenny-69.

I notice no one wants to talk about congressional private jets for liberals and Al Gore's toxic home or any of the other 'violations' American Socialists are perpetrating. Or about the unprecedented waste the Obama adminstration has already used up on - get this - VACATIONS. Vacations the like of which W never, ever took. Nice being a rock star posing as the U.S. President.

The fact is, everyone in America could use electric cars and power their homes with the sun and it wouldn't make one bit of difference in the world's atmosphere. Until India and China make those changes the rest of us are irrelevant.

P.S. Anytime Jimmy Carter says anything I laugh. He's better than Jim Carrey.

The complaint line forms to the left. Have a cupcake and an aperitif whilst you wait.

[–] tztwelw33 14 years ago

You really ought-a check the actual facts about that..You're buying into too much of what the media is trying to portray.

Obama has had way less vacation days than Bush at this point in his presidency. This isn't to say Bush has taken more than the average president, but Obama's just getting more of the celebrity vacation treatment.

The media makes Obama into a rock star, not the other way around.

That being said, I'm not a huge Obama supporter either, but to use the term American socialists to group them all together is really a misnomer.

Every thing from Social Security to Farm subsidies fall under a gray area of "socialism" which most Americans take from granted.

I don't treat the word "conservative" as wrong or ignorant just like I don't treat the term "liberal" to describe inept government-power harvesting policies, nor do I treat the term socialism as wholly evil and demonic. The way most governments work in the world today operate on levels of conservative, liberal, and socialist policies. So to group Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Democrats in general under this negative-implying word "American socialists" is just plain misleading.

And yes, if everyone in America did change to electric cars, it would make a difference. You're right that India and China together produce more than 50% of the world's pollution, but I think you missed the point of energy-independence. Today, we make up most of China's and India's buying market. If we change, they will (maybe not on the ethical grounds of saving the world, but economically speaking, yes).

Last time I checked, America stood as a beacon of positive change for the rest of the world to follow, and not a country that waits for others to change first.

ALL OF THAT ASIDE-

I do agree the film was a little political and biased. But overall, I did enjoy the film. Most documentaries are biased in some way, and it's up to you to decide how much they bent the truth.

Still, as a film, I enjoyed it. It was well put together and I do agree with most of it.

[–] prolite959 14 years ago

Jedifred

What does any of that have to do with bio diesel? No one's talking about the "congressional private jets for liberals" or the congressional private jets for conservatives.

What's your point?

You're turning this purely political when it's only a partially political issue.

If "everyone in America could use electric cars and power their homes with the sun" than the other countries would follow once they realized how good of an idea it is. And yes if only America did it, it would certainly help the environment, making the change very relevant.

And I can't believe I'm stooping to this level of retardation but please click this link http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=how+many+vacation+days+did+bush+take+while+in+office&aq=f&aqi=g2g-o1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6052204b889acdd8

and your comments of vacation days will be proven very wrong, I understand that you may not want to click that link in order to save face and act like Obama is still a vacation whore.

[–] prolite959 14 years ago

Kenny69

Your missing the point of throwing politics into the mix. Politics is shown because that's the main reason bio diesel hasn't taken off.

They talk about Jimmy Carter putting up solar panels and Ronald Reagan taking them down because they want to show that it's politicians who are preventing alternative energy.

They talk about Bush and Cheney and the Iraq war because they want to show politicians power for keeping oil giants safe (by invading Iraq and having a firm hold on the oil in that country).

Actors and musicians have a larger voice than pretty much everyone, although they don't have mechanical or chemical engineering degrees they've got a (IMO) good view of alternative fuels and all they have to do is support and promote it and others will follow. I personally believe it's a good tactic, I like the thought of alternative fuels and oil use being cut down to a smaller percent and it can be promoted by people with large followings.

They never mentioned the Scott Ritter scandal because it has nothing to do with bio diesel.

[–] dementedstud 13 years ago

Yaawn! This movie was soo boring and so factually wrong that I had to stop mid way. So dont really care about how political it was .. its discussion on bio diesel is way out of line. The solution is simply to reduce consumption as there is no alternate fuel out there, all combined, that can satiate our energy demands.

peace!

[–] peterbreis 9 years ago

It is YOU who who is so boring and factually wrong.

…the film recommended reducing consumption.

Which shows just how little you comprehended of any of it.

[–] m-h-m-79 12 years ago

You know why it's politically biased? Because Republicans and conservatives are A$$HOLES! They'll sell their own mother into slavery for a million dollars. They've proven this time and time again.

[–] peterbreis 9 years ago

That is all you hear from people who are so ridiculously stridently political on everything that they even attack benefit concerts for victims of school shootings!

Wind farms are ugly and petrochemical plants are not?!

PLEEEEEAAASSSEEE! Just how stupid do you really have to be?