Favorite Documentary?

[gbeenie]

As I understand it, the thing they don't tell the audience in that movie is the REAL reason the electric car is currently not a commercially viable option: it doesn't cut down on pollution, at least not in the U.S. Why? Because a HUGE percentage of our electric power is still generated by burning coal, which pollutes much more than gasoline-powered internal combustion. Why so many coal-powered plants still around in the beginning of the twenty-first century? That's REAL simple: radical "environmentalists" have all but eviscerated the American nuclear power industry.

With nuclear power, rechargeable electric cars are a great, economical, clean form of transportation. With our current coal-powered grid, they're an expensive feel-good status toy for people who want to believe they're "doing the right thing," in complete disregard of all evidence to the contrary.

Exactly.  And solar/wind power plants won't really help, either - they need "backburners" to provide energy during periods of low power production (which are extremely frequent in those kinds of plants).  Thanks to the "environmentalist" lobby, these backburner plants are almost always coal power plants.  Thanks for nothing, worthless hippies.

So every time a Sierra Club member starts preaching at you, telling you how much harm you're doing Mother Earth, console yourself with the truth: environmentalists have done far more damage than any average citizen could hope to do in a lifetime of driving.

Ask an African who's lost a loved one to malaria how much they love American environmental dilettantes.

[gbeenie]

Anyhoo, I guess I'll try to get on-topic now...

Daughter from Danang. This was originally aired on PBS, and features a half-Vietnamese woman who was fathered by an American G.I., and raised in the U.S., returning to Vietnam for the first time since infancy, to try and connect with her Vietnamese family. This was nominated for an Academy Award, but, unfortunately, it was in 2002, the year the Academy decided to award the Oscar to a non-documentary (Bowling For Columbine).

Super-Size Me. But you DO have to watch it understanding that Morgan Spurlock is definitely advocating a point of view; this comes out a bit more in the DVD extras. For a DIFFERENT perspective on the "McDonald's experiment" idea, check out http://www.cei.org/pages/debunk/debunk_the_junk.cfm

Michael Moore Hates America. Yeah, I know the title's inflammatory; and yes, Mike Wilson DOES spend some time pointing out a few of the complete untruths in Fucking Liar Michael Moore's oeuvre (I said a few; to point them all out would require a Ken Burns miniseries). That's easy, and there are LOTS of documentaries out there doing it. But where the film shines is in using much of its running time to contradict the VERY negative view that Moore has of his own country, by showing ordinary people who are working hard and making their own American dreams. It's inspiring stuff, and puts this film a cut above all the other Moore-debunking that's out there. Also, Wilson examines what it is to be an honest and effective documentary-maker, to the point of even questioning his own motives. Plus, it's got Penn Jillette in it. 

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Anyhoo, I guess I'll try to get on-topic now

Why start now?

Super-Size Me

I was shocked at how much more info is in this movie than just mcdonalds is bad for you.  It really was a good documentary.

[gbeenie]

Anyhoo, I guess I'll try to get on-topic now

Why start now?

Super-Size Me

I was shocked at how much more info is in this movie than just mcdonalds is bad for you.  It really was a good documentary.

The best parts of it were when Spurlock profiled ideas and programs that encourage people to make more responsible food choices.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

The whole bit about how supermarkets and the food industry works was all new to me so i found it very informative.  Something i now want to look into in more depth. 

[BathTub]

People get fixated on the whole McDonalds diet thing, not able to get past it and see that was just the gimmick to get you to see it. It was a lot better than that.

[MrTorso]

The whole bit about how supermarkets and the food industry works was all new to me so i found it very informative.  Something i now want to look into in more depth. 

Read Fast Food Nation sometime. Great book.

[mrbasehart]

I saw Confederate States of America last night, and thought it was pretty decent.  It's a fake documentary about the history of America when the Confederacy wins the civil war.  Because of its low budget, some of the reconstructions or clips from "famous" movies are a little unbelievable, but I especially liked the second half of the movie, that dealt with the "Cotton Curtain" between the slave-owning US, and the free Canada.  Funny in places, but perhaps uncomfortable for some, especially in the "ad-breaks" between the documentary, which promotes slavery and slave-owning technology (such as Contrari - to keep your slave in line all day).

[davo]

^ haha! you crack me up,man.

Who Killed the Electric Car? is the most surprising documentary I've seen.  Mainly because I never knew there was such a thing as an electric car.  And it worked great, with no emissions.  It was fast, it was quiet, and it's a lot cheaper than paying for gas.  The only down side is that it couldn't go quite as far on one charge as you can on one tank of gas......

i don't want to start another huge debate,but i don't like most of these documentaries because many have such an extreme POV that they are hopelessly biased (read as "anything michael moore has done..or an inconvenient truth"). 
my guess is they made it sound like a big conspiracy to keep the technology out of the hands of the people, when the truth is electric cars are EXPENSIVE and INCONVENIENT. 
  the market has to have the demand for a product in order for it to be successful. The new hybrids are popular enough & save enough gas that people are willing to buy them for a lot more money.

Consumer Reports conducted research last year on the economics of hybrid cars (now that they've been around for a few years); what they found, across the board for ALL hybrid models on the market, is that the savings in gas DOES NOT equal the greater cost of the vehicle itself.

i didn't say the savings were equal to the cost.  i said consumers think they're worth the extra cost. it's two different things

and im' sorry,but most people aren't going to buy a car that goes 60 miles then has to be recharged. even if they usually only drive to work. people want to be able to drive to see aunt ruth 200 miles away every month or visit friends 2 hours away.

and where, pray tell, are you going to plug your car in during your lunch hour? there's a whole infrastructure that needs to be installed for this electric car that people don't think about.

I think we can change the infastructure of cars and fuel faster than we can change the infastructure of the power grid.  I also think the recharge time on an electric car is just too damned annoying.  I would prefer an agricultural solution.  thats y i asked about ethanol. 

I don't know much about ethanol, but I don't like farming.  Especially if it mean doing more of it.  But that's a whole other debate.

And you're right, we can change cars faster than the power grid.  But I don't see any reason not to offer electric cars.  It would help us not rely on oil so much.  And like i mentioned before, even though there would be a boost in the use of coal, there would still be a decrease in overall emissions. 

A fully electric car probably isn't right for you if you don't want to have to wait an hour at a station (or more likely at some where nearby the station, like a restaurant) but I don't think that's grounds to call it a wrong step.

you don't like farming? this is a new one on me. can you explain? maybe in another post? i'm honestly curious,because i've never heard of anyone against more farming.
-ethanol is not a solution. we can't farm enough land to produce enough ethanol.

you keep saying 'why not offer electic cars?'   you can offer electric cars! barbra streisand and woody harrelson & the rest can have custom electric cars built for them right now if they'd like one.  the real answer is not enough people are demanding them.

if enough people want electric cars, there will be electric cars.  [counting the 'waiting list' for a limited initial release of a car is hardly proof there's enough demand]
    this is why free market economics works so much better than socialism, et al.  car companies will make electric cars when people are willing to buy them.  the gas stations/parking garages/parking meters will install "rent a plugs" to get a leg up on their competition if (when) electric cars come along. 
  there's absolutely no reason for the gov't to get involved in this, imo.


you keep going on about emissions. i assume you're in the al gore camp that cars are causing global warming AND that global warming is bad for the environment?
the #1 cause of greenhouse emmisions is cows farting. yes, that's right. guess we need electric cows.
  i'd look into the new research which suggests a 1500 year global temperature cycle which we can't do a thing about.

[Variety of Cells]

People don't know that they want electric cars.  People don't always demand what's on the market.  People didn't demand the roomba, but it exists, and people buy it because it's advertised.  I never knew I wanted a nintendo wii until I saw advertisement for it.  People didn't even demand a medication that reduced fevers.  But once it was found that aspirin lowered fevers, suddenly fevers became a bad thing and aspirin sold like hot cakes.  Necessity is not always the mother of invention.  I agree that if enough people were aware of electric cars, there would be electric cars.  But just because people are not familiar with them does not mean they wouldn't want one.

And the free market is not the only influence on whether electric cars get made.  The oil companies have a huge input.  They were responsible for withdrawing legislation in CA that forced auto companies to have a certain amount of emission free vehicles (a large part of why electric cars exist in the first place).  It's not like it was some huge conspiracy.  It was against their interest, so they payed for the fight against the law, and they won.  But the oil companies interest is not necessarily the interest of americans. 

Electric cars will not save the world.  There's still the issue of where to get the electricity.  But you are still stuck on old statistics.  The cars can get much more than 60 miles to a charge.  The last number i heard was 120, and I'm sure that's larger by now.  If electric cars existed then an infrastructure would be built for them.  Though it's not as if you have to create gas stations everywhere.  There's the possibility of having small charging plugs even at your local super market.

There was a period of time where I was convinced global warming was just another cycle the earth was going through.  But now, I don't really care.  Do you like the smell of gasoline?  Do you like having to rely on a limited resource for power?  Wouldn't it be nice to be able to drive down the freeway with your top down and not have to smell gasoline?  You could actually breath in the fresh air?  I won't disagree that there might be bigger and more pressing issues than electric cars, because I just don't know.  But I would love to have an electric car.

Now, since you asked, I'll give my little (EDIT: Insanely huge) rant about farming.  Though I'll put it in a spoiler, because otherwise it might spoil this discussion and veer it waayyyy off topic.  Considering that the Ishmael topic I started in the books category has a whopping 27 views, I'm expecting no sympathy on this opinion.

To agree with what I am about to say requires a pretty different view of how the world works than most partakers in this society currently have.  To get that view of the world would take quite a lot of explanation and questioning.  I'm not about to list that all here, unless some one actually finds this interesting and starts debating me on it.  Then, as you have all probably realized by now, I will keep talking about it until I'm blue in the typing fingers.  So I will post this expecting that you will passionately disagree with me, as you probably should if you are a believer in our society.

Not all farming is bad.  There are things that can be considered farming that do no particular harm.  If you were to plant a few seeds in the ground, water them every now and then, and then pick up the fruits or vegetables when they are ready to eat, you aren't really hurting anything.  But that's not what our version of farming is.

Here's how we farm.  First, we start out by claiming that we own a piece of land, and then handing some one some money for it (who didn't actually own it.  They stole it from Native American's.  But they didn't own it either, they just used it.)  This gives the farmer the right to do whatever he wants with this piece of land.

Next, after claiming the rather large piece of land, we build a fence around it.  This prevents animals from coming in and eating the food.  Why?  Because we want it all to ourselves.  We block them out, forcing them to look somewhere else for something to eat.  And it's not as if the farmer is going to eat all that food.  No, he sells it to make money.  If an animal manages to get through the fence, it is chased away or shot.

Now that the fence is built, the land is killed.  Everything is ripped up.  Completely destroyed.  Plows tear up the soil, creating a wasteland where there was once a field that fed many many creatures.  Hurray!

Next comes the planting.  Seeds are sown in a segretory fashion.  This crop goes here, and if it dares mix with this other crop over there it'll be ripped out of the ground.  Now the field is completely devoid of diversity.  Everything is the same.

After some watering and back breaking work, the plants are starting to grow!  Yippie!  But what's this?  Our fence has missed some creatures.  Bugs are crawling all over our plants trying to eat them!  How dare they try and survive!  So let's coat the crops in poison so they all die.  There, that's much better.

Now all that's left is the harvest.  Making sure that as little food goes to anything else but the farmer. 


That's my view of what a farmer does.  I'm not saying anything that isn't true, it's just a different way of looking at it.  Now I'll try and anticipate some of your arguments.

Here's one.  'Well, the farmer was willing to put in all that work to make that food, so he deserves it.  It's his, and he has the right to protect it, even from other humans.'

We are the only species on the earth that thinks in that way.  We are the only creatures that will create more than we need just in case we need more later.  We are also the only creatures that kill animals that might potentially eat our food.  We destroy them.  We hoard food so they can't eat, and we hunt them so they don't even have the chance.  That's just not done in the animal kingdom.  Animals defend the food they have, but only what they are going to eat.  And they do not go out and kill other animals unless they are going to eat them.  These are general rules mind you, I'm sure there are specific exceptions.

Here's another logical argument that would come next.  'But we aren't animals, we are different.  We have the capacity to store food for the future.  It helps fight against hunger.'

Just because we can, doesn't me we should.  Humans lived for thousands and thousands of years without farming in this particular way, and got a long fine only hunting and gathering what food they needed.  (along with a little of the first type of farming.)

And another good argument would be; 'But farmers aren't just farming food for themselves.  They are farming to feed all of the starving people throughout the world.  That's where a good portion of their surplus goes to.'

This one is going to take a little explaining.  Here's an example.

Let's say you have a cage of 30 rats.  Every day you give them enough food for 30 rats.  What will happen?  Well, you'll have 30 rats.  More will be born, and some will die.  But the population will never go much above or below 30 rats.  Why?  Because there isn't enough food to feed any more, so the population hovers around that level.
Now, instead of feeding them a constant amount, what if you gave them enough food for 10 more rats each week?  So the first week you gave them enough for 10, then 20, then 30, then 40, and so on.  What happens?  In every lab test conducted, the population of rats keeps increasing.  It keeps increasing as long as the food does.  When it stops, then the population stops growing.  When it decreases, the population decreases.  This is true in every reproduction of the experiment.  And mind you, unless you suddenly only give 100 rats enough food for 50, does starvation occur.  The decreases and increases are gentle enough so that there's really no suffering, it just naturally works out.

Now to apply this to our world.  In a country that does not have enough food to support its population, a lot of times aid is given in the form of food.  We give them food, enough for some to survive.  But it's never really enough to make them comfortable, it's just what we can spare to help them out.  So some of those people survive, have kids, and the population grows.  Well now there's more people to feed.  So what should we do?  Well we help them out some more and give them even more food.  Some more people survive, still unable to generate food for themselves.  But they have kids, and the population grows.  Well now their population is even bigger than before, so what should we do now?  Increase the amount of food we give them, of course.  And on and on this goes, and we keep wondering why their population keeps growing.

Farming is not the solution to hunger, it just perpetuates it.  As long as we keep giving them more food than the last year then their population is going to keep growing.  I am not suggesting that we stop giving them food, a lot of people would starve.  But I am suggesting that we stop giving them more food than the year before, and start helping them make their own.


So there it is, a summary of my views on farming.  If you managed read all of it, I congratulate you.  If you hate me for it, well then that's just fine. 

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

he #1 cause of greenhouse emmisions is cows farting. yes, that's right. guess we need electric cows.

For the love of god please site some first hand info.  Thats is the strangest claim i have seen in years.  So please site first hand info of that. 


As to your farming post, (yes i read all of it), i think you have a pretty primevil view of farming.  I am assuming you live in a city.  I am not disagreeing with all you said on the matter but i dont think you understand how modern farming really works, which is in stark contrast to your posts about electric cars. 

As to the less food will help the populartion adjust i have only two words to say: Jonathon swift a modest proposal.

[BEERxTaco]

I enjoyed this quite a bit...

[MrTorso]

I enjoyed this quite a bit...

That was pretty good!

[Variety of Cells]

he #1 cause of greenhouse emmisions is cows farting. yes, that's right. guess we need electric cows.

For the love of god please site some first hand info.  Thats is the strangest claim i have seen in years.  So please site first hand info of that. 


As to your farming post, (yes i read all of it), i think you have a pretty primevil view of farming.  I am assuming you live in a city.  I am not disagreeing with all you said on the matter but i dont think you understand how modern farming really works, which is in stark contrast to your posts about electric cars. 

As to the less food will help the populartion adjust i have only two words to say: Jonathon swift a modest proposal.

That is one of my favorite proposals, But it's the King of sarcasm, and I'm being quite serious.  And I agree, my farming post does disagree with my electric car post. 

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

I thought i was the king of sarcasm