I recently watched a documentary entitled Addicted To Oil, Thomas L. Friedman Reporting (2006). Admittedly, I am not familiar with Thomas Friedman, but some of the blatant omissions (or challenges) in the supposedly informative film left me wondering about his intentions, and his credibility.

The first issue was with a scene in which Friedman interviews a high level GM executive on the EV-1 project. For those unfamiliar with the story of the EV-1 (stood for Electronic Vehicle 1): GM manufactured a few hundred purely electronic vehicles in the 90's for the state of California. This was a sort of trial period, and even certain celebrities got on board (Mel Gibson for one, who complained about the overly bureaucratic and complex process to purchase an EV-1). The state built a basic infrastructure, with plug-in charging stations at select BART stations. The sales of the vehicle were a success. There was a waiting period as the direct result of too many orders too soon.

Shortly after the release of the vehicles the state of California passed a stringent bill that set new, seemingly unattainable manufacturing standards for GM with regard to emissions and the amount of vehicles to be built. The company decided to pull the plug on the EV-1, despite glowing reviews from owners of the cutting edge cars. Not only did the company pull the plug, but they took back ALL of the working vehicles by refusing to re-up all current leases.

The owners of the EV-1 were so dedicated to the little cars that they protested outside of a lot in which the vehicles were being kept under lock and key for over a YEAR. They watched as the cars were trucked out, and later destroyed by a car crusher deep in the desert.

Well, this executive told Thomas Friedman that the cars were a "commercial flop" and that "nobody wanted to buy them." This was far from the truth, and yet Friedman, a supposedly accredited journalist, merely accepted the answers in stride and the film continued. Now, I'm not an accomplished investigative journalist (not yet) but even I know this guy was full of puck (for lack of better access to my preferred word). Why no challenge from Friedman?

To add insult to injury, the film went on to discuss the values of Hydrogen! We all know of the obvious benefits, but what about the fact that the cost will make gas seem cheap?  What about the cost of building the infrastructure?  Of course, there was little surprise when the topic of energy consumption with regard to the manufacturing of Hydrogen fuels was mostly ignored.  That is just skimming the top of the hydrogen issue - more on that at a later date.

This is the sort of thing that can turn a "documentary" into propaganda for a large corporation. Now, I am no conspiracy theorist, but the standards seem to have dropped to the point where people no longer question anything. Have we truly become sheeples, as Mike Savage (he's terrific) would call most of us?

Lets get in the big game again. No more idle speech about "change". Lets get into action.