Film5

1. Title, director and release year? “Blood and Oil” was released in 2008 and directed by Jeremy Earp.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument is that we are heavily dependent on oil. We use oil in our everyday lives beyond using it for transportation. We use oil to fertilize our food, for construction, to store our personal items in, etc. Plastic jars and storage containers are made from petroleum. We use so many oil based products that we are unaware of. With oil discovery at an all time low and having already hit peak discovery, we need to come up with an alternative fuel to oil. 3. Who are the key social actors and stakeholders in the film? The main stakeholders in the film are people that see U.S dependence on oil as a problem for future generations. These stakeholders hope to educate the viewer about the United States dependence on oil throughout history.

4. What does the film convey about the matrix of factors that contribute to our dependence on oil? Our dependence on oil has resulted in the United States supporting government officials in the Middle East that would provide the United States oil at the cheapest price possible. In return for receiving oil at a good price, the United States protects these leaders. Since WWII, we have relied so much on oil. During Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration so many planes were produced during WWII which helped us defeat the Germans. The major advantage we had was the availability of petroleum to fuel those planes and weapons, where it was harder for the Germans and the Japanese to supply oil to their planes. The cost of producing and flying so many planes resulted in the United States using 1/3 of its oil reserves. From that point forward, we have had the most powerful military in the world. We continue to desire to expand our economy, thus the United States craves oil. 5. What does the film convey about the matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil? One of the problems caused by our dependence on oil is that we now have soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia. We have built up the infrastructure in Saudi Arabia so the oil supply, out of the Middle East to the United States, is not affected. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we went to help the Saudis defend their homeland. Instead of leaving the area after we pushed the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, we decided to stay In Saudi Arabia. This has led to anti-United States sentiment. Leaving our soldiers in Saudi Arabia angered Osama Bin Laden. If we had withdrawn our troops, maybe Osama Bin Laden would not have attacked the US embassies or have flown planes into the World Trade Centers in New York. 6. What does the film convey about the matrix of affects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil? When President George W. Bush came into office he said, “the country is addicted to oil.” Bush however, did not expect planes to be flown into the Twin Towers. This was a shock to the United States and pushed the United States into going to war. After fighting in Afghanistan, the United States entered Iraq. We seized many oil wells and began shipping the oil back to the states. Having a cheap source of energy distracted the United States from coming up with an alternative fuel source.

7. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I found most compelling that most of the presidential doctrines were made to protect our oil. I found that the Carter Doctrine played a part in our current war. The Carter Doctrine stated, “The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.” Though the Soviet Union has been dissolved, the United States saw Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as a threat to “the free movement of Middle East oil.” Another part I found compelling was that President Bush wanted to drill at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) reservation because energy was top on his agenda. I thought something other than energy would be on top of a presidential agenda. If the ANWR was tapped, the ANWR could produce 876,000 barrels of oil a day which would drive the price of oil and our importation of oil down. This would hurt our ecosystem and keep our dependence on oil high. Also, I found compelling that oil is a weapon. Leaders in the Middle East can use oil as a weapon as a method to exert power. It can cripple the United States because we are so dependent on oil. We prefer if there is maximum extraction.

8. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? The film made it look as though a US President’s only motive is to protect oil. I believe Presidents also want to help change society for the better. Another statement I was not compelled about was that Osama Bin Laden wants to dominate the world through oil. I think he is just angered by the United States power it exerts on the world and that it is unlikely he can control the world’s oil reserves unless he conquers each county in the world.

9. What kinds of corrective action are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. The film did not reference any specific corrective action. I think some corrective actions that might be effective are having a government mandate for an alternative energy source. The longer we go without a government mandate the chances of creating an alternative energy source looks grim. Maybe we can stop invading countries and extracting oil. We can try to use our words and negotiate for peace and an alternative energy source. We spend so much money on our armed forces at war maybe we can spend a percent of that budget on alternative energy.

10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references, explaining what your learned from each reference.) I wanted to learn more about the Eisenhower Doctrine the Nixon Doctrine. One point that the Eisenhower doctrine state is, “The Middle East, which has always been coveted by Russia, would today be prized more than ever by International Communism.” He wrote about the Middle East as going to be an important asset to the United States. Today it is like a gem to our society. I also did some research on the Nixon Doctrine. That too was very interesting. “Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments.” This helped us justify defending Saudi Arabia. [|Dwight D. Eisenhower: Special Message to the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East.] [|http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=11007&st=&st1=#ixzz1GVhfOqkB]

President Bush’s energy program was proposed to double the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to 1.5 billion barrels, over the next 20 years. President Bush Also said he wanted to be independent on oil and said that the United States is addictive to it. It makes no scene why he was not pushing more towards alternative fuels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27sat3.html?th&emc=th