Gateway II Reflection

Making the various Gateway II projects this term made me really think about all the work that gets put into multimedia pieces—from news stories, to advertisements, to block buster movies. Getting the people, composing the shot in the frame, overseeing lighting and sound and visual, taking different shots and then editing it all together…that can take a lot of foresight and work.

The largest challenge for my audio story was finding a person who was more than an expert on my topic but also involved in the issue in some way, someone who had a story to tell. I would have liked to have a little more guidance on tracking potential interviewees down, but I managed, with a nudge in the right direction from my GTF, to put my proactive shoes on, straighten my shoulders and get on with it. I think the audio project was the most difficult because it was the first one. If I could have done something differently, I would have recorded the interview in a better space. At the time, an alcove in Lillis was the best place I could find, since the library was unfortunately closed, so the sound quality wasn’t as stellar as it could have been.

I liked the photo and slideshow projects. I took a photography class in high school, so I know the basics to composition, though not much about using digital cameras and all their settings. If I could have done something differently, I would have investigated more about shutter speed with my camera; it was difficult to get any inside pictures that weren’t too blurry.

I liked using Final Cut Pro. I’ve used Window Movie Maker, which is super simple in comparison, but at least I felt like I semi knew what I was doing. A little more instruction on fancier text tricks or video effects would have been interesting.

I also liked the video project, though it was a little difficult to find the right time to film, since it was right around Thanksgiving. I made a dance video with my friend, and we couldn’t find anywhere to film—all the dance studio classrooms were full, and you have to send in a request for a room at the rec center and get permission to film there in advance. In the end, we ended up filming in a garage underneath our apartment building. I liked the effect of placing a dancer doing more ballet moves in such a different environment, but the lighting wasn’t as good as I would have liked, and you get a glimpse of a car in one shot.

Overall I liked the assignments, though they were all a little stress inducing at the time of creation.

Video Project

Laura Johnson has been dancing since she was little, and she still loves it. There are many aspects that interest her: the grace from ballet, the rhythm from tap, the exercise, and the performance itself. Sometimes colleges limit who can participate in their dance programs, but the University of Oregon allows all students–no matter their major–to dance.

This video was created as a project for a journalism class at the University of Oregon.

Music: “Answers” By Paul Andrews. Available on freeplaymusic.com

Make My Case Essay

High Speed Rail in America

The $8 billion federal stimulus meant to rejuvenate American high speed rail won’t go very far by itself.

In April 2009, President Obama announced a vision for high speed rail in America, involving improvements to eleven designated high speed rail corridors. “This is something that can be done, has been done, and can provide us enormous benefits,” the President said. The Strategic Plan to improve high speed rail in America, drafted by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, involves $8 billion in stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to be split between deserving states. It’s the largest amount of money to be directed toward rail in many years.

However, though the federal government has provided means to boost high speed intercity rail, the competition for grants is fierce, and more money and time are needed before real change will be seen.

American railroads lag behind the rest of the train systems of the world. Japan opened its Tokaido Shinkansen high-speed rail line between Tokyo and Osaka in 1964, and France’s popular TGV has been running since 1981. These trains regularly reach speeds over 200 mph, and there are separate freight and passenger lines. Some of these innovations were caused by the devastation of World War II; nineteenth century rights of way were destroyed, so countries had to rebuild and improve old systems. In contrast, America focused on building highways and airports after 1945. As a result, rail transportation has suffered, and we are now approaching a future in which larger populations and environmental concerns must be taken into account.

On behalf of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigated how the stimulus money could be fairly distributed and used effectively to improve rail systems. The October 14 GAO examination found that the stimulus is only the first step toward high speed rail in America. Two things are needed in order for real change to be made. The first is realistic analyses of cost, ridership, and expected outcomes of policies. The second is more money and commitment to the vision.

Realistic studies and analyses are important for transportation planning, especially with expensive projects like high speed passenger rail. However, in the fierce competition for stimulus funds, some states conducted rushed studies in order to appear prepared. For example, an Intercity Passenger Rail Study was conducted in June 2009 for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The study concluded that moving Eugene-to-Portland passenger trains from the current Union Pacific line (UP) to the old Oregon Electric line (OE) is a reasonable plan because of calculated population and freight train increases by 2030. When the study was posted on ODOT’s website and reported in newspapers, concerned citizens and rail buffs protested. Realistic right-of-way improvement costs were not taken into consideration, and the study needlessly compared a single OE improved line with a double UP improved line. Citizens felt that portions of each proposed route should be examined in order to create one master route. An improved transportation system must be based on realistic studies.

Commitment and further funds are also necessary to improve high speed rail. The $8 billion federal stimulus is only a fraction of the needed estimated cost. According to the GAO testimony, the San Francisco to Los Angeles portion of the California corridor is estimated to cost about $33 billion. A conductor of Amtrak trains for over thirty years, David Straton notes that if all the money went to one place, like California, some high speed trains running part of the distance would be the result. “But as with all of the stimulus money being spread out among a handful of entities,” he says, “I don’t think it’s going to go very far.”

There are some who argue against railway innovations. According to an NPR interview with Eric Morris, a researcher at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA, the costs of high speed rail outweigh the benefits. Though California is aiming for 230 mph electric trains, much of the rest of the country is seeking modest improvements for old tracks, signaling, and separated rights-of-way. These smaller upgrades, if funded and completed, will boost top train speeds to around 110 mph. “This would be a big improvement over the speeds currently on Amtrak service,” Morris says. “But at the same time, it probably wouldn’t be game-changing as far as competing with auto and air travel.”

The stimulus money may not result in a transportation revolution, but that doesn’t mean that the costs of high speed rail outweigh the benefits. On the contrary, the advantages are numerous and will grow with rail system improvements. The stimulus will create jobs in construction, operation, and domestic production of rail, locomotives, and passenger cars. Additionally, clean diesel and electric powered trains reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Trains are safe, connect cities, and offer nostalgia for the past while at the same time look toward the future.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a press release on October 6, announcing that due to the overwhelming response of applications, merit-based grant-winners will be announced in the winter. The state of Oregon has applied for a total of $2.4 billion of the stimulus money in order to upgrade bridges, yards, Portland’s Union Station, and Eugene Station. Track improvements and new connections will boost efficiency; however, with such little money to go around, it is unlikely that Oregon will receive much of the federal funds. Other states have larger populations and better plans, including California. However, the excitement over high speed rail is not likely to die down anytime soon, especially with the release of the FRA’s Preliminary National Rail Plan. Furthermore, the Obama administration requested $1 billion for high speed rail in 2010, yet the House of Representative proposed a $4 billion appropriation in next year’s budget. If the Senate reconciles its more modest appropriation bill, the future looks bright. With more money, American passenger rail improvements will increase, and as the movement picks up speed, so will the trains.

Final Ten Links and Annotations

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0gpaVwcKyI&feature=player_embedded

This source is a video in which President Obama reveals his vision for high-speed rail in America as funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). It is important to my case because it announces Obama’s plan and is the starting point for the following high-speed rail debate, studies, and state-race for funds; it is also inspiring and persuasive.  This source is institutional because it was created for the government and features the President announcing his plan in a positive light. Jesse Lee, the White House Online Programs Director under the Barack Obama Administration, posted this video on YouTube and on the WhiteHouse.gov website blog on April 16, 2009. The President gives a short history of high-speed rail around the world, lists reasons why America can and should have such a system, refutes counter arguments, and announces that the $8 billion of stimulus funds will be distributed to states on a merit basis. This source is useful because it offers the President’s official stance on the issue and reveals why the money is now available. President Obama’s announcement was aimed not only at the people present in the room during his speech, but also toward the American public.

2. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf

This source outlines why improvements to rail are necessary, what types of improvements will be implemented, and how projects will be selected to receive funding. It is important to my case because this official document announces the plan and provides guidelines to states. This document is the High-Speed Strategic Plan written by Ray LaHood, U.S. Secretary of Transportation and submitted because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provides an $8 billion down payment toward high-speed rail as well as a five-year $1 billion/year grant program. While the original audience was Congress, this institutional source was made public in April 2009 and is posted on the Federal Railway Administration website for the public to see. It includes prerequisites for states, selection criteria, and an implementation schedule. This source cites data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2007 “Transportation Energy Data Book,” a 2006 study by the Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology, a GAO report on high-speed rail from March 2009, statistics from the International Union of Railways (UIC), Amtrak data from FY 2008, President Obama’s March 20, 2009 memorandum “Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds,” Public Law 110-161, Public Law 110-432, Public Law 111-5, and the United States Constitution.

3. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10162t.pdf

This source examines how the $8 billion high-speed rail stimulus from the ARRA can be spread to states fairly and used effectively to implement goals for an improved American rail system. This source is important because it helps translate the steps and aims of the Strategic Plan and the ARRA. Entitled “High-Speed Passenger Rail: Developing Viable High Speed Rail Projects under the Recovery Act and Beyond,” this institutional document is a testimony by Susan A. Fleming, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO is an independent agency that works for Congress, investigating how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. On October 14, 2009, the testimony was delivered to the House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. The original audience was thus a discrete group of government officials. This source cites previous GAO studies about high-speed rail: GAO-09-317, GAO-09-786T, GAO-05-325SP, GAO-09-282, and GAO-04-240. Fleming says that the $8 billion in the ARRA is only the first step toward American high-speed rail. In order for real changes to be seen, realistic analyses of cost, ridership, and other factors must be taken into account, policies and expected outcomes must be clear, and leadership, commitment, and cooperation are required from the federal and state governments as well as others.

4. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/Passenger/Draft_ODOT_Intercity_Passenger_Rail_Study.pdf

This source examines current and future conditions, the Union Pacific and the Oregon Electric rail lines, and various routes of passenger rail service between Portland and Eugene. It is an important source for my case because it is evidence that the state of Oregon is seeking to improve its passenger rail and has conducted studies. This document is a draft of an Intercity Passenger Rail Study made for the Oregon Department of Transportation and conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff in June 2009; the final version of this study was submitted with Oregon’s pre-application for ARRA funds in July 2009. It investigates scenarios involving improvements to the UP rail line and the OE line, and concludes that moving intercity passenger rail from UP to OE is feasible because of high-density freight dominance on UP and lower costs and higher ridership on an improved OE line. It also provides the history of Oregon’s rail lines and predicts population and transportation numbers in 2030. This institutional source is very useful because it clearly shows Oregon’s rail studies, ideas, and plans. This document cites the 2007 Oregon Transportation Plan, a study from the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis entitled Forecasts of Oregon’s County Population and Components of Change, 2000 to 2040, performance reports for Amtrak Cascades from Amtrak.com, ODOT’s 2001 Oregon Rail Plan, and the Federal “Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.”

5. http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=125011583685182500

This source helps explain the ODOT’s June 2009 Intercity Passenger Rail Study draft to a larger audience by going through the study, summarizing drawn-out explanations in plainer terms, and looking at the conclusions of the study from a more local level. It is important because the draft of the study was only posted on the ODOT website and included in Oregon’s pre-application for stimulus funds; the original audience was small. This journalistic source broadens the audience by reporting on the study. The article, entitled “Could Amtrak be coming through Lake Oswego?”, is a piece by Rebecca Mayer, originally run in The Lake Oswego Review and then also run in The Portland Tribune. Both papers are owned by local company Pamplin Media Group. Posted on August 13, 2009, the article reports on ODOT’s June 2009 Intercity Passenger Rail Study draft and the proposal to turn passenger railcars from the UP line to the OE line. The article cites the ARRA, ODOT’s June 2009 Intercity Passenger Rail Study draft, Oregon’s pre-application for high-speed rail stimulus funding, and Betsy Imholt who works for ODOT Rail Division. Interesting comments from readers follow the article, most of them disagreeing with the conclusions of the study.

6. http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2009/08/high_speed_rail_1.html

This citizen source is a digital conversation discussing the pros and cons of moving intercity passenger rail from the UP to the OC line, as concluded in ODOT’s June 2009 Intercity Passenger Rail Study draft. This source is important to my case because it offers a local and community perspective and opinion about high-speed rail and state plans; it provides the reaction to ODOT’s study from knowledgeable train enthusiasts. The conversation occurred between the 19^th and 24^th of August 2009; it is located on a website run by Portland Transit, a non-profit corporation whose mission is to encourage conversation and share information about transportation in the Portland-Vancouver area. The conversation was started by Chris Smith, founder of Portland Transit; he posted a link to the Portland Tribune article by Rebecca Mayer about ODOT’s June 2009 Intercity Passenger Rail Study draft. Most citizens who contributed to the conversation thought that ODOT’s conclusions was weak: the costs of the OE line were not fully considered, the study was hastily done, and the portions of each proposed route should be examined to create one master route. Some citizens who contributed to the conversation are part of the Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates (AORTA), a non-profit advocacy group that seeks to educate the public about transportation.

7. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112526799

This source offers a differing opinion on the benefits of high-speed rail and the Obama administration’s $8 billion jump-start program, concluding that benefits don’t outweigh the costs. This is important to my inquiry because it presents a counter argument to my case. This source is an interview entitled “High-Speed Rail Skeptic Outlines Position” and was aired by National Public Radio on September 3, 2009. Though a non-profit institution, NPR also distributes news and interviews experts, as in this source, so its aims are journalistic in nature. NPR receives funding from the fees it charges member stations, pledges and donations, corporate underwriting, revenue from the sale of merchandise, and small funding from the federal government. The host of this interview, Robert Siegel, has worked in radio since 1964 and for NPR since 1987. The interviewee, Eric Morris, is a doctoral candidate in urban planning and a researcher at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA; he is also a guest writer for the New York Times’ “Freakonomics” blog. This piece was intended for listeners around the country who were interested in high-speed rail; the interview was aired during the week that NPR’s program “All Things Considered” did a special series focusing on the $8 billion rail stimulus.

8. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/recovery/OreDOT_Requests.pdf

This source lists what rail projects the state of Oregon is looking to improve with money from the $8 billion high-speed rail stimulus and the estimated costs of planning and construction. It is important to my case because it shows that improvements are needed and that Oregon is seeking money: States are taking Obama’s rail stimulus seriously. This document is the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Project List form detailing Track 1 and Track 2 projects and estimated costs for the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor: Oregon Segment. It was submitted by the Oregon Department of Transportation to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration on October 2, 2009, and is a revision both of Oregon’s pre-application for ARRA funds, which was submitted in July 2009, and the revised Track 1 application, which was submitted in August 2009. In this document ODOT applies for $115.2 million for Track 1 individual environmental studies and design projects, and $2.3 billion for Track 2 construction costs. The document aims itself toward employees in the Federal Railroad Administration who will review it and judge whether funds should be given to Oregon; however, the document is also posted online for rail enthusiasts and the public to view.

9. Interview with David Straton

This citizen source is an exclusive interview I conducted on October 24, 2009 with David Straton. It is important to my inquiry because Straton is experienced with the subject and also offers a local perspective. Straton graduated from the University of Oregon in the late sixties and has worked as an Amtrak conductor for over thirty years; he currently conducts Amtrak Cascade trains between Eugene and Portland. He is knowledgeable about American rail history, how Amtrak works, the specifics of rail protocols and safety, as well as problems with our current rail system. In addition to working as a conductor, he has worked as a lawyer for the regional conductor’s union for ten years. In this interview, Straton cites the National Labor Relations Act, the Railway Labor Act, the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 that created Amtrak, ODOT’s June 2009 Intercity Passenger Rail Study, California’s plans for high-speed rail, Eugene depot construction plans, FRA safety regulations, as well as behind the scenes technicalities and history of trains and railroads. From his experience with trains, Straton knows the improvements that need to be made in order for high-speed rail to flourish in America. Ultimately he feels that more money from the government is needed for improvements, though all of it helps.

10. http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/press-releases/331

This source announces that state grants for the $8 billion high-speed rail stimulus will be awarded in the winter because of the large number of state applications; it is a later date than first expected. This source is important to my topic because it gives a preliminary deadline for the money to be split up between states and lets the public know that state applications are being considered and the process is still moving. This source is both institutional and journalistic in that it’s a press release for the government; it was posted on the Federal Railroad Administration website on Tuesday October 6, 2009. FRA Administrator at the Department of Transportation since April 2009, Joseph C. Szabo made the announcement in the press release. He stated that 34 states sent in 259 applications, which totaled $57 billion. The overwhelming response requires that more time be spent in evaluating each proposal and choosing the recipients of the $8 billion federal stimulus based on merit, planning, and shovel-ready projects. As a press release, this source was written for editors to read and publish in their newspapers, like the Columbus Government Examiner of Ohio did.

Ten Links and Annotations

Question: Should more money be made available for high-speed rail improvements?

Introduction to Issue: Other high-speed rail systems around the world leave the United States in the dust. While countries like France and Japan have built heavily-used, very fast railroads, America has invested in highways and airplanes. However, environmental and population concerns view rail as a possible solution. In February 2009 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was put into play by President Obama and Congress, offering economic stimulus help to the country. The act allows $8 billion to be given to states based on merit in order to rejuvenate and improve rail systems. Competition is fierce and rail is expensive.

Ten Links and Annotations:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0gpaVwcKyI&feature=player_embedded

Jesse Lee, the White House Online Programs Director under the Barack Obama Administration, posted this video on YouTube and on the WhiteHouse.gov website blog on April 16, 2009. In this institutional source, President Obama releases his vision for high-speed rail in America as funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He gives a short history of high-speed rail around the world, lists reasons why America can and should have such a system, refutes counter arguments, and announces that the $8 billion of stimulus funds will be distributed to states on a merit basis. This source is useful because it offers the President’s official stance on the issue and reveals why the money is now available.

2. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf

This document is the High-Speed Strategic Plan written by Ray LaHood, U.S. Secretary of Transportation and submitted because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provides an $8 billion down payment toward high-speed rail implementations as well as a five-year $1 billion/year grant program. This institutional source was made public in April 2009 and is posted on the Federal Railway Administration website. This plan outlines why improvements to rail are necessary and how projects will be selected to receive funding. Though written formally, this source is important because it sets the terms for states to follow.

3. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10162t.pdf

This document is a testimony about high-speed rail made by Susan A. Fleming, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues of the United States Government Accountability Office. It was delivered to the House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials on October 14, 2009. Fleming says that the $8 billion in the ARRA is only the first step toward American high-speed rail. In order for real changes to be seen, realistic analyses of cost, ridership, and other factors must be taken into account, policies and expected outcomes must be clear, and leadership, commitment, and cooperation are required from the federal and state governments as well as others.

4. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/Passenger/Draft_ODOT_Intercity_Passenger_Rail_Study.pdf

This document is a draft of an Intercity Passenger Rail Study made by the Oregon Department of Transportation in June 2009. It investigates scenarios involving improvements to the Union Pacific rail line and the Oregon Electric line, and concludes that moving intercity passenger rail from UP to OE is feasible because of high-density freight dominance on UP. It also provides the history of Oregon’s rail lines and predicts population and transportation numbers in 2030. This institutional source is very useful because it clearly shows Oregon’s rail studies, ideas, and plans. The final draft of this study was submitted with Oregon’s pre-application for ARRA funds in July 2009.

5. http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story_2nd.php?story_id=125011583685182500

This journalistic source, entitled “Could Amtrak be coming through Lake Oswego?”, is an article by Rebecca Mayer, originally run in The Lake Oswego Review and then also run in the Portland Tribune. Both papers are owned by local company Pamplin Media Group. Posted on August 13, 2009, the article reports on ODOT’s draft of its June 2009 Intercity Passenger Rail Study and the proposal to turn passenger railcars from the UP line to the OE line. This source helps explain the ODOT’s plan to a broader audience and offers a look at the topic from a more local level. Interesting comments from readers follow the article.

6. http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2009/08/high_speed_rail_1.html

This citizen source is a conversation about access and mobility in the Portland area. The site is run by Portland Transit, a non-profit corporation whose mission is to encourage conversation and share information about transportation. The conversation was started by Chris Smith, citizen activist and founder of Portland Transit; he posted a link to an article from the Portland Tribune by Rebecca Mayer about ODOT’s June draft of their Intercity Passenger Rail Study. Most citizens who contributed to the conversation didn’t agree with ODOT’s conclusion that making the OE rail line the main passenger line in Oregon was the right thing to do. This offers a local and community perspective and opinion about high-speed rail and state plans.

7. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/ARRA/PreapplicationPNWRC_OR.pdf

This document is the state of Oregon’s pre-application for ARRA funds and is an institutional source. It is filled out by Kelly Taylor, a Rail Division Administrator for the Oregon Department of Transportation, and submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration in July 2009. The pre-application offers current and hypothetical statistics about the Oregon Segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor. The document also lists what specific rail projects could be completed in order to improve the rail system, and offers preliminary costs ($2,129,617,277). This source reveals that Oregon wants to improve its rail and is interested in Obama’s plan.

8. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/ARRA/PNWRCrelease.pdf

This document is a press release from July 16, 2009 by Anna Richter Taylor, press secretary for Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski. The source is institutional in that it deals with government, but is also journalistic in that a press release is public relations. The release hypes Kulongoski’s excitement about the $2.1 billion dollars that the Oregon Department of Transportation pre-applied for from the ARRA stimulus. A list of rail improvement goals from the pre-application is provided in the press release in language that is a little less formal than the official pre-application. The release was picked up by newspapers, like The Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/07/oregon_seeks_21_billion_for_hi.html).

9. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/recovery/ARRApassengerrailTrack1.pdf

This document is the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Track 1 form detailing projects and estimated costs for the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor: Oregon Segment. It was submitted by the Oregon Department of Transportation to the federal government on August 24, 2009. ODOT applied for $113.8 million for Track 1 individual projects. Most money will go toward an Environmental Impact Study, which will carry out preliminary engineering and involve the public on making way for OE rail improvements.

10. http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/press-releases/331

This source is both institutional and journalistic in that it’s a press release for the government. On Tuesday October 6, 2009, Administrator Joseph C. Szabo of the Federal Railroad Administration said that states sent in a total of $57 billion in applications for the $8 billion stimulus fund. The overwhelming response requires that more time be spent in evaluating each proposal and choosing the recipients of the federal stimulus based on merit and planning. Recipients of the stimulus funds will be announced in the winter. This source gives a preliminary deadline for the money to be split up and lets everyone know that things are still moving.

Visual Analysis

Visual Analysis: High-Speed Rail

Assignment: Post to your blog two representative images or videos. Write a 150-word summary/context analysis of each. Look for images or videos that have helped or are shaping the debate about your issue.

1.

This photo was created by Adam Levey, a professional photographer who owns a studio photography company in Portland, Oregon. It was used by Wired Magazine in an article by David Wolman, entitled, “Hey America, Make With the !@~$ High-Speed Rail Already,” published on June 26, 2007. The image of a train tied to its tracks is ironic because trains are supposed to run on their tracks. This photo promotes the articles’ topic that America is behind the times when it comes to high-speed rail. Compared to the rest of the world, America’s train systems are essentially just as good as tying a train to its tracks; that is, our “high-speed” rail system is worthless. Furthermore, the solution to the problem appears simple to the image-viewer: merely untie the train and extend the track. Perhaps the solution to our country’s struggle with high-speed rail will be just as simple.

2.

Jesse Lee, the White House Online Programs Director under the Barack Obama Administration, posted this video on YouTube and on the WhiteHouse.gov website blog on April 16, 2009. In the video, President Obama releases his vision for high-speed rail in America as funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The audience and press are not included in the frame; the camera begins by showing the stage and then zooming in on the President and Vice President for the rest of the speech. The video paints Obama and his vision for high-speed rail in a good light; the simplicity of the speech and camera allows the audience to focus on Obama’s short history of high-speed rail around the world, reasons why America can and should have such a system, and refutations of counter arguments.

Critique of a Bad Story

Critique of a Bad Story: Mary Sue is Goo Goo for Johnny

Mary Sue is Goo Goo for Johnny is about a girl named Iris. She loves the Goo Goo dolls and has a fangirl crush on Johnny Reznick, the lead singer. One night, after her own band Daisyflower finishes a show, Iris runs into Johnny, who apparently was at the concert. He says he loves her name, wants to write a song about her, and asks her out on the spot (his devotion to his own wife apparently disappearing), and Johnny and Iris go on a dinner date.

This story is a bad story for a number of reasons.

There are basics mistakes. Poor grammar and spelling are used throughout the story. The placement of periods, commas, and quotes in dialogue are often used wrongly.  There is also a rampant use of exclamation points and insertions of text abbreviations (“BTW”, “LMAO”), which make the writing sound young, informal, and silly. Furthermore, there are some big words, like “phantasmagorical,” that stick out from the juvenile writing like a sore thumb. They interrupt the flow of the writing and the story because hardly anyone uses words like that in everyday speech. The voice of Iris especially runs contrary to insertions of large words like “phantasmagorical;” an airhead like her has probably never heard the word before in her life.

Beyond these errors, the writing, story, and characters are flat, juvenile, and not true to reality. Iris begins by listing her appearance, her hometown, and her love of the Goo Goo Dolls. These are bare facts that don’t reveal anything about her personality or thoughts; such a description makes her character flat, uninteresting, and sound like a silly teenager. The voice of the narrator throughout the rest of the piece emphasizes this first impression. Furthermore, there is little description or imagery; the audience has a difficult time connecting with the scene. Though Iris’ use of exclamation points reveal her surprise and excitement over meeting Johnny Reznick, her inner thoughts and feelings aren’t mentioned; she passively accepts the situation. The story sounds like the bare facts of a too-good-to-be-true fantasy that Iris gleefully retells. Iris is a “Mary Sue” in that she’s completely bland, yet amazing things happen to her.

The characters of Iris and Johnny are flat: If such a situation happened, if a fan really met the lead member of their favorite band, it would be incredibly unlikely if the (married) rock star would ask out a nobody out of the blue. In this story, Johnny acts exactly how Iris wishes—he has no substance, no inner feelings. There is no character depth. He is merely a handsome face with unexplained, immediate devotion to her.