The Mite

Connecting with an audience isn’t easy. With posters, it takes the right combination of words and visuals to make an effective message. For this, I decided to try and find a decent picture that related well to our topic of student debt. What I found was somewhat comical, but also had a deeper message: A graduation cap on a pile of money. I felt that it was a perfect representation of what education had become to so many people because of debt. One thing that I discovered that was interesting was this effect that I could do to the edges of the image: feathering. Apparently it softens and kind of blends the edges of the image, so it gives the image a softer contrast against the background versus a hard edge.

The type of font that I selected was called “Bank Gothic”, and I thought it would be a good font to use because the font triggers people to think about banks and then make the connection to money. Then, I decided that what I would do is take the font and angle it to give the illusion of motion in addition to just adding a dynamic element to the font. What I sought to do is make the font look like it was more interesting than just if it was straight up regular text. The reason for this is that I felt a normal text would be bland and uninteresting to show on a poster. By at least modifying the text so as to create angles, I felt that it would catch more attention. Also, by underlining “Worth the Cost?”, I felt that it would further reinforce the question in the minds of people seeing the poster.

For the Debt Bu$ters tagline, I thought that by just showing the name of the group and the URL for our webpage, it creates a very small amount of ambiguity that entices the viewer to think more about what it is that’s being offered in the poster. By having the reader ask questions, it generates more interest. Also, the fact that the words “Debt Bu$ters” are on separate levels gives a dynamic look to the poster as well.

I believe that the header for our “Debt Busters” page has qualities that are both good and bad. While some of my observations and opinions are made from a professional standpoint, I admit that many are also rooted simply in personal artistic preference. Still, my critique is intended to be professional above all else.

There were many aspects of the header that I felt were very good. For instance, showing the faces of actual students who are suffering from debt directly caused by taking student loans in order to pay for college. Without actually showing the faces of people who are affected by debt, it isn’t as easy for people to identify with the problem. More importantly, the students don’t look happy. Debt is a serious issue, and the fact that the students portrayed in the header aren’t happy or over-the-top dramatically sad shows how serious our group is about presenting the facts and figures about the issue.

I understand the idea behind placing the students in front of the University of Oregon sign: we’re talking about student debt, we go to class on this campus, and it provides a local connection by showing former, current, and future students that the issue hits their own campus and not just one on the other side of the country. My issues with the use of the sign is that both of the students are standing around the “Oregon” part of the sign. While this isn’t much of an issue for one of the two students, the other one has distracting extra parts above her head and other text coming out of her side. The other issue is that while one of the students has his head at the same level as the lettering, the other student is sitting down and has the words slightly above her head. An idea that I had for how to do a similar style picture would be if the student were standing in the foreground and the school sign was in the background, but the way the student is standing modifies the photo to look like the piece of paper that says how far they are in debt that replaces the word “Oregon” in the sign. For example, one student could be standing in front of the sign holding up a piece of paper, and the way that the shot looks now is like the sign says, “University of $30,078.” Another idea would have been to have more people surrounding the sign holding up pieces of paper that show how far in debt they are.

The use of color wasn’t great. While it’s true that green is the color of money as well as one of the university’s primary colors, I felt like the clothing that the students were wearing didn’t really pop out as ideally as they could have. Granted, things like weather and natural lighting outside are beyond the control of the persons taking photographs. Still, I felt like the colors of the sign and the clothing didn’t really distinguish themselves from one another very well.

My biggest issue with the header is the fact that it was formerly two separate photos that ended up being pasted together. The issue is in the process of using Photoshop on two separate images and then finally on a combination of the two previous photos. Moreover, the resizing issue glared its ugly head when after resizing the image to make the final product, the two photos that made up the larger photo had the proportions drastically altered. This created an odd looking photo with two awkward looking kids. Also, because the final image was two images brought together, there is a dark, thick line in between the photos. This is further frustrating because one of the shots also incorporated a tree in the background. With not only this tree in the background but also a dark black line separating the two photos, it is somewhat difficult to understand where the center of the photo is as well as what the subject should be.

Overall, I feel that this header has some great potential and a lot of things that were good in theory, but in the future many lessons need to be learned from this first header so as to not make so many of the mistakes and create an overall higher quality piece.

The Project on Student debt website was created to convey all things related to student debt, from news and initiatives to available petitions to sign and opportunities for students to tell their own stories about encountering debt. The site overall seeks to inform mostly students but also the public about the growing importance of student debt and its effect on attaining higher education.

In my opinion, the website design for the Project on Student Debt appears to be one of the more user-friendly websites regarding student debt. On the front page, there is an immediate list of current news stories relating to student debt along with links of helpful tips for students borrowing money and a poll towards the bottom of the page. Also on the front is a map that allows the site visitors to obtain data regarding student debt which varies by the state they select. Overall, the front page is very clear, very neatly laid out, and is not overwhelming or underwhelming from the perspective of someone just coming across the site. Most of the links across the top feature a home page link in the drop-down menu that helps further organize the sub-pages, but you do have the option of bypassing them and selecting a specific page listed below the home page option in the drop-down menu. Each specific page also features links along the left side that connect the other related pages that were also listed in the drop-down menu.

The content of the pages is detailed enough to provide quality information, but the information is presented in a way that’s simple enough for students to understand. If the site itself doesn’t have sufficient information about one of the topics, it has a link to another site with even more information about the subject. All in all, this website has a lot of quality content and is a good resource for any student who either already has a student loan or is looking to take out a loan in a cost-effective way.

The greatest issue that will probably have more long-term impact than any other issue currently before the US government is the one that seems to be one of the least significance to the American people: energy. The few fossil fuels we have are running dry. The process of converting these fuels into energy is terribly inefficient. But ask the common American about the state of our energy supplies, and he’ll likely just complain that it now costs too much to fill up his Hummer with gas. So what needs to be done, what is being done, and how well is it working? The US Department of Energy (DOE) is a government department designed to work with the free market in regulating, researching, and controlling the energy consumed and created by the United States. How much money does the department have? What have they done with it? Is the DOE using its money wisely? Should the US government and the Department of Energy reform energy spending? Yes, the DOE must reform spending by making clean and renewable energies the primary spending points of their budget and reducing their spending of fossil fuels.

No one is saying that this is going to be easy. By trying to end our dependence on fossil fuels, we will have to change the technology of everything that runs on fossil fuels. Also, according to Harold Shapiro, “…we have to transform the way we produce and consume energy” (Link #5 after jump). This is by no means an easy task, but it’s one that could work over a long period of time. But for right now the question becomes, “Why should the DOE reform its energy spending?” Consider the evolving market: Recently, we’ve seen oil companies pull out of climate coalitions designed to lobby congress for cap-and-trade legislation (Link #4 after jump). They chose to pull out because they felt the House climate bill was unfair and placed more burden on refiners and transportation fuels. Why not try going through the green energy lobby in order to better distribute the “burden”? However, the issue falls along party lines, which presents a major issue: energy and energy spending reform must be bipartisan. Not an easy task.

Also, there is an emerging merger race in the market (Link #6 after jump), where major companies are working to merge with smaller companies, and obtaining in the process land plots to pockets of fossil fuels, the new technologies that are emerging, and a situation similar to that of the 1990’s which created super-giants of energy like Exxon Mobil; albeit research showing that the new joint companies won’t nearly be as large as the mergers of that time. Still, with the emergence of larger companies, the DOE needs to re-allocate the money it loans or grants to energy companies. Considering the millions that the previously independent companies were potentially making individually, it should be carefully determined how much money they really deserve as one company. While some mergers may be worthy of the sum of the previous company grants, some mergers may not be as worthy. While this may seem like the route that takes more work than just cutting one check for double the amount, it is the route that is more vital to spending money wisely.

Not all fears about the future of energy lie in the domestic realm. Many people are worried about a potential future “green-tech race” with China, similar to the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union in the Cold War (Link #3 after jump). Also, the worry is that if China becomes the primary exporter of green technology in the world, they may have the potential to have a technological stranglehold over the United States similar to the one the Middle East has over our oil imports, and using our dependency to hold us hostage. However, it should be noted that a green-technology race between the US and China wouldn’t be necessarily a bad thing, and that American jobs wouldn’t necessarily be at risk if the US government and free market were committed to actually making the US better. After all, some of the deadliest weapons in the world were created or perfected during the Cold War. So what were to happen if we were in a similar competition with the Chinese? We could have the potential to make some of the greatest technology ever created in green-technology. Why not invest more heavily in it now and get a head-start?

This is not to say that energy spending is not without its opponents. After all, President Barack Obama and the DOE allocated $10 billion in the course of a week to nuclear and electrical energy projects (Link #10 after jump), including a $1.37 billion loan to BrightSource Energy (Link #9 after jump) for a new solar plant, which will temporarily employ 1000 people and 86 permanently. Also, the US government is looking to increase the DOE budget by cutting environmental programs which are no longer useful or are deemed not worthy of funding (Link #1 after jump).

These are all potentially good things that could help our energy issue. However, it is important to note that these new projects must be carried out properly. After all, not everyone is comfortable with having a nuclear reactor in the backyard (Link #7 after jump). Administration officials have also estimated that the odds of the builders defaulting on the loan could be as high as 50%. Whether or not a builder defaults on a loan for building a nuclear reactor could potentially be the same odds as a coin flip. Also, some programs that were cut for the next fiscal year were actually programs that were doing some good, but had to be sacrificed for the greater good. This means that we need to not necessarily spend more, but spend smarter. Also, the cuttings of these programs have contributed to the falling out of climate issues from the spotlight (Link #8 after jump). Energy and the environment go hand in hand after all.

Unfortunately, I think we are going to see an immediate future still ruled by oil and coal, and that it will only be out of pure desperation when these resources run out that we will finally have our full focus on clean and renewable energies. It is not pretty, it’s not easy, but the issue must become what we must do for the future, not what kind of profit we can turn now.

Should the US Government and the Department of Energy reform renewable energy and efficiency spending?

What was once a secondary issue in American politics has slowly grown over time to one of the most critical subjects in the United States budget: energy costs. Not only the costs to produce or import fossil fuels, but also the investments in technology and distribution of new, cleaner, renewable energies. While phrases like “ending foreign oil dependency” have been tossed around as casual rhetoric in the past, more and more the actual content behind such debates has come to fruition in the recent years. Now is a critical time for the public to genuinely enter the debate.

1. Obama’s 2011 Budget Trims Environment, Fattens Energy Spending – Accessed February 16th, 3 pm

This first link is a journalistic source from the Environmental News Service. It’s goal in this article is to specifically outline where the federal budget is going in regards to the environment and energy spending. What we see is that while the amount of federal dollars being allocated to energy is increasing, it is at the cost of some environmental programs. However, President Obama, who was repeatedly quoted in this article, was quick to point out that some of the money was being taken from programs that were no longer efficient or performing their original desired tasks. While this is a good idea, it is not always about spending more as it is about spending smarter. While it is a good thing to cut programs that no longer carry out their desired task, these programs should be considered should new leadership try to restart these programs and actually do the tasks that they’re assigned. This article is great for the common taxpayer, because these departments and programs are funded from taxes. It is also important for readers who recognize the relationship between energy and the environment, including the effect each has on the other.  This also relates back to the main question, in that reform of energy spending could include not cutting as much environmental funding.

2. Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management – Accessed February 18th, 2:30pm

This government source outlines the Executive Order specifically enacted to strengthen energy, environmental, and transportation management. Specifically, the order called for the reduction of greenhouse gases by the government via reducing energy intensity by 30% by the 2015 fiscal year. What’s important to look at with this source is the fact that it was released under the Bush Administration in 2007, and how the government has fared in completing the goals and tasks set forth in the Executive Order. Depending on how well the new administration has progressed on this, it could prove to be a major factor in determining the spending budget for energy. As the old saying goes about learning from our past, so too must we consider political history beyond the television cameras and the political rhetoric being spouted. By seeing the physical document, we can understand more about the efforts (or lack thereof) of previous administrations. The main audience for a piece such as this would be legislators and government employees who are in charge of carrying out the Executive Order, as it isn’t common for Executive Orders to be printed in full in newspapers or online news sites.

3. America’s Unfounded Fears of a Green-Tech Race with China – Accessed February 18th, 3:00pm

This academic/citizen journalism source analyzed the potential green-technology race that may emerge between the United States and China, similar to the arms race and the space race that occurred between the US and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. However, unlike the arms race, where the ultimate goal is destroying the rival nation in a hellacious torrent of nuclear apocalypse; this potential “race” will be more focused on improving technology like the space race. The author analyzes what she determines is unfounded fears set forth into the public by publications like the New York Times. This author emphasized that while some cooperative efforts between the US and China may create potentially more Chinese jobs than US ones, all new jobs created in China wouldn’t be at the expense of US jobs. This article helps serve the main question in that by comparing what we as a country are doing for energy compared to another country, we can see what areas others are focusing on and determine whether or not we should invest more in those areas. This article would target the audience who would be concerned with China’s expansion into the “green race” and whether or not that may be detrimental to the United States.

4. BP and ConocoPhillips Pull Out of Climate Coalition – Accessed February 18th, 3:15pm

The Vine is a citizen journalism source created by The New Republic (TNR.com). They published this story about two major energy companies ending their relationship with the US Climate Action Partnership, which is a coalition of various businesses and groups that are lobbying Congress for cap-and-trade. These two major energy companies (whose primary resource is oil) chose to end their relationship with the coalition after determining that the climate bill currently in the House of Representatives placed disproportionate on refiners and transportation fuels. This is a further example of energies being split down party lines, with many oil refiners favoring on the side of the Republicans in rejecting the proposed bill, while utilities like electricity are siding more with Democrats, who wrote and endorsed the bill. By seeing the divisions that are being made in Congress, we can see how different energy companies feel about legislation, as well as what they’re trying to do in favor or against legislation, we can use such data to determine what spending, if any, we should decide to allocate to various energy companies. The target audience for this type of article would more likely be citizens who already had prior knowledge of the debate already in Congress regarding this climate bill, as well as how outside groups like the US Climate Action Partnership have been lobbying Congress.

5. Report Maps Future of US Energy Technology – Accessed February 18th, 3:35pm

This academic source from Princeton outlines a report that determines the future of US Energy dependent on a few crucial factors. The article stresses major commitment from not only the government, but also the public on a widespread scale. Princeton economics professor Harold T. Shapiro commented on how we have to completely  transform the way we consume and produce energy, as well as how the process of change becomes more and more difficult the longer we put it off. Overall, the changes must come from social changes and new technology, although Shapiro didn’t offer any lifestyle changes that could be implemented immediately by the public to have an impact. However, it is recognized in this article that change isn’t easy. We as Americans have been trained and raised on pretty much one style of  This report could serve to be a key influence in determining future energy investments, changing where and what we invest in. Overall, the audience for this type of report would be advisers for the government, as well as lawmakers who can influence bills in accordance with the report.

6. Energy Company Mergers Are Expected to Rise – Accessed February 18th, 4:45pm

This journalistic source in the New York Times reported on the expected increase of mergers between energy companies in the near future. Three main reasons are predominating the new wave of mergers: expanding reserves, obtaining new technologies, or acquiring new oil and gas fields. The Times reports that while these mergers will not be on the scale of previous energy company mergers that created the likes of Exxon Mobil, but that there is still quite a bit of money to be made. Overall, the key to this new success has been the development of new energy technology, with perhaps the best improvement right now being in natural gas. Thanks to the new advancements in technology, the natural gas reserves in the United States have been greatly expanded. Overall, the market is intensely picking up in the energy department. Often, we see how the free market can influence Congress and the government, which is why this type of information can influence what kind of energy lobbyists we’re seeing in Congress, and what the legislation is doing. This article’s audience would probably be more attuned with someone who is experienced with the free market, as well as active investors in the stock market.

7. Major Fallout Predicted Over Obama’s Nuclear Power Proposal – Accessed February 22nd, 2:00pm

Truthout.org, an institutional/citizen non-profit journalism site, released this article regarding a new offer of $3.8 billion in loans for two new nuclear reactors. What the article talks about is the predicted public backlash from this announcement, including concerns over the safety of the two plants and potential health risks that may affect the public. In reading this article, the consideration should be whether or not the money being offered should be spent instead on a renewable energy like solar or wind. Taxpaying citizens are the major focus of the audience of this article, as it states that should the builders of these nuclear plants default on the loans, taxpayer dollars will be spent to cover the loss.

8. “Hybrid” US climate legislation like to back track on some environmental promise to throw big bones to industry – Accessed February 23rd, 12:00pm

This article, courtesy of the institutional source Bellona.org, emphasizes more of the repercussions from the cutting of climate spending for the sake of energy spending. The plan that’s currently in place is the resulting compromise of Obama’s emphasis of making the environment a key issue, while also maintaining the importance of increasing energy spending for renewable resources. This article is once again having the readers consider the view of energy spending reform so as to not remove further funding from other worthy programs. It’s also important to note in this article that there is a close relationship between energy and the environment, whether it’s spending more on one instead of the other, or just how obtaining energy affects the environment or vice versa. This article is more for the environmental activists in the public, informing them of the consequences of the new changes in the budget.

9. US Energy Department Awards $1.37 billion to BrightSource Energy – Accessed February 23rd, 12:30pm

PV-tech.org, a journalistic source, released the story about a major allocation of funding from the Recovery Act to a solar energy company named BrightSource Energy. The money will go towards building three new solar plants, with the construction of the plants creating 1000 new jobs. However, these 1000 jobs will not be permanent ones, as only 86 jobs will permanent after the construction is completed. When the new plants finally are completed, the new plants will have the capacity to generate enough energy for the equivalent of 140,000 California homes. This story is an example of the positive types of investments that can be extended even more with energy spending reform, although this particular allocation is already a beneficial investment for the future. The major focus audience for this article would not only be taxpaying citizens worried about where their money is going, but also potential employees with experience in solar energy who are looking for work.

10. DOE Ponies Up $10 billion in Financing for Solar, Nuclear Plants Accessed February 23rd, 4pm

Journalistic source Wired Magazine posted this journalistic source regarding the recent activity in government energy spending, specifically the fact the in one week the Department of Energy has allocated $10 billion in financing for brand new solar and nuclear plants. It was considered shocking that the Democratic administration currently in office would invest in nuclear energy, as it has been usually seen as a conservative issue compared to the left-wing’s preference of solar energy. President Obama addressed the issue, stating that by investing in both, he hopes that it evolves from being a partisan issue to an issue that transcends politics. However, the source is quick to show that while this may be a good step, the American energy infrastructure is built on burning fossil fuels and electricity technology built before 1970. Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu addressed such an issue, stating that the country was in need of technological breakthroughs. This directly addresses the issue of spending reform, in whether or not these are sound investments for the government to be making. This article would probably have a suitable audience of anyone who reads Wired, which as a whole has its content mainly focus on technology.

Proposed Oil and Gas Cuts Unite Senate Against Energy Secretary Chu

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Senators on both side of the aisle are disagreeing with the proposed Department of Energy budget for the next fiscal year. Main arguments against the proposed budget include the cutting of funding for oil and gas research, and increasing solar and wind energy research at the expense of hydropower. However, the greatest reason for dissent is most likely the fact that the Department of Energy has only spent $2 billion of the 30 billion given to the department from the stimulus.

FULL STORY

Should the Department of Energy reform renewable energy and efficiency spending?

Video 1 – GE’s Model Miners

GE released this commercial hoping to gain support for their “clean coal” campaign. The irony of course is that there’s no such thing as clean coal; something that most people didn’t know when this commercial was released. GE actually went back to an old standard when they released this commercial: Sex sells. In this commercial, you see male and female supermodels “mining” for coal. In actuality, there’s almost never that much room in a mine, and even looking at the way that they’re dressed is completely wrong (guys not wearing shirts, women wearing tank tops, no safety masks, not covered head to toe in coal dust). Throughout this commercial, the focus is on the models looking like they’re doing some aspect of mining while Tennessee Ernie Ford plays in the background. In fact, the mine itself only looks to a set prop until the narration kicks in and outright states that the point of the commercial is to compare the models to how beautiful coal mining will become.

Video 2 – BP’s Driving Babies Cartoon

Beyond Petroleum, or BP, chose to use cartoons because they affect a wide range of people, including children (aka future customers). Immediately in this commercial we are introduced to the four babies in a car (and yes, one of the babies is driving). Immediately, we cut to a view of the car’s dashboard that shows the car is almost out of gas. As they look around, they drive past gas stations with dark clouds overhead, letters falling off the signs, and gas pumps with angry or sad faces. As they drive past, the baby driving points out excitedly at a BP station. The BP station looks significantly different compared to the other stations, as the building is nice and bright white. After filling up at the BP station, we see the surrounding setting which includes a wind farm in the distance. At the end, the text of “gas stations, a little better, baby” appears against the sky. This commercial continues the advertising efforts of BP to campaign themselves as having better gas than any other company, promoting their cleaner gasoline along with subliminally associating their gas with other renewable energies like wind farms.

Should the United States reform Energy spending?

1. September, 1879 – California Electric Light Company is established, its two stations become the first “central stations” to commercially supply electricity (in this case, arc-lamp illumination to San Francisco).

2. 1885 – Károly Zipernowsky, Miksa Déri, and Ottó Títusz Bláthy create and patent the first electrical transformer.

3. May 16, 1888 – Nikola Tesla presents his paper, “A New System of Alternating Current Motors and Transformers” to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers. This paper was critical to introducing the benefits of alternating current in regards to engineering, including electric motors and generators.

4. 1890 – Thomas Edison creates the Edison General Electric Company, which would eventually become General Electric, one of the largest energy companies in the world.

5. 1887-1893 – The famed (or infamous) “War of the Currents” between Nikola Tesla’s alternating current (AC) electricity and Thomas Edison’s direct current (DC) electricity. This war would change the face of how electricity is used and distributed in the United States. In the end, Tesla’s AC electricity would be triumphant.

6. 1975 – The state of Oregon’s Office of Energy (OOE) is created with the intent of establishing “comprehensive state leadership on energy planning and research.” This would eventually become Oregon’s state branch of the Department of Energy.

7. October 1, 1977 – The US Department of Energy is established, absorbing and assuming the responsibilities of many other agencies, including the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, and the Federal Power Commission.

8. February 17, 2009 – The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is signed into law by President Obama, which includes investments in improving energy production efficiency.

9. May 13, 2009 – President Obama and the Department of Energy revealed a $26.4 billion budget for the 2010 fiscal year, including $2.3 billion specifically for efficiency and renewable energy.

10. June 8, 2009 – The Wall Street Journal reports that the US Department of Energy fails its own energy audit. Included in the report is the fact that auditors told the DOE that they could save $1.5 million annually if “the staff just implemented the government’s own power-saving guidelines.”

Relevant Links:

Recovery.gov Link: This link was helpful in that it allowed me to be able to physically see where in the Department of Energy the money from the Recovery Act of 2009. By being able to see where the money goes, I can use the information to further sharpen the focus of my investigation.

Energy.gov: By using the main website for the US Department of Energy, I can track news stories specific to energy efficiency, renewable energies, and the allocation of any funds pertaining to the department.

Oregon Department of Energy : By using the state-specific department website, I can further tighten the scope of my investigation in learning about news stories that are important on a state level, because they most likely won’t be published on a national level.

House of Representatives Energy Committee: Through this site, I can view bills currently in the House of Representatives pertaining to energy, as well as statements and comments from the floor from different representatives.

US Senate Committee on Energy : I can also utilize the Senate committee’s webpage in order to find differing opinions on energy bills, compare the bills that are in the Senate to the ones that were originally in the House of Representatives, and find statements from Committee members and news regarding bills or committee members.

My timeline establishes the history of utilities and the components of electricity and energy distribution. By understanding historical events like the “War of the Currents” I can learn from both sides as to the benefits and consequences of each type of current, and what made it the most efficient. I can also focus on learning about how American policies, both past and present, have affected how we distribute energy and what changes, if any, we as a country need to make.

Last February, the United States Congress and President Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009. This Act, which was designed to create jobs and allocate billions of dollars to state governments, also designated major funds towards the development of clean energy, as well as improving on the efficiency of energy resources that we already have in place.

Nearly a year has passed since the passing of the bill, so now the question is: What’s changed? Have federal buildings really become “greener”? Was $11 billion enough for a larger and more efficient electrical grid? Is there more we could do for the betterment of US Energy, and what have we accomplished so far?