Report on My Interviews

This blog will address the content of the interviews that I conducted this week with different professors at the University of Arizona, some with extensive background in the field, some with little modern background in the field. These are their stories....

The most significant genres that my interviewees worked in were all unanimous picks by my interviewees. They all had the same general types of genres that they worked in or that others in the field work in. One genre is the PowerPoint presentation, another is the detailed project report analysis, and lastly another one is the communicative email.

These genres differ from each other in many ways especially in content, form, and style. PowerPoints are visual ways to communicate ideas, they are used to talk to almost everyone in the Civil Engineering field. People use them to communicate to students, to higher level owners, to stakeholders in the community, and to governmental officials who fund these projects. Detailed Project Reports are also a large part of the Civil Engineering field. These reports can be hundreds of pages long and are usually in hard copy and in PDF format. These must go into records so that people in hundreds of years after you have died or retired can look back on the construction of the structure or roadway and see exactly what was done and how it was done. These reports must be completely comprehensive and cannot leave out any details, they usually are always done in the same format and style meaning that organization of these types of reports does not vary very much. Lastly the communicative email is a key part of the Civil Engineering field, people in the field must communicate on a regular basis with each other. People within the field must communicate with each other as well as people within the field must communicate with people outside the field. These emails vary a lot on their structure based on who the audience is, sometimes they are specific and sometimes they are rather broad.

The most challenging part of writing within all of these genres is the aspect of clear communication with a wide variety of people and groups. All of the people that I interviewed emphasized the importance of clear communication in the field, all parties must be on the same page and must understand what the project requires. If one party doesn't clearly understand what is going on, they could ruin the entire project and the engineer will get blamed. Thus no matter the genre, all communication must be clear.

The most rewarding or exciting part of writing within the genres presented is the ability for people to look back in a hundred years and be able to see exactly what the project was and what the design for it is. This is important because as one of my interviewees found out, a good report can make a project that much easier to improve, especially when remodeling buildings or structures. The work that you do will outlive your career and very possibly your life.

Almost all of these genres can be found online on government department websites. For example, almost all reports can be found on the ADOT page or Pima County DOT or Tucson DOT. Almost all reports on structures can be found on construction company websites or online as PDF files. PowerPoints for public presentation can also be viewed online. Emails are a lot harder to find because they are private domain genres. In this instance, these emails can be accessed through public records if the emails were to government organizations.

Anonymous, "London Hospital Plans", via Wikipedia, CCO license 

From Academia to Social Media

This post will look at different ways that one of these journal authors uses social media, whether in professional or private means. However, although this assignment asks us to find one of these authors social media presence, many of them may not actually have social media or that many different types of social media.

I chose to try and find the social media presence of Michele Brocca, an architect in Italy. Michele Brocca has a LinkedIn and possibly a YouTube account. Like many people, I cannot find this particular engineer on many social media sites. Many of the civil engineers in the journal that I found do not have social media accounts or the accounts they do have cannot be confirmed to be the person that I am looking for.

Michele has a LinkedIn account that just gives the job location in Italy and the fact that Michele is in construction. The YouTube account seems rarely used and when used is just for recreational things like watching anime or listening to music, although there is one engineering related video. Otherwise this person doesn't do many things on social media and there isn't much to learn.

The piece that Michele did in the ASCE journal is called Size Effect in Concrete Columns. This is an article that is a distinct report style article, presenting an experiment's findings. This article is all business just like the LinkedIn account. However the article is much different from the YouTube account that I think is Michele's, the YouTube account is all fun and relaxation and the article is all business. The article does however have some moments of historical background which provides a break from the strict nature of a presentation.

Nominalize,"Social Media", via Pixabay, CCO License

Academic Discourse and Genre

This blog focuses on the ASCE journal that I found earlier at the UA library. I will analyze the content of the journal now, including focusing on the titles and subject matter. This blog will look at the genres and the structures of each article. 

There appear to be three different genres of writing in the ASCE journal. These are all defined by their content and not by their form. Most of the articles in the journal have the same form and structure but there seems to be a distinct difference in the content given in these journals. 

There are not any official names for the genres that I have found in the journal entries, however I will give them a name based off their content. One genre is the "Positive Research" genre which features papers written to describe a certain experiment or hypothesis that will theoretically add to the development of ideas in the Civil Engineering field. The next genre is the "repair research" genre which focuses on how to fix specific problems in the civil engineering field. The last genre is "General Hypothesis" in which an author develops a theory but has not done any individual research on the issue, this type of article is much more scarce than the other two but just as important. 

Again Positive Research is any proactive research backed paper that will improve techniques or further ideas in the civil engineering field, repair research is any paper written with the topic of analyzing the repair or rebuilding of things withing the civil engineering field. The general hypothesis genre is all about developing a hypothesis about something in the civil engineering field without having any research to back it up. Each genre has a different purpose but with the same ultimate goal of adding something to the civil engineering field as well as being a way to add to the discussion of ideas in the field. All of these are aimed at civil engineers and those who are in ASCE and looking to make a difference in the world and the field of engineering. 

Dream Out Loud, ASCE Logo, via Wikipedia, Public Domain

Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Journal

In this blog post I will examine a specific journal that I found. This journal is called ASCE which is a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Society for Civil Engineers. The journal is still published, however the U of A library system is completely antiquated and features only journals that were published over 10 years ago. Nevertheless they are the most recent journals in physical stock at the system of University libraries.

The authors of all of the journal articles in the December 2001 issue of ASCE are all experts in the civil engineering field, many of whom have worked in the field for years. These are the people involved in writing this journal: Dale Buckner, A. Dutta, J.B. Mander, Michelle Brocca, Zdenek Bazant, W.P. Kwan, S.L. Billington, Mohamad Mansour, Jung-Yoon Lee, Thomas Hsu, Beatrice Belletti, Roberto Cerioni, Ivo Iori, Alessandra Aprile, Andrea Benedetti, Hyo-Gyoung Kwak, Sun-Pil Kim, Enrico Spacone, Suchart Limkatanyu, M.S. Lee, Deric Oehlers, Mark Bradford, Jennifer Durham, Frank Lam, Helmut Prion, Xinzhong Chen, Ahsan Kareem, R.A. Cook, D Bloomquist, D.S. Richards, M.A. Kalajian, David Gromala, Lip Teh, Kuo-Mo Hsiao, Donald White, Ronald Ziemian. This in total is 36 different authors in this one journal issue. All of or most of these people are members of ASCE and are professional engineers. Thus they are all portrayed as knowledgeable people and as prominent engineers to watch out for in the future. Most of these people talk about projects which they had been working on and are showing their findings.

The intended audience of this specific journal is the members of ASCE first and foremost but then in extension the general Civil Engineering community. This is a pretty obvious audience as the journal is specifically written for people who are paying members of ASCE. These people get first access to the journal. Again though the secondary audience of the journal is the general Civil Engineering community, this is because of the content of the journal which focuses exclusively on ongoing developments in the Civil Engineering fields. This subject matter is intended for people that are familiar with the concepts in civil.

This journal has the context of being published in December of 2001 very shortly after the September 11 attacks on the United States in which a major infrastructure icon was attacked by terrorists. The journal is typically presented in a format of a formal report or presentation. The journal is a monthly publication that focuses on different publications of papers by different civil engineers across the country. Many of the people that are published in this journal have other papers that have been published in other ASCE journals or other Civil Engineering journals.

The overall message of the journal is progress. I concluded this because everything in the journal focuses on advancements in engineering practice or the advancement of concepts in the civil field. Only a small minority of the articles mention negative things, despite being only months after the September 11th attacks. Almost all articles focus on topics such as improving building materials or changing construction techniques.

I've really already stated the purpose of this journal several times, the largest purpose of this journal is to inform the reader of advancements in the civil engineering field as well as to inform the reader of technique advancements or the work in improving the materials that are used in construction. The reason why this is the purpose is because that is all the journal talks about.

Jason Boley, "ASCE 2001", Public Domain

Jason Boley, "ASCE 2001 Cover", Public Domain

My Profession

In this blog post I will attempt to draw some conclusions about my chosen field of work as well as telling why I chose this profession. Although not juicy scandalous details of the tabloids, this blog should prove to be an insight into my own life.

People in the Civil Engineering department learn throughout their time in college many different things. They learn how to distinguish and work in several different topics within Civil Engineering, such as Transportation, Structures, Hydrology, and Environmental. Students often work on how to construct and design buildings, bridges, dams, roads, and other infrastructure. Students learn the basic mathematical procedures for each field of Civil Engineering as well as the different requirements for projects.

People who get Civil Engineering Degrees usually go on to work for either governmental organizations, like a city, county, state or federal branch of the government or they go on to work for private contractors such as Granite Construction. These people may go on to build huge infrastructure projects or small ones such as piping underground. They may build everyday houses or large skyscrapers that touch the heavens.

Honestly I am not sure what drew me to the field of Civil Engineering. I guess I saw a need in fixing infrastructure and decided to take it, or perhaps it was the draw of making a place that will last throughout the ages and be a monument for future generations. Perhaps I was drawn in by the idea of an ever changing landscape that would better the future of the world and those who live after myself.

One of the companies that I find to be doing exciting and groundbreaking work (literally) is Granite Construction, a construction company that is working here in Tucson to try to improve the local infrastructure. Hensel Phelps is another company that I am interested in ever since they came to a club meeting for ASCE and talked about the projects that they have been working on and how they oversee projects and ensure communication between all groups of a project. Lastly, M3 Engineering is also another company that I found very interesting and worth my time listening to as they talked about building various buildings and bridges across the United States and Tucson, again I heard them at my ASCE meeting.

One journal source that I found was the ASCE journal itself, the large professional club periodically publishes a journal that is peer reviewed and covers almost all segments of civil engineering. Another journal is called Roads and Bridges and focuses on exactly what it sounds like it should focus on, roads and bridges. Lastly another journal is the Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology which focuses on improvements in the civil engineering field and the construction field. All three of these can be found in online magazine forms or a hard copy through a subscription to the journal.

Curt Fleener, "Journal", via Flickr, CCO license 

My Interviewees on Social Media

In this blog post I will address the social media lives of my interview subjects. This project will see where professional fields and social media combine and come together. An interviewer can tell a lot about his/her subject by looking at what they have been doing on social media and what interests them.

One of my interviewees is Yao-Jan Wu, a professor of Transportation Engineering at the University of Arizona. He can be found on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Youtube and possibly Facebook. My other interviewee, Dean Papajohn can be found on LinkedIn only.

Yao-Jan Wu's twitter page is very empty, with only three posts; his Facebook page only has a few pictures of cars and no real way of knowing whether the account is actually him. His LinkedIn page profiles his educational background and his working experience and his Youtube page features videos of things in his field, including smart transportation systems and video interviews of him working on local projects. Dean Papajohn's LinkedIn page also features his professional career and education as well as groups and organizations he is a part of (all engineering related).

Quite honestly, these social media accounts of my interview subjects do not differ from their reports much. In both instances, the interviewee talks about things that interests them as well as furthering exploration in their field. Both the journal articles and the social media accounts feature some development of ideas and concepts in the civil engineering field. Only Yao-Jan has a little less professional experience through his brief exploration into the world of Twitter where his posts were only about how he did not yet know how to use twitter and why everyone was so interested in twitter.

Matthew Gain, "LinkedIn Logo", via Flickr, CCO License 

My Interviewees As Professional Writers

This post will analyze what sort of materials my interviewees have written or constructed throughout their careers.

Professor Dean Papajohn has published a few research papers as well as a few technical project manuals. Since he has been in the field for the most part, the amount of things he has written and been published in is lower than other professors. Dr. Yao-Jan Wu has published several research papers and several journals. Many of these journals are specifically about his area of research.

Yao-Jan Wu has published many different scholarly journals including one on Traffic Volumes and one on Traffic Flow Prediction. Dean Papajohn has published papers on Sustainable Buildings and Infrastructure as well as a paper on Partnerships in US Transportation. In these four instances, the author has written in a professional report style, each begins with an abstract or a thesis before diving into the many information of the paper. Although some of these were in a journal and some of these were just research papers, all of them were written in a very similar format.

Each piece is written under the context of finalizing the findings or proposing a hypothesis over a certain research topic. Both of Professor Wu's papers were written in 2015 while one of Professor Papajohn's papers was written in 2015 and the other in 2011. Otherwise all of these are research papers so they deal with one certain issue or idea. Each paper was meant to be read by those in the civil engineering field or by those who are interested in the specific topic that the paper talks about. Professor Wu has many other papers on the same topics although each has a little different spin on the topic.

The overall message of each piece is proactive and idea oriented. Each paper covers a topic and shows the pros and cons of each idea. The paper gives a distinct answer to a hypothesis which can be used by future researchers and engineers to further their own project. I decided this upon looking at each one of the abstract statements and upon reading some of the actual papers and comparing them to each other.

The purpose of each paper is to inform pure and simple. There is not any sort of entertainment value for the general reader but only simply facts and analysis of the findings. Each paper is meant to communicate findings in the research of each one of these professors, for example looking at if certain systems could be applied to model and predict the flow of traffic on freeway systems.

Anonymous, "Professionalism", via Pixabay, CCO License

My Interview Subjects

This blog represents the beginning of project 2; and as the old saying goes, there's no rest for the wicked.....err writer. This project focuses on interviewing people who are professionals in my field of study. I will interview two Civil Engineers who work at the University of Arizona.

The people I will be interviewing for this project are Professor Dean Papajohn and Professor Yao-Jan Wu. I will also be consulting Professor Robert Fleischman.

Dr. Fleischman is a leading researcher at the University of Arizona in structural civil engineering specifically in designing parts. Professor Yao-Jan Wu is an assistant professor of Transportation Civil Engineering who does research in intelligent transportation systems, sustainable transportation systems and transportation modeling. Professor Papajohn was a practicing Civil Engineer at the Pima County Department of Transportation, he now is a full time professor at the University of Arizona.

Professor Papajohn has his B.S. in Civil Engineering from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a M.A. in English from Iowa State University, a M.S. in Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and he is currently getting his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering and Construction Management from Arizona State University. Professor Yao-Jan Wu has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from National Central University, a M.S. in Transportation Engineering from National Taiwan University and a Ph.D. in Transportation Engineering from the University of Washington. Professor Fleischman has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University, a M.S. and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Lehigh University.

Dr. Fleischman worked in the field from 1985 to 1996, Dr. Wu worked as a civil engineer from 2004 to 2011 and Professor Papajohn worked in the Civil Engineering field until 2015 and may return at some point to the field.

Dr Yao-Jan Wu, University of Arizona

Professor Dean Papajohn, University of Arizona

My meeting with Professor Papajohn occurred Monday February 22 at 4:30 pm in CE214B. My meeting with Dr. Wu will occur Tuesday February 23 at 3:30 pm in CE324F. My meeting with Dr. Fleischman will occur Wednesday February 24 at 3:00 pm in CE 220H. 

Here are my questions for Professor Papajohn:

1) How would you describe your profession?

2) How do you personally use writing in your profession, how frequently do you use writing?

3) How do you usually use text, is it through written, visual, or auditory means?

4) What types of people inside the civil engineering field do you find yourself writing to most frequently?

5) What types of people outside the civil engineering field do you find yourself writing to frequently? 

6) Who was the most challenging audience that you have ever written for or to. 

7) How has the way that writing is used in the civil engineering changed over your career, what has caused that change in your opinion?

8) What do you use to write, do you primarily use handwritten texts or do you use computer programs?

9) Do you find yourself structuring the way you write? Is there a format that you like to write in, for example the very stereotypical writing style of brainstorming, making a draft, revising, then finalizing for presentation? 

10) What advise would you give someone just beginning in the civil engineering field specifically about professional communication? 

Here are my questions for Professor Wu:

1) How would you describe your profession?

2) How do you personally use writing in your profession, how frequently do you use writing?

3) How do you usually use text, is it through written, visual, or auditory means?

4) How much of a role does social media play in the civil engineering field, essentially how often do you use social media? How can I find examples of this, or can you show me some examples of social media usage?

5) How often do you think about your audience when you write, specifically do you change the way you write based off the audience?

6) Who was the most challenging audience that you have ever written for or to. 

7) How has the way that writing is used in the civil engineering changed over your career, what has caused that change in your opinion?

8) What do you use to write, do you primarily use handwritten texts or do you use computer programs?

9) Do you find yourself structuring the way you write? Is there a format that you like to write in, for example the very stereotypical writing style of brainstorming, making a draft, revising, then finalizing for presentation? 

10) What advise would you give someone just beginning in the civil engineering field specifically about professional communication? 

Anonymous, "Interview", via Pixabay, Public Domain

Brutally Honest Self-Assessment

This is the first blog after the conclusion of project one. The submission of a project is the ultimate test of satisfaction while being the ultimate crossroads of turning control of the project over to someone else. Essentially, I will write about how much I really dislike my own writing.

As I hinted above in the introduction, I do not feel very confident about this project. I do however feel that I did the best of my abilities, that it fully meets the criteria laid out in the rubric and that it will be at least satisfactory. Many of my peers seemed to enjoy it when they were reading it, however I could not draw myself to agreeing with their assessment of my writing. Nevertheless, I struggled to find things that I wanted to eliminate or add for that matter; essentially I have been dealing with "writers block" this week. I thought the project was interesting, and my topic was interesting as well. However, I feel that I did not do the project or the topic justice.

The major weaknesses of the project still remain the flow of thoughts in the QRG. I am worried that I was unable to fulfill all the criteria of the rubric while still maintaining proper flow in the topic. I think that there are some parts of the project that could have been more elaborated on and meanwhile there are probably other parts of the project that I talked too much on and may have ruined the shortness of the QRG. This might be seen in a paragraph where I explain the controversy and the stakeholders sides by using new added quotes from congresspeople.

The major strengths of the project are probably the development of the stakeholders. Many of my peers noticed how much work I had put into developing and making sure that all the stakeholders are labeled and explained. The new quotes that I added for the final draft further explain why certain stakeholders, particularly politicians, feel the way they do. However I do admit that there can always be improvements to be made, the point at which the essay is turned in is when the amount of improvements that can be made without worrying about destroying something good slows to a gradual halt. I reached that point especially with consideration of the development of the stakeholders.

I feel that I managed my time quite well on this project. I didnt feel myself stressing over getting things done on time or worrying about running out of time. I feel that I put quite a lot of effort into this project, so much so that I was beginning to not be able to accurately look at the project through a critical lens. I made sure that I got everything done at least two days before the deadline in order to give me a break and recharge from the constant writing that this class requires.

Paul Reynolds, "Reflection", via Flickr, CCO license

Local Revision: Variety

This is the last blog post before the first project is due, that means that this is the last blog to focus on the production of the QRG. I intend to focus on the different structural aspects of the QRG and what needs to be changed or perhaps what was done well.

I would say that my essay has a wide variety of sentence structures, I think I used all the different sentence structures effectively and in a useful matter. I used simple sentence structures quite a lot though, although this isn't necessarily a bad thing as a QRG should be short and to the point. This use of simple sentence structures can sometimes lead to about 4 simple sentences in a row before using a different type. This can be changed though if it is creating a flow problem when reading. The Rules for Writers suggests just changing up the order to some sentence structures in order to keep the audience engaged, for example putting the object before the subject and verb or using multiple combinations of sentence structures in a row instead of using the same structure in a long row.

The paragraph structures and transitions are generally effective. There is a strict organizational flow between paragraphs or sections that allows the readers mind to just transition from section to section. Most of these sections begin with a general opening statement or topic sentence then go on to give evidence and analysis of these topics. These paragraphs usually end with some sort of conclusion of the topic for that paragraph or section. The next paragraph or section will build off the previous one and its ideas, in this way the sections are not only able to be read independently but also as an entire unit.

I would say that there is some variation to the vocabulary that is generally used. The vocabulary used in this QRG is generally straight out of my own vernacular and grammatical speech patterns. Nevertheless I tried to put in more effective and more descriptive vocabulary without making the essay too flamboyant or intellectually wordy. But I still think there is some room for adding more flavorful words. The draft's vocabulary has its own strengths and weaknesses especially when considering that it is not the most intellectually written paper out there and it also doesn't use the most descriptive and colorful words around. Instead the draft uses words that tell the story as it is and plainly describes what occurs in the controversy.

Anonymous, "Variation in Candy", via Pixabay, Public Domain

Local Revision : Pronoun Usage

Pronouns are often seen as a way to speed up the writing process and make identifying something easier than it otherwise would. However there are instances where the usage of pronouns may in fact confuse the reader because they are improperly used. In this blog I will analyze the usage of pronouns in my QRG.

My pronoun usage in project 1 was limited. I did not use many pronouns at all, in fact the most frequently used pronouns were "it and they" which usually referred to the pipeline and different stakeholders respectively. However there was another type of pronoun that was used quite a lot, and that is the possessive pronoun, a type of pronoun used to show "ownership" of something. Usually this was used in reference to owning an idea or a side of an argument. Overall I think the amount of pronoun usage is just the right amount for a QRG talking about a controversy that involves corporations fighting against huge groups of people. In this instance some pronouns may be used but it is better to be more specific in identifying the subject than to use a pronoun and risk a viewpoint getting misinterpreted.

There are not any blatant instances where I talk to the audience as I am just intending to convey the facts about the controversy and not ask the audience to think about the controversy; although with that being said, the underlying goal of the QRG is to give the audience a full interpretation of what is going on in this controversy so that they can make their own well informed opinion about the controversy. However there are some instances where I do talk in semi-rhetorical situations where I want to try to get the audience to ponder the situation and who has the most to lose. These instances are intended to get the audience engaged and get them thinking about the controversy. Since I do not directly intentionally talk at the audience, which I think would be appropriate for this genre type since it is merely meant to quickly inform the reader about an issue, I need to clarify that the audience is not left out of the writing. Some sentences are written with the intentional purpose of getting the reader to think about the controversy and mull over the situation in their head. In the end, my goal as the author is to get the audience to end the QRG thinking about their own personal opinion of the controversy, per se what side of the argument they would like to take. I tried to do this without directly asking the audience this and without them knowing that that is my main goal behind the QRG.

Gerault, "Thinking", via Pixabay, CCO Licence 

My Pronouns

This blog will attempt to identify each of the pronouns used in my QRG as well as who they refer to.

he (President Obama)
they (TransCanada)
they (TransCanada)
they (the stakeholders)
they (the arguers)
they (TransCanada)
they (environmental groups)
they (the stakeholders)
it (the pipeline)
it (the bill)
it (oil)
it (the pipeline)
it (the pipeline)
it (reality)
it (the truth)
their (possessive for environmental groups)
their (possessive for people in small towns)
their (possessive for people in small towns)
their (possessive for politicians)
their (possessive for people in small towns)
their (possessive for stakeholders)
their (possessive for stakeholders)
their (possessive for environmental groups)
their (possessive for small towns)
their (possessive for stakeholders)
their (possessive for TransCanada)
their (possessive for stakeholders)
his (possessive for President Obama)
its (possessive for TransCanada)
its (possessive for the bill)

Anonymous, "What are Pronouns?", via YouTube, Public Domain

Local Revision: Passive and Active Voice

This blog post will look at analyzing the different types of verbs used in my QRG.

Active (Specific): believes, argue, release, desire, rejected, arrived, revive, discourages, oppose, destroy, expanded

Active (General): is, was, said, run, stems, came, supported, sited, open, passed, promised, continued, created, boosts, stay, promotes, creates, brings, feel, affect, want, cost, try, maintain, claim, portray, seen, cannot, need

Passive: was approved, was supported, have been targeted, has been given, would be, could carry, would connect, would transport, would allow, would cause, could make, did veto, was unable, was not finished, will be taken, be done, are confirmed, would cut, could destroy, could break, would add, will help, could poison, could have, have been discussed, have merit, have proven, will be, was harvested, being destroyed, being erased, can be linked, have taken, is guaranteed,  will not leak, cause damage

My current draft has quite a few passive verbs which is to be expected when talking about a pipeline and a controversy. Most of the active verbs in my QRG are all general and verbs that lack in specific tone. There are many instances of passive voice especially when talking about the pipeline and the controversy, active voice usually occurs when talking about stakeholders and their personal interests.

I feel that this draft could be improved by adding in new more vivid action verbs to describe the stakeholders as well as some describing the effects of the pipeline. Most of the passive verbs can probably remain as they talk about the controversy and not about particular people. This could increase the amount of senses that are engaged.

Anonymous, " Dr. Fricke Explains Passive and Active Voice", via YouTube
Public Domain

Local Revision: Tense Usage

In this post I will address the different tenses of my verbs

Past Tense: was approved, was supported, was, released, said, rejected, have been targeted, has been given, came, passed, promised, arrived, did veto, was unable, was not finished, continued, created, has, has been discussed, have merit, have proven, was harvested, seen, have taken, expanded

Present Tense: is, believes, argues, desire(s), running, stems, opening, supports, boosts, stays, promotes, creates, brings, are confirmed, revive, sites, want, feel, affects, discourages, costs, oppose, try, is made, portray, being destroyed, being erased, is guaranteed, cause damage, need, are

Future Tense: would be, could carry, would connect, would transport, would allow, would cause, could make, will be taken, would cut, could destroy, could be destroyed, could break, would add, will help, could poison, will be, will not leak

It appears that the most prevalent tense in my QRG is the present tense. The past tense has 25 words, the present tense has 31 words, and the future tense has 17 words.

The effect that the use of primarily present tense and past tense verbs has on the reader is that it shows the reader the timeline of events, certain things about the controversy are quotes or events from the past while most of the controversy is talked about in its present form. The future tense is mainly used to describe what would happen if the pipeline was built.

Most of the shifts in tense make sense as they interweave pieces of the controversy that previously occurred with parts of the controversy that are ongoing. They flow very well as many sections are entirely of one tense before going back to another, this means that entire events and ideas are given in their correct setting and the tense is not being confused. There are some tense transitions that may need to be changed.

The majority of my QRG is in present tense so the matter of needing to add present tense is not relevant to my QRG necessarily.

Robbiemuffin, "Grammatical Tense", via Wikipedia, Public Domain

My Verbs

This is the list of verbs in my QRG.
is, is, believes,was approved, was supported, argue, was, is, is, released, desire, said, rejected, have been... targeted, has been given, is, is, would be, could carry, would connect, running, would transport, stems, came, would allow, was, would cause, supported, siting, opening, could make, passed, promised, arrived, did veto, was unable, was, was not finished, continued, passed, created, has, has, support, support, boosts, stay, promotes, creates, brings, will be taken, be done, are confirmed, is, revive, site, want, want, are, feel, affect, have, wanting, would cut, could destroy, could be destroyed, could break, is, would add, is, discourages, cost, will help, could poison, oppose, could have, want, has been discussed, try, have merit, is, have, are, maintaining, claims, have proven, will be, is made, was harvested, use, is, portray, being destroyed, being erased, is, have proven, can be linked, are, destroying, seen, is, have taken, cannot, is guaranteed, expanded, cannot, will not leak, cause damage, cannot,  will be, need, are.
is- 18 times
was- 8 times
said- 2 times
rejected- 2 times
have..... - 8 times
has... - 4 times
would....- 11 times
could....- 7 times
support(ed)- 8 times
passed- 2 times
will be...- 3 times
are- 9 times
revive- 2 times
want- 4 times

Kristberinn, "Weldish Verbs", via Deviant Art, Public Domain

Local Revision: Wordiness

In this revision I will focus on trying to slim down one of my longest paragraphs or sections into a slimmer more streamlined version while still maintaining all the important parts of the essay. This blog will show before and after versions of the same paragraph.

Before:
The bill to pass the Keystone XL Pipeline has been widely discussed in Congress and Washington DC by both groups as they try to persuade people that their side of the argument is the correct one. Both sides have merit to their argument. The TransCanada Corporation is one of the safest oil companies in North America. They haven’t had a major oil spill in years and are deeply invested in producing safe pipelines and maintaining investment in local communities. TransCanada claims that major renowned scientists have proven that there will be no measurable impact on the world climate if the pipeline is made or if all the world’s oil was harvested. Meanwhile environmental groups use more emotional appeal to try to persuade people that their anti-pipeline argument is the correct one. They portray an image of animals dying, the planet being destroyed, livelihoods being erased. There is some credible information behind these appeals, scientists have proven that there is ongoing climate change which can be linked to human actions in oil production. There are also accusations of this pipeline destroying entire towns livelihoods as seen through a quote from a local farm opinion group “Concerns that pipeline leaks and spills will damage unique and valuable natural resources are not unfounded. The original Keystone pipeline suffered over a dozen leaks in its first year (2010), including a devastating spill that shot a geyser of some 500 barrels of oil 60 feet into the air. Over 20,000 gallons were spilled over precious North Dakota soil in just one hour. Years later, families throughout the Midwest and Plains are still recovering from tar sands spills in their communities, not to mention the persistent health and environmental impacts the people of the First Nations in the Canadian tar sands zone endure.” In essence there is merit to both sides of the argument but in theory both sides of the argument have taken the real truth, the reality that there cannot be a perfectly created structure that is guaranteed to not fail (see Titanic, 1912), and expanded upon it and stretched the truth to make it fit their goals. TransCanada cannot guarantee that their new pipeline will not leak and cause irreparable damage to the environment just as environmental groups cannot say that there will be absolute damage from oil production. In order to have a controversy, both sides need to be opinionated and polarized in order to say that they are absolutely correct in their argument.  

After: 

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been widely debated in Congress and Washington DC and both sides have merit to their argument. The TransCanada Corporation is one of the safest oil companies in North America. They haven’t had a major oil spill in years and are deeply invested in producing safe pipelines and maintaining investment in local communities. TransCanada claims that major renowned scientists have proven no measurable impact on the world climate will come from the pipeline or the harvesting of all the world’s oil. Meanwhile environmental groups use more emotional appeal to try to persuade people that the anti-pipeline argument is the correct one. They use images of animals dying, the planet being destroyed, livelihoods being erased. There is credible information behind these appeals, scientists have proven that there is ongoing climate change possibly linked to human actions including oil production. There are also accusations of pipelines destroying the livelihoods of entire towns as seen through a local farm opinion group In theory both sides of the argument have taken the real truth, the reality that there cannot be a perfectly created structure that is guaranteed to not fail (see Titanic, 1912), and expanded upon it and stretched that truth to make it fit their goals. TransCanada cannot guarantee that their new pipeline will not leak and cause irreparable damage to the environment just as environmental groups cannot say that there will be absolute damage from oil production. 

The rewritten version of this section is noticeably shorter and simplifies the previous version. This version eliminates a lengthy quote that can be placed in a different section. In this way it is better because it is shorter and more direct to the point. In another way this makes it worse because it is losing its main source of contextual evidence, although the hyperlink to the farm group will remain. 

Anonymous, "Top Tips for Writing" via YouTube, Public Domain

Peer Review #2

I once again had the opportunity to review more projects from a wide variety of subjects and genre forms. These review processes are pivotal to understanding why certain things need to be fixed in my own project and why certain things were done well.

For this second review process, I reviewed two projects. The first was a QRG from Eren Arbac called
The Whistleblower of Olympus. The second project I reviewed was a video essay from Nicholas Hoover in an untitled Putin Video Essay.

My own project was affected by the review process of these two projects. Firstly I learned that I need to make sure my project is fun and engaging in a way to where the average reader will be entertained and informed at the same time. I learned that a lot of people are doing QRG's for this project and that in order for mine to stand out it must clearly define the controversy, both sides of the controversy's argument, and simultaneously must be interesting.

One of the top three problems in this draft QRG are a lack of explanation of the effect the controversy had on many stakeholders. My peers emphasized the stakeholders a lot more than I did. Another problem I had in my draft was a possible lack of clarity on what the event was behind the controversy and emphasis on where the event occurred. Lastly another problem I might have is the lack of explanation of the controversy itself, I realized how important it was to explain plainly what the controversy was. I plan on going back into my draft and re-emphasizing these sections as well as possibly just completely adding in new sections possibly.

One of the strengths of my draft were the development of the background of the controversy, I felt that I explained what led up to the controversy quite well. I also feel that I did quite a good job at explaining where the current state of the controversy is right now, a feature that is unique to my QRG when I compare it to my peers QRG's. Another thing that I feel that went well in the draft is the explanation of both sides of the argument to the controversy. Many of my peers didn't do so well in this category so I am glad that I put an emphasis on that. I plan on emphasizing these strengths by going back and expanding some on them and then repeating the process for other parts of the QRG to make the entire article a strength, or at least that is the hope.

Anonymous, "Jon Favreau Reviewing a Speech With President Obama"
via Wikipedia, Public Domian

Peer Review #1

Reviewing is a part of writing any project, this project is no different. In the following blog post I will attempt to show what I learned through reviewing a peers paper.

I reviewed Marvin Chaires rough draft of his paper. The rubric grading of his draft can be found here. Reviewing this draft showed me how I needed to address the stakeholders more in my own QRG. Stakeholders are the reason why a controversy has any traction. If there aren't any stakeholders then the controversy will not have different sides and apposing arguments. I need to emphasize the different stakeholders on each side of the argument. My controversy project does have several things that were done well; in my opinion I did a good job of analyzing the cause of the controversy and the reasons for each side of the controversy, like I previously stated I still need to attach the different stakeholders to the controversy but otherwise I believe that to be a strong point.

One mistake that my peer made was that he did not specifically define what positions each stakeholder had or for that matter what each of the stakeholders were. Another mistake that my peer made was not talking about why the topic he chose was controversial, most people would agree that this event was a tragedy that never should have happened so what exactly was the controversy in all this. However he did do some things very well. He gave good background information into the event including what caused the event to take place in the first place (switching of water supplies). Another thing that my peer did well was giving a step by step explanation of the event and what different people are upset about as well as who created the problem in the first place. Both of these events are ones that I would like to emulate in my project and emphasize in my revision process.

Harry, "Revision...", via Flickr, Creative Commons License 

Draft of Project #1

The hard work of putting together all the aspects of these blogs and the research that was done outside of these blogs has culminated in the first draft of the first project. This is not the final draft but rather a workable document which I am looking to have feedback on. Without further ado here is project 1.

The Pipeline to Hell....or Heaven

This draft is the composition of many days of hard work, however it is not perfect. For those that are peer reviewing this article, I would appreciate you looking out for any potential grammar mistakes and any places that I could potentially expound upon my thoughts. If I have failed to tell you with clarity what the controversy is, who is involved, and why it is important please let me know how I can improve that. I have attempted to address who is involved, why they are involved and the heart of the controversy itself.

Quinn Dombrowski, "Russian Essay Draft" via Flickr
Creative Commons License

The Time Period

The Keystone XL Pipeline was vetoed by President Obama on February 24,2015. It is important to look at the time period surrounding that event in order to better understand why it occurred. The time period is always key to placing a story into its context.

Local News Events
Washington DC Legalizes Pot in spite of House Republicans
Government Shuts Down Because of 6 Inches of Snow

National News
United States Lifts Embargo on Cuba and Begins to Restore Relations
United States Declares Venezuela a Threat to National Security

Global News
China Posts Worst Economic Growth in 24 Years
Migrants Die After Boat Capsizes in Mediterranean Sea

During the late part of February 2015, the Keystone XL Pipeline Bill was vetoed and shot down, culminating in a larger controversy than the pipeline was previously. The world was filled with more events going on during this time though. During the first few months of 2015, many other large stories captivated the media and the people that would watch that media. In Washington DC, lawmakers and the mayor approved the legalization of marijuana for recreational use despite Republican lawmakers urging the mayor to veto the bill. DC became one of a few territories or states that have legalized marijuana use for recreational or medicinal purposes. Another big story in the Washington DC area was the major snowstorm that moved through DC and caught people off guard. Even lawmakers were caught off guard as the entire government had be shutdown because of the storm that dumped 6 inches of snow in a short period of time. Both of these events deal with the political scene in DC but other than that there isnt a direct connection to the Keystone XL controversy. National News during this time period was captivated with national security related issues including the United States deciding to end the embargo on Cuba and restore relations between the two nations, including tourism. Another national news event was the United States declaring the nation of Venezuela a threat to the security of the United States. This was  after Venezuelan leaders potentially discriminated against political rivals and set up to kill them. Declaring a nation a threat is the first path to an embargo. Both of these national news stories also didn't relate to the pipeline controversy. Global news stories during this time included a possible economic downturn beginning in China which could lead to global economic issues and the immigration crisis in Europe caused by an influx of Middle Eastern refugees fleeing the wars in Syria and ISIS. This immigration crisis was brought to the worlds attention after a boat smuggling refugees capsized in the Mediterranean sea, killing several refugees. This sparked months of debate in Europe over how to handle the influx of people coming into their nations.

Irish Defense Forces, "Operation Triton" via Wikipedia
Public Domain

The Setting

Every story has a setting, a location where the action or controversy takes place. A setting can be as simple as a city or as complex as a certain room in a building in a city. In this instance I will explore the setting of the the Keystone XL Pipeline controversy. The irony about the setting for this controversy is that it is nowhere near the location of the people the controversy is affecting.

The Keystone XL Pipeline controversy can be centered in one specific location, but not where one would expect it. The average person would expect the controversy to be centered in the location of where the pipeline would be running, in the United States Midwest. However this is simply not the case. The main controversy is centered in the US capital of Washington D.C. This is a city where politics rule and opinions are diverse and very distinguished. The controversy over the pipeline stems from the politics on capitol hill. Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the President; all of these groups stand opposed on the issue and worked to create the controversy that exists today. The Republican majority Congress passed the bill which would create the pipeline and then President Obama proceeded to veto the bill. After all this unfolded the TransCanada company sued the US Government after it claimed that the government had no grounds to reject the pipeline except to look good in front of other climate sensitive countries. Washington DC has history, it has been the site of many important events, it is the residency of many of this nations leaders, it is the seat of decision making in this nation. This city is considered to be one of the unique melting pots in the United States, with people from all walks of life calling it home. This makes DC a bustling city, a cold city of politics and potential corruption. It is a busy city that hundreds of thousands of people call home. This city embodies the spirit of America and is the soul of the American Government.

United States Navy, "Washington D.C." via Wikipedia
Public Domain

Stakeholder #3

This is the last blog about stakeholders specific to this project so I will cover the most important remaining stakeholder. The different stakeholders in this controversy so far have been completely unified on one side of the controversy and have been the main proponents of the controversy.

When looking at stakeholders many people don't look at the people that aren't directly apart of the controversy but are in fact affected by the controversy. In this case I am talking about the local towns and communities that would be located along or near the pipeline. These are generally small towns in sparsely populated regions of the midwest, particularly Montana, the Dakotas, and Iowa. These towns are not solidified in their view on the pipeline. Many like the pipeline and the added economic boom it could bring to their small towns, meanwhile other towns are afraid of the potential dangers of a pipeline going through or near their community and their agricultural livelihoods. These towns are physical locations and are collections of people with different ideas and different feelings about the pipeline. These towns are represented by their local governments, whether that be a council or a mayor. The Keystone Pipeline would have adverse affects for good and for bad within each town. It is up to the local mayor or council to decide whether they are going to let the pipeline go through their town. In other words, these local towns are directly affected by the pipeline controversy and to them it isn't just a bill on a piece of paper, to them this pipeline is do or die and tied directly to life as they know it.

One claim these towns have made is that the pipeline will detrimentally affect their way of life. One Nebraska town wants the pipeline to go around their town because of fears that it will affect their water supply "Cindy Myers, a nurse who lives 10 miles outside of Atkinson and a couple miles from the proposed pipeline route, is taking Thursday off so she can line up early. Local landowners are desperate to be heard, she said, because they worry that oil from the pipeline could leak into the Ogallala aquifer and contaminate their water wells. Like many landowners, Myers wants the pipeline rerouted out of the sandhills." Another claim that towns have made is that without the pipeline their entire town will die "If there is no pipeline, there is no future,” said Denny Hogan, the commander of VFW Post 4813. “End of conversation."" Another claim made by one of these small towns is that it will take away the livelihoods of many local farmers and thus take away the livelihood of the community. One Nebraska opinion piece wrote " we’ve heard directly from family farmers whose farms lie in the proposed path of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Many of these farms have been in the same family for generations. Now the Keystone XL Pipeline jeopardizes the health and viability of that land, rather than ensuring its health for future generations." Essentially many local farmers are worried that they will lose what has been getting their families by for generations: their land.

These claims are fairly well founded. The most important thing to a small town is survival. For these towns, survival is found either in inviting the pipeline in or telling the pipeline to stay away. These towns try to just stay alive by any means necessary, for many of these towns that means defending their farming and land from the incursion of big oil companies. Other towns have watched their farming and agricultural businesses fail and the town dry up as seen by the small Montana town. To these towns, the pipeline will be a savior and potentially reinvigorate their town.

Small towns in America are one of the more important yet forgot about stakeholders in this controversy. These towns are directly affected for better or for worse by the construction of this pipeline. Unlike the big oil companies, these towns have everything to gain or to lose from the pipeline and unlike the environmentalist groups, this pipeline isn't about the big picture but rather about everyday life. In that way these towns can be considered in both groups because some support the pipeline while some reject it.

Ian Britton, "Beatty, Nevada" via FreeFoto.com
CCO licence

Stakeholder #2

Each story has many different stakeholders, I have already addressed one major stakeholder in the controversy in environmentalist groups however another important stakeholder is the corporation on the other side of the argument.

This stakeholder is the group that is promoting the construction of the pipeline. Unlike the previously mentioned environmentalists, these people are decidedly for the construction of the pipeline. The TransCanada corporation is the group that wants to build this long pipeline across the United States. This group proposes building a pipeline from Alberta to Texas to transport oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. TransCanada calls themselves a leader in responsible development and operation of North American energy infrastructure. This is a multinational company based in Canada that employs over 6000 people in the energy business. This group has a functional website that is kept professional and modern. However the company is based around physical locations and work. The group is represented by a head governing board of 11 members from the United States and Canada. TransCanada has been responsible for building many pipelines across North America, specifically Canada and the United States. The companies long term goal is to become the leading energy infrastructure provider in North America. The company pronounces itself as a company that is dedicated to protecting the environment and being environmentally sensitive in all of their projects. The company has committed themselves to fighting climate change and assigning accountability within the corporation to maintain awareness of climate issues.

One claim made by this company is that the creation of this pipeline will merit thousands of new jobs created, "The claim that Keystone XL will create “35 jobs” is entirely without merit. Our U.S. oil pipeline system supports the creation of over 20,000 jobs in the U.S. – 13,000 construction jobs (9,000 KXL, 4,000 Gulf Coast Project) – work for pipefitters, welders, electricians, heavy equipment operators and more. And 7,000 manufacturing jobs – from the pipe being manufactured in Arkansas, pump motors made in Ohio and transformers built in Pennsylvania, workers in almost every state in the U.S. would benefit. TransCanada has signed binding Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with all major building trades unions which guarantee TransCanada will have the best and most talented laborers constructing this vital infrastructure project." Another claim by the company is that the Keystone Pipeline will be extremely safe and might be the safest pipeline ever built "Keystone XL will use satellite technology to monitor 20,000 data points on the pipeline’s operating conditions. TransCanada has also voluntarilycompany  agreed to 57 new safety procedures to provide even greater confidence regarding the operating and monitoring of Keystone XL. This includes a higher number of remotely controlled shut-off valves, increased pipeline inspections and burying the pipe deeper in the ground." Finally the company made another claim that the pipeline, its construction, and its distribution of oil sands will not affect the environment or lead to climate change "The tagline on which Keystone XL’s professional activist opposition has campaigned has no scientific merit. In fact, some of the world’s most prominent climate scientists agree that claim is nothing more than sensationalist hyperbole. David Keith, a climate scientist at Harvard University called, “The extreme statements — that this is ‘game over’ for the planet — are clearly not intellectually true”. Ken Caldeira, a climate researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, says “I don’t believe that whether the pipeline is built or not will have any detectable climate effect”.

These claims seem to have merit and truth to them. As a civil engineer I know, the construction and safety of people will be at the forefront of these peoples minds as they build and design the pipeline. This company has a good safety record and hasn't had a major oil spill in years. There are new construction techniques and materials that are always improving and increasing safety. Nevertheless there is always the potential for something to go wrong. These claims are credible and the company likely has all intentions of staying true to their words. TransCanada sites renowned scientists and appeals to the made in America spirit by claiming that none of the oil is exported outside North America. They try to appeal to the emotions of people by talking about creating jobs and working with Canada and America. They also appeal to those who say big oil isn't being held responsible for climate change, however they say they are being responsible for not adding to climate change. Meanwhile they downplay the potential dangers of oil spills and catastrophic damage to local environments.

The TransCanada corporation is very similar to many other stakeholders in this situation, particularly the politicians who are fighting to get to the pipeline built because of new jobs and economic potential as well as people in their districts wanting the pipeline built. Although not all politicians want the pipeline to be built because their district doesn't want them to. The stakeholder that is the most dissimilar to the TransCanada corporation is of course the environmentalist groups that want the pipeline blocked completely. They would not agree with any of the points that TransCanada put forth.

Anonymous, "TransCanada Logo" via Wikipedia
Public Domain

Stakeholder #1

Several blogs ago I talked about how stakeholders impact a controversy and how they shape the controversy. Stakeholders are they key part to understanding why there is a controversy in the first place. In this instance the stakeholder is the major part of the controversy and one of the major proponents of the controversy itself.

The first stakeholder in the Keystone XL Pipeline controversy are environmental groups. Environmentalists strongly oppose the Keystone Pipeline for many different reasons. Among these groups trying to oppose the pipeline are the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation and Friends of the Earth. These environmental groups have been the most outspoken against the construction of the pipeline. These groups are not the only group of environmentally conscientious groups to oppose the pipelines but they are the most representative of the needs and wants of environmentalists. These people can be accessed easily through the internet but also have group meetings of representatives of the organization. Many environmental groups have groups of people who meet online to discuss ideas and also have leadership groups that organize rallies and produce statements on behalf of the group. All of these groups have professional websites that have links to information about the pipeline as well as links to other climate change articles or animal welfare sites. The site is formal and well kept and often features some sort of call to action for its members, usually in the form of donations. Some of these articles directly attack the TransCanada company that would be responsible for building and maintaining the pipeline. These environmental groups are unified in their defense against the construction of the pipeline and the TransCanada corporation. All of these groups claim that the pipeline would endanger the ecosystems of North America through the potential of tar sand oil, a naturally dirty oil, getting spilled outside of the pipeline and causing a stinky and deadly situation. However these groups also believe that the pipeline will enable even more climate change problems.

One specific claim that environmental groups make about the Keystone XL Pipeline is that it will damage the environment through the potential of an on land oil spill. A land oil spill is highly damaging and dangerous but is known to be more expensive than an oil spill in water. One argumentative statement by the environmental groups is that the pipelines are not safe to transport the oil "Studies show that tar sands pipelines are more vulnerable to leaks than those carrying traditional crude because of the oil's corrosive nature and the chemicals necessary to make it run through the pipes." Another claim by the environmental groups is that it will use excess water and chemicals that will alter the local ecosystems in Alberta, Canada "Ninety-five percent of the water used to extract the oil, which is about 2.4 million barrels per day, is so polluted that the water must be stored in large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds. As the heavy bitumen sinks to the bottom of these ponds, the toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, works its way into neighboring clean water supplies." Meanwhile another claim that environmental groups make is that the pipeline will destroy natural habitats of animals in the US and Canada as seen by this quote from the National Wildlife Federation, "The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will traverse rivers and carve across prairies, will flow on top of vital aquifers, and threaten farmers, ranchers and wildlife when it leaks or breaks, as it unquestionably will."

All of these claims are valid claims and all of the issues these organizations raised do pose a large threat if this pipeline was built. However they may have overblown the severity of these issues. There is a potential for tar oil to corrode steel however there are certain civil engineers who are tasked with maintaining and monitoring corrosion in all infrastructure. Thus any type of oil spill is highly unlikely, the mining part of the oil extraction for the oil that will flow through the pipeline is a major problem though. Mining can be a very messy and dangerous business however there are people who are studying ways of mining more efficiently and with the environment in mind. Lastly the destruction of natural habitats for animals is also a serious issue but one that can be minimized with proper design and construction. Nevertheless there can never be absolute guarantees that these issues can be eliminated. There will always be a risk that problems could arise in any construction process and fear mongering should not deter advancements of technology, construction, and lifestyles. That being said, there is no absolute guarantee that the construction of this pipeline would have been safe and would have produced a viable, usable, and worthwhile means of transporting oil. Most of these groups are trying to appeal to emotion using some small facts and larger issues that have arisen in the past. Nevertheless the truth behind their emotional appeals makes them still credible as sources.

These environmentalists are perhaps most closely like those stakeholders involved in politics or those from the local towns. Although environmentalists are united in their opposition of the pipeline, they are not the only people to oppose the pipeline. Many stakeholders from the local towns oppose the pipeline because it will affect their towns, although many other local towns support the pipeline for the same reason. Some politicians are also stakeholders because their reelection depends on how they vote in regards to the bill. Many politicians reject the bill for the pipeline because they have people in their districts who have strong feelings against the pipeline. Again though, many of these politicians support the pipeline because their district supports the pipeline. Perhaps the most different from the environmentalists are the big oil companies and specifically the TransCanada corporation who stand to gain a lot of money from the construction of the pipeline.

dynamosquito, "Fire Altar" via Flikr
CCO Licence 

The Big Event

Each story has its own major event, its key moment in time. Certain major events are actually a compilation of events, as with the Keystone XL Pipeline controversy. However in order to understand why a story turns out the way it does, people must look at the event that defines the controversy or begins the controversy.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been a part of the much larger controversy for years, however the pipeline itself has become a representation of many different arguments rolled into one controversy. All of these controversies and arguments culminated in one series of events and one event in particular, the passage of the bill to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline by the United States Congress and then the bills subsequent veto by President Obama. The Keystone XL Pipeline passed the House of Representatives in February of 2015 and passed the United States Senate in late January of 2015. However the bill was vetoed by the president in March of 2015 and then was failed to be overridden. Even though the bill had bipartisan support the veto could not be overridden. Main support of the bill came from Republicans who favor big businesses, the main people against the bill were Democrats whose main concerns against the pipeline stem from the dangers it might cause on the environment. Although these divisions are not exactly this clear cut, they are in general following those guidelines. Notable exceptions include some Democrats in the south voting for the pipeline because of added economic benefits in their state. The controversy quickly became whether it was worth the risk to the environment in order to create jobs and work with big business. The Republican majority in congress was able to pass the bill with only a few objections from Republicans and with only the support of a few Democrats. However despite the objections to the construction of this infrastructure by Democrats, the bill still passed the Senate and the House of Representatives, this only caused the controversy to grow even larger as many people believed the Republicans were pandering to the big oil companies. Nevertheless President Obama had promised to veto the bill if it were to pass and make it to his desk, when it did make it to his desk he kept true to his word and vetoed the bill. His reasoning for vetoing the bill was that it endangered more people than it would benefit, in this case essentially it would harm the climate and cause more damage than its economic benefits could repair. Essentially the worry is that the oil transported in those pipes could potentially spill out in an accident causing black oil to spill over the pristine landscapes of the Midwest United States and Southern Canada and cause irreparable damage to the environment of that region. Oil is a very sticky and smelly situation and has proven difficult to clean up in water but it is even more difficult to clean up on land. Despite this many people still supported the bill because of its ability to create jobs. Even more Democrats rejected the bill, including President Obama because of oil's likely link to influencing climate change. Many people feel that in order to keep the Earth from becoming warmer and warmer we must reject fossil fuels and begin to invest in renewable energy. In order to make that transition to clean energy we must reject expanding the dirty and stinky oil business according to many Democrats.

Lawrence Jackson, "Joint Session of Congress" via Wikipedia
Public Domain

My Sources: Blog 3.4

In a previous step we were asked to gather a lot of sources and information about our topic. These sources are the key to understanding a controversy or an event, as such it is important to explore all the sources and give a little background information on all of them. This blog will attempt to explore the background to ten sources related to this project.

The first source comes from an article in The Verge, an online magazine. This article's source allows us to attain that it is likely trying to show a certain opinion on the pipeline as well as persuade the reader to think a certain way about the controversy. Nevertheless, Elizabeth Lopatto, the writer, tries to maintain an objective look at the proposed bill that would fund the Keystone XL Pipeline. She however is a science editor and as such is likely writing this article from a scientific perspective, which is allowable since the project deals with the movement of oil and tar and the possible environmental impacts of doing so. This source was published February 5, 2015 which would have been months into the new cycle of congresspeople who had just been elected in 2014. It is likely that these congresspeople were trying to follow up on their promises to either see the pipeline get built or see it get blocked. Thus the approval of the bill in Congress and potential veto by the President would have been the focal background story for all these politicians. This source allows me to see the political battles going on at the time of the veto as well as the divisions of support or opposition. This article shows the political stakeholders who are trying to fulfill their promises to the voting electorate, this is essentially the entire forefront of the controversy itself.

The next source comes from the Daily Caller, an online news source. This website is a site that publishes news articles on a wide variety of subjects, including politics. In other words this is a source that can be trusted as reporting events without much opinion thrown in. The article is written by Chris White, a full time writer for the Daily Caller. Not much else is told about this author. This source was published January 26, 2016 so it is extremely recent and relevant to the story. It talks about a new development in the Pipeline controversy as a group of protesters continually breaks into a Canadian Oil facility causing lock downs. These events are in the same anti-pipeline movements that have swept through environmentalists across Canada and the United States. This gives more background into why people were angry with the Keystone XL Pipeline to begin with while also showing how the controversy has spread to other pipeline projects in North America.

Another source comes from phys.org which is a science website that has covered the controversy for its scientific issues. The article describes where the pipeline would go, who is involved, why it is controversial, and the main economic and energy related impacts. The article does not have a stated author and was written November 6, 2015. This was after the bill and the debate were concluded which would have let the immediate tension in Congress settle. However, as this article proves, the debate and argument continues to go on to this very day even after the bill to build the pipeline was vetoed.

The fourth source comes from the Herald Times which is a local newspaper from Meeker, Colorado. This article comes from a small town which allows us to look at what small towns think about the controversy. The Herald Times attempts to analyze "who killed the Keystone XL Pipeline". It talks about how President Obama partnered with local native tribes to combat the pipeline to protect sacred lands. Essentially the article states how the pipeline created a controversy among the people and how it was killed by the people who want to protect the land. This article was written by Cally Carswell, a reporter for the High Country News who wrote this special for the local paper. This means that this was a collaboration between more than one newspaper. The paper was written January 18, 2016 after many people believe that the pipeline controversy has been killed once and for all.

A fifth source comes from the Houston Chronicle, a local paper in the Houston, Texas region. This article covers the legal challenges which are keeping the pipeline controversy alive despite the bill being vetoed. It talks about the possible lawsuit being issued against the United States by the TransCanada Oil Company. The article is written by Robert Grattan who is a writer for the Chronicle. It was written on January 7,2016 after the potential lawsuit was announced. This article's free version only gives a small amount of information but it gives new information about why this pipeline is still a controversy.

The sixth source comes from the Huffington Post, an online opinion magazine known for its liberal positions on issues. This means they are likely to favor the environmentalists side of the controversy. This explains why they wrote an article about the economic argument against the pipeline. The article was written by Sanjay Kapoor, a Seattle based sustainability and marketing consultant. His experience allows him to understand the complexities behind the economy and allow insight into what problems the pipeline could cause for the economy. This article was written April 22, 2015 just after the bill was passed by Congress and then vetoed. This source allows a clear explanation of one side of the argument in the controversy.

The seventh source is from newsmax.com, a news source that claims to be independent. This source covers everything from entertainment articles to serious articles about politics and science. This article describes five reasons for constructing the pipeline, including the notion that according to sources it wont have many direct impacts on global warming. This article was written by Jerry Shaw, a contributor to newsmax. Not much is known about Jerry Shaw except for his work at newsmax.com. The article was written on March 30, 2015 which is during the time period of the pipeline bill controversy. This article allows me to analyze the arguments for the other side, the pro-pipeline side, of the story.

The eighth source is an article from News.Mic, an online news magazine. This source is a QRG on the pipeline controversy. This source covers politics and other news with added opinion pieces. This article talks about the current state of the pipeline controversy. The article also talks about both sides to the controversy as well as which of the candidates for president might bring up the fight for the pipeline again. This article was written by Liz Rowley, a breaking news specialist based in New York. The reason she wrote this article would be because of the Canadian based oil company wants to sue the United States. The article was written November 3, 2015 around the time when the company was considering suing the federal government.

The ninth source is from an NPR article/podcast; NPR is a national public radio corporation which runs news stories and opinion pieces to be broadcast across the country. This article talks about why and how environmentalists were pushing to stop the pipeline from being built. NPR claims that this was much more than an infrastructure project, it was a battle over the future of energy. This is an evident part of opinion pieces, nevertheless it will be a very useful opinion piece. This article was written by Jeff Brady on January 8, 2015. Jeff Brady is a desk correspondent based in Philadelphia and specializes on energy issues and domestic issues. This article helps us understand the views of the anti-pipeline environmentalist stakeholders.

The tenth source is from an online video essay from AJ+, an online news source that uses video reports to deliver its information. This type of media allows the viewer to directly see and picture the impacted people and areas. The video talks about why the pipeline is a controversy as well as describing whether the pipeline will contribute to climate change. This video was produced by Al Jezeera Media Network. There is no attributed author for the video other than the network itself and there is not a given date for the video although it was uploaded on February 11, 2015 during the period that congress was voting and discussing the pipeline bill.

Anonymous, "News, Organization, Global" via Pixabay
CC0 licence.