Coming to a station near you any time soon?Photo: Tim GilliamPresident Obama doesn't seem
like he's going to let this high-speed rail thing go, making it a centerpiece
of the infrastructure section of his State of the Union Address last night:
Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans
access to high-speed rail. This could allow you to go places in half the time
it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying --
without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are
already underway.
Sounds great, if you're a
high-speed rail fan. But last fall's midterm elections exposed GOP opposition
to Obama's plan to bring fast train service to all regions of the country. As a
gubernatorial candidate, Republican Scott Walker of Wisconsin made opposition
to a Milwaukee-Madison high-speed route a centerpiece of his campaign. After he
was elected, he
handed the feds back $810 million that would have funded the line, on the
grounds that it would be too expensive for the state to run. It was a move
echoed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's rejection of funds for a regular-speed
rail tunnel under the Hudson River (Christie is fighting hard not to repay money the feds already spent on that project).
And in California, which
ended up getting some of that Wisconsin money, there's been controversy over the first phase of the state's own HSR project, with detractors calling it "a train to
nowhere" and farm communities worried about the impact on available land.
So it's notable that Obama
doesn't seem to be backing down from his push to make HSR part of his legacy.
That 80 percent figure is pretty aggressive.
The president also hammered
away at the need for the need to continue upgrading and repairing the
transportation infrastructure we already have:
So
over the last two years, we've begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project
that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry.
And tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble those efforts.We'll
put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We'll make
sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects
based [on] what's best for the economy, not politicians.
Obama's
stance was cheered by Transportation for
America (T4A) a coalition group calling for a reform of the nation's
transportation system. At the same time, the group's statement also acknowledges the difficulty of
getting projects funded. From the statement released by T4A's executive director, James Corless, today:
We were thrilled to hear the President come right
out and say that investment in transportation and other infrastructure is
central to rebuilding and growing our economy. An upfront investment in the
most-needed, clean transportation projects is a great opportunity to create
near-term jobs and lay the groundwork for the future economy.He acknowledged that money will be tight and we
have to make the best of use it. That requires fixing the 20th century
infrastructure -- our crumbling roads and bridges -- as we build out the
infrastructure for the 21st. That certainly includes
high-speed rail, but it also means helping communities get moving on
long-planned networks of light rail, street cars, rapid buses, and making
progress on road reconstruction to make our streets safer people walking,
biking and driving.The President's vision for infrastructure is not just about
near-term construction jobs. It is, as he said, about growing new businesses,
livable neighborhoods and dynamic regions that can attract a young and mobile
workforce and compete with our international competitors. It's about the jobs
associated with new transportation technologies
and manufacturing modern transit vehicles, everything from real time
information systems to make our highways and transit corridors smarter, to the
new rail cars being built today by United Streetcar in Oregon that can breathe
new life into our cities and suburbs.
T4A's Equity Caucus, which focuses on
the needs of poor, working-class, and minority Americans, had this to say:
[O]ur inadequate, outdated,
and underfunded transportation systems are keeping too many struggling
Americans -- young and old, rural and urban -- from fully connecting and
contributing to the national economy.Millions of Americans
rely exclusively on public transit, walking, or biking to get to work, to the
doctor's office, to school, and to the grocery store. Nearly 20 percent of
African American households, 14 percent of Latino households, and 13 percent of
Asian households live without a car. Fifteen percent of Native Americans must
travel more than 100 miles to access basic services.Smarter transportation
investments can unleash the under-realized economic power of communities across
America.
All this comes in the context
of a transportation reauthorization bill that has been stalled for the past year and a
half in Congress -- and that was when the Democrats controlled both the House and the
Senate. With Republicans now in control of the House, things are bound to get more complicated. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), the new Republican chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House, had this to say about the president's call for more infrastructure spending (via Transportation Nation):
After the Administration derailed a major six-year transportation
bill in 2009, it is encouraging that they are now on board with getting
infrastructure projects and jobs moving again. However, just another
proposal to spend more of the taxpayers’ money, when we have billions of
dollars sitting idle tied up in government red tape, will never get our
economic car out of the ditch.We’ve got to do more with less to improve our infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner.
Central to all future
discussion about infrastructure enhancement and repair will be the question of
money. With lawmakers avowedly against raising the gas tax, finding the cash to
build new systems -- or to stop the proverbial crumbling of the old ones -- is
going to be the biggest problem.
I started writing TV recaps and reviews a few years ago when a friend of a friend at a major newspaper told me they were expanding their TV coverage and needed people do cover a few shows, so I picked up two programs I already watched a lot, 'The Office' and 'ER.' It sounded easy enough, writing my thoughts on shows I already had opinions on anyway, although it took several tries to get the tone right–sometimes it still does. Some publications want a lot of recap, and some prefer that you assume that the readers saw the show and just touch on the major points. Some editors encourage plenty of sassmouth and snark, whereas others won’t tolerate even a hint at a swear word.
Typically, I'm assigned to review either an episode or a series of a show. I watch the show, and as quickly as possible, but as thoughtfully and with as much "voice" as possible, record my impressions of the quality of the episode along with the recap.
It’s a fun job, one that I’m lucky to have, period, let alone make a few bucks off, but like any writing gig, it comes with its own writey lessons.
• Long scripted dramas and reality TV shows are the easiest to cover. Half-hour comedies are some of the hardest. It can be difficult to stretch a recap of a half-hour show into several good paragraphs and you can only say “…and it was funny when…” so many times. Also really hard to turn into something: results shows that aren’t finales.They’re usually all filler except for the results–the best reality TV competition shows are figuring out how to make the results shows worth watching because otherwise people will just skip and read about what happened online. With a drama, though, you can usually find something to say about the season (or series) as a whole even if the episode didn’t give you a ton to work with.
• Screeners make life so much easier. I think I automatically relax and like a show more if I know I have a day or two to think about it after I watch it than if I only have an hour or two to write it up. Knocking out a writeup on a two-hour episode of 'American Idol' an hour after seeing it and making it comprehensive, entertaining, and spelling-error free is sometimes a challenge.
• Livechatting reality TV show finales is way more fun than writing about them. As great a job it is to write about television, actually talking to like-minded people in real time and trying to one-up each other with jokes and observations is more fun. They’re like TV-watching parties but without that pesky real live interaction that goes along with that whole having-to-put-on-a-bra thing.
• If you truly love a show, don't review it. I get asked occasionally to review 'RuPaul's Drag Race' but I won't, at least not full-time, because I like saving that show as pure entertainment, just me and the TV and no notes or observations. Because even though writing about TV isn’t especially grueling work, it’s still work, and if you really love letting a show take you away for a little while, it’s best just to keep it as entertainment without turning it into an assignment, to remember what it’s like to just watch something without taking notes. I do like subbing for people who cover shows I watch just for fun, though. There’s less pressure to come up with something new to say, and you get to come at it from a fan’s perspective, not a critic’s. Plus, if for some reason you rub the readers the wrong way, it was just a one-time thing and they won't be back next week to tell you what an ass you are.
• Commenters will eat your soul if you let them. I have other critic friends who can avoid comments completely or not let them get to them. I am not one of these people. Why do I read comments on my pieces? Because I’m a masochist, that’s why. I guess I should stop being surprised when people use the internet's anonymity to be jerks. Being told that your mother should have had aborted you when she had the chance because of your opinion on 'Lost' (this didn’t happen to me, it happened to a colleague) never goes down easy. I learn to laugh a day or two later but I’m still naively shaken sometimes by how rude people can be (My opinion on one episode of 'SNL' made one person decide that I am "literally retarded"). That said, I also feel crappy if a commenter politely points out that I made a mistake or missed something.
• Whenever people find out you're a TV critic and ask you what’s good, without fail, you draw a blank and then you feel like an idiot. I feel like I can’t keep saying 'The Wire' for forever, I’m afraid to admit to how loyal a 'Bridezillas' viewer I am. Alternately, they haven't heard of any of the shows you do recommend. Or, they watched a few episodes of your favorite show and hated it and then you say “Oh, well,” and secretly judge them.
• Network swag is fun to receive, and then you throw it away. It’s entertaining to receive a big silly package from a network in the mail, until I realize that I have to dispose of all the packaging that it came in and what do I need with some of this swag, anyway? Except the time that a network sent me some pancake mix and syrup for Christmas. That was great.
• Going out and having a few drinks before you go home to write sounds like a much better and more enjoyable idea than it is. For something that sounds so fun and easy, you have to take it pretty seriously in order to do a decent job at it, especially since there are probably 200 people who would gladly take over covering for you. This goes double if you have a day job and can’t afford to sleep in because you started watching the two-hour 'Idol' “event” at 10 PM.
• Change is good. 'American Idol' is only two episodes in but the consensus amongst reviewers is that, so far, it’s not too terrible. In my experience, a reality TV show changing up its format, if even slightly, is a good thing, at least from a writing perspective. When 'So You Think You Can Dance' incorporated its All-Stars last season, it might not have been for the best of the show, but at least I could evaluate the changes and ask the readers what they thought. When a show rests too long in format you can get too comfortable (Eventually I had a hard time finding much to say about 'Project Runway' for the first 75% of each episode, since it started to feel like everything prior to the runway was pretty irrelevant, unless Tim Gunn did something noteworthy).
• Tim Gunn, over the phone, is as nice as you’d hope he’d be. Better, even. Classy, charming, intelligent, friendly: I was so excited after I interviewed him that I did a horrible job spell-checking the interview and let it get posted when it really shouldn’t have. I just wanted to brag to the world that I talked to him. Also very nice, despite probably being richer than anyone else I know: Nigel Lythgoe.
Claire Zulkey lives in Chicago. You can learn so much more about her here.
Photo by Powi, from Flickr.
aut…
mrbenz
emanuelt
gpsbwngzlsddi
dxyitffliak
lesptibretons
yolasureno
emmielynn
aznboifromva
marilounava
vibracall
online auto insurance
arcbytchh
cronjob
drivegira
duretta
cessusbangy
marchiago
