I'm watching Birdman right now (I'm a late adopter, admit it). I can't help but feel like actors just like to watch movies about themselves just like architects like to watch movies about ourselves. Guilty.
I barely drank anything all weekend and only had one glass of wine before bed last night, and yet I've still been awake since 4:30 AM with what feels like a raging hangover. If this is what getting old feels like, it sucks.
It's been getting progressively worse all morning. Pretty sure it's moved beyond pseudo-hangover to something that feels more like a mild case of food poisoning.
Congrats! It's too bad Oregon's stamp isn't the shape of the state, but if you get an Idaho stamp as well you could at least have a partial map of the Pacific Northwest!
Thanks... At this point my main focus is landing a job. I don't plan to apply for licensure in WA or OR right away, but I'll do it if/when there's a specific reason I need to be licensed in either state (and preferably if a firm is willing to reimburse the required fees).
Of course, the first resume I sent out yesterday had a typo in it. I should know better than to apply to my top-choice firm at the very beginning of the job search.
apparently a bunch of undereducated hic ranchers trying to steal property through use of violent threat is a nuanced treatise towards equal protection under law or some such thing?
a) the additional jail time for the arsonists is bad. being re-tried by the circuit court and having to go back to jail is bad. minimum sentences are bad. we should be upset about this as much as we get upset about a black kid getting 5 years for being in possession of a joint or similar occurrences of minimum sentences being used to keep jails full of people who probably shouldn't be in jail
a.1) what these guys did was bad. the stuff about how it was an innocent brush fire that got a bit out of hand is the defense attorney trying to make it sound like nothing really happened. witnesses reported they were poaching on land they had no right to be on and destroyed the land to cover up what they were doing. the back fire stories came later. having said that, they served time in prison as they should have, and imho their debt to society for their egregious acts should have been considered paid.
b) while it sucks that this happened to those guys, it apparently happens a lot. the yeehawdists aren't going to oregon for prison reform. they're going to oregon because they want to be in some big ruby ridge style fire fight. they think shooting shit up will somehow make them heroes.
b.1) if you want to attach some 'moral' precursor, it's more about federal land management. the bundy's want the government to give them free land, which is just stupid. if they were successful in getting the washington government out of oregon land, the washington government would sell the land to new york investors so the ranches would have to lease it from private corporations instead of a public government. that would not be in the best interest of the ranchers, the public, or the land.
c) if we want a government that is not racist and allows freedom of religion, shouldn't the government act the same in this instance as they would if it were black muslims arming themselves and stealing federal property? in my mind there are 2 ways to do that, either attack the white guys, or stop attacking the black guys. getting rid of militarized police in places like ferguson would be preferable in my opinion.
c.1) the other way to look at this, assuming race is not a factor, would be to say that militarized government intervention isn't necessary when the opposition is armed to the teeth. having the police and national guard send the message that black lives matter or occupy protesters should be armed with intent to "defend" themselves if they want to be treated equal to the crazy white people is a bad precedent.
apparently a bunch of undereducated hic ranchers trying to steal property through use of violent threat is a nuanced treatise towards equal protection under law or some such thing?.
curtkram, I think the author of the article is saying that the situation offers up the opportunity for a more nuanced discussion about equal protection etc. The YeeHawdists are indeed not using nuanced thinking, and calling them "YeeHawdists" isn't nuanced either - but I'm still doing it because I find it funny. Actually, I think the response has been pretty good: better to let them wear themselves out without making a big deal about it, like a toddler having a tantrum.
The only downside to a minimal response is that yes, it lays bare the inequality in the way white and black communities are treated. It's pretty disgusting, on that level.
I sort of like how the native americans in the region have stepped up and pointed out how they were forced marched out of there if anyone really cares to go through the 'purchase history' and bad deals.
Happy New Years TC! My Archinect resolution, only architecture outside of TC, and man was the conspiracy/religious wormhole a mind sucker/fucker....give me a strong whiskey, beer makes you fat.
/\ interesting article midlander (you do find the good one), and it's funny left and right meet on extreme cases of government stupidity/injustice/assholes/wtf ideology vs common sense...
I tried to think about Curtkram and Donna's points about inequality. I think it boils down to money [code name Land Ownership]- Miles, not sure why you didn't suggest this.....and to be anti-Federal is American, duh...that may just be the Bundy speaking there (1/8) or the Native American (1/16) ?....
How much did the standoff at Waco, TX cost the taxpayer?
From what I've read the government already lost millions by loaning money to these guys, now you don't to go and spend more right and then kill them?
The judges, the sheriffs, the majority of LAND OWNERS, etc... are surely relatives, at least not so distant,....tread lightly.
I'm starting to think the term Terrorist is too broad now, overused, over inflated, but from what I read that's the trick isn't it and where the left meets the right.
If you're a Terrorist - you have no rights, government can treat you however they wish in the name of a safe society.
But if you are a Muslim US army major who shoots up an army base and kill people while shouting 'God is Great' you are a workplace violence instigator, not a terrorist.
Wounded Knee - and the entire territory of the US - is all about ownership. Bush's ownership society sounded good to the lower & middle class but was aimed squarely at the 1%. Pump and dump.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We pose as the later but tend to be viewed as the former, at least by those we kill for our freedom.
Grrrrr. People may accuse architects of obfuscational language but I can point to 1,000 tradespeople who speak so opaquely that no one on the jobsite has any idea what anyone else is doing. For fuckssake, people: don't just use random pronouns, use direct nouns. Grrrrr. I'm having a bad day.
volunteer, are you comparing nidal hasan to the yeehawdists? because nidal hasan was convicted in a military court and has been sentenced to death. the difference with the yeehawdists is that there is no attempt to stop them.
also, the fort hood shooting was referred to by obama's administrative officials as an act of terror.
they have threatened actual violence. they pretty much said they intended to shoot any sort of law enforcement agent if they made an attempt to do their job and stop the criminal activity happening at the wildlife refuge.
they have met with local law enforcement, who politely asked them to leave, and they politely refused the request. just to be clear, the threat of violence isn't extended to anyone walking up to them, but rather towards any law enforcement action that would force them to abide by the laws they are expected to follow. if the law enforcement agents involved were to line up the way they did in fergusun and fire tear gas like they did for the occupy protesters, the intent of the yeehawdists is to shoot at them.
they have not killed anyone though, and that is a key difference between the fort hood shooter and this group. also they aren't military, so this group won't be held to military court whereas the fort hood shooter was. while that difference is significant related to the charges and court the yeehawdists should face, i believe it doesn't validate whatever volunteer was trying to say.
No, they are not terrorists but the Oregon federal prosecutor, an Obama appointee, brought terrorism charges against the two ranchers whose back-burn got out of control. This super-liberal woman has since resigned for medical reasons. A complaint was made against her for stalking a male assistant attorney general lawyer in her own office. Obama wanted a liberal woman in the position even though she was manifestly unqualified and a nut case. The preceding judge said it was a farce to bring terrorism charges and is why he reduced their sentences, which were served. Enter the Obama-appointed nut-case again who wanted to get blood from a stone and pushed the matter further to get them resentenced.
damn my post didnt post......whack jobs with no affiliation ate barely terrorists and the yeehawdists are absolutely not terrorists. to declare and provide reasons for violence against your opponent is war (firmally). terrorism usually requires Suprise acts of violence on innocent civilians in the name and by an organization. Volunteers joke kind of proves the counterpointn, that whack jobs are not terrorists......also most the yeehawdis by descent have been in this country since the 1600's and militia runs deep. was George Washington a terrorist to the British? the def. is too broadly used now by monkees in the media
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
and terrorism as
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
when you have a bunch of idiots hiding behind guns, does that count as violence and intimidation? i think it does. i think the whole point of these guys carrying guns is to intimidate through threat of violence, and their guns are probably the only reason they haven't been removed from the facility.
is there a political aim? i think there is. they are attacking the federal government because they don't think the federal government should have the rights it has. i would add to that that this is clearly not a constitutional issue. the constitution is clear about establishing the supreme court as a body to decide whether something is or is not constitutional. the constitution does not say interpretation is up to angry people hiding behind guns.
volunteer, can you provide a source where obama is quoted as saying he wanted a manifestly unqualified liberal nutcase woman as a judge in oregon, or do you suppose there was a realistic process that is vastly different than what you're imagining? part of the problem here is some people make up this bullshit right-wing narrative to blame obama for whatever fiction they can image and then replace reality with that fairy tale. you just keep digging for a reason to blame a democrat to the point where you've lost all connection with what's happening in real life.
who passed the statute the judge used to sentence these men? if it was your republican congress, you might want to rethink you allegiance and vote for hillary. i think she's more likely to support legislation to reduce the effects of mandatory minimum sentences and hopefully she'll cut back on anti-terrorism legislation with overly broad application.
Amanda Marshall is the name of the (former) Obama-appointed federal prosecutor for Oregon. You can do the research at your leisure. She was not the judge in the case, but the federal prosecutor for Oregon who brought the "terrorism" charges.
which is fine, but the hammonds are not the yeehawdists. the hammonds are not involved with what's happening at the wildlife refuge. they are not terrorists. they did something stupid and got caught. yes, they are victims of legislation that should be fixed (that's something legislatures do, not something federal prosecutors do).
so the federal prosecutor prosecuted someone for doing something illegal on federal land. that's her job. the part of your statement that i disagree with is where you completely ignore all the conversation about nut jobs with guns and keep digging for some loosely related event so you change the story into your 'blame obama' rhetoric.
so let's just be clear, regarding the hammond's sentencing, it's the legislation you disagree with. the prosecutor was neither the legislator nor the judge.
let's also be clear that this is not obama's fault. nor is it the fault of democrats or liberals. the people who are holed up in a federal wildlife refuge with a bunch of guns are doing something illegal because they make bad decisions. their choices were not forced on them by your boogeyman. the world view you hold where obama has to be blamed for all bad things is just wrong, and perpetuating that kind of thought excuses the actions of domestic terrorist who want to make our communities less safe.
if you were to start practicing the ability to form opinions based on a rational view of real-life events this discussion would become far better and the world around will start to become a better place. we could start addressing the problems we have with bad sentencing laws, bad anti-terrorism laws, and too lax gun control laws. if you stay in your 'blame obama' bubble you'll never really understand what's actually happening, you won't really be able to be involved in reasonable dialogue that will help resolve some of the conflicts that need to be resolved, and you'll keep voting for the wrong people who keep making things worse.
How about blame Democrat Senator Harry Reid? It was his pet henchman that he got installed as head of the BLM. They were trying to get Bundy off his Nevada leased land so they could "remediate" it. Why did it need remediation? Because Reid and the BLM planned a huge solar-farm on near-by land, the construction of which would total obliterate that land ecologically for hundreds of years, so other land (Bundy's leased land) had to be brought up to a pristine state. Reid's idiot lawyer son, the local power company and the Chinese were all involved. All they had to do was squish Bundy.
And just to be clear there is no law requiring the bringing of terrorist charges against someone whose back burn got out of hand, which is exactly what the common sense judge in the case ruled
the 9th circuit court ruled that the common sense judge did not follow sentencing guidelines defined in the law. also, the back burn excuse is pretty much bullshit.
what harry reid did in nevada doesn't have anything to do with what the yeehawdists are doing in oregon. raising arms against the federal government is not the proper, legal way to fix legislation you disagree with.
as a thought exercise, just pretend that you weren't interested in pushing whatever 'republican' or 'conservative' or 'tea party' or whatever other agenda it is you're trying to push. don't look for someone to blame. instead, just look at what's happening in oregon, without the baggage. what do you see?
if there is a question of the constitutionality of the federal government's right to own land, what means the does the constitution provide for interpreting that question? does the constitution really say a bunch of ranchers with no background in law should raise arms and threaten violence against the government? do you really think threatening to shoot people is an adequate replacement for elections?
There is a better solution here. The President needs to back off on the monument. The BLM needs to make sure Susie Hammond isn't pushed into bankruptcy and has her ranch taken by the government and added to those that have been. We need to be better at hearing people from all walks of life and all regions of our country and understanding this anger that is out there and what we can do to bring about correct change and peaceful resolution.
That's also a great speech. I've spent a decent amount of time camping in Harney & Malheur county, and I have to agree it's almost impossible for someone who has never seen it first hand to conceive the vast emptyness of that area, and the lifestyle of the people who make their livelihood from it.
...but I don't think any of that contradicts Blumenauer's statement. They're both valid, and reasoned. ...Unlike the clowns running around the country desperate for a cause to latch onto that barely justifies their lust for insurrection.
I'm not sure I understand the question, Carrera? My employer tracks my movements every day via my electronic badge and the multitude of security cameras in every space I enter, as well as on the grounds. They do same for the night shift.
If you mean internet, I made clear in my interview that engaging in social media was a part of my professional development and I didn't intend to stop doing it.
^ I need to learn how to be more assertive about my social media use. I agree that it can be a big part of professional development, and I don't know how anybody can reasonably be expected to pump CAD or Revit for hours at a time without the occasional diversion. Going forward I need to make it clear that I expect to be an architect and not just a drafting monkey.
Speaking of interviews, I have two and possibly a third lined up with firms in Portland. Nothing but crickets from Seattle except for a couple of recruiters, and I've never had much luck with recruiters in the past. I love Seattle, but living in the same city as Powell's bookstore and some awesome tiki bars wouldn't suck at all.
Jan 8, 16 3:56 pm ·
·
David Cole,
It could potentially lead to a job in Seattle area and Portland can just be a stepping stone in that direction. Whether that happens in the next 5 years... who knows. I have observed that some have had that in the course of their career.
curtkram you prove an interesting point by googling a definition. i dont really accept either. intimidation is not an act of terrorism etc....the interesting point is if Google/internet sources co-opt small and subtle word changes in definitions with the legal language most of society with little awaremess may find themselves agreeing with something that is essentially incorrect and possibly self-destructive........................whatever happened to Archinect Definitions? (fuckin seque man, Segway)
Well, I was hired by people who really wanted me in the position, and I asked for a lower salary than I likely could have because I really wanted to work with them. So I had some leeway.
Thread Central
Donna, check your Facebook messages!
I barely drank anything all weekend and only had one glass of wine before bed last night, and yet I've still been awake since 4:30 AM with what feels like a raging hangover. If this is what getting old feels like, it sucks.
i drank a few. came out of it with an annoying head cold, but i think mostly you took the hangover for me. thanks for that.
It's been getting progressively worse all morning. Pretty sure it's moved beyond pseudo-hangover to something that feels more like a mild case of food poisoning.
The situation is a terrifying mess but I can't stop giggling at the hashtags #YallQaeda and #YeeHawd.
My personal favorite is #VanillaISIS
an attack against the united states government by armed insurgents. why aren't donald trump and jeb bush demanding drone attacks?
NCARB certified! The turnaround time was much quicker than I expected. This is my permission slip to apply for registration in Oregon and Washington.
Congrats! It's too bad Oregon's stamp isn't the shape of the state, but if you get an Idaho stamp as well you could at least have a partial map of the Pacific Northwest!
Thanks... At this point my main focus is landing a job. I don't plan to apply for licensure in WA or OR right away, but I'll do it if/when there's a specific reason I need to be licensed in either state (and preferably if a firm is willing to reimburse the required fees).
Of course, the first resume I sent out yesterday had a typo in it. I should know better than to apply to my top-choice firm at the very beginning of the job search.
Charles Mudede is still my favorite architecture critic, and his photo captions are always perfect.
Turkey vultures in the wildlife refuge currently occupied by rogue ranchers. The birds are waiting for something to die.
^ I've avoided reading much on that because it seemed like a bunch of shibboleth calls. But in response to that photo:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/
That's a good article, midlander.
An even-handed and rational article - not many of those encountered these days...
apparently a bunch of undereducated hic ranchers trying to steal property through use of violent threat is a nuanced treatise towards equal protection under law or some such thing?
a) the additional jail time for the arsonists is bad. being re-tried by the circuit court and having to go back to jail is bad. minimum sentences are bad. we should be upset about this as much as we get upset about a black kid getting 5 years for being in possession of a joint or similar occurrences of minimum sentences being used to keep jails full of people who probably shouldn't be in jail
a.1) what these guys did was bad. the stuff about how it was an innocent brush fire that got a bit out of hand is the defense attorney trying to make it sound like nothing really happened. witnesses reported they were poaching on land they had no right to be on and destroyed the land to cover up what they were doing. the back fire stories came later. having said that, they served time in prison as they should have, and imho their debt to society for their egregious acts should have been considered paid.
b) while it sucks that this happened to those guys, it apparently happens a lot. the yeehawdists aren't going to oregon for prison reform. they're going to oregon because they want to be in some big ruby ridge style fire fight. they think shooting shit up will somehow make them heroes.
b.1) if you want to attach some 'moral' precursor, it's more about federal land management. the bundy's want the government to give them free land, which is just stupid. if they were successful in getting the washington government out of oregon land, the washington government would sell the land to new york investors so the ranches would have to lease it from private corporations instead of a public government. that would not be in the best interest of the ranchers, the public, or the land.
c) if we want a government that is not racist and allows freedom of religion, shouldn't the government act the same in this instance as they would if it were black muslims arming themselves and stealing federal property? in my mind there are 2 ways to do that, either attack the white guys, or stop attacking the black guys. getting rid of militarized police in places like ferguson would be preferable in my opinion.
c.1) the other way to look at this, assuming race is not a factor, would be to say that militarized government intervention isn't necessary when the opposition is armed to the teeth. having the police and national guard send the message that black lives matter or occupy protesters should be armed with intent to "defend" themselves if they want to be treated equal to the crazy white people is a bad precedent.
apparently a bunch of undereducated hic ranchers trying to steal property through use of violent threat is a nuanced treatise towards equal protection under law or some such thing?.
curtkram, I think the author of the article is saying that the situation offers up the opportunity for a more nuanced discussion about equal protection etc. The YeeHawdists are indeed not using nuanced thinking, and calling them "YeeHawdists" isn't nuanced either - but I'm still doing it because I find it funny. Actually, I think the response has been pretty good: better to let them wear themselves out without making a big deal about it, like a toddler having a tantrum.
The only downside to a minimal response is that yes, it lays bare the inequality in the way white and black communities are treated. It's pretty disgusting, on that level.
I sort of like how the native americans in the region have stepped up and pointed out how they were forced marched out of there if anyone really cares to go through the 'purchase history' and bad deals.
Donna nailed it. Just imagine native Americans doing this (Wounded Knee).
Happy New Years TC! My Archinect resolution, only architecture outside of TC, and man was the conspiracy/religious wormhole a mind sucker/fucker....give me a strong whiskey, beer makes you fat.
/\ interesting article midlander (you do find the good one), and it's funny left and right meet on extreme cases of government stupidity/injustice/assholes/wtf ideology vs common sense...
I tried to think about Curtkram and Donna's points about inequality. I think it boils down to money [code name Land Ownership]- Miles, not sure why you didn't suggest this.....and to be anti-Federal is American, duh...that may just be the Bundy speaking there (1/8) or the Native American (1/16) ?....
How much did the standoff at Waco, TX cost the taxpayer?
From what I've read the government already lost millions by loaning money to these guys, now you don't to go and spend more right and then kill them?
The judges, the sheriffs, the majority of LAND OWNERS, etc... are surely relatives, at least not so distant,....tread lightly.
I'm starting to think the term Terrorist is too broad now, overused, over inflated, but from what I read that's the trick isn't it and where the left meets the right.
If you're a Terrorist - you have no rights, government can treat you however they wish in the name of a safe society.
But if you are a Muslim US army major who shoots up an army base and kill people while shouting 'God is Great' you are a workplace violence instigator, not a terrorist.
Wounded Knee - and the entire territory of the US - is all about ownership. Bush's ownership society sounded good to the lower & middle class but was aimed squarely at the 1%. Pump and dump.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We pose as the later but tend to be viewed as the former, at least by those we kill for our freedom.
Grrrrr. People may accuse architects of obfuscational language but I can point to 1,000 tradespeople who speak so opaquely that no one on the jobsite has any idea what anyone else is doing. For fuckssake, people: don't just use random pronouns, use direct nouns. Grrrrr. I'm having a bad day.
volunteer, are you comparing nidal hasan to the yeehawdists? because nidal hasan was convicted in a military court and has been sentenced to death. the difference with the yeehawdists is that there is no attempt to stop them.
also, the fort hood shooting was referred to by obama's administrative officials as an act of terror.
the difference with the yeehawdists is that there is no attempt to stop them.
The difference is the yeehawdists haven't killed or threatened actual violence...
they have threatened actual violence. they pretty much said they intended to shoot any sort of law enforcement agent if they made an attempt to do their job and stop the criminal activity happening at the wildlife refuge.
they have met with local law enforcement, who politely asked them to leave, and they politely refused the request. just to be clear, the threat of violence isn't extended to anyone walking up to them, but rather towards any law enforcement action that would force them to abide by the laws they are expected to follow. if the law enforcement agents involved were to line up the way they did in fergusun and fire tear gas like they did for the occupy protesters, the intent of the yeehawdists is to shoot at them.
they have not killed anyone though, and that is a key difference between the fort hood shooter and this group. also they aren't military, so this group won't be held to military court whereas the fort hood shooter was. while that difference is significant related to the charges and court the yeehawdists should face, i believe it doesn't validate whatever volunteer was trying to say.
No, they are not terrorists but the Oregon federal prosecutor, an Obama appointee, brought terrorism charges against the two ranchers whose back-burn got out of control. This super-liberal woman has since resigned for medical reasons. A complaint was made against her for stalking a male assistant attorney general lawyer in her own office. Obama wanted a liberal woman in the position even though she was manifestly unqualified and a nut case. The preceding judge said it was a farce to bring terrorism charges and is why he reduced their sentences, which were served. Enter the Obama-appointed nut-case again who wanted to get blood from a stone and pushed the matter further to get them resentenced.
damn my post didnt post......whack jobs with no affiliation ate barely terrorists and the yeehawdists are absolutely not terrorists. to declare and provide reasons for violence against your opponent is war (firmally). terrorism usually requires Suprise acts of violence on innocent civilians in the name and by an organization. Volunteers joke kind of proves the counterpointn, that whack jobs are not terrorists......also most the yeehawdis by descent have been in this country since the 1600's and militia runs deep. was George Washington a terrorist to the British? the def. is too broadly used now by monkees in the media
the folks at google define terrorist as
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
and terrorism as
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
when you have a bunch of idiots hiding behind guns, does that count as violence and intimidation? i think it does. i think the whole point of these guys carrying guns is to intimidate through threat of violence, and their guns are probably the only reason they haven't been removed from the facility.
is there a political aim? i think there is. they are attacking the federal government because they don't think the federal government should have the rights it has. i would add to that that this is clearly not a constitutional issue. the constitution is clear about establishing the supreme court as a body to decide whether something is or is not constitutional. the constitution does not say interpretation is up to angry people hiding behind guns.
volunteer, can you provide a source where obama is quoted as saying he wanted a manifestly unqualified liberal nutcase woman as a judge in oregon, or do you suppose there was a realistic process that is vastly different than what you're imagining? part of the problem here is some people make up this bullshit right-wing narrative to blame obama for whatever fiction they can image and then replace reality with that fairy tale. you just keep digging for a reason to blame a democrat to the point where you've lost all connection with what's happening in real life.
who passed the statute the judge used to sentence these men? if it was your republican congress, you might want to rethink you allegiance and vote for hillary. i think she's more likely to support legislation to reduce the effects of mandatory minimum sentences and hopefully she'll cut back on anti-terrorism legislation with overly broad application.
https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/
Amanda Marshall is the name of the (former) Obama-appointed federal prosecutor for Oregon. You can do the research at your leisure. She was not the judge in the case, but the federal prosecutor for Oregon who brought the "terrorism" charges.
which is fine, but the hammonds are not the yeehawdists. the hammonds are not involved with what's happening at the wildlife refuge. they are not terrorists. they did something stupid and got caught. yes, they are victims of legislation that should be fixed (that's something legislatures do, not something federal prosecutors do).
so the federal prosecutor prosecuted someone for doing something illegal on federal land. that's her job. the part of your statement that i disagree with is where you completely ignore all the conversation about nut jobs with guns and keep digging for some loosely related event so you change the story into your 'blame obama' rhetoric.
so let's just be clear, regarding the hammond's sentencing, it's the legislation you disagree with. the prosecutor was neither the legislator nor the judge.
let's also be clear that this is not obama's fault. nor is it the fault of democrats or liberals. the people who are holed up in a federal wildlife refuge with a bunch of guns are doing something illegal because they make bad decisions. their choices were not forced on them by your boogeyman. the world view you hold where obama has to be blamed for all bad things is just wrong, and perpetuating that kind of thought excuses the actions of domestic terrorist who want to make our communities less safe.
if you were to start practicing the ability to form opinions based on a rational view of real-life events this discussion would become far better and the world around will start to become a better place. we could start addressing the problems we have with bad sentencing laws, bad anti-terrorism laws, and too lax gun control laws. if you stay in your 'blame obama' bubble you'll never really understand what's actually happening, you won't really be able to be involved in reasonable dialogue that will help resolve some of the conflicts that need to be resolved, and you'll keep voting for the wrong people who keep making things worse.
How about blame Democrat Senator Harry Reid? It was his pet henchman that he got installed as head of the BLM. They were trying to get Bundy off his Nevada leased land so they could "remediate" it. Why did it need remediation? Because Reid and the BLM planned a huge solar-farm on near-by land, the construction of which would total obliterate that land ecologically for hundreds of years, so other land (Bundy's leased land) had to be brought up to a pristine state. Reid's idiot lawyer son, the local power company and the Chinese were all involved. All they had to do was squish Bundy.
And just to be clear there is no law requiring the bringing of terrorist charges against someone whose back burn got out of hand, which is exactly what the common sense judge in the case ruled
I'd bet your against jury nullification too...
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others- Thom. Jefferson
the 9th circuit court ruled that the common sense judge did not follow sentencing guidelines defined in the law. also, the back burn excuse is pretty much bullshit.
what harry reid did in nevada doesn't have anything to do with what the yeehawdists are doing in oregon. raising arms against the federal government is not the proper, legal way to fix legislation you disagree with.
as a thought exercise, just pretend that you weren't interested in pushing whatever 'republican' or 'conservative' or 'tea party' or whatever other agenda it is you're trying to push. don't look for someone to blame. instead, just look at what's happening in oregon, without the baggage. what do you see?
the back burn excuse is pretty much bullshit
strawman - they confessed to arson and served time, excuse or no excuse.
It may not be as clear as you think it is -- See what The 10th Amendment Center's analysis is...
still pretty clear.
if there is a question of the constitutionality of the federal government's right to own land, what means the does the constitution provide for interpreting that question? does the constitution really say a bunch of ranchers with no background in law should raise arms and threaten violence against the government? do you really think threatening to shoot people is an adequate replacement for elections?
My congressman puts it well: https://medium.com/@earlblumenauer/my-take-on-the-eastern-oregon-situation-fd5af7e2173d#.nj3muoylf
Another Congressmans take...
There is a better solution here. The President needs to back off on the monument. The BLM needs to make sure Susie Hammond isn't pushed into bankruptcy and has her ranch taken by the government and added to those that have been. We need to be better at hearing people from all walks of life and all regions of our country and understanding this anger that is out there and what we can do to bring about correct change and peaceful resolution.
That's also a great speech. I've spent a decent amount of time camping in Harney & Malheur county, and I have to agree it's almost impossible for someone who has never seen it first hand to conceive the vast emptyness of that area, and the lifestyle of the people who make their livelihood from it.
...but I don't think any of that contradicts Blumenauer's statement. They're both valid, and reasoned. ...Unlike the clowns running around the country desperate for a cause to latch onto that barely justifies their lust for insurrection.
Blumenaur's statement is a good one. I wish all public discourse could be so considered.
^ Donna…does your employer know where you are everyday? Or do work the night shift? :):)
I'm not sure I understand the question, Carrera? My employer tracks my movements every day via my electronic badge and the multitude of security cameras in every space I enter, as well as on the grounds. They do same for the night shift.
If you mean internet, I made clear in my interview that engaging in social media was a part of my professional development and I didn't intend to stop doing it.
^ meant the second part...some contract.
^ I need to learn how to be more assertive about my social media use. I agree that it can be a big part of professional development, and I don't know how anybody can reasonably be expected to pump CAD or Revit for hours at a time without the occasional diversion. Going forward I need to make it clear that I expect to be an architect and not just a drafting monkey.
Speaking of interviews, I have two and possibly a third lined up with firms in Portland. Nothing but crickets from Seattle except for a couple of recruiters, and I've never had much luck with recruiters in the past. I love Seattle, but living in the same city as Powell's bookstore and some awesome tiki bars wouldn't suck at all.
David Cole,
It could potentially lead to a job in Seattle area and Portland can just be a stepping stone in that direction. Whether that happens in the next 5 years... who knows. I have observed that some have had that in the course of their career.
Alternatively, like me, you might move to Portland as a "stepping stone" and very quickly decide to spend your whole life here.
Good luck with your interviews!
Thanks... Pretty sure I'd be happy to settle down in either Portland or Seattle. Too many stepping stones already; it's time to sink some roots.
curtkram you prove an interesting point by googling a definition. i dont really accept either. intimidation is not an act of terrorism etc....the interesting point is if Google/internet sources co-opt small and subtle word changes in definitions with the legal language most of society with little awaremess may find themselves agreeing with something that is essentially incorrect and possibly self-destructive........................whatever happened to Archinect Definitions? (fuckin seque man, Segway)
Well, I was hired by people who really wanted me in the position, and I asked for a lower salary than I likely could have because I really wanted to work with them. So I had some leeway.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.