I hereby nominate Bradley Manning, who will no doubt spend the rest of his life in jail, for the Nobel Peace Prize. But I doubt he'll get it after they gave one to BO for ramping up the war in Afghanistan.
Adolf Eichmann was prosecuted for and convicted of crimes against humanity. Eichmann's defense? He was following orders. Manning is being prosecuted for failing to participate in crimes against humanity and more pointedly for exposing those crimes.
Nuremberg Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Expose the systematic violation of the law and the constitution (Manning & Snowden) and you're a dead man, but expose an undercover CIA agent (Valerie Plame) for political gain and you go scot-free (Dick Cheney) or get a slap on the wrist and have your sentence commuted by the president (Scooter Libby).
George Zimmerman getting off is less shocking than OJ Simpson, to me, getting off in his criminal trial in the 90s. That angered me far more. Juries are instructed to decide based on the tenets of the law. They came back for more clarification on the crime of manslaughter, meaning that they were deliberating the ingredients of the crime and their applicability toward that crime. Zimmerman's fate lay in the hands of all female jury, all of whom were mothers, I believe, so they know how losing a child is life's number 1 stressor. One could play the race card, and say 5 of them were white, but why bother? Sure, a teenager is gone, but it's not a clear story, given some (perceived) degree of antagonism, from what I've read. I'm just glad it's over and didn't became a media circus, like OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson, where even Gloria Allred got her fingers in the pie by representing Amber Frey. I guess the boredom in California's Central Valley leads to some crazy things. I once heard a radio commentary on the absurd teen pregnancy rate in the CV, because when it's 104, dry, and desolate, there's nothing to do besides boink.
on meet the press this morning it sounded like there was no chance he would ever be found guilty, cuz the burden of proof is to show the killer didn't feel like his life was in danger. no one could prove that. crazy.
so now as long as there are no witnesses its totally cool to chase some guy down for no good reason, start a fight, and then when it looks like you might lose, shoot the dude dead. and the law and precedent will say all is cool. amazing. what kind of country thinks thats the way things should be?
Exactly, Will. I can attack some random guy, and as soon as I feel like I might lose the fight I can shoot him to "protect" myself.
On another topic, I've identified a major reason my job is challenging: I don't get to have any contact with the actual client. This is distressing for an architect.
that sounds frustrating, donna (the client thing - the gun stuff is plain incomprehensible)
it was national holiday here today. i went to office for meeting and was glad to have made the time for it. I can't tell if the hard times are easing up at all but things at least are becoming more interesting. More confusing is whether our current situation has anything to do with us, or if its the government stimulus stirring things up...
I think the jury did what they were supposed to do in the trial. They followed the lay. I'm not sure why he wasn't found guilty of some other sort of accidental death thing, like when you hit someone with a car, or something, though. It does suck that there will be no repercussions for his actions.
there was never a question of whether zimmerman killed martin, so that wasn't part of what the prosecutor had to prove.
i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but florida law was interpreted in this case to mean the prosecution had to prove zimmerman was not afraid, or some other word similar to 'afraid.' zimmerman shot martin because losing the altercation was scary, and he thought he could get hurt, and in florida that means deadly force is allowable.
i believe the case should have factored in the surrounding events, such as zimmerman leaving his car in the rain with a gun after a police dispatcher told him it was unnecesary to pursue his suspect. what else was he going to do with the gun? seems to me that shows some intent to kill, but then i wasn't on the jury or the prosecutor's team.
my understanding of this interpretation of florida law was that you can kill someone if you're afraid you will get hurt, or something like that. i would assume that means if trayvon martin was afraid, they both have a right to kill the other. i suppose zimmerman was just more capable of standing his ground due to the fact he was armed and had the general disposition that killing kids is an OK thing to do.
of course, there have been cases where people were sent to jail for discharging a firearm, even when scared. you can't have a civil society or community of any sort that says it's ok to murder each other, even if you might be afraid.
I don't know, Curt. If a man was in my house, threatening me and my son, I would hope that would justify me shooting him, if I had to. That said, I am a runner and a hider when it comes to my flight or fight response. I think about situations like this all the time. You can't have a civil society if people feel powerless.
If it had been the other way round and the one holding the gun at the end was black I get the feeling the trial would have come out differently.
How the guy got into the situation is not so important to the law I am sure but there seems little common sense in the whole deal. Seems perfect set up for gang hits and other bouts of murder.
Ie All those crazy celebrity murders could be redone. You killed John Lennon? Was he scaring you? Was he looking all scruffy when you started stalking him? Sounds like you needed to stabd your ground. No problem.
Punch a cop in the face and when he pulls a gun you needed to blast away? No problem. That's called standing your ground.
There must be rules that make all the above impossible. It sure seems like pretty much the deal in this case though. Pretty befuddling.
in your cases will, the other person isn't there to testify. you can make up anything you want, unless someone was nearby with google glass and willing to share (or other evidence).
sarah, i think there is an important difference between being somewhere, and then being threatened, and having to defend yourself compared to arming yourself and then going out looking for trouble. in this case, zimmerman created the problem.
you shouldn't be able to walk up to a person, claim to be threatened, and kill them. even if you taunt them to draw them into a fight (especially when you have a firearm and you know the other person doesn't), and use that as an excuse to murder them. its just wrong.
Agreed. Zimmerman totally created his issue. The cops even told him to stand down, and leave it to him. He went all vigilante. I do wonder if there will be any sort of blow-back from this. I mean, we need laws that say you have to PROVE the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We also need laws that allow someone to protect themselves, even if deadly force is the only option. But we need laws that prevent people from picking fights, killing someone, and then claiming self-defense.
Well yeah curtkram that's the point. As long as Lennon ends up dead and no one was there to witness the actual fight all they need to do is bloody their face a bit before the cops show up. It can't be that simple can it? In Florida the killer doesn't even have to testify for fcuk's sake. It's amazing.
Hm maybe that's why dexter is in Florida (isn't he?)?
I don't think that if the skin color were reserved, it would have mattered. I was on a jury within the last handful of years and the defendant was black, though it was not a serious crime, relatively speaking. He was not convicted. It comes down to interpretation of the ingredients of the actions versus the definition of the crime. The issue was, again, *beyond a reasonable doubt.* Keep in mind that most of the jurors were mothers, and their maternal instinct to protect a teenager would have superseded their interest in getting a white guy off the hook. The first thing you learn in a university commercial law course is IRAC: issue, reasoning, application, and conclusion. That's how they are theoretically supposed to move forward jury deliberations.
Stopping the traffic on the freeway in L.A. or doing "two wrongs to make it right" elsewhere doesn't work. There have been questionable verdicts, such as the ones dealing with Rodney King and O.J. Simpson, both black men - they both went in opposite directions from what was expected by most. What about Casey Anthony's acquittal in Florida? That was pretty recent. No race card was involved. Yet most seem to have forgotten that. We weren't sitting in the jury room for that one, either.
Something like this, which made national news, hasn't happened in at least a decade. We shouldn't focus on this, because of media hype such as "The View," and move on.
Remember me? Well, it's been about 2 years since I was an active participant on Archinect's forum. And, well, I just missed you guys so have decided to make my return.
I believe the last comment I wrote was right before I was leaving for Cuba for my M. Arch thesis research. Needless to say when I returned to the US, I was knee deep in finishing my M.Arch and my MSRE (Real Estate Development and Investment) degree. The last two years have been...ummmmm...sleepless. But, alas, I now have two degrees and am working in the development + construction world.
I've realized one thing (for better or worse) - I love architecture and am very passionate about design; however, I can't see myself ever working at an architecture firm again. I feel my strengths are better served in real estate development. So, it's now my MO to make sure we build responsibly, respond contextually, and construct some damn fine buildings. I'm making slow steps but everyone has to start somewhere.
I've also decided to forego the ARE exams. All that meticulous documentation of IDP for nothing. I know, I know. I just don't have it in me to get licensed when it will have little impact on my long term goals at this point.
Anyway, I look forward to becoming an active user again and talking design/shit talking NCARB.
n_______________________________________________________________!!! i was just listening to a copy of the cd i sent you. i have the vado retro bird you made me on my desk!
n_, I still think you should do the license. Why not? But you can do it when you're 50, like Orhan did. Don't we all want to be more like Orhan?!?! I know I do.
Sarah- Cuba was the best. Honestly, it was one of the most wonderfully unique places I've experienced. I met so many wonderful people, researchers, architects, and academics in such lovely country. And, more importantly, it aided in my passion for my thesis.
Donna (no more Liberty Bell!)- I know, I know. I was determined to become licensed to add a small percentage for the Latina women demographic that is barely (and sadly) represented in the architecture profession. However, I am just wildly disillusioned with the profession and the process as a whole. <sigh> Plus if I'm going the owner/developer route, I could be exposing myself to more liability. Granted, my plan was never to stamp/sign any projects I work on but I have been advised against it because the 'you should have known that flashing detail would leak overtime because you're a licensed architect' argument could hold some weight. We live in such a litigious culture that a few of my mentors recommended against licensure at this time in my career. Maybe when I'm 50.
That was my first concern, too, that you would open yourself up to MORE liability if you get licensed. So yes, you're right. Don't do it for now but keep an open mind about the future!
Liability issue harms the creative side of architecture like it did with few other sectors. Re; license at 50, I also got my first tenure track job at 57. Retirement is not what I plan on. Thank you for quoting me Donna, greetings from Türkiye TC..
Orhan, congratulations. I've seen some people do the adjunct racket for ~ 7 years prior to landing a c.c. teaching job on a full-time basis. In most cases, it has been in the liberal arts and social sciences, and they were "freeway flyers" (a standard colloquialism) prior to that. I think that, with more specific fields, it might be better.
Is that how you spell Turkey in Turkish, Orhan? How did it get its name, do you know? It doesn't seem like a place that would be a habitat for turkeys, and the area is older than England anyway, isn't it, so it can't be that the English named it after the birds, so how did it happen?
This is how my mind works, sorry. Culture fascinates me so much, that if we met at a party, or bar, there's a good chance I would ask you something crazy just like that. I'm actually so curious that I'm not even going to wait for you to respond, and I'm going to try to look it up. I'd still like to hear what you say, though.
'Turkey was named for the Turks, believe it or not. Turk can mean either 'a citizen of the modern state of Turkey' or more broadly, 'an individual of the Turkic-speaking people.' The many Turkic languages are spoken not only in Turkey but also in a large area of central Asia and in northern Siberia. The real question is the origin of the name Turk. The word is essentially the same in many languages, including English, Turkish, Arabic, and Persian (Farsi). It probably comes from some Turkish root, but there's no consensus on which one. It may be one root meaning 'strong' or 'vigorous' (according to the American Heritage Dictionary) or it may be another meaning 'the people' (according to the Encyclopedia Americana).
There are a couple of other theories of how the country got its name, both wrong. The first has it that the country was named after the first leader of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. But like most Turks, Mustafa didn't have any surname at all until 1934, when he chose Ataturk ('Father of the Turks') for himself. He had already given the country its western-influenced name Turkiye several years earlier. During the period of the empire, the Turkish name for the country had nothing to do with the Turks. Rather, it was named for the Osman (Ottoman) dynasty that ruled it. Another theory has it that the English named the country after the bird, as a taunt. But the country was already called 'Turki' or 'Turkeye' in English by 1275, hundreds of years before the bird was known in the Old World.
Turks was the name of the indigenous people and the word may have meant 'strong and powerful'. The bird turkey was so named in error and originally used for African guinea fowl imported from Guinea and through Turkey. The American turkey eaten at Thanksgiving and Christmas was wrongly identified as a species of African guinea fowl, so was given the same name.
Brewer's Dictionary of Names.
Well, that's a quick search. Not sure I'm happy with the outcomes, but I'd have to dig a lot deeper. Instead, I now wonder if all Ottomans were Turks, and then what happened to end the Ottoman Empire (what do you call that, Otto, Ottoma?) My brain is an endless spiral.
curtkram, I really don't know what is happening in the urban centers yet but the conversations in the little fishing village of a town where I am staying oscillates between recent politics and politicians to how much fish so and so caught this morning. Then a dog chases a stranger's car as we all watch. All activity gets either amplified or distracted by a couple of scantily dressed strolling women who obviously enjoy the celebrity status attention. Then from our chairs we jump into the Aegean Sea to cool down.
Sarah, keep digging. There is a lot about who the Turks are.
Sarah, that's the kind of stuff I talk about at parties too. If this was a party, I'd say, "Did you know the English word turquoise is rooted in Turk as well?" Oh, and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire came post WWI, but I don't know how exactly.
Fascinating! I learned while digging last night, the India Chicken is another name for turkey. So strange.
And I know it had something to do WWI, but all I know about WWI is that either Prince or Duke Ferdinand was shot, and then everyone went crazy. I blame the high school coach that I had for history class. I think part of the issue is that we were taught about WWI when we were 15, and had no way to relate. At the same time, there wasn't some definitive villain like in WWII, so it must have been more complex. I'd love to understand it better now; maybe I should make the switch to non-fiction.
I just read a book called Lady Macbeth, and learned that Macbeth was an actual ruler of Scotland, and his wife wasn't crazy. Damn Shakespeare for skewing history for me.
Well, the Mediterranean is an idyllic place, if you ignore some of the economic and political hassles the area currently is seeing. I have met a person in each Greece, Italy, and Portugal (technically not the Med), and on short trips, who was born in the U.S. to immigrant parents from those countries, who decided somewhere between reaching the age of majority and adulthood to make their ancestral countries their home ... and have never looked back. Typically, they are the offspring of the latest wave of immigration from Europe, which was down to a trickle by the end, and they had all of the cultural traditions and personal styles in place in their homes when growing up. I guess they felt that there would always be a chasm between the value system they had adopted as a baseline and that of standard issue WASPs, and decided to take that step. I have no clue what they did to make it pencil. In a way, I could see why they bolted. My parents told me they had some tight friends who were pushing them to come to their second tier (population wise) Midwestern city's ethnic enclave upon arriving to the U.S., while our relatives were in the greater N.Y.C. area. I asked my parents if they would have crossed the pond had that other city been their only option, or contained our relatives. They said they would have stayed put.
Oh well, 3 wonderful weeks in July 2012 in the Med, and in islands off the coast of Morocco but belonging to European countries, was great, and boarding the big plane to come home was tough.
Nam, I shouldn't have said anything! Generally, those who live in a major coastal California city from other places in the world gladly call it their new home. Those from, let's say Albany or Syracuse NY, might give it a second thought. Or those from Detroit or Flint MI.
I am pretty much an LA person. I never lived anywhere as long as I lived in Los Angeles. I studied architecture and the city here and don't want to move to anywhere else at the moment. My life have a lot of rough spots but I enjoy it nevertheless. Both Izmir and LA are home to me. Former pulling the umbilical cord and the latter having fused with my intellectual existence.
That's interesting, Orhan. I don't think i would ever have become expat if i had family in any of the countries i've lived in.
I moved to be as far away as possible from anything familiar. can't imagine what it would be like to be immigrant in search of a better life, not just a different life. Having found it (or not) can't imagine ever moving back either. Kind of weird I want my kids to go to Canada to live at least for awhile, but am not sure I want to live there myself.
anyway, at some point we should all live in idyllic place if we can. if only for a few weeks.
Considering most Americans remain within a certain limited radius from where they grew up, I'm adventurous. By other people's standards, I would be provincial. I only travel to countries where, other than English being the main language, they speak a Latin based language and are relatively crime free, UNLESS I am accompanied by someone of that country. That really only means southern Europe, a few countries in South America, and Quebec. The transition is effortless and makes for a relaxing vacation.
Greece was cool, but what the fuck is "^A^APIA"? College statistics was good for something: ^ = lambda and P = rho. Thus, it was "LALARIA," the exotic white beach on the island of Skiathos. But after a week of converting Greek signs phonetically, it was time to go home.
Forget the Cyclades islands (Mykonos, Paros, etc.), check out the Sporades:
^ No, but we got a screaming deal when we bought it in 1803, as did the Dutch when they bought Manhattan in 1624, or 1642, for a pittance. Why couldn't I have been born into money? I could just "do" architecture as a hobby.
Thread Central
^ Word.
I hereby nominate Bradley Manning, who will no doubt spend the rest of his life in jail, for the Nobel Peace Prize. But I doubt he'll get it after they gave one to BO for ramping up the war in Afghanistan.
Adolf Eichmann was prosecuted for and convicted of crimes against humanity. Eichmann's defense? He was following orders. Manning is being prosecuted for failing to participate in crimes against humanity and more pointedly for exposing those crimes.
Nuremberg Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Expose the systematic violation of the law and the constitution (Manning & Snowden) and you're a dead man, but expose an undercover CIA agent (Valerie Plame) for political gain and you go scot-free (Dick Cheney) or get a slap on the wrist and have your sentence commuted by the president (Scooter Libby).
George Zimmerman getting off is less shocking than OJ Simpson, to me, getting off in his criminal trial in the 90s. That angered me far more. Juries are instructed to decide based on the tenets of the law. They came back for more clarification on the crime of manslaughter, meaning that they were deliberating the ingredients of the crime and their applicability toward that crime. Zimmerman's fate lay in the hands of all female jury, all of whom were mothers, I believe, so they know how losing a child is life's number 1 stressor. One could play the race card, and say 5 of them were white, but why bother? Sure, a teenager is gone, but it's not a clear story, given some (perceived) degree of antagonism, from what I've read. I'm just glad it's over and didn't became a media circus, like OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson, where even Gloria Allred got her fingers in the pie by representing Amber Frey. I guess the boredom in California's Central Valley leads to some crazy things. I once heard a radio commentary on the absurd teen pregnancy rate in the CV, because when it's 104, dry, and desolate, there's nothing to do besides boink.
on meet the press this morning it sounded like there was no chance he would ever be found guilty, cuz the burden of proof is to show the killer didn't feel like his life was in danger. no one could prove that. crazy.
so now as long as there are no witnesses its totally cool to chase some guy down for no good reason, start a fight, and then when it looks like you might lose, shoot the dude dead. and the law and precedent will say all is cool. amazing. what kind of country thinks thats the way things should be?
On another topic, I've identified a major reason my job is challenging: I don't get to have any contact with the actual client. This is distressing for an architect.
Gotta support the gun industry. This does it in multiple ways: increases fear and demonstrates legality of use.
If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot 'em?
that sounds frustrating, donna (the client thing - the gun stuff is plain incomprehensible)
it was national holiday here today. i went to office for meeting and was glad to have made the time for it. I can't tell if the hard times are easing up at all but things at least are becoming more interesting. More confusing is whether our current situation has anything to do with us, or if its the government stimulus stirring things up...
I think the jury did what they were supposed to do in the trial. They followed the lay. I'm not sure why he wasn't found guilty of some other sort of accidental death thing, like when you hit someone with a car, or something, though. It does suck that there will be no repercussions for his actions.
morning TC,
anyone else work most of Sat? getting ready for big project go-live/upgrade this Friday at work...
nice looking project Steven!
Thanks, Nam. It's nice to feel proud of one like this. What I like best about it is that it's pretty simple and quiet.
i bet zimmerman becomes a fox news correspondent now. i can't see anyone else willing to associate with someone like him.
there was never a question of whether zimmerman killed martin, so that wasn't part of what the prosecutor had to prove.
i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but florida law was interpreted in this case to mean the prosecution had to prove zimmerman was not afraid, or some other word similar to 'afraid.' zimmerman shot martin because losing the altercation was scary, and he thought he could get hurt, and in florida that means deadly force is allowable.
i believe the case should have factored in the surrounding events, such as zimmerman leaving his car in the rain with a gun after a police dispatcher told him it was unnecesary to pursue his suspect. what else was he going to do with the gun? seems to me that shows some intent to kill, but then i wasn't on the jury or the prosecutor's team.
rather than 'convicting' martin in absentia, shouldn't they also have considered whether he was afraid and therefore eligible to stand his ground?
my understanding of this interpretation of florida law was that you can kill someone if you're afraid you will get hurt, or something like that. i would assume that means if trayvon martin was afraid, they both have a right to kill the other. i suppose zimmerman was just more capable of standing his ground due to the fact he was armed and had the general disposition that killing kids is an OK thing to do.
of course, there have been cases where people were sent to jail for discharging a firearm, even when scared. you can't have a civil society or community of any sort that says it's ok to murder each other, even if you might be afraid.
I don't know, Curt. If a man was in my house, threatening me and my son, I would hope that would justify me shooting him, if I had to. That said, I am a runner and a hider when it comes to my flight or fight response. I think about situations like this all the time. You can't have a civil society if people feel powerless.
How the guy got into the situation is not so important to the law I am sure but there seems little common sense in the whole deal. Seems perfect set up for gang hits and other bouts of murder.
Ie All those crazy celebrity murders could be redone. You killed John Lennon? Was he scaring you? Was he looking all scruffy when you started stalking him? Sounds like you needed to stabd your ground. No problem.
Punch a cop in the face and when he pulls a gun you needed to blast away? No problem. That's called standing your ground.
There must be rules that make all the above impossible. It sure seems like pretty much the deal in this case though. Pretty befuddling.
in your cases will, the other person isn't there to testify. you can make up anything you want, unless someone was nearby with google glass and willing to share (or other evidence).
sarah, i think there is an important difference between being somewhere, and then being threatened, and having to defend yourself compared to arming yourself and then going out looking for trouble. in this case, zimmerman created the problem.
you shouldn't be able to walk up to a person, claim to be threatened, and kill them. even if you taunt them to draw them into a fight (especially when you have a firearm and you know the other person doesn't), and use that as an excuse to murder them. its just wrong.
Agreed. Zimmerman totally created his issue. The cops even told him to stand down, and leave it to him. He went all vigilante. I do wonder if there will be any sort of blow-back from this. I mean, we need laws that say you have to PROVE the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We also need laws that allow someone to protect themselves, even if deadly force is the only option. But we need laws that prevent people from picking fights, killing someone, and then claiming self-defense.
I don't know what the answer will be.
Hm maybe that's why dexter is in Florida (isn't he?)?
I don't think that if the skin color were reserved, it would have mattered. I was on a jury within the last handful of years and the defendant was black, though it was not a serious crime, relatively speaking. He was not convicted. It comes down to interpretation of the ingredients of the actions versus the definition of the crime. The issue was, again, *beyond a reasonable doubt.* Keep in mind that most of the jurors were mothers, and their maternal instinct to protect a teenager would have superseded their interest in getting a white guy off the hook. The first thing you learn in a university commercial law course is IRAC: issue, reasoning, application, and conclusion. That's how they are theoretically supposed to move forward jury deliberations.
Stopping the traffic on the freeway in L.A. or doing "two wrongs to make it right" elsewhere doesn't work. There have been questionable verdicts, such as the ones dealing with Rodney King and O.J. Simpson, both black men - they both went in opposite directions from what was expected by most. What about Casey Anthony's acquittal in Florida? That was pretty recent. No race card was involved. Yet most seem to have forgotten that. We weren't sitting in the jury room for that one, either.
Something like this, which made national news, hasn't happened in at least a decade. We shouldn't focus on this, because of media hype such as "The View," and move on.
In law, the only color that really matters is green.
Hello, Thread Central!
Remember me? Well, it's been about 2 years since I was an active participant on Archinect's forum. And, well, I just missed you guys so have decided to make my return.
I believe the last comment I wrote was right before I was leaving for Cuba for my M. Arch thesis research. Needless to say when I returned to the US, I was knee deep in finishing my M.Arch and my MSRE (Real Estate Development and Investment) degree. The last two years have been...ummmmm...sleepless. But, alas, I now have two degrees and am working in the development + construction world.
I've realized one thing (for better or worse) - I love architecture and am very passionate about design; however, I can't see myself ever working at an architecture firm again. I feel my strengths are better served in real estate development. So, it's now my MO to make sure we build responsibly, respond contextually, and construct some damn fine buildings. I'm making slow steps but everyone has to start somewhere.
I've also decided to forego the ARE exams. All that meticulous documentation of IDP for nothing. I know, I know. I just don't have it in me to get licensed when it will have little impact on my long term goals at this point.
Anyway, I look forward to becoming an active user again and talking design/shit talking NCARB.
n_
n_______________________________________________________________!!! i was just listening to a copy of the cd i sent you. i have the vado retro bird you made me on my desk!
N_, you left out the most important part of your story. HOW WAS CUBA?!
n_, I still think you should do the license. Why not? But you can do it when you're 50, like Orhan did. Don't we all want to be more like Orhan?!?! I know I do.
I'm glad you're back.
Vado- put a bird on it!
Sarah- Cuba was the best. Honestly, it was one of the most wonderfully unique places I've experienced. I met so many wonderful people, researchers, architects, and academics in such lovely country. And, more importantly, it aided in my passion for my thesis.
Donna (no more Liberty Bell!)- I know, I know. I was determined to become licensed to add a small percentage for the Latina women demographic that is barely (and sadly) represented in the architecture profession. However, I am just wildly disillusioned with the profession and the process as a whole. <sigh> Plus if I'm going the owner/developer route, I could be exposing myself to more liability. Granted, my plan was never to stamp/sign any projects I work on but I have been advised against it because the 'you should have known that flashing detail would leak overtime because you're a licensed architect' argument could hold some weight. We live in such a litigious culture that a few of my mentors recommended against licensure at this time in my career. Maybe when I'm 50.
Hmmm, get licensed at 50, maybe I'll do that too. Just in time for retirement.
That was my first concern, too, that you would open yourself up to MORE liability if you get licensed. So yes, you're right. Don't do it for now but keep an open mind about the future!
Liability issue harms the creative side of architecture like it did with few other sectors. Re; license at 50, I also got my first tenure track job at 57. Retirement is not what I plan on. Thank you for quoting me Donna, greetings from Türkiye TC..
I also got my first tenure track job at 57. Retirement is not what I plan on.
Just curious, if you choose to answer. For how long were you an adjunct prior to getting onto the tenure track?
in this particular school, 2 semesters.
how's turkey? i haven't seen much since the protests. hopefully it's somewhat squared out, and they aren't going to bulldoze city parks anymore?
Orhan, congratulations. I've seen some people do the adjunct racket for ~ 7 years prior to landing a c.c. teaching job on a full-time basis. In most cases, it has been in the liberal arts and social sciences, and they were "freeway flyers" (a standard colloquialism) prior to that. I think that, with more specific fields, it might be better.
Is that how you spell Turkey in Turkish, Orhan? How did it get its name, do you know? It doesn't seem like a place that would be a habitat for turkeys, and the area is older than England anyway, isn't it, so it can't be that the English named it after the birds, so how did it happen?
This is how my mind works, sorry. Culture fascinates me so much, that if we met at a party, or bar, there's a good chance I would ask you something crazy just like that. I'm actually so curious that I'm not even going to wait for you to respond, and I'm going to try to look it up. I'd still like to hear what you say, though.
'Turkey was named for the Turks, believe it or not. Turk can mean either 'a citizen of the modern state of Turkey' or more broadly, 'an individual of the Turkic-speaking people.' The many Turkic languages are spoken not only in Turkey but also in a large area of central Asia and in northern Siberia. The real question is the origin of the name Turk. The word is essentially the same in many languages, including English, Turkish, Arabic, and Persian (Farsi). It probably comes from some Turkish root, but there's no consensus on which one. It may be one root meaning 'strong' or 'vigorous' (according to the American Heritage Dictionary) or it may be another meaning 'the people' (according to the Encyclopedia Americana).
There are a couple of other theories of how the country got its name, both wrong. The first has it that the country was named after the first leader of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. But like most Turks, Mustafa didn't have any surname at all until 1934, when he chose Ataturk ('Father of the Turks') for himself. He had already given the country its western-influenced name Turkiye several years earlier. During the period of the empire, the Turkish name for the country had nothing to do with the Turks. Rather, it was named for the Osman (Ottoman) dynasty that ruled it. Another theory has it that the English named the country after the bird, as a taunt. But the country was already called 'Turki' or 'Turkeye' in English by 1275, hundreds of years before the bird was known in the Old World.
Turks was the name of the indigenous people and the word may have meant 'strong and powerful'. The bird turkey was so named in error and originally used for African guinea fowl imported from Guinea and through Turkey. The American turkey eaten at Thanksgiving and Christmas was wrongly identified as a species of African guinea fowl, so was given the same name.
Brewer's Dictionary of Names.
Well, that's a quick search. Not sure I'm happy with the outcomes, but I'd have to dig a lot deeper. Instead, I now wonder if all Ottomans were Turks, and then what happened to end the Ottoman Empire (what do you call that, Otto, Ottoma?) My brain is an endless spiral.
hey n_ !
probably potential for more money (not that it's everything) going owner/developer route.
also congrats Orhan on the upgrade. Wish i could share some time in Turkey with you...
curtkram, I really don't know what is happening in the urban centers yet but the conversations in the little fishing village of a town where I am staying oscillates between recent politics and politicians to how much fish so and so caught this morning. Then a dog chases a stranger's car as we all watch. All activity gets either amplified or distracted by a couple of scantily dressed strolling women who obviously enjoy the celebrity status attention. Then from our chairs we jump into the Aegean Sea to cool down.
Sarah, keep digging. There is a lot about who the Turks are.
Observant, thank you!
Nam, yeah!
Sarah, that's the kind of stuff I talk about at parties too. If this was a party, I'd say, "Did you know the English word turquoise is rooted in Turk as well?" Oh, and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire came post WWI, but I don't know how exactly.
Fascinating! I learned while digging last night, the India Chicken is another name for turkey. So strange.
And I know it had something to do WWI, but all I know about WWI is that either Prince or Duke Ferdinand was shot, and then everyone went crazy. I blame the high school coach that I had for history class. I think part of the issue is that we were taught about WWI when we were 15, and had no way to relate. At the same time, there wasn't some definitive villain like in WWII, so it must have been more complex. I'd love to understand it better now; maybe I should make the switch to non-fiction.
I just read a book called Lady Macbeth, and learned that Macbeth was an actual ruler of Scotland, and his wife wasn't crazy. Damn Shakespeare for skewing history for me.
Causes of WWI, told in a humorous manner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfxrTD-kPps
That video was awesome! It all seems so silly, really.
Your life sounds idyllic orhan.
Your life sounds idyllic orhan.
Well, the Mediterranean is an idyllic place, if you ignore some of the economic and political hassles the area currently is seeing. I have met a person in each Greece, Italy, and Portugal (technically not the Med), and on short trips, who was born in the U.S. to immigrant parents from those countries, who decided somewhere between reaching the age of majority and adulthood to make their ancestral countries their home ... and have never looked back. Typically, they are the offspring of the latest wave of immigration from Europe, which was down to a trickle by the end, and they had all of the cultural traditions and personal styles in place in their homes when growing up. I guess they felt that there would always be a chasm between the value system they had adopted as a baseline and that of standard issue WASPs, and decided to take that step. I have no clue what they did to make it pencil. In a way, I could see why they bolted. My parents told me they had some tight friends who were pushing them to come to their second tier (population wise) Midwestern city's ethnic enclave upon arriving to the U.S., while our relatives were in the greater N.Y.C. area. I asked my parents if they would have crossed the pond had that other city been their only option, or contained our relatives. They said they would have stayed put.
Oh well, 3 wonderful weeks in July 2012 in the Med, and in islands off the coast of Morocco but belonging to European countries, was great, and boarding the big plane to come home was tough.
Orhan i think you love LA/California to much to ever move or no?
nite nite all off to bed...
Nam, I shouldn't have said anything! Generally, those who live in a major coastal California city from other places in the world gladly call it their new home. Those from, let's say Albany or Syracuse NY, might give it a second thought. Or those from Detroit or Flint MI.
I am pretty much an LA person. I never lived anywhere as long as I lived in Los Angeles. I studied architecture and the city here and don't want to move to anywhere else at the moment. My life have a lot of rough spots but I enjoy it nevertheless. Both Izmir and LA are home to me. Former pulling the umbilical cord and the latter having fused with my intellectual existence.
That's interesting, Orhan. I don't think i would ever have become expat if i had family in any of the countries i've lived in.
I moved to be as far away as possible from anything familiar. can't imagine what it would be like to be immigrant in search of a better life, not just a different life. Having found it (or not) can't imagine ever moving back either. Kind of weird I want my kids to go to Canada to live at least for awhile, but am not sure I want to live there myself.
anyway, at some point we should all live in idyllic place if we can. if only for a few weeks.
Considering most Americans remain within a certain limited radius from where they grew up, I'm adventurous. By other people's standards, I would be provincial. I only travel to countries where, other than English being the main language, they speak a Latin based language and are relatively crime free, UNLESS I am accompanied by someone of that country. That really only means southern Europe, a few countries in South America, and Quebec. The transition is effortless and makes for a relaxing vacation.
Greece was cool, but what the fuck is "^A^APIA"? College statistics was good for something: ^ = lambda and P = rho. Thus, it was "LALARIA," the exotic white beach on the island of Skiathos. But after a week of converting Greek signs phonetically, it was time to go home.
Forget the Cyclades islands (Mykonos, Paros, etc.), check out the Sporades:
http://thetopthings.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/lalaria.jpg
im an expat. i live in louisianastan.
^ Didn't we invade there a few years ago?
^ No, but we got a screaming deal when we bought it in 1803, as did the Dutch when they bought Manhattan in 1624, or 1642, for a pittance. Why couldn't I have been born into money? I could just "do" architecture as a hobby.
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.