President Biden on Monday fired J. Brett Blanton, the federal official responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Capitol complex, amid bipartisan calls for his resignation, after an investigative report accusing him of misusing his position and revelations that he avoided the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. — The New York Times
Blanton, who had faced calls for removal over accusations about abuse of government property while in office, was only recently revealed to have been in absentia on the afternoon of January 6th. Speculation had remained over the President’s willingness to remove the AOC from the 10-year appointment posting, the revised ability to do so by joint resolution being one of the would-be powers the past congress attempted unsuccessfully to elbow in at the last second. With his removal, no members of the Capitol Police Board who were working on January 6th are serving in the roles they occupied on the day of the insurrection.
4 Comments
Given the array of irresponsibility on his part, let's just say, good riddance. The role of Architect of the Capitol should be a licensed architect preferably one who is licensed or qualifies for licensure in D.C.
Over the past, every predecessor was an architect. It would be appropriate for an engineer to be in an Engineering position with Engineer in the title.
True - Trump's "Architect of the Capitol' was not an architect. It is odd that journalists do not mention this fact. They also like to use 'architect' metaphorically to characterizes diabolical schemers, for example of fraudulent scams, war campaigns and terror plots. A search of the NYTimes for "architect" will yield many instances where the discipline is rhetorically besmirched. It is a long tradition, at least as old as the profession itself. Osama bin Laden actually was an Engineer, but journalists insist on calling him the 'architect' of 9/11. Hitler wanted to be an architect, but was not. Same goes for Obama - he has stated that he once had wanted to be an architect; and would be one who understood the positive metaphor, when the NYTimes described him as "the architect of his own image".
While I personally am not against the person because he's an engineer. Although, I don't think the title is appropriate for a person who is not an architect (especially since professional licensing delineated professions). The person has a number of issues deserving of him being terminated from the job position. It's not about his engineering or technical skills.
Historically, yes, there was a time that a person can be an architect or engineer just by choice of title based on the description of work. Titles were defined by the work associated with the title as defined in dictionary and common use of English language.
architect dont know why still have a prestige feeling on this title , that only titles them to a salary that is even less than non-professionals like coders, they just built heavier and heavier walls to prevent others to becoming a successful architect, instead , people just drill into so much the building code , or excel , or 2D drawing ,and ignore the one thing that they are doing , building a building. Thinking of 2D drawing can completely represent the complexitiy of a building is just ignorant
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.