random facts, tidbits, articles and most importantly my thoughts about things that i find while aimlessly surfing the web...
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Architecture, College Football, Baseball, Hockey, March Madness, The Economy, Corporate Corruption, Incomptent Leadership, Tulane, Atlanta, Florida, etc.
|
|
|
|
travacado's thoughts
or at least "others'" thoughts that I find interesting...
|
|
| |
Sunday, March 30, 2003
War's Military, Political Goals Begin to Diverge
KIFL, Iraq, March 29 -- Ten days into the invasion of Iraq, the political imperative of waging a short and decisive campaign is increasingly at odds with the military necessity of preparing for a protracted, more violent and costly war, according to senior military officials.
Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say.
This revised view of the war plan, a major departure from the blitzkrieg approach developed over the past year, threatens to undercut early Bush administration hopes for a quick triumph over the government of President Saddam Hussein.
Wars often divide political and military leaders. But in the U.S. campaign in Iraq, that point of tension came surprisingly soon, after just a week of fighting, perhaps because an unusually lean launch helped the U.S. force advance so quickly.
Carrying out the original aim of a quick war with minimal civilian casualties would require taking chances that officers here now deem imprudent. In the past week, they found the Iraqi resistance tougher and more widespread than expected, and the planned charge to Baghdad stopped short of the city, with Hussein still in place.
The Army, which has little more than two divisions here, soon will have three brigades -- the rough equivalent of one division -- devoted just to the protection of the vulnerable supply lines from Kuwait to Najaf.
And Iraq's best troops -- the Republican Guard and the elite Special Republican Guard -- haven't yet been engaged in large numbers on the ground.
To some commanders in the field, that adds up to a need for longer timelines for the war. They are discussing a more conventional approach that would resemble the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It would mean several weeks of airstrikes aimed at Republican Guard units ringing Baghdad, and resuming major ground attacks after that.
At the same time, commanders say the first 10 days of fighting reaped many successes. An initial plan last year predicted that it would take 47 days for U.S. troops to get within 50 miles of the outskirts of Baghdad, noted a senior Army commander. Instead, the 3rd Infantry Division got that far in less than a week. By invading from the south and putting in smaller troop contingents in the west and north, U.S. forces reduced a military problem the size of California to one closer to the size of Connecticut.
In the process, Iraq's oil fields were not destroyed, and no missiles laden with chemical or biological weapons were fired. U.S. casualties, while painful, were light by the standards of modern military conquest.
"Look at the big picture," said Paul Van Riper, a retired Marine lieutenant general who helped review the war plan. "Three hundred miles, relatively few casualties, and almost no armored vehicles lost."
There also remains hope for a "silver bullet" outcome that could bring an abrupt change in fortunes. The possibilities are a coup, a bomb that kills Hussein or any one of several other scenarios that "tip the regime," as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has put it in White House meetings. "This could all turn around in a couple of weeks," said one retired U.S. general who served in the northern Iraq relief operation in 1991.
But when the U.S. ground attack resumes, it will probably look very different from the first week of fighting. "You adjust the plan," said an Army general in Iraq. "The initial strategy was to get to Baghdad as rapidly as you can, change the regime, bring in humanitarian aid and declare victory. Now it's going to take longer." (By Rick Atkinson and Thomas E. Ricks, The Washington Post) View the entire article
Caray, Van Wieren move already ripped
The mega-makeover of Braves baseball on television did not transpire on a whim. Nor, say the men in the corner offices at Turner Sports, under orders sent down from Mets fans occupying the AOL Time Warner executive wing.
The call was made by You, The People. Focus groups in Atlanta and elsewhere told Turner they want less Braves on coast-to-coast TBS telecasts, more on the other dugout and the rest of Major League Baseball.
That's their story, and they're sticking to it.
Summarizing the seismic shift for this season:
The show is no longer called "Braves on TBS." Now it's "MLB on TBS," even though all 90 games involve the local team;
Interviews and stories will feature opponents as well as Braves;
A continuous scroll will stream scores and statistics from other games, and more of their video highlights will be emceed by studio host Erin Andrews;
A constant couple, Don Sutton and Joe Simpson, will sit behind the mics, with Skip Caray and Pete Van Wieren banished to Turner South for only 36 games limited to six states.
"The trick will be to engage that [national] audience while not alienating the core Braves fans," says Mark Lazarus, Turner Sports president until he climbed the corporate ladder recently.
Many appear alienated before the first pitch. When the changes were announced Wednesday, an unscientific poll on ajc.com, this newspaper's Web site, generated nearly 20,000 responses through Thursday, with 92 percent agreeing that the announcers' juggling is "horrible." Some venters compared it to the local benchmark of bad moves, New Coke.
The Turner people aren't surprised. "Because of their popularity," spokesman Greg Hughes said of Caray and Van Wieren, "we have had a huge response here, and I wouldn't say it was unexpected." Hughes said many callers and e-mailers had to be convinced the pair was not fired.
Both are entering their 28th seasons, with Sutton starting his 15th and Simpson his 12th. Caray employs the "we/they" approach, hardly the direction that the broadcasts are headed.
It was felt the twosome is better suited for Turner South's regional audience and on the radio network.
"All of this was born out of a business necessity," Lazarus said. "We need to maintain a vibrancy to the telecast."
And to the ratings. They have dipped while the "America's Team" label, dating to the pre-ESPN days when only TBS beamed nightly games nationwide, has faded. Some focus groupies indicated they would switch away intermittently to catch up on other games.
With the philosophical change, executive producer Mike Pearl said, a complete division of announcing duties made sense to see how the format works. (If it does not, he added, adjustments are possible.)
How did the legendary Caray feel about addressing an audience 7 percent the size of Sutton/Simpson's?
"Skip was . . . not unhappy," Pearl said. "I'm not going to say he was tiptoeing through the tulips over it."
TBS also rolls out new technological tricks that include microphone-wearing players and coaches and super slo-mo. Turner South will remain lower-tech and Braves-centric, with the team logo instead of MLB's and promotions for tickets and Chop Talk magazine.
Fox Sports Net, with Bob Rathbun and Tom Paciorek still aboard, is back for 25 Braves games on Wednesdays. The balance will be picked up on the Satuday afternoon Fox series or on ESPN. Fox cranks up May 17, the earliest day ever, with 18 straight Saturdays of games. ESPN has tonight's big-league opener, Texas at Anaheim, and five Monday games. Then it settles into a weekly routine of one Monday and three Wednesday games, one in the afternoon, before adding Sunday nights on July 6.
If that's not enough, MLB offers a subscription for as many as 35 games weekly on high-end digital and satellite TV.
As for those who cannot bear to watch all 90 TBS games without their familiar duet of Caray and Van Wieren, we sign off with these four words: "mute button" and "WSB radio." (By Mike Tierney, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
AOL Time Warner cannot sell the Braves fast enough! This move on top of all of the others... is by far the WORST! (Looks like I'll continue to spend the $9.95/month for the RealONE Super Pass so that I can listen to Skip and Pete on the internet...) Now if Time Warner Cable Central Florida (hmm, excuse me Bright House Networks) would pick up FOX Sports Net Florida I could watch the pathetic "local" option for baseball in this state: the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.
TIDAL 12:39 PM
Sunday, March 23, 2003
We Forgot the Russians
With our nation at war and our troops risking their lives, it might not be thought opportune to examine what the Bush administration could have done better along the way. Nevertheless, having failed to gain a majority in the U.N. Security Council in favor of the use of force, the United States now finds the legitimacy of its actions questioned by many in the international community. What was lost at the United Nations in the days before the war will need to be regained in coming weeks, because once Saddam Hussein is gone we will need international support for the transition to stable, representative government in Iraq. Without it we run the considerable risk that our well-meaning efforts will come to be seen as a military occupation to be resisted rather than assisted.
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged this necessity at their Azores summit. American and British diplomats are now approaching the Security Council for access to the billions of dollars of escrowed Iraqi oil-for-food money to feed some 60 percent of the Iraqi people.
If we are to rebuild an international consensus, however, we need to understand how we lost it. The convenient explanation is to blame the French, and they certainly deserve all the criticism they are getting for their determined 12-year diplomatic effort to let Hussein off the hook.
But blaming the French doesn't explain our failure to isolate them -- or their success in isolating us in the Security Council. If everyone else had been on board, the French wouldn't have dared block the resolution. The reality is that the French were in respectable company: The Russians and the Chinese were also prepared to veto; the Mexicans, Canadians and Chileans -- our closest friends in this hemisphere -- were not with us.
The failure lay not with the French but with the way we ignored the Russians. Remember Vladimir Putin? Up until last week, his alignment with the United States was the single greatest achievement of this president's personal diplomacy. Despite the Bush administration's trampling of Russian interests in abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Putin made a personal decision to forge a strategic partnership with the United States. On that basis, the Russian president was willing to abandon decades of Soviet and Russian support for Hussein.
In the 1990s such an approach was inconceivable. The Yeltsin government, under the guidance of longtime Middle East hand Yevgeny Primakov, developed a strategic as well as commercial rationale for maintaining close ties with Baghdad. But after 9/11, Putin developed a very different strategic calculus -- that Russia's future lay in partnership with Washington, not Baghdad.
It certainly helped that Bush reassured Putin that Russia's commercial interests in a post-Hussein Iraq would be preserved and showed greater sympathy for Putin's Chechen predicament. But without the shift in Putin's strategic conception, the Russians would never have voted for Security Council Resolution 1441. And that shift made it at least possible for Bush to have brought Putin around on the second resolution rather than watch him turn and support the French conception of constraining the American "hyperpower."
The problem with our diplomacy was not that we tried and failed but that we didn't try at all -- until it was too late. The Bush administration simply assumed that Putin was in the president's pocket and took him for granted. Even last week, when the president appeared to begin the effort to repair the damage in the Security Council, he chose to fete the president of Cameroon at a private White House dinner. Where was Putin? Left clamoring from the sidelines for the president's attention by personally criticizing our actions in Iraq.
Why is Russia so important? Because effective diplomatic strategy in the Security Council is based on a simple mathematical calculation. There are five permanent, veto-wielding members. On Iraq, we go into battle with two votes (United States and Britain). We need one more vote to have a majority of the permanent members. Once we have three votes we almost automatically get four, since China usually sides with the majority. Once we have four, France is isolated and the nonpermanent members then have the cover to join with the heavyweight majority. In those circumstances France would not have dared veto.
Instead of focusing on Russia we compounded our error by attempting to bludgeon the nonpermanent members into voting with us. But with the big five so split, and a majority of them opposed to us, the smaller fry did not dare to choose sides. And it didn't help that we turned a tin ear to their concerns, dismissed their efforts at compromise with disdain, and showed a wooden-headed determination to ignore the impact of international public opinion on the calculations of their democratically elected leaders. Little wonder that, despite the investment of presidential prestige, we started with four votes and ended with four votes.
It's too late to salvage the Security Council consensus that would have legitimized this war against Iraq. But it's not too late to start rebuilding an international consensus around the twin objectives of providing a better, more democratic future for the people of Iraq, and promoting a more peaceful and safe Middle East. Putin shares those objectives, not only because of Russia's economic stake in Iraq, but also because Moscow is keen to be a constructive partner in the effort to put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the path to resolution.
Pursuing freedom in Iraq and Middle East peace will promote the values that the rest of the world admires in American foreign policy. We should not wait for the war to end to begin the effort to rebuild an international consensus on these bases. And this time, we should start by lining up the Russians. (By Martin Indyk, The Washington Post)
TIDAL 9:41 PM
Saturday, March 22, 2003
Go 2 Guy: Hold the cheers for Amber
So I'm leaving the house Wednesday night, having conveniently misplaced my wedding ring, preparing to meet Amber the Sea Gal at a Tacoma restaurant.
"Remember," the Go 2 Wife says, "she would try to change you."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wives spoil fantasies. Besides, I would change for Amber.
All I wanted to do was let my mind drift and ponder the blissful possibilities of a happily ever after with my favorite Sea Gal.
But then I remembered I'm 45, not to mention already married. She's 22, not to mention completely uninterested.
Instead of whispering sweet nothings to the Go 2 Guy, Amber just made audible comments about being one of the eight sexiest women in America on an ABC-TV show called "Are You Hot?"
With Amber, a former Miss Teen Washington and Miss Hawaiian Tropic, you don't need to ask.
Amber arrived for the interview in sweats with her hair pulled back in a ponytail. She had just finished working out at Bally's. I had just finished taking a nap. Attempting to impress her, I wore my crimson Cougar fleece.
We were supposed to meet at the Tully's near Stadium High, but it was flooded, prompting us to go to the Harvester across the street.
I pictured the two of us having one drink after another, leading to who knows what, perhaps a night on the town. I'm not sure what she was picturing, but I don't think it was that.
What really happened: one of us had a drink, the other had a chocolate milkshake.
"I just worked out," Amber said. "I deserve it."
So there she sat, all 5-feet-5 and 110 pounds of her, polishing off a tall milkshake with whipped cream on top, and I couldn't help but think of all the women who would hate her right now.
Before she became Amber the Sea Gal and a "Are You Hot" contestant, Amber Lancaster grew up in Tacoma and went to Franklin Pierce High School.
An only child, Lancaster had a difficult childhood. Her father died of asthma when she was 11. Her mom was heavily into drugs. Even when her father was alive, neither parent spent much time with her. Her mom still doesn't.
"My mom and dad were the (bleep-ups) in their families," she said. "My mom didn't know how to be a mom."
Lancaster was raised by one grandmother for a while, then an aunt, then the other grandmother.
Yet she doesn't want anyone to think it's been rough.
"I haven't had a hard time," she said. "But I've had to work for things. In high school, people thought all the pretty girls got everything."
She continues to fight pretty-girl perceptions.
"They don't think I'm smart, or they think I'm stuck up and a bitch," Lancaster said. "But I'm not a real cocky or arrogant person. You have to stay down-to-earth to be an attractive person."
As Miss Hawaiian Tropic, Lancaster traveled the world and met stars like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz along with many football players at the Super Bowl.
"I don't really like athletes," she said. "Most are jerks. They think they're cooler than they really are."
As a Sea Gal, Lancaster appeared on "The Best Damn Sports Show, Period" and went out with a guy who won a date with her. She ended up slapping him in the hot tub.
"He asked me to take my top off," she said.
Last summer Lancaster auditioned for "Are You Hot?" at the Last Supper Club in Seattle. She advanced through the screening phase and several preliminary rounds.
Her bid to become a finalist was supposed to be determined last night, but "Are You Hot?" was pre-empted by ABC's coverage of the war in Iraq.
Lancaster thinks it's a shallow show, even if she is knee deep in the wading pool. Celebrity judges rate faces, bodies and sex appeal, and nothing else.
She reminded me of me when she went on a trashing spree, ripping one of the judges, Lorenzo Lamas.
"He's a total slimeball," Lancaster said. "He gives me the creeps. You can tell what he's thinking by the look on his face."
(At that moment, I prayed she couldn't tell what I was thinking, but just in case, I started thinking about Bambi and more virtuous things.)
Another judge, model Rachel Hunter, told Amber she was too perfect looking and resembled a Barbie doll.
Of the third judge, fashion designer Randolph Duke, Amber said: "He seems like a nice guy, but I can't tell if he's gay or not."
As for her perfect mate, Amber said: "I'm really picky. I want a good-looking guy with an education who has a career, has a personality and is funny, charming and athletic. I want everything."
(There I was, sitting right across the table, her total package, and somehow we still managed to leave in separate cars.)
After getting exposure on "Are You Hot?" Amber received a $50,000 offer to work for a Boston modeling agency, which she's considering. Along with the other seven semifinalists, Amber also got an offer to appear in Playboy. Will she do it?
"No, no, no," she said. "It's not in my character."
Her future includes one more season as a Sea Gal, although she also wants to act and move to San Diego.
In the short term, she will return to Pierce College on March 31 and earn her degree in administration of law and justice, perhaps becoming a legal assistant or paralegal someday.
Whatever happens, Lancaster doesn't plan to change as much as her life will.
"I don't care to be famous. I'm the same person. It hasn't gone to my head at all," she said. "Friends and family and relationships you build with people. That's what's most important to me." (By Jim Moore, Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Photo of Amber
TIDAL 11:29 AM
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Even when wronged, Blair fights for the right reasons
It matters why you fight a war. It matters a great deal.
And all along, Tony Blair has tried heroically, if vainly, to assure we fight the right war in Iraq. Once the bombs stop falling and the bullets stop flying, we Americans may come to appreciate what he has tried to do for us.
From the beginning, the British prime minister recognized that a new world order is now taking shape, coalescing around two realities: utter U.S. dominance and a rising Islamic fundamentalism. He also understood that the crisis over Iraq would set the precedent for how that new system operates.
So ever since Sept. 11, 2001, Blair has pursued two objectives, one small and immediate, one profound and long-term. He wanted Saddam Hussein disarmed, by diplomacy if possible but by war if necessary. More important, he thought it essential to achieve that goal through the international community. As a good friend of the United States, Blair understood that U.S. dominance would be used to best effect if we exercised it in a multilateral framework.
But from the beginning, Blair's partners in the Bush administration have sought a different war, one that contradicted Blair's vision in fundamental ways. So, while Blair fought openly on behalf of U.S. interests, men such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and even President Bush undercut their ally at critical times. They did so knowingly and with calculation.
Like Blair, those men are also pursuing both a small goal and a more profound goal. They, too, want Iraq disarmed, but, unlike Blair, they see war as the preferable means of doing so. Their logic is irrefutable: While diplomacy could perhaps produce disarmament, only war could produce what they really want, which is regime change. So they have managed events to make war the only feasible option.
Furthermore, as the president made clear in his speech Monday night, he intends the war on Iraq as the first application of the Bush Doctrine, which proclaims a uniquely American right to launch wars unilaterally, without clear provocation, whenever it deems necessary.
In hindsight, it now seems clear that the administration sought international backing not to demonstrate the viability of the United Nations, but to demonstrate the United Nations' subservience to U.S. power. It wanted the U.N. vote to endorse the Bush Doctrine, and as other nations came to that same conclusion, they refused to play along. Nothing else accounts for the willingness of countries such as Mexico, Pakistan and Cameroon to publicly buck the United States on such a critical issue.
Blair, under enormous pressure at home and undercut by his allies, had to understand what was happening to him, which makes his performance all the more magnificent. Like a child in a divorce, he has been fighting vainly to save a marriage in which one party had already decided to leave and the other party, sick and tired of it all, was ready to let him go.
So Blair, forced in the end to choose sides, chose wisely. He knew that if Britain, too, abandoned the United States, it would greatly diminish this nation as a potential force for good in the world. It would also ensure that no remnant of the multilateral world would survive the war.
"If our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our retreat make them multilateralist?" he plaintively asked the British Parliament on Tuesday. "Will it not instead be the biggest impulse to unilateralism there could ever be?"
We will never know for sure, but a war against Iraq fought to pursue the realistic goals outlined by Blair might have won U.N. support. It would also have enjoyed support from Americans such as myself, who accept the necessity of U.S. military intervention in the modern world but do not accept this country in the role of bully.
I understand that such a distinction might seem odd. After all, Blair's war or Bush's war, it's the same war either way. But again, it matters why you fight. Even now, more than 100 years after the fact, we still debate whether the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery or to preserve states' rights.
In either case, it was the same war. But then as now, one cause could be deemed legitimate; the other cannot. (By Jay Bookman, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
TIDAL 6:57 AM
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
D-Day
President Bush is fond of cowboy imagery, so here's an image that comes to mind about our pending war with Iraq. In most cowboy movies the good guys round up a posse before they ride into town and take on the black hats. We're doing just the opposite. We're riding into Baghdad pretty much alone and hoping to round up a posse after we get there. I hope we do, because it may be the only way we can get out with ourselves, and the town, in one piece.
This column has argued throughout this debate that removing Saddam Hussein and helping Iraq replace his regime with a decent, accountable government that can serve as a model in the Middle East is worth doing — not because Iraq threatens us with its weapons, but because we are threatened by a collection of failing Arab-Muslim states, which churn out way too many young people who feel humiliated, voiceless and left behind. We have a real interest in partnering with them for change.
This column has also argued, though, that such a preventive war is so unprecedented and mammoth a task — taking over an entire country from a standing start and rebuilding it — that it had to be done with maximum U.N legitimacy and with as many allies as possible.
President Bush has failed to build that framework before going to war. Though the Bush team came to office with this Iraq project in mind, it has pursued a narrow, ideological and bullying foreign policy that has alienated so many people that by the time it wanted to rustle up a posse for an Iraq war, too many nations were suspicious of its motives.
The president says he went the extra mile to find a diplomatic solution. That is not true. On the eve of the first gulf war, Secretary of State James Baker met face to face in Geneva with the Iraqi foreign minister — a last-ditch peace effort that left most of the world feeling it was Iraq that refused to avoid war. This time the whole world saw President Bush make one trip, which didn't quite make it across the Atlantic, to sell the war to the only two allies we had. This is not to excuse France, let alone Saddam. France's role in blocking a credible U.N. disarmament program was shameful.
But here we are, going to war, basically alone, in the face of opposition, not so much from "the Arab Street," but from "the World Street." Everyone wishes it were different, but it's too late — which is why this column will henceforth focus on how to turn these lemons into lemonade. Our children's future hinges on doing this right, even if we got here wrong.
The president's view is that in the absence of a U.N. endorsement, this war will become "self-legitimating" when the world sees most Iraqis greet U.S. troops as liberators. I think there is a good chance that will play out.
But wars are fought for political ends. Defeating Saddam is necessary but not sufficient to achieve those ends, which are a more progressive Iraq and a world with fewer terrorists and terrorist suppliers dedicated to destroying the U.S., so Americans will feel safer at home and abroad. We cannot achieve the latter without the former. Which means we must bear any burden and pay any price to make Iraq into the sort of state that fair-minded people across the world will see and say: "You did good. You lived up to America's promise."
To maximize our chances of doing that, we need to patch things up with the world. Because having more allied support in rebuilding Iraq will increase the odds that we do it right, and because if the breach that has been opened between us and our traditional friends hardens into hostility, we will find it much tougher to manage both Iraq and all the other threats down the road. That means the Bush team needs an "attitude lobotomy" — it needs to get off its high horse and start engaging people on the World Street, listening to what's bothering them, and also telling them what's bothering us.
Some 35 years ago Israel won a war in Six Days. It saw its victory as self-legitimating. Its neighbors saw it otherwise, and Israel has been trapped in the Seventh Day ever since — never quite able to transform its dramatic victory into a peace that would make Israelis feel more secure.
More than 50 years ago America won a war against European fascism, which it followed up with a Marshall Plan and nation-building, both a handout and a hand up — in a way that made Americans welcome across the world. Today is a D-Day for our generation. May our leaders have the wisdom of their predecessors from the Greatest Generation. (By Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times)
TIDAL 6:54 AM
Thursday, March 13, 2003
Go 2 Guy: Hot enough? When it comes to this Sea Gal, it's your call
Every so often, the Go 2 Guy comes up with a heart-warming, soul-touching column.
This is not one of those times.
Today I'm lowering my journalistic standards and hoping you will join me at the bottom of the food chain.
Whereas cerebral columnists like The Franchise (Art Thiel) and The Eavesdropper (John Levesque) serve five-course meals, I'm offering plankton for your dining pleasure this morning.
This is another way of saying that Amber of the Sea Gals will find out tonight if she has advanced to the semifinals of the ABC reality show, "Are You Hot? The Search for America's Sexiest People." It airs at 9 p.m. on KOMO/4.
(Why do they call them reality shows, when all they do is trigger fantasies?)
If anyone asks whether you watch "Are You Hot?" the usual response is "Are You Kidding?" Even if you do, you would never admit it, fearing the possibility that someone might call you superficial and shallow.
Well, hell's bells, I already know I am.
"Are You Hot?" has attracted 9.5 million viewers, a 75 percent increase for the time period in the 18-to-49 age bracket.
"Critics have given it tough reviews," said an ABC spokesperson. "But bottom line, is it delivering viewers? 'Are You Hot?' is."
The basic premise of the show: Men and women walk out one by one and receive points from three judges -- model Rachel Hunter, fashion designer Randolph Duke and actor Lorenzo Lamas.
The judges give them points on a scale of 1 to 10, rating their faces, bodies and sex appeal. Talent, personality and intelligence are not considered. Viewers then vote for their favorites, determining who moves on.
Lamas has a laser beam thing-a-ma-jig that highlights problem areas like cellulite.
If you're not "hot" enough, you're asked to leave the stage. After getting a lukewarm rating, one guy actually cried. I wanted to reach through my TV and slap him silly.
Our Amber is still standing tall and going strong, but I'll tell you what: If I'm her, I'm very concerned about Renee from Issaquah, a 20-year-old, 5-foot-9, 120-pound blond nanny.
(If she's the nanny, I want to be the professor.)
I tried to get an interview with Amber, but the security is so tight on these shows she was unavailable. No one wants the outcome revealed before the show airs -- as if I would ever.
Most reporters would at least come up with Amber's last name, but as you know, I'm not most reporters, so I'll just say we're on a first-name basis and leave it at that.
This much I know: She's from Tacoma. She majored in administration of law and justice at Pierce College. She's 22, stands 5-6 and weighs 110 pounds.
Now on to the more important frivolous factoids: Amber likes chocolate-covered gummi bears, *NSync, Mariah Carey, bowling and being in the sun.
When she's not cheering for a mediocre football team, Amber cavorts about the world as Miss Hawaiian Tropic. (I wonder what she thinks about the ozone layer.)
This stuff was found in her bio at seahawks.com.
Can you believe that? Bios on Sea Gals? God help us all.
In addition, there are 30 different stories on Sea Gals. Did you know that Linda was chosen Sea Gal of the year? I didn't know if I even cared to know that.
Whatever the case, Amber really enjoys being a Sea Gal, saying in her bio: "I am proud and honored to be part of such an outstanding group of women."
Three other Sea Gals tried out when the "Are You Hot?" auditions came to Seattle. Amber was the only one to make the cut.
"She's an All-American girl," said Sherri Thompson, Sea Gals director. "She's a regular kind of gal for as beautiful as she is."
And tonight, Amber will learn if America thinks she's smokin' hot enough to continue. (By Jim Moore, Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Pictures of Amber
Sunshine Network, Time Warner Cable reach new deal
Time Warner Cable and Sunshine Network reached an agreement today to again enable Time Warner Cable customers throughout Florida to receive Sunshine Network beginning immediately.
The regional sports network returned to Channel 31 in Central Florida (Orlando). Terms of the new contract were not disclosed. Nearly 1.7 million Florida customers had been without the network since the beginning of 2003 when the previous contract expired.
In the absence of any new agreement, Time Warner Cable customers in the affected communities lost access to Sunshine Network.
Fans of the Orlando Magic, Tampa Bay Lightning, Miami Heat, Florida State Seminoles, Florida Gators, University of Central Florida Knights and other teams will once again be able to watch their games presented by Sunshine Network.
Time Warner (evil AOL) brought back Sunshine just in time for me to catch the end of LSU's whooping of Arkansas in the SEC Basketball Tournament this afternoon at the Superdome. Now, if AOL would just sell the Braves back to (an ownership group led by) Ted Turner...
TIDAL 9:30 PM
Sunday, March 09, 2003
Just War — or a Just War?
ATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.
As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.
The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.
The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice. (By Jimmy Carter, The New York Times)
Thanks to my Dad and John Morse's Dystopia Box for pointing me to the Op-Ed piece today.
The tyrants muzzling our free speech? Us
When President Bush visited Atlanta in mid-February, Cobb County homemaker Sally Rountree decided to take the opportunity to show her opposition to the probable invasion of Iraq. So she scribbled a homemade sign -- "No War for Oil" -- and found a place along the route of the presidential motorcade, hoping Bush would see her protest.
As she tells it, she was never rude. She didn't shout. She didn't elbow other onlookers or jostle toward the front of the crowd. She merely stood holding her sign.
Nevertheless, for the offense of exercising her rights as a citizen of one of the world's greatest democracies, she was spat on, threatened and yelled at. One man went so far as to denounce her for wearing a cross around her neck, "insinuating I was not a Christian," she said.
As she wrote in an op-ed essay for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "I was frightened that my neighbors were going to hurt me because I dared to express my opinion. This could not be happening. Not in America, right?"
But it is happening here.
Rountree is not the only dissenting voice to find that her fellow citizens have adopted a pinched and distorted pseudo-patriotism that mangles the principles upon which the nation was founded -- including the freedom to criticize the president without fear of retribution.
Around the country, antiwar dissenters have been threatened and harassed, even for the mildest protests. An Albany, N.Y., mall, for example, has apparently ejected some shoppers for wearing T-shirts with peace slogans.
Last week, a security guard approached Stephen Downs at the Crossgates Mall and asked him to remove the T-shirt he was wearing, emblazoned with the words "Peace on Earth" and "Give peace a chance." When Downs refused to remove the shirt or leave the mall, he was arrested for trespassing. (The charges were later dropped.)
A few weeks ago, Cobb County resident Donna Smythe found that an intruder had driven into her yard to run over her sign, which declared, "War Is Not the Answer." She bravely replaced it with multiple antiwar signs, which, so far, remain standing.
There is layer upon layer of sad irony in the actions of those who would muzzle Smythe and other dissenters.
Even as Bush denounces Saddam Hussein's tyranny and vows to plant the seeds of democracy in Iraq, Americans are trying to tear down one of the pillars of their democracy. The citizens' right to criticize their leaders was so important to the Founding Fathers that they placed free speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
You would think that Bush would use his bully pulpit to remind Americans that they ought to be modeling the democratic values that we are trying to export. But the president has shown himself to be wary of democratic processes if they happen to clash with his agenda.
Consider Bush's answer to a recent question from reporters about Mexico, which may not vote to support a U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq. While saying "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government," Bush also mentioned, curiously, "a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."
Was the president suggesting Americans should be hostile toward Mexicans in this country if Mexico doesn't support the U.S. position in the United Nations?
The oddest thing about this wave of hardline pseudo-patriotism is that it substitutes for genuine patriotism -- for a sense of shared sacrifice that would befit a proud nation threatened by hostile forces. Military recruiters report no upsurge in enlistment. And while one or two courageous voices have suggested a debate on bringing back the draft -- either for the military or for homeland security -- conscription is widely considered a political impossibility.
Few politicians would dare suggest we make any real sacrifices in the service of our country. Instead, too many of us believe we have shown ourselves to be great patriots when we stick an American flag bumper sticker on the old SUV and run over the peace placards in our neighbor's yard.
Perhaps we've forgotten what we're fighting to defend. (By Cynthia Tucker, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
TIDAL 6:18 PM
Saturday, March 08, 2003
Whadda ya think?
A woman walks into a bar. Seated at the barstool, wide-eyed, poised and expectant, she is about to raise a drink to her lips, when the bartender, a grizzled New York type, leans across the counter and asks, conspiratorially, “So, whadda ya think about Daniel Libeskind ?”
As funny as it sounds, it’s a true story—one that exquisitely sums up a moment, encapsulates it within a specific milieu, and the words would make the pitch-perfect line for a New Yorker cartoon. When she described her actual experiences in the saloon, the woman in question, an architectural historian, had been making a larger point that architecture had decisively entered the popular consciousness. She recounted her encounter with a kind of bemused awe, but it also made a hee-haw tale, a slap-your-leg line right out of Letterman. If the fragile world finds itself longing for good news, here, at least, was one happy improvement we are pleased to report: Architecture has finally gone mainstream.
While the story exaggerates the depth of change, isn’t the news astounding? For decades, we architects have been ruefully, poignantly describing the heightened state of European cultural consciousness, an idealized realm in which taxi drivers have opinions on the latest works by heroic designers and overweening racks of consumer magazines present architecture like so many plums or pears. Pick a design; they’re perfectly ripe this month and ready for tasting.
In plums as in architecture, however, reality includes the pits. While Libeskind and Vinoly, Schwartz and Shigeru Ban may make the front page of USA Today, the depth of our national dialogue on architectural matters remains pitifully thin, limited to the superficial image or the emotional, knee-jerk reaction–a battle to the finish of the cool eyeglasses. How can we translate this hype or the heightened public interest to good effect?
Sometimes, words fail us. It seems clear that architecture needs a new language, new words and symbols to explain its character and contributions, if we hope to engage our audiences any deeper than the dazzling first impression or the star turn. Up to now, when trying to explain architecture’s three-dimensional potential, we have had to rely on a jargon-laced vocabulary that reduces us to babbling pseudo-intellectuals, waving our arms about and speaking in an incomprehensible tongue. Naively, we decry how the public just doesn’t get it.
Here, finally, is our chance. The spotlight is focused on architecture with a capital ‘A’. By paying attention to our audience, then clearly stating our arguments and contributions, architecture can rise from the arcane to the universal . Here is a simplified message. Every person needs shelter. We can provide habitation with a difference, altering and improving consciousness, and sense of potential, even productivity. Our work can reduce wasteful consumption of resources, harness the winds, channel the sunshine and the rain. Given a confluence of client and the times, and employing our personal gifts, the we can translate the inanimate into poetry, capturing aspirations or even grief in concrete and glass, stone and water and steel.
If bartenders are interested, and know our names, we architects would be fools not to care. The time is right for clarity and for forceful, engaged presence, with our own clients and with the communities we serve. It’s time to step out of the shadows, into the limelight. Now, whadda you think of Daniel Libeskind? Got a meaningful, ready answer? (By Robert F. Ivy, AIA, Architectural Record)
If you have the chance, pick up the March 2003 Architectural Record (in your office or your local Barnes & Noble) and turn to page 88 and read James Russell's "Where are we now? - Architecture's place in an era of evolving values. It is quite the interesting read...
McPherson's tale far from over
Don't think it ends here. Don't think all the sleaze and slime has been revealed on Adrian McPherson.
"There's a lot more that's going to come out when the public records are released," said Paul Driver, the assistant state attorney in Tallahassee in charge of prosecuting the former Florida State quarterback, who has been charged in a check-forging case and with gambling.
The question has to be asked about point-shaving, and I don't have an answer. Did McPherson ever bet against Florida State, and did he intentionally play lousy to affect the outcome of a football game? It is the first question that pops into your mind when a player, specifically a quarterback, is tied to gambling.
A law-enforcement task force in Tallahassee revealed earlier this week that there is one source who says McPherson bet on every FSU football game in 2002 but "always bet on Florida State to win."
Do you really buy it? Or do you think there's a chance McPherson could have thrown games -- in particular the last game he played at FSU?
During a phone interview with the Sentinel on Thursday, Driver said "there is evidence" McPherson bet on FSU's game at North Carolina State on Nov. 23 and even says there's a chance McPherson may have bet against the Seminoles. "There is conflicting evidence as to whether he bet for or against his own team," Driver admitted.
Remember that NC State game? Police say that by then, McPherson had amassed thousands of dollars in gambling debts. Police also say that three days before the game, McPherson had stolen and forged a check for $3,500.
Makes you wonder, huh? Makes you say to yourself, "If you're a gambling-addicted quarterback and you desperately need money, isn't it much easier to lose a game than win one?" (By Mike Bianchi, Orlando Sentinel) View the entire article
A big win in Big D: Hartnell's late goal brings down Stars
DALLAS — On the same day the Predators organization began printing playoff tickets for the first time, the team took what it hopes will be a big step toward its first postseason berth.
The Predators produced one of their gutsiest efforts of the season, refusing to lose despite playing for the third time in four nights and taking on the team with the NHL's best home record.
Scott Hartnell's goal with 2:57 left in the contest proved the winner as the Predators stunned the Dallas Stars 2-1 in front of a capacity crowd in the American Airlines Center.
The victory kept Nashville (27-25-10-5) on track in pursuit of the Edmonton Oilers, who hold the Western Conference's eighth and final playoff berth. The Oilers, who beat Anaheim 4-1 last night, lead the Predators by five points. (By John Glennon, The (Nashville) Tennessean) View the entire article
TIDAL 11:33 AM
Sunday, March 02, 2003
Preds pay big price to reach .500
One of the most significant victories in Predators history came with quite a loss attached to it.
On the same afternoon that Coach Barry Trotz set an NHL coaching record, and on the same afternoon his team moved above .500 for the first time in three seasons, the Predators also learned they'd be without leading scorer David Legwand for the remainder of the season.
Legwand, the team's leading scorer, suffered a broken collarbone in the third period of yesterday's 5-4 overtime win over Chicago. The announcement that he'll miss the next 4-6 weeks certainly dampened the enthusiasm of Nashville's fourth consecutive victory.
''This team's been all about adversity,'' said Trotz, whose 392nd game allowed him to pass Terry Crisp's record for tenure as the first coach of an expansion team. ''This is just another chapter. We can't worry about it. We've got a lot of heart and focus.''
The Predators did give Legwand one heck of a going away party, as Scott Walker's goal with 2:11 remaining in overtime almost blew the roof off a sold-out Gaylord Entertainment Center.
It was a classic guts-and-hustle score, as Scott Hartnell dove face first toward the end boards and flipped the puck back in front of the net, allowing Walker to swat it out of the air and past goalie Jocelyn Thibault.
A fired-up Walker skated toward the boards and leaped off the ice, slamming his fist against the glass in celebration.
''It's hard to describe it all,'' said owner Craig Leipold, who congratulated players in the dressing room afterward. ''My voice is gone and my hands are still shaking. It's just a wonderful, wonderful feeling.''
The Predators (26-25-9-4) won for the eighth time in nine games, set a franchise record with their seventh straight home victory and, most importantly, maintained their pursuit of Edmonton in the Western Conference playoff chase. (By John Glennon, The (Nashville) Tennessean) View the entire article
Read Mike Heika's Western Conference Notebook at ESPN.com for a national perspective of the Preds torrid play of late...
Dissent from sea to shining sea
New York -- Almost immediately after Sept. 11, Brooklyn resident Ruth Benn took to the street corners to pass out fliers opposing the war she saw coming in Afghanistan.
Benn, an organizer for the War Resisters League, said she was greeted with jeers and hostility. "People walked by us and said, 'Not only are you wrong, you're also stupid,' " she said.
But these days, peace activists here say they see growing public opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policy and plans for war in Iraq. "Now people are more willing to talk, and a lot of them thank us for what we're doing," Benn said.
Many consider New York the spiritual center of the antiwar movement. While dissent has been muted in Washington, a grass-roots effort to stop the war is in full stride coast to coast, in scores of cities on campuses and in pulpits.
California, particularly and predictably the Bay area, is a hotbed of activity. But hundreds of groups from every region, using the Internet to share information and coordinate their activities, are planning a crescendo of protest actions as the likely hour for an attack on Iraq draws near. (By David Koeppel and Bob Keefe, The Atlanta Journal-Consitution) View the entire article
The New ARE (six years later)
NCARB offered the last paper-based version of the Architect Registration Examination (ARE) in June of 1996. It was replaced on February 27, 1997 by a computerized version of what was essentially the same exam. The computerized ARE was initially designed to keep the profession current with new technology, to provide for more consistent and objective grading, to ease state board responsibilities regarding administering an annual exam, and to make the exam more accessible to interns. While many of these objectives have unquestionably been realized, over the past six years we've also learned that the computerized ARE in practice is not exactly what the computerized ARE was in theory.
In practice, the ARE has evolved from a genuine threshold into a phase of its own on the increasingly lengthy path to licensure. One of the benefits originally touted for the new computerized ARE was that interns could take the exam 'whenever they wanted.' However, now that interns are doing just that, NCARB has chided those same interns for procrastinating. The reality is that "easy to schedule" also means "easy to reschedule," with heavy day-to-day demands at work and home. While the paper exam was a grueling four-day marathon, it was also a bit like doing your taxes. There was a deadline, and there were lots of other people to help you prepare, and to both commiserate and celebrate with. If you think that interns today are just being lazy by putting off the ARE, ask how many of your friends have filed their 2002 taxes already. As one intern told us recently, "It's a lonely process."
Internship is also a crucial time for young people to learn about how things work in the 'real world'--but NCARB could take a few lessons from the real world as well. And just as in the architecture profession itself, lessons learned after putting our ideas into practice only add to the overall quality of the work we're able to produce. A small, but growing number of states have recognized this fact and allow their candidates to seamlessly merge internship with examination, thus allowing interns to use the ARE as an educational tool to validate the experience gained throughout the internship process. This idea was a specific recommendation from the 1999 Collateral Internship Summit and was unanimously endorsed three years later by the 2002 National Internship Summit attendees. Yet, no organization has stepped forward to provide leadership on this issue for interns nationally.
For the sake of reference, between 1999 and 2002, the number of ARE candidates increased 52%, while the number of divisions of the ARE administered increased only 21%. In 2002, the number of candidates increased 14%, while the number of divisions administered increased just 3%.
The centerpiece of this issue was originally supposed to be a reprint of an article from the April 1995 issue of Progressive Architecture magazine. Last night, however, one of ArchVoices' editors was invited to give a presentation at AIA Houston and another opportunity arose. In an attempt to make other voices heard, he passed out the introduction for today's issue and asked people to respond to it, in writing, by the end of the presentation. He made a specific plea for comments that challenge the ideas in the introduction above, and he received so many responses that we decided to have those responses themselves make up today's issue. The P/A article is instead posted in full, and we encourage you to read it along with the following.
The P/A article, published in 1995, poses the question, "Will the new ARE change the profession?" Eight years later, we ask whether the profession will change the new ARE?
"The multi-part exam puzzles me. In some ways, I appreciate the flexibility in scheduling, but in other ways I feel that I underwent all the stress of a huge exam nine times instead of one. I don't know anyone who feels less pressure because it's a less comprehensive, more specialized exam. I completed my exams with some sort of shellshock, from which I'm still recovering even though I passed them all the first time. I also wonder how the multi-part exam affects a firm's ability to support its candidates (duration, randomness), as well as the candidates' motivation and camaraderie."
"Licensure has sort of taken a back seat in the profession in general. In some cases, being licensed does not equal being skilled. Many interns move and progress through a company, in some cases to top levels, and having a license never really becomes an issue. I think 'architecture license' has become just a footnote in most people's architecture career."
"Despite my lack of confidence in IDP and the ARE, I'm working my way through those steps because I'm committed to design and architecture. I think it's unfortunate that the process leaves so many others with a similar passion behind."
"I feel that the exam should be organized closer to students' graduation date, with experience gained after the exam has been taken, much in the same way as other professions. As of right now, the exam is lost amongst the many other responsibilities of interns."
"Architects learn to supplant personal needs with those of design and practice while in school. Students are TAUGHT to cancel plans, quit jobs, cease relationships (encouraged), and to ignore personal ambitions to meet deadlines. Of course, this behavior continues after graduation, when the student enters a firm. Are we really surprised that career and licensing ambitions are continually postponed while interns struggle to satisfy their employers? Priorities, as dysfunctional as they are in this profession, are learned."
"It's a problem that 1) it's a seven-year process (IDP + ARE), 2) that interns have to stop their lives to make time to study, 3) that older experienced architects are afraid to expose interns to the experiences they need, and 4) that interns are 'CAD monkeys' first before architects."
"In some ways, I feel that the low prestige of the intern out of school did a number on my lasting sense of self-worth. I watched all my fellow university graduates become 'engineers', consultants', and 'project managers', while I remained an 'intern' for five years."
"Why is there no recognition to being a registered architect? You can be a PE, RN, MD, LLM, CPA, among many others. Why are we not, 'John Doe, RA'? I know this feeds on prestige, but it works."
"I worked at a firm with 125 employees, but just six registered architects. When the culture of the profession has moved away from getting licensed, how much harder is it to do? It's a vicious circle."
"I think that architecture firms were more supportive of the time and other needs when 10 or 15 interns were taking the exam all together. Now it's one here, one there, and it's like the firm is doing you a favor."
"The deeper you get into life, the harder it is to take the exam. A friend of mine finished the whole exam in five months, and I said I was going to do the same thing. But I have a child, and finding that much time to study on my own after work was just impossible."
"When I took the exam, my spouse was incredibly supportive--he cooked, he cleaned. But it's like buying yourself time over and above all your everyday responsibilities."
"I understand that taking the exam before you get the required experience might be harder, but it's also pretty hard to study for the exam as an extra-curricular project in addition to regular work. Because of the way the exam is structured, we can't take off a single block of time like most other professions."
"The dwindling number of architects is alarming. I think it is in the best interest of everyone in the architecture community to recognize the problem that statistic raises for the future."
"If we can't excite architecture students to pursue 'a traditional architecture career,' how can we expect that career to be valued? I appreciate the concern that architects need to know a great deal about a variety of topics in order to effectively take a design through construction. I'm not convinced that the current licensure process ensures that."
"The mentorship process needs to be stronger. The IDP needs to not be dictated according to a time frame, but according to the industry of architecture the intern chooses to pursue. The additional cost to take the exam plus study material, plus the IDP is outrageous."
"The exams should be immediately after graduation. In the past the internship was necessary because you had a mentor that would mentor the intern. Today with the computer in the workplace there is no longer the communication with the mentor. Interns are forced to learn on their own. The mentorship does not exist like it did in the past."
"I'm almost 2 years out of school and have been working in a firm for 18 months. Since I started, only one of about ten eligible interns has taken the ARE (any divisions) and passed."
"The three-year internship is a joke due to the way an architecture firm works. It is difficult to follow one project from start to finish and beyond. Getting construction administration experience or programming experience is hard when your marketable skills only include AutoCAD/drawing."
"In my experience, licensure is for the person who wants to start a new company. Only one registered architect is needed for an entire firm."
"Though I've been cornered in the same construction administration/project management task for almost nine months, I'm not bored or worried about my progress (still quick out of school). I was an average student in college and active in AIAS--now active in the Intern/Associate Committee--and tried (still do) to challenge myself to be more assertive."
"Lucky for me, I have an extremely supportive firm that will let us take days off work to study for the ARE. I'm less reluctant to start than I might be elsewhere. Quality of intern experiences are so hard to gauge, but I think simple aggression is the key. To my surprise, my actions have initiated more action amongst my fellow interns."
"As someone who just went through and completed the process the old way, I think it's a great idea that Texas allows interns to take the exam at the same time as fulfilling IDP. This prevents a lot of the useless waiting for paperwork to be processed and allows a continuous effort directly towards licensing. My darkest hours during this process were related to frustration with paperwork, so it would have been nice to intersperse paperwork efforts with exam studying."
"You would have more people taking the ARE (and passing) if the employers/firms made it a requirement. Apparently, employers don't really see the benefit in it."
"The four-year degree can be a huge burden for new graduates. If 'we' only made minimum wage, we would have a huge incentive to go back to school for a professional degree. I was told by a registered architect that the best way to go was a four-year degree, a couple years of working, and then back for the masters. If only I didn't have a truck payment, house note, and other bills to pay."
"I have found in my experience the AIA is joked about by being called a 'club.' I was taught in school that the AIA was the lobbying group installed to help architects get legislation (or other literature) passed by representing the masses. Many 'non-licensed architects' don't want to waste their money on an organization that doesn't do anything for them."
"Engineers and interior designers must be kept separate entities, but shouldn't being an architect encompass all these disciplines? I come from both an interior design (undergrad) and architecture (grad) background. There is often much bias in making the distinction--a designer cannot be an architect and vice versa. I agree that there should not be a distinction, but to do this I decided to get licenses in both. The NCIDQ I.D. licensing exam is a two-day, three-part exam. Though not as broad, it does cover many areas. The ARE was probably best left in this format."
"I've been out of school a year and a half and find it difficult to keep up with the demands at work and allowing time to keep up with IDP and studying for exams. I feel like the importance of licensure is there, only the steps in getting there is difficult. Hopefully, becoming more involved with courses geared towards helping interns prepare for exams will be useful."
Courtesy the February 28, 2003 edition of ArchVoices
TIDAL 12:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
