Friday, March 11, 2011

Black presidents don't count, in Mississippi at least -- UPDATED

You really can't make this stuff up, can you? Philip Thomas blogs a photo of the inscription at the new federal courthouse in Jackson, MS:

That must be right, because 9/11 happened when Clinton was president: so, 2002-2010.

... Seriously, if someone isn't fired over a deliberate insult to the president of the United States, then I don't know what this country is coming to.

UPDATED: Mea culpa. NMC actually bothers to look up the rule on how these inscriptions are formulated:
The cornerstone should be a cut stone block having a smooth face of size adequate to present the following incised letters: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (PRESIDENT’S NAME), PRESIDENT, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, (ADMINISTRATOR’S NAME), ADMINISTRATOR, (YEAR OF PROJECT COMPLETION). The words, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, should be in letters 50 mm (2 inches) high and other letters should be proportionally sized by rank.

All names should be of those individuals in office during project development prior to construction, if construction is completed during a subsequent President’s term of office.
Agree with NMC that this is "a silly rule." The confusion to future archaeologists alone militates against it. And really, what's wrong with having the names of both presidents on there -- in office during "development" as well as at "completion"? So the heads to roll should be those of the GSA twerps who concocted this rule.

1 comment:

  1. Just a late comment. Obama is the most liberal president in this country's history. He was rated the most liberal senator prior to his election. He was elected in large part because many white Americans were desperate to support a black person for higher office whose views didn't seem too extreme. Now that he's in office, many of these people are dicovering that they have voted for someone whose views are not their own at all.

    My point is that most of the opposition to Obama has nothing to do with race, yet his liberal supporters play the race card more and more often, just as you originally did in this case. I'm not suggesting that you ignore the racial component, just state it with a little less force and certainty.