Re: D.C., Puerto Rico & territory quarter designs submitted for review

"Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:tct3349b90hbhs4la5bafbgbpbocbvjrb8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:12:42 -0400, "Bruce Remick" <remick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>>>But isn't that pretty much the same the same with every state quarter?

>>>>No
>>>>local hype, no notice.
>>>
>>> The point being that DC (and the other 2009 quarters) isn't a *state*
>>> quarter. They weren't included in the original legislation. Everyone
>>> else in the country at least knew with a certainty approaching 100%
>>> that there would be a quarter with their state commemorated.
>>
>>I don't believe I ever claimed that DC was a state, nor that its quarter
>>would be part of the state quarter program.
>
> I never said you did! What I did say was the hype in DC could take a
> slightly different tone from the hype in the other states. Simply
> *because* it's not a state and was never supposed to have its own
> quarter, etc.
>
>>It could be argued that it IS
>>part of the same "series".
>
> I think it is, for what little it's worth.
>
>>No matter one way or another.  I agreed that
>>most state residents wouldn't notice the appearance their own state 
>>quarters
>>unless they were hyped locally- usually one time by the local TV
stations
>>and the local paper.  And I also suspect that without the hype,  many
>>couldn't tell you whether their state's quarter had been released yet.
>>
>>>
>>> The hype here isn't going to be "yeah, isn't our state fabulous, we've
>>> *finally* got our outline on the back of a quarter!"; but is going to
>>> be "Every day, every year is a struggle for this city -- from being
>>> second class citizens in the greatest country on earth to home rule to
>>> a federal government that doesn't bother with its own federal district
>>> -- and we've overcome most of these shortcommings. Here, at least, is
>>> a symbolic victory: the same federal government that ignores the
>>> second class status of the city's people snubbed them when drafting
>>> the "statehood quarter" legislation. Well, we got *that* straightened
>>> out!" And that sort of thing.
>>
>>I don't believe all that would fit on the DC quarter.
>
> They could place some of it round the edge! :)
>
>>After having worked
>>in DC for some 30 years, I became oblivious to all its political whining

>>and
>>ineptness.   I'm sure each of our other territories, possessions, etc. 
>>could
>>come up with valid similar rants for their own quarter, but most chose 
>>some
>>positive images instead.
>
> I wouldn't say Duke Ellington or Frederick Douglass are negative
> images!

Of course not!  Neither is Banneker.  I was referring to the 
taxation-representation protest image proposal.

>
> "Taxation Without Representation" isn't even a negative image *of DC*
> itself. It's a slam against the federal government.

It's indeed a fact of life in DC, but it doesn't belong on their quarter, 
IMO.  Like anywhere else, those who feel that strongly about this issue 
should not live in the District.  Like folks who choose a state to live in

where their gov't pension or Social Security annuity won't be taxed, where

there is no state income tax at all, where there is no commuter tax,
county 
surtax, or any other type of pesky income-related tax.  Plus, they get to 
have their vote count.