JUSTICE COVERS 'NUDE' STATUES

DRUDGE ^ | 01/28/02

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Fed up with having his picture taken during events in the Justice Department's Great Hall in front of semi-nude statues, Attorney General John Ashcroft has reportedly ordered massive draperies to conceal the offending figures -- which have been displayed since the 1930s!

The draperies were installed last week at a cost of just over $8,000, reports ABCNEWS.com's Beverley Lumpkin.

At the center of the controversy: two enormous and stylized but largely naked aluminum statues.

The female figure represents the Spirit of Justice; the male on the right is the Majesty of Justice. The male is clad in only a cloth draped over his essential parts; the female wears a sort of toga-style garment, but one breast is entirely exposed.

Last November, during a press conference announcing new challenges of fighting terrorism, Ashcroft was photographed with the naked breast right over his shoulder!

The snap ran in major papers.

Developing...

[The Grim Freeper]

"Nakedness is a shame."

That's from The Bible. Read it sometime.

[CyberAnt]

"denying the liberal photographers a chance to embarass him"

Exactly!! That is my point too. No self-respecting journalist would have ever allowed such a picture to be shown in public. But ... the liberal leeches we have for press don't have any self-respect - no wonder they don't have any respect for anyone else either.

[The Grim Freeper]

Yes. Very edifying (not).

[zoyd]

No, I'm not kidding - My Pastor would have done the same thing (cover the statutes). It's called modesty - and I guess only my generation understands it's importance.

So I guess Sister Wendy Beckett, who has that art appreciation show on PBS, is some immoral, porn-loving harlot?! She's gotta be in her 60s or 70s... I guess your definition of modesty and Sister Wendy's are a little different.

I just wonder what Sister Wendy would have to say about this.

[asneditor]

stinkin comments? hmmm OK if you say so, but to let you know I have never voted for anyone other than a Republican since I registered to vote 20 years ago.
Remember opposing viewpoints are good if people are willing to listen to and not degrade those who disagree with them.
Let me ask you this my fine man, Why is it just now that they decided to cover the statues? Doesn't it seem kind of silly when you think about? This harks of something right out of the taliban for sure. If you dont like something then cover it up? or in the Talibans case they just blew it up.

[asneditor]

So when you were born, pure and innocent you were a shame because you were unclothed? I don't think you were and I doubt God does.

[sweetliberty]

"Your Pic is the only criticism that I find in good taste on this thread. You have captured the humor in the AGs action and not blended it with hidden agenda."

Well, thank you for the compliment, but I really can't take all the credit. It was texaggie's pic. I just reposted it.

[CyberAnt]

There's nothing wrong with the statue - in and of itself; in a museum where it can be appreciated. I'm not against that! What I'm against is the fact that the statue in front of the Justice Dept makes it just toooooo easy for the libs to use that picture to embarass Ashcroft. And ... that is their goal. They know he's a Godly man and they are using that to show they are in charge. Well ... I guess he showed them who was in charge!!

[Lazamataz]

"So I take it you won't be traveling to Firenza to see Michaelangelo's "David"."

Yes.

LOL!

Tell me -- just for grins and giggles -- would you push it one step further? If you could get away with it, would you, as a government official with such a power, order that the statue "David" or Bernini's many nude works be dynamited, in order to save us from this horrible, horrible pornography?

[Dane]

Actually I'm just using your form of logic, I never saw you condemn Pol Pot, or Idi Amin or Joe Stalin, so therefore you must love them. I don't write the rules of DANE LOGIC, I just point them out to you

Sheesh more projection and like I said before it ain't pretty.

BTW, you never answered the question I asked you in reply #420.

You know the joke about you being in Ashcroft's place in the picture and saying that you(central scrutiniser) was looking "titular".

[constitutiongirl]

Today's women?? The statue is from the 30's.

[Cold Heat]

stinkin=inappropriate........and you did it again.

[colorado tanker]

Dumb question? Why doesn't Ashcroft get one of those cool oval boards like the White House and State Department have. Just put up a curtain and hang his sign behind him?

[asneditor]

May I ask you why it is inappropriate?

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

There's nothing wrong with the statue - in and of itself; in a museum where it can be appreciated. I'm not against that! What I'm against is the fact that the statue in front of the Justice Dept makes it just toooooo easy for the libs to use that picture to embarass Ashcroft.

How much time did Clinton spend inside the White House with his pants off and who in the media made a big deal out of that?

[Dane]

There's nothing wrong with the statue - in and of itself; in a museum where it can be appreciated. I'm not against that! What I'm against is the fact that the statue in front of the Justice Dept makes it just toooooo easy for the libs to use that picture to embarass Ashcroft. And ... that is their goal. They know he's a Godly man and they are using that to show they are in charge. Well ... I guess he showed them who was in charge!!

Exactly! But that won't matter to the conspiracy behind every door crowd.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Why is that what you want?

[Cold Heat]

Too big of a room! It's huge.