Posted on 01/28/2002 6:14:04 AM PST by 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...
Ashcroft has every right to value personal modesty. But it's a requirement of his job to be politically savvy enough to avoid handing the Administration's enemies fodder for mockery. In other words, fight the culture war on battlefields that matter, not on a few bare breasts made of iron.
Classic sculpture often depicts the human body. I suppose back in the day these statues were made, people weren't so sensitive and could handle it.
The PC police are not the ones wanting them covered.
"the offending figures...have been displayed since the 1930s"
PC existed in 1930?
Politically correct people would want the nudity to remain
I'd like the statues to remain in their original state, and I assure you I think very little of political correctness.
Maybe to show that Justice isn't covering up anything. I guess Ashcroft can be commended for not trying to give the wrong impression. He covered up the statues the same way he is covering up other things that should be exposed.
Sheesh! I couldn't agree more. Who designed these statues, and why include nudity? For what purpose? I can't even fathom it.
Now, if I wanted to get conspiratorial here, I could say that the 1930's was the heyday of the American communist party and the radical left, and we all know about their agenda regarding public art and decency. Hmmm....
He has shown no interest in doing anything about corruption in high government offices except continuing the cover up.
When not covering up statue boobs, he spends his time trampling state’s rights, using the power of the Fed to nullify medical marijuanna laws in California and assisted suicide laws in Oregon.
You’d think he’d have something important, or at least constitutional, to do.
Did you want to bring back your breakfast or something! :)
LOL!!! A truely frightening idea!
Or, maybe he (Ashcroft) got a 'woody' just thinking about that huge boob behind him (so close, yet so inaccessable and cold) and was concerned that it would show up on TV!-)
I shall take the point of your contention under consideration and, should I be permitted to take the matter in hand, will advise you of the outcome.
Oh please. I guess nudes are a sign of communism, which means communism has been around from Michaelangelo's time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.