Posted on 02/14/2002 8:55:32 PM PST by Timesink
From the February 25, 2002 issue of National Review, page 8:
The story line proved irresistible: Justice Department's Top Prude Drapes Naked Statue. Two large semi-nude statues adorn the department's Great Hall, where the attorney general holds big press conferences. In the past, a large blue curtain was rented to provide a TV-pleasing backdrop. An aide responsible for staging such events, on her own initiative, hoped to economize by requesting the purchase of a curtain. She may have been admirably conscious of costs, but she was definitely oblivious to the ways of Washington. A phony story then ran on the website of ABC News attributing the decision to the straitlaced attorney general, who supposedly couldn't bear the bare breast of Ms. Spirit of Justice. Other reporters happily echoed the fabrication, many no doubt lamenting that a permanent curtain would end their fun in going for the "gotcha" shots that framed the breast and the beast.
I would be wonderful to have it debunked as a matter of record at their web site. Maybe we should try and have ALL the lies the media pedals debunked as urban legends at snopes. :)
BTT
Those who wish to enforce the dogma of their religion through law deserve criticism no matter what their denomination. Maybe not all "fundamentalists" seek to do this, those who do not should ignore the criticism or support the critique. Unfortunately not all agendas are self-evident on either side, nor do all issues fall cleanly into a catagory.
For instance, I believe government forced charity is a religious tenet and beyond the proper scope of government in a free country.
There isn't one. I typed it in directly from the magazine, and only linked to the National Review web site so the FR software wouldn't yell at me.
The column has no byline anyway. You'd just have to email them and ask to have your message directed to whoever's in charge of the "The Week" section.
Thanx. I think I'll do that. I might also have to contact ABC News about this and take the blame. After all, Beverly was just taking my advice on spicing up her stories with a little too much enthusiasm.
It sounds like Bev and I will have to meet for dinner (on the ABC News expense account) so I can advise her on how to spice up her dull stories without getting herself into trouble again.
Michael Rivero and you should get together. He thinks the Jews did it. Perhaps you two could write a book.
Let's face it, Peej -- who ain't? ;^)
True but normally PJ love doesn't cause a fabricated story to circulate widely in the media.
I think it's worth keeping note of however. I've already bookmarked the original and your post as rebuttal. I can't tell you how many times I've run across people that still claim Ashcroft is a "prude". I think the original article by Lumpkin is the most valuable; it shows that even from a liberal source as ABC News, Ashcroft didn't do what everyone thought.
Good catch!
Hey, watch what you say about MY woman! Check out my Reply #34 to see why Ms Lumpkin wrote her story. She was so blinded by love for Yours Truly that she got carried away. Ms Lumpkin knows me well from my previous frequent postings about her on the ABC News Message Board and also from my many "Lumpkin Alerts" on this forum.
Before my many Lumpkin postings, no one really knew much about Beverly. I was the one who brought her notoriety. However, ever since early last year I pretty much ignored Ms Lumpkin. What happened is that early last year she did an absurd report about how Ashcroft (GASP! SHOCK!) prayed in private and I raked her over the coals for that silly report on this forum. As a result, she toned down her stories to please her PJ but since her subsequent stories became so utterly boring I had to ignore her. However, when I recently gave her permission to spice up her stories again, she went a bit overboard because she was so blinded by love.
If you and her do go out to dinner, do you think that you could ask her about the media bias? That would be something I'd like to see her write about. ;)
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.