Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I have heard about the covering of the statues before but wasn't sure if it was just folklore - apparently it was't. I have to admit that covering the statues is a just bit over the top.
Pfff, those look fake.
This had to be one of the most stoopid, ridiculous wastes of tax-payer money we've come across. What, Ashcroft couldn't speak in the Great Hall in such a way that the *breast* wouldn't be in the shot? The mics aren't mobile, the cameras are stationary??
They should blindfold the statue, too. Might as well, symoblism is everything.
Why is this considered newsworthy? Ashcroft has been out of office for some time now.
From what I recall, the statues were covered because they were becoming a distraction as juuvenile press photographers were going out of their way to include the naked statues in pictures of Ashcroft as an attempt to mock his religious beliefs. They could only get away with somethhing like that because they were mocking Christians.
He thought it was just a couple of pinatas.
whats so hard about moving the podium? do that instead of robing
Hmm, looks like an implant to me. Never did like those fake ones.
The issue at the heart of this piece is two works of art created for the newly-constructed Great Hall of the Department of Justice in the 1930s by German sculptor Carl Paul Jennewein: a pair of 12-1/2 foot statues representing the Spirit of Justice and the Majesty of the Law. The former is a female figure draped in a toga, with raised arms and one exposed breast; the latter is a male figure with a draped cloth covering his midsection. Press photographers over the years had sometimes taken advantage of the positioning of the statues to snap "boob in front of the boob" shots (such as a photo of Edwin Meese, Attorney General during President Reagan's second term, holding a report on pornography aloft with the partially nude female statue visible behind him). After current Attorney General John Ashcroft was captured by press cameramen in similar shots, the media reported in January 2002 that Ashcroft had ordered (or approved) the Department of Justice's spending of $8,650 for drapes to hide the two statues because he didn't like being photographed in front of them (or, worse, that Ashcroft was a embarrassingly prudish Philistine who was offended by any representation of nudity). The Department of Justice spokespeople maintained that the drapes were used not to hide the statues but to "provide a nice background for television cameras" during formal events; that the purchase had been made by a DoJ staffer on her own initiative to save the $2,000 per event cost of renting them; and that "the attorney general was not even aware of the situation." Critics held that the DoJ's disputing the issue of who actually authorized the purchase of the drapes was a smoke screen (since rental drapes were already being used to cover the statues); that the drapes have been left hanging all the time and are not put in place only when televised events are being held in the Great Hall; and that even if Attorney General Ashcroft didn't know about or authorize the purchase, he certainly didn't order the drapes removed, either.
Worthy of an RPR ping?
Why are the statues disrobed in the first place?
The deep symbolism of a bare nipple escapes me right now.
Only one boob allowed on the screen at a time I guess.
Send the bill to that Ashcroft idiot.
ALUMINUM statues? How cheesy! Sell them at a garage sale. They certainly lend no value to a government office.
Ashcroft was, and remains, a "Moron First Class." Without a doubt the absolute worst Atty. Gen. since the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre.
The Spirit of Justice might as well be uncovered. The Supreme Court just mooned us all.