The justice statues stand in all their glory once again.

With barely a word about it, workers at the Justice Department Friday removed the blue drapes that have famously covered two scantily clad statues for the past 3 1/2 years.
If you aren’t registered you should be.

Here is a link at AOL as well:

I suppose Ashcroft would have fallen to the floor unconscious if a replica of Michaelangelo’s David had been behind him, what with all that nasty private part stuff showing…


And if you still don’t want to register…

This whole issue was a big huge joke.

Ashcroft, as the article states, wasn’t the first to use the blue drapes. They’d been used for years, because obnoxious news photographers loved to position their cameras just so to make speakers at the lectern look like, well, boobs.

For years the government rented the drapes from a private company on an event by event basis. All Ashcroft did was approve the purchase of some for permanent retention by the Justice Department, since this would save money over the long haul.

For this triviality, he was made to look like a maniacial Putitan. Admittedly, he didn’t need much help in this regard, but this drape issue was just a load of BS.

Now the drapes are gone, and the country can breathe a collective sigh of relief that we’ve been delivered from such a crass and tasteless official. I have no doubt that this kindness will be met with restraint when the photographers next photograph someone in the Great Hall.


Don’t tell me he’s Russian!


Mr Moto
Even though the drapes had been previously utilized, I still thought Ashcroft’s objection to the nudity was highly hypocritical.
He knew the right people so he could get his “vital” civilian job (teaching law in Missouri) classisifed as sufficient grounds for him to be exempt from the military - during the Vietnam War.
Dodging the draft ? Oh that’s okay. Nude female breasts ? Hey, he’s a member of the party that stands for family values and morals - we’ll have none of that nudity around here !!!

Just a quick question. Did news photographers, at press conferences, take pictures of Janet Reno with a big ol’ aluminum tit above her head?

I don’t recall any of these shots, myself.

Now, this means that Reno either used the drapes herself, or that the news photographers decided that these shots would be inappropriate to take, given the seriousness and dignity of her position.

This implies a good bit of hypocrisy somewhere, and it isn’t on the part of Ashcroft. Again, he may be criticized for much, but I can’t fault the man for not wanting to ba made the butt of jokes any more than necessary.

Mr. Moto: If he can’t take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Not use taxpayer money to make himself and his government look like a bunch of prudish bums.

Here’s my favorite part of the article:

Gooooood times.

Mr Moto
The reason Ashcroft may have been singled out for ridicule about this, could be the reason I previously stated. Not necessarily his alleged prudishness, but the fact that he received “special treatment” during the Vietnam War, meaning he was able to avoid military service completely.
If I were a photographer or newspaper reporter, I’ll admit that fact would certainly taint the way I’d want to portray him. Hey, he got a nice cushy deferment and later was appointed to one of the highest offices in the land. To me, I’d want him to face a little adversity for once in his life. Similar to what Derleth said, it seems Ashcroft can’t “take the heat”. Hey, he didn’t have to take the job.

Ah. I see.

Wasn’t the media supposed not to have an agenda in this area, and be free of bias? What’s the position supposed to be this week?


Another quick question. Suppose another attorney general, a more media savvy one, were to take the drapes down, and then carefully survey the floor. Then, the next time there was a press conference, photographers found that they could take all the pictures of the statues they wanted, but any close shots of them with the AG in the shot could only be taken from sections of the hall that were now roped off. Event personnel were apologizing, calling it a security precaution that couldn’t be helped.

Would we hear any bellyaching from any of you, now that you could see your tin nudity in all its glory?

Good god, that’s quite the run of logic there.

Oh, wait, no it isn’t. You invent some basis, assume it to be true, then use your fantasy facts to draw damaging conclusions about people who disagree with you.

About par for the course, I suppose.

“I loves that cold stone titty. Oh, Lady Justice, why won’t you be my wife? Why won’t you be my-- click Huh? Oh, just cleaning up, cleaning up, heh…”

Hey, some of us don’t live in DC ya know. I actually have to look up my tin nudity on the internet (at least until I can afford a naughty hood ornament).

And if it revealed the AG to be someone who can’t take a joke, you betcha.

I thought Ashcroft was just being consistent with the covering up of the statutes.

The man did not like porn and he fought internet porn quite a bit. So covering up the naked ladies was something in which he strongly believed.

It’s Justice Gone Wild! Call now and for only 9.95 you’ll also get When Chabas Girls Get Crazy!

The man did not like porn and he fought internet porn quite a bit.
So covering up the naked ladies was something in which he strongly believed.

He also strongly believed in the avoidance of military service and he did an equally “admirable” job in this respect. :smiley:

Of course. And I hate the Free Speech Zones as much as you must, assuming you do hate them by making comparisons like that.

(I’m never quite sure just how consistent someone is.)