1/27: Ashcroft and the nude
 

http://cellar.org/2002/ashcroftnude.jpg

From ABCNews via Fark:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Ha...ofjustice.html

Amidst a flurry of denials, Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft has apparently asked for the nude statue that you see behind him there to be COVERED UP with $8000 in draperies because he is tired of being photographed in its presence during events in the Great Hall at the Justice Department.

Hilarious or sad? You make the call.

If you cover-up Justice ... then the terrorists have won!

what a jackass. it's silly that some people are really terrified of the naked human body, and when it's as great a symbol as that, for shame. what a dork :p

The Taliban's Ministry of Vice and Virtue oversaw the destruction of the statues.

The ministry also enforced adherence to many facets of the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islam.

Women were required to cover themselves from head to toe.

Rather than destroy the statue of Justice, Ashcroft has ordered that she wear a burqa in his presence. How civilized!

Hence, Ashcroft being my least favorite part of our current administration. He really is a twat. But when you're obscenely rich and in a seat of unscrutable power, he can afford to be. Unfortunately.

wait, wait
 

You know what? Maybe the dude just doesn't like being photographed in front of that statue day after day. He's not saying there's anything wrong with the staute itself, or boobs in general, he just doesn't want it lording over him in every damn press photo. Stop trying to make him in to the Fourth Reich when the man would simply like a change of background.

Look at the guys politics, it fits, and i'm sorry but he really is a fucwit. I can in all honesty say i would grin from ear to ear upon news of his death, its him and his ilk that will ligitimise American as the enemy by ignoring international law, and generally acting like arrogant prats, its fuckwits like him that sent rangers into Somalia to protect US oil interests.

Jag, you're spewing shit again.

Firstly, it's pretty sad that you'd actually grin ear to ear at his death. Me, I'd be pretty indifferent. I don't think he should have the post. But that doesn't mean he needs to die. He's got a family too, no doubt.

As for Somalia and US oil interests, I ask you to produce one piece of <b>credible</b> evidence that says they were there to protect the oil interests and <b>not</b> to safeguard and distribute food shipments. And yes, I know all about capturing the warlord too. But find me a policy letter stating that they were there <b>because of oil</b>.

Note to self: Ask Dick Cheney to produce that letter, too. ;)

What an ass. Its obscene that this personal marketing absurdity should even occupy his thoughts. (and I use the concept of thought very loosely here)

http://www.2xtreme.net/stockphotos/m36f.JPG

In 1501 Michelangelo was commissioned to create the David by the Arte della Lana (Guild of Wool Merchant), who were responsible for the upkeep and the decoration of the Cathedral in Florence.

Once the statue was completed, a committee of the highest ranking citizens and artists decided that it must be placed in the main square of the town, in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, the Town Hall. It was the first time since antiquity that a large statue of a nude was to be exhibited in a public place. This was only allowed thanks to the action of two forces, which by a fortunate chance complemented each other: the force of an artist able to create, for a political community, the symbol of its highest political ideals, and, on the other hand, that of a community, which understood the power of this symbol. "Strength" and "Wrath" were the two most important virtues, characteristic of the ancient patron of the city Hercules. Both these qualities, passionate strength and wrath, were embodied in the statue of David.

One might think that, in the 21st century, the Attorney General might appreciate a similar justification for the artistic presentations of Justice in the Great Hall of the Justice Department.

one might think
 

that maybe this shouldn't be viewed as "John Ashcroft Hates Nude Statues and Thinks they Should all be Covered in Draperies," but pehaps as "John Ashcroft is Sick of Having a Naked Female Torso Sprouting from his Head in Every Copy of the Washington Post." Seriously, people, don't let your dislike of the man's politics so absurdly taint your interpretation of everything he does.

I think that is the point exactly.

The Pope shouldn't be embarassed about being photographed beside David. It's not pornography.

And Ashcroft should tell those who titter over such photographs to just grow up. Instead, he is embarassed and spends $8,000 to cover 'em up because of the beliefs he holds of the impropriety of these statues in the first place. And that's what's at issue here.

Ashcroft doesn't distinguish between Justice and Playboy bunnies.

I am disturbed that he is ridiculously concerned about he perceives to be a negative, unflattering "self image" . Get over it. Justice upstages him and rightfully so.

If he's so concerned
 

He should just move to a different press briefing room. I'm sure there's some nude-statue-less rooms in one of the Justice Department buildings.

Oh yeah, or drop his idiotic stance. That would work much better.