Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 38295
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/05/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
5/24    

2005/6/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:38295 Activity:high
6/24    [from the thread way down below]
        \_ FWIW, I think this was John "I covered Lady Justice's Titties"
           Ashcroft's doing.
           \_ He might not have bothered if it weren't the case that so many
              photogrophers liked to snap pics of him with the titties in the
              background.
              \_ Possible, but it's still unbelievably stupid.
                 \_ Really?  Check: http://csua.org/u/cij
                 \_Really?http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430134/posts
                    Maybe stupid of the photographers.
                    \_ It's so fun watching freepers implode.  I really liked
                       the "IT WAS JANET RENO" kneejerks.  wow.
                    \_ Whatever the photographers were doing, covering the
                       status is a petulant, stupid response motivated by
                       Puritanism of the worst kind.  Why should he be
                       embarassed to be in front of Lady Justice?  Anyone who
                       finds that statue to be "lascivious" has got real
                       problems and should seek help.
                       \_ The slew of photos designed to frame a breast in the
                          same image as Ashcroft's face was nothing more than
                          junior-high school level sniggering.  An alternative
                          could have been to ban photographers.  I see covering
                          the statues as a reasonable way to deny the juveniles
                          their fun at his expense.
                          \_ You're as much of an uptight prude as Ashcroft,
                             apparently.  By the way, the Gonzales Justice
                             Department has "disrobed" the statue.
                          \_ You clearly don't know anything about photography.
                             The statue of lady Justice has *symbolic meaning*.
                             Photos will be more interesting with something
                             from the background included in the frame than
                             if it's just Ashcroft's head or the podium.
                             Only an idiot would think it's done to
                             specifically highlight the breast.  -tom
                             \_ I won't defend Ashcroft, but I'm certain
                                the picture of Ed Meese delivering his
                                report on pornography with those breasts
                                in the background was meant to feature
                                that feature.  -mel
                             \_ The more Ashcroft was shown to be a prude,
                                though, I wouldn't have put it past
                                photographers to do it intentionally. --dbushong
                       \_ I can think of a lot of reasons John Ashcroft should
                          be ashamed to be seen in front of Lady Justice.
2025/05/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
5/24    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2007/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48049 Activity:very high
9/12    Actual history of the Patriot Act, for those who think that GWB
        had nothing to do with it:
        http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot
        "When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush
        administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General
        John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill --
	...
2007/7/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47438 Activity:kinda low
7/26    Regarding the contradiction between Mueller and Gonzales.  The Bush
        admin's story is that there were two surveillance programs:  the
        #1 Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and #2 an unnamed one.  Comey
        was going to resign over #2.  Mueller said Gonzales came to see
        Ashcroft for #2.  Gonzo said it was #2.  Dems think Gonzo said #1
        and Mueller said #2.  No one could talk about #2 clearly because
	...
2007/5/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46649 Activity:nil
5/15    White House attempted to get Gonzalez to authorize illegal
        spying program from his hospital bed:
        http://www.csua.org/u/ipb
        \_ You mean Ashcroft.
	...
2007/3/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45944 Activity:high
3/12    Alberto Gonzales and Pete Domenici, buh-bye
        http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012983.php
           \_ Hi there.  So I guess every administration fires
           \_ It's not just the firing, it's the (ab)use of the Patriot Act
              to replace the fired attorneys with Bush-cronies without
              Senate approval.  But of course, no one in our government
	...
2006/8/3-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43886 Activity:nil
8/3     so, a while back, this collage pic of ashcroft was posted to motd:
        http://www.pmbrowser.info/hublog/images/gashcroft.jpg
        There was a similar one of Bush, only done with pictures of the
        faces of soldiers who had died fighting his wars.  anyone remember
        the URL for that one?
        \_ http://photomatt.net/2004/04/07/mosaic
	...
2005/9/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39698 Activity:kinda low
9/15    Reuter's Dan Rather moment?                             -jblack
        Reuters Photo Is A Fraud? matches neither Bush's or Condi's
        handwriting.  Reuter's admits to photoshoping.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485300/posts?page=1,50
        \_ The fact is, according to Reuters -- and this has not
           been widely reported -- President Bush did indeed take a
	...
2005/8/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39023 Activity:kinda low
8/5     Liberals: It's over.  We lost.  For real.  We're fucked.
        http://newsforreal.blogspot.com/2005/08/august-1-2005.html
        \_ He's got a few fallacies, but I think he's more or less
           correct.  The Democratic party has spent the last 5 years, at
           least, yelling about issues that no longer apply,  and
           re-hashing old battles that are long over.  I would love to see
	...
2005/7/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:38584 Activity:high
7/12    This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. This is a
        we've-gone- through-a-wormhole-into-a-nightmare-alternative-universe
        -where-Greg Stillson-from-THE DEAD ZONE-got-elected-president-and-
        the-sound-of-demon-trumpets-are-cracking-the-horizon kinda thing.
        Republicans. I don't have any bad feelings for you as individuals
        or even as a group. The fact is, this time you guys fucked up.
	...
2005/7/1-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38388 Activity:moderate
7/1     http://csua.org/u/cki
        "Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court, announced
        her retirement Friday."
        \_ Ok, someone had this scoop on the motd days ago.  How did that
           happen?
           \- Judicious Branch Prediction (SDO apparently let it slip before
	...
Cache (1932 bytes)
csua.org/u/cij -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401373_pf.html
com Ashcroft Gone, Justice Statues Disrobe By MARK SHERMAN The Associated Press Friday, June 24, 2005; Spirit of Justice, with her one breast exposed and her arms raised, and t he bare-chested male Majesty of Law basked in the late afternoon light o f Justice's ceremonial Great Hall. The drapes, installed in 2002 at a cost of $8,000, allowed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to speak in the Great Hall without fear of a breas t showing up behind him in television or newspaper pictures. They also p rovoked jokes about and criticism of the deeply religious Ashcroft. The 12-foot, 6-inch aluminum statues were installed shortly after the bui lding opened in the 1930s. With a change in leadership at Justice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced the question: Would they stay or would they go? He regularly deflected the question, saying he had weightier issues befor e him. Paul R Corts, the assistant attorney general for administration, recomme nded the drapes be removed and Gonzales signed off on it, spokesman Kevi n Madden said, while refusing to allow The Associated Press to photograp h the statues Friday. In the past, snagging a photo of the attorney general in front of the sta tues has been somewhat of a sport for photographers. When former Attorney General Edwin Meese released a report on pornography in the 1980s, photographers dived to the floor to capture the image of him raising the report in the air, with the partially nude female statue behind him. The first attorney general to use the blue drapery was Republican Richard Thornburgh, attorney general under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush. He had the drapery put up only for a few occasions when he wa s appearing in the Great Hall, rather than permanently installed as it w as under Ashcroft. Most news conferences now are held in a state-of-the-art conference room, although the Great Hall still hosts speeches and other special events.
Cache (8192 bytes)
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430134/posts
Crackingham With barely a word about it, workers at the Justice Department Friday rem oved the blue drapes that have famously covered two scantily clad statue s for the past 3 1/2 years. Spirit of Justice, with her one breast expos ed and her arms raised, and the bare-chested male Majesty of Law basked in the late afternoon light of Justice's ceremonial Great Hall. The drapes, installed in 2002 at a cost of $8,000, allowed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to speak in the Great Hall without fear of a breas t showing up behind him in television or newspaper pictures. They also p rovoked jokes about and criticism of the deeply religious Ashcroft. The 12-foot, 6-inch aluminum statues were installed shortly after the buildi ng opened in the 1930s. With a change in leadership at Justice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced the question: Would they stay or would they go? He regularly defl ected the question, saying he had weightier issues before him. View Replies To: Crackingham 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 coverin g the statues is a just bit over the top. View Replies To: Crackingham The drapes, installed in 2002 at a cost of $8,000, allowed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to speak in the Great Hall without fear of a breas t showing up behind him in television or newspaper pictures. This had to be one of the most stoopid, ridiculous wastes of tax-payer mo ney we've come across. What, Ashcroft couldn't speak in the Great Hall i n such a way that the *breast* wouldn't be in the shot? View Replies To: Moral Hazard He had a problem with them because they made him think about Huge Marble Breasts, and he was disturbed by the strange tightening of his pants whe n he approached them... View Replies To: MississippiDeltaDawg This had to be one of the most stoopid, ridiculous wastes of tax-payer mo ney we've come across Let me think on this a few minutes. View Replies To: Crackingham From what I recall, the statues were covered because they were becoming a distraction as juuvenile press photographers were going out of their wa y to include the naked statues in pictures of Ashcroft as an attempt to mock his religious beliefs. They could only get away with somethhing lik e that because they were mocking Christians. View Replies To: balch3 Yes and let's remind people of the facts here: It was Clinton AG Janet Reno who covered the statue with a drape. When Ashcroft came in he inquired about it & decided not to buck the establis hment (lest the libs criticize him for being a hypocrite Christian or wh at not) but he couldn't see LEASING / RENTING the cloth that was used to cover the statue so he purchased it for pennies on the $ and the msm ma de hay of it. View Replies To: Eagles6 Interesting point I gather the same could apply to the other posters he re who are using the occasion to mock Ashcroft. These guys want to kill yo ur babies, take away your cigarettes, and now steal your home and toss y ou in the street. View Replies To: Crackingham "When former Attorney General Edwin Meese released a report on pornograph y in the 1980s, photographers dived to the floor to capture the image of him raising the report in the air, with the partially nude female statu e behind him." asp 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 b y German sculptor Carl Paul Jennewein: a pair of 12-1/2 foot statues rep resenting the Spirit of Justice and the Majesty of the Law. The former i s a female figure draped in a toga, with raised arms and one exposed bre ast; the latter is a male figure with a draped cloth covering his midsec tion. Press photographers over the years had sometimes taken advantage o f the positioning of the statues to snap "boob in front of the boob" sho ts (such as a photo of Edwin Meese, Attorney General during President Re agan's second term, holding a report on pornography aloft with the parti ally nude female statue visible behind him). After current Attorney Gene ral John Ashcroft was captured by press cameramen in similar shots, the media reported in January 2002 that Ashcroft had ordered (or approved) t he 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 of fended by any representation of nudity). The Department of Justice spoke speople maintained that the drapes were used not to hide the statues but to "provide a nice background for television cameras" during formal eve nts; that the purchase had been made by a DoJ staffer on her own initiat ive to save the $2,000 per event cost of renting them; and that "the att orney general was not even aware of the situation." Critics held that th e DoJ's disputing the issue of who actually authorized the purchase of t he drapes was a smoke screen (since rental drapes were already being use d 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 kno w about or authorize the purchase, he certainly didn't order the drapes removed, either. View Replies To: Eagles6 They could only get away with somethhing like that because they were mock ing Christians. They weren't "mocking Christians", they might have been mocking Ashcroft, who came across as somewhat straitlaced, or at least they were trying t o create an ironic image. The reporters weren't the only ones who gave Ashcroft a hard time. I rece ntly read the following story: When Ashcroft first started working in th e justice department, long before he became attorney general, he had a b oss who relentlessly ridiculed his uptight attitude. View Replies To: tophat9000 Carl Paul Jennewein is actually an American sculpture who had the unfortu nate circumstance of having been born in Deutschland. The second he got his permanent residency papers here he joined the military to fight in W WI. Personally, I think he made a mistake since we were entering the war on t he wrong side (WWI, not WWII, any Freepers out there who forgot to read) . In any case, he received an award to study in Rome that allowed him to bo w out of his remaining military service. This guy did a lot of major stuff architectural works in fact. View Replies To: Crackingham The drapes, installed in 2002 at a cost of $8,000, allowed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to speak in the Great Hall without fear of a breas t showing up behind him in television or newspaper pictures. View Replies To: iconoclast " Ashcroft embarrassed you, too" Not at all. If he didn't like the pics that were being published, he had every right in the world to change the background. It is rather childish for you libs to judge Ashcrofts stint as head of the Justice Department on this bullshit and rehash it at this late date. View Replies To: balch3 "Because the MSM never misses a chance to ridicule people of faith. I've yet to hear anyone challenge the man on the substance of hi s term over the judial branch. View Replies To: wideminded The reporters weren't the only ones who gave Ashcroft a hard time. I rece ntly read the following story: When Ashcroft first started working in th e justice department, long before he became attorney general, he had a b oss who relentlessly ridiculed his uptight attitude. Don't you do even the slightest investigation before you make potentially embarrassing comments? Ashcro ft was Missouri AG, Governor, and Senator before becoming AG in 2001, af ter he lost a controversial election to "Dead Man" Carnahan. Clarence Th omas was confirmed to the SCOTUS back in the first Bush administration ( 1989-1992). View Replies To: Crackingham The drapes, installed in 2002 at a cost of $8,000, allowed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to speak in the Great Hall without fear of a breas t showing up behind him in television or newspaper pictures. last Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Fre...