$8000 to cover topfree statue

$8000 to cover topfree statue

Nat
Nat

January 29th, 2002, 5:16 am #1

How many of you have heard the news that the Justice Department has just spend $8000 of your tax money for a big blue curtain to cover a statue of a topfree woman that John Ashcroft did not like showing behind him. This stature has been in the Justice building hall since the 1930s, but suddenly it is no longer suitable to be seen.

Read about this at: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/28/life.s ... index.html
Reply
Share

Amy
Amy

January 29th, 2002, 2:29 pm #2

my stepdad found a story about it when he was looking at the BBC web site. he says the ppl in Europe are probly laughing at us. or just amazed
Reply
Share

R&J
R&J

January 30th, 2002, 12:07 am #3

How many of you have heard the news that the Justice Department has just spend $8000 of your tax money for a big blue curtain to cover a statue of a topfree woman that John Ashcroft did not like showing behind him. This stature has been in the Justice building hall since the 1930s, but suddenly it is no longer suitable to be seen.

Read about this at: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/28/life.s ... index.html
Isn't it ironic that from now on, as Ashcroft updates us on our fight against those "evil doers" who force their women to hide themselves under those damn burkas, he'll be doing so in front of a curtain that he had put up just to hide the image of a woman; a statue called "The Spirit of Justice".

Reply
Share

Zena
Zena

January 30th, 2002, 10:14 pm #4

How many of you have heard the news that the Justice Department has just spend $8000 of your tax money for a big blue curtain to cover a statue of a topfree woman that John Ashcroft did not like showing behind him. This stature has been in the Justice building hall since the 1930s, but suddenly it is no longer suitable to be seen.

Read about this at: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/28/life.s ... index.html
I think this is incredibly stupid beyond belief. And I don't know what's more stupid- covering it up or spending $8000 to do it. Your government in action!

By the way I posted this at a girl's board I hang around to see what they think about it there. So far not one person there has thought this made any sense.

-Zena
Reply
Share

Joined: December 18th, 2001, 5:21 pm

January 30th, 2002, 11:03 pm #5

What I don't understand is why it cost so much to cover the statue. Was the cover made with a composite similar to what is used in a stealth fighter?
Did the covering originate from a defense contractor, like those famed $800 hammers?
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 29th, 2002, 3:39 am

January 31st, 2002, 1:21 am #6

How many of you have heard the news that the Justice Department has just spend $8000 of your tax money for a big blue curtain to cover a statue of a topfree woman that John Ashcroft did not like showing behind him. This stature has been in the Justice building hall since the 1930s, but suddenly it is no longer suitable to be seen.

Read about this at: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/28/life.s ... index.html
Hmm ... does this mean that Topfreedom Day is off? :) I mean, if John Ashcroft is that offended by a topfree statue, then how will he react to a National Mall packed with flesh-and-blood topfree women? I also agree that this action--the statue cover-up--is ridiculous. If he believes that war imagery and topfree imagery do not mesh, then he must not have really paid attention to that iconic painting of the French Revolution. I haven't taken the time to research the title and artist of that painting, since I'm writing this on the fly, but I'll get right back to this forum with that information.

P.S. Does anyone wish to share their opinions on the notion of topfree female bodybuilders? Those women's chests usually look very masculine, especially those of the most dedicated bodybuilders, so is just the nipple "controversial" in this case?

P.S.S. I've written one theory on the aesthetic appeal of the female nipple ("A Theory on the Nipple"), and it is posted at www.breastchronicles.net if anyone would like to read it.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 29th, 2002, 3:39 am

January 31st, 2002, 2:45 am #7

The title of the aforementioned painting is "Liberty Leading the People", and the artist is Eugene Delacroix. I also found a painting called "The Sabine Women Enforcing the Peace by Running Between the Combatants", painted by Jacques-Louis David. Here are the links:

Delacroix: www.artchive.com/D/delacroix.html (you'll have to scroll down a little way to find the title of the painting)

David: www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/david/sabine.jpg

Are either of these paintings obscene? You can judge for yourself, but I think not.

Let topfreedom ring,

Matt
Reply
Like
Share

Nat
Nat

January 31st, 2002, 4:11 am #8

Hmm ... does this mean that Topfreedom Day is off? :) I mean, if John Ashcroft is that offended by a topfree statue, then how will he react to a National Mall packed with flesh-and-blood topfree women? I also agree that this action--the statue cover-up--is ridiculous. If he believes that war imagery and topfree imagery do not mesh, then he must not have really paid attention to that iconic painting of the French Revolution. I haven't taken the time to research the title and artist of that painting, since I'm writing this on the fly, but I'll get right back to this forum with that information.

P.S. Does anyone wish to share their opinions on the notion of topfree female bodybuilders? Those women's chests usually look very masculine, especially those of the most dedicated bodybuilders, so is just the nipple "controversial" in this case?

P.S.S. I've written one theory on the aesthetic appeal of the female nipple ("A Theory on the Nipple"), and it is posted at www.breastchronicles.net if anyone would like to read it.
As you probably know, there was considerable concern about Ashcroff when he was appointed as he was well known for his ultra-conservative views, so I don't suppose we should be surprise at this. I'm afraid we are in a time much like the early '80s when body freedom is likely to regress rather than move forward.

As for female body builders, most I've seen have virtually no breasts at all due to training, diet and steroids- all of which suppress estrogen and breast development. So you get the paradoxical situation where they must cover breasts that are smaller then many males who openingly display theirs.

-Nat
Reply
Share

Donna
Donna

January 31st, 2002, 4:39 am #9

I think this is incredibly stupid beyond belief. And I don't know what's more stupid- covering it up or spending $8000 to do it. Your government in action!

By the way I posted this at a girl's board I hang around to see what they think about it there. So far not one person there has thought this made any sense.

-Zena
And they call this "Conservative" government??? Well, if you really just gotta cover this boobie Mr. Ashcroff, I have a nice blue drape I'll sell you for $10. This will leave you $7990 you can use to find Bin Laden, which I think is much more important then worrying about a statue's boobie.

You can bet I'll be thinking about this when I fill out my taxes in january and when I vote in November!

Reply
Share

Tonya
Tonya

January 31st, 2002, 5:00 am #10

How many of you have heard the news that the Justice Department has just spend $8000 of your tax money for a big blue curtain to cover a statue of a topfree woman that John Ashcroft did not like showing behind him. This stature has been in the Justice building hall since the 1930s, but suddenly it is no longer suitable to be seen.

Read about this at: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/28/life.s ... index.html
Gosh we better keep him out of the Louvre Museum in Paris! The poor guy would have a heart attack!

er- on second thought.... ;)

Reply
Share