From: Brian D Williams (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 07:34:52 MST
>From: Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>I might agree if it were his house, or even his office interior.
>But the exterior of public buildings is public art. That statue
>cost a lot of American tax dollars to build, and it's /ours/, not
>his. And the fact that he spent 8,000 more of our tax dollars to
>deprive us of its esthetic value is even worse.
>Legally, he probably does have the discretion to decide how to
>spend the justice department's budget on art, and he can make
>judgments about the esthetic value of that art. But when
>generations of his predecessors all worked hard to create and
>preserve that particular piece, it seems something of a slap in
>their face to vandalize it. At least his change is removable so
>they next AG with more sense can fix it.
This whole thing is nothing more than the God-we-hate-Ashcroft-why
wasn't-Gore-elected liberal press trying to make a mountain out of
Ashcroft hasn't suggested modifying or even removing the statue, he
just feels it is inappropriate backdrop sometimes, and as anyone
who has taken photography 101 will tell you, he is correct. (it's
too "busy" and detracts from the subject in the foreground)
A temporary curtain is sometimes erected covering these statues
anyway, all that has been done is that permanent curtains will be
installed so that the statues can be temporarily removed from view
Conference over, the curtains are drawn back and the statues once
again on display.
End of story.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST