Okay, not enough that some members of the focus groups (and post-revelation civilians) reviewing Canada's new $20 bills were kind of nutso in their observations, but TIME has to basically play along in echoing their arguments?
1. The memorial in questions was unveiled in 1936. Granted, it's in France, but I think the statute of limitations on "it's modern porn!" ran out a long time ago. Like, a whole World War ago. Like, if you can find a formal protest from the Canadian government to France in 1936 over this war memorial to Canadian fallen in WWI, then maybe, just maybe you have a point.
2. Really? Sculpture with nekkid (well, "semi-clad") classical women who represent Justice and Peace is … pornographic? Who are these focus group members, John Ashcroft groupies?
3. Oh my gosh! It's a warlike theme! Well, actually, it's a memorial to Canadian war dead — nothing glorifying or promoting war (indeed, anything but). Indeed, even peacekeepers get killed.
4. Really? Any two upright slabs of stone are now going to be condemned for being too reminiscent of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center? Really? I mean, is this 2002 or something? Get a grip, idjits.
Must have been a slow news day at TIME magazine. A shame they decided to cherry pick the most bizarro objections from Canadians about their new 20 dollar bill (aside from the fact that it's kind of ugly) to publish.
Embedded Link
Canada’s New $20 Bill: More Money, More Problems
Canada's redesigned $20 bill created a stir among focus groups.
Google+: View post on Google+
I don’t think it’s ugly. I think it’s quite interesting. As far as Canadians not recognizing the memorial at Vimy…that sort of thing crosses cultures. That’s why the wingnuts out there get away with sending out that email allegedly showing the crosses at Arlington Cemetery, that the ACLU supposedly wants gone. Few Americans recognize the cemetery and memorial to American soldiers in France. I guess both those of us in the US and those in Canada need to work harder at teaching history.
This from a magazine that recently featured an astonishingly creepy cover sexualizing breastfeeding, A more cynical person might suppose they were selling magazines by titillating prudes.
@George – True enough. I managed (though one means or another) to not get caught up in that particular contretemps. I’ve looked at the cover, and I don’t know that I’d call it sexualized so much as just kind of creepy (as much or more in composition than in content).
It’s ultimately (in this case) more a matter of TIME showing pretty awful journalistic judgment in the article. That you can find some random folks with objections to just about anything is a given; that you have to print the fringes of the bell curve is not.