Irony - long on the sick list - has finally died.
No, not died. Irony was brutally assassinated, point blank, mafia style.
It is a cynical world and I'm not naive, but this latest news is so over-the-top as to be nearly unbelievable.
I'm talking, of course, about the latest news about the new Lorax movie.
You remember Dr Seuss' beloved book, The Lorax - a silly but powerful warning against the twin dangers of commercialism and attacks against the environment. This book has been an environmental primer for over a generation.
And, as things go, there is now a CG animation movie made of the story which is fine, as far as that goes. But along with any new kids' movie these days, there is always the commercialism that goes with it. And that is to be expected, if deplored.
But this time, they have really gone over the top: Mazda is using the Lorax (he who "speaks for the trees") to shill their "Sky-activ" SUV!!
In the commercial, you can see a pristine Seuss Land with the colorful Truffula Trees and humming fish and clean skies, and then, driving through this Eden, you see the clean pretty Mazda SUV.
To use The Lorax to shill something so diametrically opposed to the message of the book... it's just disgusting and amazing (they actually say that this SUV has the "Truffula Seal of Approval..."!!) Did Mazda really think there would be no pushback to such a cynical display of the worst sort of commercialism?
yuk. yuk. yuk.
Monday, March 12, 2012
yuk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
I have not doubt in my mind that the Left will pushback on Mazda for this. I also have no doubt in my mind that, like your post, they will conveniently ignore the fact that Mazda could only have done this if Hollywood sold them the rights to.
But Hollywood has the right kind of politics, so of course they will not even be mentioned.
I don't see this as a Left/Right thing (or, at least it SHOULDN'T be), but an integrity thing. The book is about environmentalism and the dangers of hyperconsumerism. This use of the story is extremely contrary to the message of the story.
I'd think reasonable folk on the Left and Right would find such a move cynical and, well, yucky.
I DO wonder who in the world is responsible for maintaining Seuss' legacy and what THEY were thinking. Shame on them.
I'm not sure how "Hollywood" comes in to play here. I guess if the movie, itself, were promoting driving pollution machines through the truffula forest, then "Hollywood" (or more specifically, the producers and folk involved with the movie) could be pointed out for their exploitation of the story. I haven't seen the movie nor do I know how faithful they have been to the spirit of the book, so I just don't know the answer to that.
Do you, Doug? Have you seen the movie?
Regarding the Left/Right thing, consider if some producers took Rand's Atlas Shrugged and used the characters to promote socialism and religion (or whatever is counter to the books theme - I have not read it), then that would be a disingenuous use of the source material. Left and Right should be able to agree to that.
Same thing here. Agreed?
I'm not saying that the premise of the post is wrong. I agree that it is ironic in the extreme.
I, too, think this isn't, or shouldn't, be a left/right thing.
I haven't seen the movie, but that doesn't affect my point.
What I'm saying is that Mazda got the rights to advertise with the Lorax from someone in Hollywood. They would not be able to create this weird juxtaposition without it. I'm just noting a blind side with regards to your scorn and suggesting that it has to do more with your politics than you're willing to admit.
? Do you think I'm a defender of Hollywood? What would make you think that? When have I ever defended "Hollywood..."? What part of "Hollywood..."? The corporations? The actors/directors? When have I ever posted ANYTHING about my position(s) on "Hollywood..."?
This post is not about "Hollywood," it's about commercialism and the irony of using an environmental story to promote the commercialism of a polluting product. You seem to agree with that point.
Cool.
I didn't once say you were a defender of Hollywood. I said you had a blind spot for it.
This post is not about "Hollywood," it's about commercialism and the irony of using an environmental story to promote the commercialism of a polluting product.
Of course the post is not Hollywood; they have the right politics, like I said. You attack Mazda solely, as if they acted on their own. They didn't, you know. Right? You know that?
You completely ignore the fact that Hollywood execs sold Mazda the rights to do what they did. Hollywood made money selling those rights. Mazda made money using those rights. You shake a finger as Mazda. Just Mazda. And you bristle when I bring up Hollywood.
Yeah, blind spot.
You're not really making any sense, Doug. I have not defended "Hollywood," nor do I necessarily agree with "Hollywood's" politics (in fact, I disagree with a good deal of "Hollywood" politics).
As I have said, whoever is responsible for selling Seuss' rights off to Mazda should be ashamed. There's not a blind spot, there, and there's not an agreement with "hollywood."
I think the blind spot here is in your assumptions about what I do and don't believe. It SEEMS as though your politics has made you assume I'm a defender of "Hollywood" because I'm (to you) a "liberal" and "liberals" like "hollywood."
Could the blind spot - or simply the error - be in your presumptions, perhaps?
As I have said, whoever is responsible for selling Seuss' rights off to Mazda should be ashamed.
Actually, that's the first time you've even used the word "sell" in a sentence in this thread. So no, you haven't said. You hadn't so much as acknowledged that anyone in Hollywood actually gave them permission. To read your post and the comments down to #6, one would get the impression that you thought Mazda did this unilaterally.
I have not defended "Hollywood,"...
I will copy and paste for you. "I didn't once say you were a defender of Hollywood. I said you had a blind spot for it." You are quick to criticize the group that bought the rights, but are completely silent about those who sold the rights. When pressed a few times, you finally acknowledge the problem, using language to suggest that you've been saying that all along when clearly you haven't.
One party you criticize. The other party, doing the same thing, you barely acknowledge exists unless called on it multiple times. That's a blind spot. Plain and simple.
I surmised that it had to do with the general politics of the actors and movies that come out of Hollywood, which very much do line up with yours. Perhaps that's wrong. Fair enough. But there's still a blind spot in need of an explanation. And just as this blind spot kept you from so much as acknowledging the one party (and then oddly claiming that you had been), it might, just might, be keeping you from seeing the reason for the blind spot.
Wouldn't it be easier if the Dougs and MAs and their cronies would just elect someone to come here every day and post "You're wrong." and leave it at that? Does anyone but you even read their ramblings any more? I read as far as "Doug said..." and knew instantly what was going on.
They just do it to have something to do and because another hobby might require them to leave their barco-lounger.
"I have not doubt in my mind that the Left..."
Jesshh.. it just got worse from there.
"You're wrong."
Ugh.. the depth of their arguments. Im not convinced Dough even read the original post.
I specifically said I agreed with what Dan said. Did you really read my response?
All I added was that it didn't go far enough, that he missed a very important player in the whole irony. I went further to suggest why he might have that blind spot, but whether or not my suggestion is correct doesn't change the fact that it's there.
And for suggesting an addition to his point, I'm told that I said "You're wrong", when clearly I said nothing of the kind. Wow, this place has become more of an intolerant, mean-spirited echo-chamber than it was when last I was here. Fair enough.
sigh...
Anyone have any thoughts on the topic?
Doug, for what it's worth, I wrote a first post which included more criticism - including criticism of whoever allowed Seuss' story to be commercialized thusly - but then decided to cut back. My criticism is specifically with Mazda and it is an apt criticism, as you agree.
I thought that would suffice.
So, where you say...
The other party, doing the same thing, you barely acknowledge exists unless called on it multiple times. That's a blind spot.
I was writing a post specifically about ONE thing. That I didn't criticism any and all involved is nothing but an indication that I chose not to throw criticism all around. That does not diminish my criticism of Mazda, nor does it indicate any blind spot.
Again, the only blind spot that I'm seeing is your insistence on criticizing those to your perceived Left without much thought as to whether or not the criticism is apt.
Doug, for what it's worth, I wrote a first post which included more criticism - including criticism of whoever allowed Seuss' story to be commercialized thusly - but then decided to cut back.
I could take that at face value (and if that had been your first response, the conversation would have ended), but your actual first response was:
I'm not sure how "Hollywood" comes in to play here.
Your first words professed confusion as to how they were involved at all, and now you say you were originally going to include "criticism of whoever allowed Seuss' story to be commercialized thusly", which would be "Hollywood" (i.e. the studio that owned the movie, in this case Universal Pictures).
If you had no idea that by "Hollywood" I meant the movie studio, that's ... interesting, but I can go with that. My criticism of your letting Hollywood off the hook was apt based on both your initial post and your defensive comments afterwards. But now that you've cleared that up with this last comment, sounds good.
And to reiterate, I agree. No one, on either side of the bargaining table, should have thought this a good idea. But Mazda is the name everyone will see in the ads, not Universal, and they'll bear the brunt of the pushback from consumers.
And now for something completely different...
We do love the hyper-saturated colors of CG, not to mention talking animals. Seems simple enough, take your product and use something appealing to sell it. Its happened for a long time.
People will put up with quite a bit. Fast food "restaurants" have been selling diabetes to kids forever under a similar cloak of popular culture. Che Guevara also comes to mind with hipsters sporting his image on their chests.
Every company now sees dollars in an environmental image. I remember being asked by Chevron to join them in their fight to save the planet. There was hardly a blink when those ads rolled through our TV screens.
Mazda blew it by trying to sell an SUV. Almost anything else would have worked. We tolerate most anything, but an SUV? Really.. how dumb do you think we are. It was just too much.
Thank you, Parklife, for the on topic comment. That was exactly my point. This was just SO far over the top as to rub our faces in it.
Doug, I was figuring that someone in Seuss' family owns rights to his stories and thus, I was not sure that "Hollywood," or the studio that produced this was to blame. Thus, I did not blame "hollywood."
Generic blame does not impress me as wise or helpful. Nor does uninformed criticism. So, not knowing WHO owns the rights to the story, I opted not to blame those whom I don't know.
Reasonable?
This just seems like a rabbit hole I'd rather not go down.
Oh.. another point. IHOP is using the good Dr. to sell pancakes. Healthy and nutritious Im sure. Yet, it doesnt seem to irritate as much as the SUV.
I thought this was interesting too. I guess Universal did want to promote an environmental or health image. But, you know how that goes.
Just as an FYI, a very quick Googling found this article that notes Universal Pictures was the one Mazda struck the advertising deal with.
How about the on-topic thought that we are all responsible for this world?
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better. It's not.
How is our approach to making things, to marketing, to commercials, to consuming things helping? How is hurting? Is it wise to call a Toyota Prius (electric hybrid) a "Green car" as they have in their advertising? Or wouldn't it be more responsible to say, "A car that is LESS environmentally damaging than gas-only vehicles..."?
How do we as consumers respond to such marketing in a responsible way?
These are the more apt questions to consider, I'd suggest.
And to clarify, by "Making things better," I mean "Make things better," not "make things less damaging (but still damaging...)"
What IS the "make things BETTER" way to deal with how we consume energy and stuff?
Consumption.. by definition.. does not make things better. That is the problem.
People dont really want to change. We know the right answers and solutions, but dont want to disrupt our lives. The Kony 2012 thing comes to mind. That is we are willing to do the minimum possible to rid ourselves of guilt.
To stay with transportation, many of us could commute to work on a bike or by foot. Yet, we choose automobiles or public transportation.
Still, as a consumer, many times we are not even given the best options to help the environment (or that reflect our personal desires). We are given a pre-determined set of choices, none of which are very appealing.
The way I sleep at night is trying to remember the real answers. That the Prius battery is horrible for the environment. That nearly everything we consume could be improved with the environment in mind. At least knowing these answers means that when / if a real option is presented, then true action can be taken.
Parklife wrote:
Consumption.. by definition.. does not make things better. That is the problem.
As a general statement, wealth is good. Wealth may not buy happiness, but it can reduce and banish misery. So we should strive for a wealthier and therefore less miserable society.
Historically speaking, the wealthiest societies are ones in which people are mostly free to pursue their own self-interest. They desire to consume goods (e.g. indoor plumbing). That demand creates a market for those consumer goods (e.g. flush toilets) and thus people (e.g. plumbers) are able to develop and market skills in order to profit from that demand.
It all begins with consumption -- or rather, the self-interested desire to consume certain goods and services.
So the problem of poverty isn't that rich people are rich, but that poor people are poor. So any solution should be focused on putting poor people in a position so that they can become rich; that is, to increase their consumption.
Thats great and all... But I was speaking to the environment.
Its really hard to make things better when that is not really the option we are typically faced with. The choice is to consume something less bad.
Consumption.. by definition.. does not make things better.
Eating requires consumption. Housing, even a log cabin in the woods, requires consumption.
Much hinges, I imagine, on your definition of "better", and whether your universal statement is really meant universally.
Eating and construction are huge environmental issues.
Doug responded to Parklife:
Much hinges, I imagine, on your definition of "better", and whether your universal statement is really meant universally.
Yes! Parklife, could you clarify on this point?
If I may offer a thought re: Parklife's comment...
Consumption.. by definition.. does not make things better. That is the problem.
I would not agree with that as a general rule. We "consume" air, water and food and those are all good things, in appropriate measure. I doubt that Parklife would suggest otherwise.
I would suggest (and maybe this is what Parklife is getting at) that hyperconsumption, overconsumption is a bad thing. As Edward Abbey has noted, "Growth for the sake of Growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.." Growing/consuming because we can or because something is there to consume is not a good thing. Endless consumption is not a good thing. We need sustainable consumption.
Animals breathing air works because there is enough flora out there to "consume" our output (carbon dioxide) and output oxygen. It is a balanced system in the right measure. IF, though, there were only 100 trees left in the world, then 1 million people consuming oxygen would not be a good thing.
In all things balance. Health is in balance and moderation. Cancer, destruction and death is in endless unsustainable consumption.
Which leads us back into our old debate about resource sustainability.
Or, the old debate of consumers being fed up with over-the-top sales gimmicks. There is plenty that companies hide from consumers about their products. And, lying goes hand-in-hand with advertising. There is just a limit to all of it.
I would even guess that if Mazda had giving the car a different name, things might have worked out for them.
The way we consume today is nowhere near sustainable. The frustrating part is that we seem to have some answers.
Re: the Abbey quote. Populations grow. I believe Mr. Smith, in the Matrix likened the human population to a virus or cancer. Nice view of humanity, isn't it?
But populations do grow and as a result so does consumption. The threat of "over-consumption" is hype. Few people "over-consume", but to some, not forsaking what one wants is over-consumption. Not limiting what one needs to the minimum required for survival is to over consume. Nonsense.
The "threat" of over-consumerism is an invention of anti-capitalists with no basis in fact. With today's economy, the bigger threat is that there is less consumption. Greater demand would be a boon.
Don't be ridiculous. We may or may not be there, but obviously, in a finite world with finite raw material and increasing numbers, there IS a point where we are over-consuming. Of course there is, it's just math.
Now, we could discuss if we are or are not approaching/already reached such a point (if it were on topic), but you just sound entirely irrational to suggest we can't over-consume.
Consider the stats about how many earths' worth of resources we would need if everyone lived the way you or I lived.
You can deny opinions, but you can't deny math.
You can deny opinions, but you can't deny math.
I would like to point out that when we left off, you were denying an elementary principle of physics.
Assume for the moment that the conversation of mass is not true and we are steadily, every day, running out of resources.
What does it matter? If we're doomed to run out of resources, then why not proceed to deplete them all? You know: eat, drink and be merry.
Or do you have some legislative agenda to propose?
IF we foolishly choose to live lives based on over-consuming and becoming dependent upon non-renewable resources, that would be about right.
But we have the option of choosing to live sustainably. Not all resources are non-renewable. There is a finite amount of coal and oil in the ground. That will not last, if we keep consuming it. It's a mathematical impossibility.
If there are X tons/gallons of coal/oil and we consume X amount, then mathematically, X - X = 0. I'm not sure where we're failing to agree on this, John.
On the other hand, if our lives are NOT dependent upon fossil fuels and we use renewable resources (wind, solar, consuming much less energy), then we can continue thousands and tens of thousands of years (or millions or however long the sun lasts), as opposed to the 10-100/200 years living lives dependent upon non-renewables.
Simple math, it seems to me.
Though you dismiss the abiotic theory presented on my latest post (all are welcome and encouraged to check this out), it points to much that is lacking in the current understanding. Two points in particular are the valid reports of wells refilling and the types of organisms found at depths once thought to be devoid of such.
But even if we concede needed resources are finite, there is still no "over-consuming" if we are using what WE need to live our lives. "Over-consuming" suggests wastefulness. Few would support such. But using up what is left is never over-consumption. It is just consuming what is left. At some point, if resources are finite, someone will be left without the resource in question. There is no sin in not forsaking what one needs so that someone generations later will be able to partake of it. This is stupid. It suggests harm is done simply because someone wasn't able to get his share because all was used up before that someone was born.
So where's the over-consumption taking place? What does it look like? How does one distinguish between proper consumption and over consumption?
You also make this false assumption that there is only two options: continue as before, or stop and do something different. Can't walk and chew gum at the same time? We need the resources that we are currently prohibited from using. Using OUR resources will lighten the financial load for just about everybody, as well as put a financial hurt on some foreign nations that don't much care for us. In the meantime, YOU can get out there and find a way to use the alternative methods that makes sense to everyone and costs less, too. So far, no one's been able to do that.
Global warming might be an issue worth considering. Limiting advertising or making it more truthful might be one way to address this issue.
Marshall doesnt present a reasonable opinion, nor does he offer reasonable discourse. His comments are not worth responding to.
Yet you responded nonetheless. Try pointing out the shortcomings of my comments for a change.
Dan wrote, "sigh...
Anyone have any thoughts..."
Well, clearly the answer to your question is "No, Dan, no one does, none at all." As I said, Dan, you're wrong always and forever about everything always. Just accept it. They're called "trolls" for a reason. ;)
Oh, and uh.... I told you so. :)
Dan wrote:
On the other hand, if our lives are NOT dependent upon fossil fuels and we use renewable resources (wind, solar, consuming much less energy), then we can continue thousands and tens of thousands of years (or millions or however long the sun lasts), as opposed to the 10-100/200 years living lives dependent upon non-renewables.
So as long as we're talking about adding new energy sources (e.g. solar, wind) and not forcibly eliminating the use of less popular energy sources (e.g. hydrocarbons) and we're not talking about subsidizing any energy industry with taxpayer dollars, I'm just fine with that.
More energy? More wealth? Two thumbs up from me.
Parklife wrote:
Global warming might be an issue worth considering. Limiting advertising or making it more truthful might be one way to address this issue.
Emphasis added.
Parklife, please elaborate on what you mean by "Limiting advertising".
A few months ago, while Dan and I were on another go-round of this topic, my wife asked me, "Why do you fight so hard on this issue?"
Well, for a three reasons. First, there's a strong streak of nihilism in Malthusian economics -- at least as it is often expressed in modern times. Wealth is bad and that the comparative riches of our age are somehow an offense against the natural order, which should be small, rather than large, agricultural, rather than industrial, and offer fewer choices, rather than more choices (see also: Wendell Berry). The alleged depletion of resources and the reduction of wealth is actually good. It should be welcomed, rather than dreaded.
But there's an even greater problem. If we're going to run out of resources -- if the gas tank of our world economy is going to run dry -- then we're facing the greatest emergency the human race has ever seen. It's so bad that we're going to have to reorder human society to reduce the inevitable famines and plagues. Nations that run amok and refuse to help must be brought to heel.
In fact, here's an editorial in Scientific American published just three days ago that says that a world government will be necessary for just those reasons.
Consider John Holdren, now a key White House official. Back in the 70s, he made the typical overpopulation doomsday predictions that characterize the Malthusian mind. To stave off this cataclysm, it would, of course, be necessary to have a world government that would reduce the birth rate. Forced sterilizations? Forced abortions? Mandatory birth control? These were among the options available to save the human race from this impending disaster.
One, it should be noted, that never happened. And that's the third reason I push back so hard on Malthusian economics. It's just wrong. The predictions that we will run out of resources have never, ever, ever, ever, come true.
We're run out of oil in 1980! But we didn't. In 1990! But we didn't. In 2000! But we didn't. To the contrary, we end up with higher known oil reserves. The Malthusians have always, without exception, been wrong. But this time, they promise, it is different.
Hal Lindsey, a charlatan of Christian affectations, is famous for predicting the end of the world. Every few years, he publishes a book predicting an end of the present age. When it doesn't happen, he makes a new prediction and sells a new book. Ka-ching!
Harold Camping has more recently made national headlines for the same practice.
For all practical purposes, there's no difference Harold Camping, Hal Lindsey, Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren. Other than that Ehrlich has tenure at a major university and Holdren advises the President of the United States.
Did any of the resident conservatives address the original topic?
The question was:
To use The Lorax to shill something so diametrically opposed to the message of the book... it's just disgusting and amazing (they actually say that this SUV has the "Truffula Seal of Approval..."!!) Did Mazda really think there would be no pushback to such a cynical display of the worst sort of commercialism?
I said:
I'm not saying that the premise of the post is wrong. I agree that it is ironic in the extreme.
I, too, think this isn't, or shouldn't, be a left/right thing.
And then said again later, in response to you:
I specifically said I agreed with what Dan said. Did you really read my response?
All I added was that it didn't go far enough, that he missed a very important player in the whole irony.
And later, for emphasis:
And to reiterate, I agree. No one, on either side of the bargaining table, should have thought this a good idea. But Mazda is the name everyone will see in the ads, not Universal, and they'll bear the brunt of the pushback from consumers.
And now you ask the extremely odd question if anyone of us conservatives addressed the original topic. I guess my question to you, "Did you really read my response" has been answered.
Okay. I guess that is one way to respond. Thank you Doug. Btw, I did read your response last week.
Parklife wrote:
Did any of the resident conservatives address the original topic?
Well, I'm not a conservative. But what I've done, among other things, is ask you to clarify two comments that you've written. Which you haven't done. If I've gone off-topic, then you have, too.
Umm.. ok.
The first question, I wasnt really sure I should be the one addressing it. But, making something "better", at least in the context of today, could be seen as making it less bad. We dont really have a choice to make something better.
Second question on limiting advertising.. I dont really think it needs to be defined. I intended it to be left open to interpretation.
Personally, I do not appreciate the barrage of advertising that crosses my path on a daily basis. Honestly, it feels like somebody is shouting at me every time I see a commercial.
OK. I'll comment on the topic.
"You remember Dr Seuss' beloved book, The Lorax - a silly but powerful warning against the twin dangers of commercialism and attacks against the environment. This book has been an environmental primer for over a generation."
I never read the book. I wasn't a big Suess fan as a child. But this book was nothing more than propaganda. That's what Suess intended it to be, and it has worked. Many of today, brought up on his works, and especially fond of this one, are the environmental wackos that infest public opinion today. Trees=good, people=bad. Ugh!
So as to Mazda capitalizing on the movie, I say, well done being the first to do so. Kinda makes the makers of the movie look like the superficial hypocrites they often are.
You know that Seuss intended this book to be "propaganda...," how?
(propaganda: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person)
Here's what "Mrs Seuss" has to say about such a charge...
“I think any and all talk about the environment cannot be written off as propaganda..." said Audrey Stone Geisel....
It’s not that she disputes that the book encourages its young readers to care about the environment. She just doesn’t see that message as controversial. “It’s one of the most essential things that we have and we should treasure it,”
Crazy propaganda, huh?
Who's talking about his wife? Gosh, might she tone down his sentiments a bit to soften his legacy?
""You know that Seuss intended this book to be "propaganda...," how?"
He told me.
From a bio of Seuss in National Review ("Friends of the Lorax--Dr. Seuss's politics for children"--by John J. Miller):
"Virtually alone among Seuss's works for children, The Butter Battle Book finishes on a note of threatening uncertainty. The conclusion of The Lorax is more hopeful, but its full vision is nearly as dark and spiteful, quite different from the brightness and laughter that most parents and teachers associate with Seuss. 'Every once in a while I get mad,' said Seuss in 1983. 'The Lorax came out of my being angry.' So he channeled his rage into his work: 'The ecology books I'd read were dull. ...In The Lorax I was out to attack what I think are evil thinkgs and let the chips fall where they might.' A few years earlier, he had described his method more bluntly: 'The Lorax book was intended to be propaganda.'
The message is controversial in how it comes to be understood by people like yourself.
Propaganda.. I guess. MA may have been more effective had he mentioned the SLATE article rather than some right-wingnut rag. But then he would have had to read this point:
But stories for children typically do have messages, and those messages are frequently political. They may even be described as partisan, in so far as today’s Republican Party has staked out positions—such as a general hostility to environmentalism—at odds with those held by many authors of children’s literature.
Its important to keep in mind that there is a company making this movie, essentially GE. This may be a shock, but they purchased the multimedia rights to make money.
As noted earlier, Mazda is hardly the first to capitalize on this movie or even use the environment in this way. To say "good for them" ignores the fact that Mazda was laughed at for their advertising.
"I never read the book. I wasn't a big Suess fan as a child."
That is telling.
Thank you for answering my questions, Parklife.
As for myself, I oppose the use of force to limit advertising.
I get Dan's 'yuk' response and suspect that a lot of other potential customers will respond similarly.
Well, you see, Parkster...that Slate piece has it wrong based on your excerpt. Republicans generally hostile towards environmentalists, not environmentalism.
"environmentalists, not environmentalism"
Funny you mention that, b/c that was addressed in the article.
"As for myself, I oppose the use of force to limit advertising."
I respect that.
"Funny you mention that, b/c that was addressed in the article. "
In what way?
"
"I never read the book. I wasn't a big Suess fan as a child."
That is telling."
And exactly what is it telling you?
Post a Comment