Advertisers Co-Opting The Lorax With Half-Truths About Conservation

pigrabbitbear writes with an interesting opinion on the "green" marketing surrounding The Lorax movie adaptation. From the article: "There may be all kinds of reasons to defend the Lorax — Dr. Seuss's wondrous children's fable that's also a seminal book about conservation — from the wrath of Lou Dobbs and Fox News and others to whom the children's book-turned-Disney film is little more than liberal propaganda. ... For adults dealing with the real world of compromise, the Lorax is loved and hated for being such a ridiculously staunch environmentalist. Dude refuses to give an inch, which isn’t realistic, but certainly makes him a compelling character. That character is now being used as a shill for the CX-5, a small SUV that’s being billed as fuel-efficient and eco-friendly. What has the poor Lorax become?"

Comments

Earlier Suess

[Mikkeles]

Early in his career, Geisel drew copy for FLIT (a particularly noxious insect spray) advertising; I wonder if that is what drove him to create such an uncompromising Lorax.

Re:What's the deal with prawns and shrimps?

[Oswald McWeany]

Kinda... and kinda not.

The difference is like the difference between butterflies and moths; frogs and toads. Sometimes it is easy to tell the difference- sometimes it isn't- and sometimes the common name "shrimp" or "prawn" for a species is technically incorrect.

Frequently people call larger species "prawn" and smaller species "shrimp". This isn't always true.

Also, shape of gills is sometimes used- but this isn't always accurate. Sometimes which leg has the dominant pinchers is used- again this isn't always accurate.

The only truly accurate way to determine if a species is shrimp or prawn is to look at it's DNA. They are both decapods, (like lobster, crayfish, etc), but they diverged a way back.