Someone agrees with me about Sesame Street

Courtesy of Blogging Baby.

Apparently, Joel Stein wrote in the LA times that he thinks Elmo is destroying Sesame Street with his “idiot cuteness.” ha ha. I couldn’t agree more.

“When I watched “Sesame Street” in the ’70s, the human cast and the Muppets were quirky adults who didn’t talk down to me with baby voices. Now the human cast gets almost no airtime, and the show is dominated by Elmo, Baby Bear and, now, Abby Cadabby – preschoolers enamored by their own adorable stupidity….Whereas Count Von Count markets math and Oscar markets the acceptability of negative emotions, Elmo, brilliantly, just markets Elmo, leading him to be the show’s cash cow, or whatever misshapen animal he’s supposed to be.“

He also says something I’ve said to my MIL numerous times (but about Barney): “Yes, I know that children love Elmo. But children are idiots.”

Stein cites fellow Elmo-hater John Lee, one of the creators of a Sesame Street parody on M2.

“Elmo doesn’t grow. People show him something and he laughs. He doesn’t learn a lesson,” says Lee. “It’s the exact opposite of what old ‘Sesame Street’ used to do. Elmo has been learning the same lesson his whole life, which is that Elmo likes Elmo.”
So nice not to be alone.

Crunchy Cons, post #4

Part of an ongoing series.

Dreher talks a lot about economics – economics on a local, personal level. He encourages supporting local businesses, small businesses, etc. He laments the fact that many Republicans are so focused on money and supporting business that we fail to see the costs of some of the policies and practices arising from that focus.

In talking about choices in shopping, he explains that, when he was growing up, they bought the things they needed from people, not from stores. Hardware from Mr. Rinaudo, etc. In return, those merchants gave back to the community by doing things like sponsoring kids summer sports leagues. Then one day, a Piggly Wiggly opened up, and many people chose to shop there because it was bigger and shinier. But most of them felt guilty over that decision to support a chain and not the local grocer.

In time, you quit thinking that way. People don’t think twice about driving twenty miles or more to the super Wal-Mart in a nearby town. You can save lots of money there. And to be fair I can’t say that I would do anything differently if I lived in my hometown today. The produce at the super Wal-Mart is usually fresher than what’s on offer at the two local supermarkets…. It’s easy for me to ballyhoo shopping locally in Brooklyn, because you could buy top quality meat from the butcher and first-rate produce from the greengrocer. Would I stand by the little guy if doing so meant paying premium prices for second-rate products? Nope.

So I appreciated that he recognized that there is sometimes a deep gulch between the ideals a person might hold and the practical reality of a person’s life. It’s one thing to want to support small and local all the time, but quite another to actually be able to do so. (The reality is, even if I could afford to get all our groceries at New City or Campbell’s, I would still be buying produce that was produced a very long distance from here.)

 

——-

 

Then he talks about materialist economics (which is idealized by many on the right).

Materialist economics judges only in material terms, and fails to see the hidden costs of improving efficiency and production. Take the effect of moving married women en masse into the labor force… An extra income seems like it would help the family, but the cost of day care for preschool children can take a significant bite out of that income… And then there are the costs that are impossible to measure, and impossible to deny. … It is hard to convey the gratitude and satisfaction I feel when I come home after a long day at the office to a delicious home cooked dinner and the security the boys and I have in knowing that Julie’s always there, making our house a home. That is quite literally priceless. We simply couldn’t live this way if Julie were working outside the home.

This is where I get frustrated by many on the right. Though I think the right, in general, agrees with me that a woman’s place is at home (at least far more conservatives than liberals believe this), the right seems to be doing nothing to support this ideal. Some liberals want the government to provide some sort of financial payout to women who stay home, which I don’t think is the correct solution at all, but at least they’re trying to do something!

But it’s the every day economic policies that make it so hard for women to stay home. Taxes are pretty high, so we can fund a billion government programs that really have no business existing in the first place. Supporting businesses often means not supporting the workers – which is generally OK, but can also really screw the American family into the ground.

Dreher then touches on immigration, and blasts the Republican party for not taking a firm enough stand against illegal labor. Even the latest furor, IMO, was mostly furor and not really any action. Politicians seem to like to talk up being firm against illegal immigrants but they very rarely take useful steps towards solving the problem. (But, IMO, at least many conservative politicians recognize it as a problem – and it IS a problem.) Dreher says:

Economic policies that wink and nod at illegal immigration because its good for business can have an enormous social cost on both sides of the border. Conservatives who can see the price ordinary Americans pay from lazy immigration policies favored by business interests ought to stop and think about costs to communities from economic decisions taken by corporations – and, cumulatively, consumers like themselves.

Interesting.