Slashdot Mirror
Sesame Street DVD Deemed Adult-Only Entertainment
theodp writes "The earliest episodes of Sesame Street are being made available on DVD, but the NYT notes Volumes 1 and 2 carry a rather strange warning: 'These early 'Sesame Street' episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child.' So why are they unsuitable for toddlers in 2007? Well, in the parody 'Monsterpiece Theater,' Alistair Cookie — played by Cookie Monster — used to appear with a pipe, which he later gobbled. 'That modeled the wrong behavior,' explained a Sesame Street executive producer, adding that 'we might not be able to create a character like Oscar [the Grouch] now.'"
I...um.....*ahem*.......well......ACK!
I honestly do not even know where to begin. My God! This is absolute madness.... political correctness run amok and almost even worse than the religious right's labeling of Bert and Ernie as homosexuals. As one who leans left particularly after the last six years, this sort of thing is a shock back to more centrist practicality and honesty. Shame on the current producers for corrupting the original vision of Sesame Street and creating revisionist history. Oscar the Grouch was *grouchy*, as advertised. So what? Cookie Monster ate the pipe.... so what? It is as it was a vision of the time and a reflection on the changing times of a decade from the 60's to the 70's.
I don't have a problem with things changing, rather I revel in it. However, it makes me sad to see people label what made us who we are unacceptable to todays youth. Parents are far too restrictive with what their kids do, afraid to let them get dirty by playing outside, indoctrinating them with germaphobia from the earliest age, relabeling childrens characters as dangerous pedophiles or attempting to smear them with homosexual labels. The things we used to do as kids would likely get us arrested these days (12 year olds playing with homemade fireworks, carrying shotguns down the street and out to the field to go hunting, swinging from ropes into swimming holes infested with all manner of dangerous wildlife and more).
I don't know what that says of our society but kids watching Sesame Street was just part of the culture and are we now going to be afraid of who we are?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
No, really: WTF?!?!
proud caffeine whore
They should label _all_ DVDs as adult-only, as the Cookie Monster always was an anxious overeater, and that's also a bad role model, I suppose.
Besides, most monsters were naked, if I remember it correctly. And even if you can forgive that in a furry monster, what about a frog?
I guess we have to look again to Sesame Street, seeing the videos backwards if needed. Probably we'll find much evil lurking there, that probably could go a long way to explain why we are so fucked up as grown-ups. Hmmm... perhaps there is material there for a good lawsuit.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
'These early 'Sesame Street' episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child.'
No, they aren't. The early episodes, as with the middle episodes and the late episodes and indeed with every episode ever filmed, were intended for children. Yes there were some nods here and there to the adults, but the episodes are intended for children.
I despise smoking - really can't stand it. That said, I've made absolutely no attempt to show non-smoking only films to my kids. I seem to remember Ghostbusters for example, has Ray dropping a cigarette out of his mouth at the sight of a ghost and our kids love Ghostbusters.
I love the standards at work - apparently lying is fine. Just not smoking a comedy pipe.
Cheers,
Ian
Why is it that shows like Power Rangers are acceptable for slightly older kids, then? They clearly demonstrate an approach to the world seems destined to create a legion of Stormtroopers for Darth Vader's next galactic conquest, where head-to-toe uniforms obscure all trace of personality and violence succeeds above all else. A (very) weak argument could be made that violent kids' shows are aimed at a more mature audience, but many six and seven year olds have pre-school brothers and sisters who are exposed to this stuff "accidentally."
Values have changed. Cartoons from the 1930's to the 1960's are hard to find in their original incarnations because of violence and racial insensitivity.
It's only a matter of time before the Cookie Monster becomes the Carrot Stick and Broccoli Floret Monster, Big Bird becomes Avian American of Special Stature, and Oscar the Grouch becomes Differently Tempered Oscar with Alternate Housing Preferences. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
In history, the winners get to write the history books. This is usually applied to military winners, but since war is so un-PC these days, it's the cultural war winners who write the books. Right now the winners are the PC nanny-staters who, in spite of their message of tolerance, are some of the most intolerant people on earth for those buck their orthodoxy.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
There is nothing wrong with letting your kids see inappropriate behavior (eg. smoking or living in garbage cans), so long as they know not to do it themselves. They get to know what is right and wrong by internalizing a set of "values". They won't build up these values without some exposure. They also need to be able to talk about stuff too.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
And the pussification of America continues.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Yes
Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
Accidents happen. With 300 million people in America, a 1 in 1 million chance hits 300 people a year. Each year a few children tragically drown in pools, so we've scared parents about pools, and criminalized pools (in terms of liability) without fences and fences around fences. Every child's death is a tragedy, but locking up parents that make decisions that we don't like has done far more damage than good.
Parents told that a small spanking is child abuse. Children with working single mothers going home to an empty house is an unfortunately economic reality, but if some accident happens, we arrest the parent for child endangerment.
Bad things can happen, but the modern small family size combined with an overzealous judiciary and Departments of Child Services has resulted where we want to criminalize anything going wrong.
Instead of blaming parents, look at a legal culture that expects nothing bad to happen to a child and determines a person's entire worth on the success of their children. When families with children had 4-5 children, you expected most to come out alright but occasionally something bad happens. In families of 1-2 children, anything bad is a catastrophe.
Far more harm is being done to children by overprotection than the risks of life. But its hard to blame parents when if they get hit with the 1 in a million accident (that affects dozens of children a year), they can go to jail and have their other children taken away from them.
Let's see, woman that don't breastfeed are told that they endanger their children. Women that do may be criminally charged if they don't follow the social standard in the US... A poor woman was jailed because she couldn't see a Doctor and didn't realize that the child was malnourished from breast-feeding (mathematically rare, but real and if you criminalize 2% of all women)... The breast-feeding ones make the headlines, but the push towards criminalizing parents if kids do anything wrong, including pranks and petty vandalism add up. It's hard to be a parent, because your child is a natural explorer and risk taker, and you normally just have to make sure no unreasonable danger is present. However, if a child falls and hurts himself, you can be sure that child services will show up and decide that anything you failed to do to "child-proof" your home (as if children aren't a natural part of the home) is criminal neglect, it's hard to put the fault entirely on parents.
Being a parent in today's age is really tough, because in the back of your mind IS busybodies that will decide that you are a negligent parent for letting your child see something that is a natural part of life. Parents have been condemned/charged if the child sees them engage in sexual acts, while co-sleeping is a natural if unpopular approach to parenting. These choices are all reasonable, whether I would make them for my child or not, but the criminalization of anything outside the norm for parenting takes some of the fun out of it.
It's not the parents... it's the system of do-gooders that make life hell on parents.
Right now the winners are the PC nanny-staters
"PC nanny staters" is usually a codeword used by the American right to complain about the American left.
But this isn't a left-vs-right issue. The right wing in the US has its very own "political correctness" (namely, conformance with Christian ideals) and its very own "nanny state" policies (ranging from school prayer to extrajudicial renditions).
So, if you want to contribute to this debate, why don't you start by avoiding slogans created by one party to smear the other one? Both the Democrats and the Republicans are to blame for this bullshit.
The trouble is, regardless of what children's program you decide to allow your children to watch, you need to be there with them anyway. This statement has been made time and time again but no one seems to listen. I always thought of shows like Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, Mr.Wizard, Eureka's Castle, Pinwheel, Square One, The Electric Company, and a host of others as something that I could watch with my parents when I was younger. Honestly, they enjoyed it too because it gave us something to do as a family. The television is not a damn babysitter for chrissake!
Furthermore, truth is truth. The lessons taught by Sesame Street almost four decades ago still ring true today. Counting from one to ten, the alphabet, and Grover's spatial relations (near, far) aren't dated, they're classic. This is yet another example of individuals not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions and leaving it up to the government or similar-level authorities to decide how we should live life. And they have. So what if Cookie Monster had a pipe? Didn't look like he was actually smoking it. Kids knew better in my day anyway. Smoking is bad. Our parents only had to say it once and we listened--mostly because if they caught you smoking you got the crap beaten out of you and you didn't do it. It wasn't fucking abuse...it was discipline! That's not a dirty word! I should also point out that we were smart enough back then to know you couldn't eat a pipe, drop an anvil on someone's head and have them...you know...not die, or paint a picture of a tunnel on a rock and drive through it. Children are smarter than you think...and those very few who would perform these actions are merely subject to Darwin's Law.
If I (or anyone) had been told fifteen or more years ago what society was going to be like today, I do believe it would be scarier than anything the Cold War threw at us as we've gradually slid down the slippery slope of political correctness into an abysmal darkness where no longer can anyone do anything without worrying how it affects just one (or few) individual(s) thoughts, feelings, or condition.
I hate what our society has become. Take some damned responsibility (you lazy-ass fucktards) before 1984 really does arrive!
"I don't see any kids playing in the streets, ever, republican or otherwise. What are the causes behind this?"
Video games, every kid having their own computer, dvd, etc. Being "sent to your room" is no longer punishment - the real task is to get them to come out except for meals.
Protect the children from everything, then send them to Iraq to die.
:).
Sounds like a plan to me
...and so, Romeo and Juliet lived happily ever after.
Hey, if they can do it to H.C. Andersen and the Grimm Brothers, they can do it to Shakespeare...
I sort of like the idea that great people require "interesting upbringings" and the heavily filtered world we give to kids these days will just make more sheeple. You really do need to teach your kids more then to read, write and simple math. Much of the old stories (brothers grim and other fables) had violence, death, and loss. I think it might scare your children but when they grow up they need to deal with violence, death and loss. Thus they need soem grounding in how to deal with these. The vacuous entertainment they are presented is just too empty.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I'm impressed to see someone get the point beyond the usual leftwing-rightwing dick woggling. Congratulations... regardless your political views, you have a valid point. Good job with it.
I say this having been a guy who went through the whole attempted feminization/mental castration that the school systems and modern PC world puts boys through. I also say it as someone who made it out (mostly) undamaged by their attempts. I was done with "schooling" by 15 and could've spent the next few years learning to run my parents' business, without missing 90% of the work day wasting away in a place where nothing new was taught or learned. Instead, I was forcefully kept in school because there wasn't enough demand for college level classes and my school had "no earlier than senior year" early graduation policy. While I was there I got to watch a bunch of hypocritical old people (henceforth known as "adults") tell a bunch of bored to death young adults/aka teenagers (henceforth known as "prisoners") how to live, how to think (or rather how not to ask questions that upset the status quo) and to continuously obey the clock, obey the authorities and beg for acceptance, forgiveness and permission to go shit and pee. (I more than once walked out of class to go pee when permission wasn't given. Most of my "compatriots" or "peers" didn't even have the balls to say it out loud... and probably damaged their bladders waiting for an hour to take a piss... but that isn't my problem, now is it? I set the example, they didn't follow it, too bad for them.)
The results are visible today. Those who toed the line and "grew up" are now raising a generation of even WEAKER offspring.
There is an upside. Unfortunately it isn't for those LIVING in the "West" it is for those looking to invade or conquer the "West".
If you are an enemy of the West, all you have to do is wait one more generation, when those who were tough have all died of old age, then come in and conquer the place with Super Soakers and BB guns. Why fight a bloody conflict with today's generation, when you can come in when their kids are grown up, and fight a group of castrated she-men and their wives... neither of which will put up more of a fight than your average comatose TV-zombie.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Stevie Wonder's performance of Superstition on Sesame Street kicks major ass.
Seems like those days are gone though. I mean, what the hell is wrong with introducing kids to really good music? At nearly 7 minutes, this has to be a Sesame Street record.
Kids do appreciate "adult" music. I was playing Portishead in the car yesterday, and my five year old made me shush so she could listen to Glory Box. And she also likes Daft Punk and Datarock.
Fuck all those "kids songs with stupid lyrics" ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
I don't really get what's so "liberal" about this kind of inane overprotection of children from images of real adults. Sesame Street was a completely liberal invention: government TV to help raise children by presenting a friendly urban street with diverse, idiosyncratic neighbors. Dehumanizing it and refusing to trust parents to help their children interpret the images is pretty weird, but it's not "liberal".
--
make install -not war
I see a lot of this revisionism as pandering to the religious right, and conservatives in general.
Actually no. The religious right is against things they think are wrong. No religion suggests grouchiness is wrong. Also, no mainstream Christian religions have a prohibition on pipe-smoking.
The anti-smoking nazis are almost universally leftists.
They want to control your behavior. They know better than you so they will make your life choices for you. They know what your money should be spent on, so they'll take it from you. They know how every industry should be run, so they regulate it.
They know how every child should be raised, so they're there with bureaucrats to "help" it be done right. Home visits, "soft" censorship of TV, mandatory government education with all alternatives discouraged, textbooks scoured of anything that any interest group could possibly object to, prohibitions on games of "tag" and other "violent" games, and the sexual-harassment panda are all tools their toolbox.
Conservatives support individual freedom and limited government in general. The "religious right" wants to live their lives without having to bow to the totalitarian left's new government rules.
There may have been a time when the "religious right" wanted more than that, but that was before leftists gained control of every institution in society: government, education, media, non-profits, courtrooms, and increasingly corporations and churches. Now folks on the "religious right" are struggling to keep themselves from being made second-class citizens in the new big-government leftist "utopia".
His speech on political correctness, delivered 16 February 1999, Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, Harvard University Law School:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm
*I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people." There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.
As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: if my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty, your own freedom of thought, your own compass for what is right.*
Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."
Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what lives in your heart. I'm sure you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you, the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.
Let me back up a little. About a year or two ago, I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms of American citizens. I ran for office. I was elected, and now I serve. I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know, I'm pretty old, but I sure Lord ain't senile.
As I've stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are -- are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain accepted thoughts and speech are mandated.
For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 -- and long before Hollywood found it acceptable, I may say. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.
I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life -- throughout my whole career. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.
I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out the innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.
Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution I'm talking about, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.
From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that. You are using language not authorized for public consumption."
But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys -- subjects bound to the British crown.
In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that
"blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly twisted on us --
Not if the game involves any degree of luck. Sure this does not apply to chess, but it surely would apply to backgammon -- nobody wins them all, no matter how good they are, and it happens quite frequently that someone makes the best possible decision at every point in the game, and still loses. This deserves a "Good Game" -- it acknowledges that there were some things that were out of the player's control that ultimately determined the outcome. Poker of course is particularly prone to this -- all those who play it know exactly what you mean if you say "I was good until the river." Telling someone "Good Game" after he just lost his entire chip stack to a 200:1 runner-runner suckout is hardly condescending.
Most games, including athletic competitions, involve some degree of luck. Environmental variables cannot be controlled, and some of them are not even visible to the players. You throw or kick the ball trusting that the wind will be blowing with the same speed and direction throughout that ball's flight -- what else can you do? When a sudden gust of wind pushes a kick two feet to the right of the upright and you miss the game-winning field goal, that's luck coming into play (unless you're indoors of course). This is why there is a "good" end of the field and a "bad" end to be kicking toward at any point in the game. The difference may not always be large, but it is there, and this is why teams switch sides at various points in the game.
Tennis is likewise prone to the vagaries of shifting and swirling wind, and also to patterns of light and shadow if played by natural light. Baseball has the same issues. Golf is not so prone to tricks of the light, but is very vulnerable to wind and rain -- and yesterday's weather often impacts the condition of the course even though it has changed since. There are no grounds crews to roll out tarps when the rain comes.
"Good Game" is a simple acknowledgment that, had a few variables been changed, the outcome of the contest may well have been different.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
That's hardly a rebuttal, and actually just spam. I don't want to read what your manufactured religion wants me to read, I want a real Catholic or Christian to give me a piece of their mind.
Explain to me why homosexuality is so bad. Explain to me why the preacher dude wears a dress. Explain to me why I should care about the whole Jesus thing. Explain to me why God matters in today's and tomorrow's society. Most importantly, do it all in a pertinent and rational manner.
Succeed, and I might actually have several good reasons to join. So far all of the answers I've heard, have made absolutely no sense to me. All I see is a bunch of dumb people repeating words that aren't theirs, breaking their own rules, and cowering in a sea of pretty lies that somehow make their empty lives easier to bear. Prove me wrong, and I'll listen.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
You could quote the paragraph in question and put it in italics.
The kids were all heroic -- all but a semi-heroic member of their troupe named Eric. Eric was a whiner, a complainer, a guy who didn't like to go along with whatever the others wanted to do. Usually, he would grudgingly agree to participate, and it would always turn out well, and Eric would be glad he joined in. He was the one thing I really didn't like about the show.
So why, you may wonder, did I leave him in there? Answer: I had to.
As you may know, there are those out there who attempt to influence the content of childrens' television. We call them "parents groups," although many are not comprised of parents, or at least not of folks whose primary interest is as parents. Study them and you'll find a wide array of agendum at work...and I suspect that, in some cases, their stated goals are far from their real goals.
Nevertheless, they all seek to make kidvid more enriching and redeeming, at least by their definitions, and at the time, they had enough clout to cause the networks to yield. Consultants were brought in and we, the folks who were writing cartoons, were ordered to include certain "pro-social" morals in our shows. At the time, the dominant "pro-social" moral was as follows: The group is always right...the complainer is always wrong.
This was the message of way too many eighties' cartoon shows. If all your friends want to go get pizza and you want a burger, you should bow to the will of the majority and go get pizza with them. There was even a show for one season on CBS called The Get-Along Gang, which was dedicated unabashedly to this principle. Each week, whichever member of the gang didn't get along with the gang learned the error of his or her ways.
We were forced to insert this "lesson" in D & D, which is why Eric was always saying, "I don't want to do that" and paying for his social recalcitrance. I thought it was forced and repetitive, but I especially objected to the lesson. I don't believe you should always go along with the group. What about thinking for yourself? What about developing your own personality and viewpoint? What about doing things because you decide they're the right thing to do, not because the majority ruled and you got outvoted?
We weren't allowed to teach any of that. We had to teach kids to join gangs. And then to do whatever the rest of the gang wanted to do.
What a stupid thing to teach children.
Now, I won't make the leap to charge that gang activity, of the Crips and Bloods variety, increased on account of these programs. That influential, I don't believe a cartoon show could ever be. I just think that "pro-social" message was bogus and ill-conceived. End of confession.
Am I worthless if I look after somebody elses children? Others that are not direct biological parents have a role in society, from step parents to teachers to those that keep systems going for the benefit of society.
while as a 5-year-old in the late-sixties, I loved it.
It's no accident that it's so dumbed/watered down today. In the beginning, it was aimed at kids your age to get them ready for kindergarten/1st grade. With the growing number of children put into school settings at earlier ages (pre-school, nursery school, head start, etc) this target audience began to shrink.
The solution? Aim it to younger and younger kids. I'd say the target audience for SS today is 3 and under. A far cry developmentally from the 5 year olds or thereabouts it was originally made for.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
He said biological, not social
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
A large portion of what you are describing is a type of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. While not exactly the same, it is derived from the same mindset and it covers WAY more than just child rearing.
:)
For instance, I live in the mountains of East Tennessee. I can't tell you how many times I've been told to bike to work and my larger vehicle is Evil(TM), that is totally impractical to me. I've been told that if I get into shape it will be fine, that I'm simply a liar, all sorts of thing (though usually just ignored). The reason it is impractical? There is one particular hill - and a large one - that if/when I am driving my mothers four cylinder manual I have to turn the air conditioning off because the vehicle can barely make it up the hill let alone with more people in the vehicle (car pooling and all). It is either go that way or add another 5 or so miles to the trip - neither one is acceptable. Moving close to work doesn't help due to that fact that my job changes too often, we do not have dense urban style housing (and frankly can not due to the terrain). Heck, just to get out of my subdivision from my house requires you to drop over 60 feet, rise another 70, drop around 50, and finally go up another 50 feet (and these numbers are fairly accurate - we did the engineering for the subdivision and it required A LOT of earth to be moved to makes it down to that point). That's more hills than the vast majority of people will *ever* see just to get to the main highway let alone the rest of what we refer to as "rolling hills".
My area isn't going to get subways either - it is all rocks and caves. My parents are land surveyors and I worked with them through the 80'2 and 90's. It was just about as much work going back and routing around what they called "voids" (read caves). Some of those are LARGE, I recall one particularly large void where they had used a 300ft rope and had not found the bottom (VERY disconcerting to know you are standing over such a thing). Yea, we are going to get a subway through that type of thing. Even with public transportation such as buses it requires fairly strenuous walking, especially with groceries or all the items needed for work (laptops, books, etc) - see the above hill that is fairly common around here.
When I worked at a national lab we frequently had students, they normally had two shocks. First was going from a fairly urban area to a rural one (though there were quite a few that were just as rural and in a few cases more so than us) and the second was getting used to the topography. There are amusing stories about being kinda scared of how dark the city was, not realizing that street signs that show "sharp turn" mean 90 degrees or greater instead of just a small bend, and having trouble giving directions - my definition of "flat" was theirs of "really big hill" and I told how to get places by how many hills to pass and most wanted how many intersections to go through. To be fair, when I went other places I had my own share of "shocks" too
You see lots of people hawk sun power for everyone from places where they get enough sun, wind power from places that get a lot of wind, geothermal from places who can do it, all sorts of things being pushed to be forced on the whole country (and at the UN level the whole world) when it is impractical outside of local areas. The vast majority of these things are very good for those that are pushing them, just not so good for many others.
This is why I think most power should be local. No it doesn't solve everything - what you are describing is more a generational thing (the baby boomers have the population), but I think it would help. At the very least it is a more healthy view of the world and would hopefully bleed into the things you describe.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Its a fictional character thought up to entertain thildren through the use of entertaining actions and colourful characters. When the puppeteer was making them i doubt they thought "Oh he's going to eat cookies all the time we best create an artoficial oesophagus so that he doesnt appear to be bolemic"
"People forget that political correctness used to be known as spastic gaytalk"
Well the King James Bible is sexist, racist and just about every other -ist you can imagine but no one has seen fit to stop publishing that yet.
Now, I'm not advocating that myself, just pointing out that people can read all sorts of nefarious intents into anything if they see it. Why not just view and teach children to view things like Song of the South, Sesame Street, and the Bible as what they are - books and stories that reflect the social attitudes and beliefs of the day.
Burying them because we believe someone, somewhere will be offended is the worst kind of censorship.