Sacrilege!

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:01 pm

What. The. Fuck?

This is just wrong. How the hell can they ruin the best character on the whole show? Bloody idiots.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:49 pm

Well, it does suck, but I can see why they're doing it.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:28 pm

That sucks ... What the hell is he going to scream for if not cookies? Gimme banana? For fucks sake he is the cookie monster, it is even his name. If they want some fruit and vegie monster then just create a new freakin' monster and have "it" eat it.

The furry one also plans to try different kinds of cookies (read: healthier cookies) rather than his just staple, chocolate chip.

Fuck that! He ain't supposed to eat no freakin' diet/atkins/low-fat cookies. Its chocolate or nothing.

They are killing of the memories of my childhood one by one right before my very eyes. But I'll continue to do my cookie monster impression the old fashion way non the less :)

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:22 pm

I thought they already had Cookie's little sister veggie monster!

This is a serious blow to the foundations of my world! First the coffee, then the beer, now the cookies!

DAMN YOU PEOPLE TO HELL!!!!

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:35 pm

I think it's a wonderful idea.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:39 pm

Bishop wrote:I think it's a wonderful idea.

I have to agree.

BlackJack · Post by **BlackJack** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:34 pm

I rank this as the second worst decision announced this week. We wouldn't want, say the parents to have to actually get involved with their kids and make sure they are eating right.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:38 pm

And we wouldn't want, say, the parents to have to combat and counteract everything that their little heroes say is good, eh? Like, for instance, cookies and lots of them. I would love for my son to come and say he wants vegetables because they're cool, not because I have to make him eat them.

BlackJack · Post by **BlackJack** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:47 pm

I'd rather parents didn't depend on TV and the internet to raise their kids. No, not you in specific Bishop, but there are too many parents that plop their kids in fron of the TV or computer and walk away.

I'd also prefer people not to do things just because they saw it on TV. This applies equally to adult idiots.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:55 pm

I agree on both accounts. Sad things is, that's not the way too many families work. At least somebody's trying.

Brineshrimp · Post by **Brineshrimp** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:03 pm

I think it's a terrible idea, but that's just my inner-child talking. I can see why they would want to change things, but I don't have to like it.

Although, if the little bastards weren't sitting around watching t.v. all day, maybe they wouldn't be over-weight.

(Course, then they wouldn't be watching S.S.) Catch-22. Catch-22.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:59 pm

Noone should take dietary advice from Sesame Street or the Cookie Monster for the that sake. He is a blue furry muppet that eats cookies all day long, HE IS NOT REAL. Even I knew that as a kid. He was a funny character that I liked but that was it. Perhaps the parents should teach their kids the difference if they can't figure it out for themselves but it shouldn't be to hard to figure out considering there are REAL people there to right next to them. If he had been real and had had a 100% cookie diet he would have died ages ago, been orca fat, diabetes etc. Don't make him into anything more then what he is, a funny character.

Add to that it is not the cookie monsters job to teach your children what to eat, that is the parents job. Kid wants cookies, parents wants carrots. The kid is going to eat carrots unless the parent is a freakin' pushover.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:37 am

This is right up there with having Bert and Ernie educate kids about gay rights.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:28 am

Add to that it is not the cookie monsters job to teach your children what to eat, that is the parents job. Kid wants cookies, parents wants carrots. The kid is going to eat carrots unless the parent is a freakin' pushover.

Really? Then what will the kids buy at the school cafeteria?

Heck, there's cookies in the vending machines in schools. I've yet to see a vending machine for carrot sticks.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:36 am

They are working towards change.

Here, a neat picture of a machine possibility, the people at Stony Field Farms think watching TV has influence on kids.

Just a few leads.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:45 am

People who pay for vending machine water make my kidneys sad.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:47 am

Serious Paul wrote:They are working towards change.

That's great progress, but in the meanwhile, kids still have easy access to all kinds of junk food. Parents can't possibly keep their kids away from it all of the time. They're hardly "freakin' pushovers" if their kid is spending lunch money on sugary snacks and high-fat foods.

I *will* be much happier if they have carrot-stick vending machines when my daughter is school age. There's absolutely no way I can police what she'll have access to, so hopefully these changes will help.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:37 pm

Or you could just convince her not to buy shit. You could pack her lunch instead of throwing money at her. I've noticed vending machines almost never work without money. Or you could let her buy the shit, and make sure she's even moderately active.

Kai · Post by **Kai** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:27 pm

Must be some pretty liberal schools where you are, none of the schools I attended had vending machines until high school, and lunch was lunch, you got some basic choices, what kind of milk, one of two main things, etc. There wasn't any real ala carte type thing. Hell, most places disliked having the kids bring money and encouraged the whole bought credit thing.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:32 pm

A lot of schools, especially high schools allow themselves to be sponsored by companies like Coca Cola, etc. Sometimes it's the only way to up their budget.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:36 pm

DV8 wrote:A lot of schools, especially high schools allow themselves to be sponsored by companies like Coca Cola, etc. Sometimes it's the only way to up their budget.

Our university has an annual budget of over 110 million dollars, with a student population of only ~10,000 or so. We still have a deal with Pepsi.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:16 pm

Universities are different, in the same bracket as private high schools. They're run as a business, not an open-to-the-public paid-for-by-taxes institution.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:30 pm

Cain wrote:Heck, there's cookies in the vending machines in schools. I've yet to see a vending machine for carrot sticks.

... kids still have easy access to all kinds of junk food. Parents can't possibly keep their kids away from it all of the time. They're hardly "freakin' pushovers" if their kid is spending lunch money on sugary snacks and high-fat foods.

The intended viewing audience for Sesame Street and the cookie monster is what? >10 years old or something like that. They don't have any income or any money unless you, as a parent, give them some.

Actually Paul if you just give you kids some cash and hope they'll eat something good and nutritious you are kidding yourself. They would be eating cookies, chips and sucking down soda no matter how many carrots and apples the cookie monster ate even if they could get a proper meal simple cause it tastes better to them. So if you give them money you are encouraging the behaviour and the blame is with you as the parent. So if you are worried about that, then don't give them any money and make them something to eat at lunch instead. Unless ofcause you are to busy for your own children. But then that is hardly the cookie monsters fault.

Not to mention that I am quite sure your sons and daughters won't bloat up either from eating a cookie now and then.

On that note it must be some pretty wacky schools your sending the kids to where they have vending machines where there are only kids of such a young age. Perhaps that is common over there but from my own experience I didn't see a school vending machine until University. In elementary school a proper meal is provided for you every day for free, ok payed for by taxes but still.

While a vending machine for carrots might sound like a killer idea, it ain't concidering how long stuff have a tendency to stay in there.

But back to the core issue of changing the cookie monster, I still think he should gobble down cookies like there was no tomorrow, if they have a problem with that make him a bit wider and have him do some exercising. That in my mind would be much better then putting the cookie monster on a cookie diet.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:28 pm

I didn't write that Lorg.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:56 pm

Oh sorry, must have cut the quote wrong. Correction, it was Cain.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:36 pm

Marius wrote:Or you could just convince her not to buy shit. You could pack her lunch instead of throwing money at her. I've noticed vending machines almost never work without money. Or you could let her buy the shit, and make sure she's even moderately active.

Convincing a two-year-old of anything related to moderation is an excercise in futility. As she gets older, it'll hopefully become more possible; but even so, why should she be overly tempted?

Have you guys seen Super Size Me? According to that, the FDA-approved lunches are frequently canned crap with no semblance of nutritional planning. And that's assuming the kids can't just buy a cheeseburger and fries instead-- my high school used to offer that as an alternate, and quite frankly it was more edible than the usual cafeteria crap. To make problems worse, there are lots of kids on free-lunch programs in schools. That school lunch may be the only real meal they get each day.

Actually Paul if you just give you kids some cash and hope they'll eat something good and nutritious you are kidding yourself. They would be eating cookies, chips and sucking down soda no matter how many carrots and apples the cookie monster ate even if they could get a proper meal simple cause it tastes better to them. So if you give them money you are encouraging the behaviour and the blame is with you as the parent. So if you are worried about that, then don't give them any money and make them something to eat at lunch instead.

Kids also have allowances. And telling kids what they can and can't do with their own allowances kinda defeats the purpose of an allowance as a reward system. Now, if my daughter could only get cookies at the store, when I take her there, then that would be perfectly fine. However, if she can get junk food whenever she feels like-- out of the vending machines, or even from the cafeteria line-- that makes it much more difficult.

On that note it must be some pretty wacky schools your sending the kids to where they have vending machines where there are only kids of such a young age. Perhaps that is common over there but from my own experience I didn't see a school vending machine until University. In elementary school a proper meal is provided for you every day for free, ok payed for by taxes but still.

As Deev pointed out, vending machines and junk-food advertising became increasingly common over here; Pepsi and Coca-Cola, for example, gave schools big endorsement money to put up advertisements and install vending machines. Schools were using the money to shore up their budgets. Other food companies started selling stuff to schools at discounted rates, in return for prominent displays-- I believe Lay's Chips was one, but I'm not sure.

Yes, this is whacked. There's no arguing that this needs to change. Teaching kids to eat properly is tricky enough, we don't need to be complicating the issue by shoving junk food in their faces.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:57 pm

The argument for Cookie Monster's makeover: "It's a good example."

The argument against Cookie Monster's makeover: "Good examples won't help, aren't necessary, detract from parental involvement, and besides, it's changing an icon of my youth!" To which I would say, "Wrong, wrong, wrong, and that's real stupid, respectively."

BloodHound · Post by **BloodHound** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:14 pm

that and he's the cookie monster for crying out loud! Its a damn puppet. what is this world coming to when a puppet cant enjoy a good cookie, or plateful of cookies?

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:28 pm

Well as far as I know my father stole cookies and wouldn't eat his broccoli, and so did his father - a long time before any cookie crazed monsters came upon the scene.

The whole point of cookie monster - and most of the other more beloved sesame street creations was that they were absurd, hence they are entertaining. But there is a certain amount of make-believability in it. I mean if you were a monster who could eat what you wanted why wouldn't you eat cookies? It makes perfect sense from a child's standpoint. Lets face it, as soon as cookie monster starts setting a "good example" no kid is going to buy him anymore. You have to get give kids a bit of credit - they'll pick up quickly when someone starts feeding them a bullshit line. Right now Cookie (as I affectionately call him) is a good educational tool in himself outside of his dietary choices. I even remember him using cookies to teach counting and math, and Ernie and Cookie's matching game is legendary. But most of all when Cookie shares - it means he really does it from the bottom of his chocolate chip heart - and that's not lost on the youth.

Cookie monster's endorsement isn't going to get kids to eat their broccoli or carrots, but it is going to kill his credibility with his targeted audience. And whenever you do that, the audience stops watching.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:50 pm

The difference between TV and the internet today and in your fathers generation, is this is how we socialize. That's not how my father socialized. Or his father.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:34 am

Sock_Monkey wrote:Lets face it, as soon as cookie monster starts setting a "good example" no kid is going to buy him anymore. You have to get give kids a bit of credit - they'll pick up quickly when someone starts feeding them a bullshit line. Right now Cookie (as I affectionately call him) is a good educational tool in himself outside of his dietary choices. I even remember him using cookies to teach counting and math, and Ernie and Cookie's matching game is legendary. But most of all when Cookie shares - it means he really does it from the bottom of his chocolate chip heart - and that's not lost on the youth.

So let me get this straight: Cookie Monster can't set a good example, because kids won't buy it, but Cookie Monster is a good example when he teaches kids to share.

Of course, this is no less absurd than most of the crap posited in this thread, but it's certainly more obvious.

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 2:04 am

The point being 32 is that Cookie is already a learning tool if you will - and more importantly he entertains while he does so so it becomes more effective. Sharing is but an example. All the SS skits generally have some learning value, whether it be learning how to count with Cookie Monster while he counts his cookies, or spelling with his cookies or sharing his cookies with Ernie. Its CM's established personality that makes him a favored character and one the kids pay attention to. Sacrificing this ability for his potential to teach good dietary practice, just wastes his potential. It would be like using Grover to teach assertiveness. Suddenly Grover would be a different person - and I don't know about you but people who make abrupt personality changes are usually unstable, and not to be trusted. The same applies with CM. Essentially what they'd be doing is destroying an icon that generally has positive virtues for the sake of implanting one of dubious value. Where does the PC of this all end? Are they going to change Oscar so he's Oscar the Optimist because he has negative personality attributes? Maybe they should make Grover like I said more assertive so we don't have neurotic children.

But lets put things in a different light. Would you take Ozzy Osbourne as an anti drug spokesperson? Maybe Ron Jeremy espousing the virtues of abstinence? Just like CM people (including children) would just look and think WTF?! And you wouldn't pay attention to another single word they said.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 2:19 am

Sock_Monkey wrote:The point being 32 is that Cookie is already a learning tool if you will - and more importantly he entertains while he does so so it becomes more effective. Sharing is but an example.

Exactly. He's a learning tool, that's entertaining. So:

Cookie Monster loves cookies, but knows that sharing is important, so he's willing to give up some cookies for sharing.

Cookie Monster loves cookies, but knows that health is important, so he's willing to give up some cookies for health.

What's the difference here?

Sock_Monkey wrote:Its CM's established personality that makes him a favored character and one the kids pay attention to. Sacrificing this ability for his potential to teach good dietary practice, just wastes his potential. It would be like using Grover to teach assertiveness.

But he's willing to moderate his cookie intake to give some to his friends; how is moderating his intake to benefit his health "wasting potential?"

Sock_Monkey wrote:Suddenly Grover would be a different person - and I don't know about you but people who make abrupt personality changes are usually unstable, and not to be trusted. The same applies with CM.

That's utterly mad. /Now/ who can't tell reality from fiction? You've just diagnosed a puppet!

Sock_Monkey wrote:Essentially what they'd be doing is destroying an icon that generally has positive virtues for the sake of implanting one of dubious value.

How is "health" a virtue of dubious value?

Sock_Monkey wrote:Where does the PC of this all end?

It has nothing to do with political correctness. That term is so over- and mis-used that it's starting to annoy me. [And it takes a lot to annoy me.

]

Sock_Monkey wrote:Are they going to change Oscar so he's Oscar the Optimist because he has negative personality attributes? Maybe they should make Grover like I said more assertive so we don't have neurotic children.

I don't have a great deal of experience with the show, having never seen it, but don't those characters sometimes display those precise attributes, as a method of showing the benefits of them? If Oscar is an asshole all the time, that's stupid. If Oscar is an asshole who sometimes is shown through song the benefits of being nice to his friends, that's not stupid.

Sock_Monkey wrote:But lets put things in a different light. Would you take Ozzy Osbourne as an anti drug spokesperson? Maybe Ron Jeremy espousing the virtues of abstinence?

Who better?

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:50 am

BloodHound wrote:that and he's the cookie monster for crying out loud! Its a damn puppet. what is this world coming to when a puppet cant enjoy a good cookie, or plateful of cookies?

How the world got to where it is in this case isn't so important, and shouldn't detract from doing something about a very serious problem. I think that if you find that puppets have become rolemodels for children in their formative years, and can exert even the smallest amount of influence over the behaviour of your children, you should try to harness that and try to wring every bit of positive result out of it. The United States is one of the first countries to deal with a nation wide problem of bad diets, but at the moment it certainly isn't a unique problem. Being the first to get hit by the problem means that they're the first to deal with it, if you don't use every resource at your desposal (especially something that's not ethically challenging) then you're just sticking your head in the sand.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:46 am

Three-two, I'm extremely impressed by your points in this debate. Every time I was about to click "quote", I read further and saw that you got there first and more eloquently. Well done, sir.

Edit: I blame the time: it's "there", not "their", duh, Patience.

crone · Post by **crone** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:08 am

I was all outraged by the thread, but when I read the article it's not so bad. Cookie Monster still eats cookies, just not all the time, and there will be a whole bunch of other healthy lifestyle indoctrinating going on as well.

The character that really shits me as a role-model is Ernie. He is downright sadistic sometimes, but it's always Bert in the wrong because he can't take a joke.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:16 pm

C is for cravings, that's what happens to me.
C is for cravings, that's what happens to me.
C is for cravings, that's what happens to me.
Cravings cravings cravings start with C.

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:40 pm

Well just to really get the part of my point home which most seem to miss, Sesame Street tried the same tactic when I was a child in the guise of CM's little sister Veggie monster which SS dropped from the line up like a hot potato. What? You guys don't remember? 'nuff said.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:03 pm

Okay, so that proves that at that time, having a healthy lifestyle monster was overbearing and unpopular. It's slightly different than having a monster who likes the things you like (as opposed to a monster that you can't identify with unless you like veggies already) displaying some restraint. A veggie monster polarizes the situation. Either you eat healthy, or you binge on crap all the time. The basic idea of CM showing restraint is a good lesson, and as believable as any of the lessons that SS is trying to teach.

And, I know that it's hard to watch things you remember change. I remember the first time I stepped into my elementary school at my adult height. It was freaky. But a lot of parents (not all, maybe not most, but a frightening amount) are fobbing their kids off on TV with no intervention or explanation. Kids don't have an inborn magical ability to automatically identify the lessons from the funny stuff that they're not supposed to copy. Most of them are pretty smart, but smart needs information or it does no good.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:53 pm

crone wrote:I was all outraged by the thread, but when I read the article it's not so bad. Cookie Monster still eats cookies, just not all the time, and there will be a whole bunch of other healthy lifestyle indoctrinating going on as well.

I've got to go with crone here. Cookie Monster will still eat cookies. It's not like they turned him into Tofu Monster.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:43 pm

Sock_Monkey wrote:Well just to really get the part of my point home which most seem to miss, Sesame Street tried the same tactic when I was a child in the guise of CM's little sister Veggie monster which SS dropped from the line up like a hot potato. What? You guys don't remember? 'nuff said.

How old are you? What age do you think most of the board is? Just curious.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:19 pm

Ancient History wrote:Universities are different, in the same bracket as private high schools. They're run as a business, not an open-to-the-public paid-for-by-taxes institution.

Our universities do receive significant subsidy from the government. In fact, if I remember correctly from last year's budget hearing, the 110 million comes directly from the government.

Moto42 · Post by **Moto42** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:43 pm

Most "childrens programing" is all about programing them to buy poorly made merchandise. On the other hand, Sesame Street is one of the few programs out there actualy trying to use the medium of television to do some good for children. For this purpose I'm not going to complain if they decide that Cookie Monster, the lovable glutton, can learn a little something about moderation and teach the little podlings of the world about it too.

I found this in a list of Sesame Street memories.

Out of his secret garden somewhere in New Jersey comes your newest favorite super hero

"What are you, some kind of bad dream?"

DO I LOOK LIKE A BAD DREAM?
It is I, Captain Vegatable, with my carrot and my celery!

All of my better habits, or lack of bad ones, can be attributed to the advice I took from television characters. I buckle my seat belt because a crash test dummy that talked like Garfield told me I'd die if I didn't. I don't smoke pot because Michaelangelo got together with Baby Miss Piggy & Winnie the Pooh to tell me it was for dorks. And I eat & enjoy my green vegetables, because a unibrowed purple rabbit in a cape said that they're good for me. And they're good for you, so eat them, too.

-http://www.progressiveboink.com/archive ... treet.html

Sacrilege!

Sacrilege!

Re: Sacrilege!