Sesame Street

From Rage Oranges To Shame Milk — Family: Who Needs It?

Posted on

“If I wanted to see mammals feeding their young with their own self producing lactic fluids I’d go to a god damned zoo and “Awww” at its adorable quaintness on the other side of plexiglass where it belongs! Now feed my wife this god damned hand pealed citrus or I’ll murder every last one of us!”

Has this ever happened to you? If you have a family this kind of scene plays out to your horror each and every day until you’re finally murdered for feeding someone the wrong produce. I’ve never trusted family. I have always seen them as challengers to my resources and an attachment to any one of them as a liability waiting to be exploited. But that’s just how I was raised.

Breasts are a thing to be ashamed of. We all know this. This is accepted as science fact Alpha 0. The feeding of a child in public, especially those that are not your own, is also recognized accepted as a wholly embarrassing and reprehensible act. When you combine the two you are left with the single biggest assault on the senses of those that have every opportunity to not witness it by the simple turn of their head.

You should be ASHAMED of yourself!
You should be ASHAMED of yourself!

For some reason breasts and the feeding from thereof has a very polarizing effect on otherwise crazily irrational people or “people” as they’re more commonly known. And once again “Sesame Street” is in the middle of another divider of the masses. Just like Muppets to stick their bulbous, brightly colored felt noses on another hot button and stir the shit. Except for the fact that they’re actually not, but that’s beside the point.

Like a couple months ago when busy bodies started circulating a petition trying to encourage the Sesames to out Bert and Ernie, the public broadcasting children’s show is being dragged into another issue by people who should really have better things to do with their time. This time it’s a petition asking “Sesame Street” to promote breast feeding, as they apparently had in the 70s and 80s with two separate segments involving teat suckling and the supposed “normalcy” and “naturality” of the clearly despicable act.

The squeamish, who recognize boobies and their practical use as the abomination that they are, are uncomfortable with children being exposed to such depravity. They understand the slippery slope that nourishing titty sucking is. First you ingest sustenance from your mother as your kind have since you’ve had a kind, then before you know it you’ve moved on to sucking off terrorist in welfare parking lots for crack drugs! Or something.

I personally don’t care for either side of the issue. If you want your children to be taught that nip sips are okay, then, you know, why not tell them yourself. You’re already asking the TV box to teach them to read and count and bright flashy colors loud noise buy this toy! Why not take a role in letting them know that you’re not a sex offender for feeding their baby brother.

And to those that are so mesmerized by the disgusting act of a mother keeping their child alive with the very liquid provided by their biology to do just that thing, that they can’t stop staring at it in disgust whenever it’s never happening all the time right not in front of their faces; I simply want to say: calm down. It’s not “gross”, it isn’t effecting your existence in any way what so ever, and even if the images of an oblong blanket being held to a woman’s chest were broadcast through space and into your living room, you are still entitled to decide for your own self whether or not to watch it intently, seething at its appearance on your baby sitter, or to change the channel and seethe at the fact that it could be appearancing on someone else’s picture tube somewhere else in the world. Or maybe you could settle the fuck down for half a god damned second and realize that you’re wasting your entire life hating things that are none of your fucking business.

Meanwhile: Orange you glad I shot your sisters?!

Police in Ohio believe that a family murder-suicide was the result of a dispute over an orange, peeled specifically to be fed to a dying wife and sister, that went un-served.

Now who will eat my delicious fruit!?
Now who will eat my delicious fruit!?

I’m willing to bet that there was probably more leading up to this that more directly related to the killing spree than the waste of a juicy mandarin, but in this story it seems to be the only factor involved, so I’m just going to assume that this Paul David Gilkey, a man who served a ten year prison sentence for “beating a man to death with a fence post in 1974” and in 1986 “allegedly stabbed his own father” was an otherwise well-adjusted individual who simply could not abide the disuse of a perfectly edible piece of fruit which he himself delicately peeled in anticipation of its imminent ingestion.

“They had given Darlene a meal, toast and I believe a banana, toast and tea prior and when [Paul] already had an orange peeled for her and that seemed to be the issue that spurred [Paul] to his rampage,” said Hocking County Sheriff Lanny North.

An Orange dispute is clearly the only explanation. And the only answer to this injustice is the assassination of his terminal wife’s two sisters, their son and himself. I mean, that goes without saying I would think.

Gilkey’s cousin told reporters that Paul had been “showing signs of instability” but NATURALLY thought that that would only manifest “after his wife had passes” and would NATURALLY only be “self-inflicted”. Because an instable individual with a history of fence post murdering and the stabbing of family members, MUCH more immediate than in-laws, will NATURALLY not be a danger to anyone but themselves if a vexing fruit dispute were to arise.

Family: you can’t squeeze milk from their torso sacks without enraging someone with full control of their necks and you can’t shoot them all because they selfishly didn’t cram the food you prepared for one of them into the intended face.

Alrighty Hippies, Cut it Out

Posted on

Seriously…

Knock it off.

We get that everyone’s created equal and that it’s a beautiful thing and that we should all celebrate each other’s differences even though we’re equal and beautiful just the way we differently are. And that’s beautiful. In an equal kind of way. A way that doesn’t discriminate against any other beautiful thing and equally celebrates beauty. And we all go home at the end of the day with a trophy and an ice cream cone, because we’re all winners of beautiful, different but equalness.

You can call 'em best friends, but we know what we're imagining them really doing... Which seems to say more about us than anything really...
You can call 'em best friends, but we know what we're imagining them really doing...

What I’m getting at is: stop trying to make Bert suck off Ernie.

There’s a petition going around the internetted webbing, trying to “encourage” “Sesame Street” producers to have their pair of bath sharing confirmed bachelors joined in holy matrimony.

“We are not asking that Sesame Street do anything crude or disrespectful,” the petition reads. “It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different.”

Oh, well, good, it’s not like they’re asking for hot, muppet on muppet butt sex. They don’t want any graphic “rubber duckie” action. They just want to tastefully teach children to stop hating homosexuals. Because as we know, the audience of Sesame Street is made up almost exclusively of gay bashing infants and intolerant toddlers.

Every episode ended with Paul Reiser tied to the bed with is own Cosby sweaters...
Every episode ended with Paul Reiser tied to the bed with is own Cosby sweaters...

The argument is built upon a fraudulent premise, and I would hope they understand it. Children don’t hate gay marriage. Some children’s parents may not like it, but I don’t think it’s the Children’s Television Workshop’s job to adopt all of the children of hateful parents around the world. So you’re not about teaching tolerance. Do I think that it’s wrong to present a married same sex couple to children? Absolutely not, when I was growing up I watched “My Two Dads”. What I disagree with is someone trying to force an agenda upon someone based on the supposed solution to a problem that they’ve manufactured.

But it’s the equality hypocrisy that gets me the most. Because while crusaders will likely shout down and ridicule anyone who opposes this as homophobic and closed minded, let’s not act like they wouldn’t be similarly shitting their carbon neutral, zero impact, humanely harvested hemp onesies if someone was circulating a petition calling for Snuffleupagus to come out as a Soldier of Christ.

Do I want Elmo prancing around asking everyone on Sesame Street if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior? Fuck no. Nor do I want Oscar the Grouch pushing his Freegan lifestyle on kids, or Grover teaching preschoolers the joys of autoerotic asphyxiation. Your agenda doesn’t have to define you. You don’t have to make it your life’s quest to make sure that what you believe in is in front of everyone’s face at all times. Preaching about gay marriage is the same as preaching about anything else, preachy.

But listen to me; preaching against the preachyness of preaching. Isn’t this just the african american cookware calling the indigenous person’s leaf drink water warmer a racially insensitive epithet? Feel free to go back to not listening to anything I’m saying and calling me names for saying it. It’s what gay married Jesus would do…