Category Archives: Media

November 20, 2012 · 9:10 am

The new Beatles?

One direction. From left: Joey, Jordan, Jonathan, Donnie and Danny. No, actually I have no idea who any of them are. I’m guessing the one with the stripe in his hair is the “rebel.”

Spending time with youth is both a great way to stay young and a great reminder of just how old I really am.  The other day I was with our youth while they were talking about the band, One Direction.  Even if you’re not familiar with One Direction, you know them.  These five young men have taken over youth pop culture with their preppy look, dreamy smiles, catchy tunes, and auto-tune machine.  Basically, even if you’ve never seen them before, you’ve seen them before.  Anyway, here is a snippet of the conversation,

Youth 1: “People are saying they’re the new Beatles.”

Youth 2: “Yeah, they’re our generation’s Beatles.”

Just to be clear, I am not in the Beatles’  generation.  At 35, I was never alive while the Beatles were together.  I do however consider myself a Beatles fan.  I count myself among the many that consider the Beatles to be the greatest band ever assembled.  I also try to adhere to the concept that I should never deride youth culture.  There was a time when I thought rolling my jeans was cool, so I don’t mock anything, but I couldn’t let this go unchecked.

Me: “I just threw up in my mouth a little.”

Youth: Weird looks

Me: “Did you just say that One Direction is the new Beatles?”

Youth 1: “Yeah, they’re our generation’s Beatles.  That’s what people are saying.”

Me: “Who is saying that?”

Youth 2: “Everyone.”

Me: “Well, I think they’re probably more like your generation’s New Kids on the Block.

Youth 2: “But they’re from England, like the Beatles.”

Me: “Okay, so then they’re the new New Chaps on the Block.”

Youth 1 and 2: laughter

Again, my goal is not to mock youth culture, and I understand I probably just made myself look more like the grumpy old man than the cool youth leader.  That’s okay though, I’ve never really been interested in being “Cool Youth Leader” guy.  But here’s the thing, I actually have a problem with One Direction’s most popular hit, and it all comes down to one line.  It is a seriously catchy song.  One that has been sung many times before.  It is about a girl that is beautiful, but doesn’t know it.  It really is a common theme in pop music, and I understand why it resonates with so many young girls.  They dream that somewhere there is a guy that is singing that song to her.  Give this video a look-see, and see if you can catch the line that really bugs me.:

Did you hear it?  The first line of the song is “You’re insecure, don’t know what for. You’re turning heads when you walk through the door.” That line is bad enough, but the line that really gets me comes at the end of the chorus: “You don’t know you’re beautiful. That’s what makes you beautiful.”

It is one thing to sing of the beauty of humility.  It is something different to praise someone for being insecure.  Humility and insecurity are very different. Insecurity comes from feeling you’re not good enough.  It is born out of shame.  Girls in our culture are told over and over again that they are not good enough, not skinny enough, not smart enough.  Telling  someone they are beautiful because they are insecure is praising their shame.  Natural beauty should be admired, but insecurity is not a beautiful trait.  Humility comes from self-confidence.  Self-Confidence is beautiful.

The fact that these five boys are telling millions of young girls that insecurity is beautiful is troubling. True humility comes from a deeper understanding of self that transcends society’s idea of physical beauty.  Self-confidence is rooted in love and grace.  Self-confidence comes from knowing that you were formed by a God that only makes beauty, not from being told by an adolescent boy that flipping your hair drives him crazy.

Boys might think insecurity is beautiful.  Men don’t.  I hope someday One Direction grows up, but I’m guessing they’ll always be just another boy band.

4 Comments

Filed under Media

Tagged as , , , ,

July 6, 2012 · 12:18 pm

The Star Wars that I used to know

I love Star Wars.  I’ve seen the original trilogy countless times – but not the original original in many years.  I bought the re-releases immediately and loved them, at first.  I loved the added details, and even some of the deleted scenes.  I thought the Jabba scene in A New Hope was weird, but I let it slide.  I missed the old celebration music at the end of Return of the Jedi, but seeing the Palpatine statue get toppled was kind of cool.  Then the more I watched, the more I felt uneasy.  Of course, the most egregious change was that Han shot first.

If you don’t know what “Han shot first” means, then you don’t truly love Star Wars.  Find someone that does and ask them, then sit back and wait for a good 15 minute rant to ensue.  I won’t go into the details, but when Lucas changed the original movie, he changed the development of one of the greatest characters in movie history.  He sterilized Han and ripped out part of the heart of the movie.

It was as if Martin Scorcese decided to remake The Godfather trilogy, and decided that Michael should have Fredo beaten up and shipped to Mexico instead of having him go fishing.

Then the next trilogy came out.  I remember leaving Phantom Menace a little perplexed.  I felt like I liked it, but again I felt uneasy.  I enjoyed the light saber battles.  I enjoyed seeing a younger Yoda, but I missed him as a puppet.  I couldn’t put my finger on just what was the problem, partly because there were so many of them.  Yes, Jar Jar was annoying.  Yes, the kid was whiny.  Yes, Darth Maul was underdeveloped and dispatched much too quickly.  Yes, the strange opening story that included trade embargoes and legal negotiations seemed disjointed.

Then I realized, it was the metachlorian.  In the original, the Force was a mysterious, spiritual experience.  “May the Force be with you,” was a spiritual salutation on par with, “Peace be with you.” If one of the characters had ever said, “And also with you,” it would have felt right. The Force was clouded in mystery, but it was attainable.  “The force is strong with this one,” referred to Luke’s eagerness, inner courage, and desire for justice.  The force was something that we could all tap into.  It was something within reach, even if it was from a galaxy far, far away.  The force was a reminder that there is something mysterious, a power that we can never truly understand.

There were theological ramifications for this.  You could put away the targeting computer, and trust in something more powerful. Even in the midst of amazing technological advances, there was something more.  The power to destroy planets was insignificant next to the power of the force.  Isn’t this the good news of the Bible, after all?

The greatest powers on earth was Egypt, but God saved the band of rebel slaves.  Then it was the Babylonians, but God was able to gather the remnant of Israel and save them.  Then it was Rome.  Rome had the power to destroy entire cities, but it was insignificant next to the power of grace. The Methodist in me screamed: “The Force is Prevenient Grace.” It is the power that flows through us all before we even realize it. The Force precedes even our undersanding. Stars Wars taught us that there was something beyond death that can be a source of hope, but it is the power of love that is truly the ultimate power of the universe.

Then in Phantom Menace, they pull out a syringe and count metachlorians?  What the hell?  Now it’s just a chemical and genetic accident?  It is something that be counted, measured, and predicted?  That’s just wrong.  It’s wrong on so many levels in so many ways.  I don’t care if it George Lucas’s movie, and he can do whatever he wants with it.  If DaVinci decided he wanted to put a big cheesy grin on Mona Lisa, he would be wrong.

So here’s a parody video.  It is really well done, and it sums up very well how I feel about Star Wars and George Lucas.

Follow The Fat Pastor on Facebook

Follow on Twitter

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

Tagged as , ,

June 1, 2012 · 2:32 pm

Did we win?

Image

Bill Paxton brought all of his “Big Love” Godly smugness to his role as Randal McCoy.

The History Channel has aired its much-hyped “Hatfields & McCoys.”  I’ve only watched two of the three parts.  Thanks to the magic of Tivo, I’m hoping to finish it tonight.

I’m not a feud historian, but I’ve read a little bit about the dealings between Ole Ran’l and Devil Anse Hatfield.  Being a McCoy, I have been asked many times if I am related to this famed feuding clan.  While we don’t have any definitive genealogical proof, we do have some circumstantial evidence that points to the possibility.

There has been some family history done by one of my Dad’s cousins, and it appears that my family can trace its roots to Kentucky and West Virginia at about the time of the feud.

And then there’s the picture.  Many years ago my uncle Larry McCoy found a picture of Randal McCoy.  I wish I had a good picture of my Uncle Larry to show you.  You’ll have to take my word for it: there is a resemblance.

That being said, watching the History Channel mini-series was a somewhat strange experience for me.  I wasn’t just an objective observer.  I guess you could say that I had a rooting interest.  I remember as a kid when I heard about the McCoy-Hatfield feud, one of my first questions was, “Did we win?”

Me and my great-great-great-great uncle? I’m not sure, but the guy on the left is me, and the guy on the right is Ole Ran’l McCoy

Even now, as I watched the movie I found myself “rooting” for the McCoys.  It was clear that Anderson Hatfield was a terrible person for deserting, and profiting while his brethren and friends suffered.  It was clear that Old Ran’l was wronged when that thieving Hatfield stole his hog, then trumped up testimony in the trial. In the ruckus in the courtroom after the case, McCoy shouts, “This is a case of Godly right versus Damnation wrong!”  And I was all, “Hell Yeah!”

I had to catch myself.  It wasn’t about that at all.  It was about pettiness and grudges.  Eventually, McCoy’s godly self-righteousness started to grow tiresome. I couldn’t help but chuckle when later in the movie Hatfield tells Randall, “If you feel the need to bring up God one more time, and who’s side he sits on, you won’t be making the ride home.”

I won’t go through all of the details of the movie, or analyze any characters, because pretty quickly into the second episode it was clear that there were no good guys in this story.  I haven’t seen how it ends, but I feel like the movie has done a great job of showing the feud as what it was – futile.  There were no winners.

Stubbornness, false pride, hardened hearts, vindictiveness, and revenge fueled the feud.  As a child I saw the world in black and white and just assumed that the McCoys were good, the Hatfields evil, and there must have been a clear winner.  I’ve realized now that life is usually more about shades of gray.  I’ve learned that revenge is never good fuel for a soul.  As I watch the last episode, I’m hoping someone figures that out.  Then I’ll know who won.

Follow the Fat Pastor on Facebook

Follow on Twitter

2 Comments

Filed under Media

Tagged as , , ,

Image

Napoleon, meet Katniss

Napoleon, meet Katniss

2 Comments

March 18, 2012 · 10:34 am
November 4, 2011 · 3:04 pm

Worst video ever: What’s up with you?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

I don’t think Albert Einstein knew Eddie Murphy, but when I see this quote, I think of the video below:

Eddie Murphy is one of the all-time kings of comedy.  He was at times profane and vulgar, but he was (as his second video claimed) raw.  He was a little bit angry.  He was a little bit dangerous because he had something to say about American culture.  He was young and brash and black and brilliant.  He was Chris Rock before Chris Rock. I remember watching his first, far superior, video “Delirious” in my friend’s basement.  We knew we were doing something very wrong, and I didn’t get a lot of the jokes, but I knew it was funny.

Most young people now only know Eddie Murphy as Donkey or Dr. Doolittle.  There is very little dangerous about him.  But I remember Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood, Gumby, Buckwheat, and his duet with Joe Piscopo as Frank Sinatra doing “Ebony and Ivory.”  I am black and you are white.  You are blind as a bat and I have sight.  Yet it seemed like Eddie Murphy always wished he was a singer.  And when he sang as a part of his comedy routines, he was funny, and a pretty good singer.

The problem arose when he tried to sing as a singer.  Michael Jackson and Eddie Murphy could easily be described as geniuses, but if they were judged solely on “What’s Up With You,” I don’t think the word genius would appear.  The song, I think, is supposed to be about the environment and how we are supposed to treat the earth.  Beyond repeating “Whazzup wit you” about 45 times, he doesn’t really say much.  Although I’m pretty sure he says something like “Let’s Jackie Chan each other.”

The vocals are “good for a comedian” but not food for a singer.  This video is just weird.  I’d love to describe it for you, but let’s just say it includes Murphy in an undershirt, Jackson in his pretend-army uniform, a bunch of kids that went to school with Carlton and Will skipping and dancing around, some animated hearts, birds and musical notes, some shifts from black and white to color, and some half-hearted dancing which includes Murphy doing some of Jackson’s moves and a lot of exaggerated head nodding.

Like I said, worst video ever.  And further proof that Einstein knew what he was talking about.  Do what you’re good at, or you might just look stupid.

Follow The Fat Pastor on Facebook
Follow @FatPastor on Twitter

1 Comment

Filed under Media

Tagged as , ,

October 10, 2011 · 11:45 pm

Miss Representation

The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any. (Alice Walker)

The trailer below begins with this quote.  It reminds me of an anecdote I heard in seminary.  I don’t remember the exact details, so I cannot properly attribute the story.  My professor said (something like), “C.S. Lewis once said that, ‘Man’s greatest sin is pride.’ In other words, it is believing that being ‘made in the image of God’ is equal to that of being God.  This might be true, but another theologian said, ‘The greatest sin of man might be pride.  But the greatest sin of woman is lack of pride.'”

The video is about eight and a half minutes long.  It is worth watching.  Make no mistake, this is not a girls issue.  It is not a liberal issue. It is a human issue.  The objectification of women is damaging to both boys and girls.  Treating anyone as less than a precious child of God does harm.  It is the act of ignoring what is fundamentally true of all people: That we are ALL created in God’s image.

So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27, NRSV)

This is an issue that I’ve written about before in my blog Princess Paradox.  As a father of two daughters, I obviously have a lot of interest in how the media will affect their lives as they grow up.  As power as the media is, it is not more powerful than a loving relationship.  The movie is a warning.  It can help provide  a sense of urgency, and a better understanding of what we’re up against. It cannot be an excuse.  It is my duty as a father to make sure that my daughters know that they are smart, strong, courageous people that were created in the image of God.

I hope you take the time to watch this and go to the Miss Representation website to learn more.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

Tagged as , , , ,

May 1, 2011 · 7:54 am

The Princess Paradox

After writing a blog about the Royal Wedding, which I called “materialistic pornography,” I decided I should clear a few things up.  I read a few debates on FB and understood the points of all those that were critical of my post.  I decided a long time ago to not engage in long-running online debates with people on this blog, so I am not going to address anything in particular (Although the assertion of one critic that the royals used “their own money” to pay for the wedding made me smile.  I’m not sure how we define what “their own money” is- and neither does the NY Times.) 

The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with the kind of people Will and Kate are.  It had nothing to do with their philanthropic efforts.  It really didn’t even have anything to do with the exact amount of money that was spent – or the source of that money.  My point was this: things like the Royal Wedding, and especially the way the American media portrays it, contribute to the princess mythology that girls are drenched in from birth.

I can spend the next few paragraphs explaining the princess mythology, but instead I’ll share with you a conversation I had last night with my four-year-old daughter. 

“Am I a princess, Daddy?”

I resisted the temptation to just say, “Yes, of course you are.”  Instead I asked her, “What does it mean to be a princess?”

“It means you have lots of pretty dresses.”  Okay – this was her first response to defining what a princess is.  By this definition my daughter is a princess.  She has a lot of pretty dresses.  And I love them all.  I love seeing her in them.  I love watching her twirl her skirts.  I love the joy and confidence she exudes when she wears them.  I love the look on her face when she opens up a gift and finds a pretty dress and she exclaims, “Thank you, I love it.”  I love that she would wear a pretty dress every day of her life if we let her because she knows in her heart that she is, in fact, a princess. 

I have to insert here that this conversation took place while my daughter was wearing one of her favorite pretty dresses.  It’s her “ballerina dress.”  It is pink and has a wide flowing skirt made of touling that twirls when she spins.  She had on a white sweater and a pink overcoat and had a big pink flower in her hair.  And I was wearing a sportcoat and a pink tie.  We were on a date, and were heading to the ballet to see – yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy in this – Cinderella.  And she loved every second of it. Afterwards she met the dancer that played Cinderella, and I now have a new favorite dancer.  I was moved to tears several times during the night while I watched my daughter’s face light up.

But here’s the problem – if the feminine ideal is to be a princess, and being a princess is defined by “having lots of pretty dresses,” where does it stop?  How many pretty dresses is enough to be considered a princess?  And does having lots of pretty dresses define happiness?  I can say with confidence that to my daughter, there is more.  She is kind and compassionate and appreciates what she has.  On our way to the theater we got a little turned around, and for a few tense moments I wasn’t exactly sure how to get there.  She sensed my stress and told me, “It’s okay Daddy, even if we don’t get to the theater, I still had a great time because I’m with you.”  So I feel good about my daughter, the princess.  But even so, here is more of that conversation:

“So, princesses have lots of pretty dresses.  What else?”  I waited, then asked, “Are princesses smart?”

“No, they are beautiful.” 

“Are princesses brave?”

“Yes – but well, sort of.”

“What do you mean, they are sort of brave?”

“Well, princesses wait for Prince Charming to come and rescue them from evil witches and monsters and stuff.”

And here is the princess paradox.  My daughter is a loving, compassionate, intelligent and articulate little girl.  She is smart and brave and beautiful.  She is a princess.  Not because she has a lot of pretty dresses – but because of who she is inside.  She is a princess because she should be honored and adored, and I pray someday she finds someone who loves her as much as I love her mother.  She is a princess, but I do not want her to ever think for even a second that she has to wait for Prince Charming to come and rescue her from monsters and stuff.

There are plenty of monsters in this world, and real monsters are a much bigger threat to my daughter then watching the Royal Wedding.  When those monsters rear their ugly heads, I pray my daughters will have the strength, courage, and confidence to defend themselves and rely on God, family and friends – not wait for Prince Charming.

Maybe the Royal Wedding is just a moment to escape.  Maybe it is just a chance to live in a fairy tale.  Maybe it is just a celebration of two young people who fell in love and want to help make the world a better place.  Maybe Kate is the kind of princess my daughter can aspire to be – I have no idea, and frankly I don’t care.  I have bigger dreams for my daughter than anything that was on TV this week.  I have bigger dreams for her than anything Disney can package and market.

I want my daughters to know how much they are loved.  I want my daughters to know that they are smart and brave and beautiful.  I want my daughters to be strong like my Aunt.  I want my daughters to have faith like my mother.  I want my daughters to be passionate like my sister.  I want my daughters to be kind like my grandmother. 

What turned me off about the Royal Wedding wasn’t so much the wedding itself, but its place in the greater princess myth.  It is a story that is told over and over by our culture.  Disney, celebrity news, tabloids, commercials, and our surrounding culture drown our girls into believing this myth.  The tell them why they are princesses, and most of it is a lie.  My daughters are princesses – not because of anything they own or buy or because of anything that is marketed to them.  They are princesses for this reason:

They are princesses because they are daughters of princesses.  They are princesses because they are daughters of the King of Kings.

4 Comments

Filed under Media

Tagged as , ,

April 29, 2011 · 4:16 pm

The Royal Wedding

I watched about 15 minutes of the Royal Wedding.  Afterwards, I felt like I needed a shower.  There was something about it that just made me feel dirty.  Let me apologize up front to those of you who loved watching it.  If it is your thing, then fine.  I know, respect, and love lots of people who watched.

I had trouble putting my finger on exactly what it was that bothered me so much.  At first I kept thinking of this Eleanor Roosevelt quote:

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.

I think there is something to this.  Celebrity news makes my skin crawl.  I like to watch the Oscars because I like movies.  I don’t like the red carpet. I like American Idol.  I do not care if Paula Abdul is in rehab or not.  I love to watch sports.  I’m not interested in Giselle and Tom.  But I realized that there is something more real that is bothering me about the adoration of the Royal Wedding.  To me, it just seems like materialistic pornography.

Think of all the things that are wrong about pornography.  It creates a false sense of reality.  It perpetuates the subjugation of women.  It objectifies bodies in an overtly graphic way.  It manipulates reality and gives people fantastic images that real life cannot live up to.  It draws men in with a point-of-view image that creates a false sense of invitation to sexual elation.  It poisons other real-life relationships.  It is a multi-billion dollar industry based on defiling sexuality – which is a God-given gift.

Those are all the things I found distasteful about the Royal Wedding.  The whole thing is based on this fairy-tale image of what a perfect life can be, and it is wrapped in pomp, circumstance, and over-the-top luxury.  It presents an image of happiness that is beyond the imagination of anyone.  Think of the opulence, extravagance and expense that went into the wedding.  It drew people in with the false sense of invitation.  It was a voyeuristic look at what it is like to be enormously wealthy.  Watching this sort of event sets up  an ideal for life that is unrealistic and antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It was a multi-million dollar affair based on taking God’s gift – a marriage – and turning into a celebration of worldly luxury.  Oh, and they all get great big fancy titles to boot.

Why don’t more people recognize this for what it is?  Few have trouble seeing pornography for what it is – a relationship-destroying temptation.  Why don’t we see this sort of luxury in the same way?  Americans use and consume and waste and strive to acquire more and more status, money and power.  Materialism is a part of the American Dream.  It is what we are all supposed to be striving for.  So we gather around this orgy of opulence.  We are fascinated by this graphic display of luxury and wealth, and I can’t help but wonder, “Would Jesus be at the Royal Wedding? ”

And if  you think this Royal Wedding doesn’t affect real people – that it’s just entertainment and no one really takes it seriously, consider this:

  • Kate and William’s wedding is estimated to come in at $35 million.
  • The median US household income is $52,000 (in 2008, according to US census bureau)
  • 13% of Americans live under the poverty level. (in 2008, according to US census bureau)
  • The average cost of a wedding in the US is $24,000.  This does not include engagement ring of honeymoon (according to costofwedding.com)
  • The average age for a woman at her first marriage is 25.9 years in 2009, according to psychology today)
  • The median income for a woman at 25 years old is $19,000 (in 2003, according to US Census bureau)

Why do people spend so much on weddings?  Because they have these images for what they want.  We wrap little girls in images of princesses and tiaras, horse-drawn carriages and flowing white veils.  They are engrossed in materialistic pornography for their entire life and then grow up to spend half their income or more on a ceremony that is supposed to be about love.  Watch an episode of Bridezillas or Say Yes to the Dress and tell me people don’t have an over-inflated image of what a wedding is supposed to be (and it has little to do with God).

To be fair, I am writing this with my own wedding in my rear-view mirror.  It was an extravagant wedding.  It was an amazing day, and it was a gift from parents that wanted the best for me and my wife.  I also write this with my daughters’ weddings in front of me.  Who knows what I will want or be willing to pay when my girls are married.

My point is simply this: things like the Royal Wedding create a standard – an image – that is impossible to reach.  It creates a model of happiness that is based on little more than material wealth.  Jesus calls us to more.

1 Comment

Filed under Media

April 6, 2011 · 5:08 pm

Star Wars the Musical

This is, without a doubt, the greatest thing I have ever seen on the interwebs.

There are six parts, and each is about 15 minutes.  To be honest, I haven’t watched it all yet, but so far it is awesome.  It combines clips from the movie, a few decent singers, music from popular musicals, and an impressive use of sweatpants and sweatshirts. The videos were supposed to be embedded into this blog, but for some reason that is not working.  So I just included the six links that will take you directly to a musical that took place “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…”

Act One

http://vimeo.com/22019730

http://vimeo.com/22019808

http://vimeo.com/22019890

Act Two

http://vimeo.com/21995764

http://vimeo.com/21995630

http://vimeo.com/21995539

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

Tagged as

November 11, 2009 · 3:33 am

Happy 40th Birthday, Big Bird and friends!

Big-bird

Today was the beginning of the 40th season of Sesame Street.

My daughter and I were watching Sesame Street together today.  This show, after 40 years, remains far and away my favorite kids show.  I loved it when I was a kid, and I actually enjoy watching it with my daughter now.

My strongest memory from the Street as a kid was when the grownups finally saw Snuffy.  I felt so bad for Big Bird for years as no one took him seriously.  He knew that snuffleupagus was real.  I knew he was real, and I felt Big Bird’s pain when no one believed him.  Today my daughter and I watched as Big Bird decided he was going to migrate to the rain forest.  As he was walking down the street, he started saying goodbye to everyone.  All of his friends were shocked that he was leaving, but he decided that the rain forest would be the perfect place for him to live.  As the “goodbyes” continued, I felt myself getting a little sad. Saying goodbye to Big Bird is like saying goodbye to a longtime friend.  Wondering if this was effecting Ellie like it was effecting me, I called her name.  She turned around, and the tears were streaked down her face.  I called her to me, and she crawled up on my lap.   “Are you sad?” I asked her. “No,” she said through her tears. “It will be okay,” she said and forced out a chuckle that sounded a lot like a sob.In the end Big Bird decided to stay.  He decided that the rain forest would be a neat place to visit, but he hadn’t realized that moving there would mean he couldn’t have playdates with Elmo, or have Cream of Birdseed soup at Hoopers whenever he wanted.  When he announced that he would stay, Ellie burried her head in my chest and gave me a huge hug.  Her hug left a wet spot on my shirt. I doubt that episode will be Ellie’s lasting memory of Sesame Street, but so many have one (the death of Mr. Hooper, the marriage of Luis and Maria are a couple – I’d love to hear yours). For forty years Sesame Street has educated kids about numbers, letters, friendship, vocabulary, shapes, and many other things while never talking down to them.  It has been entertaining and, with the possible exception of Elmo’s World, never annoying.  It is a show I loved when I was little, and a show I continue to love as an adult. Happy Birthday Sesame Street.  Share with me your memories – favorite characters – favorite sketches – favorite songs.

Here is a video of Snuffy being discovered by the adults:

And here is why this show is still great:

8 Comments

Filed under Media

Tagged as , ,