Sesame Street Introduces Poor Muppet To Teach About Poverty (Sponsored by Wal-Mart)

Sesame StreetThe special episode is sponsored by Wal-Mart. Ain’t that a kicker? Gabriela Resto-Montero writes in the NY Daily News:

There’s a new kid on the block on “Sesame Street.” The long-running children’s show will debut a new muppet, Lily, in a primetime special that highlights childhood poverty and hunger, Entertainment Weekly reported.

Lily’s family background reflects the bitter economic reality of the 17 million American children who live without regular access to affordable and nutritious food, the magazine reported. Country music singer Brad Paisley and his wife, actress Kimberly Williams Paisley, will host the hour-long show, titled “Growing Hope against Hunger.”

“We are honored that Sesame Street, with its long history of tackling difficult issues with sensitivity, caring and warmth, asked us to be a part of this important project,” the couple said in a statement. The show will air Sunday, Oct. 9. It is sponsored by Walmart.

Read More: NY Daily News

, , , ,

  • Anonymous

    lol, sponsored by wal-mart…lol

    that’s all there is to say really.

  • Jin The Ninja

    lol, sponsored by wal-mart…lol

    that’s all there is to say really.

    • DITM

      Makes sense. wal-mart have provided employment for many poor people, and offered incredibly cheap produce for the rest. wal-mart have probably been better for poor people than any other company.

      • Another You

        DITM,

        Your assessment of Wal-Mart seems a bit off. 

        Wal-Mart has negatively impacted the poor in so many ways! 

        Rather than telling you what to think, I’ll let you form your own opinions.

        I suggest you check out this documentary:  “Wal-Mart:  The High Cost of Low Prices”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hftb_DVuelo

        Cheers!

        • DITM

          I have seen that. It was published by disinfo after all!

        • DITM

          The simplest thought experiment is: If you were poor and desperately in need of money and food, would you rather be in a town with a wal-mart, or that same town without one?

          • Jin The Ninja

            I’d rather live in a town that still has basic social services rather than those which closed from lack of funding- choked- because of corporate tax incentives that brought ill-mart in the first place.

          • DITM

            Really? You’d rather be unemployed and being handed benefits forcibly gained from taxpayers than actually working for yourself? I guess we have a completely different world outlook then.

          • Jin The Ninja

            lol, again total mischaracterisation of WHAT i said.

            Actually, what i MEANT was that i’d rather be ABLE to access basic services, like medicare, community garden, library, etc. As opposed to relying on wal-mart.

            We do seem to have a very diffferent worldview, but not for the reasons you discern.

          • DITM

            I cannot understand that at all. I’d rather have a job, and be able to pay for whatever it was I wanted, than not have a job, and be stuck with whatever happens to be free.

          • Jin The Ninja

            Again, did i SAY i wouldn’t have a JOB?!? i said i don’t want WAL MART and want to be able to access public services. Try Harder.

          • DITM

            It is going to be much harder to get this job without an easy way to get experience via wal-mart. If you don’t approve of $7 an hour work, then why so cheap? Why not say all work should be $50 an hour? Because you know that all that would mean is mass unemployment.
            You may be able to look down from your throne and say “if wal-mart wasn’t around I’d just get another job” but many people cannot do that, because they aren’t all the skilled genius you claim to be. Many people need low paid entry level jobs for experience and an income.

      • Jin The Ninja

        ‘Employment’ so you mean by union busting, paying min wages with no benefits, consistently in legal battles because of racism/sexism, part-timing full time employees, horrific overseas labour standards, killing mainstreets across america and mom and pop stores, environmental sanctions, horrific architecture, promotion of mass disposable consumerism, corporate power and suppresion of dissent…

        the only way you could reasonably argue that wal-mart “helps” the poor- is by getting paid by wal-mart to say that.

        • DITM

          Or just have a fairly basic economic knowledge. Let’s look at all the claims one by one:
          - Paying min wages. Great. This gives those who are low skilled or finding it difficult to get their first job a quick income and a first rung on the employment ladder. If students were only allowed to aim for jobs that pay $30 an hour or more, then that could well be a death sentence for all of them. Low paying jobs are vital to help the poor.
          - consistently in legal battles because of racism/sexim. Obviously if the legal battles are successful, then this is a legitimate complaint.
          - Part-timing full time employees. That’s illegal, and suspect you don’t have sufficient evidence for it, so your accusation there is libel.
          - horrific overseas labour standards. Especially good. This is probably the best thing about wal-mart. Note that their workers overseas are not forced to work for them, but choose so voluntarily. Thus, wal-mart’s use of sweatshops abroad increases the quality of living for those people. Indeed, if they were forced not to use sweatshops, there would be a massive increase in subsistence farming and child prostitution. This a documented fact, and a major problem that wal-mart helps to alleviate.
          - killing mainstreets across america and mom and pop stores. wal-mart didn’t do this, the American people did this. If the American people liked mom and pop stores enough to keep buying there, they would, but they didn’t. Many mom and pop stores had already been killed off by the introduction of malls, which did a better job for consumers. wal-mart too is seen as preferable by consumers, and so has become dominant. This is just basic progress. You cannot say washing machines are bad because they eradicated the humble mangle.
          - environmental sanctions. This has absolutely nothing to do with helping the poor. If you have environmental beef with wal-mart, that’s a different matter entirely.
          - horrific architecture. Really? We’re getting into personal preference here, and again, the success of wal-mart demonstrates that consumers are by and large fine with the architecture.
          - Promotion of mass disposable consumerism. This is entirely voluntary. If people do not want to buy in to consumerism, they do not have to.
          - Corporate power. Legitimate, but I would place more blame on the government. Wal-mart will do the best with the hand they’re given. If government allows them to do certain things above and beyond the competition, then that is the fault of government.

          Still, much of what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with the poor. Horrific architecture? Environmental sanctions? The key thing is that wal-mart is the biggest employer of the poor nationally, and perhaps in the world. It is only champagne socialists who criticise from a high while doing nothing to alleviate poverty.

          • Jin The Ninja

            Champagne socialist? Hardly. and even if i was, wal-mart is hardly a champion for egalitarianism- and Unionism is a key feature of socialism, so that basically negates your arguement right there.

            Accusing me of libel, when facts are easily checkable online. Wal-mart lost several class actions in the last YEAR alone due to racism and sexism in management.

            Globalisation is a complex idea. Your basic summation by asserting workers ‘volunatarily’ work for sweatshops and it ‘improves their lives’ is dishonest at best and demonstrably false.

            Sustainability and Ethics and their relationship to the community are both integral parts of being part of said community. If you fail on both counts, causally you fail at the relationship between the community and your ‘service.’

            How much does a corporate shill get paid nowadays? more than 30$ an hour?

          • DITM

            Exactly how is the idea that sweatshops improve people’s lives demonstrably false? The alternative work in those countries is often subsistence farming, which is far far worse, and the stats show that when sweatshops open, child prostitution decreases, and when they close, it goes back up again. The people there have their lives significantly improved by sweatshops. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t choose to work in them!

            And for the record, I am unemployed, but trained as a statistician. If ever I get to the point where I have been unemployed for too long, and need to get a job in order to sustain my lifestyle, I am very very glad that wal-mart is there for poor people like me.

          • Jin The Ninja

            Please cite me the globalisation studies which demonstrate a marked improvement in the lives of Multi-national sweatshop workers.

            I am well aware statistics is a vital component of sociology- so if you can demonstrably PROVE your claims using NGO statistics of a country like Indonesia, Honduras, or Mexico which have free trade agreements with the US and a known history of sweatshop labour, i will concede you point.

          • DITM

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Percentage_living_on_less_than_%241_per_day_1981-2001.pngHere's a neat graph for you. East Asia embraced sweatshops, Sub Saharan Africa did not. Results are pretty predictable.

          • Jin The Ninja

            I said cite me a STUDY that PROVED unequivocably that globalisation/ multi national sweatshops has MARKEDLY improved lives and living standards. The graph which obviously takes into account S. Korea, Japan and Singapore demonstrates how high GDP nations have higher avg income than low gdp nations.

            Fail on ALL counts.

          • DITM

            You are now setting up goalposts which you know to be unobtainable. Firstly, a guy online is not going to know every modern economic study. Secondly, studies don’t prove anything, ever. Thirdly, you seem to be slyly accepting that sweatshops improve living standards (Honduras sweatshop workers earn more than quadruple the income of most Honduras citizens? Well that’s not a MARKED improvement in my holier than thou eyes so I’d rather the sweatshops were banned and those wages were slashed). The left-liberal economist Paul Krugman wrote quite a bit about this here: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html

            But it’s a nonsense discussion anyway. OF COURSE sweatshops improved standards of living, because if they didn’t, nobody would choose to work in them. I’m guessing you accept this because you’ve introduced the dishonest wording “markedly” in order to dismiss the presence of improvement. As with wal-mart hiring poor people in the US, this is just a case of self-righteousness and nothing more. “It’s horrible how people work at such low rates in such low quality conditions and buy cheap food with their income, why don’t they just get a high paying office job and eat organic avocados like me?” Not everyone has the same opportunities as you, and attempts to force them to live like you will just rob them of any opportunities they did have. This was noted by UNICEF, when so called “concerned” people like you got a bill passed banning the import of child labor goods, and children in Bangladesh turned to street hustling and prostitution because of it:
            http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/download/sow2of2.pdf
            Great job.

          • Jin The Ninja

            And PS as a statician you know well your methodology and thesis is deeply flawed in using that graph.

            And Just because people live on MORE than 1 dollar a day, it does not mean they are not living in poverty.

      • Anarchy Pony

        If by help you mean capitalize on.

        • DITM

          Yup. wal-mart made the most of the situation. But as they are not permitted to use coercion, they had to offer a reasonable salary and work experience in order to get what they want. By ruthlessly capitalising they have helped millions of poor people get basic employment.

          • Jin The Ninja

            if by basic employment you mean food stamps /medicare + minimum wage.

  • Okarin

    it works against children as they have trouble grasping the concept that the very thing educating them about a good cause is the very entity that caused the problem in the first place

  • Okarin

    it works against children as they have trouble grasping the concept that the very thing educating them about a good cause is the very entity that caused the problem in the first place

  • Mr Willow

    Whoa, whoa, whoa. . . What about Oscar? As Dave Chappelle astutely pointed out: He lives in a fuckin trashcan!!

  • Mr Willow

    Whoa, whoa, whoa. . . What about Oscar? As Dave Chappelle astutely pointed out: He lives in a fuckin trashcan!!

    • SF2K01

      True, and I agree with the Chappelle skit, but honestly? I’m pretty sure he likes it.

  • Anonymous

    True, and I agree with the Chappelle skit, but honestly? I’m pretty sure he likes it.

  • Kromdar

    Jim Henson is rolling over in his grave…

  • Kromdar

    Jim Henson is rolling over in his grave…

  • DITM

    Makes sense. wal-mart have provided employment for many poor people, and offered incredibly cheap produce for the rest. wal-mart have probably been better for poor people than any other company.

  • k-dog

    She should put on an #occupywallstreet t-shirt.

  • k-dog

    She should put on an #occupywallstreet t-shirt.

  • Tabi

    !!!!WAL- MART???? REALLY??? There is nothing so degrading and repulsive to me, who, as a child grew up on Sesame Street (the original Main St) as it shifts into allowing corporate sponsoring and polluting yet more of our innocent minds with ideas of being helpful and community oriented business. What irony!!!

  • Tabi

    !!!!WAL- MART???? REALLY??? There is nothing so degrading and repulsive to me, who, as a child grew up on Sesame Street (the original Main St) as it shifts into allowing corporate sponsoring and polluting yet more of our innocent minds with ideas of being helpful and community oriented business. What irony!!!

  • Another You

    DITM,

    Your assessment of Wal-Mart seems a bit off. 

    Wal-Mart has negatively impacted the poor in so many ways! 

    Rather than telling you what to think, I’ll let you form your own opinions.

    I suggest you check out this documentary:  “Wal-Mart:  The High Cost of Low Prices”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hftb_DVuelo

    Cheers!

  • Another You

    DITM,

    Your assessment of Wal-Mart seems a bit off. 

    Wal-Mart has negatively impacted the poor in so many ways! 

    Rather than telling you what to think, I’ll let you form your own opinions.

    I suggest you check out this documentary:  “Wal-Mart:  The High Cost of Low Prices”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hftb_DVuelo

    Cheers!

  • Anonymous

    ‘Employment’ so you mean by union busting, paying min wages with no benefits, consistently in legal battles because of racism/sexism, part-timing full time employees, horrific overseas labour standards, killing mainstreets across america and mom and pop stores, environmental sanctions, horrific architecture, promotion of mass disposable consumerism, corporate power and suppresion of dissent…

    the only way you could reasonably argue that wal-mart “helps” the poor- is by getting paid by wal-mart to say that.

  • Anonymous

    ‘Employment’ so you mean by union busting, paying min wages with no benefits, consistently in legal battles because of racism/sexism, part-timing full time employees, horrific overseas labour standards, killing mainstreets across america and mom and pop stores, environmental sanctions, horrific architecture, promotion of mass disposable consumerism, corporate power and suppresion of dissent…

    the only way you could reasonably argue that wal-mart “helps” the poor- is by getting paid by wal-mart to say that.

  • UncleB

    Reality Training for what is to come to many in America as her government fritters away the opportunities to turn this around, scrapping over follies that make no real difference! America needs to revive its Thorium fueled nuclear reactors of the LFTR variety, America needs to spend more on Cheap, domestic, energy sources than on military adventures – Solar, Wind, Wave, Hydro, Tidal, Geothermal – all have domestic energy possibilities. America needs to force Corporate/Capitalist powers to release all super-insulation patents, proprietary secrets immediately. America needs to subsidize sustainable, realistically payable, realistically sized homes for Americans and absolutely forbid SUV’s McMansions. America needs a “Fat Tax like Denmark has. America needs to open hunting season, issue “Tags” for drug dealers. America needs to punish “White Collar Crimes” with the noose – a treasonous. America needs to classify tobacco as a narcotic same as heroin, and apply real punishments to users, dealers, even “Fast Justice” in the streets for these offenses. Pot? Same! Poor Muppet’s are a product of a failed Vulture Capitalism. Socialize medicine in the U.S.! Institute free birth control, abortions, for all, or food kitchens for all – either/or ! Shiite, or get off the pot. America! once stood tall, now hiding in the shadows of the Pan-Eurasian Empire rising in the East. Shameful! Teaching little girls how to “be poor” Fuck you. We can do better.

    • Anarchy Pony

      Why wouldn’t some US based energy conglomerate be pushing a thorium reactor then? It still equals a centrally controlled energy source over which they could control access to.

  • Anonymous

    Reality Training for what is to come to many in America as her government fritters away the opportunities to turn this around, scrapping over follies that make no real difference! America needs to revive its Thorium fueled nuclear reactors of the LFTR variety, America needs to spend more on Cheap, domestic, energy sources than on military adventures – Solar, Wind, Wave, Hydro, Tidal, Geothermal – all have domestic energy possibilities. America needs to force Corporate/Capitalist powers to release all super-insulation patents, proprietary secrets immediately. America needs to subsidize sustainable, realistically payable, realistically sized homes for Americans and absolutely forbid SUV’s McMansions. America needs a “Fat Tax like Denmark has. America needs to open hunting season, issue “Tags” for drug dealers. America needs to punish “White Collar Crimes” with the noose – a treasonous. America needs to classify tobacco as a narcotic same as heroin, and apply real punishments to users, dealers, even “Fast Justice” in the streets for these offenses. Pot? Same! Poor Muppet’s are a product of a failed Vulture Capitalism. Socialize medicine in the U.S.! Institute free birth control, abortions, for all, or food kitchens for all – either/or ! Shiite, or get off the pot. America! once stood tall, now hiding in the shadows of the Pan-Eurasian Empire rising in the East. Shameful! Teaching little girls how to “be poor” Fuck you. We can do better.

  • Wanooski

    If by help you mean capitalize on.

  • Wanooski

    Why wouldn’t some US based energy conglomerate be pushing a thorium reactor then? It still equals a centrally controlled energy source over which they could control access to.

  • White013

    I thought almost all of the characters were poor. Seasame street always seemed a little ghettoish.

  • White013

    I thought almost all of the characters were poor. Seasame street always seemed a little ghettoish.

  • DITM

    Or just have a fairly basic economic knowledge. Let’s look at all the claims one by one:
    - Paying min wages. Great. This gives those who are low skilled or finding it difficult to get their first job a quick income and a first rung on the employment ladder. If students were only allowed to aim for jobs that pay $30 an hour or more, then that could well be a death sentence for all of them. Low paying jobs are vital to help the poor.
    - consistently in legal battles because of racism/sexim. Obviously if the legal battles are successful, then this is a legitimate complaint.
    - Part-timing full time employees. That’s illegal, and suspect you don’t have sufficient evidence for it, so your accusation there is libel.
    - horrific overseas labour standards. Especially good. This is probably the best thing about wal-mart. Note that their workers overseas are not forced to work for them, but choose so voluntarily. Thus, wal-mart’s use of sweatshops abroad increases the quality of living for those people. Indeed, if they were forced not to use sweatshops, there would be a massive increase in subsistence farming and child prostitution. This a documented fact, and a major problem that wal-mart helps to alleviate.
    - killing mainstreets across america and mom and pop stores. wal-mart didn’t do this, the American people did this. If the American people liked mom and pop stores enough to keep buying there, they would, but they didn’t. Many mom and pop stores had already been killed off by the introduction of malls, which did a better job for consumers. wal-mart too is seen as preferable by consumers, and so has become dominant. This is just basic progress. You cannot say washing machines are bad because they eradicated the humble mangle.
    - environmental sanctions. This has absolutely nothing to do with helping the poor. If you have environmental beef with wal-mart, that’s a different matter entirely.
    - horrific architecture. Really? We’re getting into personal preference here, and again, the success of wal-mart demonstrates that consumers are by and large fine with the architecture.
    - Promotion of mass disposable consumerism. This is entirely voluntary. If people do not want to buy in to consumerism, they do not have to.
    - Corporate power. Legitimate, but I would place more blame on the government. Wal-mart will do the best with the hand they’re given. If government allows them to do certain things above and beyond the competition, then that is the fault of government.

    Still, much of what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with the poor. Horrific architecture? Environmental sanctions? The key thing is that wal-mart is the biggest employer of the poor nationally, and perhaps in the world. It is only champagne socialists who criticise from a high while doing nothing to alleviate poverty.

  • DITM

    I have seen that. It was published by disinfo after all!

  • DITM

    Yup. wal-mart made the most of the situation. But as they are not permitted to use coercion, they had to offer a reasonable salary and work experience in order to get what they want. By ruthlessly capitalising they have helped millions of poor people get basic employment.

  • DITM

    The simplest thought experiment is: If you were poor and desperately in need of money and food, would you rather be in a town with a wal-mart, or that same town without one?

  • Anonymous

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925

    Champagne socialist? Hardly. and even if i was, wal-mart is hardly a champion for egalitarianism- and Unionism is a key feature of socialism, so that basically negates your arguement right there.

  • Anonymous

    I’d rather live in a town that still has basic social services rather than those which closed from lack of funding- choked- because of corporate tax incentives that brought ill-mart in the first place.

  • Lil Bird

    They should have a Banker puppet to show the kids what a useless manipulative asshole looks like.

  • Lil Bird

    They should have a Banker puppet to show the kids what a useless manipulative asshole looks like.

  • DITM

    Exactly how is the idea that sweatshops improve people’s lives demonstrably false? The alternative work in those countries is often subsistence farming, which is far far worse, and the stats show that when sweatshops open, child prostitution decreases, and when they close, it goes back up again. The people there have their lives significantly improved by sweatshops. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t choose to work in them!

    And for the record, I am unemployed, but trained as a statistician. If ever I get to the point where I have been unemployed for too long, and need to get a job in order to sustain my lifestyle, I am very very glad that wal-mart is there for poor people like me.

  • DITM

    Really? You’d rather be unemployed and being handed benefits forcibly gained from taxpayers than actually working for yourself? I guess we have a completely different world outlook then.

  • Anonymous

    lol, again total mischaracterisation of WHAT i said.

    Actually, what i MEANT was that i’d rather be ABLE to access basic services, like medicare, community garden, library, etc. As opposed to relying on wal-mart.

    We do seem to have a very diffferent worldview, but not for the reasons you discern.

  • Anonymous

    Please cite me the globalisation studies which demonstrate a marked improvement in the lives of Multi-national sweatshop workers.

    I am well aware statistics is a vital component of sociology- so if you can demonstrably PROVE your claims using NGO statistics of a country like Indonesia, Honduras, or Mexico which have free trade agreements with the US and a known history of sweatshop labour, i will concede you point.

  • Anonymous

    if by basic employment you mean food stamps /medicare + minimum wage.

  • DITM

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Percentage_living_on_less_than_%241_per_day_1981-2001.pngHere's a neat graph for you. East Asia embraced sweatshops, Sub Saharan Africa did not. Results are pretty predictable.

  • DITM

    I cannot understand that at all. I’d rather have a job, and be able to pay for whatever it was I wanted, than not have a job, and be stuck with whatever happens to be free.

  • Anonymous

    I said cite me a STUDY that PROVED unequivocably that globalisation/ multi national sweatshops has MARKEDLY improved lives and living standards. The graph which obviously takes into account S. Korea, Japan and Singapore demonstrates how high GDP nations have higher avg income than low gdp nations.

    Fail on ALL counts.

  • Anonymous

    Again, did i SAY i wouldn’t have a JOB?!? i said i don’t want WAL MART and want to be able to access public services. Try Harder.

  • Anonymous

    And PS as a statician you know well your methodology and thesis is deeply flawed in using that graph.

    And Just because people live on MORE the 1 dollar a day, it does not mean they are not living in poverty.

  • DITM

    It is going to be much harder to get this job without an easy way to get experience via wal-mart. If you don’t approve of $7 an hour work, then why so cheap? Why not say all work should be $50 an hour? Because you know that all that would mean is mass unemployment.
    You may be able to look down from your throne and say “if wal-mart wasn’t around I’d just get another job” but many people cannot do that, because they aren’t all the skilled genius you claim to be. Many people need low paid entry level jobs for experience and an income.

  • DITM

    You are now setting up goalposts which you know to be unobtainable. Firstly, a guy online is not going to know every modern economic study. Secondly, studies don’t prove anything, ever. Thirdly, you seem to be slyly accepting that sweatshops improve living standards (Honduras sweatshop workers earn more than quadruple the income of most Honduras citizens? Well that’s not a MARKED improvement in my holier than thou eyes so I’d rather the sweatshops were banned and those wages were slashed). The left-liberal economist Paul Krugman wrote quite a bit about this here: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html

    But it’s a nonsense discussion anyway. OF COURSE sweatshops improved standards of living, because if they didn’t, nobody would choose to work in them. I’m guessing you accept this because you’ve introduced the dishonest wording “markedly” in order to dismiss the presence of improvement. As with wal-mart hiring poor people in the US, this is just a case of self-righteousness and nothing more. “It’s horrible how people work at such low rates in such low quality conditions and buy cheap food with their income, why don’t they just get a high paying office job and eat organic avocados like me?” Not everyone has the same opportunities as you, and attempts to force them to live like you will just rob them of any opportunities they did have. This was noted by UNICEF, when so called “concerned” people like you got a bill passed banning the import of child labor goods, and children in Bangladesh turned to street hustling and prostitution because of it:
    http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/download/sow2of2.pdf
    Great job.

  • justagirl

    LOL!  time to turn that shit off for good.

  • justagirl

    LOL!  time to turn that shit off for good.

21