Why That Huffington Post Whole Foods Article Isn’t Funny.

(For those of you who have not read the article discussed in this post, it can be found here)

I went back and forth on blogging about this because I know it’s going to be somewhat controversial. I don’t enjoy being a buzzkill, I really don’t, but I also don’t like people being duped into thinking crass, poorly written humor is clever or unique.

Now obviously, comedy is subjective. Some people enjoy Larry the Cable Guy, some people own the movie Norbit, and no I don’t mean to equate this particular article directly to those two entities. People have different opinions on what’s funny and that’s swell, but the problem I have with this piece is that so many of my peers who I know have a lot of the same comedic preferences that I possess are linking to it like it’s the funniest thing since lolcats. Well, let me try and explain why I disagree.

First of all, this isn’t some fanboy defense of Whole Foods. I’ve shopped at a Whole Foods maybe 3-5 times in my entire life. I have shopped and love to shop at food co-ops and other health food stores, but the bulk of my grocery shopping is done at places like Safeway. Second: there are plenty of reasons to hate on Whole Foods, chief among them the Tea Party hero and CEO John Mackey, a libertarian who exploits left-leaning sensibilities like sustainability and organic growing for huge corporate profits with the occasional shady practice thrown in here and there for good measure. But lets leave the politics and social issues out of this and instead just focus on author Kelly MacLean’s piece. This is how she begins:

“Whole Foods is like Vegas. You go there to feel good but you leave broke, disoriented, and with the newfound knowledge that you have a vaginal disease.”

Is this comparison humorous? Well, let’s break it down. I’m fine with the joke about how Vegas and Whole Foods will make you poor - it’s not exactly breaking much comedy ground, but it works - but the vaginal disease comment? What is she implying? Is Whole Foods supposed to be “dirty” or “unclean” in the sense that a person who has a STD or STI could be perceived to be “dirty”? Is she making a crude allusion to rape? How does this at all apply to shopping at Whole Foods? Also, by stating “vaginal disease” instead of saying something more gender-neutral like “sexually transmitted disease“ it appears that her perspective is geared towards a female readership. I wonder how that female readership regards MacLean’s implied notion that a woman who goes to Vegas will end up with a “vaginal disease” and should thus be presumed to be irresponsibly promiscuous. Wouldn’t those more versed in feminism than I am (of which a couple of you have linked to this particular article) certainly take issue with such a “sex-negative” comment?

Soon after the article devolves into crass comedic territory:

“The first thing I see is the great wall of kombucha -- 42 different kinds of rotten tea. Fun fact: the word kombucha is Japanese for 'I gizzed in your tea.' Anyone who's ever swallowed the glob of mucus at the end of the bottle knows exactly what I'm talking about.”

Obviously, Kombucha isn’t rotten, it’s fermented, but she’s making a joke and I get that. Kombucha is ripe for comedic deconstruction because of its clear differences and eccentricities - the taste, the live bacteria strains, etc. But gizz? OH MY GOSH HOW FUNNY.  Cause it looks like JIZZ GUYZ. BATHROOM HUMOR NEVER AGES! KELLY TALK ABOUT HOW KALE LOOKS DIARRHEA-COLORED!  CUCUMBER DICK JOKES! WHERE ARE THE CUCUMBER DICK JOKES?! Point being, this is really surface comedy guys, which is fine if that’s your thing, but I know many of you are deeper than this.

MacLean then delves into some really effed-up bullshit about how poor people don’t have allergies or diet issues. (What?):

“I skip this aisle because I'm not rich enough to have dietary restrictions. Ever notice that you don't meet poor people with special diet needs? A gluten intolerant house cleaner? A cab driver with Candida? Candida is what I call a rich, white person problem.
 

Celiac disease - people who risk injury to their intestines by consuming gluten - is estimated affect up to 1 in 105 people in the united states. Millions more may have gluten sensitivity that won’t physically hurt them by eating grains, by will make them feel like shit. I get that gluten-related jokes come at the expense of the expanding gluten-free industry and increased gluten awareness, but to say that it’s a rich white person problem is not true, not funny, and not right. I’m poor as shit and I can’t eat wheat. So are thousands of others, and what is most unfortunate for those who are poor is that they might never get a proper diagnosis.  “Candida” as MacLean fails to elaborate on, is yeast, or yeast infections. It is not a new trend nor a new problem created by Whole Foods or anyone else.

Apparently MacLean is rich enough to afford (albeit not happily) $313 on groceries as she mentions in the last part of the article.  I’ll jump ahead to this section, which also seems to encapsulate MacLean’s overall sentiment that so many of my friends responded to so positively:
 

“A thousand minutes later, I get to the cashier. She is 95 percent beautiful. "Have you brought your reusable bags?" Fuck. No, they are at home with their 2 dozen once-used friends. She rings up my meat, alcohol, gluten and a wrapper from the chocolate bar I ate in line, with thinly veiled alarm. She scans my ladies acidophilus, gives me a pitying frown and whispers, "Ya know, if you wanna get rid of your Candida, you should stop feeding it." She rings me up for $313. I resist the urge to unwrap and swallow whole another $6 truffle in protest. Barely. Instead, I reach for my wallet, flash her a quiet smile and say, "Namaste."
 
Throughout the article MacLean has riffed on the idea that 1) people who claim to be spiritual, mindful Whole Foods shoppers/staff can be just as pigheaded and flawed as everyone else and that 2) Whole Foods’ new-agey atmosphere is ridiculous, overpriced and should be met with scorn. Lot’s of people have said something to the effect of “THIS IS SO TRUE” when sharing the article. My problem with this sentiment isn’t so much that it’s “wrong” but that it’s very poorly executed. I believe it’s poorly executed because it doesn't quite know if it wants to be a "bit" or a first-hand humorous account of one person’s actual trip to Whole Foods. As such as it neither. If it was written as an anecdotal experience with less hyperbole instead of a crude send-up of kombucha tea then I would better understand its point of reference: a regular Whole Foods shopper who one day became fed-up with health food store culture. Instead it reads like a virulent condemnation of a store neither MacLean nor anyone else is required to shop at. Maybe the article was doomed from the start because, well, why is Huffington Post trying to slag off Whole Foods anyway?

 

Which brings me to my next point of contention. I’d expect this article to clean-up with conservative readers who are more likely to already scoff at things like reusable bags, diet cleanses, and organic produce. But why is it such a viral newsfeed hit with the mid twenties/early thirties liberal demographic? Is everyone a self-hating health food shopper? I’m not. I legitimately get pissed at myself when I don’t bring a bag, I don’t secretly hate the cashier for asking me if I need one. I legitimately want to eat broccoli that isn’t sprayed with pesticides (which apparently means I shouldn’t shop at Whole Foods). There's a reason health food stores exist and thrive and there’s a reason stores like Safeway, Food4Less, and Smart and Final thrive. If you don’t like one of those places, you shop at the other. You either care about things like organic food, homeopathic remedies, sustainable practices, or you don’t. If you do, you’re going to spend more money to shop at places like Whole Foods. If you don’t, then you are fine shopping elsewhere for less.

I’m not angry or upset with anyone enjoying and liking this article, nor am I thumbing my nose at you. I'm just baffled by its success. To me it’s a big fat flop. I am not leaving out the possibility that I am the one who just doesn’t get it, but I think many of you may have just wanted to laugh at this article because it was on a site you enjoy and thus you gave it a free pass. If I am wrong I would love for you to tell me why!

The Surface Pro: Gaming Without Limits

 

It's a touch-gaming marvel.

It's a full-HD, PC gaming phenomenon. 

It's a console-enhancing revolution.

It’s an Xbox achievement-grabbing,

Halo-spouting,

Minecraft-between-classing, 

Lighter-than-your-sociology-reader,

On the go, anytime,

Gaming-everything machine.

(and oh yeah, you can do your homework on it too)

The Surface Pro. Gaming without limits.

I do not own the rights to the images above. They are used for mock-up purposes only and will be deleted upon request. Photo credits belong to: wpcentral.com and techradar.com. Created by Jake James
Jakejames510@live.com

Why Fiona Apple's "Werewolf" is the best song of the year

                2012 was year that saw the indie folk reach what will surely be its mainstream pinnacle as the success of Mumford and Sons paved the way for bands like Of Monsters and Men and The Lumineers to permeate radio waves all summer long. Indie folk has been a genre strongly associated with earnest sentiment - one only needs a quick listen to the Fleet Foxes magnificent 2011 release "Helplessness Blues" to experience the overflowing sincerity behind the sweet melodies and arrangements that this sound can produce. With extreme commercial success, however, suddenly that indie folk sincerity seems to be slipping away. The Lumineers' "Ho Hey" was transformed into a commercial jingle for Blue Moon beer, Mumford and Sons were playing any and all music award shows, including that one held over at MTV, and the overexposure to Monsters' "Little Talks" had people who normally don't veer from the top 40 station screaming out "HEY" whenever there was a pause in conversation.
                Commercial success and the changes that go along with are of course inevitable in the music world, but to see a whole subgenre blow up so quickly was surprising and while exposure of a different sound to a wider audience has many merits, there are also plenty of consequences. Whether or not the emotion in these songs was sincere when they were recorded, they are now certified hits and as a result, they don't ring as true or feel as honest as their forbearers like Edward Sharpe's "Home" or Head in the Heart's "Lost in my Mind."  Finding authenticty in 2012 therefore had to be located outside the folk world.
                Thankfully, 2012 was also the year Fiona Apple, never an artist accused of insincerity (or rushing out and album too fast or titled too curtly), put out her first studio album in seven years. While Fiona's vocals have always been the highlight of all her work, her new album "The Idler Wheel" stripped away the more lush arrangements of albums past leaving it exposed with mostly just a piano and her signature sultry voice to defend itself. "Werewolf" embodies this minimalist approach perfectly and exemplifies how less can indeed be more when you are singing about at topic as common as a breakup.  The song is lyrically built on basic metaphors and similes describing the equal responsibility of two parties involved in a split (he was the werewolf, but she was the full moon) and the sorrow of owning up to such incompatibility. Catchy and powerful in its simplicity, the tune is also awash with sincerity, from that fragile pitch in Apple's voice that hides whether she is about to belt out another verse or perhaps burst into tears, to the heartbreaking acknowledgment of "We can still support each other/All we have to do's avoid each other."
                What ultimately defines the song is the sound of children playing in the background that catches you completely off guard when it inexplicably comes into focus two-thirds of the way through. The playful screams of these children add a haunting tinge to the somber melody - reminiscent of the children's voices in Radiohead's "15 Step" - but they also serve to represent the full spectrum of human emotion, from the innocent beginnings of adolescent laughter to the pains of adult experience and reflection.  When Fiona sings "Nothing wrong when/A song ends/In a minor key" juxtaposed on top of the lighthearted cries of youth we realize that while there may be nothing wrong with a sad ending, it doesn't make it any less sad, and perhaps the realization that what's best for us isn't always what makes us happiest is the ultimate sign of what it means to grow up. This sentiment is in complete contrast with the Lumineers' powerhouse "I belong with you, you belong with me" lyric of "Ho Hey" that goes down much easier but seems more like fantasy. Both outlooks pack an emotional punch, but the one that feels most genuine this year is the one that isn't also trying to sell you an orange flavored beer.

                 

Can I get your user name?

I find it bothersome that there’s still an internet dating stigma in the social media obsessed world we live in. Granted, there has been a definite evolution of its image over time; fifteen years ago the mascot for an internet dater was an obese man with Pringles crumbs strewn about his laptop, typing with one hand and petting a dead cat with the other. It’s certainly overcome that extreme representation, to be sure, but it’s still poked fun at quite a bit both in the media and socially among friends. But why?  Can you really differentiate anyone as being “peculiar” or “desperate” for participating in online dating when you consider the amount of electronic correspondence we all participate in, not to mention personal digital details most of us give away freely?

Consider the average facebook profile. It alone reveals more information than one could glean from 10 first dates.  Throw Google into the mix, one can now look up your 400m hurdle time from your JV track meet before you even get coffee together. Public awareness of online dating has also increased a hundred-fold. Primetime commercials for Match.com and eHarmony have become as commonplace as advertisements for Tide. Slave to your strict religious beliefs? With ChristianMingle, Jdate and countless others there’s a site for you too! Sure, some people on these sites are creeper weirdoes, but there were creeper weirdoes at the bar or your work or your gym or wherever people met people before we became addicted to our silly electronic screens.  

Even among people already participating in online dating the stigma still provokes shame. For example, the “What’s the most private thing I’m willing to admit” question on OKCupid is used constantly by site members to help take away some of the embarrassment they feel for using  an online dating profile while at the same time actively using the site. OKCupid, for those of you who aren’t single white or well-off 18-32 year olds living in or close to urban areas, is an extremely popular free dating website. Your dating profile is composed of 10 rather ordinary questions, one of which is the one mentioned above. About 30-40 percent of the profiles I read answer the question like this: “The most private thing I’ll admit? That I’m on a dating website! OMG, like, I CAN’T even believe it, I CAN’T CAN’T CAN’T.” (there’s a bit of hyperbole at the end, but, you get it).

Let’s break down the two things this kind of response suggests.

1) You think you’re too good to be on this site. To this I say, I mean, things can’t be going that great for you dating-wise if you’ve already created an online dating profile, right? You probably aren’t photographed in People magazine holding hands with Ryan Reynolds. You probably don’t have any missed calls from professional athletes. Sure, you could be among the more physically attractive people on the site but you probably have a lot more competition than you think, and, bee tee dubs, you might want to consider that picture your friend tagged you in where you’re taking a shot without the use of your hands more “private” than a simple innocuous dating profile.

2) You think people who use the internet to date are weird. Thanks! Let the judging begin! Here’s something though, no one is walking around at that hip bar on the corner wearing a sandwich board of your OKC profile , it can only be viewed by people who ALSO are on a dating website. Do you think this was all our first choice? Do you think we all said “Well, I could just get that waitress’s phone number and take her out tomorrow if I’m feeling especially lonely.” No. This is the product of necessity, the result of insecurity and past failures and social anxiety. Don’t pretend you aren’t one of us, I don’t care how many carefully cropped pictures of you skydiving or frolicking in a waterfall you have.

Let’s own up to it and get over it. This is the how we relate in this day in age. We facebook. We text. We put hastags in front of words as if we are oblivious to the complete nonsense it will look like to future generations. And sometimes we meet dates off the internet. Is meeting someone without any benefit from the information superhighway a rare occurrence? No, I’m sure it still happens to abnormally confident and/or good-looking people all the time. But for most of us? This is the real world now. We all need to either stop acting embarrassed and become ok with it or wait for one of those EMP pulses to completely knock out the electric grid, ending online dating once and for all.

If that happens, meet me behind the fallen skyscraper on Market street, the one recently abandoned by apocalypse zombies.

 I’ll be the guy in the blue shirt."

pretty much, minus the deadly robot part

new Sufjan

When I die, when I die,
I'll rot
but when I live, when I live
I'll give it all I got

vamanos gigantes!

no