Jun 24 2007
CNN’s Whole Foods Hatchet Job
I really can’t let this stunningly misguided CNN gallery/article about shopping at Whole Foods linked from Digg.com pass without comment. Why is it that, when evaluating something like Whole Foods, or a Toyata Prius, or whatever, these products and services are subjected to the sort of stark cost/benefit analysis that would never be used in evaluating, say, a new Porshe or a big screen T.V.? Beyond that, the article makes some pretty bizarre assumptions about what people are shopping for, and why, when they shop at a place like Whole Foods.
The article begins with one of my all-time least favorite rhetorical slights of hand: the condescending use of quotation marks in lieu of any actual argumentation. It describes Whole Foods as a, “chain of ‘healthy’ supermarkets.” Oh, SNAP!
Let’s examine this “article” further…
Again, from the article: “But not everything at Whole Foods is all that wholesome. And buying there could cost you a lot more than at other supermarkets.” STOP THE PRESSES! It’s almost as if people are willing to pay more for something that they believe to be of greater worth. Maybe I’ll pitch CNN my forthcoming article about how you can get coffee much, much cheaper than at a specialty coffee shop if you just drink the free institutional food service crap you can get for free at any office. Geez, these “coffee shops” and their so-called “coffee!” What a scam!
“Whole Foods offers only a limited supply of local produce.” Uh… OK. Has some claim been made that all of Whole Foods’ produce is local? When there’s local stuff in season, my local store seems to have it in stock, and when there’s not, they don’t.
“Just because you are in a Whole Foods, don’t think that everything you see on the shelves is healthful.” Again, does anyone think this?
“…if Whole Foods didn’t stock at least some junk food, you’d have to make a stop at another store – burning more gas to get your chips.” My Whole Foods has an entire isle of chips and assorted other unhealthy crap. Is this unusual?
“..organic produce, which is grown without pesticides, costs 20 percent more on average than the store’s conventionally grown produce.” You don’t say. Also of note, a bottle of 2001 Hess Collection Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon costs more than a bottle of Night Train. If you consider the greater quality of the former item worth the extra cost, you should purchase it, if not don’t.
“However, you will pay plenty for stuff you won’t find elsewhere – heirloom arugula, Icelandic low-fat yogurt and organic frozen chicken potpies.” See above.
“The store diligently lists the ingredients that go into its meat loaf and macaroni and cheese, but it doesn’t provide nutritional information on any of its in-store prepared foods.” Do any restaurants have to do this? I’ve certainly never been presented with such information at say Pizza Hut. Why is buying a piece of Pizza that was prepared at Whole Foods any different? I believe that only pre-package/prepared foods are required to have nutritional labels, right?
“The “green” soaps and detergents may be less harmful to the environment (because they have no phosphates), but they don’t necessarily remove the dirt any better than Tide or Cascade.” Wow, that sucks–It sounds like the only winner here is the environment! Oh, wait… I guess that’s OK.
I guess, sarcasm aside, that what I’m missing here about this article is that it seems to imply that Whole Foods is pulling the wool over its customers eyes about all this stuff, but the idea that people are willing to pay a bit more for food that’s higher quality, organic and/or responsibly produced is precisely the underlying idea behind the chain–and it’s never to my knowledge (and I shop there pretty regularly) claimed otherwise.
Jun 22 2007
Degree Granting vs. Accreditation
Vermont’s Center for Cartoon Studies recently announced that it will now be offering MFA degrees–a achievement for which I congratulate them heartily. Much of the reporting on the event, and discussion thereof, though, has conflated two separate but related concepts: degree granting, and accreditation. I myself made the same mistake when I first heard this news a while back from someone at the school, so for the sake of clarification, here’s the deal:
The school has been granted “approval from the State of Vermont Department of Education Board to award Master of Fine Arts (MFA) Degrees.” This means that they can confer MFA degrees–this is something that is granted by the state.
Accreditation is something else. Accreditation in the U.S. is granted by a private organization, usually The Council for Higher Education Accreditation–although, in the case of CCS it would likely be The National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD). This accreditation is not the granting of a legal status by any government institution; however being accredited is sometimes a requirement for getting grants and can affects transfer credits between schools, etc. While most degree-granting schools are also accredited, it’s not unusual for a new institution, or one whose curriculum doesn’t fit nicely into previously established standards, to be degree-granting but not accredited–certainly CCS fits into both categories.
Confusion-aside, congrats!
Jun 21 2007
There’s a Whole Lot of M.O.D.O.K. Going On.
Head on over to The Pulse to check out an article they’re running there by me all about MODOK, in which I examine the character’s newound semi-ironic poplarity among mainstream readers and indie hipsters alike. Also included are some excerpts from James Sturm’s super-rare tribute to “The Rhino,” a few tidbits from The Journal of Modok Studies, and interviews with both J.O.M.S. author Robert Newsome and Kirby scholar Dr. Craig Fischer. Here’s a bit of the article–link at the bottom goes to the full thing posted at The Pulse:
There’s a whole lot of M.O.D.O.K. going on.
George Bush’s approval ratings may be in the pits, but M.O.D.O.K.’s cultural cache has never been better. Ten years ago, if you’d asked your average fanboy who M.O.D.O.K. was, you’d have been met with a blank stare, but these days you can’t swing a dead cat in your local comics shop without hitting some kind of M.O.D.O.K.ery. This once obscure Marvel villain, spawn of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee from a 1967 issue of Tales of Suspense, is now the cock of the walk in the Marvel universe, featured in the recent All-M.O.D.O.K. Ultimate Avengers issue, in which the entire Avengers team become “M.O.D.O.K.s”; starring in his own miniseries, M.O.D.O.K.’s Eleven; getting off one of the bawdiest gags in Marvel’s history in their recent holiday special; and even appearing as a Marvel Legends “build-a-figure,” available only as a piece-by-piece collectable, packed in, one appendage at a time, with other figures.
M.O.D.O.K.’s newfound stardom isn’t confined to the hallowed halls of your local “Android’s Dungeon” comics shop, though. Wandering the isles of indy comics festivals like SPX or MoCCA these days, it’s not unusual to overhear alt-comics hipsters expound upon the virtues of M.O.D.O.K. with the same studied reverence with which they discuss the latest offerings from Top Shelf, Fantagraphics and Drawn and Quarterly. M.O.D.O.K.ery has even oozed out of the seedy world of comics nerddom into the (relatively) mainstream world of animation: The Toonami series Megas XLR features an obvious M.O.D.O.K. homage (albeit one with the face of Bruce Campbell) and Disney has even gotten in on the act with their own faux-DOC., Technor, from their series Teamo Supremo.
Jun 20 2007
“Masters” Exhibit Fallout
For decades, comics enthusiasts and practitioners have been complaining, Rodney Dangerfield-style that the art form doesn’t get the respect it deserves. Among the many standard grouse formats is the “museum grouse,” which goes a little like this: “Museums will put some Roy Lichtenstein riff on a Kirby panel on the wall and everyone goes apeshit for it, but why won’t they put the actual Kirby stuff on display?!”
Well, guess what–“they” finally did, most notably in the recent high-profile Masters of American Comics exhibit. And what was the reaction of the comics community?
Bitching and complaining.
I was just checking out the contents of the new, and very cool, comics magazine, Comics Comics, and noted that in it, “Dan [Nadel] has some bones to pick with the Masters of American Comics show.” I’m guessing this won’t be a glowing review.
Last week, I received the most recent issue of The International Journal of Comic Art, which contained what was apparently intended to be a point/counterpoint sort of thing, but since both reviewers didn’t like the exhibit it was really just “counterpoint/counterpoint.”
The Comics Journal‘s R.C. Harvey hasn’t quite weighed in fully as of issue 282’s introductory essay, but we’ll see what the second half brings when #283 arrives. (I get my issues along with my monthly comics, so I’m guessing everyone probably has gotten this issue but me.)
Folks more on the P.C. tip complained about the lack of women in the exhibit.
Even cartoonist Art Spiegelman, who helped put the exhibit together, and was himself included in it, eventually found fault with it and withdrew his work from it.
I remember discussing this exhibit with a prominent comics scholar at last year’s SPX who was, needless to say, kvetching about it, and asking him what he would have included to make for a better show. His advice for the Masters of American Comics exhibit, only half-jokingly: all European cartoonists. Quoth Charlie Brown: Good grief!
So, what’s the point of my grousing about all this grousing? I’m not exactly sure–certainly not that a major exhibit of comics art should be above reproach simply because it’s… well, a major exhibit of comics art. But I do wonder, though, if we of the comics community might heed a bit of old Southern wisdom regarding the longterm and sustained progress of our art form into the realm of “respectable” art: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. (Although, as the character Woody once remarked on Cheers, you can catch the most flies with a dead squirrel.)
Recent Comments