Day 22 - Confusing Marketing

Marketing departments spend many hours grappling over packaging design to make sure that their product catches your eye.  They develop a catch phrase that they hope will positively affect your purchasing decision; five words or less in which they can convince you that you cannot live without this item.  Lately I’ve spotted some of these phrases that make me think ‘many hours’ is being generous, and that perhaps they didn’t grapple so much as have an early morning epiphany that really should have been rethought once the veil of sleepiness had worn off.

For example, Brut Cologne declares proudly, “It smells like a man.”  This seems like a self-defeating slogan to me.  The fact that he smells like a man is the very reason I am attempting to purchase cologne.  So that he smells good, and no longer like a man.

Today in the store, there was a giant sign hanging over some cleaning products with the enticing phrase, “As Seen on TV.”  How is this a selling point?  I see lots of things on TV, most of which I don’t want happening in my home.  Hurricane Irene has dominated the airwaves for days, but I don’t think it’s a clever marketing reference for ceiling fans.  Or even generators.

I saw a bag of potato chips that displayed proudly, “New Bag Size.”  Does that mean it’s bigger, or smaller? I didn’t have one of the old bags with me for comparison.  Not that it would have mattered.  They didn’t claim to be supplying me with more chips…just a different sized bag.  For all I could tell, they meant that they had made the bag larger for my gripping convenience.  Or maybe they made it smaller so that the usual large empty chasm of bag at the top of my chips was eliminated.  Either way, it did not entice me to shell out the three dollars and ninety nine cents.

And I saw a book on the stands that touted, “First Time in Print.”  At some point, that’s all of the books.  Was there really not one thing within that book that they found interesting?  Of all of the things that they could think of to sell me on reading this novel, they settled for ‘We’ve Put It On Paper Now.’  What was it before it was in print that they feel ‘in print’ is an improvement?  I suppose the convenience of not having to call the author and get a blow by blow of his story idea is a plus, but I wasn’t aware that this was an option.  Perhaps I’m shopping wrong.

I spotted this slogan on a can of Campbell’s soup: “Great for Cooking.”  Well, it’s soup.  I think most people already figured out that it’s great for cooking.  In fact, it’s any other use that has me stumped.  Maybe they should list THOSE things.  “Great for Pipe Bomb Making.”  NOW you’ve got my attention.

And on the packaging of my baby food, it says “Good for Babies.”  Same problem.  I already knew that use.  It’s conveniently right in the name…BABY food.  But I suppose I’m glad that it is food that is good for my baby since I will be feeding it to him.  I mean, it’s not called ‘good-for-baby food’, so I appreciate the reassurance.  Maybe the ‘not-good-for-baby baby food’ product is in a section of the store that I have overlooked.  I’ll be more careful from now on.

Day 21 - Diseased Family

As a new mother, visits to the doctor are frequent. He has scheduled visits every six weeks, and he has unscheduled visits every time I think that something might be going horribly wrong such as a change in eating habits, sleeping patterns, or a whimper that didn't sound exactly like his last whimper. And while I realize that the fact that the receptionist at the doctor's office recognizes my voice without the aid of caller ID might be a warning sign of overkill, I simply don't care. I am that mother.

Also as a new mother, I am inexplicably paranoid about things that may be germ-ridden coming into contact with my son. I don't boil his pacifier every time it hits a surface other than his mouth, but I also don't deny myself the urge to keep his environment a little bit sterile. Since doctor's offices are riddled with sick people, I usually pick a seat as far away from others as possible. At today's appointment, after I was seated with the baby in my lap, a woman plopped down in the seat next to me and began parenting her two unruly children from the safety of her seat. “Isaac, stop that.” He didn't. “Ruth, honey, don't.” She did. Given the woman's overly voluptuous situation, I was fairly certain that she was not about to stand up to control her children. Or escape a fire. But the children were destroying the office at a safe distance from my baby, so I was satisfied to listen to her ineffectual demands. Especially when they ineffectually 'came here now'.

Eventually though, as children will do, they discovered that there was a baby and came over to touch him. Luckily, the armchair mom also recognized what her little incubators were about to do and explained to them that they could not touch the baby because they were sick. She put a super-plus sized arm-barrier between the baby and the children. I was uncomfortable about her arm being in my lap, but was more uncomfortable with her kids wiping their snot on my baby, so I didn't complain. The children backed off and went over to stand on the other side of Mommy when the little girl noticed something in Mommy's mouth. “I want a piece of your candy,” the girl understandably demanded. “It's not candy, honey. Mommy has a sore throat.”

Are you kidding me?

Day 20 - HypnoWhat?

I read an interesting article in the news today. Not interesting as in informative, but interesting in the way an exotic animal is interesting, in which you stare at it trying to identify its strange parts. Apparently, there is a new birthing philosophy called HypnoBirthing. To start, they have changed the names of all of the painful aspects of birth. Labor is called birthing, contractions are called surges, and pain is called pressure. I am flummoxed by this country's obsession with changing the names of things to make them sound better. Shakespeare said “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” in the 1500s. Who are these people sitting around saying, “So true. But let's call it a floral firework instead anyway because that War of the Roses thing really ruined the name”? Labor hurts, even if you call it birthing. And in my hospital room, we called the whole thing birthing. Know why? Because it was already called that. And contractions, the most painful aspect of birthing, are painful no matter what you call them. In fact, if anyone had insisted that I refer to the pain wrenching my body as a surge, I would have been looking for something to hurl across the room. Not to mention that 'surge' is something I try to protect my computer from, not something I want to imagine my body doing. And calling the pain 'pressure' is really just being more specific. It's really painful pressure. According to the article, changing the names helps in retraining the mind so as to lead to a state of self-hypnosis. I've never been hypnotized, but I'm fairly certain that trying to remember new names for stuff I already know the name for is not the way to get me there.

Know what did take away the pain/pressure during my labor/birthing? An epidural. So, while reading this article, I assumed that these women were taking vocabulary lessons as a substitute for the happy shot. Not so. Apparently, they also have epidurals. So clearly I'm missing something here, and I think what I'm missing is the point. If you've never had a child, I can tell you that there is plenty of information that is more worthy of study and discussion than what you are going to call the various stages of pain during delivery. Like how to feed your child, for example. If you're about to go into labor and you don't know what latching is yet, go ahead and learn THAT vocabulary. That way, when your doctor says, “Is he latching?” you have an answer besides, “I don't know...but there is pressure.”

The article also has a bit of a disclaimer in it. “It does not promise pain-free childbirth.” Really? Even if you learn the vocabulary really, really well? That's disappointing. It seemed like such a promising development.

The article went on to say that the birthing method has gained popularity because of its usage by celebrities. Well, that explains a lot. I wouldn't say that there are not intelligent celebrities, but assuming intelligence based on fame is another aspect of people that baffles me. If there is one thing I don't want celebrity advice on, it's everything I do. No matter what I call it.

Day 19 - In the News

My brother once told me that the difference between an adventure and a vacation is that a vacation is fun while it is happening, but an adventure is fun to talk about later. I see the same distinction in wit versus stupidity. One particularly adventuresome time during my day is during the evening news. And although each time I sit down to watch, I never know what new tidbits I'll be able to make fun of later, there are certain consistencies in stupidity that I have come to rely on.


To start, the words 'should', 'might', and 'could' have no place in journalism, yet they are used generously. “This law could set the civil rights movement back by thirty years.” How incredibly vague and completely impossible to measure. Are there really people sitting around nodding their heads at statements like that? “You know, since the facts he just gave us don't support that conclusion at all, I never would have made that connection. But he may be on to something there. It just could!” I may not have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the general population, but I completely trust in their ability to speculate and overreact all on their own. They don't need media assistance with that particular attribute.

Another word that pops up during the news is 'clearly'. I don't need things pointed out to me that are clear. No one does. That's what the word means. But they are never really using it to point out things that are clear anyway. They use is as a substitute for saying, “If you don't agree with my opinion, this should be evidence that I am right.” It's a sneaky way of being condescending while sounding supportive. “This law is clearly designed to set the civil rights movement back by thirty years.”

A phrase that also gets a lot of use is 'made history'. First of all, it's an annoying phrase since everything that happens is, by definition, making history. But in context, they are trying to add importance to certain events by deeming them historical. Not everything that happens is going to make the history books. Stop pretending it is just because you think it's neat.

Something that I have heard more and more often lately is that the experts are surprised, amazed, or in some way completely taken aback by an event. How is that? Maybe they need new experts. Ones that have enough of a grasp on the situation that they are not constantly astounded by the outcome. Or maybe they should just stop calling them experts. They could be experts-in-training. When they stop being surprised by how things turn out, then they are experts.

Also, I have grown weary of the recaps of various speeches, particularly when the speech is aired immediately proceeding the recap. What is the purpose of recapping something everyone just listened to? If they are concerned with the public's inability to decipher the language, then perhaps they should rethink their usage of valuable air time. While the speech is actually occurring, maybe an infomercial would make a good filler in their scheduling. And what is worse, they don't give a blow by blow paraphrasing of the speech...they interpret it for us. Usually to a degree which leaves me unable to recognize the original speech. And with an overabundance of the word 'clearly'.

Day 18 - Weird History Part I

I watched a news story today about the rebuilding of Haiti, and was, once again, struck by the extreme poverty. I don't know a whole lot about the history of Haiti, but I do know that they were under control of the French, and in an amazing slave revolt, the people were able to defeat the French and claim ownership of their own land. I even heard on one news program that the reason that Napoleon sold Thomas Jefferson the Louisiana Purchase at such a low rate was because this devastating revolution in Haiti caused him to want to withdraw from the hemisphere altogether. Now that's a victory. A large part of the poverty problem, however, comes from what happened after that revolution. France demanded retribution for property damage caused by the war.

What I want to know is, who was the sales genius from France that sold that idea? Haiti won the war. Hands down. Yet somehow, someone convinced the victors that they had to pay an exorbitant amount of money to the losers. What could they possibly have threatened them with? “If you don't pay up, we will lose a war with you again.” Did it really not occur to anyone to say no? Granted, the people had been slaves, and were uneducated. They probably had not spent a lot of time brushing up on their negotiation skills. Still, they obviously were aware of what unfair treatment entails. They won a war to prove it.

Even if the erstwhile slaves had not been able to find a way not to pay this money to the intimidating French, why did they continue to pay year after year after year? The debt was not paid until 1947...over 100 years later. Surely during that time someone must have thought, “You know what? This sucks.”

Next time the French criticize the US for foreign policy, someone ought to remind them of the population that they brought to its knees simply because they could.

Day 17 - Right of Way

When I went to the grocery store today, I only needed one item, so instead of joining the flowing mass of customers heading straight back toward the produce, I rebelled and cut across the front of the store near the cash registers. An oncoming woman with a full grocery cart turned her cart directly in front of me, looked at me as if startled, and stopped. Then she glared at me and continued to get into line, clearing up the path in front of me. So I had to wonder, who had the right of way in this situation? Generally, when walking, I assume that standard driving rules apply, and that I have a right to be offended and judgmental when others do not follow these guidelines. We walk on the right-hand side of the aisle or hallway, and if we are turning, we don't do it in front of people lest they walk into us. But she had clearly been thrown by my presence there. Did not following standard produce-first grocery protocol equate to something akin to turning the wrong way down a one-way street? The area in which I was walking was clearly wide enough for bi-directional walking, but was I the only one daft enough to think that roominess equals justifiability?


I decided to experiment a little bit with my new-found grocery etiquette knowledge, and walked directly to the back of the store. I then walked the exact opposite direction down the back of the store, and up the front again. Luckily, I escaped without injury. I am, however, slightly concerned with my right to shop in that store again. I have also begun to question the validity of motor-powered shopping carts.

Clearly, there are exceptions to the 'walk like you are driving' scenario I so wrongly assumed we all follow. But then, I should have recognized the signs long ago. After all, in my past I have fallen victim to those people who congregate in a hallway and refuse to move no matter what is coming toward them. I have seen first-hand the tendency of two people walking side-by-side refuse hallway passage to the person walking solo in the opposite direction. And then there are the doorway lingerers...those seemingly destination-bound people who suddenly find themselves unable to continue through a doorway due to the massively important realization that they may not actually need to go in that direction after all. And, of course, the door lingerers are usually spotted by the people who already are, or desire to be, the people who congregate in the hallway. In the end, I suppose it isn't any wonder that these people who do not know how to walk down a hallway and through a door become confused and territorial when trying to navigate the complexity of a supermarket.

Day 16 - Random Stupid

Sometimes I come across really funny examples of stupidity, but I can't write about them because they are funny all on their own. No explanation or discourse is needed. But I've jotted some of them down for you.

I was watching a reality show in which a couple took a special trip to Hollywood and they were visiting an area where many Hollywood stars had put their footprints in cement. The couple kept standing in the famous footprints stating, “He had big feet...oh, he has big feet” over and over again. The couple were dwarfs.

I saw this sign on the door of a construction site: “Caution! Do Not Enter! Push to open.”

An anchorwoman on the evening news did this bizarre math: “This warehouse is designed to house a million books, but with an estimated 150 million books having been written, they will need dozens of these warehouses to complete their project.”

My mother-in-law went through the drive-through at McDonald's and a voice asked her if she would like to try their new strawberry smoothie. She said she would. The employee replied, “I'm sorry, we're out of those.”

I bought a gift card with the denomination printed clearly on the front of the card and the cashier handed me a gift receipt. “What's this for?” I asked. “It's for you to give to the person you're buying this for and they won't know how much you spent unless they go to return it.”