Money Disposal Problem

[I have no idea why the embedded links won’t work. Dear Diary insists on adding itself to the URL, for some strange reason. I’m going to assume it’s a bug that will be worked out, and so leave the links in place for the time being. If you want to see the original article I’m bitching about here, you can cut and paste http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/fashion/thursdaystyles/26CRITIC.html into your browser’s address box, and it should take you to the proper place.]

I like the New York Times. It’s traditionally been the first news site I hit in the morning. It provides coverage that is a bit more in-depth that most of the other popular websites. Granted, it can be a little “left leaning”, but the NYT isn’t nearly as blatant about it as certain other (CNN) news organizations (CNN) are at times (CNN). I’ve discovered a few great sites from links within their stories. I’ve had my mind changed (or at least my opinion seriously shaken) by some of their editorials. And they print a damned good retraction when it’s called for.

Based on this, I will often read articles and editorials on their site that I otherwise would have no interest in whatsoever. Which is what led me to click on Mark it Down and They Will Come last Thursday. Anyhow, who doesn’t like a good story about shopping for bargains?
However, what I read pissed me off so much that I’m still stewing about it a week later. This probably means I need to write about it and get the rant off my chest.

The writer, Alex Kuczynski, starts off with:

I had long been a skeptic of Woodbury Common, the fabled shopping mall in Central Valley, N.Y., which this year celebrates its 20th anniversary. An agglomeration of so-called premium outlets, Woodbury Common posed a contradiction in terms. The word “premium” denotes superior quality, while “outlet” prompts visions of irregular poly-cotton sheet sets and pilling cashmere sweaters. Together they suggest the kind of place where one might find a scuffed Gucci handbag or a rack of dresses marked Famous Label. No thanks.”

I didn’t have trouble with that part. Haven’t we all, at one time or another, been stung by sales or outlets that seemed to promise far more than they delivered? Part of the time it’s the fault of overhype in advertising, and the other part of the time it’s a matter of my wishful avarice getting in the way of reality.

The article continued for a few paragraphs in a similar vein. Too far to travel, too hokey a name. Yup, I’d met a fellow cynic regarding bargain shopping. Granted, she was a savier cynic than I, making fun of minaudières marked down to $2500 from $3600; I had and still have no clue as to what a minaudière is, save the information the article provided (it’s French for “smirk and they come in various shapes, including koala bears). And then, abruptly, I was left flabbergasted.

Ms. Kuczynski can’t resist the allure of a $2,400 floor length green dress marked down to an irresistible $975. It is implied that a small black grosgrain purse with bamboo handles is purchased for $339 (running total $1314). Two vintage wrap dresses at 50% off were also purchased; the price is not given for those so I assume they weren’t impressive enough to list. Ditto the denim jacket that was purchased next. At the very end, Ms. Kuczynski walks out with the only item she had planned to purchase walking in, a pair of shoes marked down 75% to a mere $110 (running total $1424+).

Excuse me, but what pair of wedge heeled black sandals is worth $440? For that matter, what pair of sandals is worth $110? For crying out loud, sandals are shoes with most of the shoe missing!

The article ends with a short list of prices that I suppose are meant to look like bargains: Carolina Herrera linen dresses, $195; Loro Piana cashmere sweaters, $200; a Chanel jacket, $1,400. THESE are bargains? I got a really nice cashmere sweater at Ross Dress for Less for $20 about three years ago. Now THAT’S a bargain. Nobody can see the label when you’re wearing it anyhow.

I reread the article again, trying to make sure that I wasn’t just being dense and being taken in by a modern day Swift. But no, this was no mock proposal on how to prepare and serve infants … this woman was apparently serious about the “deals” she found.

It would seem there’s good money in writing on fashion and style for the New York Times. I have apparently missed my calling. From here on out I think I’m going to be switching to CNN for my morning news. They’re marginally more in touch with reality.

[P.S. Please don’t feel the need to leave me a comment explaining what a “minaudière” is. I have since looked it up, and now understand why I was clueless. To others as clueless as I: knowing that they can be purchased in the shape of koala bears provides absolutely no hint as to their identity whatsoever.]

---

Speaking of CNN, my employer has apparently taken offense at something or another they aired. We have television sets in the company cafeteria and in a couple of the break rooms, and ever since I started working there six years ago they’ve always had the sets tuned to CNN. Starting this week, our sets are now tuned to FoxNews, President Bush’s public apologist department. I’m not particularly surprised, since Fox more closely sympathizes with our corporate officer’s political views. I do miss having my news at lunch replaced with infotainment. Ordinarily during a typical half-hour lunch I’d get a decent overview of the days events. Friday I got non-stop coverage of some guy holed up on the top of a crane. Today I got similar non-stop coverage of houses sliding down a California hill. It irks me that the Dutch were voting on the EU constitution today and Fox didn’t deem it important enough to even mention it. It irks me further that people watch that channel and think that they’ve caught up on all the important happenings of the day.

Fox. All the news that’s fit to the lowest common denominator.