Oh come on... Really?

I admit, I'm a catalog hound. Genetically inherited from my mother, I relish the delivery of any new catalog. I don't often order anything, but I love to look. It's like recognisance shopping without lifting a muscle.

But I must confess sometimes the products listed in these catalogs are just down right ridiculous.

Exhibit A:
Bottle Pets (imagine a stuffed animal with middle hollowed and the nose of the animal left as a hole, all so that you can jam a bottle in there).
Catalog description: Turn feeding time into cuddle time with a plush bottle cover. Choose from Emma the cow, Left the turtle or Pablo the monkey. Polyester fiber; Infant-safe. Phew I'm sure glad it's infant safe, I couldn't figure out why I'd need the bottle pet for Craig. AND - can the marketing genius on this one get back to me on why you'd want to turn bottle time into cuddle time? I never once heard my parents say "Sure, no problem, play with your toys AND eat!" Is this what you want to teach? I know plenty of new parents who struggle to keep their newborns AWAKE for a feeding!

Exhibit B:
Pee and Poo Dolls - How did the grade-school-aged children of the world get potty trained without these dolls!?!?
Catalog Description: These stuffed toys absolutely reek of fun. But potty humor aside, their friendly personalities and plush exteriors can educate your child about the body, help with potty training and are sure to make everyone laugh.
I didn't realize how very important these dolls were! I mean I need a pee-yellow droplet shaped and poop pile shaped doll in my house. If I'm looking for a laugh for the potty humor - I'm pretty sure I know a few 5-9 year olds who can keep a room snickering for a while. I don't need to spend $38 dollars on them!

Just tell me what parenting has come to that we're looking for every gimmick a company can give us?

On another topic - I'm highly annoyed at my beloved NPR. Heard a great story on my morning commute. It was about the psychological health of adopted versus non-adopted teens. The study was conducted by interviewing and studying about 700 15 yr olds. The study found that both adopted and non-adopted kids were all relatively psychologically healthy. There is however, an "adoption effect" in that adopted children were 2x more likely to have ADHD or ODD (oppositional defiance disorder) than non-adopted kids. Scary thought, right? Study went on to say that this adoption effect was not as much a sign of adoption, but of conditions that were more probable prior to the adoption. I thought the interview was excellently handled with sensitivity and that the researchers were quick to explain that the higher occurrence could not be attributed to the teen's adoptive or non-adoptive status. So much so that I thought I'd find the written article on NPR's site and send it to my social worker. Might be helpful for future adoptive parents. So why am I annoyed? Because the title of the article was "Adopted teens at a higher risk of ADHD" Really? I mean really? That title doesn't give a good idea of the article! It makes it seem as though adoption is the CAUSE of the higher risk of ADHD. Shame on NPR for taking a respectfully honest and well researched study, and giving it an 'eye-catching' if not misleading title. I thought I knew you!