Each week I�ve had my nine little baggies of the original variety Wheat Thins. [Yes, baggies. I separate them into serving-size baggies when I get home from the grocery store so I can grab-and-go each day for lunch and avoid eating the whole box while watching Election for the 6,000th time.]

And each day I enjoy my square morsels as a post-breakfast, pre-lunch snack. Their saltiness is just right, and the way they crunch under my teeth makes me feel like a giant eating something big and crunchy.

And it makes me happy

However, when I ventured to the grocery store, there were no $2.50 Wheat Thins to be had.

I perused the generic stuff, unsure if these $3 crackers were something I was willing to gamble on. Wheat Thins have been so good to me. Dare I try to store brand, shunning the national brand because I want to save a measly fifty cents?

I have the fifty cents. I can afford to drop three bones on crackers I will eat nine times throughout the week. But the cheapskate in me takes over and says, �Oh yes. It�s only fifty cents more than the Jewel brand, but that�s a big increase in overall percentages. Twenty percent! Twenty percent more for the brand you only think you like better! What if your rent went up twenty percent?? Wouldn�t you go with the unknown in that instance??�

So I let the cheapskate in me talk me into picking up the white box with a bright yellow banner, advertising that I would like these Crispy Wheat Crackers. And as I ponder that there�s something wrong with calling something Crispy Wheat Crackers instead of a cute and catchy name, a sales sticker catches my eye.

Instead of my beloved Nabisco being on sale, those Keebler Elves are pushing their Wheatables for $2.50 a box instead.

I studied the picture on the box, and noticed many similarities. Both had wheat-looking textures. Salt was sprinkled on top. They were crackers. A similar number of calories came with each serving.

From all outward appearances, this was a comparable cracker.

But friends, don�t be fooled. A Wheatable is not a Wheat Thin.

Whereas they have a decent taste and texture that make them an overall acceptable cracker (but by no means as good as a Wheat Thin), where they most lack is in their shape.

As evolutionary psychologists have long known, we�re all suckers for symmetry. If someone�s got a symmetrical face, you�re more likely to find them attractive than someone with an ear where their nose goes.

And whereas most people do this on an unconscious level, I know fully well that I prefer things to be all lined up and pretty. Checker boards. A butterfly�s wings. Chicago�s grid system.

Wheatables are not perfect little squares that crunch just-so. They�re these wavy wheat things that break too easily under my little teeth. I don�t feel like a giant, and no smile finds it�s way to my face as I fail to think of large things that are nice squares.

[Sheetrock is big and square, but just saying that gives me a chalky taste in my mouth. Ick! If I were a giant, I definitely wouldn�t eat sheetrock!]

All during my afternoon snack, I sulked. And that�s not what snacks are for!

So what did I learn? Spend the $3 and get the box of crackers you know you like. Otherwise, it�s just gonna piss you off the nine times you eat them. �