“....charity serving the NEEDFUL”??? I have not heard this before. When did it stop being the “needy”? Guess I am behind the times.
The bag ain’t worth hundreds of thousands...probably “worth”
200 bucks...in terms of labor, maybe the materials are
expensive cuz they’re rare, but not because they confer
any longevity or stoutness to the product...
Typical celebrity idiocy. But who is stupider, the
celebrities or the idiots who report their every
exhalation or excretion or the idiots who watch shows
or buy products associated with those celebrites?
Making compost is better than watching those celebrities
private activities.
How is destroying a handbag “art?”
I think you are missing it. It was a handbag. The guy who made it got a $100,000 payoff, and then they destroyed the bag. Basically it was a $100,000 transfer payment to the maker. They could have just given him $100,000 for doing nothing and it would have been the same result. Would you find that problematic?
Anyone who uses words like “needful” should be ignored.
Envy is evil. Using the needy as cover does not make it ok. Envy is a byproduct of excessive vanity. It matures into hate. The reason the wealthy rarely flaunt their wealth is because the envious at some point will kill them. The purpose of limousine liberalism is to pacify the envious. It is highly effective but it has its limits.
I find it funny that people are upset about a bag being destroyed. Haven’t they seen an episode of Swamp People? Where do they think Hermes bags come from?
And you’re just the guy to decide exactly what’s expected of them. Right?
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see you driving around in a '76 Pinto station wagon.
If I wanted to buy a rhinestone-covered, diamond-encrusted full-length fur coat and had the money to do so, it should be my right to do so and nobody’s else’s damned business.
***Francesca and her photographer beau destroyed a $100,000 Hermes Birkin handbag to make an artistic statement. ****
As long as the seller got the $100,000 before they destroyed it. Their loss his gain.
I remember reading of someone over 100 years ago buying an original TITAN oil painting, then cutting it up to line a coat, just to show they had disdain for items people put a price on.
Huh? What in the hell does that mean? Is there some kind of fairy or wizard or genie that "gave" the money to Eastwood and Company? Clint Eastwood made his money. And good for him.
The best thing about this story is that if it is true that some numbnutts paid $100K for a hand bag THAT is funny. I applaud anyone that can take some animal hide, stitch it together and get that kind of cash for it.
I don't care if the Eastwoods or anyone else for that matter takes their own money, piles it up in mounds, then sets it on fire. It is their property. As far as expecting anything from the rich all I "expect" is nothing from them. I could care less. What is very odd is that others get so wrapped up in other peoples money. I personally know more than one billionaire. I suspect I am friends with them because I don't like them for their money or "stuff". I just like them.
What a strange place we are at today. People seem so interested in the "rich and famous". I don't get it. Especially all the hub bub over someone like Kim Kardashian. As best I can tell her major skill is that she has no major skill.
If most Americans were as concerned about what the government does with their money as they are about people like Clint Eastwood's wife we would be better off.
One last thing, as with everything on TV with the possible exception of shows where they are hunting gators and whatnot EVERYTHING on TV is fake. Which means in this case they took some hand bag and used it to get themselves plenty of buzz. Worked like a charm.
When you look to make a buck and gain undeserved fame by airing your own dirty laundry on a TV “reality” show, don’t act shocked when a pair of sh*t-stained briefs flies back in your face now and again.
The fact that they needed a reality show in the first place shows that they’re a bit value-challenged as it is.
Oddly enough, destroying the bag helps the poor.
Once created, such a bag is a useless asset. It does nothing. But once destroyed, it creates at least a theoretical possibility that another such bag will be created, which benefits many in the process.
It is a false axiom that not creating such things, and instead diverting wealth to “help the poor” is better. A great example is of a magnificent Christian cathedral. Would the poor be better off worshiping outside under a ragged tent?
Or, as Democrats suppose, if America was utterly impoverished, it would somehow help third and fourth world nations. Oh really?
Nobody NEEDS a $100,000 Hermes Birkin handbag.... NOBODY...
No big loss..
What is needed are plastic bags to carry your grocery’s home in..
It's
Not
Your
Money.
If her mom or her step mom still counts as a star they may have gotten the bag for free. Even Clint himself may have snagged a free handbag as part of the gift package they give at award ceremonies. Who’s to say how they actually got it? If Francesca and the boyfriend sell the stills or the video somehow they may even make some money off the deal.
Assuming that someone paid $100K for that handbag, that money was divided among the retailer, the distributor, the manufacturer, transportation, taxes, and heaven knows what else. In short, it ended up in the hands (bank accounts?) of the people involved in making it and bringing it to market. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that someone is wealthy enough to buy such an article ought to be greeted with joy. We already have enough poor people. At least the wealthy in this case spent the money in a way that put non-wealthy people to work.
Celebrity reality shows are for the most part vulgar displays of not only wealth but absurdity. Actually, nearly all reality shows are vulgar displays of absurdity.