Posted on 06/04/2012 3:32:49 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
“Let me tell you about the very rich,” F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote. “They are different from you and me.”
He was absolutely right. And we need look no further than Dina Eastwood for confirmation.
On a recent episode of her new E! reality show, “Mrs. Eastwood & Company,” the wife of famed actor Clint Eastwood stood idly by as her stepdaughter Francesca and her photographer beau destroyed a $100,000 Hermes Birkin handbag to make an artistic statement.
To flaunt wealth in such a manner is nothing short of obscene.
Especially, when there are so many needful people throughout the fair land – including California’s Monterey County, where more than a quarter of children are living in poverty right outside the gates of the Eastwood family’s $20 million, 15,000-square-foot palace.
Dina Eastwood, who, as a teen growing up in the working-class city of Castro Valley,California, held minimum-wage jobs at McDonalds and cleaning apartments, obviously has forgotten where she came from.
Otherwise, there’s no way she would have stood for the destruction of a handbag that costs more than the average American earns in more than two years.
The star of “Mrs. Eastwood & Company,” which also features Francesca, her stepdaughter, and Morgan, her biological daughter with Clint, sounds especially disingenuous when she professes herself a person of compassion.
“I must volunteer on nonprofit projects to feel fulfilled,” she told Carmel Magazine.
She also told the magazine that, while she and hubby Clint are been blessed with great wealth, they are inconspicuous consumers.
“It is a value to me and it is a value to Clint,” she said. “I love purses and shoes as much as anybody else, but we do most of our shopping at Marshall’s, Ross and Mervyn’s. Clint’s very non-flippant with money. He’s a Depression-era baby.”
Apparently, the very rich couple’s values did not trickle down to daughter Francesca.
Otherwise, she wouldn’t have gone along with photographer-boyfriend Tyler Shields when he decided that they should burn the red crocodile Hermes bag and attack its charred remains with a chainsaw.
Shields explained that destroying the bag was a way to demonstrate that material objects don’t define a person.
But a far better way for the envelope-pushing photog and girlfriend Francesca to make that point was to sell the $100,000 bag – a coveted favorite of such celebrities as Kim Kardashian and Victoria Beckham – and donate the proceeds to a charity serving the needful.
Dina Eastwood insists that she did not approve of the artistic “statement” by her stepdaughter and her stepdaughter’s beau. But she didn’t stop it. And she even gave the two young vulgarians undeserved publicity on her surreality show.
That makes her no less guilty than they.
It’s a British/Commonwealth term.
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.
I watched most of the episode last night to see why this was in the news. Mrs. Eastwood, coming from a blue-collar background, spent most of the show trying to educate her daughters about material things. The show also covered Mrs. E’s inability to declutter, which stems from her family background of never throwing things away — i.e. you might need it for something some day... Mrs. E. said Mr. Eastwood is always being sent luxurious and generous gifts which seem to stack up all over their house.
The blonde daughter of Mr. Eastwood is quite a piece of work. She has no problem flaunting her wealth or throwing it away. I hope it’s an eye-opener to her daddy. Worst of all is the freaky boyfriend who initiated this “creative” photo shoot with the purse. He had her standing in heels on a tall bridge in a prior episode (saw only the previews) to “get the shot.” What a freak!! He seems to be a mean little rat punk, from all the commercials.
***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.
Apparently the quote is from 2007:
http://www.carmelmagazine.com/archive/07sp/dina-eastwood.shtml
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..
Auction them off and donate to charity.
It's
Not
Your
Money.
Yep. Clint ruined Locke. He made her get an abortion meanwhile he knocked up some other broad at the same time. And he KEPT that kid. Not sure who was the bigger loser in that relationship. Locke is pretty screwed up in the head in general. Maybe he just couldn’t stand her kookiness after he made her a “star”. Notice Ms. Locke hasn’t done much of anything in 30 years.
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.
Their money - they can do whatever they want with it. Just wish there was the same outcry from the Left at the urine and Jesus “art”.
Are you always this concerned with the business of others?
CD is no leftist Christian and has opined in support of conservative economic priciples since Ronald Reagan was in the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.