Price of Jennifer Garner’s Oscar Outfit Could Feed Family of 4 for Over 100 Years
Maybe this is what that horrified expression was all about?
Hollywood actress Jennifer Garner became a post-Oscars social media star this week as an image of Garner’s apparently disgusted face started making the rounds on the internet, complete with some semi-humorous captions to explain it.
But it might have been the realization that the obscenely expensive outfit she wore – more than $800,000 in jewelry alone – made Hollywood’s pretensions to liberal causes as empty as a B-movie plot.
For the few who haven’t seen Garner’s infamous image yet, the passing-gas picture that drew plenty of social media commentary is here.
Well, here’s one realization that should have been it:
Not even counting the Atelier Versace gown Garner sported, the jewelry that sparkled from her earrings and fingers cost more than $825,000 combined, according to the New York Post’s Page 6.
Do you think celebrities are hypocrites?
According to a USA Today report from 2013, that’s an amount that could feed a family of four on a thrifty budget for more than a century.
That should put things in perspective the next time a limousine liberal like George Clooney, Brad Pitt or Madonna start lecturing the rest of us on the evils of modern American capitalism, conspicuous consumption or President Donald Trump.
This isn’t a socialist screed, though. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those who can afford it spending their money on outrageously priced baubles — if that’s what they choose to do. And in Garner’s case, the 18-carat white gold earrings with diamonds and blue sapphires were no doubt borrowed rather than bought anyway.
The problem is when the fantastically wealthy deign to come down from Olympus long enough to hector the hoi polloi on the need for higher taxes to pay for social programs to help the “poor.”
When trinkets in a celebrity’s lovely earlobes are literally enough to feed a family for more than 100 years, the mouth between those earlobes ought to stay firmly closed when it comes to how obligated the rest of the country is to help the less fortunate.
Hollywood celebrities aren’t known for keeping it zipped when it comes to voicing their political opinions, though – and with some very few exceptions, those opinions are almost universally liberal.
The USA Today piece pegged its cheapest annual cost for feeding a family of four at $146 a week. That comes out to about $760,000 in a century. Garner’s jewelry would cover that with plenty left over.
There’s nothing really new about this, of course. Every year in Hollywood, the great and the good turn out for the Oscars bedecked in enough fine clothing and expensive jewelry to feed the poor they claim to be so concerned about for generations to come.
But when the let-‘em-eat cake moments are over, they’re back with their accountants figuring out how to save on their tax bill in between appearances on “The View” preaching to the rest of America about how awful President Donald Trump is.
Again, there’s nothing wrong with anyone spending their own money however they see fit – or keeping their tax bill as low as possible, for that matter.
The problem is when the rich, hypocritical celebrities of Hollywood lecture constantly about how America needs to treat the poor better, while flaunting their own wealth in ways to make Midas blush.
What the price of those baubles could have bought probably wasn’t what Garner was so shocked about on Oscars night, but it should have been.
Like and share this story on Facebook and Twitter if you agree.
What does this kind of wealth tell you about celebrities?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.