As IF Times

link Scarlett Johansson and Ryan Reynolds divorced due to `busy schedules` – Monsters and Critics.

This only bears comment because it’s all over the popular news EVERY day.  While the lives of celebrities seems to offer no end of fascination for a large audience out there, increasingly, it becomes obvious that their lives are as banal as those of the average person.  Starlet A is with child!  Star B gets DUI.  Starlet A seen with Star B in a bar! Starlet A seen arguing with Star B in bar, consoles herself with Starlet C!  Starlet D goes shopping!

None of this sensationalism is the fault of the pop celebs of course, they’re just minding their own business.   In the case of most beautiful woman in world, Scarlett Johansson and most handsome guy, Ryan Reynolds, that is more debatable.  While the marriage seems to be so perfect given their respective most attractive statuses, the harsh reality of life as a married couple was the only minor glitch on otherwise perfect lifetime bliss.   

The spin is that they were too busy for each other.  Hmm.  Their careers apparently got in the way and they never saw each other.  Well, then the only logical decision is to split up! The adoring fans can take this news either of two ways.  The first way would be at face value. The stresses of living apart were too much and they concluded that the flame of passion wasn’t strong enough to feed, so ixnay on the arriagemay.  While this may appear to be a pragmatic decision, what it really reveals is glaring immaturity and glibness when it comes to the notion of marriage.  If you are willing to divorce or separate from the pinnacle of perfection of the opposite sex, it implicitly means, “I think I can do better”. It is truly ironic that in a time where lesbians and gays are fighting to attain their rights to be married, those with the privilege use or discard it like some wad of kleenex. 

Being somewhat familiar with marriage vows, I seem to recall some key ones such as, ‘forever and ever’, ’till death do us part’, ‘ for richer for poorer’ etc.  While these words are easy to say when caught up in the moment, they are harder to live up to especially after 20 years.  After barely 2 years, with only sporadic contact, any effort to abide by the uttered vows seems token at best. 

The other possibility is that the entire thing was a publicity stunt for both of their careers.  There is no evidence of this, but in today’s cynical world, you have to consider that angle.  Exposure these days is the same as stardom.  How else to explain the gossip mags’ obsession with Kate, of 8 kids fame, or Kim Kardashian who is devoid of obvious talent other than showing up in Star Weekly.   Either way, it adds credence to the voices of those who claim celebrities are for the most part vapid and shallow spokes-models.   If that’s the case, it makes it all the more compelling to ignore most of what they say outside of a paid role.  Remember that the next time some celebrity  tries to bring you around to some Quixotic cause, like oh say, global warming or immigration reform.  There should be disclaimers at the bottom of the screen.  ” This has been a paid commercial message and spokesman may not mean what they say”.

link Dress to Impress, UBS Tells Staff – WSJ.com.

The fact that a big name conservative banking firm felt it neccessary to re-emphasize dress and presentation policy implies one thing.  The sartorial standards of the staff must have declined so much over the years that a renewed focus on appearance was necessary to differentiate them from the janitors who cleaned the offices.  The issue came to a head when the janitors started giving advice.

It’s been an interesting phenomenon over the past generation to observe that those with conspicuous wealth and fame often appeared in public in the most slovenly attire.  It’s as if reverse snobbery were in play.  How often do we see famous athletes and entertainment personalities appear publicly in shapeless sweat pants or track suits?  Equally galling, are appearances in public by people with obvious bed head and that 5-days-overdue-for-a-shower-look.  We’ll often see instances of mismatched colors or wrong sized clothing.  T-shirts on many entertainers look as if they had been rescued from a Goodwill bin.  Think Russel Brand who resembles many of the above accusations.  Glancing at the gossip magazines at the checkout stands of the supermarkets yields pics of Hollywood actresses who resemble bag ladies. 

Obviously, it’s not an issue of money.  Perhaps it’s an issue of arrogance, or maybe just bad breeding.  The Yassar Arafat unshaven stubble look for men has been ubiquitous for many years now.  Personally, I’m not certain that look adds much to the credibility of an investment banker.  How does the 3-days-lost-in-the-desert look enhance your banking persona?  I mean, couldn’t they supply razors at the office?  The look may work if you have a camel parked at the curb, but in an urban setting, it’s akin to wearing cowboy boots to the office.  Personally, I wouldn’t feel comfortable dealing with a Michael Moore lookalike in matters of my money.  Years ago, the idea of casual Fridays came to popularity in many workplaces.  Of course, this was the beginning of the slippery slope whereby casual Fridays morphed into casual any days that ended in a ‘y’.  Some people can carry off casual, many look like street dwellers on the way to the food line.  Where are the mothers?  We need them to chastise their grown up children for going out to work like they were college students in Cuba.

Maybe UBS’s initiative will catch on and the dark tide of slobbery will finally abate in society.  It’s not a matter of cost.  Over the years, with the decline in the cost of everything, clothes have never been cheaper unless of course you aspire to bespoke suits and Hermes ties.  We know the old cliche that you can’t judge a book by its cover, but what’s the matter with having better looking books?