no more 'must-have' endorsements of the vain kind, pls!

"must-have" sunglasses. "must-have" bag. "fashion accessory of the moment."

it's about time we got rid of labels like these (or at least took a break from them). must we really acquire one of those "hot" pastel duffel bags that are the rage this season (i forget which season that was)? do we really care that "Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen wear their vintage oversized sunglasses with their Balenciaga bags"? since pages and pages of fashion spreads are featuring lace-up sandals, does that mean we MUST have a pair of our own?

you know that the answer is NO.

and you know that just because some columnist labels such items as "must-haves," that doesn't mean you really have to hyperventilate in your desire to be in the loop and snag one of those "must-haves" for yourself.

and you know that most of those columnists who explicitly feature "must-haves," "the-place-to-be-in" endorsements, "it-girl" pontificating and other such product-, place- or person-pushing are paid for those "anointments" in one way or another (money talks indeed). if you didn't know that, now you do.

besides, what's happening is much like what "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" has done to a below-the-poverty-line populace in the 1980s: the sight of luxurious homes and endless hedonistic pursuits made the average Juan dela Cruz simply salivate but not necessarily work hard for the money.

during these hard times, it's not glossy photos of P15,000-bags and captions that read "want to look like a celebrity? wear oversized glasses" that our people need. escapism may work for a time -- and for some people. but bottom line: facing the problem, not escaping it, is what we try to motivate everyone to do. being bombarded with the "must-have" mentality is not the way.