The Self-Indulgence of the Rich, Powerful and Famous

There seems to be a point in every dictator's life when his biggest worry is whether his toilets should merely be gold-plated or if they should be solid gold - cases in point include Moammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, the Emir of Kuwait, and I'm sure there is no shortage of gold-plated potties in Saudi Arabia. But as Donald Trump and many others can assure you the gilded life isn't just for dictators. And as Michael Jackson might have argued, who says you can't take it with you? Nothing in this is new - gold isn't a particularly attractive metal when used ostentatiously, it's not a practical metal due to its softness and weight, but it's expensive, so screw that "King Midas" allegory and "gild me up".

The fundamental issue is that when they have accumulated so much wealth (by whatever means) that how they spend the money simply doesn't matter any more, and whether or not the money is technically theirs to spend, some people will find absurd, self-indulgent ways to squander the money, whether to satisfy their troubled senses of self-worth, to flaunt their riches, or to selfishly indulge their eccentricities. There's a non-pathological part of this that is human nature ("keeping up with", or perhaps one step ahead of, the Joneses), as humans by nature seem to be materialistic and tend to like things that are shiny and expensive. But there's pathology at play as well. ("I can't simply have tigers - they must be white tigers." "The 'Elephant Man's' skeleton is for sale, you say? How much would it cost to buy it, and is it gold-plated... yet?" "You say that I can choose between a $20,000 toilet seat that plays music, automatically sends cleansing jets of water to my delicate areas then gently blows them try, perfumes the room in case I have guests whose leavings actually stink, and maintains itself at a comfortable temperature such that my cheeks will never be cold, or $6 million for a solid gold toilet seat that is icy cold and would make even a commercial airplane lavatory seem inviting.... What's the upside of the cheap one, again?")

I would like to say that this is simply the quaint way that the ultra-rich live their lives and spend their (or their country's, or their shareholders', or your) money on expensive self-indulgence that creates a bizarre form of trickle-down to the vendors of the absurdly overpriced trinkets. But as you know, when you look at the people who live in this manner their eccentricities and self-indulgence very often extend into the rest of their lives (with the notable exception of Donald Trump who is a billionaire and is the bravest, kindest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known). Reading about the manner in which Gadhafi came on to women is creepy, and his apparent regard for Condoleezza Rice as if she were a gold-plated toilet seat with diamonds is perhaps creepier. Michael Jackson's sleepovers, whatever happened? Creepy. Sex scandals in the Catholic Church (distinguished, unfortunately, by the size of the church, not by the nature of the scandal)? Penn State? How creepy can you get.

Speaking of Penn State, I read somebody rationalizing Joe Paterno's apparent indifference to Jerry Sandusky's reported conduct, with "He was so focused on football, he probably forgot about it." Because, yeah, when you hear something like that about somebody you work with, it's in one ear, out the other. Apologists, it seems, are easy to find. It reminds me of the saying, "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Except that in most situations to which that phrase would apply, if you do nothing you're not a good man.

Moamar Gadhafi was not a good man, and it would seem fair to say that his sons were the rotten fruit of the poisonous tree. One particularly horrible story involves one of his son's (the one presciently named Hannibal) nannies, horribly burned as a punishment for refusing to beat one of Gadhafi's grandchildren. There was a good man in the household, but it would seem only one:

Eventually, a guard found her and took her to a hospital, where she received some treatment.

But when Aline Gadhafi [Moamar's daughter-in-law] found out about the kind actions of her co-worker, he was threatened with imprisonment, if he dared to help her again.

Here's the thing: the guard who tried to help the woman knew that he was putting his job at risk, and perhaps risking a much more serious consequence, when he chose to help the woman. But people who have fame, power, money and celebrity are typically surrounded by sycophants and enablers. Even in the case of a Gadhafi, there were people who could have stepped in and said, "That's over the top." Some of the statements made by Gadhafi or, for another dictator who seemed to be deep in denial up to the end, Nicolae Ceausescu, indicate that his sycophants kept him in a bubble, "protecting him" from a truth that he would have seen had he simply been willing to open his eyes. They did nothing because it profited them to do nothing. In the case of a Jackson or Sandusky, you don't have to fear imprisonment, torture or death - the worst that could have happened from taking appropriate action would have been a possible career setback. It's only if your profession is "hanger on," or "enabler in chief" that "outing" the boss (or even confronting him in private) becomes a significant problem, because the next pathetic celebrity will know that you can't be trusted to keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself, let alone to be complicit.

Whatever you think of Michael Jackson, he's an example of somebody who would have benefited on numerous occasions from a purging of the enablers in his life. "No, Michael, no matter how innocent, after the accusations made against you and your criminal prosecution, you can't have sleepovers with children. Even without the scandal, it's obvious that you have attachment and relationship issues you need to address, and this isn't healthy." "No, Michael, there is nothing more a cosmetic surgeon can do for you that differs from manipulation, and no ethical surgeon would operate given your body dysmorphic disorder, so if you insist on more surgery you're going to be overpaying a hack to mutilate your face." "No, Michael, even if you're in pain and can't sleep, it's not healthy to become dependent on propofol - if you need a surgical anesthetic to go to sleep, let's start addressing the actual physical, psychological and chemical dependency issues that underlie the problem." By all appearances, Jackson kept himself in a bubble similar to Gadhafi's. At some level he had to know he was surrounded by yes men, sycophants and enablers, but if you see the pathetic man who was so easily manipulated by Martin Bashir in his infamous interview, you have to deal with the astonishing reality that Jackson genuinely believed himself to be in some form of Neverland and that the interview would help the world recognize his normalcy.

Similarly, once Sandusky was shielded from criminal investigation on the times he was reportedly caught in the act, it seems that he pretty much took for granted that the protection would continue. His friends and colleagues who knew of the reports chose, "My friend, some kid... My colleague, a scandal for the football program..." and seemed to find it easy to make the wrong choice. Wrong, that is, from a human perspective. Right from the perspective of "What will keep me better positioned for my career, for making money, for keeping power and authority." And for an awful lot of people,¹ that's all that counts.

Update: Although I don't want to focus unduly on Paterno and Sandusky, their story does share some lessons about human nature that help explain how rich, powerful and famous individuals and institutions can obtain and maintain support that seems blind to the facts. At LOG, there's considerable discussion of that aspect of human nature. Tod Kelly has posted a thoughtful essay about tribalism, and why people often engage in denial and defense of the indefensible, and the remarkable ability possessed by human beings to cling to opinions that fly completely in the face of known, obvious facts. He's correct, that the tribal aspects of human nature and our unwillingness to listen to people outside of our tribe is "part of the problem" when scandals such as those involving "Herman Cain, Bill Clinton, Joe Paterno, Rick Perry, or... Steve Garvey" break.

Mark Thompson reminds us that we don't have to be defined by our worst acts (or omissions), even if our poor choices end up tarnishing or overshadowing our achievements. I'll argue a bit with this point:

A week ago, this man’s remarkable loyalty to his institution was deemed one of his most admirable traits; today, that loyalty has quite rightly cost him his job and his legacy and, most importantly, has been shown to have had unthinkable consequences for innocent children. That is precisely what should scare us the most if things like this are ever to become less frequent.

Paterno was willing to risk a scandal when he passed along the report of Sandusky's alleged conduct. He did not cover up that act out of loyalty to his institution. But when his institution chose to cover it up, he was loyal to the cover-up, and turned a blind eye to compelling evidence that Sandusky's misconduct continued. The longer things were covered up, and the more that was covered up, the worse the consequences of the truth coming out - and hence the greater the need to perpetuate the cover-up. In retrospect, doing the right thing - making sure that there was a full police investigation of Sandusky - would have been the best thing for Paterno, his (nominal) supervisors and the football program. But instead they gambled on the possibility that the truth would not come out.

E.D. Kain collects and shares some wisdom about the outrage at Paterno, and shares some thoughts about the genesis of tribalism.
-----------
1. You can read that phrase in one of two ways; both are apt.

When A Child Is A Parent's Meal Ticket

A couple of months ago my four-year-old became very interested in Michael Jackson. His "moves". She doesn't have much interest in his childhood work, but is absolutely fascinated by his dance sequences and choreography. She wanted to see him perform live. As I reflect on that, it didn't even cross my mind that Jackson was 50 years old. His changes of appearance were disturbing, saddening, but they had one of the effects he (owner of "Neverland") apparently intended. He did grow up but he became, in a sense, a man without age. Had he kept his original appearance, and become wrinkled and gray, I doubt that the public surprise at his early death would be quite the same.

The span of his career led to my daughter asking questions about his age in various videos, as well as his evolving appearance. The best explanation I had to offer for his surgeries was that I suspected that he didn't like himself. My daughter couldn't understand why somebody wouldn't like himself, and I'm grateful for that. But then, she didn't have Joseph Jackson raising her in an atmosphere of isolation and abuse. What a lovely guy.

Something that's apparent from Jackson's childhood is how readily people will ignore the abuse and mistreatment of children if it jeopardizes the gravy train. Tell me nobody saw Joseph make threats or administer beatings to his children, when they missed a step or a note during their childhood practices and performances.

He touchingly describes his humiliation at having severe acne as a child, and the relentless teasing by his brothers and father, who called him "Big Nose." "You didn't get that ugly nose from my side of the family," says father Joe Jackson, according to Michael. He also describes throwing up at the mere sight of his father who "threw him against a wall" and beat them with "anything that was handy."

Lisa Marie Presley comments on her relationship with Michael:

"I became very ill and emotionally/ spiritually exhausted in my quest to save him from certain self-destructive behavior and from the awful vampires and leeches he would always manage to magnetize around him," she wrote.

It's one of the strange thing people do... we develop coping skills to get us through our childhood, and have a hard time breaking out of those same patterns as adults, even when we have a "choice" and following the childhood pattern is self-destructive. It seems that Jackson was surrounding himself with versions of his father - people who would bleed him dry for their own devices. But as an adult, he could also choose people (or choose to end relationships with people) who wouldn't challenge him to break with the past and enabled his eccentric and self-destructive behaviors. I suspect that his pattern of conduct, relationships and surgeries was supposed to help him be happy, but instead provided at best brief moments of relief from the unhappiness they otherwise perpetuated. And I will not be surprise if, having expressed to Lisa Marie Presley the fear that he would "end up like" Elvis, his death involved a similar soup of pharmaceuticals - a maladaptive tool to escape from (and avoid) pain, physical and psychic, that probably ended up magnifying both.

A childhood only counts for so much. Jackson is responsible for the mistakes he made as an adult that led to his isolation in his final years. But if he's capable, I hope Joseph Jackson spends some time thinking about what he did to his children. That he's somehow able to feel shame, remorse, embarrassment for his role in the unhappiness of, dare I say, more than one of his children?
____________
Update: More on this theme from Eugene Robinson:

Jackson once said his father used to beat him, perhaps because he was the "golden child." Joe Jackson has always denied being physically abusive, but in a sense it doesn't matter. It seems to me that attaching oneself to one's young son like a leech and denying that boy any semblance of a childhood qualifies as abuse.

* * *

The worst choice, of course, was the way he frolicked with children at his Neverland ranch. Jackson was acquitted of child molestation charges, but he also paid a reported eight-figure settlement to the family of one alleged victim. Let me be clear that no childhood trauma would excuse molestation. My question, though, is where were the staff members and the agents and the hangers-on - and the loving family members - who had an inkling that all might not be right at Neverland? Did they choose to look the other way?

I believe Jackson's story that he suffered from the skin disease vitiligo -- though I don't believe that vitiligo or any other infirmity was the reason for the disfiguring plastic surgery that turned his face into a pale, taut mask. It had to be self-hatred - not necessarily an attempt to make himself "white" but to make himself hideous.

I don't think Jackson was trying to make himself hideous - that seems to be the inevitable result of having too many significant cosmetic surgeries. I'm more inclined toward thinking, body dysmorphic disorder.

Restore My Faith In Human Nature (A Bit)....

Please - somebody tell me that the woman releasing doves with each Jackson "not guilty" verdict was one of his employees....

Chris Tucker In Court

Reading about Chris Tucker's demeanor on the witness stand,

Mr Tucker's demeanour was calm and serious, in stark contrast to his outrageous character in the Rush Hour films, in which he co-stars with Jackie Chan

I thought Tucker's character in the Rush Hour fillms was his calm, serious demeanor. Perhaps the author of that article, though, hasn't seen The Fifth Element.

Prior Acts Evidence

I am loathe to discuss the Michael Jackson trial, for any number of reasons, but I think today's testimony merits mention:

[Actor Macaulay Culkin] said prosecutors never approached him about whether he had been molested and he only learned of the allegations that he had been molested by watching news coverage of the trial.

"Somebody told me you should probably check out CNN because they're saying something about you," Culkin said. "I just couldn't believe it. … It was amazing to me that nobody even approached me and asked if these allegations were true."

Now, if you are from the Susan Estrich school of criminal law, you believe that Jackson has probably paid off a dozen or so parents over the years, and that evidence of past acts is "key to justice":

In retrospect, it may well turn out that the key decision in this case was the ruling on prior similar acts. Had this evidence been excluded, the boy and his family would have stood on their own, with all the inconsistencies and mixed motivations in their testimony. What the other accounts accomplish is to shift the focus of the case back to the man who is at the center of each of them, and what he did wrong, and not what his alleged victim in this case did. The testimony this week may have been old, but it was also ugly. This is no longer a case about childish play - the testimony this week spoke to shame, manipulation, humiliation.

One boy may be mistaken, foolish, confused, undercut on cross examination, bragging to his friends, reduced to tears by a smart lawyer, lying to his principal, angry, greedy, vengeful - but not a not a steady stream over the decade.

But here's the catch - if a prosecutor introduces "evidence" of past acts, and that evidence turns out to be as hazy and contradictory as the accusations in the present case, the prosecutor may well undermine both the credibility of its own witnesses and of its entire case. If in fact this prosecutor was so eager to get claims of past acts into evidence, that he didn't even bother to investigate those claims or to ask the identified victim if the claims were true.... Assuming Jackson is guilty, as with the O.J. Simpson case, as easy as it is to blame everybody else for a dubious acquittal, the actual cause of acquittal will be the incompetent tactics of the prosecution team.

One more thing, without wanting to sound too judgmental: I am uncomfortable with the fact that a parent would negotiate a settlement over the sexual abuse of their own child, whatever the amount, which would preclude criminal charges against the abuser. And that's before delving into the possibility that some parents might intentionally insinuate their children into the life of somebody like Jackson in order to obtain a settlement for abuse, real or imagined.

Even Celebrities Have Rights

A California prosecutor, unable to put together a compelling case in relation to the offenses charged, obtained the court's permission to present a "where there's smoke, there's fire" case against Michael Jackson. And today, this. Okay so we know that Macauley Culkin is an adult, we know that he has publicly denied that Jackson ever acted inappropriately toward him, and we know that the prosecution is not going to present Culkin as a witness. Whatever sympathy I have for the difficulty of proving a molestation charge, given those facts I think Culkin's right to privacy should trump the Prosecutor's desire to blow more smoke Jackson's way. And this?

Jackson's lawyer attacked the credibility of some of the other witnesses by pointing out that they had been involved in a failed lawsuit against him, and that they had sold stories about Jackson to the tabloids.

The witness today, however, hadn't sold any stories. He also hadn't been involved in the failed lawsuit - but had successfully sued for unpaid overtime.

Well, I doubt it is the cross-examination that the defense would choose, but I would really like to ask this noble character, "Isn't it true that you personally watched an adult molest a small child, and you did absolutely nothing?" I am inclined to sarcastically note that somebody being paid so well that they did nothing after witnessing such an event probably doesn't need overtime pay. But then, some people are happy to sell their soul for a few pieces of silver.