The Problem with Fame

What is it that people need the be famous - even for the "infamous" 15 seconds Warhol was so quoted about? For example, my least favorite Newspaper(the NYT) had an Op-Ed piece today covering something that's so obvious to non-CEO's and nop-executives in business today: They are under paid and over worked when compared to their CEO's and Executive types. CEO's are paid 431:1 a regular worker is paid.

What does a CEO do to get 20 million a year, other than be a mouthpiece for the company, and hire very smart people to guide and strategize. It's difficult for me to be "compassionate and understanding" of someone who makes 20 million and who also, by the way, has an air-tight contract with a golden parachute attached to it; so if they happen to get fired by their board or gets indicted for mis-deeds, these CEO's get millions more, and don't leave out the bonus of a few more million.

Whereas, the workers get a couple hundred bucks and a few days off during the holidays. Yippee. Not only am I in favor of capping these overpaid goons who seem to put more time in at home and the golf course than at the office and who have no appreciable skills other than being born into wealthy families who send them to Ivy League schools, and who are part of that ipso-facto good 'ol CEO network - which is how they got the job in the first place. I digress... yes yes, I remember, the NYT... (sigh)...


They happen to do a little piece on David Brooks, DHB's CEO who is overpaid just like the rest of the CEO's, but who had to flaunt it in front of everyone. Brooks has a birthday with 50 Cent and Aerosmith in attendence, where giftbags had a value of $1,000 each stocked with "digital cameras and video iPods". Brooks can certainly afford it after making 70 million (yes, Seventy Million) in 2004 while only making 525 thousand in 2001 (The Iraq war was good to him since his company DHB makes the bullet proof vests you see).

Anyhoo - Brooks just had to call attention to himself and this shindig that he threw for his daughter that cost millions, instead of flying under the radar and having something nice and expensive, but not over the top and not so in the public eye. This is what is called "stupidity". While not stupid in the "book" sense, Brooks probably is a very intelligent man who knows a lot of, well, something that at least got him a 70 million paycheck - (we'll leave out that it's his family's company and all that for right now).



So he calls attention to himself and the vultures swoop in. The SEC starts investigating him, the newspapers start poking around, and the outcry from the public about such excess for his little tart daughter and the millions he pissed away in debauchery and decadence when he could have done something nice for his daughter and put that money to good use for his fellow man (or at least put it in the bank for the little tarts wedding). Stupid. Book smart but not the common sense God gave a cricket. You see a cricket chirps and calls attention to himself in attracting a mate, but he does so by hiding under rocks and leaves so as not to call attention to himself from other predators. Mr. Brooks needs to take a lesson from the cricket - but he thought his 70 million would automatically be a shield, and it's nothing of the sort. It's actually the smell of blood in the water and the sharks are patrolling.

We see this happen over and over again - excesses because CEO's (Like Enron's who we all know is going to the big-house after he called attention to himself by spending millions on a cocktail party) who just can't seem to keep their heads about them. Most lottery winners are the same way - they blow through their millions in a scant 10 years or less because they have no common sense. Why do the rich go poor? Because they SPEND their money. Why do the wealthy stay wealthy? Because they hide their money and don't spend it. Wealthy people have their money in trusts and NOT in their own names. The richest people in the world have little or no assetts applied to them - why? Because they are huge targets. Let's face it, they have money and everyone wants a piece of them - however - if they have no assetts or money in their name, how do you get to their money? Good question. Especially when it's overseas in accounts only their lawyers and accounts have access to check, but not to withdraw. As long as those lawyers and accountants get their steady paychecks (off the interest no doubt) they will keep their mouths closed. Mr. Brooks should be stripped of all of his money to teach him a lesson - that excess and flaunting his riches will only attract wolves to the party - now what do you think the wolves want for dinner?


He's not as you're drunk as I think you are...

The last part of it is, why we the viewing public, give one squirt about what these idiots do. I'm not just talking about asshats like David H. Brooks of DHB Industries, I'm talking about ALL famous people. What is it about them that we find facinating? I can think of nothing - I really don't care about anyone famous other than maybe people of history who actually DID something. Do I know who was the most famous bar room dancer in the 1800's - nope. How about a famous writer of American poems in the 20th century - not a clue. But everyone sure knows about trailer trash Britiny Spears and her groady bare feet and pregnancy with... that guy, what's his name. E! television exists because people care about these famous people - what they ate, what they said, when they pee and how small of a bowel movement J-Lo had yesterday! Front page news there I'll tell ya. I must say, I do like some of the actors and actressess work in movies and stage - otherwise, I could care less about them personally, their family, their friends, what they ate for dinner and who they dissed in Vogue last month. Who cares? Isn't that their problem? Do they care whether or not I'm going to work today or how teriffic my meal out with my girlfriend was last weekend - then why would I care about them? Yes, the likes of MTV are creating a whole new generation of idiots just like Brooks, who glamorize the decadence and stupidity that is excess by sponsoring and getting ratings for things like "My Super Sweet 16"

The lower under the radar people are, the better - the less I hear about J-Lo the better and if they make millions, fine, I couldn't care less if they ate it and shat it out on their beds and rolled in it (which I'm sure someone has done already, but I don't want to know). We should have a "don't ask don't tell" policy on Hollywood and non-famous people who are famous for some reason (Nicole Ritchie is one that comes to mind. What did she do other than get hooked on drugs and get on a TV show because she's Lionel's daughter - that's a rhetorical question).

So as it goes with Brooks - the sharks are circling and the buzzards are waiting for the leftovers. The SEC is investigating. I'm just all giddy with excitement and waiting for the 70 million to go to the lawyers fees when he get's indicted (hopefully) and learns what the cricket already knows.

I love happy endings... *sniff*