Post O.J., a lot of attention has been paid to celebrities in legal trouble. Analyzing everything from their courtroom attire to whether or not their pores look healthy can bring everyday people closer to the celebrity's curiously artificial world. But, though this makes us happy, it spells doom for the celebrity.
Exhibit A: Michael Jackson. This new year, television will be inundated with retrospectives on Jackson's career, his troubles and the evolution of his face - this bizarre testament to self-hatred writ in flesh. We'll wonder whether or not he molested a child. Again. We'll cringe and smile, reducing the vast arc of Jackson's life to the butt of water cooler jokes.
So the important question becomes, why does this highly successful, intelligent and talented performer engage in self-destructive activities? How could he risk all of his wealth and power by acting so irresponsibly? (Whether he considers it "charming" or not, sleeping with young children is savagely irresponsible.) Jackson defenders will say that the pop icon is being unfairly criticized by the media, but Jackson does not sleep with children because of the media's unreasonable demands. He commits these indiscretions because of a spiritual illness. I am referring to how the curiously artificial environment of his childhood left him completely deprived of a moral framework to help arbitrate his whims.
Early on, Jackson was trotted on stage and told to perform. The Jackson family's success was tied to this child's ability to sing and dance. These intense demands and constant scrutiny twisted inward the child's spontaneity and ripped to shreds any semblance of a healthy childhood. In the ensuing decades, Jackson corralled nearly $500 million as a pop icon and businessman. His wealth and fame further liberated him from the rules of social or economic accountability that define most people's sense of self. Never a part of society, Jackson receded into a fantasy world complete with amusement parks, oxygen tanks and a chimp named Bubbles.
"This is a fantasy business. It's not a reality-based business, so they don't have reality checks. Often they seem to go over deep ends. It's not for attention, it's not for money. It seems to be a result of the business." said In Touch Weekly magazine editor, Tom O'Neil, to an AP reporter.
Rand Paul on NSA: “I Believe What You Do on Your Cell Phone is None of Their Damn Business” | Daniel Doherty