What is it about obcene amounts of money that makes people act like shameless shitheads?
I'm surfing the Interweb trying to quench my thirst for Miley Cyrus news when I get bombarded with details about record-breaking weekend profits. Gaudy numbers like $46.7 million and $45.4 million were involved.
The weekend grosses for "Dark Knight" and "Tropic Thunder" you ask? No. Good guess, but definately wrong.
Turns out crappy musician Phil Collins felt that two failed marriages weren't reasons enough to remain a bachelor, so he decided to get married a third time.
Just in case.
"For good measure," Phil thought. "I had better marry someone 22 years younger than me. 'Cause what could go wrong?"
I don't know how much money he has, but he's got $46.7 million less than he did a month ago. Before, Phil Collins' held the record as the only musician with the ability to out-crap Peter Gabriel, now Collins has a new record: most expensive divorce settlement in British history.
Paul McCartney thanks you Phil, for getting him off the hook.
Believe it or not, my anger isn't pointed at Phil Collins, but Phil Collins' wife and perhaps the divorce lawyers involved in the settlement. Why is it automatic that when a star gets divorced, he (and it's almost always he isn't it?) takes a financial bath? Who do these wives think they are?I know, I know. These wives think they're mothers and it costs money to raise kids. That's always the excuse. Ten generations of my family won't need $47 million, but Phil Collins' kids can't make due without. The whole motherhood defense is a rickity bridge in a violent wind, if you ask me. Right now, if someone offered you $23 millions to have a kid and raise it for 18 years, would you take it?
Most of you would. I would too. Right now.
One kid. $23 million. $47 for two kids, I'm on board with that too.
How must Collins' wife (or any wife who gets a large percentage of their husband's net worth) justify this? I don't mean justify in the context of the law, I'm mean justify to themselves? What did Orienne Cevey do to earn $46.7 million dollars (besides pretend to like Genesis, a feat worth $13.5 million tops)?
I'm hip, okay? I've heard Kanye West warn us about gold diggers. I remember that before she was America's nouveau Marilyn Monroe, Anna Nicole Smith was among the most blatant settlement whores. I know all about Donald Trump. None of this is news, but as the settlements grow exponentially and the women reaping the benefits seem to do less and less, my rage also expands.
Are feminists mad about this growing trend? Are men protecting themselves more before they marry?
And dear God, does this mean that Phil Collins is going to put out more records in hopes of earning some of that money back? 'Cause whatever Cevey stole from Collins under the guise of "mental pain and suffering," it ain't nothing compared to what she'd owe millions of people across the world if that man decides he needs to continue making music.
4 comments:
It goes both ways, remember Brit-brit and K-Fed? Stars will always be willing to pay ungodly amounts for a few years of failed marriage, they are used to using their money to get what they want instantly; and sometimes they really think that person loves them as I think poor old Paul may have. It's a lonely life, no doubt.
Although I would never accuse celebrities of ever being spendthrifty, to say stars are willing to pay large amounts of dough to marry someone doesn't make sense.
Where are the agents, lawyers, managers and as a last resort, FAMILY protecting the stars' assets?
Cynically, I'm not even talking about protecting the celebrities emotional state. People like agents and managers are only worth a percentage of what their clients are worth. When a star loses millions, the entourage of that star loses a percentage of that and therefore was not doing their job.
How hard is it to convince an idiot willing to shotgun a wedding to another idiot to have all the idiots involved sign a pre-nup?
Since when has anyone been able to keep another person, least of all a "star," from doing whatever the hell they want, *especially* when it's stupid? And I think so many of us are familiar with the fruits of isolationism, self-destruction, pride and loneliness that it's not too big a stretch to suggest that someone would sacrifice something as worthless as money for human contact, even on a limited/finite basis.
Also, I wonder why you don't extend these principles to the general public--why restrict such obvious legal and financial securities such as pre-nups to the mega-rich since you blame the wives, most of whom you imply, are not famous nor are worthy of fame anyways making them equivalent to the average American wife/mom, right?
I'll assume that you were being snide when juxtaposing "fruits" with "self-destruction" and "loneliness," as it is precisely fruit that is lacking from these traits.
You're right though, it's not too big a stretch to suggest that one would sacrifice money for human contact on a finite basis (it's how prostitutes, go-go dancers and therapists all earn a living), but in the case of celebrities, it isn't a NECESSITY. That's my point. They aren't compelled to pay millions for their marriage, they CHOOSE to under their own volition and that is what baffles me.
And be careful, Ms. Y.S.L., not to mistake my condemnation of the baffling traits of superstars as a tacit pardoning of everyone else. Far from it. But the average American doesn't have their divorce settlement plastered all over the gossip rags, therefore making it harder for me to directly reference them.
Post a Comment