By David Ross. Celebrity avarice doesn’t get any lower than this. Rolling Stone reports (here and here) that numerous stars have received massive paychecks to perform for the family of Muammar el-Qaddafi.
Over the past few years, Muatassim Qaddafi [the colonel’s playboy son] has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring prominent western performers to provide music for his private events. In 2008, Mariah Carey accepted a $1 million fee, according to WikiLeaks cables and news reports, to sing four songs for a New Year’s Eve party. 50 Cent has performed at Qaddafi functions in the past. Beyoncé was the main attraction at the New Year’s Even party, which took place on at Nikki Beach, on the Caribbean island of St. Bart’s party. Usher, according to reports, also performed there, and Lindsay Lohan, Jay-Z, Jon Bon Jovi and other celebrities were in the audience.
Nelly Furtado, meanwhile, received $1 million to perform a forty-five-minute show in Milan in 2007. What next? Justin Bieber coming soon to an Afghan cave near you!
It’s hard to know which is more deplorable: celebrity greed or Qaddafi taste. In the attempt to shake the desert sand from their robes, rogue dictators seem to have looked no farther than US magazine and Cribs. I suppose it’s helpful intel that our geopolitical adversaries are holed up in their bunkers with the complete Laguna Beach on DVD. Maybe Selena Gomez can pitch in and do some role playing with Hilary Clinton – you know, to give her a feel for what Middle Eastern tyrants are into.
Rolling Stone, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Shepard Fairey Inc., cannot resist a final ludicrous insinuation of moral equivalency:
Artists have long taken money to play private shows for clients whose political agendas might be offensive to their fans, from B.B. King jamming with the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater in the Eighties to Elton John singing at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding last year.
This dig appears in the print edition of the story, but not on-line. Good call. The blogosphere would have fed like piranhas on this.
Posted on March 9th, 2011 at 10:35am.
Why do Hollywood and Hollywood celebrities get a pass for putting profits ahead of patriotism? Corporations and businessmen are criticized for this all the time. What’s with the double standard?
JohnJ asked the right question. Of course, we start out with the assumption that most entertainers are whores so perhaps we are not shocked when we hear this sort of news.
Entertainers, intellectuals, courtiers and sycophants to tyrants for a long time. Hitler was fawned over, too, if what I’ve read is correct. Narcissists want to associate themselves with the strength of autocrats, and the status-hungry want the celebrity that come with sharing the autocrats spotlight.
Rolling Stone Magazine and to quote Oliver Stone…what do you expect from a pig but a grunt!
We all have been supporting the Libyans for years by buying their oil. At least these guys are taking money from them rather than giving it to them.
Would Sinatra have played for the Qaddafis?
Would he have played for mobsters?
Perhaps, but not for someone who sponsored the bombing of a Pan-Am passenger jet.
Point is, he wasn’t all that particular about where his paychecks came from.
Actually, I think he was particular enough not to have performed for dictators or sponsors of terrorism.
Right. He drew the line at murderers and thieves.
Why the bee in your bonnet over Sinatra? I don’t understand this. Also: do you have some specific information here about Sinatra’s business practices that you’d like to relate, or are you just doing the usual Italian=mobster thing? Just for the record, I don’t react to that well.
You’re the one who brought up Sinatra, not me. This is not an Italian thing at all. It’s well-known that Sinatra had close ties to and associated with mob figures; I’ve read about it more than once.
OK, let’s just agree-to-disagree on this one, then.
That’s fine by me.