Stuff to See!

Paradigmatic Disintegration

I scored over 1 million points in Galaga the other day. Here's the proof. Considering that I never broke so much as 500,000 before, I'd say that's an accomplishment.
There are some who would say what I did was an admirable feat. Others would dismiss it as a waste of time. I'd say both sides are right, taken together, anyway.
There are some in the world (many, actually) who say that certain people (such as sports figures, movie stars) are role models to our youth because they occupy positions of importance in our modern world. Of course, most people just won't succeed as professional athletes or actors for many reasons, so holding these people up as models around which to build our society seems flawed to me, but so do most things. In fact, the most excellent among these people, who are exceptional in their athletic or dramatic abilities, are sometimes regarded as moral paradigms, as well, a point which mystifies me to this day.
Of course, no one I know would dispute the claim that Cal Ripken, recently retired of the Baltimore Orioles, was a remarkable player and a 'decent guy' who espoused 'good old-fashioned American values'. That's fine. A lot of people would do well to follow his example of quiet and consistent hard work. Of course, there are many more negative paradigms from the world of sports alone, than positive (or bad news is just more memorable, or attractive, a point for future debate), such as the rise and fall and rise and fall of Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry (forever linked in my mind). Or OJ Simpson.
Or OJ Simpson, indeed. There are many people who think he was found not guilty in 1995 solely because of his status as a great former football player. Or that some of the Kennedy kids got off lightly because of the irrepayable debt that this country thinks it owes to the tormented (and very prominent) Kennedys. The veracity of such things can be argued back and forth, but the popular perception is that status can imbue a person with a certain degree of invincibility. In this would-be egalitarian society, seeing a rich man get off where a poorer man would fry is galling. And, just perhaps, even if the rich man is completely innocent (the presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty is a charade), he never manages to completely fade into obscurity.
Of course, there are and have been many popular figures who have had trouble with the law. And escaped with lenient punishments. I'm not crusading here for a severe comeuppance to these scoundrels in high society (there are too many). I am, however, curious as to just how any of these people are supposed to be admirable for any more than their physical/dramatic accomplishments. Many people admire the superhuman accomplishments of Mark McGwire, or Barry Bonds. Many even admire what some of these people have done to give back to society. Should acts of generosity be required of people who earn a certain income?
A more interesting question is this: what would each of us, if we were to attain great wealth and prestige, choose to do? Our principles will surely behoove us to say we would be more generous to those in need, but how many of us would get past the point where we see the ones in need who are not ourselves, or our families? I can't guarantee that I would.