Not very long ago, I was somewhat perplexed when Sting, who I had regarded as one of the smartest men in the music business, agreed to play a concert in 2009 for the family of the President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Karimov has a reputation for being a fairly nasty piece of work, even for that part of the world, which made Sting's decision to play there below perplexing. To his credit, Sting attempted to justify his decision, claiming that refusing to play would have been a "pointless gesture".
I find the explanation unconvincing. Sting (I have to assume) does not need the money, and must have been aware that playing the concert would be an exception to the rule that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Other than some odd commercial obligation, I cannot fathom why he would risk so much of his reputation even for a sum of money rumored to be around $1m.
However, Sting does not seem to be alone in suffering a moral compass failure. Elton John just played at the wedding of Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh's predominant audience, I can assure you, are not exactly tolerant of gay people. Limbaugh himself is rather silent about issues of marriage and morality, perhaps because, as he is now on his fourth marriage, he is in a poor position to hold forth about such topics (although that never seems to stop people of a bullying pathology).
I guess that when you are a very rich pop star, that money is even more impossible to turn down. I am disappointed in both Sting and Elton John. Given their focus on charitable works in the past, I expected better.
Perhaps they have the same agent?