I don't know what you were trying to say with that last part...I don't think I speak that language. But I can clear up your confusion on the first, since you genuinely don't understand why I would say what I said.

You see, many of the accomplishments that the above mentioned entertainer appears to have attained are things many of us admire and aspire toward. For example, a successful career, one in which you are at the top of your profession, is often an enviable position. Additionally, to many of us having a successful marriage and a beautiful family would also be regarded as something to which to aspire. Then the fact that he is in middle age and still pretty healthy, a lot of people would wish to be in that position. Having a career that provides enough money to afford top shelf health benefits is something that I personally admire.

Oh, I suppose there's also the money. Right or wrong we all need it. How much money you have often determines the quality of some very basic things like health insurance, food, housing and transportation. The cost of being poor is very high, you see, and while money won't buy happiness, it can go a long way toward happiness by taking some of the stress of day to day getting by financially off one's mind.

So now that I've explained some of the benefits of traditionally defined career and personal success in the USA, can you see why someone would think that, if you do not have all these things, that they are things that may be of some benefit to you?