Does Michael Jackson deserve to adulation he’s received post-mortem? Here’s my story:

“So the Jackson story’s pretty much run its course?” a friend asked me tonight. “No,” I said. “At least six months more. At least.”

He was flabbergasted. “What could they be talking about for six months?”

Well, we’ll talk about the biological parentage of his kids, we’ll talk about who gets what in his estate, we’ll talk about who whore what to court and whether they were late; people will from time to time bring up the whereabouts of Bubbles and a potential feature film, at some point Macualay Culkin will have to weigh in, and then every now and then someone will make a very, very horrible but pee-your-pants funny joke about his death and I will laugh. Like what just happened a few hours ago. No, I’m not repeating it. But seriously. This is going to last FOREVER, so hop on the train and get a seat.

It’s a fascinating phenomenon, this public outcry of grief we see when a major celebrity passes. These deaths are an opportunity for mass catharsis. It’s not that these people are crying over Michael Jackson or Farrah Fawcett specifically; they’re externalizing pain that’s probably needed a release for some time. You see a sort of mob mentality take over — the grief feeds upon the grief. In today’s society, how often do we get an opportunity to stand on the street with strangers and share a good cry? It’s not really my style, but I can see the appeal. There are certainly less healthy outlets for pain.

Michael Jackson died from an accidental overdose of the prescription pills he was abusing. He died of addiction, which is a disease. That disease doesn’t make him a bad person, or less worthy of adulation, than if he’d died of cancer. Bill O’Reilly thinks otherwise.

A Lil’ Bill O’Reilly.

Thanks Martin!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWO5ub-c6R8]