Music does not rate highly in the corporatist world view of what is valuable. Did I hear that some primary schools in NSW do not have music classes. I would have thought there may be parallels of Michael Jackson with Elvis Presley, and it seems to me there lives were confounded by celebrity which denied them the space and context to grow as human beings.

What I liked about Chris Hedges is that he is an observer of modern Western culture, especially its American expression. He says that celebrity is a delusion, and that we are like the denizens of Plato’s cave. The greater challenge is to set the conditions that every person can actualize their potential and to have sufficient equality to make human dignity real. In modern societies, and the poverty of the other world is completely unacceptable, the world of work is the place where the rubber meets the road. For most, or at least too many, it is a place of systematic degradation. The consumer is a poor substitute for a democratic citizen.

With regards to the coverage, you wouldn’t be the only want to think so. But as I have said what’s one week in the life of one who has given so much.

Regarding systems, none are perfect. You have done well to question it. But currently it is the one that we have and if we don’t like it, our words and actions should do such to change it. I often appreciate your words here, wmmbb.

It also seems not the best correlation between Wall Street and Michael Jackson in that he had a product that the public worldwide bought without any instruments such as default credit swaps or hidden fees. His capital exchange seemed to me meritorious. I am, however, for challenging any system with our words and actions.

Any critique of celebrity is probably not an altogether bad thing, as cultural criticism is necessary and important.

I thought it fair enough to note the person had died, but then it seemed to go on and on. For me, it was far too much. So what was going on?

The fact that I did not know Jackson is completely irrelevant. I know very little because I am not interested.

On the point of the $300 million dollars, let us get realistic here. It is a large sum than even Wall Street bankers would dare pay themselves. the fact that a person has that discretionary spending power does not make them meritorious, but calls into question the system that gives rise to that inequality.

Chris Hedges had a critique of celebrity, which I thought was relevant and of interest.

With regards to celebrity status and the cult of praise, no person can really endure such. I do not think we are emotionally built for such. It has never been good for anyone no matter the good that they have done. Princess Diana’s life was sad indeed in spite of the good she did.

Regarding surgeons’ salaries versus celebrities as Jackson, there is no rational reason save the numbers drive the worth and not the work itself. Some may say, however, that without music life is not worth living. Some may also ask why nurses are not paid a comparable salary to surgeons since without them patients would not have a chance of survival after surgery. Life is full of such questions.

By the way, what’s up with the “charity begins at home” bit. You are writing again as if you knew him. Did you?

However, becoming a superstar at five years of age would impose difficulties on any person from living with the pressures of the media goldfish bowl. Children would become “stars’ have not made the choices that older people have.

The closest analogy I can think of would be the European Royal Families, and I think they for the most part wisely keep children from the spotlight. A singer – or dancer – cannot follow that course, rather the opposite. Here the celebrity critique is relevant.

Furthermore, if I understand anything at all. Jackson, for a number of reasons was past his best.

As for his charity giving. It seems excessive that any individual has that amount to give. For any one person, no matter how gifted and contributing, imagine the best surgeons in the world, is surely part of the problem. What did it do to help “the poorest among us”. Perhaps he might have remembered that “charity begins at home”. My question is, why was the amount published?

My cousin’s entire body, including her hands and face, are covered in spots. It’s not like your darker melanin will spread. This is what’s being lost. Why not go all white instead of being preceived as a spotted leopard, glared at by everyone? After all, Jackson was constantly in the public eye. This was Jackson’s choice and I have never begrudged him of this.

There was nothing about his demeanor or words which spoke to the hate of his African American heritage. The ebb and flow of his voice never changed. He spoke as every member of his family. There may have been some inner turmoils there. But who among us do not have such to a lesser or greater extent? Living his life was undoubtedly difficult, being such a celebrity at such a young age. I think he did pretty well considering.

How can you doubt that Jackson changed people’s lives in a positive way when he has given some $300 million dollars to charities around the globe to help the poorest among us? Does this not account for anything? He without doubt contributed to the “human condition” significantly. I will also say upfront that the Jackson’s mere presence on the Ed Sullivan show changed the “human condition” of many African American children including myself and siblings. It was a realization that all things are possible if we believed.

With regards to the “vacarious existence” of celebrities, ” it takes all kinds I guess. And with regards to the “media construct,” while this is true great artits such as Jackson and others have broken through. At five this kid was a superstar and it wasn’t the media itself that made him such. He was simply a musical genius that the media discovered. Now, if you are talking about shows like American Idols, Britian’s Got talent et al I would agree.

Political implications?

The “Jacko” label is just something I picked up in something I read, and it has no more significance that that, other than irreverence. As much I know he was a well known entertainer. Celebrity by its nature does suggest that we know these people, yet I try not dehumanize any person.

As to how African Americans see Michael Jackson is, I agree, important, but I would have expected that they would be sceptical about person who obviously changed his appearance. In this regard I cannot judge his significance.

I doubt very much whether Michael Jackson changed people’s lives in a positive way. I am not questioning his talent, but his contribution to the human condition. This goes to the critique that Chris Hedges is advancing. Celebrities are essentially vacuous, nor are they “world leaders”. Celebrity is a vacarious existence, as per the critique, a media construct, with political implications.

Not to acknowledge Jackson’s profound legacy on the music industry is ludicrous and to pretend that he has not affected hundreds of millions of people across the planet and millions through his charitable giving for years and years is plain silly. Yes, if you or I died the world would not mourn as so and to think that they should or might is also ridiculous. While all life is precious, the way the world mourns varies.

African American might see Jackson differently too. The Jacksons broke color barriers and enabled many to see progress in an array of areas, including politics. I received texts and emails from well known people in Washington who knew him and they spoke of his generosity, goodness and kindness of spirit. You, I or the millions upon millions who mourned him did know him personally. But many appreciated his legacy and artistry. He has sold more records than any artists to date.

When celebrities or world leaders die, those who have impacted the lives of so many hundreds of millions, we can expect wall to wall coverage, especially in this technological time, if only from an advertising standpoint alone. Yes, it may be excessive, but yes it will happen and has always happened. Some may look at it like this: What’s one week for one who has given for so many years?

We may write what we will about it; this will probably always be. But I am for constant introspection and reflection on personal, national and global levels.