Well, there are celebrities and celebrities, and "worship" of some types is not necessarily pathological. I can think of at least three clearcut and mutually exclusive categories:

1. Officeholders/"world leaders" ~ Interest in these personalities should be expected, because their decisions and actions do affect the public. While I usually disagree with those who lionize such characters, as though they could do no wrong, I certainly can't fault people for their interest.

2. Artists/entertainers ~ Their work entails an appeal to mass audiences, so it seems natural that large numbers of people would become attached to them. I have favorites of my own, and therefore can hardly begrudge others their similar attachments, even if they may not always be as "highbrow" as my own.

3. "Famous-for-being-famous" types like Paris Hilton, Kato Kaelin, TV amateur-hour winners, etc. For my money, it's the intense tabloid-driven interest in this bunch that is indicative of a sick society.

Maybe there isn't a very clear distinction between categories 2 and 3. I would consider Bessie Smith and Bob Marley to be serious popular artists worthy of a degree of adulation, but not, say, Jessica Simpson or WIlliam Hung. But perhaps that's no more than a matter of taste.

One thing is for certain: today's cult of celebrity certainly has taken public discourse in an unsettling direction as our attention is diverted from serious debate of critical issues by the obsessive coverage of sensational and personality-driven side issues.