Celebrity culture is Un-American Oligarchy

Is there an organization I can join that attacks "celebrity culture" for what it is, a small, powerful, insanely famous cult that reeks of royal-ism? Celebrities are like members of the King and Queen's court. The very few have power, even if they have done nothing to earn it, simply because they are elevated by many followers and/or are children of already famous people. The more these "chosen" people act out, misbehave, and otherwise make themselves ridiculous, the better. As Mel Brooks said: "It's good to be the king." To be the King or a member of the King's court. By having a celebrity culture, one in which we elevate movie and TV stars to god like status, we're creating social inequality as surely as rich people lord themselves over poor people. We all face this in school growing up, where we feel we have to be a celebrity in order to count. We have to be famous, even infamous. We count if people know us. Those are the rules. Even serial killers take this stance. They want to be known for that they do. They want to be famous. I suppose that makes them celebrities and, in the warped minds of many, more important than the ordinary, responsible citizen. Celebrities have a staggering amount of influence often completely out of proportion to their true societal worth. Millions of people pay attention to Kardashians but not doctors, teachers or even (gasp) their parents. This is a major problem not just in this country but worldwide. In a national sense, I can't think of anything that's more ingrained in American culture that's so aggressively Un-American. We have the power to treat each other as equals. All we have to do is choose to do so. 99.999% of people won't read this or care about a post like this. Why? They'd much rather watch a Kardashian.

Thank you to all who have been checking out my blog!!

Couldn't be more honored to have you take time out of your lives to read some of the things I've written. Eyes and minds give words life.

Cosmic order and justice - An in depth look

A definition of cosmic order can be reasoned. If there is order in the universe and order equals justice (because how can order equal injustice?), then things are just when they are orderly. Therefore, injustice can be defined as disorder. This makes sense in a human capacity because disorder often leads to violence, which is easily reasoned as unjust. However, the realities of the human condition make the idea of cosmic order a tough one to reason through. Everything in the universe is subject to the laws of science and cosmic order, if we're analyzing cosmic order as reality (analyzing it as fantasy is a useless exercise.) Humans, being part of scientific reality, are thus part of and subject to, cosmic order. The next thought step reasons that, if cosmic order, being universal, achieves order through scientific reality in most cases independent of the human experience (such as planets, stars, etc)m then we must conclude that everything happens for a logical reason as it is illogical to believe that scientific reality is illogical. If there is cosmic order and if cosmic order equals cosmic justice, then everything happens as it should happen. The chink in the armor of this idea is the violent, often unspeakable evils that happen in society, be they mass genocides or serial murders or babies dying of disease. How can everything happen for a reason, how can things work out as they should, when there are so many tragedies in the world? Does violently murdered baby "deserve" it's death? Do historical genocides happen because they need to happen? An argument for cosmic order, meaning the idea that everything, in the end, has a logical, understandable "bottom line" is contradictory to ideas of human compassion and decency. There can be no sense of justice and order in what is humanely indefensible. There can be no sense in the non-sensible. The pain of human reality is the variable factor. Pain is usually horrible and order and justice, being harmonious concepts, cannot be synonymous with pain unless it's literally "no pain, no gain," the idea that pain is a process towards harmony and happiness. Pain then is just a step in the evolutionary ladder on the way to peace. So what about the pain of human tragedy? The only humane thought process here is faith based. If cosmic order is to be believed, we can only have faith that violence and horror somehow make sense, even if we can't reason that it does. Such faith is only meant for the inner thought process or in blogs like this one because, to debate it in society, especially in our current politically correct climate, is unrealistic. If we try to argue that babies being raped and killed make some sort of sense, we'd be socially condemned and such condemnation isn't harmonious, unless we see such debate as being pain inducing, the kind of pain that leads to peace. In that way, political correctness is a de-evolved concept because debate, one of the major processes of human development, is severely limited. Logical humans wouldn't risk becoming social outcasts because that directly affects the human need for survival. Social condemnation lead to isolation which leads to death. If we're isolated, we can't have the human contact we need, we won't have a job and no means to support ourselves. If we're to believe in cosmic order and justice, we must have the courage to press on with our thoughts and our debates, even in the face of social condemnation or we will grow weak and fallow as thinkers.

"Dragons" represent male sexuality

As a symbol throughout history, the dragon represents male sexuality and, specifically, the religious idea that male sexuality is something evil to be overcome. The dragon's "wings" are the man's testicles, the neck is the penis and the "fire" associated with dragons is semen. Because the dragon represents a negative view of a man's sexuality, the fire, the semen, is viewed as damaging, destructive and deadly, something to be avoided (ejaculation) as religious views in the past condemned the lustful nature of sexuality.

Gun background checks threaten to further dehumanize and alienate the mentally ill

Firstly, I'll just say that I'm for background checks and limiting gun violence as much as possible. This view is one of humanity and I do the best I can to be a human being. However, with the social lean of a "mentally ill" bipolar person, I often view politics through that crucible. As a member of what I consider a socially outcast and often persecuted group, I analyze the current and ubiquitous gun debates with a detached, intellectual thought process but I, like mainstream people, feel such issues, as well. Gun control vs. gun rights, left wing vs. right wing, is obviously one of the most passionate, contentious subjects in our country (and I'm sure in many parts of the world.) This issue is fascinating for one major reason and that's because it's one of the very few issues that cause Democrats to "let down their hair" AKA say what they really feel. We all know what conservatives feel as they've hated and stereotyped people with mental illnesses forever.

All that said, here are the views of both sides: Conservatives quote the second amendment to defend their gun love/addiction/perverted sexual fetish. To these people, to crack down on certain guns means to take away all their guns. This is foolish and false, of course, but it's how they feel. Their mantra is "guns don't kill people, people kill people." This view is one of intent. That it leaves out the obvious problem of gun accidents which are caused by guns and not people killing people is irrelevant to their argument. Their desire is to choose guns over people. What sets them at ease is that the people they're choosing guns over are the "whackos." THEY'RE the ones that are the problem. Background check those people and all is right as rain. So who gets scapegoated? People like me that have bipolar disorder and, if you also have a mental issue, you're being scapegoated, too. Can't take any guns out of the hands of "real Americans" and can't blame guns so blame the whackos. I grew up with conservatives. This is how they feel.

Now liberals. I posted several months ago about how comments by Charles and Amy Schumer stereotyped mentally ill people as being the primary cause of gun violence. This narrow view, no doubt spoken by Amy Schumer with the strong encouragement of her liberal relative, can largely be excused because she's a celebrity popularity butt kisser and wants to get on the mainstream left wing celebrity bandwagon by calling press conferences and saying things. Democrats care SO MUCH about this issue (nothing wrong with that) that they're willing to leave politically correct territory. Their view? Guns kill people. I suppose they think people kill people too but their focus is on the weapons, themselves. Get rid of the guns and all is well. It's naive and impossible to politic for as guns have existed for hundreds of years and no doubt always will. The message is passionate, repetitious, and perpetual. However, Democrats, as shown by Charles and Amy Schumer and President Obama and others are also into background checks (they're on the lookout for right wing crazies) and treatment for the mentally ill.

Here is my take on that last point, which makes me VERY MAD! As a person with a mental issue, I've gone through incredible suffering. I don't own a weapon, don't want to and have never tried to. I work all the time at staying sane and take powerful medications that make me heavy and anesthetized for certain periods. I, like all others battling such problems, fight it everyday. Why do Democrats want people to get mental health treatment? On this issue, it's not because of concern or compassion. It's to take the guns out of the hands of the "crazies." To me, the comments of Amy Schumer with her grinning goon of a relative by her side conclusively prove that (and I don't want it to be so.) Democrats feel like blacks and gays are their family and friends. As members of persecuted American groups, I also feel kinship with such people. HOWEVER, it's clear that, to Democrats on the issue of gun control, the "crazies" are to be scapegoated by them as well. "Mental health treatment" not because it helps us but because it will cut down on gun violence in their eyes. Left wing ideology preaches that people are innately good. What makes them evil is when they go insane. It's ignorant because many sane people choose evil (as strange as that seems.) Therefore, when evil is done, it's the "crazies." Drug them up and keep them down and away. It hurts my feelings anytime I get that vibe from Democrats because they're supposed to be the "rainbow party" that accepts everyone. Do they have friends with mental illnesses? Are people with mental illnesses a color on their rainbow? Are we?

The struggle to limit access to certain weapons is the contentious point between the two sides and where they both get stuck. Democrats want to eliminate as many dangerous weapons as possible. Conservatives think that AK-47s and other overkill guns are vitally important to making sure Barack Obama doesn't come to their neighborhoods with red Communist tanks or some such nonsense that they truly believe. At the latest shootout, both sides express their views, butt heads a little then cool off to be dormant until the next bit of gun violence comes to our attention (a nearly everyday event in today's world of extreme social media.) Who gets treated like second class (at best) citizens? We do. People with "mental issues." We're discussed like Americans used to talk about blacks. We're not people. We're an issue to be debated and we have no say in the matter. Background checks will undoubtedly exclude people with mental illnesses from owning weapons. Who will make that decision? Democrats and Republicans jointly (so long as the "crazies" pursued aren't traditionally right wing "crazies.") What will the cutoff be? Blacks used to be considered 3/5 of a person. Will people with anxiety disorders be allowed guns? What about people with depression? Well, I'm bipolar and they're all a bunch of psychos so our fearless leaders will exclude me, right?

As I stated earlier, I have never owned a gun and don't want to. I don't need one. I'm not afraid of non-existent gun toting Commies in America knocking on my door to shoot me. The second amendment was very important when the colonists were fighting against British soldiers in their backyards. Does any American really need an arsenal of assault weapons to feel happy and safe?

My last comment is that I'm keenly aware that people with mental illnesses are responsible for some gun violence. Sadly, mental illnesses can so greatly affect people's brains that wonderful, well meaning people sometimes grab nearby weapons and go shoot up a shopping mall. It happens. Mass shootings are often the result of people in the grip of delusions and hallucinations. I'm certainly not advocating putting weapons in the hands of all or people who can be dangerous to themselves or others. My point is that it's a REPRESENTATION issue. I guarantee guys like Charles Schumer don't consult NAMI or other such groups on issues like this (however, I could be wrong on that.) After Amy Schumer's "Dude! I'm a celebrity!" comments, I sent an angry E-mail to his website expressing my feelings. Unsurprisingly, I got no reply. Carrie Fisher (who I think is great) is bipolar. If she sent an E-mail, he would call a press conference to talk about how great it is. The average citizen with mental issues? Excluded. Our opinions don't count on the issue of gun control. This is strange because background checks will effect us the most. Are Democrats and Republicans rendering us invisible as people and as Americans? I will leave that up to you to decide. Thanks for reading this far! You must be a masochist like me.