Now, this interview in Rolling Stone with everyone’s favorite teenybopper (that sounds like a word to describe a pedophile, doesn’t it?) heartthrob Justin Bieber is doing the blog rounds mainly because “the Bieb” (as douchebags like to call him) called the US health care system “evil” in comparison to the one they have back in his native Canada. It’s a tale of sorrow and woe: our sixteen-year-old pop star observes that his bodyguard’s baby was born prematurely, so now the bodyguard has to pay for the hospital care, whereas if this had happened in Canada, the Canadian government would have picked up the tab. Here’s a thought, Bieber: Why don’t you pay for it, out of the goodness of your own heart, with all the money you’re making?
Less reported on are the things that follow Bieber’s treatise on the US Healthcare system in the Rolling Stone article. Because Rolling Stone, in its infinite quest to destroy whatever credibility it believes itself to have left among its readers, followed up with some other common political talking points in the United States. Which political party are you for, Bieber? Democrats or Republicans?
“I’m not sure about the parties, but whatever they have in Korea, that’s bad.”
It’s an interesting statement. I mean, after all, Korea is currently divided into two countries, and Bieber doesn’t specify, so maybe he’s against both capitalism and communism. Not surprising, I suppose, given he’s from Canada, where they practice neither (or both, depending on who you ask).
This is a picture of Justin Bieber as a clown I made last year. It just seemed appropriate.
And then the biggie. I mean, sure, anyone can have an opinion on healthcare: that’s never gonna get fixed. And obviously Bieber’s not gonna choose a side for Dem or GOP, lest he alienate his fans (who could probably give a shit). But what if they ask him a tough question. What’s your stance on abortion, Bieb?
“I really don’t believe in abortion. It’s like killing a baby.”
Well, that’s a pretty strong statement. He “really” doesn’t believe in it. And honestly, the second part isn’t as bad as it could be. He could have said, “It’s killing a baby” as so many pro-lifers are fond of saying. I mean, after the Korea comment, I sure didn’t expect him to drop the word “fetus” in there at any point. But follow-up question on the abortion, Justin. What if it’s an abortion for a rape pregnancy?
“Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”
Now, here’s the thing. “That position” can really only mean one thing: Bieber has never been pregnant as a result of being raped. Thus, he finds himself unable to pass judgment on someone in such a situation. But he’s perfectly fine judging women who get abortions. After all, it’s a lot like killing babies. If Bieber is only able to judge people in whose position he himself has been, than ipso facto Justin Bieber has been, or currently is pregnant.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you make Rolling Stone Magazine relevant again.
