Thursday, November 20, 2008


A few weeks ago I was watching "Sicko", the Michael Moore documentary about the abysmal health care system in the United States. Although I had issues with the film, notably Michael Moore's various stunts like taking 9/11 workers to Cuba for health care (although that was kinda bad-ass) there was a moment that really struck me. Michael was over in France interviewing a cancer patient about his treatments, and how this individual was able to receive the necessary medication he needed at little to no cost.

I'm quoting from memory here, but I remember another French person saying something along the lines of "well, of course the medicine is subsidized by the government...why wouldn't we take care of our fellow countrymen?" That attitude was so refreshing since that concern for a fellow citizen's well being is almost taken for granted. Anyone living in the United States knows that is definitely not the case here. Shocking, I know, but it still bothers me.

When that fucking cunt Sara Palin desperately attempted to label Obama as a "socialist", it really pissed me off. A socialist he is not, but is there really anything wrong with providing people with lesser means certain things like, oh, I don't know, health care, food or a place to live? It bothers me to no end this attitude that "what's mine is mine and NOT FUCKING YOURS". The battle of the "haves" and "have nots" is nothing new...and although I am not an academic or a economists, it seems to be a basic tenant of Capitalism (or at least the American version of it).

Case in point. This week the heads of the Big 3 automakers testified before congress about their need for a financial bailout (actually, LOANS, to be back with interest) and were universally rebuffed by the lawmakers. Seeing as these lawmakers were quick to dole out $700 billion to bailout (i.e. not loans) for the financial sector, taking a small part of that package, in this case $25 billion, to aid a crucial sector of our economy would seem like a no-brainer.

Sadly, it seems that the lawmakers, and according to the horrific reader comments I pore over in the Chicago Tribune everyday, it seems that it's perfectly fine to protect white collar jobs, while blue collar workers, and the greater American middle class, can taking a flying fuck. Yes, the Big 3 automakers have made plenty of stupid fucking decisions, but the simple fact that allowing any of them to fail would translate into the loss of potentially millions of jobs to vanish, should provoke more concern than the dismissive comments from our nation's lawmakers.

Obviously, my point of view is tainted by the fact that I'm going on my third month of being unemployed, but the more I think about it, it seems that this country is heading full steam into a situation where those of means are going to cover their ass, while everyone else "beneath" them are on their own to figure their shit out. In this day and age, if you are not financially secure, you are seen as a drag on those that are. And despite how you got into a fucked position, the reasons are irrelevant.

It's going to be a long, cold, bitch of a winter.

/End of Rant

PS - Just to lighten the mood, here's a picture of my third imaginary BF, DeMarco Majors!


Anonymous said...

I voted for Obama because I couldn't justify voting for an old man. In any event, Obama is 100% pure socialist and that has nothing to do with the cunt's point of view, it simply is what it is. It was one of the primary difficulties I had in voting for him. If there was a republican candidate similar in age to Obama running during the last election instead of the old man, I would have voted for him without a second thought. I understand what you are saying about caring for the common man, however, that is not the government we live in. It is capitalist and not socialist. I am sorry that many people have no insurance to pay for their medical needs. Unfortunately, that is their problem and not mine. I pay for my own and I do not want to have to pay for my own plus theirs. In America if you cannot afford it, you should not have it. If you don't like it, go live in France where they care for their fellow countrymen.

borg_queen said...

Guess what, guys? This crisis was planned.

Fancy Pants said...

wow, wow, and more wow. I'm guessing that "anonymous" also calls him/herself a Christian. Funny that the first Christians were actually socialist and pooled all their resources (just like they do in Alaska, actually, passing out the largess from the oil industry . ..) Yeh I'm with ya - I will never ever be able to understand selfish people like the guy in the first comment. Does he really think that . . . ok, I can rant on me own blog and maybe I will. Peace out to ya -- unemployement SUX ASS, as does zero health care. If I could move to France, I probably would.

Thomas said...

I am very thankful that I live in a country with "free" (everyone pays for it in taxes) healthcare, otherwise my family would have had to sell our home and probably declare bankruptcy when I was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 7.

Even with my Mum as a big-time accountant and my Dad as a professor, they couldn't possibly have raised enough money to pay for 3 years of treatment, and still keep our 3 children family going.

If I had an American vote, I would have chosen "the socialist" for sure.

JUSTIN said...

In regards to Anonymous...

"In America if you cannot afford it, you should not have it."

Like education and health care? You dumb, greedy, selfish FUCK.

That being said, I do respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it.

Sam said...

Still unemployed?!! My god, with america's current *situation*, i think a new job will be hard to come by.

Yeah, europe has some fresh thinking. Like if you have no private healthcare, you could be left waiting, so almost EVERYONE has private, and there's no major problems. Apart from hospital waiting times. 2 days waiting in the emergency room most of the time...

Cockbag LLC said...

Hey Anonymous you are paying for other peoples healthcare....that is the whole point of insurance. If we were a truly capitolistic society we would all be on our own for healthcare costs. Also did you go to public schools? Well your fellow citizens helped pay for your education too. I didn't know that only the well to do were entitled to healthcare and all others must do without. You're an time you have a thought keep it to yourself.

borg_queen said...

Justin, while you're still jobless you can try income opportunities on the internet. Be careful, though. It's fraught with scammers. Lots of them.

Anonymous said...

When I initially responded to your post Justin I was just expressing a quick opinion and I never considered my passing statements would overshadow your post. However, since my statements have resulted in such a negative outburst I decided to respond.

Fancy Pants, I am not a Christian. In fact, I am an atheist. I believe that gods are the ignoramuses answer for why the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. The mysticism of religion serves only to divide people while bringing untaxable wealth and property to the “church.” Yes, I really believe my position and I do not agree with your shallow assessment that it is selfish. And yes, according to the Bible, there were acts of uniform sharing. For example, “Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need” (Acts 4:34-35). However, I fail to see the relevance of this fictitious work.

The role of socialism, and that includes the Leninist and Stalinist Marxism is the suppression of the rights of the individual in order to purge themselves of individualistic thought in order for the individual to serve the conformity of the masses. Hence, the government of the United States socially engineers conformity of learners in the education system to meet the level of education determined appropriate and satisfactory by the state to reach a societal ideal of educational conformity. Just because there is a uniform law stating that all citizens within a country must be educated, it does not necessarily mean that the law of education in America is socialist. Having a standard that which all citizens must meet a minimum educational requirement does not constitute socialism. Furthermore, individual states among the Union set the criteria for elements that need to be present in the learners’ educational program as well as the input of the individual counties, cities, and towns and so they all differ throughout the country. Therefore, the education one receives in California, may not be the same education that others receive in Montana, Idaho, New York, Louisiana, or Texas, etc.. If education were socialist in America, then everyone would be required to read identical books, write papers on identical subjects and the overall message learned from each topic would be dictated by the state upon the teachers to enforce upon their students. Any diversion from the mandated curriculum would be defeatist to the socialist agenda. The goal of the educational system, as I understand it, is to create intelligent young people capable of critical analysis, a basic understanding of mathematics and science, and the ability to clearly communicate their individual ideas based on their analysis. Your statement Cockbag that education is a socialist program is based entirely on uniform taxation to support the mandate and is foundation-less.

For the initial argument regarding insurance and socialism. The distinction between private insurance participants and government regulated insurance was the original point of contention. You are correct in that all insurance can be viewed as shades of socialism. However, I would argue that private insurance is a voluntary-socialism that I elect to participate in. However, France is a Socialist Republic. Much of the history of France has dealt with class struggle through the French Revolution, to the Emperor Napoleon, to the occupation during the Great Wars. It can even be argued that the birth of socialism occurred in France with great philosophers like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Hegel, and of course, Karl Marx. Therefore, it is not unusual for the French man in the movie to believe it is normal for everyone to have equal and total medical coverage in France. France has the French Socialist Party for goodness sakes.

On the other hand, the distinction that I attempted to make in my initial response was that President-Elect Obama’s policies on universal insurance coverage are socialist in nature because it would mean that every tax paying citizen in the United States would have their tax dollars used to provide insurance coverage to everyone regardless of whether or not this is something that they wished to participate in. This is different than having private insurance in which I make the conscious choice that I want to invest my hard earned money into a voluntary-socialist plan of insurance rather. Under Obama’s plan, it will be forced upon the masses by the state. One is socialism while the other is an individual choice allowed me in this “republic for which I stand.”

I understand and disagree with Kendrick’s Abilty-To-Pay Theory of Taxation, however, I disagree with socialized medicine in the United States. Why should a person who makes $95,000 per year pay a higher tax rate for socialized medicine while those making $22,000 pay a lower taxable rate and receive the same amount? The individual making the higher salary works and has worked damn hard to earn that income bracket and they should not continue to be the grease on the wheels of society to assist the poor or less fortunate. As Thomas Jefferson eloquently stated “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." In other words, people have the right toward upward mobility and ascension of the socioeconomic ladder without being chastised and/or judged by the poor or being unfairly discriminated and mugged by Obama’s socialist taxation.

Jefferson used the terms industry as Karl Marx used those words to argue the merits of socialism, and what he viewed, as the inherent flaws of a capitalist system. Marx argued that capitalism would fail under its own weight from the class struggles between the have-and-have-nots which would eventually give rise to a socialist state in which equality for all was paramount. I am not against socialism at all. In fact, I think it is the ideal utopia of what organized society can one day hope to achieve. However, capitalism and socialism do not mesh. They are polar opposites and any attempt to blend them will lead to the rise of one and the fall of the other. “We can’t expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” --Nikita Khrushchev on President Roosevelt's "New Deal” This is something I do not want to wake up to in four or eight years from now. If there is any doubt, read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, one of the greatest philosophers and economists who ever lived.

Moreover, I have a rather difficult time understanding the bleeding-heart mindset of many homosexuals who believe in the socialist plans of Obama when they are clearly placed at the “freak” or child’s table for dinner while the rest of the country gets to eat the main course at the adult table. Homosexuals cannot openly serve in the military, they cannot marry one another, they are often subject to vicious crimes and abuse based on their identity without the protection of the government or its people, and yet they historically pay a much higher tax rate based upon their unique individual status reflected on their tax returns. If homosexuals were allowed to claim their partners this rate would be more reflective of the common man in the United States. However, this is not the case and homosexuals generally pay higher taxes because they are (1) single adults, (2) college educated with many having advanced degrees, and, (3) having expendable incomes due to a lack of children. Of course, there are exceptions to this and that is why I used the word generally. Therefore, if homosexuals have to contribute more shouldn’t they have a greater say rather than being an ignored participant? And why stand for those who won’t stand for you?

Overall, homosexuals will pay more and continue to be treated like an unwelcome guest and stand behind Obama as if he is offering something to you that no other president has? I would like to know what it is. He will not, and cannot change the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy without the backing of Congress, (which he won’t get), and he won’t allow homosexuals to openly marry. He uses the convenient, but true argument that marriage is a state issue. However, with many of the legal arguments being brought before state supreme courts I am sure it will not be too long before a Constitutional issue opens for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. However, I am sure the Justices want to avoid this issue like the abortion and affirmative action plagues and conveniently deny the Writ.

In closing, Cockbag, the entire point of insurance is so that when I am ill or injured I can obtain adequate medical care to heal my ailment. The whole point of insurance is not to pay for the insurance of others and I already addressed your flawed logic with socialist education in America. Finally, I only commented on your post Justin because it was interesting. I did not know at the time that the majority of the responses would be insulting and complete with offensive vulgarity. The last time I posted any response to your site was over a year ago when you were discussing your family difficulties. It was not my intention to offend the masses but only to openly discuss the issue. I am surprised that all of the responses were so obscene, insulting and lacked any logical rebuttal.


JUSTIN said...


I hope you understand I was attempting to be sincere when I said I respect your opinion.

Though I may have responded with vulgarity, that's just how I communicate, it's nothing personal.

Label me as a crude, ignorant individual if need be, but I speak my mind and refuse to apologize for having done so.

Though I may disagree with your opinion, I honestly, and truly will consider it.

Do not be discouraged to share your views in the future...

AND another thing...the crux of my post was that I really feel that their is this disconnect in this country and that people far too often draw themselves into tiny subsets of our society with no regard for their fellow citizen(s).

Call it overly idealistic if you must...

PS - I won't be moving to France anytime soon. You'll have to put up with my stupid ideas/thoughts!


Fancy Pants said...

I think, Ryan, that one assumption sums up your entire world view, and it's the one that bothers me most. You assume that you individually have more value than others, that somehow because of your hard work and your hard-earned opinions and well-thought-out ideas that you deserve more. You assume that the person making 95k works harder than the person making 20k when in fact it is almost always the other way around. Nobody "deserves" anything. Warren Buffet, for example, understands that it is only in America that he could have made the money he has made, so he owes a large portion of it back to his country. America's laws and publicly-funded institutions, down to the roads we drive on the and air we breathe, allow and support the success he enjoys. He's smart enough and secure enough to understand this. I don't think you ever will, and I'm sorry, because it's an awfully lonely place to be. The end result of your Ayn Rand-style heroic individual capitalism is exactly what we're seeing now - a complete failure of trust, every man for himself, and a collapse of capitalistic financial institutions. When every man grabs what he "deserves," we're all left with a little bit of nothing.

Anonymous said...

This has all been very deep and interesting. Some real food for thought. However, I have to clear one thing up. It's "That Fucking TWAT Sarah Palin". Not "cunt", Justin. I wish that you would address our leaders with the respect that they deserve.