Yes. Yes she can. Sort of.

We know that Sarah Silverman managed to win Florida for Obama by encouraging young Jews to shchlep to their grandparents there and convince them that he wasn’t a crypto-Muslim hell bent on imposing Shariah law in the US. Drunk on her success, she has now moved on to a bigger project – namely, ending world hunger by selling the Vatican and using the proceeds to that end. Here, watch her pitch:

Miss Silverman throws in some inducement to the Catholic Church – if they sell the Vatican and feed the world, we the Jews will forget about the Church’s woeful Holocaust record and the Catholic Church in turn will receive lots of uhm… pussy. But let’s be realistic. How likely is it that the Vatican will be sold? And who would even buy it? Bill Gates? George Soros? No, sorry Sarah. Totally unrealistic.

I do however have another idea. Recently it was reported that a Sarah Silverman/Jimmy Kimmel sex tape has surfaced. Photos are being slowly leaked, but really? I don’t want to see them. The mere thought of Jimmy Kimmel naked makes my stomach turn, to say the least. So here’s the deal Sarah. Find the tape. Destroy it and make sure it never sees the light of day. Then find Jimmy Kimmel and have a chat with him and his new girlfriend, Jimmy Kimmel Live! Staff writer Molly McNearney, and have him sign a legally binding document promising to never make a sex tape ever again. Ever. Or else something horrible will happen to him like we’ll feed his testicles to piranhas.

You do that Sarah. Save us all from the sight of a sweaty, hairy, naked, humping Kimmel and I guarantee you that a grateful world will reward you by supporting any cause you choose. Like ending world hunger. Or for fucking once finding you someone appropriate to date already! I mean really Sarah. Rob Huebel? Really? Really???

About the author


Founder and Publisher of Jewlicious, David Abitbol lives in Jerusalem with his wife, newborn daughter and toddler son. Blogging as "ck" he's been blocked on twitter by the right and the left, so he's doing something right.


  • I love Sarah Sivlerman.Why,because she has a dark twisted sense of humor.

    • She could start buying fairtrade. Or clothes that aren’t sweatshop labour. She could eat only seasonal and locally grown produce. She could actually… oh wait, that would require some ethical behaviour by her. Nevermind then.

      Good thing they don’t produce cheap laughs at three cent per hour at Indonesian sweatshops.

    • Modern Girl, it’s pretty simple though many people aren’t aware of it; the global fruit and vegetable market is dominated by three large companies. I don’t know how old you are, so you may or may not have noticed that even in vegetables and fruits there are certain fashions, plus a lot of items we can now reguarly buy at supermarkets at any time of the year are seasonal and, if at all, can only be grown during a limited period locally because of the temperatures. Hothouses would be an alternative, but they raise the expenses dramatically. So, what the big players do is to have farmers in e.g. Northern Africa, Southern America etc. to produce the desired fruit. However, fruits such as strawberries are not native to those areas. The farmers see the lure of some cash (and if you see how little fruits cost, you can imagine how little the farmers actually get after retail, wholesale, customs, shipping and packaging are paid), but they need to use the ground plus in Africa and Central America they also need to access water resources – both the ground and the water would be vital to their survival / an improved lifestyle. Please consider, even in take-off countries, the degree of formal education in rural areas still is pretty low; most farmers are farmers because that’s the only thing they can do, living on subsistence agriculture. Now, one of the risks the farmers repeatedly run is that they fall behind on the global market as the fruit traders of course look for the cheapest offers. Since there really only are a few big players, those can dictate the prices – usually as low as possible. So the farmers are lured to believe they could be making some fortune from growing certain stuff, but there’s no guarantee anybody will buy their produce at a fair rate if at all.
      In addition to water being a precious resource, watering ground in areas with high temperatures and low humidity more than the time-and-again-tried local produce needs often leads to salienisation of the ground; the water dissolves the minerals and carries them to the surface through evaporisation, leaving behind oversalted top layers of ground and in many cases actual salt crusts. The ground then becomes infertile for any produce, and the farmers lose their livelihood altogether.

      Similar things have happened with the invention of biodiesel; the original idea was to use agricultural waste to create it, but as the demand grew, suppliers outsourced to developing countries. The decision to produce those items is not necessarily taken by the farmers, mildly put, as they can be trapped in a system of dependencies on their governments or “liege”. Now, since it has been found that Brazil seems to possess the second-largest oil field in the world and biodiesel cars there were up-and-coming anyway, Western statesmen have been advocating biodiesel in Brazil – well-aware that there isn’t enough agricultural waste so fast-growing plants (usually of no nutritional value) must be grown systematically and that also burning biodiesel has been shown to be more hazardous even than regular diesel.

  • Sell the Vatican and feed the world for a year, that way the poor will know what they’re missing when they’re starving again next year.

  • Thank you Froylein, that was really informative. I hate to sound like a capitalist pig in love with my Westernized society (even though I probably am), but I don’t know if ending global dependence on produce would ultimately solve the problem of underpaid labour in undeveloped countries. If those farmers weren’t farming fruit for horribly unfair wages, I would predict that they’d likely be working in a factory for horribly unfair wages.

    So, while what you said is true, and eating locally may help, I think that inorder to actually create more equality in the world we would have to stop depending on ANY producst that were made from unfair labour. That sounds like an incredbily awesome idea, and my absolute respect goes out to those who can try to live their lives that way – from their clothes, computers, furniture, gasoline, and their cosmetics, video games and paper products. But there seems to be so much that we consume and use that is currently not avaiable in local or fair trade format.

    • Certainly, Modern Girl, the cheap labour also adds to people’s incomes in the developing countries, but we can try to balance the effects. Not every product is available in fairtrade, but as consumers we can insist on e.g. that leather goods don’t get dyed with colours threatening the workers’ health. It’s the little things one can do that add up. Buying fairtrade coffee won’t make a coffee farmer exchange his hut for a palace, but if it enables him to send his kids to school (particularly girls; there’s an obvious correlation between low alphabetisation and high population growth) or get access to fresh water, the one extra Euro per pound of ground coffee is way less than what we pay for in the end.
      In return, producers of fairtrade products need to understand that they are hopefully catering to different cultures; there are only so many ponchos one will buy to support anti-rural flight projects in Peru, but if the product was a sweater / cardi one could well be wearing to work, fit to European sizes, the decision to throw in a few extra Euros would be much easier.

  • I think Paul Romer has a clear idea of what is going on in the poverty places. The first cause: the people don’t have idea of how to finish the poverty cycle, I usually work for a NGO and often met with this matter.

    I don’t agree with all what he says but it makes senses in many things: