Shut the Fuck Up Hippie, Vol. 1: Corn Subsidies

With budget cuts a hot topic these days, I hear a lot of liberals complaining about the federal government’s farm subsidies, particularly subsidies given to corn farmers to make biofuels like ethanol. They say that farm subsidies function as a form of welfare for an extremely wealthy segment of the population, and that if we’re going to invest federal money in alternative energy sources, it should be something more efficient and progressive than ethanol. I get it. I see where you’re coming from, and I’ll admit that your premise kind of makes sense. On the other hand, why do you want to mess with farmers?

Seriously, is there any group of people who cause fewer problems than farmers? When was the last time you read a story about a robbery or an assault that ended with, “police are seeking a farmer for questioning,” or “the victim described the suspect as a farmer of average height wearing a black hoodie?” Farmers also pay a ton of money in taxes. When things are good, they can make millions. When things are bad, the government pays them enough so it evens out. Yeah, that’s not particularly efficient, but if farmers never cause any problems, isit such a bad thing to reward them for it?

[RIGHT- This guy has the idea, saving the environment, one drag race at a time.]

Nothing costs the government more than healthcare, and farmers don’t cost the government a dime in healthcare expenditures. In fact, farmers don’t even get medical attention when they actually need it. A farmer is likely to cut off his finger in a tractor in the morning, then put it on ice until he has time to deal with it at the end of the day. Even then, instead of going to the emergency room, he’ll just lash it back on with some twine and duct tape, and never complain about it. It is not worth messing with these people; it will not end well.

Plus, it’s not like farmers are selfishly hoarding all of the country’s resources and not giving anything back. I would be willing to bet that farmers serve in the military at a higher rate than any other portion of the population. Think about it, every time you’ve ever talked to someone who was in a war, or seen a war documentary on TV, they have started every war story with “a guy I served next to in the trenches was just a regular old farm boy from Mississippi.” Or Iowa. Or Missouri. But not California because all they grow there is bottles of wine to drink at their nipple-rubbing parties. Think about that. Everyone who has ever been to war served next to somebody from a farm. How many people do you know who are farmers? Unless you are reading this on a dial-up connection, you can probably count the number on your limbs, which means less than five, unless you are deformed. Say you know 400 people. That means about one out of every 100 people you know is a farmer. But if you’re in the army, one out of every TWO people you know is a farmer! And maybe the guys on both sides were farmers! Do the math people: farmers are 50 times more likely to serve in the military. Giving them subsidies is a small price to pay for that patriotic allegiance.

Penn Jillete was complaining about corn subsidies. That obese fucker needs to shut his gaping asshole of a mouth before another piece of shit squirts out. His mouth needs to clamp shut as a last minute intervention to save his heart from another Orville Redenbacher butter lover’s blitzkrieg or to prevent him from embarrassing himself by reminding us that magicians don’t get to have opinions. I don’t care. Either way. As long as he’s as silent as his mute boyfriend Teller, it’s really six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Maybe the worst part about the people who complain about biofuels is that they think they have to live the lifestyle and they buy a Vespa. Now every time I’m stopped at a traffic light, some bitch on a pink moped with a matching pastel helmet is four inches from my bumper and I can’t pick my nose because she could reach out and slap my hand away since she’s so close to my car. What are you trying to prove on that piece of trash vehicle? You top out at about 30 MPH, which means you can never go more than eight blocks from home, so good luck living your cosmopolitan lifestyle when you’re trapped in one square mile. And I don’t care if you get 435 kilometers to the litre, which you say to show everyone that you like soccer and crepes. You can also get pretty good mileage by walking, but that’s also slow and inconvenient, so we invented cars. Stop trying to drag me back in time.

I am not trying to say that ethanol is a cure-all for energy problems. I’m not even saying it’s a good thing, but it’s not worth fighting about. Think of it this way: imagine that there are three friends together at a bar. One is an alcoholic prone to drunken rampages, one is a straight-edge ninny, and the other one is a normal guy. The lush is trying to get everyone to do tequila shots with him at 7 PM, and the normal guy sees the writing on the wall and tries to convince him to stick to beer for the night. Everything is going great until the ninny starts rattling off stupid stats like, “you know, 70% of all DUIs come from people who had only been drinking beer.” Now the drunk guy is getting a look in his eye because he thinks he’s going to get to start drinking tequila again. The normal guy sees the problem emerging and nudges the ninny saying something like “can you shut up for a minute? I’m trying to keep him from getting incredibly wasted and starting a fight!” But now it’s too late and the guy has a double shot of Patron in his gut and he’s yelling at some Puerto Rican guys to go back to Mexico, all because the whiny guy couldn’t keep his damn mouth shut. That is like our situation with ethanol. No, it’s not perfect, and it could still get our friend the gas guzzler incredibly fucked up, but it’s better than what we have now, and maybe it can get us moving in the right direction. So for that, I say Shut the Fuck Up, Hippie.

NBA Star Kris Humphries Weds Sex Robot in Lavish Ceremony

By Tamela Esposito

HOLLYWOOD- The glitterati were out in Los Angeles this weekend to witness the historic and luxurious wedding of reality TV’s favorite couple: New Jersey Nets forward Kris Humphries and the government-funded, semi-sentient sex robot known commonly as “Kim Kardashian.” Over 400 guests attended KimBot’s ceremony and reception, which included performances by Earth, Wind, and Fire and popular robo-crooner Robin Thicke.

It came as a slight surprise to many to learn that the reality starlet was not actually human, but a complex robotic device designed to optimize male arousal. On the other hand, KimBot’s fans have long been wary of the fact that she never displays anything resembling a human emotion. Furthermore, her communication takes place mostly through Twitter, which gives her intricate central processor time to parse the complicated nuance of human language before responding.

Years after KimBot came into the public eye, many wondered why the federal government chose this time to marry it off and reveal to the public that it is not human. Some speculate that it was a calculated effort by the Obama administration to pressure the state of California to reform its marriage laws. Under that logic, the government would have to fear the public backlash against vacating the marriage license more than the outcry over violating the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, which is probably an accurate reading of public sentiment. Others have said that the government chose to allow KimBot to marry at the behest of the newly-formed debt committee who saw how many tens of millions of dollars could be brought in
through sponsorships and decided it was probably time for politicians to stop passing KimBot around Washington like this generation’s Marilyn Monroe. Still others believe that

President Obama engineered the union as a way to get closer to Humphries and fulfill his lifelong dream of hanging out with NBA players.

[LEFT: An earlier and less convincing prototype of the robobride.]

Details about the development of KimBot have also come to light as part of the governmen

t’s revelation. Project Kardashian began as a top secret Cold War espionage experiment in which the CIA sought to develop a robot spy that could seduce Soviet leaders and gain their confidence with no risk of defection. When the Cold War ended before the project had matured to completion, the fleet of sex bots (including the beta version with code name “Kourtney”) were stashed in southern California to undergo further testing without their appearance becoming conspicuous. When the sex bots reached maturity, they became so dangerous that the government had to put someone in charge who had the physical and mental prowess needed to keep them from exploiting their powers for evil. For that task, the CIA tracked down Olympic hero and American icon Bruce Jenner, who has served as their overseer ever since.

Years later, KimBot found her way into the tabloid pages for befriending once-famous socialite Paris Hilton (shockingly not a robot) and appearing in a sex tape with R&B star Ray J. The sex tape was actually part of another series of government experiments to determine whether the sex bots were equipped to handle the rigors of being used to spy on African-American politicians, if necessary. When the tapes were accidentally leaked, the government had to buy off Ray J by guaranteeing him a VH1 reality show for the rest of his life.

[RIGHT- OK magazine begs the question: can robots dream?]

KimBot’s powers have also been seen in professional sports, as many of its mates have achieved great athletic success when dating it. Reggie Bush won a Super Bowl with KimBot in the stands, and Miles Austin and Kris Humphries had breakout seasons while dating it, all because KimBot emits a testosterone-laden pheromone to induce attraction that serves a dual purpose as a performance enhancing drug. KimBot has tended to date athletes because they are the only segment of the population vacuous and self-centered enough not to notice that their partner is not human.

KimBot’s “sister” Kourtney is an earlier model of Project Kardashian that was not as highly developed, while Khloe is not actually a sex robot. Khloe, though, was also the product of a government experiment- one where a hybrid of a hyena and a horse went horribly wrong- and the feds had no better place to keep her without frightening children.

Politicians seek to improve economy as fundraising season looms

By Francis LaViolette

GREENWICH- Politicians nationwide have started to express apprehension about the upcoming fundraising season as the nation’s economy continues to sputter. Fundraisers attribute the uneasy feeling to both the fear of the unknown and the harsh realization that the halcyon days of advertising bombardment may be a thing of the distant past.

Politicians running for office in 2012 have noticed a steady decline in the number and amount of donations coming from all sources. Private donors, who usually account for a large percentage of small donations, are less numerous than in the past. Perhaps more troublesome is the fact that corporate donors- historically a reliable bell cow for campaign spending- have expressed uncertainty about the economic and political climate. As a result, many large companies are holding onto cash, which is resulting in what economists call a “supply gap” in the political fundraising market.

[LEFT- Politicians are reaching out to all types of potential donors to fill in the gaps.]

Market analysts point out that potential election donors are worried about their potential return on investment in the political system. In the past, campaign donations have reliably yielded a steady 6% yearly return over the subsequent election cycle, occasionally spiking into double figures through targeted tax breaks, industry deregulation, and old-fashioned kickbacks. Today, despite low interest rates, election investors are worried that decades of political largesse may have created a grease money bubble where donors have over-leveraged themselves. They worry that political resources may be tapped: that tax rates and corporate welfare cannot get any more favorable without destroying the market altogether. Furthermore, partisan bickering- once seen as a necessary façade to make the process appear legitimate- has become an unwanted nuisance that gets between corporations and their government entitlements.

The candidates, for their part, are doing everything in their power to create a donation-friendly climate. For instance, many Congressmen who initially opposed health care reform are now pushing to implement requirements that all Americans purchase health insurance before the end of the year. Pundits have noted that those pushing for expedition are located in districts heavily populated by the insurance industry and could be chasing down donations from insurance companies who will be flush with donation cash from all of the new business guaranteed by the legislation.

With such a divisive election sure to come, everyone understands that it is important to get a head start in political fundraising. Without a substantial war chest, it would be impossible for a candidate to run a thorough negative campaign against his or her adversary. A good smear campaign requires calculated leaks to the media, suggestive TV and radio ads with enough double meaning potential to maintain some plausible deniability, and outright slander from political action committee hacks. If a candidate is not able to start the negative campaign process soon, there may not be enough time to complete the full arc of attacks, which may leave voters with an incomplete hatred of one candidate or another when going to the polls. The potential for disaster is especially large in an election year that includes so many fringe candidates. Imagine, for example, if voters are still hearing messages about Michelle Bachman’s husband being secretly gay during the general election. That message might play to the Republican base, but independent voters would be much more likely to turn against her for general incompetence or whatever corruption scandal her opponents fabricate between now and the election.

Donations have been so hard to come by that some politicians have had to find creative ways to line their coffers leading up to the election. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently found himself in hot water for receiving $1 million from an untraceable and non-existent corporation. Romney blamed the incongruity on the bad economic conditions saying, “I would have never had to make up this imaginary shady donor if my regular, actual shady donors had enough cash to bankroll my dead end campaign.” Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) has been able to keep his head above water by soliciting lump-sum donations from his state’s powerful coal lobby. It is not yet known whether the “lump of coal” payment is an actual donation or an ironic mockery of his performance in office.

Perhaps the hardest hit by the fundraising shortfall has been the Tea Party, whose candidates have been consistently flabbergasted by their constituency’s irrational insistence that they stay within their modest election budgets. Their democratic counterparts, conversely, have continued to spend lavishly in hopes that the election will pay for itself in the long run.