The State of the Sip of Water


You may not have heard the President of the United States of America spoke to the nation yesterday and discussed some pretty important issues: gun control, the housing market, ongoing wars in Afghanistan, the minimum wage.

And why haven’t you heard? Because the only thing every fucktard with Internet access* has been talking about since last night’s State of the Union speech is how, during Marco Rubio’s rebuttal remarks, the Senator from Florida took a sip of water.

Did you hear that nation?! Rubio drank water! From a bottle! Like he’s some sort of human!

So for those of you may want to know the actual substance that was discussed last night:

Over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan.  This drawdown will continue.  And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over. 

“Over” is a generous term as we will likely still have thousands of soldiers there for years to come. I mean, we’ve still got soldiers in Korea.

[Let's] raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour …  [and] tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.

So local unskilled labor will start costing more, which will only incentivize business to outsource that work or increase employee workload.

[About gun legislation:] Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country.  Indeed, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight.  But we were never sent here to be perfect.  We were sent here to make what difference we can

Obama’s reasonable approach to gun laws will surely be Murica’d into oblivion by the GOP.

I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy.

And hopefully his goal to protect our national security lines up nicely with his other efforts to protect our national security.

*That includes you, mainstream news organizations.

LDS Church, Utah AG Confirm Heebie-Jeebies Over Gays

gay flag

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with its omnipresent self-righteous fervor, has filed two amicus briefs with the Supreme Court of the United States, asking it to uphold the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.

Kirton McConkie, the Church’s law firm, filed the briefs on behalf of six religious organizations—including the National Association of Evangelicals, formerly led by bisexual Pastor and meth connoisseur, Ted Haggard.

The Jan. 29 filing comes on the heels of the Dec. 6 launch of the LDS Church’s vague outreach website, “Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction,” at

Providing lip service at the website announcement, Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said,

As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion, and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.

Clearly what he meant is the Church will express love, compassion, and outreach only as long as gays and lesbians lock themselves in closets of celibacy.  As soon as gays start asking for rights, positions change as quickly as they did on blacks in the priesthood and polygamy. In what could only be described as a delusional thought process, the Church outlined its position on the marriage situation.  In the Proposition 8 brief, attorney Von Keetch wrote:

The people of California violated no one’s civil rights when they adopted Proposition 8. Their twice-expressed preference for the traditional definition of marriage over an untested rival conception was thoroughly rational. It is therefore thoroughly constitutional.

No one’s civil rights were violated? No one, of course, except for the millions of gays and lesbians who want and deserve to get married.

The Church’s briefs come along with the Feb. 1 filing of a similar brief by embattled Utah Attorney General John Swallow.

As part of my promise to protect Utah families, we will fight to make sure traditional marriage is protected and preserved.

Protect Utah families from what, exactly? Jeremy Johnson’s prison term?

It is time for the LDS Church and its supporters to quit beating around the bush. For them, it appears Free Agency is only good enough for those chosen for the Lord’s most elect.

Vernal Business Owner Acts Like a Douche, Smugness Ensues


George Burnett, Utah Douche

George Burnett, local town douche from Vernal, has struck upon a great new business gimmick: charging those who self-identify as ‘liberals’ an extra dollar surcharge at his I Love Drilling* smoothie shop.

We have a fiscal problem in this country. We’ve got to deal with it or we don’t have a country, so to kind of help make that point, just a little bit, I charge (liberals) just a little bit more.

Does his surcharge go towards paying down the national debt (that conservative Republicans built)? Does it go towards funding local sales taxes or have anything to do with the national “fiscal problem” he identifies? Nope. The money goes to the conservative circle jerk known as the Heritage Foundation. So rather than charging liberals to pay for wars (foreign and domestic), Medicare Plan D, Stimulus, and 1% tax cuts, it pays for a group of people in DC to push conservative agendas that exacerbate national fiscal issues.

According to Burnett, all 3 identifying liberals in Vernal have happily paid the charge. On the one hand, good for them standing up for what they believe in at cost to them. However, I wonder if they realized they were funding the Heritage Foundation if they would have happily paid.

I also wonder if Burnett is aware that he could direct those funds to actually make a donation to the federal deficit? I have to assume he is, which means he really doesn’t give a rats ass about the federal deficit and is instead using a political discussion as a business tactic to attract attention and customers and funnel money to a conservative group. Which makes him a smug douche.

I know what you must be thinking. “If this man was charging conservatives extra and sending it the Center for American Progress, you’d be cheering him on.” Wrong. Acting like a total fucking douche nozzle as a business owner is still acting like a total fucking douche nozzle, regardless of the politics involved. This smug asshole should stick to trying to make a non-disgusting buckwheat shot** instead of using the manufactured austerity crisis to make money.

“Burnett said his goal isn’t to offend. First, it’s to provide people with a healthy product. Second, it’s to start a conversation about what he sees as the over-regulation of the energy industry and the continued financial problems facing the United States.”

In that case, I forsee a chain of Burnett Healthy Douche Franchises:

  • Burnett’s Granola and Domestic Drilling Deliciosities
  • Burnett’s Fresh Foods and Fracking – “Taste the Natural Gas in your Water!”
  • Burnett’s Natural Ice and Unfunded Foreign War Creamery
  • Health Food Part D – The D stands for Delicious, and Debt

Okay, those were lame but I think my point still stands. This smug prick is doing jack shit to “start a discussion”. He’s giving conservatives in Eastern Utah an excuse to feel good about themselves by charging their  liberal counterparts more money, and giving himself an opportunity to drum up business in the process. If the politics were flipped, he’d still be a self serving smug douche instead of someone who is trying to better the issues he claims to care so much about. So go buy a smoothie and tell George Burnett to take his dollar and shove it up his ass instead.

*Gays and Conservatives share a common love of drilling the depths of a protected territory.

**Seriously. Have you tried this crap? I know it’s supposedly healthy, but nothing should taste like drinking a blended up tree slug peppered with fresh manure.

Whose Church Do You Have to Join to Get a Drink Around Here?

5327295622_b7a8831850We’ve written extensively* about Utah’s liquor laws, and there’s a recent developed that just makes me want to go home, drink, and violently beat my wife and dog.

Did you know Utah restaurants “may not sell, offer for sale, or furnish an alcoholic product except in connection with an order for food”?

This is ridiculous in and of itself, but consider this: if you go into a restaurant for dinner, you can not sip on a beer while reviewing the menu to decide what you want to order. And Utah enforcement officers are cracking down.

The Sundance Film Festival is coming up and ski season is at its peak, which is a perfect time to piss off tourists, travelers, and rich Hollywood types so they’ll never want to come back here again.

So remember, if you want to drink at a restaurant in Utah, you have to order food first. If you want to drink quickly at a restaurant in Utah, you have to know what you want to eat before you even sit down. If you want to drink quickly-ier at a restaurant in Utah, bring your own alcohol.

*By “extensively” we mean five times: one, two, three**, four, and five.

**By the way, Kenneth Wynn still owes us a drink.

It’s Time to Change the 2nd Amendment

gun-violenceSince the recent shootings at Aurora and Sandy Hook—and everywhere else—there’s been plenty of 2nd Amendment talk.

Piers Morgan and Alex Jones blathered at each other*. Some random Marine told a random blonde CNN anchor he wouldn’t register his guns if a certain law was passed. Endless Facebook posts on the subject—the only real vehicle for change in today’s society—have proven that we need more guns and also fewer guns.

Assuming you acknowledge that thousands of people needlessly dying each year from gun violence is a problem that needs to be addressed**, any reasonable solution must include modifying the 2nd Amendment.

If you’re of the opinion that we should limit, qualify, or otherwise inhibit keeping (i.e. owning) and bearing (i.e. carrying) arms (e.g. guns) as the 2nd Amendment currently states, that’s fine. But we can’t solve the inadequacies of the 2nd Amendment by ignoring it—only by changing it. Ignoring the Constitution removes one more check against overreaching federal power.

Advocates of gun ownership rightfully focus on the import role the 2nd Amendment plays in protecting life and property. When defending yourself, it’s important to be able to at least match the firepower of your assailant. But in practice, that reasoning begins to break down when one particular talking point is brought up: the need for citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Two hundred years ago, a well regulated militia would be able to secure a free state. But today, if the people need to rise up against tyranny and start a revolution, we wouldn’t have a chance. Unless our gun safes include military drones and nukes, we would be bugs to the military-industrial windshield.

So I guess what I’m saying is this: if you want more gun regulation, you can’t keep pretending the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist; if you trumpet the 2nd Amendment as a godsend against tyranny, you can’t keep pretending you’ve got a chance against the largest military force in the world.

If you think gun ownership and regulation is fine the way it is now, you’re worse than Alex Jones.

*Alex Jones actually made Piers Morgan look reasonable and sane in comparison, which is a feat in and of itself.

**And if you don’t, you’re delusional.

Orrin Hatch is an Idiot: Part XVIII | Party Over Principles

5448985267_9c585259e5One thing you can always trust Republicans to do is stick to their principles—regardless of how asinine those principles happen to be. And that’s admirable, in a way. It’s good to know where our geriatric senior Senator from Utah stands on the issues instead of having to worry what he’ll do each time a topic comes up.

So when John Boehner proposed “Plan B” as a way to avoid the fiscal cliff—a plan which included “allowing [income tax] rates to increase to 1990s levels on income over $1 million”—it was nice to hear Orrin Hatch say he would oppose it. He told POLITICO:

I would vote against it because I am against raising rates.

Simple enough, right?

Well, Papa Boehner caught wind of this; and even though Orrin Hatch is not actually in the House of Representatives and won’t actually be voting on Boehner’s bill, Hatch was reminded how much more important party politics is than not raising taxes**.

This isn’t the first time Hatch has reversed course, so I’m not really sure what to think. Do we praise the man for his moment of compromise, understanding governance is not as black and white as politicians often make it out to be? Or do we criticize him for going back on his principles, especially after encouraging the ridiculous rhetoric of how apocalyptic raising taxes is?

We decided to go with criticism—which shouldn’t be surprising given this is the 18th installment of our “Orrin Hatch is an Idiot” series.

We are not fond of that man.

*Not “Plan B” as in the “morning after pill,” lest you think his solution is to abort the economy … or is it?

**i.e. the only thing that can ever solve any problem ever.

Pants Sales Skyrocket After Weekend Protest

489480318_3282286743When I heard about all the pantsing going on last week, I was intrigued. Intrigued enough to actually go to church.

Admittedly, my intentions were selfish. Maybe I would find a pants-wearing woman or a purple-wearing man in my local ward and find a new friend. We would embrace and frolic and bond as only slacktivists* can.

Unfortunately, all the women there were completely pantsless. Not a pant in the whole bunch.

Church seemed the same as well. Men were still presiding at and conducting the meetings. The woman speaker spoke first, allowing the male speaker the last word and more time. A woman gave the opening prayer, but not the closing one. Women were told the men would handle putting away all the chairs in the building.

I can only assume this lack of change was because of the lack of pants. I’m sure in other wards—ones where women wore pants—the men instantly abandoned their decades of chauvinism and turned the meetings over to the women. Priesthoods were distributed like t-shirts at an NBA game. Women were allowed to speak for all of sacrament meeting—and not just on the virtues of being a mother and/or woman and/or daughter of God. Men were assigned to prepare food for the potluck.

So hopefully women will keep wearing pants to church; world peace would be right around the corner.

*They, through their meaningless attire, and me, through a meaningless blog.

“Pants in Church Day” to Set Wards Ablaze

The fires of hell won’t stop this Mormon Feminist from rocking her new twill pants.

Hide yo kids, hide yo sacrament; the women are rising up! As if we needed one more thing to blame on Obama, now Mormon women are coordinating a “Wear Pants to Church” day this Sunday, December 16th. According to the SLTrib, a group of “Mormon feminists”* is planning, via a Facebook page, a symbolic gesture of protest against gender equality in the church.

The group’s mission statement reads, in part:

“We believe that much of the cultural, structural, and even doctrinal inequality that persists in the LDS Church today stems from the church’s reliance on — and enforcement of — rigid gender roles that bear no relationship to reality.”

Honey, take a number and get in line. The LDS Church has never taken reality into bearing when making doctrinal decisions. Do we need to make a list? Gays, African Americans, women’s rights, liquor laws, abortion, breathless “persecution” of themselves, even caffeine consumption are all ‘stances’ that the church has repeatedly ignored reality on and plowed forward with their own self interest.

In typical glib response, LDS leadership has replied that they’ve never counseled people on what to wear to church. They simply state that honoring God by wearing your nicest clothing has been the social norm. And in true sensitive solidarity with their women, Mormon men are considering organizing a “No Necktie Day”.

Here’s a real suggestion Mormon women: don’t like being unequal in the eyes of god and your man? Join a church that doesn’t degrade you and instead puts you on equal footing. There are a lot of them out there, and many of them even let you wear pants to church! If you want to change the LDS Church from the inside, try something more substantive than wearing those nice hazelnut Talbots studio pants you got on Black Friday. How about engaging your church leadership and challenging them on issues of gender, sex, and race inequality. Then again, that would take more work than joining a Facebook event and pulling on some pants.

*Mormon Feminist sounds like something that should be listed in the DSM under Dissociative identity disorder

“It’s Raining Men” in LDS Chapels

An LGBT choir recently snuck into an LDS chapel to sing the following playlist:

  • Dancing Queen by ABBA
  • YMCA by Village People
  • Vogue by Madonna
  • The Bad Touch by Bloodhound Gang

Causing the building to burst into flames because of all the gay.

At least, that’s what we assumed happened. Why else would an LGBT choir have its permission to use an LDS chapel was rescinded?

After a little further research*, turns out they weren’t chanting super-gay hexes as a way to invite super-gay spirits into the chapel as a way to turn everyone super gay and push their pro-rights agenda. The One Voice Choir was given permission by a local LDS leader to use an LDS meetinghouse for practice and were, if you can believe it, just singing songs.

Well, someone must have found out about all these LGBT heathens children of God singing and needed to put a stop to it—and was able to do it on a technicality.

As a general rule, policy dictates not to video record in an LDS chapel. The choir claims they were only using audio recordings, but the allegation of video recording was enough to get them kicked out. Instead of just politely asking them not to video record their rehearsals, they were forced to abandon their new-found practice venue.

You know, just like Jesus would have done.

They’ve since found a new practice space in Salt Lake City’s Christ United Methodist Church. The real shame is now those Methodists are going to get all those blessings for not being assholes, instead of those Mormons.

*i.e. reading the whole article

Orrin Hatch (and everyone who voted for him) is an Idiot | Part XVII

Remember how we were supposed to vote for Orrin Hatch so he could be Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee? Well, the caveat he continually forgot to mention was that would only be possible if Republicans gained control of the Senate.

Turns out, the GOP actually lost two Senate seats. Come 2013, in the Senate there will be 45 Republicans, 53 Democrats, and 2 Democratic-leaning Independents.

So way to go, 65% of voting Utahns. I’m not saying Scott Howell would have been a gem, but Scott Howell also wouldn’t have been Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.