Welcome To The Shitsack

WCCO has a semi regular piece they run called Reality Check. They look at a story, dissect the spin, and then tell you what the facts actually are. In concert with that idea, I am going to start a new feature at Notes From The Front. We are going to have a fairly regular themed column which I lovingly call....The Shitsack.

While the Grab Bag is more about the variety of things that either irritate me or excite me, the Shitsack will focus exclusively on conservative language, dissect what they are saying and then explain very directly why they are completely full of shit. From time to time, I may also call it The Complete Sack of Shit which, of course, conveys a similar meaning.

To illustrate how each Shitsack will work, I thought it would be fun to talk about the word "liberal." The word liberal, as defined by conservatives, is:

1. Weak, whiny, narrow minded, criminal, thief of my precious money, traitor, scumbag and/or rapist of children.

The actual definition of liberal, according to Webster's dictionary is:

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

3.favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.


4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

6. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

8. .given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

So, clearly we can see that conservatives have taken their large, grabastic paws and dug deeply into the Shitsack. I think we can all agree that, based on the actual definition of the word liberal, this is something to which we should all aspire. Interestingly, the word conservative, according to Webster's, is defined as:

1. resistant to change

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low

3. unimaginatively conventional

Whee-hoo...sign me up for that!!!

Anyway, now that we have gotten the basic rules for the Shitsack out of the way, let's all put on our rubber glovies and look no further to our very own Notes From The Front for this week's Complete Sack of Shit from conservatives. In a recent post in comments, a conservative told the story of a report on ABC by John Stossel who made the claim that people of faith or conservatives give more to the poor than non religious or liberal people. This story was mentioned to me at the gym by several conservative friends of mine and I noticed articles about it popping up in the papers.

I knew at the time that the Shitsack had been dug into very deeply but I really didn't have all the facts to back up my responses. Now I do.

To begin with, if you are going in actual dollar amounts, atheists win hands down and people of faith don't have a fucking prayer:) Why? Because the biggest donors to charity in our country are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who have donated billions of dollars to charity. Both of them are self-proclaimed atheists. Buffet even donated 90 percent of his fortune to Bill Gates's foundation. But, y'know, let's be fair to religious people because they can't really be expected to keep up with the likes of Buffet and Gates....monetarily speaking.

So, what are some other reasons this claim belongs in the Shitsack?

Michelle Bachmann, left, our esteemed congresswoman from the Sixth District here in Minnesota, voted against increasing the minimum wage. Huh? She is very religious person who espouses hard work to get ahead. So the people who are working hardest in this country should make less money? According to her, the minimum wage hike will hurt businesses....well, maybe the conservative ones that give all their money to charity as opposed to the liberal ones that pay more to their employees and thus have none left over for charity, right?

Bachmann's "generosity" is typical of conservatives who seem to give all the breaks to rich corporations and yet none to social programs. Claiming that this money will trickle down to employees, conservatives consistently cut taxes for the rich. The fact is that in 1985 CEO's compensation was, on average, 20 times that of one of it's workers. In 2005, CEO's make 400 times as much as their average worker.

Wow. That's a heckuva trickle. Must be that new "non wet" water....y'know the kind that is invisible.

In addition, Blue states give more to the federal government in taxes....red states give less. Yet, most of the this money goes to the red states. For example, between 1991 and 2001 California paid $253.5 billion in federal taxes over the amount it received from the federal government. These subsidies went to red states like Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, who received $100.1 billion, $86.93 billion and $84.3 billion, respectively, above what they paid to the federal government. So, liberals in California are funding conservatives in the South now? Hey, waitaminute....suddenly I have decided that I want to be a conservative!!! No more taxes!!!

Now, I consider myself to be a person of faith so I am not ripping Christians here....just the ridiculous claim that people of faith and/or conservatives "give more" to the poor. It is flat out wrong. It's another example of conservatives trying to spin a great lie into a truth. When you hear comments like this from conservatives, just pull out the Shitsack.

And throw it at them.