I will pay $20 for a finely crafted shoe-hat as described by Bill O’Reilly. They’re going to be big this season.
It has come to my attention that there may be a flaw in my writing. This comes as a huge surprise to everyone, I’m sure, as we were all eagerly anticipating my impending Peabody for Excellence in Online Journalism. But after making some less than complementary comments about some GOP nominees yesterday, I got a “carefrontation” e-mail from my mother. Since my mom is half of my readership, I can’t ignore her opinion. She was concerned that I may have gotten carried away in my frustration with the GOP candidates. Fair. She thinks that maybe Mitt Romney doesn’t burn $100 bills every time he sees a homeless person. Fair. I do make use of political hyperbole about 5,000% of the time, and maybe it’s time I slowed down and explain what I really want to say. When I say things like Romney burns cash while laughing at homeless people, I really just mean I don’t agree with his fiscal or welfare policies. Or when I hint that maybe Santorum was dropped on his head a few dozen times as a child, it’s only to say that I’m not keen on his position on social issues. An if I call Newt Gingrich a huge bucket of human filth… well, I don’t really have an explanation for that one. The man’s a philandering pig. But I would like to point out that while I am prone to hyperbole, I’ve only been taking my queues from the most “fair and balanced” source of news out there, FOX News. (See video above, commentary below).
In the past few days, two states have upheld the right of LGBT citizens to marry. Personally, I find this a huge step forward in honoring the rights of all of our country’s citizens. As much as I think it might be fun to rule the country based on one religion’s beliefs (because then we could put into law my genius “Water into Wine” legislation), the fact of the matter is that religious beliefs of one segment of the electorate should not deprive another of its fair and equal rights. When Bill O’Reilly got around to commenting, he employed a creative use of dramatized hyperbole to explain why he hates the judicial arm of the checks and balances system: “You could have a judge who says, ‘You know what? You guys oughta wear shoes on your head.’… That’s Tyranny.” I actually like his example, not for the argument or sentiment, but because I genuinely wonder what a “shoe-hat” might look like. The bigger point is that “reporters” with their own shows on cable news networks are allowed to sit around and ponder things like shoe-hats, and incorrectly tell people that unless things are written in US Constitution, they don’t exist. So according the genius that is Bill O’Reilly, we can ignore the Bill of Rights, because it was thought of after the Constitution. Also, if more than 50% of people think something, we can put it into law. So, as long as we put it to a referendum, O’Reilly can finally get that shoe-hat he’s been dreaming of. And no judge can tell us we can’t! You know what that makes O’Reilly? An ass-hat. And THAT my friends, is not only a hyperbole, but at this point in the post, I think it may have also become a motif.