NOT SO SUPER, SINCE YOU’RE ASKING
by Todd Hartley
IWS: Good morning, and welcome to the first installment of “Word Court.” Our guest today is a word that says his credibility and good name have been gravely besmirched recently, and he wants those responsible to be held accountable for their actions. I’m talking, of course, about the formerly formidable adjective “super.”
Greetings, Mr. Super, and welcome to the program. So what, exactly, is the nature of your complaint?
S: Thank you, Mr. Stupid. It’s nice to be here. As you may know, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines me as “of high grade or quality” and also “very large or powerful,” and for centuries, that’s exactly what I’ve been. I mean, just think of some of the ways I’ve been used in the past.
IWS: Like in Superman?
S: Exactly! Superman, superstar, super-duper, Super Dave Osborne. These were all good things. It used to be that when you heard me in a phrase, it made you think something was great.
IWS: So what’s the problem now?
S: Well, recently I’ve been used in ways that have completely diminished my brilliance. First there was that “South Park” character Big Gay Al whose catchphrase was “I’m super! Thanks for asking!”
IWS: Are you saying you don’t want to be associated with homosexuals?
S: Not at all. I have no problem with that, but the fact of the matter is that because of Big Gay Al and his catchphrase, nowadays I’m almost always associated with homosexuals. Think about it: if someone asks how you are, and you say, “Super!” that person will automatically think you’re gay or completely sarcastic.
IWS: I suppose you have a point, but that was 14 years ago. Why are you only coming forward with your complaint now?
S: Well, I could have lived with that. I wasn’t happy about it, mind you, but it wasn’t that big a deal. More recently, though, I’ve taken a huge hit courtesy of Congress and the so-called “super committee” that was supposed to find ways to reduce the deficit.
IWS: Ah, I see where you’re going with this.
S: You’re damn right you do. Nothing – and I mean nothing – about our elected representatives in Washington is even close to acceptable. So why did someone think that if you took 12 of those worthless pieces of crap and put them together, somehow it was OK to call them super?
IWS: But if they’d succeeded in their mission, would it have been OK to call them super then?
S: Succeeded in their mission? They’re congresspeople, for crying out loud! When was the last time they did something worthwhile? Look, if they’d done anything except waste time and taxpayer money, I might not be so irate, but if you take six Republican’ts and six Democraps and stick them together, there’s no chance of them putting the country’s interests ahead of their own and making any type of progress. The fact that I was somehow associated with them is a stain on my record that may haunt me forever.
IWS: So what would you like to see happen to the accused?
S: To be honest, I’d like to see them all rot in jail, but that’s probably not going to happen. At the very least, they should all be fired immediately. If anyone else failed so miserably at their job, you can bet they’d find themselves unemployed. Why shouldn’t members of Congress face the same fate?
IWS: I’m sure plenty of Americans feel the same way you do, Mr. Super, but, unfortunately, I’m afraid that we here at “Word Court” have no choice but to rule in favor of the defendants.
S: What? You’ve got to be kidding me.
IWS: I’m afraid not. You see, there’s a third definition of “super” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: “exhibiting the characteristics of its type to an extreme or excessive degree.” By that definition, the super committee really was super, given that it showed to an extreme degree just how useless congressional committees really are. Thus, the use of super to describe the group was entirely justified.
S: Wow. That’s super.
IWS: Are you being gay or just sarcastic?
S: Blow it out your … (End of transcript.)
Stupor Todd Hartley is great at accomplishing nothing. He’ll be running for Congress next year.