The reliably zany Scott Austin responds to Tim’s guest op-ed in the ODE. As we predicted, it’s a laugh riot.

And yes, Timothy, I’m starting this response out by indicating your insatiable lack of comprehension by correcting your erroneous error of assuming that the national government is somehow the “federal” government. Don’t forget that the “federal” government is defined as the combination of the national, state, and local governments inclusively.

This raises many questions. Can you have an “insatiable lack” of something? Are “erroneous errors” worse than the other kinds of errors, or not so bad? And while his last sentence certainly would imply that marriage is a “federal” issue, does he really mean to say that absolutely anything else at all – from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Eugene smoking ban – should be construed in this way? Don’t we then have an identical dispute over which bit of the “federal” government should be sticking its nose into people’s wedding plans?

Then there’s this gem:

…Jarrett White and those of his ilk who look back on the Confederacy as some beacon of light in a smoke-filled, poorly lit room at the seedy basement of a strip club…

Pause for spit-take. Did he actually imply what I think he just implied about the College Republicans and the Confederacy?

We then learn that

Relying on Supreme Court precedent is at best unavailing…

As opposed to just making this shit up, we presume. There’s more, but I don’t want to hog all the fun. One more question, though: can we amend the Constitution to get this guy off campus already? I’m pretty sure we can make a case that it’s a federal issue.

(Let’s use the main thread for this one, folks. I hope we’ll have some responses that run over a thousand characters. Dan, Tim, I’m looking at you…)

This entry was posted on Friday, February 13th, 2004 at 11:10 by olly and is filed under Miscellaneous. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.