« continuing congressional confusion on copyrights (ie, not just (c), or (cc), or even (ccc) but (cccc)) | Main | what the web was for »

the what hatch doesn't get list

July 9, 2004 9:16 AM - comments (8)

Ernie's beginning a list.

Posted on July 9, 2004 9:16 AM | | technorati

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1301

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference the what hatch doesn't get list:

» Hatch's Hit List from Infothought
My satire - the INDUCE/IICA Act violated itself. [Read More]

Tracked on July 9, 2004 9:16 PM

Comments (8)

July 9, 2004 10:15 AM Anonymous:

This list will prove common sense, but can it change the dollar signs in their eyes?

July 9, 2004 11:48 AM Edward:

I'm not a fan of Andrew Sullivan but here is an excerpt from his blog suggesting something else Hatch doesn't get:

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "For a simple and compelling reason, traditional marriage has been the norm in every political community for 5,000 years." - Senator Orrin Hatch, National Review. Hatch is a Mormon.

July 9, 2004 3:24 PM malcolm:

absolutely HELARIOUS ebay auction, right up this sites alley...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1467&item=5506935850

July 12, 2004 7:11 AM Barry D Bayer:

Pat Leahy is listed as a co-sponsor of INDUCE!
Is my information incorrect?
If not, why is Leahy getting a pass on this one?

July 12, 2004 9:28 AM Dave Ethington:

Hatch is a Mormon.

So am I. What does that have to do with the Induce act?

July 12, 2004 3:52 PM Rob:

I think he was insinuating that Hatch is a hypocrite by talking about traditional marriage being the norm for 5000 years while the old Mormon practice of polygamy is "untraditional". It all depends what you consider "traditional" I suppose. To a Mormon in those days, I'm sure polygamy was traditional.

I'm more interested in this "simple and compelling reason" Hatch mentions. I doubt it is simple or particularly compelling.

July 12, 2004 5:53 PM Dave Ethington:

I'm sure there are many people who take exception with Hatch's views on marriage and with that statement in particular. My point was that nowhere in the Mormon faith is there justification for the abominable INDUCE act, so why even bring it up?

As one of his constituents, I used to feel he was pretty clued in and fairly represented our state. But now I think he's really lost all sense of balance. He knows he'll get re-elected no matter what, and that most of Utah (and the country) pays no attention to Intellectual property issues. The induce act didn't even make the local papers (as far as I could find, anyway).

July 13, 2004 7:57 AM Rob:
My point was that nowhere in the Mormon faith is there justification for the abominable INDUCE act, so why even bring it up?

Well, this is a thread about Orrin Hatch, not just the INDUCE act. Also, you seem to not realize that the way Americans discuss politics is to impugn the character of the opponent. Then once you've tarred your opponent with whatever brush is handy on one issue, you can automatically discount him on any other position: "President Clinton is a philanderer, therefore his views on healthcare and foreign policy are indefensible." Or, "Orrin Hatch is a hypocrite when he talks about traditional marriage, therefore we can summarily dismiss anything he proposes regardless of their merits." It doesn't make any kind of logical sense, but most Americans don't care about logic. That's too much like thinking, and thinking hurts our brains.

Post a comment

By entering the words in the box, you are also helping to digitize texts that were written before the computer age. The words that you see were taken directly from old texts that are being scanned and stored by the Internet Archive. This CAPTCHA helps proofread the books. If the sample is too hard to read, click the recycle button to get another two. A space between each word is required. And thanks for the comment and help.