The Informationist, a blog written by Bruce Abramson

The Right To Know

The California Legislature shot down a "Right to Know" law that set Silicon Valley against Consumer Advocates.  Basic question: Does a consumer have the right to demand any report that an on-line data aggregator compiles and sells about him?  

The argument is straightforward.  

The "pro" side believes that I have a right to know what others know--or think they know--about me.

The "con" side notes that such a requirement would be cumbersome, would complicate business, and would likely lead to further regulation and litigation.

This issue will not fade soon for a simple reason: They are both right.

Zionist and Proud

The State of Israel turned 65 last month.  Though I may have missed the moment, it remains a fine season to pronounce loudly and proudly that I am a Zionist. 

I am extraordinarily proud of the Jewish state.  I believe that in the years since the land emerged from the last of a long line of invaders and colonial powers, Israel has indeed become a light to the nations—the demonstrable near-universal preference for darkness notwithstanding.

Success under ideal conditions is a noteworthy achievement.  Israel has learned how to thrive under conditions as adverse as those facing any nation on the planet.  The country has opened its arms to countless immigrants; developed a world-class economy; demonstrated unrivaled excellence in innovation and education; established truly liberal governance and a genuinely independent judiciary; quelled brutal ethnic uprisings with unequaled restraint; enacted a generous social safety network; and never once deviated from the state’s liberal underpinnings.  It has achieved all of these goals under constant threat of annihilation, and amidst overwhelming opprobrium.  Indeed, the Jewish State has become the Jew of the States—proving that the unthinkable is doable, and meeting near-universal resentment for doing so.

Alan Dershowitz at the JPost Conference: A Case Study in Elitist Arrogance

It's rare that direct personal experience provides an opportunity to call a prominent speaker to task.  The esteemed Professor Dershowitz of Harvard Law School has provided me with such an opportunity.

For the past couple of weeks, Dershowitz has been positioning himself as a martyr in the cause of peace.  For example, in today's Jerusalem Post, he writes: "I was booed and jeered at the Jerusalem Post Conference on April 28, 2013 when I proposed an idea for restarting peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority."  

Don't believe it for a minute.  I was at that conference and in that audience.  It was Dershowitz that was entirely out of line, demonstrating rare arrogance and contempt for people eager to hear what he had to say.

A Bit More on Bitcoin

Bitcoin, the digital currency, continues to generate interest.  Today's WSJ weekly interview with Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin's lead software developer, provides a teriffic quick summary for those not yet up to speed.

But it also provides all of the information necessary to appreciate why the grand claims that some make for its future are pipe dreams. 

Evidence or the lack Thereof

My amicus brief in the Myriad case continues to attract interest.  Some folks at the University of Pittsburgh Law School invited me to submit some thoughts.

On Self-Reflection and Self-Regulation

There are evil people sprinkled throughout the political spectrum.  No belief, no position, no ideology is inherently incorruptible.  As a result, there are at least a few members of every political movement whose behavior in pursuit of its asserted goal is so extreme, so outrageous, such an abusive perversion of that goal, that it should cause widespread revulsion.  That is as true for movements on my side of the divide as it is for those on the opposite side. 

Whenever one of those individuals come to light, opponents of the abused movement trumpet it is as proof of their correctness.  Such behavior is predictable, likely unavoidable, and not terribly interesting.  What is interesting is how a movement responds to a perversion of its own ideals.  I have long viewed self-policing as an excellent indicator of basic decency.  How do you respond when someone employs methods you find contemptible in alleged pursuit of a cause with which you agree?  The answer says a lot about a movement and its adherents.  Over the past few weeks, I have found myself faced with just such a quandary.     

NOT the Tenth Anniversary of the Iraq War

Ten years ago this week, the U.S. military began a push that led to the toppling of a totalitarian tyrant named Saddam Hussein.

As a result, many publications have printed articles describing this week as the Tenth Anniversary of the Iraq War, and attempted to discuss the lessons of those past ten years.

Don't let any of them fool you.  This week is emphatically NOT the Tenth Anniversary of the Iraq War, or even of the U.S. role in Iraq.

The Iraq war started over twenty years ago, on August 2, 1990.

Limited Government and Drone Strikes

Even the NYT has a mild rebuke for the President concerning his use of drones to assassinate American citizens.

Let's stipulate: Anwar al-Alawaki was a really bad guy, and the world is better off with him dead.

But my problems with the policy as stated are identical to those that I cited during the Bush Administration (and the Obamacare debate, come to think of it): The United States has a limited government. That means that every government action must fall beneath some limiting principle, and be subject to some sort of oversight. If an assassination is not a criminal matter (subject to applicable parts of the Bill of Rights) and it is not an act of war (subject to Geneva conventions and other treaties), what is it and what limits it?

I have been arguing for more than a decade that we need to develop a new body of laws and principles capable of preserving our notions of limited government and oversight without hampering our ability to defeat terrorist. I would advocate that Congress grant the President (though not ill-defined high officials) the authority that Obama claims to have--much as I advocated that Congress grant President Bush most of the authority that he claimed as necessary to combat terror. But I stand strongly opposed to a President who simply claims such an authority without limitation or oversight.

Why I am a Republican

I wasn't always a Republican.  From George McGovern through Al Gore, I was a die-hard, active Democrat.

By 2002, I saw my party start to change.  I saw the internal dynamics shift, as positions that I once proclaimed proudly as my own moved to the party's periphery, then beyond the pale.  In 2004 I backed John Kerry--reluctantly and unhappily--as the party's last hope of preventing the takeover by its Henry Wallace wing, now labeled Progressive.  Kerry lost, Howard Dean became DNC chair, and for the very first time I dropped my party registration.  I became an independent.

Five years later, in 2010, the Tea Party erupted on the scene.  Though I was less than completely aligned with many of its elements, I saw it (and see it) as an immensely positive force, a force capable of reshaping the Republican Party.  I became a Republican--not because I fell in love with the GOP of 2010, but because I saw the potential for it to become a party I could embrace in full.  I saw myself with two choices: I could either challenge the GOP to become the party that I wanted while standing outside, or I could bring myself beneath the GOP tent and try to nudge it in my own direction.

Something seems to be working.  Today's GOP is moving closer to a small-government party, closer to a party of open markets (rather than cronyism), and closer to a freedom party than ever before.  It is also coming closer to a party that champions American engagement abroad, and sees U.S. leadership as critical to a prosperous, free, interconnected world.

But it is not yet where it needs to be.  There is too much residual stupidity, nonsense, and occasional venality.  It continues to fight battles whose outcome has already been decided, largely on immigration and social issues.  It still possesses a strain that believes in imposing, rather than motivating, a particular view of moral behavior.  There is clearly much work to be done.

Which is why it heartens me to see a piece like this one, where Peggy Noonan enumerates a world of positive steps unfolding in but the past two weeks.

The GOP is still not the party I would like it to be.  But with each passing month it continues to move closer.

And that is why I am a Republican.

The Promise and the Threat

America is a country of great promise and great strength.

That strength rests upon an idea most radical.  From its inception, America valued individual dignity and respected individual freedom.  We are a nation born without a king, without nobility, without a priesthood, without a plan.  We grew as an experiment, by expression and reflecting the desires of our citizenry rather than by fiat of some elite.  From millions of individual small decision grew a society of unrivaled complexity, opportunity, mobility, and strength.

America will never fall to a military coup, nor will we fall to a foreign invader.  But that does not mean that we will stand forever.  The fall of America, should it occur, will unfold slowly and stealthily.  We will fall only to a leader of our own choosing, a great American who perverts our institutions and our ideals into unrecognizable form, a voice that inspires us to corrupt our society in the name of our loftiest ideals.  America's fall from grace will occur when we follow such a leader. When that day arrives: 

We will trap people in poverty in the name of compassion;

We will restrict expression the name of sensitivity;

We will denigrate faith in the name of humanity;

We will see earners as greedy and takers as worthy in the name of equity;

We will discriminate in the name of ending discrimination;

We will abandon our allies to placate our foes in the name of peace;

We will foment social tension in the name of protecting citizens from each other;

We will elevate paternalism over our own instincts in the name of progress;

We will feel entitled to things that others must provide in the name of justice;

In short, we will embrace slavery only when it comes wrapped in the language of freedom.  And it will occur precisely because a majority of us fail to see it happening until it is too late, welcoming the subtle redefinitions as expressions of our strength.          

Therein lies the greatest threat to America.

The hope lies with those dedicated to the grand American experiment, those who remain capable of seeing light even as a majority deny the darkness slowly enveloping us.