Flying Pink Unicorns

Friedman and Kristoff get it


In a column published in the NY Times on November 7 of this year

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html


Thomas Friedman basically gave up on the prospects of peace between Israel and the Palestinians in the short term, and came out against any further US involvement in trying to restart negotiations between the parties. I (sadly) agree strongly with this column, the thesis of which is that the US should stop bothering to try and broker a peace agreement that neither side wants! If they decide they want it, they know where to find us. As he put it, borrowing a line from the State Department, the Israelis want negotiations without a deal (so they can be seen and see themselves as trying for peace while always expanding their precious settlements which, given the dramatic downturn in violence from the Palestinians, is Israel's primary short term goal these days), while the Palestinians want a deal without negotiations. Oh sure, the Palestinians want a peace treaty, but even those that will negotiate with Israel, such as Abbas, don't want to actually give up anything, such as a never-will-exist right to return to Israel proper, or a total giveback of all lands captured in 1967. (I favor such an Israeli giveback, except for the old City of Jerusalem, as in Israel's selfish interests, but never mind...) And why won't Abbas and his ilk negotiate about now? Because even so-called moderates in their midst might well put a bullet in their heads. Oh, and Hamas runs the West Bank, and their official position is that Israel has no right to exist, and of course no formal negotiations. Lovely. Even if Israel WANTED a workable peace deal, which in my opinion it basically doesn't, it has literally no one to negotiate with!



So neither side really wants to talk turkey. I said a while back that I'm opposed to Israel resuming peace talks because Abbas has no base and can't deliver anyone. While that was and remains true, Frideman's argument is vastly better than mine. No more negotiations because neither side really wants to reach an agreement. So taking Friedman's insights and formulation into account, my plan is: (1) leave both sides mostly to their devices; (2) prevent the Israelis from further self-destructive settlement expansion; (3) let the Gazans stew in their rocket launching juices; (4) ignore the West Bank; and (5) be done with the whole damn thing. Friedman's right, if they want to talk, they know where to find us. I wish I could support peace negotiations, but right now I don't, for the reasons so very well stated in Friedman's column. Excellent job, Tommy!


As for Kristoff, in his column in the Times Thursday November 19th,


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/opinion/19kristof.html

he said that the GOP health care naysayers of today are saying many of the same things, sometimes literally the same things, that (mostly) GOP opponents of the creation of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965, said. Back in the day, the naysayers said Medicare would ruin health care, it was a step to socialized medicine, the government would get between you and your doctor. Nonsense. In 1964, way too many elderly in America HAD NO REGULAR DOCTOR because they couldn't afford it. After 1965, they could. Medicare was the reason. Sure, its mighty expensive, and has to be radically altered or it will, literally ruin the country, but America without Medicare is literally unthinkable. Elderly people having to chase down free/reduced cost care. Monster unmet health needs. Gigantic numbers of elderly dying for want of readily available care. Appalling. Kind of like what happens to thousands of uninsured annually today, you understand, but radically worse, because the elderly need health care far more than younger folk, and are in a worse position to find information, reduced cost or free care, etc. In short, it would be a nightmare for the nation and a living hell for way too many of the elderly. As for the politics, if the GOP ever put to a vote a full repeal of Medicare it would probably be the end of them as a party, literally. I could imagine the democrats winning a 50 state landslide by 25 points, and holding 80-85 seats in the Senate and a similar proportion in the House after the GOP tried it. Medicare is wildly popular among the elderly, for all of its flaws, and both parties know it. It is also popular among the non elderly population.



As for social security, the "end of the progress of a great country," was the quote from one speaker. That's right, ensuring that no elderly person in America lives in truly abject poverty will finish us off as a great nation! Think we're richer and better off than in 1935? Or 1945? By a wide, wide, wide margin, in every measure. Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, better health, more/better cars, vastly more/better consumer goods, and far more. Social Security was down a path to the dreaded "socialism." Without getting into silly labels, would it be better if millions upon millions of elderly were in dire poverty? I think NOT.


Now both programs have huge downsides, cost and otherwise, don't get me wrong. But their upsides are absolutely massive; in my humble opinion, they radically changed the country for the better!



Kristoff is 100% right! The democrats should bring up these long-ago objections from GOP naysayers, demonstrate that they proved wildly off the mark, remind the public that the GOP (and some democrats, to be sure) have been against the great progress represented by the two huge social entitlements, medicare and social security, and the same arguments that are wrong then are wrong now in today's health care debate. Bravo, Mr. Kristoff! I couldn't have said it better myself!