Day: November 19, 2013
Lincoln’s example
Today is the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg address. Talk of it in Washington is inescapable. So here is Lincoln’s signed and dated version:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
The American version of English does not get much better than this. That bit about the world not remembering was happily mistaken. But the rest rings true. Note however that Lincoln says nothing about glory, nothing about victory or defeat, or even about whose forces fought. His focus is entirely on making something happen that will redeem the sacrifices made. We do well to follow his example.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Deal, or no deal?
The nuclear talks with Iran are officially with the P5+1 (that’s the US, UK, France, Russia and China). But they are increasingly looking like a negotiation (at a distance) between Israel and Iran, with the P5+1 acting as mediators and looking for a mutually acceptable compromise. What are the odds of finding one? It depends on what we all call leverage. That comes from being able to walk away, because you’ve got a “best alternative to a negotiated agreement” (BATNA) that you prefer over the agreement on offer.
Iran’s BATNA is clear: it can continue its nuclear program, which entails continuing also to endure increasingly tight sanctions as well as the risk an Israeli or American attack. President Rouhani doesn’t like this option, because he has promised Iranians relief from sanctions, improved relations with the rest of the world, and an improved economy. Iranians are not interested in going to war. But Supreme Leader Khamenei can still veto any proposed agreement. There is every reason to believe he would do so if somehow his negotiators dared to bring home an agreement that completely dismantled Iran’s nuclear program, blocking it from any future enrichment (or reprocessing). Read more
RSS - Posts
