If you haven’t already read Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘How David Beats Goliath‘ do so now, or this will make less sense.

I’m still slowly making my way through Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals (I am about a third way through). At this stage it is easy to see Lincoln as a David who won the presidency by fighting the complacency of his rivals (the Goliaths). Lincoln was far and away the underdog, but he was very good at doing what those who thought it their destiny to win the presidential nomination would not. Goodwin writes (chapter 8):

Lincoln, like Seward, had developed a cadre of lifelong friends who were willing to do anything in their power to ensure his nomination. But unlike Seward, he had not made enemies or aroused envy along the way. It is hard to imagine Lincoln letting Greeley’s resentment smoulder for years as Seward did. On the contrary, he took pains to reestablish rapport with Judd and Trumbull after they defeated him in his first run for the Senate. His ability to rise above defeat and create friendships with previous opponents was never shared by Chase, who was unable to forgive those who crossed him.

Lincoln also broke the ‘rules’ by purposely remaining unknown as a contender until the last moment so that there would be little time for him to cause ‘offence to others’; which is exactly what Seward, who was favourite for the nomination, had unwittingly done. Instead the little-known Lincoln took his rivals by surprise and seized control of the political conversation at the critical moment, steering support away from his rivals and towards himself. He was able to do so because he had cultivated his army of supporters. And, perhaps just as crucially, by the hard task of also establishing friendships with those who could so easily have become enemies.

That’s a pretty obvious lesson that is technically easy for us all to use and benefit from. But how many of us are prepared to? Not only is it hard work to always make friends, but resentment feels a little too natural to fight.

A TED talk by Alex Tabarrok.

I’ve come to most of the same conclusions independently. I’m always slightly wary of predictions, but these do feel like strong trends. But only the future knows for sure.

As I continue to read about Abraham Lincoln, I’m finding traits in him which I’ve previously pinpointed as being interesting characteristics of success.

Today’s insight has been timing.

As I read, Lincoln is making himself known as presidential material by appearing in debate after debate around the country in support of the Republican cause. And yet he has not yet declared that he intends to put himself forward for the nomination.

His strategy is brilliant. He campaigns and makes his name known and yet the other candidates are not yet taking him as a serious candidate; his competition, therefore, is lighter.

But there is something else he seems to be doing that is even more impressive. He is timing his attitude to match the nations. He is taking a moderate position on slavery. While others are talking about abolishment, he is focusing on stopping the spread of slavery into the free states. It is a far less radical view and so is encouraging less severe opposition. At this time, the people are not ready for the more radical viewpoint.

I shall be paying close attention to see how he adapts his views over time. I only have a vague knowledge of what happens after he becomes president, so I have the benefit of a mystery to keep me interested.

Back to the book I go.

Today I listened to the British Budget with great interest like I do every year. And just like every year, I’ve come away having no idea if it makes sense or not. I know it makes little sense to me.

I can obviously judge whether this is good or bad for me personally, but am stumped when I wonder about whether it is a good budget for the country.

The problem is that no matter how much time I have spent studying politics and economics, it is not something I can give enough time to fully understand. The same goes for all policies. I sit on the fence on so much of politics because I see it as one giant experiment where nobody really knows the answers. Just a basket of informed opinions.

Instead, I have begun to judge politics more in terms of the personality of the politicians. What is their past performance like? Do they make convincing arguments? Do they spin the truth? Are they too radical? Are they prepared to backtrack on policies that haven’t worked out? Do they criticise others who do the same? How good are they at getting things done? How switched on are they to the modern world? And perhaps most importantly, how well are they able to answer questions on their proposals for policy change?

Whenever I’m on the fence about an issue, this is a helpful filter to help me decide whose policies I would like to back.

Unfortunately at the moment, nobody gives me confidence they know what they are doing with the economy, which is perhaps another reason the budget makes even less sense to me this year.

During the debates leading up to the Republican presidential nomination, Abraham Lincoln…

…avowed that he had “no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races.” He had never been in favor “of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry.” He acknowledged “a physical difference between the two” that would “probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.”

from Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin

It should have been obvious to me that in a country where slavery was legal there would have been such racism, but it still surprised me that even the most enlightened leaders of antislavery did not escape racial ignorance. It is difficult to know exactly how progressive Lincoln was, for if he did believe in ‘perfect equality’ admitting it would have been political suicide. Whatever the case, Goodwin makes clear that there was a deep rooted racism in the entire nation. Those that took the lead against slavery were simply the most progressive of a nation (perhaps world) where racism was firmly embedded in the entire culture. Goodwin reminds us to take the views of these antislavery leaders within that context.

Last year I read a biography of Andrew Carnegie who worked primarily in the period immediately following the death of Lincoln. Carnegie believed wholeheartedly in capitalism as a moral good where any man had the opportunity to work his way up the social ladder. In line with this view, he built libraries so that his workers could educate themselves, then forced them to work 12 hour days seven-days-per-week so that they never had the chance. Carnegie’s beliefs were very convenient for him, but when compared to the then recent history of slavery it is perhaps easier to see how he could believe in his moral capitalism without feeling deluded. Workers had a hard time during Carnegie’s time, but at least they had the opportunity to fight for their rights.

The course of the 20th century has very much been the story of the fight for equality. Social, racial, gender and sexuality are all prominent equality battles that have been progressing ever forward. I find this gradual progression fascinating. It sure has been anything but a gentle curve (most notably it included the rise of communism and fascism), but as a race we do seem to be making progress.

If we are progressing towards a greater moral equality, that gives me great hope that we will achieve such lofty dreams as an end to world poverty. I’m not sure we really tried until a few decades ago (unless you count the building of empires).

I also wonder why exactly it is happening. My instinct would suggest it is through the accumulation of knowledge enabled by the freedom to fight for it. The rise of democracy and the rise of equality have progressed hand-in-hand. Whatever the answer, the question is certainly worthy of further consideration so that we can make sure it continues.

• He can’t use a camera
• He can’t use any device with a camera built in (so pretty much every mobile phone)
• He can only use the internet in relation to employment (but must get the police constable’s permission first)
• He can’t be in any contact with anyone under the age of 18
• He can’t enter any area predominantly used by children
• He can’t be in any house if there is a child there
• He can’t take any job without asking permission of the police constable
• He can’t hire a car without notifying the police

Why take a mentally disturbed man, cripple him of any possible chance he has to function in a modern society, and then release him back into such a society?

(BBC News article)

It’s a rather upsetting fact that my government are equally as nosey. But I’m certainly not going to go out of my way to have a government look through my private files.

With the US elections now in full swing, I have to wonder if any of the candidates support freedom.

It’s sad. I liked the United States when I last travelled there. It would be nice to return one day.

Click the image.

There any many conflicting reports as to the extent of the killings over the Burma protests, but there was enough blood spilt to make the international community take notice…

The Telegraph writes:

At the height of the government’s brutal crackdown last week there were widespread rumours that some troops in Rangoon had refused orders to fire on unarmed protesters. Rumours also suggest that Than Shwe was sufficiently worried as the street protests grew to send his family to safety in Dubai.

An online awareness campaign is set to take place on the 4th October. You can get involved here.

Although highly suppressed, protests are still occurring (from Mizzima):

Despite the Burmese military junta having imposed night curfews, residents in parts of Rangoon protested by putting their lights off for at least 15 minutes last night.

Residents in North Okklapah said, many of the residents in ward (2) switched-off their lights at 8 p.m. (local time) for 15 minutes as token of dissent.

“As there is tight security preventing us from marching on the streets, we are doing this as a symbol that we the people of Burma are being kept helplessly in the dark,” a local resident of ward (2) of North Okklapah township told Mizzima.

Another petition here

The boycott of the Beijing Olympics continues to be mentioned again and again.

Personally, I have decided I will be boycotting the Olympics, unless China stands up to its responsibility.

In the meantime, I feel it is my duty to get better informed about human rights abuses around the world.

These days I mostly read my news via the internet. It’s becoming a totally different experience to consume the news in this way rather than through traditional means. Today I scanned through the Daily Mail to find just one report on Burma, buried deep within the paper. It had a full page, but it was hardly front page news. On the Internet, however, I have about 20 articles coming through every day. It’s a completely different weighting.

On the other hand, these reports tend to swamp news of other issues.

The reason is that I am have more control. I can choose to follow one issue in particular and follow other stories less so. It is becoming more customisable.

One part of that is my recent adoption of Google News. I googled ‘Burma’ a few days back to try and get some back story and Google News was the top result. I clicked on it, and found a stream of news stories covering the issue. Most importantly I could subscribe to the RSS feed, directing this stream into my feed reader.

Now, everyday, I’m receiving news reports from a wide variety of publishers each with their slightly different take on the subject.

Currently it is a little overwhelming, since there are so many reports. And it tends to drown out other reports. But it is a great way to get up to speed on an issue and stay committed to following it.

I’ve just signed up to the Darfur feed too.