Follow in the Footsteps

Throughout childhood my parents taught me to mitigate conflict and solve problems with a simple technique: "Put yourself in their shoes!"

"Katie was really bossy and yelled at me today at recess"
"Well, did you do anything to her first? Maybe you started it? Maybe she was just having a bad day herself? Put yourself in her shoes!"

I was taught to think through the circumstances that may exist outside of what I could immediately see and experience, and to be sensitively responsive to those forces.

Now here in DC, when I think of the Bank's mission of poverty-alleviation, I witness a bit of this empathy on the part of the Bank. Having evolved past controversial structural adjustment plan strategies - forcing the market as a solution to all problems - the Bank is employing new "put yourself in their shoes!" strategies, emphasizing community consultation socially sustainable development. I witness everyday the hard work of the Bank in truly understanding the communities in which they work. Projects are well planned and approaches rigorously researched, run by an incredibly intelligent body of employees. Especially in my capacity on the Panel I am part of a meaningful community consultation process in our every inspection.

But I know that not everyone and every Project is free from the corruption and inefficiency that most associate with the Bank. These human failures also exist, and persist. Exposes like John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" will tell you that the Bank is a far cry from empathetic, like other criticisms that accuse the Bank of fostering corruption, further screwing the poor into deeper cycles of poverty, and perpetuating the system in which the money-less don't matter.

Somewhere between the sensation pieces of Bank-produced-PR and disgruntled employee publications, there is a truth to the workings of the beast. And everyday at work I find myself battling back and forth between appreciating and vilifying all the Bank does, or sometimes, does not.

Trying to understand how the leadership techniques of the Bank effect the movement to end poverty, I am reminded of a document called "The Denver Principles" that illustrates leadership techniques in the movement to end AIDS in 1983.

The Denver Principles articulated the viewpoint of the HIV positive community at a time when they were being consistently spoken for instead of spoken with. People living with HIV/AIDS refused to be considered victims or scapegoats, and instead asked to be fully accepted for who they were as people living with AIDS. Among other economic factors, it is reasonable to say that the AIDS movement in the US was so intense and goal-reaching, because the people creating these Principles and fighting the fight were literally fighting for their lives. These 'Activists' had no other choice than to be intense, urgent, and immediate,when they and their friends were dying at frightening rates.

The dying has not stopped but rather transferred to new communities. But we are not hearing as much unified 'AIDS activism' in any concentrated way like the NYC/San Fransisco communities of the 1980's/1990's. In fact perhaps the only worthy comparison of unified AIDS activism would be the Treatment Action Campaign, who founder Zackie Achmat is HIV positive himself. He's already in the shoes from the get-go.

I am pretty confident declaring that no one who works in my Bank office lives in poverty. It is tempting to think we could exponentially increase the motivation and energy of the atmosphere if we really tried to put ourselves in the shoes of the poor (although that would necessitate them having shoes and they often do not -- a complicated endeavor from the start with immense metaphorical implications!). We might take a hint from the recent wave of Obama supporters speaking up to adopt Hussein as their middle name to campaign in solidarity with our own Barack H. Obama. Taking on and understanding the burden of others in order to be better advocates ourselves.

And in many ad campaigns and powerful speeches I think we have tried to do so with certain issues:



But what's our alternative? What if, instead of making sure leaders of poverty-relief institutions could empathize with the poor, we just hired more qualified leaders? Ones with lived experiences of poverty, who know the real issues and real obstacles?

What I am asking is, why is the leadership of UNAIDS not HIV positive? Although the UN offers many services and support to their own HIV + employees, are leaders who do not intimately know the destruction and complication of HIV as qualified to do this job? When leadership has lived through the trials of development, they understand the need for urgency and hard work as a moral obligation to address issues of poverty.

But would it be acceptable or would it be dicriminatory to hire on credentials of real experience? World Bankers raised in poverty get extra points on the application?

This past weekend a few Trumans attended two matches of the Homeless World Cup qualifying tournament t where players had to be homeless in order to make the team. I found the atmosphere so satisfying because no one in the stands - presumably a mix of strangers from the street like us and friends of the players and coaches - absolutely no one cared about the word 'homeless.' They cared about a good soccer game. While players were homeless and the tournament subtly raised attention to an issue of importance, it did so not at the expense of the players' dignity, but rather in celebration of their own agency.

I wonder if and how this day will ever come -- when we see leadership positions within international development filled not exclusively by rich white American men (as EVERY Bank President has EVER been), but with those who have uniquely valuable knowledge to solve the issue.

I feel as though solidarity is far more than just metaphorically putting yourself in the other person's shoes from your position of power. Sometimes you can be a more effective leader by just giving power to and then following those who know better.

xo kho

A Rock for a Bag of Gold

Last week the Washington D.C. Department of Health and the CDC reported that over HALF of AIDS-related deaths in DC from 2000-2005 were NOT reported.

Half! After a thesis-full of lamenting the lack of AIDS data collection in aid-receiving nations, I see the same problem in my own backyard. I would have assumed DC’s notoriously high prevalence rates - estimated between 3% - 5% -- are cause for above-average vigilance. If AIDS' impact is so tragic, how was DC not ready and able to receive the AIDS deaths information?

According to Shannon Hader, senior deputy of the health departments HIV/AIDS Administration, the information was missed partly because they discovered boxes of unexamined paper records signifying that “our surveillance system wasn't complete enough."

‘Routine’ can breed discipline and enforce preparedness, but as Hader demonstrates, it can breed complacency and trick us into not paying attention, not being fully awake. My fellow Truman, Christine, and I have developed our own morning routine, strolling onto the street at 8:30, stopping for Starbucks, changing her flip-flops to heels at the sidewalk corner before the World Bank, and walking through the sun lit lobby to the NE elevator up to our office. The initially breathtaking photography and local artistry from communities in which the Bank works has become part of the anticipated scenery, as has the enormous World map in the hall just outside our quarters (which still says Zaire, but that’s the least of our concerns). Last Tuesday, turning the corner, we were unexpectedly intercepted by our co-worker next door.

"I need ONE vole-une-teer," announced our beloved Chilean ex-Panelist and now Consultant to the Panel. "There is a Congressional Hearing today and I need someone to come with me."

I quickly held back an instinctual jaw drop, being a complete rookie to the Hill scene and dying to see Congress in some type of action. But before we could fight for the chance, as loyal friends we politely replied that he would have to make the choice, as we both were equally eager to take the opportunity. Thankfully our boss approved a double team, and together as three we headed right back downstairs and caught a cab up to First St.

The aggregate knowledge I've gathered between C-SPAN, politics textbooks, policy professors and DC tours could never have prepared me for the Hearing ahead. Sitting wide-eyed and open-eared, I sat fully awake as the session started in the House Committee on Financial Services, expecting a discussion on replenishment of International Development Association (IDA) and World Bank loan conditionality...

***
In a slight digression I want to revisit a key conclusion of my senior thesis on AIDS-aid efficacy. More key than realizing the inefficacy of top-down aid, and more key than than realizing the US uses AIDS dollars to fight terror, I observed an enormous data deficit. My most valuable observation was the most simple, involving no logit regressions, no Heckmann selection model, no marginal effects. Simply, there is an abhorrent lack of data available around HIV/AIDS, and the deficit runs across aid sectors (recently argued by Bill Easterly "Where Does the Money Go?")

Just like DC carried on healthcare with such a knowledge deficit, I wonder how are we approving, disbursing and investing billions of dollars every year for AIDS when the descriptive statistics available are merely prevalence rates, and underestimated at that? At least the prevalence data is skeptical; incidence and AIDS-related mortality are oftentimes unreported and unavailable. Further exacerbating the missing data are we the donors, who do not send a clear message that we expect them. Over $100 million to Afghanistan for AIDS programs when it stands as one of the only countries who does not submit annual progress reports to UNAIDS? There certainly is an AIDS problem and I am not suggesting cutting funding because of the government's poor monitoring behavior. But when do donors start setting standards, expectations, conditions? Or should we not? Or should we, but tied together with a promise to help conduct monitoring and evaluation? How do we promote and enforce a culture of constant knowledge cultivation? How do we create an environment in which people must be fully awake and aware?

****
...Back on the Hill I sit wide-awake at the hearing, and quickly realize there are some pieces missing. 3 Representatives are present. 4 more eventually trickle in, and all leave and return at some point of the 2-hour hearing. Briefed extensively by staffers in the sidelines, everyone is scripted. Despite the topic of conversation, Representatives blatantly if not disrespectfully veer off course to make a specific statement, presumably of importance to them or their constituency. One Rep's cell phone even kept ringing and she made no effort to turn it off.

The Assistant Secretary of the Treasury testified with a thorough, fact-filled introduction covering all facets of IDA and why it must be replenished to $3.705 billion over three years. But the raised voices seemed to not have been listening to a word. Instead they were screaming the scripts:

"I was just in Haiti and there are food riots. People have no water in Africa. What are you doing about those things?"
"Tell me what you’ve done to stop aid disbursement to Iran!”
" There are people just off the shore of our own country literally starving to death. I just found out about this today.”

These are unbelievably important and courageous questions that I commend these Congress-people for bringing up. But these questions are only truly courageous and important when they are asked in the correct context to the appropriate people. Otherwise they are a waste of precious time, a distraction from the task at hand. In this hearing they were tangential and sensational, not focused and logical, causing any agenda that may have existed to crumble statement by statement.

If these smart people had been listening and awake they might have asked a few clarifying questions in place of their soapbox statements, and may have found each other sharing a vision instead of interrupting each other’s to promote their own. Food riots are, sadly, nothing new to Haiti. Instead of feigning furor for 5 minutes straight the Rep could have asked for details on how IDA accounts for different scales of aid-worthy situations and how the aid increase to IDA would have outcomes in Haiti. And even if they wanted to, IDA does not have the authority to stop aid disbursements already decided on. Instead of raging on about how aiding Iran fuels terror, perhaps the Rep could have listened to the Secretary’s explanation that, “We have a problem with the Iranian government not the Iranian people." Starvation is also nothing new. Sensationalizing poverty will not fix poverty. Attempting to care more about poor people living meters away from Florida than poor people in the Himalayas is pretty insulting to the poor and revealing of your character, or lack thereof.

I walked out a bit deflated, feeling like I did when I realized Santa was no longer real. There was no "hearing" in the Hearing. Perhaps my judgments are harsh but I do expect immense intelligence, character, and vigilance from my Members of Congress. I was surprised not just at the amount of information they did not come to the hearing with, but also at their inability to extract useful, meaningful data from the opportunity before them to ask.

Reflecting throughout the day with concern, I conjured up the always-comforting voice of my beloved boss, the warrior woman Leigh Blake. Speaking in her trademark mature urgency and deep focus, Leigh shared this story with me over the phone last week when I ducked out of the Bank for a breather:

"Shiva and Shakti, the divine couple in Hinduism, are in their heavenly abode watching over the earth. They are touched by the challenges of human life, the complexity of human reactions, and the ever-present place of suffering in the human experience. As they watch, Shakti spies a miserably poor man walking down the road. His clothes are shabby and his sandals are tied together with rope. Her heart is wrung with compassion. Touched by his goodness and his struggle, Shakti turns to her divine husband and begs him to give the man some gold. Shiva looks at the man for a long moment. "My dearest wife," he says, "I cannot do that." Shakti is astounded: "Why, what do you mean, husband? You are Lord of the Universe. Why can't you do this simple thing?" "I cannot give this to him because he is not yet ready to receive it," Shiva replies. Shakti becomes angry. "Do you mean to say that you cannot drop a bag of gold in his path?" "Surely I can," Shiva replies, "but that is quite another thing." "Please, husband," says Shakti. And so Shiva drops a bag of gold in the man's path.

The man meanwhile walks along thinking to himself, "I wonder if I will find dinner tonight-- or shall I go hungry again." Turning a bend in the road, he sees something on the path in his way. "Aha," he says, "Look there, a large rock. How fortunate that I have seen it. I might have torn these poor sandals of mine even further." And carefully stepping over the bag of gold, he goes on his way."

Leigh finished speaking and we connected in silence over the cell phone, meditating on the message. "You have to be AWAKE, Katie, you MUST be AWAKE for what is going on around you. We all have to be."

In Shiva and Shakti's case, the man perpetuates his own suffering by not being awake to the world around him. If he had just examined that ‘rock’ for a second longer he may have realized in it lay his salvation! When failing to look closely, to notice, to pay attention to detail what I find most dangerous is that anyone in power necessarily has the ability to perpetuate not only her/his own suffering, but also the suffering of those under their jurisdiction.

What distracts us from being present in the moment and awake to what the true opportunities are around us? Why are we losing our senses instead of using our senses?

I think of Congress as that poor man, except I have to imagine that that poor man also has an enormous community to support as well. As my time in DC passes, I understand mores specifically how many pressures and challenges and distractions our Congresswomen and men face every day. Zipping between hearings, connecting with their constituency, handling the Press. The mission of public service is daunting, and the expectations are many. However I think a necessary ability of any leader must be an ability to keep an active mental inventory. To be able to see all that is in one's mind, and utilize that knowledge to overcome obstacles.

(And I see now why Staffers are so important! Some people even forget the basics sometimes, like being unsure that condoms prevent HIV)

Such an open mind requires the ability to find peace and clarity amidst the chaos going on outside. The ability to organize and map out all the knowledge to see how it works together. Internal surveillance systems.

‘Receiving’ as a verb implies something is handed to us, unmistakably given to us. And indeed this is the case, but sometimes the gift comes in disguise, requires questions to be asked or conversations to be had or a closer look to be taken. A rock for a bag of gold? I can only cringe to imagine the immense wealth our public leaders may be walking over by failing to seek out full data and information when they have the opportunity to do so.

Let's not fool ourselves. We all have the agency to be ready to receive, to be awake to our surroundings. The immense amount of information that must be gathered, read, understood -- yes perhaps this is daunting. But we need to do it if we want to make any progress in our intended areas of change.

The Tripping Point

“After all, DC was built on a swamp!”

You will hear this lament at least once a day when the heat hangs thick in late afternoon, men sweating through their dress shirts and ladies trying to keep their mascara from melting. I happen to love the heat and bake unbothered, but when it comes to running outside I play it safe and start out just as the sun comes up.

Though my pulse beats the rapid urban groove, and I am happy to weave through traffic, stoplights, and pedestrians to fulfill a morning run, I would trade monument scenery and cement for peaceful woodsy trails any day! I grew up in a swamp myself, and as a rambunctious, chatterbox of a child, I was constantly searching for adventure and action in the woods off Pine Swamp Road. We Otto siblings would build elaborate forts from trees and trash, and follow snaking paths in the shadows of swaying treetops. Even in the classroom, when my teachers could get me to shut up for a minute and read, I would always grab a Boxcar Children paperback, and stop every 5 pages to dream up even more scenarios of survival and adventure in the forest.

And so I head west into the woods every morning. Feeling “home” in an otherwise unfamiliar place evokes an inner awe, and can be sparked by anything from a familiar accent to hometown sports cap to – for me - a stretch of forest down Capital Crescent path. I am in awe when the Potomac illuminates in dazzling flashes as the sun peeks up through the tree tops to catch her reflection. Despite the odd buzzing mosquito, I feel at peace within walls of ever-growing green, and I feel a strong sense of self, unrestrained and unchallenged.

Thirty minutes later I’m showering off the sweat, I fumble into unfamiliar business attire, and walk down H Street with Christine to the World Bank, 4 enormous towers huddled together under one massive glass roof. The peaceful familiarity of my early mornings dissipates as I enter the sunlit lobby. (Actually first I greet the Ghanaian guard, learn some new Twi, and then I’m at a loss!)

I say this not to detract from my immense respect for the Bank’s mission, from my deep gratitude for this opportunity to contribute to poverty relief, or from my insatiable hunger for the challenge that lies ahead in solving seemingly intractable issues. That is all alive and well and flowing through my bloodstream. I say this to express my inability to trust what I cannot see. I can’t wrap my mind around all that goes on in that gigantic building everyday – how work is coordinated, checked, and improved. Even more so, I can’t shake from my mind certain images and memories of working in hands-on ways to alleviate poverty, and feeling somewhat disconnected from the issues in the belly of an air conditioned behemoth building. I feel distant from my passion and potential, and I wonder...

How did we as a society come to buy in to the popular notion that bureaucracies are an acceptable mechanism by which to end poverty?

In 2000 Malcolm Gladwell coined a catchphrase and capitalized off a surge of social action in our nation. Gladwell defined "The Tipping Point", as "the level at which the momentum for change becomes unstoppable." His book explains how ideas become rooted, recognized, and accepted, pointing to common patterns across diverse trends of the past and present. Was the "Tipping Point" for top-down Foreign Aid as a solution to poverty at Bretton Woods in 1944? Were there key figures, according to Gladwell's 'Law of the Few', who led, informed and persuaded the public to believe in the Bank? Or perhaps it was an increase in communications technology that let Gladwell’s 'Power of Context' take root. Certainly bringing the mass ad-campaigns of starving skeleton children into people's living room TV screens prompted public support for bureaucratic charities.

However it came about, I am baffled by my present point of view. Speaking of all large aid institutions, charitable or government run, I wonder: with so many resources, such talented employees, and such immense 'plans', how have we failed to make a notable impact in relieving global poverty? How is everyone so duped by a powerful image that shadows our collective shortcomings?

I have a big family, but I grew up in a small town. And I may have moved to a big city, but I maintained a small loyal crew and work fiercely for a small non-profit. I like knowing people, I like sharing information, I like questioning decisions, and I like being held accountable for what I say to others and for the work I produce on behalf of the group – my family, town, or workplace.

Conversations here about our first week of DC work reveal that achieving this ideal work environment is not always possible at bureaucracies in which we are based.

I first want to highlight the high caliber of work produced by Bank employees, the seemingly good intentions of all my fellow Bankers, and the absolute necessity of such an organization in the pursuit of justice. But I must say that I see clear solutions in a mess of litigation and politics. I see opportunities to improve communications, both within the organization and to the public. Even when I close my eyes I see faces of friends who misfortune proves the world is still so unjust, and I open them back up to pristine offices, elaborate wall artwork, and five pound binders full of reports and responses. Something doesn't feel right.

Not to be naive: for sure, in any new work environment when you start at the bottom rung you follow orders and learn the ropes. Experience is a knowledge one cannot acquire right away, and it would be immature to criticize a process without understanding the details of how the system works. But it's not all rocket science, it's human nature. Go with the flow to get the promo(tion).

But there will surely come a day when you are asked to follow an order that contradicts your sense of self. What happens when you are expected to follow a certain code of conduct, play by a certain set of rules, and adhere to a certain organizational culture that does not promote the behaviors and values you were raised to exhibit? At what point do you sell out in order to work your way up?

The tripping point.

A Tipping Point is when sporadic decisions become systemic action. A Tripping Point is a deviation from your natural norm. Tripping tells us when we have bought in (or sold out?) as individuals.

Many of Maxwell’s examples of Tipping Points are positive or inconsequential in nature --- the drop of crime rates in NYC or the increased sale of Hush Puppies shoes in America. But what if the movement is not necessarily a good thing? What if people buy into selling themselves short? Become accustomed to cutting corners? Deliberately delaying change afraid they could lose their spot in line?

That culture still catches on, gains momentum, and builds into a powerful force. After all, who is checking if the checkers have been converted?

I of course Googled my ‘tripping point’ concept to check for authenticity, and as suspected, it is not original! Authors Porras, Emery and Thompson, co-wrote “Success Built to Last”, and call the 'inevitable stumbles or failures on the way to success' “tripping points”. They claim that successful people "think of both success and failure as feedback. The question is not whether they won or lost this round, but what they will do with the feedback." And surely I concur that "tripping" and falling offers the opportunity to get back up and be better than you once were.

But I find it hard to believe that a well prepared mind and vigilant heart cannot foresee and step over some tripping points that may emerge. Certain obstacles should, in reality, trip up only the unaware, those not in tune with who they are, where they came from, and what they believe. I am a big believer in needing to appreciate failure as an opportunity for growth. But at a certain point that can become an excuse and a cop-out to not be brave, to not stand by one’s beliefs, to not be honest with oneself. It reminds me that I have to take time and reestablish what it is I believe is right and true and acceptable.

I find it in the woods, but it is everywhere and anywhere, depending on where you hail from. (Anyone up for a run tomorrow morning?!)

"Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread like viruses do," says Gladwell. It may take a while, but maybe infusing enough key people with our Truman energy, concern, conscience and heart into the game of inefficient bureaucracies will eventually come to a Tipping Point, where enormous resources and knowledge will indeed be used to the fullest!

I sit back in my seat and words of wisdom bounce through my head as i-Tunes churns out one of my all time favorite albums, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill ... "You know I only say it cause I'm truly genuine/ Don't be a hard rock when you really are a gem, / baby girl, respect is just a minimum...."


PEACE! xo ko

The View from a Place Where You're Not

I am hitting up downtown DC fresh from four years of NYC-immersion, and in some ways this change is hitting hard! I expected a smooth transition, but everyday my ears are hungry for city clamor in this quiet Foggy Bottom neighborhood, and my imagination strips down every monotonous suit that strides by me on the sidewalk, wondering who they really are, and what are they really up to? Despite DC's undeniable diversity there exists a palpable sense of conformity and subservience that dictates and seems to restrict people’s self-expression. Maybe my perception is just skewed?

In NYC, graffiti tags the lampposts and sidewalks, and overtakes the walls of faded promo posters, proclaiming mysteriously anonymous statements of revolution to all who pass by. And the people aren't afraid to be themselves, unashamed. In one stroll down St. Marks one will meet the bright sari of a Hare Krishna devotee who steps by a coked-out homeless punk rocker who asks for change from a Ukrainian grandmother who shuffles her way through bickering high school sweethearts in chunky neon Nikes and Kanye glasses. All at once, everyone feels entitled to say and be who they are, how they feel, what they want, and oftentimes with a undeniable immediacy and urgency. And for the most part, we all get along just fine!

I assume I will eventually find and encounter this beautiful urban phenomenon in DC neighborhoods as I branch out, but so far I find that in downtown DC there are clean streets, bare walls, and many people in nice suits and clicking heels.

Is DC really so different from NYC? I am immediately reminded of those clever HSBC ads and back down from passing any judgment on my new townspeople. Maybe we just understand our potential for self-expression in different ways?

As I strip away my judgments on superficial differences between the two places, I discover a core concept: the expression of “power.” Power - ownership, decision-making, expression - manifests itself quite different in each city. Power seems more subtly possessed in DC, and authority more respected. I have far more to absorb regarding this complicated web of loyalties and appointments, but I can see distinct differences so far. NYC feels like a perpetual power of the people, whereas DC seems to run under the power of the machine. Perhaps we could think of it in the following terms...


Almost all of our beautiful 52 scholars will start their jobs this week, from positions in Departments of the Treasury, Education, and Transportation, to the World Bank, to various non-profits and government agencies. We will all be diving into and becoming part of this machine in some way or another, and thankfully in our escapades through our first week in the District our Truman programming and meetings have reinforced the nuanced nature of power in DC. Our events specifically challenged me to rethink my imperfect assumptions about possessing and practicing power in the realm of public service, and here I share with you some select reflections. Participation and provocation is encouraged so please comment if you have thoughts to contribute!

1. Don’t Judge a Book: Suter v. Stacey

Tuesday, I walked quickly up First Street, heels clicking the uphill pavement path as I pass by the Library of Congress, and turn to face the Supreme Court pillars, past which we would be allowed an hour to speak with Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. Introducing our guest speaker of the morning was Major General William Suter, Clerk of the US Supreme Court, who greeted our group with an obvious dedication for pursuing the constitutional mission of the Court and an undeniable enthusiasm for explaining this mission to others.

Clearly a conservative man, Suter must not have considered to caliber of his crowd: though we affiliate with a mix of parties, we are a diverse group of innovative and forward-thinking public servants. Therefore myself and some others were taken aback when , in describing the public perception of the Supreme Court, Suter denigrated bloggers and political scientists, disparaged the New York Times, and cursed the advances being made in communications and information technology. Although I uphold an immense respect for the work of the Court and the Constitution, and although he claimed time and again “There are no politics here,” I felt insulted as he continued to try and persuade our group that there is indeed an apolitical and universal notion of truth and justice.

Take for example the 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith. Fact: Certain Native American religious ceremonies necessitate the sacramental use of peyote. Fact: Peyote is an illegal drug in the state of Oregon, where Smith ingested the drug during such a religious ceremony. What are the facts and what are the opinions here? Is the free exercise clause the fact or the filter through which facts are processed into court rulings? I am not criticizing Scalia or his Opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, but I am saying that two facts directly opposed and one person’s opinion determined which fact would reign as truth, as opposed to two opinions opposing and one fact determining which opinion correlates with the fact.

Suter's words of wisdom therefore felt a bit insincere, when so many interests are undeniably always at stake, and ‘facts’ always at odds. "You are always entitled to your own opinion,” he said graciously, “But you are never entitled to your own facts." Was this really the most powerful statement he could muster to our group of young public servants from his decades of dedication to our nation? Is not the whole complication of politics and power that there are indeed clashes between overlapping sets of factual information that must be mediated? Is not this the challenge of constructing effective public policy? If there were a single set of incontestable facts, for what does a government even exist?

Justice Thomas came through and offered a bit more accurate and realistic view of the court, mostly by warning us time and again as we probed our questions into the abilities and real purpose of the Court: “Be careful what you are asking of the Court because you must imagine that whatever power you give to me, I will use to do the opposite of what you want.” Straightforward and focused in his thinking, and fiercely loyal to his family and community roots in his heart, Thomas also left us with more appropriate words of wisdom, that left an indelible mark on my service psyche: "Instead of arguing about your stance on an issue, ask yourself, 'What have I done to live up to what I have been given?' "

Later in the day we enjoyed the most real explanation of power dynamics over lunch and a discussion with 1994 Truman Scholar Stacey Abrams, House Rep for 84th District in the Georgia General Assembly. Stacey has an incredible grasp over the concept of holding public office in our federalist system, and communicated to us a far more realistic version of public service than Suter attempted to sugarcoat to us. Her version consequently was messy and complicated, but felt much more genuine.

"There are three core things any public servant needs to have covered," she claimed, “You must know YOUR beliefs, you must not believe too many beliefs, and you must understand how others think and believe.” I asked her how she stays grounded as she moves up in power and inevitably farther away from the hands-on community work that may have inspired her beliefs. “Surround yourself with people who do not think you're so wonderful!,” she exclaimed, and then made a statement I have never heard a leader admit before, and I respect her immensely for doing so. “Early on,” she said, “Make the decision not to KEEP your job, but to DO your job.” It was as if Professor BDM was speaking through her his theory of the selectorate, and the truth that desire for political survival all too often taints good and encourages bad policies.

So who would have thought a triple minority (young, black, female) House Representative would communicate the challenges of public service more clearly and truly than a long time player in the game? Don't judge a book!

2. Everyone Will Never Love You

New York can oftentimes become image-obsessed, and if you make it with the 'in' crowd, you are in! Whether you get a positive New York Times theater review of your piece or a nod from a celebrity on your current project, your legitimacy skyrockets and you find less and less criticisms as folks adopt the new trend. There is a similar way of working in the political atmosphere and managing and manipulating power in public office from a diverse body of powerful constituents. However it is far more obvious and accepted in DC that supporters don't really love you, and that for sure, everyone will never love you.

The impossibility of satisfying everyone resounded in a Congressional Role Simulation our group participated in at the National Association of Manufacturers. In a mock game of real-time decision making in a hypothetical congressional campaign, I realized quickly that no matter what decision you make someone will always be angry with you! How to split your limited time between the you represent and your National Party and the White House, how to spend your money in ways that support a diverse body of constituents, when and how to conduct press conferences? Your constituents, the press, the Party…someone is always not getting what they want! And you have to take the heat and keep on moving! People will trash you. You have to listen and change when the points are constructive, and for the most part, ignore and move on when they are unfounded and insulting.

3. Who is the Public?

As diverse a bunch as we Trumans are, public service is our shared passion and underlying theme of the summer Institute. But I found myself particularly challenged on Tuesday night when a few of us strolled on down to the Kennedy Center to hear a free concert by the U.S. Air Force Singing Sergeants and the U.S. Army Chorus. One song in the program caught my ear and left me with silent tears running down my face; it was a letter, drafted into lyrics and arranged to music , written by Army Private 1st Class Jesse Givens to his wife, son and unborn child in case he died, which he did, in May of 2003 in Iraq. You can hear his wife Melissa read the letter and be interviewed here.

I was challenged by this sadness in the same way I am challenged by the sadness that tightens my chest and suffocates my heart when I am reminded of the victims of 9/11.

This challenge is how to honor and appreciate these deaths ALONGSIDE the immense suffering that we have undoubtedly caused in the nation that never even attacked us to begin with. In NYC I roll with crowds who know their statistics: we lament 2,998 deaths on 9/11 and 4,090 us servicemen and women killed in Iraq since 2003, but we fail to recognize the 151,000 violent Iraqi deaths since 2003. We know General Tommy Franks and General David Petraeus and Commander in Chief George Bush as public servants – leaders – but does anyone celebrate the life and work of public servant Marla Ruzicka? Do we consider her a public servant? When we say ‘public servant’ in an increasingly globalized world, can we responsibly constrict that only to service done directly to those in our homeland? Or can we appreciate serving citizens of other nations as a long-term strategy for fostering better international relationships and reputations and thereby increasing our national security?

4. Adjudicating Authenticity

A powerful cap to our first week in DC, several of our cohort rolled out of bed at 6 AM on Saturday and made our way to the National Building Museum to be first in line for Hillary’s historic Concession speech. (Although as we kept being chastised: "This is not a concession speech," growled a Hillary supporter to my left, "This is suspension and support!" ) Our friend Jon is the only Hillary supporter of the crew – otherwise all 51 of us are for Obama with the exception of 5 or 6 McCains – and we went to support him and the unification of the Democratic party. What a fascinating anthropological experience! Besides getting a kick out of the illogical stupor the celebrity circus inflicts upon even the greatest minds, I watched intently as many supporters were crying and some even booing as Hillary made a legendary statement: “Yes We Can.”

Who is to say whether or not she meant a word of her heavy support for Obama? Who is to judge her authenticity? All I could think about as we elbowed our way out of the commotion was “What will the pundits do with this now?” Watching Hillary speak to the buzzing body of supporters, I felt an immense wave of respect come over me for this woman. Without any provocation I was reminded of the many times I have failed to reach a goal or hit a deadline, when I am never upset with myself, as I know I have worked the hardest I could have. I am rather always devastated that I have somehow disappointed someone else, someone else who was counting on me or trusting in me or invested in me. And I can only imagine how heavy a burden Hillary carried during that entire speech, evidenced by the weeping fans all around me in the crowd.

So we can scrutinize and strategize and place her words and phrases within a greater game, attempting to predict politics and paint reality. But at the end of the day, behind all the bullshit, is what she and every public leader leaves with her supporters, and gives back to the public. She clinched with a powerful reminder that although politicians have the power to make immense decisions, every single person matters as well. Ready to step off the stage and out of the race, she asked everyone to "Aim high, work hard and care deeply about what you believe in."

New Yorkers must have tipped their hats to that one!

It has been productive to make the parallels and contrasts of the two cities clear in my mind, but it's time to move on and dive into DC! For want of keeping posts a reasonable length, I have left out many other relevant and powerful meetings with folks in public service, including past Truman Scholars of all kinds, David Eisner, CEO of the Corporation for National & Community Service, Robert Egger, Founder and President of DC Central Kitchen, representatives of the Brookings Institution, and volunteers and clients at a local woman’s day shelter.

I will try to consolidate the reflections in the coming weeks, but there was a lot to digest in this first week of exposure to DC life! And don’t worry, loved ones, that I’m falling deeper into workaholic stupor -- it hasn't been all ‘work’! We watched the Celtics dominate Kobe and his Lakers at Buffalo Billiards, danced the night away on 18th street and in Adams Morgan, chilled out and watched “Recount” together, chowed down on diverse cuisines across town, from legendary Ben’s Chili Bowl cheese-fries to Mexican and margaritas. The weather is beautiful and I am feeling phenomenally blessed for these two months ahead with such a stellar group of peers.

Thanks to HSBC for a great pitch line, "A different point of view is simply the view from a place where you're not"....now please open a branch in DC so I can take out some cash without getting charged from my point of view!

Also, readers, please read the side bar attentively to learn more about some of my fellow Trumans and their amazing work! Peace! Xo ko

Welcome to the Capital!

Slowly but surely transitioning from the NYC to DC lifestyle, I can tell already this summer will be an incredible adventure! As part of the Truman Scholars Summer Institute I am here for 2 months, living with my fellow Trumans and working on the World Bank Inspection Panel. I'll be using this Blog to document observations and new understandings, as I break away from the liberal norm of NYU and get to know a more diverse (and real!) American community among my Truman peers. Despite my Thesis conclusions this will not be used for vilification of Institutions, but rather a less judgemental and more reflective space in which I hope you will be present and active! Cyber citizenship of sorts! I look forward to bringing more updates -- for now I am off to the Supreme Court to meet with Justice Clarence Thomas! xo ko