How we make big decisions in our household

This is how we, meaning Robyn and I, make decisions in our household. It’s a technique that I learned from Prof. Maxim Sytch during our intro Management and Organizations class in business school. In his course, we learned about how to make good decisions, even though we humans have cognitive biases. It’s a process.

The key to making good decisions is to think about the criteria we should be using to make the decision, before evaluating the decision itself.

To this day, it’s one of the most foundational and important skills I’ve ever learned. Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Capital, talks about this concept a lot too.

Lately, I have been thinking about how we make voting decisions (we generally make them poorly), and I will dig into that later - without advocating for a particular candidate. But before that, let’s talk about buying a house to setup the concept.

How we bought a house

To buy a house could’ve seen a bunch of houses and made a pro and con list with the ones we liked. The problem with that approach is that not all pros and cons are equally important. And when you make a list of pros and cons, it’s hard not to think of each factor as being equivalent.

If we hadn’t thought about which factors mattered most, in advance, we would’ve been susceptible to getting hustled by someone trying to sell their house on the factors they wanted to emphasize, rather than the ones we cared most about.

More concretely, this scorecard is we used to make our decision:

This logic is fairly simple. We created a list - in advance - of all the factors of the house we wanted to score against (not all are displayed here). As we attended showings of each house, we scored each house on a simple scale of 0 to 3.

Deciding the scoring criteria in advance was helpful, because important things like “commute”, “proximity to greenspace”, and “neighbors” were not obvious to us as important considerations until we started making a list.

You can’t see this directly from the image, but there’s a very simple weighting to create the weighted average. The average of all the house features (like bathroom power outlets, move-in ready, etc.) are weighted at 50%. Then our very subjective criteria of “feels like home” (which was a feeling of coziness, and being able to imagine raising a family there) was 50%.

This is not a perfect scorecard. In fact, in retrospect it’s quite flawed because the weighting is not specific or particularly robust.

But notice this: check out the scoring of houses D and E. If we looked only at the average of house features, house E was a better choice. When we included the “feels like home” weighting, house D was a better choice. And guess what we ended up picking - house D. If not for this scorecard, we might’ve ended up in the wrong house!

Either way, house E would’ve been a lovely place to live, but we often think how lucky we are to have landed where we did. The scorecard prevented us from making a lesser choice, based on the factors that mattered to us.

Job Hunting

The most recent time I used this decision-making approach (and actually wrote out a scorecard) was when I was job hunting. Here’s the scorecard I used then:

You can see that this scorecard is a little more robust. Every factor is individually weighted. I started by scoring my current job, and then all other alternatives. And, thank goodness I listed out a set of weighted criteria because:

• There was a time I was thinking about taking over my family’s small business. It was really attractive because it was lucrative and I could be an entrepreneur. But when I scored it, it became obvious that I would never be able to see my family because I’d have to commute 1.25 hours every day. The scorecard prevented me from making a switch for the wrong reasons.

• During my job search, I found a really cool job that I had a good shot at. But when I scored it, even though it sounded great and was pretty high status, it was a bad fit because of skill set. When I became really honest with myself (Robyn helped me do that) I walked away from the final round interview. The scorecard prevented me from making a switch out of desperation and because my ego really wanted a flashy title.

• You can see some greyed out factors. Those were factors I had from previous job searches. By being specific about factors, I realized that my life had changed and that some factors didn’t apply anymore. It was okay to use new criteria for a new situation! This realization was huge.

The moral of these two stories is simple - thinking about the factors to consider and putting a weight on them in advance was a way to make a less-biased decision. In our house decision or my job search, we could’ve talked ourselves into anything - so much played into our biases, egos, and the expectations of others we felt we had to live up to. Making the scorecard thoughtfully in advance helped us keep our heads right when the pressure was on.

The Lesson

Robyn and I now have repeated this process over and over, every time we make an important decision. We don’t start with the decision. We start with asking ourselves, “what are the criteria we should use when making this decision? What are the most important criteria?”. We learned that this was a way that made it much more likely that we’d make a good decision.

We used this approach when deciding when we would send our kids back to day care (or not). We used this approach when deciding how to negotiate interpersonal conflict with family and friends. The decision, we learned, is all in the criteria and the weightings. Once we debate those, we quickly figure out what data we still need to make a decision. Once we plug those data gaps, and put them into our decision scorecard, the decision becomes very easy.

And now that we’ve put this approach of really debating criteria into regular practice, it’s easier to apply the approach, on the fly, for littler decisions.

In fact, if you want to give this approach a test run, here’s something to try. The next time you’re choosing a basic item while grocery shopping (like soup, salad dressing, or pasta sauce) try to lay out some criteria and weights. It will feel oddly challenging, but the results of your reflection may surprise you.

The Lesson for Voting

As I said at the top, I’ve been thinking a lot about this for voting. The most important parts of this post are already covered, so if you’re not interested in hearing about how this applies to voting, please stop now. Thank you for reading this far, if you have done so.

—

It seems to me that for the vast majority of my life I debated the pros and cons, and perhaps policy stances, when deciding who to vote for. Which as we saw above, is not a great decision making process because it’s pretty easy to fall into my own biases. This election, I tried something different. Let’s take the presidential race for example.

I knew that I would be biased for/against certain candidates. So I forced myself to think about the criteria to vote for President in advance. I didn’t do a formal scoring on a piece of paper, but here’s a representation of my rough model (without weights):

• Executive / Managerial Skill - will they be able to effectively run the executive branch?

  • Can they pick a competent team to fill appointments?

  • Are they able to hold other managers accountable for results?

  • Are they able to cast a clear vision for the organization?

  • Do they seem to understand operations, metrics, scorecards, and other managerial systems?

  • Do they even care about their role as the chief executive of a workforce with hundreds of thousands of people?

• Political Skill - will they be able to form coalitions with the Congress, the States, industry, interest groups, and other nations to solve important problems?

  • Are they able to build rapport with stakeholders and constituents?

  • Do they understand how to use public politics, the press, and the bully pulpit effectively?

  • Do they understand public opinion and how to navigate it?

  • Do they have a demonstrated past of forming effective coalitions?

• Character and Integrity - are they fit to wield tremendous amounts of power?

  • Are they going to follow the law? (e.g., others won’t abide by the law if the President doesn’t)

  • Do they embody the virtues and culture I hope for the whole country to have?

  • Will they do the right thing, even when it’s difficult or not convenient? Do they have the courage do what’s right, even if it means being unpopular?

  • Do they admit when they are wrong, adjust, adapt, move on, and do better next time?

  • Are they able to have good judgement during a crisis?

• Intent - assuming they are able to accomplish results ethically, would they move the country in a direction that I agree with?

  • Do they prioritize effective government?

  • Do they prioritize government integrity?

  • Do they prioritize long-term problems like infrastructure, climate, R&D, and budget?

  • Do they see the world through the lens of freedom, welfare, and American families thriving?

I thought about what my scorecard of criteria was for weeks. I honestly considered both candidates (I hope). And I came to a decision. And, I had a much different set of criteria for other races, because the criteria I would use to evaluate a Senator, a Judge, a University Regent, or a Prosecutor is much different than what I would use for the presidency.

I don’t say all this to try to convince anyone to vote for a certain candidate for any office (I would happily do that in person, and if you know me, you’ve probably voted already anyway so I’ve missed my opportunity even if that’s what I wanted to do).

What I would suggest though is that the lesson of buying a house and job hunting applies to voting. What we should be debating is not individual choices (and getting into nasty fights about those candidates), we might do better by debating what the right criteria are. What I would hope is that you challenge my criteria of factors as being correct or bogus, and submit your own criteria to the same scrutiny.

That’s the kind of debate I want to seed. It’s what I think would move us out of pettiness and polarization. Actual candidates matter, but maybe it would advance the conversation more if we put individual candidates aside for a minute and talked about our scorecards - and then tried to thoughtfully learn from and persuade each other about what we think the correct criteria should be.

Talking about decision criteria has completely transformed how Robyn and I make decisions in our marriage and for our family, I suspect that it could have similarly transformative effects in our civic lives.

High-performing Government

As a father, I’ve relearned how incredibly gifted, skilled, and virtuous human beings can be. There are so many good things that our older son does that we haven’t taught him explicitly. He makes jokes, he voluntarily shares dessert, he hugs his brother and watches over him. He figures out problems and makes inferences. He helps to wash dishes and tells the truth (most of the time).

It’s really quite amazing. And a big turning point for me was a realization that yes, I can expect a lot from him. So I do, even though he’s only two.

He is smart, capable, and motivated. There's a lot that he’ll figure out, I’ve come to realize, if I set high expectations for him and am willing to coach him up.

The interesting thing about high expectations for little kids is that they meet them, much more than we think is possible. They are growth and learning machines. My son regresses a lot when I don’t set high expectations for him.

It’s so easy in our lives to have low expectations. And then what results is thoroughly disappointing.

I feel this way so often about government.

It bothers me so deeply - it offends me down to my core - that we have such low expectations of government. Any of these sound familiar?:

• “It’s so inefficient”

• “They’re incompetent”

• “Every bureaucrat is lazy and dumb”

• “Government never accomplishes anything”

• “Every politician is corrupt”

• “Government is too slow to make this happen”

• “We should cut their budgets, they won’t use it well anyway”

• And it goes on and on

I think we’re getting the government we deserve. If we’re not willing to have high expectations, if we’re not willing to invest, if we’re not willing to make government reform a priority - the government we have is exactly the one we should expect.

And that’s partly - maybe even mostly - on us.

If we had higher expectations, and actually backed those expectations up with actions, we’d probably have a higher-performing Government.

What if what we expected was more like this:

• Our government (state / local / federal) will have a 10-year strategic plan that actually makes sense

• Our government will be filled with talented, competent people - truly the best and brightest

• Our government will administer services more efficiently than the private sector; because it is more important, it should

• Our government will truly represents the population it serves

• Our government will be honest, caring, fast-moving

• Our government will have effective leaders and managers

• Our government will be incredibly good at listening to the voice of the constituent

• Our government will set concrete goals and measure results

When I served in the Detroit City Government, I had the highest expectations I’ve ever been asked to deliver upon. This was because my chain of command (Residents, Mayor, Chief of Police, Assistant Chief, Director, me) had high expectations. And damn it, most of the time we hit them even though it seemed impossible to even try.

We met those expectations, more than we thought was possible.

As a citizen, I see how important those high expectations are. In Detroit we didn’t even have the basics 10-15 years ago. Streetlights, trash pickup with curbside recycling, timely 911 response. And even though Detroit has a long way to go to be considered high-performing Government, the difference the last few years has made is jaw dropping. In my opinion, it’s on a solid trajectory toward high performance.

We’re going to keep getting the government we deserve one way or the other. Let’s deserve a high-performing Government.

"Even if I don't like you, I will carry you."

There isn’t much about our lives that isn’t affected by how wealthy we are. Wealth is insidious, it creeps into every corner of our lives. Our health, our mental state, our life spans, our relationships, our vocations. It’s everywhere; every damn place.

I am very grateful when friends comment on questions I ask on facebook. And there were many thoughtful responses folks shared to, “what’s something that has little to do with how wealthy we are?”

One friend commented with, “the earth’s rotation.” Which is true, the natural world and the laws of physics have little to do with how wealthy we are. But, knowing her that answer was sincere but probably also a little tongue-in-cheek. Because if an answer is the earth’s rotation - that implies that basically nothing else on earth has little to do with wealth.

Even inner peace and integrity, which some people shared, seems to be affected at least somewhat. Yes, money can’t buy peace or integrity, but chronic poverty probably makes it so that peace and acting with integrity are orders of magnitude harder to achieve for some.

But especially after several friends talked about how they thought hard about the question and literally couldn’t think of anything, I was unsatisfied. I agreed with them, but I was unsatisfied because it’s really sad if no aspect of human life is untouched by wealth.

So I thought about it some more, and I don’t even know if this is correct, but it’s the best I’ve got.

—

Suppose you go to an ice cream shop and order a scoop of chocolate ice cream. Instead of providing the ice cream, however, the clerk becomes very angry and indiscriminately hits you with a wooden rod. No warning, no apparent cause - just blow after blow from the business end of a broomstick.

This, by all reasonable accounts would be a completely unacceptable behavior. There is no circumstance I can think of where some story like this would be acceptable. It is illegal, yes. But more than that, it violates a norm we have when living in a free and peaceful society. It doesn’t matter who you are - it’s not okay to beat someone with a broomstick indiscriminately and without provocation. It doesn’t matter how wealthy you are or how poor you are, that is NOT acceptable.

To be sure, things like this still happen, but to reasonable people it is not acceptable that they happen. Reasonable people do not think it’s acceptable to be on the giving or receiving end of a broomstick in this way. That’s just now how we live.

And, because this sort of thing happens in ways that are somewhat predictable based on race and class, I concede that lots of people perhaps aren’t reasonable by the parameters laid out in this thought experiment. But let’s just continue because that’s not the problem I’m focusing on here.

What this thought experiment illustrates, however, is that norms about what’s right and wrong exist. Norms we owe it to each other to follow, and that moral obligation has little to do with how wealthy we are. There is moral obligation that exists, that has little to do with wealth.

Now, we may disagree on exactly what those moral obligations are, but this preposterous example, hopefully articulates that there is some moral compact among reasonable people - in this case, not bashing someone’s head in with a stick without provocation or warning - that has little to do with wealth.

The most common discussion that advances from this fertile soil is the question of - what are our moral obligations to each other? And, that’s literally and endless, and important, but also a stupid, impractical debate. Not in the sense that we shouldn’t have this discussion, but stupid in the sense that we facilitate this discussion stupidly.

Because we often exclude people with inconvenient opinions from this sort of discussion and often go into discussions to discern moral obligation where at least one party is unwilling to admit they are wrong. So it’s stupid - because we start discussions without the possibility of reaching a thoughtful conclusion.

But I think there’s another path this conversation can take. Instead of asking what our moral obligations are to others, we can ask something more hopeful. What if we asked: if we imagine the community we wished we lived in, what would that community believe they owed to each other?

And this thought experiment took me back to thinking about wealth.

Because I believe at the time we are conceived we all have equal potential. But then as the clock starts ticking, that starts changing. Because from what I’ve read, the wealth of our mother (or even if our grandmother underwent a period of famine) starts to affect us in the womb, before we are born. So from the moment we are conceived - the context in which we live, which is so strongly affected by our wealth - starts to influence our lives.

But I also believe potential is different than worth. And even though our potential as humans may be different (and unfairly influenced by wealth) our worth is equivalent. We all have equal worth. But more importantly, we all have immeasurably large worth. A life is not just worth something, and worth something equal - it is worth more than we can count or comprehend.

And that’s all fine and aspirational and mushy gushy, blah blah. Here’s what that means for me on the question of the moral standards of the community I wish I lived in.

Let’s ignore what moral obligations we have to the people we love and even the people we like. I’ve found, at least, that it’s much easier to treat people well if you love or like them. What really reveals the character of a person or group is how they treat people they don’t love or like.

I am not this man today, I know I’m not, but the man I want to be would live a creed like this:

I will treat you - whoever you are, whether I love you or not, whether I like you or not, whether I fear you or not - in the way that you would like to be treated. Even if it is difficult, I will treat you with respect. I will try to learn to love you or to like you. But even if I don’t like you, I will carry you. I will carry you without expecting your gratitude or the recognition of others. And if I falter, and need you to carry me, I will let you and be gracious for your kindness.

And ideas like this inevitably attract pessimism. “That’ll never happen. It’s not scalable. It’s not in people’s nature. That’s a waste of time. Let’s focus on something achievable.” I’ve heard phrases like these, over and over.

I think we should try, and try courageously to create a community that believes it has this stringent of a moral obligation to others.

The hope of a community like this is worth failing for. Because even if we only advance one inch in this effort which is equivalent to a journey of many miles, we will have moved an inch. And that inch creates the permission for others to try for two inches. And then for the generation after them to try for four. And maybe someday, even if it’s many decades after our own deaths, the long walk will be over and we will have arrived.

And this whole argument rests on the assumption that we have some defensible moral obligation to others we live in community with. And maybe that’s presumptuous. But I think that assumption is worth having faith in, even if it’s not decidedly proven. It is worth taking a leap for.

A Covid-19 Family Continuity Plan

For four months, when day schools were closed, we treaded water and tried our best to work with our boys at home. It will probably be 2-3 years before I fully process what just happened to us (assuming there’s not more weird stuff to come, which is probably wishful thinking).

A few weeks ago, we sent our kids back to school, and that was a really hard decision. A week or two after we sent our boys back to school, we had the presence of mind to think through what we would do if we needed to pull the kids out of school again. We made a sort of a family continuity plan.

Robyn and I had to put our family continuity plan practice last week. I highly recommend you talk about this with your spouse / partner. Ours is geared toward decisions around kids, but the underlying principles are generally applicable.

I have not shared all of our “answers” - but message me separately if that’s something that would be helpful for you to talk about. Instead, I’ve shared the framework we developed for making decisions for our family.

I hope it is helpful to you. Our framework is at the bottom of this post.

This most demanding part of this exercise was not figuring out what was best for our family. That was easy. And we’re lucky - we can work from home or pull our kids from school if we need to. I acknowledge that’s not a luxury everyone has.

The hardest part of our exercise was to answer a different question: what do we owe other families?

Robyn and I grappled with this question explicitly. Because in this pandemic especially, our decisions don’t just affect our immediate friends and family, our decisions affect the other families at our childrens’ school - most of whom we don’t know personally. But because of the nature of this virus, we depend on them and they depend on us.

And what makes this question hard is that it compelled us to prepare to make real sacrifices, like potentially pulling the kids from school (again) or isoloating from our friends and family (again).

We certainly didn’t write this plan down when we discussed it a few weeks ago. But we had to execute the plan last week, and talking about it before was extremely helpful. This plan - which is a reconstruction of our lived experience - helped us to live out the values we believe matter, and the value we expect of others.

Again, it’s tailored to our circumstances, but I hope it’s helpful to you.

Family Continuity Plan and Framework for Decision Making

Core Principles for Making Decisions

• Avoid becoming infected

• Avoid become an asymptomic vector of the disease

• If there is reason to contemplate it, assume we or others are infected until data proves otherwise

• Make decisions quickly, communicate transparently

Triggers

• If there is a likely exposure at work

• If there is a Covid exposure within our school community

• If there is a Covid exposure within our friends and family that live locally

• If there is a substantial change in local case / death data (e.g., government mandates change)

Questions to Ask

• What are the facts?

• Who was exposed to whom, and when?

• What was the nature of the exposure? Was transmission possible or highly unlikely?

• Has anyone involved taken a test? What were the results? When were the tests taken?

• Were we exposed when someone was likely infectious?

• Is anyone showing symptoms?

• Where have we been since exposure who have we seen?

Evaluate answers above against pre-determined core principles. If necessary, execute relevant steps in the protocol.

Protocol

• Take a deep breath.

• Who do we need to notify to prevent spread? School, work, family, friends? Contact them.

• Do we need immediate medical attention? Seek it.

• Do we need to take a test to determine our health status? Schedule It.

• Do we need supplies? Provision them, and request help if necessary.

• Determine who will manage child care if kids are pulled from school.

• Come up with a workable schedule for managing work and home responsibilities.

  • Cancel / reschedule necessary social events.

  • Cancel / reschedule necessary work meetings.

  • Determine minimum home responsibilities / chores.

  • Reset expectations on bigger projects (e.g., yard, home improvement)

• Set a schedule for check-in on information updates. This is important so we do not overconsume information in a crisis.

• Lay out key milestones for next 2-3 weeks. What are big events that cannot be messed up.

• Determine level of information the kids need to know and can understand. Explain what is necessary.

• Determine criteria that have to be met to return to previous activities. Document them so it’s not as easy to “cheat” if things are difficult.

• Take a deep breath.

In this election, no touchdown dances from me

I want to say this now, to my friends, before election day. This is what you can expect from me:

• I am voting on election day.

• I will not be voting for the incumbent President, President Trump.

• If the incumbent President is reelected in a free and fair election, I will not complain or bellyache or make excuses. I will not act like a sore loser.

• If the incumbent President is not reelected in a free and fair election, I will not rub anyone’s nose in it. No “I told you so”, no taunting, no finger wagging, no touchdown dances. I will not act like a sore winner.

Why? Because I don’t think that’s what it’s about.

For me, the real victory is holding a free and fair election, with a peaceful transition of power. And, the whole point of a free and fair election is for all of us to vote freely and fairly. The tactic of potentially casting you as a shameful outsider because you don’t vote the same way as I do is a tactic, I think, that’s inconsistent with the spirit of a free and fair election. I won’t do it.

Moreover, an election is not the end of a journey to celebrate (save for the people who worked hard on the campaign, in private, perhaps). The election is the beginning of a new season, where someone has earned privilege and responsibility to govern for four years. I don’t celebrate at the beginning of a long hike up a mountain, I rejoice after our crew has safely returned home. I can’t think of a reason why elections would be any different.

Which brings me to a final point in conclusion. I’m not the sort of person who relishes competition, or is motivated by winning. So, this attitude of no touchdown dances is not something that’s unique to this election. It’s how I operate in all aspects of my life. So why bother writing this post?

Because I’m not really writing this with my Republican friends in mind. I’m intending to speak most directly to my friends who are also not planning to reelect the incumbent President.

And to you, my Democratic friends - no matter how you act during this election, I’m not going to judge you (and the same goes for friends who are not Democratic supporters).

But I ask that you don’t act like a sore winner or a sore loser. And it will be easy for us to fall into doing both.

Because at the end of the day, I think we all have to think of ourselves as being on the same team. We’re trying to create a country where we can live free lives. A country where people don’t die senseless deaths. And perhaps even a country that contributes to an international community that cooperates to defend our species and planet against existential threats. None of these are guarantees, as we’ve seen during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The universe is a dangerous and lonely place, as far as we know. Our republic, our planet, and our species are fragile. We have to work hard to have a chance of any of the three surviving in perpetuity.

The challenges ahead of us are really quite difficult. We have to play as one team to increase the long-run chances that our still nascent, free republic and we as a species, survive. No team I’ve ever been on plays its best when there’s infighting about the starting lineup.

I don’t want to start the next four years with infighting.

Of course, I know that I can’t control anybody’s actions but my own, nor do I want to. My hope here is that by laying out my intentions in advance and explaining my rationale it may lead others to carefully set intentions for their own conduct.

A Bill of Responsibilities

I am writing this post during the Covid-19 pandemic. And these days, whether or not I choose to wear a mask is a political statement. There are a lot of reasons to be bothered by this. It bothers me because wearing a mask is no longer as generous.

For example, If wearing a mask is perceived as a political statement, it’s harder for me to convey that I care about the strangers in public who surround me. If wearing a mask is perceived as a political statement, it distracts from the love I hope to give to my neighbor. If wearing a mask is perceived as a political statement, it’s harder to see it as a gift.

And this got me to thinking about the Bill of Rights (if you know me, you’ll probably not be surprised by this - a lot brings me back to the Bill of Rights). Yes, any of those 10 rights are mine to ask of the government. But it’s also a privilege (and essential) for me to emphasize and take seriously the responsibilities they imply.

So I figured I’d try something out - reimagining the Bill of Rights by adding a call and response and thinking about it more as a Bill of Responsibilities.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…

And we agree to embrace the spirit of this foundational first amendment by listening carefully to those sharing their ideas, lifting up the quietest of voices, and holding ourselves to the same standard of peacefulness, civility, and integrity as we hold others.

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And we will work tirelessly to reconcile our differences peacefully, with the hope that Arms will never need to be used to resolve conflict.

Third Amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

And we will work to resolve international conflicts so that soldiers need not go to war except in the most egregious of circumstances, and we will care for all that make sacrifices for the nation.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And if we commit a crime, we will support the process of restoring and repairing what that crime has broken.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And if we make a mistake that harms our fellow citizens, we will admit it honestly so that what has been broken can be restored and repaired.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

And we will dig deep into our hearts and souls to prevent our anger for crimes committed to make public trials unfair or vengeful.

Seventh Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

And we will help our friends, family, and neighbors who become entangled in a conflict to reconcile their differences before an injury between parties occurs.

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And we will help those convicted of crimes to rehabilitate so that they can rejoin the community someday.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And we will work to build strong companies, families, and communities of freely associating people, thereby reducing the circumstances under which the government has to exercise its powers.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And we, the people of the United States of America, accept the difficult responsibilities that a government by the people and for the people requires.

Impactful Contribution

This image of ikigai has been floating around the internet in various forms for a while.

Source: https://www.performanceexcellencenetwork.org/pensights/finding-lifes-meaning-quest-discover-ikigai-pen-august-2017/

And even though I’m generally skeptical of advice that emphasizes “doing what you love”, I don’t see any reason to criticize the concept the diagram argues for. Those four questions seem sensible enough to me when thinking broadly about the question of “what do I want to do with my life?”

Lately though, in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, as protests continue throughout our country, I’ve heard a lot of people ask - “what can I do?”

In this case, the question of “what can I do?” is not a decision where the framework of ikigai easily applies. When it comes to racial equity, if we’re asking the question of what can I do, we’re already committed to issue area and we aren’t expecting to be paid for it.

And this question is common. I have often asked myself, something like what do I want to do to contribute to others when I’m not at work? Nobody has unlimited leisure time, but most of us have some amount of time we want to use to serve others, after we complete our work and home responsibilities. We’re already committed to doing something for others, we just don’t know what to do.

So the question becomes: when I’ve already committed to making an impactful contribution, what will I do?

Here’s how i’ve been thinking about approaching that question lately:

There are three key questions to answer and find the intersection of:

• Do I have enough trust to make an impactful contribution?

  • if so, where?

  • If not, how can I build it?

• Do I have something valuable to contribute?

  • If so, what is it?

  • If not, what can I get better at that is helpful to others?

  • I I don’t know what’s helpful, how do I listen and learn?

• Do I care enough (about anyone else) to make a sacrifice?

  • If so, who is it that I care so deeply about serving?

  • If not, how do I learn to love others enough to serve them?

Our decision calculus changes when we not trying to determine what to based on whether it will make us feel good. When we’re looking to serve others, it’s not as important to find something we are passionate about doing or finding something which helps us seem important and generous to our peers. What becomes most important is putting ourselves in a position to make an impactful contribution.

Because when we’ve already committed to making an impactful contribution, making that contribution is it’s own reward. We don’t depend as much on recognition to stay motivated. As long as we’re treated with respect, we’re probably just grateful for the opportunity to serve.

Racism, Reform, and the Second Commandment

In these very dark times, I am struggling to make sense of what is happening in the aftermath of George Floyd’s unfathomably cruel murder by a Minneapolis Police Officer. For a lot of reasons.

We live in a predominately black city. I have worked as a Manger in our Police Department for the better part of the last five years, so I’ve seen law enforcement from the inside. I am, technically speaking, a person of color with mixed-race children. We live in a mixed-race neighborhood.

And of course, there’s the 400+ years of institutionalized racism in the United States that I have begun to understand (at least a little) by reading about it and hearing first-hand accounts from friends who have felt the harms of it personally.

And as I’ve stewed with this, I keep asking myself - what are we hoping happens here? What do we want our communities to be like on the other end of this?

Because something is palpably different this time. George Floyd’s murder feels like it will be the injustice that (finally) sparks a transformation.

What I keep coming back to in contemplation, reflection, and prayer is the second greatest commandment - “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.”

What I hope for is to live in a place where I can have good neighbors and be a good neighbor. The second greatest commandment is the most elegant representation of what I hope for in communities that I have ever found.

I interpret this commandment as a call to love. We must give others love and respect, even our adversaries. If loving our neighbor requires us to do the deep work of growing out of the fear, disrespect, and hate in our hearts then we must do it. Rather, we are commanded by God to do it.

But in the world we live in today, we can avoid the deep work of personal transformation if we choose to. If we don’t love our neighbors, we can just move somewhere with neighbors we already like. More insidiously, we can also put up barriers so that the people we fear, disrespect, or hate, can’t live in our neighborhood even if they wanted to.

This seems exactly to be what institutionalized racism was and is intended to do. I don’t have to learn to love someone if I keep them out of my neighborhood through, redlining, allowing crummy schools elsewhere, practicing hiring discrimination, racial covenants, brutal policing, and on and on.

If we choose neighbors we already love as ourselves, we’re off the hook for removing the hate from our hearts and replacing it with love for them.

In this, I am complicit. Part of why we live in a city is because I didn’t want to raise mixed-race children in a white, affluent suburb. I didn’t want to deal with it, straight up.

I say this even though I acknowledge that places like where I grew up are probably much more welcoming than they were 15 years ago. Similarly, there are times that I’ve chosen to ignore, block, and unfollow people who I fear, disrespect, or disagree with. I have been an accomplice creating my own bubble to live in.

Adhereing to the idea presented in the second greatest commandment is really quite hard.

The problem is, I and any others who want to live in a truly cohesive, peaceful community probably don’t have a choice but to do the deep work that the second greatest commandment asks of us.

My intuition is that even if we dismantled institutionalized racism completely, that wouldn’t necessarily lead to love thy neighbor communities. They’d be more fair and just, perhaps, but maybe not loving.

And, I’m not even convinced we can completely dismantle racist institutions without more and more people individually choosing to do the deep work of replacing the fear, disrespect, and hate in their hearts with love.

Which leaves me in such a quandary - I truly do believe there are pervasively racist institutions in our society, still. And those institutions need to be reformed - specifically to alleviate the particularly brutal circumstances Black Americans have to live with.

But at the same time, I know I am a hypocrite by saying all this because I too have to do the deep work of personal transformation.

I did the Hate Vaccine exercise last week and realized how fearful and disrespectful I can be toward people from rural and suburban communities because of my race, job, and where I went to college. When I really took a moment to reflect, what I saw in myself was uglier than I thought it would be.

In community policing circles a common adage is that “we can’t arrest our way out of [high crime rates].” I have been wondering if something similar could be said for where we are today - can we reform our way out of racism?

Maybe we can. I honestly don’t have the data to share any firm conclusion. But my lived experience says no: the only way out of this - if we want to live in a love thy neighbor society - is a mix of transforming institutions and transforming all our own hearts.

Thank you to my friend Nick for pointing out the difference between the second commandment and second greatest commandment. It is updated now..

The Hate Vaccine - A Reflection Exercise

I subscribe to Michael Jackson’s theory of progress: “if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change.”

If I want hatred, disrespect, and fear to stop spreading, that means I must not spread it myself.

This exercise is how I am trying to vaccinate myself so I don’t continue to be a carrier of hate, disrespect, and fear. I’m presenting it mostly without comment, but I will say this. When I worked this exercise last night, I realized there’s a lot I can do to be less hateful, disrespectful, and fearful.

INSTRUCTIONS: Start by determining the people / groups that have wronged you or you are expected to exchange hate, disrespect, or fear with. Then fill in the remaining boxes.

I’m working on a project related to practicing reflection, which you can learn more about at the link.

Masterclass

A masterclass is a class for a great teacher to teach experts or to teach other teachers. At the end of my life, I often wonder, what masterclass to I want to teach?

It is a window into the heart.

Masterclass 1: The Process of Becoming Good - Being a good person is a human’s most noble pursuit. But it does not just happen. It cannot be plucked from a tree. Becoming is a process. I cannot claim to be a good man, but I do claim that I have spent my whole life trying to discover and refine a process that gives me a damn good chance. This is a workshop to help you build your own process.

Masterclass 2: Building thriving communities - We operate in this world as a participant in organizations. A minority of organizations are communities where people - any everything they touch - thrive. The rest are merely just built. This is a class on how to intentionally build systems and feedback loops so that your organization becomes part of that small but mighty, virtuous, thriving minority.

The other cool thing about a masterclass is that if you think about it early enough, you have your whole life to qualify yourself to teach it.

Everybody, even our foes, will have heartbreak

My (wife’s) Uncle Mark posted a link about a colleague of his who had a sudden cancer diagnosis and died shortly before his daughter’s wedding. Even as far as tragedies go, it’s really heartbreaking.

I didn’t know this man or his family. But I assume I would like them.

But even if I knew the guy and hated him, it would still be a terribly heartbreaking story.

I don’t know why my mind went there, but it dawned on me that even people I really don’t like will have some devastating heartbreak in their life. In our human life, it is inevitable.

Realizing that, opens my heart to them even if just a little.

An American Dream

Our country seems so big, and with so many people. Too big, sometimes. What could possibly be a common aspiration that most, let alone all of us, have?

My best guess at what we might all want is not fancy. But it is something.

I hope, for myself and for us, that we be blessed with at least one of these four things: the chance to be a good friend, part of a good family, a good neighbor, or to contribute something generously to the greater whole.

And maybe this is not the dream of our whole country. It is probably not the new American Dream. If it isn’t, I hope we are blessed with the wisdom and good sense to hope for something greater than ourselves.

It seems to me that if we don’t dream about something greater, we will dream instead about small things. Namely being wealthier, cooler, or more handsome than the next person. Dreaming about ourselves scares me, because it generally seems to devolve into madness and violence.

Who is my life for? Who are my people?

It has been hard to admit that I am, in large part, a jack ass. I hope I am less so now.

For so much of my life, I prided myself on volunteering and serving. And some of that effort was sincere. But so much, too much, was signaling to others that I was generous, kind, and other-oriented.

This became clear when Robyn and I married, because for the first time any selfless act I made was actually sincere. After marriage I began to actually understand what it meant to live for someone else, and put the needs of someone else before my own. I realized that what I thought was selfless before was merely signaling.

I hope this attitude has cross-pollinated to friends, family, and neighbors. Only time will tell.

And yet, even though I know that I have a tendency to virtue signal, my heart still yearns. To serve, it yearns. To contribute something beyond my own family and friends, it yearns. To leave an anonymous gift, with even a small, lasting impact, it yearns.

I used to wonder what impact I wanted to make. But I think the better question is for whom?

Who do I care about so much that I will take time and energy away from my family? Who do I yearn to serve so intensely that I will intently listen to them and humbly offer to help after really understanding them? Who am I that committed to? For whom does my heart yearn? Who are my people?

An easy answer would have been my heart yearns for people like me. I couldn’t even if I tried, because I have no tribe.

I am Indian, but not really culturally. I am a theist, but not baptized nor a practicing Hindu. No political party has a philosophical underpinning that sits well with my conscience, and if it does it’s priorities are not aligned with mine. I am male, but not particularly masculine. I am a minority everywhere in the world I land, even at home as a resident of a majority-minority City. I can’t help people like me because I am a misfit, always. I don’t even know who people like me are.

My life, I believe, is not my own. It is not for me. I don’t even know if I want it to be for me. I am the residual claimant on my own life, if anything.

And if I believe, my life is for people beyond my family - which I do - than who? Who is my life for?

This is the hardest question I have encountered in many years. I don’t even know how to start answering it, yet. But I can’t help but feeling that it’s critically important one. My gut tells me it is a question worth a struggle.

Reading for fun

Why read?

The practical crowd may argue that literacy is important because it’s a necessary skill to function in society and earn a living. Reading is fundamental. We can’t be productive compliant members of society if we don’t read.

Womp. Womp. Womp.

What a terrible way to convince someone to read who doesn’t read or can’t.

Here’s how I would persuade someone instead.

East of Eden changed the way I see myself and the world. I love pulling up Wikipedia on anything from Roger Federer to the Fermi Paradox, to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Reading to my son at bedtime is arguably the best part of my day, every day. You can read mysteries, or about your own family history. Talking to other people about books is so fun. Reading has made me laugh and cry so damn much, and it’s great.

You can read a letter from your mother and father, long after they are gone. Or you can read a letter from your wife, that makes you feel full of love and soul, over and over and over again. The letters I have from Robyn are among my most prized possessions.

You can read poems or ancient religious texts that make you feel more human.

I do care about literacy. I think 100% literacy is an extremely important goal. But come on. How can anyone think they’re going to convince someone to care about reading by talking about how it can help them get a job or get into a famous college? There are so many more emotionally resonant ways to persuade someone that reading is awesome.

—

On September 30, I will stop posting blog updates on Facebook. If you’d like email updates from me once a week with new posts, please leave me your address or pick up the RSS feed. 

I don’t need to be special

I don’t need you to give me special treatment. I don’t need you to pronounce my name correctly. I don’t need you to hold the door for me or even smile as you walk by.

I don’t need you to give me preferential college admissions or pay me dollar-for-dollar the same as the next person. I don’t even need you to stop asking if I’m “a doctor or in IT, right?”

I don’t need you to realize that the white woman walking next to me is my wife. I don’t need you to do me a solid with the restaurant manager. I don’t need you to let me into the golf and tennis club. If it’s easier, you can keep assuming that that Indian person you met really does look just like me. You can keep believing yoga is all about “working out” if it suits you.

I don’t need a political party to pay attention to my individual needs. I don’t need a candidate to look like me, either. I don’t need you to understand the tenets of Hinduism or my complex spiritual upbringing.

I don’t need you to give me a trigger warning. I don’t need you to sugar coat the truth. Even though it would be fun, you don’t have to invite me to your party or get to know me and my individual story.

All these things would be nice, but I don’t need to be treated specially. What I would like is to be treated with respect and decency. And if we disagree, I’d like to resolve it peacefully.

If you could do that, it would be enough for me.

—

On September 30, I will stop posting blog updates on Facebook. If you’d like email updates from me once a week with new posts, please leave me your address or pick up the RSS feed. 

Stories in sacrifice

How can we possibly learn to do something that has the appearance of being against individual interest?

Well, here's a place to start. Why make a sacrifice? Of course, these are interrelated, but in my mind they are distinguishable cases.

-For someone else: an individual or group sacrifices for the benefit for another individual or group. (A parent commutes a longer distance so that their children can attend a better public school)

-For themselves: an individual sacrifices so they can ultimately benefit. (I sacrifice an extra helping of cake so that my health gains)

-For the future: An individual or group sacrifices so that there will be utility in the future. (A company invests in a pension fund)

Now, another assumption: this behavior is learned. Even if it's not, we make an effort to teach it, and those interventions seem like they might have a chance at forcing someone to sacrifice in an involuntary manner--which causes sacrifice to happen even if it's not dictated by the conscience of the sacrificer.

So, there are ways of sacrificing, and that behavior is [at least partially] learned or directed. There are other ways of influencing behavior, like coercion or incentives. And there are times when people sacrifice when they don't HAVE to...like giving change in your pocket to someone on the street. So why do people sacrifice when they don't have to?

Perhaps it's a question of assigning value. Maybe people see the option of sacrifice as providing more value to another person or in the long-run. This is plausible, because I'm skeptical of this suggestion because individuals as consumers have so much difficulty placing value on the choices they make or the resources they have. If value is at the core of this myster, we'd have to tepidly assume that people are extremely rational--to the point of controlling their primary urges--right?

Persuasion is another problematic explanation. Simply put, if people make sacrifices because of persuasion, they can also be persuaded out of making sacrifices or be persuaded into making bad sacrifices. Which, seems to stand up to reality I concede.

Some sacrifices seem to just happen, whcih means it's in the nature of some people in some circumstances to sacrifice or that sacrificing can be learned/cultivated.

I don't know exactly how that teaching/learning happens. I think it's by example. I just know it's important...many of our public policies will need sacrifice to be successful. When people don't sacrifice, it seems like non-optimal outcomes happens...if all that happens is take-take-take, there eventually won't be enough left to give, right?

Sheesh, what a random thought-experiment. So much for the vignettes.

Concluding Thoughts on Peru

I noticed immediately, the idiosyncracy that distinguishes the USA from Peru. It wasn't even difficult. All it took was a staple of our culture: semi-fast food.

I was at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, waiting for a signature. I'd come to expect that counter service at places like Cosi would be decent at best. Most of the folks that have taken my order there, at any location across the country, don't seem to take pride in what they're doing. The same goes at 4/5 similar establishments. The woman didn't look me in the eye and she stuck to the script.

This is worlds apart from Peru. The people in Peru don't stick to the script, they make mistakes. They look you in the eye, and they have sincerety in their voices when they speak with you. Of course, this might have been a product of necessity (since we were gringos and people could barely understand our spanish)...but I don't think it was. In Peru every meal was fresh and everyone seemed to take pride in their service. All places were slow serving and they had limited menus unless the establishments had obviously western influence. Often times the owner/proprietor would be sitting with guests and would come to check on us, greet us at the door and generally be visible.

The difference in food service between the countries indicates a lot. The difference indicates our priorities as cultures, I think.

Peruvians really seem to value relationships, quality and intimate person interaction. In the USA we seem to value choice, predictability and efficiency. Both campus are obviously legitimate, but different.

I think our cultures could stand to learn from eachother. Which is hard for us in America to do because of our status in the world. We lead many things in the world, so we don't always get to learn from the cultures we're influencing...but we must. We're certainly not perfect here, even though there's a tremendous amount of pragamatism and idealism in our culture.

But as much as we're not perfect, we are leaders who yield strong influence abroad. Our music, our language and our style is everywhere. Our instutiutions are ever-present: democracy, republican government, ESPN...whatever. The world is still watching us.

Because of that influence and leadership we still hold, at least in the cultural and political realm, even though we may hold less influence economically...we must use that influence and leadership for good. If we do something, the world will follow us. Because of that we have to live up to the idealized versions of our ideals. If we do not, the world will follow by not living up to high standards. If we do not, we won't be true to ourselves, either.

Though, I really feel we're having an identity crisis as a nation. We don't know what's important to us as a nation, which is scary. If we don't know who we are and what we want, how are we going to lead other, less prosperious or less established nations.

Here's what I think is most important. We need people to do an exercise like this...so we can figure out who we are. A lot of people (my parents included) have never really thought about these things. It's up to us now to figure it out.

Things that really matter - divided into 4 categories. I was kind of inspired by a comic strip in Neal Strauss's Emergency.

Sound Mind - This means education and lifelong learning. I think this also assumes that education and reflection can't happen when a war or violence is going on in once's vicinity. Finally, with a sound mind, engaging oneself in work that's challenging, meaningful and that profilerates the beauty in the world also applies.

Sound Body - This means treat your body well. Not throwing one's body into imminent unavoidable danger, exercising and having sex are all important here. It's making our physical surroundings habitable too...greenies, this matters to you.

Intact Spirit - Inner peace and making sense of God and his/her role in our spiritual and physical lives. Finally, trying to grasp our mortality. This obviously requires freedom of religion and an intense emphasis on fair, reasonable empathetic dialogue.

Meaningful Relationships - Having friends and family and spending time with them. Sharing life with other people. I think what also fits here is "befriending strangers" and helping people who need help.

To me, these things are what's most important...things that matter flow from these four things for the most part, I hope. I think Americans at-large probabaly share some of these ideas too. Regardless, I hope as a nation we can understand the things that are really important to us then govern ourselves in accordance with these aspirations, values and ideas.

-nt

Last Daily Column - The leaders and the best?

This was my last published piece in The Michigan Daily. I've included it because the paragraph I cared about most was edited out. It would've been the last paragraph of the column.

Neil Tambe: The leaders and the best?

By Neil Tambe
On April 15th, 2009

It's true that I admire most of the spirit, rhetoric and tradition of this University. I never walk on the Block M in the Diag and I would propose under the West Engineering arch at midnight if I could someday. I fully believe providing education of arts, sciences and truth is essential and noble. But some traditions are flawed. For example, one phrase I take issue with comes from the line in our fight song that ends with, "...the Leaders and Best." It’s a great line, but we as college students aren’t the “leaders and best” yet because we haven’t exercised leadership and excellence in the real world, where it matters most. Even if what we do now already has an impact outside of campus, it doesn’t justify the title of “leaders and best.” What we do now is the bare minimum citizenship requires. The work we do here as students is still valuable but it should not be all that we aspire to accomplish.

I think the pomposity that comes with slogans like “leaders and best” is dangerous. We, especially those of us graduating this year, are walking into a lion’s den of a world. We must address domestic issues like Social Security reform, class conflict and accessibility to health care among dozens of other meticulous, complicated issues. As people of the world, we must deal with bio-terrorism, overpopulation, climate change, water shortage and nuclear arms proliferation, to name only a handful of challenges. These problems don’t have easy fixes. I fear our University of Michigan arrogance distracts us from the treacherous road ahead and how hard it’s really going to be. We have too many challenges ahead to be delusional about our accomplishments, abilities and entitlements.

Our generation already has a bad rap. We’re narcissistic. We insist on having things our way and struggle with taking criticism in stride. We lack professionalism and the ability to follow through when problem solving. We feel entitled to anything we may want when we don’t necessarily deserve it.

But at the same time, our generation has amazing qualities. We’re tremendously capable, curious and technologically savvy. We're able to work in diverse groups of people like no generation before us. We’re ambitious and we also volunteer a lot. We care about the world around us and want to make this planet a better place in any way we can. Nobody can tell us we aren’t fired up, because we are.

We have a befuddling situation before us. We have the opportunity to be one of the greatest generations, and I believe we can face our challenges and live up to our aspirations of a better society. We’ll have to rally together and overcome our differences while still taking advantage of our diverse perspectives and talents. We’ll need to have long, arduous, frustrating conversations with each other to figure out the best courses of action. We’ll each have a role to play, one no more important than any other.

As University students, let’s focus on earning our maize and blue colors. Before we start calling ourselves the leaders and best, let’s have an unbreakable will to overcome the challenges we face. Let’s be brave enough to believe in what is right, courageous enough to commit to what is right and unselfish enough to do what is right. If we advance the public good, there is no doubt that we will become the leaders and best.

What was edited out:

I hope we don't go down in history as the greatest generation. I hope we do down as the generation that never walked away from a challenge or passed a problem onto its children. I hope we are remembered for acting to keep the world spinning safely on our watch, not for the applause of men but because we wanted those after us to live better lives. Instead of the greatest generation, I hope we are remembered as the humblest generation. I believe in us. If you do too, let's get to work.

In support of politics...it can be done

I had an interesting conversation, as I often do with the friends I was with, about politics. The question was prompted by discussion about student-group politics at the University of Michigan. The opinion of my other two conversation partners was that politics is a not so great thing (their opinions were stronger, but I'll just leave it at that).

I disagree, I think politics can be done well and I would embrace politics, if a political actor adhered to the following three rules. Since I've never been able to really isolate my feelings on this issue, I wanted to scribe them right away, so I wouldn't forget. Even though, I SHOULD be writing my thesis, haha.

The Three Rules that political actors should follow:

1) The ethics clause
Figure out what is right and what is wrong. Spend most of your time doing this, not campaigning. Obviously, on some issues it's really hard to figure out what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately for politicians, they cannot hide behind this because they have to vote on whether they agree or disagree. Use the people around you: constituents, staff members, the party, whatever and use your own values. Do the best you can, don't fake it. We know. Then proceed to rule number 2.

2) The no-bullshit clause
Articulate your viewpoint to your constituents, honestly. You must do this, and not just give a bullshit reason about actions or a vote. It is your responsibility to communicate and if you make an action then you must be honest about it. There is NO way around this rule. People need this information to evaluate you as a representative. If you don't do this, you are cheating your constituients.

3)The vulnerability clause
You must be willing to lose--elections, support, etc. This, I think is the most fundamental of the three rules, if a politician is not willing to lose, they will be incapable of implementing rules number 1 and 2. This is because they will be too focused on figuring out the difference between a winning move and a losing move rather than right and wrong just as they will focus on telling people what they want to hear instead of telling the truth.

If all politicians followed these rules, I think people would be a lot less skeptical of them.

Some say that the whole point is winning the game, because things don't get done without playing the game. I disagree, people want honest leaders who do what is right. If you follow these rules, you will be elected time and time again...truth wins over falsity. If you follow these rules and you do lose, it just means you're not the right person for the job at that place and time.

Any politicians out there, feel free to contact me if you would like further explanation, haha.

Inside the beltway

Yes. I'm inside the beltway.

It's been an interesting ride so far. Aside from riding public transit from Baltimore--30 minute bus ride, followed by a 45 minute stint on the subway, followed by walking 5 blocks and waiting, and finally walking 5 more blocks--I mean.

I'm kind of floored by what to say at the moment. It's like I've been going here for awhile. I've been doing a lot of thinking. I'm definitely calmer in the mind, and less confused. Ahh. So tricky. Life is beggining to get clearer, and as much I thought it was going to be less scary, it's even more terrifying because I can't use confusion as an excuse anymore. What a dillema, huh?

This city is interesting, I'm beggining to realize how much it really is in the south. People don't talk on their cell-phones on the sidewalk. It's rude. So, people don't do it. I think I'm falling in love with Denver and I haven't even been there. I love Michigan (Ann Arbor as well as Rochester). I'm alone, so none of this matters anyway.

This city is deceptive, it's very easy to feel lonely and together in it at the same time. The people walk leisurely but with a spring of briskness in their step as well, it's hard to figure if they are going or coming. I see newspapers. The city as a whole seems to breathe. it seems to sway like a willow tree, bending and flexing. It's not like New York, like a rigid machine powered by electric lights and current, but like something that's organic. This place has a tremendous amount of balance. You can taste the vibes of the city just like it is muggy and wet to breathe the humid air.

D.C. has a collective concious, even amidst the partisanship and everyone working in the dog-eat-cat-eat-mouse-kill-dog 10AM to 6PM grind...there's a mutual respect, or so it seems.

At the same time, this place is discomforting. The beltway is a shield, as if it were a great wall. This place is unreal, it seems like reality is so real it's a charade...planned and 'too clean'. I feel like a chambermaid in a glass house when I'm here, trying to keep the walls up. Washington...is quite an exclusive place, and this establishment is perpetuated. But, it's keeping the people warm in bed at night across the country, and helping to keep the world stable. Sometimes though, I wonder if the act of working in politics, is what creates the need for politics in the first place. It seems like, Washington D.C. (and major government systems for that matter), upset the natural order of things and become a self-fulfilling prophecy of controversy, disagreement, and supression.

But...the solution must not be to stone the glass house that the leaders of the world sleep in, but to bring more people inside. I don't think D.C. needs to be swarming with hundreds of people; the masses do not need to make politics their life. The masses need to make politics part of their daily life. The masses need to renew themselves.

Sisco, from down the hall told me about the honor code at Davidson College. Apparently, most people leave their doors unlocked, and it works. People proctor their own tests, and it works. The parallel drawn here, is that there is no exclusiveness about this system, everyone is involved and on board, so nobody has a reason to feel ailienated or vindictive because they are being treated unfairly. I think it's much more important to have ordinary citizens to feel welcome and comfortable on the political scene, not to tear down the political scene altogether.

I love you.

Good-Night.