I Live With the Seven Dwarfs

Sunday morning.  This morning she was grumpy.  She's adorable when she's grumpy.  That sounds patronizing, I know, but she is adorable when she's grumpy and I told her so, which only made her more so.  Then I realized that I live with and love all seven dwarfs.

Usually, she is either Doc or Happy.  Doc hectors me to floss, "have you called the dermatologist?", "watch out for that car", "don't follow so closely", "that shirt doesn't go with those pants"....  Happy simply lights up the room.

She can be Dopey on occasion, as when the other day she absentmindedly asked "what's the capital of Copenhagen?"  Then she was chagrined, but rarely is she Bashful; more often a pale form one might nickname EssCee (for self-conscious.)

Often in the am, Sleepy appears, especially after a sound nine hours.

Sneezy rarely appears, but such a ladylike Sneezy.  I'm the one that blows the roof off.

We should have Disney's bluebirds flitting about, but I couldn't be any happier than to be living with one of my seven dwarfs, especially on a peaceful Sunday morning in spring.

On Lookin' Good For Strangers

From Sun Valley

Today, near the end of an 11k skate-ski, I approached an elderly (younger than I) couple slowly working up a slight incline on classics.  Since gravity was running in my direction, I was able to straighten up, assume a decent skating rhythm and sail past, rewarded with her admiring look.  So self-satisfied ....   I pledged to myself "today, no falls." No sooner said than my skis went cattywampuss and SPLAT! -- tail over teacups.  Proverbs, 16:18: "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."  So much for lookin' good for strangers.

Blanche Du Bois said "... whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers." The Kindness of Strangers; Tennessee Williams' crystalline phrase rings on in novels and biographies, PhD theses on adoption, rock albums, TV episodes, and the latest -- in Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine.  Well, I'm no Blanche; my spin, I must ruefully admit, is to seek the admiration of strangers.  Weird....

How silly is that -- to suck in my stomach and straighten my shoulders when I enter a room full of strangers.  Even worse, when passing on the street an overweight woman or guy with a gut, neither of whom I will ever see again.  What kind of sorry ego-centrism ...? Do I imagine them thinking "that is a pretty good looking guy for his age"?  Or "Jesus, I have to lose some weight."  Or "isn't he fit"?  Truthfully, yes, I do.  I peer into the narcissistic mirror of my imagination with all the angst of Sleeping Beauty's mother -- "Mirror, Mirror, on the wall...."  How silly is that?  And most likely, they are really thinking -- if at all -- "catch the pompous old geezer."

On the other hand, should I just let my gut go slack, my shoulders slump, slouch along half-shaved , with a stupid, self-satisfied grin, waiting for commitment to the county home for the bewildered?  

No, perhaps narcissism has some social benefit.  Perhaps caring about what others think is a governor on one's manners, grace, politeness.   

But do I strain so to suck it in for friends or family?  Well, not so much as with strangers.  What is that about...?  I care for family; I care what friends think.  On the other hand, I pretty well know what they think.  I can't fool myself into imagining they think something other than what they know me to be.  Resolution: I must discipline myself with family or friends to stand a little straighter and -- more important -- to show my care for them. 

Yes, yes ... but, really, it is so much more satisfying to look good for strangers. 

The Boy is Back in the Boat!

Yesterday, after eleven weeks, this boy got back into the boat.  What a joy! What a relief that I can still crew with mates, still pull my weight.  The water was wreathed in wisps of fog, the morning warm (for February), the boat moving well.  We finished with a 700 mtr sprint race with a wounded quad -- not much to crow about, but we caught and passed them at the finish buoy.

It all started one morning in late November, I couldn't swing my legs out of bed, couldn't stand erect. The pain was excruciating and for several days, mornings started out with a yelp of pain, with a crouching, scrabbling parody of walking.  X-rays showed a frightful scoliosis -- one I never knew I had.  I should have had a clue a couple of years ago: stroking a pair one day, my partner kept telling me to sit up straight; that I was leaning to the right.  No, I protested, what the hell are you talking about -- I am sitting up straight!

Well, we were both right, for my spine sure looks unnaturally twisted. Gradually, day by day, while the mornings were horrid, I would get more upright and mobile as the day wore on.  As I subsequently learned, the discs were pressing out fluid and adjusting.



A subsequent MRI showed three stenoses -- severe pinches of the spinal chord. Here on the right is the spinal chord, in white; you can see the three pinches.  Scary.


Off to see two of the best orthopedic spine surgeons in town, one a minimally invasive technician, the other a traditional 'open 'er up and let's take a look' guy.  One said "if we operated on pictures, you'd be a candidate.  But we don't.  We operate on pain, mobility and strength.  And you are not a candidate for surgery."  The other said, looking at the films, "you must be a stoic. But no, avoid surgery as long as possible.  You're not there yet."  Two surgeons; no surgery; not bad.  Both prescribed physical therapy and cautioned against forceful chiropractic.

The physical therapy has brought much relief and steady recovery.  I still wince and groan in the morning, I still have to sleep on my side, sit in stiff-back chairs, use lumbar pillows and do my stretches. And I wore a back brace yesterday.  But, I am improving every day ...

...and I am back in the boat!  

All This Talk About the Veto...

... has piqued my curiosity.  Obama is threatening his third; the Senate is daring him to (on the XL Pipeline.) Where did the idea of veto come from?  Why?  What was the original intent?  Is it working as it was supposed to?

"Veto" is Latin for "I forbid" and it originated in the Roman Republic where either of the two consuls holding office in a given year could block a decision by the other.  And any tribune, heads of government departments, could veto an act passed by the Roman Senate.  A republic in name but pretty centralized at the top.

Our veto, of course, is in the Constitution,  Article I, Section 7:

                "Every Bill ... before it becomes a Law (shall) be presented to the President of the United States: if he approve (sic) he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall ... proceed to reconsider it.  If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of  that House, it shall become a Law.... If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return,  in which Case it shall not be a Law.

So there it is -- the veto and the pocket veto, but note that the founders did not use the word.  Hamilton called it the Executive Negative.

How did it come about?  From the very start of the Constitutional Convention, in May of 1787, the idea of an executive negative was proposed.  Yet in Colonial times, one of the prime complaints of the colonists was the right of Royal Governors to veto bills passed by the colonial legislatures or parliaments.  And if the Governors did not veto, the King could withhold his assent and a bill would not become law.  That withholding of assent was the first of the string of complaints against George the III cataloged in our Declaration of Independence.   So why now, just ten years later, the 180° turnabout?  Well, during the few years under the Articles of Confederation, those "Founding Fathers" had witnessed State legislatures steady nibbling away at the prerogatives of the executive, steadily encroaching on his (no sexism -- they were only hes) his authority and responsibilities.   

Delegate James Madison proposed that the President and four Supreme Court Justices either assent to or negate a bill.  Delegate Alexander Hamilton, concerned with separation of powers and wanting a strong executive, proposed an absolute Presidential aye or nay -- no recourse for Congress.  It was Randolph who framed the compromise, giving Congress the way to override a Presidential rejection through a 2/3rds majority of both houses.

In the battles for state ratification of this proposed, radical Constitution, among more influential voices were Madison's, Hamilton's and John Jay's, who together published a series of 83 op-eds in New York newspapers, which collectively we know as The Federalist Papers.  # 73, written by Hamilton, dealt mainly with what he termed "the qualified negative."  He presented two arguments for the veto:

        1.  That it protected the Executive from incursions of the legislative branch.  It was the "power of self-defense" said Hamilton. And this last week, just as Hamilton warned, we've seen an example as the House of Representatives challenged Obama's executive orders on immigration and restraints on deportations.

        2.  That it provides "security against the enaction of improper laws." By requiring a return with Objections in writing and a reconsideration first by one house and then, if overridden in the first, by the other, the veto process provides a cooling off period for reflection.  Prescient Hamilton commented that a "spirit of faction" can sometimes pervert thoughtful, rational deliberation.  By "faction" read party.  There were no parties in 1788, and the founders generally distrusted them.  But a few short years later, those very founders were creating political parties, the very ones we have today and, as Hamilton predicted, they often warp and pervert thoughtful problem solving.

In #73, Hamilton forecast that the veto would be little used and even more rarely overturned.  Was he right?  Well, yes and no.  Let's go to the numbers.

Seven of our 44 Presidents did not veto any bills.  But the thirty-seven who did averaged a whopping 69 vetos!  The median?  Eighteen used it between once and twenty-eight times; eighteen, more than 30 times.  Such a large difference between the mean of 69 and median of 29 indicates that a few Presidents really racked up the vetoes.  I guess: 635 times; 584 times, 250 times!

The first veto was exercised by our first President at the beginning of his second term.  At issue was a bill about using census data to apportion congressional seats.  Washington thought the bill gave an unfair advantage to the northern states despite his Sect. of State and fellow Virginian Jefferson's endorsement and in agreement with his Sect. of Treasury New Yorker Hamilton's opposition. Confusing?  But the point is sectionalism had raised its ugly head again.   The Federalist majority in Congress did not override.

It was another 17 years before the next veto.  Madison, who had strongly argued for the veto, used it seven times.  Congress first overrode a presidential veto, one of Tyler's ten, in 1845, more than fifty years and 43 vetoes after Washington's first.

So who used it more than the median?  Fast forward to post civil war days:

·         Andrew Johnson -- 29 in less than two Congresses with 15 -- more than half -- overridden as he battled for reconstruction moderation as Lincoln had intended versus the Radical Republicans who wanted to hammer the South.  Little wonder that Congress wound up impeaching Johnson.

·         US Grant -- despite enjoying a solid Republican Congress, Grant still vetoed 93 times.  I guess he was accustomed to having his own way.  Overridden only four times.

·         Now we come to opening the flood gates.  Grover Cleveland -- 584 in eight years, four Congresses!  Cleveland was an interesting character, the first Democrat elected to the Presidency since Buchanan, the first to win popular but lose electoral votes, the only one to win non-consecutive terms, in 1884 and again in 1892. Cleveland was pro-business, anti-labor, for sound (read gold) money, against government spending and farm and mining subsidies.   He was what we would come in another 40 years to call a Southern Democrat -- but Cleveland was from Buffalo, NY.  Most of his vetoes were of bills granting lifetime pensions to widows of Civil War vets of questionable merit -- the vets, I mean, not the widows.   He used the pocket veto a lot, but of his 346 "active", i.e., in session vetoes, only seven were overridden.

·         When Teddy Roosevelt ascended to the Oval Office, conservative Republicans, who thought they had safely kicked the pesky progressive reformer upstairs into the harmless vice presidency, found themselves in a battle.  Teddy vetoed 82 bills and had only one overridden.

·         FDR has the record: 635 vetoes, of which 40% were via pocket.  But that was over 12 years and into his seventh Congress.  Overridden nine times.

·         Truman, of course, faced that "do-nothing" 80th Congress.  He dealt with four Congresses to whom he issued 180 veto messages, plus another 70 via his pocket.  Despite the Republican majority with their southern Democratic allies, he was overturned only 12 times.

·         Lest one think that an un-elected President and the only one since the 19th C to have served as Speaker of the House would be more respectful of Congress's will, Gerald Ford wielded the veto pen 66 times in less than two and a half years.

·         Reagan, with a Democratic House and sometimes Senate, needed 78 vetoes to work his will; all but nine successfully.

From there, it tails off:  Clinton, 37; Dubya, twelve; Obama, just two.  I think the reason is the filibuster threat in the Senate and Dennis Hastert's majority-of-the-majority standard in the House.  These have gummed up the legislative process, and threats of veto embolden opposition to the majorities.  Congress also plays games with "adjournment" to forestall pocket vetoes.  We'll see fewer vetoes until legislators come to their senses and start legislating with simple and just majorities once again. 

So, was Hamilton right: rarely used and even more rarely overridden?  Not so on usage ...  2,564 vetoes overall.   But on overrides, yes.  Presidents are upheld: 110 overrides, 4% of total vetoes and -- a better measure -- just 7% of "active" vetoes.  The President prevails 96% of the time.                

Two hundred, twenty-eight years ago, Madison, Hamilton, Randolph and the other founders, watching state legislators grasp for more power and foreseeing how factionalism could pervert thoughtful, deliberative government, conceived a federal system with separate and balanced powers and gave each tools to protect their independence.  For the Executive, that tool is the veto.  And yes, it's working as those remarkably farsighted founders intended.  Now if we can just get those clowns in Washington to get to work ....

My Eighties -- My Mission

Most of my college mates, the class of '56, have crossed over the threshold, as I did this Fall, into a ninth decade.  That gives one pause for reflection....

My seventies were grand -- the happiest and most productive ages of my life.  Life with Ann (over a quarter-century now) has been rich and joyous.  Watching our (shared) five children wrestle with the challenges of this complicated age, our nine grandchildren come into their own and one great-grand begin her childhood adventure has been enormously humbling.  I am glad not to be raising kids in these times of drug temptations, sexual transparency, inequality of opportunity and all the rest parents deal with.  Barbara and I did the best we could; Ann and Rob likewise.  One always wishes I could-'a, should-'a been a better Dad or Mom, but the offspring thrive despite our misdeeds.  My sons, step sons and son-in-law are role models for Dads -- the Dad I wish I had been.  They are great family-men.

As for my eighties, I intend to be equally happy and, yes, productive.  So long as we continue learning, we still have much to give.  I've given up mastering a new language; higher math eludes me; but history and the threats to our public square engage my attention and energy, as does living up to my handle -- trusteecoach.  Much of the last decade was guided by a personal mission statement, drafted after having drifted through the first year of retirement.  It has been my rudder since:

My Missions

First, to enrich Ann's and my shared lives.

Second, to increase the effectiveness of selected service organizations by investing time 

and leveraging my experience in strategy, marketing and management of innovation.

But having crossed the threshold into this new decade of my eighties, I think it needs some revision:

First, to enrich and savor Ann's and my shared lives.

Second, to increase the effectiveness of selected not-for-profit organizations by investing 

time and energy, and by recruiting the next generation of leaders to make their 

talents available to this critical segment of our commonweal.

So, Happy New Year to you who are reading this.  Keep moving.   May we all thrive and prosper in 2015.

Needed: a Mission Statement for America

Perhaps a way out of this political quagmire we have got ourselves into is to develop and adopt a mission statement for America.  One might argue that we have such in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, but what we don't have is a concise, easily grasped statement of what our mission is, and what we envision for ourselves.

Since retiring eight years ago, I have been devoting considerable time and energy to four not-for-profit enterprises, two of which have highly-evolved processes of mission-driven planning.  For example, Horizon House's mission statement provides the guidance principle from which all else follows:

                Horizon House is a dynamic retirement community dedicated to dignified aging,

                life fulfillment and service to the broader community.

From this are derived Horizon House's long-term goals.  From those, the strategies and then short-term objectives and action plans.  But in all four organizations, the benefit of a clearly understood mission provides a keel and rudder for their activities (an apt metaphor, as one of them is the Mount Baker Rowing Club.)

Mission-driven organizations thrive, as my experience attests and as Jim Collins' Stanford studies demonstrate.  Whether for-profit or not-for-profit, strongly held missions nourish and sustain success.

 

It works for people, too; I have a personal mission statement.  Soon after retiring and feeling rather at a loss at having no deadlines to meet or projects to complete, I listened to Scott Oki talk at a charity luncheon about his first few years in retirement.   He said he had felt a bit aimless.  Then, he realized that for Microsoft he had helped Gates craft a succinct mission statement and helped define their long term goals derived therefrom; "to put a computer on every desk and in every home" became the guiding light for the first three decades of Microsoft's success.  For the retired Oki, that realization was a flash of insight: he needed a mission statement for Scott Oki's retirement.  So he sat down, took stock of himself, and wrote one. 

Oki's light bulb went off in my head at that luncheon.  Ann and I were leaving for a ski trip a few days later.  Over three or four evenings, I thought through and crafted my own mission statement.  It has guided me in retirement ever since.  Fletch Waller's mission is:

First, to enrich Ann's and my shared lives.  Second, to increase the effectiveness of

selected service organizations by investing time and my experience in analysis,

marketing and management of innovation.

Ever since drafting and adopting that mission, my retirement has been happy, busy and fully rewarding.

Mission-driven enterprises (and people) have a touchstone for setting priorities and resolving competing demands on resources.  Mission statements help balance interests of various, sometimes conflicting constituencies.  Mission statements remind members of the organization or enterprise what they are about.  Mission statements create community and common cause.

From mission are derived long term goals and strategies, and from them, short term objectives which represent mile-posts along the way.   

So what about a Mission Statement for America, an effort to collect from diverse interests viewpoints on what we aspire to be and do?  As hard as it might be to reach consensus on a single, succinct mission statement would not the effort create exchange, conversation and listening to one another?  And if we could coalesce around a simple statement of purpose, would that not help counter the polarization that has torn us apart and be antidote to the sense of impotence that infects so many fellow citizens?

Here's my first crack at one:

                America welcomes and empowers citizens to reach their full potential, protecting

                them, freeing them, encouraging them and supporting them to pursue their dreams 

                and ambitions. 

If you want to play, don't send me e-mails; just hit the comment below.  You may be asked to open a Google account, which is free, simple to do, and non-intrusive.  Then react and share. And sign up to follow if you want to see what others are chiming in with.   Let's get the conversation started.

The Differences Between Dis-engagement, Non-intervention and Isolationism

My pieces on disengaging militarily from the Middle East have been characterized as neo-isolationist by several friends, associates and correspondents.  Most have failed to note the qualifier "militarily." Let's examine what the differences might be and clarify what I propose.

Isolationism is to pull in behind our borders and take no active role in the affairs of the world.  It often is accompanied by protective tariffs and withdrawal from world trade.  Nothing could be more wishful, fruitless and, even if feasible in this inter-connected world, more suicidal.  Isolation is not an option, and is an ignorant stance even were it possible to achieve.

Non-intervention means not stepping in where we are not invited.  It doesn't mean not caring, or watching, or learning, or listening and collecting intelligence.  Noses in; fingers out.

Dis-engagement militarily is just that -- not participating by arming or taking part in military actions among the various combatants (among whom we cannot discriminate between good guys and baddies; friends, fair-weather friends, or foes; democrats or autocrats or theocrats; and familial-ists, clan-ists, tribal-ists, sectarianists or secularists or nationalists or whatever.)  This is feasible, but it does NOT mean we disengage from the countries of the Middle East. 

We can and should, we must, engage:

• In ameliorating the human damage to those caught in the middle or displaced and on the run by proffering humanitarian aid, i.e., shelters, food and water, medicines and first aid supplies, to any and all sides, including cautious green card access to our shores.
• By guaranteeing the territorial integrity of the four nations which are maintaining some semblance of representative government, civil society and rule of law -- Israel, Turkey, Lebanon and Kurdistan (yes, recognizing Kurdistan as an independent state) -- and backing up those guarantees with military might and boots on the ground.
• By shifting our economy from military production to peace products.  Instead of selling our military hardware to and lavishing military assistance on unstable countries and kingdoms, instead offer to gift infrastructure products, such as desalinization plants, irrigation systems, hospitals, MRI's, education supplies, whatever so long as their US production under government contract stimulates the US economy and aids our exports.  A fully equipped hospital costs about a tenth of the price we pay for an F-16.
•  And by listening -- proactively listening to all sides and all comers -- in the UN, in our diplomatic outposts, in international forums.  Listening is an art at which we have been out of practice and gotten rusty,  to put it mildly (e.g., not hearing Putin obsess about expanding NATO eastward and not hearing Cuba suggest they'd welcome an opening to reduce dependency on Russia and Venezuela.)  Listening is the best medicine for hubris.

I know the accusations: that I'm naively and politically wishful; that we can't afford military R&D without export sales; that we would be abdicating to China, Russia, The Ukraine, The Czech Republic, Brazil and Israel lucrative weapons markets; that lavishing free stuff on unstable regimes is just throwing money away and creating new fields of baksheesh to harvest; that China and Russia would rush in to establish alliances with these sheiks (a blessing to be wished on one's worst enemy); that Iran's influence in the region would be strengthened; that I am a dreamy idealist ignoring real politic; etc., etc. etc. 

Yes, yes, but none of that dissuades me from believing that step-by-step we could and should move toward this stance, starting by pulling out militarily and letting the middle easterners, particularly the Persians and Arabs, play out their bloody, self-destructive conflicts on their own.  And none of that dissuades me from  believing that in the long run, America would be strengthened, economically and morally, throughout the world, by so doing.  The Swiss are neutral; the Norwegians are neutral; is it not possible for a powerful giant also to be neutral?  While fully engaged?  And acting as an honest broker of peace?  That would be listening to our better angels and to the dreams of our founding founders.  That could be a vision behind which a broad swath of Americans could coalesce.  That is a foreign policy I could believe in.