Above a steel spire. Jagged glass.
Here wildflowers spring from green grass.
Crickets sing their song of night as
Feet rest and paces slow.
The city pauses here.
Peace.
Author Archives: Paul Haffner
Dogs
I listened to one of my all-time favorite Pink Floyd tunes a couple weeks ago – “Dogs” off the album Animals. It is a rather grim portrayal of corporate America with some blistering lyrics that I just had to excerpt for a quick post (it’s about a 15 minute opus so just a teaser here):
“And after a while.
You can work on points for style.
The club tie. Firm Handshake.
Sudden look in the eye and the easy smile.
You have to be trusted.
By the people that you lie to.
So that when they turn their backs on you.
You’ll get the chance to put the knife in.”
The entire song is amazing – very good story through the lyrics and David Gilmour’s guitar work is legendary. Listening to it again made me consider my story and some of the people I’ve met over the years. Like Holden Caulfield, I hate phonies. Keep it real or keep it moving…. So many people seem caught up in the act, always seeking some edge, some power over the next guy. Although I have certainly worked on some of those style points in various corporate and societal roles, I have never done it for some devious end game strategy. I come with no agenda, hidden or otherwise.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of Dogs (a.k.a. snakes) in this world always looking out for number one, trying to get ahead by bringing others down. The goal for me is to figure out those clowns early on – before they burn you. Or at least before they put that knife in…. If you can outlast ’em the good news is most Dogs are insecure at their core and usually end up like the character in the song – “just another sad old man. all alone and dying of cancer.”
END
Eastern Corridor and Suburban Sprawl
Here is a wonderfully simple solution to all of the people whining about traffic on State Route 32 and the need for a relocated SR 32 “Eastern Corridor” project to move forward. Ready? Move to Hamilton County or quit complaining.
You have selected to locate your home or business in Clermont County. God bless you. It is a fine place. You have lower taxes, a more rural way of life, and all the elbow room a person could need.
I have chosen to live in Mariemont. I pay outrageously high taxes and barely fit two cars into a driveway on a postage stamp lot. But I do have my convenience to the city and shared green space with my neighbors, and for that I am grateful.
I need someone to now please enlighten me on what gives you the right to pave over my limited green space so you can have an easier commute for yourself or your goods to the urban core from which you have chosen to distance yourself. There are many amazing residential and commercial properties in classic Cincinnati neighborhoods and more coming online routinely. We seem to have endless development opportunities within a 10 mile radius of Cincinnati and OTR on the rise.
I personally think the absolute worst thing we can do as a region is encourage more people to live/work 20+ miles outside the city. We need to continue to pursue policies that bring people into the urban core which I will loosely define as Hamilton County and Northern Kentucky. Population density is a good thing, and public transportation even better.
If you want to talk about a rail option to serve the eastern suburbs better or widening existing SR 32 a tad I am all ears. If you want to pave over my parkland to serve yourself and your desire for more land with lower taxes, well, I guess I would eschew the ears and give you a fist or a finger.
Suburban sprawl almost killed our city. And now that we have something good going we need to be doing all we can to promote and encourage this momentum. We do not need to make living 30 miles outside of the city easier; we need to make it harder (at least with cars on highways). Don’t let people in Columbus or those that abandoned ship now control our transportation policies. Come join us in Mariemont, Madisonville, Kenwood, OTR, Oakley, North Avondale, Clifton, Northern Kentucky, etc. Locate your home or business here and enjoy what we have to offer. Or stay in Clermont County if you wish – perfectly fine. Just no way you’re going to convince me that you have some constitutional right to an easier commute or trip to the Reds game. Deal with the traffic you helped create when you located there. I’ll deal with my neighbors.
GM Recall (Reprise)
In April, the news broke about the massive failure by General Motors to recall vehicles for a faulty ignition switch. I had some strong thoughts on the topic but got lazy on vacation and never wrote them down in a cohesive way. I recently dusted off my notes when the WSJ published a piece Friday, August 22 about the Government now investigating the GM legal department. The Feds want to know what those poor saps in the Legal Department knew, when they knew it, etc. Apparently GM has already let a dozen or so lawyers go (but not the boss…), and continues to “cooperate with” the government. Here’s what I think – the whole episode is just another wonderful example of broken merit models fueled by our collective greed as a society.
People have been making a lot of noise about the failure of GM to recall vehicles when the company allegedly first had notice of a potential ignition switch problem. We see a $1 fix on the one hand, and 13 young lives on the other and scream at the injustice of at all. The media shows us orchestrated grillings on Capitol Hill, and serves up inflammatory documents attributing prior knowledge to company management of the issue and simple fix. The lawyers will come. Scapegoats will be assigned. Settlements will be achieved. But until people are compensated based ethical action v. quarterly results, no one will stop the machine.
To me the real story here is having yet another shining example of an ethical lapse due to a lack of courage by corporate management. And this lack of courage directly results from Wall Street inspired societal pressure to achieve specific financial results. The tale has played out in the auto industry before. The mighty Pinto had a magic exploding gas tank in the 1970s. When the dust settled, it came down to a pure mathematical cost-benefit analysis where management literally rationalized that the cost of the fix far outweighed the potential benefit of minimizing the risk of explosion. It took a few innocent lives and a team of lawyers to remedy that situation, and still nobody fixed the root cause – our collective greed for enhanced shareholder value.
As a society, we have placed such a premium on delivery of positive earnings (through skewed compensation programs and other benefits) that corporate managers are actually encouraged to perform a clinical cost-benefit analysis even when human lives may someday be at stake. Many institutional investors are now driven by short-sighted economic incentives and have lost any notion of “patient capital.” Shareholders used to buy stock in a company and accept small dividends and long-term growth. Now we have a culture that demands maximum efficiency, and margin-focused tactics by public companies with the spotlight on every quarterly report. This crazy construct creates behaviors that are far too focused on the bottom line. Corporate executives are schooled and encouraged through compensation programs to conduct this very type of cost-benefit analysis. A few injuries and maybe a death or two down the road (not certain and very remote) would be hard-pressed to outweigh a negative impact on today’s numbers, annual bonus, option vesting, retirement money, etc.
As a student of ethics, no lesson has been more clear over the past 40 years (and one could argue 400 or even 4000): as a general rule, human beings will do whatever benefits them the most. It is all about self-interest. To fix the Pinto, GM ignition switch, NASA’s space shuttle debacle, or the countless other ethical case studies where safety warnings went unheeded to serve a greater perceived need for fame or fortune, we need to reward rather than punish the ethical decision-maker. Most ethicists end up fired or resigning in disgust. Instituting incentives for ethical action, and more bonus clawbacks, along with larger fines/penalties and possibly jail time for the bad actors who benefit from corporate malfeasance is a start. But we also need a societal shift to take place. We must begin to praise and encourage rather than criticize corporate decisions that may be painful in the short-term yet create tremendous positives in the long run. Milton Friedmann’s model and modern cultural norm suggesting shareholder value as the only purpose of the corporation is flawed. We need to balance corporate decisions after considering multiple stakeholders, and align merit based compensation and promotions with all the value created (or destroyed) – not simply shareholder value.
I know some brilliant minds are working on this. One example is the “social benefit corporation” and similar statutory creatures created in several states to date. Hopefully this is the beginning of a shift toward more responsible corporate and individual behaviors. People will act in their self interest, so we need to give them both the carrot and the stick that will help them make proper decisions guided by a more holistic view of “value.”
END
Morality Should Be A Personal Matter
Note: This was originally published December 29, 2003 in the Cincinnati Enquirer. Good to read it 10 years later and consider my own viewpoint and societal evolution toward the issue of gay marriage. I still like this piece and happy I am seeing some of the solutions rising from the legislative process.
MORALITY SHOULD BE A PERSONAL MATTER
My sister recently sent me an article regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision declaring the prohibition of gay marriage unconstitutional. A lesbian, she definitely supported the decision, and expressed sincere joy to be living in a state where there is real support for gay rights.
I recently sent Sis my support for the decision based on my personal morality and common sense. My personal morality is not rigidly rooted in religion but is rather an individually developed set of guiding principles that help me decide between right and wrong. Although I have several religious tenets as foundations, I refuse to be controlled by any religious dogma or rely on anyone else to dictate my morality to me.
The issue of gay marriage is a difficult one, but one that should be confronted with thought and debate, not blind reliance on another’s creed or canon. Religion can, and should, play a part in the debate, but respect for others’ beliefs, teachings of philosophical scholars, and our own sensibilities of fundamental human fairness must be considered as well. In my opinion, the decision is proper, and sends the debate back to the legislature to craft a law that reflects our current, collective (societal) morality. The two sides will engage people and resources to fight the noble battle, but through the dialectic process of synthesis and the democratic process of debate, we will arrive at a practical solution that shows a fundamental respect for our fellow citizens, yet respects the religious convictions of many Americans.
The bottom line for me is that the decision promotes stability and commitment between two people by encouraging the development of laws recognizing their union and allowing them to receive some of the very real economic and social benefits attendant to this status. My morality is not offended by these rights, but it has been offended by many of the post-decision comments from both sides as they position themselves in the public forum. My hope is that through the legislative process, we will find the flaws in the two opposing arguments and arrive at a workable solution (perhaps following Vermont) or even a new universal moral truth.
God will be watching, but I believe he approves of the process and will favor the final outcome that should promote two core concepts of any relationship, including that between us and our democracy – stability and commitment.
Small Miracles
A funny thing has happened over the past few years. Instead of searching for alternative explanations, I have started accepting fortuitous, positive developments in my life as small miracles – evidence of the presence of a Higher Power. There are many moments during an average month when someone or something alters my life’s course in a way I could not have anticipated. It could be a new opportunity, a shift in an existing relationship, or some resolution to a major issue. My old self would explain these developments with secular concepts like fate or circumstance. At my worst, I would even feel somehow entitled to the benefit – the world owed it to me… I was due a good turn.
I now believe these moments to be a bit of Divine intervention. And rather than explaining them away with a dismissive scientific theory, or, better yet, a selfish justification, I try to gratefully acknowledge the guiding hand of God. Now get ready for a course correction: this absolutely does not mean I believe that God controls all and we are somehow predetermined to live (or die) according to His plan. That is crap. He is far too busy to be controlling traffic patterns on the highways or outcomes to sporting events. What I’m talking about are the subtle adjustments that seem to happen when my heart is open to the concept of God. Obstacles are overcome; challenges are met; relationships are mended. He works to change me, enabling me to change my world.
I believe that once we are willing to accept that a Higher Power is present, we will witness miracles in abundance. It is simply a shift in perspective – where we were blind, we now can see. The fog of self-centeredness will be lifted, and we will find an amazing world awaits.
END
Football is a Stupid Sport
Permit a brief editorial on the sport of American Football: It’s stupid.
As possibly the last of the true gladiator sports, football allows spectators to achieve that visceral rush from watching violent clashes unfold. I readily admit there is some beauty and incredible athleticism in the game, but the NFL has become a house of pain for so many people. It is hard for me to stay a fan with the absolute brutality witnessed on an ordinary Sunday and injury reports that can’t fit on a scroll.
Granted, it would be challenging to find a period of time or culture throughout history where we didn’t celebrate some form of violence. Spectators have often taken great pleasure in vicious harm done to another person. In ancient Rome they filled the Coliseum to watch men fight to the death against each other or some carnivorous beasts, feasting emotionally on the carnage. Torture in the public square used to do the trick – a nice disemboweling on your Sunday afternoon to get the blood flowing? A virgin sacrifice perhaps? We crave watching another person’s pain for some strange reason. Hopefully we continue to evolve, and football (at least as we know it today) is no more. Boxing finally fell off of prime time. It has been replaced, it seems, with Ultimate Fighting and MMA. But football is still the dominant sport for satisfying the desire we have to witness violence.
Perhaps the league can effect enough rule changes to get football back to a sport that doesn’t require risking severe long-term injury and death. Rugby must be doing something right, and even ice hockey avoids a lot of these issues (now that they wear helmets). Unfortunately, the NFL seems to still be tolerating the violence, and we go right along for the ride. The penalties for vicious hits are very modest in relation to the salaries. And what does it take to get suspended for a game or more? “Unnecessary Roughness” would end if you ejected repeat offenders and fined them a percentage of salaries vs a more modest fixed sum. But boys will be boys is still apparently our collective rationalization for the stupidity we see on our TV screens each week.
So the irony of it all is I’m heading to my second NFL game of the season this Sunday – my Bengals take on the Minnesota Vikings. I like being around 65,000 people and feeling the thrill of the crowd when a great play happens. And I will be hard-pressed not feel some perverse excitement if one of our gladiators “lays out” one of the opponents. I wish I didn’t feel that way, but I will. Like I said, it’s stupid.
Channeling Seuss
It’s just not enough –
all of your stuff.
All your stuff
is never enough.
So be content with yourself –
the core, not the fluff.
And you’ll find
life’s quite good enough.
The “Kiss Hello” Program
Can somebody help me understand why so many people find kissing to be an acceptable professional greeting?
THE SCENARIO: several people huddled around a conference room table. In walk a few additional people critical to the meeting, one of which is a woman dressed in professional attire with a briefcase slung over her shoulder. Instead of handshakes all around, the scene develops into an awkward exchange where each male leans in to kiss his female counterpart. Other participants then feel obliged to join the orgy and before you know it more spit has been swapped than words exchanged.
THE QUESTION(S): how did this come to pass? Is it some strange, residual leftover from the male chauvinist world of the 1950s – it’s uncool to grope now but maybe we can still get a little something? Or do professional women really enjoy this form of greeting?
Let me say at the outset that I am all for a peck on the cheek with a friend at a social gathering. I’m simply curious as to how we have come to accept a kiss as a way to greet our banker or business colleague. I feel a bit like Jerry Seinfeld when he decided to take himself out of the “kiss hello” program in his apartment building. He became ostracized as he struggled to avoid the seemingly obligatory smooch with every female tenant as they crossed paths during the day. I certainly don’t want that, and I’m willing to make an exception if the girl is bringing the goods, but can we all agree it should be a rare thing to see multiple kisses at the beginning of a business meeting? Maybe we are still getting used to the co-ed office and it will take a generation or two to iron this out, but I for one am loathe to greet my female friends in a business setting like it is Saturday night at the bar.
Judging by the loose metrics I am keeping, I seem to be an outlier here. Struggling for acceptance, I have found a nice rhythm allowing the woman to make the first move. I keep the pheromones in check, and wait for her to either extend her hand or lean in for some love. If I were a betting man, I would say most women appreciate this. I simply cannot believe a professional woman wants to be kissed multiple times in a business setting. With cold and flu season upon us, the odds have to be getting better. I know I would rather get down to business after a firm handshake, perhaps a hug for my closest male (and female) friends. But it is handshakes all around if more than four people are present.
I think I will send this along to the local business etiquette press. There have to be rules around the “kiss hello” program for the office. In the meantime, I will be diplomatically dodging that first move, deferring as a gentleman should to the ladies in the room.
A Plea for Big Tent Benedictions
To all my friends in the clergy, and leaders of government and industry I have one simple question – why the need to specifically reference Jesus Christ in benedictions before large groups in diverse settings? I have attended numerous dinners and speeches during my professional career, and I continue to marvel at the lack of sensitivity by elected officials and civic leaders to what I see as a very simple issue of religious freedom.
A benediction (or whatever word you want to use) before a meal is an absolutely wonderful idea. The vast majority of us in the audience are incredibly grateful and acknowledge that some Higher Power has provided for us in ways we could not possibly do for ourselves. What I don’t understand is why, typically at the end of an otherwise beautiful benediction, the speaker has to invoke the name of Jesus and throw in the collective “our Lord and Savior” as if it applies to everyone in the room. We may be one nation, under God, but a lot of us believe that God has many direct reports in this world. Why not use the “big tent” approach and recognize that at least a few members of your audience might be Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, or simply follow their own spiritual path?
Leaders of industry and politics have done plenty of proselytizing in their time. And as long as it is from the heart, and something they feel they must do to proclaim their faith, I get it – I really do. From my perspective, it just makes so much more sense for a leader to be inclusive and find the common ground, especially when speaking to hundreds or even thousands of people from a variety of backgrounds. With the benediction you really have a captive audience and one that is hanging on every word in silence. Why have them with you for a minute or two and then cut many of them out as you wrap it up with a very specific reference to Jesus?
It may be an uphill battle to try to change this. I would simply point out to anyone willing to listen that there’s a positive, constructive way for us to share in a blessing as an entire community. And don’t get me wrong, if you are doing the blessing at the Evangelical prayer breakfast, feel free to rock that Psalm my preacher friend. But if you are saying grace at the opening of the Chamber of Commerce dinner, go ahead and get a little secular or at least inclusive of your neighbors. It really isn’t that hard to do.
I realize we can’t be perfect, and there will always be some fringe element who could quibble with even the most general prayer. It just doesn’t seem to be too much to ask to focus on God as a common thread for the vast majority of human beings on this planet. We could then have a moment of silence to allow individuals to offer up their own supplement to praise Jesus or just quietly reflect on the blessings in their life. Amen.