Wear the World Lightly

There is a story I heard once about two relatives who were attending the funeral services of a wealthy family member. One of them, with a greedy glint in his eyes, leans over and whispers; “how much did he leave?“. The other looks back and responds…”All of it“. The point of the story was that when our time comes, we don’t take any of our possessions with us.

St. Francis of Assisi, who was born into a wealthy noble family, left his life of possessions and privileges to start a monastery and live a life of simplicity. His advice to those who wanted to join him was to “Wear the world like a loose garment, which touches us in a few places and there but lightly”. 

St Francis Statue

The Alcoholic Anonymous organization adopted this teaching of St Francis and shortened it to the simple phrase: Wear the World Lightly. Their 12-step program for overcoming addiction uses lots of sayings to help people detach and overcome their addictions, phrases like: live and let live, let go and let God, turn it over, easy does it, and one day at a time.

All of these statements of detachment are not intended to send a message that we should be indifferent or dead to the world, or have no feelings at all. Rather their purpose is to teach people to face the world with a kind of mindful disengagement.

It is this “detachment with love” philosophy that can help motivate people to create a peaceful space within themselves, separated from the never-ending incoming arrows of uncertainty, fear, anger, and other painful events that plague our life. Practicing detachment helps people look past the daily shocks that occur, producing a change of attitude in the mind and a physical release in the body.

To wear the world as a loose garment is to acknowledge that the world and our life will always press at us and around us, but that it does not have to touch us but “lightly”. Most things are either outside our control or ultimately unimportant. 

We do not need to grasp, manage, dwell on or react to everything that happens to us. We can choose instead to keep the world at an emotional distance so we can stay focused on doing the next right thing. It is an attitude that can relax the body and relieve the mind of the poisonous emotions that overcome us when we are confronted by the people, places or things that beset us.

To be in the world but not of it, is to live and move through life without being emotionally attached to everything that happens. Life can get hard, but those who wear the world lightly learn how to live in the world with their hardships, neither fighting them nor being crushed by them.

St Francis was essentially encouraging us to not sweat the small stuff. To not get annoyed or depressed when life does not go your way or when you do not get what you want. When you have lived long enough you come to understand that most of the things that bother us are small potatoes. Even death apparently, which the Dalai Lama described as a simple change of clothes.

I’ve heard it said that the secret to happiness as we age “is to care less and less about more and more“. The wise elders I have been fortunate to know in my life carried that attitude with them; they tended to let fewer and fewer things bother them as they got older. It’s not because they didn’t care, most likely it was just that they discovered through their life experience that it is possible to walk away, without anger or agitation, from some things they felt passionate about – and still live.

I happened across an on-line sermon about this same topic of wearing the world lightly by Bishop Robert Barron. From a spiritual point of view, Bishop Barron also believes that St Francis’ famous statement was an attempt to teach his followers about the importance of detachment – especially from the goods and achievements of the world.

Not because the world itself is bad – there are all kinds of good, true and beautiful things in the world – but because the things of the world are not the ultimate good and we are not meant to cling to them as though they were.

There are stories throughout the Bible about the futility of clinging on to earthly power, riches and glory. King Solomon is one of the greatest figures in the history of Israel from a standpoint of wealth and power. He was somebody who had it all; nobody was richer, nobody was more famous, nobody had richer palaces or clothes. But, as an old man, looking at all the possessions he has acquired over his lifetime, he says: “Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity!“.

The word vanity in Hebrew signifies something that is insubstantial and momentary, like wind or vapor or bubbles; something that is here for a brief time and then it is gone. Solomon has experienced everything: power, sensual pleasure, wisdom, honor and wealth. He has built up a reserve of wealth through his knowledge and skills and yet when he is gone, he must leave all his property to others who have not labored over it and do not deserve it.

It is not uncommon to hear complaints like this from men as they become old and infirm; “I gave my whole life to my business, I worked hard and I made a fortune. Now I’m an old man and I’m surrounded by ungrateful children and grand-children; and I’ve done all this work and yet these people are going to inherit all my wealth. What’s it all been about“?

If you live to be old enough, at some point, you finally come to realize that everything in this world has a quality of evanescence – it disappears and does not last. It is a good thing if you have been successful and built up a fortune – but it’s not going to last. Because you are going to fade away and it’s all going to go to somebody else.

Should we just be depressed then? Father Barron says no, not depressed, instead we should be detached. Our wealth, power, pleasure and the esteem of other people. It’s good. We should take it in and then let it go. We should enjoy it the way you enjoy a firework going off. Learn to live in the present moment, savoring what we can, but then letting it go.

Why? Because we come to realize that the truly good and beautiful things belong to a higher world. We can sense them in the good things of this world but none of our earthly things last and so if we cling to them, what happens is they disappear, they crumble as we try to grasp at them. Rather see them, appreciate them and then let them go.

We can get caught in an addictive pattern when we cling to the goods of the world. You worry about them so you say to yourself, oh no I better get more. Instead, we would be wise to remember the cautionary parable of the rich fool told by Jesus:

“The ground of a certain rich man brought forth abundantly. He reasoned within himself, saying, ‘What will I do, because I don’t have room to store my crops?’ He said, ‘This is what I will do. I will pull down my barns, and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. I will tell my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years. Take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.”‘ “But God said to him, ‘You fool, this very night your soul is required of you. The things which you have prepared— whose will they be?’

Luke 12:16-21

St Francis asks us to cultivate an attitude of detachment in our life. To stop clinging and hanging on to the things of the world. The more we cling to them, the more we become imprisoned by them. We’ll become bitter, angry , empty if our only focus is on the acquisition of ephemeral things. But if we practice the proper spiritual attitude of detachment and keep our eyes on the true and beautiful things that do not fade away then we will know how to handle the goods of the world as they come to us.

Fr Barron closes his sermon by emphasizing again that wealth in itself is not the problem. He points out that wealthy people can be saintly when they know how to use their wealth, how to wear it lightly and how to become generous with it. The only thing we take with us into the life to come is the quality of our love and what we’ve given away on earth. So, we should forget about trying to fill up our lives with bigger barns; true joy in life comes through building up our treasure in heaven.

The publication of this particular blog represents a milestone for me and the achievement of a goal I set for myself way back in 2013 when I posted my very first Words to Live By blog entry. I have been publishing this monthly blog for almost 10 years now and and have managed to author 100 different blog entries in that time.

I have attempted in this collection of postings to communicate ideas and philosophies that have helped me along the way and given my life direction and meaning. It has been a wonderful mental exercise for me and a labor of love that has helped me recognize things that make life interesting and wonderful. I hope my readers have discovered some of their own words to live by that will be of specific value to them in their own life.

In the spirit of “wearing the world lightly”, I plan to cut back on my blogging activities moving forward so that I am can devote more time focusing on doing the next right things in my life that will increase the quality of my love. I don’t plan to walk away from blogging completely though, as there are always more words to live by to be discovered and examined.

So, keep an eye out for the occasional future posting from me; and until then, may the blessings abound in your life.

Doughnut Economics

I recently read an article in TIME magazine about an interesting new economic theory called Dougnut Economics. The concept was first introduced by the British economist Kate Raworth in a 2012 Oxfam report and then developed more fully in her 2017 book ‘Doughnut Economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist‘.

Raworth proposed the new economic model as a way to address one of humanity’s most challenging problems: how to reduce global poverty without depleting or damaging the planet’s limited natural resources.

The economic theory comes by its name because it is visually represented by two doughnut-shaped discs as shown below. The disc in the center represents a social foundation consisting of the basic fundamental rights all humans ought to have, like access to food & water, housing, education, work, etc. The outer disc represents earth’s ecological ceiling consisting of the environmental thresholds which cannot be exceeded if we want to guarantee the future prosperity of the human species.

The middle green area represents the doughnut, the space where humanity can thrive and progress if the planet’s boundaries are respected. Society’s goal should be to bring all of human life into the “goldilocks zone”; that sweet spot area where everyone has what they need to live a good life, but without overshooting the ecological ceiling limits which would cause further degradation of the environment and jeopardize the health of the Planet.

Capitalism has been the world’s dominant economic system since the 16th century and its adoption by the world’s fastest growing countries has transformed life on earth by helping to lift billions of people from poverty. It is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Proponents of the Doughnut economic theory argue that capitalism is an imperfect system because it emerged during a time when humanity saw itself as separated from the web of life, one where ecological issues were ignored or labeled externalities.

The broad measure used as an economic scorecard in capitalist economic systems is the Gross Domestic Product or GDP. It is a measure of the total monetary or market value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders during a specific time period.

The Doughnut economic theory recognizes that economic prosperity depends not only on growth as measured by GDP but on human and natural well-being as well; and it encourages societies to shift to an economic model that is more regenerative and distributive than today’s capitalistic system.

They argue that continued application of 20th century economic thinking is not sustainable or responsible now that the world is aware that the planet is teetering on the edge of a climate breakdown and we know we will witness the death of the living world unless we transform the way we live.

In a doughnut world, local economies would sometimes be growing and sometimes shrinking. It recognizes that growth is a healthy phase of life but endless uncontrolled growth, like cancer, can be harmful to our overall health. Significant GDP growth may be very much needed in low and middle income countries to ensure that their communities can overcome the shortfalls that create deprivations for their citizens, while richer countries would focus not so much on growth but on maintaining their thriving social foundations but at a reduced ecological cost.

Adopting such an economic theory would help balance the inequities that are present in the world today – one where the high living standards of the people in rich countries have them overshooting the planet’s ecological ceiling, while people in poorer countries fall short of the fundamental human rights that comprise the doughnut’s social foundation.

Many economists are skeptical of the doughnut economic theory because in order for it to work it asks humans to magically become indifferent to wealth and income or how well they are doing compared to others. That is a difficult ask when the world includes 7.3 billion people.

Different class and national interests are always fighting one another and it is naïve to believe that globalized capitalism will suddenly transform itself to become more cooperative and gentle; especially when all indicators point towards citizens today becoming more commercially motivated, self-centered and focused on money and success.

I too am skeptical that something as revolutionary as a Doughnut economics system could be universally adopted given today’s political divisiveness, uncompromising culture wars, and money-fueled corporate lobbying interests. Too many rich and powerful people benefit from the economic status quo – and would use their influence within the halls of power to protect their self-interests.

However, the encouraging thing about doughnut economic programs is that they can be run at a grassroots level. Since its introduction many homes, towns, cities, and states have bypassed their national governments and done what they could to apply the concepts behind doughnut economics from the bottom up – to try and help their local societies become more resilient.

Cities have become the laboratories of doughnut economic programs. The simple way that the doughnut economic model captures both the needs of the people and the needs of the planet makes it a convenient tool for leaders to have big conversations about reimagining and remaking the future. Ideas based on doughnut economics are now being discussed, debated and put into practice in academia, business, and in town, city and national governments worldwide.

Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Dunedin, Melbourne, Berlin, Portland and even Austin TX are examples of cities applying the new economic concepts as a way to help their cities attain social and environmental sustainability. Since the theory doesn’t lay out specific policies or goals, stakeholders are free to have constructive conversations to decide what benchmarks would help bring their communities inside the doughnut.

Amsterdam’s lofty ambition is to bring all 872,000 of their residents inside the doughnut, ensuring that everyone has access to a good quality of life, without putting more pressure on the planet than is sustainable. They have implemented a true price initiative which takes into account the carbon footprint of the goods and services they produce as well as the living wage requirements of the workers. To satisfy the dual need for more affordable housing and reduced CO2 emissions, Amsterdam has implemented laws making the use of recycled and natural materials mandatory in the construction sector and they have started transforming neighborhood parking lots into community gardens.

Without a series of universal solutions, which do not exist and will probably never exist, it will be up to the politicians and economists to determine which elements of the donut system can be implemented successfully and to what extent. Amsterdam has made a start by applying this litmus test question to all their municipal project decisions: “Will doing this project actually make our community healthy and happy?”

To all my readers, wherever you may be: I hope you are healthy and happy and living comfortably in the sweet spot of the donut – and I hope that you are thinking about what life decisions you can make today to ensure that future generations will have that same chance to have a bite out of the donut as you.

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism

It’s a Presidential election year in America and, as a resident of “The Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire, I am one of those privileged voters who is sought out and courted every four years by candidates who are hoping to fare well during the first in the nation Primary.

With the Primary now over, I am glad the campaigns and media are moving on to the other States. It feels good to have relief from the constant barrage of text messages, phone calls, television commercials and campaign literature that have been assaulting the State for weeks.

Many people are disillusioned with the political process and have become frustrated by everything they believe is wrong with American politics today, including:

• Special interests spending big money and exerting undue influence on elections and laws
• State legislators that gerrymander voting districts and enact restrictive voting rules to protect career politicians and suppress voter turnout
• A polarized and poisoned political environment that discourages qualified people from running
• A lack of diverse candidates
• Uncontrolled government spending racking up huge budget debts that threaten future prosperity

It is no surprise that 45% of eligible voters choose not to vote during a presidential election. These voters feel disenfranchised and believe that their vote does not matter and will not change anything.

Although politics is depressing most of the time, I still take my right to vote very seriously and believe it is the best way for citizens to elect leaders who will faithfully represent them and move the country in the direction that they want to see it go.

It took some effort for me to seriously weigh the positions and platforms of the dozen or so candidates who were vying to win this year’s presidential nomination contest and to choose the candidate that I felt would be best for the country.

I worked to dive below the surface of the political jingoism, platitudes and slogans that seem to be built into every professional political campaign; reminding myself of the sage advice George Washington shared during his farewell address warning the American public to “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism“.

Unfortunately, too many candidates try to deceive voters by pretending to be someone they are not. They resort to demagoguery in an attempt to whip up passions in the electorate by exploiting emotions, prejudice, and ignorance and by shutting down reasoned deliberations.

The two most common expressions you hear spoken by politicians trying to win votes is “American Dream” and “America First“. Both expressions were born nearly a century ago and they instantly became code words embodying opposing views in the fierce political battle to define the soul of the nation.

Sarah Churchwell, a Chicago native and professor of American literature at the University of London, traces the evolution of the two expressions in her book Behold, America; a Smithsonian Magazine Best History Book of 2018.

She writes that the current meanings of these expressions is quite different from those they held originally. American Dream first began as a pledge for democratic and economic equality, representing the noble communal pursuit of justice for all of America’s citizens.

Over time, as anxieties in the country over Communism rose and the ideals of equality came to be considered a threat to unfettered capitalism, American Dream was reclaimed to mean something quite different – the individual desire to ‘make it big’ and the personal drive for success and material wealth. The ideals of justice, liberty and equality gradually morphed into a justification for selfishness and greed.

Woodrow Wilson first spoke in 1916 of putting America First as a way to urge his countrymen to remain neutral in World War I so that the nation would be in a good position to help both sides at the conflict’s end.

The expression was soon taken up by opponents of immigration and advocates of isolationism, who feared that the nation would be contaminated by contact with foreign elements. America First has now been adopted as a hugely influential isolationist slogan and put to sinister use by hate groups including white supremacy and pro-Nazi movements.

‘The American dream is dead,’ said Donald Trump in 2015 when announcing his candidacy for president. He would revive it he promised, “By putting America First“.

Trump, in his pronouncements, was exploiting political terminology that has long appealed to racists and right wing extremists. The subtle, and not so subtle, messages Donald Trump sent to his supporters is that the reason many Americans are not successful and wealthy is because our country lets in too many immigrants and is being treated unfairly by foreign nations who are taking advantage of us .

Gone was any notion of the original meaning behind those expressions, when American Dream referred to economic fairness and justice for all citizens and America First reflected a policy to keep America neutral and a voice of reason in the presence of world conflicts so that we remain a beacon for the rest of the world.

As America struggles again to project a shared vision, to itself and to the world, perhaps the meanings and history of these expressions needs to be understood afresh before the true spirit of America can be reclaimed.

In this time of great political division in our nation, when many ask what America’s future holds, perhaps it is best to remember the words spoken at the 1895 dedication of a monument to President Ulysses S. Grant. The speaker asked his listeners to view the journey America had taken since its beginning to become a flourishing great nation.

Oh, critic and cynic, dreamer and doubter, behold America, as this day she stands before her history and her heroes. See her millions of people, her free institutions, her equal laws, her generous opportunities, her schoolhouses and her churches; you see misfortunes and defects. for not yet is fully realized the American dream; you surely see her mighty progress toward the fulfillment of her philosophy.

Oration in Honor of President Ulysses S. Grant, 1895

The speaker informs us that America is in a constant state of becoming, always moving forward in an attempt to form that more perfect union envisioned by the founders. We will never fully arrive – each successive generation will need to battle for the soul of the country and decide for themselves what it is America stands for.

If you believe that “Political society exists for the sake of noble actions“, as Aristotle did, then it is comforting to have faith that America’s political leaders will eventually act nobly and do the things that will move our country into the future as a stronger moral nation.

“Some people are more formed for dividing than uniting”

In the novel Valiant Ambition, historian Nathaniel Philbrick describes the key roles Benedict Arnold played in the outcome of the American Revolution, first as a patriot and then as a traitor.

Benedict Arnold’s contributions as a war hero, beloved by the nation, came during the early years of the Revolution. At the Battle of Valcour he used cunning strategy to battle the British fleet to a stalemate on Lake Champlain – even though he was commanding a much smaller and less capable US fleet.

Benedict Arnold

After that he was instrumental in helping the Americans capture Fort Ticonderoga from the British and then he rallied the Continental Army soldiers to a victory at the Battle of Saratoga – where he suffered a debilitating leg wound that hobbled him for the rest of his life.

By all accounts the fighting men who served under General Arnold showed great respect for his bravery, decisiveness and leadership skills – and George Washington himself considered Arnold one of his most effective military commandeers.

Benedict Arnold’s early victories in the Revolutionary War were important for three reasons: 1) they emboldened the new American colonies to believe that they could actually defeat the mighty British; 2) they encouraged Colonists who were on the fence about the war effort to choose the side of independence; and 3) they legitimized the American cause in the eyes of the world giving France the justification they were looking for to declare themselves an ally in the fight against the British.

After the Battle of Saratoga, George Washington assigned Benedict Arnold to the post of military overseer of Philadelphia so that he could recover from the injury suffered to his leg. Arnold felt that he had sacrificed much of his financial and physical well-being in service of his country and believed that he was entitled to take advantage of the power that came with his new commission to profit illegally from the many wartime deals that were being made in the city.

While serving in Philadelphia, Benedict Arnold also fell in love with the 18 year old daughter of a wealthy loyalist family and he was looking for schemes to make money so that he could convince her influential father that he was a worthy suitor. During this time of recuperation Arnold began to become bitter and disillusioned with the leaders responsible for the war effort as well as the lack of support from the American colonists.

He saw that the volunteer army was woefully understaffed and underfunded and that the Continental Congress was at the mercy of the States to supply Federal wartime needs. The Congress had no power to levy taxes and they would wage political battles with the States to try to convince them to provide the military with the recruits, arms, uniforms and food that were necessary to fight and win the war.

George Washington had to travel to Philadelphia more than once during the war to plead with Congress about the woeful condition of his army and to warn them about the immediate need for supplies that were necessary to continue the war cause. After one of these visits, Washington wrote to a friend:

“The greatest enemy to overcome is ourselves. Party disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the day, whilst the momentous concerns of an empire are but secondary considerations and postponed from day to day, from week to week as if our affairs wore the most promising aspect”

Arnold saw all this and felt that while the states professed they wanted Independence, they were unwilling to pay for it or make any great sacrifices to achieve it. He began to think that if the States were not committed to supplying the army with the resources they needed to ultimately win the war then maybe it would be best for America to lose and remain a British colony.

Joseph Reed was President of Philadelphia’s Supreme Executive Council during Arnold’s time and he did not like Benjamin Arnold or the way that he was administering the city. In his position he had broad powers to investigate and prosecute individuals. He began a tireless crusade against Benedict Arnold that resulted in his indictment on corruption and malfeasance charges.

The harassment from Joseph Reed further alienated Benedict Arnold from the American cause and made him angry as he saw himself being passed over for promotion and saw others getting credit for his actions. Instead he was made to defend himself against the corruption charges at a Court Martial trial that was presided over by George Washington himself.

Prior to the scheduled Court Martial hearing, Benedict Arnold wrote a letter to Washington complaining about the ingratitude of his countrymen and warning George Washington that he could suffer a similar fate if he was not careful:

“I am heartily tired with my journey and almost so with human nature. I daily discover so much baseness and ingratitude among mankind that I almost blush at being the same species, and could quit the stage without regret was it not for some gentle generous souls in my life who still retain the lively impression of their Maker’s image, and who with smiles of benignity and goodness, make all happy around them”

 “Let me beg of you sir to consider that a set of artful unprincipled men in office may misinterpret the most innocent actions and by raising the public clamor against your Excellency place you in the same disagreeable position I am in. Having made every sacrifice of fortune and blood, and become a cripple in the service of my country, I little expected to receive the ungrateful returns I have received of my countrymen, but as Congress have stamped ingratitude as a a current coin I must take it. I wish your Excellency for your long and eminent services may not be paid of in the same coin”

Ultimately, Arnold was acquitted during the Court Martial proceedings; not because he was innocent but because there was not enough evidence to convict him on the charges. However, the experience hardened Arnold and it reinforced in his mind that the best course of action for him and the American people was to side with the British.

After being exonerated, General Washington assigned Benedict Arnold to be the commandeer in charge of the West Point fortresses on the Hudson River. It was there that Arnold began conspiring with British Major John Andre (a close friend of his new wife) on a plan to have the fortresses turned over to the enemy.

Andre and Arnold met secretly on the grounds of West Point, where Arnold delivered the blueprints for the fort’s defenses and discussed the timing and strategy for the British attack plan that would lead to the American surrender of the key fortress.

The plan may have been a success had it not been for the capture of John Andre by the Americans as he attempted to travel back to British occupied New York City. They discovered the maps to the West Point forts that were hidden in his boots which led to the revelation of Benedict Arnold’s treason against his country.

When Benedict Arnold learned that Andre had been captured he escaped in his boat down the Hudson River where he was given sanctuary on a British ship of war. George Washington wrote to the British General requesting that the British turn over Benedict Arnold in exchange for the release of Major Andre. When the British refused his offer to exchange prisoners, Washington had Major Andre hung as a spy.

Benedict Arnold went on to serve as a General in the British army and to settle with his family in London after the war. His name was despised in his home country – and even though he deserted the cause for independence to help the British, he was ultimately perceived as a dishonorable man by the British populace as well.

The irony is that Benedict Arnold’s traitorous actions shocked the young American nation and united them in a way that made them stronger and more committed to overcoming the petty political infighting between the Continental Congress and the states that had been hampering the war effort. Benedict Arnold helped to win the war for independence both with his early military victories before he defected and with his final acts as a traitor.

In the book it was noted that when speaking about the temperament of Joseph Reed and Benedict Arnold one of the members of the Continental Congress said “Some people are formed more for dividing than uniting”. I wonder if the fate of Benedict Arnold, and of this country, would have been different if Joseph Reed and Benedict Arnold had been formed with temperaments more formed for uniting. I believe there is a lesson in this story for all Americans today during this time of change where we will decide whether or not we are going to be a country that unites or divides.

The Deplorable Word

Those of us who live in the New England area are watching with great curiosity and bewilderment at the drama surrounding the Demoulas/Market Basket grocery store chain. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Market Basket is a private family owned chain of grocery stores. Arthur Demoulas an immigrant from Greece opened the first store in 1916. His sons George and Mike – and their sons – Arthur T. and Arthur S., grew the company into a $4.6 Billion dollar company with 72 stores and 25,000 employees by being the low cost alternative to the higher priced National Supermarket chains.

Despite their success, Arthur T. and Arthur S. (both named after their founding Grandfather) have been feuding for decades. Arthur S. claimed that Arthur T’s side of the family defrauded his side of the family and he won a lawsuit against Arthur T. that awarded him millions of dollars and made him the richest man in Boston. Despite his win in court, Arthur S. remained a minority owner while Arthur T’s side of the family ran Market Basket’s day to day Operations with great success for over 40 years. Under Arthur T’s leadership Market Basket grew from $3  to $4 Billion dollars and the number of employees increased from 14,000 to 25,000. In addition to his business success, Arthur T was universally beloved by the store employees because he treated them like family, paying them above average salaries, profit sharing bonuses and generous benefits.

Recently, one of the nine family members who own Demoula’s shares switched their allegiance from Arthur T. to Arthur S. giving him 55% of the voting shares and control of the company for the first time. Arthur S. responded by adding new members to the Board, voting to give the family shareholders a $500 million bonus and firing Arthur T. and replacing him with two new co-CEOs loyal to him. Arthur T. strongly opposed the board’s actions claiming their decisions were strip mining the store for wealth by raising prices, approving dividends and selling off real estate.

The firing of Arthur T. led to a walkout by most workers who were sympathetic to their president; as well as a general boycott of all Market Basket stores by vendors and customers that paralyzed operations and prevented fresh food from getting to store shelves. The company lost tens of millions of dollars in the past six weeks and there is no telling when or how the standoff will end. Since Market Basket employees refuse to work for Arthur S. Demoulas and Market Basket customers refuse to patronize the store under the new management, the most obvious resolution to the standoff would be for Arthur T. to buy out his cousin and take complete ownership of the store. Arthur T, has made a 1.5 billion dollar offer to buy out his cousin and issued a statement through his spokeswoman that, “It is Arthur T. Demoulas’ hope that the Arthur S. Demoulas family will come to the table to reach a final agreement on reasonable terms before it is too late to save this company.”

The whole situation is a sad commentary on the toxic effects that pride, greed, anger and unforgiveness can have on our lives (see my previous blog entry “Money doesn’t talk it swears“).  Both sides are suffering, and even though they have both said they want to strike an agreement they appear unwilling, or unable, to communicate directly with each other to reconcile their differences. Meanwhile, the workers who are without work and the store vendors who cannot sell their goods sit on the sidelines – the innocent victims of the family feud.

The Magician’s Nephew, a book by CS Lewis – part of the Chronicles of Narnia Series

Following this drama in the news made me think back to a book written by CS Lewis called “The Magician’s Nephew” that I read to my daughters when they were young girls. It is a fantasy story where two children find their way into a desolate, abandoned  city of an ancient world called Charn. The only living inhabitant in this world is an evil queen named Jadis, who, to avoid defeat in battle, had deliberately killed every living thing in Charn by speaking the Deplorable Word – a magical word that when spoken, destroys every living thing – except the person speaking it.

Below is an excerpt from the book where Jadis describes the chain of events that led to her use of the Deplorable Word weapon:

“It was my sister’s fault,” said  the Queen. “She drove me to it. May the curse of all powers rest upon her forever! At any moment I was ready to make peace – yes, and to spare her life too, if only she would yield me the throne. But she would not. Her pride has destroyed the whole world.

Even after the war had begun, there was a solemn promise that neither side would use Magic. But when she broke her promise, what could I do? Fool! As if she did not know that I had more Magic than she! She even knew that I had the secret of the Deplorable Word. Did she think – she was always a weakling – that I would not use it?

[She knew that if I spoke this word] it would destroy all living things except the one who spoke it… I did not use it until she forced me to it. I fought to overcome her by every other means. I poured out the blood of my armies like water – the last great battle raged for three days. I did not use my power till the last of my soldiers had fallen, and the accursed woman, my sister, at the head of the her rebels was halfway up the great stairs. I waited till we were so close that we could see one another’s faces. She flashed her horrible, wicked eyes upon me and said ‘Victory’ . ‘Yes, said I, ‘Victory’, but not yours.’ Then I spoke the Deplorable Word. A moment later I was the only living thing beneath the sun.” 

I wonder if a similar thought pattern runs through the mind of Arthur S. Demoulas when he thinks about his cousin. Will his hatred and desire to prevail over his cousin at any cost lead him to deploy weapons that will ultimately kill the company and the livelihoods of the tens of thousands of people who count on Market Basket? Would the failure of the company be more preferable to him than seeing his reviled cousin Arthur T claim ultimate Victory? And no matter who comes out on top, will it be a Pyrrhic Victory – coming with such a devastating cost that the company will not be able to survive?

Time will tell – but I know the whole debacle has reminded me of the power of words and that we need to be careful how we use them. We all have the power of the “Deplorable Word” in our arsenals; hurtful words spoken in anger and hatred that we used as a weapon at one time in our past that destroyed or caused lasting damage to an important relationship in our life. These words usually lead to mutually assured destruction because they hurt both parties. So next time you feel like lashing out in frustration at someone who has upset you, take a deep breath and remember the lesson of the Deplorable Word – try instead to respond with the Honorable Word, words that do not destroy people but lift them up and encourage them – words that bring life and not death.

“Money doesn’t talk, it swears”

Dollar Sign by Andy Warhol

This lyric comes to mind whenever I hear stories about the growing inequalities between the rich and the poor; how money is corrupting the political process and financial industries; the violent gang warfare taking place to determine who will control the illegal market for drugs; the expensive battles being fought by couples going through bitter divorce proceeding; and the woes of families who fight to distribute the large sums of money they win in government sponsored lotteries. With the media reporting all these stories about the evils of money, it is easy to understand what led Bob Dylan to sing out that money doesn’t talk, it swears.

But in truth, money is not good or bad. It is the things we do in life to obtain money and how we use the money we obtain that matters. St Paul wrote in his letter to Timothy that it is not money itself that is an evil, but the lust for it that leads us to wander off the path:

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”

People that let their lives become infected with the love of money are like the character in the John Steinbeck novel The Winter of Our Discontent who believe that “there is no such thing as just enough money. Only two measures: No Money and Not Enough Money“. Pursuing this philosophy can lead to grief when people become slaves to the acquisition and protection of their money at the expense of the more important things in their lives.

It can be easy to become deceived that money brings happiness, but we have countless examples in life that show riches and fame and power do not guarantee happiness. All you have to do is watch one of the many reality TV shows that document the drama and misery of most celebrity lives. After viewing a few of those shows, I’m thankful that I’m not rich, powerful, or famous. I think it would be difficult to live when people treat you like a god and you have to deal with the kinds of temptations that come from knowing you can have anything you want. And it must be an empty feeling to know that you have all these things yet none of them brings you happiness. I once listened to a nurse talk about a hospital in Miami that catered to very rich and famous people. She said that the number one reason why those people came to the hospital was because they were suffering from depression.

Theodore Parker acknowledged that having too much money or too little money can make life difficult when he wrote “Wealth and want equally harden the human heart“.  I’m convinced that money itself does not bring happiness, but I do realize that money does make life easier. People with means have more freedom to make choices in their life that are not available to those who are struggling to live from paycheck to paycheck. And statistics show that the well-off are better educated, have better access to health care, live in safer communities and have longer lifespans. Money, when used in the proper way, can be a good that gives people more freedom to make choices about how they will live their life and those who have it are better able to positively influence the lives of their families and promote the causes that are important to them .

In my life I have tried to live a life of integrity, living simply while using the money I have accumulated as a means to an end – not in the acquisition of things but in the accomplishments of my life’s objectives. I have been fortunate to live somewhere between wealth and want  – in that ideal middle ground that Pablo Picasso once described “…as a poor man, with lots of money“.

Here are some examples from my life that show how I attempted to avoid wandering off the path in my pursuit of money, while at the same time using the money I did make to help achieve my life goals:

• When my wife and I were newly married and just starting out, we made the collective decision that our living budget would be based on my salary alone so that she would not have to work and could stay home with our young children. That decision led us to buy a reasonably priced house with an unfinished upstairs that I could afford with my salary and finish in my spare time as the family grew and our financial condition improved.

• While the children were young, we spent money for my wife to take college classes at night so she could get a teaching degree in Early Childhood Education. As a result, when the children reached school age she was able to land a job teaching at the same private Catholic Elementary school that our children were attending. The time they shared together and the bonding that resulted during those formative growing years was priceless to us and worth all the financial sacrifices that we made.

• Throughout my career I have made it a point to avoid becoming coin-operated – chasing salary and job positions solely to earn a higher paycheck. Several times during my career I turned down promotions and other job offers that would have paid me more money, but would have resulted in more headaches, more time away from my family, and less job satisfaction.

• From my first job as a paperboy when I was 10 through all the various jobs I have had in my career, I made it a point to save a portion of my paycheck. This practice  allowed me to always have money on hand to pay for those inevitable emergencies that come up during life and to put money away to pay for my eventual retirement – so that I will not become a financial burden to my children in my old age and so that I can retire while I am still healthy and pursue other activities that interest me and will contribute to my growth.

• I allocate a percentage of my income to donate to the people, organizations, and causes that I feel are worthy or that have touched me along the way in  some way great or small. A Memorial Fund for my wife that benefits childhood education, Catholic Charities who provide services to help the poor and vulnerable, Hospice programs that comfort the dying and offer bereavement programs for their loved ones, a Conservation organization dedicated to preserving wilderness areas for the public and contributions to individual causes that come up in the course of daily life.

My objective in all the ways that I obtain and spend money is to turn Bob’s phrase around – rather than make my money swear, I try to make my money pray. A prayer to do useful and productive work in the world, a prayer to provide material comfort for my family, a prayer to help those who are in need, a prayer to assist my loved ones to reach their full potential, a prayer to preserve our world for future generations and a prayer to retire with dignity and leave a legacy for those that follow.

My prayer for you is that all the money that you receive and spend be for a blessing – and not a curse – all the days of your life.