The following letter (quoted in its entirety) is Rep. Peter DeFazio's response to inquiries about the new law regulating lead content in children's clothing:
Dear Mr. Schnake: Thank you for your recent message regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. I appreciate hearing from you. As you know, on February 10th the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act becomes effective. The bill was a response to importers bringing in dangerously unsafe products from China. The bill passed the House by a vote of 407 to 1 as it was considered a common sense piece of legislation that was designed to keep our children safe. Unfortunately the Bush Administration's Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is in charge of drafting regulations in order to enforce the new law, did a poor job of explaining what was expected of retailers and consumers and have written what I believe are overly strict interpretations of the law. As a result, countless retailers, thrift stores, charities and even small toy manufacturers have contacted my office in confusion not knowing what they are or are not allowed to do when the law becomes effective. One if the main points of contentions is the new provision that bans lead in excess of 600 parts per million in children's products. While we can all agree it is important to protect our children from this dangerous substance, the CPSC provided little to no guidance to consumers, retailers or manufacturers on exactly what is expected of them when the law becomes effective. As a result rumors spread across the internet and amongst retailers about the new law, many of them untrue. The CPSC recently released a press release (located at www.cpsc.gov ) intended to provide guidance to consumers that did speak to some of these concerns. The release stated:The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children's products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children's products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties. Furthermore, in response to complaints from small manufacturers, the CPSC is now considering some exemptions to the new regulations. Specifically, they are considering an exemption from testing certain materials that are not scientifically known to contain lead (like wood, cotton, gemstones, leather, etc), as well as looking into easing restrictions on batch testing for small manufacturers. The current regulation mandates all products be tested for lead, as well as all of its components. This is a burden for small manufacturers. Some groups have responded to this confusion by trying to delay or even eliminate the implementation of the new lead standards. Others have asked to exempt these new standards from unsold or used inventory. I am opposed to this. If a product is unsafe, it is unsafe. It doesn't matter when it was made. That being said, I feel the recent efforts by the CPSC have provided some clarification for retailers and manufacturers, but more can be done. I recently sent a letter to the CPSC asking them to respond to a series o f detailed questions so people will get accurate information about this new law. Once I receive a response I will forward it to you. Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely, Rep. Peter DeFazio Fourth District, OREGON
Friday, January 16, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
H.R. 4040: the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
In August 2008, the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the manufacture, sale or distribution of any children's products containing lead. It will be in force effective Feb. 10. The votes in the Senate and House were almost unanimous in favor of the bill.
Can Americans relax, knowing that their children will be protected from lead in clothing and toys? Perhaps not.
Many retail outlets for children's products are unaware that the law exists. Others are aware of the new bill but do not know how they can comply. Most of the existing inventory at retail outlets, distributors, and factories was fabricated before manufacturing companies could have known about the requirements of the new law.
Children's clothing, toys, and other supplies are often composed of fabrics, dyes, plastics, and metal parts from sources all over the globe. Testing to ensure compliance with the law requires a chemistry laboratory, skilled technicians and a capability to perform x-ray fluorescence or inductively coupled plasma spectrometry.
Consequently, it is expensive to test a completed children's item.
Lead is not a rare ingredient. It is used in a wide variety of production processes. When the expense of testing for the presence of lead is spread over large quantities of paint, fabric, and plastic, the cost impact on any one item manufactured from those raw materials might be small.
However, current understanding of the law is that all products must be proven free of lead, including existing stock. All items for sale after Feb. 10 are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Retail outlets and small manufactures would find the cost of testing their goods to be prohibitive. The alternative is to scrap their current inventories.
Errol Noel, owner of a retail shop named The Toy Factory, replied “I don't know what the impact will be, and that's what so scary. I don't know how to insure that my suppliers are in compliance." Carey Oien, the manager of The Kids Kloset said, “I haven't seen the actual law. I don't know if it applies to nonprofit organizations like ours."
Enforcement of the law is at the discretion of each state's attorney general. Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2006 enabled estimates that the annual clothing expenditure in the U.S. is roughly $400 per child. Total spending is in excess of $50 billion dollars annually.
Rigorous enforcement of the law at every retail establishment would be difficult. However, when a business is found guilty of a violation, fines of up to $1 million or more can be levied.
The situation is difficult for shops that sell used clothing. A single shop may have clothing from thousands of different manufacturers, and the clothing may have been created long before the bill was first considered.
Imagine that Congress passed a law that all cars sold must meet extremely tight tail-pipe emissions standards, effective immediately. Used car lots would have a real problem. Even car dealers holding an inventory of new cars manufactured before the law was passed would be in trouble. However, emissions laws have been written to impact only future car models. A grace period allows for the manufacture and sale of current models. Existing cars are exempt. Meanwhile we have to live with the emissions from older auto designs.
Children's clothing and supplies are more sensitive politically. No legislator wants to go on record as saying that it is acceptable to continue to sell lead containing items for children, even if only for a season while stricter manufacturing standards can be implemented and existing stocks can be sold. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 contains no grace period. It passed 421 -1 in the U.S.House and 89-3 in the Senate.
Did legislators anticipate the impact of their bill? It appears that they didn't.
As the bill was being processed through Congress, a section required to assess the bill's economic impact was left blank. Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon sent a detailed letter in response to inquiries about the impact of HR4040. He attributes the confusion surrounding the bill's implementation to poor management by Bush administration officials, "The bill passed the House by a vote of 407 to 1 as it was considered a common sense piece of legislation that was designed to keep our children safe. Unfortunately the Bush Administration's Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is in charge of drafting regulations in order to enforce the new law, did a poor job of explaining what was expected of retailers and consumers and have written what I believe are overly strict interpretations of the law."
The number of news stories about the law has increased dramatically as the February implementation date draws near. Members of the public, not just business owners, are becoming concerned.
Bethany Fegles, a mother of two small children commented, “I just heard about this earlier this week and have wondered myself what would happen to so many smaller second-hand retailers. Or all the moms selling their kid's clothing on Craigslist. Or all the parents that use garage sales to earn back a little bit of what they spent on all the kid toys/clothes.”
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission web site
http://www.cpsc.gov/ has the latest news updates and answers to frequently asked questions.
Can Americans relax, knowing that their children will be protected from lead in clothing and toys? Perhaps not.
Many retail outlets for children's products are unaware that the law exists. Others are aware of the new bill but do not know how they can comply. Most of the existing inventory at retail outlets, distributors, and factories was fabricated before manufacturing companies could have known about the requirements of the new law.
Children's clothing, toys, and other supplies are often composed of fabrics, dyes, plastics, and metal parts from sources all over the globe. Testing to ensure compliance with the law requires a chemistry laboratory, skilled technicians and a capability to perform x-ray fluorescence or inductively coupled plasma spectrometry.
Consequently, it is expensive to test a completed children's item.
Lead is not a rare ingredient. It is used in a wide variety of production processes. When the expense of testing for the presence of lead is spread over large quantities of paint, fabric, and plastic, the cost impact on any one item manufactured from those raw materials might be small.
However, current understanding of the law is that all products must be proven free of lead, including existing stock. All items for sale after Feb. 10 are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Retail outlets and small manufactures would find the cost of testing their goods to be prohibitive. The alternative is to scrap their current inventories.
Errol Noel, owner of a retail shop named The Toy Factory, replied “I don't know what the impact will be, and that's what so scary. I don't know how to insure that my suppliers are in compliance." Carey Oien, the manager of The Kids Kloset said, “I haven't seen the actual law. I don't know if it applies to nonprofit organizations like ours."
Enforcement of the law is at the discretion of each state's attorney general. Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2006 enabled estimates that the annual clothing expenditure in the U.S. is roughly $400 per child. Total spending is in excess of $50 billion dollars annually.
Rigorous enforcement of the law at every retail establishment would be difficult. However, when a business is found guilty of a violation, fines of up to $1 million or more can be levied.
The situation is difficult for shops that sell used clothing. A single shop may have clothing from thousands of different manufacturers, and the clothing may have been created long before the bill was first considered.
Imagine that Congress passed a law that all cars sold must meet extremely tight tail-pipe emissions standards, effective immediately. Used car lots would have a real problem. Even car dealers holding an inventory of new cars manufactured before the law was passed would be in trouble. However, emissions laws have been written to impact only future car models. A grace period allows for the manufacture and sale of current models. Existing cars are exempt. Meanwhile we have to live with the emissions from older auto designs.
Children's clothing and supplies are more sensitive politically. No legislator wants to go on record as saying that it is acceptable to continue to sell lead containing items for children, even if only for a season while stricter manufacturing standards can be implemented and existing stocks can be sold. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 contains no grace period. It passed 421 -1 in the U.S.House and 89-3 in the Senate.
Did legislators anticipate the impact of their bill? It appears that they didn't.
As the bill was being processed through Congress, a section required to assess the bill's economic impact was left blank. Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon sent a detailed letter in response to inquiries about the impact of HR4040. He attributes the confusion surrounding the bill's implementation to poor management by Bush administration officials, "The bill passed the House by a vote of 407 to 1 as it was considered a common sense piece of legislation that was designed to keep our children safe. Unfortunately the Bush Administration's Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is in charge of drafting regulations in order to enforce the new law, did a poor job of explaining what was expected of retailers and consumers and have written what I believe are overly strict interpretations of the law."
The number of news stories about the law has increased dramatically as the February implementation date draws near. Members of the public, not just business owners, are becoming concerned.
Bethany Fegles, a mother of two small children commented, “I just heard about this earlier this week and have wondered myself what would happen to so many smaller second-hand retailers. Or all the moms selling their kid's clothing on Craigslist. Or all the parents that use garage sales to earn back a little bit of what they spent on all the kid toys/clothes.”
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission web site
http://www.cpsc.gov/ has the latest news updates and answers to frequently asked questions.
Friday, January 09, 2009
The Unintended Consequences of Law (story idea)
The U.S. congress passed a bill requiring all clothing outlets to test their wares for lead content. It was passed hurriedly during the scares regarding lead in Chinese toys etc. It takes effect as of February 10, I volunteer at "The Kid's Kloset" where we collect and distribute clothing for families in need. I have to investigate more, but it appears that this law would effectively shut down used clothing outlets and small business that cannot afford to test their inventory.
I can interview the manager of the Kid's Kloset, call DeFazio's office (and Wyden/Merkel). I can also interview other used clothing outlets in Corvallis as well as some mom and pop shops. I will research what major manufacturers are doing as well.
I can interview the manager of the Kid's Kloset, call DeFazio's office (and Wyden/Merkel). I can also interview other used clothing outlets in Corvallis as well as some mom and pop shops. I will research what major manufacturers are doing as well.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
How Do You Eat An Elephant?
One bite at a time, of course. Here is an example of a technique for taking a big topic (in this case, language) and dividing it into smaller and smaller pieces. 
A Note to My Readers
First of all, welcome to a hyper-elite minority: those who choose to read my blog more than once! I only have hints that you exist: occasional comments, multiple hits from one city. (I can't track by computer or person, just location).
You will notice postings that may seem unusual. I am taking a journalism class (feature writing), and some of my work for the class will be posted on my blog.
Of course, as always, one really beautiful thing about blogs in general, and my posts in particular, is that you can ignore or relish them in almost total anonymity. So if you have enjoyed a number of my past posts, please seek professional help. Oh, and don't be surprised by increasingly odd posts for a season.
You will notice postings that may seem unusual. I am taking a journalism class (feature writing), and some of my work for the class will be posted on my blog.
Of course, as always, one really beautiful thing about blogs in general, and my posts in particular, is that you can ignore or relish them in almost total anonymity. So if you have enjoyed a number of my past posts, please seek professional help. Oh, and don't be surprised by increasingly odd posts for a season.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Who Am I?
I wonder that myself. I have so many titles that it's easy to get confused about what role I play in this world. Despite my 58 years, I am still a Child of God. My marriage is a great one, so I am a happy Husband. We have raised four children, and although the youngest is almost 18, I will always be Dad to each of them. Two years ago I added Grandpa. Fortunately, I had added the title Father-in-Law years before that.
At work I was often referred to as the Boss, since I was an engineering manager for most of my 33 years with HP. Nonetheless, I am enough of a nerd that many friends and family still think of me as an Engineer. After all, I can still get pretty excited about the latest developments in light emitting diodes (LED's), computer chips, and fiber optics.
These days I can refer to myself as Retired, although I prefer the title Freelance. That shift has allowed me more time to be a Volunteer for several outfits. It has also allowed me to become a Student, which is a title I hadn't used for more than 34 years. Perhaps upon completing my journalism class I will qualify as a Writer. That sounds like fun.
Well, that's enough about me. I would prefer to ask, “Who are you?”
At work I was often referred to as the Boss, since I was an engineering manager for most of my 33 years with HP. Nonetheless, I am enough of a nerd that many friends and family still think of me as an Engineer. After all, I can still get pretty excited about the latest developments in light emitting diodes (LED's), computer chips, and fiber optics.
These days I can refer to myself as Retired, although I prefer the title Freelance. That shift has allowed me more time to be a Volunteer for several outfits. It has also allowed me to become a Student, which is a title I hadn't used for more than 34 years. Perhaps upon completing my journalism class I will qualify as a Writer. That sounds like fun.
Well, that's enough about me. I would prefer to ask, “Who are you?”
Friday, January 02, 2009
Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us
O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.
(O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.)
Robert Burns, Poem "To a Louse" - verse 8 (from http://www.quotationspage.com/)
Picture a nice breakfast in your mind. Something you could enjoy on a regular basis.
Now imagine that a new acquaintance tells you that the photo below is a pretty good example of a breakfast they would enjoy. (thank you to Jenn Kelley for the photo)
Most of us would find it hard to believe that our new acquaintance was serious. If we were to see them consume this as we would eat a bowl of cheerios, what would we think? Gluttony. Insanity. Illness.
I have wondered why Burns describes it as a "gift" to be able to see ourselves as others see us. I have feared the gift would be a curse. I see myself as living in the "reasonable center". People who exercise a whole lot more than me are fanatics or freaks of nature. People who exercise a lot less are couch potatoes or just pitifully weak. I am in the middle with the other "reasonable" people. In the same way I tend to think that I am just about as patient, kind, or generous as most "reasonable" people. In the past we referred to those folks as "normal", but language morphs. Now normal implies boring and unimaginative. Ah, but reasonable is greatly to be desired. After all, if everyone were reasonable, imagine what a wonderful world this could be. Were I to see myself through other's eyes, how quickly the illusion would be dispelled. I suppose that is why Burns calls it a gift. He was wise enough to know that we would benefit from having our illusions shattered.
(O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.)
Robert Burns, Poem "To a Louse" - verse 8 (from http://www.quotationspage.com/)
Picture a nice breakfast in your mind. Something you could enjoy on a regular basis.
Now imagine that a new acquaintance tells you that the photo below is a pretty good example of a breakfast they would enjoy. (thank you to Jenn Kelley for the photo)
Most of us would find it hard to believe that our new acquaintance was serious. If we were to see them consume this as we would eat a bowl of cheerios, what would we think? Gluttony. Insanity. Illness.I have wondered why Burns describes it as a "gift" to be able to see ourselves as others see us. I have feared the gift would be a curse. I see myself as living in the "reasonable center". People who exercise a whole lot more than me are fanatics or freaks of nature. People who exercise a lot less are couch potatoes or just pitifully weak. I am in the middle with the other "reasonable" people. In the same way I tend to think that I am just about as patient, kind, or generous as most "reasonable" people. In the past we referred to those folks as "normal", but language morphs. Now normal implies boring and unimaginative. Ah, but reasonable is greatly to be desired. After all, if everyone were reasonable, imagine what a wonderful world this could be. Were I to see myself through other's eyes, how quickly the illusion would be dispelled. I suppose that is why Burns calls it a gift. He was wise enough to know that we would benefit from having our illusions shattered.
If we scratch through the surface of what we mean by reasonable, we quickly see it for the sham it is. Reason alone cannot lead us to a vision of a life worth living, because our ability to reason is warped by our pride and our greed. Only a revelation of all that is good can allow us to see all that is not good in us. Yet even revelation plus reason is not sufficient. We must make choices that are good, and we soon find that we fail to do so far too often. We make resolutions for the New Year and then are shocked by how quickly our resolve is exhausted.
Reason and revelation must be sought in conjunction with relationship with God. God is the base on which we stand. Without a base, we float rather than stand. We are a helium balloon, moved by the prevailing winds of our era. Untethered and unteachable, making progress toward nowhere in particular.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The Value of Experience
As I have aged, I have accumulated a lot of experience. At 58 I have experienced the segregated south, hippies, peace marches, cocaine parties, the bar scene (several varieties), small companies, big companies, being on a school board, being chased by a bear, raising four kids, true love, several hairy car wrecks, numerous broken bones, black outs, pass outs, several major surgeries, low income, high income, 48 of the 50 states, visits to a dozen countries on four continents, conservative politics, liberal politics, a few weeks in a wheel chair, blizzards in the mountains, rip tides at the coast, parasites, LSD, assault with a deadly weapon, twenty years of teaching Sunday School, snorting meth, ballet recitals, SAT, GRE, BS, MS, opiate addiction, high tech, steel mills, abandoned mine shafts, hurricanes, winos, con artists, encounters with God, communion with saints, attending child births, rocks concerts, drag races, zipping my father into a body bag, body building, engineering, managing, studying. I could keep going, but you get the idea. I have experienced many things.
I would like to think that all of that experience has earned me a special status as a wise man. However, I have long since realized that experience is only valuable when one learns from it. One person gains more wisdom in a trip to the mall than another might in a trip around the world. Do I learn? Do I remember when I need to? Do I act according to what I know to be true?
I will continue to enjoy, endure, and accumulate experiences. Lately I feel little need to seek them out but neither do I want to avoid them. I want to learn from the experiences I have, even if it is via hindsight. I want to remember what I learn, even when the distractions and temptations to forget seem overwhelming. I want to use every second of living to grow closer to God and to love my neighbors as I want to be loved.
I also want to drop the idea that being a geezer gives me much of an edge on anyone else. Perhaps the one thing I can say is that I have certainly been given many, many opportunities to learn and to put that learning to use. That makes me blessed. It doesn't make me better than anyone else.
I would like to think that all of that experience has earned me a special status as a wise man. However, I have long since realized that experience is only valuable when one learns from it. One person gains more wisdom in a trip to the mall than another might in a trip around the world. Do I learn? Do I remember when I need to? Do I act according to what I know to be true?
I will continue to enjoy, endure, and accumulate experiences. Lately I feel little need to seek them out but neither do I want to avoid them. I want to learn from the experiences I have, even if it is via hindsight. I want to remember what I learn, even when the distractions and temptations to forget seem overwhelming. I want to use every second of living to grow closer to God and to love my neighbors as I want to be loved.
I also want to drop the idea that being a geezer gives me much of an edge on anyone else. Perhaps the one thing I can say is that I have certainly been given many, many opportunities to learn and to put that learning to use. That makes me blessed. It doesn't make me better than anyone else.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
How to Make a Difference
"I want to make a difference" . Yes, it is a cliche. "Vote for Change" is also a cliche, yet it seems to be effective decade after decade. In either case, the presumption is that the difference or change will make the world a better place. In most contexts it is presumed that the world will be a better place for all people. That is particularly true for "make a difference".
Of course, we all make differences all day long. Every breath we take diminishes the supply of oxygen in the atmosphere and adds a bit more carbon dioxide. Every step we take causes a bit of wear on any surface. In ancient temples gentle steps by small men have worn ruts into hard stone. However, is difficult to imagine that every such difference contributes to a better world.
We certainly long for a better world, even when our time in this one has been relatively pleasant. A young, healthy person sooner or later discovers that pain will come to them. The pain of loss. The pain of sickness. And if a person has the least bit of compassion, they will surely be aware that all around them are people suffering. Some suffer a greatly.
There was a time when I could have thought of exhaling as being neutral at the very least. Now I am told that each breath brings the world closer to destruction via global warming. No matter how lightly I tread upon the earth, I contribute to a sort of decrepitude where life is destroyed and buildings are rendered unusable. My impression is that many people have begun to perceive the human race as parasitic at best and perhaps even cancerous. As a Christian, I believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That is the bad news. The good news, the gospel, assures us that God loves us and has paid the price to redeem us all and promises a new heaven and a new earth where there will be no more death, no sorrow, no crying, no pain. In no way does that mean that we should simply endure this life and wait for the next. We are called to action. The desire to make a difference is a wonderful Godly trait.
So where's the rub? Why do people speak of wanting to make a difference as though it were difficult, perhaps impossible. There is a lie abroad that discourages us. The lie is that right now, given our current constraints, we make only insignificant differences. First we must grow stronger, richer, wiser. The difference we make should be easy to see, not only by us, but by all those around us. Preferably it should be such a noteworthy contribution, that we must struggle to remain humble in the face of popular acclaim.
It is a terrible lie that snares us and squeezes tighter as we fight to escape it. But a lie is not destroyed by our struggles. A lie is destroyed by the truth. It is the truth that can set us free.
The truth is that every tiny act of compassion, every feeble attempt at patience, every halting effort to love has an eternal impact. Even better, each microscopic contribution to the common good strengthens us to enable us to do just a little better in the next moment. The truth is that we participate in the redemption of the entire universe each time we choose to do good rather than evil. Faith is required because most often we will be unable to see the difference we have made. Courage is required because we may feel very much alone in our efforts. Focus is required because we will be tempted to look about and see whether our contribution is appreciated, rather than look forward to see what we might do next.
Humility is required so that we will remember that we participate in creating a better world but we cannot orchestrate it. God conducts the orchestra. We simply seek to sound one harmonious note, followed by another and another.
Of course, we all make differences all day long. Every breath we take diminishes the supply of oxygen in the atmosphere and adds a bit more carbon dioxide. Every step we take causes a bit of wear on any surface. In ancient temples gentle steps by small men have worn ruts into hard stone. However, is difficult to imagine that every such difference contributes to a better world.
We certainly long for a better world, even when our time in this one has been relatively pleasant. A young, healthy person sooner or later discovers that pain will come to them. The pain of loss. The pain of sickness. And if a person has the least bit of compassion, they will surely be aware that all around them are people suffering. Some suffer a greatly.
There was a time when I could have thought of exhaling as being neutral at the very least. Now I am told that each breath brings the world closer to destruction via global warming. No matter how lightly I tread upon the earth, I contribute to a sort of decrepitude where life is destroyed and buildings are rendered unusable. My impression is that many people have begun to perceive the human race as parasitic at best and perhaps even cancerous. As a Christian, I believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That is the bad news. The good news, the gospel, assures us that God loves us and has paid the price to redeem us all and promises a new heaven and a new earth where there will be no more death, no sorrow, no crying, no pain. In no way does that mean that we should simply endure this life and wait for the next. We are called to action. The desire to make a difference is a wonderful Godly trait.
So where's the rub? Why do people speak of wanting to make a difference as though it were difficult, perhaps impossible. There is a lie abroad that discourages us. The lie is that right now, given our current constraints, we make only insignificant differences. First we must grow stronger, richer, wiser. The difference we make should be easy to see, not only by us, but by all those around us. Preferably it should be such a noteworthy contribution, that we must struggle to remain humble in the face of popular acclaim.
It is a terrible lie that snares us and squeezes tighter as we fight to escape it. But a lie is not destroyed by our struggles. A lie is destroyed by the truth. It is the truth that can set us free.
The truth is that every tiny act of compassion, every feeble attempt at patience, every halting effort to love has an eternal impact. Even better, each microscopic contribution to the common good strengthens us to enable us to do just a little better in the next moment. The truth is that we participate in the redemption of the entire universe each time we choose to do good rather than evil. Faith is required because most often we will be unable to see the difference we have made. Courage is required because we may feel very much alone in our efforts. Focus is required because we will be tempted to look about and see whether our contribution is appreciated, rather than look forward to see what we might do next.
Humility is required so that we will remember that we participate in creating a better world but we cannot orchestrate it. God conducts the orchestra. We simply seek to sound one harmonious note, followed by another and another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
