Image via Wikipedia

Providing for the basic need of clean water is a primary responsibility of any government. I applaud Dr. Derek Sikua, a leader of a developing nation who understands good government.

New Zealand’s Scoop Independent News posted this:

Friday, 28 November 2008, 10:39 am
Press Release: Solomon Islands Government

PM Says Gov’t Committed To Provide Greater Access To Clean Water And Sanitation

Prime Minister Dr Derek Sikua today has reiterated his government’s commitment to provide greater access to clean water supply and sanitation to rural communities in the country.

Dr Sikua made the statement in parliament in response to a concern raised by Opposition Leader Manasseh Sogavare on government’s action on water and sanitation.

He said the Coalition for National Unity and Rural Advancement (CNURA) Government is still committed to its policy priority area and that is people have proper water supply and sanitation.

“The Government would like to make sure that as many villages in Solomon Islands have access to cleaning drinking water and proper sanitation”.

“The Government is working around the clock to make sure the project is implemented,” Dr Sikua explained.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Zimbabwe govt. sued over cholera outbreak
• Safe and Sustainable: New Sanitation System in Kyrgyzstan
• GE Provides Clean Water for 60,000 Chinese

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The short description in the header reads “I’m just sayin’.” When I started this little project, I thought I would just write things I thought about. The kind of thing I would say to people if they listened.

That was pretty easy when no one was reading.

I didn’t know that clean water and poverty would be such a hit. I’m gratified that somebody thinks willisays is worth reading. I’m still not sure why I get hundreds of hits a day now. Even when I don’t write anything!

A new feeling of responsibility has overtaken me. I have to have something important to say for the folks. I have to avoid offending readers. What would happen if people stopped coming by? The $4.00 in Amazon kick backs would dry up.

Yeah, it sounds pretty lame when I write it out. But that’s been me over the past few days and weeks.

I’m glad that’s over.

I worked on the Yes on 8 campaign Tuesday. I live in California. I think marriage is important. It seemed like the thing to do. I didn’t have any money to give, so I worked on the campaign. (The $4 from Amazon hasn’t got here yet.)

I kept having this nagging feeling though. I saw the New York Times picture of the two gay dad’s struggling to provide for their kid. My compassion for them and others like them has really grown. They have a unique struggle. I started to worry that I was just making their struggle harder.

These people who live differently that me were just trying to make their way in life. They were no threat to me, I began to think.

Well, you probably heard that Prop 8 passed. Just before the election though, there started to be vicious attacks on my religious beliefs. The attacks continue. But the attacks have spread to all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Erinannie at Moments of Clarity and Chaos shares the too common experience of this week:

At some point in the morning I got a ‘tweet’ about the No on Prop 8/anti-Mormon rally today in L.A. At first the way this tweet was written was specifically anti-Mormon. It wasn’t about civil liberties, or the CA state constitution, or even about love and marriage. It was flat out a threat against Mormons.

Not once have I made a public comment, whether on my blog or on Twitter, about Prop 8. In fact, I have very conflicting feelings about it, and have steered far away from any conversations on the subject. The bottom line is that I don’t live in California, and therefore, don’t feel that I should exert any influence over another state’s vote. I know many people disagree in different ways over that position. I don’t really care.

So you can only imagine how shocked I was when I personally started receiving threats today all because my Twitter account has me identified as Mormon. I was told to go to hell in more ways than I can count.

I’m having a hard time maintaining my compassion. I haven’t threatened to kill, made fun of beliefs or picketed sacred places of anyone who disagrees with me. But that’s what I get in return.

The unnoticed attack on freedom of thought has been fought slowly in the past.  Now that a major counter-attack has been won, the silent enemy is revealed.

Image via Wikipedia

Heather Loy at Tech Tips & Timely Tidbits writes of an experience as a student librarian:

I don’t believe I have ever been told I couldn’t read a book I’d chosen, not by my parents, teachers, librarians, nobody.  You can imagine my surprise as a library student, completing an internship at an elementary school, when my supervisor told a third grade student he couldn’t check out the latest Harry Potter book because it wasn’t on his level (referring to Accelerated Reader - but that’s a whole ‘nother rant!)  Hello!  Censorship!  I had to walk away before I slapped the woman upside her head! continued here

Her reminiscence is brought on by Banned Books Week. Declared to be September 29–October 6, 2007 by the American Library Association.

The ALA lists these books as most challenged for 2007

• “And Tango Makes Three,” by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
• “The Chocolate War,” by Robert Cormier
• “Olive’s Ocean” by Kevin Henkes
• “The Golden Compass,” by Philip Pullman
• “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain
• “The Color Purple,” by Alice Walker
• “TTYL,” by Lauren Myracle
• “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” by Maya Angelou
• “It’s Perfectly Normal,” by Robie Harris
• “The Perks of Being A Wallflower,” by Stephen Chbosky

Most were challenged because of sexual, or homosexual content. Some for attacking family values and one for racism. (That would be Huck Finn.)

I’m feeling very out of it. I’ve only read one of these books (Huck). I started reading a couple others but lost interest. There’s a reason I don’t know these books. They are mostly young adult books. People get upset when they think someone is forcing a book on their kid.

That’s OK. Parents should monitor what their kids take in, no matter what the media. But I don’t think some other parents should be able to tell my kid what to read. My experience has been that school officials will cave to one vocal parent on issues like this.

Parents need to talk to kids about what they watch/read. Some books, video games, music, internet sites and TV shows shouldn’t be seen by anybody. Others have age and maturity issues. But let parents work that out in their family.

I hope the kid in Heather’s story was going to take that Harry Potter book home to have someone read it to him. And I hope he reaches a point were he doesn’t have to listen to silly adults with lame ideas about what he can and can’t do.

What do you think. Who should pick your children’s books?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gay penguin tale tops list of ‘challenged’ books in US
• Top 20 Classic Books for Teenagers
• Heads up, everyone: next week is Banned Books Week!
• Barnes & Noble: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

The LifeStraw is that straw. Introduced in 2005, the straw lasts for 18,000 liters or about 1 year for 1 person. Diarrhea and related disease has nearly ceased to be a problem in the areas using it.

The Vestergaard Frandsen, the Swiss manufacturer, has launched the LifeStraw Family. This new device works on gravity and can clean 20 liters of water for 3 years.

The technology is available. The straws and family units are being used. People’s lives are being improved. It’s just a matter of getting them into the hands of the people.

Of course there are charitable groups helping. Vestergaard Frandsen has worked with the UN and nearly every major NGO in providing this and other health equipment. In the US, the Rotary Club of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida will help you donate to the cause. $5.00 will provide 1 straw for 1 child for 1 year. You can donate here.

I applaud those efforts, but it brings the question to my mind, “Why are governments not able to provide clean water for their people?” The only answer I can come up with malfesence. They use their power for themselves and not for the people.

Am I missing something? What do you think?

Related articles by Zemanta

• News: Water Filtration System in a Straw
• Sponsor a Lifestraw Family Water Filter with Project H Design
• LifeStraw Mark II Filters Bacteria and Virii Without Iodine Aftertaste [Funk Filter]

Image by kartooner via Flickr

If you live in North America, the Caribbean or certain European countries you may have seen Fiji Water. Did you know native Fijians go without clean water?

I’ve been incredulous about the growth in popularity whole bottled water thing. I can see benefits, especially when it comes to emergency preparedness. But Fiji Water seems to take the whole thing beyond incredulity.

Short Background: They drill deep into the Artesian aquifer in the remote south Pacific island nation of Fiji. They import plastic bottles from China, bottle the water and sell it in the US and other countries with people who have more money than brains. The company has been criticized by others about the whole carbon foot print involved in production. The company has taken steps to go green.

My beef has to do with the water. In looking for examples of good clean water programs, I came accross the Humanitarian Services division of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Over the last 5 years, they’ve done clean water projects in 34 countries. More about that later.

Here’s where the two stories converge. One of those projects is in Fiji. The village Navunimono gets it’s water from a river polluted by cattle grazing, runoff and other stuff. Humanitarian Services helped the village construct 3 water tanks and now they have clean water.

Jo Vitinavulagi fills the first bucket from the new water tanks.

I’m happy they have clean water now but the story points out problems around the world. What did the military dictator of Fiji do about the water problem? What about the American company taking clean water from another part of the island chain?

Here’s an example of clean water being easily available and technologically possible. But those with political and economic power chose to do nothing. The story is repeated over and over. I’ll let you know when I see more.

CTA HQ Image via Wikipedia

$250, 000 of California tax money went to campaign coffers of the No on 8 campaign in August.

Whatever your view on gay “marriage,” this misdirection of public funds should give you cause for concern. $250,000 is just the latest amount transferred under this legal corruption scheme.

This is how it works:

The State of Califonia collects taxes from the people. Some of that money goes to school districts. Local public schools hire teachers to educate the children of the area.

The laws of the State provide that a monthly sum per teacher goes to the California Teachers Association. CTA adjusts the amount per teacher to charge the State each year. The teachers don’t have to join the union, but the money goes straight to the Union. (Actually, it goes from Sacramento to the counties and then to the CTA).

The CTA then decides where that money is spent. Increasingly, the money goes to support political decisions. For a list of current CTA issues, go here.

The teachers have no control over the money. (Through a convoluted system, teachers can plead for a refund. The refund amount is determined by the CTA.)

There are 308,000 teachers in the State. The CTA collects enough to have about $300 per teacher in political action funds.  So the voters of California give the CTA about $90 million a year to tell them how to vote.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gov. Schwarzenegger orders more cuts to reduce state’s big deficit

My daughter-in-law’s family has a useful question they ask when a family member gets a little too negative. It doesn’t make a lot of sense without the back story. So here it is:

A man get’s a flat tire on his car. He’s out in farm country, not many houses. It’s getting dark but he confidently goes to the trunk of the car only to find that the jack to lift the car is missing. Without the jack, he cannot change the tire.

He tries calling for help but has to cell phone service this far out. Now it starts to rain. Quite a distance away, he sees a light on in a farm house. He secures his car and makes his way toward the farm house in the now dark, rainy night.

As he walks, he goes over his misfortune. The rain. The missing jack. The flat tire. He seems to be able to list a dozen or so things that just didn’t go right. As he reaches the porch of the farm house, he has convinced himself that all is against him. It’s probably useless to even be trying to get help, he thinks. He’s so overtaken with negative thoughts that when he knocks on the door, the farmer answers and the man yells, “Never mind, you probably weren’t going to help me with my car, anyway.

The question this family asks when negative thinking starts taking over? “Do you need a jack?”

I like this example of humor to diffuse a situation. We have similar tricks around our house. We do it because that is what family does. Each member should look for ways to help the others be better. It mostly goes from parent to child. But children help. They learn how to build a family from their parents.

I work with children who don’t always have the best environment to help them. Many of them have been aided in life by government programs that were intended to help. Some times it works, some times not.

A free society depends on parents who build strong families. No government program can replace a good family.

What do you think? What tricks or tradition does your family have for helping to build each member?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Peggy Drexler: The Family Meal: Why Moments Speak Louder Than Numbers

Creative Commons- flicker

Orson Scott Card, the author of “Ender’s Game” and other great science fiction, states the threat posed by “gay marriage” much better than I did.

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to “gay marriage,” is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

The pretext is that state constitutions require it — but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.

It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.

We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.

Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.

Do not suppose for a moment that the “gay marriage” diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.

Read it all here.

Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and David Vitters (R-LA) have got themselves listed as the first two co-sponsors of a bill proposing the Marriage Protection Amendment to the US Constitution. The bill went to commitee on June 25, 2008.

Yes, you read that right, 2008. It’s back again. I’ve got two problems with this news. I’ll deal with the obvious one in this post.

This is nearly the exact bill defeated regularly by Congress over the last five years. Only this time with extra baggage to make it an easier target for the opposition.

Here’s the first problem, in case you have forgotten, these two senators were the face of adultery last summer. There are 17 Senators co-sponsoring the bill. Which ones are being attacked? It’s hard to defend against the attacks when the attackers are right!

Communications Guru at The Conservative Media blog points to the hypocrisy in associating these men with marriage worth protecting.

CG is one of the kinder, more evenhanded bloggers to write about this bonehead move. The blogosphere is full of newly minted attacks on the men and the proposed amendment. (No, there will be no link to more inflammatory stuff.)

To me, protecting marriage is about children. Children have the best chance at success in life if they come from a strong family with a mother and a father. Studies show it is true and by casual observation you know it’s true. It’s just good public policy to encourage strong marriages and strong families.

Craig and Vitters each portray an anti-family persona. No matter what words they say, the image they have created is of marriage that is dysfunctional. We don’t need any more of that. We have plenty such images.

I hope that Mr. Craig and Mr. Vitters can each work out the challenges in his marriage. Success in family is much more important than success in politics.

But please, guys, don’t latch on to this type of legislation so you can rehabilitate your image. The stakes are too high on this one.

Mindless forwarded email of the week said:

As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride. . .’we are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . . .  As with so many other statements I’ve heard him (and his wife) make, I never thought I’d see the day that I’d hear something like that from a presidential candidate in this nation.  To think our forefathers fought and died for the right for our nation to be a Christian nation–and to have this man say with pride that we are no longer that.  How far this nation has come from what our founding fathers intended it to be.

Let’s see what the Founding Fathers thought. The 1797 treaty with Tripoli, assured the Muslim pasha that the United States was not a Christian country. John Adams signed the treaty as president, George Washington was president and Thoma Jefferson Secretary of State when the negotiations began.

Tripoli’s Muslim leaders were accustomed to dealing with heads of state who were also head of religion. The Founders needed to sell the new idea: There is no state sponsored religion in the United States.

In fact, Senator Obama said, “America is no longer just a Christian nation.” He’s talking demographics. Even as misquoted in the email, it’s clear Obama is pointing out that there are different religious groups in America. No surprise there if you haven’t been hiding.

I cherish the right to worship how I will. It is the purpose of government to protect my inalienable rights. I thank God it does. I cannot expect that government to protect my rights if I do not expect that protection to cover people with different beliefs.

Related articles by Zemanta

• America: A Work in Progress
• Poll Finds a Fluid Religious Life in U.S.