Southern Sudan has endured two civil wars. The first took place from independence in 1956 to 1972 and was related to territory and leadership. The second began in 1983 and ended in 2005 with the “Comprehensive Peace Agreement.” That war began because the president of Sudan decided to declare Shariah law for the entire country.

Sudan is divided into three regions: Northern Sudan that holds the seat of the government and is Arab Muslim; Darfur is African Muslim; and Southern Sudan, which is Christian. The Southern Sudanese were not about to live under Shariah law and were not allowed to participate in their government because they were Christian. Civil war followed, and it was so horrific that 2 million people were killed and hundreds of thousands taken into slavery by the Arab North. The civil war was so damaging to the environment that animals such as elephants and lions left and went to Kenya and Uganda.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2005. Although a peace agreement was signed, many slaves remain and only one organization, Christian Solidarity International, has taken up the task to liberate these slaves. I just spent a week with them during their slave liberation, learning about what is needed in Southern Sudan.

During my stay in Southern Sudan, I was able to review the textbooks developed by the government of Southern Sudan, which are taught in the schools. Southern Sudan is Christian and the government, which is made up of fighters who risked their lives to keep their country Christian, has found a way to teach progress. The way is via Bible teachings. This is not an easy task since Southern Sudan is both Christian and tribal with more than 100 local languages and dialects. All textbooks are in English.

The government of Southern Sudan has been ingenious in using biblical verses and stories to get their message across. For the sake of brevity, I will list some of the concepts below:

Water: The textbook teaches about the importance of water and water conservation by using the story of Elijah and famine in 1 Kings 17. It asks students to discuss what Jesus meant when he said he would “give you life-giving water.”

Roads: The government is trying to build infrastructure, and this sometimes necessitates people moving from their village huts so a road can be built. They support this by discussing roads used by traders, Genesis 37:12-28, and how John the Baptist discussed preparing a road for the Lord. The discussion items for students included questions such as, “Has your village ever been visited by an important person? What preparations were made for that visit?”

Promotion of Education: The government of Southern Sudan needs doctors and other educated people. One section of the text is devoted to thanking God for education that is available to the human race, quoting the parts of the Bible that relate to developing a skill set. It quotes Exodus 31:1 on the gift of artistic work that God gives to Bezalel. The lesson works from the Bible by suggesting “when God gives us knowledge he wants us to use it for helping others. That means when you become a medical doctor or a judge you should use that knowledge for serving other people and not only your own people.”

Refugees: Not only does Southern Sudan use the examples of war in its own county but also it uses the work of Jesus to help local children extend their hands and hearts to potential refugees from other countries. “During the civil war in Sudan many people have lost their property. Some people were forced to run from their area to other areas with nothing to eat or wear. The United Nations and some organizations including the church came up with assistance in form of relief to help the people of Sudan. The textbook refers to Jesus as the first refugee and quotes Luke 14: 13-14 as a model for giving when people are in need.

Persecution: Quoting Acts 5:17-52, the text encourages the Southern Sudanese to stay with the faith and not become Muslim for promises of food. The text quotes the apostles, saying, “We must obey God and not men.” The book says “there are many stories of torture during this civil war.” The government, which is an Islamic government, mainly forces conversion for food. Other Islamic organizations such as Daawa Islamia control the relief work in Sudan except the areas under SPLA (the government of Southern Sudan). When you take relief food, the person in charge will ask you whether you are a Muslim. If you are not a Muslim, then he will tell you that the food is for Muslims only, but it is open for those who want to convert to Islam. Then they will be given food. The book then asks the students to discuss how Christians living in Northern Sudan are being persecuted and to discuss the reactions of Christians worldwide.

The many levels of Christian religious education taught by the Southern Sudan government are unique in the way they build community and responsibility. Every value that is important, from crop rotation to respect for individual uniqueness and tribal communities, is taught in that context. It is a smart way of teaching the values of the country and local communities. It could never happen in the United States, but it is making a major difference in local villages in Sudan. It is knitting together diverse tribal cultures to make a united Southern Sudan, creatively with respect for the beliefs and realities of a country without much clean water and which functions mainly without electricity.

One would say that separation of church and state, as we do in America is the best path to take. In Southern Sudan, however, thinking outside the box and utilizing religion through the government has been an effective way to be able to find progress for devastated people who have no other hope and cannot be reached in any other way.

Talk Radio News Service Bureau Chief Ellen Ratner speaks with Dr. Lawrence Yun, Chief Economist with the National Association of Realtors. Yun discusses the first-time home buyer tax credit which was part of the stimulus plan, and how it has positively impacted home sales of late. Yun says that there has never been a better time than now to buy a home, but adds that the time to take advantage of the tax credit is running out. Says Yun, unless his organization can successfully lobby Congress to extend the deadline, home buyers will need to close by the end of November. (4:11)

 

 Standard Podcast [4:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The Republicans need to take a “chill pill” about their reaction to the president being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. They have gone overboard and are risking the “sour grapes” perception by the public at large. If there are any sour grapes, they should be found in the garden of former President Bill Clinton. I speculate that upon hearing the news Friday morning, President Clinton let out a few expletives that would have made Rahm Emanuel blush. President George Bush must have done the same.

The fact is that the Norwegian Nobel Committee decides who is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Norway is a peaceful country with a long history of making surprising choices with the Nobel. Not only did they give it to Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, but Henry Kissinger also won. Many people were shocked when both of these men were awarded the peace prize. The prize has been used as both an award and as a carrot to promote better action and leadership on specific issues. In my view, President Obama is getting the award for what some would call “representative leadership.” There were other people in addition to Mikhail Gorbachev and former President Ronald Reagan who were responsible for ending the communist era. However, both of the leaders were the individuals who represented the change. The same is true for President Obama. Many people have worked on climate change and non-proliferation, but he is the one who represents much of what is being done and the change that is taking place in the world.

The carping on the airwaves has included the fact that the nominations are made in February and that President Obama had only been president for a very short period of time. The fact is that the Norwegian Nobel Committee can decide at any point to change its mind and decide that candidate Obama had already reached across the ocean with his goals and dreams by the time he became president.

It is also something to be proud of as Americans. This year was an excellent year for Nobel Prizes won by Americans. Some of the medicine, chemistry and physics prizes went to Americans. I didn’t see any Russians on the list, and despite China’s huge population only one Chinese person was on the list. America should be proud. We may be having a difficult time economically, but we are still out in the forefront contributing to science and medicine.

There were some Republicans who were proud of the president and Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly was one of them. He said as Americans we should be proud, but not so with the Republican Party and its Chairman Michael Steele. There are times to comment and times to let it be, and his timing was way off. He asked, “What has the president accomplished?” The Norwegian Nobel Committee was clear in what it stated about the award. It was due to President Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.”

The award did not say that he created peace or that a treaty had been signed. The honor states that it is for “effort.” Like him or hate him, Barack Obama has put in the effort. He did it before he became president and has continued to do it since taking the highest office in the land.

The Republicans really went overboard with their fundraising letter that they produced and distributed just 30 hours after the prize was announced. They sent the letter to their vast e-mail list, and my guess is that it will go directly to their direct mail house.

In his fundraising appeal the Republican Chairman said: “It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working toward peace and human rights.”

Steele goes on and lumps the Democrats in the same boat as people on the very far Left. He stated: “the Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control. And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way.”

He goes on with his pitch to say, “Help our party spread the word about the Obama Democrats’ dangerous naïveté and power grab. Please support GOP elected officials as they work to hold the Democrats accountable by making a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500, or $1000 to the Republican National Committee today.”

It is shameful that the Republican Party is so desperate to raise cash that they would stoop to the lowest tactics possible and utilize the receipt of the Nobel Peace prize by the president to raise money and red bait by saying “leftist allies.” It is a complete outrage, and the Republican Party really should take its foot out of its mouth and substitute “a chill pill.”

Republicans would do themselves a favor if they put aside partisan differences and were proud of the Nobel committee’s recognition of our president instead of using the award as a divisive fundraising technique.

The tea-party movement is alive and well, and has expanded from just protesting the stimulus and health-care bills before Congress to all forms of government intervention in the lives of Americans. Some of the tea party websites have various propositions that people can vote on, including getting rid of Medicare. Movement organizers have put out a manifesto in an attempt to leave their stamp on next year’s mid-term elections. More power to them. Grassroots movements are the American way. It is great that citizens feel so moved by their own concerns and the acts of their government that they want to get involved.

One of the main tea party websites says that their impetus for beginning the movement was government spending and taxation. They say that their core values are “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets.” They support states rights for those areas not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Their manifesto says they support individual liberty within the confines of the law.

This is all well and good except when it comes to a relatively unprotected class of American citizens – those folks who are gay and lesbian. It is amazing how many tea partiers I have spoken to who believe in opposing gay marriage as well as gay foster parents and families.

Their arguments are based on their religious views and their sense of “morality,” which is completely contrary to their views about limited government and taxation. It is true that states have traditionally managed the affairs of the family, from regulating marriage to deciding matters of adoption and foster care. However, when states defined marriage as being only between members of the same race it was clear that the states were carrying out a racist policy. In this century, it is hard to believe that those kinds of laws even existed.

It is the same situation with children in foster care. Some states keep children in group homes rather than letting them be cared for by gay people who have a desire and ability to care for them. I know two couples caring for foster children in states that allow gay foster parents. One set of gay parents has been caring for two boys since their mother had the children taken away from her almost 12 years ago. They have a shared care arrangement with the extended family so the boys have some contact with the healthier members of the family of origin. The other foster family I know cares for a 13-year-old girl whose father is in jail. After a trial back at the biological mother’s house, the girl is now back with them. The mother, a drug addict, left the 13-year-old girl at home alone for 24 hours while she went out with her current boyfriend.

The argument could be made that these are states’ decisions to make and that certain states may decide to have children grow up in group homes rather than have them live with a gay family. Two issues surface here: First, is it good for children to be brought up in group homes? Second, while some states may offer a way for two same-sex parents to recoup some of the expenses of raising children, the federal government does not.

In an investigative piece in Saturday’s New York Times entitled, “The costs of being a gay couple,” journalists Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber analyzed the numbers and found that over a lifetime the costs of being a gay couple varied from $41,196 to $467,562. Their study assumed that the couple would be raising two children.

Most heterosexual married couples do not realize that there are tons of federal benefits for couples that are married and have children. Yes there is a marriage penalty in certain tax brackets, but there is a marriage tax advantage in other tax brackets. These benefits range from the federal taxes that gay people pay on domestic partner health benefits to a lack of social security
benefits or the death benefit if one of the partners dies early. Certainly, any children of the partners are not entitled to the death benefit either. From taxes from a transfer of property, such as a home or apartment, to the spousal benefit of an IRA, gay people are paying taxes that heterosexual couples don’t. These are just some of the glaring examples of inequities.

If the tea party movement is really interested in limited government and fairness, it should list giving gay people a fair shake in their concerns over taxation. It would send a real message to the rest of America that these folks are concerned about taxation for all Americans, and not just themselves.

I’ve gone hot and cold with President Clinton. I loved him when he came into office, supported him throughout the Monica Lewinsky crisis and became upset with him when he left office for not pardoning my friend Webb Hubbell. Although I was disappointed with him for the Monica crisis, I am now amazed at the work he is doing for the world. Like most human beings, he is a mixed bag. Like many of us, his weakness is also his strength. This week, President Clinton’s weakness for women of all kinds showed up as his great strength. His Clinton Global Initiative, which took place in New York, focused on the needs of women and a commitment to empower girls around the world.

The best thing about his annual conference is that those attending must make a public commitment as to what they are willing to do for others. It is a commitment of time, money and resources. During the five years of his annual conferences, people and organizations that have attended have committed billions of dollars.

The facts that President Clinton presented are not pretty. “Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work and produce 50 percent of the food, yet earn only 10 percent of the income and own 1 percent property,” he said. It turns out that when women receive pay, she will reinvest 90 percent back into her family, compared to men who only reinvest 35 percent. This fact became crystal clear to me when I visited the slums of Kenya in 1994 and saw shacks with no running water and no electricity. One large shack, which functioned as the local bar ,was filled with all male drinkers in the middle of the day. The women were washing at the well, and the men were drinking.

For every year of education, residents of the third world increase their earning power by 10 percent. Paul Farmer, a doctor who has built clinics around the world, said that more than one billion people lack safe drinking water, two billion people lack basic sanitation and women represent two-thirds of the world’s illiterate.

These facts mean that just a little bit of empowerment can mean a huge difference in people’s lives, especially women. Amazing results have occurred with President Clinton’s Initiative through small programs which were created by people with an idea and mission. I met many individuals this week who were moved to do something and did not wait for a large organization to send a pitch letter. These people just saw a need and began a small organization to make something happen. The creativity and the business models presented were not charity as much as they were empowerment and sustainability.

All for Africa is a Non-Government Organization, or NGO, that I invested in because they have a business model for investing in the continent. Using a large donated track of land in Ghana, it plants palm trees. It take three years for the plants to produce palm oil, and after the initial investment by a non profit for the planting and care of the trees they produced the equivalent of that investment for the next 25 or 30 years. Their theory is that many mission-minded people can raise the money to build a school or orphanage but do not have the money to sustain it.

There are handicraft cooperatives that train women to make baskets and bead jewelry and then work with stores such as Macy’s to sell the work. This allows small groups of women to market and merchandise their work in a broader world market. Shoe4Africa began by sending shoes to Africa so women could begin to run. They organize races and have used their contact with women to promote AIDS education and awareness. Something simple such as Sustainable Health Enterprise provides access to eco-friendly sanitary pads. That reduces pelvic disease and increases school attendance, which increases economic growth. Other programs train nurses and increase the number of women attending college with a major in business. Every one of these programs gives the women a hand up not a hand out, as former President Clinton says. It is a far cry from the foreign aid that many of us grew up with.

The Clinton Initiative is making a huge difference in the lives of women and girls. It proves that our personal difficulties can turn into our greatest assets, and President Clinton is a wonderful example of how that can work. It is a testament to his life and work.

Former Vice President Al Gore Wednesday cited the absence of political will as a significant roadblock to fighting climate change, noting that while business leaders and citizens are willing to confront the issue, politicians are not.

“We do not have that much time,” Gore said during a discussion held by the Clinton Global Initiative on innovation. “We have to put a price on carbon directly or indirectly.”

Gore, who has attended thirty summits since penning “An Inconvenient Truth,” explained that Americans are currently releasing ninety million tons of carbon into atmosphere without acknowledging the impact.

The Vice President touched upon the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen, stating that it was very important for the U.S. to secure a deal, even if it isn’t initially perfect.

Securing this deal will be the responsibility of President Barack Obama, who Gore contends needs to aggressively urge the Senate to unite behind combatting climate change.

Gore warned that if unchecked, climate change will present a growing threat, claiming that food production can be slashed by half in some African countries coupled with decreased soil fertility.

In closing, Gore called upon the international community to embrace sustainable capitalism.

The Vice President was joined by a number of leading environmental experts.

Muhammad Yunus, Founder of the Grameen Bank, stressed the importance of spreading businesses that work for a concrete social objective. Yunus mentioned that there is already some progress being made by food companies, but suggested that social businesses should tackle medical problems plaguing countries like the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

Jack Ma of the Alibaba Group discussed innovation in China. According to Ma, the future of Chinese industry lies in privately owned countries, such as the smaller “garage companies” started by his organization. 

 The Rockefeller Foundation’s Judith Rodin explained how innovation on a global level is becoming easier to track. According to Rodin, innovation has as systematic set of processes. Some of these processes such as user innovation and crowd thinking can be applied to social situations. Rodin also suggested collaborative competitions where competitors post their solution.

Rodin called for a business environment where companies can take risks and even fail. She also noted that the foundation is slated to launch an impact-investing network.

Former President Bill Clinton today kicked off the Clinton Global Initiative Plenary Session on Women. He entered to Also sprach Zarathustra, the theme from 2001: A Space Odyssey. He started by giving some facts and figures about Sub-Saharan Africa and HIV, saying that getting HIV is like walking along and then suddenly having a concrete block dropped on you. He said these girls and young women are the best ambassadors because even though they have been sexually abused they refuse to live their lives as victims.

Clinton said that women do 66% of world’s work, but they produce 10% of the world’s income and own only 1% of the world’s property. 40% of the three billion people who work are women and 70% of agricultural labor is performed by women, but women lack independence. He also said that investing in women’s health could increase productivity in Africa by fifteen billion dollars per year.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a commitment to Rwanda and talked about how women have been active there. Bloomberg said he is involved in Southern Sudan and Congo, working with an organization called Women for Women. It is an attempt to get women to contribute to their countries.

President Barack Obama’s Ambassador At-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Melanne Verveer, said that empowering women combats extremism.

Ambassador Robert Zoellick said that he is trying to help with the Adolescent Girls Initiative, an organization that hopes to work with 3,000 girls and mentor them to make sure that education is connected to a job.

Zainab Salbi talked about wars and children. She said 80% of refugees in the world are women and children. Even after rape these women succeed because they have children. They are the ones who are keeping the children going to school. The only group of people who are keeping a society going are women, and they do not have a seat at the table and they are not being heard.

Rex Tillerson from Exxon Mobil talked about technologies. He said low technologies can impact on a local level. He said they are working on what types of technologies work.

Edna Ismail was the first nurse practitioner in Somalia. She said they do not even need advanced technology. The age that a woman marries and nutrition are important to overall health. Genital cutting information is not reaching the grandmothers and people who have kept this tradition. Senegal has passed a law outlawing this, but a law does not change behavior on a village level.

Diane Sawyer asked what the biggest failure was, and Zainab Salbi asked said it was a challenge. But girls at the age of nine get cows as a dowry. She said you must be able to educate women so that there is incentive for women to be educated so they are more valuable to the family than cows.

There are a million young women in the sex trade. The United States passed one of the first laws to prevent human trafficking. It is hopeful because the business community is getting involved. One cent of every development dollar goes to girls.

Some programs make the payments directly to women, such as incentives to go to school. Must turn incentives so that the legal structure reflects the situation.

TRNS Bureau Chief Ellen Ratner interviews Loralee Choate with BlogHer.com. Choate says that the Obama administration has really opened itself up to the blogosphere, and cites a conversation with White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett regarding healthcare reform as an example. (10:18)

 

 Standard Podcast [10:18m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

TRNS Bureau Chief Ellen Ratner interviews Elisa Camahort Page of BlogHer.com about the role the blogosphere has played in covering the Obama administration. (6:42)

 

 Standard Podcast [6:42m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

If I were running communications at the White House, I would have the president get right out in front of the American people and explain why we need health-care reform. I would have him explain why we need it now and the costs in dollar and human terms if we don’t do it. He has made an address to Congress, but he hasn’t said what happens to our country if we don’t have health care or what it costs us as a country to do nothing.

I saw the repercussions of doing nothing firsthand when I spent 15 years working in mental health and addictions. It is true that there is some end-of-the-line help for people, such as local mental-health clinics, state hospitals or locally funded versions of a state hospital, but these services are overwhelmed and are often the first to get cuts. Medications are often available for people on Medicaid, but many people do not qualify, as they are the working poor without health insurance.

In just this one area of health care, it is penny wise and pound foolish to not provide services as depression, anxiety and psychotic illness can slide out of control quickly if left untreated. Early intervention is the key to cost control later. Having worked in just this one aspect of health care, I saw what happens to untreated illness. Health professionals have screamed prevention and early intervention from the rooftops, and no one paid attention. But this week a study was released showing mortality increases for those that do not have health insurance.
The study was published in the American Journal of Public Health by Harvard University researchers and showed that Americans without health insurance were significantly more likely to die.

Earlier studies completed in the early ’90s showed a 25 percent increase in chance of dying without health insurance. The new study backed up that earlier research but showed that the risk of dying was actually 2.5 times higher than the earlier study found. This works out to a 40 percent higher likelihood of death without insurance.

There has been supporting data from other studies such as the congressionally funded Institute of Medicine, or IOM. This week’s study found that as many as 42,686 people died in one year because of lack of health insurance. That is almost 10 times the deaths experienced in the war in Iraq and close to what we lost in Vietnam. It is way too many mothers, fathers and productive Americans lost for no reason other than money.

What is astounding is that these statistics do not even consider the people unable to work because of illness or who need care from family members who then have to take off of work. This is not rocket science. How many people do you know who put off going to the doctor when they are ill because of costs? All of us know people who are facing those decisions.

Early intervention is the key in so many diseases, and President Obama’s plan allow 90 percent of people who do not have health insurance to be able to obtain it. It would allow people to get health care and tests that make a difference. Middle-aged people would be able to get a colonoscopy. Those with high cholesterol would be able to get find out if drugs would help, and people with diabetes would be able to stem the process of the disease before they lost limbs.

I am on the board of Lighthouse International, a non-profit dedicated to helping people with vision disabilities. We screened more than 100 people in the talk-radio industry during one of Talkers Magazine’s conferences. Almost one-third of the attendees had some kind of previously undiagnosed eye problem, such as a retinal tear or macular degeneration. Those are costly diseases, as many people can’t work if they can’t see. Lack of ability to pay means people won’t seek out care and get treatment while they still can.

Now is the time to make the facts and figures known to every American about the cost of failing to enact health-care reform. It costs in productivity, and if we are going to compete on the world stage, we must have what other developed westernized countries have: health care.

-Ellen