Ebbers Should Not Go To Prison

The 25-year prison sentence for 63-year-old former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers is a tragic example of how criminal justice has failed to mature and respond creatively to differing crimes and the needs of society.

Ebbers' crimes were staggering in scope and financial impact and he should be punished severely. But we should not send to prison a retirement-aged financial and management expert—-probably a genius without sufficient moral character. Find a better punishment that is relentless, long-lasting, and difficult, but redemptive for society and for Mr. Ebbers.
We should not be using precious and expensive prison space for non-violent, non-dangerous offenders. Alternatives to incarceration, if creatively developed and effectively enforced, are a way to punish wrongdoers without punishing ourselves.

It was right for the court to take nearly all of Ebbers assets and to leave a small amount of money in his account. Instead of placing him in a prison cell because we’re mad at him, for the next 25 years Ebbers could be forced to earn little more than minimum wage, and to serve the community in a way that would use his skills, benefit the poorest of the poor in the community, and in no way enrich him or his family or enable them to prepare for retirement. This is one thing he stole from many people.

Non-prison punishments can be quite taxing, would enable more restitution, and would have a positive impact on all involved, rather than simply tossing an older man in prison to rot for the rest of his days.

There’s more information on restorative justice here.

We need to hold offenders responsible and be sure that punishment is sure and swift. But punishment is not necessarily prison. We’d all be better off if we learned that and encouraged enlightened legislators and judges to be more creative and restorative as they deal with crime and punishment.

--James Jewell

The Republican Coalition

Guest columnist Ed Stephan at the liberal blog, The Carpetbagger Report, discusses 19th century author Herbert Spencer, who he calls the granddaddy of conservatives.

Stephan writes:

Spencer's philosophy highlights the fundamental conflict in today's Republican Party. Business must, he says, ultimately come into conflict with both Government and Religion. For Business to triumph, Government must be reduced to its "protective functions" only — protection of life, property and contracts. He obviously opposed any scheme involving government direction of the marketplace, much less such "promotive functions" as health, education, welfare, any forms of the pursuit of happiness. And even regarding simple protection of life, he favored a drastic reduction in spending on military adventures which he regarded as nearly always harmful to Business. There should be no interference by Religion in the marketplace either. If I want to hire a prostitute, or consume tainted horse meat, or hire someone our society disapproves of … so be it; it's no one else's business what I do, so long as I threaten no else (pretty radical thinking for a conservative).

This is clearly the fundamental three-way contradiction in today's GOP — laissez faire (or "Log Cabin") Libertarians vs. neo-con (often chickenhawk) Militarists vs. parochial (and pharisaic) Theocrats. Wall Street vs. the Pentagon vs. Evangelical Fundamentalism. Greed vs. Guns vs. God. Cheney vs. Rumsfeld vs. Dobson.

Stephan presents the hope of the Democrats that these are warring factions within the Republican party, and that the conflict of these ideas will accomplish what the Democratic party cannot without ideas.

The Republican Party is a coalition of interests, although the groups’ battles are largely on the field of debate and discussion not the ballot box, because the Democratic Party presents an alternative too far a field, and the Libertarian Party is an expression of principle not a viable voting option.

The libertarians, neo-cons, and evangelicals will rally around a reasonably conservative Republican against nearly any Democrat that can be nominated with the Party's current leftist lean.

There is a fourth faction of Republicans that represent many of those currently in Washington—-the big-government Republicans. This group is odds with the libertarians, to be sure, but they are also on a course away from traditional limited-government conservatism.

This analysis also breaks down because there are a large number of libertarian-minded, national defense obsessed, moral values Republicans.

A possible rupture among the Republicans will come if the President nominates an individual for the Supreme Court who has the social libertarian impulses of O’Connor, rather than the moral conservatism of Thomas. Then we’ll see a fracture led by the evangelicals and conservative Catholics that may endanger the Republicans in the 2006 elections.

--James Jewell

The Center of the World

The center of the world for a moment is not Washington or Paris or New York, but London. Rarely do such divergent events converge on a city and a people, the British, and on a leader who grows in stature by the day, Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The British have a history of resolve, or steady, stoic, unwavering backbone. At its worst it is the stiff upper lip of obstinacy, and at its best it is a Churchill-rallied island withstanding Nazi bombardment.

And now, in a two-day span, Londoners have celebrated victory in landing the 2012 Olympic Summer Games and mourned the death and destruction of terrorist horror in the Tube. All the while, UK hosting the G8 in Scotland.

At the center of it all is Blair. In response to the terror, Bair addressed the nation from 10 Downing Street, sounding Churchillian:

“When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated. When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed. When they try to divide our people or weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm."

Certainly that is the nation’s historic posture and it seems to have captured the steadiness of modern Brits.

And while the most important deliberations and decisions will fall to the Gleneagles summit, where Blair is driving the agenda and probably cashing in debts from President Bush, my favorite Blair moment came earlier in the week in Singapore, remembered for Japanese humiliation of the British in WWII, where the Prime Minister personally lobbied for London and won. This is most enjoyable because it came at the expense of the French.

Here’s the NY Times account of this beautiful moment:

London organizers arrived in Singapore with their bid still the expected runner-up to Paris, the longtime favorite. But while the Parisian organizers, including Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, could often be found during the past week in the hotel lobby bar, conferring among themselves instead of lobbying for their bid, Mr. Blair enthusiastically met with International Olympic Committee members until Tuesday, when he flew to Scotland to act as the host for the Group of 8 Summit.

When President Jacques Chirac of France was quoted earlier in the week insulting British food, Mr. Blair remained the statesman, refusing to be drawn into a spat.

Day by day, the London bid appeared to gain momentum, members said, and Wednesday, the city defeated its longtime European rival, 54 to 50, on the final ballot to bring the Olympics back to Britain for the first time since 1948.

"If it hadn't been for him," Dick Pound, an I.O.C. member from Canada, said of Mr. Blair, "we'd be holding a press conference in French."

But sport is sport, although with the Olympics it also represents great economic momentum and even urban renewal, and terror is the hard reality of our day. We pray for our true allies, the British, and for the loss of any sense of innocence or protection they may have felt from extremist butchery.

With Tony Blair at the helm they are demonstrating that their heritage lives on and that when joy and tragedy collide, it is the center course of determination and steady resolve that helps a nation to endure.

--James Jewell

A Nation of Young Therapeutic Deists?

George Barna has done extensive research on the faith of young America and the task of bringing children and youth to faith in Christ, which he has summarized in the book Transforming Children into Spiritual Champions.

A group of Christian leaders and ministries in the U.S. and Canada--called The 4-14 Forum-led by Barna and Awana Clubs International has been grappling with how to better deal with the task of child evangelism.

In a report to The 4-14 Forum, Barna writes:

The research reinforces one simple but profound truth, over and over again: if you want to have a lasting influence upon the world you must invest in people's lives; and if you want to maximize your investment, then you must invest in those lives while they are young. The research simply crystallizes lessons that we can observe through history and personal experience: if you connect with children today, effectively teaching them biblical principles and foundations from the start, then you will see the fruit of that effort blossom for decades to come. The more diligent we are in these efforts, the more prodigious a harvest we will reap. Alternately, the more lackadaisical we are in our efforts to raise up children as moral and spiritual champions, the less healthy will the Church and society of the future be.

The difficulty and complexity of the task has become more evident. Researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) and have written up findings from a recent study in a new book: Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford University Press).

Gene Edward Veith writes about the findings here, in an article reprinted from World magazine.

After interviewing over 3,000 teenagers, the social scientists summed up their beliefs:

(1) “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.” (2) “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” (3) “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” (4) “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.” (5) “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

Even these secular researchers recognized that this creed is a far cry from Christianity, with no place for sin, judgment, salvation, or Christ. Instead, most teenagers believe in a combination of works righteousness, religion as psychological well-being, and a distant non-interfering god. Or, to use a technical term, “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

Ironically, many of these young deists are active in their churches. “Most religious teenagers either do not really comprehend what their own religious traditions say they are supposed to believe,” conclude Mr. Smith and Ms. Denton, “or they do understand it and simply do not care to believe it.”

Another possibility is that they have learned what their churches are teaching all too well. It is not just teenagers who are moralistic therapeutic deists. This describes the beliefs of many adults too, and even what is taught in many supposedly evangelical churches.

Clearly many churches are not teaching young people the deep truths of the Christian faith. I’m beginning to fear that even evangelical churches are striving so much to be relevant to the culture and to attract seekers that they are not digging deep into the marrow of Christianity—-leaving their parishioners young and old with a thin and ultimately inadequate set of beliefs.

--James Jewell

Africa’s Fate Will Be Determined By Africans

America gets a bad rap on international aid. As a nation, first we’re pressured or shamed into making massive loans to African nations, then pressured to forgive the loans, while all along being cajoled to make outright aid grants to help African children and families.

As Doug pointed out, America is the most generous nation in the world, and the American people—informed and inspired by their Christian ethic to help those in need—give more to address international poverty, hunger, disease than any other group in the world. Hands down.
Now the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit are being called on to give more, forgive more, and even make long term commitments of aid.

Americans will continue to aid Africa, both through our government’s international aid programs and largely through our Christian churches, missions, and aid organizations. But there needs to be more strings attached to aid, if Africa is ever to become something more than a continent of nation beggars.

Africa can solve their own problems in the long run, but only through deep spiritual and moral regeneration, a commitment to capitalism, the ultimate rule of law, and broadly adopted sexual ethics.

Aid must be tied to progress in all of these areas, or we will continue to be co-dependents in the continent’s cultural suicide.

The NY Times editorializes today that Africa’s fate will be determined by the eight men at the G8. That’s nonsense. Africans and the decisions they make on the fundamental foundations of their nations and people groups will determine Africa’s fate.

How to Shrink a Denomination: The UCC Endorses Gay Marriage

The United Church of Christ took a stand for homosexual marriage at its national convention yesterday, which the networks touted as a move by one of the large Christian denominations.
But the UCC is not large at all, and it--as well as other mainline denominations--is shrinking because of its biblical unfaithfulness.

Whereas the church must open its arms to homosexuals, it cannot do so at the price of ignoring Scripture’s clear teaching against homosexuality and for marriage as a union of man and a woman.

The UCC is not among the top ten religious groups in America. And it's sinking like a rock.

--James Jewell

I’m Glad We Have That Cleared Up

Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said that he concluded after much reflection that, "We are not above the law."

[This as Time Inc. said] that it would provide documents concerning the reporter's confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame.

The magazine's decision to give in to the demands of federal prosecutors followed the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to reject appeals by the agazine and its reporter, Matthew Cooper, as well as a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller. (NY Times).

While this is clearly the right decision by Time Inc., it is not without consequences.
The ability of the media to use sources that wish to remain anonymous is paramount to the freedom and the capabilities of the press.I was trained as a journalist and although I have spent most of my career in public relations, I have also been a reporter. Most stories with any bite to them at all rely on background, off the record, and unattributed quotes and information. If sources cannot trust that you will keep their identity hidden, much of this information will dry up.

I also understand the decision by reporters to go to jail rather than reveal confidential sources. Their word is central not only to their ongoing ability to get information from sources, but it is also part of their journalistic soul. To yield would be akin to the abortion protester getting up off the sidewalk and going home when the police arrive and threaten arrest. Their civil disobedience has a purpose beyond the parameters of any one case.

But in matters of life and death and national security, a corporation such as Time Inc. must obey the courts. Appeal it as far as possible, which they did, but when all avenues are blocked, obey the law.

I sympathize with the journalists, but if we don’t have rule of law we lose everything.
As a side note, I believe the whole anonymous source thing is out of control and in many cases has gone from a vital part of reporting to lazy even dishonest reporting. Every source should assume that a reporter will keep his or her confidence, but that in America the law is king and if the courts require a media company to disclose a source, their confidentiality will be forfeited.

Courts should exercise this power with great caution, because anonymity does allow the tongue to way, but no one should be above the law.

--James Jewell