It Matters How You Say It

My local paper occasionally has an opinion piece by Cal Thomas, who once was a vice-president of the Moral Majority. When I read him, I do so to get my adrenalin going for the day, since I usually find that his ideas range from the noxious to the nauseous. A recent contribution illustrates how something is said itself may distort the meaning and reality of what is being described. He notes the outrage of religious conservative at "liberal intrusions into their sacred traditions" since the 1960's, offering the outlawing of state-sponsored prayer in public school and the legalization of abortion as examples. One might rephrase this thought by speaking of conservative anxiety and hostility arising out of cultural nostalgia for the values, laws, customs, and mores of the the 1950's that were changing in law and practice.

He also opines that long ago most liberal theologians had baptized the earthly agenda of the Democratic Party instead of preaching about the Kingdom of Heaven. That too could be said another way. I would urge, for example, that liberals were in favor of racial justice, the equal rights of women, gays, and lesbians in law and practice, the freedom of women to choose an abortion, more economic opportunities and equality for the poor, and the like and found that the Democratic Party offered the best available-- though not perfect -- practical instrument for advancing these goals.

The language we use to express our values provides an opportunity to insert our biases in ways that introduce distortions of the factual reality into our social philosophy under the guise of merely stating our moral and political convictions. The applies to all parties in the conversation -- conservatives, liberals, and others alike. This is just another example of how original sin distorts the truth and deceives the innocent.

So let the reader be aware of what they are reading and writers of what they are writing.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Learning from Paris Hilton

Paris Hilton's mother, on the occasion of her daughter's imminent time behind bars, said that perhaps young people who look up to Paris could learn something from this. One thing they could learn is not to look up to Paris Hilton!

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Limerick for Today

There was a girl named Petula,
Who detested a boy named Shula.
He invited her to bed.
She said."Drop Dead."
But relented when he offered her moola.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

More on Facts, History, and Faith

In response to my piece on facts and faith (March 6, 2007) a friend and friendly critic sent me this response. I thought it raised pertinent issues and required a clarification and some emendations from me

Ken,

Regarding your entry on the bones of Jesus: I've been a conversation with my dean at the University of Chicago about the question of whether a factual or empirical claim can ever modify a theological claim. (We started on this when he wrote a paper on theology and intelligent design.) He takes what I see as a Tillichian position and argues "no." I take the other position and argue that I am representing the Chicago tradition of empirical and modernist theology. I see you much closer to my side than his, but I'm not sure you're with me and the early Chicago boys (they all were, as you know, guys). If I understand you correctly, you would say "yes, facts make a difference, but only in forcing one to reconstruct the theological claim so as not to be influenced by the factual claim." I want to argue that some empirical facts and the theories that account for those facts have the consequence of shaping doctrine. I think you would take that position, too, with regard to evolutionary theory, but I'm not completely sure. Shailer Mathews was slippery on such issues, but G. B. Smith wasn't, contending that what we come to know about both history and nature count in making theological claims.

So, in the case of the bones of Jesus, if there were ever real documentable evidence that these were his, there would be both positive and negative consequences: positive in the sense of confirming his earthly existence and, possibly, whether death came from crucifixion; negative, regarding any theological claim about the physical resurrection and what that would entail for related doctrines.

I'd appreciate your clarification of your own position, along with any criticism of mine.

From:
Larry Greenfield

To:
Larry,

You are quite right in noticing my ambiguity, obscurity, and probable error. I was thinking specifically of doctrines like physical resurrection of Jesus, virgin birth, evolution, second coming of Jesus, etc. With regard to these I think my analysis is roughly right.

But as an empirical theologian in the Chicago School tradition, I would say that obviously the experienced facts of nature and history are the materials from which one develops a notion of the divine, values, etc. I would say as a modernist that the highest and best (Wieman) of the biblical tradition are contingently but not necessarily dependent on the facts recounted by the Bible, including the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. We came to have some values that were generated in this history, and they are useful in the continuing analysis of experience. But it is conceivable that a God of unbounded love (Ogden) could have been discovered in other histories by non-biblical persons reflecting upon life, their total body of knowledge (accepted beliefs), and their own experience. In the final analysis the test of any religious claim in our experience. So I accept the highest and best of the Christian tradition (as I understand it) but not because it is in the Bible or comes down in tradition but because it validates itself in our own lives and experience (as shaped, of course, by our own upbringing in this culture and assimilated religious beliefs. It is the what (content) of religious belief that finally counts, not its wherefrom (source), content that is tested, revised, and abandoned by continuing reflection upon experience.

Am I a Christian? By my standards, yes. Many others have ruled me out long ago anyway, but I have convinced some fundamentalists by telling them that I accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and was baptized at age 8 in Ethridge Mill pond, that I am a sinner saved by grace -- all true.

I guess my conclusion is that while facts or events can generate, alter, revise, undermine, and renew specific doctrines, religious truth is not dependent on any particular fact or set of facts or events in nature and history but is dependent on some ensemble facts and events that can sustain their interpretation. Whether this is a Christian view, I will not judge but am somewhat uninterested in the answer.

So within the limited framework I was originally assuming, my first analysis generally holds, but in a larger content, it is misleading. Remember I said that at this level the questions become as intellectually demanding as string theory.

Your response and corrections, suggestions, etc. would be appreciated.

Ken

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Underwear Crisis: Mine, not Britney's

The message struck terror in my heart. The email was a long, apologetic piece of information from Jockey telling me that the underwear I have worn for more than fifty years (the style, silly, not the same pair) was being discontinued. They were very sorry, but despite all their marketing efforts, dwindling sales of the Classic Midway brief, which they have made since 1937, had forced them to this extremity.

However, I could still buy from their remaining stock as long as supplies lasted. So I called my doctor and asked her how long I would live. Armed with this information, I made the requisite calculations and ordered a lifetime supply. A major crisis was averted. I am 77 years old.. A man that old should not have to change his underwear.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Hillary's Judgment is the Big Issue

Hillary will not apologize for voting for the Iraq war. She ought to, but she won't. She says if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted the way she did. What she didn't know then was that the war would become so unpopular.

The big issue here is her judgment. Why didn't she know then that the war was a mistake? Lots of people did and rightly predicted what would happen. She made a wrong judgment when the evidence against her vote was available for all to see. She went along with Bush and made a colossal error of judgment.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Designer Vagina? Limerick for Today

News item:

"Cosmetic vagina surgery is becoming a hot business. Sample procedures: "laser vaginal rejuvenation," "designer laser vaginoplasty," and "revirginization." Cost: $3,000 to $9,000. Slate," March 7, 2007. http://www.slate.com/id/2161289/

There was a woman named Dinah,
Who wanted a new vagina.
Brimming with elation,
She went for revirginization.
A designer vagina? What could be finer?

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Factual Claims Can't Kill Doctrines

According to some TV news hosts, whose fondness for the sensational is exceeded only by their ignorance of theology, Christian belief is in great peril as a result of the claim that the bones.of Jesus have been found in a burial box in Jerusalem. This is all presented in simplistic fashion as if the issues were clear cut. Actually, the problems related to science, history, and faith are extremely complex and as intellectually challenging as string theory in physics.

I am here to tell you, however, that the naive TV notions to which we have been subjected are mostly a pile of baloney, either before said substance enters the digestive system or after it exits same.

That some particular theological outlooks would be devastated by certain facts is, of course, obviously true. But that is far from saying that if the bones of Jesus are in a box found in Jerusalem, Christian faith and theology are kaput, period.

To oversimplify for the sake of a brief blog, the logic of the situation is roughly this: One can either deny the claim is true, in which case no problem exists. Or if one is convinced that the factual claim is true, then one can reinterpret the matter and preserve what is held to be essential to faith in a revised theological outlook.

I have heard some theologians on TV who agreed that if these claims are true, then the resurrection did not occur, and Christian faith is doomed. But note that they are sure these claims are false. Exactly!

Examples of this phenomenon abound, but I will mention only the controversy over Darwinian evolution. Some Christians, who agree that evolution and the Bible are incompatible, simply deny the claims of the scientific community on the point either on scientific or philosophical grounds or because the Bible teaches otherwise. Others accept the evolutionary hypothesis but incorporate Darwinian views into a reconstructed theology with no sense of theological loss and certainly no challenge to faith.

Claims about facts can't kill doctrines for the simple reason that you can either refuse to accept them as true, or you can accept them but render them harmless to faith by embracing them in a reformed theological vision.

Does anyone lose faith by being convinced of some factual claim? Of course, it happens, but this simply means they are unable or unwilling to embrace a revision of theology that makes them innocuous. It is not a necessary reaction, i. e., one that lacks alternatives but a contingent response based on circumstances peculiar to those persons. It simply means they have so identified faith with a particular theology they can not tolerate alternatives.

But are there some natural or historical facts or lack thereof that would devastate the truth of faith beyond any possibility of redemption by theological reconstruction? Well, now we are in the stratospheric intellectual level alongside, say, string theory in physics, which may be plausible, probable, or just plain silly nonsense depending on whom you ask. Resolve the string theory problem for me, and I will resolve the question as to whether Christian faith rests on some particular set of natural or historical events-facts or on no necessary fact or cluster of facts-events at all.

Meanwhile, let's be anecdotally empirical about it. Has your faith been threatened by the latest furor about the bones of Jesus allegedly found in that burial box in Jerusalem? Do you know anyone who does feel threatened?

I rest my case.

I like the (I assume apocryphal) story told years ago about Paul Tillich, a famous theologian who was accused of not being sufficiently concerned about the historical Jesus. He was told that it had been proven beyond doubt that the bones of Jesus had been found, no question about it. "Well," Tillich said, "it looks like he may have lived after all!"

Selah

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Logic Lesson for Today

Since the virus that causes cervical cancer is spread by sexual intercourse, requiring young girls to be given the vaccine that prevents the disease might encourage them to have sex, so it would be better risking them getting cancer than having sex.

Making condoms readily available could prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STD's, but it might encourage teenagers to have sex, so it would be better to risk unwanted pregnancy or disease than having sex.

Clean needle exchange can reduce the spread of HIV among drug users, but it might encourage more drug use, so it is better to let them use dirty needles that could spread HIV.

Using seat belts can save lives but might encourage teenagers to drive fast or carelessly, so it is better to forbid their use and risk having them killed or seriously injured.

Thus endeth the logic lesson for today. So all the liberals who want girls and women to be safe from cervical cancer, from unwanted pregnancies , and from sexually spread diseases, who want drug users protected from the spread of HIV, and who want kids to be safer by using self belts take note and learn some logic.


http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Mini-Sermon for Today: The Virtue of Showing up

Woody Allen, when asked what a woman needed to do to attract him, replied, "Show up!" Much of the good that is done in this world comes from people just showing up. I propose as a hypothesis for debate that 60% of doing ones duty consists in just showing up.

The world would be better off if more people shut up and just showed up.

Selah!

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

For the Record

I would like for the record to show that I am not the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby. However, I will recheck my schedule over the last 18 months. And I wonder what happened to that missing page in my diary. What! This kid might possibly inherit as much as $400 million? I would like for the record to show that I will submit to any proper court-authorized DNA testing.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Group Dialogue on Diversity and Equality

To Larry Greenfield and Ken Dean,

I would like to know you think about this book. It articulates clearly some ideas I have had for a long time but never saw the issue with this kind of precision and clarity. I suspect some overstatement. The standard question is why can't we work on both economic equality and diversity. I don't think he answers that sufficiently, but I think his main point is that liberals have substituted diversity (racial, gender, and cultural equality) for economic equality and have allowed the former to embrace and eclipse the latter. Liberals want respect for the poor but are mainly unconcerned about making them unpoor. He is convincing on that one as far as many liberals (I call them cultural liberals are concerned) are concerned. I take the faculty I worked with, especially the younger ones in the later years of my tenure, as a prime example of the truth of his main thesis.

The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality by Walter Benn Michaels

Book Description (publishers review)
“A brilliant assault on our obsession with every difference except the one that really matters—the difference between rich and poor.

If there’s one thing Americans agree on, it’s the value of diversity. Our corporations vie for slots in the Diversity Top 50, our universities brag about minority recruiting, and every month is Somebody’s History Month. But in this provocative new book, Walter Benn Michaels argues that our enthusiastic celebration of “difference” masks our neglect of America’s vast and growing economic divide. Affirmative action in schools has not made them more open, it’s just guaranteed that the rich kids come in the appropriate colors. Diversity training in the workplace has not raised anybody’s salary (except maybe the diversity trainers’) but it has guaranteed that when your job is outsourced, your culture will be treated with respect.

With lacerating prose and exhilarating wit, Michaels takes on the many manifestations of our devotion to diversity, from companies apologizing for slavery, to a college president explaining why there aren’t more women math professors, to the codes of conduct in the new “humane corporations.” Looking at the books we read, the TV shows we watch, and the lawsuits we bring, Michaels shows that diversity has become everyone’s sacred cow precisely because it offers a false vision of social justice, one that conveniently costs us nothing. The Trouble with Diversity urges us to start thinking about real justice, about equality instead of diversity. Attacking both the right and the left, it will be the most controversial political book of the year.”

Ken Cauthen
****
To Ken Cauthen,
From Ken Dean

Cynic, cynic, cynic. Of course there is truth in what this book says. I compare everything to what the situation was in 1965. Today, I went to Emory Hospital for some tests. The men who greeted me and took my car to be parker were Black. The woman on the desk in the entrance was Black. The secretary in the Nuclear Medicine Department where I was treated was Black. The professional who did my nuclear test( it lasted over three hours and required a specially trained technician) is Black. Her colleague is a woman Jew from Georgia (meaning Russia). Her boss, the doctor who heads up Nuclear Medicine Department is Black. The receptionist who handled my business in the Medical Records Department is Black. A special question I asked in that department was answered by a White, a woman. All this happened in a Methodist hospital which 40 years ago probably would not have welcomed a Black patient much less have had a staff this is simply as Black as it is White. And a Russian Jew; we were trying to have these people imprisoned in the 1960s.

We ain't where we ought to be, but we sure as hell ain't where we were. And, then there is your daughter and other two children. Each of them living life styles that were not permitted in the 1960s. I hope all this has something to do with process theology (which I do not claim to understand), but in it all I see more of the revelation of the good than I have ever known to characterize the world, East or West.

So, I think that we keep up identifying where we are coming up short, but that we not let this totally dominate the scene. As we age, we see things more clearly and this certainly justifies a strong dose of cynicism ( and I agree with the current Catholic Theologian who describes Jesus as a cynic---which is not exactly like what we mean by a cynic, but which is not all that different either when we are talking about ones world view), but I have some hope out of the progress I see being made. I agree that justice is found in economic opportunity and attainment, but not just at that level or just in that quarter. For me justice is equality in community.

Peace, teacher, peace, and thanks,

Kenneth Dean
*****
To Ken Dean,
From Ken Cauthen
You do agree that Democrats and cultural liberals generally have been very quiet on making the poor unpoor but loud on diversity except when compared to Republicans, who want a lot of poor people as cheap labor. That is the point I took away. Of course, diversity counts and I rejoice as you do in all the progress made for blacks, women, and gays. But (cultural) liberals seem to think that is enough. The young faculty that inspired me to retire early did not give a damn about economic equality but they were hot on racial and cultural diversity and seemed to think that was enough. In fact they did not like poor people (and non-poor working class and labor union whites), very much unless they were black or female or needed an abortion because the poor were culturally backward on race and gender and sexual orientation, which they were, but they were poor and don’t need to be in this rich land. I don't think that that is cynicism. I think that is realism. We need to be cultural liberals and economic liberals, like me
Ken Cauthen
****
To both Kens,
From Larry Greenfield

I guess I have a different take on this conflict between diversity and inequality. I certainly agree with the author that economic inequality has taken a back seat to diversity for most political, socio-cultural and theological liberals; I regret that even though I'm deeply committed to diversity for biblical and civic reasons. But, like KC, I don't understand why one has to be sacrificed for the other, especially when economic inequality has become so chronic (built into systems).

I'd want to add one other feature into the mix of diversity and inequality, however, and that is a truncated view of economic freedom. It seems to me that political and socio-political liberals have championed a position in economics that emphasizes individual preference over against some notion of the common good--and, therefore, have joined with the neo-liberals in a kind of individualism that is destructive of social bonds. (Many, though not all, of the neo-liberals argue for that social bond in terms of a "values" or "family values" agenda, without giving a sh*t about basic economic well-being, while liberals have eschewed both, in my humble judgment.)

What is largely absent from the public conversation, then, is a view that argues for what I would call
"mutuality" in economics, politics, and social and cultural policies. This isn't strictly a point of view
that gives top priority to equality or to diversity, and yet sees both as key elements of the good society. The good society, that is, is one that strives to encourage and establish a sense of the different components (persons and peoples and nature) all contributing to and receiving from one another in such ways that all flourish.

I'm indebted to my friend Chris Gamwell for developing this insight. But the more I have worked with it, the more I recognize that it is central to the biblical witness, to the best of America's democratic polity, and to MLK's notion of the beloved community (although recently I've tried to argue that even that notion--beloved community--has its roots in John 15:15). (In another recent effort I've substituted the notion of the "matrix of God" for this community of mutuality so as to make it more possible to think of "nature" having standing in the efforts to promote flourishing.

KC, I hope I haven't taken the discussion off-track by some misunderstanding on my part of what is in question. If so, please put me back on track.

All the best to both of you.

Larry
****
To Larry Greenfield and Ken Dean
From Ken Cauthen
Larry, I agree with your philosophical premises. I have said for a long time that the creation of wealth is a social product with organic features not the sum total of individual efforts, thus negating the views of Robert Nozick. I have also urged in two books that the just and good society will maximize freedom, equality, and social (common) good within the constraints each puts on the others. This is a rough and ready formula that is a general guide not a set of rules. Most views of justice have too many rules, make things too neat, whereas I think real life is messy, complicated, and requires a lot of phronesis, practical wisdom with much ad hoc muddling through contextually. I am a pragmatist with guiding principles.

There are some good signs like the ones you mentioned. Also, John Edwards has the best economic platform as he did in 04. That might be his undoing, but he is out there with a strong message on the war and the economy.,

Thank you both for your responses.

KC


http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Hillary: on both sides of every issue

Overheard in the Junior Senator's bedroom one night.

Bill: Honey, I'm just real horny. Interested?

Hillary: Well, sure, but not really. Oh, maybe. I am too tired, but we could sleep in in the morning. And I have a awful headache, but it's really not that bad. Why don't we wait? Or maybe just a quick one. Hey, I didn't mean that quick!



http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

What does Hillary believe, really?

Every time I hear Senator Clinton, she seems programmed. Everything is calculated not to offend anyone among her potential supporters. She is on both sides of every question within that framework. It's OK to offend those not within her reach as a candidate no matter what she says, but those who might be enrolled in her cause can find enough to identify with to make it appear as if she really is a champion of their cause.

She is smart enough to take both sides of the middle without any obvious contradiction. And the needle that defines the center of her orbit can move to the left or right as conditions or public opinion dictates.

Her position on the war epitomizes the approach. She voted for the war and has never said plainly that this was a mistake. She has criticized how the war was carried out. She has condemned the "surge," but, besides Laura, the family dog, and a precious few others, who hasn't? Lately, she has said that if she knew then what she knows now, she would have voted differently. But was her original vote wrong? Not that she has admitted in so many words.

And was not her recent visit to Iowa completely calculated to show her warm, soft, funny, down to earth side and how approachable, friendly, and charming she could be with no rough or sharp edges?

Who are you Hillary, -- really, I mean, when you are not in the programmed mode? The more I hear of her, the less attractive she becomes as a candidate. And who is that right behind her and moving fast? Is that you, Barack?


http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Bush and Iraq

My latest theory on Iraq is that if Bush cannot bring the war to a "successful" conclusion soon, his stubborn obstinacy will lead him one way or another to keep troops fighting there until the end of his term. Then he will leave the mess to the next President to deal with. If his policies are pursued to some sort of final "victory," he will regard this as vindication after all. If his policies are repudiated and the troops brought home quickly, then he will blame his successor for the failure, since his own right course was not followed to conclusion.

His dogged determination to pursue this disastrous, tragic war on and on in the face of almost total repudiation by the American people and growing numbers in Congress is a sad spectacle indeed. Is it ego? Stupidity? Blind adherence to his own dogmas in spite of the facts? Whatever it is, the armed forces there and their families back home are paying a heavy price for his folly along with countless thousands of Iraqis.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Bush, Israel, Iran -- the Ultimate Folly

According to a report on Scarborough Country on MSNBC Israel is urging the US to attack Iran so they won't have to. It pains me to criticize Israel. The history of Jewish suffering often at the hands of nations that are predominantly Christian is an indelible stain on humanity. But if this report is true, it is sadly unfortunate.

Nicholas Kristof argues that there are strong reform forces in Iran that we ought to cultivate. He notes that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not wield the ultimate power anyway. For Bush to go to war with Iran would be the ultimate folly.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Hillary Catches ON

Hillary finally catches on to what everybody else has known for a long time, i. e., she is running for President. But do we really want some one who is so late recognizing the obvious? She has still not been able to say that her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake -- a finely calculated position measured by its political implications, as is every word she says these days. As a citizen of New York State I remember all her coy remarks when asked if she would promise to serve a full term as Senator. Everybody knew she did not intend to, but she was allowed to play the game. Well, at last now she knows what everybody else does, except, of course, about the war..

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld

Dick Cheney said that Rumsfeld was the greatest Secretary of Defense of all time. And Bush fired him? George, how could you?

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Everybody/Anybody But Hillary

Everybody but Hillary has known for a long time that she would run for president in 2008. During the recent election she evaded the question and played the coy innocent whose intentions were barely concealed in her sidestepping maneuvers.First she said her concern was solely with winning reelection to the Senate and serving New York. Finally, she indicated that if her evasions were a problem for people, they should take that into account when they vote. How clever, since at that time her election was assured, and Democrats had no good alternative. Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently it is not considered to be good politics in these circumstances.

It is clearer day by day that she intended to run all along. Well, OK, but for many the cry will be "Anybody But Hillary."


Now with the Obama frenzy rising, she apparently is stepping up the time line to make her move. Short of some major unanticipated event, e. g., the return of Jesus, yes she will finally come to know what everybody else has known all along.

Until further notice my preference is for an Edwards/Obama ticket, but ABH.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml

Democrats, Take Note

Since 1968, i. e., since the cultural impact of "the 60's," Democrats have nominated presidential candidates from the Upper Midwest, the Northeast, and the Southeast. All from the first two groups lost-- Humphrey, Minnesota, 68; McGovern, South Dakota, 72; Mondale, Minnesota, 84, Dukakis, Massachusetts, 88; and Kerry, Massachusetts, 04. All from the Southeast won on their first try -- Carter, Georgia, 76; Clinton, Arkansas, 92-96; and Gore, Tennessee, 2000. (OK, Carter lost to Bush the Elder in 80 because of stagflation and the Iranian hostage crisis. Gore in 2000 won if you count all the actual votes intended for him.)

So, candidates from the Upper Midwest lost. Candidates from the Northeast lost. Candidates from the Southeast won.

What can we learn from this? The losing candidates were liberal liberals associated with the most progressive elements of those states. The winning candidates were liberal moderates from the least progressive region of the country, but they were successful Democrats who represented the best the South has to offer politically, especially when compared to Southern Republicans -- among the worst of the worst.

What are the implications for 2008? At the moment, for me it suggests a ticket of John Edwards of North Carolina and Barack Obama. OK, Obama is from Illinois, so he has yet to prove himself a vote getter in all sections of the country. I believe he can.

For further analysis, see an earlier post in which I write a prescription for Democrats in 2008.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/index.shtml