The Word for Wednesday: September 2 Edition

The finish line in Isaiah approaches.

Right now, my little arrow-shaped Post-It™ bookmark is at chapter 65. That chapter has a form that is typical of the others in this book: the first part (verses 1 - 16) details how God's people have grieved and angered Him with their disobedience and their unbelief, and how they have forgotten Him. The latter part (verses 17 - 24) talks about how God, despite the misdeeds of His people, is still going to make things come out right, ultimately; verse 17, for example, starts out: For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth ... In my usual greed for comfort, I started out thinking to quote that make-everything-OK passage; good news is scarce these days. Instead, though, I'd like to have a look at an intermediate passage (verses 8 - 12), that I think I might not understand very well:

Thus says the Lord,
"As the new wine is found in the cluster,
And one says, 'Do not destroy it, for there is benefit in it,'
So I will act on behalf of My servants
In order not to destroy all of them.
And I will bring forth offspring from Jacob,
And an heir of My mountains from Judah,
Even My chosen ones will inherit it,
And My servants shall dwell there.
And Sharon shall be a pasture land for flocks,
And the valley of Achor a resting place for herds,
For My people who seek Me.
But you who forsake the Lord,
Who forget My holy mountain,
Who set a table for Fortune,
And who fill cups with mixed wine for Destiny,
I will destine you for the sword,
And all of you shall bow down for the slaughter.
Because I called, but you did not answer;
I spoke, but you did not hear.
And you did evil in My sight,
And chose that in which I did not delight.

Now, the "big picture" here is pretty plain, I think; a sharp contrast between the prospects of those who really are God's people (inheritance, a peaceful dwelling place with good pasture) and the prospects of the disobedient (death by the sword). And when God says here, through the prophet, that He has brought forth offspring from Jacob (which I take to mean Jacob's descendants in general) and an heir from Judah (which is becoming much more specific), I take it we're talking about Jesus. In that one verse (verse 9, that is), we have "offspring," which is plural in form, "an heir," which is singular, and then "My chosen ones," which is plural again; I could conjecture that this mixing of forms indicates the close identification of Jesus Himself (singular) with the church, His body on earth (plural), but that's conjecture and could easily be far off-line. This might not be about the church at all; it may refer specifically to the Jewish people. I'll set that aside to cook over low heat for a while. Next time I read this passage, maybe it will say something to me that I understand more clearly.

Which brings me to another point -- a small one, I think -- that I also don't "get." And that's the "new wine" business at the beginning of the passage above. It may be that my problem is simply unfamiliarity with the ancient world's ways of handling wine (in fact, I'm pretty vague about wine even in today's context). The text says the "new wine is found in the cluster." Now, a "cluster" would be a bunch of grapes, right? And I would think that the only liquid found "in the cluster" would then be the juice of the grapes, unfermented, and so that would be the "new" wine. So far, so good. Why, then, would "one" need to urge someone else not to "destroy" it? I mean, I can only think of two things to do with grape juice: drink it as is, or make wine out of it, and neither one of those involves destruction. I don't think my failure to understand this really hinders me from understanding the main ideas of the passage; but the illustration is there for a reason, and I'll bet my understanding of the passage would be richer, somehow, if I could correctly grasp that "new wine" picture. Maybe that, too, is something that will come with time.

Meanwhile, click here for more Words for Wednesday.

Nostalgia Time

It's yesterday's news, but no matter -- it'll still be current tomorrow, and next month, and next year:

KABUL (Reuters) - The 8-year-old war in Afghanistan can still be won, but only with a revised strategy, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces said on Monday, announcing the conclusion of a long-awaited review that could see him seek more troops.

Officials gave no indication in public as to whether U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, who commands a force of more than 100,000 troops, would ask for still more reinforcements to carry out his new strategy.

The review is expected to spell out a completely revised approach to conducting the war, which Barack Obama considers the main foreign policy priority of his young U.S. presidency.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said in a statement announcing the review was ready.

McChrystal has been working on the review since Obama put him in charge of the war in June. He sent the classified document to the U.S. military's Central Command (CentCom) responsible for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and to NATO headquarters in Brussels.

I'm not going to suggest that Herr General McChrystal would be stuck for an answer if someone asked him what the success in Afghanistan that he insists is achievable would look like, if achieved. He'd have an answer, and it would boil down to a U.S. puppet government appearing to be in stable control of the country -- a puppet government in the sense that it would be amenable to permanent U.S. bases there, and also to suitable deals with oil-pipeline operators. His answer would be in reasonably correct English and would, superficially, sound sensible, at least to the Great American Public. Most importantly, it would be acceptable to his boss, President Lyndon Baines Obama. Why am I thinking LBJ? Can you say "escalation?" I knew you could:

Military officials say it contains no firm targets for troop strength, but it could form the basis for a decision within weeks on future deployments -- a politically fraught calculation that could mark a turning point in Obama's presidency.

... [snip] ...

The 103,000 troops under McChrystal's command in Afghanistan include 63,000 Americans, more than half of whom arrived this year as part of an escalation strategy begun under outgoing President George W. Bush and ramped up under Obama. The force is set to rise to 110,000 including 68,000 Americans by year's end.

Since taking command, McChrystal has adjusted the focus of Western forces from hunting down insurgents to trying to protect the Afghan population, borrowing in part from U.S. tactics in Iraq developed under CentCom commander General David Petraeus.

His review is expected to suggest concentrating forces in more heavily populated areas, and also stepping up efforts to train Afghan soldiers and police.

Speculation has swirled about whether McChrystal will conclude he needs still more troops, or whether U.S. commanders and political leaders would give them to him if he does.

Cue the Beach Boys music! But remember, O Fellow Americans, that when the Vietnam war got to be a really big deal, in the mid-to-late 1960s, that the U.S. was relatively industrial and relatively prosperous, having a reasonably sound currency that was at least nominally tied to gold. Not so, today. You live in the land of the hollowed-out economy, in which we allegedly become wealthy by lending each other (funny) money, speculating in debt paper, and trading our houses back and forth. You live at the beginning -- and, perforce, near the end -- of what will have to be a brief period of trillion-dollar annual deficits. Remember when the entire cumulative national debt went through the trillion-dollar mark? I do; and it wasn't all that long ago.

But none of that's really important, compared with the vital necessity of making certain that the correct thugs are in charge in Afghanistan, and Waziristan, and Kzyrgistan, and Pakistan, and whatever other 'stans there may be. Remember that it's your proud privilege to continue to underwrite the borrowing of the very last funds available for sending flying robo-death drones, rockets, bombs, bullets -- and your kids! -- to these garden spots, so that unfavored foreigners may be slaughtered, and favored ones installed to rule whoever's left. And then, if you need a laugh -- and I can't imagine why you would -- remember that all this is to secure your freedom!

Yeah. Really.

A Tiny Increment in My Safety is Worth ... Anything! Right?

Anyone see this dreck today?

Attorney General Eric Holder has named a special prosecutor to see whether any of the CIA's interrogators broke the law. Special prosecutors are often themselves like interrogators -- they don't know when to stop. They go on and on because, well, they can go on and on. One of them managed to put Judith Miller of The New York Times in jail -- a wee bit of torture right there. No CIA interrogator can feel safe. The interrogators are about to be interrogated.

Awwwwww ... poor interrogators! They don't feel safe ... und they vass chust followink orders! What a pity. Still, I wonder: how many will be anally raped? Water-tortured? Mock-executed (or maybe beaten to death for real)? How many of their bosses, and their bosses' bosses, on up the chain, face any consequences at all -- even as piddly as career limitation? Yeah, I think we pretty much all know the answers to those questions. Sorry, but my sympathy for those interrogators who may now feel "unsafe" is in pretty short supply.

But Mr. Cohen has more:

I am, as you can see, full of questions. I have, as you can see, few answers.

I am torn between my desire for absolute security and my abhorrence of torture. The one thing I know is that ideology does not provide an answer. For me, it settles nothing that Dick Cheney supported enhanced interrogation and that Cheney was wrong and deceitful on the war. It settles nothing that Cheney defined torture as something so extreme that almost anything less than, say, the rack is permissible interrogation. The issue is not Cheney. The issue is the issue.

The questions of what constitutes torture and what to do with those who, maybe innocently, applied what we now define as torture have to be removed from the political sphere. They cannot be the subject of an ideological tug of war, both sides taking extreme and illogical positions -- torture never works, torture always works, torture is always immoral, torture is moral if it saves lives. Torture always is ugly. So, though, is the hole in the ground where the World Trade Center once stood.

Well. Nuance, ambiguity, "I have few answers" -- how profound. How lovely. And how cowardly. Mr. Cohen is torn between his "desire" (demand) for absolute security and the duty of any decent human being: the repudiation of barbarism. He's anxious to avoid anything that "provides an answer," because the answer is not agreeable to him.

Guess what, Mr. Cohen: there's not just two ugly things in this world (torture and the WTC site). There's lots. There's Muslim civilians, for example, ripped apart by the many tons of high explosives delivered by the United States, Israel, and a few toady nations for the past half-century or so. There's the economic evisceration of your country, caused by its imperial overreach and world-manager hubris. Rule #1, for when you find yourself immersed to your double chin in hideous ugliness: stop making more.

Guess what, Mr. Cohen: you weren't born with an entitlement to safety. An incremental increase in your safety -- even if it weren't illusory, which it is -- at the cost of the life of even a single foreigner who hasn't hurt you is morally unacceptable. You ain't worth it. Neither am I; the only difference between us is that I know that, and am willing to say it. I know that, to paraphrase Jim Morrison, I'm not getting out of here alive, no matter how much wrong I'm willing to do. Maybe you should learn that.

Rats! I Missed My Chance

I didn't vote in the '08 presidential election. But I think I would've if I'd known of the candidacy of Toyama Koichi. Not only does he render the "birther" arguments moot using blindingly-brilliant logic, he also doesn't co-opt lame pop songs for his campaign music.



Now, maybe I did vote for Toyama Koichi: at about 4:20 into this campaign spot, he does say that he's considering all abstentions, including the involuntary ones, as votes for him. But since I hadn't even heard of him at the time, I don't feel right about taking credit for supporting him.

His foreign-policy prescriptions are superb.

Oh, well, maybe he'll be a candidate again in '12. On second thought, that's kind of useless, too, due to the whole Mayan-calendar thing. Again: rats!

(Via IOZ and a comment thread there.)

The Word for Wednesday, August 26 Edition: Fastin' and Sabbathin'

Isaiah chapter 58 has something to say about both. First, the fasting:

"Cry loudly, do not hold back;
Raise your voice like a trumpet,
And declare to My people their transgression,
And to the house of Jacob their sins.
Yet they seek Me day by day, and delight to know My ways,
As a nation that has done righteousness,
And has not forsaken the ordinance of their God.
They ask Me for just decisions,
They delight in the nearness of God.
'Why have we fasted and Thou dost not see?
Why have we humbled ourselves and Thou dost not notice?'
Behold, on the day of your fast you find your desire,
And drive hard all your workers.
Behold, you fast for contention and strife and to strike with a wicked fist.
You do not fast like you do today to make your voice heard on high.
Is it a fast like this that I choose, a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it for bowing one's head like a reed,
And for spreading out sackcloth and ashes as a bed?
Will you call this a fast, even an acceptable day to the Lord?
Is this not the fast which I chose,
To loosen the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the bands of the yoke,
And to let the oppressed go free,
And break every yoke?
Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry,
And bring the homeless poor into the house;
When you see the naked, to cover him;
And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Then your light will break out like the dawn,
And your recovery will speedily spring forth;
And your righteousness will go before you;
The glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.
Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
You will cry, and He will say, 'Here I am.'
If you remove the yoke from your midst,
The pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness,
And if you give yourself to the hungry,
And satisfy the desire of the afflicted,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
And your gloom will become like midday.
And the Lord will continually guide you,
And satisfy your desire in scorched places,
And give strength to your bones;
And you will be like a watered garden,
And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.
And those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins;
You will raise up the age-old foundations;
And you will be called the repairer of the breach,
The restorer of streets in which to dwell."

And then, the sabbath:

"If because of the sabbath, you turn your foot
From doing your own pleasure on My holy day,
And call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable,
And shall honor it, desisting from your own ways,
From seeking your own pleasure,
And speaking your own word,
Then you will take delight in the Lord,
And I will make you ride on the heights of the earth;
And I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father,
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken."

Compare this with Jesus's words, quoted in Matthew chapter 6:

"And whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance in order to be seen fasting by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you fast, anoint your head, and wash your face so that you may not be seen fasting by men, but by your Father Who is in secret; and your Father Who is in secret will repay you."

And the apostle Paul, from Romans chapter 14:

One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord,for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one of us dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.

Among the words of the prophet, and the apostle, and the Lord Himself, one might superficially see conflict. I would suggest rather that there is underlying unity. It isn't so much what we do that's important, but why we do it. Does a fast consist of simply not eating? Or is it a deliberate -- and, in some ways, almost an arbitrary -- putting-aside of our own ways and purposes in favor of God's? Is it to piously parade our practice to enhance our reputation among each other, or to actually hide our devotions so that only God can see them? Is what what we eat, or what day (if any) we observe; or is it that we direct our practices to God, with gratitude?

Click here for more Words for Wednesday.

The Current Lustration

"Lustration" is defined as a ceremonial purification (as opposed, sharply, to a real one), and is what the Rainbow Brite administration has embarked upon:

Holder said Monday he had chosen a veteran prosecutor, John Durham, to open a preliminary investigation to determine whether any CIA officers or contractors should face criminal charges for crossing the line on rough but permissible tactics. Durham already is investigating the destruction of CIA interrogation videos.

At the same time, President Barack Obama ordered changes in future interrogations, bringing in other agencies besides the CIA under the direction of the FBI and to be supervised by his own national security adviser. The administration pledged that questioning would be controlled by the Army Field Manual, with strict rules, and said the White House would keep its hands off the professional investigators doing the work.

Despite the announcement of the criminal probe, White House aides declared anew that Obama "wants to look forward, not back" at Bush-era tactics.

White House officials said they plan to continue the controversial practice of rendition of suspects to foreign countries, though they said that in future cases there would be greater safeguards to ensure such suspects are not tortured.

Ah, yes: "look forward, not back." Concerning which, a few things:

(1) Nothing that the "we're continuing extraordinary renditions" Obama regime will ever do will threaten even the smallest inconvenience -- much less anything approaching "justice" -- to anyone named Bush, or Cheney, or Yoo, or Goss. No one with a rank above Junior Spear-Carrier in the CIA or the military (as if there's a difference!) will be troubled at all ... certainly no one who wears a necktie to work every day. The focus of Holder's investigation will be narrow, indeed.

(2) Torture didn't start with the Bushies. And it most certainly did not end with their junta, either.

(3) Rainbow Brite's definitely looking forward -- to the time when he leaves office. He's clearly not interested in establishing a precedent whereby prominent war criminals are held to answer for their crimes. Gee ... I wonder why not? Hmmmmmm.

Finally, let's hear from Darth Cheney:

And former Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that the CIA's interrogation of terror suspects "saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks." In a statement, Cheney said those who carried out the interrogations "deserve our gratitude" and do not deserve "to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions."

No, those who carried out the interrogations deserve to have to go through the remainder of their lives wearing a bell, so that decent people -- assuming there are any -- may be warned of their approach. As for the likes of Cheney: well, he deserves to spend eternity just being himself. Eternally.