perfidy

Our justification for invading Iraq was not centered on the certainty that, after we invade, we would find all the evidence we wanted. This is not analogous to law enforcement, or a "fishing" warrant. We had intelligence estimates, we had a history in Iraq of WMD use and manufacture (ask the Kurds!) and an assessment of our risk. You make risk assessments based on capabilities, not intentions. Iraq had the capability to develop WMD, this is incontrovertible. (And he had shown willingness to use them - bonus insight into intentions.)

In the wake of 9/11, our tolerance for risk, well, plummeted. The risk of having a chemical or nuclear attack on the United States is intolerable. Look how damage was done with three airliners. Al Qaeda operated with state support - Afghanistan certainly, Saudi Arabia and Iraq likely, Syria and Iran possibly. But remember, this is not a court of law. We simply do not have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that these nations are threats. So, the fact that we haven't found (yet) ironclad evidence of WMD is not that significant. Saddam is gone (though sadly not to his eternal reward) and if we can be even moderately succesful in creating a decent soceity in Iraq, we have gone a long way toward winning the war on terror.

I've mentioned before that right after 9/11, Bush did not declare war on Al Qaeda. He declared war on Terrorism. This is different. Iraq is unquestionably a state supporter of terrorism. (And so is Iran, and Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and Libya...) I believe that Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz and their teams of pointed headed strategic planners have come up with a plan to transform the Middle East. Bush has signed off, Powell perhaps with reservations, but it follows the general outlines of take out the low hanging fruit of Iraq, and then use that as a lever to destabilize the middle east. Owning (for the moment) Iraq gives us a tremendous strategic advantage. We can use it to influence neighboring states that support terrorists that attack the US.

At the time, I felt that going to the UN and going off on WMD was a mistake. The UN is a cesspool, and world opinion is irelevant when it is being generated by cynical european governments, third world dictators and pathetic leftist protestors. We were attacked, and we are taking steps to assure that it does not happen again. If, in the process, we violate some nations' soveriegnty, so be it. If, in the process, we sledgehammer some fascist regimes and liberate their people, great. Eliminating international terrorism is doing a favor for the world. Like eliminating the international slave trade was when Britain did that in the nineteenth century.

I think that most of our diplomacy for the last couple years, and for the near future is purely tactical. We have allied with the military government of Pakistan. We continue to profess our love for the Saudis. We talked to the UN (though not so much anymore.) We have extended our ties with Italy, Spain and Eastern Europe. Those who help us now will get some consideration. Those who hinder us are on our list. But relationships, even long standing ones, will not prevent us from pursuing the war on terror.

So why was it again that the President said that Iraq needed a spanking? No Weapons of Mass Destruction (yet!, we are assured). No compelling, systemic links with Al Qaeda. No building of nuclear rockets. No yummy yellow cake. No smoking gun of any kind to warrant such an action.

I have been waiting for months, albeit skeptically, for the President's assertions about Iraq's role in international terrorism to be vindicated. I'm now long past giving up on the whole affair as a lofty-minded attempt to reshape the world never mind the reasons. Kevin Drum at CalPundit referred to Iraq as "low-hanging fruit," and that assessment seems more fair every day.

Buckethead, I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter. I know how I see the events currently unfolding, but I'd like your take. Do you feel that the last few months of findings stand up to the President's stated reasons for libervading Iraq? Aside from the happy collateral fact that Saddam Hussein no longer rules (never offered as a central reason for libervasion), does the current evidence justify the President's case made in January and early February?

Buckethead, good point. It does say something about the perfidy of the NK regime that an expatriate recommends starting over from a glassy, radioactive tabula rasa.

I wasn't necessarily offering an endorsement of the Korean exile's opinion. Nevertheless, for someone to think that the people in charge of his native land are so entirely bugfuck that they would recommend that we nuke it; well I think that says something about the nature of the regime. In the bit excerpted in below, I think that that is entirely lipservice. What person working for one of the world's last authentically Stalinist (tm) states would say to a foreign journalist, "Psst, we all really love America here, and btw, Kim is a complete nutbag who likes to bang twelve year olds." People, no matter how cut off from the rest of the world, are not stupid. Some Noerth Koreans would remember the days before Communism, and those stories would be remembered. Those few fortunate enough to have TVs or Radios would get South Korean broadcasts much as the East Germans did.

Certainly, there are those who are true believers, and those who go along because they benefit from the status quo (though they are few - most North Koreans are by all accounts severely fucked and near starvation most of the time.)

They may not know much about us, but I feel sure that they know that their system is inhuman, evil and farcical.

My favorite old-timey disease name of all time: dropsy.

My favorite made-up disease: the staggers. As in, Q: "Buckethead, you look a little rough. What happened to you?" A: "Oh, I'm ok. Just a fifth of Beam and a case of the staggers." Of course, I made this one up shortly before our cat died to describe her inability to walk straight, so it's not really that funny when you look at it that way. *snif* I really miss little Iron Chef Chen Kenichi.

I think, Buckethead, you shouldn't ask for too much in the way of excellent disease names. Just look at the last few years. Sure, "I got the SARS" doesn't sound half as good as "Poor Jim's got a case of the hoof-and-mouth," or "I had to put down grandpa like a cow with the aftosa," but "ebola" is a great name for a disease that eats your flesh and makes you die, and likewise, Monkeypox is a perfect name for a disease that comes from pet prairie dogs. MONKEY POX! And it's FATAL! HAW!

I knew a prairie dog once. His name was Stinky. Guess what he did?

I leave you with this: Ten cases of the bubonic plague in Algeria, two of them the almost certainly fatal septicimic variety. Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice. I say it will end coughing blood, weeping, and cursing God for his twisted sense of humor. But me, I'm an optimist.

Buckethead-- totally agreed. There are, however, certain exceptions. Prince, one of the great musical geniuses of the last twenty-five years, rarely uses a traditional bassline. "When Doves Cry" has no bass of any kind, and few of his songs have a funk bass line like one might expect from the direct heir to Sly Stone and Rick James.

[moreover] His recent work notwithstanding, Prince is a genius. Anyone disagreeing with me is not only foolish, but cruising for a world-class ass-whipping. I'm a pretty big Prince fan, as is Goodwife Two-Cents.

I've been drinking vodka this evening. Please excuse me, for it gives me Russian moods.

I have noticed that whenever a band comes along that has interesting bass lines, I really like it. And most music that I don't like, lacks good bass. Substantial overlap. Big exception is a lot of the blues and (very) early country that I listen to - a lot of that is voice/guitar, voice/banjo, or something equally sparse.

Having spent the morning today exploring the outer limits of my caffeine tolerance (verdict: 12 oz. premium drip coffee not enough, 24 oz. of same far, far too much), I have been in no condition to read, much less string words together in a clear, engaging, and trenchant fashion such as my dear readers have come to demand. I think I may be dying.

But whatever. I'm a wuss.

Be assured I am working on a giant, blockbuster post about the role of the bass player in modern rock music. The Boston Globe had an article this weekend about the decline of the electric bass in pop music that simply cried out for me to respond, so I'm-a-gonna. I shall attack Nu-Metal as a tool of satan, and compare bassless pop music (the White Stripes, the Black Keys, most things these days) to the porn industry. Also be assured I shall proceed with the utmost taste and discretion in my dissertation on same, yeah right.

For now, I will just offer this screed.

Nu-metal is terrible and nu-metal musicians are monumentally stupid [nothing like an easy target, eh? -ed. [stop that, a-hole! -kaus]] I might be old, and I might not be "hip" or "jiggy," but these are immutable facts. In fact, nu-metalers are so stupid, they even get their own lineage wrong. Ask them and they will cite Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, etc. as heavy bands to copy. They claim these bands as their fathers. Well, that's wrong. Know how you can tell? Listen to the bass. Metallica (ver. 1.1, featuring Cliff Burton), not to mention Megadeth, Anthrax, Slayer, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Sabbath, Deep Purple, Alice In Chains, etc. etc. featured competent-to-excellent bass players who frequently played lines distinct from the guitar parts (no!!). Moreover, the bass contributed swing and what I like to call "thwack" to the sound.

Nu-metal on the other hand, devalues the bass player. There are several reasons for this. First is the bassiness of modern production. Rather than elevate the role of the bass to prominence, modern production combined with detuning allows guitars to take up the frequency range formerly inhabited by bass players. This same detuning hedges bass players in. If the guitars are chunking along in C#, a mere major sixth above the bottom of the bass' range, this leaves no room to break out, and requires the bassist to double the guitars. Additionally, even with a low-B string, any deviation from the guitar line would result in sonic sludge at such low frequencies. Second, modern basses with their newfangled low-B strings don't sound as good as older 4-string models. As a matter of physics, low-B strings are flappier and less tight-sounding than the EADG strings. Pickups designed to compensate for these shortcomings seem to detract from the overall sound of the bass. Third, "heavy" music places a premium on unison playing to increase the "heaviosity" of the riff, and also tends to value unison stops. Hence, the bass follows the guitar.

These sonic and musical considerations are only half of the story, though. The other half is this. When you listen to nu-metal, the bass tends to play very simple figures over and over. It may as well not be there, but for the need for increased heaviosity. This was NOT the case when Bruce Dickinson fronted Iron Maiden, my friend!! But this WAS the case when Kip Winger fronted, er, Winger. All that has changed is the musical vocabulary. Whereas hair/glam metal bands would have had the bassist play a pedal tone eight hundred times underneath the intro riff to song (for example Judas Priest's "You Got Another Thing Coming," or Van Halen's "Running With The Devil," or almost every Poison song ever) while the band sings about guitars, women, parties, or touring, nu-metal bassists play E-F-E-Bb over and over while the band sings about fury, rage, anger, or angst. New wine, old bottles. Bo-ring. Nu-Metal bands are nothing but Poison in a post-grunge world. Except without the hair or entertainment value. Or quality.

I don't know why I care so much; and I can't think of why you should. I actually LIKE hair metal, a lot. A lot a lot. But hair metal bands labored under no illusions that they were making art, much less a statement. It was fun! Nu-metal, on the other hand, tries hard not to be fun. And, as Lisa Simpson once said, "making teenagers feel angst is like shooting fish in a barrel."

Up next: the death of the bass in indie rock: the porn connection.

A defector from N. Korea, Park Gap Dong, is suggesting that the US mount preemptive strikes on that nation's nuclear facilities, to forestall Kim Jong-il's regime from arming its missiles with miniaturized nuclear warheads.

The article has some interesting quotes:

"U.S. strikes against North Korean targets would force Kim Jong-il to seek asylum in China. Kim is a coward. If attacked, he will flee. The North Korean army would not fight after the regime collapsed." 

"Many North Koreans believe that the United States is their savior and the only nation that can liberate North Korea," he said. The flood of hate-America propaganda from North Korea represents only the relatively small number of people around Kim Jong-Il."

Park also warned that the North, given the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons, would use them against the south, Japan and even the United States.

Park heads the National Salvation Front, a group of high-ranking North Korean exiles that includes five former generals of the North Korean army, the former vice minister of home affairs, the former vice minister of culture and the former superintendent of the North Korea Military Academy.