clarifications

These days, I find myself in an interesting place in the political spectrum.  Although I've resisted - for quite awhile - writing any of it down and committing it to the halls of my own personal history, I just feel compelled to do so now.

As anyone who knows me knows well, I'm a Christian.  I make no secret of it, but I don't exactly hit people over the head with it, either.  As a Christian, I tend to somewhat "lean to the right" politically, but I am not a Conservative in the classic sense.  My Conservativism pretty much stops and starts at governmental size (I like it to be small and effective) and keeping the government out of business (I am laissez-faire capitalist)- but that's really it.  Darned near everything else in the political spectrum leaves me in kind of a "social liberal no-man's land" - I don't particularly care if LGBTQRSTUVXYZ folks wanna get married; don't like abortion, then don't get one; I don't want religion taught in public schools (the people that would do it can't)- and on more than a few political topics I don't even have an opinion, nor do I want one.

I am not really an Evangelical Christian, either- I definitely used to be up until fairly recently- but I don't want to digress into why the change of heart there- we'll save that for a later time - but the predominance of the people that I associate with on a daily basis are.  And, since I was an Evangelical Christian, I do know what they believe and why they believe it - and I don't really take all that much issue with those why's and how's.  There's much bigger things to be concerned with these days.  And, even though I am an ardent Follower and Believer in Jesus, I'm an almost equal and ardent student of history and I know, full well, that this country is not a Christian country, nor has it ever been- despite what others may think and say.  This country's founding fathers were at best Deists, but they saw the disadvantages of a state run church (which, btw, is where the idea of "separation of church and state" begins and ends) and a lot of them first hand witnessed what a state run religion does to its society.....I'm starting to digress again.

But lately I keep hearing how it's the Evangelicals or just "Christians" who are the ones who are responsible for the trials and travails that come in the form of our current POTUS rants over tweets and such.  I find that troubling for a number of reasons, and I thought I might try to explain something to my more "liberal" readers about what this actually is.  And, when I'm done with that, I'll address some of my more "evangelically minded" readers thoughts and point out a couple of fallacies there, too.  Now, remember- this is my blog and I can say what I want to here- and I'm voicing my thoughts here and I am absolutely guaranteed that I get to have my own opinion on these things.  So, read on if you dare, but if you flame me for this, you better have your stuff together first.

I don't really expect to change anyone's mind, but rather just seek to try to explain a couple of ideas from my own, limited vantage point.

===========================

FOR MY LIBERAL READERS

===========================

I *think* the reason that Mr. Trump might be appealing to some out there is because he doesn't represent the "normal" state of the current Politician Class.  In order to understand this more readily, as a more "liberal" minded individual, you're going to need to dispense with your preconceived notion of how much of an idiot Mr. Trump seems to be (I mean- Good God- there's enough proof provided daily for that, but....) and let's examine this for what it is- I think that the "moral majority" is just tired of politicians who just say and do what all the other politicians are saying and doing and they initially wanted someone to shake things up.  (as in "drain the swamp" )  I don't think that this statement is especially expository, but if you view it within the context of how partisan politics are these days and were before the new administration was here, I think you can probably see why this would have happened.  Was Hillary or Bernie Sanders going to rock the boat- no.  They're both pretty much status-quo political types, even though Bernie is a self-proclaimed Socialist.

The other thing to appreciate here is the fact that most of the mid-west has been completely ignored by D.C. for a long, long time.   When it comes time for elections, candidates show up to only those places that can be "gamed" for their Electoral College votes, but the vast geographic majority of "fly-over" country is ignored by these status-quo politicians for appearances, town halls, etc.  Perhaps the thinking was that a bonafide boat-rocker would be different?  Seems reasonable to think that way, and we all saw first-hand that the Dems lost in places they had never lost in because they just considered those places to be "wrapped up" - which plays right into the hands of that part of the populace who thinks that they're being ignored already.

That "ignored" populace is who voted for Trump, because whether or not you like him there is no debating that he is a boat-rocker.  But, therein lies the crux of the problem: he's an unlistening boat-rocker and if arrogance was people, he'd be China.

Here's the part that my liberal readers really aren't getting about this- a lot of the folks who voted him in are now experiencing what can only be referred to as "buyer's remorse".  Yesterday, I heard a news article about a documentary team that was interviewing people in Roberts County, Texas - a county where 95% of the voters voted for Trump, and every last one of them expressed misgivings around their choice after the first year of office, mainly on the topic of Trump's tweets.  They wish he would shut up, just as we all do.  They had other misgivings, too.

It's difficult for people to admit when they are wrong, even when the predominance of proof is there to do it.  These people are just like all the rest of us- they don't want to admit that, and they certainly don't want to admit to our 4th estate who they believe to have an agenda of bad-mouthing anything the GOP does.  (And make no mistake- they do have that agenda- but then again, the GOP doesn't really do anything to prevent that.  Ahem......)  So they continue to stay their course publicly, while in private they express their misgivings to each other where it is considered safe to do so.

The issue that really chaps my hide here is that you liberal folks just want to lump all Christians into this single bucket of group-thought (or group-non-thought) and just believe that we're all a bunch of Neanderthals who want to go back to 1955 and re-live the Eisenhower years, and that is just not true.  My Christian friends are appalled at where we are right now, just as you are.  No thinking, rational person believes for a second that this climate of abuse is something good.  They don't want things to turn back.  Just like you, they want a better world for their children and yours.  I know that's truly inconvenient to say, because it's so much easier to just cast them all into a bucket of "evil" or "stupid" and be done with the lot of them, but you gotta admit- that sentiment isn't really making anything better.  Is it?

==============================

FOR MY CONSERVATIVE READERS

==============================

First off, if you believe that God is a Republican, I implore you to stop breeding now.  He is not.  In fact, the very idea of God- his omnipresence and omniscience is actually way more Democrat than Republican.  God doesn't want to be and isn't small in size, and He is definitely not a laissez-faire capitalist either.  Omnipresence and omniscience is 100% incompatible with "separation" of things like that.  Truth be told, God is neither Democrat nor Republican, nor is He a Socialist or a Libertarian, Tea Party, SJW or Activist.  God is God.

Second off, if you believe that the US is a Christian nation, I again implore you not to breed.  This country, while founded on some Judeo-Christian principles, does not ascribe to a Biblical view of the world anymore than any other nation does.  Nor are we worse than others.  There is no equivalency here, so stop trying to create some.  The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution merely invoked the idea of "God" in those documents (hence the statement "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" as a prime example) and only did so to illustrate that the end of the line is that Deity, not modeling said Deity.

Third- while dispensing with any "I Hate Trump" sentiments- do you really think that this particular guy is doing a great job and is the best fit for our country- now, be honest.  His penchant for saying whatever is on his mind hasn't really served anyone well- the mote that has been set around him is only getting deeper by doing that, and while it's great fun to see the others on Capitol Hills writhe in pain from what he says (hey- I admit that I do enjoy that, too) it's only driving more and more dissension.  It makes it more and more difficult for him to get anything done - yes, you could make the case that it shouldn't be this way, but pragmatism has to win the day.  He needs to be way more diplomatic than he has been if he hopes to continue to do much of anything constructive.  No, that doesn't mean that he has to become "one of them", but it does mean that the adage of "you can kill more flies with a flyswatter than with a .50 caliber machine gun" is still very much a real thing.

When Obama was a candidate, I heard many of you question whether or not he was qualified to be in the office.  I questioned that as well, and I still think he wasn't- but I will say that I think he gained that qualification over time.  Trump is a businessman, and having a businessman running this country is something I thought I'd actually like- but we all forgot that Trump has not been a successful businessman.  All of his businesses have failed, and the way that he ran those businesses is somewhat questionable- so again, we didn't really get what we bargained for here.  And, if we add to that some of the things that no one debates that he didn't do - that interview with that schlocky "news" magazine where he said "grab 'em by the pu....." - that definitely speaks to a lack of professionalism and there's just no getting around that.

===========================

FOR ALL MY READERS

===========================

Because I don't seem to fit the molds on either The Right or The Left, let me try to sum up my vantage point.

Q. Do you like Mr. Trump?
A. No, I do not.

Q. Did you like Mr. Obama?
A. I liked him as a person, but I did not like his policies while he was in office.

Q. Who was the last POTUS you liked?
A. As a person, Mr. Obama.  As someone who's policies I agreed with, George H.W. Bush.  (I also liked him as a person)  Before that, we gotta go all the way back to either Harry S. Truman or Woodrow Wilson.

Q. Is Mr. Trump a danger to the US?
A. No.  His office- the Executive Branch - is the weakest 1/3 of the US Government and there are too many checks and balances on him for him to do anything truly bad or long lasting.

Q. Is Mr. Trump a danger to the rest of the world?
A. THAT is a good question.  For some, yes- ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/Boko Haram and groups like that as well as countries like NK and Iran should be very afraid.  Nobody else needs to be.

Q. Do you think that Mr. Trump is dangerous in general?
A. Kind of, but not for the reasons you might think.  I think he's dangerous because no one who really matters takes him seriously.

Q. Is Mr. Trump the worst POTUS we've ever had?
A. No.  Not even close.  That dubious award goes to (in this order) US Grant, Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson and Andrew Jackson.  (Look it up, kids)

Q. Should Mr. Trump be impeached?
A. The only reason that Trump should be impeached is if he A) is found to be in collusion with the Russians B) impedes the investigations of Russian Collusion.  His comments on various things are not, and will not, be impeachable offenses.

Q. Do you think that Mr. Trump is unfit for office?
A. No more so than Mr. Obama was.  I do think that Trump is an arrogant ass-hat and Obama was not that.

Q. What the worst thing about Mr. Trump as POTUS?
A. The fact that no one has taken his Twitter account away.  They really should.

Q. Do you think that Mr. Trump colluded with the Russians?
A. Yes.  I think he did so to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.  And I believe that if that can be proven, he should be impeached.

Q. Is Mr. Trump your President?
A. Yes, unfortunately he is.

Q. Since Mr. Trump was elected by The Electoral College and not the people, should the Electoral College be rescinded?
A. Hell, no.  The Electoral College is the prime reason that makes peaceful transitions of power in this country possible and makes us different from the rest of the world.

Q. Do you believe that Mr. Trump is a corrupt individual?
A. Yes.  Absolutely.  Just as all politicians are.  Every, single one of them.

Q. Are you a Republican or a Democrat?
A. I am neither.  I am an American Citizen with a fully working brain that I use on a daily basis.

===================================
I hope that maybe some of the above statements can clear some things up.

FBO - For Bass Players Only - The "F" Word

I subscribe to a number of groups on Facebook, and many (read:most) are somehow either musical or bass in nature (in the case of slap videos, those terms are mutually exclusive most of the time - ahem) and there's a topic on the bass related ones that crops up from time to time.  I should add that it is a topic that is near and dear to my heart:

"Is a Fender bass worth it as an instrument to own?"

Which, somehow invariably morphs into this:

"Are Fender basses the best basses?"

As a session player, I do have a somewhat different take on this topic.  When I started my career (in the late 70's) there were 3 things that were important:

1. Show up on time.  Early is better.
2. Make sure your gear works.
3. Make sure that you have at least one Fender with you.

I know that sounds trite, but it's 100% true.  If you didn't have a Fender with you, you were gonna have a bad day.  And, it really didn't matter if it was a Precision or a Jazz- it just had to have the name "Fender" on it somewhere, and it needed to sound like a Fender.  Period.

Now, why do you suppose that is?  Well, it might not seem terribly obvious to you, but there really was a reason, and it all boiled down to two things: the gear being used and the people using it.

In 1951, Leo Fender turned the recording industry on it's ear by introducing the electric bass guitar.  It wasn't for the reasons you might be thinking, either- it's because, up until this time, bass playing was being done by bass players playing upright basses.  Playing the upright was (and still is) a pretty demanding thing and is really only taken on by people that want to do it.  The chief problem wasn't the size of the instrument, but rather the fact that uprights don't have frets, which meant that unless you knew what you were doing, everything would sound really, really bad.  When Leo released his first production instruments, he did so to attract guitar players to be able to play bass and play it in tune, hence the name "Precision" bass.  This little marketing ruse actually worked, too- all the session guitarists of the day suddenly found themselves with the ability to double effectively, and that also meant more money for them if they could do it.  Every single bass player in studio bands like The Section, The Wrecking Crew and Muscle Shoals started out life as a guitarist, and migrated to this new instrument.  My old teacher, Carol Kaye, who is known as the ultimate session bassist is, in fact, an absolute terror on the guitar, too.

And, since Leo had "standardized" the idea of the bass guitar, he also inadvertently standardized the parts that went into them, too.  Most notable here was the signal chain that would be needed for a bass guitar to sound as good as an upright bass did.

This meant that pre-amplifier manufacturers were forced to redesign a lot of their wares for this new instrument.  In 1951, recording a bass guitar direct wasn't done, so it really mattered what the miked up amp sounded like.  That meant creating circuitry to accommodate much different voltages than guitar pickups- guitar pickups are generally much higher in output voltage ("hotter") than bass pickups are, and the other problem is that a hotter signal means more distortion, and more distortion means less usable low end- all of which are problems for a bass guitar.

And, since Fender was the only real bass company, all these manufacturers used for designing these circuits was- you guessed it- a Fender bass, and only the Precisions at that.

So, back in 1951, the expense of running a recording studio was enormous, and generally, studio owners and engineers could only afford a few preamps, let alone the idea of something that was of special use, like a bass amplifier.  But they bought them- and when some bass player came in with something like a Gibson EB0 or EB-2, nothing quite worked the way they were used to hearing things.

This problem continued as time went on, because from 1951 to about 1976, Fender virtually ruled the bass world.  Every piece of studio gear out there was based on the voltages and impedance of the Fender bass- a passive, low impedance signal that had to be shaped by either the desk (for a DI) or by the preamp that the mike was plugged into.

All of that changed in 1976-77 when Leo Fender released the new Musicman Stingray on the world.  The Stingray was the very first production model bass guitar to have an active preamp in it.  (Yes, Alembic was doing it in the early 70's, but Alembics were not common, and still aren't)  hat Leo did with the Stringray was pretty ingenious- while the output was hotter and had treble and bass control to it, the impedance to the preamps was largely unaffected and all that Fender based gear still worked pretty well with the active electronics.  Manufacturers did some small tweaking to their input stages (like adding buffers to the input) but all bass amplifier manufacturers pretty much kept on with the Fender based spec.  

To this day, pretty much every bass guitar amplifier out there is still loosely based around the Fender architecture.  People today who have bass heroes all want to sound like those heroes, and all of them are using amplification systems that are still based on the input characteristics of the old Fenders.  

These are just inescapable facts.  But it doesn't answer the question- but to do that, I have to add my personal experience here.

My '62 Precision and my Regenerate Pro 5 -
there's a '65 Reissue Jazz back there, too

I like to think of my Fenders (I currently own 5) as "equalizers".  With the exception of my '62 Precision, none of them is terribly special, but they are absolute war-horses.  You can't kill them, and they sound good no matter what amp, DI, preamp or filter I put them thru.  I know what they're going to do every, single time I plug one in, and it's for that reason that I never put preamps in them and I always have one with me on a gig or session date.  They just work.  

I can and do play other things- my mainstay these days is a Regenerate Guitar Works Regenerate Pro 5 string with Honey Badger Heavy Hitters and a Noll 3-way active preamp- and I absolutely LOVE IT.  It works for about 90% of what I do - but every now and then, it doesn't and that's where the Fender comes in.

There is absolutely no such thing as the perfect bass- a single instrument that can just do it all - that's a myth and I don't care which manufacturer tells you that they have it.  They don't.  But, the bottom line in my mind is that if you do have only a single instrument in your arsenal, it probably ought to be one of the "F" word basses- because no matter how hard you try, you just won't go wrong.  

To sum it up- yeah, I'm a Leo fan.  I think he got it right, and by and large the rest of the bass world - whether they know it or not - actually agrees with me.  Are Fenders perfect? No.  Are they able to bridge every single kind of musical genre out there- absolutely not.  But they do work, and their work can be heard on 90% of everything you've ever listened to, and that is something that just can't be ignored.