Wally's comments on life, on music, on pianos, on church, on the Bible, on Palm Beach County, politics, and whatever else pops into his head.

Monday, November 14, 2011


I get a bit peeved when I hear some of the Republican presidential candidates say that Obama is the worst president we have ever had, without saying why. That leads me to think they are just spouting rhetoric to appeal to the hard line Republicans.

I'm not a Democrat - I'm registered as an independent. Though I usually vote for the conservative ticket, I don't agree with all things that Republican Presidents have done either. I didn't like W's economics. I didn't like the short term results of Regan's deregulating the telephone industry. (Those incessant phone calls to switch companies.)

I think Obama has done some good things, like the recent reduction in government freebies - pens, etc. Maybe it was a small thing, but very significant in meaning. He has tried to establish good relationships with other countries, though differently from what other presidents have done. He has tried to deal with the need for health insurance for all Americans.

I have Democrat friends who say George W. Bush was our worst president. But I tend to believe that they say that mainly because they are Democrats, not because they have done an in-depth analysis of each president's accomplishments and failures.

Should Obama be re-elected as our president? If we go on his popularity among those who voted for him last time, and consider some of his successes, perhaps so.

However, there is one big problem. He has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, in which it is stated that a president must have been born in the United States to citizen parents. While he has attempted to show that he was born in Hawaii, and not in Kenya as the Kenyans claim, he still does not qualify because one of his parents was not a U.S. citizen.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no legal mechanism for removing a president who does not constitutionally qualify for the office.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

More on the candidates and debate.

Last Thursday's debate on Fox News was interesting. I don't think that Texas governor Rick Perry did very well. He kept being attacked about his state's "in state" tuition for children of wetbacks. He should have not only stated what he did about the Texas legislature passing the issue almost unanimously, but he should have repeated what he said the first time about it being for CHILDREN of the wetbacks, and that they had to be actively working on citizenship.

Herman Cain came across well. Rick Santorum was strong too. Newt Gingrich was wise and to the point. He seems to know the answer to any question.

Michele Bachmann made some revealing comments about Perry afterwards in the interview room. She said that Perry made a lot of government appointments to big contributors. (But, don't they all?)

That's all for now.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Looking at the 2012 Presidential Hopefuls

I've watched a couple of the "debates" in which the 8 Republican presidential hopefuls have been allowed to talk about their views of general interest to Americans. Here's my take on some of them as of today.

Michele Bachmann - Did well in last debate at attacking Perry. Seems to have some good ideas about things. Touts her experience as a tax lawyer. Claims to be a Christian. A very good speaking voice (much better than Sarah Palin) Nice hair and makeup. Has a great introductory video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYmRCXok8Dc&feature=player_embedded

Herman Cain - Wants to bring some humor to the White House. Said America is too "uptight". Seems to have a good knowledge and experience base of running a successful organization. Seems to have common sense about issues.

Newt Gingrich - Has a lot of political experience. But I'm not sure if his wife would be an asset to his being in the White House. Maybe his political experience and ideas could best be used in advising others.

Jon Huntsman - Former governor of Utah. Seems to be smart and has some good ideas. He is an evolutionist, which makes me think he's not really all that smart.

Ron Paul - Presently a Representative from Texas in the U.S. Congress. Has been very stable about his ideas. Not swayed by public opinion or media comments. Knows what he believes and sticks to it. Willing to be booed by others on his comments about the reasons Al Quaida attacked us. A very strict constitutionist. Does not seem to be a Christian, but appreciates the social work that churches do.

Rick Perry - Current governor of Texas. Said he probably made a mistake by signing an executive order mandating that young girls be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus. Took a lot of heat for that in the last debate. Is a declared Christian and seems to want to allow his faith and the Bible influence his life and his job. Has allowed children brought into the country by Wetbacks (my terminology) and who are working on citizenship, be allowed to receive "in state" tuition rates in college. Great video clip at: http://www.rickperry.org/news/video-cnntea-party-express-debate-highlights/

Mitt Romney - Former governor of Massachusetts. Trying again for the nomination. A lot of good ideas. Probably would do OK, but doesn't excite me about anything.

Rick Santorum - Probably would do OK as a president. Good family values man. A grandson of immigrants, he understands the needs of immigrants.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010


Here's an idea. The federal government should GET OUT of the business of taxing individuals - whether people or companies. It should get most of its revenue from the states. Each state would be required to pay 10% of all its revenue to the federal government - off the top - before any expenses are calculated.

Wouldn't it be easier for our federal government to keep track of 50 contributors as opposed to 100 million or more?

Your opinions, please.

Monday, October 04, 2010


Listening to WRMB, my favorite Christian radio station, this morning, mention was made of an archeological find in Turkey which consisted of large stone carvings and which are estimated to be older than the pyramids of Egypt. Its name is Göbekli Tepe, which means "pot belly hill", and is suspected to be some sort of religious temple.

Some people have speculated that it is linked to the Garden of Eden. However, I find the pictures of Göbekli Tepe more in line with the sketchy descriptions in the Bible of the Tower of Babel. (Genesis 11)

I have seen some artists' drawings ( http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&biw=960&bih=600&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=tower+of+babel&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= ) of what the tower "may" have looked like, and remarkably the drawings are not too far off from what the pictures of Göbekli Tepe suggest. I am specifically referring to the picture of the large piece of stone (sitting upon a pillar) with an angle at the top - indicating a possible curved ramp, circling upward. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157784

Could the location of the dig be in line with the Biblical description: "in the plain of Shinar"? Some of the pictures show a large plain just below the hill on which the temple (or tower) was constructed.

However, there is one description in the Genesis 11 account that would contradict my theory: Verse 3 says they baked bricks and used tar as mortar to build the city and (presumably) the tower. It specifically says "instead of stone". Göbekli Tepe uses stone.

Perhaps more digging will uncover more truth about this.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, July 23, 2010


I first noticed it with my Piano Technicians Journal in mid 2000. Previously, the print on all articles had been black against a white page - quite easy to read. Then, I suppose, someone thought it would be "cool" to start using varying shades of gray print to add visual interest. The result was that all the articles became more difficult to read. It didn't help that I was getting older and needed to use my reading glasses more often. But, why make things harder for older members? I have written the editors a couple of times, but they have ignored my pleas.

I know it CAN be done. I received a newsletter from my dentist a few months ago which really impressed me. Even though there was light shading behind some of the paragraphs, the print was a dark black and very easy to read. I have also examined various professional journals in my local library. ALL of them use black print, not shades of gray. They were all very readable.

I am at this moment using my wife's computer with an LCD screen. It is too bright, even though I have adjusted it as dark as possible. To add to the visual problem, many web page creators are using varying shades of color print which are too light, thus making them very hard to read.

Let me encourage you to try to help your readers if you type things for others to read. Use a DARK print against a light background. If you will notice, I use BOLD on my web pages (when possible).


P.S. Even though I have used the "bold" command for this post, it still came out in a gray shade, rather than black. I am sorry, but I tried. Blogger.com needs to see this post too!

Sunday, August 09, 2009


It's funny how we don't care about things much until they "hit home". Such was the case recently when I heard that the Post Office is planning to shut down some local branches to save money. I thought it was probably a good idea until, as I listened to the locations of ones to get the hatchet in my local area, I suddenly heard the one mentioned where I have MY box.

One of the reasons cited as to why the Post Office has been losing so much money is the increased use of electronic communications. I know personally that e-mails are cheaper to send than letters, especially if I send a lot of them. For instance, if I send out 50 e-mails in a month and pay $10 for an internet connection, that's only 20 cents per mailing, which is less than half the first class postage rate.

Many of us send out many times more than 50 per month, especially if we start to count text messages on our cell phones, or tweets on Twitter, or short postings on Facebook, etc.

How about if we all pitch in to help the Post Office survive. After all, it's nice to know that we can still send real letters, birthday cards, and documents when needed, right? Here's what we can do:

Get our Congress to levy a 1 cent tax on each text message and the like, and a 2 cents tax on each e-mail. The tax would be for each one that is sent from within the USA and would apply to each recipient in the "To" list. So, if I sent out a bulk e-mail to 100 of my friends, I would be charged $2. Compare that to my sending out 100 letters in the mail; that would cost me $440 in just postage, not to mention the paper, envelopes, printing, etc.

The tax would go directly to subsidize the Post Office. Cell phone carriers and internet e-mail providers could take out 2% for their effort in collecting and submitting this tax to the government.

So, how about it, folks. We CAN afford it. Let's contact our Congressional representatives and ask them to pass this tax in order to save our Post Office!