Last week I got an email from the school telling me my social security taxes increased two percent, which, according to the information, could result in a reduction in my take home pay.

A couple of years ago the Florida Legislature (and Governor Scott) decided that state workers in the Florida Retirement System needed to pay for more of their retirement.  Net cost:  A three percent salary take home pay reduction… that was after about three years of no cost of living or other adjustments because of union and board conflicts at my school.  The Florida Supreme Court just upheld the right of the legislature to retain the three percent levy on worker’s salaries.

I’m glad the politicians and bureaucrats are looking out for my middle class standard of living.  I don’t mean to whine, but I’m just sayin‘.


On April 21, 2011, I blogged about my Sensible-Moderate party idea–S&M for short.

To save scrolling through to find the post, I contended  that the objectives of every elective official appear to be:

  1. Impose my agenda and my way of thinking and get reelected.
  2. Support the most extreme position on my party’s platform and get reelected.
  3. Do my best to discredit the other guy and get reelected.
  4. Impose my moral choices on everyone else and get reelected.

I didn’t see anything during the recent election campaigns to dissuade me from my cynical opinions, nor did I see much of anything that smacks of moderate, rationale behavior by our elected officials.  Bah humbug.  I’d say vote the bastards out except that happened and the tea party obstructionists appeared.


I also have trouble understanding why anyone would vote for people who signed a pledge–in blood, no doubt–to vote a certain way.  Shouldn’t intelligent voters cast their precious votes for strong, independent, thoughtful, and wise candidates?

I recently caught a political commentator mid-comment.  The gist was that the Republican party of today does not resemble the party of yesterday.  As a genetic (cured) North Dakota born Republican, I can’t imagine my free-thinking father being associated with the current far-right philosophy.


Another thing I don’t understand is how putting more guns in schools will keep guns out of schools.  I did hear the NRA’s explanation that guns in the hands of the good guys is the only way to control guns in the hands of the bad ones.  Unfortunately, today’s good guy could slip a gasket tomorrow, or a bad guy could beg, borrow, or steal the the good guy’s legally acquired cache of fire power.

Perhaps we should interpret the right to own guns as one hunting rifle capable of firing a single, individually loaded shot–a bit like the state of technology when the original amendment was written.  It would be enough to honor the intent of the constitution and to protect yourself or, need be, kill some unsuspecting animal, but not enough to empty a classroom.

I’m not sure about the concept of reporting people likely to cause violence.  Wouldn’t we be asking mental health professionals to become fortune tellers.

There a movie a while back where people were eliminated because of their future crimes.  That would be an extension of the policy.

It gives me pause.

Comments anyone?  

More later. GEB