The Anti-Logic School of Critical Thought; they get paid

So, here I am on my fourth level of GEICO hierarchy, heading for the home stretch, in which they are trying to give away the farm, cost themselves much money, and generally screw the goose (or is it pooch? maybe goose the pooch. queer the deal, at any rate). The most common phrase I have heard from them is, "Yea, but that's hard to prove".

If you look at a basic algebraic equation, it could appear hard to solve, but people do it on a daily basis. Example: What's your gas milage?

Wull, I dunno, that's hard to figure out.

Why don't you fill the tank, drive 100 miles then fill it again and see how much you
used?

Uh, but how will I know my milage?

Milage = miles driven divided by gas used

Well, I have driven over 100,000 miles in this car and don't know how much gas I
used.

Here's a pistol with one bullet. Do the right thing and use it wisely. I'll
leave you to it.

That's the nature of conversation I am having with these people. My accident was a strange one, but anyone with a brain can check out the scene, take into account it was at night, on an unlit road, note the nature of the damage as shown in good photos, note the intrinsic contradictions in the police report, and the obvious cover up by the other party, and by simply comparing other stories with mine conclude that there is only one way things could have happened. That result would put obvious responsibility on one Mr. Kennedy of Over the Hill Transport, of Sacramento, CA.

The good Mr.K sent pictures of his tractor trailer rig, showing he had all the lights and reflectors you could ever want on his 48' step flat bed trailer. One problem--it is not the same trailer he was hooked to when he parked with a corner of it sticking out three feet into the road, on a curve on a 55 mph highway, with shrubs and dirt hill obscuring the rest of the lovely rig.

If the unit in the pictures were the one which I met, then the damage would have included front fender and more, instead of just taking out everything four feet above ground level on the passenger side. Simple observation shows that. So, he's lying, or the axles had to be retracted toward the front of the trailer, which that type is made to do. That moves all the lights up there too. So, no markings where they can be seen.

I know, too much info, but the point is, even without directly trying to prove he was pulling a different trailer, the fact that no reflectors or lights were back there can be proved---even assuming the ringer he photographed were legit. GEICO says, "Oh, it's hard to prove."

They are at the mediation stage with some CA insurance board and decisions are based on the case and info they send in. If they do not drive home the important points, they don't collect from the other company and I don't get my 1K deductible paid to me.

I do not like it from many standpoints. First, the man lied, the police lied in their report about what I said, no one actually investigated, the police barely even asked the guy for his license while harassing me (I assume they saw TN plates and assumed I was whatever redneck CA cops think is stereotypical Tennessee). The only thing the got right was my name. They had the marked speed limit wrong, misspelled the road name, noted incorrect point of impact, etc. I think the place is prone to shady activity and that the cops were crooked, as well as the truck guy.

Every single step of the way I have had to cajole and do the legwork myself. GEICO did not have the initiative to get the police report. The investigator for his insurance company sent me a copy, plus I went to the dreaded HP station to get it myself the day before that. To their credit, GEICO finally agreed to list it as not negligence on my part which allegedly won't raise rates. Once this is done I'll switch to another company. It would be easier to do with that 1000 dollars in my pocket.

I gave up on describing the real trailer and asking questions about the picture because terms such as "axle" were over the head of the dimwitted agent. After I convinced them to send me copies, I realize they did not understand the diagram I sent them or any of the discussions we've had. They actually encouraged me to send a diagram and explanation of things way back whenever this began. I ran it by a field investigator for another company and he found it intelligible, and legible.

Rather than keep going up the ladder, I've decided to go to the top and let them send me down the ladder. I believe the higher ups may have at one point in their lives been exposed to the rudiments of logic and reason so one of them may get it. They may not be as happy to let the company lose roughly 15K as the underlings, especially when no one made a sincere effort to prevent the loss.

It is disturbing to realize that these mindless agents, presumably each with his/her own little cubicle, are getting paid a living wage while a great number of better people are unemployed in this state. That is part of what has happened in the realm of both governmental and corporate bureaucracies; the idiots remain employed, while those with a sense of purpose and values, not to mention ability to think, fall by the wayside.

OK. I had to spout off just a bit.
Best line I heard all week was from Dennis Miller. Referring to Nancy Pelosi: "Her head is so far up her toucas they'll have to cut switch backs to get to it"

For All In Tents and Purposes

I should be a consultant to the diplomatic corps, or maybe ambassador at large, offering solutions when conventional wisdom gets in the way.

Case in point: Mo’s tent trouble. That’s Muammar Qaddafi, colonel.
Why would the top dog only be a colonel?
If it were me, I’d opt for the southwestern hemisphere favorite, (name of country) Strong Man, Generalisimo Juan.
Be that as it may, I would have spelled Mo’s name way different if I didn’t have google.
But I would have never spelled Bret Favre’s name the way he does if I hadn’t seen it. Come to think of it, I don’t believe I have ever had reason to spell his name, except maybe when writing checks or making hotel reservations.

Back to Mo, and diplomatic solutions.
Had the unofficial mayor of Coney Island, or the Mayor of New York, or even Hillary,
called or emailed begging for my thoughts on what they should do, I’d have said,
“I have three words for you–K O A”.
Really, what could be simpler? They have Kampgrounds all over the place, and it’s a name you can trust.

One has to wonder that a veteran camper and man of the world like Mo didn’t think of it himself.
No excuse for the others, either.
That’s the problem with people in power; they are dimwitted and unworthy.

Another option which could be a money maker, and to Mo’s delight, keep him in the limelight,
would be to supply him a barge on the Hudson, or thereabouts, and hold an event in which Robbie Knievel
jumps over the tent.

Find a relatively narrow spot.
It’l be a hit if he makes it, or if he lands on Mo’s big top.
Win-win.
Mo could get a cut of the tickets and advertising dollars if he insisted.

Another murderous dictator placated while Americans make some money.
Pay per view would be big in many parts of the world. Let them pay US, I say.

Kissing ass to lunatics needn’t always be a financial burden, as I think this example proves.

Are you as outraged as I am that I’m not on some sort of government payroll,
maybe on a retainer, to offer solutions to such situations?
No doubt, you are.
I’d settle for only two or three hundred thousand per annum, plus expenses, company car, plane, and ultralight.

Feel free to write your local charlatan representative on my behalf.

Thank you.

Time Travel

Sometimes you make time stand still, even though the clock doesn't
Best not to ask myself questions if I can't answer
It is, and it is good

Sing not Harmonicize

RE: request for covers: it has to be something I can do vocals on. They want me to front a song, which means sing like a bird or maybe some other wild beast.
I guess I wasn't clear. I play anything instrumentally but rarely want to. I did do Silent Night for a studio in Greensboro once.
This is a sing song.

Need a Song I can Cover

I'm not the biggest fan of covers because the original artist usually did it better than it will be, however I know that theory is full of holes. Anyway, not to be a coward, I am trying to acquiesce to wishes from the group and decide on a song I could do. It has to be something that works pretty much acoustically, so most Led Zeppelin is out, and I don't think Doors will fit the general tone. I hear old songs and think about it sometimes but just haven't settled. I'm sure even closest associates doubt my ability to pull it off, but I know better. The right thing and it will be legendary or, at worst, mediocre.
I'm toying with Catch the Wind, but I think maybe something else.

Something sexy and insane, yet sedate.
It must have an identifiable melody, not like the stuff Merv Griffin used to sing. Did anyone else ever see his show years ago? He would sing stuff that had no melody or anything. It made me worry about the composer. Holy smoke. I couldn't imagine anyone actually being excited about writing whatever that song was. Was it a song or maybe Merv was given to fits of insanity which led him to sing non songs. He seemed like a nice guy. Some of the tunes were, I don't even know the word.
Not tappers, those.
Help me, but no Merv Show debacles.
Do any of the thousands of readers of my blog have an idea?

Can of Worms; Cost to Society

A comment (at KCL) from the last post about a proposed extra tax on drinks containing sugar brings up an interesting point. The commenter feels that the bad habits of others pose a burden to those who live a better life. The implication being that the consequences of the personal choices of the individual are shouldered by the collective. Under some systems there could be truth in that.

Assuming that the medical costs resulting from various choices are paid by the collective population at large, then it is only natural for many to believe they have every right to penalize or control such behavior. In this case it is sugar consumption that is alleged to be a health risk. Smoking and the like were also mentioned.

There are many choices that cost the general population. What are the ubiquitous WE to do? The easy solution would be not to shoulder the responsibility for the choices of individuals. But that would remove the legitimacy of controlling the behavior and habits of others. No, that won’t do. Best to find more ways to regulate and tax, and to save these costs.

One huge burden to society is the insistence of many on reproducing. All those damned kids in public schools and just hanging around. Schools cost a ton, not to mention the children’s section of the library, and all the diseases they spread. WE could save billions by taxing the hell out of giving birth, or enforce limits. 1.2 children per couple. If you have a child then get divorced, no starting over with the next spouse. Zero for you.

Wait a minute, once again, China beat us to it. Their version may be slightly different, but the idea is the same. Those who know best, and are in a position to enforce their wisdom, wisely keep tabs on these things. They must have saved a lot of money. Not only that but violators of this rule and dissenters can serve as very cheap labor, hence a thriving global economic force. Enough humans being produced to keep the army strong and replace police and government clerks as needed. There are even enough to populate the Olympic team. Not sure about their sugar intake or tobacco use.

So, the argument that justifies the state enacting measures to penalize or control personal habits and behavior gains leverage the more the state handles the responsibility for the individual. That brings to mind the current health care debate. Would more control actually lead to more freedom of choice or would it lead to stricter monitoring of body fat index, diet, drug choices, alcohol use, exercise, etc.?

What if there are current beliefs which prove faulty? Surely tort reform should be examined. Can WE afford more junk science lawsuits like the famous one in which John Edwards channeled an unborn child, resulting ultimately in a rash of unnecessary C-sections which may have posed more danger to mother and child than natural birth? That was expensive. Not sure who paid, but it was apparently “the rest of us”.

Remember when “cocaine is not addictive”? That was not so long ago. It was in the paper and opined by people with the finest credentials. They missed the boat on that one. Not so long ago the egg yolk was considered the good, healthy part. It gets complicated. If WE are going to be in charge of everything They do, We better figure out everything and the possible changes that might come to light.

And those people who live to 90 or so, eating food with sugar and smoking cigarettes; they need to be banned. It screws up the absolutes when dictating personal habits to others

More Fun From Elitists Who Know Best

Artificial sweeteners just don't do it for me. Some are better than others, but I avoid diet drinks, and that's that.
I caught some news bit about how some legislative body is seriously considering a "soda tax" on the ones that have sugar, like regular Coke. So much per once.

A Duke professor of some kind was quoted as saying he thought this was a step in the right direction. "Our national health" and all that. Once again, my own way of life gets threatened for the "greater good". Or some elitist's opinion of the greater good. Someone knows best what everyone should do, and in order to be sure people comply, institutes a tax to modify behavior. I wonder who the sugar industry pissed off.

I go on the theory that artificial sweeteners cause odd behavior in laboratory animals. That's enough for me. Besides, I am not fat, so a few extra calories, empty or not, won't hurt me or affect the "obesity crisis". That is why I do not like the collectivist philosophy; it is complicated, and usually involves minding my business or altering it when I am bothering no one with my habits and hobbies. In the world of totalitarianism, they just never stop with these things. First you have random road blocks, for the public good, then they tax old school pop drinkers who still like the kind with sugar.

Almost always, if not 100% always, there are special interests behind these things who stand to gain monetarily or in power, at the expense of competitors or other threatening groups. Usually said groups are companies or well placed individuals. It is corrupt, in any case. Some of those scams in the past were well clouded, publicly, and beyond belief in the real. Unfortunately I happened to stumble into one or two such things, and it shed light on the process. Once you see it, other things that come up are more transparent. Like a magic trick involving a fake thumb I was once shown. Once you know, it stands out. Before you know, it is not obvious at all.

Per Doug, 7 things I like that don't require people

Thanks Doug, for the award.
Apparently the seven things only loosely don't require people. Most of what I like involves something people made in some way.

1. I like to drive through mountains and on back roads.
2. Reada a book.
3. Sleep, when sleep is good.
4. go hang out at Mt Laguna
5. Write my rebel thoughts, hoping that one day I can state it so that smarmy elitists actually get it and see the point.
6. Make things that actually come out OK.
7. Dream dreams, sometimes involving music, sometimes new ways of doing things, sometimes just things I hope come to pass.

This may have been a pass it on thing, but I am not too good at figuring out how to do that without making trouble.
I'd list, Bobby, Breath-e, Factotum, and Scribbler, were I to list the four people.
Oh, and give them the Kreative (with a friggin K?) blogger award.
Bobby because he is living the good life, and scratching it out the whole way. He earns it, and he plays music and likes his family. Always something to learn there.
Breathe because I am forever surprised and totally partial.
Factotum because she is brilliant and nuts, and very kind.
Scibbler because I have my reasons and he is my friend and a hotshot writer.

That is all if I were to pass it on, name people, and include a blurb about each stating why, which I'm not doing because I am almost a hermit.

Fishing is a Privilege

You have to have a license to fish, and if driving, which also requires a license is a privilege, then there you have it. I've often argued with fascist friends about that concept---to no avail. Admittedly, many drivers are terrible at handling a motor vehicle. That should help my point, but my fascist friends somehow think the police and heavy handed state can somehow make them better. The license certainly has no influence on it.

I consider driving a right, obviously subordinate to the rights of others. You have to be reasonably safe and follow the conventions of the road or you are hindering others in exercising their right to be mobile. Usually my discussions on the subject find me fielding questions like, "So, does Stevie Wonder have the right to drive then?" My fascist friends tend to piss me off. Obviously that is not the point, or even a reasonable question. Stevie can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't pose an undue hazard to others. Unlike the CA Highway Patrol. They do what they want regardless of the consequence to others. At least the El Cajon crop.

So, you can get a license to fish without taking a test or even knowing how to fish. I like to think of it as a privilege. Do it wrong and your fishing privileges could be revoked. The idea of it comes down to the same thing; control and money.

These are the little things that seemed like a good idea, after all we are only protecting ourselves and our fish, and keeping track of everyone at the same time. I tend to think the purpose could have been served more creatively and without restricting freedom on a wholesale basis. These little things led to the "us vs them" mentality of law enforcement. "Them" being anyone who isn't a cop or a government official that could make trouble if subjected to the tyranny the rest of us enjoy.

It is a bucket that was filled a drip at a time. Until they got impatient and started dumping in a cup load at a shot, and now simply put the hose in and turn it up full blast. It almost makes me mad at the people who are dissenting. You could see this coming for fifty years, minimum. That's if you were half blind.

Now, if you disagree with the fascist totalitarian proposals they call you racist. Jimmy Carter does, anyway. It is the new technique being used to kill examination of principles and bring it back to personalities. Total bullshit and he knows it. Hell, more people absolutely despise Nancy Pelosi than they do Obama, even if they vehemently disagree with his policies, appointments, friends, colleagues and general philosophy. Does that mean they are sexist? Or maybe that, too, classes them as racist. They keep people ignorant so that they can play on that ignorance at times like this.

I absolutely believe we are headed toward a form of fascist state. Under Bush, we saw more of the framework set in place; homeland security dept, harassment of citizens who travel, etc. But it was not a cult of personality thing going then. Enter Obama and we have the charismatic leader who gets away with playing savior, dictating policy to private firms, heading up nationalization of any number of industries, etc. And his cronies plant little media seeds to villainize dissenters, and spread outright lies. People like me would be lumped in with religious right and God only knows who else.

I'm for legalizing freedom, and limiting the hell out of the power of any government. If we functioned under the constitution it would help. It leaves a lot to the states and I'd be wanting to find the one whose power was the most restricted. No state is within bounds at this time. They all got sold out, or bought out, due to the feds extorting them with their own money.

For many life will continue to be good even if the executive branch assumes pretty much all power. They are well on their way. The long term result and the consequence to many will not be so pleasant. It will be fine for those who play ball. But freedom as we used to think of the word will be dead. Some people just can't live in a world where being asked for credentials and to prove innocence at random is accepted. On top of that, even if the state is OK with you smoking a joint the feds come and raid the legitimate suppliers. Makes me think they are tied in with the foregn drug cartels and like the way it works; gangs and all that.

I just had to get this out, again. Obama was making a speech about how HE was going to make this and that against the law for the insurance companies. What gives him that power? Making laws? And telling private firms who they can do business with and how? I guess he'll force them to keep their doors open if they find his way to be highly unprofitable. Maybe he's a racist.

I threw that in for anyone who wanted something irrelevant to spice up the argument, like Carter claiming racism is behind the dissent. Turning the tables with equal justification in the assertion.

Real Life is Good

Unlike the subject matter of the last post---things "they" create and butcher---real life, as lived by me, is not bad. No way to be too down when driving from here to the Duke's in the most perfect weather ever, with mountains and blue sky and breeze. When my spirits are high, people smile at me, even young pretty people. It is really amazing how that works.

In early Oct I get to journey north again, and I do like journeys.

Funny how I lose a bit of optimism when I ponder the police state, whether it is the one in which I live or the national hoax. I feel obligated to remain aware because that is how it happens and has in all the famous fascist or totalitarian states; people were stupid and compliant. Yet, the nature of that insanity is such that it causes me to lose sight of the real opportunities for the good life that are in my world. By good life, I don't mean the stuff of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Just pleasant life filled with ideas and good people..