Unimpressed with Progressive Insurance

Switched to Progressive quite a few years ago when my then wife lost her driver's license for a year.  USAA requires that adults have had a license for three consecutive years in order to get insurance so there went that policy.  When we qualified to switch back, just never really got around to it.  Progressive was fine, never had any issues, it was a bit cheaper, and not really at the forefront of things to deal with.

Dropped my Road King on the freeway a few weeks back.  Those of you who read regularly know all about it.  70 mph, wet, down I went.  Bike is done.  My bike, for the record, is a 2003 Black Limited Edition 100th Anniversary model, carburetted.  (Tell you about that in a minute.)

Progressive goes on Cycle Trader (apparently using some service that they are mandated by law to use), picks the two cheapest Anniversary Road Kings for sale, and announces to me that here's what my bike is worth.  One had almost double the mileage of my bike, the other had dramatically more.  They claimed that they adjusted for mileage, then they knocked off hundreds of dollars for the alleged increase in value due to some accessories that were installed.  Well, as anyone who has ever tried to sell a bike can testify to, add on accessories sure don't add much to the value.  For example, the insurance company claimed that one of the bikes had $460 worth of add on exhaust, so knocked $460 off the selling price.  Didn't take into account that a set of mufflers that only sells for $400 retail wouldn't increase the selling price by $460, and didn't take into account the fact that a set of stock mufflers would cost some money if they had to be replaced.  Ditto for leather saddlebags.  Never mind that the anniversary bags cost $1300 to replace, they knocked $250 off the price of the bike because it had some aftermarket leather bags that they claim "increased" the value. 

I provided them with a list of every comparable bike for sale on Cycle Trader and Craigslist, plus one from eBay.  When I argued that EFI bikes weren't comparable and that there was only one carburetted bike for sale ($3000 more than what they were offering) they came back and flat out lied, saying that carburetted actually reduced the price as EFI was considered an extra, but that they would still "honor" their original offer.

So my dilemma has been whether to fight this or not.  After much thought, I have decided it's not worth the stress.  I don't need more stress.  Rejected by a girl I really like and thought I had a chance with, near the end of the school year (if you aren't a teacher you have no idea how tiring the last month is when the kids are starting to tune out just as they need to really focus), and just generally tired and worn out, I don't feel like fighting them for the couple thousand dollars I think they should add on.  I'm going to take the deal offered. 

However, (and it's a big however), they've seen the last of me.  The second I have the check and motorcycle (I'm taking the salvage as I am an HD mechanic and have the know-how and contacts to make some money off it) I'm gone.  Ten or so years of faithfully paying my premiums, two cars and two motorcycles worth, not a single claim that I can remember, and this is how they treated me.  Bye-bye. Adios.  Hasta la vista, baby.  Hello, USAA.  I'll pay the extra for the outstanding customer service and rip off free claims that I used to get from them. 

Blathering about myself

Well, I know that no one reads my blog to hear me blathering about myself, but since I don't care if people read my blog, here goes.  You can live with the occasional blather, right?

<blather>Asked a girl who I have known for the last couple years, and who I really like, out on a date and after some apparently positive feedback, the eventual answer was no for a variety of reasons that I agree were legitimate.  Took it harder than I thought I would so that then started me wondering why.  I had no expectations going in so why would it bother me so when my lack of expectations were confirmed.

Realized something interesting about how I date.  I become friends with someone, get to know them fairly well, and decide that I could spend the long term with this person.  That is when I ask them out. There is some serious emotional investment in that process which I had never really thought about.  When I started thinking about the serious girlfriends that I have had there were a total of four.  One in high school, two in college, and one after I got out of the Navy, who I married and then divorced fourteen years later.  Each of them was a friend before we ever dated.  I have, now that I think about it, never dated anyone with whom I wasn't already friends.  Not sure if that makes me different but it sure makes me different from most people I know.

My sister suggested that I join Cupid, a dating website, so I waited a day to let things settle down, then thought "Here goes".  Here's the part I don't get.  I filled out my profile.  I haven't really finished it, haven't added any pictures (cause I don't have any recent pictures), haven't really put up a serious and well thought out description of who I am and what I'm looking for (because I don't know yet how people do this online dating thing), and I already have a half dozen chats requests.  I don't know how to respond and I'm unsure as to why I am getting chat requests so quickly.  Do these people not have anything better to do or are they just not serious?  I had  a friend who joined some dating services and got in contact with all sorts of hookers, which wasn't at all what he was looking for.  I have an email that starts with "Hey baby, what u up to?"  Well, I can tell you what I am not up to, which is responding to people who start an email with "Hey baby" (although she does look pretty in her picture).  Am I missing something?

Turns out I can't actually read the emails or chats without upgrading my account (ie $$) so I guess I have a decision to make in the next few days. I am sort of nervous about this but given my propensity for dating friends, and given that I feel like I am running out of time to have a long term relationship, I don't know that I have the luxury of not joining a dating service.  Well, there you go. Hope you weren't too bored.</blather>

Everyone Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day, May 25th

Well, I'm a day early, but I am generally not around on Fridays so thought I'd get this in here now.

I'd never heard of Brett Kimberlin before yesterday.  Stumbled across a post over at IMAO and started reading.  Here's what I can gather.

Facts: Brett Kimberlin was tried and convicted of domestic terrorism in 1981 and sentenced to fifty years in prison.  He got out about ten years ago.  Since then he has either founded or worked for a variety of 501(c)3 non-profit organizations which have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from various left wing groups. Federal tax records show that the Justice Through Music Project has taken in about 1.8 million in the past six years. Nothing wrong with this, so far.

Here's where it gets a little sticky.  The following are allegations that have been made.  I have linked to the bloggers that made the original claims as they have provided documentation and evidence for each of these claims.  Kimberlin once falsely claimed that he sold pot to Dan Quayle.  Kimberlin has apparently boasted to Mark Singer, the author of a book about him, that he found out how to "beat the tax people" by declaring just enough of his illegal income to keep from being flagged for an IRS audit. According to Patterico, he avoided paying wrongful death payments to the widow of the man he blew up, he contacted the employer of the wife of a blogger who spoke out about his activities, and he made false statements to a variety of courts in an effort to shut down critics.  According to Time magazine, Kimberlin's websites have routinely contained substantial and frequent lies about various political issues, attacking conservative and Republican politicians with accusations about stolen elections, even though their 501(c) status actually prohibits this.

A variety of bloggers, concerned by some of his activities, have written about him.  Lee Stranahan, Andrew Breitbart, Stacy McCain, and others.  Kimberlin apparently then started a campaign of filing lawsuits against anyone who mentioned his criminal past.  He somehow won a lawsuit forcing Stranahan to remove his posts, even though they were factual.

Aaron Walker, over at Allergic2Bull lost his job because his employer was concerned that Kimberlin might show up at his workplace, in addition to being the target of several lawsuits and a false accusation of assault (an accusation which was disproven by the security cameras at the courthouse at which it allegedly took place).  Inexplicably the State of Maryland refused to take action against Kimberlin in spite of documentation of filing of false charges and lying under oath.

Stacy McCain has gone into hiding, for reasons which he has not yet disclosed.  He felt threatened enough that he needed to leave Maryland.

So why am I posting this.  Ace of Spades made the following comment about Brett Kimberlin:

Cowards die a thousand deaths.
I already died 40 cowards’ deaths this past week. That’s enough for me. I will die no more of them.
Am I to understand only the smallest, least-well-financed bloggers are going to be covering this? While large media franchises with lawyers on retainer all decide “we’d rather let tiny one-man blogs take the lead on this?”
Does that make sense?

This is the post that got me thinking.  Kimberlin could come after me but he can't go after everyone.  He is making life miserable and dangerous for many of the bloggers I have linked to above.  Lee Stranahan made the suggestion for Everyone Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day, Ace picked up on it, and I am jumping on board.

The actions that Brett Kimberlin is taking are an outrage to our justice system and to a free country.  The idea that a convicted felon with a history of perjury and IRS fraud is being given tax exempt status to carry out nakedly political attacks is wrong.  The fact that someone can harass an individual into hiding or bankruptcy for making factually true statements is wrong.  The actions outlined at the blogs above and that I have summarized here are a blatant abuse of our justice system.  Our justice system is supposed to be about justice.  Period.  For an individual to routinely use it to suppress the free speech rights of others is wrong and needs to be addressed.  I am willing to stand up and say that it is wrong.

So what is the solution?  Am I just ranting without proposing anything concrete to fix the problem?  Not this time. 

1) Prosecutors around the country need to know that this behavior is unacceptable.  When people commit perjury, documented lies in an attempt to harm others, they need to be prosecuted.  For too long we have let the little lies slide.

2) The laws need to be changed so that when someone like Kimberlin takes advantage of the system, there is recourse.  One suggestion, which I quite like at first glance, is that when someone has filed multiple lawsuits in this type of action, and lost them all, that they be required a) to file a bond to pay for the court costs in future lawsuits, and b) that all future lawsuits be reviewed by a judge prior to filing.  This would not prevent the legitimately wronged party from filing a suite, but would dampen the enthusiasm of those who file multiple, baseless lawsuits in an effort to harass their critics or opponents.  I would point out that this has been successfully implemented in some areas (SLAP lawsuits I believe they are called) to prevent businesses from suing their opponents out of business.

Meanwhile, on the issue of Kimberlin, you can contact the Maryland Prosecutor to find out why he has not been charged.

More links:

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/23/free-speech-show-solidarity-for-targeted-conservative-bloggers/

P-40 Warhawk found in Egypt

Missing since June 28, 1942 and recently found by oil workers.  Very cool.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/world/gallery/egypt-wwii-discovery/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Thoughts on motorcycles

Well, time to tell the world, I guess.

You can survive going down on a motorcycle at 70 miles per hour with nothing but a bruised left big toe, a bruised left index finger knuckle, and a slightly bruised left elbow.

Thought 1: Ever seen those tar strips that they put where there is a crack in the concrete?  The idea is to prevent water from seeping into the crack and expanding when it freezes, thereby increasing the size of the crack.  They are slippery when wet.  Generally doesn't make any difference because they are only two or three inches wide.

Thought 1a: Apparently some state worker, direct or contracted, thought that if two or three inches of tar was good, a foot or so of tar was better.  Remember slippery when wet?  Yeah.  Lean a motorcycle to change lanes (that's how you steer motorcycles, in case you are wondering), hit a foot wide strip of slippery tar, bam!  You are on the ground before you have a chance to even think about it.

Thought 3: When you fix the leaking rear head gasket on your Harley, wash off all the residual oil.  Otherwise you will go for a ride the next day, have oil all over the back of your engine, and conclude that you have a cracked cylinder head and need at least a thousand bucks worth of parts to fix your motor.

Thought 3a: When your bike has been sitting for most of the past six months because it was winter and because when it briefly didn't seem like winter you had a new Road King to ride, and when it doesn't run properly and backfires and loses power at highway speeds or at RPMs over 3,000, don't assume it has an electrical problem.  Start by cleaning the carburetor.  To be fair to me, although I am a very experienced Harley mechanic, I have never (ever, ever) had my Fat Boy sit for that long without being ridden a lot.  This having two bikes thing is very new to me.  Of course that's all in the past now.

Conclusion 3: I went from "I need new cylinder heads and a wiring harness" in the morning to riding a perfectly fine motorcycle in the afternoon.  Talk about mood swings.  No hormones or chemicals needed.

Thought 4: My insurance company (Name withheld for privacy so I'll just use the randomly selected name Progressive to refer to them from now on) thinks that my motorcycle is worth $10,600.  They got this figure by finding a bike for sale in Texas for $10,500 and adjusting for mileage since it has 66,000 (that's sixty six thousand) miles on it.  Somehow that is comparable to my 34,000 mile (ie low mileage) Road King.  I can't quite figure out what their formula is.  The lady said she'd send me a thing that showed me the breakdown and then sent me a file that says "The bike is worth $10,600".  Helpful.

Meanwhile I find one for sale in Massachusetts for $13,500, another for sale somewhere else for $13,200, the only two carburetted 2003 Anniversary edition Road Kings I can find listed, then they have the gall to tell me that carburetted models are generally worth less as EFI is an upgrade, so if I insist on arguing with them about the price they might do a search and lower their offer.

I switched to Progressive because we had a family issue with driver's licenses (ie not having them) but I'll be switching back to USAA as soon as this is resolved.

Thought 5: My Fat Boy has waaaaaaaaaaaaay less storage space than my Road King.  It was never an issue until today, but then I was trying to pack my school stuff, my jacket, my groceries all into the saddlebags on the FB...

Thought 6: I hated being without a motorcycle, even though it was for about five days and it rained the whole time.  It really sucked.

Every Major's Terrible

From David, via Harvey, at IMAO.

Absolutely brilliant.

Informed Disagreement

In the 30s and 40s, a group of students who were self identified Trotskyists used to gather at City College in NY.  They researched and argued, not only with capitalists, their obvious opponents, but with Stalinists, who the Trotskyists vociferously opposed.  They read and studied, analyzing their own views, trying to determine, for example, if Marxism and Trotskyism inescapably led to Stalinism.  This process itself led to a constant analysis of whether or not their views could stand up to both argument and history.  Self examination could lead to the conclusion that everything you thought was wrong.  It was the informed exchange of ideas that allowed you to base your world view on facts, not dogma.

In the 60s what became known as the "New Left" repeated the process.  The Port Huron Statement was the result of their discussion and, although the leaders of the movement attempted to justify their arguments with research and debate, their conclusions destroyed the need for further reasoning.  They concluded that their generation had a special place in history, that the "liberal and socialist preachments of the past are not adequate to the forms of the present".  Given this statement, what incentive was there then for a young idealist to even bother reading, studying, or arguing the texts of their opposition.

We see the result now, that there is little reasoned argument.  You can't argue the tenets of Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill if your opponent has never heard of them, read them, or rejects the very idea that they might have some relevance.  You can't make a reasoned argument for capitalism, for example, if the response is not a rational outline of how capitalism has failed with examples and alternatives,  Instead, arguing for capitalism results in charges of greed.  Arguing for limited government is met with charges of racism and sexism.  Arguing for anything that is not espoused by the Left as it is currently constituted is met with a chorus of -isms.  Racism, sexism, homophobia, and greed are the new responses to debate.  Instead of the tradition of the New York Intellectuals of the thirties, where research and argument led to self evaluation of the views of all participants, debate has become protest.  Meetings are routinely shouted down, speakers of opposing views are denied forums to promulgate those views, and instead of a reasoned debate on the merits of the arguments, ad hominem attacks have become the order of the day, dismissing the views of the speaker due to some perceived or invented flaw in the person's character.

Mark Bauerlein summed up the problem in the following quote from his book The Dumbest Generation:

Informed rejection of the past became uninformed rejection of the past, and then complete and unworried ignorance of it.

 We see the continuing effects of this shift throughout our society.  Children are not taught the classics.  They are not asked to read Adam Smith or the founders.  They are not taught to debate ideas.  In spite of a movement to create "critical thinkers", our school systems turn out students who are anything but.  One of the basic requirements for approaching a subject critically is to know something about the subject.  You can not think critically on the advantages of a free market economy versus a controlled economy if you have no concept of how each system works, and students who have gone years without actually reading a complete book have no basis for educating themselves should the need arise.  They are incapable of making the arguments because they know little about the subject beyond what is posted on Wikipedia.  They cannot quote the great thinkers or analyze their ideas and they have no background in real research and self education that would allow them to sit down with a stack of books and figure out what it is they are missing.

What is the solution?  If there is a solution it needs to be that those of us who were taught to think, to read, to analyze, and to argue our ideas need to stand up and shout the benefits of these teachings.  The adults in the room need to stop enabling the behavior that has led to this point.  We need to stop worrying about "self esteem" over learning, stop excusing people who refuse to make rational arguments, in fact stop allowing them a seat at the table until they come back with a rational argument.  This is not a left versus right issue.  The issue is whether we will choose a course based on reasoned argument or on street theater and riots.  We can put our collective foot down and say "Use your words", but this requires knowledge of those words and the ideas behind them, and an ability to make a reasoned argument based on the study of both sides of the debate.  We must start the process of making this happen.  They won't as they don't have the tools to do so. We didn't give them those tools.

Worthy of Mention

R.I.P George Vujnovich, and thanks.

http://news.yahoo.com/oss-agent-led-wwii-rescue-500-dies-ny-002540215.html

HT The Captain