Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:30:40 AM
Well, the insurance company said the truck was a total loss. I was at my last payment, after 5 years. It only had 67,000 miles on it, it's and 04. No scratches, dents or dings until this. But I can't complain. I got a helluva a deal on it, paid $17,600. At the time retail was about 22k. The insurance company gave me$16,500 minus my deductible (plus tax and tag transfer). So I had it a month shy of five years, and got all but $1350 back, not counting interest.
Monday, May 23, 2011 4:41:05 PM
This happened to me last night, on Sunday May 22nd.
I had been to see my Mother in the nursing home, then went out to see Dad at the house. It started raining pretty hard and steady while I was there, and a bit of pea size hail. Around 8 or 8:30 I left, borrowing Dads chainsaw to cut the limbs down in our yard.
My parents house is at the end of a 1/2 mile dirt road, and you have to cross the creek twice to get there, it winds around. Most of the time the creek is dry or a little water. There was some water when I came in, probably ankle deep.
Now the creek is up because of all the rain, so I barrel through. When crossing a creek bed, you want to keep a steady pace. The gravel is loose, because there is no dirt mixed in. When the water is flowing, you definitely don't want to stop. The gravel just gets too loose.
It's dark and raining, so visibility is poor. I stopped and looked at the second crossing, and barreled though. As the truck was coming up the other side, it stopped and stalled. It wouldn't start, and I could feel the back end pushing around. The water was flowing left to right. I tried again to start the truck. Nothing. Did I put it in park. Yes, I did. Again. Is it trying to start? I don't know. I can't hear over the noise of the water, which I didn't realize was there. It's not that loud, but loud enough. The lights work on the dash.
Now I think “oh shit, this is embarrassing.” Yea, I was worried about what people were going to say. Dumb, huh?
When I take my foot off the brake, I can feel the truck moving. The front wheels are the only ones with traction. By this time, I've swung around head on into the rushing water. The drivers' side is in the center of the creek channel, deeper. The water is less than a foot below my drivers' side mirror. About 4 feet deep. My truck is a four wheel drive quad cab, with 20 inch rims. It sits pretty high.
The tailgate has backed up to the barbed wire fence across the creek. I'm trying to call, but nothing is going out. No Dad, no Jana, no 911. Just messages that the call cannot be completed. So I text Jana, “truck washed into creek closer to hwy. send rescue". Says text message cannot be sent. Tried several times and 911. Nothing.
Thinking okay, no water inside. Weighing my options. I can hear branches an debris hitting the trunk. I can't see out, both because it's dark, and the windows are fogging up. Then water starts coming in. I can feel it by my feet, I reach behind me and it's about six inches deep behind my seat. I can hear the truck straining against the fence. Dig around for my flashlight. I've got several, but I need the good one, real light. The passenger side is higher, since the drivers' side is in the deeper center of the creek. And the front is higher than the back.
I flip up the console and move to the passenger side. More noise as the truck strains against the barbed wire. About 10 feet past that, the creek turns to the passenger side. My right side is higher, so if the fence goes, the water might catch underneath enough to flip me. If I flip, I'm in trouble. Upside down in gravel, no way you would get the doors open.
If I go out the drivers side, it's the deeper side, much more rushing water, and I'm on an island sort of. Can't go back to Dads, would have to cross the creek again. Not possible. And I would have to walk a mile farther, about 2 miles through cow pasture and highway, to get help.
So the passenger side. No way to open the door against the rushing water. Put the key in the ignition (why had I taken it out?) and fortunately still had power. Electric windows worked. Before I checked the window, I realized I had the option of crawling out the back slider. But the windows worked.
Looking at about 10 feet of rushing water, then calm water. Dark, glad I had my flashlight. I know the fence is going to give at some point, and I don't know if help is coming. I assume not. By now it’s probably been 20 minutes.
So I finally go out the window, fortunately the barbed wire is close, so I don't have to get washed into it. I'm more worried about getting washed under it. You know how they always say the force of rushing water is so strong.
So I went out the window, grabbed the fence to pull myself to shore. The moment from going out the window to the shore is a blur. I just remember clawing at the grass when I got to it. So, I got on shore, and I didn't even turn around. I didn't even think about it, or realize it until later. I just started walking, from there a little over a 1/4 mile to the neighbor's house.
I pounded on the door, then the window. Finally they heard me. I am soaked, obviously. It was raining hard enough; I would have been even if I hadn't been for a swim. I'm standing in their entry with a towel, and Max sees a car go down the road, a tan SUV. I'm thinking, and say, it can't be Jana, doesn't seem like enough time even if she knew. Jess says “but if it was, she will panic when she sees the truck and can't find me. So Jess gave me her keys to her Cherokee. I zip down there.
It's not Jana. The tailgate is different. I jump out, headlights still on. As I'm running toward them, he can't see who I am and it's my brother Mitch, he says "I don't know if he's still in there, I've been hollering. I said it's me, I'm out. Apparently my texts did get through. But I hadn't thought that nobody knew I was going out to the house. Their first thought was Indian creek, near the nursing home, but the bridge is probably 15 feet over the water, maybe 20. A lot would be flooded to wash that out, including Mitch's house. So they took a chance, and as Mitch came around the corner he was on the phone with his wife Julie, and told her to call 911.
That's when I got my first look at the truck. The angle was steep, the right front fender so high that the weight was off the spring, the gap between tire and fender was greater, like when you jack it up to change a tire. It hadn't broken through the fence yet.
Then the sheriffs deputy, Anderson police and 2 pickup trucks show up. It's volunteer fire department. The fire truck's on the way. I told them I was out and thanked them; they asked if the truck needed to be cleared out of the way. I said no, go rescue someone else. Someone asked a deputy if I needed to do any forms and they said no.
I took Jess's Cherokee back, Max gave me a dry shirt, and Mitch took me to his house. We made arrangements for Jana to meet us at the state line. It's about 35 miles to Anderson from my house, the line is about halfway.
As we neared our neighborhood, the storm sirens started going off again. I didn't realize it until about an hour after I got home; I've got some pretty good cuts on my arm, probably from the barbed wire. I never even felt it.
Jana, Alex and the dog had spent most of the evening in the bathroom in the center of the house. She had also been texting her Mother in Joplin, where half the city was destroyed by tornadoes. 89 dead and counting. Fortunately her parents house wasn't in the path, but many family friends lost their homes.
These 2 pictures were taken a couple hours later, after it broke through the fence.
Tuesday: I went to check on the truck. It was raining so much Monday, it was pointless. The water was way down, but as you'll see, it went up more before it went down. Click here to go to the photo album with the rest of the photos.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:27:16 AM
The Republicans have been railing on about reading the Christmas day bomber his Miranda rights, and turning him over to the FBI instead of turning him over to the military. It's nothing but a political stunt. I'm sure you've all heard that this is the same way it's been handled by the Bush and Clinton administrations. As a matter of fact, we've prosecuted over 300 terrorists in our judicial system.
You see, it's the law. If we want to do things different, we need to rewrite the laws. And they apply to everyone. Newt Gingrich tried to say because he's not a citizen, when he was asked why it was okay when they did it under Bush II with the shoe bomber. But the shoe bomber wasn't a US citizen either, he was British. But that's irrelevant. If someone breaks the law here, they are prosecuted here under our laws, regardless of citizenship.
And if we are going to start turning people over to military tribunals, we need to set some laws and guidelines. What defines a terrorist? We have no definitive definition, even within government agencies. Isn't someone who bombs an abortion clinic a terrorist? They are in fact trying to strike terror in people, to keep them away. And it fits the definition in some government documents. Should we turn them over to military tribunals? Nearly all street gangs terrorize people. We need a clear definition. In the mean time, in the US against non military targets, it should be handled by civilian authorities.
And those military tribunals haven't worked out so well. Congress has hamstrung the process, so very few have been tried at Guantanamo or elsewhere. The pundits need to shut up and let the system do it's job, and the politicians need to get their facts right.
Monday, February 8, 2010 1:53:57 AM
So it's been a while since I've posted. Just watching the SuperBowl. I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm a Packers fan. But I gotta say, a surprise onside kick in the opening of the 2nd half? Wow!
Had some mini smoky sausages wrapped in bacon and brown sugar. Yum! Then a brat with charred pinapple and pepper relish. Mmmmm good.
Sunday, November 9, 2008 6:48:22 PM
First let me say that the automakers got themselves in trouble, with a little help from the government. This isn't the first time during which the automakers and UAW were blinded by the good times and high profits. Looking at their history, one has to wonder why we shouldn't just let them fail. But alas, we don't make much here in the good old USA anymore, so we should probably step up and help them out.
The government did their part, by tossing aside the energy policies of Jimmy Carter, as soon as the energy crisis of the 70s was eased. Of course they did this to aid industry. Profits before country, and all that.
So instead of just giving a handout to the automakers, let's help a lot of Americans at the same time. Put restrictions on the automakers, if they want this money.
First, make sure they are going to use it to make fuel efficient vehicles, with flex fuel, hybrid and other technologies. Gas prices are down right now, lower than I ever thought we'd see again. But learn from this. We cannot depend on oil in the long run.
Second, offer some kind of rebates and financing assistance to consumers purchasing fuel efficient vehicles from the big 3 U.S. automakers. I think a lot of people are in a situation similar to myself. I have a large gas guzzling truck I bought over 2 years ago. (I thought I was going to build my house on some land I have, but that fell through). I would like to get something efficient, but there is no way I'll get enough money in the deal to pay off my truck, and I can't afford to take the loss. If I drove lots of miles, the math would make it worth it. But I don't. Especially with gas prices down again.
By giving incentives for buying fuel efficient vehicles from U.S. automakers, we help the taxpayer get into a fuel efficient vehicle, we help the automaker make the switch, we help the economy, by moving money through more layers.
I think that's better than just giving a handout or loan to the automakers.
One Man's Opinion
Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:57:30 AM
This story irked me a bit. It seems this contractor, Bob Kitts, was tearing out some walls and found 2 containers containing $182,000, which had been stashed there by the previous owners. He was doing work for the current owners.
So the homeowner, his client, the person he is working for who owns the house he is doing the work in, offers him 10%. That's $18,200. Pretty generous, if you ask me. But he wanted 40%. So they end up in court. That's what irks me. I'm a sub-contractor. We work in both new construction and existing, commercial and residential. And anything found on the customers property, is the customers. Especially if you found hidden money. He is, in my opinion, greedy and a disgrace. He should have been thankful that she offered him 10%.
Unfortunately it ended up in the papers, and the previous owners family sued also. I'm not sure what the law is, but I know what it should be. The cash should belong to the current owners. But the judge awarded part of it to the previous owners estate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/house_hidden_moneyOne Man's Opinion
Monday, November 3, 2008 3:00:53 AM
One of the things this election comes down to... Unity or Divisiveness.
If you listen to the candidates speeches; and I've become something of an election news addict, so I've heard more than a few, there is a big difference.
For months, way before Sarah Palin gave her infamous first "real America" speech, Barack Obama has been talking about unity. About bringing this country together, solving our problems together. And since Sarah's speech, Barack has been reminding us that there is not a real and fake America, not a white and black America, not a rich and poor America, and not a Republican and Democrat America, but a United States of America.
John McCain and Sarah Palin are for Divisiveness. Republican versus Democrats. Rich versus Poor. Real Americans versus (un-patriotic?) Americans. Real Americans are supposedly found primarily in rural areas: “We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit and these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation,” Palin told a campaign rally in North Carolina in mid-October. And in “Western Pennsylvania … is the most patriotic, most God-loving part of America,” he said at a rally there. I assume that includes Pittsburg, argueably our only "real American city", if you believe the McCain campaign. I won't even discuss what John's brother Joe said.
So when you're trying to weigh the pros and cons, consider whether this country is better with it's people divided, or united.
Friday, October 31, 2008 7:26:40 PM
In a recent post I talked about the incendiary comments made by Rep. Michelled Bachmann
http://my.opera.com/integrator/blog/anti-american-or-the-road-to-totalitarianism. The appalling thing is that she doesn't think it's an issue.
When the debate moderator, Gary Eichten, asked Bachmann about her 'Hardball' comments, she insisted that voters in her district just didn’t care.
“The number one thing people have been concerned about as they talk to me when I’m all over the district campaigning is the ($700 billion) bailout (of the financial sector)… They’re very upset about the bailout.” She voted against it.
The “anti-American” brouhaha is “not what people are interested in,” Bachmann said. “That isn’t what people have been asking me about…. The only people who bring that up are the media, not the people.”
I'm hoping it's only her supporters that she's been talking to. We don't need someone like that in Washington. We've had enough spying on US citizens.
One Man's Opinion
Monday, October 27, 2008 1:06:23 AM
First let me say that in 28 years of voting, I've never voted for a Democrat for President. Until yesterday. I've been a registered Republican or Independant, depending on where I lived.
John McCain and the RNC are trying to scare people into not voting the Democrats into the Presidency and full control of both the House and the Senate. What they really want is to scare you enough to vote for McCain.
Read more...
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:07:38 PM
anti-american, hardball, Bachmann
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_el_ho/minnesota_congresswoman#fullRep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) says she regrets using the term "anti-American" while discussing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's views, a remark that could threaten her re-election bid.
Bachmann told the St. Cloud Times on Tuesday that she "made a big mistake" by going on MSNBC's "Hardball," a show she said she'd never seen before her appearance last week. Her statement to host Chris Matthews that Obama "may have anti-American views" drew condemnation and helped her opponent, Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg, raise more than $1 million in just a few days.
During an interview with the Times' editorial board, Bachmann said she walked into a trap and did not bring up the term "anti-American." Still, she said, "I should not have used that phrase."
Earlier in the day, Bachmann told St. Cloud Rotary Club members she would like to "take back" the statement.
"I did not say that Barack Obama was anti-American, nor do I believe Barack Obama is anti-American. He loves his country, just as everyone in this room does," she told the crowd. "Nor did I call for an investigation of members of Congress for their pro-American or anti-American views. That is not what I said."
Bachmann said that while she didn't question Obama's patriotism, "I'm very concerned about Barack Obama's views. I don't believe that socialism is a good thing for America."I don't understand how people think they can deny they said something, which they know is caught on video. "Nor did I call for an investigation of members of Congress for their pro-American or anti-American views. That is not what I said."
On October 17th Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) suggested that the media should investigate members of Congress to determine if they hold anti-American views. "What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would," Bachmann said. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America. I think people would be -- would love to see an expose like that."
I think most people would consider "do a penetrating expose" and "take a look at the views" as a call for an investigation. Does she think that because it's not a formal government investigation, than it's not an investigation? Or because she didn't use the word investigate?
You weren't tricked into saying anything. You said what you thought. And haven't tried to deny it until almost a week later, when you realized how many votes you were losing. The American People are not that stupid Rep. Bachmann. And the United States will be safer with you out of Congress.
One Man's Opinion
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:38:00 AM
Obama, top 5%, taxes
In my last blog I explained Obama's tax income tax rates, how they aren't near as much of an increase on the upper 5% as people think. Now I'm going to show several reasons why the increases on the top 5%, and the cuts for the middle class are justified.
Historically, since WWII the top bracket was about 5 times what the bottom bracket was, regardless of rises and falls. Between 1913 & 1941 the top bracket ranged from 7 to 20 times the bottom bracket. In 1987, that dropped to 4 times, and in 1988 it dropped to less than twice the bottom bracket. In 1993 the top tax rate jumped 30% to 2.6 times the bottom bracket. This increase by the way, coincided with the biggest boom in years.
Historically taxes have always been raised in war years, except for the unprecedented decrease in taxes in the 2000's during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Both wars continue, while the tax decreases are held in place, and the deficits and debt climb.
Read more...
Monday, October 20, 2008 6:39:56 AM
Obama, top 5%, income tax
The arguments and accusations fly back and forth. It’s one of the most talked about, and most misunderstood topics in this election. And Joe the Plumber just made things worse.
I have to tell you...by the way so many say Obama is going to raise income tax, I am amazed at how many people I know that must be in the top 5% income level. I had no idea so many of my friends and acquaintances are so well off. I knew some were, a lot of my customers are doctors, bankers and business owners or executives. But so many others in professions like security officers and sales counter guys. I really need to change jobs.
Read more...
Monday, October 20, 2008 3:35:58 AM
Colin Powell, retired Army General, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in other words the former top soldier in the US military, today endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States. General Powell was also Secretary of State.
I think that says alot about Obama's readiness to lead our country, to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and his capabilities on foriegn policy.
Powell is a centrist Republican, who the party asked to consider a run for President in 1996. But he's proven he's a real maverick Republican. As a long time friend of Sen. McCain, it was hard for him to endorse McCain's opponent. But Powell us putting the country first in his endorsement.
He said both men are qualified to be president, but that Obama is the steady hand we need right now. He also questioned McCain's judgement in selecting Sarah Palin as his VP, saying she isn't ready to be President, and expressed disappointment in the negativity of McCain's campaign.
I've heard others question what Obama would do to the military, but having read his plans, I know he supports a strong military, and supports giving them the modern technology available. To those who think the Republicans are the only ones who want and can support a strong military, I ask you this. How come we could come up with $700 billion to bailout bankers and rich people so fast, but we couldn't find the money to provide proper body armor to our soldiers, and armor for Humvees, to protect them from IED's.
There are quite a few veteran's, incuding myself, that support Barack Obama. Frankly it scares me to think of McCain in the Oval Office, both because of his temper, and his willingness to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Professional military men value peace.
Sunday, October 19, 2008 4:26:11 AM
We've been hearing for months the charges against Barrack Obama, that he is anti-American. They try to use any reason they can to level these charges, from respected educator and former radical Bill Ayers to the Reverend Wright. Senator Obama has denounced the actions of both these men.
But that's not what this article is about. It's about the frightening direction our country is going. They are related, but actually started 7 years ago.
On October 17th Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) suggested that the media should investigate members of Congress to determine if they hold anti-American views. "What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would," Bachmann said. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America. I think people would be -- would love to see an expose like that."
Scary words, if you're familiar with the late Senator Joe McCarthy or the House Committee on Un-American Activities 1938-1975.
Sen. McCarthy was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government and elsewhere. Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate. Today the term McCarthyism is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. Sounds like that term could be used on several Republicans of late.
Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) defending Sarah Palin recently on Face The Nation: Well, he [Obama] has talked down about America. You know, we’ve always had this history of saying, “Well, you know, politics ends at the water’s edge.” It didn’t for Barack Obama. He’s been critical not only of the President but of American policy and hence has kind of a negative view of America in the world.
She is basically saying that any criticism of "American Policy" is unpatriotic. The last time I checked the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteed our rights to Freedom Of Speech. This gives us the right to criticize American policies, as well as our leaders. We have a responsibility to Democracy, to not give up that right. What Representatives Bachmann and Wilson imply, which is in line with what Senator McCain & Governor Palin seem to believe, is that to question the policies and motives of our government is un-American.
Ideas like that, left unchecked is what will lead to totalitarianism. There is no end to the tricks by which people can be exhorted in the name of liberty to give up their liberty. There is a long list in history that in totalitarian states liberty has been suppressed in the name of liberty. We have already allowed, in the guise of the war on terrorism, the current administration to limit some of our liberties. And we have seen the government abuse the revised laws even further, such as in spying on American citizens without cause or warrants.
Charles Dickens stated: "The heaviest blow ever dealt at liberty will be dealt by this country [America], in the failure of its example to the earth."
The use of the term [anti-american] within the U.S. has parallels with methods employed by totalitarian states or military dictatorships. For example, in the old Soviet Union, the Kremlin condemned as "anti-Soviet" in order to suppress dissident or critical thought. That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt.
We must be careful that we do not forget history, or we may be doomed to repeat it. In 1798 the Alien and Sedition Acts became law. Proponents claimed the acts were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. The opponents, like later historians, attacked them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration.
Twenty-five people, primarily prominent newspaper editors such as Benjamin Franklin's grandson Benjamin Franklin Bache but also Congressman Matthew Lyon, were arrested. Of them, eleven were tried, Bache died awaiting trial, and ten were convicted of sedition.
One act — the Alien Enemies Act — is still in force in 2008, and has frequently been enforced in wartime. The others expired or were repealed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson, who won the 1800 election, held them all to be unconstitutional and void, then pardoned and ordered the release of all who had been convicted of violating them. Over the following years, Congress repeatedly apologized for, or voted recompense to victims of, the enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Are Rep. Bachmann and Wilson intending that we charge Sen. Obama, and other congressman with sedition for voting against the Iraq war? Or for voting for a timeline? Would the news organizations be next on their list?
A final word:
The Greek philosopher Socrates said, "patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and [patriotism] would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be.”
One Man's Opinion
Monday, October 6, 2008 6:32:49 AM
Today Sarah Palin attacked Barrack Obama because of his association with 60's radical Bill Ayers. So, are we guilty by association? And if so, how much? How close does the association have to be, for us to be guilty too? Are we guilty or bad people or do we have poor judgment if our neighbor of 10 years turns out to be a rapist? Or a murderer? Is it worse if they were a teacher? Or not so bad if they were a councilman or chamber of commerce leader?
Barrack Obama sat on the boards of 2 charities with Bill Ayers, who is now an english professor. They have no close relationship, and Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was a radical. Is that close enough for guilt by association?
How about John McCain, who until just a few years ago openly
boasted not only about his passing friendship but also his deep collaboration with one of the most prominent of Vietnam-era student radicals, David Ifshin. The same David Ifshin who denounced America on Radio Hanoi as McCain sat locked up as a POW. Together they worked to establish the Institute for Democracy in Vietnam and partnered up on the issue of normalization of relations with Vietnam.
But the real "gotcha", the "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"; is Sarah Palin herself. Her husband Todd, was a
member of the
Alaska Independence Party, considered a
secessionist organization, for 7 years until 2002. Sarah Palin voiced her support in her run for Governor, as well as
addressing their 2008 convention. So, is being married to and sleeping with a member of a secessionist organization close enough for guilt by association?
I think we
should look at who our candidates know and what their relationship is. We already have, and the associations Obama and McCain have and had with past radicals, political figures and businessmen have been looked at. There's nothing there that should affect our decision to vote for them, and nothing more to drudge up. We've had over a year of looking up Obama's association, and McCain & Biden are well known. What do we know about Palin and her associations?
More on the AIP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Alaskahttp://www.akip.org/bylaws.html
1 2 Next »