DON'T CRY ME A RIVER!

Dear Crabby:

My mother won't forgive me. Honestly I don't know how long that woman intends to hold her grudge. I'm 39. When I was 15 I went with a pretty wicked crowd. We drank and did a lot of drugs and I ran away from home and was involved in some pretty crazy stuff. I broke into houses to feed my habits. I even beat up a few people for money. I wrecked a few cars, tore up the house and was in and out of jail. The last time I was in for nearly 6 years.

Two years ago I found God and the help I needed and got my (act) together. I've been sober and upstanding ever since. But my mom, the one person who's supposed to love me unconditionally doesn't even want me to come over and visit her. That's cold. I don't know what to do about it. Telephoning and email hasn't worked and neither has my confronting her at the grocery store. She didn't even call me for Christmas. Any help would be appreciated.

Sydney in Missouri

Dear Recovery in Progress:

You've presented me with a double-edge sword of a question so permit me to give you a double-edged sword of an answer. I see addiction differently than most of my contemporaries. I'm wholly unsympathetic to the addict - not because I lack compassion but because I've come to realize that compassion is often seen as weakness by the addict. It's something they think they can manipulate to their advantage.

And if you thought you're mom toted a hard line then I'm afraid you'll find my thoughts on the subject as immovable as five miles of hardened cement. Since it's neither my place or intention to condemn someone who seems to have straightened out their own life, permit me to congratulate you on finally seeing the light.

It only took you 24 years. I suppose 'better late than never' is the adage I'll stick to here. But it does tend to wear thin on my patience. Witnessing the steady decline of this cesspool we laughingly refer to as our pop culture in North America over the last 40 years will do that to you!

Today we often praise and reward those among us who crash and burn but manage to pull themselves from the ashes and then write a tell-all memoir that nets them millions in book sales and a brief stint around the talk show circuit. Frankly, I think that's a bitter and very sad statement on what we're willing to tolerate in our 'culture'. The coddling of addiction - treating it as a social disease - has sent the opposite message to addicts. It says, 'hey, it's okay to be one as long as you get straightened out in the end.' Where the end is, is entirely up to the addict. Gee, how forgiving of us all.

Some celebrities like Lindsay Lohan have made a second career out of their revolving rehab. And every time such celebrities fall from grace they fall back on 'Don't judge! I'm only human.' But not all humans do drugs. Not all humans beat up people and steal their money to feed their habits.

Instead of saying 'good for you' to someone who's reformed after having made such severe mistakes that have nearly cost them their lives, why don't we have the same appreciation for people who never fall into these pits of drunken, drugged out despair in the first place?

Our culture rarely sings the praises of people who do the right thing first. Yet, with increased frequency it's been all too quick to charter a band wagon and throws a ticker-take parade for those who crawl out of the muck and mire they willingly put themselves into in the first place.

I mean, correct me if I'm out of bounds here, but you did shoot or snort whatever your drug of choice was for all those years of your own free will, right? There were no crack junkies holding you down the first time. You weren't locked in a closet, tied to a bed and force fed a daily diet of Jack Daniels and heroin to coerce a confession from you, right? No one stuck the needle into your flesh. No one held a gun to your head and said "Drink this 40 ouncer or I'll kill you."

You did these things. And having 'experimented' once with all these vices you chose to explore them further and escalate, rather than turn away from, your addictions for all these years. I don't care what your reason was. Whether you were angry at mom or just the world in general for not giving you all the things you thought you deserved really doesn't impress me. I don't pity you. I pity the people around you who were not free from your will to abstain from riding this nightmarish roller coaster with you. The ones who had to put up with your crap for 24 years get my sympathy!

Instead of seeking rehab earlier and counseling from professionals and acceptance from your mother by saying "Hey, I'm lost and I need help. Please help me," you left her home and safety at a tender age to become your idea of a badass on your own terms. Congratulations! Mission accomplished.

That you did not die of all your self-abuse is a testament to good genetics, a strong constitution and ultimately the will of God who kept you grounded on earth until such time as you decided to get right with Him. You finally did.

That's commendable. But realize this. That in those 24 years you wasted going down the rabbit hole with a bunch of other burnouts you might just as easily have been committed to more lofty and worthwhile pursuits that would have improved your life and the lives of those around you.

Let's be clear about one thing, Syd. You don't owe your mom a good, honest, clean life. You owe that to yourself. If you've truly found yourself and risen from the stupor I am glad, please and happy for you. You've expelled your demons. The battle's won - though probably not over. That took guts, determination and courage. But you overcame your suffrage by yourself - for yourself.

Sounds to me like mom's still hurt, and angry and maybe just a tad worried that your transformation is just a passing fad - that the minute she embraces you with loving arms you'll turn back into the pumpkin that left her patch so long ago. It doesn't help that you seem to be stalking her on the phone, on the computer and out in public.

Stop that! Give her time. She lived with a drug abusing and very belligerent toad of a human being for 24 years. You want forgiveness for 24 years of the hell you put her through in 24 minutes. That's an unacceptable time line.

You are not entitled to her forgiveness. It's earned. Prove yourself. Not for her sake but for your own. Continue to live clean and move forward from this point in your life. If you're word is your bond then mom will eventually want to reconnect with you - when she's ready. Right now she's not. Give her, her space and accept that it's going to take more than just your word to convince her things have really changed for the better.

You have my best wishes for that reconciliation. But realize that it may or may not happen. Whatever the outcome - you'll have to live with it.

yours truly,

the crabby critic

OSCARS 2011 - A TRAIN WRECK FROM START TO FINISH

Well, another Oscar ceremony is history and in this year's case, definitely not a moment too soon. If you didn't watch last night's ceremonies then congratulations - your I.Q. remains intact. To those of us who tuned in and were mesmerized by the utter atrocity as it painfully unfolded, this was undoubtedly one of the worst Oscar telecasts, not simply in recent years, but of all time.

I thought nothing could top the gutter depravity of watching an overweight Merv Griffin sing 'I've got a Love-a-ly Bunch of Cocoanuts' to a barrage of singing and dancing table tops, or witnessing Rob Lowe and Snow White belting out Proud Mary during the 1989 debacle that was Oscar night. I was sorely mistaken.

Anne Hathaway and James Franco proved to be not only the most lugubrious and brain dead of co-hosts; they also had one of the worst opening acts in Oscar history. Taking their cue from the Best Picture nominated film, Inception - a movie about popping in and out of someone else's dreams - Franco and Hathaway attempted to one up Billy Crystal's past successes in aping their way through a drawn out and utterly boring claptrap of montage covering virtually every Best Picture nominee of this year - save Franco's own 127 Days; presumably because stupid humour and a man sawing off his own arm with a pocket knife make too strange bedfellows.

Franco, who either thought himself too cool or too inept for the co-hosting honours, or had simply been slipped a powerful libation, laxative and/or tranquilizer (*I'm still trying to figure out which) before the curtain went up, instead decided to play his share of the opener as a rather mute Bud Abbott to Hathaway's gabby Lou Costello, giving dry one-word replies to any and all inquiries made during their opening dialogue. Throughout the evening, Franco seemed increasingly disengaged, squinting and closing his eyes repeatedly as if to blot out the inner horror he was feeling from laying an undeniable Oscar turkey.

The audience, understandably perplexed, applauded very little and understood even less. But when Hathaway called out her mother and Franco his grandmother from the audience to ask how they were doing so far, the Oscar prelude really went into the crapper. This sort of self promotion hasn't been seen on Hollywood's biggest night since Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson brought pictures of their baby to the ceremony in 1986.

Hathaway, who made several gaudy to God awful costume changes throughout the night didn't fare much better on her own; first by calling Hugh Jackman a 'jackass' then by counting herself amongst the holier than thou privileged simply to be "be able to breathe the same air" as Oprah Winfrey, the latter presenting the award for Best Original Documentary to Inside Job - the liberalized 'Wall Street is evil' anti-capitalist tripe.

The telecast proved a hodgepodge at best, beginning with its incongruously featured montages from Gone With The Wind and Titanic before presenter Tom Hanks read the role for Best Cinematography and Set and Costume Design. We were then almost treated to a semi-luminous and semi-lucid moment featuring veteran actor Kirk Douglas who, at times deliberately, and then at other moments, quite by accident simply seemed to lose himself in his Oscar monologue.

Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem appeared in matching off white tuxedos as the ugliest of Tweedle-Dees and Dumb, mucking around to no one's benefit as they announced Best Original and Adapted Screenplays for The Social Network and The King's Speech respectively.

Luke Matheny, who won Best Original Short for God of Love began his acceptance speech by declaring that he ought to have had his 'Side Show Bob' inspired hair cut cropped before the ceremony; good 'bad hair' advice also for Scarlett Johansson who appeared as though she had been cut and styled by Edward Scissorhands. Her co-presenter Matthew McConaughey merely appeared as though his head had only just emerged from a large tub of cold lard.

Jude Law had the smarmy insult of the evening when he told co-presenter Robert Downey Jr. to shut up lest he reveal Downey's 2001 bust for prostitution with a woman who Law suggested had been found dressed up as Cat Woman to which Downey sheepishly corrected "She was dressed as Wonder Woman!"

Oscar fashion was a mixed bag. Apart from Anne Hathaway's ever-evolving wardrobe that contained several faux pas, other presenters were not so quite so fortunate with their one choice of the evening, particularly Cate Blanchette whose violet ensemble looked as though some of the children from PS22 had snuck backstage earlier to cut out the center flap before she went on stage. Likewise, Oscar winning Colleen Atwood - who read her speech in true Obama fashion using a set of literal cue cards - wore a black ensemble that belied her Best Costume Designer's Academy Award. Her black outfit looked as though she had cut and pasted it together using scraps from the cutting room floor.

And then there was Sandra Bullock's fiery red strapless frock, designed for an actress at least ten years her junior and that showed far too much lack of cleavage and a wrinkly neck in major need of some Botox. Cleavage also seemed the order of the day for presenter Jennifer Hudson, her ebony flesh barely contained between two double-sided taped panels of tangerine fabric masquerading as the top half of a dress.

Whether from a sudden outbreak of bed bugs or just a collective case of 'the nerves' and/or 'the runs' it seemed that no one accepting their statuettes throughout the evening could stay still for every long, but rather shook to varying degrees in their extremities and heads like a bunch of shock therapy rejects as they aimlessly twittered largely incoherent 'thank you' speeches that any sixth grader could have written but would have been embarrassed to recite in public! After a brief moment of polite coherence, Natalie Portman's Best Actress acceptance speech developed verbal diarrhea - the actress thanking virtually every cast and crew member who worked on The Black Swan, then practically all of her friends and family no less than three times!

The Social Network took home the lion's share of lesser awards throughout the night but it was The King's Speech that dominated the major categories, including Best Director (Tom Hooper), Best Actor (Colin Firth) and the most coveted award of the evening; Best Picture, bringing its tally to 4 out of a possible 12 statuettes. Geoffrey Rush lost his justly deserved Best Supporting Oscar for The King's Speech to Christian Bale's imploding 'has been' in The Fighter. Fourteen year old wunderkind Hailee Steinfeld of True Grit fame left empty handed has well.

Highlights for this year's Oscar ceremony were few and far between; the most memorable being Celine Dion's poignant rendition of the standard 'Smile' played as background for a montage that recognized the passing of stellar talent into that immortal sweet light. Too many greats were lost this year, among them Tony Curtis, Lynn Redgrave, Blake Edwards, Susannah York, Kevin McCarthy, Jill Clayburgh and Lena Horne, who was singled out in a special tribute pre-empted by some largely forgettable drivel spewed by Halle Berry.

Billy Crystal's appearance took a standing ovation that in retrospect was a shay premature since he barely spoke in his usual way after that glowing send up, but instead introduced snippets from 1953's Oscar telecast hosted by Bob Hope - the first of 18 times Hope would MC the Oscars and the very first ceremony to be broadcast live on television.

Randy Newman's meandering acceptance for Best Original Song in Toy Story 3 started off on a weak note but became quite comedic, building to a rather memorable 'to hell with it!' declaration that left the audience laughing. The ceremony was closed out by a choral of children from New York's PS22 fracturing a very loose rendition of 'Over the Rainbow' - the last strained strains shouted over by Franco and Hathaway declaring "Goodnight everybody!" as though they were at a college football rally.

All in all, this year's 83rd Academy Awards isn't one for the history books, except of course if you count The Onion's publications that poke fun at the ludicrousness of any pop culture nuisance they can get their hands on. This year's Oscar ceremonies certainly qualify under that moniker. And it will be interesting to see if next year's ceremonies improve. Frankly, in this reviewer's opinion there's simply nowhere to go but up! Hopefully, next year's producers will opt to jettison the more recent phenomenon of having two celebrities share the evening's beleaguered honours instead of one.

Note to the producers of next year's show: regarding the old adage that 'two heads are better than one'. This philosophy only holds true if neither co-host is brain dead at the start of programming. It is utterly lethal if each lacks the good sense God gave a daisy. For further proof, please re-watch this year's Franco/Hathaway fiasco, then search for a candidate who is equal to the challenge instead of a pair of unsympathetic duds. Thank you all, and good night - or...uh....day as it now is!

IS THE END NEAR?

Dear Crabby:

I don't get it. I keep hearing the economy's recovering but I've been unemployed for nearly 18 months and I don't see it. In fact, I think things are getting much worse. What do you think?

Joe in Detroit

Dear Average Guy with Concerns:

Claiming the recession is over is irresponsible! It's not, nor is it likely to be for many months (or even years) to follow. However, this isn't what we hear from our politicians and news outlets.

Politicos who - let's be honest - have more money than they know what to do with - are unconcerned about what's happening to the average person. Sure, they'll tell you that they care.

After all, they want your vote!

But if our elected officials truly had our best interests at heart then they would have never allowed the current U.S. deficit to balloon into the trillions without first reading the bill.

It's even more disheartening when I hear misguided quotes from the likes of Nancy Pelosi who claims that the country's economy is actually better off when more people are unemployed and collecting food stamps.

Is she kidding?

Apparently not. After all, she really said that! We must therefore also assume that she really means it! But enough on the misguided ranting of politicians. After all, what should you expect from a pig but a grunt?

So, what about polls, data, musings and speculations from economists and other 'legitimate' sources, and all those legitimate statistics compiled by governmental institutions? Are they not to be trusted?

Well, national stats have not been particularly useful in critiquing the scope of economic fallout. Consider that the current unemployment stat for the U.S. suggests that unemployment fell from 10 to 9 percent since January of 2011.

Did it really?

Or are the stats being fudged to project an national unemployment rate of 8 percent by the time Obama starts his second run for the White House?

Sure, according to the theoretical data unemployment fell. That's because unemployment claims that were active for more than two years since the recession began have since run out.

Just remember: People who are no longer collecting benefits and those who still have not found work but have given up on trying are NOT COUNTED by as part of the national unemployment census! If they were, unemployment figures would be hovering somewhere around 18 to 20 percent. That's a real stat you can bank on!

Meanwhile, news outlets will point to a rising Dow Jones and say that we're back on track. To hear the media tell it, we've weathered the low point of the recession with minor casualties and are now on the edge of an economic recovery. Well, don't you believe it.

Are investors better off in 2011 than they were in 2008?

Absolutely. No question about it. But the Dow doesn't reflect what real people with real job loss and no investments in the Dow are going through at ground level. Therefore, the Dow shouldn't be the barometer for gauging how well off the overall economic outlook is for the immediate future.

Also, given the volatility of stocks in recent months it's not at all unlikely that they could just as easily plummet as soar.

Finally, and this is the stat that leaves me cold and clammy at night: the U.S. is printing money to pay for its monetary loans throughout the world. The U.S. government has, in effect, confused borrowing money with attaining and maintaining prosperity - a fiscal diplomacy that has painted the American economy into a corner.

It's a trap. At present the U.S. is the only country legally authorized and entitled to print its own money to dig itself out of this financial quagmire.

That's fine and dandy when the crisis is short lived. But this current economic debacle shows no signs of improving. Worse, the country is mortgaged so top heavy to Chinese interests that all China has to do to effectively take over the U.S. from an economic standpoint is to simply pick up the phone and call in their loans at the Obama White House.

End of discussion.

End of America.

So, what's the solution?

Well, that's too simple a question for a very complex problem. I'm no economist, but it surely isn't to keep increasing government spending at its current rate, as the Obama White House seems to be doing with a 'to hell with it' attitude that is crippling the U.S. for decades to come and rotting its own entrepreneurial spirit for investment and economic growth like a tooth cavity, from the inside out.

Printing more money isn't the answer either because too much currency is just as bad as too little. 'Too much' and the U.S. dollar loses its supremacy as a currency of international trade. The countries don't accept it as legitimate money to buy and sell things with around the world. Yhink it won't happen? It's already happening in certain parts of the world.

At ground level - where most of us reside - the U.S. has quickly become a very scary place to work and raise a family.

Gas prices are soaring.

Food and cotton prices are rising.

The number of jobs being created is grossly disproportionate to the amount that have been lost in the private sector - probably for all time.

Salaries are dropping. Cost of living is going up. The housing market is in the toilet.

Personal and business bankruptcies and foreclosures have become a daily occurrence.

No one is secure in the career they're in and hardly anyone is hiring at a rate of pay that would make life not simply sustainable, but livable in the ways that the constitution describes: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Will it get better?

Arguably, yes. After all, there is a natural ebb and flow to the evolution of a country. But the U.S. has not been in such an economic freefall since the Great Depression and I, for one, do not believe it's going to come back either as quickly or even to the level it was back in the 1980s any time soon.

People are going to have to learn to live with less.

That's been an Obama-ism since the early part of his campaign when he suggested that we can't simply eat and drink as much as we want or keep our homes as cool as we would prefer.

Since Obama's arrival in the White House his government spending has managed to eclipse that of virtually all other Presidents that have gone before him! The sad reality is that that his prophecy of 'belt tightening' - while hardly applying to either Obama or the U.S. government - is an edict coming true for millions each day.

Far be it from me to depress you with the facts, but I've always been of the opinion and mindset that if there's an elephant in the room someone should follow it with a bag of peanuts and a really big pooper scooper instead of claiming to the crowd of onlookers that no such beast has even entered the room yet!

To ignore the situation any further one need only be the jackass.

Buck up, Joe, but expect hard times. They are coming.

yours truly,

the Crabby Critic

RECESSION PROOF, MY EYE!

Dear Crabby:

I was at my local coffee house yesterday waiting in line behind a businessman in an expensive suit and top coat. Two of the waitresses behind the counter were quietly complaining to one another about how their hours had been cut because business just wasn’t what it used to be. One even speculated that she might be let go all together if things remained status quo with the company.

After ordering his coffee, the businessman turned to them and very authoritatively said, “I suppose you’ll just have to learn how to be happy with less.”

I wanted to punch him. Here he was, pressed from a GQ magazine cover with a manicure and expensive leather shoes and satchel and he’s telling the rest of us to be happy with less. I notice that advice did not apply to him. What do you do or say in a situation like that?

- Georgia, ‘the groundskeeper’ – Duluth



Dear Sweet Peach with a Sour Pit:

I too grow weary of the rich who think the rest of us have been put on this planet to simply lick up their crumbs with a humble smile and grateful attitude. The last time I checked, I wasn’t born to amuse anybody. The same advice applies to you. And I am not amused at the insolence of your businessman either. I’m glad you didn’t sock him because then you would have been feeding into his stereotype of you.

Sounds to me like your businessman falls into what I classify as the ‘rich dummy’ category of the human species; someone so pampered and plush in their own existence that they are oblivious to the world beyond their own navel and naturally assume everyone else can just tighten their belts and make due.

To be clear, for this fellow ‘making due’ probably means cutting back on his lattes, down from four to three. Meanwhile, for the waitress it more than likely means she will have to start choosing between spending her limited finances on either food for the family or personal hygiene.

I don’t place faith, stock or merit in people who have all the money in the world to burn, but tell the rest of us who are on a budget how it should best be spent. They haven’t a clue how a dollar is made.

You’re a groundskeeper. You’re rolling in mud, not dough. The exec’ who stood before you yesterday has probably never even had a speck of dirt under his fingernails.

Bear this in mind. A recession is coming and it’s going to affect everyone except the ultra-wealthy. I don’t think your businessman falls into that category. He’s just an uppity upper-middle classman who gives a good show at playing rich because so far his salary has afforded him the opportunity.

But who do you think will be better equipped to weather our current and future economic downslide? Someone like yourself, who’s been pulling her share and then some all her life, or someone to whom a chipped nail means utter catastrophe?

I’ll say this; some of us are in for a rude awakening very soon. Most however, have already had their eyes wide open.

Yours truly,
The Crabby Critic


Dear Crabby:

I was driving home and heard some economist talking about the absolute toxic nature of our new President’s economic plan and how it will devastate the already severely compromised U.S. economy. I have to tell you, as a divorced mom of two holding down three part time jobs, it scared the hell out of me and I don’t think I am alone in my fears. What are your thoughts?

-Sharon in Jersey
Dear Jersey:

Get ready because you’re about to be milked!

I think that left to his own devices President elect Obama’s economic policies will cripple the U.S. economy severely. Before being elected, Mr. Obama preached regularly on his pretty ideologies concerning free tuition, health care and tax rebates for the needy. It all sounded good, but you know what they say – too good to be true…and it probably is.

Those same economists who were silent prior to Obama’s win are only now starting to come out of the woodwork with their preliminary predictions of the financial Armageddon that’s fast approaching.

Now, for the good news. I don’t think Mr. Obama will hold true to his campaign promises. He wouldn’t be the first politico to ditch a voter commitment for an electoral caveat. I also don’t think he’ll have a fixed rudder on the economic plan he unveiled prior to being elected, for the simple fact that his advisors have probably since filled in the blanks about how utterly misguided his initial fiscal daydream was.

Recall that Obama first preached how he was going to ‘stick it’ to corporate greed and force successful companies to yield to the will of their workers. In effect, Obama’s America was a socialist one where the status quo was going to be ironed out until we all had the same amount of wrinkles. Sounds good, except for one small problem: no successful company is about to bow to any government, simply because its’ President says so.

For example: if you told IBM tomorrow that they were just going to have to give away 40% of their profits to the less fortunate in order to do business in the U.S., IBM would likely pack up their old kit bag, smile and hightail it over to China where worker wages and expectations on worker’s quality of life remain at a bare minimal. It’s a pity individuals like yourself, who are about to see their taxation go through the roof, cannot afford the same luxury of pulling up stakes to some other sunny retreat on the planet.

The good news then is that Obama’s need for a second term in office will preclude him from acting with more derelict disregard for ‘Joe the Plumber’ than he probably would have if he had sailed into office on a golden parachute of good economic times. That’s good news for everyone.

The bad news is that the economy is going to get worse – perhaps a lot more – before it gets better.

Yours truly,
The Crabby Critic



Dear Crabby:

Mister! You got rocks in your head!

We’re not in a recession! North Americans have always come in three classes: rich, middle class and poor. Nothing’s going to change that. While you’re talking about tougher times, you neglect to mention that everyone has it rough at one time or another and that’s just life. Get on with it and stop complaining.

- Geoff in Bradley


Dear Rich Dummy:

Ding! Ding! Ding! Wake up call!

The world economy has been in a slump for some time. The other day, the U.S. government finally admitted as much by declaring that we are, in fact, in a recession.

I don’t know where you get your news from, but it’s rather obvious to me that you are utterly clueless when it comes to commenting about where the economy is headed. To be this misguided you either have to be drinking the 'good Kool-aid' or very well off.

Since you’ve proven your ability to type an email to me, I have to categorize you in the second category. Good for you. Whether you made your millions yourself, inherited them or simple married into money is irrelevant to this discussion.

I just wish you’d bear in mind that not everyone shares your viewpoint or your budget. Most middle class incomes are plummeting. Unemployment is on the rise. Good paying jobs are fast becoming a thing of the past and the price of daily essentials; food, gas, hydro bills, continues to rise.

We’ve already seen the instability of the financial markets reach a point of critical mass. Expensive bailouts are pending for the manufacturing industry. A lot of big chain retailers are also on the cusp of total annihilation.

Where have you been? If the answer is ‘on vacation’, then it must have been a long one! If you've merely been napping, I am here to tell you that you've been asleep too long!

Open your eyes, Geoffrey. President Obama will see to it that you’re forced to open your wallet.

Yours truly,
The Crabby Critic

@The Crabby Critic 2008 (all rights reserved).

DISHING, rather than DIGGING DIRT ON THE BIG THREE

Dear Crabby:

What’s your opinion on the snafu with the Big Three?

Dale in Detroit


Dear Dale:

I’m rather torn in my opinion on what’s to be done with the nose-diving automotive industry. Clearly, management at the Big Three (Ford, Chrysler and General Motors) have made some gargantuan missteps that have paved the way for the situation.

Big expense accounts, huge – and unwarranted - executive bonuses, misguided union bullying and a downturn in the local economy have all conspired to make the future of America’s automotive sector dangerously bleak.

I speak these words with all the regret as a former Chrysler employee – one of many sacked in 2005 – as well as from the vantage that my father (a retired GM line worker) is in danger of losing the pension he put all of his blood, sweat and tears into to earn.

The arrival in Washington of CEOs from these companies on private corporate jets left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. I agree with the congressional backlash that has gone on record as stating that most of the Big Three’s woes and wounds have been self inflicted.

This is not the time for grandstanding or refusing to answer the question of what they – the CEOs – would be willing to do to save the companies they preside over. When asked such a question earlier, GM’s chairman and CEO, Rick Wagner refused to commit himself to a $1.00 annual salary until such time as his company might be restored to profitability by the suggested government bail out.

It is a genuine pity that Mr. Wagner doesn’t see the error of his ways and what accepting such an offer might have done to sway congress into thinking that their billions would best be spent on bailing out car makers at this critical junction in their precariously balanced history. Such smugness in the face of looming financial disaster is not only ill timed but entirely irresponsible. I think it is time for Mr. Wagner to reconsider his position as chairman of the company. I should point out that I’ve had that thought for some time.

If I were sitting on the congressional decision making panel, I would enforce certain stipulations on the Big Three as a requirement for the bail out monies.

First:

No executive bonuses and a 50% reduction in top income salaries across the board. Any money congress spends on restoring the Big Three to profitability has to go exclusively to producing cars and technologies that will benefit the future.

Second:

Enforced resignations of all executives who are proven to be, at least in part, responsible for this current crisis. There’s a paper trail at each corporate office of all the mistakes that have been made along the way and at the bottom of most memos is a signature. The Big Three cannot afford to maintain their ‘dead-headed’ dead wood any longer. Top heavy mismanagement ought to have been a thing of the past long ago. It has never had a place in business logic. It certainly has no place in it right now!

Third:

I would encourage congress to appoint an independent automotive committee to oversee allocation and distribution of the funds, and, to also oversee the operations of each of the Big Three with monthly reporting from management to this committee as mandatory.

Personally, I’d like to see someone like Lee Iacocca back in the driver’s seat – not inside any one of these companies but as one of the independent automotive committee members, if not, in fact its ‘Chairman.’

Without a visionary like Iacocca at the helm, The Big Three have proven that, left to their own devices, they cannot manage their way out of a paper bag. So much for MBA degrees, pie charts and market research! The independent committee I speak of would be responsible for keeping everyone in check and on track – period!

Finally, I am not at all entirely convinced that even with my stipulations put into play that the Big Three would enjoy a return to fiscal solvency in any foreseeable time frame, if, in fact, ever.

Yet, unlike the pundits who are out for blood, I am not of the opinion that Congress should just walk away from this crisis and let history reduce these companies to a pick n’ save bankruptcy sale. Those who have suggested as much, forget that if one or all of these companies goes the way of the dinosaur, it will decimate virtually every other sector of the U.S. and Canadian economy.

Not only will it contribute to another Great Depression – it may very well end a way of life that both countries not only have become accustom to, but utterly depend on for mere survival.

To those who demand ‘change’ for the industry and the economy, I defiantly say that turning up the nose on some sort of practical restructuring agreement is decidedly NOT the way go about reshaping the greatest nation on earth. It will instead lead to its’ utter destruction.

Sincerely,
The Crabby Critic

Dear Crabby:

…or maybe I should say, ‘stupid!’ Despite all your muckraking Obama won! Just goes to show you don’t know everything!

- anonymous



Dear Chicken-Liver:

I don’t usually respond to ‘nameless’ emails, primarily because I figure that if you haven’t the guts to ask me a question as one person to another, I’ll be darned if I spend the time to answer you as one person should to another.

With regards to being ‘stupid’ – personal intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with expressing a personal opinion in public. Mine varied from yours – obviously. That doesn’t make either less genuine or valid. Perhaps some day you’ll recognize this.

With regards to ‘muckraking’ - since when is reporting factual data readily available from major news media sources on a Presidential candidate in a clear and concise way ‘muckraking’? Check your dictionary. The definition of ‘fact’ and ‘muckraking’ are not indivisible.

Finally, Obama won. So what?

It doesn’t prove I am wrong in my opinion about his capabilities to lead the nation any more than it proves those who elected him into office are on the right track. Time will tell. I suppose, on that matter we’ll all just have to wait and see.

Yours truly,
The Crabby Critic

@The Crabby Critic 2008 (all rights reserved).

PUNDITS, POLOROIDS AND POWER PUFFS...

Dear Crabby:

I am so confused. I thought I had my political candidate all picked out this year – it was Hillary – and then I was asked to sympathize with Obama and thought, ‘Oh, well…I guess I should’ because we’re both Democrats. But then he went and picked a guy for his running mate and that left me cold.

Now, I hear rumors that Obama has sent political dirt diggers to Alaska to get something on Sarah Palin, the only woman in the race. I don’t think I’d ever vote for a gender, per say, but frankly I’m disgusted by the way Palin’s been represented on the news. I think she’s about the only honest one in the bunch. Why doesn’t this come across more in the way she’s being advertised?

Jessica M. in Florida


Dear Thinking for Yourself:

Palin’s the real deal. That’s the bottom line. Obama’s campaign – that reported to be all about ‘change’ in the beginning - has actually shown its true colors of late. He’s run one of the dirtiest, most underhanded smear jobs that it’s ever been my misfortune to witness.

The fact that the main stream press continues to treat Obama with kid gloves as though he were the second coming is disgusting; particularly in light of the facts that have surfaced about Obama’s ties to terrorist Bill Ayres and felon Tony Resco and his affiliations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright; all self righteous intellectually smug and self thought of superiors to the rest of us.

Lest we forget that every time Obama doesn’t like a question being posed to him he simply chooses to cut and run without providing any satisfactory answer to the American people. If he’s going to be Commander and Chief he needs to rethink that strategy.

After Sarah Palin’s Republican acceptance speech knocked Obama’s glossy ‘Roman-esque’ diatribe off the front page of every major media outlet the first line of defense from the Obama camp was to refer to Palin as a former ‘mayor’ instead of as a sitting governor – which is what she is. To her credit, Palin shot back with the fact that all Obama has been so far is a one term Senator and a ‘community organizer.’

Asked to define the term ‘community organizer’ the Obama camp is currently claiming that Jesus too was a ‘community organizer’,

Hence, the religious moniker ascribed to Obama by radio talk show guru Rush Limbaugh many months before – as ‘the self anointed, self-appointed messiah of the American people’ has laughingly come to pass. Obama’s temperament and ego are in line with sainthood; though someone should point out to the high and mighty ‘O’ that Jesus was not seeking fame, fortune or sovereign control over a free nation’s peoples.

Come to think of it, the more I see of Barack Obama the more I don’t like him – which is a personal taste – but more importantly, the less I believe he is ready, willing and able to lead America on to anything but utter chaos and complete ruin.

Obama is a misguided and inexperienced elitist who did not even realize he had stepped in it deep when he told ABC political analyst George Stephanopoulis that he was, in fact, a Muslim (something the New Yorker Magazine front cover made fun of previously, if you’ll recall). Currently, there is a law suit filed that claims Obama isn’t even American – that he is, in fact, Kenyan born and hence, ineligible for the Presidency. You must be a born an American in order to run for the office.

But back to Governor Sarah Palin; a hard working, no nonsense, tough as nails self professed pit bull ‘hockey mom’ who proudly wears her lipstick next to her tried and true legacy as a level-headed leader; first in the city of Wassilla, then as commander and chief of the entire state of Alaska. The reason Palin appears to be clean under the finger nails has to do with the fact that she has not been rooting through the political swill of her contemporaries – much as Obama’s ‘pig’ reference would suggest a lesser calling to her name and stature.

If it were up to me, I’d vote for Sarah Palin as president and not V.P. She has guts, humility and a genuine respect for the position she currently holds. She also knows full well what the challenges are that await her if she gets in on the McCain ticket this November election. Obama just wants the Presidency as the last feather for his cap – much in the same way a Boy Scout collects badges for being able to perform a magic trick or start a fire once in his life – then forgets how and never does it ever again.

You don’t need a magician in the White House. You need a miracle worker. Sarah Palin’s already performed a few miracles in her brief tenure as nominated V.P. She’s thrown the Obama camp into a tailspin; she’s upset what appeared to be a pretty definite cake walk for the ‘chosen one’ and she did it without flash or those Obama-approved ‘Greco-Roman’ columns that she herself made fun of during her speech.

Palin trumps Obama in the ‘experience department’ too. Obama knows this and it ticks him off. So, like all bullies – whether in the school yard or political arena – he’s chosen an attempt to bloody the reputation of his opponent rather than to simply remain silent on the matter. His camp has poked fun at small town America – their religion, guns and Bibles – in general, and Governor Palin’s home town genuineness in particular.

Obama’s frowned upon Palin’s decision to give birth to a special needs child and has even questioned how any woman with five children is able to find the time to govern unless, of course, she does so by sacrificing her own ‘family values’ – hence, the sting of an unwed pregnant teenager to contend with.

Now, how Presidential is that, I ask you?!?

In lobbying these attacks, Barack Obama has brought down his own house of cards. Only this time, he isn’t going down for the count alone.

In a recent poll, 70% of Americans now believe that the main stream media have been ‘in bed’ with Obama from the start in delivering their own heavy handed and thoroughly biased backing of his campaign. NBC’s Chris Matthews openly admitted that he gets a ‘tingly feeling’ down his leg when he hears Obama speak.

How bipartisan is that?

And what about the other self appointed, self-anointed ‘O’ in this equation – Oprah Winfrey?

Now that Oprah openly refused to have Governor Palin on her show as a guest (while she’s had both Barak and his wife Michelle)- until perhaps “after” the election, it is my sincere hope that the millions of women that make up Oprah’s viewers will start clicking off The Oprah Winfrey Show in support for Sarah Palin.

Let’s see how smug and superior Ms. Winfrey will be after her Neilson’s come a tumblin’ down and her sponsor’s bail on her because her female base has finally realized what a rank and dishonest hypocrite she has been to them all along.

Because in the final analysis, this campaign is not about race or gender. It’s about who’s the best person in line for the job.

Barack Obama is NOT that person.

Yours truly,
The Crabby Critic




Dear Crabby:

I think I am in love with my best friend’s mother. I’m thirty-two, as is my best friend. She’s fifty-one and has been divorced from her husband ever since me and her son were kids in grade school. She’s never remarried, but she also doesn’t really know I’m alive…except as her son’s best friend. Anyway, I need some pointers here, because I don’t want to give off any weird vibes and I also don’t want to lose a best friend over this. What should I do?

Tyler in Connecticut


Dear Ty-ed Down To Your Heart:

Get a hobby – another one. You’re situation is not unique, but it does come with its own set of difficulties as you’ve already discovered. Let’s deconstruct the issue in bits to better deal with the whole picture.

First, mom doesn’t know you like her, so her attentions toward you have been strictly honorable. She’s a middle-aged gal who apparently is content being the single mother of your best friend. That isn’t to say she hasn’t had other gentlemen callers in her past, but her perspective on the matter seems to be that she’s dedicated her whole life to raising the fellow you call your best friend. In my books that makes mom good people. She put her child’s interests ahead of her own.

Second, your best friend doesn’t know you fancy his mum. Good thing too, because as a son he probably has a hard time thinking of his mother having sex at all; even with his father, let alone his best friend. So, unless you want to see him stick his head through a plate glass window or start clucking like a chicken in heat, it’s best that he doesn’t know anything about your feelings.

Third – and this is the problem area – you’re all adults. This would be a real easy case if you were fifteen and mom was thirty-one. I’d tell you to get your hormones in check and expound on the ways your perspective towards women in general was going to change within the next few years. Above all, I would have told you

– DON’T DO IT! in no uncertain terms.

The fact that you’ve all passed the age of puberty and are steadily marching either toward or past middle age presents a quandary because legally speaking, there’s nothing wrong in the way you feel. There would also be nothing harmful about pursuing such a relationship, provided the lady was willing.

But I’m going to step out on a limb here and stick to my original answer.

DON’T DO IT! because you’ve pointed out that you don’t want to lose a best friend. Courting his mother would probably kill your friendship.

It would be different if, say, mom liked you and then brokered the deal of getting to know you better with her son. But your situation is the other way around. Worst case scenario: you tell mom you’re hot for her and she thinks you’re a scummy little creep; tells you to get out, and then, tells sonny boy what you’ve done – in which case he’ll beat the living snot out of you before high noon tomorrow. So again, my best advice is move on.
At your age I have every reason to believe what you feel is love and not mere lust but it doesn’t matter because the outcome would be the same. To ease the situation for you, I might recommend that you and your best friend do ‘best friend things’ in a venue other than his family home where you’ll be tempted to moon over his mother. The less time you spend in her presence the more likely you are to feel better about sacrificing the ‘what might have been’ for what actually is.

Yours truly,
The Crabby Critic

Dear Crabby:

I hate my sister. I mean it. She’s been a thorn in my side ever since our mother died when I was eight and she was twelve. She thinks she is my mother; always telling me what to do and who to date and how to live. She thinks she’s so smart, just because she’s married and successful and I’m still trying to find my way. I just want her to leave me alone, but she’s forever meddling in what I’m doing. How do I get rid of this pest?

Sheila in Baton Rouge


Dear Snotty Sibling:

It’s a pity you view your sister as a pest because from what you’ve told me the only assessment I can make is that she wants to be helpful, useful and close to you in any way that she can. Clearly, the death of your mother made her feel a sense of responsibility and duty towards you. She knows she’s not your mother but she also has more tenure on the planet and is willing to share her life’s experiences to help ease you through the rough spots in yours.

I am an only child, so the question of ‘meddlesome’ sibling intervention is a moot point. But I often wish there were another brother or sister – older or same age – in whom I could confide my plans, fears, wishes and dreams. It sounds to me as though you’re being terribly ungrateful for the time your sister has invested in your overall development and well being. Even with a husband and family of her own, she wants to make room and time for you and continue to be that sounding board you can respect, turn to and trust.

My advice; don’t throw that away. As the year’s roll on you’ll realize that men and children will come and go but a sister is that perennial for all your live long days. I suppose if you don’t want to be as close to your sister as you have been, then you could not answer her phone calls and avoid her in public. But then she would consider you a brat. I already do.

Yours truly,
The Crabby Critic



Dear Crabby:

Is twenty-four too old to be a virgin?

Anonymous in Alaska



Dear Hiding from the Truth:

The short answer is ‘No!’ But while we’re on the subject of virginal expiration, I should point out that there is ‘no’ timeline for this next transitional phase in human experience. Just because some people are already working on double digit conquests by your age doesn’t mean that should be the status quo for you to aspire to. If you’re not ready, then you’re just NOT ready! Period!

So, when will you be ready? That’s a question only you can answer. But you shouldn’t dwell on it. You can’t plan for losing your virginity any more than you can plan for an eyelash getting stuck in your eye. It just happens when it does and when it feels right to happen. So cheer up and go play some hockey or something. Life will go on!

Yours truly,
The Crabby Critic

Dear Crabby:

I married way too young – at eighteen and was divorced by the time I was twenty-four. No kids, thank heaven! Problem: my first marriage wasn’t particularly bad but it was awkward. I’ve stayed out of the meat market for the last twelve years by choice. My friends tell me its time to get back into the swing of things. I suppose I should point out that they were married around the same time as me, but their marriages stuck. They’re still married. Anyway, are they right? Should I get back into the swing of things?

Jodi in Belfast


Dear Blind Leading the Brain Dead:

Just because you’re friends tell you to do something doesn’t mean you should. After all, they were probably instrumental in helping you take the first plunge and look how well that turned out. I think sometimes married friends who have been married for awhile forget that ‘single’ and ‘alone’ are two very different things. Just because you’re single doesn’t mean you’re ‘alone’ or – more to the point – ‘lonely!’

You say you’ve been out of circulation for twelve years. That makes you roughly 36. Not old, but definitely old enough to know your own mind. You don’t need a gallop poll to tell you its time for another stab at romance. Besides, in those twelve years of romantic abstinence I think you’ve figured out an essential that your friends have not: that when the chips are down you can count on you to look after yourself.

I also have to tell you as one single person to another single person that as the years roll by being married just doesn’t seem to be a top priority any more. It isn’t that you’re anti-marriage, but you suddenly realize that you’ve become comfortable with being yourself by yourself. That’s not a bad thing and it certainly should not be the only criteria in getting involved in another relationship before its time.

So, when is it time? Well, the answer to that question may be ‘never’. You may decide that living alone suits you best and if that’s your choice and you’re comfortable with it then you’ve made the right decision for you. Don’t let your friends bully you into thinking you’re odd just because you’re not packing a hubby his lunches and baking cookies for the PTA. Live your life as you think it should be lived and let the chips fall where they may.

Yours truly,
The Crabby Critic@The Crabby Critic 2008 (all rights reserved).