"Now that you're single ..."

It's never easy to tell friends and family you're getting divorced. I suppose it's not easy to respond to the news either.

But when I started telling people my 15-year marriage was ending, the first thing that several -- meaning more than three -- people said to me was: "Now that you're single, you really should change your picture on Facebook."

Do I even need to mention they were all male?

For background, my "picture" on Facebook is the graphic inset here. I've used this graphic for years because I think it represents me pretty well. Half the time I'm at the end of my rope, half the time it's "Ready or not, here I come." I think it's witty and sarcastic and ironic and creative. All things I try to be.

There are also 560 Michelle McKenzies on Facebook. People searching for me know immediately which one I am, in part because it's witty and sarcastic and creative.

And hey, she's got great legs.

But apparently, if you're single, people want to know what you look like. Of course, none of the three guys who very sincerely suggested this took into account that my "friends" on Facebook are actually *gasp* friends. I don't take random friend requests. My friends already know what I look like, appreciate the graphic and have no interest in dating either one of us.

And just the idea of dating makes me want to, well, scream, grab a rope and jump.

I understand the power of social media, I appreciate it and I try to use it when it fits my needs. But I don't think that changing my picture on Facebook (or Twitter for that matter), really fits those needs.

I also find it curious that these three "wise men" all assumed that because I am now single, that I don't want to be. Maybe that's how it is these days. Becoming single is the start of the pursuit of becoming unsingle. And that, in turn, is hangs in the balance of what I look like instead of who I am.

No thanks. Those days are over.

Getting it off my chest

The recent news about the former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, getting a book deal opens the door for me to rant for a moment about the fact that the Miss California Pageant paid for her breast implants.

Now, I don’t have a problem with any getting implants and I am willing to wager that the majority of beauty pageant contestants have got them. What’s really sticking in my craw, is that the Miss California Pageant paid for them before she went on to compete for the Miss USA title.

Not Prejean herself, but the people running the show. I’m sure the California pageant officials just thought they were leveling the playing field. But I can’t help but wonder if they were sitting around a table sizing up the competition when they decided their Barbie lookalike would be a bust without a bigger bust.

Keith Lewis, the co-director for the pageant, has said bigger boobs were Prejean’s idea. And in May, he told an “Early Show” anchor that his board meets with the titleholder and asks questions about her opinion of herself and what can give her the “best possible confidence … to present herself … on the national stage.”

The woman had already won the state pageant in one of the biggest states in the country. Funny, but for me, that’d be a pretty big confidence boost. Or affirmation.

From where I sit, this is like the director of baseball operations for the Kansas City Royals (who stink, to you nonbaseball-types) holding a team meeting to tell his players they’ll all be getting HGH injections so they’ll hit more homeruns and throw harder pitches.

Granted, HGH is a banned substance and silicone is not. If Prejean paid for the implants herself -- taken out a loan, held a bake sale, whatever – I’d have no problem with it.

But when the California pageant coughed up the dough for the augmentation, it sent (yet another) message to young women everywhere about body image and who makes the decisions about how we look.

By the way, there’s no word yet on whether or not Prejean will have to give her breasts back or reimburse the pageant since she lost the crown. Over nude pictures. Taken before the surgery. Anyone else see the irony?

Heroes

I read a story last week bemoaning the way we tend to make heroes out of sports stars. And it's true. Just because a guy can hit a ball a long way or throw a ball a long way or swim better than anyone else in the world doesn't make him a hero. It just makes him rich.



Same goes for entertainers. Just because somebody can dance or act or sing doesn't mean he's above hitting a woman (James Brown, Chris Brown ... I can get cross-generational), or serves as a role model.



But the story I read last week pretty much said that no athletes should be revered as heroes, and that's simply not true. The problem is, the stories about heroes -- true heroes who are building their communities from the grassroots up or making huge differences in average lives and don't have a publicist shouting their every deed from the rooftops -- these stories usually don't get told.



Thankfully, sometimes they do. Like this one about the DeKalb, Ill., high school basketball team. Its players and coach are heroes and athletes and inspiration for all of us.

Attitude

I'm sure people sometimes wonder (although they don't really ask) about my attitude.

I've got one. I admit it. It comes across differently to different people -- and yeah, there are some who might call it "bad." But not to my face. I think most people who think they know me call it tough.

Basically, it's just attitude. I tell you what I think, when I think it. Occasionally, and unfortunately, my next thought is "I really should keep that to myself."

Hence, the attitude.

For those who wonder where it comes from though, it's in my Michigan roots and this sums it up perfectly: Apparently, WDIV, the NBC affiliate in Detroit that broadcast the Super Bowl, ran a disclaimer across the bottom of the screen EVERY TIME "analyst" Matt Millen appeared on-screen.

And it read thusly: "Matt Millen was president of the Lions for the worst eight-year run in the history of the NFL. Knowing his history with the team, is there a credibility issue as he now serves as an analyst for NBC Sports?"

I have to say that I was a bit, er, taken aback when I saw Millen giving viewers his thoughts during football's biggest game. It's kind of like if George Bush were to be hired by NBC as a stock analyst.

I'm not saying that just because Millen had absolutely no judgment when it came to staffing a football team and selecting talent that he couldn't effectively tell viewers what was happening on the field.

I am saying that you don't reward the guy that drives the bus off the cliff. I am saying that there were at least a handful of former coaches/execs out there that would have been a better, more respectable choice. And I'm saying I turned the volume off whenever Millen's mug showed up on the screen.

Way to go WDIV. Attitude? You betcha. Got a problem with that?

College football's no-brainer

Oooooak-la-homa ... that wind that comes rushing down the plain is the huge sigh of relief from Sooners fans who found out today that they'll have Heisman-winning quarterback Sam Bradford for one more season.

Hmmm ... maybe it's me (and often it is) but it seems like the most recognizable names in college football this season are staying put rather than coming out for the NFL draft. And you can't help but wonder if for guys like Bradford the Detroit Lions weighed in on the decision-making process.

And think about it: the 0-16 Lions are so bad, the top prospects would stay in school, risk injury or their stock dropping with a sub-par season rather than being the No. 1 draft choice and being sentenced to serving time in Detroit.

Guys like Bradford are smart enough to know that the economy is going to recover before the Lions. They're smart enough, but probably not old enough, to realize that the Lions are William Clay Ford's version of the Pinto. Hit 'em and they explode. They're smart enough to know that the fans in Detroit will suffer through 0-20, 1-23, 4-28 before they start to see enough consistency to think about having a .500 team, let alone a playoff team.

The Lions are not the 2008 Atlanta Falcons. There was some talent there. The Falcons' biggest problem was image. And with a guy like Matt Ryan, it wasn't hard to fix.

In Detroit, the problems are more than skin deep and a pretty face isn't going to fix it. There's always a chance they'll trade it away. But if they keep it, for a short time, the No. 1 pick will be seen as a savior. But as soon as the reality of the Motor City Breakdown sets in, it'll be clear that the No. 1 pick, whoever he is, is just a start on a very long road to redemption.

Detroit's Road to Recovery

Every time I'm home -- that is, back in Michigan -- I can't help but think it's a conspiracy.

You see, the roads here suck. There's no other word for it, although there's a slew of adjectives you could put in front of it. They just plain suck: Cement, not black top; full of potholes that look like they were left by dinosaur-extincting meteors. They're worse in the winter, but they're bad all year round.

My theory is, the roads are like this on purpose. It's the Michigan politicians' way of keeping the auto industry in business by ensuring a consistent, continuous need for vehicle parts and repairs, if not entire new cars altogether. Forget the hubcaps or shredded rubber you see on the side of most major highways.

Yesterday, during a trip up I-75 North and I-96 West, I passed not one, but two front ends. Not a piece of body -- the entire front end, like the ones that pop on and off my son's Megablocks r/c racer.

It seems like every other building you pass out here has a sign that reads Ford, GM, Daimler. It's a testament to exactly how important the auto industry is to MI. Absolutely everything is tied to it. Even the potholes.

Pondering the bailout

I've started posts about the auto industry bailout a couple of times, but my thoughts were always incomplete. You know, with Detroit roots, but Yankee sensibilities, I'm still undecided on the issue.

I know that the people who are against it are right about one thing regarding the Detroit Automakers: they need a legitimate, new 21st Century business plan. And there's nothing wrong with Congress asking for that. From the dawn of time, or at least the dawn of horseless carriage time, GM, Ford and Chrysler have resisted change (back in the day it was seat belts and windshield wipers) because they could make more money by doing the same old, same old.

I know that when I take my Escape to the dealer on Wednesday, my oil change will be $54.95 plus tax; when Midas can do it for $19.99. Too bad the twerp at Midas makes it condescendingly clear that he doesn't think girls understand gears.

I also know that, having grown up in Detroit, my conscience won't let me buy Honda or Toyota and I still love my cars.

And finally, I know that this Letter to the Editor by a Ford dealer in PA makes some terrific points in a very direct and eloquent way. He definitely gives you something to think about.

By Jim Jackson, Elkins Ford, PA

Editor: As I watch the coverage of the fate of the U.S. auto industry, one alarming and frustrating fact hits me right between the eyes. The fate of our nation's economic survival is in the hands of some congressmen who are completely out of touch and act without knowledge of an industry that affects almost every person in our nation. The same lack of knowledge is shared with many journalists whom are irresponsible when influencing the opinion of millions of viewers.
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama has doomed the industry, calling it a dinosaur. No Mr. Shelby, you are the dinosaur, with ideas stuck in the '70s, '80s and '90s. You and the uninformed journalist and senators that hold onto myths that are not relevant in today's world.

When you say that the Big Three build vehicles nobody wants to buy, you must have overlooked that GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the U.S. and Ford outsold Honda by 850,000 and Nissan by 1.2 million in the U.S. GM was the world's No. 1 automaker beating Toyota by 3,000 units.

When you claim inferior quality comes from the Big Three, did you realize that Chevy makes the Malibu and Ford makes the Fusion that were both rated over the Camry and Accord by J.D. Power independent survey on initial quality? Did you bother to read the Consumer Report that rated Ford on par with good Japanese automakers.

Did you realize Big Three's gas guzzlers include the 33 mpg Malibu that beats the Accord. And for '09 Ford introduces the Hybrid Fusion whose 39 mpg is the best midsize, beating the Camry Hybrid. Ford's Focus beats the Corolla and Chevy's Cobalt beats the Civic.

When you ask how many times are we going to bail them out you must be referring to 1980. The only Big Three bailout was Chrysler, who paid back $1 billion, plus interest. GM and Ford have never received government aid.

When you criticize the Big Three for building so many pickups, surely you've noticed the attempts Toyota and Nissan have made spending billions to try to get a piece of that pie. Perhaps it bothers you that for 31 straight years Ford's F-Series has been the best selling vehicle. Ford and GM have dominated this market and when you see the new '09 F-150 you'll agree this won't change soon.
Did you realize that both GM and Ford offer more hybrid models than Nissan or Honda. Between 2005 and 2007, Ford alone has invested more than $22 billion in research and development of technologies such as Eco Boost, flex fuel, clean diesel, hybrids, plug in hybrids and hydrogen cars.
It's 2008 and the quality of the vehicles coming out of Detroit are once again the best in the world.

Perhaps Sen. Shelby isn't really that blind. Maybe he realizes the quality shift to American. Maybe it's the fact that his state of Alabama has given so much to land factories from Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes Benz that he is more concerned about their continued growth than he is about the people of our country. Sen. Shelby's disdain for "government subsidies" is very hypocritical. In the early '90s he was the driving force behind a $253 million incentive package to Mercedes. Plus, Alabama agreed to purchase 2,500 vehicles from Mercedes. While the bridge loan the Big Three is requesting will be paid back, Alabama's $180,000-plus per job was pure incentive. Sen. Shelby, not only are you out of touch, you are a self-serving hypocrite, who is prepared to ruin our nation because of lack of knowledge and lack of due diligence in making your opinions and decisions.
After 9/11, the Detroit Three and Harley Davidson gave $40 million-plus emergency vehicles to the recovery efforts. What was given to the 9/11 relief effort by the Asian and European Auto Manufactures? $0 Nada. Zip!

We live in a world of free trade, world economy and we have not been able to produce products as cost efficiently. While the governments of other auto producing nations subsidize their automakers, our government may be ready to force its demise. While our automakers have paid union wages, benefits and legacy debt, our Asian competitors employ cheap labor. We are at an extreme disadvantage in production cost. Although many UAW concessions begin in 2010, many lawmakers think it's not enough.

Some point the blame to corporate management. I would like to speak of Ford Motor Co. The company has streamlined by reducing our workforce by 51,000 since 2005, closing 17 plants and cutting expenses. Product and future product is excellent and the company is focused on one Ford. This is a company poised for success. Ford product quality and corporate management have improved light years since the nightmare of Jacques Nasser. Thank you Alan Mulally and the best auto company management team in the business.

The financial collapse caused by the secondary mortgage fiasco and the greed of Wall Street has led to a $700 billion bailout of the industry that created the problem. AIG spent nearly $1 million on three company excursions to lavish resorts and hunting destinations. Paulson is saying no to $250 billion foreclosure relief and the whole thing is a mess. So when the Big Three ask for 4 percent of that of the $700 billion, $25 billion to save the country's largest industry, there is obviously oppositions. But does it make sense to reward the culprits of the problem with $700 billion unconditionally, and ignore the victims?

As a Ford dealer, I feel our portion of the $25 billion will never be touched and is not necessary. Ford currently has $29 billion of liquidity. However, the effect of a bankruptcy by GM will hurt the suppliers we all do business with. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy by any manufacture would cost retirees their health care and retirements. Chances are GM would recover from Chapter 11 with a better business plan with much less expense. So who foots the bill if GM or all three go Chapter 11? All that extra health care, unemployment, loss of tax base and some forgiven debt goes back to the taxpayer, us. With no chance of repayment, this would be much worse than a loan with the intent of repayment.

So while it is debatable whether a loan or Chapter 11 is better for the Big Three, a $25 billion loan is definitely better for the taxpayers and the economy of our country.

So I'll end where I began on the quality of the products of Detroit. Before you, Mr. or Ms. Journalist continue to misinform the American public and turn them against one of the great industries that helped build this nation, I must ask you one question. Before you, Mr. or Madam Congressman vote to end health care and retirement benefits for 1 million retirees, eliminate 2.5 million of our nation's jobs, lose the technology that will lead us in the future and create an economic disaster including hundreds of billions of tax dollars lost, I ask this question not in the rhetorical sense. I ask it in the sincere, literal way. Can you tell me, have you driven a Ford lately?