Tag Archives: Politics

Wasting Years With Elizabeth May

I sent the following e-mail (in italics) to Elizabeth May on, or around, November 27, 2008–two years ago.  I had been heavily involved in the Greens for two years and knew what needed to be done.  While her manipulative supporters said I should shut up and “Stop hurting the party”, this private letter proves that my goal was to help.  The lack of action or response shows that Elizabeth May and her unelected clique hurts the party with their incompetence.


My name is Dan Mick.  I have sent you several e-mails in the past, and since this will go to your assistant, I have no way of knowing if you ever receive them or have the time to read them.  Please call me.  I can be a valuable asset.

I have always preferred actions to words, so instead of just a message of support, I will provide what support I can to end the division within the GPC.

While there has been much criticism directed at you recently, you can take some comfort in the fact that the disagreement is not with you personally.  If everything went as it did, but three greens were elected, the party would be unified behind you, as it was when I criticized GPC Organizing in the spring.

In the past, some of the GPC leadership including Jim Harris and Sharon Labchuk, have been quick to silence all who disagree with them.  This has not solved any of the very real problems with the functioning of the party.  The frustration of members that feel they do not have a voice, are calling for a Leadership review to guarantee review of internal GPC policies and operations.  Your replacement is not the goal of the majority of your critics. Greens are unified around the GPC platform.  The only disagreement is on how we can make each point into a law of the land.

The current situation represents a great opportunity for change and growth, but also a threat that could permanently fracture the GPC. Your decisions alone on whether to regard the situation as a threat–or opportunity–will determine the success of Greens in the next general election.


Further attempts to limit or silence criticism will backfire and increase opposition.  Instead, appoint one of your detractors to actively seek criticism and solutions.  This immediately allies you with your perceived opponents.  To expect those that were in a position of authority to investigate their own failures will not produce any positive results.  Someone from outside the current structure will do a better job.

By “seeking criticism” I mean that someone should find all those that have any grievance whatsoever and guide their frustration into suggestion and action.  Part of this process is to allow frustrations to vent.  This will refocus us and increase activity to rebuild our motivation and grow our volunteer base.

Questions for Members:

How do you feel about the past election?

What went poorly?

How do you feel about GPC Organizing?

What can the GP do better?

How do we implement that?

Who else should I talk to?


We can use the situation to create excitement among Greens.  It may also be beneficial if you would contact some of the more outspoken Greens and listen to their criticisms.  You don’t need to defend or even reply–only listen and inquire deeper with open ended questions so that they know you care about their views and are as concerned as they are.

There has been anger over strategic voting comments, with blame put solely on you.  This is evidence of the GPC’s over-concentration on messaging.  Every riding that received 9-10% (while polling much higher) indicates more a failure of the GOTV effort, than any of your misquoted comments.

Nik Nanos has said that the success of the GPC will be determined by our organizing success.  For polling support to double while membership levels drop during the two-year pre-election period indicates that GPC Organizing is in serious disarray.  Changes must be made in this area to unify the party.

While the group that opposes you is small, they are very determined and they include many of the best organizers in the GP that have been excluded because of their opposition to the methods of Sharon Labchuk.  This group is what the party needs to succeed on election day.  Let’s harness their energy and give them something productive to do.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dan Mick

It is now two years later and the problems are in fact worse.  None of this advice has been taken.  Elizabeth still refuses to speak to anyone who disagrees.  She is weak and incompetent.  Elizabeth May isn’t cut out to be a Member of Parliament or the Leader of political party.  Resign now Elizabeth May.

G20 Questions: The Criminalization of Dissent

Montebello 2007:  Police dress up in black as protesters and throw rocks at the Police injuring a protester.  They are caught and it makes international news.  But nothing happens to them or their bosses or the politicians that ordered it.  There is no public inquiry–no accountability.  Apparently it is legal to start a riot for political purposes as long as you are an agent of the government…

June 2010:  Marc Emery sits in jail–extradited to the USA for his political beliefs by Stephen Harper and Rob Nicholson.  Jacob Hunter is assaulted by police outside the Justice Ministers constituency office.  Somehow the police claim that Jacob assaulted the police…  There’s video proving otherwise (check out the 5 minute mark).  How are the charges still being pursued?  How is the officer still employed?  Why did the police respond at all? and why so quick?  As a security guard that has worked on movie sets all over the Greater Vancouver area, I have called 9-1-1 many times.  Usually it takes a very long time for police to respond even for an assault–especially in poor areas.  I once called the police from Shaunesy (one of the richest neighborhoods in the country) and three police cars came within a couple minutes… But this lightning response to no crime or threat takes the cake.

And about the idea that Jacob Hunter’s camera is a weapon–you bet it is! (just not a violent one : D ).  If Jacob Hunter’s cell phone was a weapon, or the officer felt threatened by it or Hunter, then he shouldn’t have turned his back on him.  The officer should have dealt with the threat immediately, the fact that he didn’t proves that the officer was just looking for a technicality to arrest the protesters.  That isn’t policing–its politicking.

2010: Stephen Harper announces a plan to remove billions in spending from programs that reduce crime–like education, welfare, medicine–and spend it instead on prisons and enforcement of laws that only affect those that vote for parties other than the Conservatives…  The more crime–the greater the fear of crime or anger about crime (thanks to the corporate funded media)–the more votes for the corporate agenda… Sad isn’t it?

G8 Toronto 2010:

Border patrol stops people from entering Canada because of their political beliefs.
Police, with a billion dollar budget round up thousands of innocent political protesters, and illegally search anyone they please.  The police outnumber the protesters by 2-1 in many areas.
Groups of protesters are arbitrarily charged at and attacked without warning or provocation by the police.  There was no reason to move them–no justification for an action that may lead to the injury of a police officer, protester or bystander.  This wasn’t about safety and security or law and order…

Police surround peaceful protesters that are singing the national anthem, and pepper-spray and beat these innocent people and then arrest then for being where they are–even though the police won’t let them leave–and they have every right to be there and protest peacefully.

Anyone with a camera is targeted and pushed away to hide the actions of the police.  Unmarked vans pull up and throw random people in the back kicking and screaming and speed off–like something out of a movie about resistance to a violent military regime… Like Burma in 2007.

A small group dressed in black with a media friendly name the “Black Bloc” rampages through the Toronto without any police response whatsoever–in fact the police stand by as the riot starts–then retreat to let it happen.  Remember, the police outnumber the protesters by 2-1 in many areas…  Many cameras get close but the police somehow cannot–or will not…
The rioters have no cause, no message, no strategy–they aren’t protesting–just destroying things for the TV cameras.  All over the world people are thinking what a bunch of lunatics and radicals the protesters are (all of them).  The only political movement that benefits from this violence is Stephen Harper’s corporate conservatism…

The rioters go to the “free speech” zone (the whole country) and take off their masks and dark clothes and just walk away.  Other videos show plain clothes people under the protection of the police, beating protesters with their batons.  Why do the rioters never get identified or charged, but the peaceful protesters get attacked and beaten? Hmmm…

With Stephen Harper and the media so eager to save the country from terrorists and evil-doers, why have they not labeled the Black Bloc “terrorists”?  I guess Harper only disagrees with terrorism when the terrorists are brown… or maybe they’re not terrorists–but cops?

The media ignores the peaceful protest and the reasons for it–like always.  Why is the story always about violence?  Why doesn’t the media report on what is going on?  There is obviously lots of interest.  There is obviously lots at stake if the G8/20 meetings need such high security that we will suspend the rights of all Canadians to host it.  So why not cover the issues instead of “violent protests”?

Stories begin to break through alternative and social media.  The reliance on the internet is what the corporatists want.  They own the system.  President Obama just signed into the law the right to shut down the internet–shut down dissent.  This is full scale political war–and we’re losing.

The police were quoting phony laws–lying to people to violate their rights.  And what happened to anyone who called there bluff?  They were arrested for disobeying a lawful order (which wasn’t lawful)–or trespassing (even though they weren’t)–or resisting arrest (which couldn’t be a lawful arrest) for breaching the peace before it was breached (cause cops have time machines).

The really disturbing part is that there is no defense against the police making up laws.  How can a citizen assert that they have knowledge to the contrary about a made-up law?   The police now have claimed the right to tell you to do anything and force you to comply with every order they make…  Shouldn’t a single instance of an officer making up a law and infringing upon the rights of protesters be enough to end that officer’s career for good?  How can this be perpetrated on us all by those that claim to serve and protect us?

The police are literally making their own laws in Canada.  This is unconstitutional–the people make the laws through our local representatives.  The actions of the police are criminal.  Even rape was threatened…

Flashback Vancouver 2009:  A man is killed by police.  It is caught on camera.  The phone is seized and an officer erases the evidence of his crime. Without the video, no wrong doing can be proven.

Robert Dziekański:  If it wasn’t for the video that proved each officer involved was a liar, most Canadians would have believed that four heavily armed cops were threatened by a stapler.  Remember how the police refused to release the video of their crime and the photographer had to get a court order?  Remember how at first the “thorough and complete” investigation showed the officers “acted within the law in the performance of their duties”? even though the video clearly shows, if you don’t know the context, what looks like a man being executed in seconds.  Thank G_d all four “bad apples” happened to be on duty in the same place and at the same time…

Two Vancouver City police officers show up at a man’s house, drag him onto the lawn and severely beat him.  The man could have easily died.  The only reason this often repeated story makes news is that the police got the wrong guy–the police were supposed to beat the man in the basement suite.  If they had got the right guy they would have claimed he resisted arrest and the officers would never be disciplined or even suspected of wrongdoing because we all know cops follow the law–they’re the “good guys”, and of course the good guys should be rough with the bad guys–especially before they are proven guilty of anything in a court of law.
A choice is before us all.  This is either the end of political freedom in Canada, or the beginning of the end of Stephen Harper’s corporate agenda.  This isn’t a false alarm.  This is the full scale criminalization of political dissent and it must be stopped before we lose the right to protest–or disagree–altogether.

We must push Stephen Harper back across the border and begin a public inquiry into the attempts by these forces to alter the laws and culture of Canada, to turn citizens into captive customers that can be rounded up at will for being one of the 70% of Canadians that doesn’t share Stephen Harper’s backwards, oppressive views.

But all of this is a logical argument, and unfortunately most people make emotional decisions and only use logic to justify those decisions to their egos or peers.  Just click on the videos again and tell me: who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?  Especially watch this one.

Who’s side are you on?  The side of Canadians–or corporations?  The police–or the law?


One out of the “W5”: Who, What, Where, When, Why; it is the last that first avoided me.  Since I was young, I have asked “Why? Why?Why?Why?” and never would an answer make sense.  It would at the start, but it would always come down to…
…because that’s the way it is…
Why? Fuck! You see?

Usually “the way” is a someone’s way. Our society is built on power structures that were built by neurotic people that have a need to control others for their own amusement or gain.  Our society fails because it was never designed to succeed–it is designed to cater to emotional needs of those in power.  The first to gain power were those most ready to use violence.  Not much has changed since prehistory.

I once heard at a business conference that to get to the root of any business problem you should ask “why?” five times.


“Why are we losing money?”
“Because we keep losing big clients.”

“Why are we losing clients?”
“Because they get frustrated by our shipping.”

“Why are we not shipping correctly?”
“Because the staff are drunk by lunch.”

“Why are they getting drunk at work?”
Because their pay is so low that they feel life is hopeless and and shitty is easier to ignore when intoxicated.”

“Why do I pay so little?”

I still ask “Why?” When it comes to people, you can ask “Why?” five thousand times and still be left wondering.  My last post was from Tony and if you had read it, you would have found the parts that speak of the inevitable end of civilization as we know it and even the theory that civilization itself is unsustainable.

The civilization we have today will indeed not continue, just as the civilization of the 1980’s no longer exists.  Change happens.  We adapt.

Many focus on altering society and our laws–to adapt society to people.  This left-wing idea can only be moderately successful and is entirely dependent on the values of the individuals in that society.

Another approach is to adapt individuals, and their values, to alter society.  This is the conservative approach and the one I favor as being the guiding force for civilization, family, peace, and even love.

Think of the abortion debate, which is a debate of polarized ideologies–an apple telling an orange it isn’t red enough.  One group tries to alter people’s values–to respect life more, while the other argues that the nature of people necessitates the need for legal abortions.

I have always found in my search for “Why?” that I prefer order.  My argument has been been, since childhood, that we can choose differently–we can choose peace, acceptance, love.  When I was at Harold Bishop Elementary School in Surrey at 7 years old, I won a contest where we had to design a recycling poster.  Mine read, “The choice is yours.”

There is no limitation whatsoever that can overcome human will.  A group of righteous people can absolutely create a near utopian society.  Any arguments against can be overcome with, “Righteous people will not make those choices.”

Can civilization be saved?  Can we be saved?  Why save either?  Let’s build something better.

Well Said, Bill.

The video says it all.  With two Conservatives that are loyal to the USA fighting to become Prime Minister, we in Canada need a real progressive party.


Constitutional Right to Wear Body Armor

Constitution Act, 1982, Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In order for restrictions on the use of body armor to be consistent with the spirit and wording of the Charter, it must be given to anyone with a reasonable cause to fear for their safety.  Certainly someone fearing an assault from a gang (or rival gang) has reasonable justification for wearing body armor.

On the issue of the rights of the accused and the duty of the government and police to uphold our rights:

1.) If a gang member was being shot at, the police have a duty to protect the life of that gang member.  It is illegal for anyone to knowingly take actions that contribute to the death of another person.

2.) It would be illegal to take away the helmet of a speeding motorcyclist claiming that the helmet assisted them in exceeding the speed limit.  It would be illegal to take away the knee pads of a trespassing skateboarder claiming the knee pads helped the skateboarder break the law.

3.) For a police officer to drop off a suspect in the middle of the dessert is illegal, because they can reasonably assume that that person will be harmed or killed.

Therefor: To take away body armor from a suspect or ex-con that has reason to believe that they may be harmed is also illegal.  If a government body or agent prevented an individual from wearing body armor, and that individual was killed by a bullet that under normal circumstances would not have killed them if they were allowed to wear body armor, then that government agent could, theoretically, be charged in connection with the murder.

Introducing an amendment to the criminal code that made it an offense to commit an offense that was assisted by body armor is legal and effective, though only minimally.  Only reducing the demand for drugs through prevention and treatment, and ending gangs’ monopoly of drug profits, will end future gang killings.

As a society, we cannot allow politicians to take away our Charter Rights so that they can issue a press release and appear as tough they have a policing solution to the problems surrounding drug addiction.

Banning Body Armor: Do we need protection from protection? NO!

The Solicitor General of British Columbia, John Van Dongen, will travel to Ottawa tomorrow to discuss among other things, changes to legislation regarding bulletproof vests.  The argument is that because of the recent explosion of gang violence in BC, where some gang members wear bulletproof vests and drive armored vehicles, that some sort of legislation is required to protect us.

Obviously this is a public relations stunt that will have no impact on public safety or gang crime.  Laws against drugs and automatic weapons obviously don’t work, and neither will laws against body armor.  Only law abiding citizens will be affected by laws against body armor.

A ban won’t work because:

It won’t reduce the number of gangsters wearing body armor
It won’t reduce the supply of drugs
It won’t reduce the demand for drugs
It won’t reduce the supply of guns and automatic weapons
It won’t stop our youth from joining gangs

Law enforcement is both public and private.  Security guards in BC, are trained through the Justice Institute.  As a security guard, I sometimes find myself in dangerous situations in the highest crime neighborhoods in the greater Vancouver area.  I have been in an alley in the Downtown Eastside alone all night guarding thousands of dollars worth of copper wire.   I should have the right to purchase and wear protection against stabbing, beating, or bullets without restriction.

As citizens, we all have the right to wear any protective equipment we deem necessary, whether it is a helmet, knee pads, or body armor.  Imagine if you, or someone you loved were threatened with violence.  Shouldn’t you have the right to wear protective body armor?  If a woman fears harm from an ex-partner, shouldn’t she be allowed to protect herself with a purely defensive item?  Should a previous unrelated criminal record exclude her from wearing a protective vest?

So far no details of proposed changes have been released, but there is a chance that as politicians climb over each other to appear more anti-gang that some very poorly thought out changes to the criminal code that could restrict the availability of body armor for Canadian citizens and even licensed security guards.  Because licensing for security is a provincial issue, drafting a federal law that would still allow security officers to wear body armor is problematic.

I am attempting to get ahold of the Solicitor General and Attorney General of BC to ensure that ay legislation are properly aimed at gangs and violent criminals.  If you are concerned with changes or would like to help in my efforts to protect those in the security industry, contact myself at thequantumbuddha@hotmail.com

Please call or write our provincial and federal politicians with your concerns:

BC Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General
Hon. John van Dongen

Room 236
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4

Phone: 250 356-7717
Phone: 604 870-5945
Fax: 250 356-8270
E-mail: john.vandongen.mla@leg.bc.ca

BC Attorney General
Hon. Wally Oppal, Q.C.

Room 234
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4

Phone: 250 387-1866
Phone: 604 775-2246
Fax: 250 387-6411
E-mail: wally.oppal.mla@leg.bc.ca

Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada
Hon. Rob Nicholson

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Telephone: (613) 995-1547
Fax: (613) 992-7910
EMail: NichoR@parl.gc.ca

Minister of Public Safety
Hon. Peter Van Loan

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Telephone: (613) 996-7752
Fax: (613) 992-8351
EMail: VanLoan.P@parl.gc.ca

Rally Against Gang Violence

After a wave of gang violence, Trevor Loke and Paul Hillsdon want real solutions. So a week ago, they announced that they would put on a rally against gang violence.

The rally against gangs yesterday was very successful.  The Mayor of Surrey and members of the provincial legislature and federal parliament spoke along with victims of gang violence.  At east 250 people attended, as well as every major radio and television news outlet.  A town hall meeting is next, along with recommendations from the community.

The rally was also extremely disappointing in some ways.  Green Party of BC Leader Jane Sterk was the only speaker to question prohibition or even link as the main cause of gangs.  One speaker even blamed the opposition parties of parliament for attempting to form a coalition government when she believed that MP’s should have been following the ultra right-wing Conservative Party as they mimic America’s failed “War on Drugs”.

The rest of the speakers either avoided the issue or incorrectly linked drugs as the cause of gangs.  Remember, there are no gangs making money off of Prozac, Ibuprofen, morphine or alcohol.  Gangs only control illegal substances–name one legal thing that gangs control or make money off of…

Some of the attendees were baffled when they were informed that regulation of cannabis would reduce gangs.  One even naively said “Gangs would love that.”  I have spoken to a couple of drug dealers in the past about the issue of prohibition and they were very clear and outspoken that they would hate to see marijuana legalized because they would be unable to compete in an open market.

Regulation of cannabis would eliminate 8 BILLION DOLLARS from the pockets of organized crime in British Columbia.  8 BILLION DOLLARS.  8 BILLION DOLLARS–Gone–every year.  Gangs would not like that, and most would be eliminated or crippled.

Regulation of drugs will not fix the problem entirely, but it is the easiest, quickest, cheapest way to reduce gangs and gang violence.  When will the politicians of Canada align their policies with the will of the Canadian people, who do not support the criminalization of marijuana?  How badly does the war on drugs have to fail before we are ready to accept the solutions?  How many more need to die?

Dear President Obama, Grow Some Balls

At President Obama’s first press conference, the President was asked a simple question by Helen Thomas: “Do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?”

The President’s response should have been “Israel–next question.”  Instead he replied:

“With respect to nuclear weapons, I don’t want to speculate. What I know is this: that if we see a nuclear arms race in a region as volatile as the Middle East, everybody will be in danger. And one of my goals is to prevent nuclear proliferation generally, I think that it’s important for the United States in concert with Russia to lead the way on this, and I’ve mentioned this in conversations with the Russian president, Mr. Medvedev, to let him know that it is important for us to restart the conversations about how we can start reducing our nuclear arsenals in an effective way, so that we then have the standing to go to other countries to start stitching back together the nonproliferation treaties that frankly have been weakened over the last several years.”   What a load of bullshit.

America needs a President that has the cojones to at least say what the entire world already knows–Israel has an extensive illegal nuclear arsenal.  It is not a matter of opinion.  Obama could still support Israel having that arsenal which is bad enough, but to dodge the question is worse and shows that he is no messiah.

This is strike one against Obama.  I expected more.

This is what we really need from Obama and all politicians…

Prevention is the Only Justice

With the recent rise in (drug) gang shootings in the lower mainland, including one that happened 20 feet from where I had been parked half an hour earlier, I have been considering our societies response to crime.

Fear and anger has consumed the reason of many who call for longer sentences. It is important to remember when looking for answers to any problem, that if the solution to the problem was simple and popular–the problem wouldn’t exist. Tougher sentences have been tried, but have never been shown to substantially lessen crime.

Those with nice homes and families fear losing them and it is understandable that they often think that everyone has as much to lose. It is difficult for some to understand the madness of the medical condition of addiction that causes so much of our crime, but it should not be difficult for them to understand that those that do not fear death from overdose, disease, or gang violence–will not fear prison.

We must also ask ourselves whether we want to build our society on fear and punishment. Have we permanently confused vengeance with justice? Are we so delusional, that we honesty think a society built on the Christian principles of love and forgiveness will fail, or be inferior to our own?

All truly bad behavior is caused by the needs of an individual not being met. People turn to drugs and crime because of a insecurity, medical conditions, poor upbringing, depression, or desperation. This should arouse our pity and compassion–not anger.

Prevention of crime is the only justice. No matter how high the fine, no matter how long the sentence, or brutal the torture–the crime has been done. There is no need for society to create a second victim or re-victimize the “bad guy”.

Incarceration is in most cases temporary, and we must consider what will happen to the community when a person is released from jail. It may be tempting to suggest that we should never let them out, but we should remember that most of us at some point in our lives have done something that is considered a crime or was once considered a crime. Should you be locked up forever?

Those we label as criminals today are also capable of great positive change. As a society we should endeavor to help those that have wronged to not commit wrong again. Nothing could be more criminal than allowing our fear and anger about the past limit the future of our society.

Some of the “crime” in our society is actually caused by our own unreasonable expectations of how individuals should act. Where there is no victim, there can be no crime, and all of us want the freedom to decide what is best for ourselves when no one is forced to be hurt by our actions.

The majority of gang violence is drug related. It is the fuel and funding of gang and organized crime activities. Prohibition creates the means, motive and opportunity for gang violence. Prohibition is criminal–especially the prohibition of cannabis which is much less dangerous and addictive than alcohol and tobacco. We can put an end to most gang violence in B.C. tomorrow by legalizing, regulating and taxing cannabis.

It is time our drug policy reflects the facts. It is time to end crime–not fight crime.

Here is a story from CTV on sentencing perception vs. reality that I find interesting–comments too

Financial Crisis: The Problem is Not the Solution

The “economic crisis” is complicated, yet simple enough for the average person to understand. So here it is: There’s no money. Simple, eh? lol Well, there is a bit more to it than that.

More accurately, there is less money. Our economy has been based on credit for 25 years. Manufacturing, real estate, commodities–sales in every sector have been driven by the availability of credit.

Credit is supposed to be temporary, but the absence of responsibility in our society has allowed us to borrow money to pay off debt. Much of the collateral used was valued based on continual growth in real estate. Eventually, the market ran out of buyers, prices collapsed, those who were allowed to purchase with no down payment or were approved for a mortgage they could not afford lost their homes, then the market crashed and many banks found themselves with a bunch of worthless homes that they had used as collateral to borrow money… The bill is due and now we are all going to wash dishes for a very long time…

What has been called a “credit crisis” and “economic crisis” is really a spending crisis. We purchased things we didn’t need with money we didn’t have. Now we are being told that the solution is to borrow a huge amount of money and invest it in dying technologies and sectors of the economy. The solution to the problem is not more of the problem, especially when most of the money will go to the people and corporations that drove our economy to ruin.

The plan is that billion dollars will be borrowed, plus interest on this new debt, and interest on the huge debt we already have, to “stimulate” the economy. So, they are going to borrow from the next generation to pay for the mismanagement of this generation.

Our economy does not require financing to continue the materialism and consumerism that have created an ecological disaster. If we are going to go into deficit, then every dime should be an investment in our future that aims to correct the misguided ways that got us into this mess.

In difficult times for individuals and nations, we should remember where our happiness comes from, and separate wants from needs. “The economy” can mean many things, in times of economic depression, we should measure the success of the economy by our ability to provide a quality standard of living for those hurt by our collective denial.

Save your money, spend wisely, reduce your expenses. We”ll get through this ; )