This weekend I went to the movies to see “Mirror, Mirror” with my 9-year-old daughter. It was our date night. We went to dinner before-hand and then to the cinema.

I bought the tickets: $10 for mine and $7.50 for her’s.

We bought a large soda for $5.50 which we shared. And we proceeded to take our seats.

Unlike years ago when you’d be bombarded with previews of movies and maybe some trivia screens, we were “treated” to commercials. This is nothing new. I’ve seen them before.

But full disclosure: I usually rent movies. I rarely go.

This concept of commercials inside the theater has bugged me for a long time. But this time, it bothered me more than usual.

Maybe because my daughter was with me. I feel like we had bought our way to some peace and quiet.

But instead I got pounded by commercials.

So wrong!

According to the “Los Angeles Times,” spending on ads in movie theaters jumped 13% in 2010. Advertisers spend $658.3 million, according to numbers from the Cinema Advertising Council.

Remember, these are the ads that appear on screen before the movie that you just paid big bucks to watch.

John Campea from TheMovieBlog.com believes that commercials before movies are worse than piracy.

“Most of that money comes from the ads I LOATHE,” says Campea. “[But] the commercials… that start playing at the time they advertised the MOVIE was supposed to start [I hate most],” Campea says on the website.

I am inclined to agree with him on that.

Though he is not, I am bothered by the fact that the movie theater took my money, gets my undivided attention and then feels like it’s okay to sell advertising and market products to me.

Perhaps they should offer a discounted ticket if that were the case and have some showings with ads; others without any ads. And if you don’t mind ads you can save a few bucks on the ticket. Now that would be super!

But short of that, as far as I’m concerned the movie theater be a “no ad zone.” Previews are okay in my book because it’s a preview to other upcoming movies–it’s related.

But what do ads from Cartoon Network, Coke, Intel and Target have to do with me watching a movie?

I’m not sure why consumers tolerate it. It makes me feel like my personal space is being invaded and like these theaters don’t value my time.

I show up and feel like a sitting duck. Where am I going to go?

The movie theater is not alone. Have you been to a hockey game? Advertising is EVERYWHERE.

But that doesn’t bother me as much because no single screen captures your undivided attention.

I tolerate ads on TV because it means I get to watch TV shows for free.

When will the public tire of this?

When they do there may be a consumer revolt.

I don’t blame the advertisers. I blame the movie theaters. But I don’t feel better about those companies that spent money to run ads to sitting ducks like me. But it doesn’t make me feel better about them either.

As it turns out I am in good company. Others feel the same.

The Captive Motion Picture Audience of America (CMPAA) launched a campaign against this. Who knew?

Mitt Romney gets skewered on the show each week, but he has yet to come on the show himself.

As he and his team considers whether or not to appear, I have this advice for him: Do it!

In my mind, this is a no-brainer.

The Saturday Night Live invite is a gift and could not have come at a better time. Even Mitt Romney, even with his enormous wealth, could not buy the publicity he could get from it.

So, why do I feel he should accept?

Get to Know Him. It will help people get to know him. The public feels like he is too guarded. Nothing like a little skewering face-to-face to get people to know you and be able to judge your character.

Self Deprecation. Self deprecation is a good thing in this profession we call politics. You have to have an enormous ego to run for president, so to poke fun of yourself from time to time is a good thing. It shows you can laugh and it preempts others from making fun at you. If you say it they don’t say it. That’s just how this process works.

Mitt Romney gets skewered on 'Saturday Night Live' but the candidate himself has never appeared on the NBC program.

Sarah Palin appeared on the show after being lampooned week after week. She, of course, was running for Vice President. But by the time she went on the show, it was too late to undo the damage that has already been done. I think it helped her.

There was another politician who ran for president in 1996. People felt he was boring and lacked a sense of humor. He lost the election.

Then he went on The Late Show with David Letterman, and all the talk was about how funny he is and how much personality he has. But the public didn’t see it until it was too late. This candidate later went on to do Viagra commercials. Yep, I am talking about Bob Dole. Perhaps the election might’ve turned out differently had Bob Dole done that interview while he was still running. (And, interestingly enough, he also later appeared on Saturday Night Live.)

I am not a handler. I am a PR guy who helps people, political candidates bring out the best of themselves in the public arena. I’ve done that for Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois, and many others.

I don’t help people become someone else. In fact, I won’t help someone become someone else. That projects a fake or false image. The public needs to like these people for whom they really are. So I help make that happen.

Political handlers are different. They try to make the candidate into the person they want them to be–or the person they think the public wants them to be. That’s dangerous and often ineffective.

I don’t know Mitt Romney personally. But if all the characterizations from his family and friends are accurate, he is a very likeable guy who has a sense of humor and wonderful sense of self. But the public never sees that.

In short, they think of him as a rich guy who’s a stick in the mud.

My advice to Mitt Romney: Have confidence enough in yourself and go outside your comfort zone. Let people know you–for you. Trust they will like you.

What I know about people is that they rarely like people whom they don’t trust. And they rarely trust people whom they don’t like. And they can’t like you or know you if you erect a “wall” that keeps the public from getting to know you.

If Mitt Romney wants to really give President Obama a run for his money and beat him in November, he needs to win over the public with his personality and not just policy. It will take both. And Saturday Night Live can make that happen. Done well, Saturday Night Live could change the dynamics of this election overnight.

My guess is that Obama’s people don’t want Romney to do ‘SNL’ because they know the enormous potential. Just look at Michelle Obama. She’s doing a high volume number of talk shows–not news shows.

If I were working with Mitt Romney (and how I’d love to if for just this very appearance) I’d make sure to review every skit and every joke to make sure that the envelope is not pushed too far. I nixed a lot of jokes when Blagojevich made his commercials and late show and other appearances.

So Mitt Romney: Do ‘Saturday Night Live’ and if you want my help with it, call me. My office is in Tampa. Home of the RNC Convention which is in just a few months from now.

This is a crisis. They’re fighting for their livelihoods.

This is serious stuff for tens of thousands of employees who could lose their jobs.

And all of  it will also likely impact how the rest of us send and receive mail.

The U.S. Postal Service is losing so much money it may eliminate Saturday delivery, close some post offices and could increase first-class postage from 45 to 50 cents.

The fate rests in the hands of the U.S. Congress.

And the postal union has launched an aggressive PR campaign to appeal to the public for help in fighting these cuts.

The union TV ads emphasize the disastrous effects on employees and taxpayers:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg3CTv5tqwo

The ads, featuring real postal workers and customers, tear at your heartstrings. They genuinely make you feel sorry for the real people--hard-working people--who earn a living at the U.S. Post Office whose worlds will be turned upside-down if these cuts go through.

So the other day I went to the post office to overnight some important material. I intentionally went to the U.S. Post Office instead of FedEx or UPS--both of which were just as close--because I wanted to support the post office.

When I got there I found a really long line and only two employees behind the counter.

Long lines and unhappy employees could undermine a slick PR campaign from the postal union. (Photo from: Glenn Selig)

That alone was not a big deal. What was: the attitude of the employees. They looked very unhappy and overworked. They did not even attempt to deliver service with a smile.

Customers waiting in line were not happy either. And several of us were talking about the attitudes of the postal workers. They were downright rude to customers, even rude to each other.

Even as the line continued to get longer, no more workers came to the counter and the workers that were there did not offer an apology such as sorry for the long wait.

So here’s the rub: The union is spending lots of money with these really good ads trying to get the public on their side to fight the cuts. And they are being undermined by their own union members.

To be fair, I did not visit multiple post offices. I went to one. And maybe this post office was the exception.

I also realize that management may have created an unhappy working environment. And I am sure that management is, in fact, at least in part to blame.

But these are tough times. And these workers need to suck it up until this crisis is averted. If you want the public to help you, you need to bring them into your tent. Treating them poorly, even if you have every right to be unhappy, only reinforces the notion to the public that things really do need to change at the post office.

I realize this is easier said than done. And I understand that at this point perhaps the working environment has become quite hostile at the post office.

But either postal workers need to figure out how to fake happiness or the union needs to devise a campaign that doesn’t ask the public, or rely on the public, for support.

You don’t get sympathy by projecting anger and taking it out on the customer.

Slick videos and ads won’t succeed if postal employees undermine the campaign by projecting anger and unhappiness in front or towards customers.

I’d suggest that every employee say: “Hi. Sorry for the wait. As you probably heard this is a difficult time right now.”

And end with: “We appreciate your business and I hope we’re here the next time you need us.”

What do you think? Leave me a comment below or reach me on Twitter: @glennselig.

He certainly knows how to dish it. And his missteps make news too.

Especially one this big.

Last week, Rush Limbaugh attacked law student Sandra Fluke calling her a “slut” and “prostitute” after she advocated that insurance companies cover birth control.

Some advertisers have suspended ads from his popular show.

And news outlets around the country can’t stop talking about it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfb9f7yFYgw

The talk is so acute, on RushLimbaugh.com, Rush Limbaugh posted a message: “Everything is fine on the business side. Everything’s cool. There is not a thing to worry about. What you’re seeing on television about this program and sponsors and advertisers is just incorrect.”

Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh apologized on his radio program for the remarks he made.

“I don’t expect, and I know you don’t either, morality or intellectual honesty from the left,” he said. “This is the mistake I made: in fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them. Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong, I descended to their level. I feel very badly about that.”

“Those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point I was trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize. I do not think that she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.”

Did Rush Limbaugh apologize. Yes.

Did Rush Limbaugh apologize with a “but”? Yes.

That’s like a husband going over to his wife and saying: “I’m really sorry for what I did. But you made me so mad that I just got in the gutter with you. I am so sorry.”

This a backhanded apology from Rush Limbaugh.

A true, heart-felt apology would not be about offering excuses. It would be about saying I’m sorry period. Not I’m sorry but…

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh attacked President Obama for  a double standard: criticizing him, a Republican, but when liberal Democrats say inflammatory things the president says nothing.

That’s like saying sure I said it, but they say it too! It’s not fair just to pick on me.

The problem is the side arguments diminish the effectiveness and ultimate efficacy of any apology.

If he is truly sorry, and he wants this to go away, then he should simply apologize and say there is no excuse for having called Sandra Fluke those names. He should say it was childish and wrong under any circumstances and that he apologizes publicly. He should also pick up the phone, Sandra Fluke and ask her to forgive him. He should make the call in private. If the apology is heartfelt, then it would seem reasonable to expect she will accept it. And if she accepts it, so will the public and advertisers.

Crisis over.

It takes a man to admit he is wrong. To err is human, to forgive… you know the saying.

The objective here should be to minimize harm and damage… to stop the bleeding. And every day Rush Limbaugh tries to divert attention and fails to fully apologize he only makes matters worse.

I also read the reviews and the criticism of the “minor” part she played on the show and commentators who questioned whether she was ready for prime time. (It’s an expression as I know ‘SNL’ is not really in prime time.)

Anyway…

Here’s my take on Lindsay Lohan and her hosting of ‘Saturday Night Live.’

She showed up, she brought in the numbers and people are talking about it.

She had fun with the experience beginning with the promotion…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjKf3SeU--w

In entertainment, that’s a home run!

Indeed Lindsay Lohan did not appear in the opening skit--she could’ve easily played Ann Romney--and she had fairly minor parts in the live program. And reading between the lines, that may, in fact, be a signal that ‘SNL’ producers did not have complete faith in her for a live program, given an unpredictable history.

Lindsay Lohan, in her monologue, joked about ‘SNL’ producers and questioned whether they completely trusted her.

In every joke there is usually some truth. It was a very subtle way of addressing what the public would likely have noticed anyway.

Making a joke about something acknowledges the obvious but if executed properly prevents the public from feeling uncomfortable.

From my assessment, I think it was a smart move to seize an opportunity to host the popular pop culture phenomenon that is ‘Saturday Night Live.’

I, for one, am rooting for her. And I believe the vast majority of the public is, too.

Who doesn’t like a comeback and shows like ‘Saturday Night Live’ are great vehicles.

Lindsay Lohan has fallen into the same drug and partying trap like so many before her. But her time as a Disney star proves she’s talented. The public is rooting for a comeback. And ‘SNL’ gave her an opportunity to impress or blow it on live TV. And nobody is saying she blew it. So it is a definite plus for her.

And the ratings are undeniable and no matter how you look at it that will bode well for Lindsay Lohan.

Because even if you take the position that people watched because they were hoping for a train wreck on live TV, the bottom line is they watched.

And in entertainment, that’s all that matters.

Bookings on cruise ships have apparently sunk to extreme lows.

The cruise ship company feeling the hurt most: Carnival. The Costa Concordia is owned by Carnival Corp.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. reports earnings later this week and travel agents are not expecting good news.

The concern by the public: safety. They are questioning the safety of cruise lines. And they are questioning what would happen if there were an emergency on their cruise.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYwLQDwqDCI

Sure there are people who think the cruise ship they go on will meet the same fate. But I don’t think the majority really believe that. Most understand that the Costa Concordia disaster is most likely the result of the actions of one captain who made terrible errors in judgment. Most understand that this type of scenario is not likely to repeat itself.

So what is it that is causing people to stay away?

I think it has more to do with revelations surrounding the rights of passengers--or the lack thereof. Let’s face it: Most of us who’ve been on a cruise never read the fine print. That fine print limits our rights significantly. And that issue has been exposed big time because of this disaster.

So here’s h0w I see it: The vast majority of people know that the chances of their cruise ship sinking is extremely remote. But they believe there’s a good chance something else might happen on the trip. They could get their items stolen, someone may become injured or seriously injured. If any of that stuff happens--then what?

Much of what makes us feel free to travel is the expectation of knowing that if something goes wrong that you can get help and you will be helped. And so much of what has happened in this disaster in Italy has shaken people’s confidence.

So what now?

The cruise lines need to revisit the fine print matter. They seem to have gotten away with a lot for a long time. In my opinion they need to address people’s concerns about that fine print. Insofar as they can make the public feel better about it without changing a word, then good for them. But it seems to me that they likely will need to do something to change the language so that the public doesn’t feel like they’re signing their lives away to go on a cruise.

Until they address the overall safety of cruise lines and address the fine print, it may be some time before the public is willing to take the risk for the  reward of a cruise.

Yesterday, just one day before the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney said “I like being able to fire people.”

He said it in the context of health care; that he wants to be able to fire his health care company if it is not performing. Mitt Romney was criticizing Obamacare.

But boy did his opponents pounce. Not only the Democrats. But also his Republican challengers.

They took the comment out of context saying he enjoys firing people period. They connected Romney’s words to his business experience and said it reinforces their contention that Romney enjoys firing people and that’s what he did while he headed Bain Capital.

So much for playing fair!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBOqLxzGTx8

Jon Huntsman played in this dirty game. And so did Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. They knew that’s not what Mitt Romney meant. And, indeed, it is not even what Romney said. Rick Santorum, to his credit, knew better and did not play ball.

The news media were the enablers. Just about all the programs went with the story--even though they knew the criticism was unwarranted. They had coverage of what some called a “gaffe.” The media appeared to relish in the discourse because it was a better, more exciting story.

So exciting it was that in many newsrooms I’m sure a few people said “you couldn’t make this sh*t up!”

But the problem was… it was all manufactured. Romney’s opponents commenting as they did legitimized the story for the media. But I believe the media created the story and encouraged it.

The media egged on the candidates and took the Romney comments to the candidates to get a quick response quote and then played the heck of out of those quotes.

It was a good old fashioned mud slinging. Just the way the media likes it.

Not only did I spend 15 years in news, to this day I watch a lot of news programs. I have the news on in my office all day and if driving I listen to the news channels on the radio.

The only show that I saw that did not pounce and instead kept the dialogue honest was CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.” Good for the producers there and for Anderson Cooper. The show called it for what it was. The show did not condemn the media.

The reality is this: Romney did not say what they say he said and he clearly did not mean what they say his words meant.

But it made for a good fight even though there was no truth to it.

The media could have squashed the story or put the story into context like AC360. But they collectively did not. Instead, they cheered the opposition on. It was like  a high school brawl. Though the media was not doing the fighting, it was doing the cheering and likely even encouraged a few jabs.

So what’s the lesson here?

I try to remember that you can only control what you do. You can’t control the actions of others. It’s a message I try to impress on clients.

In my opinion, the competitive nature of the news business causes media folks and pundits to act in ways that would make Edward R. Murrow roll over in his grave. And some of the candidates of today would sicken our Founding Fathers if they were alive today.

That notwithstanding, it is what it is.

But given that, Mitt Romney, and the other candidates, need to be extra careful to refrain from saying anything that can possibly be taken out of context. And they can’t rely on the media to stay impartial and keep the candidates in check.

It used to be that context meant everything. But now even taking comments out of context seems to be fair game.

It’s never been more important to think before you speak.

Samira Amen-Fawaz and her husband Ali Fawaz (Courtesy TLC).

Oh, when will these companies stop making boneheaded mistakes by falling into the threat-of-boycott trap.

Lowe’s is under fire for pulling its ads on “All-American Muslim.” California state senator Ted Lieu jumped in battle demanding that Lowe’s restore its advertising, calling the move to stop advertising “bigoted, shameful, and un-American.”

Pressure mounted from the Florida Family Association to pull ads from the show claiming that “All-American Muslim” was nothing more than “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

“All-American Muslim” premiered last month on TLC. The program follows the lives of five Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan, a Detroit suburb.

In an email to Mlive.com, a Lowe’s spokesperson told Mlive.com that it dropped its advertising, only in part because of the campaign by FFA: “We understand the program raised concerns, complaints, or issues from multiple sides of the viewer spectrum, which we found after doing research of news articles and blogs covering the show. We based our decision to pull the advertising on this research and after hearing the concerns we received through emails, calls, through social media and in news reports.”

Once word got out, the backlash began and Lowe’s went on Facebook to send a message to its customers saying the company “has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible,” the statement reads. “Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.”

Lowe’s should have known better.

Companies like Lowe’s should be keenly aware that nothing good ever comes when fringe organizations pressure companies into pulling ads and companies cave.

If Lowe’s was wishy washy or even the least bit uncomfortable, then the company should never have started advertising on the program. This is the type of show that Lowe’s ought to have expected some sort of controversy or should have considered the possibility that there might be some push back.

It appears that Lowe’s was caught with its pants down, ill-prepared for any sort of issues that could arise. Had the company considered that possibility, it should have stuck to its guns and continued advertising and reiterated its position of no tolerance for discrimination and openness to different religions and belief systems and a program that helps foster understanding of differences.

When you have scruples and strong beliefs, you stick with them no matter what the criticism. The fact that Lowe’s caved, shows no conviction in the first place and displayed its willingness to try to take the most popular approach.

There is a way Lowe’s could have responded to the Florida Family Association. Lowe’s could have said that if Lowe’s believed the characterization to be true, and the show was “propoganda,” then it would not support the program. But what the FFA claims is simply not true. In other words, challenge the premise. Don’t accept the group’s spin. Challenge the premise.

The hacktivist group Anonymous has now attacked the Florida Family Association website to retaliate for the campaign and pressure it placed on Lowe’s. It’s an interesting ally. But does Lowe’s really need a hacktivist group on its side?

Kris Humphries painful interview on Good Morning America.

Have you seen it? Ooh, it’s painful.

Kris Humphries, the soon-to-be ex-husband of Kim Kardashian, had his first post-breakup interview. And let’s just say it didn’t go very well.

MSNBC reports that he’s livid that most of the questions revolved around the reality show and Kim Kardashian.

He apparently was under the impression that he was there to talk about his foundation and basketball.

This is exhibit A of why you want someone like me and our Agency in the picture.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS8Xj-4Rnmg

To say that network morning TV is dog-eat-dog would be an understatement. The competition is beyond fierce. And bookings are more important than gold.

I’m going to take a very educated stab at what happened.

The producers at Good Morning America sold Kris Humphries on the idea of being on the show by saying that they will talk about his foundation and basketball. They probably deliberately avoided promising that they would not discuss Kim Kardashian or the show, and likely redirected the conversation whenever that came up.

My best guess, thought not stupid, Humphries is not particularly street smart. He most likely was passive when asking about the ground rules for the interview.

I am hoping he does not have a PR representative who was involved with this. If he did, that person ought to be fired, or diverted to another PR objective.

Any even marginally swift individual should have known that there would be questions about his relationship with Kim Kardashian. It’s the first interview since the breakup.

Plus, the morning news is female dominated. The reality show genre is female dominated.

Did he really believe they’d be talking basketball? Really?

Humphries may have been lured into a sense of security because the interview was Josh     , GMA’s news anchor who used to be a sportscaster for ESPN.

I don’t believe that GMA out and out lied to Humphries.  I think the show pulled a trick out of a politicians handbook. Producers simply avoided the question or answered the question with another question.

Example:

Question: “Are you going to ask me anything about Kim, because I am not here to talk about Kim or my life with Kim and don’t want to talk about Kim.

Answer:  Oh, come on, would we invite you on the show and ask your mother to sit beside you if we were going to do that?

Is it misleading? You bet.  Is it lying?  No.

And that’s how a “misunderstanding” begins.

And that is also why our firm plays such an important role in these situations. And why even celebrities need representation in these matters. Had we been involved, this would have played out much differently.

So there you have it.  It gets ugly sometimes.

At the end of the day ‘GMA’ got the story they wanted. So what if Kris Humphries is angry?

For them, this story is history.

A cat with only three legs came to the doors of our Tampa corporate headquarters. We’d seen the cat before. She is a real trooper and doesn’t appear to let her disability stand in the way of living a full life.

Employees were concerned about the cat on the streets and called local animal and governmental organizations to see what could be done. But none could guarantee that the cat would be placed in a home and could in fact be put down. So we didn’t want to do that!

Then the cat simply disappeared. We couldn’t locate that cat.

The cat with three legs suddenly reappeared a few days ago at our door.

This time we decided to do something unusual.

Instead of throwing up our hands over the cat we called Paws, we decided to use our public relations resources to find the family missing the cat or to find a new home for the cat.

And just like that we jumped into action.

We drafted a search engine optimized press release and distributed it online via our newswire PR NewsChannel.

We posted a video on YouTube.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ZX68SJZ6Q

We took out ads on Craigslist.

We were on a mission.

Within 24 hours, we were flooded with calls and emails from people concerned and wanting to help. We touched a nerve. And the cat touched people’s hearts. We heard from local residents, from people from around the U.S., and even from folks in Canada. Everyone wanted to participate in finding help for this cat with just three legs.

One of those people: A woman in Tampa. We selected her to take the cat. We phoned her, but before she got to the office, the cat’s owner stepped forward. It was a happy reunion. Very touching. The cat came running when the owner called for “Heather.”

So, now we know her name is Heather.  And today she is being well cared for.

She has indeed had a tough life. She was abandoned about a year ago, when this current owner decided to take her in and take care of her.

Wow. What an emotional experience this has been.

Despite all the bad stuff we hear about, see or live with on a regular basis, it’s nice to see the good that still exists.

As Tyler Ragghianti, a project manager at PR NewsChannel told me when he walked into the office this morning: ”It was a lot of fun just to see how people from across the country can care that much about a cat.  It was absolutely worth the effort and is good to know that people are out there who would fly down from Canada just to adopt a cat. We can’t always agree on big things but we all seem to agree that a cat deserves a home.”

I am also very proud of my employees here. Not only are they tops at their jobs, they are great people. Besides company resources that were thrown into this effort, each was willing to give of his or her own time to help, too.

Melissa Rogovin, a project manager at The Publicity Agency, was literally walking out the door when the cat walked into the office.

Without hesitation, Melissa gave of her own personal time to stay late until all was resolved. I didn’t ask. She just did.

This whole experience reinforced to me that not only do we have the best professionals at Selig Multimedia, Inc., we also have the best people.

I see so much bad stuff. A good portion of our Agency’s business is crisis management! So, this has been a great distraction in a week that has personally made me question whether people are in fact good.

What I learned from this experience is that the vast majority of people are good. And that people are willing to step up.

I wish every story had happy endings.

But I am reminded of a lesson I learned many years ago. The world needs to have ups and downs because it’s the only way to truly appreciate the ups.

So, from the bottom of my heart, thanks to everyone who participated in this effort. And for making it possible for this story to have a happy ending.