The Sacramento Bee carried a good article about local nonprofits and the youth volunteers who work with them, creating a mutually beneficial situation where the youth gain from the experience—and in some cases gain school credit—and the organizations get vitally needed volunteer help.
Developing and sustaining the organizational environment to attract and benefit from volunteers—of any age—is an art unto itself, but one necessary to many nonprofits who have labor needs their available funding cannot afford, and it is good to see that many local nonprofits have created that environment.
An excerpt.
“When the region's school leaders began requiring students to perform community service about 10 years ago, they were largely motivated by what the experience could give to teenagers: character, civic engagement, a sense of purpose.
“A major side effect, it turns out, is what the requirement has given to local nonprofits.
"It's a whole volunteer force, or work force, that wasn't there before," said Christine Wallace, community resource coordinator at the Volunteer Center of Sacramento.
“She used to take the calls one by one from students (or their frantic parents) wanting to fulfill a school's community service requirement. Wallace tried to match each student with an organization that needed volunteers – but found that many were not set up to work with youth.
“All that's changed in the decade or so since it became common for schools to ask students to help their community, or engage in what educators call "service learning." Most charitable organizations in the Sacramento area now rely heavily on student volunteers.
"That's a huge trend," Wallace said. "In fact so much so that we … created an entire directory specifically for junior high and high school students."
“Dozens of community service opportunities for children and teens are now listed on the Web sites of the Volunteer Center of Sacramento and Hands On Sacramento: The Sacramento Area Emergency Housing Center is looking for kids age 16 and up to help homeless children with homework. Children age 10 and up can volunteer for Harvest Sacramento, gleaning fruit from area backyards and donating it to the hungry. And the Sacramento Tree Foundation takes volunteers as young as 5 years old, Wallace says, (as long as they bring mom or dad along).”
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Thrift Stores
These have traditionally been an excellent way for nonprofits to add to their income—I once spent some time developing and managing a thrift store for a nonprofit—and this story from the Sacramento Bee profiles one nonprofit in our area that has taken their social enterprise to the next level; a very good thing.
An excerpt.
“A reluctance to say, "No, thank you," has led a small group of nonprofit thrift stores to turn a once costly nuisance into an environmentally friendly and moneymaking enterprise.
"The thrift model is truly 'green.' It is all about reuse," said Ravel Buckley, manager of retail operations for Placerville-based Snowline Hospice.
“But Snowline, which operates thrift shops in Folsom, Cameron Park, Camino and Placerville, has taken reuse beyond retail to recycling.
“Since opening a processing center in Diamond Springs in January 2008, Snowline has diverted more than 6.2 million pounds of materials from landfills, said Dave Risso, processing center manager.
“The center also is grossing about $400,000 annually, not counting items that are sorted there and redistributed to the four stores for sale, he said.
“Organizations with large thrift store operations, such as Goodwill Industries and the Salvation Army, have recycling and processing centers, but such facilities are rare among small nonprofits, Buckley said. Snowline Hospice's retail and recycling efforts help fund services for terminally ill individuals and their families in the city of Folsom and El Dorado County.
“Donors sometimes are put off by thrift stores that are picky and unwilling to accept certain items, Buckley said. But many items aren't suitable for resale in the shops.
“The stores also have had to deal with clandestine dumping of unwanted items and the subsequent cost of having them hauled to a dump or recycling center.
"Now we have the ability to accept almost anything, unless it's complete trash," Buckley said.”
An excerpt.
“A reluctance to say, "No, thank you," has led a small group of nonprofit thrift stores to turn a once costly nuisance into an environmentally friendly and moneymaking enterprise.
"The thrift model is truly 'green.' It is all about reuse," said Ravel Buckley, manager of retail operations for Placerville-based Snowline Hospice.
“But Snowline, which operates thrift shops in Folsom, Cameron Park, Camino and Placerville, has taken reuse beyond retail to recycling.
“Since opening a processing center in Diamond Springs in January 2008, Snowline has diverted more than 6.2 million pounds of materials from landfills, said Dave Risso, processing center manager.
“The center also is grossing about $400,000 annually, not counting items that are sorted there and redistributed to the four stores for sale, he said.
“Organizations with large thrift store operations, such as Goodwill Industries and the Salvation Army, have recycling and processing centers, but such facilities are rare among small nonprofits, Buckley said. Snowline Hospice's retail and recycling efforts help fund services for terminally ill individuals and their families in the city of Folsom and El Dorado County.
“Donors sometimes are put off by thrift stores that are picky and unwilling to accept certain items, Buckley said. But many items aren't suitable for resale in the shops.
“The stores also have had to deal with clandestine dumping of unwanted items and the subsequent cost of having them hauled to a dump or recycling center.
"Now we have the ability to accept almost anything, unless it's complete trash," Buckley said.”
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Compassionate Conservative Philanthropy
As revealed in the book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, profiled in yesterday’s post,the charitable giving of conservatives outweighs that of liberals.
A recent Wall Street Journal article commenting on the 2009 inauguration speech of our president by the book's author, shows how the principle has sustained itself since he wrote the book.
An excerpt.
"What is required of us now," President Barack Obama said in his inaugural address this week, "is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world." It is a message that nonprofit organizations would like our nation to take to heart, as 2009 fund-raising begins.
“Unfortunately, we nonprofit leaders, like our for-profit counterparts, are laying awake nights. The end of 2008 was disappointing for philanthropy, and some believe that 2009 will be difficult as well. Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy publishes the Philanthropic Giving Index (PGI), which tracks the predictions of nonprofit leaders about charitable giving. Like the more-famous Consumer Confidence Index, it shows a level of gloom not seen in years, falling from 83 to 65 (on a 0-100 scale) in just six months.
“The PGI is useful, but it is a blunt tool for predicting charitable giving by individuals or to specific charities. It does not tell us that all nonprofits will experience equal pain. Nor does it tell us that all givers will lower their giving by the same amount. In fact, there is good evidence that some Americans will maintain their giving levels far more than others in spite of the recession. One beleaguered group in particular promises to hold up their charitable end in spite of the sputtering economy: political conservatives.
“Over the past several years, studies have consistently shown that people on the political right outperform those on the left when it comes to charity. This pattern appears to have held -- increased, even -- in 2008.
“In May of last year, the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, "liberal" or "very liberal" respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.
“These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were "very conservative" gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; "conservatives" gave 3.6%; "moderates" gave 3%; "liberals" gave 1.5%; and "very liberal" folks gave 1.2%.
“A common explanation for this pattern is that conservatives are more religious than liberals, and are simply giving to their churches. My own research in the past showed that religion was a major reason conservatives donated so much, and that secular conservatives gave even less than secular liberals.
“It appears this is no longer the case, however: The 2008 data tell us that secular conservatives are now outperforming their secular liberal counterparts. Compare two people who attend religious services less than once per year (or never) and who are also identical in terms of income, education, sex, age and family status -- but one is on the political right while the other is on the left. The secular liberal will give, on average, $1,100 less to charity per year than the secular conservative. The conservative charity edge cannot be explained away by gifts to churches.”
A recent Wall Street Journal article commenting on the 2009 inauguration speech of our president by the book's author, shows how the principle has sustained itself since he wrote the book.
An excerpt.
"What is required of us now," President Barack Obama said in his inaugural address this week, "is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world." It is a message that nonprofit organizations would like our nation to take to heart, as 2009 fund-raising begins.
“Unfortunately, we nonprofit leaders, like our for-profit counterparts, are laying awake nights. The end of 2008 was disappointing for philanthropy, and some believe that 2009 will be difficult as well. Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy publishes the Philanthropic Giving Index (PGI), which tracks the predictions of nonprofit leaders about charitable giving. Like the more-famous Consumer Confidence Index, it shows a level of gloom not seen in years, falling from 83 to 65 (on a 0-100 scale) in just six months.
“The PGI is useful, but it is a blunt tool for predicting charitable giving by individuals or to specific charities. It does not tell us that all nonprofits will experience equal pain. Nor does it tell us that all givers will lower their giving by the same amount. In fact, there is good evidence that some Americans will maintain their giving levels far more than others in spite of the recession. One beleaguered group in particular promises to hold up their charitable end in spite of the sputtering economy: political conservatives.
“Over the past several years, studies have consistently shown that people on the political right outperform those on the left when it comes to charity. This pattern appears to have held -- increased, even -- in 2008.
“In May of last year, the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, "liberal" or "very liberal" respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.
“These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were "very conservative" gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; "conservatives" gave 3.6%; "moderates" gave 3%; "liberals" gave 1.5%; and "very liberal" folks gave 1.2%.
“A common explanation for this pattern is that conservatives are more religious than liberals, and are simply giving to their churches. My own research in the past showed that religion was a major reason conservatives donated so much, and that secular conservatives gave even less than secular liberals.
“It appears this is no longer the case, however: The 2008 data tell us that secular conservatives are now outperforming their secular liberal counterparts. Compare two people who attend religious services less than once per year (or never) and who are also identical in terms of income, education, sex, age and family status -- but one is on the political right while the other is on the left. The secular liberal will give, on average, $1,100 less to charity per year than the secular conservative. The conservative charity edge cannot be explained away by gifts to churches.”
Monday, January 4, 2010
Who is Most Charitable
In what was counter-intuitive for many, it turns out that the most charitable people in America are those who are also most conservative in their political outlook.
This is what emerged from the study forming the basis of the 2006 book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks—here is a great excerpt from it—that has generated much discussion, including this review from the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
An excerpt.
“In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
“Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book (not including the appendix) that he proudly describes as "a polemic."
"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."
“Some scholars say Who Really Cares builds on the work of Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, which was published in 2000.
'Call to Action for the Left'
“Mr. Brooks is Roman Catholic and politically independent, and has registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past decade. In an interview, he says he set out to write a book about values and philanthropy, with no hidden agenda.
“He believes liberal Democrats must ignore their leaders who sometimes disdain charity, and demonstrate that the Democratic Party is still welcoming to people of faith, if they hope to prove that they are, in fact, the more compassionate party.
"This book is a call to action for the left, not a celebration of the right," Mr. Brooks says.
“That's a claim that some liberals may have a tough time believing, given Mr. Brooks's withering criticism in the book of liberal icons like Ralph Nader, Mr. Brooks's work for The Wall Street Journal's famously conservative op-ed page, and a promotional tour for the book that reads like a conservative coming-out party. There's a keynote address at a Manhattan Institute for Policy Research dinner, a book signing at the American Enterprise Institute, and an interviews with John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 and radio talk-show host Michael Medved — two people known for conservative views.
“Patrick Rooney, director of research at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, says Mr. Brooks's inclusion of strongly worded personal opinions is "a doubled-edged blade."
"He will certainly get more attention," Mr. Rooney says. "But at the same time, it might invite more criticism and skepticism."
“Mr. Brooks says he is ready to take the heat. "If I did my job, this will stimulate a whole bunch of new work," he says. "In five years, I'd be delighted to say that in certain ways, I was wrong."
This is what emerged from the study forming the basis of the 2006 book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks—here is a great excerpt from it—that has generated much discussion, including this review from the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
An excerpt.
“In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
“Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book (not including the appendix) that he proudly describes as "a polemic."
"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."
“Some scholars say Who Really Cares builds on the work of Robert D. Putnam's Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, which was published in 2000.
'Call to Action for the Left'
“Mr. Brooks is Roman Catholic and politically independent, and has registered as both a Democrat and a Republican in the past decade. In an interview, he says he set out to write a book about values and philanthropy, with no hidden agenda.
“He believes liberal Democrats must ignore their leaders who sometimes disdain charity, and demonstrate that the Democratic Party is still welcoming to people of faith, if they hope to prove that they are, in fact, the more compassionate party.
"This book is a call to action for the left, not a celebration of the right," Mr. Brooks says.
“That's a claim that some liberals may have a tough time believing, given Mr. Brooks's withering criticism in the book of liberal icons like Ralph Nader, Mr. Brooks's work for The Wall Street Journal's famously conservative op-ed page, and a promotional tour for the book that reads like a conservative coming-out party. There's a keynote address at a Manhattan Institute for Policy Research dinner, a book signing at the American Enterprise Institute, and an interviews with John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 and radio talk-show host Michael Medved — two people known for conservative views.
“Patrick Rooney, director of research at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, says Mr. Brooks's inclusion of strongly worded personal opinions is "a doubled-edged blade."
"He will certainly get more attention," Mr. Rooney says. "But at the same time, it might invite more criticism and skepticism."
“Mr. Brooks says he is ready to take the heat. "If I did my job, this will stimulate a whole bunch of new work," he says. "In five years, I'd be delighted to say that in certain ways, I was wrong."
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Happiness & Politics
This article from the Wall Street Journal examines the results from a recent study indicating the happiest people hail from red—conservative—states, while the unhappiest come from blue—liberal—states.
It is also true that conservatives tend to be more charitable—about 30% more.
An excerpt.
“Does living in a blue state make people blue? It seems so, according to a new study in Science magazine that ranks states according to their happiness. The study finds that New Yorkers are the unhappiest people in America and their neighbors in Connecticut come in a close second, followed by Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. And the happiest states? Drum roll, please…Louisiana, Hawaii, Florida, Tennessee, and Arizona.
“Eight of the ten happiest states lean right while eight of the ten unhappiest tilt left. While the study by no means proves that being liberal makes people unhappy, it does reflect some of the unfortunate implications of living in a blue state.
“But first a note on the study. Using data from the 2005-2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and a 2003 economics paper examining quality-of-life indicators, economists regressed the subjective measure of well-being (how people rate their satisfaction) against the objective measure (states' quality-of-life rankings based on compensating differentials). A compensating differential in labor economics refers to the additional amount of income an employer must pay a worker to compensate for the undesirability of a job or the location's lack of amenities (e.g. local and state tax levels, climate, environmental conditions, quality of schools, and crime rates).
“For example, employers in New York would have to pay higher wages to compensate for New York's high taxes, traffic congestion, cold weather, and poor schools. Due to these "disamenities," New York ranked lowest on the quality-of-life index.
“What's noteworthy about the study is that states' quality-of-life rankings (measured by their compensating differentials) correlated exceedingly well with residents' satisfaction ratings. The correlation between quality of life and satisfaction is statistically significant (P=0.0001; r=0.6; r2=0.36). The coefficient of determination r2 shows how well the regression line fits the data points. While an r2 of 0.36 may not seem large---and in some studies may not be statistically significant---it is unusually high by the standards of behavioral science. To give an idea of the magnitude of this correlation, the r2 of people's satisfaction ratings taken two weeks apart is also 0.36.
“The study suggests that quality of life heavily influences happiness. This may seem obvious, but until this study, social scientists have struggled to develop a model that supports this hypothesis. Now we know that people who say they're satisfied with their lives aren't just delusional or overly optimistic, and people who say they're unsatisfied aren't just pessimists. People have legitimate reasons to be happy or unhappy.
“And well, high taxes seem to be a big reason---ostensibly an even bigger reason than weather given that California is one of the unhappiest states and inclement Louisiana is the happiest. Further, considering how much New York's crime rate has dropped and schools have improved in the last decade, taxes seem to overwhelm even these two critical factors in the happiness equation. According to the Tax Foundation 2008 analysis, three of the top five unhappiest states—New York, Connecticut and New Jersey—have the highest state-local tax burdens. On the other hand, four of the top five happiest states—Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee and Arizona—are among the states with the lowest state-local tax burdens. True, correlation doesn't prove causation, and high taxes alone don't always make people miserable, but there's something going on here.”
It is also true that conservatives tend to be more charitable—about 30% more.
An excerpt.
“Does living in a blue state make people blue? It seems so, according to a new study in Science magazine that ranks states according to their happiness. The study finds that New Yorkers are the unhappiest people in America and their neighbors in Connecticut come in a close second, followed by Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. And the happiest states? Drum roll, please…Louisiana, Hawaii, Florida, Tennessee, and Arizona.
“Eight of the ten happiest states lean right while eight of the ten unhappiest tilt left. While the study by no means proves that being liberal makes people unhappy, it does reflect some of the unfortunate implications of living in a blue state.
“But first a note on the study. Using data from the 2005-2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and a 2003 economics paper examining quality-of-life indicators, economists regressed the subjective measure of well-being (how people rate their satisfaction) against the objective measure (states' quality-of-life rankings based on compensating differentials). A compensating differential in labor economics refers to the additional amount of income an employer must pay a worker to compensate for the undesirability of a job or the location's lack of amenities (e.g. local and state tax levels, climate, environmental conditions, quality of schools, and crime rates).
“For example, employers in New York would have to pay higher wages to compensate for New York's high taxes, traffic congestion, cold weather, and poor schools. Due to these "disamenities," New York ranked lowest on the quality-of-life index.
“What's noteworthy about the study is that states' quality-of-life rankings (measured by their compensating differentials) correlated exceedingly well with residents' satisfaction ratings. The correlation between quality of life and satisfaction is statistically significant (P=0.0001; r=0.6; r2=0.36). The coefficient of determination r2 shows how well the regression line fits the data points. While an r2 of 0.36 may not seem large---and in some studies may not be statistically significant---it is unusually high by the standards of behavioral science. To give an idea of the magnitude of this correlation, the r2 of people's satisfaction ratings taken two weeks apart is also 0.36.
“The study suggests that quality of life heavily influences happiness. This may seem obvious, but until this study, social scientists have struggled to develop a model that supports this hypothesis. Now we know that people who say they're satisfied with their lives aren't just delusional or overly optimistic, and people who say they're unsatisfied aren't just pessimists. People have legitimate reasons to be happy or unhappy.
“And well, high taxes seem to be a big reason---ostensibly an even bigger reason than weather given that California is one of the unhappiest states and inclement Louisiana is the happiest. Further, considering how much New York's crime rate has dropped and schools have improved in the last decade, taxes seem to overwhelm even these two critical factors in the happiness equation. According to the Tax Foundation 2008 analysis, three of the top five unhappiest states—New York, Connecticut and New Jersey—have the highest state-local tax burdens. On the other hand, four of the top five happiest states—Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee and Arizona—are among the states with the lowest state-local tax burdens. True, correlation doesn't prove causation, and high taxes alone don't always make people miserable, but there's something going on here.”
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Remember the Mission
A foundational element of a successful nonprofit organization is to remember—and remain true to—the founding mission which inspired its creation.
If, for some reason, the organization chooses to change its mission, it must come from an extensive strategic process culminating in a new organizational presence, message, and vision congruent with the new mission.
This article from Peggy Noonan, reminds us of the importance of mission.
An excerpt.
“The accomplished and sophisticated attorney was asked what attitude he was bringing to the new year. "Stoicism and mindless optimism," he laughed, which sounded just about right. He meant it, he said, about the stoicism. He had immersed himself in that rough old philosophy after 9/11, and had come to adopt it as his own. But he meant it about the optimism, too: You never know, things get better, begin with good cheer, maintain your equilibrium, don't lose your peace.
“We're at the clean start of a new decade, and it wouldn't be bad if the national watchwords were repair, rebuild and return, with an eye toward what is now our central project, though we haven't fully noticed, and that is keeping our country together. So many forces exist to tear us apart. We have to do what we can to hold together in the long run.
“We have been through a hard 10 years. They were not, as some have argued, the worst ever, or even the worst of the past century. The '30s started with the Great Depression, featured the rise of Hitler and Stalin, and ended with World War II. That's a bad decade for you. In the '60s we saw our leaders assassinated, our great cities hit by riots, a war tear our country apart.
“But the 'OOs were hard, starting with a disputed presidential election, moving on to the shocked pain of 9/11, marked by an effort to absorb the fact that we had entered the age of terror, and ending with a historic, world-shaking economic crash.
“Maybe the most worrying trend the past 10 years can be found in this phrase: "They forgot the mission." So many great American institutions—institutions that every day help hold us together—acted as if they had forgotten their mission, forgotten what they were about, what their role and purpose was, what they existed to do. You, as you read, can probably think of an institution that has forgotten its reason for being. Maybe it's the one you're part of.
“We saw an example this week with the federal government, which whatever else it does has a few very essential missions to perform that only it can perform, such as maintaining the national defense. Our federal government now does 10 million things, many of them not so well. Its attention is scattered. It loses sight of the essentials, which is part of the reason underpants bombers wind up on airplanes.”
If, for some reason, the organization chooses to change its mission, it must come from an extensive strategic process culminating in a new organizational presence, message, and vision congruent with the new mission.
This article from Peggy Noonan, reminds us of the importance of mission.
An excerpt.
“The accomplished and sophisticated attorney was asked what attitude he was bringing to the new year. "Stoicism and mindless optimism," he laughed, which sounded just about right. He meant it, he said, about the stoicism. He had immersed himself in that rough old philosophy after 9/11, and had come to adopt it as his own. But he meant it about the optimism, too: You never know, things get better, begin with good cheer, maintain your equilibrium, don't lose your peace.
“We're at the clean start of a new decade, and it wouldn't be bad if the national watchwords were repair, rebuild and return, with an eye toward what is now our central project, though we haven't fully noticed, and that is keeping our country together. So many forces exist to tear us apart. We have to do what we can to hold together in the long run.
“We have been through a hard 10 years. They were not, as some have argued, the worst ever, or even the worst of the past century. The '30s started with the Great Depression, featured the rise of Hitler and Stalin, and ended with World War II. That's a bad decade for you. In the '60s we saw our leaders assassinated, our great cities hit by riots, a war tear our country apart.
“But the 'OOs were hard, starting with a disputed presidential election, moving on to the shocked pain of 9/11, marked by an effort to absorb the fact that we had entered the age of terror, and ending with a historic, world-shaking economic crash.
“Maybe the most worrying trend the past 10 years can be found in this phrase: "They forgot the mission." So many great American institutions—institutions that every day help hold us together—acted as if they had forgotten their mission, forgotten what they were about, what their role and purpose was, what they existed to do. You, as you read, can probably think of an institution that has forgotten its reason for being. Maybe it's the one you're part of.
“We saw an example this week with the federal government, which whatever else it does has a few very essential missions to perform that only it can perform, such as maintaining the national defense. Our federal government now does 10 million things, many of them not so well. Its attention is scattered. It loses sight of the essentials, which is part of the reason underpants bombers wind up on airplanes.”
Friday, January 1, 2010
Happy New Year!
Have a wonderful New Year, and enjoy the weather (it looks like a little rain) the holiday, and the football games!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
