Bigger vs Better, the two have two very distinct thought processes even though the end result may be the same. Better things to worry about comes from a personal or individualized kaleidescope of what is happening to you. Bigger worries, from the universal stand point, I believe are the worries that accumulate looking at the state of what you are surrounded by. Both worthy of reflection but in the end being the change is what creates the change. This is the start of a complicated murky journey of trying to, first, differentiate the two thought processes, secondly, understanding within yourself what it is you can change and finally how not to revert back to worrying about the things you can not change and take action on those you can. Clear as mud? Glad to be of some assistance. Happy New Year

Remember Mel Brooks and the 2000 year old man? So, have you always worshiped God? No way, we used to worship Phil? Who was Phil? Phil was this big guy who could break you in two. He was mean. How did you worship him? Did you pray? Oh yeah, you want to hear one? Sure. “Dear Phil, please don’t be mean, and break me in two.” So what happened? Well, one day there was this big storm and Phil got hit by lightning. We all gathered around to see if he was dead. Well? Well, it right there we realized there was something bigger than Phil.

Peter Griffen,"Wait, I got an Idea, an idea so big that my head would explode even if I began to know what I was talking about"

Enough said

Here's something small you can do this season, that can change kids' lives and maybe one day change the world. Visit here today: http://laptopgiving.org/en/index.php I just donated this morning. And challenge you all to do the same....

I didn't realize that was the same Mark Penn.... Hmmm, I wasn't impressed by his "snowy" comments about Obama.... unless that was attempt at being seasonal... :P

one person at a time...

I am sure we can poke holes in any persons vision if we tried hard enough. I agree with Penn. I have read Micro trends, I am amazed that it only takes one percent of a demographic to buy into an idea. Point: there are over 1.2 million non profit organizations world wide, they are all working hard to reduce social, health, educational or economic issues in the world. Regardless of the cause they work for there is an incredible amount of repetitiveness in terms of procedure and protocol. One small idea, get them collaborating and working towards a common plan. That is a trend, the issue lies in the one percent collaborating to collaborate. I'll tell two friends and you tell two friends and so on and so on. This of course if they all buy into small ideas creating big change, that is a demographic on it's own

Although their objectives are pretty aligned, charities are in maybe the most competitive industry sector I've worked in. That, plus their protectiveness of brand and image means they will probably stay that way for a long time. Does it make them more efficient and effective? In the narrow sense, yes, because they clarify their objectives, but broadly they suffer from churn and retention problems, and challenges of acquisition. Basically they are biting each others's tails via cunning acquisition, which pushes churn rates. The perenial questions are about acquiring YOUNG donors and supporters, or when to solicit a bequest. ...The good side of this is doing pro bono work for them which is innovative and technically advanced - something too expensive to sell to a telco or auto client until their see a case study. Voila. Solution? Conventional economics suggests mergers, integration, and industry lobby groups. Lately I've been seeing more grass roots NFP and charity groups.