hahaha, forgot to link the video here. My apologies for some awkward working, I was being pressured to do it fast rather than do it right. You can tell when I tripped over my words, and when I was trying to think "what was I supposed to say next".
I like this one. Her name is Lauren McGuire. She's a Canadian speed skater. Her father passed away from ALS. The 2nd one is best. Drenched by a zamboni.
edit: Looks like my imbedded video didn't work. here is the link
I friend sent me an interesting link this morning. Thus far the ALS ice bucket challenge has raised $70M in the US alone. However, in the last federal US budget, the budget for the National Institute of Health, the biggest funder of ALS research was cut by 1.2 BILLION. Per year. In other words, all the money raised this last month is, well, you know....
I'm not saying this was a great campaign and kudos to all who have participated and donated. I'm saying we need to vote for politicians who will fund science. There was a video above where the guy says ALS runs in his family. He says private industry isn't going to fund research; there are not enough people suffering from ALS to make a profit. So ALS research needs to be funded by the people - individually or via the government.
So this got me wondering if the same is happening in Canada? Is ALS and other medical funding being cut by government? I'm still looking for hard numbers but it would not surprise me.
I've seen a lot of backlash against this lately and it's disheartening. Why do people always have to tear down charitable causes instead of doing something positive? Tons of social media posts from people criticizing this or even articles in MacLeans saying that this is a bad cause to get behind. The haters are irritating/narrow-minded. I'm a very cynical person and I have no doubt that many great causes are being ignored while others are getting adopted by the masses. I have no delusions about the efficiency (or lack thereof) of charities in terms of how many dollars actually go towards the specific cause. That's unavoidable and thankfully we do we have systems, auditors, journalists, social media, etc. in place to hold those charities accountable but they need to offer solutions and not just criticize.
People need to be pragmatic instead of hating on people by laying blame and aspersions on the compromised ideals and motivations of the few. They should rather focus on the positive actions and net results of the many. I think we have to be practical and consider that in terms of getting people to talk, in terms of raising awareness, and in terms of fundraising; the net effect is overwhelmingly positive. This campaign has taken a debilitating disease, a somber subject - and has injected a lot of joy and fun into getting people involved.
I hope that this can serve as a watershed event for kick-starting viral campaigns for other causes. For that reason alone, I think this is a great thing and there is no need to cast aspersions on people's motivations or to categorize this as less-important as seems to be a trend lately. Research into one area often cascades into others. The impact is more than simple dollars. The real impact is proving that viral and social media campaigns can mobilize millions of people worldwide toward a common cause if you engage everyone in a positive way.
This challenge has done that and laid down a model that works. If you challenge somebody to something, often that person cannot or will not back down. Offer them a structure to easily live up to the challenge, or rise above it and most people will do it. It's even better that it's fun and uplifting and gets people to think creatively. I hope that this model starts to be applied to other causes before the effect suffers from too much apathy.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 08-25-2014 at 09:22 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
I read the Macleans article... The three reasons stated as to why ALS is a bad charity to support are:
- not enough people suffer from ALS to bother with
- not enough people suffer from ALS to bother with (yes, his second reason was the same as the first)
- it isn't an urgent problem; it has been here for years and isn't getting worse. Maybe you should give your money to fight Ebola.
The article was ridiculous and hypocritical. He says in point 1 we should fund medical research that affects the most people, like cancer or heart disease. Then in point 3 he says we should fund research for emerging problems not problems that have been here forever.
I think it is people who think it is cool to attack anything popular. Their arguments are specious at best. I think the author of that article knows he is going to piss people off, but it will get his name out there by going against the tide.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
to be honest, i was nominated but used that budget towards trying to donate to the ebola crisis. No cause is "bad", so nothing against ALS. I just feel that we (western society) might not be giving the appropriate gravity to the situation in east africa right now, to what has been a devastating situation. if things don't start to get better soon, the situation could easily accelerate out of control.
Wish there was a similar type social media viral situation kicking off for ebola, i think they could use it.
I'm a big fan of Dr Yoni Freedhoff and read his blog every day. When he did his challenge, he said he was splitting his donation between ALS and helping people in developing countries. And pouring water on his head.
I think the Ice Bucket challenge is here to stay, but over time it will not only be for ALS but for whatever charity you want. Personally, I think that is the better way to go. A lot of charities are probably being ignored right now.
Is the charity people are donating to actually the Overall ALS group that directs research or is it a third party that then funds various projects like the Rides to Conquer Cancer?
Haven't looked through the thread but does anyone have good numbers about the ALS's ability efficincy at converting dollars into research. It does look good on the surface as the campaign itself has zero cost associated with it as opposed to putting on a big run or event which eats half of the dollars up front.
