Old Spice Guy's manliness repels Ice Bucket Water

[Dutch]

It's not the annoyance that bothers me (entirely).

I actually think at this point it's a rather irresponsible way to donate to charity. $80 million dollars for a few thousand sick people who may never see any benefit from it. Think about what 80 million could do elsewhere. Disease specific charities don't make a lot of sense to me, especially at this scale. It's not like a cure for this rare disease has some kind of sticker price on it, and in all likelihood that money will get poured into overpriced research over the next X years and no cure will be found. What a gamble.

If the goal here is to save lives or even to just help people in general, giving all the money to such a small fraction of people who may never even benefit from it is a terrible way of achieving that goal. How many people could that money feed?

The blatant misuse of water and the narcissism also kill me, but those are separate issues...

no offense, but this is a ridiculous post.

I think you would talk a different tune if you had family affected by this disease.

How much money gets donated to cancer every year, and why is there still no cure? Does that mean its a waste of time and money? absolutely not.

don't be ignorant now forumname

[Gaborlick]

no offense, but this is a ridiculous post.

I think you would talk a different tune if you had family affected by this disease.

How much money gets donated to cancer every year, and why is there still no cure? Does that mean its a waste of time and money? absolutely not.

don't be ignorant now forumname

since when is donating any amount of money to help those in need a bad idea. What if the 80 mil gets it solved in 5 years instead of 20? How many people could be saved...

[forumname]

since when is donating any amount of money to help those in need a bad idea. What if the 80 mil gets it solved in 5 years instead of 20? How many people could be saved...

Sure, it's better for people with money to give some to ALS than to keep it all for themselves, but it is one of the least worthy charities out there. Nothing against people with the disease, I'm sure it's terrible. It's just brutal 'bang for buck' in terms of the net positive effect of donation dollars.

If we wanted to help the poor, would we pool millions of dollars together and hold a sweepstakes to make one homeless guy rich? That's what is happening.

[Dutch]

Sure, it's better for people with money to give some to ALS than to keep it all for themselves, but it is one of the least worthy charities out there. Nothing against people with the disease, I'm sure it's terrible. It's just brutal 'bang for buck' in terms of the net positive effect of donation dollars.

If we wanted to help the poor, would we pool millions of dollars together and hold a sweepstakes to make one homeless guy rich? That's what is happening.

so what do you consider bang for your buck charities? if I may ask?

cause I find your post again a bit out there...

[Dutch]

here is an article that may make you think twice about donating to certain "more popular" charities.

Keep these facts in mind when "donating". As you open your pockets for yet another natural disaster, keep the following facts in mind; we have listed them from the highest (worse paid offender) to the lowest (least paid offender).

The worst offender was yet again for the 11th year in a row is, UNICEF - CEO, receives $1,200,000 per year, (plus use of a Royal Royce for his exclusive use where ever he goes, and an expense account that is rumoured to be well over $150,000.) Only pennies from the actual donations goes to the UNICEF cause (less than $0.14 per dollar of income).

The second worst offender this year is Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO of the American Red Cross... for her salary for the year ending in 2009 was $651,957 plus expenses. Enjoys 6 weeks - fully paid holidays including all related expenses during the holiday trip for her and her husband and kids. including 100% fully paid health & dental plan for her and her family, for life. This means out of every dollar they bring in, about $0.39 goes to related charity causes.

The third worst offender was again for the 7th time was, Brian Gallagher, President of the United Way receives a $375,000 base salary (U.S. funds), plus so many numerous expense benefits it's hard to keep track as to what it is all worth, including a fully paid lifetime membership for 2 golf courses (1 in Canada, and 1 in the U.S.A.), 2 luxury vehicles, a yacht club membership, 3 major company gold credit cards for his personal expenses...and so on. This equates to about $0.51 per dollar of income goes to charity causes.

Fourth worst offender who was also again in the fourth spot, for every year since this information has been made available from the start 1998 is amazingly yet again, World Vision President (Canada) receives $300,000 base salary, (plus supplied - a home valued in the $700,000 - $800,000 dollar value range, completely furnished, completely paid all housing expenses, including taxes, water/sewer, telephone/fax, HD/high speed cable, weekly maid service and pool/yard maintenance, fully paid private schooling for his children, upscale automobile and an $55,000 personal expense account for clothing/food, with a $125,000 business expense account). Get this, because it is a "religious based" charity, it pays, little to no taxes, can receive government assistance and does not have to declare were the money goes. Only about $0.52 of earned income per dollar is available for charity causes.

Of the sixty some odd "charities" we looked at, the lowest paid (President/C.E.O/Commissioner) was heading up a charity group right here in Canada. We found, believe it or not, it was......

The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 Billion dollar organization. Which means about $0.93 per dollar earned, is readily available and goes back out to local charity causes... truly amazing... and well done "Sally Ann".

No further comment is necessary..."Think Twice" before you give to your charity of choice as to which one really does the best for the most - or the least for the most, for that matter.

[forumname]

so what do you consider bang for your buck charities? if I may ask?

cause I find your post again a bit out there...

Fair question. Medicinal charities, food and water related charities, animal rescue...

Instead of taking a shot in the dark for a cure (this money is just a drop in the bucket for 30 years of dead end als research), why not use it to fund things we already have the cure for? People are dying of hunger and easily treatable illnesses. Why so much focus on one single obscure disease that affects so few? It is senseless.

[Dutch]

Fair question. Medical charities, food and water related charities, animal rescue...

Instead of taking a shot in the dark for a cure (this money is just a drop in the bucket for 30 years of dead end als research), why not use it to fund things we already have the cure for? People are dying of hunger and easily treatable illnesses. Why so much focus on one single obscure disease that afgects so few? It is senseless.

so organizations like unicef and world vision? you might want to read my article above.

these guys don't do hardly anything to help the world.

[forumname]

so organizations like unicef and world vision? you might want to read my article above.

these guys don't do hardly anything to help the world.

I don't recall mentioning any specific charities...

[Dutch]

I don't recall mentioning any specific charities...

probably because your argument doesn't hold up lol

[forumname]

But those you mention would STILL likely do more good with the money than a single disease specific research based charity like the alsa.

[Dutch]

But those you mention would STILL likely do more good with the money than a single disease specific research based charity like the alsa.

not a chance

when you hear stories of warehouses full of food in Africa just rotting away because local authorities won't distribute it makes you don't want to donate there.
unicef, world vision those organizations are crap

red cross is a little better, but their ceo mkes way to much money still

if I donate I want every penny gong towards the cause of my choice, and not 17 or 18 cents like most of these.

[forumname]

probably because your argument doesn't hold up lol

You're right Dutch, the only good charities out there must focus on scientific research for rare and obscure diseases... The rest are all scams.

[Dobber]

Yeah, that Old Spice guy sure is funny!

[Grapes]

No such thing as too much awareness. My buddie just diagnosed with ALS at age 50.

[forumname]

No such thing as too much awareness. My buddie just diagnosed with ALS at age 50.

Just keep in mind that at least some, if not most, of the money going to ALS means money not going to other charities. I guess ALS is just more important than the rest.

No such thing as too much awareness? I know this goes against common knowledge but awareness doesn't cure diseases. Would you say we still don't have enough cancer awareness? We've been throwing money at these things endlessly and getting nowhere, but let's just keep doing it while people starve, or live in shit, or die of simple mosquito bites. The 'awareness' if anything, is sorely misplaced.

It's like taking a test and starting on the question that is the hardest, most time (resource) consuming, and worth the least amount of marks. At the end of the hour you could still be stuck on it and end up handing in a 0. Why not get the easy, more prominent questions out of the way first?